Agenda - 03-01-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Efland Estates Subdivision Homeowners 2 December 15, 1980 • All the vectors listed on the chart (flies, pets, children, etc.) are exposed to the contaminated environment of the area. Mosquitoes would be of concern due to viral encephalitis and the possibility of a resurgence of malaria. The De- - partment has not detected evidence of unusual rates of illness. However, the De- partment's position is that the single factor which prevents major morbidity problems is the protected public water supply. Unfortunately, water lines are -- -- running through contaminated ground. Contamination of the water supply could easily occur in a variety of ways, such as; freezing and cracking of lines, plumbing cross connections, etc. Such an occurrence would have severe effects. We are concerned that the contaminated environment you live id could be of harm to you. Therefore, in January of 1981, qualified medically trained personnel from our Department will conduct a health status survey. This will be completely voluntary on your part. If any resident does not wish to participate, they will not do so. I would not expect this survey fo prove any major health problems related to the septic malfunctions since you have a protected water supply. This survey will be a cautionary move on your behalf. . On June 20, 1980, the Director of the Department, et al, was sued by the present owners of 18 undeveloped lots in the subdivision 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 remaining 18 lots that the staff has soil tested) that the lots are unsuitable for on-site individual ground absorption septic disposal systems, except lots 33 and 32 which would be pro- visionally 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 development of the area would lead to an Increase in the health hazard to residents. The request to honor the 1972 percolation tests can not be honored for multi-. ple reasons. Important among those reasons is that the percolation test was deemed an extremely unreliable indicator and test and was discontinued as a primary test of July 1 , 1977, by change in the State regulations. Orange County adopted the new State regulations and there exists no basis to honor 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. (Until July 1, 1977, Orange County was part of a five county health district, after that date it formed its own department.) This procedure put .the perk test into saprolite soil which is unacceptable soil for ground absorption septic systems. Under regulations adopted in July, 1977, Efland Estates Subdivision would not have been allowed to be constructed. How- ever, this subdivision does exist and a solution must be found to this serious problem. I am constrained b law to notif you that our malfunctionin' septic s stem is a nuisance and a health hazard. North Carolina law authorizes two procedures for abating a nuisance "which in the opinion of the local health director is dangerous to the public health" (N. C. Gen. Stet. 130-20, 1974). Under the first procedure, the health director