Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-20-2002 - 6a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2002
>
Agenda - 08-20-2002
>
Agenda - 08-20-2002 - 6a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2017 3:11:54 PM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:47:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/20/2002
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6a
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20020820
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
3b <br /> orange County Board of Commissioners <br /> Page 4 <br /> August i5, 2002 <br /> Rural Buffer. This can be done without a Joint Planning public <br /> hearing and without approval by either the Town of Chapel Hill <br /> or Carrboro. Although Chapel Hill and Carrboro do not have a <br /> "vote" on this procedural change, both Chapel Hill and Carrboro <br /> should be provided copies of the proposed community meeting and <br /> notice requirements for their recommendations. <br /> 4 . In the interim, Orange County can provide notification <br /> of proposed developments in the Rural Buffer and, on a voluntary <br /> basis, conduct community meetings concerning the proposals. That <br /> is, if the County Commissioners (1) want there to be community <br /> information meetings for developments in the Rural Buffer, prior <br /> to or as part of a formal application process and (2) want <br /> notice to residents in the area of proposed developments, they <br /> can administratively direct the establishment of a procedure to <br /> do that . Notifying residents in the area of a development can be <br /> done by Orange County without ordinance authorization provided <br /> there are funds to do so. However, in the absence of an <br /> ordinance requirement for participation of the developer in a <br /> community meeting, the developer' s participation would be <br /> voluntary until it is an ordinance requirement. It is my opinion <br /> that most if not all developers will participate in such noticed <br /> community meetings, whether required by ordinance or not. <br /> 5 . A number of the persons speaking at the July 10, 2002 <br /> Planning Board meeting expressed concerns about the availability <br /> of groundwater. The groundwater reports and data available to <br /> the County may, with further technical and other work, become a <br /> basis for requiring site specific groundwater analyses for <br /> future developments, particularly in areas where scientific data <br /> indicates that there is a paucity of groundwater. However, until <br /> the analysis on this point is taken to another level, I do not <br /> see a rational basis, a health, safety and welfare basis, for <br /> the County refusing to allow subdivisions in areas of the County <br /> with lesser amounts of groundwater. For the most part the <br /> groundwater concerns are that you have to go deeper to get to <br /> the groundwater and you don't get as much. Even where this is <br /> true, 125 feet deep wells can be very productive within sight of <br /> 500 feet deep wells that are marginally productive. However, I <br /> see nothing in the data to indicate that there are places in <br /> Orange County where there is no potable groundwater. Because of <br /> the fragmented rock groundwater system prevalent in Orange , <br /> County, the well issue is one of where, how deep and how much. <br /> Therefore, an appropriate health, safety and welfare response is <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.