Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Yy4 . <br />y-. <br />The Committee agreed to take these concerns back to <br />the Rural Character Study Committee for discussion and <br />possible compromise, if feasible. <br />At the September 20 Rural Character Study Committee <br />meeting, the Study Committee met with County and <br />Chapel Hill staff. As a result, three revisions or <br />additions to the initial recommendations were aooroved. <br />The Committee felt that the compromises adopted on <br />September 20 did not compromise the integrity of <br />the study and still accomplished the goals and <br />objectives of the study. Some of the concerns addressed <br />by the Council (especially the question of public <br />sewer) were issues that the Committee had struggled <br />with in its deliberations, and the revisions <br />represented the selection of a alternative proposal <br />that narrowly missed initial recommendation. <br />1. PUBLIC SEWER IN RURAL VILLAGES <br />The concept of alternative systems with public oversight <br />was again discussed. This discussion evolved into a <br />discussion of the ultimate life of alternative <br />systems, and the need for leaving future options open <br />if sewer extension becomes a necessity beyond a 20 -25 <br />year period. If efficient sewer extension were no longer <br />an issue in location of these Rural Villages, the <br />Committee revisited other factors that would become <br />critical as to -the placement of these villages. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />a. That public oversight of alternative systems /package <br />plants is an acceptable alternative to public sewer <br />extension, as long as those systems were designed, <br />monitored and maintained by a reliable public <br />entity. The Committee thus recommends that <br />this type of "public sewer" be utilized in lieu of <br />physical extension of sewer lines into development <br />- options D and E which require sewer service. <br />b. The Committee recommends that further study be given <br />to the location of Rural Villages by the two Towns <br />and the County. The Committee would also recommend <br />that the key locational criterion be the coordination <br />of such villages with the major transportation <br />corridors in the Rural Buffer (outside of University <br />2 <br />19 <br />