Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNSN ORD-1995-003 Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Article 6.23 - IX-A VO I �q5-10 Q3 OR AN G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 17, 1995 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Article 6.23 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (stream and reservoir buffers) DEPARTMENT:* PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes —x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Report on Stream/Reservoir Buffers Mary Willis Proposed Amendment Extension 2583 Citizen Correspondence 11/30/94 Public Hearing Minutes (draft) Draft Resolution of Board of Commissioners TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough-732-8181 Durham -688-7331 Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill -967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment which would allow for the - reduction of setbacks adjacent to streams and reservoirs to the extent necessary to allow development of an existing lot of record. BACKGROUND: Attached is a report concerning stream buffer provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as applied to existing lots of record. There have been a number of complaints concerning the impact of stream and reservoir buffer requirements. In some cases, the required buffers render an existing lot unbuildable without a variance, since the width of the buffer was not taken into account when the lot was created. This issue creates a particular problem for the existing lots surrounding Lake Orange. On September 61 1994, the Planning Staff presented to the Board of Commissioners a proposed strategy to address situations which now require a variance of stream or reservoir buffer requirements. The Board of Commissioners referred the proposed strategy to the Planning Board and Ordinance Review 2 Response: The staffs of the Orange County Planning Department, Orange County Environmental Health and Orange Water and Sewer Authority met to discuss the proposed amendment, and concluded that a baseline level of coliform for each reservoir is needed to determine if water quality has been impaired due to the failure of a septic system within 300 feet of the reservoir. Baseline coliform levels have not been measured for University Lake, Cane Creek Reservoir, Lake Orange or Corporation Lake. The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed amendment to Article 6.23 be approved, with the elimination of Article 6.23.10(c) 6. The Planning Staff also recommends approval of the attached Resolution of the Board of Commissioners to provide assurance to OWASA that Planning Staff will continue to explore possible means, including but not limited to establishment of baseline coliform levels, by which to determine if a malfunctioning septic system within 300 feet of a water supply reservoir has affected water quality within the reservoir, and to report its findings and recommendations to the Board of Commissioners no later than March 21, 1995. Comments Received After the Public Hearing Attached are comments from the Town of Carrboro regarding the proposed amendment. Carrboro recommends that administrative approval of reduced setbacks apply to land surrounding Lake Orange, but not apply to land surrounding University Lake or Cane creek Reservoir. Response: This option was previously explored by the Planning Staff. The Upper Eno, Cane Creek and University Lake Watersheds are each classified as WS-11, and there is no technical basis on which to justify applying setback requirements differently to one watershed than to another. Planning Board Recommendation The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on January 10, 1995 and recommended approval by a vote of 5-2. Planning Board member Cherie Rosemond was opposed to applying the amendment to all watersheds, and favored its application to only the area surrounding Lake Orange. Planning Board member Margaret Brown was opposed to deeming existing development conforming with respect to watershed protection standards, particularly in cases where a structure 3 which had been destroyed could be replaced in a location which complied more fully with stream buffer or reservoir setbacks. She also stated that the Environmental Health should keep records of septic pump failures. (Environmental Health has been informed of the latter concern. Any further action, if necessary, would be initiated by Environmental Health or the Orange County Board of Health.) RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends: 1) approval of the proposed amendment with elimination of Article 6.23. 10(c) 6; and 2) approval of the attached Resolution which provides assurance that the Planning Staff will continue to explore options by which the original intent of Article 6.23. 10(c)6 can be met. 4 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 6.23 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (stream and reservoir buffers) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: —X— High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 30, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To consider a proposed amendment which would allow for the reduction of setbacks adjacent to streams and reservoirs to the extent necessary to allow development of an existing lot of record. IMPACTS/ISSUES: Attached is a report concerning stream buffer provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as applied to existing lots of record. There have been a number of complaints concerning the impact of stream and reservoir buffer requirements. In some cases, the required buffers may render an existing lot unbuildable without a variance, since the width of the buffer was not taken into account when the lot was created. This issue creates a particular problem for the existing lots surrounding Lake Orange. On September 6, 1994, the Planning Staff presented to the Board of Commissioners a proposed strategy to address situations which now require a variance of stream or reservoir buffer requirements. The Board of Commissioners referred the proposed strategy to the Planning Board and Ordinance Review Committee for development of an ordinance amendment for the November 28, 1994 public hearing. The proposed strategy included in the attached report would allow the Planning Staff, in consultation with Environmental Health and/or the County Engineer, to issue a zoning compliance permit for development which does not meet the minimum buffer requirements, when specified findings could be documented. In all other cases, a variance request would be presented to the Board of Adjustment according to current procedures. It was also recommended that wells be permitted in stream buffers and that consideration be given to providing greater flexibility in setback requirements in cases where use of a septic pump could be avoided. Planning Staff and the County Attorney met with a group of Lake Orange property owners on September 9 to discuss the proposed strategy. TWO major concerns which were expressed involved the classification of 5 existing structures as non-conforming, and the inability to locate a structure in close proximity to the lake, particularly when adjacent houses which existed prior to the regulations are close to the lake. Correspondence which has been received from affected property owners is attached. The proposed amendment is summarized as follows: 1) Wells would be allowed in stream buffers; and 2) Nitrification fields would continue to be located 300 feet from reservoirs and outside of stream buffers. Septic tanks and pumps could be located 150 feet from the reservoir or outside of the stream buffer. (The setback for structures is only 150 feet. It is often necessary or preferable to locate the tank in close proximity to the residence. ) ; and 3) Existing development would be deemed conforming with respect to watershed standards; and 4 ) If destroyed, existing structures could be replaced in their current location provided that there is no increase in impervious surface and no increase in any existing encroachment into buffers or setbacks. 