Agenda - 02-28-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION PROPOSED AGREEMENT OF TEE JOINT OR -CRATHAM COOPERATIVE >'LA>MiNIWG WORK GROUP A Discussion Paper Approved by the OWASA Board of Directors - November 8, 1989 Eackgrouad In November, 1987, Orange Count In Noon Agreement. y+ Carrboro, and Chapel Hill entered into a Joint Planning g Among other items commission a stud it included a request for OWASA to Y of University Lake watershed's additional development. All additional and not to seek or approve water "carrying any portion for watershed and not to period of 90 days after agreed not to annex .any portion of the pp and sever service extensions into the watershed jointly discuss watershed days of planning completion of the stud to which might be incorporated into local ordinances or the Joint study. They also agreed protection standards and regulations After completion of the Camp nt Planning Agreement. p Dresser & McKee study in March, 1989, of the Orange-Chatham Cooperative Planning Work the three jurisdictions and Chatham County began a series of meetings a coordinated hatha protection program g ork Group. g under the auspices participated as o observer and technical finical ari out The goal was it formulate be carried out by each locality. OWASA resource. On October 12, 19$9 the Work Group reached Carrboro Alderman Judith Wegner "Proposed a consensus that was transcribed by Watershed Alderman manion Judith as the A Agreement g University Lake This document of been transmitted iew an o the local governing boards and the OWASA Board before the Work Group's final meeting scheduled for November 15. the OWASA Board instructed staff to prepare a discussion view and comment the meeting, a which time the Board would On October 26, resolution requested by Ms. Wegner. discuss the content orofitA November possible _ant; on The Overall A reement The Proposed Agreement appears to be a workable copse issues that, if implemented, will achieve CDM's recommended watt of "minimal degradation or preventing significant f consensus of technical and policy of "minimal water quality goal future deterioration in water It is noteworthy that all parties followed closely Joint Planning Agreement, and have used OW the process Joint Planning n the technical tool and ASA's CDM study prescribed in ded watershed policy-making y for its intended protection program. The Proposed A g basis for a University Lake the Work Group closely Agreement and the deliberations of formulation of a water y paralleled the fundamental approach of the CDM report: . structural versus nonstructural goal, runoff acoatrolboptions, . and wastewater disposal strategies, by a systematic clustered red developmn of clustered development,