Orange County NC Website
10 <br /> 1 Jeff Akin: I'm not sure if we're at that level yet. We're not at the point that we have designed <br /> 2 the stormwater conveyance system, the ditches that you're talking about. It would be our belief <br /> 3 and hopes that water would not be quickly conveyed off of individual property homeowners to <br /> 4 that pond. Most of that 6,000 gallons would be used for the road construction on a temporary <br /> 5 basis as well as some of the roadside ditches. The way that this property drains, it doesn't all <br /> 6 drain to that spot. Some of it drains naturally off to the side. <br /> 7 Larry Wright: My concern here is with neighboring properties. <br /> 8 Jeff Akin: I understand. We're simply not at the engineering level right now to be able to <br /> 9 comment on how that system would really be designed. There may end up being two storm <br /> 10 water ponds. <br /> 11 John Roberts: There was a response to Mr. Wright's first question regarding community wells. <br /> 12 I believe your response was based on a conversation you had with Tom Konsler? <br /> 13 Joe Lyle: That's correct. <br /> 14 John Roberts: Heresay testimony is generally not allowed for this type of hearing. I <br /> 15 recommend that you respond to the Board in writing to that question. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 Joe Lyle: I would be glad to. I have requested that in writing from Mr. Konsler. <br /> 18 Michael Harvey: I just want to make a statement concerning the storm water. If you can refer <br /> 19 to page 163-164 of your packet. You do have a memorandum that has been produced by Mr. <br /> 20 Terry Hackett, our Storm Water Resources Officer, who indicates that based on the preliminary <br /> 21 assessment, a 6,000-gallon depression area seems sufficient. But obviously, a formal storm <br /> 22 water plan is going to be required. That is going to be a required and mandated condition for <br /> 23 approval of this if we get to that point. If the Planning Board can make an affirmative <br /> 24 recommendation, staff will recommend a formal storm water plan. But at least as it has been <br /> 25 sized currently, Mr. Hackett does not see an issue with it complying with local or state storm <br /> 26 water or nutrient issues. <br /> 27 Commissioner McKee: If I might point out one thing. This abstract on page 164 refers to a <br /> 28 6,000-square foot potential storm water treatment area. That is entirely different than a 6,000- <br /> 29 gallon. I'm sitting here thinking that 6,000 gallons is approximately one tractor trailer. This <br /> 30 would be smaller than a child's wading pool <br /> 31 Michael Harvey: I apologize for the misuse of the term and for the confusion it has created. <br /> 32 John Roberts: I have a comment with regard to the Chair's question regarding the restrictive <br /> 33 covenant document. This document actually predates a General Assembly law in 2009 that <br /> 34 made it illegal for these types of covenants to outright ban solar reflectors on homes. They are <br /> 35 still allowed to regulate the location. That's just for your information on that question. <br /> 36 Johnny Randall: Shouldn't the retention pond be measured in cubic feet and not square feet? <br /> 37 Larry Wright: It would seem so. <br /> 38 Commissioner Gordon: It just strikes me that there are a number of questions that have been <br /> 39 unanswered that are going to be answered by written comments. If they are not answered, then <br /> 40 I would strongly urge us, if it is approved, that any development that is here have any conditions <br /> 41 so that if something is missing and not definite, that before it is built, that there be a condition <br /> 42 that would specify. There have been a number of questions that we have asked that haven't <br /> 43 been answered that would be deferred to written comments. I would just urge that at the <br /> 44 Planning Board level and at the County Commissioners level that there be conditions that <br /> 45 address anything that's important that's not definitively addressed. <br />