5) Setbacks and buffers for development on pre-existing lots could be reduced if all of the following criteria were met: a) The septic system is sized for no more than four bedrooms; and b) septic area and repair can be accommodated on 20,000 square feet or less; and C) encroachment into setbacks is necessary in order to build on the lot; and d) the relative location of the well, septic system-and structure maximizes the degree of watershed protection which can be obtained while allowing development of the lot; and e) the amount of encroachment is the minimum that can be obtained while meeting the above criteria; and f) there are no existing water quality problems caused by malfunctioning septic systems within 300 feet of the reservoir. 6) The requirement that the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) approve major exemptions, as required by the State mandate, is clarified. EMC approval of a variance is required only if reduction exceeds 10% of the State minimum. 6 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS 6.23 EXTRA REQUIREMENTS FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS 6.23.7 STREAM BUFFERS a) Definition A stream buffer is an area of land adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams which, except as stated below, must remain undisturbed in its natural state. Perennial streams are those streams shown as solid blue lines and intermittent streams as broken blue lines on the USGS Quadrangle maps for Orange County. b) Permitted Uses Within Stream Buffers The following uses are allowed as a matter of right in stream buffers. All other uses are prohibited, except as provided in Article 6.23. 10 of this Ordinance. 1) Above-ground and buried utility lines for local distribution of electricity, telephone and cable television service, accessory and appurtenant apparatus such as poles, guy wires, transformers and switching boxes, and individual or community wells. Pr-lvate Individual or community wastewater disposal systems are not permitted in stream buffers. Public water and sewer lines are permitted only as allowed by the Orange County Water and Sewer Policy, .and may be located within stream buffers only to the extent necessary to cross the stream buffer as closely as possible to perpendicular. 2 ) Public and private streets, bridges and railroad rights-of-way, provided that they enter and exit the buffer area as nearly perpendicular as possible. 6.23.8 WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL UNIV-CA Water supply and sewage treatment systems UVIV-PW shall be limited to individual wells and CANE-PW on-site septic tanks systems or individual CANE-CA on-site alternative disposal systems. H U-ENO-CA 7 DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL All Watershed No new treatment system will be permitted Overlay Districts where effluent disposal occurs on a separate lot from the source of wastewater generation. Repair systems are permitted on a lot other than the lot which is the source of wastewater generation provided that the Orange County Health Department certifies that: 1. The residence or use has a failing system, AND there is not a suitable location for a repair system on the same lot as the residence or use, or 2. In the case of an unimproved lot created by recorded deed, valid probated will or recorded plat prior to 6/15/91 for UNIV-CA and UNIV-PW, and 1/1/94 for all other watershed overlay districts, there is not a suitable location for a repair system on the same lot as the residence or use. UNIV-CA New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream buffers, or 300 feet from a reservoir or perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, whichever is further. CANE-CA New septic tanks, pump tanks and their U-ENO-CA aitFifieatien fields appurtenances shall be located outside of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, and at least 4" 150 feet from a reservoir. New nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Ouadrangle maps, and at least 300 feet from a reservoir. 8 DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL UNIV-PW New septic tanks and their nitrification CANE-PW fields shall be located outside of any U-ENO-PW stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a HYCO-PW perennial or intermittent stream as shown LITTLE-PW on the USGS Quadrangle maps. BACK-PW HAW-PW JORDAN-PW L-ENO-PW 6.23. .10 APPLICABILITY a) Existing Development Existing-develepm°ts net-subeet to the -=q---=- _ffts =F thisAEtlele-. EaElstiag develepments include pEejeets that aEe-built, -eE at a -m-in-i mu . have est-RI=-1 -i she - vested - ,mot_±. For the purpose of determining compliance with or applicability of Article 6.23 of this Ordinance, existing development is defined as a residential or non-residential structure which 1 was constructed prior to January 1, 1994; or 21 was constructed in accordance with a valid building permit issued prior to January 1, 1994 ; or 3) was included as part of a Site Specific Development Plan approved by the Board of Commissioners prior to January 1, 1994; or 4) had otherwise established a vested right under North Carolina Zoning law prior to January 1, 1994. Existing development is hereby deemed to be conforming with respect to requirements of Article 6.23 of this Ordinance. b) Redevelopment Redevelopment is--allewed -4 -f tlie =e='__-laing aet}v-i}y deers equal er-greateL=--at-eL=awa-t-eE eeatLcel than the The rebuilding or replacement of residential or non- 9 residential structures which are defined as existing development according to Article 6.23. 11a is allowed, Provided that the rebuilding or replacement does not result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface, and does not encroach any farther into stream buffers or setbacks from reservoirs than the Previous development. A structure which is rebuilt or replaced in accordance with these provisions is deemed conforming with respect to setbacks from streams and reservoirs required by Articles 6.23.7 and 6 .23.8 of this Ordinance. Existing Lots An existing lot, for the purpose of determining compliance with Article 6.23, is defined as a lot which was created prior to January 1, 1994. Stream buffers as required by Article 6.23.7, and setbacks for septic systems as required by Article 6.23. 8 may be reduced to the extent necessary to allow development of the lot, provided that all of the following criteria are met: 1. The septic system is sized to serve no more than four bedrooms; and 2. The septic tank, drainfield. and repair area (where required) can be accommodated on 20,000 square feet of area or less; and 3. The Orange County Planning Staff, in consultation with Orange County Environmental Health and/or the Orange ,County Engineer has determined that encroachment of the .structure into the stream buffer and/or encroachment of the septic system or repair area into the stream buffer or reservoir setback is necessary in order to provide adequate area for septic disposal and repair while maintaining required separations between wells, septic systems, structures and Property lines; and 4 . The Orange County Planning Staff, in consultation with Orange County Environmental Health and/or the Orange County Engineer, has determined that the relative locations of the well, septic system and structure maximize the amount of watershed shed protection that can be achieved while allowing development of the lot. Generally, an exception to setbacks for repair area is preferable to an exception for the initial septic system, and encroachment of structures or gravity septic systems into the setback is preferable to the installation of a septic system pump. 5. The amount of encroachment into the stream or reservoir buffer is the minimum amount which can be obtained while meeting the above criteria, 10 6. All of the above criteria are met and the lot is located adiacent to a water supply reservoir, and Orange County Environmental Health has determined that there are no existing water quality problems in that reservoir which can be attributed to malfunctioning septic systems within 300 feet of the normal pool elevation. 