BOA agenda 111212 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The aforementioned letter only approved identified therein. It did not grant `blanket? plan, the construction of the various buildings approval for all buildings shown on the site INC There was an apparent understanding that as new building(s) were proposed for construction, additi6nal site plan submittal, review, and approval would be necessary. This1neludes the payment of applicable Department review fees. 5. in 2006 Planning staff and University officials were discussing the need for a revised site plan showing: a. The final location :for all proposed, and existing, structures on the property, b. The location of the spray irrigation field areas and other septic field and repair locations, if any, c. All well locations, d. The location of all streams and flood plains on the property, e. The provision of a driveway encroachment agreement from NC DOT for the improvements to the entrance of the property, and f. The location of sediment basins and stormwater detention ponds, The revised site plan (`Phase 2') was deemed necessary as University officials had indicated that modifications were necessary to previously approved structures. In May of 2006 a site plan was submitted to the County incorporating these items as requested. According to our records the University was authorized in July of 2006 to move forward with the revised development plans. As with the 2004 site plan, there was no reference to the overall size• or design capacity of the septic system on the revised site plan. 6. Planning staff has discovered that the existing wastewater disposal system on the property has a design. capacity over three thousand (3,000) gallons based on permit records on file with the Orange County Health Department, regarding the existing State permitted system. Thin may have been in response to support the anticipated development of future buildings on the property. 7. Section 6.20 of the Ordinance prohibits the location of `ground absorption systems with a design capacity of 3,000 gallons per day or more and package treatment plants for sanitary sewage disposal' without the submittal, review, and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Aitiele Eight (8) or a the submittal, review, and 'issuance of a Planned Development (PD) rezoning in accordance with Article Seven (7) of the Ordinance. 8. During the zoning site inspection, carried out on December 17, 2009, staff noticed inconsistencies with the `Phase 2'-site plan approved in 2006. In answering the University's question relating to the necessary process to review proposed modifications to the previously approved site plan(s), and based on available 3