HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-05-2012 - 6aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. to — OL
SUBJECT: Proposed UDO Text Amendment: New Section 6.20: Public Sewer Connection
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
Amendment Outline Form (UDO /Zoning-
2012 -07)
2. Ordinance Amendments
3. Public Comments
4. Map of Efland Sewer Service Area
5. Map of North Buckhorn Sewer Service
Area
6. February 27, 2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing Minutes
7. April 4, 2012 Planning Board Minutes
8. Draft May 2, 2012 Planning Board
Minutes
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin Lindley, Staff Engineer, 245 -2583
Craig Benedict, Director, 245 -2592
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on a Planning Director initiated text amendment to create a new Section 6.20
of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) outlining public sewer connection requirements.
BACKGROUND: This item was heard at the February 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and was
discussed at the April 4, 2012 and May 2, 2012 Planning Board meetings (minutes of these
meetings are included as Attachments 6, 7, and 8, respectively). At the April meeting, staff
received comments from the Planning Board and staff requested to re -visit this amendment at the
May 2, 2012 Planning Board meeting in order to give time for the public to submit comments on
the amendment. All public comment received as of the completion of this abstract has been
included at Attachment 3. Also of note, North Carolina General Statute 153A -284, which is
referenced in Attachment 2, gives the County the authority to require connection to sewer lines
operated by or on behalf of the County.
Planning Board Recommendation (Unanimous)
The Planning Board recommendation differed from staffs original proposal on one main point.
Specifically, that if an existing septic system fails and there is a viable repair area on the
property, the owner should have the option to use that repair area rather than be required to
connect to public sewer. Staff has incorporated this recommendation into paragraph (C) of the
proposed Section 6.20, included as Attachment 2 to this abstract.
2
Planning Director's Recommendation
The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed UDO amendment (Attachment
2) based on the following:
a) The UDO amendment is reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety,
and general welfare and to achieve the purposes of the adopted Comprehensive plan
or part thereof; and,
b) The UDO amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
c) The UDO amendment will promote a more financially sustainable public sewer system
to be operated by Orange County or other provider.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Please refer to Section C.3 of Attachment 1.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation of approval;
2. Close the public hearing; and
3. Adopt the Ordinance of Approval for the UDO text amendments contained within
Attachment 2.
Attachment 1 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning- 2012 -07
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
❑ Land Use Element Map:
From:
To:
❑ Zoning Map:
From:
To:
❑ Other:
Text Amendments
❑ Comprehensive Plan Text:
Section(s):
® UDO Text:
❑UDO General Text Changes
®UDO Development Standards
❑UDO Development Approval Processes
..... _ _... _ ..
Section(s): New section 6.20
Article 10: Definitions (the definition added to this section was
developed after the quarterly public hearing)
❑ Other:
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose /Mission
This text change to the UDO will require that any new construction within a
designated County sewer service area would have to use the public sewer system as
its means of wastewater treatment.
1
2. Analysis
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance, the
Planning Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of the application
and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by
the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners'.
Orange County has committed to installing over $4 million worth of sewer
infrastructure in the Buckhorn and Efland communities. This sewer system extension
benefits public health because it allows a reliable alternative to septic systems, many
of which are failing or in poor condition. The sewer system also provides the
potential for economic development in these areas because growth and development
will not be limited by the wastewater capacity of the soil. However, to remain a viable
enterprise, the sewer system must have customers. The areas where sewer lines
have been extended are designated as growth areas and are generally situated
along major roads. In terms of a long range plan to encourage growth in these
designated areas, it makes sense to require any new construction to use the sewer
system. This was also recommended in the Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan, Section
IV.A.3.c.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
1.3.6. SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Water conservation efforts have been a critical piece in managing water
supplies through recent droughts. County level coordination is needed to
manage water resources that will serve future populations. Placing public
water and sewer facilities near areas targeted for dense development can
reinforce a more sustainable land use pattern.
Section 8.3 Services and Community Facilities Goal 1:
Efficient provisions of public water and sewer service systems
which are consistent with the Land Use Plan and which abide by
the current Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary
Agreement (WASMPBA), the existing Orange County - Chapel Hill - Carrboro
Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan, and future
agreements to be negotiated among the County and public and
private service providers.
Section 8.3 Services and Community Facilities Goal 2:
Adequate, safe, and healthy groundwater withdrawal and
wastewater disposal systems with minimal impacts upon water
and land resources.
Section 8.4.1.3. Objectives
Objective WW -2:
Coordinate the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer services
with the Orange County Land Use Plan and Orange County - Chapel Hill -
Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan, targeting
these services to urban, transitional, and economic development
2
districts in a manner that does not endanger environmental
resources. (See also Land Use Objective LU -1.1, Housing Objective H-
1.5, and Economic Development Objective ED- 2.10.)
4. New Statutes and Rules (N /A)
......... .... -__
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME /MILESTONES /DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
November 1, 2011
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission /Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements
a. Planning Board Review:
January 4, 2012 — Ordinance Review Committee
April 4, 2012 (review and comment)
May 2, 2012 (further review and recommendation)
......... _ . ....... ._.. . ... ......_
b. Advisory Boards:
c. Local Government Review:
Orange County Environmental Health
Staff review
d. Notice Requirements
Legal ad was published on February 15 and 22, 2012.
e. Outreach:
91
A
._ .
6
® General Public: Consistent with NC State Statutes and Orange County
Ordinance Requirements
❑ Small Area Plan Workgroup:
® Other: Residents in the service area as defined by engineering staff, due to
the impact on the future use of their septic systems, were contacted
by letter immediately following the April 4, 2012, Planning Board
meeting. A copy of the proposed amendment was included in the
correspondence, along with instructions on how to voice any
comments they may have.
