HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-23-2011 - 7aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 23, 2011
Action Agenda
Item No. 7 ~~_
SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit -Montessori School
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Copy of Legal Ad
2. Special Use Permit Findings of Fact -
Recommendation from Planning Board
3. Minutes from the May 23, 2011
Quarterly Public Hearing
4. Minutes from the July 6, 2011 Planning
Board Meeting
5. Applicant Written Responses to Public
Hearing Comments
6. Environmental Health Permit -
Modifications to Existing Septic and
Operations Permit
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2575
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on a Class A Special Use Permit application (hereafter `SUP') submitted by the
Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Hillsborough proposing the operation of a Montessori
school from its property at 1710 Old NC 10 (PIN 9873-97-2092).
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing.
During the hearing, two (2) adjacent property owners made the following comments and asked
several questions concerning the application:
a. The addition of the school will increase the total level of activity occurring on the church
property, which we are concerned about the potential impacts from a noise, trash, and
congestion perspective.
b. There needs to be additional thought with respect to the necessary safety measures that
have to be employed to ensure the protection of the children attending the school.
c. Why is the school proposed to be relocated?
STAFF COMMENT: The school currently operates as part of an existing private
school within the Abundant Life church facility on US Highway 70 within the Town of
Hillsborough. The existing school administration decided to terminate the 6-12 year
old student program due to budgetary constraints and the staff decided to secure a
new location.
d. Will the existing septic system on the Unitarian church property be sufficient to support the
proposed school?
2
STAFF COMMENT: According to Orange County Environmental Health, the existing
septic system drain lines will have to be expanded to accommodate the proposed
school. Please refer to Attachment 6 for a copy of the septic permit authorizing land-
disturbing activity to address this issue.
e. Will the parking lot have to be re-designed to address the increase in activity?
STAFF COMMENT: There is no need to expand or modify the existing parking
facilities to accommodate the proposed school.
f. How will the additional solid waste material, generated as the result of the school, be
handled?
STAFF COMMENT: The church contracts for the removal of solid waste materials.
The school will make use of this same contractor and no additional dumpsters will be
necessary.
g. What 'outdoor activities' are envisioned for the school?
STAFF COMMENT: According to the applicant, there will be a recess period for
students as well as outdoor classroom activities.
No organized school-related sports activities or athletic fields are proposed for
development as part of this permit request.
h. WII a park and ride facility be required or developed on the property?
STAFF COMMENT: No, as indicated during the public hearing, staff has determined
that this site was not viable for such development of `shared facilities' as detailed within
Section 5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (v) of the Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter `UDO').
Additionally, the following questions/comments were made by BOCC and Planning Board
members:
• In addressing a neighboring property owner's concern over student safety, a County
Commissioner made the comment that the responsibility for addressing the safety and
welfare of students attending the school would: `solely fall under the purview of the
teachers and the staff of the facility to make sure that the students were supervised and
did not venture off the site'. Staff concurred with this assessment
• A County Commissioner asked if there were regulations requiring a `fenced area for a
school' within the UDO.
STAFF COMMENT No. Staff did indicate, however, that the existing playground
facility was fenced.
Please refer to Attachment 5 for additional detail.
Planning Board Review: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its July 6, 2011 regular
meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval finding that:
i. A school is a customary accessory use for a church,
ii. The application complied with submittal requirements (i.e. Sections 2.2 and 2.7) of the
UDO,
iii. The applicant submitted sufficient documentation proving that the project complied
with specific development standards (i.e. Section 5.8.4) of the UDO,
iv. Th ere was sufficient evidence and testimony within the record allowing for an
affirmative finding on the general findings of fact for this project (i.e. Section 5.3.2 (A)
(2)) of the UDO, and
v. There was insufficient evidence or testimony within the record demonstrating that the
applicant had not meet their burden of proof or requiring the denial of the application.
Please refer to Attachment 2 for a more in depth analysis.
It should be noted that both the staff and the Planning Board recommended the imposition of a
condition requiring the applicant: `... install any required septic system improvements necessary
to allow for the operation of the school from the property prior to the commencement of
activities' (see condition #5 on the last page of Attachment 2). On July 25, 2011 Orange County
Environmental Health issued an operations permit indicating that all work upgrading the septic
system had been completed and that school operations could commence. This condition is no
longer necessary and staff recommends that it be deleted.
Please refer to Attachment 6 for additional detail regarding the Environmental Health permit.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who
have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for
additional funding for the provision of County services.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the BOCC take the following actions:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation,
2. If necessary, deliberate further on the application,
3. Close the public hearing,
4. Review the Special Use Permit Findings of Fact Sheet contained within Attachment 2 of
this abstract and make the appropriate findings that the application complies with the
various sections of the UDO, including the general findings as denoted within Section
5.3.2 (A) (2), and
5. Approve the Class A Special Use Permit and impose the conditions as recommended by
the Planning Board except for condition #5 on the last page of Attachment 2, as noted
above.
ATTACHMENT 1
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
A joint public hearing will be held at .the Department of Social Services, Hillsborough
Commons, 113 Mayo St., Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, May 23, 2011, at
7:00 PM for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or
against the following items:
A. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Conditional Use District (CUD) rezoning application in conjunction with a
Major Subdivision
In accordance with the provisions of Sections 2.9 and 3.8 Conditional Districts as well
as Article 7: Subdivisions of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), Habitat for Humanity has submitted a Conditional Use application seeking to
rezone two parcels of property totaling 8.9 acres located at the northwest intersection
of Tinnin Road (SR 1313) and School House Road (SR 1314) (Parcel Identification
Numbers (PIN) 9845-40-5022 and 98449-3706)
From: Rural Residential (R-1)
To: High Intensity Residential Conditional Use (R-8-CU)
for the purpose of developing a 27 lot major subdivision supporting asingle-family
residential development. The proposed lots will be served by public sewer and
Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc., a private water utility provider, and will range
in size from 5,500 to 9,900 square feet in land area. Proposed roadways are to be
constructed to public road standards.
If approved, the overall density allowed on the properties will change from one
dwelling unit per acre as allowed under the current zoning designation to
approximately three to four units per acre.
The properties subject to this petition are located within the 10-year Urban Transition
land use category as denoted on the Land Use Element Map of the Comprehensive
Plan and the Urban Designated Area as .denoted on the Growth Management
System Map.
This is a voluntary request involving the review of a rezoning petition as well as a
Class A Special Use Permit to allow for the development of the aforementioned
properties to the density as currently proposed by the applicant.
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the Conditional Use
application.
2. Class A Special Use Permit application proposing development of a
Montessori School
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section
5.8.4 Schools: Elementary, Middle, and Secondary of the Orange County Unified
5
Development Ordinance (UDO), the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of
Hillsborough has submitted a Clasp A Special Use Permit application seeking to
develop a Montessori school at their existing church facility located at the intersection
ofi Lawrence Road and Old NC 10 (Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9873-97-
2092).
The property is approximately 2.8 acres in area, is zoned Rural Residential (R-1 ),
and is currently utilized as a church.
The applicant is proposing to develop a school for use by congregation members and
the general public providing educational services to children ranging from 6 to 12
years of age with a proposed maximum capacity of 12 students. School
functions/activities will be held within existing rooms of the church facility.
Purpose: T o review the item and receive public comment on the Class A special Use
Permit application.
3. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has initiated an
amendment to the text of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Amendments are proposed to Chapter 5: Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan. The purpose of the amendments is to clarify language as it pertains to
economic development and mixed uses presently allowed within the existing
Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node land use category.
Purpose: To review the item -and receive citizen comment on the proposed text
amendments.
4. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map Amendment
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has initiated an
amendment to the Land Use Element Map located within Chapter 5: Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of the amendment is to implement a recommendation included in the
County's adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan, which will prepare area near the
Buckhorn Economic Development District (EDD) for public water and sewer
infrastructure and economic development. This amendment is consistent with the
Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement. (WASMPBA)
The proposed Land Use Element Map amendment is approximately 423-acres. The
area bounded by Ben Wilson Rd., Bowman Rd., West Ten Rd., and Interstates 85/40
which is also adjacent to the City of Mebane.
From Agricultural Residential to Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node.
Purpose: To review the item and receive citizen comment on the proposed map
amendment.
6
5. 2030 Comprehensive P-lan Land Use Element Map Amendment
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning- Director has initiated an
amendment to the Land Use Element Map located within Chapter 5: Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use Element Map amendments are necessary as follow-up to Upper Eno
Watershed Critical Area amendments that occurred in June 2010. The purpose of
the amendments is to apply appropriate land use classifications in areas that were
removed from the Critical Area when its boundary was adjusted. This amendment is
also consistent with the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary
Agreement (V1h4SMPBA).
The proposed Land Use Element Map amendments:
a. Approximately 118-acres along the general corridor of Interstates 85/40
from Agricultural Residential to Commercial Industrial Transition Activity
Node.
b: The proposed area- for 10-Year Transition includes approximately 16-acres at
the southern end of Gaines Chapel Rd.
From Agricultural Residential to 10-year (urban) transition.
Purpose: To review the item and receive citizen comment on the proposed map
amendments. .
6. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified
Development Ordinance Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the
Planning Director has initiated an amendment to the text of the Unified
Development Ordinance. Text amendments are proposed to the following
sections of the Unified Development Ordinance:
- Section 3.4 -General Commercial Districts. Modify the Office/Institutional
(O/I) Zoning District including the Purpose, Applicability, Dimensional and
Ratio Standards, and Specific Development Standards sections.
- Section 5.2 -Table of Permitted Uses. Modify the Permitted Uses allowed
in the OI General Use Zoning District.
- Article 10 -Definitions. Modify definitions of `Open Space Ratio' and
`Recreation Space Ratio'.
Pur ose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed text
amendments.
7
7. Zoning Atlas Amendment
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and- Unified
Development Ordinance Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the
Planning Director has initiated an amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone all
undeveloped parcels of property north of Interstates 85/40, east of Mt. Willing Road,
south of the railroad right-of-way, and west of the US 70 Connector. Four
undeveloped parcels and a portion of a fifth parcel totaling 112.35 acres- are
proposed to be rezoned.
From Rural Residential (R-1) and Agricultural Residential (AR) to Office/Institutional
(O/I). The- Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN). of the five parcels are: 9854-07-
4304, 9854-16-1576, 9854-36-1253, 9854-05-1970, -and 9854-46 fi706 (partial).
