Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
' ! ------ �� <br /> ` ! <br /> , ! <br /> . | <br /> K� C� <br /> �� <br /> Hillsborough appointed a sub-committee to review the Report. The <br /> sub-committee has reported to the Town Board and the Board is considering <br /> hiring a consultant to review parts of the Report. Planning Staff have <br /> contacted planners in Chatham and Alamance counties and they have indicat <br /> a willingness tolbring watershed protection before their Town Boards. <br /> Before further progress can be made on this recommendation, dae <br /> Report needs to be adopted so that the other jurisdictions can be convinc <br /> of our seriousnegs about protecting public water supplies. <br /> 10. This recommendation asks,:county utility providers to adopt policies <br /> of nonextension to protected watersheds except for the McGowan -Creek <br /> OWASA has two representatives (Doug Terry and Pat Davis) on the <br /> Carrboro water tash force and they seem to understand the need for such a <br /> policy and agree Oith it. If they reflect the feelings of the OWASA Boar, <br /> then implementation in University Lake watershed should not be a problem. <br /> The Cane Creek area is so distant from any sewer and water utilities that <br /> such a laolicy is meaningless for its watershed. <br /> The adopted Land Use Plan allows for sewer and water extension to <br /> Efland and if the plan is amended to show additional transition areas as <br /> suggested earlier! intthis memo, then all of the area there with densities <br /> to support such utilities would be exempted from this provision for the <br /> Upper Eno watershed. Staff supports adoption of this policy. <br /> 11. This is the recommendation calling for extension of zoning to protecte <br /> watershed areas. lExtension to Bingham and Hillsborough Townships as <br /> recommended in the Report has already occurred. Planning Staff supports <br /> extension_to the Upper Eno watershed areas in Cheeks and Cedar Grove <br /> Townships. <br /> 12. This recommen8ation calls for the adoption of larger lot sizes 'and <br /> impervious surface ratios for protected watersheds. Maximum impervious <br /> surface ratios for protected watersheds have already been added to the <br /> Zoning Ordinance. 1 <br /> While very low density development in public water supply watersheds <br /> seems a desirable 1measure to protect water quality, there is not a good <br /> technical base frcim which to choose and defend a particular large lot size <br /> Based on documented probleus with ground absorption septic tank systems on <br /> one acre lots in tihe County, a larger lot size in protected watersheds <br /> seens desirable for protection from dais one aspect of pdllution. Larger <br /> lot sizes also haVie benefits in terms of reducing the ultimate potential <br /> population in a watershed. <br /> The Carrboro water task force is proposing a two acre minimum lot size <br /> for areas near Uni'versity Lake and a one acre lot size for more distant <br /> areas . 1 <br /> In the absence of a technical base for large lot sizes , the decision <br /> becomes one of political acceptability. Planning Staff suggests a ndnimum <br /> lot size of two acres for protected watersheds which is consistent with the <br /> sizes of lots currently being created in w.1,,Q1,,A <br />