3. FISCAL IMPACT
The addition of customers to the sewer system will help make the system viable for
future operation by spreading the cost of operating the sewer system to more people.
However, for some users, the cost of connecting to the sewer system will be more
than the cost of installing a septic system, depending on the suitability of their soils,
the orientation of their lot, distance to the nearest sewer line and other factors.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
New development in designated public sewer service areas would be required to
connect to the public sewer system if the conditions of the proposed new section 6.20
apply. A definition of designated public sewer service areas will be added to Article 10
of the UDO and will serve to identify all current and any future areas affected by this
amendment. It should be noted that this amendment will require connection to any
public sewer service system in the County's zoning jurisdiction and utility service area,
as defined by WASMPBA. The manner of connection and specific steps which must be
taken to connect to public sewer service will be defined by the governing rules of the
particular sewer system in question.
__.._ ....... .. .......
__..
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
See Attachment 2
Primary Staff Contact:
Kevin Lindley, 245 -2583
Craig Benedict, 245 -2592
Michael Harvey, 245 -2597
II
Ordinance #: i901 a' 0Q0
Attachment 2
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the County has invested substantially in the installation of public sewer
service due to the need for reliable wastewater treatment options in these areas, and
WHEREAS, the viability of the public sewer system enterprise is dependent upon
having customers connected to the system, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153A -284, the County has
the power to require connection to a sewer system operated by or on behalf of the County,
and
WHEREAS, the County has found the proposed text amendments to be reasonably
necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare and to achieve the
purposes of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153A -341 and Section 1.1.7
of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County
has found the proposed text amendments to be consistent with the goals and policies of
the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Unified
Development Ordinance of Orange County is hereby amended as depicted in the attached
pages.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance be placed in the book of
published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2012.
7
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on
2012 as relates in any way to
the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the
said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
, 2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
T
Article 6: Development Standards
Section 6.20: Public Sewer connection
whether a special exception should be granted as provided in Section 6.19.8(C) or for the
hearing of an appeal of a School District denial of a CAPS as provided in Section 6.19.9.
(C) A copy of a request for a CAPS special exception or of an appeal of a School District
denial of a CAPS shall be served on the superintendent of the School District. Service
may be made by personal delivery or certified mail, return receipt requested.
6.20.1 Required Use of Public Sewer Service
(A) All structures or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation, or other
purposes are required, at the property owner's expense, to connect wastewater facilities
directly to the public wastewater system in accordance with the provisions of the
governing sewer use ordinance of the public sewer system provided that the following
conditions apply:
(1) The property is in a designated public sewer service area.
(2) A public gravity sewer line or gravity sewer manhole is adjacent to or crosses the
property. In this case, adjacent is defined as one or more of the following:
(a) the easement for the sewer line is on the property or butted against the
property line and within 500 feet of the structure to be connected;
(b) the gravity sewer line or gravity sewer manhole is located in a public
right-of-way of a public road which borders the property, whether on the
same side of the road itself or the opposite side, such that no private
easement would be required to allow the property owner to connect and
within 500 feet of the structure to be connected;
(3) The structure or property to be connected is within the Water and Sewer
Management Planning and Boundary Agreement Primary Service Area for
Orange County;
(4) The North Carolina Department of Transportation is willing to grant an
encroachment into public road right-of-way for the purpose of connecting to the
public sewer system, if necessary.
(B) If the structure or property is situated below the elevation necessary to obtain a one-
percent grade in the sewer connection line, but is otherwise accessible to a public sewer
as provided in (A) above, the owner shall provide a private sewage pumping station.
Design and installation of the pumping station shall adhere to all State and local plumbing
and other building codes, in addition to adhering to all the connection requirements and
standard specifications of the governing sewer use ordinance.
(C) If an existing septic facility is determined by the Orange County Environmental Health
Department to have failed (or be inadequate for the current or proposed use) and the
property is accessible to a public sewer system as provided in (A), the owner shall be
required to connect to the public sewer system unless a viable repair area can be
identified on the property. If a viable repair area is identified on the property,the owner
shall not be required to connect to the public sewer system, but may choose to connect if
so desired.
(D) There shall be no such connection requirement for any structure or property if an
adequate septic facility is currently in use and in good working order.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 6-145
Article 10: Definitions 10
Section 10.1: Definitions
Day Care
Any child care arrangement under which a child less than 13 years of age receives care away from his
own home by persons other than his parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters who are
not minors, guardians or full time custodians.
Day Care Facility
Any day care center or child care arrangement that provides day care for more than five children, not
including the operator's school age children, under the age of 13, on a regular basis of at least once per
week for more than four hours but less than 24 hours per day, and those operating fewer than four hours
per day that provide care for more children per adult care giver than would be permitted in an AA State
licensed center, regardless of the time of day and regardless of whether the same children attend
regularly.
The following facilities are not included:
a) Public schools;
b) Non-public schools whether or not accredited by the State Department of Public Instruction,
which regularly and exclusively provide a course of grade school instruction to children who are of
public school age;
c) Summer camps having children in full-time residence;
d) Bible schools conducted for no more than three weeks during vacation periods; and
e) Cooperative arrangements among parents who care only for their own children in an arrangement
as a matter of convenience rather than to enable any participating parent to be employed.
Day Care Home, Large
A Day Care Facility located on a public state-maintained road, which provides day care for more than five
but fewer than 16 children, within a residence.
Dedication
A gift, by the owner, of land for a specified purpose, or purposes. Because a transfer of property is
entailed, dedication must be made by written instrument and is completed with an acceptance.
Designated Public Sewer Service Area
An area located within Orange County's Primary Service Area in the Water and Sewer Management,
Planning, and Boundary Agreement, that is currently served by public sewer or is expected to be served
by public sewer in the near-term (e.g., 18 months; demonstrated by issuance of an advertisement for bid,
or similar device, for construction of public sewer facilities).
