Browse
Search
Agenda - 01-24-1983
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1983
>
Agenda - 01-24-1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2017 8:34:58 AM
Creation date
4/12/2017 8:28:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/24/1983
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19830124
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1980's\1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
. — - <br /> �". <br /> Mo. Smith: Replied that this recommendation was really directed at the intended <br /> use of the tract and therefore would be more specifically addressed at the rezoning <br /> request to be heard shortly; however, she said the Staff did mean tapping onto Hills- <br /> borough's sewer system. <br /> Mr. Freeland: Said that he intended to tap onto Hillsborough's system when <br /> the number of customers warranted the expense. Until that time, however, he had <br /> ' planned on using a package treatment system approved by the NC Department of Natural <br /> Resources. He said he will "meet all State criteria." <br /> • Mr. Irvin: Asked what would be done with the effluent if a package treatment <br /> ' plant was used. <br /> Mr. Freeland: Responded that there was a creek on the property and using flow <br /> data his consultants would work with the State to design the treatment plant and <br /> best care for the effluent. He said Mr. Bud McCall of McCall Brothers of Charlotte <br /> ^ were the consultants and would be able to answer any questions, <br /> Mr. McCall : Said that any statements at this point would be preliminary. <br /> He continued, that the State "has very strict criteria" in the design and treatment <br /> ` of any package treatment plant. He said the existing stream would be regulated by <br /> • the State and EPA under their "design criteria" which must be met. He asserted that <br /> ▪ the effluent, under these standards, would be better quality than the quality of <br /> ▪ water in the stream. He said he has not received the specific State requirements <br /> • and would be unable to be more specific than all requirements set by the State <br /> • would be met. <br /> " <br /> Commissioner Willhoit: Asked Mr. McCall to define "quality" in his use of the <br /> o term ''the quality will be better than what was there before." <br /> Mr. McCall : That it is capable of sustaining wildlife, fish and acquatic growth; <br /> • that the water in the stream will be equal to or better than the water presently in <br /> • the stream. He said once the plant is installed a certified operator must be hired <br /> • to operate the plant; he added that water samples may be required to be sent in <br /> "veekly or monthly to be sure standards are met. Mr' McCall continued, replying to a <br /> " technical question from Commissioner Willhoit, that the process, "I would think, in <br /> •a case like this...wnuld require what we call extended aeriation, tertiary plant <br /> •folluwing it, which is filtration to remove all solids and chlorination and perhaps <br /> •even removal of the chlorine there...." <br /> • Mr. Freeland: Replying to Ms. Pilkey. mid this stream fed into Cates Creek. <br /> • <br /> • <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.