Agenda 10-07-2025; 5-a - Zoning Atlas Amendment – 3531 NC Highway 54 W, Chapel Hill, Bingham Township

Browse Search

191 Approved 9.3.25 1207 this all over the state for community wells everywhere, and there's no backup well. I do want to 1208 say that when we originally dug the well,we did a draw-down test, and this was back in 1209 November, and we had 90 gallons a minute. So, it's not that this was the first time it came up that 1210 we had 90 gallons. We already knew he had 90 gallons a minute, and it's very, very deep, so the 1211 thing that would fail would be a pump,which Aqua would come out and fix in the middle of the 1212 night. And it's the same thing if you had public water. My husband works for the town of Apex, 1213 and somebody busts out a water main, and people are out of water, and he has to go out there 1214 and fix it, so, it's the same type of situation. I just wanted to let you know that that's the plan. 1215 1216 Chris Johnston: Point of clarification. So,you mentioned. I apologize. When we originally talked the draw down 1217 and tests that you mentioned was in June? You just mentioned. 1218 1219 Donna Crowder: When we first drew the well,the purpose of drilling the well in the beginning was to make sure that 1220 we had water and that the project was viable. But part of that testing including draw-down tests. 1221 So,we had to know that. We initiated a second draw-down test just for the purposes of testing to 1222 make sure that our neighbors were not going to be affected. 1223 1224 Chris Johnston: Okay. So, the draw-down test initially. And I apologize. I'm not a hydrologist. I'll just be clear. 1225 So,the initial draw-down test found similar results as the secondary one, and so the reason it 1226 wasn't included in the packet was because they were so similar, or? I apologize because we 1227 asked originally about the November one. 1228 1229 Ward Marotti: Yeah, they were just, they were separate tests that. As she said the initial one was to determine 1230 what the capacity of the well was and ensure that there was sufficient capacity to move forward to 1231 be where we're standing right now. And then subsequent to that,the second test that I spoke 1232 about and the graphs in the packet are and the draw-down direct results that came from the 1233 drilling company were specifically in the context of impacts to adjacent single-use wells. So, 1234 they're stand-alone data, but what I believe what she was conveying was the result with regard to 1235 the capacity was essentially the same in both November when the precipitation conditions were 1236 not what they are today as well as what they were when we did it in the context of impacts to 1237 adjacent wells. 1238 1239 Chris Johnston: Okay. 1240 1241 Beth Trahos: And the purpose of the inclusion of the study in your packet was impacts on adjacent wells 1242 because that's what our neighbors asked us. Are you going to cause trouble for our well, not do 1243 you have enough water for your development. 1244 1245 Ward Marotti: Right. 1246 1247 Chris Johnston: Gotcha. So, the additional analysis that ended up in our packet specifically had the Griffin well in 1248 it, and its purpose was to show it wasn't effecting future, or nearby wells, but the draw-down test 1249 that happened in November was just for the viability of the project. 1250 1251 Beth Trahos: Correct. 1252 1253 Ward Marotti: Correct. 1254 1255 Chris Johnston: Okay. My fault. 1256 1257 David Barcal: Just,just to correct. The original draw-down test,which we call the 24-hour draw-down test is on 1258 Page 61 and that's specific to the actual permitting.Ward's test was specific to seeing the effects 1259 of the other wells. When we do the well permitting with DEQ they require this 24 hour. 1260 1261 Chris Johnston: I apologize. That one didn't have the pretty graph associated with it.