6.23.11 ADMINISTRATION a) Appeals Decisions of the Zoning Officer and County Engineer in the implementation of this Article may be appealed to the Orange County Board of Adjustment in accordance with Article 2 .3.7 of this Ordinance. b) Variances Development activities may be granted minor variances by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with Article 2.3.6 of this Ordinance. A variance which results in one or more of the following shall be considered a major exemption, requiring approval by the Environmental Management Commission. 1. the complete waiver of a management requirement; 2 . theEelaxa-tlea by--mere---than ten pereent of any management that takes the fer-m of a the relaxation of any management requirement that takes the form of a numerical standard to less than 90% of the minimum required by State mandate. 3 . the relaxation of any management requirement that applies to a development project requiring construction of a BMP. A description of each project receiving a variance and the reason for granting the variance shall be submitted to the Commission on an annual basis. All other local governments having jurisdiction within the watershed area and the entity using the water supply for consumption shall be notified of the proposed exemption. ********************************** zz ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PLANNING STAFF TO EXPLORE MEANS BY WHICH TO DETERMINE EFFECTS OF CERTAIN SEPTIC SYSTEMS ON WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS WHEREAS Orange County has demonstrated a commitment to protect drinking water supplies by adopting watershed protection standards which in many aspects exceed minimum standards required by the Division of Environmental Management; and WHEREAS the standards adopted by Orange County require that new septic system drainfields be located at least . 300 feet from reservoirs, and that buildings be located at least 150 feet from reservoirs; and WHEREAS the Orange County Board of Commissioners, in recognition that these setback requirements may pose a hardship on development of existing lots, has approved an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would provide an administrative procedure for consider*ation of a reduction in setback requirements on existing lots when specific criteria are met, and WHEREAS the Orange Water and Sewer Authority staff had recommended that those criteria include a provision that administrative reduction of septic system setbacks adjacent to a reservoir not be allowed in situations where water quality problems were present in the reservoir which could be attributed to a failing septic system within 300 feet of the reservoir; and WHEREAS the staffs of the Orange County Planning Department, Orange County Environmental Health and Orange Water and Sewer Authority have concluded that a baseline level of coliform within a reservoir is needed to determine if water quality has been impaired due to the failure of a septic system within 300 feet of the reservoir; and WHEREAS there are no baseline coliform levels established for University Lake, Cane Creek Reservoir, Lake Orange or Corporation Lake; and WHEREAS the amendment provision recommended by OWASA staff has not been adopted by Orange County due to the lack of information available by which to determine if a failing septic system has affected water quality in the reservoir; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby directs the Planning Staff Environmental Health and the County Engineer to continue to explore possible means,, including but not limited to the feasibility of measuring of baseline coliform levels, by which to determine if a malfunctioning septic system within 300 feet of a water supply reservoir has 12 affected water quality within the reservoir and to report its findings and recommendations on this matter to the Board of Commissioners no later than July 1, 1995. This resolution is effective upon its adoption this 17th day of January, 1995. The motion to adopt this resolution was made by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and passed by a vote of to Moses Carey, Chair ATTEST: Beverly C. Blythe, Clerk to the Board This is to certify hat this is a true and accurate co of this Y PY resolution adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on this 17th day of January, 1995. Beverly C. Blythe, Clerk to the Board Date I 12a MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Willis , Planner III FROM: Paul Thames , County Engineer DATE: January 10, 1995 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance regulation of septic tank setbacks at reservoirs As you are aware from our telephone conversation of last week, the County Manager has asked me to evaluate strategies proposed to identify potential impact on water quality of those leaking or failing septic tank system( s ) located within 300 feet of a reservoir' s normal pool surface. My charge was specifically to review the section of the draft zoning regulations requiring that, prior to allowing the installation of a septic tank system within 300 feet of a reservoir, the Health Department determine that there are no existing water quality impacts that can be attributed to other failing septic systems installed within 300 feet of that reservoir. It is my opinion that this requirement would prove to be impractical in that it will be very difficult for the Health Department to make such a determination. It is possible for Health staff to compare the fecal coliform/strep ratios from two or more samples containing those indicators and determine if the indicators are being generated by the same source. However, the likelihood is that on site conditions including water and air temperature, ultraviolet light exposure , dilution, currents , winds , proximity -and habitation by livestock and wildlife , etc . , will combine to make it exceeding difficult to utilize fecal coliform analysis to pinpoint a source of pollution from all but the most prolific or obvious sources. The real impact of failing septic systems on water quality is not likely to be a disease bearing bacteria, most of which would find the open waters of a reservoir a very hostile environment and most of which are removed by the most rudimentary water treatment processes. The primary problem from leaking septic systems , as pointed out in the CDM studies for the Durham and OWASA reservoirs , would be from nutrient loadings of phosphate and nitrogen. Tracing the source of these compounds would probably at least as difficult as pinpointing a source by tracking bacteriological content. I have reviewed your draft resolution dealing with the problem of detecting failing septic system impacts by delaying implementation of requirements to identify those impacts until such time as staff can evaluate potential identification methods . I concur that this delay represents a prudent approach. If I may provide additional information or comment, please . advise. 13 APPLICATION OF STREAM BUFFER PROVISIONS ON EDUSTING LOTS OF RECORD L DESCRIP'T'ION OF PROBLEM Article 6.23.7b of the Zoning Ordinance requires that new structures and septic systems be located outside of stream buffers. Outside of watershed critical areas, the width of the buffer ranges from 50 feet to 150 feet, depending on slope,and is measured from the edge of the floodplain. Within watershed critical areas, there is no upper limit on the width of the buffer. Article 6.23.7e of the Zoning Ordinance requires that new structures be located at least 150'from a reservoir, or outside of the stream buffer, whichever is greater. Article 6.23.8 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that septic systems be located at least 300' from a reservoir, 100'from a stream, or outside of the stream buffer, whichever is greater. The current watershed regulations, which implemented the State mandate, became effective on January 1, 1994. At that time, the Orange County portions of the Lower Eno, South Hyco Creek, Haw River and Jordan Lake Watersheds were designated as protected watersheds for the first time. Also, the portions of the Back Creek Upper Eno, Flat River, South Hyco Creek and Little River Watersheds in Cedar Grove and Little River Townships, which were previously designated