Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
11 <br /> 1 Commissioner Jacobs: Some of the area where it had been logged. <br /> 2 <br /> 3 Brian Quinlan: It was on the entrance of the property, it wasn't in the leased area, I don't think. <br /> 4 In any event, in the leased area it would be our responsibility to remove it, once we—we have <br /> 5 the lease in place —so that's ours. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Commissioner Jacobs: So staff has worked out what is the leased area and whether or not <br /> 8 there's any materials discarded there that need to be removed. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Brian Quinlan: There aren't any. Because the environmental assessment that was done — <br /> 11 they went in and looked at the entire area. Those barrels and such were outside of the leased <br /> 12 area. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Patrick Mallet: That's part of the furnished parcel that is a current commercial operation, so <br /> 15 once you get into the area that's proposed —the 27 acres of the 52-acre site to the rear—that's <br /> 16 pretty well cleared, and doesn't contain any known debris, or any items for cleaning up. <br /> 17 Obviously if they're going to utilize it, it's in their interest to have it ready to do the solar <br /> 18 development. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Commissioner Jacobs: So there are ponds and streams that are not part of this parcel, and <br /> 21 there are discarded barrels of something on that part—with which this Applicant has no <br /> 22 concerns under the law—what about the owner of the property, are they going be required to <br /> 23 remove any of those barrels? Is anybody testing to see whether those barrels are polluting? As <br /> 24 long —or is that irrelevant to our— I know it's irrelevant to this Applicant— but is that irrelevant to <br /> 25 the County? <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Patrick Mallett: Well, it may or may not be. It depends on where the barrels are and what may <br /> 28 or may not be located within them. The 52-acre parcel is part of a Special Use Permit with <br /> 29 specific commitments to the utilization of a portion of that site and we also have, obviously, our <br /> 30 Unified Development Ordinance that governs stream buffers, and other items if there were other <br /> 31 elements that needed to be dealt with that made them complaint with our ordinance, then we <br /> 32 would certainly do so. That's our obligation, regardless of this request. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Commissioner Jacobs: Ok, so we see photographs that may indicate that there are materials <br /> 35 on the rest of the property that could be hazardous. Is anybody going to follow up? <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Patrick Mallett: This went through the state clearing house system, and there were no known <br /> 38 contaminants. There was an environmental assessment that was conducted on the property, <br /> 39 which I believe evaluated the entire 52-acre site. The EPA is part of that clearinghouse. There <br /> 40 are some facilities that are located within two miles that are on the other side of US 70, that <br /> 41 believe are brown field sites that have monitoring wells associated with them. But they're not <br /> 42 part of this property. They're on the other side of the highway, and not contiguous. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Chair McKee: Let's ask the Attorney to weigh in on whether this on whether the barrels on an <br /> 45 adjacent property—or on this property, on an adjacent piece, are relevant to this discussion. <br /> 46 <br /> 47 James Bryan: It would depend on the permit. I think that this permit is applying for just the <br /> 48 leased area, not the entire parcel. If that's the case, then you would treat them separately. In <br /> 49 fact, there's a recent case, within the last year or two that made it explicitly clear that jurisdiction <br /> 50 cannot withhold a permit on one property because of non-compliance in another one. So we <br />