Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
32 <br />acres. That's without putting in any additional components. He felt that our present zoning is } <br />obtaining the desired result, so why change it ?. Another question is, is there documented <br />deterioration in water quality that would lead us to believe that we need to, make some changes. He <br />stated that Mr.. Spalt mentioned that maybe the water quality was not as good as was anticipated <br />but he did not say that it was a degradation that was caused by the development that is taking <br />place. He. merely mentioned that there are chemicals in the water, maybe, that were not known to <br />.be there prior to the study. If thatis coming from farm runoff then this acreage change is not going to <br />have an effect on that. You heard earlier tonight some talk about impervious surfaces and runoff. <br />Dr., Shy talked about discharges. He felt that those are the sort of things that we should be <br />cocerned with. He did not fee that five -acres is a magic figure. It may be that two-.acres' is perfectly <br />satisfactory. He. asked for some sort of scientific justification for five - acres. `Its been mentioned that <br />. <br />that what has been used over at University Lake. University Lake's development pressures are <br />highly. different than the development pressures around Cane Creek. University Lake is near town, <br />adjacent to Chapel Hill and Carrboro with a lot of development pressures. We area different <br />community-, not have the.water,and sewer facilities that are.available in town. So, to try to <br />justify five - acres for Cane Creek because they have it at. University Lake - it is not apples and . <br />apples. It has been mentioned before, but who should properly pay for clearing up the water? <br />Should it be the people who use it or should it be the people who, by accident, 1ive in the vicinity of <br />the water supply. That's an equity issue that he wanted the Board of County Commissioners to <br />think about too. <br />Mr. Wes Cook indicated.that he did not live in the Cane Creek Reservoir, but that he did <br />oppose this request. He is 'a resident of Little River. Township which is presently zoned for <br />2 -acre lots.. The Durham County line is approximately % of a mile from his house. That area is <br />zoned 1 -acre lots and is. in the same watershed as his property. Also, Alamance County is 1 -acre <br />lots as well. He mentioned that there is a nuclear power plant at Lake Norman, which is the drinking <br />source for Charlotte. That area is zoned for one -acre lots. He mentioned.that New Orleans gets <br />their water from the Mississippi River. He strongly recommended that this request be denied and <br />the lots be left at 2- acres. . <br />Mr. James Thomas, a farmer residing in the Cane Creek Watershed, spoke in opposition to <br />this proposal. - In 1972 he bought a farm that was split by Tom's Creek. He has farmed on that land <br />since that time. He, and his neighbors have paid in order to provide this water to Orange Water & <br />Sewer Authority customers, although they do not receive any of the benefits of this water. He felt` <br />this rezoning would.cut the value of his farm in half. He asked the Board of County Commissioners <br />to deny this request: <br />Mr. Alton Thomas, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this request. He asked the_ <br />Commissioners not to approve this request. He stated that he, and other family members, would be <br />losing much of the value and use of their land. <br />Planner David Stancil stated that if this land is rezoned, parcels that have less than 12 acres. <br />in size will not see any change. Owners could have five two- acre lots, assuming that the land <br />perked. He also mentioned that the five -acre option would be only one of the options; another <br />would be the cluster option with. 50% open space and the same number of lots. <br />H: \BOCC \NOV2399.MIN <br />