HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-04-2011 - 7aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 4, 2011
Action Agenda
Item No. ~]_ Q
SUBJECT: Conditional Use (CU) Application -Tinnin Woods
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
1. May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing
Legal Advertisement
2. May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing
Minutes
3. July 6, 2011 Planning Board Minutes
4. DRAFT September 7, 2011 Planning
Board Minutes
5. Applicant Responses to July 6, 2011
Planning Board Questions and
Recommended Conditions
6. Staff Generated Correspondence
Received Since July 6, 2011
7. Resolution of Rezoning Approval
8. Resolution of Rezoning Denial
9. Special Use Permit Findings of Fact and
Conditions of Approval
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2585
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on the Tinnin Woods Conditional Use (CU) application (i.e. rezoning and Class
A Special Use Permit) proposing asingle-family major residential subdivision off of School
House Road and Tinnin Road.
BACKGROUND: This item was heard at the May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing and
considered by the Planning Board at its July 6 and September 7, 2011 meetings where the following
was discussed:
A. Utility line size (i.e. 8" versus 12"). Staff had originally recommended a 12" water and sewer
line for the project. During meetings the applicant indicated there is no inherent difference
between the two lines. The Boards requested additional information.
Applicant Response:
The applicant and staff met with the Orange Alamance Water System (OAWS)
board of directors on July 28, 2011 to review these issues.
According to the applicant and OAWS there is no demonstrable difference
between the two options in respect to water flow.
iii. OAWS has recommended an 8" line.
Staff is satisfied that the 8" line will accommodate the proposed development.
Please refer to Attachment 5 for additional detail.
B. Water line flow rates. Planning Board members requested the applicant, at a minimum, install
a water line supplying no less than 1,000 gallons of water per minute and maintain a static
water pressure of no less than 80 pounds per square inch.
Applicant Response:
i. According to the applicant and OAWS, neither an 8" nor a 12" line will supply the
1,000 gallons of water per minute desired.
ii. The proposed 8" line will be able to supply 750 gallons of water per minute, which
is the State of North Carolina's Department of Environmental Health's minimum
requirement, with a residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch.
iii. The proposed 8" line should maintain the desired 80 pounds per square inch static
pressure for the system according to OAWS and the applicant.
Please refer to Attachment 5 for additional detail.
C. Staff has recommended a condition that the water system be tied into an existing water main
in Alice Miller Court within the Richmond Hills Subdivision to provide a looped water system.
Applicant Response: The applicant has agreed to loop the system as requested.
D. Payment of connection fees for existing customers connecting to new utility line(s). A
question was raised during the May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing over who would pay
the costs associated with existing customers tapping into the proposed new utility lines.
Applicant Response: OAWS has indicated that there will be no re-connection fee for existing
utility customers to tie into the proposed 8" line.
E. Development of sidewalks. Questions were raised over the installation and maintenance of
sidewalks.
Applicant Response:
i. The applicant has indicated support for the development of sidewalks for this
project.
ii. The applicant has expressed concern over the proposed local Homeowners
Association assuming perpetual maintenance costs.
iii. The applicant has suggested the sidewalk be located within the proposed public
right-of--way through the granting of a two party encroachment agreement with the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT).
iv. The various questions raised by the applicant include:
1. Who is paying to install the sidewalks,
2. When should they be installed,
3. Who should maintain.
The Planning Board has recommended a condition that sidewalks should be an integral part
of the project if agreements as to their location (i.e. public right-of--way) and
installation/maintenance costs can be resolved. The Board reiterated its position that the
applicant should not be required to pay for the installation or perpetual maintenance of the
sidewalks.
Please refer to Attachment 9, spec~cally sub-section I, Miscellaneous condition number 15,
for additional detail.
Staff has been informed by NC DOT that it will not assume maintenance responsibilities for
the sidewalk.
It should be noted that the topic of sidewalks in general, not specific to this project, is currently
scheduled to be discussed at the October 6, 2011 BOCC work session.
F. Pedestrian Open Space Access (POSA). The Planning Board has recommended a 5-foot
wide, mulched, POSA trail connecting the northern end of Tinnin Road to open space parcels
west of Road "B" as detailed on this site plan.
Applicant Response: The applicant has agreed to the condition.
G. Connection to Efland Cheeks Elementary School. Planning Board members encouraged the
applicant to ensure that a trail allowed for access to the Efland Cheeks Elementary School
and adjacent park.
Applicant Response: The applicant has agreed to the condition.
H. Re-configuration of the three (3) lots off of Tinnin Road. During the May 23, 2011 Quarterly
Public Hearing, BOCC members suggested that three lots off of Tinnin Road be re-designed
to provide additional open space and provide greater protection of identified wetlands.
Applicant Response: The applicant has modified the layout of the aforementioned lots to
address the concern. The Fire Marshal and the Solid Waste Department have reviewed the
access driveway for these lots and have approved its design.
I. Cul-de-sac radius. A concern was raised that the cul-de-sac denoted on the site plan should
comply with applicable NC DOT, Orange County Solid Waste, and Orange County
Emergency Services requirements.
Applicant Response:
i. The cul-de-sac has been modified accordingly.
ii. The 37' travelway with curb and gutter meets the NCDOT design standard.
iii. The County Solid Waste Department has reviewed and approved the design.
iv. As a result, the applicant has agreed to place "no parking" signs around the Road
"A" cul-de-sac.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its July 6 and
September 7, 2011 regular meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
application (i.e. rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit) finding that:
a. The applicant submitted sufficient evidence at the May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing
indicating that the rezoning petition was consistent with the requirements of the United
Development Ordinance (UDO), the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the Efland Mebane
Small Area Plan,
b. The project is in accordance with the anticipated densities for properties located within
the 10-year Transition Area as defined within the adopted Comprehensive Plan and
Urban Designated Areas as denoted on the Growth Management System Map,
c. The project is located within a Primary Service Area as denoted in the Water and
Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA),
d. The application complied with submittal requirements (i.e. Sections 2.2 and 2.7) of the
UDO,
e. The application complied with the specific standards for the submission of a Conditional
Use (CU) application as detailed in Section 2.9.1 of the UDO,
f. The application complied with the specific standards governing the location of
Conditional Districts as detailed within Section 3.8.4 of the UDO,
g. The application contained sufficient information demonstrating compliance with the
specific regulations governing the development of Major Subdivisions as set forth in
Section(s) 5.15.6 and 7.14.6 of the UDO,
h. There was sufficient evidence entered into the record by the applicant demonstrating
compliance with Section 5.3.2 (B) of the UDO 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
i. There 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
j. There was insufficient evidence or testimony within the record demonstrating that the
applicant had not meet their burden of proof requiring the denial of the application.
Please refer to Attachment(s) 7 and 9 of this abstract for additional information.
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 and approve the Resolution of Rezoning Approval contained within Attachment 7
of the abstract,
5. Review the Special Use Permit Findings of Fact Sheet contained within Attachment 9 of
the abstract and affirm the findings of the Planning Board, as detailed therein, that the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with:
a. Specific standards for the submission of a Conditional Use (CU) application as
detailed in Section 2.9.1 of the UDO,
b. Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as
outlined within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO,
c. Standards governing the location of Conditional Districts as detailed within Section
3.8.4 of the UDO,
d. Specific regulations governing the development of Major Subdivisions as set forth
in Section(s) 5.15.6 and 7.14.6 of the UDO,
6. Review the Special Use Permit Findings of Fact Sheet contained within Attachment 9 of
the abstract and affirm the findings of the Planning Board, as detailed therein, that the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with:
a. Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
1. Sewage disposal facilities,
2. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
3. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around
the site
b. The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
7. Approve the Class A Special Use Permit and impose the conditions as recommended by
the Planning Board as detailed within Attachment 9 of the abstract.
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 Sociai 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-~0-5022 and 9844-49-3706)
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 densit)r 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
6
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
Development Ordinance (UDO), the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of
Hillsborough has submitted a Class A Special Use Permit application seeking to
develop a Montessori school at their existing church facility located at the intersection
of 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: To 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 hounded 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.
8
5. 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.
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 (WASMPBA).
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'.
Pumose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed text
amendments.
9
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 9854-46-6706 (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
County initiated within Orange County's economic development land use areas with
an implementing Economic Development (ED) zorring_ 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).
Purpose: 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 toy 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. You 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
4
Attachment 2
2 APPROVED 8/23/2011
3
4 MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
7 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
8 May 23, 2011
9 7:00 p.m.
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
12 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing meeting on Monday, May- 23, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS
13 Building, Hillsborough Commons, in Hillsborough, NC.
14
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissiersnd-Commissioners
16 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve
17 Yuhasz
18 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
19 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
20 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the
21 Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
22 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford-and members
23 Alan- Campbell, H. T. "Buddy" Hartley, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Mark Marcoplos, Maxecine
24 Mitchell, Andrea Rohrbacher, Lisa Stuckey, Judith Wegner, and Larry Wright
25 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Pete Hallenbeck
26
27
28 1. Conditional Use District (CUD) Rezoning Application in Conjunction with a Major
29 Subdivision - To review adeveloper-initiated project that would allow fora 27-lot major
30 subdivision at the northwest intersection of Tinnin Road (SR 1313) and School House
31 Road (SR 1314). The rezoning request is from Rural Residential (R-1) to High Intensity
32 Residential Conditional Use (R-8-CU).
33
34 Larry Wright read the agenda item.
35
36 Larry Wright: Anybody that needs to be sworn in that has signed this paper, come up as a
37 group and be sworn in, and remember that any items that you are submitting must be given to
38 the Deputy Clerk for the record.
39
40
41 David Hunt: Do you solemnly swear/affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
42 truth -so help you God?
43
44 Michael Harvey: This item is specifically is a public hearing for a Conditional Use (CU)
45 application for a Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for a Major Subdivision off of Tinnin
46 Road, within Efland. This project has been referred to as Tinnin Woods by the applicant,
47 Orange County Habitat for Humanity. One note of clarification I would offer the Board this
48 evening, Mr. David Brooks is the Attorney for the applicant and he is going to be coming up after
49 I've concluded my presentation and assist the applicant with the introduction into the record of
50 various items.
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
You have all received a packet from the County Planning staff, specifically a revised Attachment
1, which is going to take the place of the application previously forwarded to you. The applicant
at will enter that information into the record during their presentation. For purposes of this
discussion, I'll refer to the application as Attachment 1 and as that you reference the revised
document which we provided to you.
As you all will note from the abstract, which begins on page 1, we are here to look at a major
subdivision. The major subdivision is located at the intersection of School House Road and
Tinnin Road off of Highway 70. The applicant in this case is Habitat for Humanity.
The project involves two separate parcels of property with PIN numbers identified in the
abstract. The total size of the subject parcels is 8.9 acres. It is currently zoned Rural
Residential- as already articulated the Chair, Dr. Wright, and is located in the Upper Eno
Protected Watershed. Both properties are also located within the 10-year Transition Area as
designated on the Land Use Element Map of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
The request is to rezone this property from Rural Residential (R-1) to High Intensity (R8)
Conditional Use for the purpose of developing a major subdivision. Lot sizes in the subdivision
are going to range from 5,500 square feet to 12,500. The overall density for this development
will be three units per acre and the project, according to the applicant, is intended to be served
by water and sewer lines that are already available in the area. You have in your packet a copy
of the site plan.
You'll note the general layout the applicant is proposing. As denoted on the site plan, the
applicant intends to extend Tinnin Road at the edge of the project and develop two public roads,
one cul-de-sac, and a public access path to the open space parcel to the north of the project.
Within the narrative, the applicant is requesting modifications of existing development
standards, specifically relaxation of required land use buffers, development setbacks, and
zoning setbacks. The site plan denotes a variable width buffer width of 25 to 50 feet around the
perimeter of the property. The applicant is proposing that they abide by a 5 foot comer and rear
yard setback versus the 8 foot required under the requested zoning designation. It should be
noted that this will not have an impact on corner-lot setback lines, which are mandated by the
code to observe the principle setback of the district.
As the Board is already aware, this project involves atwo-step approval process. You are
looking at a rezoning request. It is a legislative review process. There is also a Class A Special
Use Permit process, which is quasi judicial. What this essentially means is that you are going to
be asked, upon the conclusion of this case and once the public hearing is closed, to first render
a decision on whether or not to rezone the property as requested and then whether or not to
issue the Class A Special Use Permit approving the site specific development plan that the
applicant has provided.
In handling the rezoning, it's going to be the County Commissioners' responsibility to make
findings on whether or not the proposal is consistent with the elements of the Comprehensive
Plan and whether or not the applicant has provided sufficient documentation justifying the
request. With respect to the Class A Special Use Permit, however, the County Commissioners
are ultimately making and basing their decision on the sworn testimony and evidence submitted
by the applicant, by those in favor, and those in opposition of this project, as well as staff, in
terms of their compliance with the various standards established within the regulations. The
review of this application does occur simultaneously, so you are not going to look at one
12
1 component independently from one another. You're going to look at the rezoning and the
2 special use permit simultaneously. As the Board will remember from previous cases, conditions
3 can be imposed on this project, but it must be mutually agreed to by the applicant and the Board
4 of County Commissioners in writing before a decision can be rendered.
5
6 Our initial comments, and I will begin reviewing the specifics of this application, beginning on
7 page 4. We have found as a staff that the application is generally consistent with the Land Use
8 Element Map and we believe it is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. We
9 believe that anticipated density for the project is consistent for properties located within the 10-
10 year transition area, as denoted within the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with
11 urban designated areas as noted on the County's urban services boundary map.
12
13 With respect to roads, the applicant is proposing to build public roads, as noted on-the site plan.
14 The development of the proposed roads is consistent with the requirements of the ordinance
15 and with the requirements of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. As I indicated,
16 the applicant is proposing to extend and modify existing water and sewer facilities to not only
17 handle this particular development project, but to allow for future connectivity. We are
18 recommending a larger sewer line to be installed on Tinnin Road. Further, we believe that the
19 applicant's objective in terms of replacing the existing 3" inch water line, which is totally
20 inadequate tcs provide fire suppression services, addresses a lot of the concerns that staff has
21 about development in that area in general and will address existing public safety concerns that
22 we already had identified.
23
24 With respect to dealing with stormwater and drainage issues, you will note on the site plan, the
25 applicant is proposing multiple stormwater drainage systems which they indicate will be green
26 facilities including rain gardens or bio-retention areas. They are fully aware that that they are
27 going to have to obtain a stormwater permit from the State in accordance with Neuse River
28 Basin Regulations and they will be held to the Neuse River requirements that are currently
29 being imposed by the State of North Carolina.
30
31 Brian Crawford arrived at 7:31:12 PM.
32
33 With respect to the landscaped area surrounding the perimeter of this property, staff is
34 comfortable with the proposed modification given the arguments contained within the
35 application. We believe that the reduction of the buffer is consistent with surrounding residential
36 development and actually helps foster more of a neighborhood feel rather than treat this project
37 as a separate residential entity. We believe and find that this .project is consistent with existing
38 water and sewer boundary map requirements in terms of its location to water and sewer
39 services. Staff believes that the proposed density is consistent and acceptable for the area,
40 given existing development in terms of the size of existing lots, as well as the size of existing
41 residences, and we find the proposed modifications to the zoning setback requirements are
42 reasonable, based on the proposed development of the site.
43
44 With respect to conditions, I will remind the Board that in the past, staff has provided a
45 preliminary set of conditions in order to begin a dialogue with the applicant prior to a public
46 hearing. We are recommending several conditions in the areas of utility line installation with
47 respect to size of lines, and the cadence for their review and approval. We are recommending
48 some revisions dealing with access management, the installation and maintenance of
49 landscaping, and the scheduled construction of roadways to the individual housing that is being
50 proposed. The applicant will respond formally as recommendations are continued to be made
51 by County Commissioners, Planning Board members, and staff. One note at this juncture, in
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Attachment 3 in initial conversations with the applicant's engineering firm, there was discussion
on extension of water lines to an system within the Ashwick and Richmond .Hills subdivisions.
And while the applicant has expressed a willingness to review the feasibility of connecting water
lines with Richmond Hills, they would like me to point out, that connection to the Ashwick
subdivision is not possible given current lot configurations and ownership issues and that such a
requirement would more than likely necessitate them seeking public assistance to fund the
connection.
What staff is recommending this evening is that you receive this application, you conduct the
Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board sworn testimony on this
application, and then refer this matter to-the Planning Board with a request that a
recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the September
20, 2011 regular meeting, and that you adjourn this hearing until the September 20, 2011
regular meeting in order to receive the Planning Board recommendation and any additional
submitted written comments.
Mr. Chair, unless you have any specific questions of me, I'll step down and- let the applicant
make a more formal presentation.
David Rooks: Mr. Chair and members of the respective boards, I am David Rooks, I am an
attorney in Chapel Hill, and I have the privilege of representing Habitat for Humanity. My role
here tonight is limited, it is simply to observe the quasi judicial procedure. I will be introducing
two speakers who will present on behalf of the applicant under sworn witnesses. The first will
be Ms. Susan Levy, who is Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity and the second is Mr.
Tracy Parrott, who is with Summit Engineering and will provide the technical expertise for the
application. Once they testify, I will actually come back and enter information into the official
record.
Susan Levy: Good evening, I'm Susan Levy, I'm ExecutivE Director of Habitat for Humanity
and I have been duly sworn. I will start out with our Mission Statement, I think many of you
know that Habitat is anon-profit organization that has been providing affordable housing
opportunities for over 25 years now in Orange County. We recently celebrated our 25tH
anniversary and have built more than 200 homes here in Orange County, and positively
impacted the lives of over 550 Orange County children. We are an affiliate of a much larger
organization, Habitat for Humanity International, which has a presence in over 90 countries and
all 50 states. More than 400,000 homes have now been built worldwide since 1976 and Habitat
for Humanity is actually the eighth largest homebuilder in the United States.
The reason that we're here, the reason that Habitat for Humanity exists is that we provide
affordable housing opportunities and we work very closely in partnership with the County to do
that. We have been the recipient of funds over the years for- the Orange County Housing Bond
program, through the Orange County HOME program, through the State CDBG program, and
Chapel Hill's Community Development program there in order to further the wishes and desires
of the County.
I'm just quoting here the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The overall goal of the
Housing Element is: "Opportunity for all citizens of Orange County to rent or purchase safe,
decent, accessible, and affordable housing." I'll also refer you to the Orange County HOME
Consortium Consolidated Plan for 2010-2015, which is the plan that HUD requires that the
County put together of all the jurisdictions here in Orange County that distribute HOME funds,
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
which are used to further affordable housing. I'll just read this very briefly for those that are
facing forward.
As mixed use/mixed income communities continue to add amenities to new home construction,
home costs continue to rise in Orange County despite the current housing market slowdown.
As the population of Orange County continues to grow, the lack of affordable land has become
a major barrier to the development of Affordable Housing, especially when taking into account
that the Town of Chapel Hill and the County will not develop infrastructure beyond the Urban
Services Boundary.
There are a limited number of developers and builders who are capable of buiiding Affordable
Housing. The profit potential for middle and upscale housing draws most builders to that range
of development leaving-few contractors willing to work in the Affordable Housing arena.
Habitat serves a very specific population of people. They are those who earn between 30-65%
of the median income for a family of four, which is $25,000-42,000. They have housing needs
of some type. They could be living in housing that is unsafe, overcrowded, or unaffordable.
Many of our homeowners live in housing that might be ok, but they are paying 50-60% of their
income for that housing with nothing left over for basic necessities. The other requirement of
our homeowners is that they are willing to partner with Habitat. I think most people know that
we have a rather unique program in that all of our homeowners invest 325 hours of labor, which
is called sweat equity, helping with other homes of other Habitat families. Every homeowner
purchases their home and they have a zero interest mortgage through Habitat. Like a bank, we
check their credit history, their employment history, to make sure that they are going to be able
to make the monthly mortgage payments. We always like to say that Habitat is not a Hand Out.
Like I said, the homeowners purchase their homes and they are taxpaying citizens of the
County. In order to qualify, they have to have lived in Orange County for at least 1 year before
they apply. They have to be U. S. residents. They have to demonstrate stable income for the
past two years, and they have to attend a series of workshops and homebuyer classes to
prepare them for home ownership.
The steps in becoming a homeowner involve a very careful screening process, first of all, to
make sure that they make the basic qualifications. Once that screening is done, we have a
Family Selection Committee that actually does home visits and goes to meet with the family and
sees their circumstances and talks about whether or not they are really ready for home
ownership. That committee makes recommendations to our board, who makes the final
approval. The homeowner signs a letter of intent and then there is a 50-hour trial period of
sweat. equity. As I mentioned before, Habitat sells our homes at no profit and we use a zero
interest mortgage, which is one of the reasons that the housing is affordable_ Families do
participate in appreciation of their homes by a shared equity arrangement and we also receive
funds from Orange County and all of the homes have a 99-year affordability requirement that
the homeowners have to abide by. Our homeowners, by paying their mortgage payments back
to Habitat really help us to continue building homes in the future, and last year we collected over
$400,000 from our homeowners. As I said, our homeowners pay property taxes. Last year,
they paid over $250,000 in property taxes to Orange County. Because we collect mortgage
payments, we were also able to collect Homeowners' Association dues. I know that's an issue
in other homeowners' associations, that it is sometimes difficult to collect dues. Because we are
collecting their mortgage payments and we make that a condition of foreclosure, I think we have
a very high success rate in having adequately funded homeowners' associations.
15
1 Again, most folks know that Habitat builds homes using volunteer labor from the community.
2 We have churches, businesses, civic organizations, and student groups. that come together and
3 help us financially support the causes as well as physically help. This is a home in Richmond.
4 Hills, the homeowners have a landscape business and did a really wealthy job of landscaping
5 their home.
6
7 We are currently building in the Phoenix Place subdivision in Chapel Hill. It is a 50=home
8 subdivision and there are about 20 homes there now. It just gives you an idea of some of the
9 building plans of this style. We really worked hard over the years to make our homes as
10 attractive as we possibly can while also keeping them affordable. We've really identified some
11 things that are low maintenance over time. We've=also been building in the Fairview community
12 in Hillsborough for a number of years. We've been able to purchase lots and develop homes
13 there. We now have 38 homes in the Fairview community. We've had, I think, a really
14 significant impact in operating and revitalizing that community.
15-
16 We like to-think that we build a very high-quality home. Our construction director is a
17 perfectionist and over the years he has really contributed to the overall improvement of our
18 home and our home construction. Currently, all of our homes are built to bronze level
19 certification under the National Homebuilder's Association Rebuilding Certification Program.
20 We were actually on the Homebuilder's Green Tour this past weekend. As part of the green
21 building, all of our-homes are Energy Star certified and we've been doing that since 2002. Our
22 houses are very, very energy efficient, and on average, our homeowners are guaranteed a
23 monthly heating and cooling bill of $30 a month.
24
25 Some of the other features, I think Mr. Harvey mentioned that we install fire safety sprinklers in
26 all of our homes. That's a partnership of the local fire departments that donate their labor, which
27 makes our homes some of the safest homes in the County. We also use universal design
28 crystals so that homeowners can age in place. We try and make our homes as low
29 maintenance as possible with concrete porches, we use 20-year roof shingles, things like that,
30 so we really minimize the cost.
31
32 And, finally, I'll just mention that we're starting a new program called A Brush with Kindness that
33 works on existing homes for people that own their own homes that are unable to do exterior
34 maintenance and care, such as landscaping, to fixing a roof, to putting on a ramp. We'll be
35 extending that program to the Efland community and hopefully we can have an impact beyond
36 just building houses.
37
38 -Tracy Parrott: My name is Tracy Parrott with Summit Consulting. I'm here to present the
39 current site plan for the Tinnin Woods planned development in Efland.
40
41 We thank you for your time. Some of the first slides I have here are a bit repetitive given what
42 was already presented, but again an aerial view of the site and some of the surrounding
43 landmarks such as Efland-Cheeks Elementary School. Our site is located off Schoolhouse
44 Road and Tinnin Road right at the intersection. Through the process tonight, I asked Ms. Levy
45 to pass out one document for entrance into the public record and that is the impact analysis, the
46 property value impact analysis. Also, you've already received the revised application packet.
47 We're asking that these be entered into the public record.
48 T
49 he properties that we are proposing to develop, the Habitat property owner, are two individual
50 adjoining parcels that total about nine acres. They're outlined there on the screen. At the
51 western corner of the site, there is a jurisdictional stream at that corner of the property with a
16
1 small wetland right in the corner of the property. Likewise, on the southeastern portion of the
2 property is the beginnings of a stream and a small wetlands as well in that location. The
3 typography of the property, the highest point of the property is just off the end of Schoolhouse
4 Road where the property then falls toward the stream and the northwestern corner of the
5 property. To the east, the property falls toward the previously mentioned to the southeastern
6 corner of the property. The property is largely wooded. There are some abandoned structures.
7 There-are a couple of abandoned mobile homes in this area and throughout the wooded area
8 there are acouple-of abandoned framed dwellings. There are some associated or accumulated
9 debris piles.
10
I1 Pursuant to County ordinance requirements, we did notify the property's surrounding the subject
12 property within 500 feet of the proposal. There are 45 individual property owners they-e-that are
13 within the required notification area.
14
15 This is our proposed site plan. Mr. Harvey has previously shown that to you and it is in your
16 packet. We are proposing 28 lots in conjunction with the rezoning from R-1 to R-8 as
17 demonstrated there on the screen. We do propose a connection to existing sanitary sewer
18 systems in that area. Orange County operates a sanitary sewer system that basically runs
19 along the corner here, across the property to Schoolhouse Road, around Schoolhouse Road,
20 and the property to the east here. Our proposal is to build internal gravity sewer mains along
21 the proposed streets to connect in to the existing manhole at this location and then again over
22 on Tinnin Road to serve all 28 lots.
23-
24 We are proposing public water, as has been mentioned, as an existing 3" water main operated
25 by Orange-Alamance Water System. It provides domestic service in the community, but it will
26 not supply domestic fire suppression volume pressures. We are proposing to build a new public
27 water main off Tinnin Road to serve the site as well as build public water mains within the site
28 and along the proposed streets. The public streets basically feature two access points for the
29 development. The first being off Schoolhouse Road with the access point entering into the site
30 and then oriented toward the north of the property boundary for future extensions, if necessary.
31 We do have an intersecting cul-de-sac street that extends from that street to the west to a cul-
32 de-sac where we serve approximately 10-12 lots in that section. There is also a plan to improve
33 and extend Tinnin Road at the current end of the intersection of Schoolhouse Road, extend it to
34 the north, dedicate a public right-of-way, which currently doesn't exist there and build a new
35 street north of the property line there with the water and sewer facility included. That will kind of
36 formalize that access to the north to a previously existing 60-foot public access easement.
37
38 The public water main extension we are anticipating tapping, the existing water main out on US
39 70 and extending the public water main along Tinnin Road back to the intersection of
40 Schoolhouse Road. From that point, we will extend it further into the site along the road
41 construction. As you have seen in our package, we had anticipated an 8" water main for this
42 extension to be sufficient for both domestic and fire protection services and we understand that,
43 through this process, that there will be continued discussion with the County as far as the size of
44 that water main for future growth as well as connection to the recent built property to the west of
45 our site.
46
47 This just gives you a general layout of that water line. We don't know exactly which side of
48 Tinnin Road it may be on. ,There will have to be a formal survey of that area done to confirm
49 where the road lies within the public right-of-way to determine the best location for the water
50 main. This is the site plan that we've rendered with some color to help your review of it. A
51 couple of things that I'd like to point out from this slide -the first are the open spaces that we
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
have planned for the project. There are three in the southwestern corner of the property, where
the jut out is of the existing tract. We are proposing open space in this area that will also serve
the dual purpose of the stormwater management areas. We are proposing, contiguous with the
jurisdictional stream in the northwestern portion of the property, an open space area that will
further protect the stream buffers in that area that aren't captured by the proposed land use
buffer shown in dark green. The third open space area is kind of in the midsection of the
property between the two proposed roads and an access is provided for that by way of a public
pedestrian easement in this area between the lots.
One other thing I'd like to point out is over-on the western side of the property between these
two lots, we are proposing a public access point. It's not an easement or a lot, it's actually an
access point between two lot lines that provides a mulch trail connecting to both the open_space
on these two sides of the property, but also this will provide a connection to the Richmond Hills
neighborhood and to the Efland-Cheeks school property. We show the mulch trail continuing to
the south that links with the open space in the southwest corner. This trail does tie into the
stream buffer complex that crosses the northwest corner of the property that provide connection
to the natural environment and any future greenway considerations the County may have in that
area as well as connections to Richmond Hills and Efland-Cedar Grove. One thing I do want to
point out is that the streams in the northwest corner of the property here along with this
associated wetland and then over on the southeast side, this stream and the associated wetland
here are all captured and contained within either the land use buffer or the open space for the
property. We are protecting the stream buffers and the wetlands in the common area open
space of the land use buffer. These areas will not be part of the individual lots. They rather will
be property conveyed to the Homeowners' Association and protected by it. They won't be in
jeopardy of development.
The dark green areas shown on this slide is the proposed land use buffer and then the property
primarily 50 feet around the buffer property, we are requesting further modification on the land
use buffer in this area of 25 feet, as well as along this area of 25 feet. We are also requesting a
further reduction here just due to a limited amount of area on the interior of Schoolhouse Road
curvature there. One reason we are asking for the reduction along the northern property line,
this is all included in your package, but further work needs to be done to clarify the true northern
boundary of the property. What we've shown as part of the development plan that's in your
package are the verified boundaries of the site where there's clear deed and title to that
property. There are some inconsistencies north of our northern property line that may lend itself
to some additional properties being available or conveyed to Habitat that would further add to
the buffer component of the property line. This is the northern property line that we've worked
to with our current site plan and you'll note in your site plan that there's a possible .gap right here
up to this next property line where further work needs to be done to verify which line is
applicable. We know the line that we've worked to we have a fair title to it. Anything beyond
that point we simply add to the proposed land use folks.
As required, all conditional use applications have to meet certain findings of fact. I'll just touch
on the main three here -maintain the public health, safety, and general welfare. The key points
here is that the proposed land use associated with this project is consistent with surrounding
development. The goal of this project is to help Orange County meet the need for affordable
housing in the County. This project does bring with it new infrastructure to benefit the area. It is
bringing safe and sustainable development for the reasons that Ms. Levy has already touched
on and to a minor degree with eliminate some existing blight out there with the elimination of
abandoned homes.
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
fl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
The second finding of fact here, the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous
property. Ms. Levy just passed out the second item for entrance into the public record tonight,
it's an impact analysis provided by Mr. Everett Knight. We ask that you consider this as part of
your evaluation of the property. Mr. Knight did study the project as we currently have it
designed as well as evaluate the surrounding properties and existing development in the area.