as protected watersheds only in the Comprehensive Plan, were made subject to requirements of the watershed protection overlay districts through the zoning of those townships. As a result, existing lots on which a stream is located, in most of Little River, Cedar Grove and Eno Townships and a small portion of Chapel Hill and Bingham Townships, have recently (as of 1/1/94) been made subject to stream buffer requirements. In some cases,the application of these setbacks may render an existing lot unbuildable without a variance, since the width of the buffer was not taken into account when the lot was created. For example, the Bellechene East Subdivision, located adjacent to Lake Orange, was approved prior to the zoning of Cedar Grove Township and the application of watershed protection standards. Eighteen of the 30 lots are located entirely or almost entirely within 300 feet of Lake Orange, and would be unbuildable if the 300' septic system setback were applied. Most of the lots surrounding Lake Orange are now non-conforming and may be unbuildable without a variance if the 300'septic setback and 150' building setback are applied. The same problem can arise with regard to stream buffers in cases where the lot was created prior to the current stream buffer requirements. The extent of potential problems adjacent to streams is difficult to identify because the lots which could potentially be impacted cover a large geographic area. The remedy available at this time is for the property owner to seek a variance of the setback requirements to the extent necessary to develop the property. An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was presented for public hearing on February 28, 1994 and would have allowed a reduction in the septic and building setbacks on lots adjacent to reservoirs which were created prior to January 1, 1994 to the extent necessary to build on the property, provided that septic systems and structures remained outside of stream buffers, and the septic system remained at least 100 feet from the reservoir (as required by the State mandate). The amendment was proposed in an effort to address the concerns expressed by many of the property owners surrounding Lake Orange. The amendment was not approved due,at least in part, to opposition from OWASA. OWASA was concerned that the proposed amendment would be perceived as a relaxation of Orange County's commitment to watershed protection in the Cane Creek watershed. 14 The Board of Commissioners directed staff to develop a process by which variances could be considered in a more expedient and inexpensive manner, and suggested that a window of time be established within which multiple variances could be considered with elimination or reduction of fees. The Planning Staff has talked with a number of property owners around Lake Orange and explained that option. Only one variance request has been received, since it is generally not until the owner is ready to build that the septic system is designed and laid out. The Planning Staff has also been contacted by several potential buyers expressing concern with purchasing property with restrictions which could prohibit development of the property, and uncertainly as to whether or not a variance would be approved. II. INFORMATION REGARDING SEPTIC SYSTEM DESIGN AND LOCATION A. SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIRED FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS According to Environmental Health, about 130 linear feet of drainfield line is needed per bedroom. Trenches must have a separation of at least 10 feet. Under normal circumstances, this translates to about 2,000 square feet of area per bedroom for the septic system, and an additional 2,000 square feet of repair area. Environmental Health has estimated that an additional 20% of area is generally sufficient to accommodate site constraints. Normal circumstances would include suitable soils, gentle topography, and limited presence of trees or other physical constraints. The Rules of Sewage Disposal for Orange County require that septic systems be designed for at least three bedrooms. Under this provision, a two-bedroom house would still be required to have a septic system sized for a three bedroom house. Using the rule of thumb of 2,000 square feet per bedroom for the septic system, 2,000 square feet for repair area,and an additional 20%to accommodate site constraints, septic systems require the following land area: Number of Capacity Minimum Area Required for Septic System Bedrooms Required and Repair Area (gallons per day) Without Site With Site Constraints Constraints i square feet acres square acres feet 2 360 12,000 .26 14,400 .33 3 360 12,000 .26 14,400 .33 4 480 16,000 .37 19,200 .44 5 600 20,000 .46 24,000 .55 Lots approved by Environmental Health during the subdivision approval process generally have adequate soil to accommodate a four-bedroom house. 15 B. EXCEPTIONS TO REPAIR AREA REQUIREMENTS In order for an improvements permit to be issued by Environmental Health, repair area adequate to install a replacement system in the event of failure of the initial system is generally required. If sufficient repair area is not available within the boundaries of the lot, then an easement may be needed to reserve a repair area on adjacent property. Section.1945 of"Laws and Rules for Sanitary Sewage Collection,Treatment,and Disposal 15 NCAC As Amended by the Orange County Board of Health (also referred to as "Rules of Sewage Disposal for Orange County") states the following: fl(c) The repair area requirement..... shall not apply to a lot or tract of land.• (1) which is specifically described in a document on file with the local health department on July 1, 1982, or which is specifically described in a recorded deed or recorded plat on January 1, 1983; and (2) which is of insufficient size to satisfy the repair requirement ... as determined by the local health department; and (3) on which a ground absorption sewage treatment and disposal system with a design daily flow of (A) no more than 480 gallons is to be installed, or (B) more than 480 gallons is to be installed if application for an improvements permit is receiued by the local health department on or before April 1, 1983. (d) Although a lot or tract of land is exempted under paragraph (c)from the repair area requirement ....., the maximum feasible area, as determined by the local health department, shall be allocated for repair area." C. STREAM CLASSIFICATION Planning The Orange County Zoning Ordinance requires that septic systems be located at least 300 feet from a reservoir, and at least 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream within a protected watershed. Perennial and intermittent streams are identified by a solid or dotted blue line on the USGS quadrangle maps. Environmental Health The Rules of Sewage Disposal for Orange County require a 100-foot setback for septic systems adjacent to classified reservoirs and adjacent to streams classified as WS-1, and a 50-foot setback adjacent to streams in which flow for at least 50% of the year. Whether or not a particular stream flows at least 50% of the year is determined on a case by case basis in the field. D. SETBACKS AND SEPARATIONS Septic systems must be located at least 15 feet from a structure. Wells are required to be at least 100 feet from any part of a septic system and 40 feet from property lines. 