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