Detention Pond
A engineered stormwater control consisting of a pond constructed and maintained in accordance with
Appendix A of this Ordinance, which allows for pollutants to settle and provides for the gradual release of
the impounded water. The detention pond is the Best Management Practice which must be used within
protected watersheds when engineered stormwater controls are required. (See also, Best Management
Practices and Engineered Stormwater Controls)
Development
Any constructed change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or
other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, or storage of
equipment or materials. Also includes any land-disturbing activity which adds to or changes the amount
of impervious or partially impervious cover on a land area or which otherwise decreases the infiltration of
precipitation into the soil.
Development, Existing
In the context of Stormwater provisions of this Ordinance for projects that do not require a State permit,
shall be defined as those projects that are built, or those projects that at a minimum have established a
vested right under North Carolina zoning law as of the effective date of Orange County's Water Supply
Watershed Protection Ordinance, or such earlier time that other Orange County ordinances shall specify,
based on at least one of the following criteria:
Orange County,North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 10-6
A4W. 3
11
From: Kristen Marbais [mailto:krisnine @hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 10:51 PM
To: Kevin Lindley
Subject: 6.20 Public Sewer Connection amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance
I'm writing in regards to the proposed amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance.
Requiring new buildings and properties with failed septic systems to use the sewer system is wasteful in that:
a. The sewer system uses resources and energy that a septic tank does not. Where a septic tank could
serve the same purpose, the sewer system would be wasting those resources.
b. By requiring its use when not necessary, you will reach the system's capacity sooner than you would
otherwise, resulting in the need for additional resources.
As part of our county government, you should be doing what is best for the county. Requiring waste and
taking money out of people's pockets is not in the best interest of the county. You should be anxious to reduce
waste and help our resources go as far as possible, as well as maintaining rather than straining the residents' level
of income. If anything, you should be encouraging the use of and educating on the proper maintenance of septic
tanks wherever possible. Enabling your residents to be as self- sufficient as possible should always be a priority.
There was a public meeting held at Efland- Cheeks to inform us of what was going on and to answer
questions. The locations of connections and the costs if we signed up at a later date were thoroughly discussed at
the meeting. When the topic of septic tanks came up, one of the speakers tried to dissuade us from replacing old
ones and to use the sewer system by talking about the costs involved. After weighing all of our options, my
husband and I opted not to sign up, deciding instead to replace our septic tank if there is ever a need. In the long
run, the cost of using the sewer system will prove much higher than replacing a septic tank would be.
Our property is on the opposite side of the road from the new sewage line, and because we did not sign up
to connect to the system, there should not have been any digging in our yard. However, one day, there were men
digging a huge trench in the yard. After calling to find out what was going on, we were told by Kevin Lindley that
the stubouts were already in the plans and bid on by the contractor. At the public meeting, we were not told this.
At the meeting, we were told that a stubout would not be put in unless we signed up to connect. Was it assumed
that we would all sign up? Kevin also said it's "better for the integrity of the system to install a stubout when the
main line is being put in." This is perfectly reasonable and acceptable. However, it is not acceptable that we
weren't notified of this change in advance, especially considering that we received numerous letters to sign up.
Your recent letter about the amendment states that we will not be forced to abandon our functioning septic
systems, but how do we know that isn't the next change you have in mind? It seems that you are only willing to
inform us of your plans when it is convenient or required.
If there were a legitimate reason for this amendment, it would have been discussed up front and would
have been included in the letter. You need to keep in mind the people who are affected by these decisions. Don't
forget that you are supposed to be doing what is best for us. This proposed amendment is not what is best for our
wellbeing or for the future of our community.
Thank you,
Kristen Marbais
12
From: Pam Clarke [pclarke08l5 @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:14 AM
To: Kevin Lindley
Subject: UDO Amendment -214 N. Oak, Efland
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for taking the time last week to explain the proposed required use of the public sewer system in Efland. I
bought a small house right off Hwy 70 in January, 2011, and then found out about the sewer system being installed.
Between closing costs, down payment and repairs, the financial burden was prohibitive as my house was not
"grandfathered" for the connection fees to be waived. So I am not connected. The house is now rental property and I
am concerned that the additional investment will be worthwhile. However, having spoken with you and understanding
the history, logic and environmental impact of too many septic tanks in too small an area, if the choice comes down to
reneiging on my mortgage loan and coming up with the funds to connect, I feel better that the Efland area will
continue to be a viable investment.
Contrarily, if my septic fails and my lot is large enough to install another septic field, that is the course I would like to
be allowed to take. In my particular case, the lot size may be prohibitive, but other home - owners have an option at
this point and I am opposed to having that right removed by law. As I said, how can the government tell me I have to
drive a Cadillac when I am perfectly happy with my Ford?
Additionally, I don't see that Orange County is providing any financial assistance (a long -term low- interest loan to be
added to your sewer bill) for connection costs. If you are aware of any existing local or federal programs for this, I
would like to see those published in the amendment. Even better, Orange County could come up with a program
providing assistance. Some home - owners have lived in Efland 30 years and longer and may not be able to afford the
transition costs.
I appreciate your consideration of my position at the May 2, 2012 meeting. I will contact the Orange County property
tax folks with my address change so I will receive timely notices of proposals and decisions.