I'll just read to you what he has as part of the impact analysis: `It is my opinion that the
proposed Tinnin Woods will be consistent with and enhance other existing uses in the
immediate and surrounding area and will have no negative effect on the value of surrounding
properties or neighborhoods.' He has all of the supporting information in his package there for
your review and consideration.
Lastly, in terms of findings of fact, the location and character of the use of the development
according to the plans submitted will be in harmony with the area in which it is located and the
uses fit with the development of the County..... Our project is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, multiple sections of the Comprehensive Plan. We feel that it does meet a
need expressed in the Comprehensive Plan in terms of affordable housing. It is a site that's
convenient to public utilities -water and sewer, Orange County public schools, major
transportation corridors in the form of US, I-85/I-40, and other goods and services in the area.
Residents will have the things that-they need at their disposal. The development proposed is
consistent with existing residential land uses in the area and of course we know that our
development will comply with all appropriate County and- State regulations.
Briefly, the proposed construction schedule that Habitat has in mind, as we go through this
process, we hope to gain your approval before the end of the year, with the first part of next
year, detailed construction drawings will be compiled, submitted, reviewed, and approved. We'd
like to begin infrastructure construction in July 2012 and we anticipate the road and the water
and sewer will take basically a year. New home construction will probably start in the fall of
2013. Habitat basically has two home construction cycles with a total of about 12 homes per
year. The schedule is in your package about how the home construction would progress.
Just to summarize our presentation, we do feel that Tinnin Woods is consistent with the
adjoining residential land uses in the area. We feel it is a sustainable development, that it is
green with the standpoint of how it will be constructed and the infrastructure consideration, but
also from a housing standpoint with the green building certification and the Energy Star
compliment to the development as well. We feel we have an infrastructure that will benefit the
community, primarily the water main site. And we do feet we are assisting the County in
meeting the need for affordable housing. We feel that this project, particularly with Habitat
bringing it to the County, you have a unique partner here wanting to work with you to meet the
need of affordable housing in Orange County. It is something that is a need here. It has been
identified in the Comprehensive Plan and in various locations of the Comprehensive Plan, and
Habitat is that unique partner that can make this a reality. We ask that as you consider the.
information before you, the information that has been presented here tonight that you look
favorably upon this project.
David Rooks: Mr. Chair, at this point, the applicant would move into evidence its application,
all supporting documents, and reports of Summit Engineering, the narrative, the staff report
including the revised Attachment 1, and the Impact Analysis completed by Mr. Everett Knight.
At this point the applicant will be happy to answer any questions.
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46-
47
48
49
50
51
Commissioner Yuhasz: Looking at the plan, the three lots on the far eastern part of the
property seem substantially larger than the other lots and I was wondering if any thought was
given to reducing the size of those lots and possibly providing some additional open space
along that eastern boundary and maybe a little more protection for the stream that begins in that
area.
Tracy Parrott: You are correct, those lots are larger. Various things were considered on that
side of the site, with respect to access management including joint driveways or even a cul-de-
sac street, both of which appear unworkable and not to the benefit of Habitat. We tried to be
mindful of the economic model that we were trying to satisfy here and keep the project
financially feasible, so just building a short cul-de-sac street did not--make economic sense for
the- project. It resulted in those lots being larger, but I think that is something that we can give
consideration to. That southeastern point is the second area that we fully anticipate keeping in
a natural state.
Commissioner McKee: -One question I have relates to the extension of the road, which is
referred to as Road A off Schoolhouse Road. That's the one with the cul-de-sac. It appears to
go to the north and dead end at the property boundary. I may be mistaken, but is that to also
~Ilow for future access to the properties to the north for possible future development?
Tracy Parrott: Atgain, it is to provide an access point to those properties that are north of this
project..
Commissioner McKee: The same with the extension of Tinnin Road?
Tracy Parrott: Yes, sir.
Commissioner McKee: The question I have, I'm familiar with one other problem that came up
with the stubbed out road in that once that future property actually came into the arena #or
development. The current residents did not want it used. Will there be any documentation that
this road is for future access to the north lying properties to prevent that problem?
Tracy Parrott: Only in the form that they are to be developed and deemed as public
roadways. In the case of Road A, we are extending the public right-of-way to the northern
property to eliminate a need in the future to acquire a small portion of right-of-way to complete
the road out. We aren't carrying the road improvements all the way to the property line, but we
are carrying the right-of-way in both of those to the property line. But it is fully Habitat's intent to
build public roadways.
Susan Levy: In answering that question, we had an issue in Chapel Hill as well and there was
a sign at the end of-the road that says that this is subject to future extension so everybody
knows that. We can certainly do that here so that as people come in they are familiar with the
intention.
Commissioner McKee: That is my concern.
Michael Harvey: Commissioner McKee, let me just add that our ordinance actually mandates
and requires that the road be extended and be left protected.
Commissioner Hemminger: Along the same lines, the public access five-foot mulch trail that
goes along there had similar complications and would like to have a sign posted that is public
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
access to the school or whatever. Otherwise, people move in and tend to think that they don't
have to allow access to that property, they think they might own it. I just worry about all the-
peoplewith school-aged children along here making it safely to the school, so I guess the
intention is to use this trait as a school connector.
Tracy Parrott: It is to be provided to give that option. That is expressly why in that western
side of the property we did separate the property lines and show that as part of the
Homeowner's Association property, so it is not by easement, but it is an open area that will be
part of the Homeowner's Association.
Commissioner Jacobs: I have some questions, but I'd like to waif until after the public
comments.
Larry Wright: I'd like to open it up for public comment.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Robert Reda: Goad evening, Commissioners, my name is Robert Reda. We decided that
John's presentation makes sense to follow behind mine. I am signed in and sworn in as well.
I'm presently on the board of Habitat for Humanity of Orange County. Last year, Habitat
celebrated 25 years of assisting 200 deserving families with a hand up in helping them achieve
their dreams of home ownership. Habitat and these families appreciate the tremendous support
that the Board of County~Commissioners has provided to us over the years. Your support has
been instrumental in building new neighborhoods like Richmond Hills and_ revitalizing others
such as Fairview. As you well know, land in Orange County that can be developed for
affordable housing is very scarce indeed. Our site committee is constantly looking for potential
sites for future homebuilding and we were very excited when the opportunity came up to
purchase the property in Efland. Our goal as an organization is always to have four years'
worth of building lots in our inventory, and Tinnin Woods will provide about two years' worth of
building, so we plan to start building that area as was previously mentioned in approximately
2013.
We are very excited about another program that Susan Levy mentioned earlier, A Brush with
Kindness. This focuses on exterior repairs and landscaping improvements for the elderly and
disabled. We will be extending this program to the Efland community when we start building
homes in Tinnin Woods. This is something we are very excited about offering to the community
in general. Finally, I would ask thatyouu would approve our application for Tinnin Woods and we
would like to thank you for your continued support of Habitat and Habitat's mission.
John Sehon: Good evening, my name is John Sehon and I've been duly sworn. I'm a current
board member of Orange County Habitat, past board Chair, and currently the Chair of the Site
Planning Committee. I'm speaking in support of Tinnin Woods, an affordable subdivision with
28 family homes and rezoning of the site from R-1, one lot per acre, to R-8, which would allow
Habitat to develop Tinnin Woods in the density of a little over three units per acre. We believe
that Tinnin Woods meets the three findings of fact necessary to secure the Class A Special Use
Permit as proposed. Tinnin Woods will maintain and promote public health, safety, and general
welfare; maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and is in harmony with the area
in which it will be located, specifically as it relates to the. three findings. Finding #1, general
welfare. Increasing affordable housing in Orange County is good for Orange County employers
and for the economy. The demand for Habitat homes serving Orange County residents and
workers who earn 65% of the adjusted median income continues to be strong and we tum down
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
many qualified applicants. Most recently, we received 60 applications to provide homeowner
slots and over 1/3 of those applicants met all of the qualifications. By the end of 2013, we will
have completed a 15-unit development in Phoenix Place in southern Orange County. We will
continue working at Fairview where we own about a dozen lots. But Tinnin Woods represents
the next major source of building lots so that_we can continue to provide affordable home
ownership. Additionally, increasing density allows Habitat to be good stewards of land in
Orange County. As a practical matter, to get more affordable homes on the ground here; our
minds will need to-be open to increased densities that current zoning may allow. Because
underdeveloped sites that are on water and sewer are very scarce, and developing at the
current density at the property in R-1 would not be financially feasible for Habitat. Please note
we understand-that the requested density is within the anticipated density contained in the 10-
year Transi#ion Area:
Finding #2: Maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties. The design for Tinnin
Woods was worked on and refined over many-months, incorporating the ideas and expertise of
Habitat- staff members on the site, which includes planning and design professionals. We
devote organizational resources to provide training and mentoring for our homeowners to
support there in the transition to homeownership and provide the leadership training to help
develop-strong homeowners' associations. Homes are built to very high quality standards using
volunteers, but overseen by a professional staff. All of our homes are Energy Star green
certified, and have fu-e and safety sprinkler systems. We are also proposing curb and gutter to
create and maintain a positive curb appeal over time. We are committed to improving
neighborhoods where we build. Fairview is an example of that. We will be cleaning up the
existing property, which currently has been a dumping ground for trash and garbage. 1've
walked that property, I know that. And there are unsafe, dilapidated structures that we will
remove. Additionally, upgrading the water line from three to eight inches and crossing the ???
possibly with Richmond Hills will increase the water pressure in the area and probably decrease
homeowners' insurance for those surrounding properties.
Finding #3: Location and harmony_ in the area in which we are located. The surrounding area is
residential and our homes will be similar in size of those currently in the area. The proximity of
the elementary school within the community and the fact that the property has access to public
water and sewer and will add additional customers to the Efland sewer system, making it more
financially sustainable.
Thank you for your consideration and I urge your support of our application.
David Godschalk: I'm a member of the Habitat Site Committee and a land use planning
professor at the University of North Carolina for some 45 years. From a planning perspective,
does this project make sense? Well, I think it does because it fills a large need for affordable
housing in Orange County. The density is appropriate near the elementary school, you want to
put the students and the people closer to the public facilities that serve them. It provides public
utilities, water and sewer service, public roads. The buffers seem to be appropriate, since it's
not necessary to separate adjacent residential land uses. It's better to connect them. The
proposed subdivision attributes to the public welfare in providing access roads and increased
size water mains that will benefit the adjacent properties. This is the well design, low to
moderate intensity subdivision in an appropriate location, and it's consistent with the Orange
County Comprehensive Plan. Thank you.
Joann Mitchell: I live on Cain Drive in Efland, in Efland Estates. I'm a Habitat homeowner and
I also serve on the Habitat board of directors. As a resident of Efland, I have been very active in
22
1 working with the County, Justice United, and the homeowners of Richmond Hills and Ashwick
2 subdivision to find a way to keep the sewer rates in Efland affordable. I am very glad that the
3 County has worked with us to keep this rate from going higher than first projected. With the
4 economic development growth, the addition of 28 more homes will help make the Efland sewer
5 system more financially sustainable. I lived and work in public housing for over 50 years. As a
6 community organizer, I work with Chapel Hill's housing department self-sufficient program, and 1
7 recommend Habitat to many public housing agencies as a home ownership opportunity. After
8 collaborating with all Chapel Hill housing programs, I knew that Habitat was the most affordable
9 home on the program and I sought the same opportunity for my family. At the time I currently
10 could have paid with my rent, I was paying two mortgage payments to Habitat. Owriing a home
11 that is affordable means that my family can put our energy into other things like being active in
12 our community, seeking resources such as education for myself and my children. In fact, my
13 daughter Latisha just last weekend graduated from Winston-Salem State College with honors in
14 business management with a minor in finances. We are very proud of her. I will continue to be
15 active in the community. I have good- relationships with the residents of Efland Estates, Ashwick
16 subdivision, and am looking forward to all of the new neighbors in Tinnin Woods subdivision. As
17 aboard member, I know that Habitat has worked hard over the years to improve the quality of
18 homes being built, making them attractive, more energy efficient, and green. Over 25 years
19 experience in building homes and neighborhoods. Orange County Habitat ranks in the top 10 in
20 the State of North Carolina. Habitat nationally is the largest homebuilder in-the world with
21 400,000 homes and counting. Think about those happy families. I hope that you will support
22 Tinnin Woods as proposed by Habitat for Humanity so that we can continue to provide home
23 ownership for those who want and need it the most.
24
25 Yolanda Hernandez (used a translator): Good evening, my name is Yolanda Hernandez. I
26 live in Richmond Hills subdivision, which has 43 homes, and I've purchased my home through
27 Habitat. Before living in Habitat I rented an apartment for 12 years. I'm very grateful for Habitat
28 giving me the opportunity to live in Orange County. It is something that I would not have been
29 able to do without their help. I'm speaking in support of the community of Tinnin Woods, the
30 new subdivision that is proposed to be in Efland. I'm happy to know that this is an opportunity
31 that 28 families would be able to take hold of. A safe, affordable home means so much to me
32 and my children. Without Habitat, families like mine would not have been able to live in Orange
33 County where they were. Many families have had to make a decision and decide to move out of
34 the County into surrounding areas in order to find affordable housing. If you vote in favor of
35 Habitat, some of these families will have the opportunity return and this will be a wonderful
36 thing. I'm grateful that I work in Orange County and I love my community. There are many
37 more families like mine who want to live in this County and work in the same county that they
38 live and send their children to Orange County schools, and yes, they would be proud to
39 contribute to the County. The applicants for Habitat homes understand that owning their own
40 home means that they will be paying their property taxes, and I'm sure that they would be happy
41 to do that. Thank you.
42
43 Alex Bidot, Community Organizer for Habitat for Humanity, was the translator. He was sworn in,
44 as was Yolanda Hernandez.
45
46 Allison Coleman: I have been sworn in. I'm the President of Richmond Hills Homeowner's
47 Association, which is a Habitat community. I'm house #109. My home was built in 2003.
48 Before owning my home, I rented public housing. The reason why I applied to Habitat was
49 because I was working and I couldn't afford to live in Orange County. My apartment was too
50 small. I realized that Habitat was the only place that I could get a home through. And I am
51 grateful for Habitat giving me that opportunity to own a home in Orange County and I would
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
never have been able to afford one otherwise because of the high cost of housing in the County.
I'm speaking in support of Tinnin Woods because it will provide the chance for 26-28 families
like mine to have the same opportunity Idid - to move into a secure stable home for me and my
children. Without Habitat, families like mine would have to continue renting housing that's
unaffordable, overcrowded, or_in disrepair, or they will have to move out of the County and find
housing.
I've lived here over 20 years. There are more families like mine who want to live where they
work and so their children are in the schools -and they pay Orange County property taxes. As
the President of the Richmond Hills Homeowners' Association, I can tell you that Habitat
provides support to the Homeowners' Association. The Family Service Director, Sharon Reid,
provides training- and leadership development and encourages us to commit community
resources to other organizations who are working- to make the County a better place to live for
all families. I'm looking forward to having our new neighbors and even families who will make
Tinnin Woods their home. I hope you will help make Tinnin Woods a reality and help those
families realize their dreams of homeownership. I would like those that support the Tinnin
Woods development to please stand.
-Larry Wright: According to the list that has been given to the Deputy Clerk, 1 believe we've
completed the list of people that were going to testify from the audience. Does staff have any
comments?
Annie Whitted wanted to speak and was sworn in.
Annie Whitted: I wanted to make a comment for the residents of the Tinnin Road community.
I wanted to know if they were going to replace this water line, the grant water line coming-down
Tinnin Road. What will be the cost of having the larger water line running down Tinnin Road to
the Habitat community, which we can't tap onto without substantial cost. I also wanted to know
to point-out the fact that we already have -Habitat is doing a wonderful job in Orange County
and provides a wonderful service, but it just dawned on me that we've already got a Habitat
community that is in excess of 40 homes across Richmond Road. They're going to be putting in
another 28 homes that are going to back up to each other. I understand why they chose that
because they want water and sewer, but that's going to make that area have about 80 some
Habitat homes. I know you said you did an impact study on the fact that it would not impact the
community property owners, but you have to take into consideration that it may have an impact
on someone t.-tying to sell their property that would have an objection to that many Habitat
homes in that area. I would like to ask if there was anywhere else in Orange County that we
have that many Habitat homes in one particular area. The only thing that I saw as a plus for
that community was the 8" water line, but if we can't tap on to that 8" water line to increase
pressure and it's going to come down Tinnin Road and there has been nothing said about any
upgrades to that side of the community. It's considered Efland, it's considered one community.
want to know, where do we go from here, once this is voted on tonight. What's the next step?
Will homeowners get another chance to see what the final theme looks like before you actually
give your ok? As I said before, I'm not against Habitat, these are just some questions that I
would like you all to consider.
Sam Gharbo: I live in the Ashwick subdivision in Efland. I didn't hear a timer, so I'm guessing
I'm not limited to three minutes. For 20 some odd years, there have been economic
development districts in the area, specifically in the Efland area, and a lot of it revolves around
sewer and the water lines and growth happens from there. Also, in the last 20 years, all of the
surrounding counties have outpaced Orange County, whether by chance or by design, in
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
growth. Orange County has finally come to the understanding that growth is actually a way out
of part of the financial problems that we currently live in and exist in. Other counties that didn't
have what Orange County has -two roads, a major university, research Triangle -they've
outpaced us. We lost out on a lot in that timeframe. We finally come around to the
understanding that growth is what we need to do. This fits in many ways into that growth
opportunity, not to mention just the sewer issue, you'r_e going to add 12% on the top numbers of
customers, so you've already increased-that, but you're bringing more people in. You're
providing growth for the community, you're allowing people that can't .afford in Chapel Hill to live
nearby Chapel HiA-. This works. This works on a lot of levels for this County. This County
needs it. It fits- squarely in the mindset of the future, what you're trying to do, what you're trying
to develop, and the direction that you're going. I urge you to approve this project. Thanks you.
Larry Wright: Mr. Harvey, I'd like to ask staff, number one, if they have any comments, but I'd
like to ask you if you could_ please -the lady that testified before this - if you could address
some of her concerns please, especially pertaining to the schedule.
Michael Harvey: I'll address what concerns I feel I can. Before doing that, though, I wanted to
call to the Board's attention what I handed out prior to the meeting. You have two blue pieces of
paper at your places pertaining to this project. One is a letter authored by Hewearl Holman, a
property owner, addressed to Mr. Craig Benedict, which we received via fax indicating their
opposition to this project. The second is a memorandum completed by Mr. David Sykes on the
17~' of-May. Mr. Sykes is a member of the Orange County Emergency Management Service
Division. This is detailing his review of the Tinnin Woods subdivision. I just wanted to call those
to your attention.
In attempting to address Mrs. Whitted's questions concerning schedule, what will happen this
evening is the County Commissioners and the Planning Board will ask questions of the staff and
the applicant. After the conclusion of the questions, this meeting will be adjourned to a date and
time specific, staff is recommending September, where the County Commissioners will
reconvene to accept the Planning Board recommendation. If anyone has any additional
questions, Planning Board meetings occur on the first Wednesday of every month. I encourage
anyone that has questions to contact staff and they'll be happy to provide you with the
documentation that's going to be reviewed at the meeting. After tonight, those decisions being
made will be forwarded to the Planning Board. Ultimately, the Planning Board will be asked to
make a recommendation in time for the September County Commissioners' meeting. This
public hearing will be reconvened when this item is discussed.
Commissioner Jacobs: I think it goes without saying that Orange County has been and
remains very supportive of Habitat and very appreciative of the fact that Habitat is building
housing all over the County. Richmond Hills was a breakthrough in that regard and it's been the
start of a number of houses in the central-part of the County and we appreciate that. I think that
the area would have gotten the name of Habitat houses as the Rogers Road neighborhood.
My first question, and I just want to clarify what Mr. Harvey just said about the process to more
directly address Mrs. Whitted's concern. Since the public hearing will remain open, other
people will have another opportunity to speak before we make any kind of decision.
Michael Harvey: Correct.
Commissioner Jacobs: Because that was part of my question.
25
1 Michael Harvey: And the Planning Board will be accepting written comments.
2
3 Commissioner Jacobs: The issue with the variable buffer, would we do something similar for
4 .any developer, or are we making a special case. When is the case to be made?
5
6 Michael Harvey: The case has been presented by the applicant through the initial use
7 permitting process just like the planning development permitting process. The developer has an
8 opportunity to ask this body to waive, modify, or rescind development regulation requirements to
9 address on-site specii•ic conditions and provide evidence, testimony, or direct rationale for why
10 it's necessary to this project. I think the direct answer to your question is yes, we will do it for
11 any developer in this process. It is ultimately up to the County Commissioners_
12
13 Commissioner Jacobs: Not making an argument pro or con, but one of the statements that
14 you made earlier was that it would essentially be a continuous fabric of similar density
15 residential development in which this would fit. Why then have anything more than setbacks on
16 the individual lots? We use for the buffer for more open space.
17
18 Michael Harvey: That is certainly a viable alternative and a viable suggestion. Our priority on
19 this, Commissioner Jacobs, was to ask the applicant to abide with the components of the
20 ordinance as they currEntly exist and request that the applicant make the necessary arguments
21 as to why a development alternative was appropriate. From my standpoint I have no concern
22 with the requested modifications.
23
24 Commissioner Jacobs: Another question was raised by Commissioner Hemminger about
25 walking to school. We had a discussion about Ashwick regarding sidewalks, and I don't see
26 that there are any sidewalks. My question is, and I'm sure one reason is there's a cost
27 component. Does a public entity need to have any kind of easement to put in sidewalks, and
28 would it be proficious?? to go ahead and reserve that now without requiring any kind of
29 sidewalks to be built?
30
31 Michael Harvey: I'll let Mr. Benedict talk on this as well, but my two cents is that it wouldn't be
32 a-bad idea to begin a dialogue with Habitat that we initiate further discussion on this project. It
33 certainly would behoove the County. if they intend to put a sidewalk along School House Road to
34 initiate such a discussion as part of this project this evening. I will note that there have been
35 some preliminary discussions with Mr. Chuck Edwards with NCDOT. Their preference is not to
36 have to maintain sidewalks, which is why they are not shown in the right-of-way.
37
38 Craig Benedict: Good evening, my name is Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director.
39 In reference to where sidewalks could go at some time in the future, we will have public right-of-
40 way. We are still working with Department of Transportation on urban style standards. We
41 know in the rural parts, DOT has not been amenable to sidewalks in those areas, but we are still
42 continuing our discussion with urban style growth, Efland area, under County DOT road
43 conditions. So we will preserve those 50-foot wide right-of-ways, which accommodate future
44 sidewalks if we can get it approved.
45
46 Commissioner Jacobs: I would just point out that Hillsborough, which I'm sure was developed
47 with the idea of suburban density, is not retrofitting sidewalks everywhere it can. We had this
48 debate with Chuck Edwards. and DOT when Ashwick was coming online and failed then. So I
49 encourage staff to encourage speaking with- him, because even though it's hard for us all to
50 believe, at some point in the future Efland is not going to be aloes-density community.
51
26
1 I also had a question on page 49. There's a section here where there's reference to, excuse
2 me, page 50, number 11, number 10. What does all this mean, 'applicant would like to continue
3 to review the fees associated with the project before making any formal comment.'
4
5 Michael Harvey: In preliminary discussions with Mr. Tracy Parrott on the required fees
6 associated with this project, and in Ms. Levy's defense, I don't think she was properly in the loop
7 of what our discussions of the fees were. They're going to continue to review and will make a
8 formal comment. From our staff standpoint, a flee is a fee and it's got to be paid.
9
10 Commissioner Jacobs: Mr. Attorney, I assume we can waive fees if we so choose, or no?
11
12 John Roberts: I don't know that it's a good idea to waive fees. You have your fee schedule
13 there for a reason.
14
15 Commissioner Jacobs: Thank you, I have some questions for Habitat. Maybe Ms. Levy can
16 answer. Did you use any public funds to purchase this property?
17
18 Susan Levy: No, we haven't actually purchased it yet. We have it under contract and we vuill
19 purchase it if and when we get approval. We did request $70,000 in HOME funds this year for
20 some predevelopment and acquisition costs.
21
22 Commissioner Jacobs: This issue that was raised that doesn't seem to have been answered
23 about the looped line. 1,Nhere do we stand on the looped line.
24
25 Susan Levy: The water line connecting to Richmond Hills?
26
27 Craig Benedict: Presently, Ashwick is to the east of the project and we have a water
28 maintenance stubbed out over this area. Over in this area, we have Richmond Hills, we have a
29 water main stubbed out over here for a future connection. Right now, there is not an off-site
30 access or utility easement to make this connection here. So, we will be suggesting astub-out at
31 this point and at some future date we'll have to find out how to connect the dots with this
32 property here. Who pays for that cost and how can it be arranged? That's what we're trying to
33 come up with some final determinations. We do know that a system will help this project,
34 Ashwick, and Richmond Hills. So, we're still endeavoring to find out what the cost will be, how
35 to acquire off-site easements, and who will pay for it.
36
37 Commissioner Jacobs: I will say that we left an issue unresolved for Richmond Hills about a
38 pump station and it has come back to haunt us to some extend. We retrofitted that fix, so
39 whatever it is, I would hope that it comes parallel to the approval process.
40
41 On page six where it talks about the fees, we have three kinds of fees that would need to be
42 paid. Who's paying them? The first one says that the time when the final subdivision plat is
43 submitted to staff, so I assume that means Habitat's going to pay that. The other two are at the
44 time the building permit is submitted for review. It's the sewer tap-on fee and the Hillsborough
45 capital facilities fee.
46
47 Susan Levy: We always pay those fees.
48
49 Commissioner Jacobs: So, that will all be taken care of before someone takes ownership?
50
51 Susan Levy: Yes.
27
1
2 Commissioner Jacobs: This issue of the northern property line, I assume it sounds like you're
3 still trying to work that out, yes?
4
5 Susan Levy: Yes. There's a question of whether there's cooperation or not to work that out.
6 We haven't abandoned the idea that if we purchase the property we would pursue a resolution
7 to the land dispute.
8
9 Commissioner Jacobs: How much additional acreage is that?
10
11 Susan Levy: I'm not sure.
12
13 Commissioner Jacoibs: -One reason I was asking was I was listening to Commissioner
14 Yuhasz' discussion of the southeastern corner, and it seemed if you had more room to the
15 north, you could take that lot at the southeastern corner and- put it up at the .northern end and
16 have a greater area around that natural feature. I don't know if you do that within this approval
17 process, especially if you can't purchase the property, you can't. It would be interesting to see if
18 you can by the time this comes back in September.
19
20 And then I just wanted to note A Brush with Kindness, which sounds like a very nice thing to do,
21 I hope you're coordinating with Urgent Home Repair.
22
23 Susan Levy: We have an advisory group. We're referring to them and they're referring to us.
24
25 Commissioner Jacobs: Great. Thank you.
26
27 Commissioner McKee: The question I have is on the larger water main being put in, and the
28 question I forgot relates back to Mrs. Whitted's question about the other residents of Tinnin
29 Road being subjected to fees to tap on or having access to this larger line, which definitely
30 would give better fire protection.
31
32 Craig Benedict: If they are connected to the 3" water main now, there will be no additional
33 connection fees to the Orange-Alamance Water Supply. Do they have to connect up directly to
34 the 8" or 10" water line or by virtue of tying in at the end of that 8" inch- line, would. you just
35 correct the pressure the whole way? We're working on those final engineering decisions, but
36 they would not have to necessarily.reconnect to the 8" line directly if that parallel 3" still has
37 integrity.
38
39 Frank Clifton: I think it would be appropriate, you know, a lot of these issues have to be
40 worked out with the water company and be subject to the engineering and design and other
41 issues associated with that, so it's kind of hard for us to specifically state a solution until we've
42 got the water company involved and have some agreement situation associated with it.
43
44 Commissioner McKee: My concern is that by approving this project, which would increase the
45 size of the water line, if we do not subject historic homeowners to additional fees.
46
47 Frank Clifton: That's understood. Again, we can't answer the question.
48
49 Commissioner Foushee: My follow-up question would be is there a possibility that this
50 information could be learned and disseminated by the closing of the public hearing.
51
28
1 Craig Benedict: Yes, we're working on the final engineering information to find out the
2 pressures that will be created by an 8, 10, or 12-inch line.
3
4 Frank Clifton: This is a way of an example, if you do increase the size of the line out there,
5 depending on how long -you know the line's been there, it t~nay be a situation, and the water
6 company is the best one to address this, is whether or not the pressure is going to increase
7 substantially or not, create some plumbing issues or otherwise connection issues and
8 exaggerate leaks. It's really going to be an issue between the engineers for the developers;
9 Habitat, and the utility company involved out there to look at and condition everything
10 associated with it. We can work through that as much as we can. That's one of those design
11 issues.
12
13 -Chair Pelissier: The memo from Solid Waste on page 234 recommends that the radius in the
I4 cul-de-sacs need to be a minimum of 45 feet and some other changes related to being able to
_15 have the recycling trucks. What would be the impact on the lots that would be done? I'm not
16 sure how -big the radius is right now, so I wasn't sure what the implications were for that.
17
18 Tracy Parrott: I'm not certain of the impact at present. The lots surrounding the cul-de-sac,
19 some are not as deep as others and I'm concerned about the condition that has been
20 mentioned on a couple of the lots.
21
22 Commissioner Yuhasz: One follow-up to the follow-up about the water lines. I just want to be
23 clear. If it is determined that existing residents will be required to hook up to the 8" line, who
24 would be expected to pay the cost of reattaching those existing water lines to the new 8" line?
25
26 Craig Benedict: We had conversations with Community Housing Development; if they are low-
27 income families, there could possibly be grants to assist in that reconnection. We will have to
28 examine what would happen with the other residents that are in the general area..
29
30 Judith Hauser: I just want to thank everybody who has come out, for the very careful work that
31 clearly went into this. I remember when we talked about this with the Efland ?? and heard some
32 of the issues about the water lines and everything else. This is really such an example of the
33 community working together. 1 apprecia#e all of the volunteer expert work that went into this, so
34 thank you very much.
35
36 Mark Marcoplos: Also curious about a little more information on the water issue and the equity
37 issue. Do we know how- many homes might be affected whose water pressure could stand to
38 be approved if they were connected to the 8" line?
39
40 Craig Benedict: We're working with Orange-Alamance Water System now to reexamine the
41 pressures throughout their system. They do not know all of the pressures on some of the side
42 streets. So we hope with this process in improving discussions with Orange-Alamance Water
43 System that we're going to be able to find out what the impacts of these changes are, creating
44 loops through the system.
