Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-26-1991
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1991
>
Agenda - 08-26-1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2017 11:43:46 AM
Creation date
11/8/2017 11:33:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/26/1991
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
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.
/
354
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
HAW CREEK WATERSHED <br />A containment plan in the event of spill of failure, and appropriate safeguards against <br />contamination are required. <br />III. ISSUES <br />A. Orange County, Alamance County and the City of Mebane requested a classification of <br />WS IV. The DEM is recommending WS II. <br />B. Interstate 85 runs through the northern portion of the watershed. Associated with the <br />interstate is the largest area designated as Commercial and Industrial Transition in <br />Orange County. A WS II classification negatively affect the potential for economic <br />development by prohibiting industrial development entirely, and restricting commercial <br />development. <br />C. The watershed is not now classified as a protected watershed. The Land Use Plan and <br />the Zoning Ordinance would have to be amended to define the watershed boundary. A <br />new or revised zoning district and/or zoning overlay would have to be created to specify <br />the new standards. The density standards would not require revision, as they are already <br />more restrictive than required for a WS N watershed. <br />D. It is Orange County's understanding that the reservoir proposed by Orange - Alamance <br />Water Systems may not be built. <br />E. There is currently no impervious surface limit. This could create some problems in <br />development of existing lots which are smaller than 1 acre under the low- density option, <br />particularly those which would require long driveways to access building sites. <br />F. Stream buffers of 140' would be required. This could have and impact on existing lots <br />that have limited buildable area, particularly those created prior to adoption of zoning <br />regulation (1984) which do not meet current minimum lot size requirements. <br />G. Operation and maintenance of detention ponds or other engineered stormwater controls <br />used to exercise the high -density option will require oversight by the County. This will <br />require development and implementation of a monitoring program by the Erosion Control <br />Division and/or County Engineer. <br />H. A number of industrial uses (along I -85) are within this watershed. WS -II standards could <br />have a significant impact on any further development or expansion. <br />[k] <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.