Sincerely,
Pam Clarke
600 N. Charles Street
Mebane, NC 27302
W]
From: Efland, Taylor [mai Ito: t-efla nd@ti.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 2:47 PM
To: Efland, Taylor; Kevin Lindley
Cc: sdmontana @gmail.com; peterefland @yahoo.com; signatureblindsinc @yahoo.com; Frank Clifton; Debra Graham;
Donna Baker; Craig Benedict; Bernadette Pelissier
Subject: RE: Proposal of ammendment 6.20.1
Kevin, please accept and consider this as formal part of the public record pertaining to the proposed amendment 6.20.1
1. In the cover letter there is reference to "newly constructed" second line of paragraph two, and in "D" of the amendment
it eludes to required usage connection does not applying to existing working systems. Hence, it might be more
appropriate restate the introduction to "A" of the amendment as "(A) All structures or properties constructed after "date
of amendment proposal" used for ......... ". The entire context of the amendment would be set immediately and what
follows would be much clearer.
2. In paragraph "(C)" sub paragraph "(1)" the language is a little confusing with reference to paragraph "(B) ". It would
seem that "(C) sub (1)" could be clearer to understand if paragraph "B" were re written as "If the said new structure ... ".
a. It just seems that paragraph "B" and "C" area little confusing sense "B" references "C" and "C" references
back up to "B "; hence, it is a circular reference. Maybe sense "B" is about pumping requirements of a new
system that does not meet the downhill grade, and "C" is about exceptions, then just removing the reference to
"C" in paragraph "B" would remove the circular reference.
3. Further in paragraph "(C)" subparagraph "(1)" it is stated "If aseptic system repair .....Department and the connection
....would require ....as given in (B) above ....... Owner shall be allowed to use either of these two options." seems to be
ambiguous. Does the "and" mean like a logical "and" such that both conditions have to be true or should that be an "or"
meaning as stated "allowed to use either of these two options "; otherwise, I would ask what does "allow to use either of
these two options" mean.
Anyway it seems that (C) could be written and stated more clearly and not left open for interpretation.
Regards,
Taylor R Efland, PE
Attachment 4 14
!E a�i � ! ' �`r - ■ Y
m o N -v u)
�`- Y'�
U b
xt tin o o 3 o Q +
_ 1
aYi 2: _ = a'i c N
UE E c
Co oo W = �
o
o•- —
U) °toj v° ai°i a�i
li W l4 ZQ'W r N W d d a- rj0- ( ! -'
,
D y ; -��----------
LL
C _ _ r
Ij
Q �J
y
m
'0 c*4
� a Q
RIG M
- --
J�
------------
Co -
�I
_ Attachment 5
LO i d r8
co
1j I j 11 N t'y
m
OF
1 W
l
w
_ --; f I ,
z
i C0 �.
0
gUCKHORN.
S SHAMBI-EY RD v RD
LLI
--
i
RD °v 1
1 _- BUGKHOR-N Z ------- I
m oho
' uj -
co 0
CP
� N
S I j co �o)k j
CO
LU
o
l
i L
a z
Excerpt of Minutes
APPROVED 3/22/2012
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
February 27, 2012
7:00 P.M.
16
!!::]6
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, February 27, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at DSS Offices,
Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners
Valerie P. Foushee, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Alice M. Gordon
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager
Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Vice Chair Lary Wright,
Pete Hallenbeck, Mark Marcoplos, H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Johnny Randall, Andrea Rohrbacher,
Lisa Stuckey
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Maxecine
Mitchell, Alan Campbell
Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford announced the agenda and read the public charge.
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments - To review govern
in ' d amendments to the text of the LIDO to add a conditional zoning distr' EDP
CZ -1) t ould be applicable to the geographic area addressed in t Highway
57 /Speedway Ar94 Small Area Plan and other necessary ame nts to implement
recommendations m the small area plan.
Planner Glenn Bowles made a
Unified Development Ordinance Te endments
NC Highway 57 Rural Econo evelopment Area
Conditional Use (REDA -CZ -1) District
• Enc ge compatible, non - residential development,
17
WHAT THIS DOES NOT DO:
Alter /modify submittal requirements
Alter /modify pre - application standards (i.e. balloon test, notification of surrounding
property owners, etc.)
ter /modify inspection requirements for towers both during and after construction
Eli 'nate /modify required fees, including consulting escrow fee
RECOMMEND ,ION:
1. Receive th request,
2. Conduct the blic Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board mments
3. Refer the matte to the Planning Board with a request that a recommend on be
returned to the Co ty Board of Commissioners in time for the May 1 12 BOCC
regular meeting.
4. Adjourn the public hear until May, 2012 in order to receive a accept the Planning
Board's recommendation d any submitted written comme
Clarifying questions were answer by staff.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the tbkver heightrelpt6d to bird fatalities. He suggested that it
would be nice to track that in the document so how. missioner Jacobs made reference to
,pf page 5 and avoiding areas with protected natural 7��Itural resources. He asked about the
environmental assessment.
Michael Harvey made reference to paps 25- 2)here there are provisions about
environmental assessments. \
Commissioner Jacobs said that a County requires �t developments identify significant
natural areas and have a plan to pro &&tt them or avoid them. He,,would like this reflected.
A motion was made by mmissioner Hemminger, secon d by Commissioner Yuhasz to
refer the matter to the Planni Board with a request that a recomme ation be returned to the
County Board of C:22nocomments. m' hers in time for the May 1, 2012 BOCC reg ar meeting and adjourn the
public hearing until 12 in order to receive and accept the Planning oard's recommendation
and any submitted
VOTE: UNAN
�nmissioner Yuhasz asked to amend the motion to include Commissioner
about the natural areas.
ON AMENDED MOTION: UNANIMOUS
5. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments - To review government -
initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to add a new Section 6.20 that will pertain to
public sewer connection requirements.
Planning staff Kevin Lindley gave background on this material. In general, this is a new
section, Section 6.20. About 25 years ago, the County invested in a small sewer system in
Efland for the general purpose of improving public health by helping out with some failing septic
systems. The County is currently constructing a sewer system as an extension to that original
18
system to serve the same purpose and fulfill a promise that was made to the citizens in that
area. There is relatively high density and poor soil, so this system will provide help to this area.
