HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-01-2010 - 8aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 1, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No. g -4
SUBJECT: Report - Update on the UNC Bingham Facility
DEPARTMENT: Environment, Agriculture, Parks PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
& Recreation (DEAPR);
Health /Environmental Health;
Planning & Inspections
ATTACHMENTS
1. Bingham Facility Fact Sheet
2. Site Plan — Existing and Proposed
3. Letter from Planning & Inspections
4. DEAPR Memo re CFE Involvement
5. Letters Submitted by UNC re
Violations
INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Stancil, DEAPR, 245 -2510
Craig Benedict, Planning & Inspections
245 -2585
Rosemary Summers, Health, 245 -2400
Tom Konsler, Environmental Health,
245 -2360
Tom Davis, DEAPR, 960 -3878
PURPOSE: To update the Board on various issues pertaining to University of North
Carolina's Bingham Facility, and to receive information from university representatives.
BACKGROUND: On March 2, members of the citizen group, Preserve Rural Orange,
asked the Board to provide staff assistance in addressing environmental concerns
associated with the University of North Carolina's "Bingham Facility." The facility is
located at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (TMBL 6.33..12 / PIN 9728 -93-
1820). The property is approximately fifty -six (56) acres in area, is wooded in areas, with
limited pasture areas, and with numerous streams. The property is currently zoned
Agricultural Residential (AR).
The current land use operating on the property is classified as a 'University, College,
Institute' per Section 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance.
The facility has operated since the early 1970s, and at various times it has also been
known as The Farm, the Animal Resource Center (ARC) and the Research Resource
Facility (RRF).
The University was recently awarded a $14.5 million grant from the National Institutes of
Health (stimulus funds) to facilitate a planned expansion of the facility.
During the past six months, the Bingham Facility has received coverage and attention from
Preserve Rural Orange, State and Orange County government, county advisory boards
and the media. The University has received three notices of violation from the N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and was also notified by the County Planning and
2
Inspections Department that it will need to obtain a special use permit for the planned
expansion. The University has responded to the reported problems by shutting down
portions of the facility, reorganizing the facility administration and overseeing the planned
expansion, and working to improve communication with the Bingham community. The
University has also hired consulting engineers to assess the facility design and to
recommend possible improvements.
A tour of the facility was provided to Commissioners Pelissier, Jacobs, Yuhasz, and
Hemminger along with County staff on May 18. Attendees learned about the history of the
facility, plans for expansion of the facility, and the treatment of animals on site.
The following is a summary of the current problems that have been identified by DWQ and
the County, and the status of how those problems have been addressed.
Environmental and Environmental Health Issues: The facility has been cited by the
State of North Carolina for the following surface water quality violations:
➢ In February 2010, DWQ issued a notice of violation for the December 2009 discharge
of an unknown quantity of treated wastewater into an unnamed stream that flows into
Collins Creek, a tributary of the Haw River and Jordan Lake.
➢ In March 2010, DWQ issued a notice of violation after broken pipes spilled a reported
1,800 gallons of treated wastewater onto the ground in late February.
➢ In April 2010, DWQ issued a notice of violation to the University for construction
activities that occurred in 2008, including the filling of two small wetland areas and the
unauthorized installation of piping and riprap in a stream.
Current Status:
All of these items are subject to regulation by the N.C. Division of Water Quality with
limited monitoring provided by the Environmental Health Division of the Orange County
Health Department. The status of resolving the violations is not yet known. UNC could be
subjected to significant monetary penalties, or be required to complete other remedial
measures in order to resolve each of the violations. Letters received by UNC regarding
these violations are included as Attachment 5.
The University's Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, Bob Lowman, has stated that
past problems with the wastewater treatment system involved leaks of highly treated
wastewater approved for spray irrigation. As such, it is argued that there was no
contamination of the soil, groundwater or streams, although it is not known if there is data
to either support or contradict this claim at this time.
Environmental Health staff has had regular contact with UNC regarding its plans, and the
permitting process that it is committed to following, including any monitoring inspections by
Environmental Health. It is staff's understanding that the actual permit will be a state
issued DWQ permit and not an "Orange County" permit. From staff's perspective, the
County will likely need to see final proposed plans before informed comment may be
made about any future concerns, or in the possible abandonment plan for the systems as
3
they currently exist. UNC has taken the systems "off - line," and are pumping and hauling
for disposal at present, a customary interim practice for a non - functioning system.
Planning /Zoning /Building Issues
➢ In November of 2003 County staff informed University officials that a `Universities,
Colleges, and Institutes' land use could be developed on the property as a permitted
use in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
(hereafter 'the Ordinance').
➢ On November 22, 2004 staff approved a site plan proposing the development of a
University research facility on a limited portion of the property. There was no reference
on the approved site plan denoting the overall size or capacity needs of the septic
system necessary for the project.
➢ Construction commenced on the research facility under a building permit issued
through the State, who also assumed responsibility for conducting all required building
inspections. As this is a State owned property and facility, the project is not required to
obtain a local building permit or be inspected by representatives of the County
Inspections Division. It should be noted that Orange County Inspections has offered to
conduct courtesy inspections to ensure compliance with building codes. As of the
writing of this document, no request has been made.
➢ In 2006, Planning staff began working with University officials on a site plan
modification proposing the expansion of the research facility.
➢ In March of 2010, staff has discovered that the existing State permitted wastewater
disposal system on the property had a design capacity over three thousand (3,000)
gallons based on permit records on file with the Orange County Health Department.
➢ Section 6.20 of the Ordinance prohibits the location of 'ground absorption systems with
a design capacity of 3, 000 gallons per day or more and package treatment plants for
sanitary sewage disposal' without the submittal, review, and issuance of a Class A
Special Use Permit of a Planned Development rezoning in accordance with the
provisions of the Ordinance, which would include Planning Board and BOCC approval.
Current Status: On April 9, 2010 staff issued a letter, copied to the Manager and
the BOCC, informing the University of the situation and requiring that they either
apply for a Class A Special Use Permit or a Planned Development in order to
continue operating the facility.
On April 29, 2010, staff met with University officials to discuss the matter and
review permitting and application submittal requirements for another site plan
modification and options related to the size and type of wastewater disposal
system.
The University may be required to complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) in
accordance with the County Environmental Impact Ordinance. This determination can
only be made once the revised site plan is submitted and the total area of disturbance, for
4
existing and future development phases, is provided. It should be noted that the location
of wetlands would be shown on the EA as well.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact is associated with the receipt of this report.
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board receive this information
for consideration and discussion, and provide staff feedback and direction as needed.
A #"' WA- J,
The Bingham Facility
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Fact Sheet
Description:
The Bingham Facility is an animal research facility owned and operated by the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill on a 57 -acre site in western Orange County since the early 1970s. At various times, it has also
been known as The Farm, the Animal Resource Center (ARC) and the Research Resource Facility (RRF). The
facility supports the University's leading biomedical research of genetic diseases, finding gene therapy to cure
diseases such as hemophilia and muscular dystrophy, by housing colonies of dogs that have these diseases. In
the past, the facility has also housed swine with heart disease. Because of its off - campus location, the facility is
also used for the temporary preventative quarantine of new animals (mice, birds and some primates) before
research animals on main campus are exposed to them. The facility is an active registered and licensed
research facility under the Animal Welfare Act with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It was last inspected
by USDA on January 28, 2010.
Existing conditions (February 2010):
Animal building (original): 9,411 square feet, 50 dogs (may be used for other animals; number will vary)
Canine building (Nichols): 5,000 square feet, 50 animals
Storage buildings (2): 3,000 square feet and 3,715 square feet
Waste treatment plant
Holding ponds (3):
Treated animal wastewater: 1,576,853- gallon capacity
Treated domestic wastewater: 171,500- gallon capacity
Treated domestic wastewater: 75,843- gallon capacity
Irrigation pump station
Spray fields
Plans for expansion:
As the University's research mission has grown and changed, so have plans to expand the Bingham Facility.
The current expansion, dependent on a grant application for federal stimulus funding, would enable the
University to consolidate research operations in a central facility. In addition to the dog colonies already
housed there, Bingham would also become the new home of the Francis Owen Blood Research Laboratory and
its colonies of dogs and swine and another colony of dogs used to study muscular dystrophy. The Bingham
Facility has room for expansion to grow the animal colonies and provide more veterinary care on -site, thus
eliminating the need to bring the animals to campus for veterinary care. A secure consolidated facility would
also make it easier to protect these animal resources. The grant- funded projects that follow would be
completed in 2012 -2013, and others in phases as funding becomes available.