45
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
48 Hemminger to receive the Cu application; refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request
49 that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the
50 September 20, 2011 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until September 20,
29
1 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written
2 comments.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
z4
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Approved 9/7/11
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JULY 6, 2011
REGULAR MEETING
ATTACHMENT 3
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford (Chair), Eno Township Representative; Larry Wright (Vice-Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove
Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Lisa
Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Mark Marcoplos, At-Large, Bingham Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large
Chapel Hill Township; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township;
Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Wegner, Bingham Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Glenn Bowles,
Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Frank Lloyd, Janet Lloyd, Chad Abbott, Susan Levy
Documents handed out by staff.• Water System Basics submitted by Pete Hallenbeck
Visuals used during meeting: Tinnin Woods Site Plan Map and area map
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Brian Crawford: Good Evening,
AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a) Next Regular Planning Board Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, August 3, 2011
b) Planning Calendar for July and August
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Brian Crawford: Are there any additions to the minutes?
MOTION made by Larry Wright to approve the June 1, 2011 minutes. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey.
VOTE: Unanimous
AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE
Introduction to the Public Charge
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints
the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the County.
The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development.
OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and
businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety,
and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive
governance and quality public services during our deliberations; decisions, and recommendations.
31
Approved 9/7/11
C0 PUBLIC CHARGE
61 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to
62 conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At
63 any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will
64 ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should
65 decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment
66 to this public charge is observed.
67
68
69 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS
70
71 Brian Crawford: I will waive comments.
72
73
74 AGENDA ITEM 8: CONDITIONAL USE DISTRICT (CLA&S A SUP) PROPOSING TO REZONE A TRACT OF LAND OFF OP TINNIN ROAD
']5 TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 28 LOT SUBDMSION: TO make a recommendation t0 the BOCC on
76 an application submitted by Habitat for Humanity to rezone 8.984 acres of land from Rural-Residential
77 (R-1) to High Intensity Residential Conditional Use (R-8-CU) in order to develop.a 28-lot major
78 subdivision, as heard at the May 23, 2011 quarterly public hearing.
79 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Planner III
80
81 Michael Harvey: As you are aware this item was presented at the May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing. From staffs
82 standpoint the major areas of concern needing further review and discussion are the required size of the water and sewer lines.
83 As you might recall the applicant proposes an 8 inch water and sewer line while staff has recommended a condition requiring
84 a12 inch water and sewer line along Tinnin Road. A second area of concern was a recommended condition requiring the
85 applicant to tie into an existing water line within the Richmond Hills subdivision to create.a looped water system. The installation
86 of sidewalks was brought up during the public hearing. Another question posed was who would be responsible for paying for
87 existing water customers to tie onto the new water line. A final area of discussion was a recommendation by County
88 Commissioners to re-orient the proposed three lots on the northeastern portion of the project to protect identified wetlands
89 denoted on the site plan.
90
91 Alan Campbell: With respect to-the utility lines, is it just on this one area of concern for staff?
92
93 Michael Harvey: We have recommended 12 inch line along Tinnin Road-with the rest of the development served by 8 inch lines.
94 The applicant believes that the proposed 8 inch line is sufficient and has respectfully asked staff to re-evaluate our condition.
95
96 Larry Wright: I have a problem that is the only sidewalk proposed for this project. According to the Comprehensive Plan,
97 Chapters 4 and 9, developments are encouraged to have sidewalks. My issue is that you have the connector way over to the left
98 and then a path there. This essentially pushes children to the streets or to lead a sedentary in their house.
99
100 Michael Harvey: The applicant is proposing additional POSA access points though the open space connecting to existing trail
101 systems to the west. As you will -note from the site plan there are POSA access points allowing for access from the eastern
102 portion. of the project to the western project boundary line where existing trails can be accessed. The Planning Board reserves
103 its right to have to recommend additional sidewalks or recommend additional POSA access points.
104
105 Brian Crawford: What is does the term POSA stand for and where is it referred in the Ordinance?
106
107 Michael Harvey: 1 am drawing a blank on what it stands for ...
108
109 Perdita Holtz: It stands for pedestrian open space access.
110
111 Larry Wright: How many vehicles-will be coming through here?
112
113 Michael Harvey: I believe the applicant's testimony...
114
115 Larry Wright: The DOT said the average is 16 per household.
116
117 Michael Harvey: I believe the applicant said approximately 300 to 400 vehicles would be accessing the area during their May 23,
118 2011 Public Hearing testimony.
2
32
Approved 9/7/11
119
120 Larry Wright: My issue is that this is a lot of traffic and we should encourage people and children to get out, away from indoor
121 sedentary lives, out of doors, off the streets and people should be able to walk laps, not in the street competing with vehicles. I
122 understand the connectors but there isn't any here. In chapters 4 and 9 in the Comprehensive Plan, I would like to make a
123 recommendation to the BOCC...a development is a development...) think we should get the children out and the people should
124 be able to walk the laps here. I think we should push for. more sidewalks.
125
126 Lisa Stuckey: I think there are seven lots that fronton school house road and I don't see how those kids...it seems the internal
127 paths will be unlikely to be used by them to get to school. I remember like 268 vehicular trips being talked about during the
128 public hearing ... l wonder if-there is an easement will it evEr be built.
129
130 Larry Wright: Event if they go over to the Efland Cedar Grove playground, they will be walking in the road.
131
132 Maxecine Mitchell: Who is going_ to pay for all these sidewalks?
133
134 Michael Harvey: The applicant has been made aware of these issues and over suggestions that the project have sidewalks
135 installed within various roadways including School-House Road and theB roadway designated on the site plan. The purpose of
136 this meeting is for you to have this type of discussion with the applicant and allow them to respond. I am hearing that you would
137 like more sidewalks within the development.
138
139 Brian Crawford: Larry, I-think you are right; I just don't want to bring these up as a motion. I know sidewalks are very expensive.
140 I know Habitat and their budget is tight. Sidevralks are a great idea but we need to clue the BOCC if there is any way to help
141 make_this happen, we would encourage them to do so. Or maybe come up with a better system.
142
143 Michael Harvey: On page 52, the question posed_by Commissioner Jacobs was, does the public entity need to have any kind of
144 easement to put in sidewalks and would it be prudentto reserve that-easement now and not require any sidewalks to be built.
145
146 Habitat's answer to that question was sidewalks were not a problem but we can't pay for them and our future homeowners
147 association cannot bear the perpetual maintenance and upkeep responsibility. I think it is fair to say the majority of the
148 conditions staff has recommended to the applicant, they have responded favorably to. What staff is looking for is are there any
149 other conditions you as the Planning Board would like to see imposed or addressed by the applicant so they can provide the
150 necessary response and allow you to make a recommendation.
151
152 Pete Hallenbeck: Since we are focused on sidewalks. In the Efland area small plan meetings, sidewalks are something people
153 want. On most nights when you drive down US 70, you have a very good chance of seeing someone walking down the road and
154 it is just a-matter of time before someone gets hit. One thing I am not clear on is are we talking about requiring the developer to
155 put in and install concrete sidewalks now or having space allocated that will be part of the plan so you don't have utilities sitting
156 where you would like a sidewalk.
157
158 Part of what brings my focus on that is thinking back on my days at Perdue and they made these beautiful open areas with
159 crisscross patterns and the students ignored that and pretty soon you see what the natural flow or pattern is; that is why I
160 wondered if you required this development to allocate space #or the sidewalk and put grass and it is a problem for another day, to
161 see the wear patterns are, are people willing to go through the cul-de-sac and use the POSA or go down a school house road
162 and walk to a school. It is very hard to plan how people will walk through an area. Engineering loves the idea of saying what if
163 you know where the sidewalks are all around the roads and had that area allocated and preserved. That also solves some of the
164 financial problem. It is an interesting area for all the development in Efland. Efland is this bizarre entity in the County where it is
165 like a County town. It is not incorporated. I think the ability to set aside space now and later when we know more about how the
166 area will be and where we want to put in sidewalks, it is appropriate to approach the County because in many ways the County is
167 the one directing this area.
168
169 Andrea Rohrbacher: I need a little more education about POSA and the surface materials they use.
170
171 Michael Harvey: Right now, the applicant is proposing a mulch trail system. The ordinance does not mandate it be universally
172 accessible to non-pedestrian foot traffic including handicap access or establish a base material that has to be used. It could be
173 wood or concrete as an example. There are practical issues with that. Perpetual maintenance and cost issues will always come
174 up as well as impervious surface concerns. This Board could make suggestions.
175
176 Lisa Stuckey: There are sidewalks in the Phoenix Place, how was that accomplished.
177
3
33
Approved 9/7/11
178 Susan Levy: The Phoenix Place project is in the Town of Chapel Hill's jurisdiction. Habitat does apply for monies available
179 through the County. We will do the same thing but there is less of it now. We like the way Phoenix Place looks and we have
180 tried to model this .after it. I am concerned about the homeowners association being responsible.
181
182 Maxecine Mitchell: I live in a Habitat neighborhood and we don't have sidewalks so most of have kids say in the yards and play.
183 I have been there 15 yeas and no child-has ever been hit. I don't know if people would be able to afford the maintenance. I don't
184 want to add any extra financial burden to them.
185
186 Pete Hallenbeck: Related to the sidewalks. It is specified as being five feet. If you take a field and mow a five foot path over the
187 course it becomes a six inch path. Is there a wider area to be mowed? Or is it just the five foot area. You usually have to
188 maintain an area on each side.
189
190 Michael Harvey: I think you will find the POSA will be maintained by the homeowners association. It will not be in lot meaning
191 that it will be its own property owned and maintained_by the proposed homeowners association.
192
193 Pete Hallenbeck: We expect the homeowners to deal with that.
194
195 Michael Harvey: If the Board would like to add language about the maintenance of the POSA that is not unreasonable but
196 typically yes local homeowners associations would be responsible for maintaining the area.
197
198 Pete Hallenbeck: I'm happy saying if there is a general understanding to mow a little more on each side.
199
200 Michael Harvey: That is generally how it is handled.
201
202 Brian Crawford: While we are still on POSA sidewalk. issues, can it be-part of our recommendation that we highly encourage
203 sidewalks but we request the BOCC to maintain the sidewalks as part of oar recommendation.
204
205 Buddy Hartley: Are you going to ask the BOCC to support sidewalks for another development?
206
207 Brian Crawford: We do it on a case by case basis.
208
209 Alan Campbell: To me, the notion of reserving space but not have construction because with the budget issues, it would not be
210 expected for the County to commit to additional funds.
211
212 Brian Crawford: Reserving space literally means on this project it won't happen.
213
214 Michael Harvey: The applicant suggested that if there are sidewalks they be located within the right of way. The concern as
215 expressed by the applicant is they can't accept or afford the perpetual maintenance responsibility for the sidewalks.
216
217 Brian Crawford: According to Larry's point, part of the Comprehensive Plan was sidewalks so we would encourage any project
218 to have sidewalks but who will maintain it. We are asking the BOCC to consider maintaining them in the future.
219
220 Lisa Stuckey: These roads are being developed to lead to other roads with more traffic.
221
222 Brian Crawford: In the past, the County has had funds set aside for this sort of thing. It may be in a more financially rich time,
223 the County may be able to make that happen.
224
225 Larry Wright: Chapter 4 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan emphasizes importance of Affordable Housing while Chapter 9
226 stresses installing sidewalks within new developments, rendering them walkable. For the BOCC, they want Affordable Housing,
227 we see there is connectivity here and it would be nice to have people off the streets where they would not have to go around a
228 bicycle.
229
230 Pete Hallenbeck: I support preserving the space and telling the BOCC they have to fund this. It is unlikely these roads that
231 extend north...That area flattens out and it is swampy. This road won't go for miles with a lot of traffic.
232
233 Michael Harvey: Staff has come up with a list of conditions that the applicant has no issue with. They would like to be able to
234 respond to.
235
236 Brian Crawford: They are coming back to us in August with responses from today.
4
34
Approved 9/7/11
237
238 Michael Harvey: Yes. Also with some comments on conditions staff has recommended and Mr. Hallenbeck submitted a
239 memorandum to as well and any other conditions this Board has. There has already been talk in the BOCC of posting signs in
240 terms of the ownership and maintenance of the pedestrian points, the potential and future stub out connectivity of the roads,
241 which they are willing to do. The big issues appear to be; the reconfiguration of these lots on the eastern portion of the project,
242 the sidewalk issue, the looping issue, the size of the utility lines.
243
244 Brian Crawford: We-wouldiike the applicant to consider the discussion about the sidewalk.
245
246 Chad Abbott: My name is Chad Abbot from Summit Engineering, the engineering- consultant for the applicant. The County can
247 essentially put a sidewalk where they want because we are saying there is a 50 foot right of way that DOT will agree with the
248 County to put a sidewalk in the right of way. The County will enter into a two part encroachment agreement with DOT such that
249 the applicant, the applicant doesn't need to reserve a space because there is a 50 foot right of way and we a saying that any
250 sidewalk to be put in would be there. We wouldn't reserve an extra five foot along the lots because typically it is put in the right
251 of way.....lf there needs to be additional construction easements where maybe the topography should be flattened out more,
252 then I don't think that-would be a problem, we would say vve would reserve a five foot temporary construction easement for the
253 sidewalks for a time when they are put in. The debate about the decision requirement the applicant to reserve a space is really
254 not we were moving in the direction of. We were saying that typically if a sidewalk is place for any subdivision, it is put in the
255 right of way. When it is in the right of way, they have no say about it, it is between the County and DOT .
256
257 Brian Crawford: It sounds like the- Board has come up with a suggestion and part of your response for the August meeting
258 addresses our suggestions. We ask for this preservation but you have a better solution to-meet that.
259
260 Chad Abbott: Prior to my responses, I want to make sure that what I was envisioning was that you were saying that-was not
261 what you had in mind.
262
263 Pete Hallenbeck: What is the road width?
264
265 Michael Harvey: It is 27 feet back to back.
266
267 Pete Hallenbeck: Is there on street parking?
268
269 Michael Harvey: No.
270
271 Pete Hallenbeck: So there is plenty of room. It sounds like simply because you can't build in the right of way.space allocated
272 then everything we are discussing comes down to encouraging the BOCC to ...
273
274 Michael Harvey: To enter into a two part agreement with DOT.
275
276 Brian Crawford: The next is the sewer item. Have we finished the discussion on that?
277
278 Michael Harvey: The applicant will bring some information back. The short of it is there is disagreement over the size of the line.
279 Staff has indicated they would like to see the water and sewer in Tinnin Road going up to the recommended 12 inch line. The
280 applicant respectively disagrees with that assessment and will be providing information from OAWS saying that an eight inch line
281 will be responsible and address future connectivity and fire flow, fire prevention and since all the homes will have in house
282 sprinkler systems, the eight inch line will handle all that.
283
284 That is the only current disconnect we have with the applicant. We have stipulated that if the BOCC and even the Orange
285 Alamance Water Sewer says the eight inch line then there is no basis for the condition and we will revise our condition.
286
287 Pete Hallenbeck: What is the diameter ofthe cul-de-sac? I know there has been some discussion about what diameter should a
288 cul-de-sac be and there was some concerned that every five feet was too narrow and being- something bigger was going to
289 get...and I am approaching this from a standpoint of what do you do when you have a 32 foot long fire truck trying to turn around
290 in a 35 foot cul-de-sac.
291
292 Chad Abbott: They were designed to DOT standards.
293
294 Pete Hallenbeck: At this point, I would be wiling to leave this as this matter needs to be reviewed by the fire marshal and make
295 sure you can take a fire truck used in the district down into the cul-de-sac and turn about without going back and forth.
35
Approved 9/7/11
296
297 Michael Harvey: My recollection is that it is 45 feet and there is correspondence in Attachment 6 from the fire marshal saying
298 that was acceptable.
299
300 Pete Hallenbeck: On page 46, item a, number 3, existing customers being .allowed to tap onto the main at $650.00 each. What I
301 am not clear on, would that be customers who are currently not connected who wish to tap on?
302
303 Michael Harvey: Those are existing customers that will be tapping back into the new line. There is still a tap fee that will have to
304 be paid.
305
306 Pete Hallenbeck: They could stay on the old line.
307
308 Michael Harvey: I am going to let the applicant speak to it. There is correspondence in Attachment 4 with Orange Alamance on
309 this matter.
310
311 Pete Hallenbeck: It-seems wrong to me that a construction prflject comes through and someone who had water service that
312 worked is suddenly required to pay more and not really getting anything they didn't have before. 1 was hoping that was for-new
313 customers and if they are already connected that those people be allowed to connect in if they are forced off where they are.
314
315: Michael Harvey: It is technically for new customers and for any new tap on to the new line so that would include those other
316 residences.
317
318 Brian Crawford: So they are going to pay that new fee? Is there increase in the cost of the water service as a result?
319
320 Chad Abbott: I think OWASA has indicated some differentthings-to staff and to the applicant. The letter I have seen is the total
321 of $650.00 is for the additional lots, which is $150.00 for something and $400.00 for something else. It was talking about the new
322 lots. One was an impact fee and one was a tap fee. Impact fee is your initial fee to hook up and tap fee covers the cost of
323 actually tying into the line.
324
325 I have talked to OWASA and this is the difference in what they told me and what they told staff. They told me they would not
326 take the three inch line away or require it to be taken out of service; the existing customers could still use that line. Because of
327 the way the economy charging people money, we will just leave it in place. I ask what if an existing customer wanted to hookup
328 to the line, would the fees be assessed. He said I think there would be a tap fee but I don't want to say what it would be.
329
330 Pete Hallenbeck: It sounds like if you are currently getting water, nothing about this project will require you to have to pay an
331 additional tap fee.
332
333 Chad Abbott: They will not require you to pay an additional fee.
334
335 Larry Wright: This three inch line, what happens if that line ruptures, will they still maintain that line?
336
337 Chad Abbott: OWAS is still the owner of that line so theyare required to.
338
339 Pete Hallenbeck: This business of requiring either a 12 inch lines or 8 inch lines misses the point of the debate in my opinion.
340 One thing I find interesting is we are still trying. to define a water system by saying what size the pipe is when what we should be
341 doing is defining a water system by the available flow, the hydrant. What is maximum amount of water you can get without
342 putting the line in peril, taking the pressure to less that 20 psi? That magic number is 1,000 gallons per minute. When the
343 system first goes into service you may want that number a little higher, about 1,100 or 1,200.
344
345 It is easier to specify a size, you can build, you met the size and whatever flow you get, you get. Some of these questions can
346 be resolved. One thing that strikes me is that designing a system from that perspective saying that we can design an eight inch
347 line going up School House Road if we tie in then the loop system does better. Instead of trying to have the discussion of the
348 size of the line, look at the entire system with objectives of the available fire flow, being in the 1,100 to 1,200 gallon range and
349 then try to use that to figure out how best to do it with the understanding the loop system is a good thing to have for fire
350 protection and could allow the a smaller pipe to be used, maybe a 10 inch line.
351
352 If you look at the Richmond Hill Subdivision and you go to a hydrant at the end of that and you flow 550 gallons per minute,
353 which would be a typical start up flow, that system pressure goes down to 20 psi. The houses in Richmond Hills have a sprinkler
354 system and that system is normally going to run at 70 psi when there is a fire. You pull up in a fre truck and take that last
6
36
Approved 9/7/11
355 hydrant and take the pressure down to 20 that sprinkler flow is greatly reduced. The point of the sprinkler flow is called life
356 safety; the other thing is you have sprinkler flows that are designed to put out the fire which is a much higher flow. This loop has
357 the advantage of taking the Richmond Hills Subdivision and giving it a higher flaw rate which is a good idea because some of
358 those hydrants are-flowing right at 600 which is the minimum. It makes it safer, you have a fire, someone is trapped they can't
359 get to and sprinkler is the only thing protecting them, you are drawing the system pressure down, putting them in peril. I am
360 delighted we are seeing the fire flow begin considered more in this subdivision and l think that can also be a situation where the
361 County could kick in a little bit of money to encourage looping.
362
363 Designed by available fire flow, you may find that some of the pipe diameters being suggested reduced that may hip you fund the
364 looping and the BOCC may want to consider contributing some money to make the entire system better.
365
366 Lisa Stuckey: On page 84, fourth paragraph, I think there might be a typo.
367
368 Michael Harvey: Staff is clear on the additional information and additional conditions responses you are asking for.
369
370
371 AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT
372
373 MOTION: Larry Wright made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Buddy Hartley.
374 VOTE: Unanimous
375
Brian Crawford, Chair
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23-
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
DRAF'T'
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
SEPTEMBER 7,2011
REGULAR MEETING
ATTACHMENT 4 ~
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford (Chair); Eno Township Representative; Larry Wright (~Ce-Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove
Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little- River Township Representative; Mark
Marcoplos, At-Large, Bingham Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel .Hill Township; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks
Township Representative; Rachel -Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill
Township;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Wegner, Bingham Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative;
Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Tom Altieri, Comprehensive
Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning- Systems Coordinator; Glenn Bowles, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative
Assistant ll
OTHERS PRESENT: Sarah Lee, NCDOT; Randy Marshall; Chad Abbott, Summit Consulting; Susan Levy, Habitat for Humanity;
George Whiffed; Robert and Elvira Mebane; Annie Whiffed;
Documents handed out by statfi~ Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Public Input Meeting Flyer Draft CTP Highway Map;
Draft CTP Public Transportation and Rail Map; Draft CTP Bicycle Map; Draft CTP PedesMan Map; Hard copy of CTP
PowerPoinf Presentation
Visuals used during meeting: CTP PowerPoint; Access Management PowerPoint
AGENDA ITEM 7: CONDITIONAL USE DISTRICT (CLASS A SUP) PROPOSING TO REZONE A TRACT OF LAND OFF OF TINNIN ROAD TO
ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A Z8 LOT SUBDIVISION: TO make a reCOmmenda6on t0 the BOCC On an
application submitted by Habitat for Humanity to rezone 8.984 acres of land from Rural
Residential (R-1) to High Intensity Residential Conditional Use (R-8-CU) in order to develop a 28-
lotmajor subdivision, as heard at the May 23, 2011 quarterly public hearing. This is a
continuation of-the discussion that occurred at the July 6, 2011 Planning Board meeting
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
Michael Harvey: I will refer you to the Abstract on page 13. There are three attachments in this document. The first is a letter
and documentation submitted by the applicant responding to Planning Board member(s) questions raised at the July 6 meeting
as well as their response to the recommended conditions. The second attachment is the staff generated correspondence since
the July 6 meeting. Last, the Special Use Permit findings of fact and Conditions Approval.
In your abstract, we have summarized the applicants response to several areas of concern or questions ranging from utility line
size, the water line flow rate, the looping of the water system in the Richmond Hill Subdivision, the payment of connection fees,
the development of sidewalks, connections to open- space, etc. The applicants will be happy to review and share any additional
information with the board with respect to their responses.
On page 15 and 16, Planning Staff has reaffirmed our recommendation that the applicant has met their burden under the
ordinance justifying the approval of this project. The project is located in an area of the county that supports this type of growth.
We have made affirmative findings within Attachment 3, Special Use Permit, Findings of Fact. Attachment 3 begins on page 35.
As you will recall, there are three General Findings of Fact that have to be made by this board based on the evidence presented
at the hearing and at the July 6 Planning Board and based on evidence received this evening. There are in Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
These are specific findings. Staff does not provide a recommendation. The board will have to, as part of your motion, to affirm
or not to affirm.
Brian Crawford: In Section 2.9.1, we need to say, for instance, in number 1, 2.9.1, we will need to go through each 2.9.1
Section?
DRAFT
60
61 Michael Harvey: You have two options, you can go section by section or you can review each item.
62
63 Brian Crawford: First we need to hear from the public. Who is representing the applicant? We have several members from the
64 public.
65
66 George Whiffed: My name is George Whiffed. I am a resident-of Efland. My concern is the amount of habitat houses that will
67 be constructed along with the others that are already in the area. Over on Richmond_Road, there is something like 45 to 47
68 houses already and this subdivision will have like 28 more houses. My understanding is there will be a footpath from one to the
69 other. That looks like it will be a village of habitat houses and I just think that would be too many habitat houses in one section. I
70 am not opposed to-housing but I think it should be spread out. My mother-in-law owns property that joins this particular property
71 so that is another concern. I have over the impact to her property. I appreciate your consideration.
72
73 Etvira Mebane: My husband and I are residents of Efland and have property off Tinnin Road and our corrcem is the increase
74 population in Efland. We have Ashwick across the road and- the development in Richmond Hills. Our concern is making sure
75 that, if it is allowed to be put in, how would that affect the other property owners in that area and that development. What would
76 happen if we wanted to develop our property? About Tinnin Road, there are seniors who live there, and the continued traffic they
77 would have to endure. We are looking at the impact on that road, from Tinnin to School House Road, as well as Fuller Road and
78 also, looking at the school because now they are changing the pattern as to how you drop your kids off at Efland Cheek. When
79 you talk about when school is in, that will create issues trying to get in and out of Efland Cheeks School and that is come up
80 since the school went back into session. That will impact a lot of folks.
81
8~2 Emmy Whiffed: I am stilhtrying to get information because I know things have changed. Some things have changed so I may
83 have questions. Just to continue, I own property that adjoins the Habitat property and I live in Hillsborough. They put in a turn
84 .lane by Efland Cheeks School to accommodate the school with drop off and pick up. Now that they have redirected the traffic,
85 what will they do about that little space in the morning because traffic does get heavy, which is the reason for the turn lane.
86 Tinnin Road has a lot of traffic so if the project goes through, maybe you could think about the possibilityof putting traffic strips to
87 slow people down. I have a question about the water line. I was under the impression that Tinnin Road was getting fire
88 hydrants. I understand that the fire hydrants will only come down to the end of Tinnin Road.
89
90 Larry Wright: A question to Mr. Abbott, when you were here and you -testified previously addressing her traffic issues, you
91 estimated the amount of recurring trips from this development, is that right?
92
93 Chad Abbott: Yes sir, within our application narrative and in our testimony we.indicated the amount of vehicle trips. Let me find
94 that number .....
95 _
96 Larry Wright: I would like to ask Ms. Whiffed a question. Do you, during school time, or your neighbors, experience problems
97 getting out of Tinnin Road or Fuller Road with the amount of hospitals that -are located there?
98
99 Emmy Whiffed: I have not tried to get out in the morning. In the past, when they were going in Fuller Road, I have been in the
100 area and they had people from Fuller Road down to the entrance of the parking for the school backed up. If I had to come out
101 into That area early, the way they used to do it, I would avoid Fuller Road.
102
103 Larry Wright: Mr. Abbott, have you located that? I remember it was much less than the U.S. Department of Transportation
i 04 estimates were and that made sense to me. I would like to follow up that question, how much of an impact would you esfimate
105 that this would add to both Fuller Road access and Tinnin Road access to 70 during peak traffic times when people are picking
106 up their children from school?
107
108 Chad Abbott: I really can't estimate that. Someone in our office did provide an estimate of the trips per day which I believe was
110
111 Larry Wright: My next question would be to Mr. Harvey. This would all be DOT generated issues, correct?
112
113 Michael Harvey: Correct.
114
115 Larry Wright: So in the best interest of these people here who are really concerned, I can understand that, what would their
116 recourse be if this development goes in and once it is in, what would their recourse be to try to get out of Tinnin Road or Fuller
117 Road and be able to not take a suicide attempt to go out through traffic?
118
38
2
DRAFT
Michael Harvey: Any time you have a public road, with a NCDOT right of way and local citizens have concerns over traffic,
access issues or congestion, they can contact the Graham Regional Office, Mr: Chuck Edwards, who is the NDCOT designated
engineer and request a reassessment of traffic load and DOT may have to engage in widening, the installation of turn lanes, or
what you have you. I don't want to speak for Mr. Edwards but I can tell you, as we testified to in -the May hearing, that we have
submitted the plan to NCDOT who indicated thatthe existing road capacity could serve this project as proposed.
Larry Wright: If they ever had a problem, they could call the Planning Department.
Michael Harvey: Yes. And we could provide them the necessary contact information.
Chad Abbott: In our responses to the comments to our July meeting, we responded that the #raffic engineer in our office had
es#imated that the project would create approximately 268 trips per day based on that land use, 210_ single family homes for that
land use category and generate about 268 trips per day_ That is per day.
Brian Crawford: Mr. Harvey, Ms. Whiffed speculated there may have been changes between the public hearing and-this meeting
to the project plan, are you aware of those changes?
Michael Harvey: Yes. As you will recall from the May Quarterly Public Hearing and also discussed at the July regular planning
board meeting.
The general focus of concern was the pedestrian access areas, connectivity with both Richmond Hill and with the school, the
location of hydrants, with the width of the proposed cul-de-sae to address solid waste management and a DOT concern, as well
as the orientation and make up of these lots here with respect to ensuring additional open space to buffer, protect and identify
wetland as the applicant has submitted. That was a BOCC's concern with Commissioner Yuhas ask if there was a way to
reconfigure. There was originally four lots proposed here, it is limited to three lots and there is approximately 32 feet of additional
open space separating the closed developed lots from the wetland area. You will also note that there were concerns over
access to these lots and staff recommended a condition that there be a joint driveway coming out here. This- has been provided
and appear to address NCDOT, Orange County Solid Waste, and potentially Orange County school concerns over providing a
sufficient vehicular turn around location to allow vehicles to back up and turn around in this area.
The applicant has designated the pedestrian access ways as requested by the planning board and the BOCC as portions of the
proposed open space area rather than as just easements. There will be independent pathways dedicated as part of the open
space. We have the designated 10-foot lot pedestrian access here, an existing trail from Richmond Hill and an existing trail
connecting to the elementary school.
There was some additional buffer installed here as suggested by planning board members.
Referring to Attachment 1 in the abstract, the applicant has respond to all conditions including their willingness to extend the
water line from Richmond Hill, which was a requirement by staff, which was agreed to by the BOCC and planning board.
They have agreed that sidewalks are a good idea. The issue is who will pay for them and install. That will be a general BOCC
discussion, independent of this project, at their October 6 meeting. The planning board's recommendation was that the
sidewalks are encouraged but within NCDOT right of way and under the requirement that another entity be required to install and
maintain them. We have been in contact with DOT and their point is that we are not going to install or maintain sidewalks but at
least the condition is there. The applicant's response is a two party agreement with NCDOT to install the sidewalks.
The hydrants have been tightened up as required by the Orange County Fire Marshall. There was-one moved from Tinnin Road
from the western portion to the eastern portion as required by Mr. Sykes.