This will also help with the Efland Small Area Plan in that it will assist with the economic
development. This new section describes how no one will be paying the County back for this
system. Any new development in areas where sewer system is available will be required to
connect to the system. However, people with functioning septic systems can continue to use
their system. If a property owner's system fails, then they would be required to connect to this
system.
The recommendation is to receive public comment and to refer the matter to the
Planning Board for a recommendation back to the Board of County Commissioners on April
17'h.
Commissioner McKee said that he understands that property owners with a previously
approved repair area would not be able to use that if their system failed and would have to
connect to this system. It was answered yes. Commissioner McKee said that this concerns
him.
Frank Clifton said that all of the citizens of Orange County are subsidizing the users of
this system now and the revenues do not even cover the costs of operating the system. This is
the standard to require people to connect to this system if their systems fail. Ultimately, the
County will be turning this system over to the City of Mebane and their policies will take
precedence.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he shares Commissioner McKee's concerns. He
thought that an alternative was that there was a compromise for people to be able to use their
repair area and not have to hook on. He thinks that C1 is a good compromise because it allows
for some reasonable continuation.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that there are a number of parcels that are served by sewer
that are very large. He asked if there was any consideration given to maximum distance.
Kevin Lindley said that this is more of a concern for a pumping system and this is not as
much of a concern with this system.
Frank Clifton said that there may be some provisions that make sense.
Pete Hollenbeck said that he does not think that anyone in Efland who would say that
this makes sense to have to hook onto a system when there is an approved repair area. He
said that no one will think this is a good idea.
Commissioner McKee asked that there be an amendment that a viable repair area be
acceptable for a septic system that fails.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; adjourn the public hearing until April
17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any
submitted written comments; with the addition that it be returned to the Planning Board with the
suggestion that the Planning Board discuss and consider an additional item #2 using an
approved repair as a possible alternative, and also to consider distances.
NO PUBLIC COMMENT
Commissioner Jacobs said that when the Planning Board considers this, then maybe it
could consider whether this is ad infinitum or whether there would be a time limit beyond which
property owners would have to hook up.
Frank Clifton suggested having the time limit be until ownership is transferred to the City
of Mebane.
Brian Crawford asked that the motion be extended because April 170' will not be enough
time to consider this.
Craig Benedict pointed out that the cost of connecting to the public sewer system is
probably comparable to creating a repair area. It may be financial viable and preferable to tie
into the system versus encumbering the land, etc.
Commissioner McKee withdrew his motion. Commissioner Foushee agreed.
Commissioner McKee informally asked the Planning Board to consider the comments
that were made about the repair area.
John Roberts said that once a motion has been made and seconded, then it has to have
a vote.
VOTE: All Nay
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
BOCC no sooner than April 17, 2012; and adjourn the public hearing until the BOCC considers
this item again in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any
submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments - To review gover ei
initiated amendments to thV text of the UDO to revise the Table of Permitted U s for
B -1 (Section 5.2) to make the district more retail- oriented and to revise ction
5.1. to reduce the list of Conditional Use District exclusions within the I d use
classi tions targeted for non - residential development.
Planner
Unified Development Ordl
UDO/ZONING 2012 -01
Quarterly Public Hearing
February 27, 2012
Item C.6
made a PowerPoint presentation.
(UDO) Amendments
Sections Proposed for AmeXn
❑ Section 5.1.4 — Condit
❑ Section 5.2.2 — Table es- Econom' Deve l
Only)
Purpose
To create additional econ is development options in the areas
higher intensity develo ent
❑ Redu�tl_mist of Conditional Use Exclusions for the following
ercial- Industrial Transition Activity Node
Economic Development Transition Activity Node
❑ 32 uses not permitted as a Conditional Use
Districts (EDB -1 District
County designated for
Classifications:
19
Attachment 7
Approved 5/2/12 20
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 4, 2012
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright (Vice- Chair), At- Large, Cedar Grove Township; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township Representative;
Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill
Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; Mark Marcoplos, At- Large, Bingham Township;
Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township
Representative
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Crawford (Chair), Eno Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At -Large Chapel Hill Township;
STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Kevin Lindley, Staff
Engineer; Glenn Bowles, Planner II; Tina Love Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Ed Kielty
Handouts- staff handed out a copy of the PowerPoint presentation of the photos used for Item 8
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Larry Wright: I would like to bring this meeting to order.
Introduction of new member, Mr. Tony Blake representing Bingham Township.
Agenda Item 7: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments - To make a recommendation to the BOCC on
government- initiated amendments to the text of the LIDO to add a new Section 6.20 that will pertain to public
sewer connection requirements. This item was heard at the February 27, 2012 quarterly public hearing.
Presenter: Kevin Lindley, Staff Engineer
Kevin Lindley: Reviewed abstract.
Larry Wright: I am thinking of the Economic Development District where we would possibly be sharing sewer resources with Durham,
how does this interface with that?
Kevin Lindley: One of the provisions in the amendment is essentially if you look at A. 1.c if the property is in a designated public sewer
service area, then they would be required to connect. The idea in the economic development zone is that Orange County will not be
installing a sewer line to every doorstep but a main backbone system from which developers could connect to alleviate some major
costs. In those areas, projecting into the future, we would designate that area as a public sewer service area so they would connect
based on that.
Tony Blake: Wasn't Larry's question more to if we are following Mebane's rules to the west, are we going to follow Durham's rules to
the east or come up with our own or are we going to be consistent?
Kevin Lindley: In all cases, the presiding sewer service ordinance for that area would be the one you would follow. All the sewer use
ordinances and policies would still apply in Durham or Mebane. I haven't investigated Durham's policies but it would be the same sort
of thing. That extension of Durham's system into Orange County is still Durham's system so all the sewer use ordinances and policies
that go along with that would still apply and this would be a layer on top of that.
