The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 04-14-2015 - 21 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 Action Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Presentation on Alternatives to On -site Septic Systems DEPARTMENT: Health /Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Powerpoint: Septic System Options Alan Clapp, 245 -2363 Craig Benedict, 245 -2592 Michael Harvey, 245 -2597 PURPOSE: To receive a presentation from Environmental Health and Planning staff on septic system and subdivision development alternatives. BACKGROUND: Typical subdivision development in Orange County in areas not served by public sewer primarily utilizes septic systems on individual lots. There are off -site septic alternatives available using cluster development principles with smaller lots and much larger open spaces. Staff will present some of these development principles that keep the character of the individual lot, but offer the developer flexibility to work around topography and soil limitations. There are watersheds (e.g. University Lake Protected) that have limited options because of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Planning and Environmental Health staff will discuss how alternatives for septic systems and development could be incorporated into the UDO. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receiving the presentation. There is a financial impact with septic system installation that is borne by the developer or eventual lot owner. The cost of a gravity flow system ranges from approximately $5,000 to $12,000 (depending on number of bedrooms for which the system is sized), with pump systems typically costing an additional $1,500 to $2,500. Septic systems also create some personnel costs to the County in the form of permitting and inspection. All systems with a pump require an inspection every 3 to 5 years by Health Department staff based on the drainfield type. The developer, homeowner or Home Owners Association (HOA) incurs fees from the Health Department for the inspection. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board: 1. Receive the presentation; and 2. Provide feedback and questions as appropriate. Septic System Options Alan Clapp Orange County Environmental Health Major Considerations P'. soils Septic System Options Development Type Enforcement/ Legal Accessibility Operation and Maintenance M Red color Good for septic systems - 600,000 acres of this soil in North Carolina - 28% of the soil found in Orange County is mapped Georgeville - -Very similar properties to the Herndon series (yellowish -red) which occupies i9% of Orange County ry y -- appe 777 range ' County anYellow buck tallow Shrink -swell clay + r - -Poor for septic systems r -- 7% of the soils in Orange' y County 4/9/2015 3 M Well i Aerobic • Groundwater s 4/9/2015 4/9/2015 4/9/2015 Fill systems LTAR based lowest for textural group Below ground systems LTAR based on soil properties Y � 4/9/2015 7 1.1 4/9/2015 4/9/2015 4/9/2015 10 4/9/2015 11 I ft 4/9/2015 12 11 4/9/2015 13 Fia . 111-711 still ll'. Conservation or Cluster Development _ 7!;- . -u_ z �i a r— 'Aft Figure 3 -19 Option 6— Locating individual Wastewater Treatment System Leachficids in Cornrnon Open Space 4/9/2015 14 13 ,uNo 6LDIC R/NU • r`Si I PB 135. Pft 1111 -121 I Y'IOOD GIR (50, ftsue 1 WILSON fl IW �J (SO' PUBLIC IVY ai Cr�� •\ `I IV ree\ IY� rs,: ill r`% p1` iae, I�` . I`� real III r. �` �I�`\��. s ASEPTIC EASEMENT 4 COMMON AREA Ac" "" 4/9/2015 15 14 4/9/2015 16 0161 Land Hooks �-1] ' ` \ \\ ` _ .. __ W � � U � I� • ems- i ` ono. ell ` 1 1 2c 7 Fi.acr Z M t PA � Sn' osc I vgY6 FL%M7 4/9/2015 16 0161 4/9/2015 17 NO O P Y 5fwk t - 5 a S PR JI O• 116 ryOsr 8 4/9/2015 17 NO 4/9/2015 18 FWl 4/9/2015 19 iBi L15 NOV, a,51'■ $837.7$' a 1" o [pi p T14 d • s 11A PTA Jv ��, , S P I r 7 �o 3 1.563 ACRES i 1.173 ACRES 1 -335 ACRES COMMON AMA 4 r J 3.477 ACRES 1 ! 1 + I g g g Air 161. c® y M Sorse St ,� ;. 13' a L47 - a. LX tAKE CO" �µf x 4�•■ - -- r , CH slr.90, 4/9/2015 19 iBi 4/9/2015 20 FLa7 L15 xae'ra'ar'r zss�.rx' I05.15 a xr "-41 a 1N SPi 1 1 A, •y Ti14 7 70 - ------'- -- - - -- 1 x va ra's1 r , f,G ROD.9r' v p? A I m `YY T a ai l�J r,nuunu aena e .� 1 1.503 ACRES 1.171 ACRES m 4j 4 I l 9 g $ ! so, L47 µf Nat' '4e' ■� — _ I 47 r S'= 4/9/2015 21 `i17 E The "UGLY" 04 3 ^-4 sl P14 I P13 124. pie cy, P17 4/4/7Ol5 22 21 4/9/2015 23 pia 4/9/2015 24 pal Best Planning Practices for Remote Systems Locate and use the best soils for drain fields Designate the appropriate type of remote fields for the type of development proposed Allow for dedicated all- weather access to the drain fields instead of easements Design for operation and maintenance Zoning Regulations - septic system (tanks and nitrification fields) PROHIBITED FROM BEING LOCATED: Within stream N iffPr-_ Staff Comment: Section 4.2.2 (1) of UDO establishes a waiver provision where lots created prior to January 1, 1994 or October 19, 1999 (lots in Cane Creek Overlay) can get an exemption from this prohibition. Within 300 feel ui Lie reservoir in the university LaKe Critical Watershed Overlay (tank and field). Within Cane Creek and Upper Eno Critical area new septic tanks are prohibited within 150 feet of the reservoir. Nitrification fields cannot be within 300 feet of reservoir Staff Comment: Health regulations only require a 100 ft. setback from a reservoir and 50 ft. from a stream iing Regulations - septic system .ills and nitrification fields) continued Within 100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream. Staff Comment: Again we have a waiver requirement to ensure we are not denying a property owner use of their property. Zoning Regulations - septic system On -site versus off -site installation • OFF SITE SEPTIC TREATMENT AND /OR DISPOSAL PROHIBITED WITHIN UNIVERSITY LAKE CRITICAL AND PROTECTED WATERSHED IkOVERLAY DISTRICT(S). • ALL OTHER DISTRICTS — CAN OCCUR WITH OAPPROVAL OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION (SECTION 7.12 OF UDO)