Orange County NC Website
M1 <br />a transfer of development rights program where <br />densities are transferred from the outlying areas <br />into the corridor itself. This would net the <br />same density over the entire watershed, but, <br />would be concentrated in one area. <br />The mandated watershed standards will require <br />zoning of Cedar Grove and Little River Townships. <br />Since the State has now set the implementation <br />date for 1994, there is more't,ime to deal with <br />the zoning of these two townships. The Rural <br />Character strategies must balance with the <br />watershed classification standards and any zoning <br />plan must be considered carefully and be well <br />" developed. <br />Another concern is the impact of Jordan Lake on <br />the University of North Carolina property. Since <br />Jordan Lake is a future water supply source for <br />Orange County, the staff is hesitant to recommend <br />relaxing the WS -IV standards in this area. There <br />seems to be sufficient flexibility within the <br />standards for the University to be able to <br />develop their campus plans without having to be <br />exempted or to have the boundaries changed <br />significantly at this time. <br />MOTION: Waddell moved to strike the recommendation of <br />the additional designation-as Critical watershed <br />for University Lake. Seconded by Reid. <br />Eidenier disagreed, noting that she felt that <br />area is under such impact from housing needs <br />around Chapel Hill that there could be a great <br />interest in changing the regulations. <br />Waddell expressed concern that OWASA desired to <br />have all watersheds be declared Critical <br />Watersheds. He felt the governmental process was <br />the form by which to discuss and make such <br />decisions. <br />Burklin stated that he felt at this point in time <br />that the water quality could be maintained with a <br />higher density. He felt studies and changes <br />could occur in the future as needed or required. <br />He agreed with the recommendations of the Staff. <br />VOTE: 3 in favor (Waddell, Reid, Scott). <br />6 opposed (Burklin, Cantrell, Eidenier, Hoecke, <br />Jobsis, Ramsey). <br />Motion failed. <br />