Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br />Stancil continued reviewing the watershed <br />specific issues included in the report. <br />Collins noted that another critical issue is <br />© that of whether the County wants the <br />Ulf (n► <br />responsibility role of o verseeing wet water <br />detention basins and a monitoring program. <br />Another issue is the clarification of the <br />definition of impervious surface and the use <br />of a sliding scale. <br />Stancil indicated that the issue of existing <br />development could also be a critical issue. <br />MOTION: Reid moved to recommend to the Board of <br />Commissioners that a representative be sent <br />to the August 15 public hearing in Raleigh. <br />Seconded by Waddell. <br />VOTE: Unanimous. <br />Board discussion indicated the following <br />issues should be addressed: <br />the Upper Eno Basin, a definition of <br />impervious surface that will allow the use of <br />the sliding scale as in University Lake <br />Watershed, the equity question of inter - <br />jurisdictional development, Haw Creek <br />industrial area be taken into consideration <br />for WS -IV, the use of Orange County's WQCA of <br />one -half mile rather than one mile as <br />proposed by the State, South Hyco Creek <br />issues, and campus restrictions for Jordan <br />Lake. <br />The concern was also expressed that September <br />30, 19.91 should not be the cutoff date. it <br />was felt that this was insufficient notice <br />for developments already in process. <br />C. Planning work -Plan <br />(1) Fiscal Impact Analysis <br />Marvin Collins informed the Board that this <br />analysis was based on a spreadsheet template <br />created by the University of Florida using <br />the "averaging approach ". A percapita cost <br />is figured using the cost of different <br />functions of the County and the population of <br />the County. Some of the Commissioners had <br />seen the spreadsheet analysis and had asked <br />I <br />