HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93008_0886 (2)441
DAVENPORT: Oh, I'm sorry. He made the opening statement.
Staff, any questions?
MILLS: I have some technical questions.
(Not clear)
You know, I was here I guess for all of the hearings that you are referencing. And I don't
remember p=_ckage sewer treatment coming up. There's a lot been said. An above -ground waste treat-
ment facility is not necessarily a package treatment plant, or package plant, is it? Can't you have
a septic tank that is not completely underground?
BECKHAM: Hypothetically, (not clear)
MILLS: Well, I've seen them at the schools.
HEDRICK: They're distribution systems.
MILLS: Is it not a septic tank? Is it not a nitrofication field?
HEDRICK: I don't know, I'm not an expert.
MILLS: As I remember our discussions at the time, and not being an engineer and not being that
familiar with what we are now referring to waste treatment facilities, when you said above -ground
sewer treatment, my thoughts, when I think back on it, I was thinking of septic tanks. And my
question is, Did we ever discuss in these hearings and in this finding of fact waste treatment
facilities that dump the effluent in the lake? And is this the time to ask the question?
DAVENPORT: It's an appropriate question to ask because the petitioners invited it. They
essentially raised the issue whether they should even be here.
MILLS: I don't have any problem with Bill making his points, and I think they are well taken,
but I don't think that we ought to say that the findings of fact of whatever the date was, that we
talked about it, when in my mind we didn't talk about it because of the definitions of what we
talked about. To me, we're talking about two different things, we talked about nitrofication
fields, which was what we approved, and putting the effluent in the lake.
HOLLAN: As a general comment, we have always taken the position that the sewage treatment
facilities, whatever they are, are questions that are properly addressed by the State regulatory
agencies who have authority and jurisdiction over them. The county doesn't have any jurisdiction
over septic tanks of the size that we talked about here, nor, there's some testimony, I guess by Mr.
Campbell to the effect that the commissioners don't, enforce this sewage part of the ordinance.
We, in showing nitrofication fields, responded to questions by opponents, which we thought.
It's almost like this hearing, we didn't think we needed to show the sewage treatment, facilities,
necessarily, because that was something regulated by the state. But because somebody said you can't
do it, we said, of course, we can do it, we will show you how we can do it. As to the nitrofication
fields, we said, we are at single-family residential density. Your (not clear) 15,000 s.f. lots,
where we've got public water. Our average lot size, if you divide our acreage by the number of
units is 18,000 s.f. We are responding to different kind of questions. We get a different objec-
tion, it seems to me, we've been at this thing for three years. We get kind of a different objec-
tion every time. Certainly we've talked about septic systems, certainly I've told you that ive have
come to the conclusion that a sewage treatment facility is better than a septic system. That was
not my conclusion two years, three years ago, when we started this. I have since, as I told Mr.
Bryan, developed a project in which sewage treatment plant is the means of sewage treatment. I have
--- come to the conclusion, based on that experience, that this is a better way to do it. And I think
what we ought to be considering (not clear) what is the best thing we can do from the point of
desirability and stability of the community as required by the ordinance.
We can talk about a lot of things, but we want to put the best project here that we can put,
and we believe that to do our best job we ought to go with a seweage treatment, treatment not a
septic system, where there really isn't treatment, there's just settling out. That's not treatment,
that's something different. We think sewage treatment is a better long-term solution, and that's
why we come (not clear) what we're here to share with you, our conclusion to that.
HEDRICK: At what time did you come to this conclusion that this would be a better system than
the nitrofication?
HOLLAN: During the last year and a half, I think we had clearly come to that conclusion by the
early part of this year, which is about a year after the approval here. At which time, we met with
some members of the county staff and others to discuss our tentative conclusion that this was the
most desirable method of proceeding. It was at this same time that the county began to consider
sewage treatment ordinance. We have tried to participate in thos discussions during that period of
time. It was over probably the last year to eighteen months. It was certainly since the time of
this, as we've gotten into the development, and as our own experiences with sewage treatment facili-
ties and septic have led us to make certain conclusions about where each kind is most appropriate
and most desirable.
HEDRICK: The reason I'm asking you is that as I recall at a meeting a rc,;ular commissioners
meeting, January 1984, That can't be right. The request for a rezoning by a non -owner.
CLERK: That's January 1985.