Agenda - 11-20-2012 - 6b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5 Information related to the OWN groundwater observation well network can be found at the following link: http://orangecountync.gov/ercd/h2orange/index.asp • A citizen expressed concern over the use of geothermal wells throughout the County, especially `pump and dump' systems. This individual went on to state given the regions propensity for droughts, and the reliance on local wells for drinking water, geothermal wells should be banned. A BOCC member asked staff to explain the difference in the different types of geothermal wells. Another BOCC member stated he thought `pump and dump' systems would not be permitted in Orange County based on previous comments made by Orange County Environmental Health staff. Staff Comment: The project does not involve the development of a geothermal well of any type. There is no reference on the site plan or within the application narrative to the development of a geothermal well being developed to serve the anticipated 26 single-family residential lots. Staff has received a memorandum from Mr. Tom Konsler of Orange County Environmental Health related to the permitting of geothermal wells in the County (Please refer to Attachment 2). At the hearing, the applicant voluntarily agreed to the imposition of a condition prohibiting the development of geothermal wells of any type within the project. • A Planning Board member asked how much draw (i.e. gallons per unit per minute during peak usage) the proposed community well would have and what potential impact there would be on adjacent property owners. Staff Comment Mr. Chad Abbott of Summit Engineering indicated they did not have recharge rate data or peak usage data available but would work to formulate a response. Please refer to Attachment 3 for the applicant's responses. • BOCC and Planning Board members asked what would happen in the event the proposed stormwater feature was breached, specifically where would the water go. Staff Comment Mr. Abbott indicated in the event of a breach, water would flow into the adjoining stream and onto adjacent property. Mr. Abbott stated a breach was highly unlikely and even in such an event, major flooding should not result given the identified water infiltration rate detailed on the submitted site plan. • A BOCC member asked about the possibility of requiring a trail through the Dunhill project to connect to an adjacent parcel owned by the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC). Further, this BOCC member inquired about why a memo from DEAPR was not included within the quarterly public hearing agenda packet. Staff Comment: TLC provided a written response (see Attachment 2) on September 26, 2012 outlining the various conditions associated with development of a trail. The applicant did not have sufficient time to review or formulate a response. This will be a discussion item at the meeting. In reviewing the response, it would appear the development of a trail is plausible and should be considered as a condition. With respect to the submission of the DEAPR memo, Planning staff did not receive the document until August 16, 2012 after the public hearing package had been completed and mailed to BOCC and Planning Board members.