Agenda - 06-05-1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

In summary, over the past two years the largest single threat to University Lake from development in the watershed has been substantially reduced in scope as the result of a major , combined effort of many citizens and public officials. What , however, has happened in the meantime to the McLennan's Farm proposal? Well , very little . It is back before you in essentially the same form as before . (We are told the only change is in waste system operation. It proposes an arangement similar , and similarly unacceptable as at Amberly. ) As with Amberly, the McClennan's Farms proposal will need DEM approval . The proposal does not meet the state rules for WS-I watersheds, it is not in conformity with the OWASA study recommendations, it threatens the quality of a major public drinking water supply, and it is not fair to other landowners who follow responsible development limits. McLennan's Farms should be rejected for the same reasons that Amberly was rejected. The proposal is deficient , among other reasons, because : --It would lead to "urbanization" of the watershed. Although "only" 14 units, it is the first of three planned phases and is otherwise very similar to the original Amberly project . --The proposal does not, meet the recommendation of 1 unit per 5 acres necessary for protection of water quality. At about 1 unit per 2.6 acres, it is almost twice as dense as recommended. --The Watershed Study allows such density only with the use of Publicly owned and maintained wet detention basins to control storm water runnoff . No such ponds are included in the plans. The waste disposal system is in the only spot on the property which perks and which is closest to drainage to University Lake . --The development calls for a low pressure underground waste disposal system. This technology is unproven, is highly unreliable , and is not suitable for a WS-I watershed. The OWASA study recommended against such systems as the most unreliable choice for the watershed. In addition, its use allows denser development than could otherwise be achieved with individual septic tanks. --The proposal requires a DEM permit for its waste disposal system, a permit that is inconsistent with the Amberly decision rejecting "urbanization" of the watershed. DEM's recent moratorium on such permits will probably affect this proposal . ? We asked the County Commissioners two years ago to turn this proposal down as unacceptable in the University Lake Wateshed. Everything we have learned in the past two years confirms that judgment . We ask you again tonight to reject McLennan's Farms, The OWASA study clearly confirms that here is a finite amount of development consistent with acceptably clean water. Any development in the watershed--whether in Orange , Chatham, or •