Chad Abbott: We have also added one at the end of Tinnin Road per OAWS and we have added another one at the end of
School House.
Larry Wright: What is being added?
Michael Harvey: There is a new hydrant at the end of School House.
Larry Wright: These are the ones Ms. Whitted was addressing?
39
3
40
DRAFT
177 Michael Harvey: I won't answer for Ms. Whiffed. I think she was under the impression there would be hydrants installed down
178 Tinnin Road. This was never a requiremen# of the planning board or the fire marshal: I will remind the board that in Attachment
179 2, there is a correspondence from the Orange County Solid Waste dealing with the radiate of the cul-de-sac, which has not been
180 approved by DOT and Orange County Solid Waste.
181
182 Brian Crawford: Is anybody aware of this change in the school drop-off?
183
184 Michael Harvey: This is the first I have heard of it. I will state that Dr. McFarland was provided.=the original site plan for this
185 proposal and upon reviewing it his only recommended condition, and it is incorporated within the application submitted as part of
186 the record at the May Quarterly Hearing, that development of these lots will -be phased over time to accommodate the school's
187 cap limita#ion so there is adequate public space for the new students. The document filed with the Orange County School
188 System-has never expressed= any issues about access management or traffic.
189
190 -Mark Marcoplos: This is the first time we have heard they changed the traffic flow of the school. It sounds like they knew this
191 development was in the works...
192
193 Michael -Harvey: They were provided copies of this as part of our pre-application process a month before the public hearing-and
194 ask to provide comments which is in your May Quarterly Public-Hearing package.
195
196 Mark Marcoplos: By making this traffic flow change, they are acknowledging that it will work with the neighborhood?
197
198 Michael Harvey: They knew that a 28 lot subdivision was being proposed and they -knew there would be a couple hundred
_l 99 additional cars traveling through this area-and their only comment was that you need to stagger or phase in the development and
200 they chose to change the access to the school knowing this 28 lot subdivision would be here.
201
202 Mark Marcoplos: So they were more concerned about construction traffic?
203
204 Michael Harvey: As well as guaranteeing sufficient seating capacity to handle the 28 single family housing which is why the
205 housing is being phased over time.
206
207 Mark Marcoplos: To meet the size of the student body?
208
209 Michael Harvey: Correct.
210
211 Mark Marcoplos: Does anyone know if there is an opportunity to go back to the original traffic flow?
212
Z 13 Michael Harvey: That would be a question for the school:
214
215 Pete Hallenbeck: It is interesting that the school recently had a turning lane put in next to the school and-now they have opted to
216 change the drop-off and then work with DOT to get a similar turning lane. I tend to separate that from concerns about the-traffic.
217 I also see an opportunity for the development, county and school to work with DOT to get a turning lane there, which would make
218 things better. There is a turning lane going into the Ashwick Subdivision, which is just east of there. Does anyone know how
219 many units there are total planned for the Ashwick Subdivision versus this Tinnin Woods subdivision? It seems that is a
220 comparable situation. Someone made the decision to say that Ashwick needed a turning lane off of Highway 70 and I think we
221 need to take a similar look with this project.
222
223 Michael Harvey: Ashwick is based on a previously approved Special Use Permit that I am not 100% comfortable answering how
224 many lots that are proposed or how a turn lane came into existence.
225
226 Pete Hallenbeck: I would suggest looking at that would give people some guidance about how necessary it is to have turn lanes.
227 If the number of units was within 20% of the number of units in Tinnin Woods, that would tell me there really should have been a
228 turn lane put in and that got missed.
229
230 The topic of hydrants, an informational matter for everyone, is the reason the blow offs values were changed on hydrants at the
231 end of the line is originally they were adapting smaller water lines and smaller lines so therefore the water gets changed out
232 more often. When you get a bigger line, there is a problem that the water can get stale at the end of that flow so you need to
233 have a way at the end of the line to flush the line out. That is a tradeoff when you look at the size of the water line for fire
234 suppression versus the water line that just size for drinking water. With regard to hydrants in general, the Efland Fire
235 Department has been looking in that area, Tinnin Road to add a hydrant. If you look at the hydrant spread on US 70, ideally, you
4
DRAFT
236 want a hydrant every 4,000 feet. There is a gap right there and I would, also be curious to know if the distance was from US 70
237 to the first hydrant to the this subdivision because if that is more than 2,000 feet, there should be a hydrant in the middle of
238 Tinnin Road. I would also say, this addresses the comment of the inconvenience of the citizens, if there is any part of that Tinnin
239 Road that is more than 2,000 feet from the hydrant, it seems to me if they are going to dig all that up, burden the citizens and put
240 in an eight inch waterline, that this would-be a good time to try to get hydrants every 2,000 feet throughout Efland. We are both
241 missing opportunity in terms of protections and I think we could be burdening existing citizens on Tinnin Road when we have an
242 opportunity to make it better.
243
244 The things to look at are Ashwick versus Tinnin number of lots, figure out why the school system changed their pattern and went
245 to somewhere that does not have a turn lane. Did those two things work together to get a tum lane and a hydrant at US 7.0 and
246 Tinnin is needed and if it is more than 2,000 feet from that hydrant to the first hydrant in the subdivision, we should put one at the
247 mid point on Tinnin Road.
248
249 Mark Marcoplos: Whose responsibility is it to install the fire hydrant?
250
251 Pete Hallenbeck: When the water system first went in they put in hydrants, the fire department has paid to install two hydrants in
252 areas that were in outlying areas and then beyond that it has been up to the developers. There has been talk to the -fire
253- .department about it. It is basically an economic was a mole problem. Everybody wants it done but nobody wants to pay to do it.
254 1 think if"we afl get together we can find the money for it. A hydrant costs around $3,800 to put in. If you are digging up and
255 adding it to an existing line, it is only about $2,500.00 if it is done during new construction.
256
257 Chad Abbott: If I-could address some questions on the water lines, i will try to do that. The dual line issue, I am not sure where
258_. that information came from, what we have worked out with OAWS and what we have submitted irr our responses, there is a three
259 inch line going up the road now. It will remain in place-until the subdivision is constructed. At such a time,. approved for coming
260 on line by-the-state, it will be flushed, tested, disinfected and during the construction of it, OAWS has asked that we provide
261 connections at the existing home locations that are existing customers now so as it is constructed, we will provide the tap and
262 then the line to their meter. For lines across the street, OAWS has agreed to provide the labor for open cut or boring to get lines
263 to the other side of the street because right now, we are proposed to go up the right side of the street. As those fines are put in,
264 there will be a new line from the eight-inch line to their meter. It won't be live; they will leave the three-inch line connections.
265 Once the new eight inch lines are flushed, disinfected, it comes on line for service; they will then be connected to their house.
266 Once all those come off line and as it wraps around School House, we are going to tie back in to the three inch at the end of our
267 project so the eight-inch will tie into a three inch at OAWS's request at the end of the project. There will be duat lines for a
268 certain period of time but they won't say.
269
270 If you want a new connection and you have an existing service with OAWS, your connection will be provided as that new line is
271 constructed. The fire hydrants, in the original plans denoted the location of all existing and proposed fire hydrants. The first one
272 on Tinnin Road is about 500 feet from the intersection of Interstate 70 and they have been installed at approximately 1,000 foot
273 intervals so They can be used as blow offs if necessary. 1 don't know if they -are shown that way here but they are within about
274 1,000 feet apart and then throughout the property.
275
276 Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, according to Mr. Bowles, Ashwick has a total of 56 single-family lots.
277
278 Elvira Mebane: I want him to tell me about the dual lines until it is completed and Tinnin is going to have the eight-inch?
279
280 Chad Abbott: School House will too until the end of our project.
281
282 Elvira Mebane: They you will tie into a three?
283
284 Chad Abbott: There is already a three-inch line there we will tie back into.
285
286 Elvira Mebane: Will the existing, where you will tie back in, will that be replaced with a new or are you just going to tap and-tie
287 into ...
288
289 Chad Abbott: The old three-inch. OAWS says there are no concerns about the existing materials or over our tying the eight inch
290 line into the existing three inch line.
291
292 Elvira Mebane: Is there a cost to the residences?
293
41
5
42
DRAFT
294 Chad Abbott: No Impact fees. After our last meeting, I stet up a meeting with OAWS. There wilt be no impact fees or impact
295 fees required to be paid to tie into the new eight inch line. The water rates, pressures will stay the same. It will just be an eight-
296 inch line.
297
298 Larry Wright: In the minutes of last meeting, the discussion of the sidewalk goes from line 300 to line around 400. I would like to
299 know or at least make some comment in this meeting and put it in the minutes that the chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan
300 does endorse at length, on page 3.7 and page 3.22 of the Comprehensive Plan, addressing sidewalks there. to Chapter 5.7,
301 also there. Chapter 9.1 and 9.2 there is an overview that encourages sidewalks.
302
303 Brian Crawford: In the Endings of Facts that we are deliberating tonight, is there a section where the planning board can make_
304 an affirmative statement about sidewals and suggest to the BOCC.
305
3-06 Michael Harvey:. Not in the Findings of Fact but I need #o remind the board that on page 72, staff-has recommended over 70
307 conditions_associated with the approval of this project. We suggested at the July 6 meeting that you add a condition stating that
308 .you encourage sidewalks as required by the Comprehensive Plan and then your recommendation made. at the July 6 meeting
309 was that the BOCC needs to find a way to accommodate sidewalks without making the applicant pay font or incur the perpetual
310 maintenance costs. You can certainly add that as a specific condition at the appropriate time.
311
312 Mark Marcoplos: On page564 at ttie top, talks about xeriscaping, what is the guiding. resource that directs people to understand?
313
314 Michael Harvey: The Orange County UDO is the guiding principle. Our landscape ordinance requires the use of drought tolerant
315 local non-evasive specifies.
316
317 Mark Marcoplos: How would someone determine if that has been adhered to?
318
319 Michael Harvey: The existing landscaping ordinance provides a listing of acceptable trees with acceptable planting requirements
320- and the planning staff is-responsible for guaranteeing they comply.
321
322 Mark Marcoplos: Seems kind of vague to me but I'll take your word for it.
323
324 Brian Crawford: Any other comments from the planning board members or staff? Does-the applicant have any final thoughts or
325 comments particularly around the issue of density? One of the public comments this evening was that there will be a large
326 amount of Habitat houses in one single community. Any comments?
327
328 Susan Levy: Hi, my name is Susan Levy and I represent Habitat. Our only comment is that we-have located several similar
329 communities throughout the County and do not believe there will be a problem with an overabundance of habitat .sponsored
330 housing in this area.
331
332 Brian Crawford: We have talked about in previous meetings but the need is there and you have a waiting list of people ready to
333 move in.
334
335 Susan Levy: We have people who are interested and have begun the application process but there is nothing definitive yet as
336 the project has not been approved and construction has not yet commenced.
337
338 Brian Crawford: Why don't we start.
339
340 Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, beginning on page. 36 of Attachment 3, the Findings of the Orange County Planning Staff
341 relating to this request. As you will note we have made an affirmative finding with respect to compliance with the provisions of
342 Section 2.9.1 providing you with evidence submitted as part of the May Quarterly Public Hearing as well as the July 6 Planning
343 Board meeting that the applicant has submitted all required documentation and applications to allow for the processing of a
344 Conditional Use application.
345
346 Brian Crawford: Have the planning board members reviewed Section 2.9.1 and the recommended findings by the staff? Is there
347 a motion?
348
349 MOTION made by Larry Wright on Case Number SU-A-2-11 that there is sufficient evidence in the record as denoted by staff that
350 the applicant has complied with Section 2.9.1 of the UDO, including that the rezoning request is consistent with the
351 Comprehensive Plan, and that all the items listed on staff recommendation become part of the Board's findings. Seconded by
352 Alan Campbell.
6
DRAFT
353
354 VOTE: Unanimous
355
356 Michael Harvey: The next item begins on page 41, Section 3.8.4 Conditional Districts -Where Permitted. You will note that staff
357 has made an affirmative finding that the applicant has complied with the requirements of this section of the UDO and that we
35$ have provided you with the elements within the record justifying this finding.
359
360 Brian Crawford: Have the planning board reviewed Section-3.8.4 and the recommended findings by the staff? Are there any
361 objections? Seeing there are none, I will entertain a motion.
3 62
363 MOTI~w made by Alan Campbell that the Planning Board adopt as Findings of_Fact all the findings presented by the planning
364 staff as described on page 41 of our abstract concerning the applicant's compliance with Section 3.8.4 UDO based on the
365- evidence supplied within Attachment 3. Seconded by Buddy Hartley.
366
367 VOTE: Unanimous
368
369 Michael Harvey: On pages 42 through 44, we have made recommendations with respect to the applicants compliance with
370 Sections 7.2 and 2.7.3, provisions governing the submittal requirements of a Class A Special Use Permit Application.
371
372 Mark Marcoplos: What. is the meaning of vesting.
373
374 Michael Harvey: Vesting in the North Carolina General Statues is where an applicant ask the governing _body to vest the site
375 .plan_for at least a minimum of two years so that site plan governs the entire development of the project. There is no-need to vest
376 this site plan. The applicant anticipates they will begin development of the infrastructure necessary for construction in the
3 77 necessary time frame.
378
3 79 Mark Marcop{os: So to vest is just to say we want this to apply ....
380
381 Michael Harvey: And pay an additional fee if they need to. The only clarifying point is the fact that they have agreed to stagger
3 $2 and phase in the development of the homes consistent with the Orange County School Board or school system.
383
384 Rachel Hawkins: On page 44, 2.7.3 (B) (10), it states the narrative indicates that the school will commence operations as soon
385 as the permit is approved.
386
3 $7 Michael Harvey: My apologies that is my oversight.
3$8
389 Rachel Hawkins: What school?
390
391 Michael Harvey: The finding should read that the narrative provides the necessary phase schedule to address the school's
39-2 concerns.
393
394 Larry Wright: When we act, we will be acting on this amendment to this.
395
396 Michael Harvey: Correct. The motion should be to find staffs approval for the evidence submitted- on pages 42-44 with. the
397 amended 2.7.3 (B) (10) as stated by the staff,
398
399 MonoN made by Larry Wright on Sections 2.2 and 2.7.3 that we find it compliant with staffs recommendation with the exception
440 of 2.7.3 (B) (10) and this would be the amendment presented here in 2.7.3. 10 as submitted by Mr. Harvey. Seconded Pete
401 Hallenbeck.
402
403 VOTE: Unanimous
404
405 Michael Harvey: On page 45, we include recommended findings with respect to the applicant's compliance with Section 2,7,5,
406 the notification requirements associated with the processing of a Class A Special Notification Requirements.
407
408 MOTION made by Pete Hallenbeck to find that the applicant had complied with the requirements of Section 2.7.5 on page 45 in
409 compliance as per staffs recommendation and that the Board adopted the staffs findings. Seconded Andrea Rohrbacher.
410 VorE: Unanimous
411
43
7
DRAFT
412- Michael Harvey: The. next item begins on page 46 through page 57, relates to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the
413 provisions of Section 7.14.2 (B), Major Subdivisions of the UDO. You will note that we have provided documentation outlining
414 the facts we believe are in the record demonstrating the applicant's compliance.
415
416 Brian Crawford: Have the members of the planning board reviewed Section 7.14.2 and staffs recommended findings?
417 Comments or discussions?
418
419 tarry Wright: I think the addressing of sidewalks, bike lanes and transit systems, I know there is one sidewalk on there and that
420 is the one leading to the school.
421
422 Michael Harvey: It is a pedestrian access space leadmg....
423
424 Larry Wright: The wooden chip.
425
426 Michael Harvey: It is the pedestrian access space leading from Tinnin to Rodeo and the pedestrian leading to Richmond Hills
427 and the school.
428
429 Larry Wright: We have here, on page 52 and on page 50 of our packet and then we have another one on page 55, roman
430 numeral (II), how do we-act on this.
431
432 Michael Harvey: The site plan contains the required information.
433
434 Larry Wright^ Of bike lanes?
435
436 Michael Harvey: There are none proposed. As I have indicated the conditions is the best place to put your statements.
437 sidewalks are not in question but who-will be paying-for it.
438
439 Brian Crawford: Any other questions, concerns or comments
440
441 Johnny .Randall: There was some mention of maintaining these pedestrian areas by mowing, is that the way they will be
442 maintained.
443
444 Michael Harvey: One of the conditions of approval are that all public access areas will be maintained by the local homeowner's
445 association which should be -mowed and maintained at their expense. In-the conditions, the applicant has already agreed to-
446 maintain all common areas, which includes the open space on the plot.
447 -
448 MOTION made by Larry Wright that the board finds the applicant has complied-with the requirements of Section 7.14.2 (B) and
449 that the Board adopts staffs recommended findings. Seconded Pete Hallenbeck.
450
451 VOTE: Unanimous
452
453 Michael-Harvey: Beginning on page 58, we have provided- recommendations with respect to the applicant's compliance with
454 Section 5.15.6, Major Subdivision Class A Special Use of the UDO.
455
456 Brian Crawford: Does the board have any questions?
457
458 Johnny Randall: This would be, on page 66, items three and four, there will be vegetated cover placed on these areas for
459 stabilization, will these also- meet landscape requirements meaning that there might be plants that are known as potentially
460 evasive in the area? The will be native or non-evasive plant.
461
462 Michael Harvey: Correct. In Article 6 of the Unified Development Ordinance provides detail about what types of plant materials
463 are acceptable.
464
465 MOTION made by Larry Wright to agree with staff and find this Section 5.15.6 of this submittal compliant as per staff
466 recommendation. Seconded Johnny Randall.
467
468 VOTE: Unanimous
469
44
8
DRAFT
470 .Michael Harvey: Beginning on page 69, we have outlined the applicant's compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of the
471 UDO. Reviewed section.
472
473 Rachel Hawkins: How do we know there will always be a homeowner's association?-
474
475 Susan Levy: Our application narrative indicates that there will be a homeowners association formed to address local
476 maintenance issues.
477
478 Michael-Harvey: We also have on record that the applicant at the May Quarterly Public Hearing as well the Special Use Permit
479 mandates the creation of a homeowner's association guaranteeing the upkeep of all common property. There are obligated by
480 their own testimony and the recommended condition associated with the SUP.
481
482 MOrtoN made by Larry Wright #a find that the applicant complies with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (.B) and adapts staffs
483 recommended findings. Seconded Alan Campbell.
484
485 VOTE: Unanimous
486
487 MichaelHarvey:_ -On pag_a 71, this is compliance with the General Standards of special use permits in Sections 5.3.2 (A) 2. For
488 example (a), if you find in the affirmative, you could site testimony by the applicant at the May Quarterly Public Hearing,
489 applicant's responses in the narrative as well at the July Ei Planning Board meeting concerning. water line, sewer line. If you were
490 find in the negative, you need to submit for the record, the reasons why and where that information comes from in the record. If
491 you find in the affirmative and you do recommend approval, we ask that you recommend the 70 some conditions recommended
492 by staff to include_the specific condition recommended by Dr. Wright also.
493
494 Brian Crawford: We should go through each finding to make sure the planning board agrees that it does or does not. Section
495 5.3.2~(A) (2) (a). Has the planning board found evidence that will support that finding?
496
497- Larry Wright: As per the applicants testimony in the May 23 Quarterly Public Hearing and the July 6 planning board meeting.
498
499 Brian Crawford: Any other testimony that will support that finding.
500
501 Mark Marcoplos: We have all this documentation that has been filed that shows we will have more fire hydrants, the water
502 situation has been well addressed. The public safety officers and fire departments have signed off on their concerns. Larry
503 mentioned overall principal in the Comprehensive Plan that affordable housing is deemed to be a contribution to the general
504 welfare of the citizens and that has to be acknowledged. I am impressed with the thoroughness of all the different fine items
505 reviewed and found to be compliant. It looks like it could be a model.
506
507 Brian Crawford: Under Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the planning board has found evidence as per the May 23 Quarterly Public-
508 Hearing and the July 6 planning board meeting as well as review by staff, the documentation provided to the planning board and
509 the letters from public safety and fire marshal that supports this finding.
510
511 MorioN made-by Larry Wright finding that the use as proposed by the applicant will maintain or promote the public health, safety,
512 and general welfare based on the application, testimony from the May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing, the July 6, 2011
513 Planning Board meeting, the applicant's responses to the various recommended conditions, the site plan, all evidence from the
514 fire marshal and other public safety agencies. Seconded Mark Marcoplos.
515
516 VorE: Unanimous
517
518 Brian Crawford: Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b). Before we talk about that, can you flush that out a little Mr. Harvey?
519
520 Michael Harvey: The requirement on the applicant is they submit the necessary documentation to prove that this proposed
521 development will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. In parentheses, you will see unless the use is a public
522 necessity. It is my point that the only group who determines what is or is not a public necessity is the BOCC. This is this is not a
523 public necessity as such the applicant was required to submit the necessary documentation demonstrating compliance. This
524. document was submitted at the May Quarterly Public Hearing, specifically an Impact Analysis prepared by Mr. Everett `Uc'
525 Knight indicating that this use, in his opinion, will maintain value of contiguous property.
526
527 Brian. Crawford: Has the planning board reviewed and found evidence presented at the May 23 Quarterly Hearing or July 6 or
528 any other submitted documentation that will support that finding or does planning board not agree.
45
9
DRAFT
529
530 Larry Wright: Based on the impact analysis of Mr. Knight at the May Quarterly.Public Hearing, I think, and also in Chapter 4, this
531 county is very dedicated to this as far as I can see how the BOCC might think this is a necessary, affordable housing is
532 necessary in this county. We can't make that but we can suggest it.
533
534 Brian Crawford: Chapter 4 of the 23~d plan.
535
536 Larry Wright: Most of it is just dedicated to affordable housing.
537
53$ Brian Crawford: Under Section 5.3.2. (A) (2) (b), is submitted by a member of the planning board that based_on the impact
539 analysis and the July 6 planning board meeting and under the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4, Affordable Housing, that
540 this will support that ending.
54I
542 Morro made by Alan Campbell #o find that the applicant will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property based on Mr.
543 Knight's impact analysis and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Seconded Buddy Hadley.
544
545 VOTE: Unanimous
546
547 Brian Crawford: Section 5.3.2. {A) (2) (c): There has already been evidence that this project is supported by the 2030
548 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4 of the Affordable Housing and the Land Use of the 2030 Comprehensive. Any other evidence?
549
550 Mark Marcoplos: I think the. water and transportation plans as stated are evidence of a harmonious relationship with the-
SSi surrounding community._
552
553 Larry Wright: You mentioned how this was compliant, Ithink-Land Use?
554
555 Michael Harvey: Staff has indicated that the project is consistent with the definition of transition area with respect.to the
556 proposed density within the development. Also, within the application narrative entered into the record at the May 23, 2011
557 Quarterly Public Hearing the applicant provided several sections of the Comprehensive Plan that they felt supported the
558 proposal.
559
560 Larry Wright: There is something about if it fit with the area.
561 -
562 Michael Haiirey: This is in the transition area.
563
564 Brian Crawford; Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c). The planning board found evidence in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Affordable
565 Housing and the Land Use sections as -well as testimony at the May Public Hearing. We have also found evidence based on the
566 water and transportation- plans has been submitted in the application. Additional information submitted in the application that
567 pointed to the Comprehensive Plan that supporfs this development in harmony.
568
569 MOTION made by Larry Wright that the applicant had demonstrated compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)(2)(c) that we find this
570 compliant as you stated. Seconded Pete Hallenbeck.
571
572 VOTE: Unanimous
573
574 Brian Crawford; The last thing is the recommendations.
575
57-6 Michael Harvey: We recommend approval if you can make affirmative finding stating for the record that we have not received
577 any information that would make a negative finding. In this application, we recommend approximately 72 conditions, all of which
578 the applicant agreed to. As a procedural note, that if the board makes a motion to approve, that they amend Subsection H of the
579 recommended conditions to approve the sidewalk provision.
580
581 Brian Crawford: Staff is asking that we state for the record that we have not found a negative finding.
582
583 MorioN made by Mark Marcoplos that there was not a negative finding and that approve the 72 odd recommendations with the
584 modifications.
585
586 Brian Crawford: We are looking for a motion that we haven't made any negative findings and we vote to approve staff's
587 recommendations for the conditions with the amendment in Section H to include sidewalks.
46
10
47
DRAFT
588
589 Alan Campbell: Did we flesh out the actual language on sidewalks?
590-
591 Brian Crawford: Larry, cart you work out some sort of thought on how we are going to present to the BOCC for the sidewalks.
592 We can't mandate it.
593
594- Larry Wright: As I remember in the minutes from the last meeting, near the end, what it came down to was that we would like to
595 propose a recommendation that sidewalk issues be investigated and they an integral part of this development and to see if
596 something could be worked out with DOT that it could be partvf the easement into each of the lots, I think.
597
598 Brian Crawford: In the end, didn't you reference back to the Comprehensive Plan where sidewalks were...
599
600 Larry Wright: Yes I did.
601
602 Brian Crawford: Why don't we-use some of that language to at least push the issue, do you recall what it was.
603
604 Larry Wright: It is Section 7.4:14 (B) (IV), Section 7.4.2 (B) (5) (II), Chapter 4.9.
605
606 Brian Crawford: Does anyone have the specific language.
607
608 Larry Wright: Talks about pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, bicycle paths, etc. Chapter 4 is Affordable Housing.
609
61-0 Alan Campbell: W_e recommend that sidewalks -be investigated by the BDCC and that they be installed provided that the
6I1 applicantnot be required to pay for, or maintain them based on the express policy supporting sidewalks.-
6.12
613 Mark Marcoplos: I especially like the fact the applicant doesn't have to pay for it.
614
615 MOTION made by Alan Campbell that we find no negative findings, that we approve the Conditional Use application, and that we
616 recommended all the conditions as described in pages 72 through 80 as presented by planning staff with the amendment that we
617 include a further condition that BOCC consider a recommendation that sidewalks be investigated and put in this development
618 provided that the applicant not be required to pay for them and all this is based on the expressed policy supporting sidewalks in
619 the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded Larry Wright.
620
621 VorE: Unanimous
622
623 Larry Wright: A friendly amendment that the maintenance is not passed onto the homeowner's association.
624
625 Brian Crawford: The motion is seconded and we have voted to approve it.
626
11
48
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 21, 2011
Action Agenda'C
Item No:
SUBJECT: Resolution to Further Clarify the Intent~f the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners Regarding the Uses cf Funds Generated ~y the Article 46
One-Quarter (1 /4) Cent Optional Sales and Use lax if Approved by Voters in
November 2011
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLtC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1.4/5/11 Resolution Calling For A Frank Clifton, 919-245-2300
November 8, 2011 Special Advisory Michael Talbert, 919-245-2153
Referendum Concerning The Levy of
A One-Q~rarter-Cent County Sales
and Use Tax
2. 4/19/11 Resolution Regarding Uses of
Potential Revenues from aOne-
Quarter-Cent ('/4) County Sales and
Use Tax
3. 5/18/11 Letter from the Orange
County Schools Board of Education
4. 6/21/11 Draft Resolution Regarding
Uses of Potential Revenues from a
One-Quarter Cent ('/) County Safes
and .Use Tax
5. Proposed Economic Development
Uses of Sales Tax Proceeds
PURPOSE: To consider a resolution to more clearly and firmly establish a commitment by the
Board of County Commissioners to authorize the use of funding generated by the Article 46
one-quarter ('/) cent optional sales and use tax if approved by voters in the manner and -for the
purposes stated herein in accordance with. guidelines established and approved by the Board of
Gommissioners.
BACKGROUND:
(A) Since the Board of County Commissioners decided to move forward with a fall referendum
on the Article 46 '/ cent sales and use tax via resolution adopted April 5, 2011 (Attachment 1),
the Orange County Schools Board of Education has requested further clarification of two points
highlighted in its letter dated May 18, -2011 (Attachment 3).
The first issue is the distribution methodology of that portion of sales tax revenues dedicated to
educational use between the two school systems. (Basically, define "equitable".)
49
z
The second issue relates to a clarification and commitment that these new revenues not be
used to supplant existing county revenues for similar purposes. (Board of Commissioners to
decide?)
On April 19, 2011 the- Board adopted A Resolution Regarding Uses of Potential Revenues from
a One-Quarter Cent ('/) County Sates and Use Tax (Attachment 2). The resoltation established
a ten-year commitment to allocate 50°l0 of the funding to the County's two school systems and
50% of the funding to Economic Developmenf initiatives. '
The Board re~urested that-each school system furnish the Board of Commissioners with a detail
list of pr~aritized -projects that could be completed with anticipated funding over the next ten
years. , As of this date, the detailed list from each school system has not yet been received.
(B) It may also be-helpful to further educate voters on how the- one-quarter ('/) cent sales tax
revenues will be allocated and to further explain the bounty's efforts related to Economic
Development.
The Manager recommended the following allocation of funds for Economic Development
initiatives_ The Board may want to further outline its }priori#ies from some outlined below:
1. 6fl% of the funding would be allocated utility infrastructure;
2. 20% of the funding would be allocated to recruit and locate new businesses in
Orange County;
3. 10% of the funding would be~ allocated to small business loans to help existing
businesses expand; and
4. 10% of the funding would be allocated annually to Economic Development
initiatives approved by the Board, including but not limited to innovation centers to
provide space for new start-up businesses, funding support for the County's
agricultural businesses, and Business Investment Grants.
Attachment 4 is an updated Draft Resolution Regarding Uses of Potential Revenues from a
One-Quarter ('/4) Cent County Sales and U_se Tax. The Draft Resolution addresses the
questions raised by the Orange County Schools Board of Education and provides greater detail
related to funding for Economic Development initiatives. Updates are noted in bold.
Economic Development Director Gary Shope has provided alternative uses and focus areas
regarding the potential uses from aOne-Quarter ('/) Cent County Sales and Use Tax outlined
in Attachment 5. This information is furnished to allow the Board to consider all available
options as to how best utilize possible funds from aOne-Quarter ('/4) Cent County Sales and
Use Tax to support economic development in Orange County.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact from these the decisions. It is
important that voters favorably consider the one-quarter ('/4) cent sales tax if the issues
discussed previously are to be pursued.
50
RECOMMENDATION(S); The Manager recommends that the Board consider the draft
resolution to clarify questions from the Orange County Schools Board of Education and define
priorities if new funds become available to- support economic development. If the Board
approves a resolution, authorize the Chair to sign the resolution as amended and approved.
