HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-21-2012 - 7aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 21, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. -] - a
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit - Carolina Friends
School
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) 0
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Revised Site Plan (Under Separate Cover)
2. Revised Solid Waste Management Plan
3. Copy of Legal Advertisement
4. Draft Minutes from the November 21, 2011
Quarterly Public Hearing
5. Draft Minutes from the January 4, 2012
Planning Board Meeting
6. Applicant's Written Response to
Questions/Comments
7. Additional Correspondence
8. Ordinance of Rezoning Approval
9. Ordinance of Rezoning Denial
10. Special Use Permit Findings of Fact -
Recommendation from Planning
Board
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael D. Harvey, Planner II1, 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2575
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on the Conditional Use (CU) and Class A Special Use Permit (SUP)
application(s) proposing the expansion of the Carolina Friends School.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the November 21, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing
where the following comments/questions were posed:
a. An adjoining property owner expressed concern over the proximity of the proposed
baseball field and parking lot to her property. A BOCC member suggested that the ball
field be rotated or moved to address this concem.
Staff Comment. The ball field has been moved to address the adjacent property owner's
concerns. The applicant is also proposing the development of an earthen berm with
additional landscaping to shield the field from view.
Please refer to the revised site plan and Attachment 6 for additional detail.
b. An adjoining property owner expressed concern over the possibility of Carolina Friends
School being allowed to rent out athletic fields for use by outside entities.
Staff Comment Please refer to Attachment 6 for the applicanYs response to this matter.
c. A Planning Board member asked about the possible erection of sports/athletic field lights
around the various athletic fields denoted on the site plan. A BOCC member suggested
that a condition be placed on the permit requiring the applicant to seek a modification to
the Special Use Permit in case such lights are erected.
Staff Comment The applicant had indicated that no sports field lights would be erected.
A condition has been added to the approval of this project indicating that the erection of
such lights would constitute a modification of the SUP requiring the submittal of a new
application of public hearing to review the request.
The applicant had indicated it had no objection to the imposition of the aforementioned
condition. Please refer to Attachment(s) 6 and 10 for additional information.
d. A Planning Board member asked if the proposed footbridge would be wide enough to
allow for emergency evacuation of classroom buildings.
Staff Comment Please refer to Attachment 6 for the applicanYs response to this question.
e. A member of the public expressed concern over the proposed location of a new driveway
along Mt. Sinai Road.
Staff Comment. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDO~ has
indicated their approval of the proposed new driveway subject to the adherence to several
conditions. A condition on the approval of the permit has been recommended indicating
that the driveway has to be installed consistent with NCDOT conditions. Please refer to
Attachment(s) 7 and 10 for additional information.
A BOCC member expressed a general concern over the need for the County to ensure
the perpetual maintenance and operational status of State approved wastewater
management systems. A recommended condition was for the applicant to work with
Orange County Environmental Health to conduct an annual inspection a means of
ensuring the perpetual viability of the system.
Staff Comment: The applicant has indicated there is no concern over the imposition
of the recommended condition. Please refer to Attachment 6 for additional
information.
g. A BOCC member suggested that the submitted solid waste management plan be
mod~ed incorporating additional information on the disposal of food products/grease
waste by the school as well as modifying language within the plan indicating that the
recycling of scrap material will be `as practical' rather than `if practical'.
Stafl Comment. Please refer to Attachment(s) 2 and 6 for the applicanYs response to this
question.
h. A Planning Board member encouraged the applicant to proceed with the removal of
invasive plant species from the property, as denoted on the site plan, and replace them
with drought tolerant, indigenous plants.
Planning Board Recommendation: At its January 4, 2012 regular meeting, the Planning Board
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project finding that:
i. The property is of sufficient size to support the proposed expansion,
ii. The project was consistent with the anticipated densities for properties located
within the Rural Buffer Land Use Category as defined within the adopted
3
Comprehensive Plan and Rural designated areas as denoted on the Growth
Management System Map,
iii. Th e project was consistent with the provisions and goals of the Joint Planning
Land Use Plan and Joint Planning Agreement,
iv. The application complied with submittal requirements (i.e. Section 2.7, 2.9, and
Section 5.8.4 of the UDO),
v. The applicant's demonstrated compliance with specific (UDO) Unified
Development Ordinance development standards for schools (i.e. Section 5.8.4),
and
vi. The applicant's demonstrated compliance with the required findings as detailed
within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO.
Please refer to Attachment 10 for additional detail. It should be noted that in rendering its
decision, the Planning Board recommended the imposition of 12 conditions. The applicant has
agreed to the imposition of these conditions in writing. Please ~efer to Attachment 6 for
additional detail.
Joint Planning Area (JPA) Review: In accordance with the Joint Planning Area Agreement, this
project was sent to the Town of Chapel Hill for review and comment on October 14, 2011, and a
revised site plan was sent once it was received by the Department on November 4, 2011. To
date, staff has not received any comments from the Town.
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 Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation;
2. If necessary, deliberate further on the application;
3. Close the public hearing;
4. Approve the Ordinance of Rezoning Approval as contained within Attachment 8 of the
abstract; and
5. Review and approve the Special Use Permit Findings of Fact Sheet contained within
Attachment 10 of this abstract and make the appropriate findings that the application
complies with the various sections of the UDO, including the general findings as denoted
within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
Orange County
Solid Waste Management Plan
The "I'own of Chapel F-IilPs develop~nenl ordinance rnquires all dcvelopment applicntio~vs to prqvicle a detaileri
solid tivaste management p~an, inciuding a recy~cling plan anct a plan for management of coiutruction ileUris. 77ie
follo~vin~ fonns must be comp)eted to fulfill this requirement. This form must lx completed ancl approved to
salisfy the requirement of a plnn for tnanagement o( construction debris tar the Town uf Chapel Fiill's
Develapment Ordinance. Please camplete all infonnation in iLti entirety. Assutance in completing this form is
av~ilable from the Orange County Sofid ~Yaste Staff at (979) 468-2800 ~1G3.
COMPLE7E ALL INFORMATION BELOW
(lncompiete contact information will detay plan review and approv~l.)
Project Name ~zrolli'1Q (`/IG~D~J .~~
Property ID #: ~89Z-' 31 ' ~30{~ Permit: ~~i~
ProjectLocation ~$~Z-' 22'7~2G
i}g~~ ft;G,n~r St~-.as~ R~, ucr~~•, NC 2~905
Project Owner ~ ~dd'O~+ns~. ~~'i t~r~L~ S~~
~ontact Person ~ohn___I'Yl~~ev~•r'r-
Address Stt irtG
Telephone cgL9 ~ ~33 - 6ba2
Fa~JMobile (~ ~ ~ ) ~
Oesign Firm G1J~f Cari,~~'aY-_~ T+~+~--
Contact Person ~prt,1 ~~i't'
Address 3?dS Lv c.(ct~ti- ~1~•h~ Su~`~'e~ 201
~ttr~arr. NC 277v7
Telephone (~) -r -~v - ~ro'~S~
FaxlMobile ~~t~ ~03 - d33(o ~ / c_~ -
Date AV,, ~ . ~~~ ~'
Provide a brie# description of the work to be performed under this appiication:
{tor example: construct a new cammercial building [include use/sq. fl.J. apaAment complex [# units], place of varship,
horizantal improvemenis for subdivision, etc.)
Attachment 2
~
~
1. Site Preoaration Wastes (landclearinq demolition deconstructionl
During site preparation for a project the amounl of wnste destined for a construcUOn waste landfill or an inen deUris IandGtl
shouid be minimized or divened for rcuse or recyding. A4unv mnterials can be reused, recycled, ar salvuged, provided that
matecinls are kept scparate. This approach may also.reduce overali project waste dis~sal costs. Neeulated Recvclablc
M1lateri~ls fcic~n ~~ond ~vntte scran met11 a~d corruetted c~rd6anrcll ¢ener•iMd in Qr:~nee Conntv musl be recveted.
During demoiition aGivities, mctsil and wood are often not "rensonably possible to separate" o~ domg so may presen[ heallh
and snfesy concerns (as6estos, lend paint; etc.). In these cases only, are re~ulatec3 materiats na reqaired Io be separnted for
recycling. Consider 15~hether the following mnteriaEs +~ill bc generated on this praject, in nm~ ouenninr, and indicaie the.
management methad(s?.
~ . . •
tJo tree! lant wastes will be roduced roceed to # 2
Tree waste will be salva ed as timber, u ch or boiler fue~ c'
Valuable lants will be removed for re lan in
Landclearin and inert debris landfilt (LCID
Construction and demolition debris landfill {C&D)
Other (specify):
~ ~ -. . . . -. .
No inert materials will be removed from the site roceed to # 3
Site Needs Fill
Will be haUled to site needin fill.
Construction and demolition debris tandfill C&D)
Landclearin and inert debris landfill LCID
Other (specify):
Rec cled at as halt- avin roducer
Used on or off site. Describe use:
Dis osed in an a roved IaRdfill {oran e count Landtill char es no ti ree if uean)
Other (specify):
ate materials will be removed
Rec cled as scra at an a re ate roducer
Used on or off site: Describe use:
Construction and demolition debris landfill {C&D
Landclearin and inert debris landfill LCID
Other (specify):
o ~-
No metaf waste wilt be roduced roceed to # 6
Se re ated for on-site rec clin collection
Rec cle at Oran e Count Landfill no ti fee char ed
Se re aled for hauiin to scra dealer b eneral contractor
Se re ated for haulin to scra dealer b sub-contractor
Certified Commin led Re clin Facilit
Other {specify):
~ ...
.No clean wood wastes will be roduced roceed to # 7
Se re ated for on-site rec clin collection
Rec cle at Oran e Count Landfill reduced ti fee char ed
Saved and used on future'obs
Se arated for rivate salva e or chari
Certifed Commin led Rec ciin Facilit
Other (specify):
E~ ~ • . - .
No st~ucture(sJ will be removed {proceed to Canstruction waste sedion)
Slruciure(s) must be removed. Please describe (indude square faotage for each structure):
sG-~e~r ove~- w~sf~,w~er- fre~'-+~' pla~' (~~o:f~
If any slruclure described above is greater lhan 50D ft=, il musl be assessed lor deconslrudion possibilities.
Please call Solid Waste Stalt at (919) 962•2B00 x 1651o arrange an assessment.
Could the swcture(s) be move~i from the site> YES NO Don't Know
Has the sale or donation ot the structures been considered9
Ptease explain: YES ~
JUe va,~~
liow w11 the sUucture be removed otherveise7
de - c.~-.afru~~ ~,.
Vuhal is ihe timetable on removai of lhe structure(s)?
3 y e~ws ~ .
Are lhere salvageaWe maledals (hardwood floors, fixtures,
molding, that can be removed fo~ reuse prior to demolition7
If Yes, Please list (use a separate sheet if necessary):
YE5 ~O Oon't Knovi
Have, or will, these materials been offered tor sale or donation7
YES ~10
Z
2. Construction Wastes
Durine ihe conslnictiun phase there are multiple epuans lor recyciing building malerials Reaul:~ted Firevcl~irle ~larerials
(clenn- wnnd rr~ste, scran metn{ and corrueateii c;irdboard) eenented in Oran2e Cnuntv nttrst be recvrled. Althou!_h
cather materials are noi required t~ Ue recycled, you are Izi~hly enrnuraged to do sa ~ne oi'the best methods of recyclme is io
separ~ie the materials on ihe joUsite. You may also combine materiais for dehvery lo a certified recyeling Caeihty. Specifying
ti~~aste reduction/recycling pracnces nn a projec[ ~vill assure l~euer perfonnance J!'a.steSper is a publicahon of model
specifcatinn language Car cousiruction Site retycling and x.~su reducuon available in electronic and pnm form htore
informmicm is availahie b~~ calling Triangle ! Su1id 1i'aste Planner m (4191-i>R-e3d3 or ai
~v~~~a• tjcog:dst.nc uslcd~vaste.hlmnwas~espec.
~ -• :r.
No metal waste will be roduced roceed to # 3)
Se re ated for on-site re clin coilection
Rec cle at Oran e Count Landfill (no li fee char ed)
Se re ated for haulin to scra dealer b eneral contractor
Se re ated for haulin to scra deaier b sub-contractor
Certified Commin led Rec ciin Facilit
Other (specify):
~ . .. •..
