Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />DRAFT <br />Bill Waddell asked how a development which was impacted by Articles 2.2.2, 2.2.3, <br />2.2.4 and /or 2.2.9 could also come under the influence of the Environmental Impact <br />Statement (EIS) He questioned why the Environmental Assessment (EA) would be requi ed <br />if it was clear at the outset that the EIS would not be required. Scearbo indicat d <br />that for those types of projects the Planning Department would want some of this <br />information regardless of whether an EIS would be needed. This would enable conta t <br />to be made with other State agencies to ensure that all permits that are required for <br />the state and the county would be obtained. This would also help the applicant <br />because he would be made aware early in the process of any additional permits he m ght <br />need. If an EIS is going to be required, the project would not fall into any of t e <br />categories in 2.1. <br />In response to a question from Mr. Waddell pertaining to sections 2.2.1 and 2.3.2 , <br />Ms. Scearbo explained that if 220 pounds or 1/2 of a 55 gallon drum of hazardous waste <br />is generated in one month a State permit for a "small generator of hazardous waste' is <br />required. If you create more than 220 pounds or 1/2 of a 55 gallon drum it is <br />classified as a "large generator of hazardous waste ". The county Planning Staff <br />decided to require the EA for small and large generators so that it can contact th <br />State and require the EIS only if it is a facility that is actually storing hazard us <br />materials. <br />Commissioner Willhoit questioned what procedure the county would follow for <br />companies that initially did not exceed the 220 pound limit but grew in size to wh re <br />they did exceed that figure? Scearbo indicated that at the very least a site plan for <br />expansion would have been filed and in going through the site plan review this iss e <br />would surely come up. The applicant would be notified about the limitations again at <br />that time. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT <br />Mr. Lindsay Efland, a representative of the Economic Development Commission, <br />indicated that he was a member of the EDC's Environmental Impact Ordinance Review <br />Committee. In summary he stated that the EDC supports the need to have environmental <br />regulations to minimize environmental damage. However they are concerned that the <br />Draft Environmental Impact Ordinance will adversely affect business coming into Orange <br />County. The EDC would like to see the requirements included in the EIO be <br />incorporated into existing local development ordinances to avoid and additional level <br />of regulations. They also suggest that the threshold for requiring an IA be adjusted <br />so that builders /developers could be informed of EA requirements within 15 days of <br />submittal of the project. A copy of this statement is in the permanent agenda file in <br />the Clerk's office. <br />In response to a question from Mr. Efland, Scearbo indicated that if the total <br />project was less than two acres it is automatically exempt. If the project is more <br />than two acres and involved 40,000 feet of grading the project may be subject to this <br />requirement. <br />Mr. Efland stated that the Economic Development Commission believed that the County <br />needs to move toward developing one Comprehensive Development Ordinance. He indicated <br />-D1 that the EDC expressed concern about the trend toward adding successive layers of <br />52 regulations. <br />