The Manager further recommends that the Board direct the Clerk to the Board to-send a copy of
the final resolution to the Orange County Board of Education.-
51
SUMMIT
CONSULTING
August 26, 20I 1
Mr. Glenn R. Bowies, AICP, CFM
Orange County Planning & Inspections Dept
131 West Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
ENGINEERING ~ ARCHITECTURE ~ SURVEYING
Re: ~ Written Responses to Bropnsed Conditiens for the T-irurin Woods Subdivision
Dear Glenn:
On behalf of our client and the applicant, Habitat for Humanity, Orange County, Inc,
Summit Consulting is providing to you responses to all applicable-conditions
recommended/proposed in a letter dated 3une 21, 2011 following the public hearing-on
May 23, 201 i.
Summit Consulting will be more than happy to address and provide any clarification
needed an the attached responses and looks foivvard to discussing these matters with you
or the respective Boards further.
Sincerely,
S T CONSULTING
-..,,~{~
had E. Abbott, PE
Attachments
!:U 1.pQ92\CEvillSubmiftals~20I 1-08-26 Orange Caunry planning for PB A~lg 9-Gllaocs120 [ 1-08-25 Response Ltr.doc
__
504 Meadowland 17rive Corpora $ ~
n~•r~o ...:c ..I_..--_,....~•. l~~wL~..L..i~..l1l+~ITl1R(1,`7~l/t ncr.r. i~-.. AAA'i'M/1 .,'-n..
52
Responses to Conditions will be noted in Bold, Green, I1~rlics.
Proposed Conclitions
The Planning Board hereby recommerxls that the Orange County Board of
County Commissioners approve the Habitat for Humanity Site Plan, dated March-
18, 2011 as prepared by Tracy N. Parrott, P.E., Summit Consulting for the
dedication of proposed Road "A", and Road "B", and-#he extension of Tinnin
Road as North Carolina Department of Transportation public roads in Orange
County, the dedication of new public sewer lines to Orange County and the
dedication to Orange Alamance Water System, Inc. of private water tines, subject
to the fulfillment of conditions specified herein. The Site Plan {dr-awings-C-1, C-2,
C- 3, and C-~) submitted by petitioners dated Ni-arch 1~, 2011 shall be part of this
permit approval.
Before any phase- of the Final Plat of Tinnin Woods can be recorded the following
conditions shall be satisfied:
A. Sewer Lines
1. The County Engineer shall approve -sewer line construction drawirngs,_
including stubbed out service lines to each lot; prior to and clearing ar
grading on the site. No sewer lines shall be placed underneath paved
or concreted areas with the exception of perpendicular crossings.
t;andition accepted by the applicant with the exception Cleat all new Sewer Lanes are
shown tender Cite proposed itoad ]Extensions as is ttee standard practice generally and as
evident in the existing sewef• located in Tinnin Road) that will be eased as the outfail for
the proposed tines. .
2. The applicant shall install, to Orange County specifications, eight inch
(8") sewer lines within the project. All cans#ruction and testing shall be
certified to the State by the engineer of record as completed with
copies of the certification to be provided to the Orange County
Engineer and Planning Department prior to Planning signatures on the
Final Plat.
Coeedition accepted by Cite applicant.
OR
A letter of credit orescrow-agreement shall be submitted- and- approved
by the County Attorney to secure construction of the sewer lines to the
standards of Orange County. An estimate of the construction cost
shall be prepared by a certifiedllicensed engineer and submitted to the
Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must
reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial
institution licensed to do business in North Carolina.
3. If the security option as set forth in A. 2. above is chosen, no certificate
of occupancy for any dwelling shall be issued until all sewer line
construction and testing are completed wi#h certification sent to the
J:U 1-Otl921Civ~~lS~cbmittais\2011-08-26 Orange Count Planning for PB i41tg S-61Daes12011-08-26 Response Ltr.doc
~,
53
State by the engineer of record. Copies of the engineer's certification
shall be provided to the County Engineer and to the Planning
Departmentprrrx t+o release of any cer~ficate of occupancy.
N/A
4. Signed encroachment agreements, ifi required by North Carolina
Department of Transportation {NGDOT), shall be executed for aU
sewer fines that are placed within public right-of ways. Copies of
signed encroachment documents shall be provided to the Planning
Department- and the County Engineer prig-r to Planning signatures on
the Final Ptat.
Conditions accepted by the applicant.
5. Show on the Final Plat, twenty {20) foot permanent sewer line-
easements centered an ail County-maintained sewer tines- located
outside of the NCDOT right-of--way. These easement areas shall
remain free of structures, fences, and landscape plantings.
N/A, aso Sanitary Sealer outside of the Itiglat of ~6'ay.
6. Sewer lines shah be designed in such a manner to allow gravity flow
extensions to adjacent property rather than Through the use of pump
stations.
Coed"anon accepted by the applicant to lice extent that lines extended to adiaceast
properties will be at a aniatianaaan depth extended at an acceptable slope from the last tie
in from the proposed project, anticipafed at 46' deep.
7, An -Orange County Acreage Fee (recorded- lot area acreage only),
currently set at $t 000 per acre far public sanitary sewer service, shall-
. be paid at the time the Final Plaf is submi#ted for planning signatures.
The acreage fee is subject to change and, based on the acreage
shown for the proposed 27 lots (approx. 6.25 acres), the total acreage
fee will be approximately $6,250.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
8. An Qrange County Flat Fee for a public sanitary sewer service tap,
currently $600 per unit, shall be paid at the time building permit
applications are submifted for review and approval. This fee is subject
to change and will be collet#ed at the applicable rate at the time of
review and approval of'tl~e building permit.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
9. A Hillsborough Capital Facilities Fee, currently $2672 per unit, shall be
paid at the time building permit applications aresubmitted for review
and approval. This fee is subject to change and will be Collected at the
applicable rate at the time of review and approval ofi the building
permit.
Condition accepted Pay the applicant.
J:111-(10921Civil~Submittsls12011-08-26 Orange Courtly Planning for PB Mtg 9-6lpocs12o11-08-26 Response L(r.doc
54
10. For ail tocafronsv~rhere service is anticipated, a wye connector shaft be
installed as a service stub out, rather than a tap and saddle.
Condition accepted by floe applicant.
B. Water Lines
'I. Orange Alamance Wa#ec System, Inc. {OAWS) and the County -Engineer
-shall approve final water line construction drawings for the errtire
subdivision, including stubbed out_ service lines to each lot. Nct
cEearing or grading on the site shall occur until appraval,is obtained. No
water lines shall be placed underneath paved-or concreted areas with
the exception of per-pendicular crossings, whicfi shall bey constructed of
ductile iron pipe.
Condition -accepted by the applicant.
2. The two {2) inch service-main to the five customers on a private drive on
the east side of Tinnln Road- wiH remain and the developer will tie it into
the new Tinnln Road water main.
Condition accepted by the-applicant, see off-site inmprovements plan.
3. The existing three (3) inch water main in Tinnln Road and School House
Road should be retired from its junction with- the main in the US
Highway 7Q right-of-way fo the section of new eight {8) inch main that
enters the subdivision at Road "A".
Condition accepted by the applicant.
4. The new Gne will be pressure tested-at the time of construction,_ and if a
pressure problem-does exist, then the developer will insthll a pressure-
reducing valve.for each service cannec#ion to the new main.
Condition accepted by floe applicant, however, per OA'4VS and standard .engineering
principal, tine static pressures-that exist on the 3"-iine is not anticipated to vary greatly
troop those on the proposed 8" live.
5. The applicant shall install all water lines to OAWS spec`rfications.
Monitoring of the installation of all water lines will be by OAWS. All
construction and testing. shall be certified to the State as completed by
the engineer of record with copies- cf the ~cerEi€ication ta- be provided to
OAWS, the Orange Gounty Engineer and Planning Department prior to
Planning signatures an the Final Ptat. .
Condition accepted by tlxe applicant.
oR
A letter of credit or escrow agreement shall be submitted and approved
by the Gounty Attorney to secure construction of the water lines to the
standards of OAWS. An estimate of the construction cost shall be
prepared by a certified/iicensed engineer and submitted to the Planning
and Inspections Department for review by the Orange County Engineer.
The financial guarantee must reflect 19Q°!° of that estimate and be
issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in
North Carolina.
iUI-0Q921Civi1lSobmittsls120i1-06-26 Orange Coanty Plaaning forPB Mtg 9-6~Docs1201 I-08-26 Response Lu_doc
l
55
6. If the security option as set forth in B. 2 above is chosen, no certificate
of occupancy shall be Issued until the water lines are certified to the
State by the engineer of record that testing and construction is
completed. A copy of the certification shall be provided to the Orange
County Engineer and the Planning Department. OAWS shall provide
written confirmation of their acceptance of the lines per the State
approval letter. The letter shall- include that all pressure tests and-
bacterial testing have been approved by the State and accepted by
OAWS for inclusion into their maintenance program.
N/A
7. Encroachment agreements, if required by NCDOT, shall be executed far
ail water lines placed in public right-of ~nrays, including off-site
improvements. Copies of signed encroachment documents-shall be
provided to the Planing Department and OAWS prior to Planning
signatures on the Final Plat.
Condition accepted by the applicant
8. Twenty (20) fact permanent water :fine easements with five {5) foot
temporary construction easements on each side shall lee shown on the
f=inal Plat for ai! OA1MS-maintained water lines located outside of the
NCDOT rights-of-way, These easement areas shall remain free of
structures, fences, and subs#antial landscape plantings ¢ffawers, grass,
and shrubs are aQowed).
Condition accepted by the applicant and provided on the-only applicable section that is
tying to Richmond bills.
9. An eight (8) inch water line shalt be extended within the Tinnin Road
right-of-way from US Highway 70 West to the northern end of Tinnin
Road prior to recor-lotion of the 1=ina1 Plat. Encroachment agreements
shall be obtained from NGDOT for any lines within an existing NCDOT
right-of--way, All water line easements within the subdivision shall be
shown on the Final Plat. For water line easements located offsite, i.e.
outside the boundaries of the subdivision, easement tlocumants with
attached survey map. shall be recorded concurrently with, or prior to,
the Final Plat- Any pardon of the lines that extend under concrete or
paved areas shall be ductile iron pipe.
Condition accepted try the applicant.
10. Eight {g) inch water lines shalt be installed- within the subdivision per
OAWS specifications. Fire hydrants, per Fire Marshal requirements,
shall be installed and approved prior to Planning Department signatures
on the Final Plat or prior to the issaance of any certificate of occupancy
if the security option is chosen. OAWS shah test fire hydrants and
provide flow test certifications to the Fire Marshal #or review and
approval by the f=ire Marshal and Efland Fire Department. All water
lines shall be looped for fire protection purposes. No dead end lines will
be approved.
Condition accepted by flee applicant, with the eaception of looping ail lines and no dead
eyed li>Vtes provided. There sire dead seed Lines shown on the two Road extensions howeaer
the ~" main proposed. to tie in on Hwy'70 to the existing 12" will be tied baclt into the 3"
Line.
7;111-0042\CivillSubmittats1201 L-0S-26 Orm~ge County Planning for PB Mtg 4-61Dacs1201 t-{J8-26 Response Ltr,dac
56
11. The existing six (fi} inch water-line in Richmond Nills atthe end of Alice
Mill®r Court (or Boundbrook Drive) shall be connected Into the eight (8)
inch water fines within ,the subdivision at tt~e time of construction. A
signed encroachment agreement with NCDOT shall be obtained prior to
any construction activity within the NCDOT right-of way, The water line
shall extend between lots 41 and 92 of Tinnin Woods in an area
designated as open space.
Condition accepted by the applicant, however the alignment of tl®e tie in shall be as
proposed on the current plans. If field conditions dictate that a different alignment is
more feasible, then an alternate route may be provided, however, it is the intent of the
applicant to fuflfilI this re~couamendatioa of providing a loop to Richmaond Dills.
12. After installation of the eight (8} ln~ch water main within the Tinnin Road
right-of-way, the new travel way shall 6e symmetrical to the read
centerline. Tinnin Road should be widened to a 24 foot travel way.
MCdOT will require driveway and utility permits of the developer #or all
work within the public right-of-way.
Condition not accepted lay the applicant as the proposed water line will be along flee
shoulder of Tinnin Road and no disturbance is anticipated to the existing pavement,
Therefore, it is not desirable to upgrade an existin~putalic road. It has been gathered.
from NCDOT that this road- will be resurfaced in the aeear futnere, which would likely
provide a fypical-travel way accep#able to NCD®T.
'13. Assessment fees of $50Q per recorded lot shall be paid to OAWS prior
to the recorda#ion of the Final Plat. Connection teas of $450 per lot
shat! be paid at the time of application far building permits. All fees are
subject to change and will be collected at the rate in effect at the time of
the review and approval of the Final Plat or building permit, whichever
the case.
Condition accepted by the applicant for flee proposed lots only and not for the
reconnection of the existing customers.
C. Roads and Access
1. Road "A" and Road "B~ shall be constructed to standards of the
NCDOT, within a fifty (50) foot right-of-way with fve (5) foot utitity
easements on each side. Roads "A", "B", and School House Road
shall be paved with a 27-foot bade to-back roadway cross-section with
curb and gutter and two eleven-foot lanes, Tinnin Road extension shall
be within a fifty (50) foot right-o#-way. Since Tinnin Road is a primary
collector road, it shall be paved with a 29-foot bade to-back roadway
cross-section with curb and gutter and two twelve-foot lanes. The
construction shalt be inspected and approved by NCDOT.
Condition accepted by tine applicant, laawever a 27' back-to-back secfioa is proposed for
all roads being built as part of tine proposed project, with anone proposed at 29'.
OR
A letter of credit or escrow agreement shat) be submitted and approved
by the County Attorney to secure construction of Road "A", Road "B",
and the extension of Tinnin Road to the standards of the NCDOT. An
7:111-00921CivillSuhmiuaEs120i t-08-26 Qrange Caonty Pisoniug for PB Mtg 9-61Docs1201 i-08-26 Response Ltrdac
(Q
57
estimate of the construction cos# must be prepared by a
certiftedllicensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the
Planning Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110°l0 of
that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution
licensed to do business in North Carolina.
The document ~fescribing developmen# restrictions to be recorded
with the Final Plat-shall state that the financial guarantee will not-be
released until all road- construction has been inspected and--approved
by NCDOT.
2. If the security option in C_ 1. above is chosen, no building permit~hafl
be issued until access roads are constructed to. an all weather state
(i.e, base gravel condition).
Condition accepted by lice applicaatr
3. No driveway shall be permitted within fifty (50} feet of a street
intersection. The Final Plat shall +eontain "Na Vehicular Access
Easement" fflr bts 5, 20 and 23 on School House Road (1314). A `No
Vehicular Access' easement shall be spawn on-the Final Plat forall
lots within a minimum distance of fifty (50} feet from the public street
intersection of Road "A" and Road "B".
Condition not accepted and applicant seeks the revision to no drivewaywithin the limits
of the sigh# triangles where available. IDue to lire lot size, a ~0' restriction would be
impraectical at all intersections.
4, Lots 3, and -~4, lots 29 and 22 steal! have shared access points to School
House Road_
Condition nit accepted by flee applicant as the joint accesses are Trot desirable because
of issues it could create between homeowners with respect to parking privileges,
rnaintenauce, etc.
S. A sidewalk shat) be provided from the northern #erminus of Tinnin
Road, along the west right-of-way, to School House Road along its
north right-of--way, to Road "A", along its eastern right-of-way to the
proposed POSA wood chap trail, and along the western right-of~rvay of
Scholl House Road, west of Read "A" to the southern edge of the
projec#. The sidewalk should be five (5y feet wide and behind the curb.
'rennin Woods Homeowners Association shall record an-encroachment
agreement to retain the upkeep and main#enance of the sidewalk.
Condition not accepted by the applicant. t~ sidewalk leas beers shown on the plans,
however the applicant does not desire to construct and/or maintain the requested
sidewalk. The sidewalk has been shown for iQustrative purposes only so drat the
description above can be seen as it relates to Meld conditions. The trafffic on these roads
are eniniueuen and the use off the road shoulder or 1?OS~A,'s is anticipated to be sufficient
for pedestrian activities. This is not a through route, but a destina#ion route where the
people driving and passing by will be arriving acid or leaving a dwelling in this
community and will have a knowledge of the pedestrian activity and vested interest ir,
maintain~g a safe area/teeighborhoad and will iuherea-tly use caution as it relates to
pedestrians.
J;11 i-OO921Civ>'I~ubmitfafs120i 1-08-?b Orange County Planning for PB Mtg 9~Does~2011-08-26 Response Ltr.doc
58
6. Erosion control plans for constraction of Road ~`A", Road "13", and the
extension of Tinnin Road- shalt be submitted to, and approved by, the
Erosion Cantroi Division prior to any clearing or land disturbance.
Condition accepted by the applieasrt.
7. Approved double-bladed street name signs shall be erected at ail street
intersections shown an the f=inal Plat prior to issuance of any building
permit if road construction is not completed prior to recording of the
frnal-plat.
Condition accepted_by the applicant.
8. Prior to any ~^onstruction or alteration of any existing access within the
platted rights-off way, the owneriapplicant sha{I secure a driveway
permit from the NCDOT District Office. The ownerlappiicant shalt submit
a copy of the NCDOT-approved permit and NCDOT approval letter to the
Planning Department prior to or at the same time as the request for a
grading permit is trade, or before Plarming I?epartment signatures are
affixed on-the Final Plat, whichever is first.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
9r: Sfght triangles with dimensions of ten (10} feet by seventy (70} feet shalt
be shown and labeled at all street Intersections as depicted on the Final
Plat. These areas are to remain clear of plantings, fences, vehicles, and
all structures.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
10. Dedicate, in fee simple, a fifty (50) foot wide right-of-way, centered on
the existing right-of-way of Tinnin Road, to the northern property Iine.
Said- dedication shall mee#-local residential road right-of way standards
as required in Section 7.8.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO}.
Condition accepted by the applicant. .
11. The temporary gravel turnarounds shown at ail stub streets shall be
improved to NCDOT standards (i.e. asphalt}.
N'11~ raa~ae proposed.
12. A ground sign shall be installed at the north terminus of Road "A"
noting that there may be an extension of the road right-of-way and
travel way at a future date.
Coa~dition accepted by the applicant<
13. NCDOT shall require that weight reducing load allowances along School
House Road and Tinnin Raad during construction of subdivision
improvements be imposed and shall require the developer to post a
maintenance bond to ensure that the road is returned to proper
functionality once the project is completed.
Condition accepted by the applica~-t.
7:511-00921CiviilSubm.ittuis1201 I-08-26 Orange County Planning for PB Mtg 9-61Does12011~.48-26 Response La.doe
59
D. Land-Use Buffers and t_andscapiing
1. t_.andscaping shall be preserved as indicated on the approved
preliminary plan and Resources Management Plan that show the
typical building enveiopeslopen space areas and shall be inspected
and approved- by the Planning and Inspections Department prior to
signatures on Fina! Plat_ No part of the landscaping shat! encroach
into the 1 Q-' x 70' sight triangles at the intersection.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
-OR
Guaranteed financially through a letter of credit or escrow -agreement
submitted to secure required landscape installation and preservation.
An estimate- of the cost for required-preservation, plantings and their
Installation must be provided. The financial guarantee shat! reflect
110% of the estimate and be issued by an accredited financial
institution licensed to do business in North Carolina in a form approved
by the County Attorney.
2. Provisions for protection of existing troes as shown on the approved
preliminary site plan shall be included in a document describing
development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning
S#aff and recorded concurrently with the Final P[at. No clear cutting on
individual lots or mass grading is permitted pursuant to Sec#ion 6.8 of
the UDC.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
3. The applicant shall re#ain and maintain existing plantings within the
Typical Building Setbacks as indicated on the Site Plan.
Condition'accepted by the applicant to protect the exist®g vegetation to the greatest
extent possible. If nothing is worth saving between the proposed Iota and the trees to
remain will only be burdenlma'rntenanee issue for the hoaneowners, they wiII be cleared
along witlR tlae Iots as some of the proposed housing locations are of a undergrowth /
reestablishing nature from past timberi~sg activities and no major stands of mature
trees present.
4. A minimum of twenty {2(?) foot buffer shall be maintained {i.e. left
undisturbed} along the subdivision perimeter. Language shalt be
provided in the Homeowners Association documents to the effect that
clearing within the twenty (20} -foot buffer shat! not be permitted.
Condition ae~epted by the applicant.
5. A fifty {5Q) foot undisturbed buffer shall be maintained- around the
wetland denoted in Lot 28.
Condition accepted by the applicant, however the actual lot line will not Abe 50' (roan the
wetland and it will be incumbent t€pon the owner/baualder of the adjacent lit to provide
the state required bug'er for the pocket wetlands referenced above.
6. No mass grading of the site shall occur_ Lots shall be graded only after
lot specific plans showing the extent of grading are submitted to the
Planning Department and approved at the time of building permit
.f:ll [-(1fl921Civi7lSubmittals120 i I-fl8-26 Qmnge Coaaty Plan-iing far PB Mtg 9-6~Does1201 L-OS-Zb Response Ltr,doC
Q
60
applications.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
7. Gommon area landscaping trees and shrubs shall be of a native
species and drought tolerant.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
~. Storm 6rainage
4. Drainage easements shall be located on the Final Plat as required
follofnring review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan by County
staff.
Condition accepted by flee applicant.
2. All structural stormwater Best Managemen# Practices (BMP's), as
defined in the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natufial
Resources Stormwater BMP Manual shall be within stormwater
easements-and shown on the Final Pfat. A stormwater maintenance_
agreement shall ire recorded along with the Final Plat. The agreement
steal! designate the responsible party for maintenance.. Public access
to the BMP devices shall be provided.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
3_ Drainage culverts shall be sized and located appropriately by a
licensed North Carolina Professional Engineer as required by NGDOT
and Orange County Erasion Control.
Condition accepted by flee applicant.
4. The site runoff for the one (1)~year twenty-four (24}-hour storm shall be
the same past development as pre-development regardless of the
BMP option chosen.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
5. The Falls Lake {Upper Neuse Basin) nutrient reduction rules apply to
this site.
Condition accepted by flee applicant as lot&g as the county has enacted and implemented
these a-sales upon applyeng for Final Plat andl construction dfrawieag approvals.
6. Sediment and erosion control measures she!{ be installed prior to and
during any land clearing or construction.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
F. Parkland and Recreation
1. Lawful currency of the United States in the amount of $11,394 ($422 x
27 lots} shall be paid to Orange County as payment in-lieu of parkland .
J:\l 1-00921Civi1lSnbmittaIst2011-O8-2G Orange County Planning for PB Mfg 9-61L?ocs120t 1-08-26 Response Ltr,doc
1'C3
61
dedication at the time of recordation of the Final Plat.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
2. The apprcant shall incorporate provisions into the declaration o€
restrictive covenants that effectively restricts and maintains the
common area open space. These protected areas shall be shown
and labeled accordingly on the Final Plat. All maintenance
responsibilities for the open space shall be with the Homeowner's
Association.
Condition accepted by tine appiica,rxt.
3. The Section 7.11 of the UDO references the requires a minimum
recreation space ratio of 0.20 square feet of recreation space per
land area dedicated to residenfial use {0.20 * 6.917 acres = 't.383
acres, or 60,260 square feet). In those-cases where-the regaired
minimum recreation space results in a larger amount than the
public recreation space requirement of 9/20 acre per lot {1/20 x 28
lots = '1.4 acres or 60,984 square feet}, the difference shall be
established as private recreation space for the use of the residents
of the development (60,260 - 60,984 = no additional private open
space needed_
Condition accepted by the applican4
4. ~ Approximately 0.584 acres or 23,450 square feet of connected
MOA open space {6.50%} wi11 be pro#ected and available to
individual lot owners.
Coanditiose accepted by the applicant.
5. The applican# shall provide a minimum of 19,463 square feet of
private recreation area {e.g. trails, picnic area, etc.).
Condition accepted >?y tine applicant.
6. A five (5)-foot wide mulched trail connection shall be made to the
existing trail that runs from Efland Cheeks Elementary School
through the open space of Richmond Hills. The connection shall be
made-from the end of Road "B".
Condition accepted by the applicant.
G. Construction Waste
1. Per fihe Orange t;ounfy Solid Waste Ordinance, clean wood waste, scrap
metal, corrugated cardboard, and al! present construction waste shall
be recycled.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
2. All haulers of construction waste shall be properly licensed. The applicant
shall confirm that hauling contractors are licensed to haul waste in
Orange County.
7:111-0042\Civt~4SnbtuiriaLs~201 L-08-26 Orange C°unty Planning for PB Mtg 9-6~Docs12 0 1 1-08-26 Response Ltrdoc
{~
62
Condition accepted by the applicant.
3. Prior to any demolition-or construction activity on the site the applicant
shall arrange for apre-demolition /construction- conference with
Orange County Sofid Waste staff. This may be the same meeting held
with other county of#"ECials.
Condition-accepted by the applicant.
H. Miscellaneous
1~. The Finai Plat shall-contain a title block and vicinity map in accflrdance
with Section 7.14x3 of the UDO.
Condidion accepted t-y the applicant.
2. The Homeowner's Assoaation (hereafter `Association') shall be
incorporated and a deed conveying the-open-space- into the
Association shall be submitted- along with the Final Pfat for review and
approval by the County Attorney's office. Planning Department
signatures will be affixed to the Finai Pla# after attamey-review is
complete. The County Attorney shat! approve the declara#on of
restrictive covenants applicable to the property.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
3. Tree cutting in the roadside open space is prohibited except for necessary
maintenance purposes that have been approved by County staff prior
to any such tree cutting taking place.
Conditioa accepted by the applicant, however, provisions for driveways and clearing as
weeded for fhe facilitation o1'house construction,-utility connections and as requested by
the awner shauld b~ expected.
4. All street lighting shall conform to the Outdoor Lighting Standards as set
forth in Section 6.11 of the UDO. The tight frxture shall be submitted- to
the planning office for review and approval prior to entering into a
contract or sales agreement or purchase of lighting fixtures from the
utility provider.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
5. A sign permit shall be obtained from Orange County for the subdivision
sign located at or near the entrance of the subdivision prior to
beginning construction. Any lighting for the sign shall be approved by
the Planning Department prior to purchase or installation.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
6. Methods of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps, and construction debris
associated with construction activity shat[ be by some method other
than open burning as required in the Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
J:\It-(}0921Civi1lSaixinitlals120t E-08-26 Orange Couniy Planning for PB Mtg 9-61Docs124i i-08-26 Raspaose Ltr.doo
t L~'/
63
7_ Parcel Identification Numbers for the existing lots shall be shown on the
Final Plat.
Condi4ion accepted by the applicant.
8. Impervious surface coverage for the entire subdivision is limited to Thirty .
percent (30%) inducting the amount of impervious surface for streets
and sidewalks. The maximum impervious surface for the entire
subdivision is 117,403 square feet or 2.70 acres.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
9: Impervious surface data, a~ pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the UDO shall be
included. in a document describing development restrictions and
requirEments to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded
concurrently with the Final Plat. The impervious surface for each tot
shall indicate the maximum impervious surface for each lot, net of the
roadway (i.e. excluding roadway}. Impervious surface allocations shall-
be shown on the Final Plat for each lot.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
1 Q. All sefibacks-for the lots adjoining School House Road shall be a minimum
of thirty (30) feet from the public right-of-way of School House_ Road.
Condition not accepted by tits applicant as 2®' is rite requested setback as has been
shown on the plans.
11.A twenty (20) foot open space strip conveyed into the HOA shall be
provided on the rear of lots 16, 21, 22, and 25. A reconfiguration of the
lots to a minimum of 5,000 square feet will be necessary. No surface
stormwater shall be directed across the lots.
Condititon accepted by the applicant affid as shows on the plans.
12.The maximum number ofi lots approved is twenty-eight (28}; the final
number of platted lots shall be determined after compliance with all
ordinances, regulations or conditions of approval. No ordinance,
regulation or condition of approval shall be relaxed in order to
accommodate more than twenty-eight (28) lots.
Condition accepted by fire applicant.
13.The owner shall file, with the Planning Department and record wi#h the
Final Plat, a declaration of covenants and restrictions, articles of
incorporation, where required, andlor by-laws, alt as approved by the
County At#omey, that wiN govern the rnainfenance and control of the
improvements as set forth in Section 7.14.3 of the UDO, Said
documents shall provide for ownership of open space and the
dedication of easements to access open space, common area
POSA`s, drainage easements and buffers, for maintenance. The
Owner has agreed that said documents shall not restrict the use of
energy efficient measures, including but not limited to clotheslines by
the lot owners, nor shall said documents require any lot owner to
engage in water intensive lawn maintenance.
i:\I 1-00921Civi1lSub-nittats1201 L-08-26 Orange County Planning for Pia Mtg 9-61Docs\2011-08-26 Response Ltr.doc
c3
64
Condition accepted by the applicant.
14. A waiver from Section 7.13 (B)~6)(e) of the Unified Development
Ordinance to reduce fine minimum 100-foot spacing between building
envelopes and the subdivision boundary to aiiow a variable-width
buffer. of less than 100 fleet around the inside perimeter of the
subdivisiop is permitted.
Condition accepted by the applicant,
15. /~ waiver from Section 6.8_$(D)-to reduce the Type-"AH landscape buffer
from 30 feet to 20 fee# to ccmform to the R-8 front yard setback
standard.
Condition accepted b3'the applicant.
I. Certifications
1. Al! Certificates and Endorsements as set forth Section 7.14.3 of the
UDO signed by the landowner, developer and appropriate staff
persons shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document
describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with
the Final Plat.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
2. Cerkificate of Improvements as set forth in Section 7.14.3 of the
UDO signed by the County Manager shall be on the face of the Final
Plat.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
3. OAWS shall certify on the Finat Plat that the water lines have been
installed in accordance with construction drawings or secured by a
letter of credit, whichever the case.
Condition accepted by the applicant.
4. The NCDOT shall certify that the platted portions of Road "A", Road ~B"
and the extension of Tinnin Road have been entirely constructed to
State standards or that construction plans have been approved with a
fetter of credit or cash bond security posted prior to Planning
Department signatures on Final Plat..
Condition accepted by the applicant.
J;\I I-U0425CivillSubmitfats12011 ~8-25 orange County Planning for PB Mtg 4-51I)ocs12011-026 Respansa LEr.doa
l~
65 .