( ( No aggregate materials will be removed from the site (proceed to # 4)
fl<
Rec cled as scra at an a regate producer
Used on or off sife: Desoribe use:
Conslruction and demolition debris landfili C&D
Landclearin and inen debris landfill LCID
Other (specify):
II .... . ~~
No cardboard wasie will be roduced ( roieed io # 5
Se re ated for on-site rec clin coliection
Rec cle at Oran e Count tandfili no ti fee cha ed
Se re ated for hauiin to a er dealer b eneral contracior
Se re ated €or haulin t~ aper dealer b sub-contractor
Ce~tified Commin led Rec clin Facility
Other (specify):
Se re ated for on-site re clin collection
Used on site as a ricuitural su lemen#
Dis osed in an a roved landfill
Certifred Commin led Rec clin Facilit
Other (specify):
No other wastes will be produced (proceed to #
Alo~co enarihr ~r1,P~ waetac rhat wiil hP nrnd, ~r.ed and how thev wili be manaaed~
Plastics (including vinyl and shrink-wrap):
Carpet and padding:
~rt- cy ~ta.d as pra~; ~Q
Shingies:
r~.- u~ c( Q,til ar (~~a v1'; c,~
Fixtures (sinks, tubs, lighting, etc):
Otfier (specify):
Other (specify):
Other (speci(y);
ar er- bu:ld;wy.f
s~ ~bu;f d;.~~ ~:f;~
3. Recvclinq After Occupancv
Depending on [he eventnal use nP tl~c struclure, diffemnt ~vasic nmterials ~~~~ll be prc~duced ond a~~aitable li?r 9
reeyclin~~. Re~yclable maier~als must be separaied into ~ate~ories based on cotlection meihods.
PLANNING REQUiREMENTS:
1. Indicafe location oi all 6ulk wasEe containers for refuse 2nd recycling. Plan must show location af ali containers, even it
using existing refuse/recyding enGosures. Standard delails/nates tor any of Ihe followmg are avalable from Orange
County Soiid Waste Management (919-968-2800 x163).
2. Ail refuse/recyGing containers are required to be on concrete pads.
3. Provide a deWiled and scaled plan of all bWk waste containers areas that shows: each conlainer labeled, required
screening, lighting, overhead clearances, bollards, and concrete pad.
4. Indicale whether retuselrecycling area wili be gaied. Any doorsJgates wiil need retainers to be tatched open for
refuse/recyGing eollecUOn,
5 E~sure adequate collection vehicle access lo all containers tor deposit and collection. Access templates are available
from Orenge County Solid Waste Management
6 Sharing of exterior recycling locations is atceptable if a joint accesslshared-use agreement is liled and the deeds of all
properties amended.
~ .- •• _. . ..
Standard lass botUes, metat ~ans, news a er, loss ma az~nes, #1 Iaslics, :t2 lastics i
Corru ated Cartlboard (not including waxed or single la er cardboard}
~ Mixed Paper junk maii, cereal boxes
Ofnce Paper. white or coiored cop paper, confidenlial apers
~ Resiaurant: food wastes, cooking oil, disposable dining ware
Other Plaslics: #5, #7
N I
7 Business specific wastes (please dzscribe): ~
sne rian inauaes space ror caraooara recyuing tQXi+fi r~
x container on Sheet # W
Corrugated Cardboard wiEl be handled in an alternate mannec Descnption Required:
Exterior indivldual or cooperetive-use bulk waste container site. May be suitable for apartment
com lexes, restaurants, laces oi worshi , educational facilit , ofEice buildin , retaiUoBice/restaura~t combinaiions
Garbage dumpsler ~
Garbage compactor
Cardboard dumpster
Cardboard compactor
Group of 9 recycling carts tor glass; cans, plastic bottles, newspaper, maoazirtes, oKce paper
Cooking grease renderin container (required (or any commercial kitchen faciHty)
Food wasle coltection container ~ '
Standard "curbside" recycling collection. May be suitable tor single- mily de opmenls and subdivisions,
includin some du lex, tri les, and townhome develo ments.
Attachment 3
10
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
A joint public hearing will be held at the Department of Social Services, Hillsborough
Commons, 113 Mayo St., Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, November 21, 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
Carolina Friends School petition for a Conditional Use rezoning and a
Class A Special Use Permit to expand school operations at their facility at
4809 Friends School Road.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 Special Use Permits; 2.9 Conditional
Use; and Section 8.6 of the Orange County Unified Devefopment Ordinance (UDO),
Carolina Friends School has submitted an application seeking to rezone several
parcels to a Conditional Use Zoning classification and a Class A Special Use Permit
application for the purpose of expanding existing school operations located at 4809
Friends School Road.
The request involves the adoption of a master development plan encumbering
several properties, including properties with the following Parcel Identification
Numbers (PIN):
• 9892-21-1486
• 9892-22-7252
• 9892-21-6594
• 9892-31-0894
• 9892-31-5318
• 9891-29-1739
• 9892-33-5224
• 9892-32-3662
• 9891-29-7800
Several of these parcels are currently zoned Planned Development (PD) to allow for
the operation of the aforementioned school. As the use is going to be expanded,
rezoning to a Conditional Use zoning designation is required. If approved, the
various aforementioned properties will be rezoned and encumbered under a Class A
Special Use Permit governing the development of the school.
The properties subject to this petition are located within the Rural Buffer land use
category as denoted on the Land Use Element Map of the Comprehensive Plan and
the Rural Designated Area as denoted on the Growth Management System Map.
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the application.
11
2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map and Zoning Atlas
Amendments
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
and Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of
the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the Planning Director
has initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map and to
the Zoning Atlas to assign land use category classifications and to establish zoning
for properties that will now be within Orange County's planning jurisdiction as the
result of the re-alignment of the Orange/Alamance County Line.
The properties subject to this action are described within Session Law 2011-88
(commonly referred to as the `91 % line') enacted by the North Carolina General
Assembly on May 25, 2011 and are further denoted by the following Parcel
Identification Numbers (PIN):
22. 9827354095 45. 9828399459
1. 9826347879 23. 9827355439 46. 9828402844
2• 9826373757 24. 9827356415 47. 9828411717
3. 9826375889 25. 9827357752 48. 9828430893
4. 9826378515 26. 9827358110 49. 9828436064
5. 9826378798 27. 9827358420 50. 9828442910
6. 9826378971 2g. 9827365220 51. 9828452362
7• 9826386082 29. 9g27377268 52. 9828463147
8. 9826389107 30. 9827384882 53. 9828471025
9. 9826393286 31. 9827396663 54. 9828484689
10. 9826393588 32. 9827398433 55. 9829348662
11. 9826393886 33. 9827458805 56. 9829359366
12. 9826397555 34. 9827460811 57. 9829359453
13. 9826492332 35. 9827465552 58. 9829386180
14. 9827307336 36. 9827473993 59. 9829418268
15. 9827307785 37. 9827490851 60. 9829436540
16. 9827316804 3g. 9g28316837 61. 9829442927
17. 9827318636 39. 9828329329 62. 9829461568
19. 9827326110 40. 9828378975 63. 9829471927
29. 9827334051 41. 9828387036 64. 9829520667
20. 9827338118 42. 9828387186 65. 9829575939
21. 9827348764 43. 9828395332
44. 9828398016
Staff is recommending that all aforementioned parcels are to be placed within the
Agricultural Residential Land Use Category and zoned Agricultural Residential (AR).
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Element Map and Zoning Atlas amendments.
2
12
3. 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 for consistency with the Water and Sewer
Management Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) and engineering
design for public sewer in the Efland area. This amendment is also consistent
with recommendations included in the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan. The
proposed Land Use Element Map amendment is approximately 47-acres near
Efland and Brookhollow Road, along the south side of McGowan Creek from
Agricultural Residential to 10-Year Transition.
Purpose: To review the item and receive citizen comment on the proposed map
amendments.
4. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3: Comprehensive Plan Amendments
of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the Planning Director has initiated
amendments to the text of the following sections of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan:
• Chapter 1: Plan Overview
• Chapter 3: Economic Development Element
• Chapter 4: Housing Element
• Chapter 5: Land Use Element; Land Use Element Map (text only)
~ Chapter 6: Natural and Cultural Systems Element
• Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
• Chapter 8: Services and Facilities Element
• Appendix F: Relationships Befinreen Land Use Categories and Zoning
Districts Matrix
• Appendix G: Future Land Use Category Locational Criteria
The purpose of the amendments is to correct many inconsistencies in the names of
several land use categories/classifications and terms as they are used throughout the
document, as well as to revise references to ordinances now incorporated in the
adopted UDO.
Purpose: To review the item and receive citizen comment on the proposed text
amendments.
5. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) 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 2.5 Site Plan Review
13
• Section 2.16 Subdivisions in the Economic Development, Commercial,
and/or Industrial Nodes
• Section 3.4 General Commercial Districts
• Section 3.5 Industrial Districts
• Section 3.6 Other Districts
• Section 3.7 Economic Development Districts
• Section 4.2.5 Impervious Surface and Detention Pond Requirements for
Residential Uses
• Section 4.2.6 Impervious Surface, Detention Pond, and Lot Size
Requirements for Non-Residential Uses
• Section 6.2 Lot & Building Standards
• Section 6.3 Land Use Intensity Measures
• Section 6.4 Performance Standards
• Section 6.5 Architectural Design Standards
• Section 6.6 Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
• Section 6.7.5 Specific Standards for Hillsborough EDD
• Section 6.8 Landscaping, Buffers & Tree Protection
• Section 6.9 Parking, Loading & Circulation
• Section 6.10 Roadway Improvements & Multi-Modal Transportation
• Section 6.12 Signs
• Article 10 Definitions
These amendments relate primarily to processes and standards regarding
economic development and also include minor changes necessary due to the
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments proposed in #4 above. In the
amendment packet the proposed amendments have been divided into three
color-coded categories: "clean up" or housekeeping, minor, and substantive.
Additionally, each proposed change is footnoted with a reason or rationale for the
proposed change.
Pu ose: To review the item and receive citizen comment on the proposed text
amendments.
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 Planning Director at
least 48 hours prior to the Public Hearing by calling the one of the phone numbers
below. The full text of the public hearing items may be obtained no later than
November 7, 2011 at the County website www.co.oranae.nc.us at the Meeting Agendas
link.
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 membec who will answer your questions.
14
PUBLISH:
News of Oranqe Chapel Hill Herald
November 9, 2011 November 9, 2011
November 16, 2011 November 16, 2011
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
Attachment 4
DRAFT
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
November 21, 2011
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, November 21, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at DSS Offices,
Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners
Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve
Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager
Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Larry Wright, Alan Campbell, Pete
Hallenbeck, Mark Marcoplos, H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Maxecine Mitchell,
Johnny Randall and Andrea Rohrbacher
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Judith Wegner, Lisa
Stuckey,
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Carolina Friends School petition to modify an existing Class A Special Use Permit
to expand school operations at their facility at 4809 Friends School Road - To
review a developer-initiated application to rezone several parcels to a Conditional Use
Zoning classification and a Class A Special Use Permit application seeking to expand
existing school operations.
Planning Board Vice-Chair Larry Wright introduced the items. Item C-1 is a quasi-
judicial hearing and those who want to speak must be sworn in.
Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt swore in the speakers.
Michael Harvey: This is an application for a proposal to extend conditional use zoning, as well
as ask for the adoption of the Class A Special Use Permit concerning the operation of Carolina
15
2
1 Friends School. The abstract for this item begins on page 1 and extends all the way to page
2 144. I am going to review portions of this abstract and the applicant has a brief presentation
3 and will respond to any questions that may arise. The background is covered on page 1 and 2
4 of the abstract. The school was originally approved in the 1980's as a planned development.
5 Previous modifications had been approved and authorized by the County Commissioners over
6 the years with respect to the operation of the facility as well as the operation of the existing
7 septic system on site. It needs to be remembered that this school was in existence and began
8 operation before the County adopted comprehensive regulations governing the development of
9 school operations as are currently articulated in section 5.8.4 of the Unified Development
10 Ordinance.
11 As this is a new request seeking to expand and modify the County's original approval, the
12 applicant is obligated to demonstrate compliance, not only with the provisions of Section 5.8.4,
13 but also required to rezone portions of property to conditional use as the planned development
14 zoning designation no longer exists. You all remember that the conditional use permit process
15 took over the planned development permit review process when the UDO was adopted in April
16 of this year.
17 The applicant's proposal is to abandon and re-locate the existing septic, the wastewater
18 treatment system, out of an existing stream buffer. They are going to be developing a new
19 performing arts center, which we are going to look at when we review the submitted site plan in
20 a moment. I'm going to call these particular issues out to you. They are looking to develop
21 additional recreational fields. They are going to relocating, for example, an existing baseball
22 field and developing altemative fields. They are going to do additions to existing school
23 buildings. They are going to be installing a new access drive via Mt. Sinai Road, and they're
24 going to be developing additional parking facilities.
25 As I indicated previously, this involves a rezoning request. They are proposing the rezoning of
26 parcels of property from existing Rural Buffer and Planning Development Housing Rural Buffer
27 to Rural Buffer Conditional Use. The size of all potential parcels involved is about 40 acres of
28 the existing school operation, which is already encumbered under old special use permits to
29 allow for the operation of the school. This is a copy of the site plan, which you all have in your
30 packet. I'd like to call your attention to several facets and elements of this project to get you
31 oriented.
32 (Pointing to map) This is Mt. Sinai Road here. This is Friend School Road here. This, denoted
33 on the site plan, this black area here is the new performing arts center, which is right outside the
34 stream buffer. The existing school buildings show dark areas where there are going to be
35 additions. The old baseball field has been moved here. You will note here is the proposed new
36 access road off of Mt. Sinai with additional parking here to support the performing arts center.
37 We have tennis courts and other recreational areas down in here. We have a building proposed
38 next to the existing soccer ~elds and athletic fields, and the wastewater treatment facility will be
39 up in this general area.
