Ord 1984-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Moratorium Report Page 7 GROWTH CONSTRAINTS VERSUS SYSTEM H1RPOVEi'-lENTS Often, an answer to one problem causes another to get worse. Such is the case 1n Priority Area I where the answer to the specific problem of sewerage collection involves the construction of the Sink Creek Interceptor. While the interceptor will divert much of the flow now going into the L.B.J./Chestnut/Sessom line, the interceptor will also encourage development over an area which is impacted by the Edwards Aquifer, steep slopes, and an inadequate street and thoroughfare system. Building the interceptor will cost roughly $1. 4 million dollars and given the environmental constraints for the area it would serve, it is questionable whether the project is economically justified. Not to build the interceptor, however, further aggravates the overburdened collection system along L.B.J./Chestnut/Sessom line. While the description of the area in Appendix G provides an outline for some suggested solutions, no clear answer 1S readily apparent. RECOH~lENDATIONS Given the contraints identified above, it 1S recommended that the current moratorium be continued for Priority Areas I and II. Policy choices include: 1. Application--Moratorium could exempt single family, low density residential, permits currently being held, selected land uses, etc. 2. Duration--Giving the severity of the problems cited, it 1S difficult to estimate a time when the issues presented can be adequately addressed. A moratorium may be needed just to glve the staff time to define the problems for these areas more accurately and develop a schedule for specific actions to be taken. 3. Limited Processing--Certain processing (e.g., platting, site development permit, rezoning, master plan changes) might be allowed during the extension of the moratorium.