CONSULTING ENGiN1=EKING ~ ARCHITI=CTURC ®SURVEY{NG
August 29, 201 l
Mr. Gleaan 1~: Bowles, ATCI?, CFM
+Qratage County Ptanning & Inspections Dept
-1.31 West Margaret Lane
I-~illsborougi~, NC 27278
111€e: i~vailua'tion of S'ys#em ~Aepnauds ffox "Tannin Woei:dlsn Developmen#
Dear Gler;n:
dr~hehalf of our client and the applicant, Habitat for Hui>Qanity, Orange County, Inc,
Summit Consulting would~like to address the anticipated impacts of the proposed 8" .
waterline as it relates to the existing pressures and capaci#y of the O~~.nge-Alamance
Water System's tOAWS) existing 12" ixlain, which currently services all of the existing.
demazxds of their system. Follo~,ving discussions az~d the receipt of flow test results from
Mr. Danny Jef#`ries, OAWS Distribution Manager, oq August 22, 20l 1, it was anticipated
that the optimal minimum desired flow x~.te of 1000 GPM at 20 psi may not be
characteristic of the existing system, even if a 12" line were extended up Tannin Road in
lieu-of the proposed $" line. Mr. Jeftx-ies concurred that 750 GPM is typically accepted
and is most IiIcely obtainable-with the proposed $" line. A.ddi4ionally, rased on
discussions with other water resource; engineers, several rural water systems may-only
guarantee 500 Crl'M in residential districts-
I-Iov~tever, in review of the flaw data presented by OAWS, the overall_static and residual
pmssr~es~of the system a~nund the site t7uettrated between 68-II4 psi and SS••b9• psi
respectively, In a preliminary analysis of the data provided, it can 6e anticipated that a
hydrant at the end of the Tinnin Road extensio~l will provide +/- 1000 GFM at a static
pressure of 76 psi and a residual presstre of 40 psi. While a detailed analysis will be
conducted prior to permitting £or com5lzuction drawings and extensions with NCDENR-
I3ivisiou of Water Quality, the preliminary calculations p>•ovide an acceptable margin for
changes and corrections without falling below acceptable Levels.
Summit Consulting looks forwud to discussing these matters with you ox the kespective
Boards furthe~•.
Si>ucerely,
M1VY CONSU
Chad E. Ahbott, PE
Civil Department
3117-Op92\Cfvil~Submitta1512Ut L•08-29 OC - Waterl'eue Suuunary~20[ I•U8-74 Res~orssc Lttdoc
504 Meadawtand Drive Colpcrafe Office 848.732.3883 • Fax 949.7326&7B
Hilishoraugh, NC 27278 www.summEt-engineet:~m GentecttnicaVCMT 948.732.8500 • Fax 949.732.8599
,~
r-:,
ss
~~ ~ ~
~ ~ .
~'
~~~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~~ f ~ ~~ ~ ~ i
[`yam ~ ~~Y
• ~~!~ t ',
~ ^ f
~ ~ i '.
~~~
~~ ~ ..
w
~ ~ _ ~ {
~ ~
~.. ..
..
~~
,~-. ~ ~
`~
~r ~ C~ ~ r
~~ ~ ~ .. .
~ ~,
5EP-~-2006 10: 36P FROM: T0: 6443902 P. 2 ~ 7
The regular monthly meeting of the Board of Directors of Orange Alamance mater System, Inc,
was Held on Juty 2$~', 2011 at 5:00 p.m.
Directors Present: Jimmy Covington, Vice President
Ben .Lloyd, SecretarylTreasurer
George Blackwell
Clinton Bradley .
Leo Allison
Others Present: Faye Metcalf
Nrchael Acluesta
£had Abbott
The minutes of the tact-meeting were approved
Chad Abbott discussed about the water line request for Habitat for Humanity. IVIr. Abbott
represents Summit Consulting, the engineer fer the project. A motion was made by Leo Allison
and seconded by Clinton Bradley to give tentative approval, subject to conditions attached being
approved. Tfie cnotian was passed by alt present.
Michael Aquesta discussed the proposed well site. Faye discussed a problem with the estate with
a minor being an heir, but there may be other property available from Gene Stiketeather.
The grant for green project was discussed, along with replacement of meters. There was a
consensus of the Board to apply for the grant, and then discuss the position of replacing the
meters.
Faye discussed and presented a proposal for a new policy on payments and disconnections,
which is attached. A motion was made by Clinton Bradley and seconded by Leo Atlison to-
approve_ The new policy will be effective September ln, 2411.
Bills totaled $89,5 11.84. The motion was made by Clinton Bradley and seconded by George
Blackwell to approve. Tlae motion was passed by atl present.
The Wresting adjourned at tS:151'.M.
ATTEST
./
President
~~ ~~ a~~
SecretarytTreasurer
70:6443002 P.3
SEP--2S-20~ 10: 37P FROM: s
Section $ -Water Lines
• Tie-in $" water line to five (~ customers an_a private drive at the top of the hill
oII Tinnin Road - refer to Section B -- item #2
• Tie-in 8" water line to existing line at intersection o£ Tinnin Road and Fuller Road
• Tie-in ~" water line to existing line on Schoolhouse Road
• Item #10 -Orange-Alamance will require engineer to be present when flaw tests
are done on hydrants
• F£ Orange Cotmty requires 3" water line to be abandoned oa-Timiin Rvad, Orange
County will be responsible for installing-ten (10} new services to new 8" water
line to existing houses on Tinnin Road
• Fhange-ATaznanee would recommend that ahydrautie model bs done
69
Glenn Bowles ~ r?~1~~t~c.~..~-~=~ ~-
Frorrr: Jeff Scouten
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011424 PM
To: Glenn f3owles
Subject: Tannin Woods
Glenn:
As you antl I discussed earlier today-wizen you called, 1 wanted to take the time to research the issue concerning the
radius of the proposed cul-de-sac for the Tannin Woods project before gai#ing back to you.
For the reoor~3 I want to say that while a-37'xadius (to dace of curb) meets NCDOT requirements for minor subdivisions
streets, it is in fact-the minimum_acceptable radius.
The basis for our wanting- the 46' radius is basea on the knowledge that cars and trucks Jn all likelihood willbs parked
around the cuT-de-sac bubble ar-d having-the ex#ra 9' takes these vehicles into consideration. Since Habitak homes
typically have no garages and in many instances multiple families reside in single units, this sup-pests that ifnot restricted,
resident's vehicles will be parked around the cul-de-sac. In addition-, rrtailboxes that hang out over the curb and kids' roll-
out basfeetbaii-hoops-are other reasons why we like the larger 46' radius.
Given that the type of recycling trucks we wilt be going to next year when we plan to go to single-stream recycling are
about 5' shorter in ler~th than our current trucks, I am willing to allow the 37' radius to s#and providing that par#cing around
the cui-de-sac is restricted_ The site plan would need to reflect the placement of `No Parking' signs:
i -believe that this is a reasonable alternative and 1 am proposing-it in-the spirit of comprom"sse and in an effort to move the
application along.
I trust you will pass it~is an to Mr. Abbott such that the site plan will be revised accordingly to show-the no-parking signs.
Thanks and let me know if you have any questions ar wish to discuss this mafter further.
Jeff Scoufen
Environmental Enforcement Supe-visor
Orange County Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box '17177
Chapel Hill, NC 27596-7777
91-9-968 2788 (Office}
919-932-2900 (Facsimile)
'scouten(C~co. orange. na us
7Q
Glenn Bowles
~rorrr David Sykes
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 1:47 PM
To: Glenn Bowies
Subject: RE: Tinnin Woods
Glenn,
J'he cul-de-sac should work pravided that gars will not be-parking against the curb in the cul-de-sac. Theturnaround will
work for the lots on the-east end. Please contact me if you have other questians about the pro)ect.
..... .. David Sykes ..... -
Prom:: Glenn Bowies
Sent: Monday, August i5~ 20118:31 AM
To: David Sykes; Jeff Scouten
Surbject: FW: Tinnin Woods
For yaur review and approval of the Tinnin Woods Subdivisian. Please pay close attention to the-three lots on the east
side- of Tinnin Road, tha turnaraunds at the north edge of the develapm.ent and the cut-de-sac: -
Respond by email or in writing with your comments ar approval.
Glenn Bowles
Prom; tJ7ad Abbott ~nailta•chad abbottna summit-engEneer coral
Sent, Friday, August 12, 20115:30 PM
To; Michael Harvey; Glenn Bowles
Cc: 'Kelly Sue Woody'
Subject: Tinnin Woods
Attached is the latest Site Plan. O#hers will fallow, but this should be good enough for solid waste~nd fire reviews. I will
finish the conditions and responses next week as wall.
Chad E. Abbott, -PE
Civic Engineering -Branch Ma~rtager
Phone: O(919} 732-3883 M(919} 795-1452
Fax: (919) 732-6676
~Ifi
~orvsuErrnr~
E'i~tGiN€BR1N~f/~R~HItR~iFik! •SUrtVEYIWG
HlHsbo~ou~, NC • Mashv~le, TN • Raanotce, VA
rEngineer"ing ~i'eams into i~atiEy
www.summit-erigineer.com
~ Pl.easo consider the euVironment beEor~ printimg.-
- Attachment 7
Ordinance #: b ~ ~ ~ ~~ (t ~ 0 3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE CDUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Habitat for Humanity has initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified- Development Ordinance
(UDO), to rezone 2 parcels of undeveloped real property, approximately 8.9 acres in area,
located north of the intersections of Tinnin Road (SR 1313) and School House Road (SR
1314), from RURAL RESIDENTIAL {R-1) to HIGH tNTENS(TY RESIDENTIAL CONDaT10NAL
USE (R8-CU) and-
WHEREAS, the -parcels are further identified through the following legal description:
BEGINNING at an existing concrete monument at the southeast corner of
Richmond- Hill HOA, Inc. (see -Deed Book 2269 page 38 and Plat Book ~8 page
48 Orange County Registry} at the northeast corner Board of Education Orange
County (see-Deed Book 136 page 365 and Plat Book 4 page 163 Orange County
Registry) and being also the point of beginning for Tract Numbers 1 and 2 as
referenced in Deed' Book 780 page 220 Orange County Registry (Gez~rge Tate,-Jr.
Heirs), and having Localized NC Grid Coordinates N. 849,947.60, E. 1,944,305.95
(NAD 83/Q7); thence along and- with the east line of Richmond Hill HOA, Inc.
N.05°24'19"E. 256.23-feet to an existing iron stake at the southwest corner of Ollie
M. McDade and Bonnie W. McDade (see Deed Book 678 page 179, Deed Book
1320 page 540 and Plat Book 54 page 10 Orange County Registry); thence along
and with the south line (subject to possible gap-see Plat Book 86 page 38 Orange
County Registry) of Ollie M. McDade and Bonnie W. McDade N.89°22'05"E.
650.06 feet to an iron stake set in the west line of Robert A. Mebane and Elvira M.
Mebane (see Deed BQOk 892 page 560 and .Plat Book 23 page 98 Orange County
Registry); thence along and with the west line of Robert A. Mebane and Elvira M.
Mebane S.02°38'13"E. 37.00 -feet to an existing iron stake designated as "Control
Corner "A"" (NC Grid Coordinates N. 850,1-72.90 feet, E. 1,944,981.82 feet-(NAD
83/07)), and being N.71°18'04"W. 7239.82 feet (grid distance, Combined Grid
Factor 0.99995097) from NCGS Geodetic Monument "P-152" ( NC Grid
Coordinates N. 847,851.87 feet, E. 1,951,839.50 feet (NAD 83/07)); thence along
and with the south lines (subject to possible gap or overlap (see Plat Book 86
page 38 Orange County Registry) of Robert A. Mebane and Elvira M. Mebane
and Hewearl Holman .(see Deed Book 258 page 238 and Plat Book 23 page 98
Or-ange County Registry) N.87°18'46"E. 397.45 feet to an existing iron stake at
the northeast corner of Wilbert J. 1VIcAdoo, Jr.and Maggie L. Loftin (see Deed
Book 4755 page 579 Orange County Registry); thence along and with the west
line of Wilbert J-. McAdoo, Jr. and Maggie L. Loftin S_05°01'50"E. 232.93 feet to an
existing iron stake in the north line of Daniel T. McAdoo Heirs (see Deed Book
169 page 339 Orange County Registry); thence along and with the north lines of
Daniel T. McAdoo Heirs and Annie M. Whiffed (see Deed Book 137 page 86 and
Deed Book 643 page 89 Durham County Registry) and crossing into the right of
way of Tinnin Road (50 foot wide public right of way SR 1313), S.88°13'07"W.
297.67 feet to a iron stake set within the right of way (see right of way agreement
Deed Book 916 page 210 Orange County Registry) of Tinnin Road and School
71
72
House Road (50 foot wide public right of way SR 1314); thence continuing within
the right of way of School House Road and along and with the north line of Annie
M. Whiffed N.89°46'59"W. 264.46 feet to a iron stake set at the northwest corner
of Annie M. Whiffed; thence along and with the west line of Annie 1VI. Whiffed and
crossing out of the right of way of School House Road, S.03°48'31"V1/. 204.48 feet
to an iron stake set at the northeast corner of Annie Gertrude M. McDade (see
Deed Book 147 page 275 and Deed Book 141 page-- 351 Orange County
Registry); thence along and with the north lines of Annie Gertrude M. McDade,
and Ollie M. McDade and Bonnie W. McDade (see Deed Book 70 page 311
Orange County Registry) and- crossing_ into the right of way of School House
Road, N.89°28'06"W. 1.99.11 feet to an iron stake set within the right of way of
School House Road ;thence continuing along and with the north line of Ollie- M.
McDade and Bonnie W. McDade and crossing out of the right of way of School
House Road, N.89°28'06"W. 160.70- feet fo an iron stake set ~t the northwest
corner of Ollie M. McDade -and- Bonnie W. McDade;_ thence along and with the
west line of-Ollie M. McDade anal Bonnie W. McDade 5.03°43'46"W. 128.32 feet
to an existing iron stake in the north line of Charles Fuller (see Deed Book 152
page 1'f4 and--Plat Book 58 page 8 Orange County Registry); thence along and
with the north line of Charles Fuller N.89°25'17"W. 170.72 feet to an existing
concrete monument in the east line of Board of Education Orange County (see
Deed Book 136 page 3fi5 and -Plat Book 4 page 163 Orange County Registry);
thence along anct with the east tine of Board of Education Orange County
N.03°44'10"E. 324.05 feet to an existing concrete monument at -the- southeast
corner of Richmond Hill HOA, Inc. (see Deed Book 226-9 page 38 and Plat Book
88 page 48 Orange County Registry), the place and POINT OF BEGINNING and
being all of Tract Numbers 1 and 2 as referenced in Deed Book 780 page 220
Orange County Registry (George Tate, Jr. Heirs), and containing 8.984 acres
designated as "Recombined Tr-act "A"" ,subject to right of way (see right of way
agreement Deed- Book -916 page 210 Orange County Registry) of Tinnin Road
(SR 1313) and School _House Road (SR 1314) and other matters as shown on
preliminary. plat of survey by William H. McCarthy, Jr., PLS, entitled "Final
Recombination Plat for Habitat for Humanityu dated 05/05/2011., Summit
Consulting Project 11-0092.030 and subject to review and approval by Orange
County Planning and subsequent recording in the office of the Orange County
Register of Deeds, to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular
description of same and containing more or less 5.984 acres.
and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
have been deemed complete, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.9.1 (E) of the UDO and to Section 153A-
341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the applicant has submitted
sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the rezoning wall carry out the intent
and purpose of the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan and the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following:
a. The Land Use Element Map.
b_ Chapter 4 -Housing Element, including:
73
1. Housing Overreaching Goal: Opportunity for all citizens of Orange
County to rent or purchase safe,. .decent, accessible, and affordable
housing.
2. Housing Goal 1: A wide range of types and densities of quality housing
affordable to all in all parts of the County.
3. Objective H-1.1: Assist in the rehabilitation and development of affordable
housing and promotion of community development programs in the
County using multiple strategies including implementation of the
Countywide Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plan.
4. Objective H-9.6: Promote innovative approaches to housing that ate
responsive to the needs of Orange County, maintain quality and human
scale, increase energy efficiency, and reduce- construction and
maintenance costs.
c. Chapter 5 -Land Use Element, including.
~1. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, Ic~cation;
pattern and designation- of future land uses, with availability of County
services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's
tsopulation and economy consistent witty other Comprehensive Plan
element goals and objectives.
2. Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable
growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities
and a high quality of life.
3". Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural
resources, and community character.
4. Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity /high density
residential and non-residential development with existing or planned
locations of public transportation, commercial and community services,
and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed
Internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding- areas with
protected natural and -cultural resources. This could be achieved by
increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts
where adequate public services are available.
5. Objective LU-3.1: Discourage urban sprawl, encourage a separation of
urban and rural land uses, and direct new development into areas where
necessary community facilities and services exist through periodic
updates to the Land Use Plan.
6. Objective LU-4.4: Encourage the provision of a range of affordable and
suitable low- and moderate income housing by means of development
incentives in order to provide. a balanced housing stock for the residents of
Orange County.
d. Chapter 8 Services and Facilities Element, including:
1. Services and Community Facilities Overarching Goal: Growth
consistent with the provision of adequate and sustainable County services
and facilities while managing the impacts upon the environmental
infrastructure and effectively protecting the County's natural and cultural
resources.
2. Services and Community Facilities Goal 1: Efficient provisions of public
water and sewer service systems which are consistent with the Land Use
Plan and which abide by the current Water and Sewer Management
74
Planning Boundary Agreement, the existing Orange County-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan, and future
agreements to be negotiated among the County and public and private
service providers.
3. Services and Com-rrunity Facilities Goal 5: Efficient and effective
drainage, stormwater; floodplain management, and erosion controt
systems
4. Objective EC-1: Continue to use Best Management Practices (BMP's) for
stormwater control, as outlined within the- Orange County Zoning
Ordinance, stormwater Ordinance, and Sedimentation Control Ordinance,
to minimize potential adverse impacts on the water quality.
5. Services and Community Facilities Goa17: Efficient and effective public
safety including, police, fire, telecommunications, emergency sen<ices,
and animal services.
6. Objective PS-T-1: Ensure -the provision of adequate public safety
protection standards for residential, commercial, and industrial
development.
and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment fo be reasonably
necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the-Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County
Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the aforementioned parcels to HIGH INTENSITY
RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL USE (R8-CU) consistent with the applicant's request.
BE IT FU-RTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon _its adoption.
Upon motion of -Commissioner
seconded by
Commissioner the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2011.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the .proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on
2011 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
2011.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
Ordinance #: ~ ~ ~' a0
Attachment 8 ~ 5
AN ORDINANCE DENYING AN AMENDMENT REQUEST TO
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Habitat for Humanity has initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Seetion 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
{UDO), to rezone 2 parcels of undeveloped real property, approximately 8:9 acres in area,
located north of the intersections of Tinnin Road (SR 1313) and School House Road (SR
1314), from RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-1) to HIGH INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL
USE (R8-CU) and
WHEREAS, the parcels are further identified through the following legal description:
BEGINNING at an existing concrete monument at the southeast comer of
Richmond Hill HOA, Inc. (see Deed Book 2269 page 38 and Pla# Book 88 page
48 Orange County Registry) at the northeast. corner Board of Education Orange
County (see Deed- Book 136 page 365 and Plat Book 4 page 163 Orange County
Registry) and being also-the point -of beginning for Tract Numbers 1 and 2 as
referenced an Deed Book 780 page 220 Orange County Registry (George Tate, Jr.
Heirs), and having Localized NC Grid Coordinates N. 848,947.0, E. 1,944,305.95
(NAD 83/07); thence along and with the east Gne of Richmond Hill HOA, Inc.
N.05°24'19"E. 256.23 feet to an existing iron stake at the southwest corner of Ollie
M. McDade and Bonnie W. McDade (see Deed Book 678 page 179, Deed Book
1320 page 540 and Plat Book 54 page 10 Orange County. Registry); thence along
and with the south line (subject to possible gap-see Plat Book 86 page 38 C.~range
County Registry) of Ollie M. McDade and $onnie W. McDade N.89°22'05"E.
650.06 feet to an iron stake set in the west line-o# Robert A. Mebane and Elvira M.
Mebane (see Deed Book 892 page 560 and Plat Book 23 page 98 Orange County
Registry); thence along and with the west line of Robert A. Mebane and Elvira M.
Mebane S.02°38'13"E. 37.00 feet to an existing iron stake designated as "Control
Corner "A"" (NG-Grid Coordinate~N. 850,172.90 feet, E. 1,944,9-81.82 feet (NAD
83/07)), and being N.71°18'04"W. 7239.82 feet (grid distance, Combined Grid
Factor 0.99995097) from NCGS Geodetic Monument "P-152" ( NC Grid
Coordinates N. 847,851.87 feet, E. 1,951,839.50 feet (NAD 83/07)); thence along
and with the south lines (subject to possible gap or overlap (see Plat- Book 86
page 38 Orange County Registry) of Robert A. Mebane and Elvira M. Mebane
and Hewearl Holman (see Deed Book 258 page 238 and Plat Book 23 page 98
Orange County Registry) N.87°18'46"E. 397.45 feet to an existing iron stake at
the northeast corner of Wilbert J. McAdoo, Jr.and Maggie L. Loftin (see Deed
Book 4755 page 579 Orange County Registry); thence along and with the west
line of Wilbert J. McAdoo, Jr. and Maggie L. Loftin S.05°01'50"E. 232.93 feet to an
existing iron stake in the north line of Daniel T. McAdoo Heirs (see Deed Book
169 page 339 Orange County Registry); thence along and with the north lines of
Daniel T. McAdoo Heirs and Annie M. Whiffed (see D-eed Book 137 page 86 and
Deed Book 643 page 89 Durham County Registry) and crossing into the right of
way of Tinnin Road (50 foot wide public righf of way SR 1313), S.88°13'07"W.
297.67 feet to a iron stake set within the right of way (see right of way agreement
Deed Book 916 page 210 Orange County Registry) of Tinnin Road and School
~s
House Road (50 foot wide .public right of way SR 1314); thence continuing within
the right of way of School House Road and along and with the north line of Annie
M. Whiffed N.89°46'5"1N. 264.46 feet to a iron stake set at the northwest corner
of Annie M. Whiffed; thence along and with the west line of Annie M. Whitten and
crossing out of the right of way of School House Road, S.03°48'31 "W. 204.48 feet
to an iron stake set at the northeast corner of Annie Gertrude M. McDade (see
Deed Book 147 page 275 and -Deed Book 141 page 351 Orange County
Registry); thence along -and with the north lines of Annie Gertrude- M. McDade,
and Ollie M. McDade and Bonnie W. McDade (see Deed Book. 70 page 311
Orange County Registry) and crossing into the right of way of School House
Road, N.89°28'06"W. 199.11 feet to an iron stake set within the righi` of way of
School House Road ;thence continuing along and with the north line of Ollie M.
McDade and Bonnie W. McDade and crossing out of the right of way of School
House Road, N.89°2.8'06"W. 160.70 feet to an iron stake set at the northwest
corner of Oilie M. McDade and Bonnie W. McDade; thence along and with the
west line of Ollie M. McDade and Bonnie W-. McDade S.03°43'46"W. 128.32 feet
to an existing iron stake in the north line of Charles Fuller (see Deed Book 152
page 114 and Plat Book 58 page 8 Orange County Registry); thence along and
with the north line of Charles Fuller N:89°25'17"W. 1-70.72 feet to an existing
concrete monument in the -east line of Board of Education Orange County (see
Deed Book 136 page 365 and Plat Book 4 page 163 Orange County Registry);
thence along and with the- east line of Board of Education. Orange County
N.03°44'10"E. 324.05 feet to an existirg concrete monument at the southeast
corner of Richmond Hill HOA, Inc. (see Deed Book 2269 page 38-and Plat Book
88 page 48 Orange County Registry), the place and POINT OF BEGINNING and
being all of Tract Numbers 1 and 2 as re#erenced in Deed Book 780 page 220
Orange County Registry (George Tate, Jr. Heirs), and containing 8.984 acres
designated as "Recombined Tract "A"" ,subject to right of way (see right of way
-agreement -Deed Book 916 page 210 Orange County Registry) of Tinnin Road
(SR 1313) and School House Road (SR 1314) and other matters as shown on
preliminary plat of _survey by William H. McCarthy, Jr., PLS, entitled "Final
Recombination Plat for Habitat for Humanity" dated- 05/05/2011, Summit
Consulting Project 1.1-0092.030 and subject to review and approval by Orange
County Planning and subsequent recording in the office of the Orange County
Register of Deeds, to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular
description of same and contairng more or less 8.984 acres.
and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified -Development Ordinance (UDO)
have not been adhered to, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.9.1 (E) of the UDO and- to Section 153A-
341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the applicant has submitted
insufficient documentation within the record denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent
and purpose of the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan and the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment will not promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare.
~~
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County hereby denies the
applicants request to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone the aforementioned
parcels to HIGH INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL USE (R8-CU).
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner seconded ~ by
Commissioner the foregoing- ordi-Hance was adopted this
day of , 2011.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on
2011 as relates in any way'to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minu#es of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this -day of ,
2011.
SEAL
Clerk to-the Board of Commissioners
78
i4ttachment 9
CASE NUMBER: SU-A-2-11
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF ORANGE COUNTY
REQUESTING A CONDITONAL -USE (CUB REZONING/CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL
FORA 28 LOT MAJOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVSION
AT THE INTERSECTION OF TINNIN AND SCHOOL HOUSE ROADS
(Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN)_9845=40-5022 and 9844-49-3706)-
As required under Section 2.9.1 (B) (2) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UQO)-,
Conditional Use Permits require the issuance of a Class A Special Use -Permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2.7 of the UDO. Such permits shall comply-with general and specific standards as
set forth in Section 5.3.2 arrd 5.15.6- of the 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 anct 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 a Conditional Use (CU) application as detailed in
Section 2.9.1 of the UDO,
(2) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO,
(3) Standards governing the location. of Conditional Districts as detailed- within Section 3.8.4
of the UDO,
(4) Specific regulations-governing the development of Major Subdivisions as set forth in
Section(s) 5.15.6 and 7.14.6 of the UDO,
(5) Section 5.3.2 (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
(6) The general-findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department and Planning Board regarding
the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the
BOCC in its deliberations.
1
79
SECTIOPT 2.9.1 ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PL-ANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FIN-DINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 2.9.1 (A)
X Yes No The proposed use(s) for Yes _ No
Section 2.9-.1 (A) (1) the project are consistent
with the existing, and -
Any use permitted under proposed general use
the CUD process shall zoning district andthe -
conform to all applicable various development
development regulations standards detailed
for the corresponding herein.
general~as~zo~ing district
as well as any specific Specifically the applicant
development standards is-proposing the
outlined within this development of a single-
Ordinance. family residential major
subdivision in an area
suitable for such
development.
X Yes No Conditions have been Yes No
Section 2.9.1 (A) (2) recommended by staff,
the Planning Board, the
The BOCC, in reviewing a BOCC, and other entities
CUD application, may designed to address the
impose such reasonable public health,, safety, and
conditions upon approval general welfare
of a CUD request as will
afford protection of the The applicant has
public health, safety, and submitted documentation
general welfare, ensure agreeing to the
that substantial justice is
conditions _
done, and ensure
equitable treatment.
X Yes No The applicant has _Yes No
Section 2.9.1 (A) (3) submitted documentation
agreeing to the
Only those conditions conditions
mutually agreed to by the
applicant and the BOCC
may be imposed on a
CUD a lication.
80
SFCTInN 9-4.1 f_nNTWIIFn /°YP_S° indicates r_omnliance~ "No"-indicates non-comnFia-ncel
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
X Yes No A completed Conditional Yes No
Section 2.9.1 (B) Use application was
submitted, including a
Applications to establish a request for a:
CUD shall be submitted to
the Planning Director and- 1. Zoning Atlas
shall be processed in Amendment and
accordance with the a
procedures for 2. Class A.-Special _
Use- Permit,
1_. Zoning Atlas
Amendment on iiAarch 23, 2011
2. Class A Special Use
Permit with site plan,.
and
3. The provisions- of this
Section
Section 2.9.1 (C) (1)
In addition to the CUD
application form, an
applicant shall also submit
the following information:
a. A Site Development ~C Yes No A site plan, prepared by _Yes No
Plan prepared in Summit Engineering was
accordance with. the submitted as part of the
provisions of Section application package-
2.5.
i. A detailed X Yes No The site plan and project _Yes No
description of the narrative provide the
proposed use of required description
property including including the operational
an outline of the characteristics of the
proposed proposed development
operational
characteristics of
the proposed
development
81
~~~•r~nw~ ~ o ~ ~ru.~T~~n iGn ~°vnc° ~.,.~~.-a*oc r-mm~lianr_p• "Nn" indir_atps nnn-comnliance~
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
ii. A detailed traffic X Not Applicable The application was _ Not Applicable
survey, regardless _ submitted prior to the
of the estimated adoption of the-UDO.
number of trips per
day, prepared in As a_resu.lt a formal
accordance with ail traffic Study would not
applicable NCD~JT have been required for
requirements or- this- project
standards as well
as Section 6.1 ~,
iii. The appropriate X Yes No A biological inventory Yes No
Environmental completed by the Catena
Document Group was submitted for
prepared in the project.
accordance with
Section 6.16,a and- The a_ppiicant also
provided an
environmental
assessment completed
by the Catena~Group and
SummitEngineering
denoting the presence of
.wetland areas and
protected streams on the
property.
iv. A landscape plan X Yes - No The-site plan package Yes No
showing the contains the required
location of on-site landscape plan
significant trees,
proposed
screening, buffers,
and landscaping -
and any proposed
treatment of any
existing natural
features.
b. A summary of utility X Yes No The narrative contains Yes No
services. the required information.
The applicant provided a
copy of correspondence
with Orange Alamance
Water Systems (OAWS)
concerning provision of
public water service
82
SECTION 2.9.1 CONTINU ED "Yes" indicates co m laance• "No" indicates non-co m I-lance
PLANNING
- BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
c. A schedule of X Yes No The site plan and Yes - No
construction of all submitted narrative
elements of the provide a schedule for
proposal the development ofthe
project
d- Any other X Not Applicable No additional information Not Applicable
information identified was deemed necessary
during the pre- during pre-application
application conferences for submittal
conference deemed above an~f beyond
essential to existing requirements
demonstrate the
project's compliance
with these
re ulations
X Yes No The required number of _Yes - hlo
Section 2.9.1 (c) (2) copies were submitted
26 copies of the
application package
required in (1) above shall-
be submitted by the
a licant
Section 2.9.1 (D)
Neighborhood Information
Meeting
1. Hold a minimum of one X Yes No The applicant held a _Yes No
neighborhood information neighborhood meeting
meetings prior to the on April 7, 2011 at 7:00
public hearing pm in the Efland Cheeks
Elementary School
media room.
