Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-16-2012 - 5a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2012
>
Agenda - 10-16-2012 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 10-16-2012 - 5a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/23/2015 8:43:05 AM
Creation date
10/12/2012 3:03:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/16/2012
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5a
Document Relationships
Minutes 10-16-2012
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
7 <br /> 1 John Roberts: If the additional information is not to be presented at this hearing, it could be <br /> 2 submitted as a written comment to the Board prior to either the Planning Board's hearing, or <br /> 3 prior to the final hearing on this, which is scheduled for November. <br /> 4 Michael Harvey: November 20th is the County Commissioners' reconvening of the public <br /> 5 hearing. The October regular meeting is the Planning Board issue. <br /> 6 John Roberts: The reason it has to be written comment is that, traditionally and usually when <br /> 7 this Board continues or adjourns these public hearings, it adjourns them solely for the purpose <br /> 8 of accepting the Planning Board recommendation and written comments. <br /> 9 Commissioner Gordon: Is it the case then that there is not an expert or someone from the <br /> 10 developer that wishes to testify and therefore it would be a written comment? <br /> 11 Michael Harvey: I'll let the applicant speak to that specifically. The subject of geothermal wells <br /> 12 only came up as a result of a neighbor concern on the general use of such a system. There is <br /> 13 no pump and dump geothermal well proposed for this site, in fact, it doesn't appear anywhere in <br /> 14 the narrative of the application that there will be such systems on the project. It is fair to <br /> 15 recognize that you've had a citizen that has asked the Board to begin a comprehensive <br /> 16 assessment on the installation and use of such systems. The applicant indicated at the <br /> 17 neighborhood information meeting that it was not their intent to promote or encourage the <br /> 18 installation of geothermal wells with a pump and dump system. I think the issue here is two- <br /> 19 fold. You have a concern that transcends this particular project, but the County Commissioners <br /> 20 need to give us some direction on it. But you also have a situation where you have an applicant <br /> 21 that has not proposed the installation of such systems on the property in the first place. I do not <br /> 22 feel qualified to provide any kind of detail of the benefits of the various types of geothermal <br /> 23 wells. <br /> 24 Commissioner Gordon: Well, if there could be a definitive statement that there would be no <br /> 25 geothermal wells on this property, then there would be a more general question and not <br /> 26 specific. <br /> 27 Jeff Akin: We will consider that to see if that's likely a request from a homeowner, but we were <br /> 28 not anticipating the use or installation of geothermal well systems. The comment that was made <br /> 29 was directed at water usage and the concern was water usage on an individual lot in an area <br /> 30 with wells. We're trying to find an answer to that question, and it would probably be best to <br /> 31 submit a written response just so we respond accurately to that person's comment. <br /> 32 Commissioner Gordon: Just so it is definitive when we have to make a definitive decision. <br /> 33 Jeff Akin: It should be. I don't think it's a major issue, so a resolution should be reached. <br /> 34 Chair Pelissier: What is our role vis�-a-vis� the draft of the covenants? I have some questions <br /> 35 about that. <br /> 36 Michael Harvey: I think it's perfectly appropriate for the County Commissioners to address <br /> 37 those comments and concerns to the applicant so that they can begin to take notice of whether <br /> 38 they need to modify. These are draft covenants that they are proposing for this project. I think it <br /> 39 is perfectly reasonable for you all, if you have concerns or you would like specific answers to <br /> 40 specific questions that they can provide that to you. <br /> 41 Chair Pelissier: I do have a couple of comments and questions. One is just an inconsistency <br /> 42 with the presentation. The covenants say on page 97 that there will be 14 lots served by off-lot <br /> 43 septic area and I understand it's only 13. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.