Approved 5/2/12 21
Larry Wright: I guess where I was headed with that question it down the line would 6.20.1A.1b have to be revised once we start
working with water and sewer for these other Economic Development Districts?
Kevin Lindley: It could possibly have to be revised but at this point, I haven't investigated the Durham side of it.
Pete Hallenbeck: The 500 feet, what is the required run to drop ratio as in a house for domestic plumbing, if you are connecting the
house to septic tank, it is on quarter inch per foot? Is there a difference of how much you have drop per distance for sewer?
Kevin Lindley: I think the rule is one eighth inch per foot.
Pete Hallenbeck: If you are 500 feet away you are still coming up with 62 feet of drop.
Kevin Lindley: One foot per hundred. It would be five feet at the minimum slope. You always like it to be more than that but at the
minimum that's what you would be looking at.
Pete Hallenbeck: One thing I don't like about this is that if you got a building permit and put in a conventional septic and if that
happened recently, you had to have a repair area. In my opinion, if you have a viable repair area above or below, you should be
allowed to use it. If that structure is on there when it was permitted, you had to put that area aside. In the process of building anything
if you have to have both a main area and a repair area, it impacts what you can build, if you set aside areas you have to clear and so
forth. For the County to turn around and say you have to have this repair area and then say, we have put all this money in the sewer
system, so you cannot use this repair area we forced you to have and not build on doesn't make sense. For that reason, I would not
think it is a good idea. If you have a valid repair area, you should have the option of using it.
Kevin Lindley: To that point, one of the things we wanted to be sure of is that we had adequate public input on this. We had no one
speak at the public hearing. We feel like we need to reach out to the people in the areas that are affected and discuss the amendment
tonight and continue until the next meeting to give time for people to send the written comments in as well.
Alan Campbell: Pete, how likely do you think it is that if you were given the option of rebuilding your system or repair area or
connecting to the sewer that it would more expensive to connect to the sewer. It seems in most cases, it would be cheaper compared
to if you had to rebuild the septic system.
Pete Hallenbeck: The documents that were sent from staff stated price now and price to connect later. I think the price to connect later
was fairly high.
Kevin Lindley: It is a variable cost depending on other things. One of those things is that if we continue to send out waste water to
Hillsborough, they have a significant waste water capital fee for new customers that would be charged in addition to Orange County
fees. If we have sent out waste water to Mebane, it would be significantly less. In general it is roughly equivalent depending on what
you have to do to get to your area.
Pete Hallenbeck: Most of the connect fee was in the $2,500.00 range.
Mark Marcoplos: He's exactly right, you are not only paying for the connection but for a subscription in the future. You should have
the option to make the decision for yourself. I would also vote against it. If you are new to the neighborhood and you have these
circumstances and you haven't entered into any agreement and you have to connect to the system, you take that into consideration
and you understand why it is there.
Pete Hallenbeck: I have no problem with new builds must connect.
Tony Blake: What if you buy an existing house? One thought is water and sewer is a package, you don't get one without the other
right?
Kevin Lindley: Generally, that is true. We do have customers that have wells and there are several water only customers
Tony Blake: This is aimed primarily at an Industrial zone so the premise is these properties will be converting over to businesses?
Kevin Lindley: Not necessarily.
Tony Blake: I noticed the conversation was mostly about residential.
4
Approved 5/2/12 22
Kevin Lindley: The Efland area is primarily residential.
Lisa Stuckey: The reason the sewer was extended to the Efland area was because of the failing septic fields and the public health was
almost a crisis that was taking place. How many of these people really have backup fields that are conventional and how would we
determine looking ahead on when the second field failing. Are you just prolonging a public health problem by not getting these folks on
the sewer? This has real health implications. How many would have that option and how viable is that option in terms of public health?
Kevin Lindley: I am not an expert in the environmental health field. My understanding is that when they added the requirement for the
repair area recently. Maybe 20 years. At the time, they had moved to the point they were testing soils instead of digging pits and
putting water it in. I would think a repair area that is designated would be viable but there are quite a few of the smaller areas in Efland
that do not have repair areas.
Pete Hallenbeck: I think Efland is all over the map. There are a lot of areas that are one quarter acre lot and the soil is not happy and
has to go on the sewer. There are other people that have one half and one acre lots. The repair area has to meet the current rules.
Mark Marcoplos: Septic systems are really quite eloquent system. If they are done right, they work pretty well. I think it has to be a
case by case basis.
Tony Blake: How do you write an ordinance around that?
Kevin Lindley: At this point, I am asking that we continue it to May. I wanted to see what discussion was generated here and send this
draft in the packet out to the public for comment. My understand it they have to send comments in writing for it to be accepted in the
public hearing debate and to be heard if they choose to come and speak.
Larry Wright: What I would like to do in response to that is to go around to each one of the members and ask them if they want to
make a statement for you to go on the record.
Mark Marcoplos: I would be okay with requiring people to hook up to the system if they had a failure to their system and did not have
an adequate repair area. If they had a failure with an adequate area, it is still logical and fair for them to be able to use their own
system.
Andrea Rohrbacher: My first comment is on disclosure. If the property has a failed system and another system is put in the failed area
and the property is sold, is that disclosed to the purchaser of the property that the failed area is in use and there is no option other than
to connect at that point. That is something I would want clarification on. I think for public health reasons, if the septic system fails and
if the property has the ability to connect to the sewer that it should be required to connect for public health reasons.
Lisa Stuckey: I agree with the second part of what Andrea says but I could be persuaded if someone from Public Health came in and
said it is okay to use the backup. I would fall out toward the public health solution.
Pete Hallenbeck: If you are on a lot that when you built it required you to have a repair area and you have a failure of your septic
system and that repair area is viable and meets the current regulations, you should have the option of using the repair area or the
sewer. If it is new construction in an area that has access to sewer I am on board with requiring you have to use the sewer.