40 As the Board knows, this is a two-step approval process. You are going to be taking action on a
41 rezoning request and you're going to be taking action on a Class A Special Use Permit, which is
42 a quasi-judicial hearing process according to the provisions of Section 2.7 and 2.9 of the UDO.
43 You're going to be reviewing each of these applications simultaneously, but when you take
44 action, you are going to be taking action on the legislative component first and the quasi judicial
45 portion second. You need to bear in mind that the information in terms of whether or not you're
46 going to approve or deny the quasi judicial component, i.e., the Special Use Permit, needs to be
47 based on the evidence entered into the record during the various public hearings and the
48 testimony offered herein. To review the provisions of the UDO, I'm going to call your attention
16
17
1 to our abstract. I'm not going to review every independent section, but what I will stipulate to be
2 that with respect to Section 5.8.4, staff has provided comments with respect to the applicant's
3 compliance with the various submittal requirements and the various development standards.
4 For example, within your package, there was correspondence between Orange County
5 Planning Department and the Fire Marshal's Office, specifically Mr. David Sykes, who has
6 indicated he has reviewed the proposal and determined that he can supply emergency services
7 to the facility. As part of that review, the Eno Volunteer Fire Department was involved and does
8 not express any concerns. This is specifically on page 3 of your abstract.
9 We've also provided answers with respect to the proposed wastewater treatment facility, the
10 submittal of the biological inventory, which Orange County Planning staff and the Department of
11 Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation have indicated that there are no issues with
12 respect to the redevelopment of this site, with respect to potentially endangering significant
13 habitats that have been located. The applicant submitted a very detailed biological inventory
14 from the Catena Group as part of this development review process. The applicant has supplied
15 the landscaping and buffering storm water management drainage and grading plan. Upon initial
16 review, we deemed this to be consistent with the provisions of the UDO.
17 A formal traffic impact study has been completed and is part of the packet for you to review
18 indicating that the proposed increase in the number of students on this site will not have a
19 negative impact on local roadways. As also required by the provisions of the UDO, the
20 applicant has provided the second means of ingress/egress as required.
21 Planning staff has found, as stipulated and required by Section 5.8, 4-a, 3-n, that this site does
22 not lend itself to the development of shared facilities with respect to a park and ride or other
23 public transportation facilities due to its location. Staff, as we've indicated on page 5 of your
24 abstract, is convinced that the size of the property is consistent with existing County and school
25 board policy with respect to the size reliable for a school, and we further find that the applicant
26 has complied with the submittal requirements for Section 5.8.4, the required Class A Special
27 Use Permit findings for Section 2.7.3, and the required documentation for conditional use
28 rezoning as articulated in Section 2.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
29 Our recommendation is that you receive this application; you conduct the public hearing; accept
30 public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments; you refer the matter to the Planning Board with a
31 request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for
32 their February 21, 2012 regular meeting; and that you adjourn this public hearing to February
33 21, 2012 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation as well as any other
34 additional comment.
35 My closing remarks are as follows: Number one, we would like this abstract entered into the
36 official record. This abstract contains the application packet as submitted, which contains a
37 biological inventory, a site plan, a resource management plan, a letter from a realtor identifying
38 her opinion with respect to the project's compliance with maintaining the value of adjacent
39 property value, a detailed naRative by the applicant, renderings of the proposed new
40 performance center and the new buildings, and all other submittal documentation, we have a
41 property and vicinity map, which is Attachment 2, staff comments with respect to memorandum
42 concerning the initial review of this application, a short description and note on the difference
43 between legislative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the neighborhood information meeting
44 comments and notification materials and certification.
45 Staff has not received any comments with respect to the approval or denial of this application,
46 with the exception of the concern that has been expressed today over the development of the
47 baseball field. There is concern from the adjoining property owner over the proximity of the field
48 to their property. That property owner is present at this meeting this evening. We have
4
1 informed the applicant of the concern and the applicant is going to address that during their
2 presentation, however, we have been led to believe that they are going to be meeting with this
3 specific property owner to address that concern. The neighborhood information meeting, the
4 only comment staff received with respect to the development of this site was the question and
5 concern about the erection of ball field lights and other lights around the athletic fields. You will
6 note from the site plan that none are proposed. If the applicant wishes to add them, that would
7 be from my standpoint a modification to this project, which would require them to come back
8 before the County Board of Commission through an SUP modification to add them at a later
9 date. It is not something that I believe staff can approve administratively. So, for practical and
10 technical purposes, none are being proposed, none can be installed until this Board takes action
11 on the request.
12 As I indicated, the applicant has their own presentation. Unless you have any immediate
13 questions from me, I'm going to suggest the applicant come up and make their presentation to
14 the Board.
15 Joe Marian (Attorney for Carolina Friends School): Good evening, my name is Joe Marian,
16 and I have been duly sworn. I am the attorney for Carolina Friends School and have been so
17 for almost 20 years. I have practiced in Durham and Orange County for more than 30 years.
18 I'm going to try to say as little as possible and hand the ball as quickly as I can to the people
19 that have done the work here. It has been a two to three-year process.
20 We especially want to commend Michael Harvey for his time and efforts and patience and
21 responsiveness to the many questions that have come up to get us to the point where we are
22 today, because it certainly has been a give and take process, both within the school and
23 determining what the needs were, and then with the County as to how to best implement those
24 needs.
25 As you will see in this much shorter packet that I think you have from Carolina Friends School,
26 on the second page are the specific Special Use Permit Required Findings. Without belaboring
27 those, I'm sure you're familiar with them, but we feel that we have addressed all four of those in
28 the submissions that have been already submitted to the Board here as well as what follows
29 when we give you specific details about the various plans on board. Who is here from the
30 school and will speak, just so you know kind of what's coming, Mike Hanas is the Principal of
31 the Carolina Friends School and has been for five or six years and before that was the Head
32 Teacher. He is here very briefly to give you an idea of what triggered this process - what our
33 needs are and what the Carolina Friends School is about. Then Ellen Weinstein, the architect
34 and Tony Whitaker, the Civil Engineer, who really did the nuts and bolts of this proposal, are
35 here to walk you through it to the extent you need any explanation as to the particulars. We
36 also have other officials and board members here. I would point out especially that Peter and
37 Martha Hoffer are here, who are Carolina Friends School's benefactors. They started the
38 school over 40 years ago with a donation of land and their donations of land and time and
39 resources has continued for more than 40 years and they're here tonight in case there are any
40 questions arising and in support of the school. There are special people at the school. With
41 that overview, I'll turn it over to Mike Hanas. Mike will give the brief description of our needs.
42
43 Mike Hanas: Good evening, my name is Mike Hanas. I do serve as Principal of the Carolina
44 Friends School. I have been sworn in. I more often like to identify myself as the tallest student
45 at Carolina Friends School. This process has been one of many good examples of learning that
46 has gone on for me as well as for members of my community. We are a school community fast
47 approaching a 50th anniversary. We were founded nearly 50 years ago by members of the
48 Durham Friends meeting and the Chapel Hill Friends meeting who set out to establish an
18
5 19
1 independent school with a deliberate policy of racial integration. We've tried to continue to bring
2 that mission of educating students for action in the real world to life in all of our programs and
3 practices. We currently serve about 500 students from the surrounding area, about 400
4 families. And they come to us for a number of reasons. They come to Carolina Friends School
5 in part because they want their children to be in a school setting in which the classes are
6 particularly small. They want their students to be seen and known, nudged and nurtured,
7 applauded or kicked in the behind by a teacher who actually knows them particularly well. They
8 also come to realize specific academic aspirations, for their students to participate in the arts as
9 well as in athletics. But maybe, more importantly than all of those, they come for the sake of
10 participating in a community of a particular set of values. They choose to come to Carolina
11 Friends School knowing their students will be involved significantly in what we call service
12 learning initiatives, classroom experiences that translate directly into action in their communities,
13 their local communities and communities far from here. They come because they are
14 particularly interested in having their students in a school setting that is committed to conflict
15 resolution and anti-bullying efforts as our school. And they come because they want to
16 participate in the process of building a community like Carolina Friends School. Stewardship is
17 what brings us here today, really. Our entire community—staff, students, parents, teachers,
18 alums, neighbors—are all participating in the question, 'what's next?', 'what would it take for this
19 school community, which we have come to value, to not only endure, but perhaps even better
20 serve the children and families of the surrounding area?'. I hope that kind of commitment to
21 good stewardship is apparent in a number of the aspects of the program. Our commitment to
22 relocating our wastewater treatment plant, our commitment to renovating existing structures
23 wherever possible rather than tearing things down and building new structures. You'll hear
24 more about those details from Ellen Weinstein. Thank you for your consideration.
25 Ellen Weinstein: My name is Ellen Weinstein, I have been duly sworn in this evening. I'm
26 architect for Carolina Friends School. Two and a half years ago the Carolina Friends School
27 Facilities Committee began discussions about how and where to expand the existing 38-acre
28 campus. A very generous land donation was being planned that would grow the campus to 87
29 acres. This was the time to plan for both immediate needs and longer range hopes. Through a
30 very thorough planning process, a two and a half year planning process, first we did a fairly
31 extensive analysis of the existing site—vegetation, topography, soils, solar daylight access,
32 pedestrian and vehicular circulation. I want to call your attention to one part of the analysis,
33 which was these radii, walking radii. When we plotted these, the center building, very cleverly
34 named because it is now at the center of the campus, we came from the Center Building out for
35 a five-minute walking radius and drew this first circle. Then we came out for a ten-minute
36 walking radius and drew that second circle. What we soon realized was that there was a great
37 opportunity for new activities to move to the west part of the campus, the new land, and still be
38 equidistant and just as close to the center and the heart of campus as the existing buildings.
39 Moving campus activities to the western part, so this area right here that you've seen on our site
40 plan, really provided an opportunity to incorporate and to protect the existing stream and make it
41 a part of the campus, and that stream is right here. You'll see in later slides, that stream is now
42 really considered the edge of campus and what this new plan does is really make it a focus of
43 the campus experience. I'd like to point out some of the key elements of the proposed plan to
44 orient you again. I apologize, we have turned north directly up, so the plans that you have, if
45 you would move them counterclockwise. So north is directly up and existing campus is this
46 area right here, with the thinner red line that comes around here. Then this bolder line is the
47 proposed new campus. So the plan includes additions to the lower school, the middle school,
48 the Quaker dome, and the early school. These are additions to all the existing buildings, and
49 whenever possible, these additions create outdoor courtyards and rooms for learning. The
50 second component is a new activity on the campus, a building that does not exist currently,
6
1 which is a new perForming arts center. That is located right here on the new western part of the
2 campus. A pedestrian bridge is planned from campus across the stream to the performing arts
3 center. This pedestrian bridge will bring everyone through the woods and across the stream to
4 the new performing arts building. So, again, the stream that currently forms the edge of the
5 campus now becomes a focal point of the daily life of campus, which we think is a really
6 important learning opportunity.
7 The existing spray field that's been mentioned is in this area right here currently. That
8 wastewater system will be moved approximately into this rectangular area on the north part of
9 the site. So the existing spray irrigation field will be removed and the new wastewater area will
10 be developed in the northern portion of the campus, as I mentioned. This new system is a
11 surface strip irrigation system that allows 90% of the existing tree canopy to remain. A minimum
12 amount of parking is provided at the performing arts center for accessibility and of course
13 emergency access. But the bulk of the parking remains on the main part of campus in the
14 existing paved areas and again the idea is that people will park in those areas if they are coming
15 to a performance and again walk through the woods and over the bridge. And students will of
16 course do the same.
17 The existing road, which right now stops right here, is being rerouted a bit to make safer
18 conditions for the early school and then is being extended as a loop road around the campus,
19 again for accessibility to the new perForming arts area. Also, the new driveway and new access
20 point for Mt. Sinai way down here will come and join up with that new loop road. The new
21 baseball field is proposed here on the west side of the site and an existing baseball field will be
22 turned into the tennis court area.
23 I'd like to just quickly share some initial sketches of the pertorming arts center with you. These
24 are early on in the design process. This is a sketch approached from the bridge coming across
25 the stream, moving toward the performing arts courtyard. Hopefully this will give you a sense of
26 the character and the scale of the new buildings proposed. Then in this aerial drawing, I just
27 wanted to give you a sense, we've taken what is a fairly large footprint - 20,000 square foot
28 building with 300-350 seats, music space, dance, and theater classrooms - we've broken it
29 down into basically four components so we've broken down the scale of the building and
30 created this courtyard that you see. So, again, creating outdoor space, which at Friends School
31 is every bit a classroom as much as any indoor space. The simple forms and materials that you
32 see echo the existing buildings and the forms that have been used on the existing campus will
33 transfer to the new campus.
34 I'd like to now turn this over to Tony Whitaker and encourage you to ask him all of the hard
35 questions about all of the details of this plan.
