HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES-2001-057 Resolution to Approve the Sewer Service Extension Agreement for Ashwick Subdivision Preliminary PlanRESOLUTION
EOU
THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TO APPROVE THE SEWER SERVICE EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR
ASHWICK SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners established an Overall Sewer Policy for the
County of Orange to determine the extent of future public sewer service, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Sewer Collection and Treatment
Service Rules and Regulations on November 19, 1985, and
WHEREAS, Provision IX of the Rules and Regulations, EXTENSIONS OF THE SYSTEM,
outlines six criteria to determine to whether or not the County shall extend the system to serve
undeveloped land, and
WHEREAS, the proposed Ashwick subdivision meets all six of the following criteria:
A. Extending service to Ashwick subdivision is consistent with the overall System
plan adopted by Orange County.
Extension is subject to the County Engineer's approval.
B. All regulations of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations have been met by the preliminary plat for Ashwick subdivision. The
property is located within the transition area along the Highway 70 West corridor.
The extension of public services within the 10 -year transition area is consistent
with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and other long -term goals
for county planning.
The Orange County Engineer has reviewed and approved the engineering
components of the preliminary plat with regards to water and sewer service. The
County Engineer has approved preliminary plans for the sewer service extension.
C. Extension of the System around the Elfand community is consistent with Goal 9.3
of the Orange County Land Use Plan, which prohibits the establishment of public
water and sewer services in the areas designated as water quality critical areas
except to address emergency situations. The proposed subdivision is outside of
the Upper Eno Critical Area.
D. The System extension shall be installed according to and in compliance with
approved plans.
E. The construction of the System extension will be inspected by Orange County at
intervals determined by the County. Perry Construction Corporation agrees to
permit access to the System and the System extension for inspection purposed.
User connections to the System will only be permitted after the extension of the
System is finally approved in writing by Orange County.
F. Upon the completion of the System extension Perry Construction Corporation will
convey to Orange County by deed or other appropriate instrument all portions of
the System extension, including by not necessarily limited to right -of -way
easements, collection lines, service lines, stub -outs, permits, pump stations and
equipment. All System extensions will be at no cost to Orange County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
That the Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the extension of the Orange County
Sewer Collection and Treatment System serving the Efland areas of Orange County for Ashwick
sudivision as shown on the preliminary plat dated April 4, 2000 (last revised October 26, 2000).
The County agrees to extend public sewer service to Ashwick subdivision per the Orange
County Water & Sewer Policy approved on April 3, 1989 (and last amended on September 3,
1991), and the Sewer Collection and Treatment Service Rules and Regulations adopted on
November 19, 1985.
This, the 15'h of May, 2001
Stephen H. Halkiotis, Chair
County of Orange Board of Commissioners
WITNESS:
4everlyy
Clerk to th Board
LAW OFFICES
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
129 E. TRYON STREET
P. O. DRAWER 1529
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
919.732 -2196
FAX 919- 732.7997
WEBSITE W W W.CGANDH.COM
C O N F I D E N T I A L
Attorney - Client Privilege
May 14, 2001
Stephen H..Halkiotis, Chair
Margaret W. Brown_
Moses Carey, Jr.
Alice M. Gordon
Barry Jacobs
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
FROM THE DESK OF
GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL
RE: Outline of Efland Sewer System Issues - Ashwick
Subdivision - McGowan Creek Subdivision
Dear Board Members:
This letter is to provide you with a brief overview of the
Board's consideration of the Ashwick Subdivision, the McGowan
Creek Subdivision and the outline of Efland Sewer System issues
related to extensions to undeveloped property. In the context of
the Resolution Documenting the State of the Overall System Plan
for the Efland Sewer System, which resolution was approved by
the Board of Commissioners on May 1, 2001, the Board directed
the staff to come back with a plan for a further course of
action regarding principally extensions of the Efland Sewer
System into undeveloped land. That outline and related documents
are on.your agenda for tomorrow night's meeting as Item 9 -e. The
objective of the outline is to allow you to focus on the policy,
planning and utility issues implicit in the Efland Small Area
Plan, the Buckhorn Road EDD, the Efland Sewer System, the public
water systems in the Western Central portion of the County and
other related matters.