No project is proposed at this time. This rezoning is proposed in order to 'pre-zone'
the area for potential economic development projects. This is similar to what Orange
Co~inty initiated within Orange County's .economic development land- use areas with
an implementing Economic Development (ED) zoning district (i.e. pre-zone). The
properties subject to this rezoning are currently located within the Commercial-
Industrial Transition Activity Node land use category and Agricultural Residential land
-use category as denoted on the Land Use Element Map of the Comprehensive Plan.
The portion of the parcels currently designated Agricultural-Residential land use is
proposed to be amended to be designated Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity
Node land use by separate action (see Item #5 of this advertisement).
Purt3ose: To review the item and receive public comment on the Zoning Atlas
amendment.
Substantial changes in items presented at the public hearing may be made following the
receipt of comments made at the public hearing. Accommodations for individuals with
physical disabilities can be provided if the request is made to the Director of Planning at
least 48 hours prior to the Public Hearing by calling one of the phone numbers below.
The full text of the public hearing items may be obtained after May 13, 2011 from the
Planning Department. The agenda abstract and attachments may also be obtained at
the County website www.co.orange.nc.us at the Meeting Agendas link prior to the
meeting.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning
Department located on the second floor of the County Office Building at 131 West
Margaret Lane, Suite 201, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 1Fou may also call (919) 245-2575 or 245-2585 and
you will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions.
PUBLISH:
News of Orange Chapel Hill Herald
May 11, 2011 May 11, 2011
May 18, 2011 May 18, 2011
ATTACHMENT 2 $
CASE_NUMBE,R: SUP-A-1-11
FfNDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSTONERS
PERTAINING TO REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
UN1-~4RIAN UNIVERSALfST CONGREGATION OF HILLSBOROUGH
REQUESTING A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALL0IIY-FOR T-HE
DEVELOPMENT OF A SCHOOLS: ELEMElL~TARY, MIDDLE, AND S-EG"ONDARI~
AT THEIL4 EXISTING CHURCH- FACILITY LOCATED AT 1710 OLD NC 1U
(PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PIN) 9873-97-2092).
SpecialUses must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section 5.3 and 5.8.4 of the
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
- Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with-the following:-
(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 will 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); and
(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;
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following
specific standards:
(1) .Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO,
(2) Specific regulations governing the development of individual Special Uses as set forth in
Section 5.8.4 of the U_DO.
(3) Section 5.32 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a. Sewage disposal facilities,
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site
(4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.32 (A) (2).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Board regarding the application. The
findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of County Commissioners in
its deliberations.
9
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 APPLICATION GOMPONENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No"
indicates. non-compliance)
Ordinance
Requirements
Section 2.2
The application for a
Class A Special Use
Permit shall be on forms
provided -by the Planning
Department.
PLANNING
BOARD-
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No- A complete application
on apprflpriate_forms has
been submi#ted and was
entered into evidence.
during the May 23, 2011
-Quarterly Public Hearing.
X Yes_ No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT BOCC
FINDINGS FINDINGS
Staff testified at the May
23, 2x11 Quarterly
Public Hearing and at the-
July 6, 2011 Planning
Board meeting that the
required application fee
was submitted in
accordance with the
adopted Fee Schedule.
Within the application
package, the applicant
provided a narrative
detailing the nature of
the proposed school
including its operational
characteristic, which was
entered into evidence
during the May 23, 2011
Quarterly Public Hearing.
_Yes No
2.2.4 (D)
Applications must be
accompanied by- the fee
amount that has been
established by Board of
County Commissioner-s.
Application fees are
nonrefundable.
2.7.3 (B) (1)
A full and accurate
description of the
proposed use, including
its location, appearance,
and operational
characteristics.
2.7.3 (B) (2)
The names and
addresses of the owners
of the property
X Yes No
X Yes No
The application package
entered into the record
during the May 23, 2011
Quarterly Public Hearing
contains the
name/address of the
owner as required.
_Yes No
_Yes No
_Yes No
10
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS
2.7.3 (B) (3) X Yes No The applicant has
provided various
Relevant information documents, including a
needed to show site plan, containing the
compliance with the necessary information
general-ansl specific establishing-compliance
standards governing-the with-the provisions of tie
Special Use Ordinance.
2.7.3 (B) (4) X_ Yes No Twenty-six (26) copies of
the site plan, prepared
Twenty-six (2S) copies of by Mike Neal-and'
the site-plan prepared by Associates (MANA) have
a registered N.C. land been submitted and was
surveyor, architect, or entered into the record
engineer. during the-May 23, 2D1-1
Quarterly Public Hearing
-2.7.3 (B) (5) Not Applicable X The project does not
involve a preliminary
-If-the application involves subdivision plat.
a Preliminary Subdivision Therefore this condition
Plat, 2S copies of the Plat is not applicable.
prepared-in accordance
with Section 7.15 shall be
provided.
'2.7.3 (B) (6) X Yes No The application package
contains the required list
A list of all parcels located of adjacent property
within 500 feet of the owners
subject parcel and the
name and address of
each property owner, as
currently-listed in the
Orange County tax
records.
2.7.3 (B) (7) X Yes No The application package
contains photographs of
Elevations of all structures the existing structure
proposed to be used in
the development.
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes No
Yes No
Not Applicable
Yes No
Yes No
11
Ordinance
Requirements
2.7.3 (B) (9)
Method of disposal of
trees, limbs, stomps and
construction debris
associated with the
permitted activity, which
shall be by some me#h+~d
-other than open burning.
2.7.3 (B) (10)
Statement from the
applicant indicating the
anticipated development
schedule for the build-out
of the project.
2.7.3 (B) (1.1)
Sta#ement from-the
applicant in justification of
any request for vesting for
a period of more than two
years (five-years
maximum)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO.SUPPORT BOCC
FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
X Yes No The site plan contains a _Yes No
note indicating that any
construction or land
clearing debris
generated on-site will be
disposed of en
accordance with the
County's SoNd Waste
Management. Ordinance
X Yes No The narrative contained _Yes No
within the application
package indicates that
the school will
commence o{~erations as
soon as the permit is
approved.
Not Applicable X The applicant is not Not Applicable _
requesting vesting of the
project
12
ARTICLE 5.8.4 - SCHOOLS ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE ANfl SECONDARY (CLASS A
SPECIAL USE)
SPECIFIC STANDARDS ("Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates-von-compliance)
Ordinance
-Reguirem-ants
PLANNING
-BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SU~P~DRT
FINDINGS
Boec
In addition to the
information -required -m
5.8.4 the following
information shrall be
submitted as part of the
application;
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a).
Twenty-six copies of the
site plan prepared in
accordance with Sectior.-
2.7.3 of-this Ordinance
and with-the following
additional information
shown on the plan:
5.8.4 (AJ (1) (a) (i)
Tofial student capacity of
school as designed
5..8.4 (A) (1) (a) (ii)
Total number of
employees at time of
greatest shift
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) viii}
Number and dimensions
of designated parking
spaces for school buses
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) (iv)
Number of designated
parking spaces for
employees
X Yes No As previously indicated
twenty-six (26) copies of
the site .plan, prepared
by Mike Neal and
Associates (MANA) have
been submitted.
X Yes No The application narrative
states that total student
capacity shall be twelve
(12) students
X Yes No
The application states
that total number of
employees shall be two
(2)
Not Applicable X
The application narrative
indicates that there will
be no bus traffic to the
site and, as a result, no
bus parking spaces are
required
X Yes No The site plan shows-that
there will be a total of
two (2) existing parking
spaces reserved for
school staff
FINDINGS
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Not Applicable _
Yes No
13
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMEND~~D TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS- FINDINGS
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a} (v) X Yes No The site plan shows that Yes No
there will be available
Number of visitor parking parking for visitors.
spaces
5.8.4 (A} (1) (a) (vi) Not Applicable X The application narrative Not Applicable
indicates that there wil3-
Number of student be no need for student
parking spaces parking spaces as the
school-anticipates only
providing educational
opportunities for children
up 12 years of age
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) (vii) X Yes No The site plan indicated- _Yes No
that student drop-off will
Location of student drop occur at-the front
off points with stacking entrance fo the church.
spaces iden±ified
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a)-(viii) Not Applicable X The applicant has Not Applicable _
indicated that there are
Location of all proposed no athletic fields
and future athletic fields proposed as part of this
and structures, including: project
(a) Total-number of seats
for_ spectators
(b) Location of concession
stands, if any
anticipated
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) (ix) Not Applicable X None proposed or Not Applicable
required
Proposed public roadway
improvements
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a.) (x) X Yes No The site plan and _Yes No
narrative contains the
Existing and proposed required information.
infrastructure The existing septic
improvements system will need to be
(water and sewer) expanded to
accommodate the
proposed school.
14
PLANNING
BOARD EVtflENCE SiJBMiTTED
Ordinance RECAMMENDED TO St3PPORT BOCC
Reguirertaents FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
5.8.4 (~A) (1) (b) X Yes- No The site plan contains _Yes No
the required in#ormation
Twenty-six 26 copies of a
Landscape and Tree
Preservation
Plans prepared in
accordance with Section.
6.-8 of this Ordinance..
5.8.4 (A) (1) (c) Not Applicable X No outdoor-lights are Not Applicable
proposed-for this project
Twenty-six 26 copies of
_photometric plans
prepared in accordance
with_the 6.11, of this
Ordinance_
5.8.4-(A) {1) (d) X Yes No The site plan contains _Yes No
the required information.
-Estimated water usage for
structures, landscaping There is no irrigation
and athletic felds. proposed for existing
landscaping and there
-are no athletic fields
proposed as part of this
project.
5.8.4 (A) (1) (e) Not Applicable X Section 6.17 of the UDO Not Applicable _
would not require a
A Traffic Impact Study as Traffic Impact Study for
required by Section 6.17 this project based on the
of this Ordinance information .submitted by
the applicant within the
narrative.
5.8.4 (A) (1) (f) Not Applicable X The Planning Board has Not Applicable _
determined that an
A Biological Inventory, inventory is not required
prepared in accordance as the project does- not
with Section meet the necessary
5.14.6(A)(2)(b) of this thresholds as required by
Ordinance. the UDO.