36
37 Tony Whitaker: Thank you, my name is Tony Whitaker, the Civil Engineer for the project, and I
38 have been sworn in. I too would like to thank the staff for all the work that has gone in to getting
39 us to this point. Quickly, and the staff has done a great job and Ellen has done a great job of
40 stepping us through the site and some of the principles that have informed the site
41 development. I wanted to make a comparison quickly because I think it's helpful for the existing
42 special use permit condition, that is, the land area and density of the existing condition, you'll
43 see is 38 acres, a floor area ratio of 6.6%, open space ratio about 94%, and impervious surface
44 ratio of about 16%. Those are existing conditions. Compared to the proposed condition, you'll
45 see the most dominant change is the additional land area of 87 acres now instead of 38. You'll
46 see the floor area ratio has dropped from 6.6 to 3.7 percent as a percentage of the gross land
47 area of the parcel. Open space ratio has increased from 94% to 97% now, and the impervious
48 ratio from 16% to 13.5%. So, by these measures and in this context we say that the proposed
20
~
1 condition is less dense than the existing condition. I will mention something that you've heard
2 already that came up today - a concern expressed by the adjacent property owner. On this
3 slide, that property is in this area immediately west of the proposed baseball field. The concern,
4 as we understand it - and we've had some conversation today and will have continuing
5 conversation - the concern is regarding the proximity of the ball field to the property line. So we
6 have looked at this issue today and do believe that there is an opportunity to take the ball field
7 and to move it to the right, or in this case, to the east to provide more separation between the
8 ball field and the elements of the ball field like the batting cage and the dugout as a separation
9 of the ball field to the property owner. So we believe there is that opportunity to work with this
10 property owner to satisfy that concern. We eagerly embrace that opportunity. In the next few
11 weeks before the Planning Board meeting in January we expect to have those issues resolved
12 and be able to report back. Thank you.
13 I'll turn it back over to Joe Marian, who has a few concluding remarks.
14 Joe Marian: I think Michael did introduce all of the written documents that have been supplied
15 so far, but we would ask that the materials from the PowerPoint that you have as well as the
16 testimony that has occurred or may yet occur be entered into the official record so that we have
17 met those requirements. In closing, the only thing I will say is a little on a personal note. Both
18 of my children went to Carolina Friends School and both went for 12 years. One is out of
19 college and one is almost out of college. So I am here as a Friends School parent as well. I
20 believe in their mission, and I believe in their results, and I believe that this expansion such as it
21 is, even though it reduces density, is a wonderful opportunity for a wonderful school. So we
22 appreciate your attention and I think we stand ready to answer questions from any source.
23
24 Larry Wright: Commissioners, are there any comments? Board members?
25 Mark Marcoplos: I'm curious about the baseball fields and the lights.
26 Michael Harvey: As I have been informed and as I have testified to and as Mr. Whitaker has
27 testified to, there are no proposals to erect outdoor sports field lights around the baseball field or
28 any of the other athletic fields. I would consider that, if this is approved, a modification so that
29 Carolina Friends School, if they ever wanted to erect such lights, they would have to come back
30 before the Board and seek approval for those lights. As of right now, no, and there's also no
31 plans for amplified PA system or any other similar announcement system around the ball field.
32
33 Johnny Randall: I noticed in the information provided there were a number of what could be
34 construed as invasive plant species on the site and there was some intention of removing these
35 to the best extent possible. I wanted to contribute some information to the applicant concerning
36 the property removal of such species (Mr. Randall handed the applicant a brochure). I'm
37 familiar with a number of these plant species, and sooner or later, some of these will take over
38 the whole site. So perhaps eliminating these could become a service leaming project for the
39 local students.
40 Andrea Rohrbacher: With respect to the footbridge to the performing arts center, are there
41 adequate safety measures in place for an emergency evacuation?
42 Tony Whitaker: Yes. The reason that we have the second entrance from Mt. Sinai Road is to
43 provide that emergency/secondary access to the performing arts center in case something is
44 needed on that side of the creek and emergency vehicles cannot otherwise get across the
45 stream. That driveway will be 20 feet wide; it will meet fire department and state building code
46 requirements for minimum width and surface conditions for means of access, means of
21
8
1 emergency access. So that will be approved by the County Fire Marshal and Emergency
2 Services and we believe that will be a very safe condition.
3 Andrea Rohrbacher: I was thinking more along the lines of if the entire building needed to be
4 evacuated because of something like a tornado warning. Would the footbridge be adequate to
5 get people to a safe place or would the building be safe?
6 Tony Whitaker: In those circumstances, when that building would be occupied in a very full
7 manner, it would be around some event, some performance event or some gathering
8 preplanned: If those kinds of emergency weather conditions existed, the school would have
9 operational control over the cancelling or delaying that kind of event in the first place. So that
10 would be the first line of defense for that sort of thing.
11 Larry Wright: Ok, we'd like to open it up now for the members of the public. I'd like to remind
12 you that there's a three-minute limit on comments made. If you would step forward and state
13 your name and state that you've been duly sworn in.
14 John Roberts: In a quasi-judicial hearing, you cannot limit to three minutes.
15 Marilyn Preyer: My name is Marilyn Preyer, and I have been duly sworn in this evening. I
16 wanted to share with you briefly my long and wonderful history with the Carolina Friends School
17 community. Our three children benefitted immensely by attending school there for a number of
18 years. We in turn support them with our time and our activities and resources as well, so we
19 have a very cordial and warm relationship. I regret very much that the Carolina Friends School
20 community is hearing from me tonight for the first time on this issue. I truly was not aware of it,
21 and I'm not sure where it fell through the cracks. I'm sure we were notified, but it did not get on
22 my front burner, so for that I apologize to all of you that you are hearing from me in a public
23 setting like this. Our main concern, our lot, we would not have had this opportunity to own this
24 lot if it had not been for the graciousness of the Clopfer's. We did purchase the lot from them
25 about ten years ago, and at that time we had intended to build it as our home site and our plans
26 changed. So we then put this land on the market and there it has been sitting for quite awhile.
27 As the economy turned in 2008, we just simply have not been able to sell it. Our concern is that
28 here on out that with the baseball field so close to our edge, I think it would be within 90 feet of
29 the property line, and with the parking lot, it will change the atmosphere of a perspective home
30 site for somebody. So I would very much look forward to the opportunity to talk with Carolina
31 Friends School and see if we can find a mutually agreeable alternative or something that will
32 work for all parties concerned. I believe that I did hear that the baseball field would be rented
33 out. I would like to gather more information about that and find out what expectations might be
34 for that. Having spent so much time with Carolina Friends School, I know what wonderful
35 stewards they are, and I do not doubt for a minute that they will not do everything above and
36 beyond their word and their plan, but I just very much would like to facilitate discussion so that
37 everybody can be satisfied. Thank you.
38
39 Margaret Campion: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Margaret Campion and I was
40 sworn in earlier this evening. I currently serve on the board of Carolina Friends School. My son
41 also graduated from Friends School some years ago. I also serve on the very long-standing
42 Land and Facilities Committee and really it is just reiterating what has already been said. The
43 length of time that we spent these two and a half years really is an indication of the seriousness
44 with which we took our various charges. We continuously held our stewardship of the school in
45 the forefront of our minds. We tried to plan for a sustainable community; I believe we have,
46 centered around Friends Creek, which now in the new plan runs through the center of the
47 community. We are very lucky at Friends School with the land we were originally gifted from the
22
9
1 Clopfers and then this new gift of land. We realize how lucky we are. We cherish it, as well as
2 the surrounding community, and we hope that you too will agree that we have planned for
3 another 50 years of concern about the environment, the kids that will be there, and I hope that
4 whoever buys the property has kids and they can just run right across the street.
6 Larry Wright: Is there anybody else that arrived late that would like to be duly sworn in and
7 have a comment for the Commissioners? Hearing none, Chair Pelissier.
8 Chair Pelissier: We have four recommendations from the Planning Director, and I will entertain
9 a motion.
10
11 Commissioner Jacobs: Before I say anything, I want to commend the Friends School
12 community for their work that has been done, for the sensitivity to the land. Two and a half
13 years working on this project compared to government is action is speedy indeed. I just had a
14 couple of questions and I actually came here with a question about ball field lights, since that
15 has been a sore point in other parts of the County. And I understand, Mr. Harvey, that you did
16 say you would consider it a special use permit modification to add lights, but is there any reason
17 that we wouldn't add as a condition that the addition of lights would constitute an automatic
18 modification of the special use permit.
19 Michael Harvey: If you wish to add that condition, that is obviously your purview.
20 Commissioner Jacobs: I think I knew the law we would have to have the applicant agree.
21 Michael Harvey: Correct, because iYs a conditional use, but you can recommend.
22 Commissioner Jacobs: It doesn't sound disagreeable, but I just wanted to raise that. I also
23 had a question about the solid waste management plan submitted by the applicant. There's a
24 reference on page 148, a memorandum from Solid Waste Management and one of the
25 recommendations has to do with food waste and separating grease rendering. I just didn't see
26 where that was followed through, and I looked at this, which we got separately, the Orange
27 County Solid Waste Management Plan. I didn't see it, I probably just missed it, but how is that
28 tracked?
29 Michael Harvey: First I'm going to provide my answer to your question and let the applicant
30 provide an answer obviously because it's their plan. What you have on page 128 is Jeff
31 Scouten, who is with Orange County Solid Waste, his memorandum, which was dated
32 11/3/2011. We also have additional email tra~c from Mr. Scouten conceming a second visit
33 where some of his concerns were addressed. With respect to the separation of waste, I'm
34 going to turn it over real quickly to Mr. Whitaker, but I believe most of Mr. Scouten, based on
35 what I have read and what he and I have talked about, I believe most of his concerns have
36 already been addressed and incorporated in the project.
37 Tony Whitaker: There was considerable interchange between the Solid Waste staff. In doing
38 the job that they do, they offer standard language that applies across the board to most facilities
39 and then we sort through that and figure what is relevant to the facility that we're working on.
40 We came to agreement with Mr. Scouten that the school does not have any cooking facilities.
41 They don't have a cafeteria; they don't have those more conventional kinds of school cafeteria
42 facilities, so there is no cooking in that regard. There is no generation of grease or those kinds
43 of wastes. So, those standard provisions simply don't apply.
44 Commissioner Jacobs: So you have no food waste to compost on campus, let alone
45 cooking.
23
10
1 Tony Whitaker: Regarding food waste, the kids generally bring their lunches. I do suppose
2 that there is some waste from that. The school is very good about segregating all kinds of
3 waste and very receptive to hearing about better ways to separate waste and collect.
4 Composting is an active part of some of the things that go on campus. Those are in the
5 operational protocols of the program already.
6 Commissioner Jacobs: This memorandum that we got thaYs kind of separate for solid waste
7 disposal and management practices, it may just be picking at words, but some of the
8 requirements where it says, "recycle a scrap as an aggregate producer," sometimes it says, "if
9 practical" and other times it says, "as practical." I would think "as practical° denotes more of a
10 commitment to do it than "if practical."
11 Tony Whitaker: I agree with you. I think the intent is as practical in every case. As the one
12 who wrote those words, I don't believe I made such a fine point of distinction at the time of
13 writing, but I do understand that as you speak of it, and I agree. The point is that certain things
14 are practical and certain things are not. They'll become manifest in the moment or at the time.
15 Sometimes there is a market for some kinds of material and sometimes there's not, depending
16 on economic cycles. Those things can be sorted through with another solid waste management
17 plan at the time of site plan approval for each facet of the work. Your point is well taken.
18 Commissioner Jacobs: So it will be reflected somewhere in the future.
19 Tony Whitaker: Yes. And to the current standards at that time.
20 Commissioner Jacobs: My last point, it is not really the Friends School's problem, but it is
21 more of the County's problem.
22 It must be already 15 years since Piney Mountain had its system failure. Piney Mountain is a
23 subdivision not far from the Friends School that had a system that was supposed to be cutting
24 edge, and in fact it didn't work. It was governed by the same entity that is now being designated
25 to administer this system.
26 We spent a number of years trying to come up with a mechanism to prevent reliance on DWQ to
27 have the sole authority over regulating these kinds of systems in Orange County because it was
28 such a mess to have to deal with when the Piney Mountain system failed, and Mr. Whitaker is
29 nodding his head, he remembers. We had to come up with a special way to get water and
30 sewer from Durham into the rural buffer.
31 I don't know really that there's anything to say about this project other than I would like at least
32 to put in the record the possibility that Environmental Health staff look at the possibility of adding
33 an inspection per year beyond what the state requires so that there's some local oversight of the
34 system. Because also what happened was the state was not following through on doing the
35 number of inspections of the system, so they didn't even notice very quickly that it had failed.
36 Of course the state has been cutting staff for these kinds of functions. I don't know that it's
37 necessarily a big issue for you because you're already so far into the pipeline and to bring up
38 now that there's a more global issue for the County is not really fair. I do think iYs a more global
39 issue for the County, especially if we ever want to do anything more creative in rural areas
40 about having any other kind of system other than a well and septic tank. I would at least like to
41 have Environmental Health look at whether or not there's a way to bolster the state's inspection.
42 I don't know that it would be anything but redundant, but it might prevent something like what we
43 had to go through before.
44
45 Commissioner McKee: Going back to the issue of the ball field. I heard mention of moving
46 the ball field to the east to take into account the adjacent property owners' concerns. If I might
24
11
1 be so bold as to possibly ask that it be referred back to your property marragement committee to
2 consider rotating the infield approximately 90 degrees, which would pull the infield with resulting
3 bleacher sections and associated infrastructure even further away from the property line. That
4 may have already been discussed.
