Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
70 <br />of this ordinance. <br />Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he had received a letter from <br />Neil Littman. Mr. Littman raised questions concerning Sections 2.3.5- <br />and 3.1.5. Commissioner Hartwell suggested changing the wording as Mr. <br />Littman requested. A copy of this letter is in the permanent agenda <br />file in the Clerk's office. He indicated in the letter that this <br />ordinance will give some assurances to orange County citizens concerning <br />the industrial and commercial enterprises which are coming to orange <br />county. Commissioner Hartwell stated that the difficulty with this <br />ordinance as it is now written is with non-commercial and non-industrial <br />projects that bear little threat to orange County citizens. An example <br />of this type of project is the pond which he is putting on his land. <br />Along with obviously needed information, certain information such as <br />Deed Book and Page number, were requested. In addition to this <br />stumbling block he pointed out that if his pond had been one square foot <br />larger than 2 acres, the steepness of the slopes on the whole property <br />and what percentage of the whole property is affected by the slope <br />steepness would have had to be provided The cost for such a topographic <br />survey would be thousands of dollars. This would cover the cost of the <br />assessment only, not the impact statement itself. These types of <br />regulations could make it impossible for citizens to build ponds. They <br />need to be addressed before this ordinance is approved. He suggested <br />that requesting the application of the slope criteria should be applied <br />only within a certain proximity of the area to be disturbed. <br />Larry Reid asked if this ordinance would be applicable to <br />municipalities where lots larger than 40,000 were being cleared. <br />Scearbo indicated that it is not applicable in municipalities. <br />Bill Waddell asked how a development which was impacted by Articles <br />2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4 and/or 2.2.9 could also come under the"i.nfluence of <br />the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) He questioned why the <br />Environmental Assessment (EA) would be required if it was clear at the <br />outset that the EIS would not be required. Scearbo indicated that for <br />those types of projects the Planning Department would want some of this <br />information regardless of whether an EIS would be needed. This would <br />enable contact to be made with other State agencies to ensure that all <br />permits that are required for the state and the county would be <br />obtained. This would also help the applicant because he would be made <br />aware early in the process of any additional permits he might need. If <br />an EIS is going to be required, the project would not fall into any of <br />the categories in 2.1. <br />In response to a question from Mr. Waddell pertaining to sections <br />2.2.1 and 2.3.2 , Ms. Scearbo explained that if 220 pounds or 1/2 of a <br />55 gallon drum of hazardous waste is generated in one month a State <br />permit for a "small generator of hazardous waste" is required. If you <br />create more than 220 pounds or 1/2 of a 55 gallon drum it is classified <br />as a "large generator of hazardous waste". The county Planning Staff <br />decided to require the EA for small and large generators so that it can <br />contact the State and require the EIS only if it is a facility that is