15
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements- FINDINGS FINDINGS FtIJ-DINGS
5.8.4 (A) (1) (g) Not Applicable X ThE Planning Board has Not Applicable
determined that the
Resources Management report is not required
Plan, prepared in based-on Planning-and
accordance with the DEAPR staff findings
Resources Management that the project will not
Plan definition in Article adversely impact local
10 of-this Ordinance. animal habitats
5.8.4 (A) (3) (a) X -Yes No The-site plan contains Yes No
-thy required information
The project meets all demonstrating
applicable design compliance
standards and other
requirements of this
Ordinance.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (b) (i) X Yes No Eno Volunteer fire _Yes No
department shall provide
Fire -identifies the fire services. Water
primary and secondary source is an existing_
responders and she public water tap provided
source(s) of water. by the Town of
Hillsborough
5.8.4 (A) (3) (b) (ii) X Yes No Sheriff's Department Yes No
Police -identifies the
primary-and secondarX
responders.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (b) (iii) X Yes No Orange County _Yes No
Emergency Management
Rescue Services -
identifies the primary and
secondary responders.
16
PLANNING
BOARQ EVIDENCE SUBM'rTTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FiND!NGS
5.8.4 (A) (3) (b) (iv) X Yes No Water shall be provided _Yes No
via a public tap (Town of
Water Supply - HiAsborou~h)-already
identification of public or located on-the propert~r
private utility source and
capacity of water supply
or identification of water
source through a water
resource study.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (b) (v) X Yes- No Wastewater treatment _Yes No
-shall-tre provided via a
Wastewater Treatment private septic system.
Methods-provider and This system will have-to
capacity of~wastewater be expanded to
treatment source. accommodate the
school.
5:8.4 (A) (3) (c) Not Applicable X The Planning Board, NAtApplicabl_e
based on Planning and
Habitats shall be identified DEAPR staff comments,
and evaluated in the has determined the
Biological Inventory and project will not adversely_
are subject #o the impact local. animal
following: habitats.
X Yes No In reviewing the project _Yes No
5.8.4 (A) (3) (c) (i) the Planning Board,
based-orrPlanning and
An undisturbed buffer is DEAPR staff comments,
required around the has determined that
boundary ofi habitats of there are no threatened
rare, threatened, or or protected habitats on
endangered species as the property. The
shown on the biological applicant, however, is
inventory. Buffer width showing a -large portion
shall be determined by of the property, as being
site evaluation in left in an undisturbed
consultation with the state.
applicant's biologist and
County staff;
17
Ordinance
Requirements
5.8.4 (A) (3) (c} (ii)
Habitat-enhancements as
described in the biological
inventory shall be made-for
a broad range of-species to
help mitigate the loss of
wildlife habitat during-
construction. Examples_
include preserving,
planting, and-maintaining a
variety'-of native-vegetation
(also dead trees arrd
snags); installing structures
conducive for- nesting such
as bird houses or- bat boxes
designed and located for
various species; or creating
wetlands;
5.8.4 (A) (3) (c) (iii)
Conservation easements or
-other-acceptable means
such as dedication to a
public agency, conservancy
or a-similar agency are
required to protect
wetlands and other habitats
while-insuring proper long-
term maintenance; and
5.8.4 (A) (3) (c) (iv)
Provide barriers or fencing,
and signage at the edge of
habitat buffers to prohibit
vehicular and pedestrian
access. Limited access
may be allowed if proposed
in a sensitive manner for
environmental education
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
No construction
proposed as part of
project. As a result there
is no anticipated impact
on local wildlife.
X Yes- No MANA, the_engineer for
this project, has
indicated there are no
areas characteristic of
wetlands. on the property
X Yes No
There is limited access
to-the site from existing
Old NC 10. No other
access into the natural
areas is proposed
BOCC
FIND~iNGS
Yes No
Yes No
_Yes No
purposes.
18
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d)
Landscaping and Buffers
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d) (i) (a)_ X Yes No The site plan indicates Yes No
that there will -be no land
Existing vegetation shall be disturbance associated
preserved as indicated- on with this project with-the
the approved landscape exception of the second
plan in accordance with the entrance along-Old NC
provisions of Section 6.8 of 10. All other existing
this Ordinance. vegetatiorris preserved.
5.8.4. (A) {3) (d) (i) (b) Not Applicable X No land disturbing Not Applicable _
activities are propos-ed
Tree protection measures- wi#h the exception of the
shall be installed and second driveway
maintained between all entrance within the
areas of-disturbance and existing Old NC 1-0 public
trees to be retained as -read right-of-way.
shown on the approved
landsc--ape plan. A detail of
the tree-protection barrier
proposed-shall be included
as part of the- landscape
plan submitted with the
application;
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d) (i) (e) Not Applicable X No such areas exist on Not Applicable
the property.
Corridors connec#ing
habitats identified in the
biological inventory-shall
be preserved along
streams, buffers, or other
wooded areas. If
destroyed during
construction, such
connections shall be
restored using appropriate
plant materials;
19
Ord-finance
Requirements
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d) (i) (d)
Trees and stumps cleared
for reads .and building
construction shall either
be used for timber
purposes or shredded-for
landscape mulch,
composted, buried or
Otherwise disposed of
BUT NOT BURNED
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d) (ii)
-Berms, fences and
landscaping walls may be
used with ptant materials
for screening, provided
such features are
designed and located in
-harmony with other site
features and functions.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d) (iii)
To minimize visual impact
by blending architecture
into the surrounding
landscape, foundation
plantings are required at
all freestanding entrance
signs.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d) (iv)
PLANNING
-BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No _
Not Applicable X
X Yes No
Not Applicable X
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
flNLDINGS
There is a note on the
plat indicating that all
construction and land
clearing debris will ire
disposed of in
accordance with County
Ordinances.
Berms and landscaping
walls are not proposed
for this project.
Existing trees and
plantings are consistent
with the requirement.
No new landscaping is
proposed.
BOCC
FINDINGS-
Yes _ No
Not Applicable
_Yes No
Not Applicable _
Use of xeriscaping
principles.
20
Ordinance
Requirements
5.8.4 (A) (3) (e)
Stormwater Management
5.8.4 (A) (3) (e) (i)
A stormwater
management plan sh-all be
prepared and reviewed in
accordance with the
provisions of Section
6..-14 of this Ordinance.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (f) Drainage
5.8.4 (A) (3) (f) (i)
fAil drainage structur-es will
be installed and
maintained according to
the approved Stormwater
Management Plan.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (f) (ii)
School projects that
include structural
stormwater mreasures
shall comply with
Section 6.14 of this
Ordinance.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No
X Yes No
X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
Preliminary assessment
by County Erosion
Control indicates that the
project com-plies and that
no additional stormwater
management.plans_arc
necessary as no-new
constructiorrif proposer!:
The Planning Board
recommends, however,
that a condition of
approval on this project
be that the applicant
comply with any-required
conditions imposed by
Erosion Control as their
review continues.
The Planning Board
recommends a condition
of approval on this
project-be that the
applicant comply with
any required conditions
imposed by Erosion
Control as their review
continues.
The Planning Board
recommends a condition
of approval on this
project be that the
applicant comply with
any required conditions
imposed by Erosion
Control as their review
continues.
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes
_1(es
Yes
No
No
No
21
PLANNING
BOARD
Ordinance RECOMMENDED
Requirements FINDINGS
5.8.4 (A} (3) (g)
Grading and Erosion
Control
5.8.4 (A) (3) (g) (i) Yes X No
Plans for-grading and
erosion- control shall
_comply-with- standards
contained in this
Ordinance, the Orange
County Sedimentation
Control Manual and, if
applicable, The North
Carolina Erosion and
Sedimentation Contr-ol
P-rogram rules;
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
Preliminary assessment
by Gounty Erosion
Control indicates that
project will comply (i_e.
new driveway}:
The Planning Board
recommends that a
condition-of approval on
this project be that the
applicant comply with
any required conditions
imposed by Erosion
Control as their review
continues.
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes _ No
5.8.4 (A) (3) (g) (ii) -Not Applicable X
Construction shall be-
phased to minimize
disturbance and
sedimentation;
5.8.4 (A) (3) (g) (iii) Yes X No
Sediment control
measures shall be
properly installed to filter
sediment from runoff
during- construction and
maintained until grading is
complete and a
permanent vegetative
cover has been
established and all slopes
stabilized; and
No `phased' construction
is proposed.
The Planning Board
recommends that a
condition of approval on
this project be that the
applicant comply with
any required conditions
imposed by Erosion
Control as their review
continues.
Not Applicable _
Yes _ No
22
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
Requirements FIN-DINGS FINDINGS
IVot Applicable X No new construction is
5.8.4 (A) (3) (g) (iv) proposed necessitating-
this condition.
Permanent landscaping,
growndcover, mulch, etc.
shall be installed as soon
as practical after
construction activities for
each phase are
completed.
5.8:4 CA) (3) (h)
Solid Waste Management
5.8.4 CA) (3) (h) {i) X Yes No A solid wastes
management plan was
A solid waste submitted to Orange
management plan, County for review. No
submitted as part of the issues were identified
Resources Managemen#
Plan, shall include-the
method(s) of disposal and
recycling- of construction
debris.
5:8.4 (A) (3) (i)
Irrigation
5.8.4 (A) (3) (i) (i) Not Applicable X No irrigation system is
proposed.
Irrigation systems for the
school project are
designed and can be
operated according to a
water conservation plan
described in the
Resources Management
Plan submitted with the
application;
BOCC
FINDINGS
Not Applicable _
_Yes No
Nit Applicable _
23
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RErCOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
Requirements FINDINGS= FINDINGS
5.8.4 (A) (3) U)
Habitat -Maintenance
5.8.4 (A) (3). Q) (i) X Yes Nv A Resource
Management Plan was
Habitats identified in the not required for this
biological inventory and project.
habitats created through
mitigation shall be- The majority_ of property
maintained in accordance will remain undisturbed
with the_Resources as denoted on the-
nllanagement Plan and/or submitted site plan
a conservation easement
agreement; and
5.8.4 (A) (3) (j) (ii) X Yes No Existing
vegetated>wooded-sreas
Maintenance of habitats are going to be
shah be minimaF preserved
consisting primarily of
maintaining-buffers and
enhancements, removal
of exotic (non-native.)
plant species, and-
keeping drainage ways
functioning- properly.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (I)
Public Road Access
5.8.4 (A) (3) (I) (i) X Yes No Access is provided from
Old NC 10 (SR 1710)
Access to the school
project shall be via
existing public roads and
shall conform to and be in
compliance with any
public road access
management plan
adopted by Orange
County.
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
24
Ordinance Requirements
5.8.4 (A) (3) (m)
Maintenance of
Improvements
5.8.4 (A) (3) (m) (~
All site improvements
such as roads, utilities
(including irrigation and
drainage structures),
habitat enhancements,
recr-eational amenities,
signage, landscaping,
open space, etc: will be
maintained in function and
appearance. Maintenance
specif+cations, if any, for
on-going site_
management (ihcludmg
-provisions for handling of
storm- debris in-open
space areas-) shall be
submitted as part of the
Resources Management
Plan as defined in
Definitions (Article 10).