Canine building (Kornegay): 11,000 square feet, 100 animals (under construction, March 2010 completion)
Addition to canine building (Kornegay): 6,723 square feet, 100 animals
Canine building (second Nichols): 11,038 square feet, 100 animals
Addition to canine building (second Nichols): 4,366 square feet, 100 animals
Swine building: 18,985 square feet, 125 animals
Addition to swine building: 10,695 square feet, 80 -100 animals
Laboratory/office /support building (2- story): 17,495 square feet
Addition to lab building: 3,087 square feet
Total (existing and proposed):
104,515 square feet
500 dogs
205 to 225 swine
2,000 rodents
6
r
t a
x.
�-
'
fi
h � t
wmi
z; I �
cc Oz -.d�
�eb.' i�F �,tU'.--,..-+siv'�*"e '�yb�'a� �y�i -�� ,a�„ yt!: � _ �� .-y�� � � ••1
t_
v z o o ° o z
LD o
z o z
LL z LL a o J (D z Z
z Z Z z Z O W d O uww Z T7- d Z W
J_ K O LL Q W J X Q X Q W
O 5 5 5 O d O r oc O w a w J �
m _
l7 l7 C7 �i z w Z F W
a u u 3 0 0 o Q ac a m ° o j N
eCi eN (e�'S e7 Vel teD O O = Q = C W LL d > W LaL J Q
W
a a a a a a a c� o g z Z owc 3 z z Q
x x x x x = o a a z r- o o = O
z w LJ.!o a o LL X LL a 3 X X = a
Z Z z z z Z X g N w J Z w w > O 1a
z
.-i ni rri V vj N
P-: C6 m O- - - - a --� - n-' � I � d ~®
A"VVV4 3
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Current Planning
(919) 245 -2575
(919) 644 -3002 (FAX)
www.co.orange.nc.us
131 West Margaret Lane
P O Box 8181
Hillsborough,
North Carolina, 27278
April 9, 2010
Bob Lowman Dwayne Pinkney
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research - UNC Assistant to the Chancellor - UNC
312 South Building 303 South Building
Campus Box 4000 Campus Box 1000
Chapel Hill, NC 27599 Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Eugene Bobber
Planning Office —UNC
425 Macnider Hall
Campus Box 7000
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
RE: REVIEW of development activities at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road
(TMBL 6.31.12 / PIN 9728 -93 -1820)
To Whom It May Concern:
Recently, Mr. Eugene Bobber was kind enough to permit a site inspection by Planning
staff to inspect recent construction activities associated with the development of a University
operated research facility at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (hereafter `the Property').
The purpose of the inspection was to verify that construction activity was being carried
out in accordance with a Zoning Compliance Permit issued by this office based on an approved
of a site plan, originally approved in November of 2004 and modified by the University in 2006.
The property is approximately fifty -six (56) acres in area and is currently zoned
Agricultural Residential (AR). The property is also located within the Agricultural Residential
Land Use Category as defined within the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The
property is heavily wooded with numerous streams flowing throughout.
During the aforementioned inspection, Mr. Bobber indicated that the site was being re-
evaluated with respect to the location of all proposed structures, as well as their overall size and
use, and that finther modifications to approved site plan(s) would be necessary to accommodate
the University's needs on the property.
Staff was asked to provide guidance on the necessary review and approval process to
accommodate these anticipated revisions.
In reviewing this request, staff has determined the following:
1. Sometime in 2003 a discussion began amongst Planning staff and University officials
over the possibility of developing a research facility on the property that included
housing and breeding facilities for mice, dogs, and hogs that are utilized to support
various research projects
2. In November of 2003 a letter was issued by the Planning Department informing the
University that the property could be utilized to develop a `Universities, Colleges, and
Institutes' land use in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance (hereafter `the Ordinance').
Such uses were considered a permitted use of property within the AR zoning district per
Section 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses after the property owner /applicant demonstrates
compliance with applicable provisions of the Ordinance including, but not limited to, site
plan approval as detailed within Article Fourteen (14) Site Plan Approval Procedures.
3. On October 8, 2004 a site plan application proposing the development of a University
research facility on the property was submitted.
4. The site plan (`Phase 1') was approved by staff on November 22, 2004 allowing for the
development of the following on the property:
a. 1,500 square foot research office,
b. 8,850 square foot research bio -lab,
c. Parking facilities for employees,
d. 11,000 square foot rodent retention facility,
e, 5,000 square foot dog kennel,
£ 1,000 square foot storage facility,
g. 15,000 square foot kennel and lab are to support a new `Blood Lab', and
h. 5 pig enclosures
The site plan denoted the location of several buildings on the property, above and beyond
what was asked by the University for the County to approve at that time.
It should be noted that there was no reference on the approved site plan denoting the
overall size or capacity needs of the septic system necessary for the project nor was there
any reference to the number of employees that would be working from the property.
2
The aforementioned letter only approved
identified therein. It did not grant `blanket'
plan.
the construction of the various buildings
approval for all buildings shown on the site
There was an apparent understanding that as new building(s) were proposed for
construction, additional site plan submittal, review, and approval would be necessary.
This includes the payment of applicable Department review fees.
5. In 2006 Planning staff and University officials were discussing the need for a revised site
plan showing:
a. The final location for all proposed, and existing, structures on the property,
b. The location of the spray irrigation field areas and other septic field and repair
locations, if any,
c. All well locations,
d. The location of all streams and flood plains on the property,
e. The provision of a driveway encroachment agreement from NC DOT for the
improvements to the entrance of the property, and
f. The location of sediment basins and stormwater detention ponds,
The revised site plan (`Phase 2') was deemed necessary as University officials had
indicated that modifications were necessary to previously approved structures. In May of
2006 a site plan was submitted to the County incorporating these items as requested.
According to our records the University was authorized in July of 2006 to move forward
with the revised development plans.
As with the 2004 site plan, there was no reference to the overall size or design capacity of
the septic system on the revised site plan.
6. Planning staff has discovered that the existing wastewater disposal system on the
property has a design capacity over three thousand (3,000) gallons based on permit
records on file with the Orange County Health Department regarding the existing State
permitted system.
This may have been in response to support the anticipated development of future
buildings on the property.
7. Section 6.20 of the Ordinance prohibits the location of `ground absorption systems with a
design capacity of 3,000 gallons per day or more and package treatment plants for
sanitary sewage disposal' without the submittal, review, and issuance of a Class A
Special Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Article Eight (8) or a the
submittal, review, and issuance of a Planned Development (PD) rezoning in accordance
with Article Seven (7) of the Ordinance.
8. During the zoning site inspection, carried out on December 17, 2009, staff noticed
inconsistencies with the `Phase 2'. site plan approved in 2006.
In answering the University's question relating to the necessary process to review
proposed modifications to the previously approved site plan(s), and based on available
information, staff has determined that the University will be required to submit and seek
approval of a Class -A Special Use Permit Application allowing for the development of a facility
requiring a ground absorption system with a design capacity over three thousand (3,000) gallons
per day.
Staff is including the necessary Class A Special Use Permit application packet as well as
the applicable provisions of the Ordinance relating to the review and approval of the project.
Class A Special Use Permits are reviewed by the County Board of Commissioners and the
Planning Board at one (1) of four (4) previously scheduled quarterly public hearings. Staff has
attached a copy of the submittal deadlines associated with each of the quarterly public hearing
dates.
The application fee for the processing of the Special Use Permit shall be $1,560.00 in
accordance with the current Orange County fee schedule. The site plan review, in order to allow
staff to issue the Zoning Compliance Permit once the Special Use Permit is approved, shall be
$1,000.00 plus $20.00 per one thousand (1,000) square feet of building area.
Planning staff strongly recommends that University officials schedule a pre - application
meeting to review the necessary submittal and review process associated with the processing of a
Class A Special Use Permit application.
Staff looks forward to working with you on this matter and will be more than happy to
assist with the processing of the site plan modification as well as the Class A Special Use Permit
application package. You may reach staff at (919) 245 -2575 for additional assistance.
