Browse
Search
Agenda 01-20-2026; 8-a - Minutes for November 14, 2025, November 18, 2025, November 21, 2025, December 1, 2025, and December 9, 2025 Meetings
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Agendas
>
Agendas
>
2026
>
Agenda - 01-20-2026 Business Meeting
>
Agenda 01-20-2026; 8-a - Minutes for November 14, 2025, November 18, 2025, November 21, 2025, December 1, 2025, and December 9, 2025 Meetings
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2026 10:53:53 AM
Creation date
1/15/2026 10:39:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/20/2026
Meeting Type
Business
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
8-a
Document Relationships
Agenda for January 20, 2026 BOCC Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\BOCC Archives\Agendas\Agendas\2026\Agenda - 01-20-2026 Business Meeting
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
260
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4 <br /> 1 which is the focus for Orange County. He highlighted a significant regulatory change with the <br /> 2 engineered option permit (EOP), which came about 8-9 years ago. Under this system, private <br /> 3 engineers can design systems, avoid the regulatory review process by essentially standing in <br /> 4 the shoes of the regulatory agency, administer their own quality control of the drawings that they <br /> 5 produced, and issue a permit for construction for that system. He noted that state regulatory <br /> 6 staff now review only about 10 percent of big system designs, with about 90 percent going <br /> 7 under this private option. He emphasized that this is a significant change. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Slide #6 <br /> Individual System vs. Community System <br /> Conventional ClusteTSeptic <br /> Septic System System <br /> D.nkq We <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Tony Whitaker explained that in an individual system, each house would have its own <br /> 12 septic tank and private distribution lines extending into the yard for dispersal. In contrast, a <br /> 13 community system serving four homes would have individual septic tanks for each home that <br /> 14 connect to a more centralized, compact dispersal field. This system is supported by common <br /> 15 pumping and control mechanisms that manage the effluent distribution, allowing the cluster <br /> 16 dispersal field to effectively serve all four homes as a single entity. This setup not only requires a <br /> 17 smaller total land area but also enhances land use efficiency, particularly when advanced <br /> 18 treatment levels are implemented, allowing for more compact neighborhood designs. <br /> 19 Chair Bedford asked about the relationship between topography and well water <br /> 20 placement relative to septic drain systems. <br /> 21 Tony Whitaker explained that while it's generally preferred for wells to be uphill from <br /> 22 septic systems, one can't always infer that groundwater is flowing like surface water is flowing. <br /> 23 He emphasized that horizontal separation is the key factor for protecting wells from wastewater <br /> 24 systems. <br /> 25 Chair Bedford asked about whether developers grade plots to use gravity flow. <br /> 26 Tony Whitaker said that it is preferred but not always feasible, and many community <br /> 27 systems use STEP (septic tank effluent pump) systems to get effluent from individual homes to <br /> 28 common dispersal areas. <br /> 29 Commissioner Greene said the Fiddlehead project proposal had that sort of system <br /> 30 where there was a pump between individual homes and the field. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.