5 Tony Whitaker: I can add some color to that if you wish. Thank you for that comment. It is a
6 consideration. I would say that in the discussions over the two and a half year period that you
7 heard mentioned, a lot of talk surrounding the location of the ball field and the orientation of the
8 ball field occurred. Essentially, the orientation that shows on the site plan now is the preferred
9 orientation for dealing with sun issues, etc., and it is also the orientation that the current ball field
10 on another part of the site enjoys. The school understands that orientation, they're used to it,
11 and they know how to plan their activities regarding that ball field. So, it is important from the
12 school's perspective to maintain that configuration. There are other meaningful ways to address
13 this concern, and the school is absolutely committed to doing that.
14
15 Chair Pelissier: There are four recommendations from the Planning Director. I'll entertain a
16 motion.
17 Commissioner Foushee: I move that we refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request
18 that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the
19 February 21, 2012 BOCC regular meeting.
20 Commissioner Hemminger seconded.
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22 Chair Pelissier: I believe we need another motion.
23 Commissioner McKee: I move we adjourn the public hearing until February 21, 2012 in order
24 to receive and accept the Planning Board recommendation and any submitted written
25 comments.
26 Commissioner Hemminger seconded.
25
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
DRAFT Attachment 5 2r
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 JANUARY 4,2012
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6
7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford (Chair), Eno Township Representative; Larry Wright (Vice-Chair), At-Large,
8 Cedar Grove Township;Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township
9 Representative; Mark Marcoplos, At-Large, Bingham Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative;
10 Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; At-
11 Large; Peter Hallenbeck,Cheeks Township Representative;Maxecine Mitchell,At-Large Bingham Township;
12
13
14 MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township
15 Representative;
16
17
18 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Michael Harvey,
19 Current Planning Supervisor;Shannon Berry,Special Projects Planner;Tina Love,Administrative Assistant II
20
21
22 OTHERS PRESENT: Tony Whitaker,John McGovern, Ellen Weinstein,Joe Marion
23
24 (Handouts: 2012 Board of Adjustment, Planning Board, and Quarterly Public Hearing Calendar;Email from NCDOT
25 Asst. District Engineer to Michael Harvey; Proposal to Streamline Decision-Making on Quarterly Public Hearing
26 Items;Carolina Friends School Revised Baseball Field Exhibit)
27
28 AGENDA ITEM 8: CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL PETITION TO MODIFY AN EXISTING CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
29 EXPAND SCHOOL OPERATIONS AT THEIR FACILITY AT 4809 FRIENDS SCHOOL ROAD: To make a
30 recommendation to the BOCC on a developer-initiated application to rezone several parcels to
31 a Conditional Use Zoning classification and a Class A Special Use Permit application seeking to
32 expand existing school operations. This item was heard at the November 21,2011 quarterly public
33 hearing.
34 Presenter: Michael Harvey,Planner III
35
36 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract and attachments.
37
38 Alan Campbell: As a general rule, when you come up with the variety of conditions, a lot are conditions; does this
39 just make it nice and neat?
40
41 Michael Harvey: Correct. It will fully document what will be required.
42
43 Lisa Stuckey: There was a little bit of discussion on whether it was Eno or New Hope Fire Department,are you clear
44 on the right one?
45
46 Michael Harvey: We have been told by the Fire Marshall both so we are covering our basis and listing both in the
47 findings of fact.
48
49 Lisa Stuckey: Should we say on page 49 that it would be provided by both?
50
51 Michael Harvey: Yes. And since the Fire Marshall told us both,that is why the condition reads as it does.
52
53 Lisa Stuckey: I have a question about the email regarding a road. That is not really covered?
54
1
DRAFT
55 Michael Harvey: Yes. It is one of the conditions. Specifically number 12. DOT has provided you an indication that
56 they could approve the proposed new driveway access onto Mt. Sinai Road subject to the listed conditions.
57
58 Lisa Stuckey: They do not look to me to be insurmountable.
59
60 Michael Harvey: My opinion would be no.
61
62 Tony Whitaker: I am the planning and engineering consultant for the project. I will address the DOT question first.
63 There were three conditions DOT stated and we believe we can comply with all of those. We are working with DOT
64 to clarify number one but I have every confidence that will not be a problem. Mr. Haroey correctly noted that it
65 essentially moves the ball field 30 feet and in some parts more like 50 feet from the property line as compared to the
66 previous design. It moves the parking lot an additional 50 feet from the property line which was 50 now to 100. After
67 the public hearing, we had a surveyor stakeout the home plate and the left field comer of the ball field for reference
68 and we looked at it with Mr. and Mrs. Prior and their realtor and we made sure everyone understood the physical
69 conditions. We left it for the Priors to get back to us as to their preference and they did that and suggested we move
70 the ball field a little further from the property line if we can. They actually suggested getting the infield further from
71 the properry line because they perceive that is where most of the activity is and to add a berm, which is what we
72 suggested earlier with screening vegetation on the berm. You may notice a trail which does meander onto their
73 property. They said it would be nice to relocate that part that encroaches and get it back onto the school property.
74 We presented that back to the Priors. They emailed me asking for a meeting yesterday and they asked us in view of
75 this plan, isn't there somewhere else you can put this ball field on this property. We walked them through the
76 reasoning why we cannot do that and they accepted that. They asked if we could move the parking to another
77 location and we said given the purpose of the parking, it is hard to imagine a location that would make sense so they
78 agreed. They said, at the end, that we are not completely satisfied but we think you have done everything you can
79 do to meet our conditions so they agreed to allow this to move forward and they are not here this evening and do not
80 have a representative this evening. They know about this meeting tonight and they stated they are willing to let this
81 move ahead with some concem but understanding we need to move ahead.
82
83 Alan Campbell: How big is their parcel?
84
85 Tony Whitaker: Just under 10 acres.
86
87 Mark Marcoplos: Where is their house in relation to the field?
88
89 Tony Whitaker: There is no house on the property. It is an investment property for them. They stated yesterday
90 they have no intention of building on the property. They bought several lots in that development for investment.
91 They have sold one of them and they have two left and this is one of those.
92
93 Mark Marcoplos: How many lots could they subdivide that into?
94
95 Tony Whitaker: I think the covenants prohibit subdivision.
96
97 Mark Marcoplos: If that is the case, it would be still under one under with 10 acres and that owner could take into
98 account the moderate effects of a ball field without lights or amplification and locate their house accordingly.
99
100 Tony Whitaker: We have asked them to anticipate where the house site might be. They have identified two house
101 sites for that property and both are far away.
102
103 Alan Campbell: Would the entry to their property be off that road or is there another road?
104
105 Tony Whitaker: Yes; off the road to the west.
106
107 Brian Crawford: That leaves us to make specific recommendations to the BOCC.
108
27
2
DRAFT
109 Michael Harvey: Again, the Pianning Board has the ability to make a motion to affirm staff recommended findings
110 beginning on page 24 through page 49 but the Planning Board will have to make motions to make findings to answer
111 compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) a, 5.3.2 (A) (2) b, 5.3.2 (A) (2) c.
112
113 MOTION: Alan Campbell made a motion to affirm staff's recommendations on page 24 through page 49, items 1
114 through 6. Specific standards for the submission of Conditional Use Application in Section 2.9.1 of the UDO as
115 corrected. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey.
116 VorE: Unanimous
117
118 Brian Crawford: Item number 2 will be page 19.
119
120 MOTION: Alan Campbell made a motion to approve based on evidence at the hearing and other evidence in the
121 record that we make the following findings, that in accordance with Section 5.3.2(A) (2) a; 5.3.2(A) (2) b; 5.3.2(A) (2)
122 c There was no evidence at the public hearing or submitted in writing that the Planning Boarcl indicated that Friends
123 School had not met their burden.. Seconded by Larry Wright
124 VoTe: Unanimous
125
126 Mark Marcoplos: I would like to add that Friends School has always been a respected institution in the community
127 and I have known a lot of kids that have graduated there. I was impressed at the thoughtfulness of the design,
128 energy efficiency plans for the buildings and the whole way they have interacted with the people involved.
129
130 Michael Harvey: Can I make a request that the motion be amended to indicate there was no evidence at the public
131 hearing or submitted in writing that the Planning Board indicated that Friends School had not met their burden.
132
133 Alan Campbell: I accept that fiendly amendment.
134
135 Michael Harvey: The Planning Board needs to make a motion to recommend the twelve conditions on page 51.
136
137 MOTION: Alan Campbell made a motion to accept the conditions proposed by the Planning Board which the applicant
138 has accepted in writing as described on page 51. Seconded by Larry Wright.
139 VoTE: Unanimous
140
141
142
28
29
. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 11S111t~.1~itS
. ~, ~0
LAND DEYELQPMEMT CONSULTANTS
December 19, 2011
Orange County Planning Department
Attn: Michael Harvey
131 West Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Re: Carolina Friends School
SUP Application
Dear Mr. Harvey:
Attachment 6
#15010
The following is a summary list of the concerns expressed by County Commissioners,
Planning Board members, and the general public at the November 21, 2011 Quarterly
Public Hearing for the referenced project, along with Applicant responses for each:
A. Concern over the proximity of the proposed baseball field and parking lot to the western
property line.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed field location results from a careful finro-year
planning process, which considered school programming needs, existing facilities, the
practical opportunities and limitations of the additional land area that has become
available to the school, and other relevant factors. The proposed location meets or
exceeds all applicable zoning standards, and has been determined to be the only
suitable location for the field. The school acknowledges the concerns expressed by an
adjoining property owner about the proximity to the property line. Since the public
hearing, the school has been working with this property owner to address her concems.
B. Concem over the possibility of Carolina Friends School being allowed to rent out athletic
fields for use by outside entities.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Carolina Friends School does not plan to `rent' the athletic
fields for use by athletic organizations, leagues, or other third parties. The school has
traditionally allowed the athletic fields to be used by some groups, with which school-
related personnel may have an affiliation. The school expects to continue this tradition
with the new baseball field, but does not intend to expand this community service to a
formal rental arrangement with any baseball or softball league or group.
C. Concern over the possible erection of sports/athletic field lights around the various
athletic fields denoted on the site plan.
LANQ PI.ANNERS + CIVII ENGtNEERS
370$ LYCKAN PARKWAY, SUITE 201, DURHAM, NC, 27707, PHONE: 919-490-1545, FAX: 919-403-fl33fi
YYYJW.CIVIL-CONSi1LT~:NTS.COM LIC. C-t030
30
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Carolina Friends Schooi does not intend to erect athletic
field lights around any proposed or existing athletic fields. The school understands the
current staff interpretation that any such lights would trigger the need for a major
modification of the SUP. The school will accept a condition of approval for the SUP that
acknowledges such a requirement. Further, the school does not intend to use any
public address or other sound amplification system during athletic events.
D. Concern that the proposed footbridge is wide enough to allow for emergency
evacuation of classroom buildings.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed footbridge will not be the primary emergency
exit for any existing or proposed building. All buildings will have code-compliant
emergency access routes approved by Orange Couniy Emergency Services and the
first-responding Fire Department. Further, in the event of pending adverse weather
events or threats, school administrative staff will be able to proactively suspend planned
school activities if appropriate.
E. Concern over the proposed location of a new driveway along Mt. Sinai Road.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: A second point of access is a required element of all new
or expanded schools in Orange County. The proposed driveway will primarily serve the
western portion of campus, and will be a secondary access and egress in case of any
emergency which may require it. In addition, the driveway will be used as a
construction access route for the new buildings on the west side of campus, as a
purposeful measure to mitigate traffic safety concerns on the main part of campus. The
location and design of the driveway connection to Mt. Sinai Road has been reviewed by
NCDOT, which has given preliminary concurrence. This driveway is not expected to
significantly change vehicular patterns at the school or in the community, due to the
expected low volume of usage.
F. Concern over the need for the County to ensure the perpetual maintenance and
operational status of State approved waste management systems.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Although the current wastewater system is under DWQ
jurisdiction, the Orange County Health Dept., Environmental Health Division (EH)
does provide annual supplemental inspections under the local WTMP program, and
the County collects an annual fee for this service. In conversation with EH staff, we
understand that the new wastewater system will be monitored by the County in the
same manner as the current system. The school supports this dual approach,
realizing that the County has a legitimate interest in this matter, and that the
County's inspection regimen typically is more detailed than a DWQ inspection.
It is important to realize that primary monitoring and operational oversight of the
new wastewater system will be provided by a State-certified system operator, who
will also submit regular reports to DWQ. The system will include an auto-dialer
(with battery back-up) that will make phone or text contact with the appropriate
persons in the event of adverse trends or conditions within the treatment units or
tanks (such as pump failure, potential or actual high-water conditions, etc.).
Further, the system components will be redundant, so that mechanical failure of
any single device will not cause the system to cease treatment or operation.