The applicant and the
Planning Department
held a second
neighborhood
information meeting on
May 9, 2011 at noon in
the. Ground Floor
Planning Meeting Room
at 1-31 West Margaret
Lane in Hillsborough.
83
l+cl~TlAwl ~f O A l~AAITIAII IZrI /°Vs~° inrlir~+nc f~mm~li9Af`P' °NA° 111f~ICa+P_C tlAll-CAt'Y1n~lanCE~
v a..v ~ .v.. -- - --- ----
PLANNING - '-- __-- -
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Fie uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
1. Applicant to supply X Yes No Applicant supplied the Yes No
mailing labels for required- information-
notification letters based on data obtained
for all pro-per#y from Orange County
owners within 500 Land Records.
feet
i
2. The notices shall X Yes No Notices were mailed by Yee No
be mailed a staff as required.
minimum of 14 _
days prior to the
date of the
proposed
Neighborhood _
Information
Meeting.
3. Neighborhood X Yes No Both meetings o#fered a _Yes No
information minimum of 14 days prior
meeting shall be to the public hearing held
held at a minimum on May 23, 2011.
of 14 days prior to
the public hearing
84
SECTION 3.8.4 Conditional Districts -Where Permitted ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No"
indicates non-compliance)
Ordinance
Re uirements PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOCC
FINDINGS
X Yes fro The properties-are Yes No
3.8.4 (a) located within the 10-
Year Transition Area as
Conditional Districts are identified within the
permitted in any Land Use Comprehensive Plan.
classification and shall be
located consistent with the Within the narrative the
existing- general applicant has provided
development- pattern and _ several policy statements
the objectives of the and objectives of the
adopted Comprehensive adopted Comprehensive
Plan and any adopted Plan they believe
small area plan(s) demonstrates the
projects compliance with
the- Comprehensive Plan
as providing information
on how the project is
consistent with existing,
surrounding
development.
85
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AP-PLICATION COMPONENTS ("Yes"
indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNfNG
-BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO-SUP1'ORT BOCC
Ike uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 2.2 X Yes No A complete application Yes No
on appropriate forms has
The application for a been submitted.
Class A Special Use
Permit shaA be on forms
provided by the Planning -
Department.
2.2.4 (D) X Yes No An application_fee was- Yes No
submitted in accordance
Applications must be with the adopted Fee
accompanied by the fee Schedule
amount that has been-
established by Board of
County Commission-ers.
Application fees are
nonrefundable.
2.7.3 (B) (1) X Yes No The applicant has Yes No
provided a narrative
A full and accurate detailing the nature of
description of the - ±he proposed project
proposed use, including
its location, appearance,
and operational
characteristics.
2.7.3 (B) (2) X Yes No The application contains _Yes No
the name/address of the
The names and owner as required.
addresses of the owners
of the property
86
SECTION 2 2 AND 2 7 3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates
..~- „~
IIVI1-{iV111 IIw11vY
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
di RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
nance
Or
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FIND INGS
2.7.3 (B) (3) X Yes No The applicant has Yes No
provided various
Relevant information documents, including a
needed to show site plan,-containing the
compliance with the necessary information
general and specific establishing compliance
standards- governing the with_the provisions of the
Special Use- Ordinance.
2.7.3 (B) (4) X Yes No Twenty-six (26) copies of Yes No
the site plan, prepared -
Twenty-six (26) copies of by Summit Engineering
the site plan prepared by have been submitted.
a registered N.C. land
surveyor, architect, or _
engineer. _
~I
2.7.3 (B) (5} X Yes _ No The submitted site plan _Yes _ No
contains the necessary
If the application involves information denoting the
a Preliminary Subdivision proposed preliminary
Plat, 26 copies of the Plat subdivision plat
prepared in accordance
with Section 7.14 shall be
provided.
2.7.3 (B) .(6) X Yes No The application contains _Yes No
the required list-of
A list of all parcels located adjacent property owners
within 500 feet of the
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 applicant provided _Yes No
sample photographs
Elevations of all structures during the public hearing
proposed to be used. in outlining the type of
the development. single-family residence
that would be developed.
87
SECTION 2 2 AND 2 7 3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates
_1_____.
IIVI PlrVn1 ucana.~
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Ordinance
Re urrements FINDINGS - FINDINGS FINDI NGS
2.7.3 (g) (g) X Yes _ No The application package _ Yes _ No
26 copies of an contains the required
.Environmental information completed by
Assessment or Summit and The Catena
Environmental Impact Group.
Statement as -req-aired by
Section 6.16 of the UDO Staff has determined that
a formal- Environmental
Impact Statement is not
required for the project
and fias issued a Finding
of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) for the pr-oject
2.7.3 (B) (g) X Yes No The site plan contains a Yes No
Method of disposal of note indicating. that any
trees, limbs, stumps and- - .construction ar-land _
construction debris clearing debris
associated with the generated on-site will be
permitted activity, which disposed of in
shall be by some method accordance with the
other than open burning. County's Solid Waste
Management Ordinance
2.7.3 (B) (10) X Yes No The narrative provides a Yes No
Statement from the subdivision construction
applicant indicating the phasing schedule. Per
anticipated development the Orange County
schedule for the build-out School district's request,
of the project. the development
schedule has been
developed to
accommodate school
seating availability.
2.7.3 (B) (11) X Not Applicable The applicant is-not _ Not Applicable
Statement from the requesting vesting of the
applicant in justification of project. The applicant,
any request for vesting for however, has provided a
a period of more than two detailed timeline for the
years (five years development of
maximum) necessary infrastructure,
- utility extensions, and the
residences.
10
88
SECTION 2 7 5 CLASS A SPECIAL NOTIFf~ATION REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance;
"No" indicates non-compliance)
PLA~IVNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Ordinance Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDI-NGS
Section 2.7.5 (a) X Yes No Public Notice was sent Yes No
certified mail on May 6,
The _Planning Director shall - 201-1 for a-May 23, 2011
give public notice of the Public Hearing.
date, time and place of the
public hearing
2.7.5 (b) X Yes No The legal ad was Yes No
published in the News of
Such notice shall be Orange and the Chapel
published in a newspaper o~ Hill Herald on May 11,
general circulation in .2011 and again on May
Orange County once a 18, 2011.
week for two successive
weeks, with the firs# notice
to be published not less
than ten days not more than
we days prior to the date of
the hearing.
2.7.5 (c) X Yes No The properties subject to _Yes No
the application were
The Planning Director shall posted with a sign
post on the affected advertising the date, time,
property a notice of the and place of the public
public hearing at lest ten hearing on May 12, 2011
days prior to the date of said as required
hearing.
2.7.5 (d) X Yes No Public Notice was sent _Yes No
certified mail on May 6,
Written notice shall be sent 2011
by certified mail to all
adjacent property owners
not less than 15 days before
the hearing date. Adjacent
property owners are those
whose property lies within
five hundred feet of the
affected property and whose
manes and addresses are
currently listed in the
Orange County tax records.
11
89
SECTION 7 14 2 (B) -MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS Preliminary Plat
("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED _
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Ordinance
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (z) (B) (1)
In General
X Yes No The plan was created-by _Yes No
a. The Preliminary Plat Summit Engineering by
shall be prepared by a Tracy Parrott and
Nflrth Carolina registered W-illiam H. McCarthy,
land- surveyor, professional land
professional engineer or surveyors
registered architect or
landsca a architect.
X Yes No The submitted plat was _Yes No
b. The Preliminary fllat drawn at a scale of 1' _
shall be drawn in black ink 1 QO".
or pencil at a scale of not
less than 200 feet to the
inch nor more than 20 feet
to the inch. The scale
chose shall be large
enough to show all
required detail clearly and
legibly.
X Yes No The site plan contai-ns _Yes No
c. Approximate -the required information
dimensions and locations
are acceptable provided
that on the Final Plat all
information shall be based
on an actual field survey
X Yes No Five sheets are provided, _Yes No
d. The sheets shall be labeled C-1, C=2, C-3, C-
numbered in sequence if 4 and C-5.
more than one sheet is
used
12
90
.. .r.. r.~u-r~~n ~cr~ nw_„•• :...~1:....~..~ ......~r~li~nrn• °Nln° inrll~a+P_C 11nn-Cnl'Y1DI19nCB~
JCIr 1 IVIY 1. 14.L ~ vv~~ ~ uw w . `~ ....+........... .. -- -- -
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
n RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
ce
Ordina
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (2) (B) (2)
Title Block: The title block
shall contain the following
information: ,
X Yes No The- title block lists the Yes No
a. ThE proposed name of name of the project as
the subdivision, preceded Tinnin Woods as
by the words "Preliminary required by the 1.~D0.
Plan of ", which
shall not duplicate not
closely approximate,
phonetically or in spelling,
the name of any other
subdivision in Orange
County -
X_ Yes No The site plan and title- Yes No
b. Tfte scale, approximate block contain the
north arrow, date of required information.
preparation and any other
pertinent legend data:
X Yes No The site plan and title _Yes- No
c. County and township block contain_the
location; Parent Parcel required information.
Identification
X Yes _No The site plan and ti#le _Yes No
d. The name and address block contain the
of the owner(s) of the land required information.
to be subdivided, the
name and address of the
subdivider if other than
the owner, and the name,
address, registration
number and seal of the
registered land surveyor,
professional engineer or
registered architect or
landscape architect
responsible for
preparation of the plat.
13
91
~.....~~ n.v__..:.~.~:,,,.a,.,. ....w..:ii~nrn- °Nln° in~lif_AtP_C nnn-COmnllancel
5tG I IVIV /.14.L 13 t,.Viv i uvv w ~ ca n~uwc.w.~ vv. .. ..,........ ..- -------'-- - -- -- -
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Ordinance
R uirements FIND INGS FINDINGS FIND INGS
Section 7.14 (~) (B) (3)
Vicinity Map
X Yes No The site plan contains Yes No
a. A vicinity map showing ft~e required information:
the general location of the
subdivision in relation to
the surrounding area shall
be placed- on the plat
X Yes No The vicinity map is of _Yes -N~
b. The vicinity map shall sufficient--size as
be shown at asufficient required by the UDO.
size to show the
relationship of the trait to
the existing street or
highway system and
readily recognized Orange
County landmarks
X Yes_ No The site plan contains _Yes No
c. Street and roads shall the required information
be identified by State road - for the surrounding
number and name- streets. The streets
proposed for
development as part of _
the project have yet to be
named
14
92
r.r-i+~~r\u ~ • • n /D\ /+ALITIh111C1'1 /~\Vww\~ i.. rliw~4ec~ w~w\nli9nr0• °NAII InrllcatP_S nnn-r_emnliancel
JGV I IV1~ / . 1'!.L v vV~~ ~ u~v ....v • vv ...............~ ~~. .. __~____ _ _ _ ____ _ _ ___ _
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
O
di RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
nance
r
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (2) (B) (4)
Existing Site Data:
Information on ?xisting
conditions shall be shown as - .
noted below
a. Bounds. lines
X Yes No The site plan contains the Yes No
i. The approximate or required information.
survey location,
including distances
-and bearings for
boundary lines
X Yes No The site plan contains the Yes - No
ii. The location, width and required information. _
purpose of all recorded
easements
X Yes No The site plan contains the _Yes No
iii. The approximate required information.
location of boundary
lines, which abut the
tract shall be shown as
dashed lines
X Not Applicable The property_ is within the . _ Not Applicable
iv. The approximate heart of the Cheeks
location of corporate Township -and is not near
limit lines, township township boundary lines,
boundaries, and corporate limits of a town,
county lines - or the County line
X Yes No The site plan contains the _Yes No
v. The names of owners required information.
of adjacent un-
subdivided land
X Yes _No The site plan contains the _Yes No
vi. For adjacent required information.
subdivided land, the
subdivision plat name,
plat book and page
number, and perimeter
lot numbers abutting
the tract to be
subdivided
15
93
SECTfON 7.14.2 {B- CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates non-comnliancel
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uir_ements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (2) (B) (4)
b. Streets and Transportation
Systems
i. The location, name X Yes No The site plan contains a the Yes No
and right of way width location of existing and
of streets, roads and proposed streets
railroads abutting the
tract.
X Yes No The site plan-contains the Yes No
ii. Surface material and required information
width. of travel ways
X Yes No The site plan contains the Yes No
iii. The location of any required information
existing curbs, gutters
and culverts. These
features shall also be
shown in cross
section.
X Yes No The site plan contains the Yes No
iv. The location and required information
width of alleys,
sidewalks, bike lanes,
transit systems, and
bus stops.
Section 7.14(2) (B) (4)
c. Utility Systems
i. The location and size X Yes No The site plan contains the Yes No
of all above ground required information
installations of major
electric, CATV and
telephone transmission
lines, underground gas
transmission mains,
underground water
mains and sanitary _
sewer lines, and
important storm sewer
systems on or abutting
the tract shall be
shown.
16
94
~. u..re~ rnV__.. .. J: ~.. a.... ..li~nre• n~A+. Inrl i/`7~'PC nnn_r_nm Dlia ncel
.7Cli I IVIV /.-1 aF.L O t-VI. 11 1\V L.v . v.7 n.v.vu w.r ..... .. .. ~...-- --- ---------- - -
PLANNING
BOp~RD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (2) (B) (4)
d. Contour information
i. -existing contours X Yes No The site plan contains Yes No
on the tract shall be the required information
shown at verb-cal
intervals of not more
than- ten feet.
ii. Contours shall be X Yes No The site plan contains _Yes No
referenced to mean the required information
sea level datum as
obtained from the
latest applicable
USES topographic
map or other geodetic
benchmark.
iii. Where a field X Yes No The site plan contains _Yes No
topographic survey of the required information
the tract has been
performed, contours
shall be referenced to
a permanent
identifiable
benchmark.
17
95
~.~uru~~ ~rr~ inv~..~~ :...~I:....f..c...~rv~nli~nro• ~~NA° Iniilr_a+P_C IIAn-COmDllarlcel
JCIi I IVIV /. 14.G ~ ~.-V~r ~ ~ ~rv t-v ~ va ~~~M~ViI~VV VV. .. ..-..--- --- --------- -
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance . RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT -B000
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (2) (B) (4)
e. Other _Condtions
i. Streams and rivers, X Yes No The site plan contains Yes No
ponds, or lakes, the required information
swamps or
marshes, and
natural areas
identified in "An
Inventory of Sites of
Cultural, Historic,
Recreational;
Biological and
Geological
Signi#icance in the
Unincorporated
Portion of Orange
County" or
"Inventory of the
Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitats of
Orange County,
North Carolina.
ii. Manmade features X Yes No The site plan contains _Yes No
including houses, the required information
barns, and known or
identified cemeteries
shall be shown in
their approximate
location.
iii. The zoning of the X Yes No The -site plan contains _Yes No
subject tract and the required information
adjacent properties
shall be noted.
18
96
~r-i+T~~w~ •f ~ w ~f /~\ !`AWTIAl11Cll /~~Vn~° in.~lir~+nc rmm~~laflCP_' °NA" ind.icafes non-comnliancel
~~.. ~ ~..,~... ~-,~.~ ~.. .....,~... ..., ~.., ...., ...r...__.._ --- -- ------- - -- - -
PLANNING
-BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (2) (B) (5)
Subdivision Layout Data:
Information on the
proposed development
shall be shown as noted
below:
(a) Site calculations shall X Yes No -The site plan contains Yes No
be_ shown as follows: the required information
(i) Acreage ~n tract to
be subdivided;
(ii) Lineal feet of road
centerlines and
approximate acreage -
within new street
rights of ways;
(iii) Acreage in
recreational areas and
other non-residential
uses; and
(iv) Total number of
lots or parcels
created.
(b) Lot Arrangement X Yes _ No The site plan contains _Yes No
the required information
(i) Proposed lot lines,
_ lot and block numbers
and the approximate
dimensions and area
of each proposed lot
shall be shown on the
plat.
(ii) Lot areas exclusive
of road right of way
shall be shown.
(iii) Blocks shall be
consecutively
numbered or lettered
in alphabetical order
and all lots in each
block shall be
consecutively
numbered.
(iv) Required building
setback lines shall be
shown for each lot or
noted on the lat.
19
97
!'~r/~TIA\1 7 A A n /~\ /+r1A1TI1.111Cf1 /~~Ve~c~° :nil:r~4nc rmm~lia nCP' "Nn" inrlir_atPS Hen-cemnliancel
J LIi 11V1\ / . 1'*.L Y Vv1\ I
Ordinance
Re uirements I~~V ~v • vv ...v.........
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS ~~• -- -------- - -- ------ - -
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
OCC
FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (2) (B) (5) -
conti-Hued
(c) Dedications, X Yes No The site plan contains Yes No
Reservations, .and the required information
Easements
(i) Tfie location and
approximate
dimensions of all
property to be set
aside for recreational
use or other public or
private -dedications,
-reservations or
easements shall be
shown..
(ii) The purpose and
conditions of the
dedication, reservation
or easements shall be
noted.
(iii) For recreation
areas with
improvements, a
separate- sheet shall
be provided showing
the proposed site
dimension and
improvements drawn-
at ascale of not less
than 50 feet to the
inch, or at a different
scale if approved by
the Plarinin Director.
20
98
L+cnr~llwl 7 ~ w ~f !Q\ !`/'1AtT1Al11Cll /°Voc° inrlir~*nc rnmrlllA llCP_~ °Nn° indicates non-compliance)
PLANNfNG
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT gOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (2) (B) (5)
continued
(d) Streets and X_Yes No The site plan contains _Yes No
Transportation Systems the required information
(i) T-he- location,
-dimensions and
classification (public or
private) of all
proposed streets,
easements, alleys and
other right of ways
shall be shown on the
plat
(ii) The location and
dimensions of
proposed pedestrian
paths and sidewalks,
bike lanes or paths,
and bus stops shall
also be shown.
(iii) Proposed streets,
pavement or travelway
widths shall be
denoted as well as
typical roadway cross
sections. The
approximate centerline
radius shall be shown
on all proposed
streets.
(iv) Proposed street .
names shall be
indicated on the plat.
Such names shall not
duplicate or
approximate the name
of any other street in
Orange County except
where a proposed
street is the
continuation or
extension of an
existin street.
21
99
w i.~~ i.~u•r~~l~ tC1'1 l..V....~! :wA:w..~ww w~mrJi~nrn• ~~IJl1~~ IFlrllf`a+P_S nAn_cemnliancel
a7Clr I IVIY /. 1't.L ~ vvl~ ~ nw w . vv ...........w.. ..... .. .-._...~_ .'- ---------
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
R uirements FINDINGS FtfVDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (2) (B) (6)
Utility and Drainage
Data
X Yes No The site plan contains Yes No
a. Proposed utility the required inf-ormation
i
systems- shall be shown "
on tl~e plat,_ including but
not limited to
(i) Public or private
community water
supply systems
(ii) Public or private
community sewage
disposal syst-ems, and
(iii) Storm drainage
facilities including
existing and proposed
drainageways and
channels
X Yes No The site plan contains _Yes No
b. Any easements the required information
associated with such
_ utility systems shall also
be denoted and the
purpose for the
easements designated on
the plat.
X Yes No The site plan contains the _Yes No
Section 7.14 (2) (B) (7) required information
Landscaping and Buffer The applicant is proposing
Data: The following a modification to required
information shall be denoted landscape buffers and
on the Preliminary Plat to building setbacks.
demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of Section 6.8 The Planning Board has no
of this Ordinance: issue with the proposed
modifications given the
(a) Existing trees and/or layout and orientation of the
vegetation to be project.
preserved and proposed
trees and/or landscape The intent of the UDO will
materials to be installed. still be preserved.
b Re wired buffers.
22
100
SECTION 7.14.2 (B- CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates r_mm~lianr_e~ "Nn" inr~lir_afPS nnn_r_mm~fianr_r.+l
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uir~ments FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDING
Section 7.14 (2} (B} (8)
Special Flood Hazard _
Area (SFHA} Standards
X Not applicable The property has- no Not applicable
a. The boundary of the identified fioodplains and
Special Flood Hazard is not located wi#hin the
Area zoning overlay SFHA Overlay District
district shall be _
designated- and labeled on
the plat as requ~ed by this
Ordinance.
X Yes No The site plan contains Yes No
the required information
b. For subdivisions
located within a
Watershed Protection
Overlay District, as
identified on the Orange
County Zoning Atlas, the
following information shall
be designated and labeled
ort the plat:
(i) Impervious surface
data as required by
Section 4.2 of this
Ordinance;
(ii) Stream buffers as
required by Section
6.13 of this Ordinance;
and
(iii) Stormwater
detention and/or
retention sites and
undisturbed areas for
infiltration purposes as
.required by the
Section 6.14 of this
Ordinance.
23
101
SECTION 515 6 MAJOR SUBDIVISION CLASS A SPECIAL USE (RURAL DESIGNATED OR
URBAN DESIGNATED) SPECIFIC STANDARDS
("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" "rndicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
Ordinance BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
-Requirements RECOMMENDED TO SU-PPORT BOCC
_FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5:15.5 (A) (1)
Submittal Requirements
In addition- to the
information required in
Section 2.7, 'the following
shall be submitted as part
of the application
a. Stamped envelopes X _No The applicant supplied _Yes No
addressed to each -owner Yes the necessary stamped
of property within 500 feet envelopes as required by
of the property proposed the UDO.
for subdivision. The
names and addresses of
property owners shall be
based on the current
listing as shown in the
Orange County Land
Records system
b. A statement, from the X _No The application narrative Yes No
applicant, indicating the - Yes _ contains the required
anticipated development development schedule
schedule for the build out for the project.
of the project.
Build out is anticipated at
3 years.
c. Water and Wastewater X Yes No Within the application Yes _No
package there is a letter,
dated- February 28, 2011,
. from the OAWS Board of
Directors approving the
extension of water service
The Orange County Board
of Commissioner will have
to approve the extension of
public sewer to this
property. Sewer capacity
exists in the system and is
on ad'acent ro erties.
24
1.02
~^i.~^ r ~ r w n/1~ITI~II IC11 /~~Vww~~ :r.d:w~few wpm nli9n/`Q• °NA~~ ~I,f"~~r-atps nAn-comnliancel
a7C\.r I IVIV .7. 1.7.V VVIr ~ uw w ^ c.a u^a,^^vcaw.+ ..... .. .. .,...~- --- ---------- -- -
PLANNING
Ordinance BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Requirements RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.15.6 (A) (1)
continued
X YES No The site plan contains the Yes _No
d. Open Space Connectivity required information
demonstrating compliance
A map that demonstrates with the UDO
that the open space
composition, accessibility, The -applicant is pr-oposing
shape and size requirements several pedestrian access
asset forth in Section 7.13 of areas to allow for resident
this Ordinance are to be met. to make use of the open
space and trail system
e. Natural &Human-[Made X Yes No The applicant has provided _Yes _No .
Resources a formal Environmental
Assessment, Wetland
A written and graphic site Determination, and
analysis illustrating soils, Biological Inventory
depth to water table, slope, submitted by The Ca#ena
l~ydrology_, vegetation, natural Group addressing these
areas and habitats of special- issues as required:
concern, infrastructure and
other constructed features,
historic and archaeological
sites, and visual analysis of
views into and from the site.
f. Pedestrian /Bicycle Plan
Project is located within a
(i) If the subdivision is X Yes _No Transition Area. The _Yes No
located in a Transition applicant proposes to
Area designated as such provide natural trails
on the Land Use connecting to adjacent land
Element of the uses (i.e. Richmond Hill and
Comprehensive Plan, a the adjacent elementary
plan for sidewalks or school)
pedestrian/bike lanes as
part of the public roads A POSA (pedestrian open
using, where space access) is proposed
appropriate, alternative to connect to the adjacent
North Carolina elementary school/park
Department of complex.
Transportation design
guidelines that include A condition of approval
pedestrian/bike lanes as should be the required
part of the public road installation of a sidewalks
system. along School House Road
(ii) For proposals not located
in a transition area an
off-road, pedestrian plan
shall be submitted.
25
103
SECTION 5.15.6 CONTINUED 1"Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates non-comnliancel
PLANNING
Ordinance BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTEQ
Requirements RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.15.6 (A) (1)
-continued
g. Landscape Plan ~ Yes No The applicant has Yes _No
De#ails - submitted a Resources
Management Plan, which
A landscape and - -tree _ indicates that open
preservation plan that space areas are to be
shows the following: undisturbed with the
-exception of denoted
(i) The proposed stormwater detention
locations, and types devices.
of, plantings,
(ii) T-he existing natural The existing topography
landscape with will be maintained on the
existing topography,
~ site. No mass grading is
permitted.
-(iii) The width of roadside
and perimeter buffers The landscaping will
to be left undisturbed, adhere to the zoning and
(iv) The open space subdivision regulations
(proposed undisturbed that protect primary and
and proposed secondary areas within
improved) as well as lots. Natural vegetation
type of ownership. will be maintained.
The applicant has
proposed a reduction in
the required landscape
area as detailed on the
site plan.
Staff has no concerns
over the proposed
modification
Section 5.15.6 (2) X Not applicable This project is not Not applicable
proposing over 40 lots.
Additional Submittal
Requirements - For all As a result the
applications of over 40 requirements of Section
lots 5.15.6 (2) are not
applicable
26
104
wr-i+-r~i1u c .~ r ~ /~AdlTldll ICI'- /~~Vw..~~ :wdiw~4ec~ rmm~~i7 HPL1' °NA° Inrllra+P_C non-cmm~liancel
a7 Gli I IVI~ V. I V.V vv~• ~ ~~~v ._..r - -- - --
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS- FINDINGS
5.15.5 (A) (3)
Standards of Evaluation
A. The project meets all The application package
applicable design standards_ X Yes _No contains- the necessary- Yes No
and- other requirements of information demonstrating
this Ordinance compliance.
The Planning Board has
found that waiver requests
for perimeter landscape
buffer widths and street
frontage buffers are
reasonable and can be
approved.
B. The project meets all
service provision criteria as
set firth below:
1. Fire - identifies the X Yes No Fire Marshall has indicated _Yes No
primary and secondary the Efland Fire- Department
responders and the is primary responder and
source(s) of water. Mebane and Hillsborough
secondary responders.
2. Police -identifies the X Yes -No The Sheriff's offrce is the _Yes No
primary and secondary primary -responder. State
responders. police will be secondary for
certain types of issues.
3. Rescue Services - X Yes No Primary - Efland Fire _Yes No
identifies the primary and Department Secondary -
secondary responders. Mebane City and Orange
Rural
4. Water Supply -source X Yes No Orange Alamance Water _Yes No
and capacity of water System, Inc. with a system
supply. capacity: 1.5 million gallons
per day and a current
usage: 325,000 gallons per
day
5. Wastewater Treatment X Yes No Drange County lines- Town _Yes No
Methods -provider and of Hillsborough Wastewater
capacity of wastewater Treatment Plant. There is
treatment source. an agreement wit the Town
to discharge 380,000
Gallons per day into the
plant. Current capacity is
approximately 35,000
gallons per day.
27
105
SECTION 5.15.6 CONTINU ED "Yes" indicates co m l iance• "NO~- ma~ca~es non-com Hance
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.15.6 {A) (3)
Standards of Evaluation
continued -
C. Habitats shall be
identified and evaluated in -
the Biological Inventory
required by Section
5. fi4.6(A){2)(b) and afe
subject to the following:
i. An undisturbed buffer is X Yes No A Biological Inventory Yes No
required around the was submitted as part of '
boundary of habitats of the application.
rare, threatened, or
endangered species as According to the report,
shown on the biological completed .by the Catena
inventory. Buffer width Group, no adverse
shall be determined by effects to existing
site evaluation in habitats would occur as
consultation with the the result of this
applicant's biologist and development.
County staff
ii. Habitat enhancements X Yes No A Biological Inventory Yes No
as described in the was submitted as part of
biological inventory shall the application package.
be made for a broad No- mitigation is called
range of species to help for in the document.
mitigate the loss of wildlife
habitat during
construction.
iii.- Conservation X Yes No The identified wetlands Yes No
easements ~ or other are located in either a
acceptable means such dedicated open space
as dedication to a {public parcel or within
agency, conservancy or a landscape buffers and
similar agency are shall be maintained and
required to protect managed by the Home
-wetlands and other Owners Association.
habitats while insuring
proper long-term
maintenance; and
28
106
r.~i+r.~1~. r n r r /~/'11.ITIIJI ICII /~~V..~~~ :.,dir~fnc rnm nli7l'7CP' "Nn" inrlir_atps non-comnliancel
JGtr I IVI• J. IJ.i'J VV.~ ruw w ^ ~. - -- --- --- ------
flLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Secton 5.15.6 (A) (3)
Standards of Evaluation
continued
iv. Provide barriers or X Yes No Signage will be provided Yes No
fencing, and signage at as req-aired by the
the edge of habitat buffers County.
zo prohibit vehicular and
pedestrian access:
Limited access may be
allowed if proposed in a
sensitive manner for
environmental education
purposes_
D. Landscaping arrd
Buffers
i. Existing vegetation X Yes No A typical building and Yes No
shall be preserved as driveway layout is
indicated on the provided on the site plan
approved landscape with protected areas
plan in accordance delineated.
with the provisions of
Section 6.8
ii. Tree protection X Yes No Clear cutting of individual Yes No
measures shall be lots and mass grading
ins#afled and are prohibited.
maintained between
all areas of Protected areas on
disturbance and trees individual lots shall be
to be retained as fenced off during
shown on the construction.
approved landscape
plan. A detail of the
tree protection barrier
proposed shall be
included as part of the
landscape plan
submitted with the
application;
29
107
.-.-. ,^..,__^. _~: _a_ ..I:.,..,.e• ^Aln" ~.,rlir-~tpc nnn_r_mm~liancel
.StV ~ AVIV 9.1.7.0 l.V1V I IIV~I CLJ ~ C.7 U^u~a.a~ca ..v^^ ^ .. ......... .__ ...~.-"--- _---- -
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BBC
Re uiremertts FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.15.6 (A). (3)
Standards of Evaluation
continued
iii. Corridors connecting X Yes No -Tree protection fencing will Yes No
habitats identified in the be required at the Erosion
biological inventory shall Control permit stage.
be preserved along
streams, buffer-s, or other The primary and secondary
wooded areas. If tree protection areas are
destroyed during shown on the typical
construction, such setback areas on the site
connections shall be plan:
restored using
appropriate plant
materials;
iv. Trees and stumps cleared
X Yes
No
The submitted site plan, the
_Yes
No
for roads and building project narrative, and the
construction shall either Resources Management
be used for timber Plan states that no burning
porposes or shredded for of construction debris will
landscape mulch, occur.
composted, buried or
otherwise disposed of
BUT NOT BURNED.
v. Berms; fences and X Not applicable No berms, fencing, or walls _ blot applicable
landscaping walls may be are noted to be necessary.
used with plant materials
for screening, provided
such features are -
designed and located in
harmony with other site
features and functions.
vi. To minimize visual impact X Not applicable No entrance sign is _ Not applicable
- by blending architecture proposed
into the surrounding-
landscape, foundation
plantings are required at
all freestanding entrance
signs.
i. Use of xeriscaping X Yes No The narrative and site plan _Yes No
principles. indicate that the project will
comply with the provisions
of the UDO and use native,
drou ht tolerant, ve etation.