16 All components of a conventional septic system must be located at least 10 feet from property lines. All components of a low-pressure pipe system must be located at least 12 1/2 feet from property lines. Trenches for line in the drainfield must be at least ten feet apart for a conventional system and five feet apart for a low-pressure pipe system. E. PUMPS In some cases, septic setbacks can be met only if a pump system is installed. Use of a pump provides more flexibility in the location of the drainfield relative to the septic tank, and could allow the drainfield to be located farther from the stream or reservoir. However, a pump system is more complex, and could cause problems with a back up of septage in the septic tank in the event that the pump failed. These two factors should be balanced. For example, a minor encroachment into the buffer may be preferable to installing a pump system, whereas a pump system may be preferable to a substantial encroachment into the buffer. M. PROPOSED REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURE It is recommended that the Board of Commissioners reconsider possible alternatives to variance requests for stream and reservoir buffers on lots which existed before January 1, 1994. One option would be to allow the Planning Staff, in consultation with Environmental Health, and the County Engineer, to issue a zoning compliance permit when specified findings could be documented. In all other cases,a variance request would be presented to the Board of Adjustment according to current procedures. Below is a proposed list of findings to be met in order for Staff to issue a zoning compliance permit where the stream or reservoir buffer is less than required by Article 6.23.7 or 6.23.8. FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR STAFF REDUCTION OF SEPTIC SYSTEM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 1. The lot was created prior to January 1, 1994; and 2. The septic system is sized to serve no more than four bedrooms; and 3. The septic tank, drainfield and repair area (where required) can be accommodated on 20,000 square feet of area or less; and 4. Environmental Health has determined that there is not a sufficient amount of suitable soil beyond the required setback or buffer to accommodate a septic system and any required repair area for the proposed residence while maintaining the separation required by Environmental Health between wells, septic systems, structures and property lines; OR Environmental Health has determined that although there is a sufficient amount of suitable soil beyond the required setback or buffer to design a septic system and required repair area while maintaining the separation required by Environmental Health between wells, septic systems,structures and property lines, utilization of those soils would trigger the use of a septic pump. In addition, the amount of encroachment into the buffer is less than 10% of the required buffer or setback width, and placement of a gravity system which encroached into the buffer would have a lesser potential impact on water quality than would the installation and use of the septic pump; and 17 5. The location of the proposed septic system,well and structures meets all requirements of Environmental Health, including distances for setbacks and other separations. 6. Where possible, the exception is to be granted for repair area,and the initial septic system is to be installed outside of the required buffer or setback. 7. The amount of encroachment into the stream or reservoir buffer is the minimum amount which can be obtained while meeting the above criteria. FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR STAFF REDUCTION OF BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 1. The lot was created prior to January 1, 1994. 2. The location of the septic system and repair area(where required) has been established in accordance with requirements of Environmental Health and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; and 3. The residence contains no more than four bedrooms,as defined by Environmental Health; and 4. Due to the location of suitable soils, slope, floodpLain, or other features or constraints, Environmental Health and the Planning Staff have determined that there is not a location outside of the stream or reservoir buffer which on which a residence can be constructed. OR Environmental Health and the Planning Staff have determined that although the residence could be constructed outside of the buffer, such location would require the use of a pump. In addition, the amount of encroachment into the buffer is less than 10% of the total buffer width, and encroachment of the structure into the buffer would have a lesser potential impact on water quality than would the installation and use of the pump system; and 5. The amount of encroachment into the stream or reservoir buffer is the minimum amount which can be obtained while meeting the above criteria. It is also recommended that wells be permitted in stream buffers in cases where-the additional flexibility in well location could eliminate the need for an exception to or variance of setback requirements for structures or septic systems. Another issue which should be addressed is the possibility of providing greater flexibility in setback requirements in cases where use of a pump could be avoided. Implementation of a review and approval process which incorporates the above findings and other recommendations would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance through the public hearing process. Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Fe.rry Road 18 -OWASA-1 P.0, Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 MEMORANDUINI TO: Everett Billingsley FROM: Ed Holland DATE: September 16, 1994 SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to Orange County Setback Requirements for Septic Systems and Structures from Streams and Lake Shorelines Back&oMad During February and March, 1994 the Orange County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing and considered amending the County's Zoning Ordinance to allow more flexibility in the development of certain lots constrained by setback requirements of the water supply protection measures that became effective January 1, 1994. The provisions in question require that new structures be located at least 150 feet from a reservoir, or outside of a designated stream buffer, whichever distance is greater. Septic systems must be located at least 300 feet from a reservoir, or outside of a designated stream buffer, which ever distance is greater. Because these new requirements rendered a number of existing one to two-acre lots unbuildable around Lake Orange, the County considered reducing the setbacks for lots created prior to January 1, 1994. The more stringent (current) requirements would remain in effect for all lots created after that date. On February 24, 1994 OWASA'3 Board of Directors adopted a resolution opposing the proposed changes for the University lAke and Cane Creek watersheds and reaffirmed its earlier position of November 11, 1993: *Ezisfing setback requirements of 300 feet for septic system and 150feet or structures should remain in place along the shorelines of University Lake and the Cam Creek Reservoir and along the perennial streams discharging to these impoundments." The proposed amendment was not adopted by the Commissioners due in part to OWASA's opposition and concern that it would be perceived as a relaxation of the County's commitment to protect the Cane Creek watershed (we September 6, 1994 Commissioners' agenda abstract, attached), Instead, the Commissioners directed staff to develop as administrative procedure for conddoting variance requests in a less expensive and more expedient manner than case by case applications to the Board of Adjustment. County staff determined that no such procedure was feasible, and proposed the revised strategy described in the Commissioners' September 6 agenda packet. An Equal Opportunity Employer ..�. v v .{r •V VV veer.r{wr.... YI{,11..{Y v[ +.....r7�.a. ..V. A {.{/ x14. ..