31
G. A request that the solid waste management plan be modified incorporating additional
information on the disposal of food products/grease waste by the school as well as
modifying language within the plan indicating that the recycling of scrap material will be
`as practical' rather than `if practical'.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Completed. Please see the attached revision.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:
Based on comments made at the November 21, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing,
Planning staff has made a preliminary set of recommended conditions for the project.
Our response to each of these conditions is as follows:
1. That the Board of County Commissioners approve an Ordinance Amending the
Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone the properties detailed within the application
submitted by Carolina Friends School from Rural Buffer (RB) and Planned
Development Housing Rural Buffer (PD-H-RB) to Rural Buffer Conditional Use
(RB-CU) to allow for the requested expansion as denoted on the approved site plan.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Agree
2. That the school be limited to serving 500 students as proposed by the applicant on
Sheet C1 of the approved site plan. '
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Agree
3. That the hours of operation for the school be consistent with the information
provided on Sheet C1 of the approved site plan.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Agree
4. That existing vegetation shall be preserved and remain in an undisturbed state in
general conformance with Sheet(s) C4 and C6 of the approved site plan, as
appropriately adjusted for site-specific conditions pursuant to Site Plan review for
individual construction phases.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Agree
5. That the lifetime rights of the Klopfers to utilize their existing residential structures
shall be preserved as part of the site re-development process.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Agree
6. That the Fire Marshal and representatives of the New Hope Volunteer Fire
Department shall review and approve the floor plan of proposed new buildings prior
to the issuance of any Building and/or Zoning Compliance Permit(s) approving
construction verifying that the structures comply with all applicable NC Fire
Protection Code standards.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Agree. In the past, the school has generally coordinated
with the Eno VFD for fire emergency issues. The Applicant agrees to work with
either or both organizations as appropriate for fire safety and emergency issues.
32
7. That the applicant shall install any required wastewater treatment system
improvements necessary to support approved expansion projects prior to the
commencement of earth disturbing activities. Further, the school is required to
supply Planning and Environmental Health staff will any and all permits issued by
the State of North Carolina allowing for the operation/modification of the system.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Agree
8. That an annual inspection of the wastewater treatment facility shall be conducted by
the Orange County Health Department, consistent with established Departmental
policy, in order to ensure that the system is functioning within established
parameters. The applicant shall bear the burden of paying all fees associated with
this inspection of the wastewater treatment facility as imposed by the Health
Department.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Agree. For additional information on this matter, please
refer back to the response under Subsection F.
9. That the applicant shall apply for all necessary Building and Zoning Compliance
Permits prior to the initiation of construction projects consistent with the approved
site plan.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Agree
10.That the applicant secure any necessary Soil Erosion and Grading, Stormwater, or
other similar permit(s) from the Orange County Erosion Control Division, prior to any
land disturbing activity occurring as part of the approved site plan.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Agree
11.That the erection of outdoor sports field lights shall be construed as a modification
requiring the applicant to apply for a Class A Special Use Permit modification as
detailed within the UDO, and
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Agree. While we believe that the wording of the Unified
Development Ordinance would require the filing of a new SUP application for any
proposal to erect athletic field lights, we agree to accept a condition requiring same.
12. That the applicant adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by NCDOT in
accordance with their driveway permit for this project as part of the permit review.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Agree
Sincerely,
~~~
Tony M. Whitaker, PE
~
'~ ~~~~. ~~'~.'~ _~. ~~~.~~~,~~~,~.t~
~.~r~~ c~~u~~.~~~r~~r~ cc,r~su~.-r~~~r~
January 25, 2012
Mr. Michael Harvey, AICP, CFO, CZO
Orange County Planning Dept.
131 West Margaret Lane
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Re: Carolina Friends School
Special Use Permit Application
Follow-up to Property Owner Concerns
Dear Mr. Harvey,
# 15010
During the public hearing for the referenced SUP application, Mrs. Marilyn Preyer,
representing Deep Springs, LLC, expressed her reservations about the location of the
proposed ball field on the Carolina Friends School (CFS) property. Specifically, she was
concerned about the proximity and the possible noise impact of the field to the adjacent
property owned by Deep Springs. In response, we stated that there is no suitable alternate
location for the field, but gladly agreed to take a fresh look at the field design to see if any
improvements could be made to assuage her concerns.
The school staff and I had several subsequent interactions with Mrs. Preyer and her husband,
Richard Preyer, during the period between the hearing and the Planning Board meeting. We
learned that the Preyers originally owned at least three lots in the small subdivision adjoining
the western edge of the school's property. The immediately adjoining lot is one of two that
they still own, and was the subject of Mrs. Preyer's comments at the hearing. The Preyers
consider this lot as investment property, which has been on the market for an extended time.
The Preyers have said that they have no intention of building on it.
The following summary will document our interactions with the Preyers, and the resulting
site design changes:
1.CFS ha d the Home Plate and Left Field corner staked by a surveyor for visual reference.
2.CFS staf f inembers and I met with the Preyers and their realtor on Nov. 28, 2011, at the
location of the proposed field. We reviewed the staked lines, the site conditions,
vegetation, etc. in the area; and discussed various options that might mitigate their
concerns. They asked about the possibility of moving the field to another location. We
replied that we can't relocate the field, due to various physical and environmental
33
_ _ __ _
__ __ __ _
~~t~~ ~t~-an~~~s 4 ~~vrt ~~t~~~-~~t~s
34
constraints. We also discussed operational matters such as seasonal use, no field
lighting, no rental of the field to others, etc. The Preyers made no specific request for any
design changes during the meeting. They agreed to consider the various issues and get
back to me with any specific requests.
3.The Preyers replied to me on Dec. 12, 2011 with a request to:
• Add a planted berm between the field and the property line,
• Move any encroaching portion of the existing trail off their property,
• Shift the field so that the infield (but not necessarily the outfield) is further away
from property line.
4.I sent the Preyers a revised drawing on Dec. 17, 2011 that showed a new layout for the
field and parking area that:
• Successfully complied with each request listed above, and
• Also shifted the parking area further away from property line.
S.On J anuary 2, 2012, the Preyers requested a meeting on the following day to discuss the
matter further.
6.CFS staff and I met with the Preyers at their office on Jan. 3, 2012 as requested. In the
meeting:
• They asked us again if we could move the field to another area of
the property. We explained again, in more detail, the various
locations that had been considered and why each of the other areas
could not properly accommodate the field.
• They asked if we could move the parking area to another location.
We explained that the purpose of the parking area is to serve the
users of the field, and more specifically to a11ow vehicular access
(including emergency vehicle access) to the infield and spectator
areas; therefore there is no other reasonable place to put it.
• I further explained that the field will be graded to an elevation that
is a few feet lower than the natural ground elevation near the
property line, and the berm will be placed on the top of the resulting
slope. This condition will enhance the positive effect of the berm
and the evergreen landscaping on top of the berm, by creating more
vertical separation between the activity on the field and the adjacent
property.
• They seemed to reluctantly accept our explanations and stated that
it appears that we "have done all that we can do".
35
They noted that they still have some level of concern, but are not
willing to make an issue of it going forward.
I reiterated my previous commitment to document the design
changes on revised SUP drawings for the record.
Description of Chan~
The resulting design changes to the ball field and parking area are summarized below.
These changes reflect the same information shown on the sketch provided to the Preyers
on Dec. 17, 201 l, and discussed with them on Jan. 3, 2012.
• Shifted the field and parking further from the property line,
• Rotated the field slightly clockwise to obtain better sun orientation,
• Relocated a portion of the existing trail to avoid offsite encroachment,
• Added an earth berm between the perimeter buffer and the field, and
• Added evergreen screening vegetation on top of the berm.
~ The new configuration results in the following minimum separations from the
property line to various site elements, as compared to the previous configuration:
Home Plate: 120 feet (vs. previous 90 feet)
Backstop: 85 feet (vs. previous 55 feet)
Bleachers: 80 feet (vs. previous 50 feet)
Parking: 100 feet (vs. previous 50 feet)
I offer the foregoing information as an accurate record of the interactions and dialogue
between the school, the Preyers, and me, relative to the new ball field proposed as part of
the Carolina Friends School SUP application.
Sincerely,
,~~'"",.~r~r~+'
w.. ~.
Tony M. Whitaker, PE
Cc: Joe Marion
John McGovern
JOINING PROPERTY, ADDING AN
AE PERIMETER BUFFER AND THE
-NING VEGETATION ON TOP OF
JRATION RESULTS IN THE
FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO
AS COMPARED TO THE
-ET (VS. PREVIOUS 90 FEET)
EET (VS. PREVIOUS 55 FEET)
=ET (VS. PREVIOUS 50 FEET)
.EET (VS. PREVIOUS 50 FEET)
NItG A
RZN G 21
S $SA PG 1;Ae
WHERE EXISTING TRAIL
MEANDERS ONTO
ADJACENT PROPERTY,
RE- LOCATE TRAIL TO
SCHOOL PROPERTY. 1 1)
i
,-,p 3 8 02
l$ P 3 9 oal�G` J
P Z 0sE'
O a � � RM RE •� '
S�
i
�g mod? i
of PAVING IN
Oz
1 HC AREA.-
��X
BEGIN EPHEMERAL
DRAINAGE PER U.S. A
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TYPICAL EXISTING`
TREELINE
\
S�
�i C+
7�1. •� �'.v.v.v.V.J.
FENCING FOR BACKSTOP,
DUGOUT, AND BULL -PEN.
(TYPICAL)
METAL ,, r•r r
BLEACHER
(40 SEATS) PROPOSED
BASEBALL FIELD
PARCEL 2
53.705± AC.
PROPOSED PROPOSED 20'
�RWIDE PAVED
ESTROOMS
& STORAGE DRIVEWAY(
LQ
t.�2
j[[Q
\ l ��
7,
7,
7
J
C J'
• J'
r
.r ,.
J.
J'
J'
J'
J'
J'
EXISTING OP
!AREA STING �.
ODED
rr
J r `rr'^o'`"`"`�
c
J
C J'
C.vJ'
J J PROPOSED WATER
SUPPLY WELL
r; r
r,' r
,r.r.r,.r r
CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL
W
ARY -• E
`
J
c
,
J
C J'
• J'
r
.r ,.
J.
J'
J'
J'
J'
J'
EXISTING OP
!AREA STING �.
ODED
rr
J r `rr'^o'`"`"`�
c
J
C J'
C.vJ'
J J PROPOSED WATER
SUPPLY WELL
r; r
r,' r
,r.r.r,.r r
CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL
W
ARY -• E
37
Govn~Y Heai`4
~ ~
c '6
~ „ w
r ;
a ~
~~
o,
i~s
Hor~ carollno PubBe NeaUn
ORk11tGE COUMTY
HEAI.'fN DEPARTM~NT
:olleen Nt. Bridger, PhD, MPH
Heaith Direcfior
Richard ~. Whitted Human
Servtces Center
300 West'Tryon Street
Post dffice Box 8181
HiGlsbflrough, NC 27278
Phone:(9i9) 245-24ii
Fax: (919) 644~3007
~ y, c o. o r a n r ~ e. n c. u s/h ~ a l tf i
•
Finance and Administrattve
Operatlons
Dental Heaith 5enrices
Environmental Health
services
Nealth Promotfon artd
Educatfon Services
Persona) Health Services
~
~
u
.~
131 W. Margaret Lane `~
Suite ~04 ~
pOQOx818f u~
Hiilsborough~ !VC 27278 ~
~
c
N
Phone:(9i9) 245-2360 ~
FAX: (919) 649-3006 s
~
w
Attachment 7
MEMQRANDtJM
To: Michael Hareey
//~
Fram: Tom Konsler '' J6
r
DAte: D~C~111U~T 19, 2011
Re: Z~'asteivater System Serving Friends School
Tlus mexuo follo~~s our clisct~ssioii last ~~veek regarding the r~visions to the
~~~aste~~ater sysre~n l~roposed to serve Friends SchooF. The pezmitting and
enforceiuent jarisdiction ~~-ith spray irriga#ion wastewater systems lies with the
Di~~ision of'1Vater Qctality {DWQ) at the N Department of Envu•o~tment and
Natui~al Resources, The school ~vill be ~-equired to hire a ce~ti~ed wastewater
system opei~ator to ~~lonitor and operate fhat systen~ and repoa-t the findings to the
StAti~.
Since the system Is in Orange Couuty, it ~x~ill also be enrolled in tlie Wastawater
Tt~e~finei~t 11rlanagement Progxana {WTMP) iu accaxdance with the iules adopted
by the Or~ige Counly Board of Hezlth. As sticl~, we our office staff will alsa
inspect the systeut one tiixie per year and repoa-t tl~e condition to the owner and to
tlle staFe D1rVQ, Tlus l~as been the case with the current vsrastewater system and
tvill co~jtint~e tit~i#h ttie fi~ture systen3.
Pfease let u~e k~oiv if you l~ave a~iy questions about this.
38
Michael Harvey _
~rom: Jones, ~eAngelo J <djjanesl@ncdot.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 20118:33 AM
To: alan.miles@civil-consultants.com
C~; Edwards, Charies N; Michael Narvey
5ubject: RE: Carofina Friends School
Hello Aian,
Our offiice has reviewed the Si#e Impravements P4an for the Conditionai Use Rezoning of Carolina Frienc4s School. We
have found that the proposed the driveway access located on SR 1718 (Mt. Sinai Rd.} is acceptable, if the following
conditions are met:
1. Please aquire or provide sight easements along SR 1718 and clear existing vegetation to provide a minimum of 500
fee# of intersection sight distance.
