WSMU_MRSV_Email_20050726

[Fwd: Re: 10/70 issue]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: 10/70 issue]
From: Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:26:38 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Here's a response to the issue of how much watershed is in the Mooresville
jurisdiction. From Steve Zoufaly's response, it seems that if Mooresville is
implementing the watershed requirements in the ETJ area, then they can use the 2088
acres. If they are only implementing the requirements in their corporate limits,
then they use the 531 acre figure.
Subject: Re: 10/70 issue
From: steve zoufaly<[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:51:13 -0400
To: Boyd Devane<[e-mail]>
CC: Danny Smith<[e-mail]>
We defined a local government 's jurisdiction as being the area they have
responsibility for (e.g. , which local government enforces an ordinance for the area) .
Only one local government can get "credit" towards using the 10/70% option - in other
words the same area can't be counted twice by two local governments.
Boyd Devane wrote:
Mooresville wants to use their 10/70 provision to allow a 12 acre development.
The town has 531 acres in the watershed in their "corporate limits" but 2088 in
"Mooresville's jusridiction" according to our files. Would we say their 10/70
acres are 53 or 208? thanks
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Re: 10/70 issue
Content-Encoding: 7bit
1 of 1 7/26/2005 12:28 PM