Sincere y,
Mic
ae CIP O
Current Planning Supervisor
Orange County
ATTACHMENTS: (1) Class A Special Use Permit Application
(2) Article Eight (8) Special Uses of the Ordinance
CC: Orange County Commissioners
Frank Clifton, County Manager
Craig Benedict, Planning Director
John Roberts, County Attorney
Susan Mellott, Building Inspections
Tom Konsler, Environmental Health
File
4
(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT - INK ONLY)
APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
DATE:
APPLICATION NUMBER: PD- -
I (We) request a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for in Article
Orange County Zoning Ordinance for
The following information is provided in support of this request:
A. PROPERTY INFORMATION:
Street Address or Location:
8/88
11
of the
Orange County Tax Map Block Lot(s) Township
Zoning District(s):
Lot /Parcel Size: acres or square feet
Number of Existing Buildings: Gross Floor Area: square feet
Number of Proposed Buildings: Gross Floor Area: square feet
Water Supply: Public (Specify) . Community Individual
Wastewater Disposal: Public (Specify) Community Individual
School District: Fire District:
General Land Uses in Area:
Critical Areas: Stream/ Drainageway Flood Prone Area
Watershed (Specify) Historic Site
Other (Explain)
B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION:
Twenty -six (Z6) copies of a Site PIan, prepared by a registered North Carolina
surveyor or engineer, are provided as required by Article 8.8 and which contain the
following information:
North point, scale, and date.
Extent of area to,be developed.
Locations and widths of all easements and rights-of-way within or adjacent to
the site.
Location of all existing and proposed structures on the site.
Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown
on flood maps or soils maps.
Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow.
Existing topography at a contour interval of five (S) feet based on mean sea
level datum.
Existing and proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking, service, and storage
areas.
Access to site, including sight distances on all roads used for access.
(PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE)
12
C. OTHER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION:
Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development.
Two (2) full -size copies of the applicable Orange County Tax Map, one (1)
with the property in question clearly marked.
The names and addresses of the property owner(s) and /or applicant(s), and
names and addresses are all persons owning property within five hundred
(500) feet of the property in question.
Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
Traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Additional information regarding the proposed Special Use as required by
Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Narrative (or letters from appropriate agencies) indicating.
1. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid
waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is not
available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department
certifying the suitability of the existing and /or proposed
wastewater treatment system for the property.
2. Method and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection.
3. Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic
conditions around the site.
copy
the
I (We), the applicant(s), hereby certify that the foregoing application and supporting
documentation is complete and accurate. I understand that it shall be my (our)
responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimony,
exhibits, documents, models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the
Class A Special Use Permit.
APPLICANT SIGNATURE(S)
DATE
NOTE: If title to the above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant(s),
please include a letter from the owner(s) signifying approval of the request.
FEES: Amount $ Date Paid: / / Receipt #
13
ARTICLE 8 - SPECIAL USES
8.1 It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners to create, and from
time to time amend, a list of Special Uses within Article 4 Permitted Use
Table which, because of their inherent nature, extent and external effects,
require special care in the control of their location and methods of operation.
The Board of County Commissioners is aware of its responsibility to protect
the public health, safety and general welfare and believe that certain uses
which now or in the future may be included on this list are appropriately
handled as Special Uses, subject to review in relation to general and specific
requirements, rather than as uses permitted by right.
In addition to the listing of such uses, the Board of County Commissioners
intends that the general standards, established in Section 8.2.1, and the more
specific requirements in 8.2.2, established below, shall be used by the Board
of Adjustment, the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners,
as appropriate, to direct deliberations upon application or the approval of
Special Uses. It is the express intent of the Board of County Commissioners
to delineate the areas of concern connected with each Special Use and to
provide standards by which applications for such Special Use shall be
evaluated.
8.2.1 Before any application for a Special Use shall be approved:
a) . The applicant shall have the burden of establishing, by competent
material and substantial evidence, the existence of the facts and
conditions which this ordinance requires for approval; and
b) The Board shall make written findings certifying compliance with the
specific rules governing such individual Special Use and that the use,
which is listed as a Special Use in the district in which it is proposed to
be located, complies with all required regulations and standards
including the following general conditions:
Amended
1/8/90 (1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and
general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and
operated according to the plan as submitted;
(2) The use Wil maintain or enhance the value of contiguous
property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the
use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous
property);
8 -1
14 l
Amended
813/96 (3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to
the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it
is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for
the physical development of the County as embodied in these
regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof,
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners;
and including all applicable provisions of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and
12 of this Ordinance, unless greater or different regulations are
contained in the individual standards for the specific Special Use. The
applicant shall have the burden of establishing by competent material
and substantial evidence in the form of testimony, exhibits,
documents, models, plans and the like that the application meets the
requirements for approval of a Special Use.
8.2.2
Amended
8/3195 Where the Board finds compliance with the general standards, specific rules
governing the specific use and that the use complies with all required
regulations and standards the application must be approved unless the Board
shall also find, in some specific manner, that:
Amended
1 /B /SO . _
8/3/95 The use will not maintain or promote the public health, safety and general
welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to
the plan as submitted;
Those opposing approval of the application on the grounds that the use will
not promote the public health, safety and general welfare shall have the
burden of establishing, by competent material and substantial evidence, the
specific manner in which the proposed use does not satisfy the requirements
for approval of the application for a Special Use.
8.2.3
Amended
6/3196 The Special Use Permit shalt include a statement that if any condition of a
Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then the permit itself shall be
void and of no effect. '
8.2.4 In addition to the general standards stated in 8.2 the following specific
standards shall be addressed by the applicant before the issuance of a
Special Use Permit:
a) Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid
waste, and water.
b) Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection.
c) Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site. and traffic
conditions around the site.
d) Other use specific standards are set forth in Section 8.8.
� -z
15
8.2.5
Amended
613196 It shall be stated in the Special Use Permit that ppro art if the ause has not
expire within twelve (12) months of the date of app unless a
commenced or construction has not commenced or prro approved by the Board of
timely application for extension of this time limit is app Y
County Commissioners as provided in 8.4.11 of the Orange CD
uniy Zoning
' Ordinance.
8,S Establishment of Classes of Special Uses Authority To ApP__roe or
Disap rove
There is hereby established two classes of Special Uses which shall be
approved or disapproved as shown:
Class A - Approved or disapproved by Board of Commissioners
Class B - Approved or disapproved by Board of Adjustment
8.4
Procedure For Submission and Gonsideration of A lications For
AR roval of Special Uses
8.41 Pre -A lication Conference
Amended
8/4/86
12/10/02
6/4 /os a) Prior to the application being rece'tvedcation meeting giwAh the 8.4.2,
the applicant must request a pre -app
Orange County Planning Department. A sketch plan illustrating the
location, size and major design elements of the development loopmen f he
site must be submitted five (5) working days p pre-
application meeting. The Planning Department may request that
representatives of other public agencies be present at the pre -
application meeting. These agencies may include, but not be
limited to, the Orange County Planning Board, the Orange County
Recreation Department, the Orange County
the municipalities of Chapel Hill, Carrbor ,
Durham, the forth Carolina Department of Transportation, and
Orange Water and Sewer Authority.
b) Annual Telecommunications Projection Meeting of a l carriers
January of each Year the County shall old a
and tower companies who have filed applications the previous year
or 'anyone who has expressed plac plan far
construct a facility within the County n order to develop
facility deployment within the County that provides reasonable
coverage based on the needs usiveness of the ' residents, facilities nd the
minimizing the number an d
most efficient facility site use. The County shall notify each party of
the date, time and place t {the ameeting
t known address of thirty (and
days prior to the meeting
8 -3
16
attendance shall be expected from all parties desiring to locate
wireless telecommunication facilities within the County during the
year. Attendance at the ATPM is mandatory.
1) Prior to the acceptance of any applications for
Telecommunications Wireless Support Structures, a plan
indicating proposed search rings shall be submitted to the
Zoning Officer on or before December 31st of each year.
The purpose of the ATPM is to allow for a complete review
of collocation opportunities and address coverage issues.
After all site plans or search area plans are received, the
Planning Department Staff shall schedule an ATPM during
the month of January with the providers. New applications
for Class A Special Use Permits for telecommunications
wireless support structures will be reviewed twice per year at
the County Commissioners' May and November Public
Hearings. New applications for Class B Special Use Permits
for telecommunications wireless support structures will be
reviewed by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with the
published Board of Adjustment meeting schedule. No
application will be considered unless the proposed site was
identified on either the site plan or the search ring plan
shown at the ATPM.
2) Formal applications for the May and November Public
Hearings by the County Commissioners, and meetings of
the Board of Adjustment, shall be submitted in accordance
with the published yearly calendar of meetings schedule.
3) Exceptions to the ATPM requirement as it applies to a
particular site may be allowed in the case of unforeseen
events as defined in Section 6.18 provided the applicant,
shall submit documentation for review by the Orange County
Development Advisory Committee (DAC) that such a waiver
is necessary. The DAC shall make a determination on the
Waiver request and notify the applicant within a reasonable
time period.
