Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br />Rather than having a flat minimum lot size requirement of two acres, it would <br />allow a person to have varying sizes of lots provided the overall density did <br />not exceed one per two acres. <br />Commissioner Willhoit stated that proceeding in steps will speed <br />up the process because if all the options presented in the rural character <br />study (one acre lots, two acre lots, etc.), were to be considered at one time, <br />it would be too complicated. He feels that once the base density is <br />clarified, it will be a lot easier to move forward on the other parts of this <br />program. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by <br />Commissioner Insko to approve the notice for the public hearing scheduled for <br />June 30, 1994. <br />VOTE: AYES, 4; NOS, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) <br />Q. PROCESS FOR SELECTING CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THE <br />INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STIIDY <br />Commissioner Gordon asked why one member of this committee will be <br />appointed by the Landfill Owners Group (LOG). Commissioner Willhoit explained <br />that the composition is 9 voting members with 2 members each selected by the <br />County, the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough and the ninth <br />member appointed by the LOG. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by <br />Commissioner Halkiotis to authorize the Clerk to solicit applications for two <br />County appointments to the Solid Waste Planning Advisory Committee with the <br />appointments being made on June 28, 1994. <br />VOTE: AYES, 4; NOS, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) <br />IX. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGOLAR AGENDA <br />A. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR ON-SITE ALTERNATIVE <br />TECHNOLOGY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (Waste Treatment Monitoring <br />Program) <br />Commissioner Gordon and John Link noted that the correct title for <br />this program is the Waste Treatment Monitoring Program. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey <br />to approve the Manager's recommendation with option 1. <br />Commissioner Insko stated she feels that a process needs to be put <br />in place that will let these systems be a viable alternative to water and <br />sewer. There is growth coming into the County and all parts of the County do <br />not have access to water and sewer. She feels that there needs to be a viable <br />option for alternative wastewater treatment systems which must be inspected <br />so they don't fail. She is more concerned about the frequency of inspection <br />than the fee that will be charged. The goal is to recover the cost for <br />providing this service. She supports option 2 with a lower fee. <br />Commissioner Willhoit clarified that his motion included the $55 <br />and $30 fee. <br />Chair Carey feels that the adoption of option 1 will not diminish <br />or preclude citizens from using land that is marginal in terms of whether or <br />not it will perk. What it will do is put in place a basic level of monitoring <br />so the County can get a better data base on what is happening with alternative <br />