Tony Blake: I agree with both sides and the only concern I have is that most of the time, in my experience, the septic system fails
because they were not maintained correctly and it was a maintenance issue in most cases. I am afraid that if someone that didn't
maintain the first one; they will not maintain the second either. I would like to reserve my opinion and acquaint myself with the area
and drive through and see how big the lots are and how many new homes there are and get a feel for the lay of the land there. I can
see both sides of the issue.
Rachel Hawkins: I am all for public health safety. If they are new consumer they should have to connect to what is existing but I am
with Pete that they should have a choice if their lot has a repair lot. I think they should have a choice.
Buddy Hartley: I am with Pete.
Alan Campbell: I would say the same as Pete and I would suggest that we could address it with some type of grandfather clause.
Approved 5/2/12 23
Maxecine Mitchell: I am going to go with Pete and Mark. I think people should have an option. It an area is set aside and is still
workable there should be an option. It is unfair if you had someone to set aside the property for that purpose and it is usable and then
say you can't use it.
Larry Wright: Thank you, I have nothing new to add.
Michael Harvey: If it is the board's pleasure to have the various questions answered and for Kevin to inform residences of what is
going on and solicit their input then the motion needs to be made to table this item to the regular May meeting. As you will note from
your attachment, the County Commissioners request that you make a recommendation for their May 1 meeting. Part of what staff will
have to do is inform the County Commissioners that they will have to continue the Public Hearing until another date and time certain.
Kevin Lindley: I think the request was no sooner than April 17. We put May 1 in the document because that was the first meeting we
thought we could get on the board's agenda.
Mark Marcoplos: It seems to be that we have already fleshed out the options people will express. I don't know why it needs to carry
on much longer. Why don't we give it to the County Commissioners and say here is what we said tonight. I don't believe there is any
other optional perspective from the public.
Larry Wright: Is there any way we can craft that into a motion If I am reading Mark correctly said that we could craft that into a motion
and have that presented to the Board of County Commissioners and respond to them by their April 17th deadline.
Kevin Lindley: It was no sooner than. It can be later.
Michael Harvey: I think the easiest to do is to make a motion to table this so Kevin can respond to the questions been posed and he
could solicit input from the impacted property owners and staff will report progress to the County Commissioners on where you are and
you will reconvene at the May regular meeting and take the time to review the item.
Ed Kielty: I am a new resident of Orange County. An area that I have not heard discussed is, I have purchased a tract of land that is
in a development but this tract does not have an easement to public sewer. To get to the public sewer line, you would have to cross
other private property homeowners. What kind of allowance is made?
Kevin Lindley: The definition of adjacent of that if the sewer line actually crosses the property or you can get to the sewer line without
crossing private property.
Ed Kielty: A.1c says that if any one (1) of these conditions exist, so it is not that all A, B and C exist but any one of them.
Kevin Lindley: Right, so you would not be required to connect.
Tony Blake: The key word there is adjacent. In this case, adjacent is defined as one or more.
Pete Hallenbeck: Look at 1 C, my property is in a public sewer area, therefore whatever it takes I have got to....
Tony Blake: I see what you are saying. It says one of more. He would be trapped by C and would have to get an easement or
something.
Kevin Lindley: The public sewer service area was not intending to designate a community like Efland where you are running private
sewer to serve most of the existing residences as they are now. It is more to cover areas where you expect broad development where
the county is putting sewer infrastructure in.
Tony Blake: You could solve the question by moving C to the paragraph above and say the property is within a designated public
sewer service area and one or more of the following is true and strike item C.
Ed Kielty: My development is a 500 home development, there was a lot they missed, I've got that lot. Everything has been developed,
nothing new there....
Larry Wright: I would like to move on with this. We understand his concern and that it is not met by this. If you want to meet with him
and adjust this, I would like to move on.
E
Approved 5/2/12 24
Michael Harvey: My recommendation was that you defer action requesting that Kevin secure answers to the various questions and
concerns addressed here tonight including notifying the impacted property owners of this so they can provide written comments to the
Planning Board and that you will hear this item at your May regular meeting and that Planning Staff will inform the County
Commissioners that you will hear this at the May meeting and handle any appropriate continuation of the public hearing.
MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to defer action on item and request that staff secure answers to the questions and concerns raised
including notifying the impacted property owners so they can provide written comments to the Planning Board and will re -hear this item
at the May Planning Board meeting and planning staff will inform the BOCC that we will hear this at the May meeting and handle nay
appropriate continuation of the public hearing. Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell.
VOTE: 9 -1 (Marcoplos opposed)
Mark Marcoplos: I don't think we are going to learn anything substantial between now and then and these issues get dragged out all
the time.
DRAFT
.,e-.} F 25
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MAY 2, 2012
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford (Chair), Eno Township Representative; Lary Wright (Vice- Chair), At- Large, Cedar
Grove Township; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township
Representative; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township
Representative; Mark Marcoplos, At- Large, Bingham Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township;
Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At-
Large Chapel Hill Township;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Kevin Lindley, Staff
Engineer; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Tina Love Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Peter Marbais, Gloria Shealey, George Williams, Thomas Nixon, Burnie Hackney
Handouts- Draft Agenda for June Planning Board Organizational Retreat
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Agenda Item 8: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments - To make a recommendation to the
BOCC on government- initiated amendments to the text of the LIDO to add a new Section 6.20 that
will pertain to public sewer connection requirements. This item was heard at the February 27, 2012
quarterly public hearing and is being continued from the April 4 Planning Board meeting.
Presenter: Kevin Lindley, Staff Engineer
Kevin Lindley: Reviewed abstract.
