Agenda - 05-15-2001-9c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I to existing sewer systems. The County Commissioners will be setting up the specific rules for the extension of 2 the sewer system in Efland.. 3 4 Allison asked if anything had changed from when the concept plan was approved. Benedict said that in the 5 preliminary plat submission, it asked for a certification from the utility provider that sewer would be given. 6 Through the preliminary plan process, it was uncovered that verification of the availability of sewer is not the 7 same as a certification that a sewer system will be assigned for that speck property. 8 9 Allison asked how the Planning Board was going to address other situations like this in Efland. Benedict said 10 that the meeting on March 20th would. address a lot of these issues. He said that it makes sense to have sewer 11 systems where there are public water systems already in place. 12 13 Allison asked if Benedict was suggesting a moratorium of development in Efland and Benedict said no. He said 14 that, if a project of this type were going to proceed, the developer would have to ask the Board of County 15 Commissioners if they are willing to service with a public sewer system. 16 17 Chair Gooding -Ray made reference to the Water and Sewer Policy for Orange County and asked for 18 clarification on extending sewer services outside of the transition area. Benedict said that sewer services could 19 not be extended outside of the transition area unless the Comprehensive Plan was changed. 20 21 Woods made reference to the Upper Eno planning document and asked if this plan conformed to the provisions 22 as part of the Upper Eno sustainable planning area. Benedict showed the Upper Eno area on a map. He said 23 that the Commissioners want to make sure that there are edges of an urban growth boundary so that urban and 24 rural development is clearly separated. He said that the Efland Small Area plan, which includes the Buckhorn 25 EDD, was developed in 1995 and was anticipated for a water and sewer system. At this time, Orange- Alamance 26 does not have the capacity or the pressure to service the area, so there would be no reason for the County to 27 service that economic development area with sewer if there is no public water. 28 29 Holtkamp made reference to the letter of February 27, 2001 from Efland LLC and asked if the County Attorney 30 had responded. Benedict said that the County Attorney had not responded. She asked and Benedict clarified 31 that the letter from County Engineer Paul Thames said that sewer was only available and that it was not a 32 certification of sewer'services. Benedict said that the letter from Paul Thames was incorrect in that this entire 33 property is not within the transition area. (It is not known if Paul Thames was referring to the entire tract now in 34 question or a portion of the subject tract. 35 36 Holtkamp verified that the burden was on the developer to apply to the Commissioners to get a sewer 37 agreement. 38 39 Benedict reiterated that the letter from the County Engineer was not a certification from the utility provider of 40 Orange County or a certification that an agreement has been adopted by both parties. 41 42 Schofield asked if Paul Thames would be the appropriate authorizing agent for sewer accessibility if this area 43 had a master plan in place. Benedict said that a certain part of the process, if there was a master plan, was that 44 the County Engineer might be able to move the certification process farther along. The final certification is 45 when Orange County signs a document that sets forth the, obligations of them as the utility provider, and the 46 applicant signs a sewer agreement. 47 48 Allison said that it was disturbing to him that the developer was surprised at this process at this late stage. He 49 said that it seemed that the rules were changed and it is not fair to the developer. He said that there was never 50 any discussion with the Planning Board about the need for certification of sewer services. 51 52 Holtkamp said that certification of sewer services was not necessary for the concept plan. She does not think 53 that the developer has been misled. She said that she was going to make a resolution that the transitional areas