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n)
Additional Standards
5.8.4 (A) (3) {n) (i)
For non-charter public
schools the minimum lot
size shall be, as required
by the School Construction
Standards adopted from
time to time by the Board of
County Commissioners,
the Orange County Board
of Education and the
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board
of Education.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED-
FINDINGS
X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT BOCC
FINDINGS FINDINGS-
The prooeTty owner shall
maintain all
improvements.
X Yes No The site plan indicates
the lot is 2:8 acres in
area. This lot size would
meet School
Construction Standards
fora 12 student capacity
school.
Yes No
_Yes No
25
ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (ii)
For all schools, the lot
size shall be adequate to
accommodate all
activities. The proposed
methods to handle the
maximum number of
__ p a r#i ci pa nts-a nd_patro n s
for any single event shall
be provided while also
adhering to safe vehicular
and pedestrian circulation.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (iii)
Negative visual impacts
shail be minimized along
any major-roadway.
Negative visual impacts
include, but are not limited
to, loadingrunloading-
areas, delivery areas, air
handling units (roof top
and other), parking areas
for machinery, and
storage buildings.
Appropriate screening
methods shall be used to
enhance the aesthetic
value of a project.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (iv)
Transportation
improvements as deemed
necessary by the Traffic
Impact Study.
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED- TO SUPPORT BOCC
FINDINGS FINDINGS: FINDINGS
X Yes No Safe vehicular and =Yes No
pedestrian circulation is
provided for.
X Yes No Theareas along Old-NG _Yes No
40 and Lawr-ence Road
will be preserved.
Not Applicable X Not required due to low Not Applicable _
volume of traffic
generation.
26
ORDINANCE
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (v)
The site shall be designed
to take advantage of
multiple shared use
opportunities, which may
include a Park and Ride
facility for public
transportation.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (vi)
-Site-Access
5.8.4 (A) (_3) (n) (vi) (a}
There shall be a minimu.u~
of two access points to the
site
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (vi) (b)
Access points shall
se- parate student drop-off
areas and visitor perking
from bu~traffic_
5.8.4 (A) (3} (n) (vi) (c)
If-school buses are used,
then at least one access
shall be limited to school
employee and bus use
during normal school hours
5.-8.4 (A) (3) (n) (vi) (d)
All access points shall be
located to provide
maximum visibility and
safety.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (vi) (e)
No driveway shall be
permitted in a location
that will hinder or congest
traffic movement
on a public street.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
Not Applicable X
X Yes _ _IVo
X Yes _ _No
Not Applicable X
X Yes _ _No
X Yes _ _No
€~~DENCE SIiBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
The Planning Board has
found that-there is no
need for shared facilities
on this property based on
staff testimony at the May
23, 2011 Quarterly Public
Hearing.
The submitted site plan
shows the- required
access points
The submitted site plan
demonstrates the
separate access points.
There is no bus traffic
proposed #orthis use.
There is no bus traffic
proposed for this-use.
The submitted site plan
demonstrates compliance
The submitted site plan
demonstrates compliance
BOCC
FINDINGS
Not Applicable _
-Yes No
-Yes No
Not Applicable
-Yes No
-Yes No
27
ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS:
Section 5.3.2 {B)
Section 5.3.2 (B) (1)
Method and adequacy of
provision for sewage
disposal facilities, solid
waste and water service.
Section 5.3.2 (B) (2)
Method and adequacy of
police, fire and rescue
squad protection.
Section 5.3.2 (B) (3)
Method and adequacy of
vehicle access to the site
and traffic conditions
around the site.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TAO SUPPORT_
FINDINGS
X Yes No Sewage disposal shall be
handled through an
individual, priv-ately
maintained, septic
system developed on the
property. Water service
shall be provided through
an existing tap-provided
by the Town of
Hillsborough.
The Health Department
has required tha# the
septic system be
modified fo
accommodate the
school.
The Planning Board
recommends that this
-become a condition of
approval.
X Yes_ No Fire protection will be
provided by the Eno
Volunteer Fire
Department, rescue
service by the Orange
County Emergency
Management, and police
protection by the Orange
County Sheriff's
Department.
.`C Yes _No The submitted site plan
shows the required
access points.
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes No
Yes No
_Yes No
28
ORDINANC-E
REQUIREMENTS:
In accordance with Section
5.3.2 (A) (2), the Board of
Commissioners shall also
consider the following
general conditions before
the application for a
Special Use can be
approved:
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a)
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.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FtNflINGS
x Will _ Will
.Not
E1lIDENCE SUBMi-TTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDaNGS
• Applicant testimony at
the May 23, 2014
Quarterly Public
Hearing,
• -The submitted site
plan which contains
various notes denoting
compliance,
• The issuance of-a
septic permit
aufih.orizing
modification to the
existing septic system
(presented at the July
6, 2011 Planning
Board meeting)
* The applicant's
response to concerns
raised at the May 23,
2011-Quarterly Public
Hearing (presented at
the July 6, 2011
Planning Board
meeting)
• Testimony from staff
on the project
• Staff corrESpondence
(entered into the.
record at the May 23,
2011 Quarterly Public
Hearing with additional
information provided at
the July 6, 2011
Planning Board
meeting)
BOCC
FINDINGS
-Will -Will
Not
29
ORDINANCE
R1=QUlREMENTS:
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b)
The use will 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).
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c)
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.
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPP-ORT BOCC
FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
x Will _ Will The appraisal opinion, _WiA _Will
Not authored by Mr. Mike Not
Taylor dated February 17,
2011, thatwas-submitted
as part of the application
package and entered into
the records at the May 23,
20.11 Quarterly Public
Hearing-.
• Applicant.-testimony at Is _ Is
thel~flay 23,-2011 Not
Quarterly Public
Hearing;
• The application
narrative-pr-aviding a_
synopsis of the various
elements of the
Comprehensive Plan
supporting the
application
• The applicant's
response to concerns
raised at the May 23,
2011 Quarterly Public.
Hearing (presented at
the July 6, 2011
Planning Board
meeting)
• The submitted site
plan
• -Staff testimony at the
May 23, 201-1
Quarterly Public
Hearing and
comments made at the
July 6, 2011 Planning
Board meeting
30
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Board has not received any information that would establish grounds -for making a negative finding
on the general standards and no additio^al testimony was-offered, either verbally or in writing, that would justify
the denial of the application- While adjoining property owners expressed concern at the May-23, 2011 Quarterly
Public Hearing, there is insufficient evidence within the record leading the Board to conclude that the .project does
not comply with the UDO.
The Planning Board has reviewed the- application, the site plan, all supporting documentation, and -the minutes
-from the May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing and has-found that the applicant complies with the specific and
general-standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO
In the a-vent that the Board of County Commissioners makes the determination that the permit-can be issued, the
Planning Board recommends the attachment of-the #ollowing conditions to the-Special Use Permit:
1. That the school be limited to serving twelve (12) students as proposed by the applicant.
2. That classes only occur from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday as testified. to by the
-applicant unless- there is inclement weathery in which case--.the school shall--abide by the- Orange-
County Schools Inclement Weather- policy- in terms of hour-s of-operation. These hours shall not limit
the- ability of the applicant to hold parent/teacher con#erences, open houses, or other similar events
associated with the normal operational characteristics, of a school outside of the aforementioned
operating hours.
3. That existing vegetation around the perimeter of the property shall -be preserved- and remain in an
undisturbed- state as denoted on the site plan.
4. That the Fire Marshal and representatives of the Eno Volunteer Fire Department shall review and
approve the revised site ptan ~s well. as the floor plan of the building pr-ior to the issuance of any
Building and/or Zoning Compliance Permit(s) approving the use of the site as a school- and verifying
that the existing structures and site comply with all applicable NC Fire P-rotection Code standards.
5. That the applicant shall install any required septic system- improvements necessary to allow for the
operation of the school from the property prior to the commencement of activities.
6. That the applicant shall apply for a Building and Zoning Compliance Permit within one hundred eighty
(180) days from- the approval of this application and that such permits shall be issued prior to any
occupancy of the building by the proposed school.
7. That the applicant secure any necessary Soil Erosion and Grading, Stormwater, or other similar
permit(s) from the Orange County Erosion Control Division within (180) days from the approval of this
application and that such permits shall be issued prior to any land disturbing activity or occupancy of
the building by the -proposed -school.
8. That the applicant, as part of their- building permit application submission, include documentation from
the State of North Carolina indicating that the school has received any necessary certifications allowing
them to operate as a private school and that their curriculum has been certified as meeting any and all
local, State, and Federal requirements, and
9. That the applicant adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by NCDOT in accordance with
their driveway permit for this project as part of the permit review for this project.
10. That a revised site plan denoting all site improvements or modifications necessary to address any of
these conditions be completed and submitted for final approval by staff prior to the commencement
of school operations.
DRAFT ATTACHMENT 3
31
2 DRAFT
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
7 May 23, 2011
g 7:00 p.m.
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
11 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing meeting on Monday, May 23, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS
12 Building, Hillsborough Commons, in Hillsborough, NC.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
15 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve
16 Yuhasz
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
18 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT-: John Roberts
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the
20 Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
21 -PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford and members
22 Alan Campbell, H. T. "Buddy" Hartley, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Mark Marcoplos, Maxecine
23 Mitchell, Andrea Rohrbacher, Lisa Stuckey, Judith Wegner, and Larry Wright
24 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Pete Hallenbeck
25
26-
27 2. Class A Special Use Permit (SUP) Application Proposing Development of a Montessori
28 School - To review adeveloper-initiated project that would allow for development of a
29 Montessori School at the intersection of Lawrence Road and Old NC 10.
30 Larry Wright read-the item.
31
32 Larry Wright: I would like to ask those who have signed up to give testimony for this #2 item to
33 please come to the Clerk and be duly sworn in.
34
35 Deputy Clerk David Hunt: Do you solemnly swear/affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and
36 nothing but the truth, so help you God?