♦./v v.,TZ4"t l . VV 19 Orange County Setback Requirements September 16, 1994 Page 2 This proposal is similar to the amendment considered last spring, except that administrative variances could only be granted upon specific staff findings listed in the ordinance (see attached). Any variances not granted through this administrative review could still be submitted to the Board of Adjustment, iscussion OWASA's opposition to the original proposal in February, 1994 was due to concern for possible effects on University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir. Subsequent analysis by OWASA and County staff(see June 28, 1994 Orange County staff response, attached) indicated that the proposed amendment for lots created before January 1, 1994 would be unlikely to affect any property at Cane Creek or University Lake, Only three undeveloped lots of less than 10 acres in size (5.2, 5.9, and 7.0 acres) exist within 300 feet of Cane Creek Reservoir, and County staff believe that sufficient area exists on all three of these to meet existing setback requirements without a variance. County staff also point out that no variance requests have been received in the University Lake watershed, where the current (stringent) setback rules have been in place for almost 10 years. This is due is part to larger lot sizes those than at Lake Orange and to the existence of substantial shoreline buffers already in public ownership around University Lake. By contrast, County staff estimate that the owners of from 50 to 70 existing one to two-acre lots will apply for Board of Adjustment variances to building or septic system setback requirements around Lake Orange, Recmumenedation It is My professional opiniorn that, if adopted, the strategy proposed in the September 6 Commissioners' agenda would represent no discernable threat to the water quality of OWASA's University bake and Cane Creek Reservoirs, pzmculardy if the required findings of the ordinance included an additional item requiring the Orange County Health Department to verify that no existing water quality problems in nearby or adjacent waterbodies were attributable to malfunctioning septic systems installed under previously issued setback variances, Next SIC21 The September 6 strateg%has been referred to the Orange County Planning Board for development of a Ordinance Amendment to be presented at the Commissioners' quarterly public hearing sch for November 28, 1994. Edward A. Holland, AICP Director of Planning and Development I 20 $ept.21, 1994 4320 Arrowhead Trail Hillsboro ugh,N.C. 27278 Orange County Planning Department 306 F Revere Rd. Hillsborough, N.C./27278 Z� Attn: Mary Willis Alary, Monday (Sept.19) evening was an educational meeting for us. We now have a much better understanding of the great amount of time and energy required to. accomplish county planning that will be of benefit to the citizens. For clarification of the new codes, developed lots need to be addressed. Homes deeded prior to 1/1/94 are conforming. Otherwise,we would not have been given an occupancy permit. Since we are conforming, we are= required to conform to the most recent changes (1-1-94). This is covered as to minimum lot size and minimum lot width. Neither should we be required to meet the front setback,side and rear setback and maximum building height. The extreme set back distances that have been established would require 26,850 square feet of my "pie shaped"lot. Then, one side of the lot is 309 feet which would put the septic area in the road. As to being able to rebuild my home in case of 75% loss, it would ho-e to be located where it is. To do otherwise would require a new well in front of the house, and a new septic system much closer to the road. Then, the house would be sited over the present septic system. Much additional cost ! This just wouldn't work. These changes would become a REAL deterrent to a prospective buyer and to a lender for that buyer. These chanties are all "ex post facto" --after the-deed has been done-and can not apply to a home that conforms when it was built. "Grandfathering" without exceptions is a must. Since ety, Robert J Perry 21 September 22, 1994 Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Attn: Mary Willis Dear Mary, First of all, we would like to say thank you to the planning staff and the board for realizing the need to amend the setback requirements as they pertain to the stream buffer regulations passed on January 1, 1994. The time you have spent with all of us has been quite educational and informative. We are now non-conforming by your definition. We ( the citizens of Orange County truly feel we are conforming, based on the fact of compliance of every regulation you can think of when these houses were built. In general, we feel any law passed should not include those whose deeds were recorded prior to the effective date. The planning board staff is now proposing a method to allow con-compliant undeveloped lots a simpler method of applying for a variance through the planning board versus the board of adjustment, with all the associated fee's involved. This is commendable. There is no reference to existing lots with structures in your current report. The planning board staff must make some provisions for these structures. The minimum lot non-complaint regulation , Classification of Non-Conformities section 11.10c states, a non-conforming residential structure located on a non-conforming lot shall not be required to comply with either or both dimensional requirements regulating; 1. minimum lot size 2. minimum width But shall comply with the dimensional requirements regulating; 1. required front setback 2. required side and rear setback 3. maximum building height. Our stance is, we shouldn't have to comply with the new setback regulations. If the recommendations are not approved, then a provision through amendment must be created with the appropriate verbiage to include existing developed lots with structures. It is far easier to conform with new construction on an undeveloped lot than on a lot with a pre-existing house. It would be more costly and time consuming to move a foundation and the house also. In addition, I would have to move my existing LP septic system, because moving the house back to the 150 setback would put it on top of the existing septic system. For the ci6zens of Orange County, Gary Lubarsky 4222 Arrowhead Trail Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 732-2175 22 TOWN OF CARRBORO NORTH CAROLINA do�� pry c December 16, 1994 Marvin E. Collins, Jr., Planning Director Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Courtesy Review of Watershed Zoning Regulations/JPA Dear Marvin: Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to Orange County's development regulations as they apply to the Joint Planning Area. I offer the following comments for your consideration: 1. Article 6.23 -the approval of this amendment should not have any negative impact on the University Lake Watershed since no additional dwelling units may be constructed and this amendment may well reduce roadway construction by providing more design flexibility. 2. Article 4.1 - This amendment seems reasonable due to the relatively small size of the fiber optic equipment (3.5' X 7'). 3. Article 6.23: a. Wells, if permitted within the stream buffer, should require mitigation of the disturbed area. b. This amendment doesn't propose any changes to the 300' or buffer setback requirement for University Lake; however it would apply to the Cane Creek and Lake Orange reservoirs by allowing the septic tank, pumps, and etc. to be located within 150' of the reservoir. I understand that this amendment is needed to address a problem associated primarily with Lake Orange and would be of limited use for Cane Creek; therefore I suggest that this amendment be structured to exclude Cane Creek(CANE- CA) and only be applicable to Lake Orange (U-ENO-CA). c.& d. These provisions basically allow the continuation of a nonconforming situation as conforming which may, for most situations, be acceptable; however, the noconforming use provisions should still apply, particularly for uses such as the asphalt plant. e. Disturbances to buffers should be mitigated to the extent practicable. P. 0. BOX 829 • 301 WEST MAIN STREET. CARRBORO, NC 27510 • (919) 942.8541 • FAX(919) 968.7737 • TOO (919) 968.7717 AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPI AYRR Marvin Collins(con't) 23 f This provision merely reflects current state requirements, no additional comment. 4. This amendment applies outside of the Joint Planning Area. The creation of an economic development district around the intersection of 1-40 and Old 86 may increase the development potential of the northern portion of the Rural Buffer. Consideration of this potential should be taken into account by the county so as to not adversely impact the intended purpose of the Rural Buffer. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the county's proposed amendments in accordance with the Joint Planning Agreement. Sincerely, Roy M—Williford Planning and Economic Development Director 24 1 A motion was made by Commissioner.Willhoit, seconded by 2 Commissioner Insko, to -refer this item to the Planning Board to 3 be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 4 17, 1995. 5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6 7 1. Amendments Related to Watershed Protection Overlay 8 Districts 9 b. Article 6. 23 . 7b - Permitted Use in Stream Buffers 10 C. Article 6. 23 . 8 - Water Supply/Sewage Disposal 11 Facilities 12 d. Article 6 . 23 . 10a - Applicability/Existing 13 Development 14 e. Article 6. 23 . 10c - Applicability/Existing Lots 15 f. Article 6. 23 . 11 - Administration 16 Items C1 (b-f) were presented by Mary Willis in order 17 to receive citizen comments on proposed amendments which would 18 allow, for the reduction of setbacks adjacent to streams and 19 reservoirs to the extent necessary to allow development of an 20 existing lot of record. 21 22 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING 23 BOARD 24 25 Commissioner Willhoit requested statistics on the frequency 26 of pump failures and on the length of time between failure and I27 completion of repairs. The, localized effect from leaking tanks 28 and/or nitrification fields needs to be considered. 29 30 Mary Willis indicated that she would request this 31 information from the Health Department and forward to the 32 Commissioners. She commented that current Health Department 33 standards require the septic tank and nitrification field to be 34 100 feet from the reservoir which exceeds the state standards. 35 36 Kent Scott indicated that each pump is equipped with an 37 alarm which sounds when there is a failure. This is intended to 38 immediately advise homeowners of the failure of their system. 39 40 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS 41 42- MOLLIE S. JOHNSON, a Lake Orange homeowner, thanked the 43 Orange County Planning Staff, Health Department and Board of 44 Adjustment for their work on this project. She urged that these 45 amendments be approved. 46 47 GARY LUBARSKY, a Lake Orange homeowner, spoke in support of 48 these proposed amendments. He indicated that on January 1, 1994 49 the existing structures and undeveloped lots on Lake Orange 50 became non-compliant. Property owners were upset about the 51 prospect of being required to use the Board of Adjustment process 32 with the resultant fees included. He believes that these proposed 25 1 amendments protect the existing property owners as well as the 2 lake front property. 3 4 MARILYN FAST, a Lake Orange property owner, thanked the 5 Planning Board for their work, on these proposed amendments, and 6 requested that the Board of Commissioners approve them. She 7 stated that it is important to the property owners that existing 8 development be considered conforming. These amendments protect 9 water quality without placing an undue burden on homeowners. 10 11 TYSON CLAYTON, a Lake Orange property owner, spoke in 12 support of these - amendments and requested the Board of 13 Commissioners approve them. 14 15 BOBBY NICHOLS, requested that the Board of Commissioners 16 approve these amendments. 17 18 END OF PUBLIC COMMENT 19 20 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by 21 Commissioner Insko, to refer these items to the Planning Board to 22 be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 23 17, 1995. 24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 25 26 2 . AMENDMENTS RELATED TO I-40/OLD N.C. 86 ECONOMIC 27 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 28 a. CP-5-94 140/OLD N.C. 86 Economic Development 29 District (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) 30 b. Z-5-94 140/OLD N.C. 86 Economic Development 31 Districts (Zoning Atlas Amendment) 32 C. Article 6.29.3 - Economic Development Districts 33 Design Manual (Zoning ordinance Text Amendments) 34 These items were presented by Marvin Collins to 35 receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Orange 36 County comprehensive Plan, Zoning Atlas, and Zoning Ordinance to 37 implement the recommendations of the I-40/Old N.C. 86 Economic 38 Development Districts Work Group. 39 40 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR 41 PLANNING BOARD 42 43 In response to a question from Chair Carey, Marvin indicated 44 that the one property was split by the district boundary. This 45 occurred because the line follows Cates Creek. Where the line 46 crosses Cates Creek the land becomes steeper and less suitable 47 for development. The area west of Old NC 86 has been added to 48 this proposal since the time of the original Public Hearing. 49 This area is adjacent to Cornwallis Hills and includes property 50 that fronts along Old NC 86 between the entrance to Cornwallis 51 - Hills and Oakdale Drive. These properties were added at the 52 request of the individual property owners. 26 DRAFT LONG RANGE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Waddell (Chair) , Karen Barrows, Margaret Brown, Cheryl Howie, Joan Jobsis, Cherie Rosemond, Elizabeth Walters. MEMBERS ABSENT: Virginia Boland, Clint Burklin, Paul Hoecke, Larry Reid, Kent Scott - all excused. STAFF PRESENT: Marvin Collins, Mary Willis, Don Belk, Joanna Bradshaw. AGENDA ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA To Agenda Item #6 - Planning Board Items - Waddell added 6b: Elections. AGENDA ITEM #4: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (11/30/94) a. Watershed Protection Overlay Districts ( 1) Article 6.23.7b - Permitted Use in Stream Buffers (2) Article 6.23.8 - Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities (3) Article 6.23. 10a - Applicability/Existing Development (4) Article 6.23. 10c - Applicability/Existing Lots (5) Article 6.23. 11 - Administration Presentation by Mary Willis. At the public hearing there were several comments from the public in support of the proposed amendment that would allow for Staff approval of reductions in setbacks when certain criteria are met. Commissioner Willhoit requested information regarding the frequency of septic pump failures and the length of time between failure and repair. Environmental Health has indicated in the attached memo that if the pump alarm is activated by a failure, then the homeowner generally calls his/her plumber to make the necessary repairs and Environmental Health is not notified. (A copy of that memo is an attachment 27 to these minutes on page Commissioner Willhoit also expressed concern with the proposed wording of Article 6.23. 10(c) 6, recommended by OWASA staff, which would prohibit administrative approval of reductions in setbacks if water quality problems attributable to failing septic systems within 300 ' of the reservoir have been identified. It was pointed out that "water quality problems" were not clearly defined, and that it would be difficult to determine whether or not that condition was met. The staffs of the Orange County Planning Department, Orange County Environmental Health and Orange Water and Sewer Authority met to discuss the proposed amendment, And concluded that a baseline level of coliform for each reservoir is needed to determine if water quality has been impaired due to the failure of a septic system within 300 feet of the reservoir. Baseline coliform levels have not been measured for University Lake, Cane Creek Reservoir, Lake Orange or Corporation Lake. The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed amendment to Article 6.23 be approved, with the elimination of Article 6.23.10(c) 6. The Planning Staff also recommends approval of the Resolution of the Board of Commissioners to provide assurance to OWASA that Planning Staff will continue to explore possible means, including but not limited to establishment of baseline coliform levels, by which to determine if a malfunctioning septic system within 300 feet of a water supply reservoir has affected water quality within the reservoir, and to report its findings and recommendations to the Board of Commissioners no later than July 1, 1995. (A copy of the resolution is an attachment to these minutes on page Brown referred to the letter