Agenda - 11-09-1999 - 4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

r 10 • Expand the UGA from Scott. King Road south to the Duiliam County line (approximately 450 acres). • Expand the UGA east of Farrington Road to include about 150 acres of private property south of the South I?urham Water Reclamation Facility and about 300 acres of US Army Corps of Engineers land. ~. Expand the UGA southwest to include land along.both sides of Farrington Mill Road (excluding Jordan Reservoir Critical Area) between Barbee Chapel Road and the Durham County-Chatham County line. • Expand the UGA east of Fletcher's Chapel' Road in eastern Durham to include several new small residential subdivisions (approximately 250 acres): • Expand the UGA in northeastern Durham along I-85 to include an area around _ the Gorman Baptist Church. 5. ~ Fnture UGA Study Areas. Given the growth limitations imposed on Durham by our agreements with surrounding jurisdictions and watershed protection policies, it is important to identify area for study of future UGA expansion. Several areas have been identified and are mentioned below. •~ Eastern Durham represents on of the few areas where the UGA could be expanded. UGA expansion could be considered.out to the Watershed Protection Critical Area for the Falls Reservoir. This possible future.UGA aiea is shown on Figure 3. . • To the west of Durham; a portion of Orange County near I-85 and the Eno River represents a second area for, possible future expansion of the UGA. The City will initiate discussions on this matter with Orange County officials in the coming months. This possible future UGA area is also shown on Figure 3. The Staffwould recommend that the Old Oxford HighwayButner Federal Correction Institution area and northeastern Chatham County area be examined for possible future UGA expansion. Both of these represent only limited~potential, since very little land is available outside of watershed. protection critical areas. 6. Possible Watershed Protection Service Area. For several years, Durham has generally embraced a policy that watershed protection critical area should not be served by public wastewater treatment services..The concern has been that public wastewater treatment services would generate demand for more intensive land "uses that are usually associated with threats to water quality. Stormwater runoff from construction activities, hard surfaces and manicured Lawns has the potential for' delivering significant levels of pollutants to water supply reservoirs. Prohibiting ' public wastewater treatrnent services and allowing only development supported by on-site individual septic systems helps avoid these threats to water quality. However, in Durham's notoriously poor soils, relying on septic systems may also pose a threat to water quality: Northern and eastern Durham have numerous residential subdivisions that were originally developed using septic systems and alternative on-site systems. Many of these systems have failed and, over time, failure of many more could be expected. In order to actively anticipate and address potential future water quality problems, Durham could consider identifying in strategic 6 ~'