37
38 Michael Harvey: I am Michael Harvey with the Planning Department and I am here this
39 evening to present to you staff's abstract concerning a Class A Special Use Permit application
40 requesting authorization to locate a Montessori School at the Unitarian Universalist
41 Congregation in Hillsborough at 1710 Old NC 10. You will note from your packet that this parcel
42 of property is 2.8 acres in area, it is zoned Rural Residential, and it is within a 10-year Transition
43 Area as designated on the Land Use Element Map.
44
45 The applicant has provided you with a formal site plan and photographs of the building. As you
46 will note from the notes section on the submitted site plan as well as our abstract, the Unitarian
47 Universalist Church wishes to allow a Montessori School utilizing the existing church facility
48 where students range in ages of 6-12 years of age, for a maximum capacity of 12 students at
49 the school.
DRAFT
1 All children, according to the Harr-ative as well as the site plan, are to be dropped off by their
2 parents or guardians and there will be no bum service or bus- traffic at the property associated
3 with the school operation. For the Board members, you do have the PowerPoint presentation. in
4 front of you to follow along.
5
6 You will note from the abstract as well as the narrative, this project does not involve any new
7 construction and will make use existing building and parking facilities. As also noted on the site
8 plan, -there are no outdoor sports fields or other recreational facilities proposed: The school
9 actually plans to make use_of the existing playgrs~und facility on the property. The entrance to
10- the site wall be off of Old MC 10 as denoted on -the site plan. We've already talked about the
11 applicant providing. pictures of the various elevations of the building
12-
13 As this Board is already aware, a Class A Special Use Permit is processed through aquasi-
14 judicial review process. The County Commissioners and the Planning Board-will hear factual
15 evidence and sworn testimony concerning the project's compliance with the various provisions
16 of~the ordinance and your_ decision on this application will be based on evidence presented at
17 these hearings- and testimony offered= by the-applicant anal all of those -that have been sworn_in
18 to speak.
19
20 With respect to providing our assessment of this application, you will note beginning on page
21 250 of your abstract, we have provided the various requirements contained within the ordinance
22 with respect to the development of a school within Orange County.
23-
24 It is our contention that the proposal is generally cs~nsistent with the components of the Unified-
2~ Development Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Element Map, and that the
26 application does contain all required elements in order for the formal review to commence. It is
27 our opinion that the applicant has demonstra#ed compliance with.. various development
28 standards contained within the ordinance. As the project is limitea to 12 students, we do not
27 foresee any negative impacts on adjacent properties resulting from- the approval of this
30 -application.
31
32 With respect to conditions, staff will be suggesting conditions as we move through this process
33 and will address _those at the July Planning Board meeting_ when this- is due to be taken up -
34 specifically dealing with the occupancy of the structure, access management issues, the
35 cadence of permit review/approval, specifically securing the necessary Building and Health
36 Department permits, as well as the necessary inspections from the Orange County Fire
37 Marshall regarding occupancy.
38
39 We also are going to be requesting notification from the State concerning the accreditation of
40 the program for being compliant with State guidelines. The applicant will be responding to these
41 recommended conditions at an appropriate time at a future meeting.
42
43 For this evening, what you are being asked to do, as noted in our Recommendations section, is:
44 1. Receive the application,
45 2. Conduct the Public Hearing,
46 3. Receive any and all comments on the proposal
47 4. Refer the amendment package to the Planning Board for its recommendation with a
48 request that a recommendation be returned in time for the August 23, 2011 regular
49 BOCC meeting, and
32
DRAFT
1 5. Adjourn the public hearing to August 23, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board-
2 recommendation.
3
4 I will be more than happy to answer any questions-you have and the applicant is here this evening
5 and will be addressing the Berard as well.
6 Larry Wright: The-Chair would like to ask anybody That is sworn in to come up and speak from the
7 public.
8 Michael Neal: Good evening, I'm Michael Neal, and I hrave been-sworn. f represent the applicant
9 and I think Mr-Harvey did a thorough job of presenting the project, so i-won't belabor it anymore. I'm
10 here to answer any questions that you may have. Wth that, I'll set aside.
11 Jack Niklas: I've been sworn in. We live at 2215 Running Pine, which is right in the backyard of the
12 church, presently. I speak to some concerns that wa have with the addition of the school.
13 Concern #1 is that -the school is required to relocate and he is corrcemed why was this school
14 required to relocate. -Were there concerns in the neighborhood that we should be addressing _at this
15 hearing?
16 I'm concerned about the septic. It is a residential area and a house built in a residential
1 T neighborhood and it falls under different guidelines. That kind of information would be
18 environmen#ally useful being in an adjacent property._
19 W~h the daytime school running five days a week, the church _aiready has increased their activities
20 throughout the week from just having Sunday service to having Saturday events; weekday events,
21 and this naw will push their activities over-and creates aseven-day busy activity schedule for folks at
22 the church and the school. As we have a view of the parking lot, they've had to modify the parking lot
23 to adjust to the traffic increase and they are packed. Those ar-e concerns of ours.
24 Because the school does not have a kitchen, they are going to have lunches provided by the
25 -students. That is fine: There will be additional and unusual trash storage and I'm concerned about
26 what provisions will be made for the storage and also the pickup.
27 It was mentioned about recess-and outdoor activitiesfor the school and that they do have afenced-in
28 playground. I'm concerned about the definition of a recess and outdoor activities, specifically outdoor
29 activities. Does that mean when it's a nice day that the kids will be outdoors aii-day? Those are my
30 concerns at this time.
31 Lori Evarts: Hi, my name is Lori Evarts and I've been sworn. I live at 2215 Wyngate Drive. We own
32 the two properties that are adjacent to the school. I have similar questions as Mr. Niklas, we didn't
33 talk before the meeting.
34 I am also concerned why it is relocating. That is a point that needs to be addressed, as well as the
35 leach field for the sewer. They are on septic and that needs to be addressed.
36 I also brought up the issue with regard to trash requirements and whether or not there- will be a
37 dumpster or something of that nature.
38 The parking lot has been upgraded.
39 The church members are very respectful and do a great job of keeping up the landscaping, however,
40 there are numerous occasions where individuals will have cookouts or other kinds of things where I
41 don't believe there's adequate water supply to the site where they are located.
42 There are a couple of things in the application that I'm concerned about. On page 254, item 5, it
43 refers to the inclusion of a park and ride facility for public transportation. I really want to know what
44 this allows for.
33
DRAFT
1 I did not realize it until tonight that this submission was put together by a developer. That concerns
2 -me a bit. ?he other item is also on page 2~4, item 6. It says, "site access," part A states there should
3 be a minimum of two .access points to tk~e site, and I'm wondering. how this will be accorrrplished
4 when there's only one driveway and it is off NC 10. I realize there is no bus service, however, the
5 application does- specify that two entranceways are necessary. Another thing, the lot size varies from
6 2.8 acres, 2.95, 3. I realize there is some rambling in there, but being a property owner of two
7 adjacent properties, I think it is important that these de{ineations are respectful and- surveying is done
8 appropriately.
9 I'm just wondering whether or not any other kind of safety measures are going to be in place, similar
10 to what Mr. Niklas said about, you know, -you just don't want children to get hurt. I'm. just trying to
11 understand a little bit more about that. I think it would be great to have a school nearby, but I am
12 concerned about this being_ proposed by a developing unit and wondering what other kind of
13 expansion of these application items will be allowed, such as maybe increasing enrollment beyond
14 12. The conditions. that-the gentleman put up first about occupancy, assessment, and accreditation -
15 I think those are very interesting and I'm curious to know if we will get more information befor-e -that
16 Planning Board meeting in July so that way our questions can be answered sooner rather than later.
17 Larry Wright: Does the Planning Board have any questions?
18 Judith Wegner: I wonder if we could hear a responses to the first question about why the move since
19 we have someone from the-applicant here.
20 Michael Harvey: The answer to-the question that I can provide based on my initial meeting with the
21 applicant vuas that they can-ently have a shared agreement with an- existing Montessori school on
22 Highway 70, through funding issues that the school is terminating that relationship, this school is
23 having to find additional classroom space.
24 Richard- Merritt -1- can answer some of that. I am from the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of
25 Hillsborough, and I'm working on trying to get this Special Use Permit through. One of the things I
26 can respond to is the question of why the school is moving. If you-need further discussion of that; the
27 two teachers for the-school are here tonight.
28 The Montessori- Farm School, which is currently at Abundant Life Church- has decided that the
29 students in the K-5 range are not financially worthwhile to them. The end of this year, they ar_e
30 stopping that part-of their program. The Montessori Farm -School will continue at Abundant Life, but
31 without this particular age group. Because of the connection of some of the people that-are involved
32 in the new school in the K-5 program with our congregation, they approached us to use some of our
33 facilities. Is that clear enough?
34 Michael Harvey: The only thing I want to remind the Board, and I alluded to it in my initial
35 presentation, I want to try to answer some of these questions that were posed tonight. I think the
36 applicant is-going to have to respond in writing to the Planning Board and County Commissioners as
37 well. If you will begin on page 250 of the abstract, going through approximately_ page 254, we have
38 taken liberty of trying-to provide basic responses to the requirements Orange County has imposed on
39 applicants desiring to develop a school within the County. Some of those conditions, in fact one
40 condition beginning on page 254, concerning-the park and ride facility -you will note that the County
41 Planning staff has indicated that it is our opinion that there is no need for such a facility at this site.
42 The applicant hasn't proposed it and we don't deem it necessary that they incorporate a park and
43 ride facility for this particular location. You will also note that the site plan #hat has been submitted to
44 you does show the required mandated two access points. The applicant has been made aware that
45 they are going to have to obtain the necessary driveway permit from the North Carolina Department
46 of Transportation and install that to address access management traffic issues.
34
DRAFT
1 I believ~that_we have provided the basic answers within the abstract on the pages that I've sited that
2 all of the specific standards be included. Within your packet are correspondence from the various
3 County staff people, specifc311y the Fire Marshall, the 5herifPs Office, Rich Shaw with DE~4PR with
4 respect to review of this application. We are confident as we continue to- move forward we can
5 address the majority of these questions and concerns with the applicant's assistance.
6 Regarding the septic issue, in consultation with Mr. Neal, the-church and~he applicant have been
7 working with Environmental- Health and they are continuing to have meetings _and dialogue as
8 necessary. It is my understanding that one- of the recommendations of the Health Department is
9 going-to be that the existing system is going to have to be expanded in orderto accommodate these
10 12 students. As we typically do, staff will be recommending formal conditions at the- Planning Board
11 level, which-will then be reviewed by the County Commissioners. Those conditions historically and
12 typically "have _always been that all appropriate permits are obtained by the applicant before an
13 occupancy. The answer to the -question of what happens if they -cannot secure those permits is that
14 they don't open. That's just a simple answer to that question. We will continue to work with the
15 applicant to supply the necessary information to address the questions posed here this evening and if
16 you have any additional questions, I'll answer them.