Craig Benedict: One of the reasons we think connection to the public sewer system in most cases for repair area may be
a better alternative residence also is for this reason. Drew illustrations on whiteboard ..... The cost to build another repair
are in the yard is about the same cost as connecting to the public sewer. The intent in these areas, septic systems will
have similar environmental benefits; there is still a higher propensity for pollution with a septic system than to connect into
a public sewer system.
Peter Hallenbeck: I respect the opinions of the staff but in this case, I respectfully have to disagree. For many decades,
the County has required a repair area be set aside when the septic system is approved. Often, this causes some burden
or loss of use to the homeowner. The staff comments say that a viable area does not pose a risk to public health as long
as the onsite system is maintained properly. There is really no difference in a repair field outside of a designated area
versus inside. Both are viable as a way to repair a failing system. The only reason for requiring connecting to an available
sewer is the argument that the County has spent millions of dollars putting in this sewer and I think in some regards, this
DRAFT
ordinance is a bit of a money grab. The argument is made that this will set aside areas for other uses. That should be a
decision made by the homeowner and not the County. The argument has also been made that the economic viability of
the sewer system depends on the public connecting to it. That is a fine argument for new construction but not a good
reason to change the rules for the existing homeowners who have already expended resources to have a viable repair
area. Finally, the argument that Mebane will require this when they take over the system I feel is also a poor one. Making
a bad decision based on the knowledge that a bad decision will be made by someone else in the future is wrong. Not
requiring a connection also lets existing homeowners assess the condition of their existing septic system and make repairs
or switch to a repair area before the sewer in effect.
Brian Crawford: Once they are connected to the sewer system, what will be the ongoing cost to the new homeowner
going forward?
Craig Benedict: If they have a public water system through Orange Alamance Water system, the sewer is based on a
base fee per month and based on the gallons of water they would use.
Kevin Lindley: Based on 4,000 gallon per month usage, would be about $12.68 and the per thousand gallons is $10.86.
One other point, Mebane's connection requirements only exist inside their city limits this is the same for Durham.
Mark Marcoplos: I totally agree with Pete.
Brian Crawford: Any other comments from the board. Mr. Marbais would you like to address the board?
Peter Marbais: Our concern is largely not having the choice to repair a system and also, about a monthly bill. If we have
to replace a septic system that is a one -time occurrence that may not ever happen.
Lisa Stuckey: I wondered what the health department had to say about the viability of the second site and it doesn't sound
like it is a public health issue. If it were, I would be in favor of requiring people to hookup but if it is not, I don't see how we
can do that.
Pete Hallenbeck: I took a straw poll at the fire department but the general idea was that if you have a viable field, you
should be able to make a choice.
Brian Crawford: We are talking about existing homeowners, is the any objection to the requirement that the new
homeowners come in and have to connect?
Alan Campbell: I think we discussed a grandfather clause so this would not apply to anyone except new construction.
Brian Crawford: The board's reservation is forcing existing homeowners to tap on.
Tony Blake: Do we have any idea how many people are affected?
Craig Benedict: The lots do vary in size from % acre to 2 % acres. All the concerns you have mentioned are valid. It is
true that staffs recommendation did have economic sustainability of a sewer system as part of our recommendation. A lot
of the smaller lots are making connections to the sewer systems we are putting in now.
Johnny Randall: How does being connected to a sewer versus a septic tank affect the value of the home?
Craig Benedict: Part of the market assessment made on the lot refers to the viability of having public water versus a well
and they do give a credit for someone who has a well.
Brian Crawford: Pete, have you given any thought as to how you would like the recommendation be worded?
2
26
DRAFT 27
Pete Hallenbeck: There appears to be no problem requiring new construction is connected and the problem is requiring
people to have to connect to the sewer even if they have a viable repair field. The repair field must meet all specifications
for a repair field and be approved by the County.
Kevin Lindley: I did check with the Environmental Health Department, if your system fails even if you have an identified
repair area, they test that area according to current state regulations and if doesn't pass it will not be acceptable and they
have to find another one.
Tony Blake: There are systems in the County that are approved by the state as opposed to approved by the County. How
would this affect those?
Kevin Lindley: One reason I didn't address them here is I think in general, the economics of those systems will drive
people to the sewer system because they are extremely expensive. They typically require ongoing maintenance and
oversight that is not part of the standard septic system so you have a continuing bill. It doesn't give the option of using a
repair area if you have to use a state approved system. If you wanted to allow repair in any system, you would have to
see.
Andrea Rohrbacher: If a system fails, is it just abandoned or does it need be filled?
Kevin Lindley: Generally, they are talking about the drain field which is the area the water seeps into the ground. If you
abandon your system totally and not repair it, you are required to crush in the tank.
Lisa Stuckey: Do you guys want to go back and reword this or just take C1 and leave out the part about the gravity sewer
system.
Brian Crawford: We could always make the motion and allow staff to change language and show it to us before the
meeting. If we are okay with it the recommendation goes forward. The motion needs to be made that we accept staffs
recommendation with that reservation.
Lisa Stuckey: Is it in here that all new construction is required to....
Kevin Lindley: It is required because it is not an exception. Basically, everyone is required to do that unless you have a
viable secondary field.
Craig Benedict: Environmental Health will see these designated sewer areas so if someone comes in and wants to get a
new system in a new house, they would see that.
MOTION made by Pete Hallenbeck to ask staff to amend the section 6.20.1 of the UDO to reflect the concern regarding
requirements of having to connect to the sewer if you have a valid septic field as pursuant to our discussion. Seconded by
Buddy Hartley.
VOTE: Unanimous
Brian Crawford: If that language is amended, we recommend this to go forward to the BOCC.
Pete Hallenbeck: The main points are new construction must connect, an existing sewer system that is failing and has a
viable repair area, the homeowner should be able to make the choice to use the repair area or connect to the sewer.
3