Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
23 <br /> How Can Piney Mountain justify an Exception to Current Policy? <br /> You stated to Bes Baldwin that Piney Mountain would need to show how we justify an exception <br /> to the current policy which prohibits water and sewer in the Rural Buffer. As the attached <br /> nonbinding resolution shows, Piney Mountain is not requesting an exception to existing policy. <br /> Rather, Piney Mountain falls squarely within existing policy, which provides that sewer may be <br /> extended into the Rural Buffer in cases of public health emergency, such as a failing septic <br /> system. Since Piney Mountain has a failing septic system, it qualifies under the existing policy. <br /> In addition, Piney Mountain has exhausted all other possible solutions to its sewer problem. <br /> You have already received from Bes Baldwin copies of the soil testing report dated November <br /> 16, 1993 performed by Barrett Kays &Associates, and engineering opinion dated November 24, <br /> 1993 from Paul Thames, Orange County Engineer. The Kays report indicates that 80% of the <br /> soils in the primary nitrification fields at Piney Mountain are unsuitable. Tom Konsler, of the <br /> Orange County Health Department has determined that only 1.5 of the 7 acres of designated <br /> repair area at Piney Mountain contain suitable soils. We have been unable to locate sufficient <br /> additional suitable land to purchase. The Thames letter indicates that even with suitable soils <br /> (he was not aware of the Kays report when he wrote his opinion), the LPP System at Piney <br /> Mountain is likely never to perform adequately, regardless of the funds spent. The attached <br /> additional report dated December 8, 1993 from Barrett Kays & Associates (Attachment <br /> ?)indicates that the Pine Mountain stream is not suitable for an NPDES discharge system <br /> (treatment plant). Individual septics systems are possible for only a few homesites (7 of the 58), <br /> and individual septic systems are prohibited under the restrictive covenants for the subdivision. <br /> Will Granting Piney Mountain's Request Set a Bad Precedent? <br /> You also suggested to Bes that Piney Mountain should explain what will prevent future requests <br /> similar to that of Piney Mountain. The best way to prevent future requests like the present one <br /> is to make certain that government regulators look closely at proposals for subdivisions with a <br /> private sewerage system. In the case of Piney Mountain, regulators at the Division of <br /> Environmental Management(DEM)approved a system that did not meet existing state standards, <br /> and the Orange County Commission relied on the DEM approval in approving the construction <br /> of the subdivision. Attachment 3 is a sample of the complaint recently filed by owners of 30 <br /> lots in Piney Mountain against DEM. <br /> Responsibility for enforcement of exisiting guidelines for sewer systems changed, effective June <br /> 1992, from the DEM to the Division of Environmental Health (DEH) of the State Department <br /> of the Environment, Health and Natural Resources. DEH, in turn, has delegated to local Health <br /> Departments primary enforcement authority, and it was the Orange County Health Department <br /> which initially identified defects in the Piney Mountain LPP System in the spring and summer <br /> of 1993. With proper administration of State regulations, future sewer systems in the Rural <br /> Buffer can be designed, installed and maintained property. <br /> Norton <br />