2. Please provide additional design detail of the driveway apron meefing tVCDOT standards.
3. Please provide additional information regarding the praposed use of the drive and attach the anticipated trip generation.
If you have any questions please contac# me at (336)570-6833 or by response to this email correspondence.
Thank you,
DeAngelo Jones
Asst. District Engineer
NCDOT Division 7-District 1
Grat-am, NC
{33b}570-6833 (t)
(336)570-6873 (f}
From: Alan Miles [mailto•alan miles(c7civil-consultants.coml
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:25 AM
Ta: Jones, DeAngelo J
Subject: Carolina Friends School
DeAngelo,
Have you been able to respond to Michael Narvey's request for a letter or email con~rming the proposed driveway
locatian for a future secondary entrance to Carolina Friends Schoot is acceptable? I sent you site plans a couple of
weeks ago. I need to get this issue resolved as soon as possible. Please let me know by email the status of this
request. If you have questions or need additionaf information, please call me. Thank you very much for your time on
this matter.
Alan Miles
Civil Consultants, Inc.
(919j 490-1645
Ordinance #: ~~I ~ ' ~~~
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
Attachment 8 39
WHEREAS, Carolina Friends School 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 several parcels of property located at/adjacent to 4809 Friends
School Road, specifically parcels with the following Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN):
1. 9892-21-1486
2. 9892-22-7252
3. 9892-21-6594
4. 9892-31-0894
5. 9892-31-5318
6. 9891-29-1739
7. 9892-33-5224
8. 9892-32-3662
9. 9891-29-7800
totaling approximately 109.71 acres in area, located northwest of the intersections of Mt. Sinai
Road (SR 1718) and Friends School Road (SR 1719) as denoted on the site plan completed
by Civil Consultants, dated on file within the County Planning Department.
FROM: Rural Buffer (RB) and Planned Development Housing Rural Buffer (PD-H-RB)
TO: Rural Buffer Conditional Use (RB-CU)
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 will carry out the intent
and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited
to, the following:
a. The Land Use Element Map.
b. Chapter 5- Land Use Element, including:
1. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location,
pattern and designation of future land uses, with availability of County
services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's
population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan
element goals and objectives.
i
40
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 Goa/ 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural
resources, and community character.
and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to 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 Rural Buffer
Conditional Use (RB-CU) consistent with the applicant's request.
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 ordinance was adopted this
day of
2012.
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
2012 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
2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
Ordinance #: ~v I ~ ~ v0 ~/
Attachment 9 41
AN ORDINANCE DENYING AN AMENDMENT REQUEST TO
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Carolina Friends School 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 several parcels of property located at/adjacent to 4809 Friends
School Road, specifically parcels with the following Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN):
1. 9892-21-1486
2. 9892-22-7252
3. 9892-21-6594
4. 9892-31-0894
5. 9892-31-5318
6. 9891-29-1739
7. 9892-33-5224
8. 9892-32-3662
9. 9891-29-7800
totaling approximately 109.71 acres in area, located northwest of the intersections of Mt. Sinai
Road (SR 1718) and Friends School Road (SR 1719) as denoted on the site plan completed
by Civil Consultants, dated on file within the County Planning Department.
FROM: Rural Buffer (RB) and Planned Development Housing Rural Buffer (PD-H-RB)
TO: Rural Buffer Conditional Use (RB-CU)
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 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 that the Orange County
Zoning Atlas hereby denies the request to rezone the aforementioned parcels Rural Buffer
Conditional Use (RB-CU) as detailed within the applicant's request.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
42
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2012.
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
, 2012 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
2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
43
Attachment 10
CASE NUMBER: SU-A-3-11
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL
REQUESTING A CONDITONAL USE (CU) REZONING/CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL
FOR SEVERAL PARCELS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT/ADJACENT TO
4809 FRIENDS SCHOOL ROAD
(PIN(s): 1.9892-21-1486 2.9892-22-7252
3.9892-21-6594 4.9892~1-0894
5. 9892-31 ~318 6. 9891-29-1739
7.9892-33~224 8.9892-32~662
9. 9891-29-7800)
As required under Section 2.9.1 (B) (2) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
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. Per Section 3.8 of the UDO, Conditional Districts may be
established in suitable areas of the County consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Class A Special Use Permits must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section 5.3
and 5.8.4 of the UDO.
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) Standards governing the location of Conditional Districts as detailed within Section 3.8.4
of the UDO,
(3) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outfined
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO,
(4) Specific regulations governing the development of Schoo/s: Elementary, Middle, and
Secondary as detailed within Section 5.8.4 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 Board regarding the application in question.
The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of County
Commissioners in its deliberations.
44
SECTION 2.9.1 ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 2.9.1 (A)
X Yes No The proposed use(s) for
Section 2.9.1 (A) (1) the project are consistent
with the general use
Any use permitted under zoning district and the
the CUD process shall various development
conform to all applicable standards detailed
development regulations herein. Specifically the
for the corresponding applicant is proposing
general use zoning district the development of a
as well as any specific school in an area
development standards suitable for such
outlined within this development.
Ordinance.
X Yes No Conditions have been
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
public health, safety, and
general welfare, ensure
that substantial justice is
done, and ensure
equitable treatment.
X Yes No The applicant has
Section 2.9.1 (A) (3) submitted documentation
indicating that they
Only those conditions mutually agree to the
mutually agreed to by the recommended conditions
applicant and the BOCC as required
may be imposed on a
CUD application.
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes No
Yes No
_Yes No
45
Ordinance
Repuirements
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes No
Section 2.9.1 (B)
Applications to establish a
CUD shall be submitted to
the Planning Director and
shall be processed in
accordance with the
procedures for
1. Zoning Atlas
Amendment
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
Plan prepared in
accordance with the
provisions of Section
2.5.
i. A detailed
description of the
proposed use of
property including
an outline of the
proposed
operational
characteristics of
the proposed
development
A completed Conditional
Use application was
submitted, including a
request for a Zoning
Atlas Amendment and a
Class A Special Use
Permit, on September
15, 2011
X Yes No A site plan, prepared by
Civil Consultants was
submitted as part of the
application package. A
revised site plan,
denoting the relocation of
the ball field, was
presented at the January
4, 2012 Planning Board
meeting where it was
approved.
X Yes No
The site plan and project
narrative provide the
required description
including the operational
characteristics of the
proposed development
_Yes No
_Yes No
46
Ordinance
Requirements
Section 2.9.1 (C) (1)
continued
ii. A detailed traffic
survey, regardless
of the estimated
number of trips per
day, prepared in
accordance with all
applicable NCDOT
requirements or
standards as well
as Section 6.17,
iii. The appropriate
Environmental
Document
prepared in
accordance with
Section 6.16,a and
iv. A landscape plan
showing the
location of on-site
significant trees,
proposed
screening, buffers,
and landscaping
and any proposed
treatment of any
existing natural
features.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes _ No
X Yes No
X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
The application included
the required traffic
survey, detailing the
required information,
which was completed by
Greene Transportation
Solutions PC.
A biological inventory
completed by the Catena
Group was submitted for
the project. The
applicant also provided
an environmental
assessment completed
by the Catena Group and
Civil Consultants
denoting the presence of
protected streams and
wetlands on the property.
The site plan package
contains the required
landscape plan,
specifically Sheet C4
BOCC
FINDINGS
X Yes _No
Yes No
Yes No
b. A summary of utility X Yes No The narrative and site _Yes No
services. plan, specifically Sheet
C5, contain the required
information.
47
Ordinance
Requirements
Section 2.9.1 (C) (1)
continued
c. A schedule of
construction of all
elements of the
proposal.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT BOCC
FINDINGS FINDINGS
d. Any other
information identified
during the pre-
application
conference deemed
essential to
demonstrate the
project's compliance
with these
regulations
Section 2.9.1 (c) (2)
26 copies of the
application package
required in (1) above shall
be submitted by the
applicant
Section 2.9.1 (D)
Neighborhood Information
Meeting
1. Hold a minimum of one
neighborhood information
meetings prior to the
public hearing
The site plan, specifically
Sheet C3, and submitted
narrative provide a
schedule for the
development of the
project
X Not No additional information
Applicable was deemed necessary
during pre-application
conferences for submittal
above and beyond
existing requirements
X Yes No
The required number of
copies were submitted
X Yes No
The applicant and the
Planning Department
held a neighborhood
information meeting on
November 3, 2011 at
noon in the Ground Floor
Planning Meeting Room
at 131 West Margaret
Lane in Hillsborough.
_Yes No
Not
Applicable
Yes No
_Yes No
48
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMiTTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 2.9.1 (D)
Neighborhood Information
Meeting continued
1. Applicant to supply X Yes No Applicant supplied
mailing labels for detailed property owner's
notification letters list and mailing labels for
for all property all property within 500
owners within 500 feet of subject properties
feet based on data obtained
from Orange County
Land Records
2. The notices shall X Yes No Notices were mailed by
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 The meeting was held a
information minimum of 14 days prior
meeting shall be to the public hearing held
held at a minimum on November 21, 2011.
of 14 days prior to
the public hearing
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
SECTION 3.8.4 Conditional Districts - Where Permitted ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No"
indicates non-compliance)
Ordinance
Repuirements
3.8.4 (a)
Conditional Districts are
permitted in any Land Use
classification and shall be
located consistent with the
existing general
development pattern and
-#he objectives of the
adopted Comprehensive
Plan and any adopted
small area plan(s)
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
The properties are
located within the Rural
Buffer Land Use
Category as defined
within the
Comprehensive Plan.
Within the narrative the
applicant has provided
several examples
detailing how they
believe demonstrate how
the project complies with
the individual policy and
goal statements of the
2030 Comprehensive
Plan as wefl as providing
information on how the
project is consistent with
surrounding
development.
BOCC
FINDINGS
49
Yes No
50
Ordinance
Requirements
2.7.3 (B) (3)
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
The applicant has
provided various
documents, including a
site plan, containing the
necessary information
establishing compliance
with the provisions of the
Ordinance.
BOCC
FINDINGS
Relevant information
needed to show
compliance with the
general and specific
standards governing the
Special Use
2.7.3 (B) (4)
Twenty-six (26) copies of
the site plan prepared by
a registered N.C. land
surveyor, architect, or
engineer.
2.7.3 (B) (5)
If the application involves
a Preliminary Subdivision
Plat, 26 copies of the Plat
prepared in accordance
with Section 7.14 shall be
provided.
2.7.3 (B) (6)
A list of all parcels located
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)
Elevations of all structures
proposed to be used in
the development.
X Yes No Twenty-six (26) copies of
the site plan, prepared
by Civil Consultants have
been submitted.
X Not The application does not
applicable involve the review or
approval of a Preliminary
Subdivision Plat
X Yes No
X Yes No
The application contains
the required list of
adjacent property owners
The applicant provided
sample color renderings
during the public hearing
on November 21, 2012
outlining the type of
construction that would
be developed as part of
the proposed expansion.
_Yes No
_Yes No
Not
applicable
_Yes No
_Yes No
51
Ordinance
Requirements
2.7.3 (B) (8)
26 copies of an
Environmental
Assessment or
Environmental Impact
Statement as required by
Section 6.16 of the UDO
2.7.3 (B) (9)
Method of disposal of
trees, limbs, stumps and
construction debris
associated with the
permitted activity, which
shall be by some method
other than open burning.
2.7.3 (B) (10)
Statement from the
applicant indicating the
anticipated development
schedule for the build-out
of the project.
2.7.3 (B) (11)
Statement from the
applicant in justification of
any request for vesting for
a period of more than two
years (five years
maximum)
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
_X_ Yes _ No
X Yes No
X Yes No
X Not Applicable
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
The application package
contains the required
information completed by
Civil Consultants and
The Catena Group.
Staff has determined that
a formal Environmental
Impact Statement is not
required for the project
and has issued a Finding
of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) for the project
The site plan contains a
note indicating that any
construction or land
clearing debris
generated on-site will be
disposed of in
accordance with the
County's Solid Waste
Management Ordinance,
specifically Sheet C1.
The narrative and site
plan contain the required
information
The applicant is not
requesting vesting of the
project. The applicant,
however, has provided a
detailed timeline for the
development of
necessary infrastructure,
utility extensions, and the
construction of single-
family residences.
BOCC
FINDINGS
_ Yes No
_Yes No
_Yes No
_Not Applicable
SECTION 2.7.5 CLASS A SPECIAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates
compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
Ordinance Requirements
A. The Planning Director
shall give public notice
of the date, time and
place of the public
hearing
B. Such notice shall be
published in a
newspaper of general
circulation in Orange
County once a week for
two successive weeks,
with the first notice to be
published not less than
ten days not more than
we days prior to the date
of the hearing.
C. The Planning Director
shall post on the
affected property a
notice of the public
hearing at lest ten days
prior to the date of said
hearing.
