Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
22 <br /> Awaiting Staff input,however all other sources indicated that it is currently un- <br /> occupied and un-developed. <br /> Responses to Stormwater will be in Bold Magenta Italics. <br /> 1. BOCC members wanted additional explanation from the applicant on the <br /> proposed stormwater management system. <br /> Details of the stormwater management, treatment and overall system concept were <br /> discussed at the BOCC hearing.Additional questions and comments can be addressed <br /> at the next meeting,however the current plans have been reviewed and received <br /> concurrence from Mr. Terry Hackett with respect to the ability to meet current <br /> stormwater standards. <br /> 2. BOCC and Planning Board members requested additional detail on the site plan <br /> denoting drainage points on the property. This request was made after the <br /> project engineer indicated the property would actually drain from multiple <br /> locations due to existing and proposed topography. <br /> Drainage arrows are shown and indicate typical flow patterns of the onsite stormwater. <br /> Drainage points and additional flow arrows have been provided in addition to the <br /> topography which reveals the actual drainage patterns. <br /> 3. BOCC members wanted additional written comments from Orange County <br /> Erosion Control on the proposed stormwater system and the appropriateness of <br /> runoff draining into existing ponds on the property, north of Mile Branch Road. <br /> Mr. Terry Hackett has indicated that the proposed,facilities would meet the County <br /> standards which regulate both quantity and quality of water. The runoff will be <br /> restricted per these regulations. The fact that the runoff enters an existing pond is not <br /> integral to the proposed development and is an existing hydrological condition. <br /> Responses to Quarterly Public Hearing General Comments will be in Bold Cyan Italics. <br /> 1. BOCC members requested additional comments from the applicant on the <br /> intended means of restricting impervious surface area on the property. <br /> The applicant did not recall this request, however,the plats associated with the <br /> property will be restrictive related to the allowed increases or limits for impervious area <br /> for each property. This property is subject to the same laws and regulations for <br /> inspections and reviews as any other properties located in restrictive watersheds. <br /> Perhaps the County Staff can provide the BOCC with SOP on ensuring land owners <br /> comply with the allowable impervious surface. <br /> 2. A BOCC member indicated concern over placing so much impervious surface <br /> area on the 4 acre portion of the property west of Mile Branch. <br /> The intensity of the impervious area is not regulated as long as the treatment of such <br /> areas meets the regulations. From a planning and engineering standpoint, it is better to <br /> have it all located in one spot to maintain more existing natural areas and allow for <br /> easier collection and treatment efforts. <br /> 3. There was consensus that the proposed use was acceptable. <br />