Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
. ` . <br /> UtA2O <br /> J,(.; <br /> had not been received from either the County Attorney or the Institute of Govern- <br /> ment. Fred Luce, of the Planning Staff, reviewed the draft policy with the Board <br /> (the document is on pages of this book). Commissioner Walker disagreed <br /> with the revolving fund set up to pay back costs of extension suggesting instead <br /> 'b six year payback from ad valorem taxes." Commissioner Gustaveson felt that <br /> a more "flexible policy" was needed. Following much discussion, the Chairman <br /> suggested that the Board wait for the Attorney's and Institute's comments before <br /> making its own suggestions for changes_ <br /> 3. Requests for Special Public Hearings: The Board, by consensus, set <br /> July 8, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom in Hillsborough as the time <br /> and place for a public hearing as requested by Mr. Fred Cates and developers of <br /> Midway Airport. <br /> 4. Lease Agreement for Child Support Offices: The Manager presented <br /> the Board with a lease agreement for the Child Support Office; he said he hoped <br /> to locate the office in County facilities within about six months. Commissioner <br /> Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve the lease agreement <br /> as recommended by the Manager. Vote: Ayes, 4 (Commissioners Whitted, Gustaveson, <br /> Marshall and Walker); noes, 1 (Commissioner Willhoit). <br /> Having finished the agenda of the previous evening's meeting, the Board <br /> continued with the announced agenda for this meeting. <br /> l. Cane Creek Environmental Statement: Commissioner Willhoit noted <br /> several points he would like to make in the County's response to the Cane Creek <br /> Environmental Impact Statement: 1) there are no permitted point source discharges <br /> in Cane Creek while there were 132 such discharges in the Haw River; 2) 8% of <br /> the flow of the Haw River at the dam is effluent; 3) there is no urbanization in the Cane <br /> Creek watershed, consequently urban runoff is minimal while the Haw drains a large <br /> urbanized area and there is significant urban runoff into ft' Commissioner Willhoit <br /> said there would be significant difference in the water quality of Jordan Lake <br /> and the proposed Cane Creek Reservoir. He added that the EIS quoted 8urby's study <br /> regarding growth around such sites when the study cited actually showed very little <br /> impact on recreational growth if such sites were more than 300 yards from the reservoir. <br /> Commissioner Marshall thought that the 3nciu-Economic impact section of <br /> the Staff response to the EIS should address the pattern of growth and development <br /> that has followed the up-grading of Highway 54 <br />