from the Town of Carrboro item 3c&d which states: "These provisions basically allow the continuation of a nonconforming situation as conforming which may, for most situations, be acceptable; however, the nonconforming use provisions should still apply, particularly for uses such as the asphalt plant. " Willis responded that the asphalt plant is a use criteria that is controlled by the Zoning, it is not specifically a watershed standard. Little River and Cedar Grove Townships are zoned and the asphalt 28 plant is nonconforming with regard to the base zoning related to the use. She continued, the conditions that are being referred to here apply to uses that would otherwise be conforming but are not conforming in terms of setback requirements pertaining to the buffer. Nonconformities in terms of use in the basic zoning continue in the same manner that they do now. Barrows referred to the portion of the proposed amendment that would deem existing development conforming and, if destroyed, existing structures could be replaced in their current location provided there was no increase in impervious surface and no increase in any existing encroachment into buffers or setbacks. She noted information from the Board of Adjustment regarding conformity and she felt it was the intent to allow existing uses to go on but not encourage them to stay that way. If the use was destroyed or ceased to exist for a certain period of time, then the use would have to conform to the current regulations. She noted this seemed to be a departure from that regulation and she expressed concern with the creation of more non-conformities. Willis responded that if a house that is located in a stream buffer is destroyed 75%, it would be considered non-conforming and could not be replaced in that same location. Barrows expressed concern that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with current ordinances. Willis responded that the reason that there is an inconsistency is because the setbacks in the watershed standards are much greater than the zoning district setbacks. She continued that one of the key components of the watershed standards is the impervious surface, thus the situation already there is not being changed. She reminded members that the setbacks are 150 feet for the residence from the reservoir and 300 feet for the septic system. Willis continued that the main thing Staff wanted to do was to make sure that if a residence was destroyed, the owner could rebuild and obtain financing without becoming nonconforming. It was very important to the residents with whom staff had met that the term "nonconforming" not be attached to their property. Barrows expressed appreciation that the proposed amendment was in response to citizen concerns, but, she was also concerned with the inconsistency. Willis noted again that the amendment does not make anything nonconforming with respect to the underlying zoning, only to the overlay because it 29 is over and beyond the requirements of the underlying zoning. Brown stated that, if a residence burned down, and there was sufficient area to relocate it out of the buffer, she felt that should be done. Willis responded that the residence could be rebuilt in the same location as long as there was no increase in intrusion into the buffer or increase in the impervious surface. Brown continued that she could understand accommodating those who could not meet current regulations, but, those who could should be required to in the case of rebuilding. Willis responded that was one of the concerns discussed with the residents and it involved the landscaping and the way in which the existing houses are in alignment with each other and such changes would greatly affect the corresponding landscaping. Walters stated that a .change in location of the resident could possibly affect the well and septic tank. Waddell stated that his understanding was that no additional intrusion or insult would occur. Willis agreed that the basic intent is the ability to rebuild what you already have if it is destroyed. Rosemond asked for clarification regarding the number of sites. Willis responded that there are 18 lots in Bellechene East Subdivision that are affected. The other subdivisions in the area would bring that �.otal estimate to 50 to 70 lots in the Lake Orangii County. There will be other lots in other areas of the County that are affected through other stream buffers and there is no way to estimate a reasonable number that may be affected. Waddell stated that the Board of Adjustment had dealt with variances due to stream buffer problems throughout the County and the variance requests were usually granted. Willis noted that every effort is made to locate the residence, well and septic tank as far from the stream buffers as possible. Rosemond asked the implication of well contamination from reservoir water. Willis responded that the Health Department would make such rulings. It is important that there is good drainage at the well location. She noted that she had spoken with them regarding water quality problems and they did not have a concern with that issue. 30 Rosemond asked about erosion problems related to well drilling or construction. Willis responded that there had been no concerns with that issue from Environmental Health. Jobsis responded that the well drilling she had observed had disturbed a very small area; the drilling was straight down with a very narrow pipe and very little turnover of soil. Willis stated one reason that it is proposed that wells be allowed in stream buffers is that there has been no indication that it could/would cause a problem. She noted that the separation of wells and septic tanks on a lot is a more critical issue. If there is more flexibility with the well, then there is more ability to address the greater concern with the septic tank and residence. Waddell questioned how the Planning Staff expected to address the concern about water quality that is a part of the resolution and if there is someone on Staff who could make that determination. Willis responded that the purpose is to get more detail, perhaps from the State to determine if such information can be obtained and if it is feasible to pursue such an effort. Rosemond expressed the concern that people wanting to build on new lots might wish to build nearer the lake and would try to use the same issue and apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Willis responded that had been discussed in the neighborhood meetings and she had informed the residents that if there was the ability to meet the requirements, then, they must be met. Mr. Lubarsky, resident of Lake Orange, stated that the issue was with the existing residences. It was understood by all who attended the meetings that if there was not already a building permit, then the applicant must meet the stream buffer requirements and not apply for a variance. Howie asked about the possibility of further subdivision of the nonconforming lots. Willis responded that the buffer reduction applies only to lots existing prior to January 1, 1994. Any new lots must meet the current requirements. MOTION: Barrows moved acceptance of the Resolution and that it be forwarded to the Commissioners as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jobsis. VOTE: 5 in favor. 2 opposed (Rosemond - would like this amendment to I I 31 apply only to Lake Orange and not the other watersheds. Any other lots should still apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Brown - did not want the amendment to apply to all watersheds and wanted those lots that could relocate a residence, should it be destroyed, to become conforming, to do so. She felt this was not fair to the County in general - if should be a variance. ) Brown also ask that the Commissioners ask the County Health Department to keep accurate records on failure of pump systems so that the failure problem could be understood more clearly in the future. MOTION: Walters moved approval of the proposed amendment eliminating Article 6.23. 10c(6) as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jobsis. VOTE: 5 in favor. 2 opposed (Brown, Rosemond - reasons already stated) .