17 Commissioner Jacobs: Page 232 talks about screening.- It-says--that; "landscaping-and-buffering
18 plan appears to be consistent with the requirements of the ordinance." So, does that mean tha#
19 additional screening is required or the screening that's- there, especially in the parking area is
20 sufficien#?
21 Michael Harvey: No sir, we determined existing screening is sufficient to comply with the
22 requirement of the code.
23 Commissioner Jacobs: Is there any kind of requirement for a fenced area for a school?
24 Michael Harvey: No, -sir.
25 Commissioner Jacobs: So, presumably, there were some safety concerns -expressed by
26 neighbors. That would solely fall under the- purview of the teachers- and the staff of the facility to
27 make sure that the students were supervised and did not venture off the site.
28 Michael Harvey: Correct, sir. I -will, however, point out the existing recreation at the existing
29 playground does have_a fence around it to separate it from the church facility.
30 Commissioner Jacobs: I just had a question for our Attorney. Is it germane, in- a special use
31 permit, to be asking why a facility is moving from one place to another'?
32 John Roberts: If the Board of County Commissioners determines it's germane, then yes it is. You
33 are directed, commended by your ordinance to ask questions to determine the competent material
34 and substantial evidence that support the project's compliance with various regulations. Whether the
35 applicant has met the burden of proof, you have to make that determination. You determine what the
36 relevant questions are. If someone presents testimony that may not be relevant, I may advise you
37 that it's not relevant, but you still make the determination.
38 Chair Pelissier: I'll now need a motion related to the Planning Director's recommendations to
39 receive the application, 1-5, listed on page 255 and adjoum the public hearing to August 23`x.
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to receive the
41 application, refer the .amendment package to the Planning Board for its recommendation with a
42 request that a recommendation be returned in time for the August 23, 2011 regular BOCC meeting,
43 and adjoum the public hearing to August 23, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board
44 recommendation.
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
Attachment 4
DRAFT
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD-
3 JULY 6, 201'F
4' REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian -Crawford (chair), Eno Township Representative; Larry Wright .(Vice-Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove
7 Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township-Representative; Lisa
8 Stuckey, chapel Hill Township Representative; Mark Marcoplos, At-Large, Bingham Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large
9 Chapel Hill Township; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township Representative; Maxecirre Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township;
10 Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative.;
11
12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Wegner, Bingham Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At Large Chapel Hill Township;
1-4
15
16 STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita -Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Glenn Bowles,
17 Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
18
19
ZO OTHERS PRESENT: Frank Lloyd, Janet Ltoy_d, Chad Abbott,-Susan Levy
21
22
23 Documents banded out by staffi• Water System Basics submitted by Pete Hallenbeck
24
25 Visuals used during meeting: Tinnin lN~ods Site Plan Map and area map
26
27
28 AGENDA IT€NL7: CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMfr TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MONTESSORI SCHOOL: To make a
29 recommendation to the BQCC on an application submitted by the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of
30 Hillsborough-to allow for development of a Montessori School at their existing_church facility located- at
31 the intersection of Lawrence Road and Old NC Highway 10, as heard at the May 23, 2011 quarterly
32 public hearing.
33 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Planner Ilf
34
35 Michael Harvey: The individuals that will be operating the-schaol are in the audience. Their engineer will be here. I-will briefly
36 summarize the abstract. There were several ques#ions and comments during the quarterly public hearing-that 1 will discuss if
37 necessary.
38
39 Brian Crawford: Have there been any other comments from the meeting date until today?
4~
41 Michael Harvey: No other than what was entered into the public record.
42
43 Brian Crawford: Were there any objections on the recommendation conditions by the applicant?
44
45 Michael Harvey: No.
46
47 Brian Crawford: Are there any questions from the Planning -Board for staff?
48
49 Larry Wright: With respect to the provision of food for lunch, has fhaf been addressed by the applicant?
50
51 Michael Harvey: I will defer to the applicant for that answer.
52
53 Larry Wright: On page 34, recommended condition number 2, how much wiggle room is there if you had adverse weather for the
54 parents to pick their children up?
55
56 Michael Harvey: Condition number 2 deals with the hours of operation for the school. From my standpoint, if there is that
57 situation I don't see the alteration in hours that as a violation. All we are saying is that normal classroom operations will occur as
58 proposed by the applicant. You may want to propose modifications to our recommended language that would say the operation
59 of the school should occur from 8:30 to 3:30 Monday through Friday unless other factors deem necessary.
36
DRAFT
60
61 Brian Crawford: We could make it with consistent with the Orange County Public Schools inclement weather plan with respect to
62_ operating hours.
63
64 Larry Wright: When I was connected with the school district, they went-through a mock evening class that parents attended like
65 a school day. Would that be affected if they brought students in?
66
67 Michael Harvey: -Like an open house?
68
69 Larry Wright: Yes.
70
71 Michael Harvey: No, because this condition is getting at the operation of the school, specifically classroom operations. If the
72 school had a meeting after hours, I don't~think-this condition, even as worded, would preclude such an event because meetings
73 can still beheld at the church.
74
75 Larry Wright I asked because (wanted to make sure that if there is a neighbor that-would want to take issue-with this type of
76 activity tha# there were these types of discussions occurring during the application review-process.
77
78 Michael Harvey: The Planning Board may want_to recommend that condition number 2 be modifted to say actual school
79 operations from a teaching perspective will occur from this time _to this time_and_the building-can_be utilized for non-school
80 functions; meetings; parent- teacher conferences at reasonable hours and add language about the.. inclement weather_policy as
81 suggested bythe chair.
82
83 Brian Crawford: Will staff make a note of that.
84
85 Michael Harvey: That needs-to be in your recommendation.
86
87 Brian Crawford: Any other questions from the Planning Board?
88
89 Frank Lloyd: My wife and I are the co-owners of the school and you ask about the meals. Our kids will brinq.their9wn lunches.
90 There-is a microwave in case someone needs something heated up. We will-not be cooking-meals on site. The trash will be
91 taken care of by the existing waste contractor for the church. Does that answer what you want?
92
93 Larry Wright: Thank you very much.
94
95 Brian Crawford: Would anyone like to make a motion?
96
97 MOTION made by Larry Wright to endorse staffs recommendations on page 34 items 1 through 10 with one modification-on
98 number 2 to clarify that the school schedule will be from 8:30 AM to 3:3D PM-when classes will be held but it would conform with
99 the Orange County Public Schools Implementation-Weatherflan.
100
101 Lisa Stuckey: A friendly amendment could be that the school-may hold open houses and parent teacher conferences outside of
102 the 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM timeframe.
103
104 Michael Harvey: A clarification. As part of your motion, are you making the affirmative finding of staffs findings as articulated on
105 pages 1 through 33 with respect to compliance with the various elements of the special use permit application submittal and that
106 the evidence submitted justifies the issuance of the permit.
iO7
108 MOTION- made by Larry Wright to endorse staff's recommendations on pages 1 through 33 with regard to the issuance of the
109 permit and the recommended conditions contained on page 34 items 1 through 10 with one modification on number 2 to clarify
110 that the school schedule will be from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM when classes will be held but it would conform with the Orange County
111 Public Schools Implementation Weather Plan and that open houses and other similar meetings can be held outside of regular
112 school hours. Alan Campbell seconded
113
114 VOTE: Unanimous
37
2
..
~K
.~
MICHAEL A. HEAL & ASSOCIATES, YLLG
ENGIlVEERS, SURVEYORS, AND PLANNERS
105 West Corbin Street, Suite 201
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
(919) 644-1277 mneal@manaengineers.com
June 21, 2011
Mike Hervey, AICP, CFM, CZO
Plan-Wing- Supervisor -Planner III.
Orange County
131 W. Margaret Lene
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Mr. Harvey,
ATTACHMENT 5 38
The following -are our -responses to the various issues/concerns expressed -by the
general public at the public hearing held on May 24, 2D1 r regarding -the planned
Montessori school relocation to the Unitarian Universalist Congregation church located
at the corner of Lawrence Road and Old NC 10 in Hjllsborough:
1. Comment: The addition of -the school-will incr-ease the total level of activity occurring
on the church-property. We are concerned about the potential impacts from a noise,
trash, and congestion perspective.
Answer: Fewer children -will be present during school than when church is in
session. Trash will continue to be carried away daily and recycling will be
accomplished on-site and picked up by Orange -Counfy. Traffic -will be significantly
less during school than when church services are held
2. Comment: There needs to be additional thought with. respect to the necessary safety
measures that have to be employed to ensure the protection of the children attending
the school.
Answer: Children will be dropped off at the door, which will be aftended by the
teaching staff. Student to teaching staff ratio will be 6:1 at the most, and students will
be supervised at all times by staff.
3. Comment: Why was the school being relocated?
Answer: The Abundant Life Church located on Highway 70 in the Town of
Hillsborough houses a Montessori school. Due to budgetary constraints, the school
decided to eliminate the 6 to 12 year old student program. The staff, wanting
continuity of the student population, sought relocation of this part of the Montessori
school, specifically to the Unitarian properly.
4. Comment: Will the existing septic system on the Unitarian church property be
sufficient to support the proposed school?
Answer: According to Orange County Environmental Health, the existing septic
system field capacity will have to be increased to accommodate the proposed school
by expanding the drain lines. Application for the necessary permit(s) has been S 9
made.
The church is interviewing contractors to get the expansion done as soon as
possible.
As we understand the situation, County planning staff` has recommended a condition
that school activities will not occur until this work has been- completed. Vk/e
understand the requirement and will abide by the recommended condition.
5_. Comment: WiN the parking lot have to be redesigned to address the increase in
activity?
Answer: As the traffic will be less during school hours, there is no need to modify or
expand the existing parking facilities-to accommodate the traffic associated with_ the
schoof:
6. Comment: How will the additional solid waste material, generated- as the result of
the school, be handled?
Answer: The church will continue to handle solid waste as -they currently do.
According to the church, no additional dumpsters will be necessary to support the
school-oPer_ation.
7. Comment: What `outdoor activities' are envisioned for the school?
Answer: The students attending the Montessori school will have a recess period as
well as outdoor classroom activities:
8.- Comment: Will there be organized school related sports activities or athletic
fields are proposed for development as-part of this permit request?
Answer: No. This age group does not participate in organized_school related spor#s
activities. The existing playground faeili#ies will suffice for the school's purposes.
