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

Browse Search

Approved 11/7/12 Craig Benedict: If the BOCC, in conjunction with Chapel Hill-Carrboro since this is the rural buffer's part of the joint planning area, had any intent of having lower density, we would have had to vote that in back in 1987 when they put these rules into effect. At that time,rural was classified as two acres density. Maxecine Mitchell: I remember one of the residences had asked who was going to maintain this well. Michael Harvey: There are two issues with maintenance, One is the joint septic field and the other is the proposed community well. With respect to the maintenance of this joint septic area, the applicant testified that the homeowners association will be responsible for mowing and maintain foliage on the property but that each individual property owner will be responsible for maintaining their individual septic area. With respect to the community well, that will be turned over to a private utility contractor and the HOA would have maintenance responsibilities of the property itself. Tony Blake: What if there is damage by the HOA to someone's septic system as there may be a public health issue. Michael Harvey: If the HOA damages the septic system, in my opinion they would be liable for replacing the system in the designated repair area for that lot, From a health department standpoint, if the system doesn't function properly, it would be incumbent for the property owner to apply for a permit to install a new septic system in the area. Rachel Hawkins: Why did they choose to go way over to the corner to lots 23 to 26? Michael Harvey: The applicants choose that as the most desirable location for them to pump the septic, Rachel Hawkins: Won't that have to have a lot of pipe? Michael Harvey: Yes and they are going to be maintaining an easement that is outside the proposed right-of-way and the HOA and property development people will be responsible for maintaining that easement. Each property owner will be responsible for maintaining their own connection to that easement. Peter Hallenbeck: The geothermal wells, on page 21, the applicant voluntarily agreed to the imposition prohibiting the development of geothermal wells of any type, then look at attachment I and they talk about two types of geothermal wells. It would make more sense for the applicant to ban pump and dump and allow the closed loop well. The geotherrnal heating systems are more efficient and use less energy. Michael Harvey: I don't disagree at all, On page 73,we have the recommended condition under miscellaneous that no geothermal walls be developed in the project for that purpose as testified to during the hearing. Tony Blake: This particularly relates to drought conditions? Michael Harvey: The concern expressed at the quarterly public hearing was these systems robbed water that supported individual wells.There was a concern this heightens the failure of wells. Larry Wright: You also have the runoff. Peter Hallenbeck: My main comment is that it seems as long as this is a closed lid system that everyone's concern should be that we don't have to ascertain that pump and dump. Larry Wright: On page 50, Section 7.14 (13)(5)(d)(ii), pedestrian paths and bike lanes has been met and then on page 55,item F,this has been met,and where is that met? Michael Harvey: Section 7.14.2 (13)(5) requires that you provide different items but does not necessarily mandate that you have provide bike lanes or paths, etc. On page 55, they show the pathways,and the narrative specifically states they will not provide individual bike lanes but they could utilize existing road way to walk as well as ride.