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

Browse Search

paragraph A it says that the County Engineer could only sign off on something if there is an adopted overall system plan. There is not an adopted plan for this area. 4 Brown disagreed. He thinks that the language indicates that this ordinance applies to all extensions in the 5 Efland sewer area. 6 7 Brown then continued by talking about the policy. He said that no one at the staff level appears to want to 8 address the technical merits of the subdivision. He said that this was a plan that utilizes contraction of living 9 areas into a smaller portion of the subdivision and an expansion of the undisturbed area. He said that the 10 developer thought that this project was consistent with the County goals in that it preserved a lot of open space. 11 He said that this project was not going to tie on to the Orange- Alamance line, but would have private water 12 utility. He said that he would like the subdivision considered on its technical merit. He urged the Planning 13 Board to recommend the subdivision to the County Commissioners. 14 15 Woods said that he could not responsibly vote for this subdivision that requires sewer service to proceed but 16 does not have it. Brown made reference to the letter from the County Engineer and said that there was capacity 17 for sewer service. He said that if there was a critical utility that was not going to be provided to the subdivision, 18 the project would stop at the building permit stage. 19 20 Brown said that the policy issues were not the responsibility of the Planning Board. 21 22 Woods asked if this subdivision had been planned for two years without referencing an Orange County water 23 and sewer policy that has been in place since 1991. Brown said that they had been proceeding for almost three 24 years with the understanding that this property was in the transition area. He made reference to a letter of July 25 17, 2000 from the staff to the developer and said that something has changed in the last six months. He quoted 26 from the letter as follows: "....in addition to the standard letter from the Orange County Engineer, agreeing to 27 connect the subdivision to existing services." 28 29 Woods made reference to page six of the water and sewer policy and the circumstances under which water and 30 sewer facilities would be extended. He quoted from the letter from the County Engineer, as follows: "Insofar as 31 your property and development proposals meet the applicable County land use zoning and subdivision 32 requirements and regulations. ". He said that it seems that this letter has no effect if this subdivision does not 33 meet the land use requirements. 34 35 Schofield said that he was troubled by the letter of February 18, 1999 and the recent developments that there 36 was no master plan in place for this area, which was not disclosed at the concept stage. He said that someone 37 owes the developer a big apology. However, he has a problem with the fact that half of the development is in. 38 the transition area. 39 40 Brown said that they were not given adequate notice to research the maps and present an affidavit. He said that 41 he was not asking for an extension. He is concerned about spending more time with the'sewer issue in Efland. 42 He said that they would thoroughly research this before it goes to the Commissioners. 43 44 Holtkamp said that she would like to see what was presented to the County Engineer in 1999. She asked what 45 would happen next if the staff has in fact made a mistake. Brown suggested that the Planning Board approve the 46 subdivision based on the technical merits and let the Commissioners deal with the sewer issue and the transition 47 area issue. 48 49 Holtkamp said that she was concerned about the language, "insofar as" in the letter from the County Engineer. 50 51 Several other clarifying questions were answered satisfactorily by Craig Benedict. 52