9. Comment: Coneer-n .was expressed over Cotarrty regulations encouraging the
development of shared facilities, such as a park and ride lot. Will a park and ride
-facility be required or developed on the property?
Answer. No , as staff indicated during the public hearing they had already deter-mined
that this site is not viable for such development.
10.A comment was made by a County Commissioner, in addressing a neighboring
property owner's concern over student safety, that the responsibility for
addressing the safety and welfare of students attending the school would: `solely
fall under the purview of the teachers and the staff of the facility to make sure
that the students were supervised and did not venture off the site'.
The applicant concurs with this assessment.
11.A County Commissioner asked if there were there regulations requiring a `fenced
area for a school' within the UDO.
Answer. As indicated during the public hearing existing regulations do not require
that a school property be fenced.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael A. Neal, PE, PLS
E~vlronraental Health Division A ~ "~4~ ~ (~
P.O. ltoyt $~$1,13x ti4 Margaret X~n, 3uifo 108-
Hlgsb~ongt;, NC 27x78
3Phaue2~~360 b'Ax644.3006
><+tntllitaa~taourrnQanauslcnrlrRhlladox~*~
WASTEWATER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION
Paxctll'iu~ 987397~54Z '1`AQBX.: 5
Applica1i01aDAbC; o5/Q6/3011
-- ---- -~----
6~t
0M1 / Ferroft#: CAIN-00483
x/06711$+- -1~,-..-.-W.--...
1
6
Applkaut: UNPP.ARTAN U14I~3AT.TS7` CoAi(II.tI;CiATIUN OF AILLSIiQAOCJGt Ovraor: DAUTAWAW UNIV8~5Axl3T
CJUT10RgCtA17YON C)F ~OUQ
Addxees: P O BC1X37S Addreea P Q BUX3'15
/HII.><.9BOB4IIt~lYC f1RdUGH NC
3T~78 x73118
X'ltamo: ~ 919~1".M-5559 / Mona
RbpcetylheC.: #A ~AVPXNC~ATap531198 Y»otS~ 3
~iapAddt x~lo oxarr~c x5 ocFl.
l Typa; Go1VJM8I3C,~AL BRPAN8Y01Y -
FadiiryTyp~ Yr/D'CTCATtt)NAL IPN YPii-00091 Iixjslt+es; Qi1071~01+6
WabsrSapplg: Pzi-n~to'1f-c41
BP~CIF1CA7l'I
wa~ww : s9-o r~en rrr»~ Syat~ Tyq~e: vn~up s Sy~nC~ mb
NaofBndnooaa~ 0 ]4iudt~twf: 164 P't. J[ 3Ft.'VRficM
Sapt~o Ted OttSg Tan&C~A>; 3rfa:un~mrt Tratdt Depdx ~4 Ju
14t~.1'aenp T~ OSxLrllsg TaitkQAL H~t~ Tim: -9 pt .
~ x 3 L~irative Syabmn'1'y~o;
Qtita~ To#al DF
f
Rept:it Syaeam 1~rpa h~ Teenett Sysiarn CIS ~g-
~- (:OI`IDITt
'~ 2tl'IFBR 7'O T~11iA~~3'ACi~D B~t~B kI.AiY 8HOWlNQ'!'~3YSSB'A[ A1~tD FACa.ITIf 7.OCA't10N8 ANU 07'lIRR B1'S'~~lAT81'RGIFK:MYONiS
+* 7H~A[/Ttt$Yt~ATIIB'i8MW.1lKCQAiB~V'AuDAiVq.M~1YBBItRYOK~IIh
* Y'B61`IiFW~i1iA~ONStIHOit'i7'tibdDI~11SAFPLIGA9'[O1f~liY(7DRitBCILNAM.BI~I'~ODtgtA13G~
* TRBBITB 18 A677tB~~ ~
* THR8Yg7~-111~TAi.i~ATLQI~E1SlY(ri`Cdl4iM.Ii7BUB1i~ORSTH$B7Q'IAATL(~iDA'18
*' 'I'HSSYST)E4~~iNAU.BBII~I'ALLf~f~1a-(:cg1~.QA~VfI'Li~t
* ~AtVG~- OQDI~iI'Y'RULSS ~~ w7~rd~iRNTAND DIRP09A4S1f31?~3-ISA$ AUQl'7'YA1 @Y7'NI~bAAi'~GC -
COIINTYBQAI2D O'Y ~d1R
* OItAiVC~~ffi'SP WA$7'ILWA7RB Q,Y,~'T~N~ AiKD QC~TD POL1ClSS,
+ SYS'tR~MB W1Tl1 A CLAI~SINICATIOT(Q87II OR liiQ~ WI 1't9QU1RR !'~T(39DIC 71'~'61:1iW~ nY'l~ o~ H6A6TIt DBPARTA~17'
iSSUND: Od/87/E0~.1 ~''~~''~S 3~: osro7~416
~aeutai ReaHN ante
GI-4f3Q~t2 Pickup.,,,_. Ma~,._, 771e^, ltcvlcRVS~1 - CA~
(1) ~y private water stanF~Y scarce, lnctuding ~y „vat ~ epriag t oo tat
(~) Airy publla water supply aot>rca 100 ~
(3) Streams cIasellled ss WS-I 100 fat
(4) Arty e)titor sttbam, caaaL matal~, ar other sarlhce wator SO fact
{5) Attp Cues Y nx t II YossrYnit I00 ibat Hna-1 tuttmal pool oistmtiotc
{6) ,A~'porma~tostatoartwater~noOeatlonpomd SO1botA'arntlaodpooi~~vetion
(7) Awy otbex iak~o ar po~ad St} ibd from normal pool akvdtat
(t3) Aay 6uiWiug fauttdatlau or buitdittg SooHpg is ibot
(9) Attq b~osnart 15 far
{lo) Ataypmporlyttae !0lbet
(f i) Top oPstopa of ar~»fcmzt-f9 or e~ of 2 ~ ew moro vaticai hetg~' 1S lhot
(12) Attr~nttettine lO~Beol
(13) D!'akwgo aNst
{A) Ir~ranpla~ drabs lbuseiation draass, st~i atarla wstex dlvorsiona
m ~elssiape fkom systtnn !0 foot
(N,J $ldoatopa floor system ] 5 isd
(lihdawnslope Arum sgi$aao. ~5 tbar
(Bj gnauttcinratar Iowerf»p dtEettes and dttv~boas 2S tbet
(14j Abyawitwrttugpod ~3tost
(1 ~ Any oetior attrifitctioa flle~ (exceptr~dr area) 20 &ot
(1lt3 Drtli lied (thttoma~ odge oPa stre~tra) ~ 5 beet
Aqy d~su$m-te the W'oposarl Plan u~M1Ut M ~~nove~ lye rie OCAD
• t
Please ds not AiloW ~ tenslk, cosstrgctlow, exeatin~t~, attUlk~ asytarlal amrn~ or smy otl~or dbtrobaaee N b~ p~ a the dedtaated
saptk lu'at ~ r Aret~ Tlaees tteltMlHes may v+eid ysul' peruttr,
i
The orrwer k resNaeslblo far matidt~ ne0' p duos sad eerttoro. Ths t'7ont~~bar is rsapoaslbls for etnat'iwlc d~ Ihs ae9 ar sepfle syaian Is
lttetalkd In tke pt+epa~ toeali0w sad bat All etethncke AMO twit.
•
The .auatbe lselalled/repa~pi hY as Orontte aoattiy amoral SepNs ~m Cattraetor.
t
A SN of t~s t':ewttty ~eg1<ta'~ 5ept[e Syefsrtt t:eMre~dats le ttvsYsble ~ rerlnesf`
••
'Che eyatetu insta8e>ifoa meet ba hupested ®y OCHD At eertaht ~aC'es dtttittt rite t~tlkttlel>.
k~e' eY;teueti watt pampa, H-o ltag~'arat dspHc 5'ystow Cvtttrnete~r f. re~toetslbk toelpsiNhtg the p'tetgsllattoN sfthe o~Ch'Ical oawpeatmrh.
Aat eleedlptt ner~att be osltattted attilst p ~r10t t roaRd llort4 C~u slMa SP+~H liledrkal lieu mN~stp~vWe efectrkad torvka io tke ,
pwntp eatirotier sad AIA>~
lr~ihs retpwdhlUty effhe iteghtored a3aptle item Cesttracbr to cofl Ste tx~n to sshedttle taiolmiallatta ~tl+~»
Ties OCAD tnata Issae nn ~perattoa Pe~~Nt (halleaHng systaa approvAa) bolbre tka thelllsy eaa sis oeeapied, beters the t;'erlldeate sf Occapoacs-
can be i~wued hx tka Plattakth jxrlsdlctastt. And Bofors permsttant ekcttieet een ba roteaeed.
r
Tito ~ogktereet Septic Syetent t3entraetar V rerpattdkta for 6acai6ulo~ the s,Ysrtan eompowswts ga Ihat wa tins bre stttrjeed to tho ralentisw ar
pondlap ofattrtkrewAt+m
e
After the dtetRlhttl4tl M esntpleted, sofas sattllw>< of fate kaeatBA mAbodat uuty take place Tks orreeer Is twspew~te for etiwilastiwS settles
orspnhea ara4 eetsblilatiloty At1d tktat ktnehcap~ of rite pd+ottwet atrtac~
r
M-en tits Csnstrocttwt A•tkonc~attew is ~rsnettior a ~ Santan er ~ AaaQkd System, ttta Owner wAy etteose ri sttbdlhats Aay
Aeaspted ~3gataa i+et' the parmtited systaab prevt~led there Ara its ehau~ee e-seeesAty tp ehespeelUo 1Wo l~tt~ws. dsptka, or dhtt~ttalsa gst~t.
~Yhse s stdutltntlnB as wtads, verl>Icataea that tAa owner Horde the syetotA choke wlW be a egairal Prior to >uwsue dike ope, ate 1'ermlt.
lrl-II3G/p~ Flat4p,_ hbl!_„_, 1~f1e___,_ ~e"`~d,_,_-~.~---„
_...~.,
i.186A
s
4 ~~
a - ,e.
