Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• <br /> '2. <br /> • the land could not be developed. With such a system, 14 houses <br /> are proposed for phase one , with what looks like at least an <br /> equal number proposed for later . <br /> Cluster development with community systems may be a good <br /> idea in some places. But it is not suitable for the watershed. <br /> • We have had to learn a lot about such systems in recent months, <br /> and the news for the watershed is not good. Among the problems <br /> are : • <br /> --new technology: these systems have not been used long <br /> enough to know how they will stand up in critical areas; <br /> OWASA plans to use University Lake until the end of the next <br /> century-- how long will these untested systems last? <br /> • <br /> ' --elaborate equipment prone to failures: read the <br /> consultants' report on low pressure systems carefully—there <br /> are a lot of potential problems with the expensive pumps and <br /> electrical and plumbing systems. The report is a cross <br /> between a sales pitch and a technical report and is very <br /> sobering. _ . <br /> • <br /> • --uncertain responsibilities: who is to maintain the system? <br /> the howeowner? a homeowners association (such groups have a <br /> very poor record in these areas)?, a public utility? It is <br /> not clear from the proposal . Who puts up the money right <br /> away when a pump or drain field fails? <br /> • <br /> ' --unclear jurisdiction : approval is by the Division 'of <br /> • Environmental Management if it is to, be operated by a public <br /> utility and by the Health Department if by a homeowners <br /> associatton--the proposal refers to both as- if they were the <br /> same . If the permit is to be granted by DEM, the county has <br /> little or no say and the public has no right of appeal --only <br /> the developer if he or *.she is turned down . <br /> • --inadequate regulations: the state rules on these systems <br /> make NO distiction between low pressure systems in just any <br /> watershed and those impacting public drinking water <br /> supplies; higher standards are needed for the later . The <br /> OWASA comments. are very pertinent on this question . OWASA <br /> also offers further critique of the relation of this design. <br /> to the state standards. It's conclusion : there is top 1tttle <br /> - • -- maroin for error . "Marginal " Piedmont soils in a Watershed <br /> are not suitable . <br /> A public water supply is not an appropriate place for <br /> reasearch on alternative waste systems. This conclusion holds <br /> whether they are to serve 14 units or 158. It would be <br /> apprpriate for Orange County to consider implementing a <br /> • moratorium on such systems at least until the OWASA study is <br /> completed and evaluated. I suggest YOU to do just that . <br /> It is important to ask how a development such as McLennan's <br /> Farms: fit into the County policy on the watershed? I was <br /> surprised when I called the Planning Department to find that the <br /> • <br /> • <br />