Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-05-1991
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1991
>
Agenda - 08-05-1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2017 11:46:37 AM
Creation date
11/8/2017 11:30:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/5/1991
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.
/
648
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
The means of applying watershed protection measures can be approached by zoning of the <br />townships in accordance with standards of both watersheds and Rural Character strategies. <br />Posaibl -Alternatives <br />A. Zone both townships into existing districts (PWII) now. <br />B. Upon conclusion of Rural Character Study, Agricultural Districts Advisory Board and <br />other studies, zone accordingly through unified development ordinance. (NO'T'E: If <br />implementation of state watershed regulations are delayed as proposed, the above <br />strategies would likely make this a feasible option). <br />7. DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON CLASSIFICATIONS <br />(HAW CREEK, SOUTH HYCO, UPPER ENO, HAW RIVER, JORDAN LAKE) <br />There are five watersheds where the requested classification from County administration was not <br />recommended by NCDEM. In two of the watersheds (Haw Creek and South Hyco) the <br />recommended classification by the state is more restrictive than that proposed by Orange County. <br />In the case of the Haw River and Jordan Lake watersheds, the classification recommended by <br />County administration reflected only that appropriate for the County jurisdiction of this larger <br />regional basin. This was done to follow the literal letter of intent from the state, with full <br />knowledge that considered in a regional perspective, the watershed would be classified WS -IV. <br />The last case, of the Upper Eno, involved the disposition of NCDEM against splitting watershed <br />basins, as the County proposed. In so doing, the state has not rejected this concept, but rather <br />indicates that it feels such splitting of a watershed comes more appropriately from local <br />governments. Therefore, jurisdictions in the Upper Eno which wish a higher classification <br />must request it on August 15. <br />In addition to these altered recommendations, there are four instances where shared watersheds <br />have yielded different opinions on the part of different jurisdictions. These cases are addressed <br />in Section IIIA 8 and 9, and Section M 1. <br />Possi, le A anves <br />A. Convene a meeting of area elected officials. Request on August 15 that the EMC <br />reclassify as follows: <br />Have Creek to WS-III <br />South Hyco Creek to WS-III <br />Upper Eno (to be defined) to WS-II or WS-III <br />M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.