Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-02-1990
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1990
>
Agenda - 04-02-1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 4:48:27 PM
Creation date
10/30/2017 4:38:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/2/1990
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
220
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br /> # 022 <br /> The Thirteen Point Agreement will be referred to as the Thirteen Point Recommendation from <br /> hence forward. The text of the amendments is listed below: -� <br /> A. Amend Section II Natural Environment by rewriting the subsection <br /> entitled "B Water Resources" to read as follows: <br /> Residents of southeast Orange County obtain water from two sources: groundwater (wells) or <br /> reservoirs. However, the most reliable source of water for urban use is a reservoir. <br /> Until recently, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the surrounding areas relied exclusively on <br /> University Lake. That source was recognized as inadequate as a long-term water source, and <br /> Cane Creek reservoir west of the Joint Planning Areas has been constructed and is now <br /> operational. The two reservoirs should provide a raw water supply adequate for the next 20 <br /> years. In addition, the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan has <br /> identified possible future reservoir sites to the north of Chapel Hill. <br /> The link between land use planning and water resources in the Joint Planning Area lies in <br /> protecting water quality by limiting development in University Lake watershed. In 1988, <br /> the Orange Water and Sewer Authority commissioned a study to develop a range of options for <br /> protecting the University Lake watershed. The consulting firm of Camp, Dresser and Mckee <br /> (CDM), nationally recognized experts in watershed evaluation, completed the study in March, <br /> 1989. Because the consultants did not find improving water quality to be a practical <br /> objective, they recommend preventing significant future water quality deterioration in <br /> University Lake as a primary goal. <br /> The CDM report presented two fundamental ways of meeting the University Lake water quality <br /> goal. ,Nonstructural management practices, such as controlling land use through local <br /> zoning and subdivision regulations, could reduce the pollution generated from future ,; , <br /> development by controlling the amount and location of impervious surfaces and other <br /> pollution-causing activities. Structural practices, such as stormwater detention ponds, '' <br /> would not reduce the amount of pollution generated but prevent substantial portions of it <br /> from reaching University Lake by trapping pollutants near their point of origin. <br /> The report recommended nonstructural methods as the preferred approach to watershed <br /> protection. Basic elements of the proposed nonstructural plan included large lot (five- <br /> acre) residential zoning, limits on impervious surfaces, and the preservation of stream <br /> buffers along streams. The advantages of the nonstructural approach included the lower <br /> amount of pollution generated and its reduced risk of entering the lake,, the elimination of <br /> construction and maintenance costs for stormwater devices, and the ability to provide <br /> wastewater disposal through individual septic systems rather than risky community <br /> wastewater systems. <br /> The CDM report did find that the water quality goal could be achieved through adopted land <br /> use plans and regulations (two-acre zoning) and the construction of a significant number of <br /> stormwater detention ponds. While the approach would provide for continued growth in the <br /> watershed, the high public and private costs associated with a system of 72 larger regional <br /> detention ponds or an indeterminate number of smaller individual-development-detention <br /> ponds and intensive on-going maintenance requirements were noted as disadvantages. In <br /> addition, there would be no way to convert back to a nonstructural control strategy if a <br /> structural program resulted in unsatisfactory watershed protection. <br /> B. Amend Section V Joint Planning Operating Principles by deleting' the following wording. <br /> from the subsection entitled "Initial List of Principles - University Lake Watershed": <br /> C. Amend Section V Joint Planning. Operating Principles by deleting the table which <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.