4) As of the effective date of this Ordinance amendment, any
pending applications that have not received a zoning
compliance permit or a special use permit shall meet all
requirements of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to
submission deadlines, application standards and
processing, excluding the ATPM requirement.
8.4.2 Application Submitted to Zoning Officer
Application for approval of Special Uses shall be filed with the Zoning Officer,
who shall, before accepting any application, ensure that it contains all
required information, as specified elsewhere in this Article.
8-4
17
Applications which are not complete, or otherwise do not comply with the
provisions of this Article, shall not be accepted by the Zoning Officer, but shall
be returned forthwith to the applicant, with a natation by the Zoning Officer of
the deficiencies in the application.
8.4.3 Zoning Officer Prepares Analysis and Recommendation
Amended
8/4/86
3/14/00 The Zoning Officer shall cause an analysis to be made of the application by
qualified representatives of the County and such other agencies or officials as
appear appropriate in the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, subdivision, soil
erosion and sedimentation, and health regulations, and, based upon that
analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by, in the case of
Class A Special Uses, the Planning Board and Board of County
Commissioners and, in the case of Class B Special Uses, the Board of
Adjustment.
8.4.4 Recommendation Submitted To Planning Board or Board of
Adiustment
Amended
8/4/86
3/14/00 The Zoning Officer shall submit the analysis and recommendation to the
Planning Board, in the case of Class A Special Uses, or the Board of
Adjustment, in the case of Class B Special Uses.
8.4.6 Public Hearing Required; Notice Specified
Amended
113184 Prior to consideration of the application for approval of a Special Use, a public
hearing thereon shall be held by either the Board of County Commissioners
or the Board of Adjustment, as appropriate for the classification of the Special
Use involved.
The Zoning Officer shall give public notice of the date, time and place of the
public hearing to be held to receive comments, testimony and exhibits
pertaining to the application for approval of a Special Use.
Such notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in
Orange County once a week for two successive weeks, with the first notice to
be published not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty -five (25) days
prior to the date of the hearing. In computing the notice period, the day of
publication is not to be included, but the day of the hearing is to be included.
The Zoning Office shall post on the applicant's affected property a notice of
the public hearing at least ten days prior to the date of said hearing.
Written notice shall be sent by certified mail to all adjacent property owners
not less than fifteen days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners
are those whose property lies within five hundred feet of the affected property
and whose names and addresses are currently listed in the Orange County
tax records.
8 -6
18 1
8.4.6 Planning Board Action On Class A Special Uses
Amended
8/4/86
3/14/00 The Planning Board shall prepare and submit for the Board of County
Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of the
application. The Board of County Commissioners may direct the Planning
Board to provide a recommendation by a date certain. If the Board of County
Commissioners does not so direct, the Planning Board shall make its
recommendation within three regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings. If
the Planning Board fails to make a recommendation as directed by the Board
of County Commissioners or within three regularly scheduled Planning Board
meetings, whichever is applicable, the application shall be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners without a Planning Board recommendation.
8.4.7 Action 'On The Application
Amended
6/3196 After completion of the public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners or
the Board of Adjustment, as appropriate, shall take action upon the
application. This action shall be one of the following:
a) Approval;
b) Approval with conditions attached;
G) Denial.
8.4.8 imposed Conditions
The Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Adjustment, as
appropriate; may impose such reasonable conditions upon approval of a
Special Use as will afford protection of the public health, safety and general
welfare, ensure that substantial justice is done and equitable treatment
provided.
Such conditions shall run with the land and use, and shall be binding on the
original applicant(s) as well as all successors, assigns and heirs.
8,4.9 Withdrawal of Application
Amended
10/4/82 An applicant may withdraw their application at any time by written notice to
the County Manager. However, any withdrawal of an application after the
printing of the first notice as required in 8.4.4 shall have the same effect as a
denial of the petition.
8.4.10 Effect of Denial on Subsequent Petitions
Amended
10/4182 When the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Adjustment, as
appropriate, shall have denied an application, the Board of County
Commissioners or Board of Adjustment shall not receive another application
for the same or similar petition affecting the same property or a portion
thereof until the expiration of a one year period, extending from the date of
denial.
8 -6
19
8.4.11 Time Limits on Special Uses
Amended
10/7/91 Construction of Special Uses must start and proceed within twelve (12)
months of the approval of the Special Use Permit. If no construction has
started within the stated time frame, the Special Use Permit becomes null
and of no effect.
If a request is received before the permit expires, the Board of County
Commissioners, for good cause shown, may extend the expiration deadline
six (6) months upon the favorable recommendation of the Planning Board.
No changes shall be made to the conditions of approval. Only one such
approval of the time extension is permitted, and it shall be based on evidence
presented by the applicant showing that permits have been pursued in a
timely manner, and that delays have resulted from factors beyond the control
of the developer.
For developments which require approval of a Special Use Permit, the
applicant may request that the Special Use Permit be vested as a Site
Specific Developmeht Plan for a period of not less'than two (2) nor more than
five (5) years. For vesting purposes, Site Plans and Preliminary Plats may
also be approved as a Special Use Permit at the request of the applicant.
Additional application inforimation is required, as specified in Article 8.8.27,
8.5 Action Subsequent to the Board Action
Amended
3/14/00 The Zoning Officer shall cause notice of the disposition of the application to
be sent by certified mail to the applicant and a copy of the decision to be filed
in the office of the Zoning Officer.
The Zoning Officer, in the case of approval or approval with conditions, shall
issue the necessary permit in accord with the Board's action.
The Orange County Manager shall certify that the Special Use Permit with
any imposed conditions is as approved by the Board of County
Commissioners or Board of Adjustment, as appropriate.
8.6 Contents of Application for Approval of a Special Use
Amended f .
7/6/82 The application for approval of a Special Use shall be submitted on forms
provided by the Zoning Officer. Such forms shall be prepared so that when
completed a full and accurate description of the proposed use,'including its
location, appearance, and operational characteristics shall be disclosed.
Additionally, the forms shall, when completed by the applicant, disclose the
name(s) and address(es) of the owner(s) of the property involved, and all
relevant information needed to show compliance with the general and specific
standards governing the Special Use which is the subject of the application.
(See Section 8.2)
8 -7
20
8.7 Minor Changes To Be Approved By Zoning Officer; Modifications
Require Action By Approving Board
The Zoning Officer is authorized to approve minor changes in the approved
plans of Special Uses, as long as they are in harmony with action of the
approving Board, but shall not have the power to approve changes that
constitute a modification of the approval. A modification shall require
approval of the Board having jurisdiction.
*8.7.1 Criteria To Be Used In Determination
*Amended
715163 a) Any change in a condition imposed during the approval of a special
use permit shall constitute a modification.
b) Any change in use or enlargement of existing use shall constitute a
modification.
c) Any increase in intensity of use shall constitute a modification. An
increase in intensity of use shall be considered to be an increase in
usable floor area, an increase in the number of dwelling or lodging
units.
d) Structural alterations which. significantly affects the basic size, form,
style, ornamentation, andlor character of the building as shown on the
approved site plan or described in the applicants narrative shall be
considered a modification.
e) Substantial change in the amount and /or location of open space,
recreation facilities or landscape screening shall constitute a
modification.
fl Any increase in the size or number of approved signs shall constitute a
modification.
g) Any change in parking areas resulting in an increase or reduction of
five percent or more iri the number of spaces approved shall constitute
a modification.
h) Substantial changes in pedestrian and/or vehicular access or
circulation shall constitute a modification.
i) Any change in a setback required by the provisions of this Ordinance
or imposed as a condition of approval shall constitute a modification.
j) Any change in the location or extent of street and utility improvements
or rights -of -way, including water, sewer and storm drainage facilities,
which would provide a different level of service shall constitute a
modification.
8 -8
*8.7.2 Review of Record Required
"Amended
715/83 The Zoning Officer shall, before making a determination as to whether a
proposed action is a minor change or a modification, review the record of the
proceedings on the original application for approval of the Special Use. The
determination shall be based upon the request of the applicant, the review of the
record of the approval of the original request and the Zoning Officer's findings
under the criteria of Section 8.7.1.
*8.7.3 Action Required on Proposed Minor Changes or Modifications
*Amended
715/83 The Zoning Officer shall, i€ it is determined that the proposed action is a minor
change, state the findings in writing to the applicant. The applicant shall file
with the Zoning Officer an amended site plan, or written statement, outlining
in detail the minor change(s) proposed. The Zoning Officer shall file the
amended site plan or written statement with the approved site plan.