One of the possible outcomes of this analysis is that the
Board will place a short -term moratorium on extensions to the
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 2
May 14, 2001
Efland Sewer System into undeveloped land. This may be deemed
desirable by the Board as a way to move ahead with the bond
issue sewer system project while discussions about the Orange
Alamance Water System and any other potential public water
provider in the area are underway. These issues are complex and
will take some time to resolve. In that regard, I cannot tell
you how long it is reasonable to maintain a moratorium on
extensions to the Efland Sewer System into undeveloped land,
particularly those within the overall system plan. I can tell
you that however long it takes will be too long to hold off
consideration of the two projects that are in the planning
"pipeline" which are proposed to be served by the Efland Area
Sewer System, one with Orange Alamance water and the other with
a community well system. Because these projects have been in the
pipeline for some time, it is, in my opinion, necessary to move
them through the planning process and to consider them in the
context of existing rules and regulations. That is why the
Ashwick Subdivision and the McGowan Creek Subdivision precede
consideration of the Outline on your agenda for tomorrow night.
As you can see from the agenda materials, the
administration recommendation is for approval of the Ashwick
Subdivision. It will be a public water and public sewer project
served with water by Orange Alamance and by Orange County's
sewer system. Its location within the Efland Area Sewer System
and within the Orange Alamance water system make many of the
policy issues in front of you secondary for this project. In
that respect it is a better project than the Richmond Hills
Subdivision. The Ashwick project is completely within the
overall system plan and located such that the Orange Alamance
water system that serves it will provide fire protection. By
comparison, the Richmond Hills Subdivision required an overall
system plan boundary change, a sewer system design change and is
probably too far away from the larger pipes of the Orange
Alamance system for it to receive reliable fire protection from
that system.
The administration is recommending denial of the McGowan
Creek Subdivision because it can only be accomplished as
designed with public sewer and it is located wholly outside of
the present overall system plan. Further, approximately one half
of the project is outside of the 20 -year transition area on the
land use map for this area. The Manager, the Planning Director
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 3
May 14, 2001
and myself think that the Ashwick project captures all that the
County's regulations now require with respect to an open space
project. That is why we are recommending approval. We think
otherwise about the McGowan Creek Subdivision, even though one
Of its most important features is that it includes almost two
thirds of the property left in open space. However, given the
fact that it is outside of the overall system plan for the
Efland Sewer System it is not possible for the administration to
recommend approval on this project.
As you probably have noticed, lawyers representing these
two developers have attended many if not of all your meetings in
which the Efland Sewer System had been discussed. The
administration recommendations on these two projects are made
independent of their presence. However, I would advise you as I
always do, to be circumspect in the comments you make during
your consideration of these projects. For example, I think it
unnecessary to debate with the developers whether or not the
land use plan prohibits the extension of utilities outside of a
transition area (it does not) or whether or not the County's
Water and Sewer Policy also prohibits these extensions (that
Policy has never been made a land use plan document). Resolution
of this preliminary plan does not require resolution of that
issue since the project cannot proceed without public sewer.
Likewise, questions raised by the developers regarding
procedural matters (the order of subdivision approval vs. sewer
system approval and whether the developer had the right to rely
on correspondence from the County Engineer and what the context
was of that correspondence) will not be fruitfully debated at
the Board meeting. What matters for the McGowan Creek
Subdivision is that the County is not now willing to allow the
extension of its sewer system to this property, is not now
willing to commit when it will and that this development cannot
be approved without public sewer because of the lot sizes
proposed. In the instance of Ashwick, the public water and
public sewer door has been opened by the approval of Richmond
Hills. Debate about the future course of public utilities in the
West Central part of the County should proceed as though Ashwick
were a "done deal."
My guess is that the owners of McGowan Creek will take a
denial in stride. I make no promises about that, however. What I
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 4
May 14, 2001
can promise is that if they do take a denial in stride you will
see this same property brought back to you with a development
plan that does not include public sewer and which is not nearly
as desirable from a design or open space point of view. On the
other hand, it will have to be designed with less density. What
is certain is that whatever land the developers have to use to
satisfy minimum lot sizes required for septic systems will come
from the open space proposed in the present plan.
GEG /lsg
xc: Craig Benedict
John M. Link, Jr.
Very truly yours,
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE, P.C.
lsg: letters \bdofcomeflandsewer #3.ltr
sill