Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-19-1999 - 9c
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1999
>
Agenda - 10-19-1999
>
Agenda - 10-19-1999 - 9c
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/22/2013 11:17:31 AM
Creation date
10/21/2008 2:34:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/19/1999
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9c
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19991019
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1999
ORD-1999-015 Text Amendments Development Standards in Cane Creek Watershed
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 1990-1999\1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
30 <br />measures of compensation to deal with issues affecting the community. However, they are faced <br />with a situation where prevention, through watershed protection, is by far the best measure. It is'- -the : <br />safest way to protect the water supply. Engineering solutions are used in treating the finished water <br />but the end of the pipe kinds .of solutions are not as good or as reliable. As water standards become <br />tighter, the prevention strategies are more desirable. The phrase that the 'current watershed <br />protection that is,in place now is insufficient to prevent deterioration of the.water quality" is the key. : <br />The kind of recommendations that are before, you are to provide that protection for the water. quality. <br />In regard to the Flexible Development..Plan he asked that they look very carefully at the record of <br />Community Water Systems and Waste Water Treatments Systems, before approving any kind of <br />Proposal that would allow that kind of system. He mentioned the situation in University Lake where . <br />a company described as "the Cadillac of private- public utility companies" installed alternative <br />. systems. In the last ten years, every one of the systems installed by that company has gone bad <br />and has been bailed out by local governments. or residents. The company itself is bankrupt. These <br />are problematic systems: <br />Mr. Carl Shy'stated that,the'issue here is one of "d.isequity" in the treatment of the people, <br />who are residents in the Cane Creek Watershed. They would lose some of the economic potential <br />for development of this land. There are no provisions being made for the loss of this economic , <br />opportunity. The issue is protecting the watershed which is based on the amount of discharge. Two <br />five -acre properties could have more discharge than five two -acre. properties. The real issue is to <br />protect the watershed from discharge.. There must be other options that would limit discharge so.that <br />there is not an excess of discharge from. the two -acre lots: Technology could be used to limit the <br />discharge. The Air Quality Act.is a good example of an emission budget being issued. Then <br />emissions were considered as a whole in the budgeted area. Something similar could be <br />established with regard to the discharge within the'entire watershed. People could decide on their <br />own if they wanted to develop at two - acres. People with more land could be compensated if they <br />did not develop:` If this proposal is implemented, there would be, no benefits to the people who live <br />there now. The benefits are all going to the consumers of the water supply. <br />Ms. Peggy Ritch, of 4211 Dairyland Road, spoke in opposition to this proposal. She stated. <br />that if it was passed., the average person who. grew up in Orange County would not be able to afford <br />to live here. This is not fair. <br />Mr. Barry Jacobs stated that the open space option that does allow two -acre lots seems to be <br />forgotten in this discussion. He was told that although the Planning Staff has not found other <br />jurisdictions who have used open space development for watershed protection, he suggested that <br />they should look at Howard County, Maryland and places in California. He asked that this be <br />included in future considerations. He also pointed out that the problems with off -site septic systems <br />or the County's current flexible development ordinance, can be addressed. Those problems are not <br />..necessarily fatal flaws. <br />Ms. Lucy Baldwin stated that her mother's estate is near the watershed. She opposes the <br />five -acre option because it would not be possible to divide for the children. <br />Mr. Lonnie Kirk stated. that the majority of these land owners are farmers or have been <br />H: \BOCC \NOV2399.MIN <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.