30
cos
~a.u ~ ~ ~ n /~i'1~IT~~II IC1"1 /~~V..w~~ :.,.1:w~te~ n~rr^nli7 Hf`p' n~An InrilcatP_S nAn-COmnllance)
.7Cli I IVIY v. 1.7A ~.rV~r ~ uvv w ^ va ^^.v.....w.+ ..... .. .. .,..._- --- -------
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.15.6 (A) (3)
Standards of Evaluation
continued
E. stormwater
Management
i. A stormwater- X Yes -No Initial review of Yes No
management plan shalt calculations by Orange
be prepared and County Erosion Control
reviewed in accordance indicates there will be no
with the provisions of issues.
Section 6.14;
A condition of approval is
that the formal
- stormwater management
plan shall be reviewed
- and approved prior to
earth disturbing activity.
ii. All drainage structures X Yes No According to the Yes No
will be installed and applicant, equivalent
maintained according devices in accordance
to the approved with NC DENR
stormwater stormwater manual will
Management Plan. be used.
A condition of approval is
that the formal
stormwater management
plan shall be reviewed
and approved prior to
earth disturbing activity
iii. Subdivisions that X Yes No A condition of approval is Yes No
include structural that the formal
stormwater measures stormwater management
shall comply with the plan shall be reviewed
requirements in Section and approved prior to
6.14. earth disturbing activity
31
109
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.1.5.6 (A) (3)
Standards of Evaluation
continued
F Grading and Erosion
Control
i. Plans for grading and X f~Fo Initial review of grading _Yes No
erosion control comply Yes plans by Orange County
with standards Erosion Control indicates
contained in the there will be no issues.
Orange County
Erosion and Sediment A condition of approval is
Con#rol Manual and that the formal grading
this Ordinance; and erosion control plan
shall be reviewed and
_ approved prior to earth
disturbing activity.
ii. Construction is X No Staff has determined that _Yes No
phased to the extent Yes the project will comply.
practical to minimize
disturbance and
sedimentation;
iii. Sediment control X No Detention basins to Yes No
measur-es will be Yes handle silt and turbidity
properly installed to will be installed prior to
filter sediment from any grading. Conversion
runoff during of the devices wil4 occur
construction and as stabilization occurs in
maintained until the sub basins.
grading is complete
and a permanent A condition of approval is
vegetative cover has that the formal grading
been established and- and erosion control plan
a}I slopes stabilized; shall be reviewed and
and approved prior to earth
disturbing activity.
iv. Permanent X No A condition of approval is _Yes No
landscaping, Yes that the formal grading
groundcover, mulch, - and erosion control plan
etc. will be installed as shall be reviewed and
soon as practical after approved prior to earth
construction activities disturbing activity.
for each phase are
completed.
32
110
. ~ w AA\~TI\11 ~Cn_/~~Vww~~ :..d:w.~4~~ n~mr~li~nrn• °~A° IntllratP_S nnn-cemnliancel
.7Cli t IVIV 7. 1.7.v ~..vi• ~ n~v w . ~~ ~9~M~VYLVV V -- -- --- ---
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.'15.6 (A) (3) -
Standards of Evaluation
continued-
G. A -solid waste X No The preliminary plan and Yes No
management plan, Yes narrative contain the
submitted as part of the _ required inf-ormation
Resources Management
Plan, shall- include the
method(s) of disposal and
recycling of construction
debris.
H. Irrigation X Not applicable Provisions dealing with _ Not applicable
irrigation are not
applicable as the
applicant is not
proposing to install such -
systems.
I. Habitat Maintenance
i. Habitats identified in X No As denoted on the site _Yes No
the biological inventory Yes plan a large area along
and habitats created the western portion of
through mitigation shall the property is to i,e left
be maintained in in protected landscaped
accordance with the space due to the
Resources presence of identified
Management Plan stream buffers
andlor a conservation
easement agreement;
and
ii. Maintenance of X No Open space areas will be _Yes No
habitats shall be Yes left undisturbed except
minimal, consisting for the installation of
primarily of maintaining utilities and stormwater
buffers and devices.
enhancements,
removal of exotic (non-
native) plant species,
and keeping drainage
ways functioning
ro erl .
33
111
cGrTinti ~ ~~a r_nNriNi~Fn r°~p~° indir_atPS r_mm~liance- "No" indicates non-comoliancel
PLANNING
- BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.15.6 (A) (3) -
Standards -of Evaluation
continued
J Access to the- x-Yes No Platted lots fr-onfing on Yes -No
subdivision and-access to School House Road shall
lots within the subdivision have shared driveways.
to existing public roads School House Road is a
shall conform to and be in residential street and
compliance with any Tinnin -Road functions as
_
public road access _ a collector.
management plan
adopted by Orange
County.
K. Maintenance of
Im rovements
i. All site x Yes No All maintenance will be Yes No
improvements such_as incorporated into the
roads, utilities Homeowner's
(including irrigation Association documents
and drainage with the exception of the
structures), habitat public streets.
enhancements,
recreational amenities, .
signage, landscaping,
open space, etc. will
be maintained in x Yes No Ail maintenance (trails, _Yes No
function and sidewalks, stormwater
appearance devices) and ongoing
ii. Maintenance private expenses (lights,
specifications, if any, mowing, etc.) will be
for on-going site incorporated into the
management Homeowner's
(including provisions Association documents
for handling of storm with the exception of the
debris in open space public streets.
areas) shall be
submitted as part of
the Resources
Management Plan and
incorporated into
Homeowners'
Association
documents.
34
112
SECTION 5 3 2 (B) Special Uses -Specific Standards ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No"
in.~ir~toc nnn_rmm~lianr_p1
PLANNING
BOAf2D EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Re uirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FIND INGS
Section 5.3.2 (B)
"Specific Stancfards_In (
addition to the general -
standards stated in
Section 5.3.2 (A)' the
following specific
standards shrall be
addressed by the
applicant before the
issuance of a Special Use
Permit
Yes No Orange County lines- Yes No
Section 5.3.2.(Bj (1) Town of -Hillsborough
Wastewater Treatment
Metlwd and adequacy of Plant. There is an
provision for sewage agreement with the Town
disposal facilities, solid to discharge 380,000
waste and water service. Gallons per day into the
plant Current discharge
is approximately 35,000
gallons per day.
Water shall be provided
by OAWS as denoted
within the application
A condition of approval
will need to be that the
County approve the
extension request and
that all plans be properly
approved and bonded
prior to earth disturbing
activities
35
113
e.~i.~rl~a r ~ e ioi AllA1T1Al11Cf1 /°Vec" ~.,rl~f-~tnc r-r,mnliancp• "Nn" inrlir_atE±s non-comDllanC@l
~7LV 1 IVI\ V.Y.L Y VV~~ ~ ~~ ~v~ v • vv ....... v...... ~~.. . ._~___. _ _ _ ___ ___ _
Section 5.3.2 (B) (2) X_Yes No Fire protection will be Yes No
provided by the Efland
Method and adequacy of Volunteer Fire
police, fire and rescue Department, rescue
squad protection. service by the Orange
County Emergency
Management, and police
- protection by the -Orange
County Sheriff's
Department.
Fire hydrants are being
installed per the Fire
Marshal's requirements
Section 5.3.2 (B) (3) X Yes No The submitted_site plan _Yes No
shows the required
Method and adequacy of access point and
vehicle access to the site denotes that the roads
and traffic conditions serving the site shall be
around the site. development to NC DOT
standards.
36
114
SECTION 5 3 2 (A) Special Uses -General Standards ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates
nnn_r_mm~lianr_Pl
----- - - -
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS FINDINGS BOCC FINDINGS
In accordance- with Sectioc~
5.3.2 (A) (2), -the Board of _
Commissioners shall also
consider the fallowing
general conditions before
she application for a
Special Use can be
approved:
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) X Wif# _WitT Not The applicant's testimony -Will Witl Not
at the May 23, -2011 public
The use will maintain or hearing and the July 7,
promote the public health, 2011 Planning Board
-safety and general welfare, meeting, the application
if located where proposed narrative providing
and developed and documentation on the
operated according to the provision of waterand
plan as submitted. sewer services to the
pr-oject, and the approval
of the project by the
Orange County Fire
Marshal, David Sykes,
Solid Waste, NC DOT,
and Planning staff.
Section-5.3.2 (A} (2) (b) X Will -Will Not Based on evidence -Will -Will Not
presented at the May 23,
The use will maintain or -2011 public hearing and -
enhance the value of the July 7, 2011 Planning
contiguous property (unless Board meeting,
the use is a public specifically Mr. Everett
necessity, in which case `Vic' Knight's
the use need not maintain documentation and
or enhance -the value of analysis of the project's
contiguous property). economic impact and
documentation within
Chapter 4 of the County's
Comprehensive Plan
regarding affordable
housin .
37
115
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) X Is _ Is Not Based on evidence Is _ Is Not
presented at the May 23,
The location and character 2011 public hearing and
of the use, if developed the July 7, 2011 Planning
according to the plan Board meeting the
submitted, will be in applicant's-narrative
harmony with the area in denoting compliance with
which it is to be located and - the Comprehensive Plan, -
the use is in corr-ipliance and the designation of the
with the plan for the property within the
physicaF development of Transitional Area in the
the County as embodied in Comprehensive Plan,
these regulations or in the Goals 1 and 2 and their
Comprehensive Plan, or associated objectives
portion thereof, adopted by within the Services and
the Board of County Facilities Element, and
Commissioners. Goals 1 and 2 acrd their
associated objectives
within the Transportation
Elemexrt of the
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Board has not received any information that would establish grounds for making a negative finding
on the general standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and
general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in compliance with
the general plan for the physical development of the County.
The Planning Board has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting_ documentation -and has found
that the application complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO
I~rovided the Board of County Commissioners finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards, the
Board could make a positive finding on_ this application. In the event that the Berard of County Commissioners
makes the determination_ that the permit can be issued, the Planning Board recommends the attachment of the
following conditions to the Special Use Permit:
A. Rezoning:
1. That an Ordinance approving the rezoning of the subject parcels as requested by
the a-pplicant as part of the Conditional Use application submittal process be
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
B. Sewer Lines
The applicant shall execute a utility extension, installation, and service
agreement(s) covering the extension of sewer lines and services to serve the
project. This agreement shall be prepared by the Orange County Staff Engineer
in -consultation with the applicant, Planning Director, County Attorney, and other
essential County personal involved with the process and shall be executed by the
Board of County Commissioners prior to any earth disturbing activity.
38
116
2. The Orange County Staff Engineer shall approve sewer line construction drawings
including elevations of the proposed lines, stubbed out service lines to each lot
within the development, and adjacent parcel stub outs as denoted on the
approved site plan prior to any clearing or grading on the site. The existing sewer
main located in Tinnin Road shall be used as the outfall for the proposed sewer
collection lines. No sewer lines shall be placed underneath existing paved or
concreted areas with the exception of perpendicular crossings.
3. The applicant shall install, to Orange County specifications, -eight-inch (8") sewer
lines within the project. All construction and testing shall be certified to the State
by the engineer of record as completed with copies of the certification to be
provided to the- Orange County Staff Engineer and Planning Department prior to
Planning signatures on the Final Plat.
OR
A letter of credit or escrow agreement shall be submitted and- approved by the
County Attor-ney to secure construction of the sewer lines to the standards of
Orange County. An estimate Hof the construction cost shall -be prepared by a
certified/licensed engineer and submitted to the Planning and Inspections
Department. The. financial guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be
issued by an -accredited financial insti#ution licensed to do business in North
Carolina.
If the security option as set forth above is chosen., no certificate of occupancy for
any dwelling shall be issued until all sewer line construction and testing are
completed with certification sent to the State by the engineer of record and the
perm-it is issued by the State. Copies of the engineer's certification and State
permit shall be provided to the County Engineer and to the Planning Department
prior to release-of any certificate of occupancy.
4. Signed_ encroachment agreements, if required by North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT), shall be executed for all sewer lines that are placed
within public right-of-ways. Copies of signed encroachment documents shall be
provided to the Planning Department and the -County Staff Engineer prior to
Planning signatures on the Final Plat.
5. Show on the Final Plat, twenty (20)-foot permanent sewer line easements
centered on all County-maintained sewer lines located outside of the NCDOT
right-of-way. These easement areas shall remain free of structures, fences, and
landscape plantings.
6. Sewer lines shall be designed in such a manner to allow gravity flow extensions to
adjacent property rather than through- the use of pump stations to the extent
applicable to established engineering practices.
7. An Orange County Acreage Fee (recorded lot area acreage only), currently set at
$1000 per acre for public sanitary sewer service, shall be paid at the time the Final
Plat is submitted for planning signatures. The acreage fee is subject to change
and, based. on the acreage shown for the proposed 28 lots (approx. 6.25 acres).
39
117
The total acreage fee will be approximately $6,250.
8. An Orange County Flat Fee for a -public sanitary sewer service tap, currently $600
per unit, shall -be paid at the time building permit applications are submitted for
review and approval. This fee is subject to change and will be collected at the
applicable rate at the time -of review and- approval of the building permit.
9. A Hillsborough Capital Facilities Fee, currently $2672 per unit, shall be paid at the-
time building permit applications are submitted for- review and approval. This fee
is subject to change and will be collected at the applicable rate at the time of
review and approval of -the building permit.
10. For all locations where service is anticipated, a wye connector shall-be installed as
a service stub out, rather than a tap and_ saddle.
C. Water Liraes
1. Orange Alamance Water System, Inc. (OAWS)_ and the County Staff Engineer
shall approve final water line construction drawings for the entire subdivision,
including stubbed out service fines to each lot. No clearing or grading on the site
shall occur until approval is obtained. No water lines shall be placed underneath
paved or concreted areas with the exception of perpendicular crossings, which
shall be constructed of ductile iron pipe.
2. The existing two (2) inch service main to the five customers on a private drive on
the east side of Tinnin Road will remain and the developer will tie it into the new
Tinnin_ Road water main.
3. The existing th.r-ee (3) inch water main in Tinnin Road and School House Road will
remain in service for existing -customers only.
4. The new line will be pressure tested at the time of construction as required by
OAWS and the State of North Carolina. Pressures shall meet or exceed
established standards as detailed by OAWS and the State of North- Carolina.
5. The applicant shall install all water lines to OAWS specifications. Monitoring of
the installation of all water lines will be by OAWS and the County Staff Engineer or
other designated staff. All construction and testing shall be certified to the State
as completed by the engineer of record- with copies of the certification to be
provided to OAWS, the Orange County Engineer and Planning Department prior
to Planning signatures on the Final Plat.
OR
A letter of credit or escrow agreement shall be submitted and approved by the
County Attorney to secure construction of the water lines to the standards of
OAWS. 'An estimate of the construction cost shall be prepared by a
certified/licensed engineer and submitted to the Planning and Inspections
Department for review by the Orange County Staff Engineer. The financial
guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited
40
118
financial institution licensed-to do business in North Carolina.
If the security option as set above is chosen, no certificate of occupancy shall be
issued until the-water lines are certified to the State by the engineer of record that
testing and construction is completed. A copy of the certification shall be provided
to the Orange County Staff Engineer and the Planning Department. OAWS shall
provide written confirmation of their acceptance of the lines per the-State approval
letter. The letter shall include that all pressure tests and bacterial testing- have
been approved by the State- and -accepted by OAWS for inclusion into their
maintenance program.
6. -Encroachment agreements, if required by NCD.OT, shall- be executed for all water
lines placed in public rigttf-of-ways, inclu-ding off-site improvements. Copies of
signed encroachment documents shall be provided to the Planning Department
and OAWS prior to Planning signatures-on the Final Plat.
7. Twenty (20) foot permanent water line easements with five (5) foot temporary
construction easements on each side shall be shown on the Final Plat for all
OAWS-maintained water lines located outside of the NCDOT rigf~ts-of-way.
These easement areas shall remain free of structures, fences, and- substantial
landscape plantings (flower, grass, and shrubs are allowed).
8. An eight (8) inch water line shall be extended within the Tinnin Road- right-of-way
from US Highway 70 West to the northern end of Tinnin Road prior to recordation
of the Final Plat. Encroachment agreements shall be obtained from NCDOT for
any lines within an existing NCDOT right-of-way. All water line easements within
the subdivision shall be shown on the Final Plat. For water line easements
located offsite, i.e. outside the boundaries of the subdivision, easement
documents with attached survey map shall be recorded concurrently with, or prior
to, the Final- Plat. Any portion- of the lines that extend under concrete or paved
areas shall be ductile iron pipe.
9. Eight (8) inch water lines shall be installed within the subdivision per OAWS
specifications. Fire hydrants, per Fire Marshal requirements, shall be installed
artd approved prior to Planning Department signatures on-the Final Plat or prior to
the issuance of any certificate of occupancy if the security option is chosen.
OAWS shall test fire- hydrants and provide flow test certifications to the Fire
Marshal for review and approval by-the Fire Marshal and Efland Fire Department.
All water lines shall be looped for fire protection purposes as denoted on the flan
and under no circumstances shall a dead end line be created in area not denoted
on the approved utility plan.
10. The existing six (6) inch water line in Richmond Hills at the end of Alice Miller
Court (or Boundbrook Drive) shall be connected into the eight (8) inch water lines
within the subdivision at the time of construction. A signed encroachment
agreement with NCDOT shall be obtained prior to any construction activity within
the NCDOT right-of-way. The water line shall be extended as denoted on the
approved utility plan.
11. After installation of the eight (8) inch water main within the Tinnin Road right-of-
way, NCDOT will require driveway and utility permits of the developer, as.well as
41
119
a three-party encroachment agreement, for all work within the public right-of-way.
12. Assessment and connection fees shall be paid to OAWS prior to the recordation
of the Final Plat consistent with the OAWS adopted- fee schedule. Proof of fee
payment shall be required to be submitted to the County at the time of application
for building permits.
D. Roads and Access
1. Road "A" and Road ~"B" shall be designed and constructed to standards of the
NCD~T Subdivision Road manual, dated January 2011-,- within a fifty (50) foot
right of-way with five (5) foot utility easements on each side. Roads- "A", "B", and
School House Road shad be paved with a 27-foot back-to-back Yoadway cross-
section with curb and gutter and two eleven-foot lanes. Tinnin Road extension
shall be within a fifty (50) foot right-of-way. Since Tinnin .Road -is a primary
collector road, it shall-be paved with a 27-foot back-to-back roadway -cross section
with curb and gutter and two twelve-foot lanes. The construction shall be
inspected -and approved-by NC-DOT.
OR
A letter of credit or escrow -agreement shall be submitted- and approved by the
County Attorney to secure construction of Road "A", Road "B", and the extension.
of Tinnin Road to the standards of the NCDOT. An estimate of the construction
cost must be prepared by a certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and
submitted to the Planning Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110%
of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do
business in North -Carolina.
The document describing development restrictions to be -recorded with the
Final Plat shall state_that the financial guarantee will. not be released until all
road construction as been inspected and approved by NCDOT.
If the security option is chosen, no building permit shall be issued until access
roads are constructed to an all-weather state (i.e. base gravel condition).
2. No driveway shall be permitted within established site triangles as denoted on the
approved plan with the exception of lot 23. The Final .Plat shall contain- "No
Vehicular Access Easement" for lots 5, 20 and 23 on School -House Road (1314).
3. Erosion control plans for construction of Road "A", Road "B", and the extension of
Tinnin Road shall be submitted. to, and approved by, the Erosion Control Division
prior to any clearing or land disturbance.
4. Approved double-bladed street name signs shall be erected at all street
intersections shown on the Final Plat prior to issuance of any building permit if
road construction is not completed prior to recording of the final plat.
5. Prior to any construction or alteration of any existing access within the platted
rights-of-way, the owner/applicant shall secure a driveway permit from the NCDOT
42
120
District Office. The owner/applicant shall submit a copy of the NCDOT-approved
permit and NCDOT approval letter to the Planning Department prior to or at the
same time as the request for a grading permit is made, or before Planning
Department signatures-are affixed on the Final Plat, whichever is .first.
6. Sight triangles with dimensions of ten (1 Q) feet by seventy (70) feet shall be shown
and labeled at all street intersections as depicted on -the Final Plat. These areas
are to remain clear of plantings, fences, vehicles, and all structures.
7. Dedicate, in fee simple, a fifty (50) foot wide right-of-way_,_ centered on the existing
right-of-way of Tinnin Road, to the northern properly line. Said dedication shall
meet local residential road right-of-way standards as r-equired in Section 7.8.2 of
the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
8. The termination point at the northern terminal of Road "A" or extension Tinnin
Road extension shall be im}~-oved to NCDOT standards (i.e. asphalt).
9. Aground sign shall be instaNed at the north terminus of Road "A" noting that there
may be an extension of the road-right-of-way and travel way at a future date.
10. NCQOT shall require that weigh# reducing load allowances along School House
Road and- Tinnin Road during- construction- of subdivision improvements 6e
imposed and shall require the developer to post a _maintenance bond to ensure
that the road is returned to proper functionality once the project is completed.
E. Land Use Buffers aid Landscaping
Landscaping shall be preserved as indicated on_ the approved preliminary plan
and Resour-ces Managem-ent Plan that show the #ypical building envelopes/open
space areas and shall be inspected and. approved by the Planning and
Inspections Department prior to signatures on Final Plat. No part of the
landscaping shall encroach into the 10' x 70' sight triangles at the intersection.
OR
Guaranteed financially-through a letter of credit or escrow agreement submitted to
secure required landscape installation and preservation. An estimate of the cost
for required preservation, plantings and their installation must be provided. The
financial guarantee shall reflect 110% of the estimate and be- issued by an
accred-iced financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina in a form
approved by the County Attorney.
2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved preliminary site
plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the
Final Plat. No clear cutting on individual lots or mass grading is permitted
pursuant to Section 6.8 of the UDO.
3. The applicant shall retain and maintain existing plantings within the Typical
Building Setbacks as indicated on the Site Plan to the greatest possible exclusive
43
121
of drive cuts and utility easements. Removal, replacement, or re-establishment of
required vegetation shall be allowed consistent with Orange County standards as
denoted within ifie UDO.
F.
4. A minimum of twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained (i.e. left undisturbed)
along the subdivision perimeter. Language shall be provided in the Homeowners
Association documents to the effect that clearing within the twenty (20) -foot buffer
shall not be permitted.
5. A fifty (50) foot undisturbed buffer shall be maintained around the wetland area
identified- on- and near Lot 28 as denoted on the approved plan consistent with
County and State regulations.
6. No mass grading- of the site shall occur. Lots shall be graded only after lot specific
plans showing the extent of grading are submitted to -the Planning Depar-tment
and a-pproved at the time of building permit applications.
7. Common. area landscaping trees and shrubs shall be of a native- species and
drought tolerant.
S~or-m Drainage
1. Drainage easements shall be located on the Final Ptat as -required following
review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan by County staff.
2. All structural stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP's), as defined in the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources stormwater
BMP Manual shall be within stormwater easements and shown. on the Final Plat.
A stormwater maintenance agreement shall be recorded along with the Final Plat.
The agreement shall designate tie responsible party for maintenance. Public
access-to the BMP devices shall be provided.
3 Drainage culverts shall be sized and located- appropriately by a licensed North
Carolina Professional Engineer as required by NCDOT and Orange County
Erosion Control.
4. The site runoff for the one (1)-year twenty-four (24)-hour storm shall be the same
post- development as pre-development regardless of the BMP option chosen.
5. The Falls Lake (Upper Neuse Basin) nutrient reduction rules apply to this site.
6. Sediment and erosion control measures shall be installed prior to and during any
land clearing or construction.
G. Parkland and Recreation
1. Lawful currency of the United States in the amount of $11,394 ($422 x 28 lots)
shall be paid to Orange County as payment-in-lieu of parkland dedication at the
time of recordation of the Final Plat.
44
122
2. The applicant shall incorporate provisions into the declaration of restr-fictive
covenants that effectively restricts and maintains the common area open space.
These protected areas shall be shown and labeled accordingly on the Final Plat.
All maintenance responsibilities for the open space shall be with the Homeowner's
Association.
3. Section 7.11 of the UDO requires a minimum recreation space ratio of 0.20
square feet of recreation space per land area dedicatee) to residential use (0.20
8.917 acres = 1.383 acres, or 60,260 square feet). In those cases where the
required minimum recreation space results in a larger amount than the public
recreation space requirement of 1/20 acre per lot (1/2D x 28 lots = 1.4 acres or
60,984 square feet), the difference- shall be established= as private recreation
space for the use of the residents of the developmen#. (60,260 - 60,984 = no
additional private open space needed.
4. Approximately 0.584 acres or 23;450 square feet of connected HOA open space
(6.50%) will-be protected and available to individ-ual lot owners.
5. The applicant shall provide a minimum o#-19,463 square feet of private recreation
area (e.~g. trailsT picnic area, etc.).
6. A five (5)-foot wide mulched trail connection shall be made to the existing trail that
runs from Efland Cheeks Elementary School through the open space of Richmond
Hills. The connection shall be made from the end of Road "B".
H. Construction Waste
Per the Orange County -Solid Waste Ordinance, clean wood waste, scrimp metal,
corrugated cardboard, and all-present construction waste shall be recycled.
2. All haulers of construction was#e shall be properly licensed. The applicant shall
confirm that hauling contractors are- licensed to haul waste in Orange County.
3. Prior to any demolition or construction activity on the site the applicant shall
arrange for apre-demolition /construction conference with Orange County Solid
Waste staff. This may be the same meeting held with other county officials.
I. Miscellaneous
The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with
Section 7.14.3 of the UDO.
2. The Homeowner's Association (hereafter `Association') shall be incorporated and
a deed conveying the open space into the Association shall be submitted along
with the Final Plat for review and approval by the County Attorney's office.
Planning Department signatures will be affixed to the Final Plat after attorney
review is complete. The County Attorney shall approve the declaration of
restrictive covenants applicable to the property.
3. Tree cutting in the roadside open space is prohibited except for necessary
maintenance purposes or for the placement of driveway cuts, drainage features,
45
123
or utility lines that have been approved by County staff consistent with the adopted
site plan prior to any such tree cutting taking place.
4. All street lighting shall conform to the Outdoor Lighting Standards as set forth in
Section 6.11 of the 1JD0: The light fixture shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval prior to entering into a contract or sales
agreement or purchase of sighting fixtures from the utility provider.
5. A sign permit shall be obtained from- Orange County for the subdivision sign
located at or near the entrance of the subdivision prior-to beginning_ construction.
Any lighting for the- sign shad be approved by the Planning Department prior to
purchase or installation.
6. Methods of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps, and construction debris associated
with construction activity shall. be -by some method- other than-open burning. as
required in the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance.
7. Parcel Identification Numbers for the existing lots -shall be-shown on the Final Plat.
8. Impervious surface coverage for the entir-e subdivision is limited to thirty percent
(30/0) including the amount of imper-vious surface for streets and sidewalks. The
maximum- impervious surface for the entire -subdivision is 117-,403 square .feet or
2.70 acres.
9. Impervious surface data, as pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the UDO shawl be
included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to
be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The
impervious surface for each lot shall indicate the maximum impervious-surface for
each lot, net of the roadway (i.e. excluding roadway}. .Impervious surface
allocations shalt be shown on the Final Plat for each lot.
10. A twenty (20) foot open space-strip conveyed into the HOA shall be provided on
the rear of lots 16, 21, 22, and 25. A reconfiguration of the lots to a minimum of
5,000 square feet will be necessary. No surface stormwater shall be directed
across the lots.
1 't. The maximum number of lots approved -is twenty-eight (28); the final number of
platted lots shall be determined after compliance with all ordinances, regulations
or conditions of approval. No ordinance, regulation or condition of approval -shall
be relaxed in order to accommodate more than twenty-eight (28) lots.
12. The owner shall file, with the Planning Department and record with the Final Plat,
a declaration of covenants and- restrictions, articles of incorporation, where
required, and/or by-laws, all as approved by the County Attorney, that will govern
the maintenance and control of the improvements as set forth in Section 7.14.3 of
the UDO. Said documents shall provide for ownership of open space and the
dedication of easements to access open space, common area POSA's, drainage
easements and buffers, for maintenance. The Owner has agreed that said
documents shall not restrict the use of energy efficient measures, including but not
limited to clotheslines by the lot owners, nor shall said documents require any lot
owner to engage in water intensive lawn maintenance.
46
124
13. A waiver from Section 7.13 (B)(6)(e) of the Unified Development Ordinance to
reduce the minimum 100-foot spacing between building envelopes and the
subdivision boundary to allow a variab-le-width buffer of less than 100 feet around
the inside perimeter of the subdivision is permitted.
14. A waiver from Section 6.8.6(D) to reduce the Type "A" landscape. buffer from 30
feet to 20 feet to conform to the R-8 front yard setback standard is permitted.
15. Sidewalks should be located within the- right=of-way of Tinnin Road, School House
Road; and Road `A' of- the project as denoted on the approved site plan.
Installation, construction, and perpetual maintenance .costs shat{ be-assumed by a
third -party, either the County or NC DOT, and -shall not be assumed by the
applicant or the proposed Homeowner's Association of the Tinnin 11Voods
subdivision. If agreements cannot be reached on the installs#ion, construction,
and perpetual maintenance costs, no sidewalks will be provided.
J. Certifications
All Certifrcates and. Endorsements as set forth Section 7.14.3 of the UDO signed
by the landowner, developer and appropriate staff persons shall be on the face of
the plat and included in a document describing development restrictions to be
recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
2. Certificate of Improvements as set forth in Section 7.14.3 of the UDO signed -by
the County Manager shall be on the face of the Final Plat.
3._ OA1/VS shall certify-on the Final Plat that the water lines have been installed in
accordance with construction drawings or_ secured by a letter of credit, whichever
the case.
4. The NCDOT shall certify that the platted portions of Road "A", Road "B'Y and the
extension of Tinnin Road have been entirely constructed to State standards or
that construction plans have been approved with a letter of credit or cash bond
security posted prior to Planning Department signatures on Final Plat.
47