Agenda - 01-05-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

' ~ ° `. Report on Efland Eotates` Section II -2- December 12, 19g0 All vectors listed on the chart (flies, pets, children, etc.) are exposed to the contaminated environment of the arna, Mosquitoes would be of concern due to viral encephalitis and the possibility of malaria. The department has not detected_ evidence of high illness. However, the Department's position is that the single factor which prevents major morbidity problems is the protecte4 public water supply. Contamination of the water sup- :- , ply could easily� occur in a variety of ways as freezing and cracking ' � have oF'lin=o, plumbing cross connections, �tp' Such an occurrence wnul severe ` effects. ' ' . - � ;" � ` ' - evidence Of the problem in Efland Estates and the best solution, Which would oo a community waste disposal system. The Board requested the Director to meet with the County Manager and request that Mebane be asked to explore extension of _ sewer to this area, as one possible oo�u6in" , . The Director has since met with the Manager. As the nearest sewer linedS over five miles away, the Director has concluded this solution is not al, sued by the present owners of the 18 undeveloped nzviazon to either reimburse them what they paid for the lots or validate the'1972 percolation tests on the lots, which would `�� allow them to construct homes. ,The Director refused to reconsider the decision - � ' of the environmental staff (on 14 of the'rumaining 18 lots that the staff has soil tested) that all lots are unsuitable for on-site individual vnd absorp- tion eeptic disposal systems, except lots 33 and 32 which would be Provisionally , suitable if combined into a single lot. Based On extensive soil testing and consultant analysis of the area, the Department's position is that further de- volopment of the area would lead t� �n increase'in the health hazard to residents- . ^ ` The request to honor the 1972 percolation tests can not be honored for multiple rtant among those reasons is that the percolation test was deemed an extremely unreliable indicator and test and discontinued as a primary test on July 1, 1977, by in the State regulations. Orange County adopted the new State regulations and there exists no basis to honor the 1972 perk tests. Secondly, of the 26 developed lots, 23 of these lots were only able to pass the perk test on a second try when the hole was dug to a depth of 48 inches.• This procedure was not in accord with State regulations but was acceptable by the . District Health Department regulations of that era. This put the perk test into saprolite soil which is Unacceptable soil for ground absorption septic systems. ; (Until July 1, 1977, Orange County was part of a five county health district. On that date Orange County formed its own department.) Under regulations adopted July 1, 1977, the subdivision would not have been constructed. However, it does -� � � � exist and the Department considers a serious health hazard to exist in this sub- division and will continue to explore solutions to abate the problem. During the week of December 15, the Health Director will send a letter to the 22 homeowners with failing systems notifying them that their system nvnsti- ' ` • tut=s a health hazard. Secondly, they will be directed to take certain procedures to reduce the hazard. During mid-January, 1981, the Health Director will have trained medical personnel nncl cpnduct a health status survey to determine any currnl=r, tio" between th environmental pollution and health problems. This is seen as a cautionary measure and not expected to document illness due to the protected water supply. ) ------- — - - ' ' — -- ' —' ` �``� «