If it is determined that the proposed action is a modification, the Zoning
Officer shall require the applicant to submit a request for modification of the
approved special use permit. The applicant shall provide an amended site
plan and written narrative outlining the specific changes requested. The
Zoning Officer shall submit the request to the Board which approved the
original application. The Board shall set a public hearing to receive testimony
concerning the modification request. Any public hearing called pursuant to a
modification of an approved special use permit shall be held in conformity
with the requirements of Section 8.4.4. The Board may approve, approve
with conditions or disapproved the application for a modification.. The Zoning
Officer shall file the Board's action in his office as an amendment request to
the original application.
8 -8a
21
*8.8 Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses
*Amended
11121189
10/7191
9116103 The regulations for each Class A and Class B Special Use are divided
generally into two sections: the first consists of additional and specific
components of the application beyond those necessary to comply with
Section 8.6, while the second consists of the specific standards which are
supplementary to the general standards in Section 8.2 and to the required
conditions in Subsection 8.4.7.
The following additional information is required for all Special Use
Applications:
a) For Class A Special Uses twenty -six (26) copies of the Site Plan, and
for Class B Special Uses ten (10) copies of the Site Plan, prepared by
a registered North Carolina land surveyor, landscape architect,
architect, or engineer, which shall contain the information listed in
Article 14.2.2. Where the application involves a Preliminary
Subdivision Plat, twenty -six (26) copies of the Plat prepared in
accordance with Section V of the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations shall be provided.
b) Elevations of all proposed structures to be used in the development.
c) For Class A Special Uses twenty -six (26) copies and for Class B
Special Uses ten (10) copies of the Environmental Assessment and /or
Environmental Impact Statement, if required by the Orange County
Environmental Impact Ordinance.
A) A fee, as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
e) Method of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris
associated with the permitted activity, which shall be by some method
other than open burning.
*8.8.1 Extraction of Earth Products (Class A Special Use)
*Amended
4/1/85
*8.8.1.1 Additional Information
*Amended
7/5/83
In addition to the information required by Subsection 8.2, the following shall
be submitted as part of the application.
a) Twenty -six copies of the site plan, prepared by a North Carolina
registered land surveyor or engineer, which shall contain the following:
1) Extent of area to be excavated or mined.
2) Aerial photograph of site and all areas.within 1,000 feet of the
perimeter of the property flown within two (2) months of the
application for a Special Use Permit.
8 -9
22
23 1
For purposes of this ordinance, steady - state vibrations
are vibrations which are continuous, or vibrations in
discrete-impulses more frequent than sixty (60) per
minute. Discrete impulses which do not exceed sixty
(60) per minute, shall be considered impact vibrations.
b) The Rehabilitation Plan shall be referred to the Orange
County Soil and Water Conservation District for review and
recommendation, in particular regarding the landscape
material specified, the planting and maintenance proposed to
;6asure - cop. ti: riuouxs ,"growth-t-an&.- *devel:opment•, :=and the
acceptability of the proposals for the handling of lakes,
ponds, etc.
C) The permanent roads, defined as those to be used in excess of
one year, within the fill site shall be surfaced with a dust
free material, such as soil cement, bituminous concrete or
Portland Cement concrete.
d) Roads other than permanent roads shall be treated with dust
inhibitors, to be,specified in the Operations Plan, which
will reduce to a minimum the generation of dust from the road
surfaces as a result of wind or vehicular action. Properly
operated water wagons are an acceptable means of dust
inhibition.
e)
Where the proposed fill shall take place within 300 feet of a
dwelling, school, church, hospital, commercial or industrial
building, public building, or public land, a security fence
at least six feet high shall be installed.
f)
The Operations Plan and the Rehabilitation Plan shall be
coordinated so that the amount of disturbed land is kept to
the absolute minimum consonant with good practices and so
that rehabilitation proceeds in concert with filling.
*8.8.3
Public utility Stations and Substations, including electric
substations.. metering, and switching stations receiving more
*Amended
than 100 kilovolts rkv) of electricity, Water Treatment,
1 -3 -89
Sewacre Treatment Plant, Telephone Exchanges Class A Special
Use
8.8.3.1
Additional Information
In addition to the information required by Subsections 8.2
and 8.8, the following shall be submitted as part of the
application:
a)
A Site Plan showing all existing or proposed buildings,
storage areas, parking and access areas, topography at a
contour interval of five feet, any officially designated
floodplains or alluvial soils.
b)
Plans and elevations for all proposed structures and
descriptions of the color and nature of all exterior
materials.
8 -12
0
24
5 -13
c)
Landscape Plan, at the same scale as the site plan showing
existing and proposed trees, shrubs, ground cover and other
landscape material.
8.8.3.2
Standards of Evaluation
The following standards shall be used in deciding upon an
�.
appl ;.cation for approval of these Special Uses:
a)
Where a building is involved and it is proposed to-be located .
in a residentially zoned district, it shall have the
appearance suitable -for a residential district, or it shall
be screened from adjacent residential land.
b)
Where buildings are set back from road rights -of -way or from
private property lines by a distance of 200` screening will
not be required.
C)
All outside storage areas are fenced and screened from
adjacent residentially developed areas.
d)
The site-is of adequate size for the sewage disposal system
proposed and for the proposed use.
'
8.8.4
Group Care Facility. Class B Special Use
8.8.4.1
Additional Information
In addition to the information required by Subsection 8.2'and
8.8 the following shall be submitted as part of the
application:
a)
A description of the type of persons to be cared for and the
nature of the care to be provided.
b)
If structural alterations to existing structures or new
construction is required, a complete- description of the
nature and extent of these alterations or new construction.
8.8.4.2
Standards of Evaluation
The following standards shall be used in deciding an
application for approval of this use:
a)
The proposed use is not within 500 feet of another existing
Family Care Facility or Group Care Facility.
b)
Structural alterations shall be of such a nature as to
preserve the residential character of the building.
C)
If a state license or permit is required to operate such a
facility, the standards necessary to qualify for such a.
permit have been met.
5 -13
25
ATTACHMENT 4
Orange County
Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Frank W. Clifton, Jr., County Manager
FROM: David Stancil, DEAPR Director
DATE: May 19, 2010
RE: Summary of Discussions and Presentations re the UNC Bingham Facility
with the Commission for the Environment
On February 8, 2010 representatives from the citizen group Preserve Rural Orange
(PRO) addressed the Orange County Commission for the Environment (CFE). Ms. Laura
Streitfeld and her neighbors from PRO expressed their concerns over the design and
operation of UNC's Bingham Facility. They described problems that have occurred,
including multiple spills of treated wastewater, one or more of which reportedly reached
a tributary of Collins Creek. PRO remarked on the group's dissatisfaction with their
interactions with the University, although recent communications had improved. PRO
would like the County to help monitor this situation more closely and help find better
ways of protecting the land and community in Bingham Township.
Following the meeting, the CFE invited UNC representatives to provide information
about the Bingham Facility. UNC representatives welcomed that opportunity.
Attending the March 2010 CFE meeting were, Dwayne Pinkney, Special Assistant to the
UNC Chancellor for State and Local Relations, Linda Convissor and Susan Houston.
On March 8, Mr. Pinkney described the Bingham facility, its 30 -year history, a 2008
expansion of the waste water treatment system, and a planned expansion of the
facility. He provided a fact sheet, organization chart, USDA inspection report, and UNC
responses to questions submitted by Preserve Rural Orange. He described recent
problems with the facility and actions by UNC Chancellor Thorp to address those
problems. Bob Lowman is in charge of the facility and Mr. Pinkney now handles
communications with neighboring property owners.
Pinkney reported on four leaks that occurred between November 2009 and February
2010, noting that all four incidents were reported to NC DENR in Raleigh. Pinkney said
both wastewater treatment systems have been shut down, and wastewater is being
hauled to an off -site OWASA facility. UNC has hired an engineering consultant (McKim
& Creed) to assess the situation and recommend how best to handle the facility's waste
products. Pinkney said UNC will decommission and remove the incinerator located on
the site.
26
ATTACHMENT 4
Pinkney reported that UNC's communications with the Bingham neighbors have
improved. They had held two meetings with Preserve Rural Orange (PRO), including a
tour of the facility. They plan to meet every other month and provide email updates to
PRO and the neighboring residents.
