Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 154 issues. She requested that the use of Low Impact Design (LID)stormwater management be considered and handed <br /> 155 out a paper that compared the system to traditional systems. She related that there was an underground tank on the <br /> 156 property and that there was the potential of contamination from it to the adjacent properties. <br /> 157 <br /> 158 Michael Harvey reminded the Board that the County has some of the most restrictive stormwater regulation in the <br /> 159 area. Developers were required to address both water quantity, specifically how much water was leaving the site, <br /> 160 and water quality, specifically the removal of nutrients from the project. This project would also have to abide what is <br /> 161 known as pre and post stormwater runoff conditions. What this means is that under current conditions if there was <br /> 162 approximately 1 inch of water running off the property in its pre-development state,there can be no more than 1 inch <br /> 163 of runoff generated by the property in its developed state. Mr. Harvey further reminded the Board they could not <br /> 164 compel or require the applicant to adhere to a specific stormwater design standard. That would be addressed during <br /> 165 the stormwater permitting stage based on applicable County and State regulations. While he appreciated Ms. <br /> 166 Nathansen's suggestion that the project use low impact design principles, there was no guarantee the project would <br /> 167 qualify for same. <br /> 168 <br /> 169 Michael Harvey reminded the Board that is surrounding wells were already experiencing issues, it would be prudent <br /> 170 for those property owners to contact Orange County Environmental Health to ascertain if the wells need to be re- <br /> 171 drilled. Testing of wells to try and establish a baseline of existing issues, in the hopes of holding property owners <br /> 172 within Fairway Hills accountable for potential impacts,was not practical. The assumption that future problems will be <br /> 173 the direct impact of this project represented a false premise as developmentlredevelopment of surrounding lots could <br /> 174 also lead to the problems Ms. Nathansen was concerned about. <br /> 175 <br /> 176 Craig Carter expressed concern on the well water table and contamination. He related that several properties had <br /> 177 contaminated wells and had to have then drilled deeper and that there had been 3 gas stations there in the past. <br /> 178 <br /> 179 Mark O'Neal of Pickett-Sprouse addressed the concern and advised that the tank had been for heating oil and had <br /> 180 been removed,the soil around it was also removed and the remaining soil has been tested and cleared by an expert. <br /> 181 <br /> 182 There was additional, general,discussion on contamination issues. <br /> 183 <br /> 184 Michael Harvey reminded the Board of existing wells were contaminated,then property owners should take action to <br /> 185 work with the Health Department to address those issues. That was a separate issue from the review of this project <br /> 186 however. <br /> 187 <br /> 188 Paul Noe addressed the Board to second the comments made by Linda Nathansen and potential impacts to area <br /> 189 wells. <br /> 190 <br /> 191 Randy Marshall asked if there was a precedence to require the developer to pay a bond to be used if there was a <br /> 192 negative impact on the wells in order to protect the current residents of the area. <br /> 193 <br /> 194 Adam Beeman expressed that if you couldn't determine exactly which property was the straw that broke the system <br /> 195 and if a bond was required it would then become even more difficult to have any kind of development in Orange <br /> 196 County than it is now and all development would cease. <br /> 197 <br /> 198 Michael Harvey addressed the Board and advised that he could not legally require any type of bond to address <br /> 199 potential well impacts and that it wasn't possible for the Board to require same. He further reminded the Board that <br /> 200 the presumption this project would be the genesis of future problems was based on flawed logic. There was no way <br /> 201 to determine what could or could not happen. From a liability standpoint it would be difficult to determine this project <br /> 202 was the sole cause of contamination. <br /> 203 <br />