Minutes - 19890815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~, -._,.) Background information is contained in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. This Public Hearing is a continuation from June 2$ to allow time for the Planning ~ ~~~1i! Staff and the County engineer to meet with the applicant and obtain additional j. information on the adequacy of the proposed system for wastewater disposal. A memorandum from the Health Department regarding soil evaluations was also submitted at the hearing on June 28. At.its July 17 meeting, the Planning Board reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and found that the applicant complied with the general standards, specific rules, and required regulations. The Planning Board further determined that no information had been received which would establish. grounds for making one or more of the findings as listed in Article 8.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) STEVE PICKETT spoke in opposition of this development. He expressed concern about the long term consequences of an alternative treatment facility. He feels the watershed does not need this type of development but needs to be protected. HAL MEKEEL asked if there was any enforcement to insure that this type of system will be maintained. Also, he asked what affect a failure would have in the watershed. Collins responded that if the system fails, the Homeowners Association would be responsible for the operation, maintenance and repair of the system. What is being considered at this time is the Orange County Health Department providing an inspection and monitoring service. This proposed service would be not only for community systems but hopefully for individual systems as well. It would also be monitored by the Division of Environmental Management. In answer. to the second question, Gollins stated that at this point no one knows what the affect on the watershed will be. There have not been any models to determine what may happen if the system failed. The extent of the environmental harm caused by failed systems of this specific type is unknown at this time. ALLEN SPALT clarified that there is not a blanket moratorium from DEM on alternative systems in WSI watersheds but there is a moratorium that is in affect until they develop a clarifying definition of any project that leads toward urbanization in the watershed. He expressed concern that the conditions as recommended by the staff do not incorporate enough changes. In his opinion, there are requirements which will be unenforceable or difficult to enforce. Because of the number of conditions for approval, this project requires special attention, but the conditions have not really been dealt with. He feels the project should not be approved because it does not promote the public health, safety and welfare. The evidence for this is in the recommendations of the University Lake Watershed Study. He feels that building an alternative wastewater system is just a postponement of extending water and sewer lines into the RB which is prohibited by Ordinance. He gave to the Clerk, to be entered into the official record, a statement that he made in 1987 and a statement he made in May, 1989 and a copy of the letter from Paul Wilms about Amberly Subdivision. DR. T. KENNEY GRAY expressed opposition to this proposed development. He lives about 1%~+ mile from it. He expressed concern that the county has no local experience with alternative systems in the watershed. He does not feel that 38 safeguards will protect the water in University Lake. He expressed deep concerns about the fact that the groundwater that he shares with this proposed development might be contaminated. If this system fails it could create surface sewage and obvious health threats. He asked that this development not be approved because the potential risks are too great. FORMAN HERRING asked that the Commissioners vote in favor of public health, safety and welfare by voting against the McLennan Farm development in the watershed. NANCY MILLER spoke against any type of development in the watershed until the r Commissioners have an opportunity to rule on a moratorium on development in the watershed in terms of the lot sizes and other parameters to be considered.