CFE members asked a number of questions about the facility and its operation. Pinkney
and his colleagues answered questions and offered to follow -up with more details about
the wastewater spills, the wastewater treatment process, pharmaceuticals used at the
facility, and potential impacts of groundwater withdrawals in the area.
CFE members thanked Mr. Pinkney and the other representatives from the University.
UNC Responses to CFE Questions about the Bingham Facility
The following are UNC`s responses to questions asked by CFE members on March 8
where the UNC representatives needed additional information before answering.
Now that UNC has decommissioned the incinerator at the Bingham Facility,
where are those items being incinerated?
(UNC) Answer: We are no longer using the incinerator on the Bingham Facility
site, but we have not yet decommissioned it, although we do plan to do that.
The items that would have been incinerated there in the past are now being sent
to the same facility that incinerates medical waste for UNC Health Care,
Stericycle in Haw River.
2. What is UNC's estimate of the volume of each of the four recent spills from the
Bingham Facility (to compare with estimates presented by Preserve Rural
Orange)?
(UNC) Answer: Here's a brief summary of the recent spills /leaks at the Bingham
Facility and their results:
• Pipe leak, Nov. 18, 630 gallons of highly treated wastewater seeped into the
ground.
• Leak from large holding pond, confirmed by DENR inspection Dec. 14,
undetermined amount of highly treated wastewater reached Collins Creek.
This was the first Notice of Violation from DENR. We reported the leak to
DENR to be at a rate of 1 gallon per minute based on capturing and
measuring the water coming out of the underdrain, but since we don't know
if that was a constant rate, when the leaking began or how much of the
water was groundwater or from other sources, we cannot accurately calculate
ej
27
ATTACHMENT 4
how much water leaked out. While we don't have an exact number of gallons
that leaked from the pond, we estimate it was less that the 120,960 gallons
that Preserve Rural Orange has claimed.
Broken check valves (probably from freezing temperatures), Jan. 14, at most
100 gallons treated wastewater seeped into the ground.
Broken piping for spray irrigation, Feb. 18, about 1,800 gallons treated
wastewater seeped into ground. This was the second Notice of Violation from
DENR.
A few key points about the incidents:
• The incidents described above have not resulted in the release of any toxins
in the environment. The leaks were of highly treated wastewater approved to
be spray irrigated on the site, so there has been no contamination of the soil,
groundwater or creek.
• DENR issued notices of violation about two of the incidents not because any
contamination occurred but because our wastewater treatment permit is for
spray irrigation, not for discharge into the creek or onto the ground.
• Because of the leaks, UNC shut down the wastewater treatment system at
the Bingham Facility the week of Feb. 22. It will remain shut down until we
can be certain it is operating correctly.
3. A list of pharmaceuticals used at the facility?
(UNC) Answer: A list of the chemicals used at the facility is attached.
4. Have the problems that were identified with the use of UV light in the treatment
system been resolved?
(UNC) Answer: The wastewater treatment systems at the Bingham Facility have
been shut down since the week of Feb. 22, so we are pumping and hauling the
wastewater,to OWASA for treatment. We have made some repairs to piping that
were required by DENR, but otherwise we have been concentrating our efforts
on an integrated water study rather than making repairs to the current system.
The study will help us determine how we want to treat wastewater at the facility
in the future, which may or may not involve the UV light step. If it does, of
course, we will correct the problems before resuming its use.
A 4 S 28
From:
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 18:34:10 -0400
Subject: 1 C06 RR029912 -01- PI: Roper - Potential Site Issues
Dear Dr. Corvinus and Dr. Roper,
It has come to the attention of NCRR that the current site where the planned construction described in 1
C06 RR029912 -01— PI: Roper is located has had a few wastewater issues. Please address the following
questions regarding the potential effect of the wastewater treatment issues on the execution of the
construction proposed in the awarded grant application.
1. How long will it take to fix the currently inoperable wastewater system or design a new wastewater
system? How will that impact the proposed timeline for the construction of the facilities funded by 1
C06 RR029912 -01— PI: Roper?
2. What is the status of the permits for the wastewater treatment facilities? Has the Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) revoked any permits or required new permits to be filed
for the current wastewater facilities? Will these permits delay the construction proposed in this grant?
3. Have the issues /citations from DEN been resolved? If so, what was the resolution? If not, when
does the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill anticipate resolution of these issues?
4. What is the distribution of waste between the two current wastewater systems? Is one solely for
animal water and the other solely for "domestic" waste, or is there co- mingling of waste in either
wastewater treatment facility?
5. Has the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill evaluated the facilities for any other
wastewater /water treatment issues? If so, please indicate the findings.
6. Do any wetlands exist on the construction site proposed in 1 C06 RR029912 -01— PI: Roper? If so,
please indicate how this will affect the construction and construction timeline for the proposed
buildings for this grant.
7. Have there been any changes in the plans for construction in order to make the buildings /facilities
more environmentally sustainable? If so, please describe them. How would these plans affect the
timing of the construction approved in 1 C06 RR029912 -01— PI: Roper?
8. How will the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill ensure that similar issues do not occur at this
site due to construction and /or the additional animals to be housed once construction is complete?
Please provide a response that is countersigned by an authorized business official at the University of
North Carolina Chapel Hill no later than close of business on May 21, 2010.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
AW
Regards,
Christy
Christy Leake
Grants Management Specialist
Office of Grants Management
National Center for Research Resources, NIH
One Democracy Plaza
6701 Democracy Blvd, Room 1045
Bethesda, MD 20892 (20817 for Express Delivery)
30
T14F LINIVER.SITY
of 1tOR.'I'II CAROLINA
at CHAPEL HILL
May 25, 2010
Ed Hardee
VICE CHANCELLOR FOR RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE VICE CHANCELLOR FOR RESEARCH
301 BYNUM HALL T 919- 962 -0656
CAMPUS BOX 4100 F 919- 962 -6769
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27599 -4100
Aquifer Protection Section
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699 -1636
Subject: Assessment of Civil Penalties for Violation(s) of N.C.G.S. 143 - 215.1, Orange
County, Enforcement File #: DV- 2101 -0029
Dear Mr. Hardee:
I am writing in response to the May 14, 2010, Assessment of Civil Penalties letter for the
Bingham Facility at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In accordance with the letter, I am submitting payment for the full amount of the civil
penalty assessed to the University, a total of $16,612.48.
The violations described in the penalty assessment letter occurred as part of a series of
problems with the existing wastewater treatment systems on the site that began in late
2009. As you are aware, because of the problems, the University has shut down the
wastewater treatment systems on the site and is hauling the facility's wastewater directly
to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) for treatment.
The incidents resulted in two notices of violation from your office. These incidents have
been painfully embarrassing to the University because we strive to assure that our
practices are environmentally sound in accordance with applicable regulation. Yet these
incidents have driven the University to overhaul of the way the Bingham Facility is run,
including my appointment to oversee all its operations.
My team and I are in the midst of a thorough re- examination of the whole facility that
will result in the design and construction of an even stronger, more sustainable project
than originally envisioned. University staff members will meet regularly with DENR staff
members to keep the agency informed of our progress and to address any potential issues
proactively.
31
Ed Hardee
May 25, 2010
Page 2
The University does not plan to repair the existing wastewater treatment systems at the
Bingham Facility. Instead, the University has hired McKim & Creed, a nationally
recognized engineering and design firm that specializes in sustainable design, to develop
a reliable, total water management strategy for the site that is both sustainable and
environmentally sound. This system will be designed to treat wastewater to the level of
reclaimed water, thus alleviating any concerns about possible contamination of the site,
groundwater and nearby creek. We will also be able to reuse this reclaimed water in
cooling towers and to flush toilets, wash down swine facilities and irrigate the landscape,
thus conserving potable water and minimizing the effect on the water table and
neighboring wells.
McKim & Creed has worked carefully and thoroughly with researchers and Laboratory
Animal Medicine representatives to ensure that the new design will be able to handle the
wastewater generated by the maximum number of animals identified in the facility's
master plan. They have also analyzed the wastestreams of the existing facilities that will
be consolidated at Bingham and incorporated that information into the new design. They
will prepare all the construction documents, coordinate with DENR and oversee the
construction of the system. Their field notes will be submitted to DENR as part of the
permit process, and the firm will sign off on the construction.
In addition, McKim & Creed's work will be peer- reviewed by doctorate -level experts
from CDM, an internationally recognized firm specializing in water treatment,
reclamation and reuse. These experts will review how the new system design will handle
emerging contaminants and disinfection as well as how the wastewater will be reclaimed
and reused.
