Agenda - 05-23-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

This recommendation has been followed in the Land Use Plan. A portion of the McGowan Creek sub-basin is the only area within any of the protected watersheds where development at urban densities is pro- posed (see attached maps) . This recommendation is one of the more controversial in the Water Task Force Report. Prohibiting development in University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds !is probably acceptable because there is less pressure for the types of !development prohibited. Chapel. Hill and Carrboro have ---- ample room to grow north and-south so that this- proposal will not restric their development,. The Cane Creek area has no prospect of being sewered in the forseeable future and so is not liable to have this typd of devel- opment whether on not it is restricted by County policy. The Upper Eno watershed is different because Efland is an existing community in this watershed with development potential because of the presence of Interstate Staff suggests a couple of alternative amendments to the Land Use Plan for Cheeks Township which could address the people about this recom- mendation in the Report and still maintain future water quality. Map A (attached) shows the .. ea- around Efland' and west to near the County line. The transition areas now existing in the Land Use Plan are shown in solfid orange and yellow. Map A proposes adding a ten-year transition area (arange stripes) which includes the Efland interchange and land just to the south of West Ten Road. A possible industrial transition node is shown centered on the Efland interchange. Currently no access is allowed along the connector between 1-85 and US 70. As part of the upgrading of 1-85 , however, that length of highway will be extended west and connect to Willing Road at the interchange. NC DOT personnel feel that some access along the road will then be possibl The Hillsboraugh 201 plan shows the Efland area being sewered by a line running along US 70. This is a very inefficient way to sewer Efland because US 70 is almost right on the ridgeline between Seven Mile Creek and McGowan Creek Isub-basins . A sewer main on US 70 then would require that all laterals to it be pumped. A more efficient way to sewer Efland would be with a maim along McGowan Creek allowing gravity flow of sewage. This would also liit service across the ridge in Seven Mile Creek because of the cost of pumping. Development might be limited to industry which could bear the cost better than small commercial or residential uses. The second alternative (Map„18) includes additional 20-vear transition area in the northern portion of 'Seven Mile Cteek-sub-basin to just south i West Ten Road. Additional 10-year transition near Mebane (out of the watershed) is alsotincluded. This might be considered the maximum devel- opment plan for Cheeks and would allow sewer, water and industry all along the interstate in Cheeks Township 9. This item recommends that the other Government bodies who have juris- diction in the watersheds we are seeking to protect also implement water- shed protection measures. As an update, Carrboro has formed a watershed protection task force which has been meeting for about a year_ r h.,. 1,-,