44 Y Y~ « so '
.-~ ~ + rte' w~ ~ 6e
Yn y~' r ~~
S~ - ~'c-
~t'f 4 ~
~_ ~~~
~ ~~ ~~
r '~~~
. ~~ ,
~, ~+, i~
~ '
^cr~s ~Y
~~~ '
~~ ~ ~~~
Orange County Env~ranmental Health
~~ tlnch~80teel tmm-! ae~nwu~av~a~.~rta~m~n~aaeaow~cames,aar..~.aeua
hoaNd~64,aIM~aMtlhHpOmivtcaPiW04 l/fnia pyp~p IOdO~dYNtlA~sfmMntlonet
O8•0 'dQ .ZO p~dl(op~utrybiA~Od[agwc~haiNO~wloou4(oFNIMaUeadiM~OeeeWtorlaYkai4p.11N
ti~M~JPeet aawbaiurwpvwwwmrpAnOrexmapmac~enrp
43
• ~. Orange County Heath Department
Envirottmentai ileaith Section
PQ Uox 8181,131 l~: ;1laags ret Lanq Sattas I DO
~,~~s r~~•,+~*a 1[tltsboros~gis, IiC 27278
Meonc9t9.2•t5.23Gs1 Rax919.6JJ•3fi(16
emr.ruoraeugcau.us
Wastewater System Operation Permit
t'arccl Pin: ?873972092
Properly Qeseriptiotr. #A PH A Vt'i'NCATB NS3/1.t8
Property Address: 1710 OLD AFC IO OCI'I,
TMI3L: 3
PetnmitNutnbcr. CAII-00082
Lot Size: 3
Owner: UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATION OFSystetn Optrator:
Address P O B0J:2'15 REQUIRED INSPECTIONS
HILLSI30ROCiGH l~'C ORC Inspection every: N!A N/A
27278 ORC Report e~'ery: NIA
Pitotte: OCHD Inspection every: b0 11•Iontlls
Septic Contractor; JOHN E, IIYRD TRUCKING R TRACTOR SER.
~c =---~~ - sae
Type of Raeitlty:ED17CATIONAL S~'stent ClassiRcatlon: IDb
S}'stem Ty'pet Pomp Sy*stetu /
in accordance with tYCGS I30A-i 1 and 15A NCAC 18A Seaton .1900, This Oileration Permit is lssuetl fo:
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST C011`GREGA'rION OF
Far the operallon of n 590 CPB-wastewater treatment and disposal.s~xtem.
Coed/flows
! . This perneit shalt bo efi'ective only with respwt to the nature and volume of the waste spsxified~iYater soRaeer backwash is not allowed in the system.
2. This permit is transferable, howcvcrany conditiomts Imposed on this permit shall also transfer to the subsequent owner:
3. 71te system shalt be property mtmaintained and operated at all tittles ire aauordatuo vsdth 1'beScked-r/e of Operorlon anal dfalurenancs.
4. 'fhc owner is respo»stbie for comt>Ittiaace with 1 SA MCAC ISA swoon .1900-Laws and Rules for Setdtary Sewage t±dkction, T'nattttent, sad Disposal tts amended by
the lhattge County Board of HeaFth.
5. In the event of faihtro of the system to portorm satisfasrtorily {as determined by the OCHD~ the owner shall !site such caumctive actions as -egtmired by the Depat•tmamt
atithinlhe specified period of tune.
6. No_traftic, vehicles, or excavation shall be ellori+cd on the eystcrn or the repair area.
7. Appropriate pennits shall be oblahted from the OCIID prior to any repairs on the system.
R. 'Cltc o++s~er (and OKC} siwlt notify the OCHD of any system mallisnctton or necessary repairs.
9. The owneris responsible for keeping the plumbing system of the structure in good repair and eliminating leaks, drips, or excess flow as tieey are found.
l0. A usa;abte repair areal as designated by the OCHD, shall be maintained and_reServsxl for llte addition to or replaceneent of ties3 initial system drainGehl.
1 I. [icfer to the "as-built" inspection rxord on file at OCHD for system io$tatlation apcoifkations.
SCfllsDUGB OF DY.ERATIUNAND JilAINTBNANCE
FOR ALL SYSTED4S:
# Hrery 42 months: Septio tank shall bo inspected for inllucnUotTluentlino blockage, tanL-hiasr leakage, and solids accumulation. Bk>ckages or leaks shall ba repaired.
Septic tattles shat) ba pumnpcd when solids (acorn 8t sludge) reach 1/3 of the liquid unhorse. i;Qlucnt titters shalt be inspected and cleaned as necxssary.
• Every G monUss: Draint3eld shall be inspected for seepage or satumQon, settled grotamd surface, broken pipes, nusintunance oCvegetatiosr, protwtion from tratlic,and
diver~iott of surface water.
* Fvcry s~Qp~g; Ground surface crowed the tanks and drninficld steal! be inspected forat~eas ofdepression arpondiag.
* For gmxsssedsites -Grass shalt has cut regularly and xficn it cxceedes 8 inches in height. Lightweight mowers altall be used for cutting grass,
* l~or wooded sites -Saplings, briars, brush and gross shalt 6e climinaled by hand cutting and/or herbicides as often as necessary, Dead trees shell bu removed by culling at
or near-growtd level. Stumps shouid not be removed.
FOR SVSTEiMIS -'1aITH Pili1.1PS (TYPE Ili OR IV SVSTE11ISj;
* Every 6 men hs: Puergm tank shall be inspected for leaks and solids accumulation. Leeks shalt be repaired and solids reenoved as necessary. Pump, controls, floats and
alarm shall be checked for proper gxrntiom All components of the pump/controi system shall be kept in compliance -vith the carter! dcdgn standards.
* Every ~ ontl>s: A pump delivery rate shall be determined. Pips and fitdsegs stmt! ba checked for leaka~.
* Every G. mosnlu: Drainiines shad be tlsuhed ofsoGds accumulation nhih lho valvrs opened. 3'ressurc head adjastmctst shat! be made to obtain !tee dcstgned dclivayrate.
pressure head tmteasurettmentsshal~ bcrecord~d
* Rvery G ma t • Water meters, pump meters and counte-s shalt be mad and recorded.
* Additiomtf O&M Rcquirentents attached.
[FOR TYPE Il', lr, ANB \'I SYSTEi4iS
1. 'flu perr»itee, as +~eil as any subsequent oaness, shall keep an operator {ORC) under contract who is certified for subsurt'ace wash+vater freatmcnt and disposal
systems. 77tc penrtitee or aa~eer shall nobly arey fisturo or subsequent system owners of the requiretncnts conlaineat in this pcunit, imschading Ilse requireneetu for a
maieagement entity contract. Notiiicatioa of auy changes to !tae onzsor's contest! with the system ORC or a change of ORC shall be subrnlued in writing to the OC1iD at
least 30 days in advance of the change.
2. Ali neonitoring data and maintenaee records shall be kept on tiro by the ORC and a copy submitted to the owner and the t~CHD as specified:
Orange Coanty Hcaltle Depaetneeset, Envlronmentat l•lealtls Division, 131 N. Margaret Lane, Suite Ifl0 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Type IL systetets anti idghtr regttEre au lnspeetton by Ilse OCHD ou a periodic basis as isaclicated above. An irtspectioms fee will be assessed Com• each insps:ettots.
IssuEn:d7/25!2011 •. M •- l•~"~
FNYIROPF11RiCTAL HEAI.TA I'ECIALiST 11 Lt n
UP 03/05 Piet:-rrp ,flail File Restiesa~d l'f~,
44
Orange County Health Department / Palv'Ir~~mental Health Division TMBL: 5
P.O. Box 8181, 131 ~v Margaret La1M, Suitt io0 CA # CAll,aaa82
Phone 419 245 2360 /FAX 91944 3006 PIN: 9873972092
WASTEWATER SYSTEM Il~ISTALLATIUIV~ RECORD
Applicant: U1~ITTARIAN UNIyERSALIST CONGREGATION OP' HU.LSIiOROUG Pl~perty Description:
#A PII A ~VYNGATE PS3/I48 `~ ~ • ~ U
S stem Installer: °"]~ S stem T e: Pum R stem l ~ i ~ ~ ~~~
f r.
-_~---
~•~ "t ~:
STB MANU.~ ~ PT MANU. ~ ~ j CONTROL PANEL ~ ~., PUN
STB - PT - ~~ BRAND 1 a ~, ~t r~. BRAND
T GAL MODEL MODEL ,; (!~
DATE ~ DATE ~ #FLOATS ALARM OK ~'•~~ ~'`~
PSI PSI PULL ROPB t~~'~, ~
LEAK TEST LBAK TEST SUPPLY LINE ~RI.OAT SUPPORT
PRETEST # PRBTfiST # SIZE: 1®FL-OAT ADJUSTED
RISERS: INLET OUTLET ^ INLET RISER "- J{3K~VER ENCLOSURE/CONDUIT
EFFLDENT FILTER OUTLET RISBR PRESSUR~3 TEST DUCT SEAUGROUT
BRAND GPI = PDR INITIAL: °I .C. " TIME
MODEL BI~IDIlVG:t' ~ " TIME
PIPE SEALS OK RESULT: " / ~_ MINUTE = ? •~ GPM
Inifini Meter Itt:adinga: ETM Ej ants Date
SUBSTITUTED SYSTEM TYPE INSTALLED >3y this signature, flte installer certifies that the
decision to substitute #Ite-accepted system for ilte system type permitted vas made by the Owner.
yna'rr r:HS ~toTrsys~.y ~ ~ ~r To no
• 1 rt..It \'1 (r 1+~• ~ n~' f cr-r (a . ~..// V ~ rT^c-V
.- }art ~ wok !! ~1 ~7 t"l0 t~ (/9 S~- J;.~ s ; ,,rr f 1, 7.•` LE~,~ r _ p p 1 t ~ ?
~V ` f r~~G(• / 'P 1' ~~rl~.~•}. ~V~fllri'W!`C ~IYt.I~I~~ I~~C~I~c~~ LY A.t~ • I[t~ •
- ~11P~~
~rl~S~•o„t_Q~,~ ~'~~ k" "14 ? . F'r0~t~y' rf.`c+it {'i7t ~~ ~
Lr ` 9i-h t~ n I~t- C~rP-
DIAGRANI
---~./ ~~
-~
U
Q~ .
,'t
Fl'NAL IIVSFIiCT1'ON C01 tI'PLBTBD
tr / Va~.l~
~:~Q/
~- k~
~~ ~ ~~ 6`~
~.--`
r ,-_ _-_.-_. H ~ • S js~ .
S/pr .r - ~ f'
tl ~'~•..
M
}f r~' ~I~I
` 'Pt~`~
"~------
160r C2-r't-Ow ~.eor=A
~II+ lo' b...~.s~
C.t-4/30/D2 Plck up ^ Afrd! _ Ftle ~ Reviened
~. ;