New standard operating procedures are being proposed not only for water and
wastewater operations staff, but also for facility staff who will conduct research at the site
as well as the animal handling and maintenance staff to make them aware of the impact
that chemicals, cleaning agents, sterilizers, etc., have on biological treatment processes.
The water and wastewater system operators will receive full training before the system is
turned over to the University. They will have an opportunity to participate in the design
review, construction, startup and commissioning of the new systems.
The new wastewater treatment system at the Bingham Facility is a key component of a
much - needed expansion there that is being partially funded by a $14.5 million grant from
the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This investment is an impressive endorsement of
the quality of the University's genetic research on hemophilia, muscular dystrophy and
cardiovascular disease.
32
Ed Hardee
May 25, 2010
Page 3
The expansion supports the University's research mission by allowing us to consolidate
two remote and crowded facilities in one new and more spacious location designed
especially for large animal research. The University intends to complete this expansion as
expeditiously as possible. We look forward to working with DENR to ensure that our
development on the Bingham site meets or exceeds all standards for the use and treatment
of water in a responsible and sustainable manner.
Sincerely,
Irl M.?IF N
Robert P. Lowman, Ph.D.
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Christy Leake
Grants Management Specialist
Office of Grants Management
National Center for Research Resources, NIH
One Democracy Plaza
6701 Democracy Blvd, Room 1045
Bethesda, MD 20892
1 C06 RRO29912 -01
PI: William L. Roper, MD, MPH
Ms. Leake:
33
OFFICE OF THE VICE. CHANCELLOR. VOR
RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC DEYEI.OYMENT
104 AIR110M WUVFi SC VIT. 2201 7 g1g.9ti6.)yt t
CAMPUS BOX 13511
CHAVEI llEt.i., NC = .7599-1350 Y 919.94_.335a
rese arc le_uue.cdu fowl
When the National institutes of Health awarded the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill a
construction grant earlier this year to expand our Bingham Facility, it was an impressive endorsement of
the quality of the University's genetic research on hemophilia, muscular dystrophy and cardiovascular
disease. let me reassure you that you have made a wise investment.
Not only will this expansion enable the University to consolidate two remote and crowded facilities In
one new and more spacious location designed especially for large animal research, it will also bring jobs
and revenue to the local economy — an important goal of economic stimulus funding. it is as vital to the
University's interests as it is to those of the NiH that we complete this expansion as expeditiously and
responsibly as possible.
The federal government has made a valuable investment in the Bingham Facility. It is understandable
that you want to be certain you have chosen wisely. When you hear reports of "wastewater issues," it is
your responsibility to find out more information. Thank you for the opportunity to tell you more about
how the University is addressing recent wastewater problems at the Bingham Facility.
Part of the University's long -range plans for the Bingham Facility included the 2008 installation of a
wastewater treatment system to replace the one from the 1970s with a system with the capacity to
handle the waste that an expanded facility would generate. The system used a biological treatment
process to reduce biodegradable wastes and nutrients and ultraviolet light to disinfect the wastewater.
This highly treated wastewater was then discharged into synthetically lined ponds, where it was held
until weather and soil conditions allowed it to be spray irrigated.
This wastewater treatment system began to experience a series of problems in late 2009, including a
leak from the largest holding pond that allowed some of the highly treated wastewater to reach a
tributary of Collins Creek, which runs through the property. Because of the problems, the University has
shut down the wastewater treatment system on the site and is hauling the facility's wastewater directly
to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), the public wastewater treatment agency serving
Chapel Hill and Carrboro. (The Bingham Facility is in rural Orange County, outside of OWASA's service
area, which is why we had to construct our own wastewater treatment system.) The incidents resulted
in two notices of violation from the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
which regulates the wastewater treatment system. The violations were for the method of discharge, not
because any contamination of the soil, groundwater or creek occurred.. The University is working with
DENR to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations.
Although these incidents have been painfully embarrassing to the institution, they have also taught us
some valuable lessons. One is that, when you have so many different units with varying interests
operating at an off - campus location, you need a strong leader with extraordinary communications skills
at the top of a well - established chain -of- command to make operations run smoothly. In February 2010,
Chancellor Holden Thorp appointed Dr. Robert Lowman, associate vice chancellor for research and
research professor of psychology, to oversee the Bingham Facility. Dr. Lowman and his team are in the
midst of a thorough re- examination of the whole facility, including the way the buildings are
constructed, its energy sources and an integrated water approach. Making as little impact as possible on
the environment and on the facility's neighbors is one of their prime considerations.
Another lesson was the value of vigilant oversight of construction projects. Because of problems
experienced with both the design and construction of the previous wastewater treatment system, the
University has hired a new design engineering firm specializing in sustainable design to develop an
overall integrated approach to water and wastewater on the site. This engineering firm works directly
for the University. Based on their comprehensive analysis of all water sources, soils and wetlands, they
are designing an entirely new wastewater treatment system. They are overseeing the construction and
will be on -site fulltime through the start -up of operations. UNC will request permission to hire a
separate Construction Manager at Risk to oversee construction of the buildings on the site, and we have
also assigned one of the very best construction engineers on our staff to the project.
Finally, we have learned the importance of communicating clearly and frequently to all those with a
stake in the Bingham Facility, especially its neighbors and a wide range of governmental regulators. For
many years, we operated very quietly at Bingham; largely to avoid publicity that might attract the
interest of animal rights activists and other protesters. But this caution led to an unintended sense of
secrecy that hampered relationships with our neighbors and even among our own staff. The recent
change in leadership has opened the doors of communication to a healthy exchange of ideas and
opinions both within and outside the University.
The detailed responses to your specific questions follow, but in general the answer to the concerns you
raise is that yes, we have had wastewater issues at Bingham and in addressing those problems, we are in
the process of designing and constructing an even stronger, more sustainable project than originally
envisioned.
Sincerely,
�)' � (P
Av�m L_ . 'or
William L. Roper, MD, MPH
Dean, UNC School of Medicine
Vice Chancellor for Medical Affairs
CEO, UNC Health Care System
34
35
Question #1:
How long will it take to fix the currently inoperable wastewater system or design a new wastewater
system? How will that impact the proposed timeline for the construction of the facilities funded by 1
C06 RR029912 -01— PI: Roper?
Response:
The University does not plan to repair the currently inoperable wastewater treatment systems at the
Bingham Facility because it would not be a responsible use of our limited time and resources. The design
and construction of those systems — which include large, synthetically lined holding ponds — also are not
in keeping with the new, fully integrated approach to water use, treatment and reuse that will guide
future expansion at the Bingham Facility.
The University hired McKim & Creed, a nationally recognized engineering and design firm that
specializes in sustainable design, to develop a reliable, total water management strategy for the site
that is both sustainable and environmentally sound. This system will be designed to treat wastewater to
the level of reclaimed water, thus alleviating any concerns about possible contamination of the site,
groundwater and nearby creek. We will also be able to reuse this reclaimed water in cooling towers and
to flush toilets, wash down swine facilities and irrigate the landscape, thus conserving drinking water.
Based on their extensive experience in designing and implementing similar systems, McKim & Creed has
set a schedule that has this new system starting up by August 30, 2012, which will not impact the
timeline for the construction of the NIH- funded facilities.
Question #2:
What is the status of the permits for the wastewater treatment facilities? Has the Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) revoked any permits or required new permits to be filed
for the current wastewater facilities? Will these permits delay the construction proposed in this grant?
Response:
Even though we are no longer using the current wastewater treatment systems at the Bingham Facility,
the University still has an active permit from DENR for the wastewater treatment system that served the
original building on the site, Bingham Building #1. The second wastewater treatment system, which
served Bingham Building #2, operated under "deemed permitted" status from DENR, a status that was
revoked in February 2010 because of the problems with leaks in pipes and in the large holding pond.
DENR offered the University the opportunity to repair the deemed permitted system and bring it into
compliance as part of the existing permit. However, as explained in the previous response, the
University opted to shut down both systems voluntarily and obtain a pump and haul permit to handle
the wastewater at the site in the short term while we develop a long -term, integrated water approach.
36
DENR has not revoked any permits, and the agency is aware of our long -term plans. We are submitting
regular reports to DENR on our progress and soliciting input from the agency as we proceed. Because of
this close coordination, we do not anticipate that the permitting process for the new system will delay
the construction proposed in this grant.
Question #3:
Have the issues /citations from DENR been resolved? If so, what was the resolution? If not, when does
the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill anticipate resolution of these issues?
