Agenda - 11-23-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the land could not be developed. With such a system, 14 houses 2 are proposed for phase one , with what looks like at least an equal number proposed for later . Cluster development with community systems may be a good idea in some places. But it is not suitable for the watershed. We have had to learn a lot about such systems in recent months, and the news for the watershed is not good. Among the problems are : --new technology: these systems have not been used long enough to know how they will stand up in critical areas; OWASA plans to use University Lake until the end of the next century-- how long will these untested systems last? --elaborate equipment prone to failures: read the consultants' report on low pressure systems carefully--there are a lot of potential problems with the expensive pumps and electrical and plumbing systems. The report is a cross between a sales pitch and a technical report and is very sobering. --uncertain responsibilities: who is to maintain the system? the howeowner? a homeowners association (such groups have a very poor record in these areas)?, a public utility? It is not clear from the proposal . Who puts up the money right away when a pump ar drain field fails? --unclear jurisdiction : approval is by the Division of Environmental Management if it is to be operated by a public utility and by the Health Department if by a homeowners association--the proposal refers to both as if they were the same . If the permit is to be granted by DEM, the county has little or no say and the public has no right of appeal --only the developer if he or she is turned down . --inadequate regulations: the state rules on these systems make NO distiction between low pressure systems in just any watershed and those impacting public drinking water supplies; higher standards are needed for the later . The OWASA comments are very pertinent on this question . OWASA also offers further critique of the relation of this design to the state standards. It's conclusion : there is too little margin for error . "Marginal " Piedmont soils in a watershed are not suitable . A public water supply is not an appropriate place for reasearch on alternative waste systems. This conclusion holds whether they are to serve 14 units or 158. It would be apprpriate for Orange County to consider implementing a moratorium on such systems at least until the OWASA study is completed and evaluated. I suggest you to do just that . It is important to ask how a development such as McLennan's Farm fit into the County policy on the watershed? I was surprised when I called the Planning Department to find that the