Response:
The University has received three Notices of Violation from DENR related to the Bingham Facility and is
responding as required. The first violation was for an unpermitted discharge into Collins Creek, which
runs across the property, because of a leak in the large holding pond. As soon as the leak was confirmed,
the University set up a sump pump to catch the leaking water from the underdrain and return it to the
pond. That sump pump is still in place, even though the wastewater treatment system has been shut
down and the pond contains only rainwater.
The second violation was for an unpermitted discharge because of broken piping in the spray field,
which has since been repaired, even though the spray- irrigation system is no longer being used.
The third violation was for small impacts on wetlands on the site that occurred during the 2008
construction of the current wastewater treatment system because the wetlands had not been
previously identified and mapped. After mapping the wetlands for the current project, we reported
these impacts to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and to DENR, which resulted in the notice of
violation.
The University is reporting regularly to DENR on our progress toward resolving these issues. We expect
to resolve the wetlands issue in the near future by restoring the impacted wetland areas or by receiving
permission after the fact. When the new wastewater treatment system goes into operation in August
2012, that will resolve any remaining issues related to the current inoperable system.
Question #a:
What is the distribution of waste between the two current wastewater systems? Is one solely for animal
water and the other solely for "domestic" waste, or is there co- mingling of waste in either wastewater
treatment facility?
Response:
The original conceptual design of wastewater at the Bingham Facility was to have two different
wastewater systems, one for domestic waste and one for animal waste. However, in reality, wastewater
generated within Bingham Building #1 flowed to what was called the " domestic" or "permitted" system,
whereas wastewater generated inside Bingham Building #2 flowed to the "animal" or "deemed
37
permitted" system. All the wastewater generated was treated to the same tertiary treatment level
required by the DENR permit.
Currently, neither wastewater treatment system is being used, and the University has a pump and haul
permit to handle wastewater on the site in the short term. To accomplish this, a temporary pipe
connection was made to collect all wastewater flow from all buildings and store it in the existing influent
equalization basin. The contents are periodically pumped out by a licensed septage hauler and trucked
to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Facility in
Chapel Hill. This arrangement will be continued until the construction of the new treatment system,
which will treat all wastewater from the site (both animal and domestic) to the level of reclaimed water
for nonpotable water reuse on the site.
Question #5:
Has the University of forth Carolina Chapel Hill evaluated the facilities for any other wastewater /water
treatment issues? If so, please indicate the findings.
Response:
The University and McKim & Creed have completed a comprehensive engineering assessment of the
entire existing water /wastewater infrastructure at the site. Based on those findings, the University is
proposing a variety of upgrades, improvements and equipment replacements along with the proposed
new integrated total water management improvements. The design has not been finalized, but may
include the following:
1. Upgraded gravity sewer collection to serve the expanded campus.
2. Influent wastewater lift station.
3. New mechanical fine screening process with residual washing, compaction and bagging
processes.
4. New dual - train biological nutrient removal process.
5. New 10 micron cloth disk filtration process.
6. New 0.05 micron microfiltration process.
7. New effluent polishing process (granular activated carbon adsorption)
8. New dual barrier disinfection process
9. New fire protection storage, pumping and distribution system.
10. Reclaimed water service connections to each building to provide flushwater for toilets, animal
wash -down water, and landscape irrigation.
11. Reclaimed water service connection to the proposed new Central Energy Plant to provide
cooling tower makeup.
12. Wet weather reclaimed water equalization basin to store effluent during wet weather
conditions.
13. New 20 -acre reclaimed water irrigation system.
14. New groundwater well to provide a reliable, redundant backup to the one existing potable
water well supply currently located onsite.
w'
The potable water supply, iron /manganese treatment process, filtration system and disinfection systems
have been found to be in good condition. A redundant groundwater well, new potable water storage
tank, booster pumps, hydropneumatic pressure maintenance system, and new looped potable water
distribution system are recommended improvements that will be included as part of the project.
Question #6:
Do any wetlands exist on the construction site proposed in 1 C06 RR029912 -01— PI: Roper? if so, please
indicate how this will affect the construction and construction timeline for the proposed buildings for
this grant.
Response:
The final design of the project will minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, impacts to wetlands
and streams. Final design for the project has not been completed, however no discussions have
included construction of buildings directly on or near wetlands. Wetlands and streams at the site have
been accurately mapped (although this mapping occurred after the 2008 construction, and the
University has received a Notice of Violation from DENR and a Notification of Unauthorized Activity from
the ALOE for the impacts the University discovered). The buildings are planned for the upland sites
suitable for construction. If impacts cannot be completely avoided, the University will apply for the
appropriate permits from DENR and the ACOE. We do not expect obtaining these permits to delay
construction on any components in the grant.
Question #7:
Have there been any changes in the plans for construction in order to make the buildings /facilities more
environmentally sustainable? If so, please describe them. How would these plans affect the timing of
the construction approved in 1 C06 RR029912 -01— PI: Roper?
Response:
Yes, there have been a variety of changes in the plans for construction in order to make the
buildings /facilities more environmentally sustainable. Most notably, these include the following:
1. The University proposes to construct a site -wide reclaimed water distribution system that will
be used for toilet flushing in each building, swine facility washdown water, landscape irrigation,
makeup water for the centralized cooling facility, and for lire protection and building sprinkler
systems. This change will have the benefit of reducing the demand for potable water, which
must be supplied by the on -site drilled well water supply. The reclaimed water system will also
greatly reduce the volume of highly treated reclaimed water that must be land - applied via spray
irrigation.
2. The University is considering constructing a centralized energy facility in lieu of individual air
handlers, boilers, chilled water systems, and emergency power systems for each of the six
buildings on -site. The centralized energy systems may provide a more sustainable solution and
more - efficiently utilize energy, water and financial resources. This system would use natural gas
39
and allow the University to eliminate the current dependency on propane, which is more
expensive and less sustainable.
3. The new reclaimed water system and the central energy facility are anticipated to be completed
before the completion of the construction approved in 1 C06 RR029912 -01— PI: Roper.
Question #8:
How will the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill ensure that similar issues do not occur at this site
due to construction and /or the additional animals to be housed once construction is complete?
Response:,
The problems identified with the existing wastewater treatment and spray irrigation system are deeply
regrettable, but they have taught us valuable lessons and have led to major changes in how the Bingham
Facility operates.
On February 17, 2010, Chancellor Holden Thorp directed Dr. Robert Lowman, associate vice chancellor
for research and research professor of psychology, to take control of managing the facility and its
operations. This appointment established a specific decision maker at the top of a well - established chain
of command for the facility, which did not previously exist. Dr. Lowman has extensive experience in
managing complex research projects. He meets regularly with representatives of University Senior
Management, School of Medicine, Division of Laboratory Animal Medicine, Facilities Planning and
Construction, Campus Services and Facilities Services as well as various technical experts, researchers
and staff members to ensure successful coordination of all activities at the Bingham Facility.
The University has also replaced the designer of the previous system with McKim & Creed, who will be
working directly for us to implement an integrated water approach. They are studying all water sources
and uses, defining an integrated approach to water supply and disposal, designing all the new systems -
water, wastewater, reclaimed water and potable water. They will prepare all the construction
documents, coordinate with DENR and oversee the construction of the system. Their field notes will be
submitted to DENR as part of the permit process, and the firm will sign off on the construction.
To address your concerns, McKim & Creed has worked carefully and thoroughly with researchers and
Laboratory Animal Medicine representatives to ensure that the new design will be able to handle the
wastewater generated by the maximum number of animals identified in the facility's master plan. They
have also analyzed the wastestreams of the existing facilities that will be consolidated at Bingham and
incorporated that information into the new design.
in addition, McKim & Creed's work will be peer - reviewed by doctorate -level experts from CDM, an
internationally recognized firm specializing in water treatment, reclamation and reuse. These experts
will review how the new system design will handle emerging contaminants and disinfection as well as
how the wastewater will be reclaimed and reused.
New standard operating procedures are being proposed not only for water and wastewater operations
staff, but also for facility staff who will conduct research at the site as well as the animal handling and
40
maintenance staff to make them aware of the impact that chemicals, cleaning agents, sterilizers, etc.,
have on biological treatment processes. The water and wastewater system operators will receive full
training before the system is turned over to the University. They will have an opportunity to participate
in the design review, construction, startup and commissioning of the new systems.
As for the NIH- funded expansion, the University is in the process of hiring a construction manager at risk
to oversee construction of the buildings on the site, which we didn't use on the previous project. In
addition, both the N.C. State Construction Office and one of the very best construction engineers on our
Construction Management staff will be involved in the oversight of construction activities and
coordination.