D. Written notice shall be
sent 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.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes
X Yes
X Yes
X Yes
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
No Public Notice was sent
certified mail on
November 4, 2011 for a
November 21, 2011
Public Hearing.
No
The legal ad was
published in the News of
Orange and the Chapel
Hill Herald on November
9, 2011 and again on
November 16, 2011.
No The property was posted
on November 10, 2011.
No Public Notice was sent
certified mail on
November 4, 2011.
52
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
ARTICLE 5.8.4 - SCHOOLS: ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND SECONDARY (CLASS A SPECIAL USE)
SPECIFIC STANDARDS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
Ordinance
Requirements
In addition to the
information required in
5.8.4 the following
information shall be
submitted as part of the
application:
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a).
Twenty-six copies of the
site plan prepared in
accordance with Section
2.7.3 of this Ordinance
and with the following
additional information
shown on the plan:
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) (i)
Total student capacity of
school as designed
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) (ii)
Total number of
employees at time of
greatest shift
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) (iii)
Number and dimensions
of designated parking
spaces for school buses
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) (iv)
Number of designated
parking spaces for
employees
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
X Yes No As previously indicated
finrenty-six (26) copies of
the site plan, prepared
by Civil Consultants have
been submitted.
X Yes No The site plan, specifically
Sheet C1, states that
there will be 500
students served by the
school
X Yes No
The site plan, specifically
Sheet C1, states that
there will be 90 staff
employed by the school
Not Applicable X
The application narrative
and site plan, specifically
Sheet C1, indicates that
there will be no bus
traffic to the site and, as
a result, no bus parking
spaces are required
X Yes No The site plan ,
specifically Sheet C3,
contains the necessary
information
53
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes No
Yes No
_Yes No
Not Applicable _
_Yes No
Ordinance
Requirements
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) (v)
Number of visitor parking
spaces
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) (vi)
Number of student
parking spaces
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) (vii)
Location of student drop
Qff points with stacking
spaces identified
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) (viii)
Location of all proposed
and future athletic fields
and structures, including:
(a) Total number of seats
for spectators
(b) Location of concession
stands, if any
anticipated
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) (ix)
Proposed public roadway
improvements
5.8.4 (A) (1) (a) (x)
Existing and proposed
infrastructure
improvements
(water and sewer)
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No
X_Yes No
X Yes No
X_Yes No
X Not Applicable
X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
The site plan ,
specifically Sheet C3,
contains the necessary
information
The site plan ,
specifically Sheet C3,
contains the necessary
information
The site plan, specifically
Sheet C3, contains the
necessary information
The site plan, specificatly
Sheet C3, contains the
necessary information.
No concession stands
are denoted on the site
plan
None proposed or
required to support the
project as detailed within
the submitted tra~c
impact analysis.
The site plan, specifically
Sheet C2 (a) (b) (c), C3,
and C5, and the
narrative contains the
required information.
The existing septic
system will need to be
expanded and relocated
to accommodate the
proposed school.
54
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes No
_Yes No
_Yes No
_Yes No
_Not Applicable
_Yes No
PLANNING
BOARD
Ordinance RECOMMENDED
Requirements FINDINGS
5.8.4 (A) (1) (b) X Yes No
Twenty-six 26 copies of a
Landscape and Tree
Preservation
Plans prepared in
accordance with Section
6.8 of this Ordinance.
5.8.4 (A) (1) (c) X NotApplicable
Twenty-six 26 copies of
photometric plans
prepared in accordance
with the 6.11, of this
Ordinance.
5.8.4 (A) (1) (d) X Yes No
Estimated water usage for
structures, landscaping
and athletic fields.
5.8.4 (A) (1) (e)
A Traffic Impact Study as
required by Section 6.17
of this Ordinance
5.8.4(A)(1)(fl
A Biological Inventory,
prepared in accordance
with Section
5.14.6(A)(2)(b) of this
Ordinance.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
The site plan, specifically
Sheet C4, contains the
required information
No outdoor lights are
proposed for this project
as denoted on Sheet C5
of the submitted site plan
A condition has been
recommended that the
erection of athletic field
lights shall constitute a
modification and require
BOCC review.
The site plan, specifically
Sheet C5, contains the
required information.
X Yes _ No The application included
the required traffic
survey, detailing the
required information,
which was completed by
Greene Transportation
Solutions PC.
X Yes _ No A biological inventory
completed by the Catena
Group and was
submitted for the project.
55
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes No
_Not Applicable
_Yes No
_Yes _No
_Yes _No
56
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS
5.8.4 (A) (1) (g) X Yes _ No Civil Consultants
completed the resource
Resources Management management plan and
Plan, prepared in has included the required
accordance with the information within the
Resources Management site plan submittal,
Plan definition in Article specifically Sheet C6
10 of this Ordinance.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (a) X Yes No The site plan contains
the required information
The project meets all demonstrating
applicable design compliance
standards and other
requirements of this
Ordinance.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (b) (i) X Yes No New Hope Volunteer fire
department shall provide
Fire - identifies the primary fire services with
primary and secondary the Eno Volunteer Fire
responders and the Department acting as a
source(s) of water. secondary responder.
Water source is an
existing well located on
the property
5.8.4 (A) (3) (b) (ii) X Yes No Sheriff's Department
Police - identifies the
primary and secondary
responders.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (b) (iii) X Yes No Orange County
Emergency Management
Rescue Services -
identifies the primary and
secondary responders.
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes _No
Yes No
_Yes No
_Yes No
_Yes No
57
PLANNING
BOARD
Ordinance RECOMM~NDED
Requirements FINDINGS
5.8.4 (A) (3) (b) (iv) X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes No
Water Supply -
identification of public or
private utility source and
capacity of water supply
or identification of water
source through a water
resource study.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (b) (v) X Yes No
Wastewater Treatment
Methods - provider and
capacity of wastewater
treatment source.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (c) Not Applicable X
Habitats shall be identified
and evaluated in the
Biological Inventory and
are subject to the
following:
5.8.4 (A) (3) (c) (i)
An undisturbed buffer is
required around the
boundary of habitats of
rare, threatened, or
endangered species as
shown on the biological
inventory. Buffer width
shall be determined by
site evaluation in
consultation with the
applicant's biologist and
County staff;
X Yes No
Water shall be provided
via a an existing well
Wastewater treatment
shall be provided via a
private septic system
permitted by the State.
Planning and DEAPR
staff have determined
the project will not
adversely impact local
animal habitats.
Planning and DEAPR
staff have determined
that there are no
threatened or protected
habitats on the property.
The applicant, however,
is showing a large
portion of the property,
as being left in an
undisturbed state.
Yes No
Not Applicable _
Yes No
58
Ordinance
Requirements
5.8.4 (A) (3) (c) (ii)
Habitat enhancements as
described in the biological
inventory shall be made
for a broad range of
species to help mitigate
the loss of wildlife habitat
during construction.
Examples include
preserving, planting, and
maintaining a variety of
native vegetation (also
dead trees and snags);
installing structures
conducive for nesting
such as bird houses or bat
boxes designed and
located for various
species; or creating
wetlands;
5.8.4 (A) (3) (c) (iii)
Conservation easements
or other acceptable
means such as dedication
to a public agency,
conservancy or a similar
agency are required to
protect wetlands and
other habitats while
insuring proper long-term
maintenance; and
5.8.4 (A) (3) (c) (iv)
Provide barriers or
fencing, and signage at
the edge of habitat buffers
to prohibit vehicular and
pedestrian access.
Limited access may be
allowed if proposed in a
sensitive manner for
environmental education
purposes.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No
X Yes No
X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
The biological inventory,
resource management
plan (Sheet C6) and the
landscape plan (Sheet
C4) contain the required
information
Civil Consultants, the
engineer for this project,
has denoted the location
of wetland areas on the
property. These areas
are located within
protected stream buffers
and are shown as being
protected, specifically
Sheet C6 of the
submitted site plan.
The site plan, specifically
Sheet C4 and C6,
contain the required
information
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes No
_Yes No
_Yes No
59
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d)
Landscaping and Buffers
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d) (i) (a) X Yes No The site plan, specifically _Yes No
Sheet C4, contains the
Existing vegetation shall required information.
be preserved as indicated
on the approved
landscape plan in
accordance with the
provisions of Section 6.8
of this Ordinance.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d) (i) (b) X Yes _ No The site plan, specifically X Yes _ No
Sheet C4, contains the
Tree protection measures required information.
shall be installed and
maintained between all
areas of disturbance and
trees to be retained as
shown on the approved
landscape plan. A detail of
the tree protection barrier
proposed shall be
included as part of the
landscape plan submitted
with the application;
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d) (i) (c) X Not Applicable No such areas exist on _Not Applicable
the property.
Corridors connecting
habitats identified in the
biological inventory shall
be preserved along
streams, buffers, or other
wooded areas. If
destroyed during
construction, such
connections shall be
restored using appropriate
plant materials;
60
PLANNING
BOARD
Ordinance RECOMMENDED
Requirements FINDINGS
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d) (i) (d) X Yes No
Trees and stumps cleared
for roads and building
construction shall either
be used for timber
purposes or shredded for
landscape mulch,
composted, buried or
otherwise disposed of
BUT NOT BURNED
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT BOCC
FINDINGS FINDINGS
There is a note on the Yes No
site plan, specifically
Sheet C1, indicating that
all construction and land
clearing debris will be
disposed of in
accordance with County
Ordinances.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d) (ii) X Not Applicable
Berms, fences and
landscaping walls may be
used with plant materials
for screening, provided
such features are
designed and located in
harmony with other site
features and functions.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d) (iii) X Yes No
To minimize visual impact
by blending architecture
into the surrounding
landscape, foundation
plantings are required at
all freestanding entrance
signs.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (d) (iv) X Yes No _
Use of xeriscaping
principles.
Berms and landscaping _Not Applicable
walls are not proposed
for this project.
Existing trees and _Yes No
plantings are consistent
with the requirement as
denoted on Sheet C4 of
the submitted site plan
Sheet C4 of the _Yes No _
submitted site plan
contains the required
information
61
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS
5.8.4 (A) (3) (e)
Stormwater Management
5.8.4 (A) (3) (e) (i) X Yes No Preliminary assessment
by County Erosion
A stormwater Control indicates that the
management plan shall be project complies.
prepared and reviewed in
accordance with the A condition of approval
provisions of Section on this project should be
6.14 of this Ordinance. that the applicant comply
with any required
conditions imposed by
Erosion Control as their
review continues.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (fl Drainage
5.8.4 (A) (3) (fl (i) X Yes No A condition of approval
on this project shou~d be
All drainage structures will that the applicant comply
be installed and with any required
maintained according to conditions imposed by
the approved Stormwater Erosion Control as their
Management Plan. review continues.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (fl (ii) X Yes No A condition of approval
on this project should be
School projects that that the applicant comply
include structural with any required
stormwater measures conditions imposed by
shall comply with Erosion Control as their
Section 6.14 of this review continues.
Ordinance. .
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes No
_Yes No
Yes No
62
Ordinance
Requirements
5.8.4 (A) (3) (g)
Grading and Erosion
Control
5.8.4 ~A) ~3) ~9) ~~)
Plans for grading and
erosion control shall
comply with standards
contained in this
Ordinance, the Orange
County Sedimentation
Control Manual and, if
applicable, The North
Carolina Erosion and
Sedimentation Control
Program rules;
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
Yes X No _ Preliminary assessment
by County Erosion
Control indicates that
project will comply (i.e.
new driveway).
A condition of approval
on this project should be
that the applicant comply
with any required
conditions imposed by
Erosion Control as their
review continues.
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes _ No _
5.8.4 (A) (3) (g) (ii)
Construction shall be
phased to minimize
disturbance and
sedimentation;
5.8.4 (A) (3) (9) (iii)
Sediment control
measures shall be
properly installed to filter
sediment from runoff
during construction and
maintained until grading is
complete and a
permanent vegetative
cover has been
established and all slopes
stabilized; and
Yes X No _ The site plan package
contains several notes
indicating compliance
with this provision
Yes X No _ A condition of approval
on this project should be
that the applicant comply
with any required
conditions imposed by
Erosion Control as their
review continues.
Yes _ No _
Yes _ No _
63
Ordinance
Requirements
5.8.4 (A) (3) (g) (iv)
Permanent landscaping,
groundcover, mulch, etc.
shall be installed as soon
as practical after
construction activities for
each phase are
completed.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (h)
Solid Waste Management
5.8.4 (A) (3) (h) (i)
A solid waste
management plan,
submitted as part of the
Resources Management
Plan, shall include the
method(s) of disposal and
recycling of construction
debris.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (i)
Irrigation
5.8.4 (A) (3) (i) (i)
Irrigation systems for the
school project are
designed and can be
operated according to a
water conservation plan
described in the
Resources Management
Plan submitted with the
application;
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS FINDINGS
Yes X No _ The site plan package
contains several notes
indicating compliance
with this provision
X Yes No A solid waste
management plan was
submitted to Orange
County for review. \
Yes X No _ The site plan package,
specifically Sheets C5
and C6, contains the
required information
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes _ No _
_Yes No
Yes _ No _
Ordinance
Repuirements
5.8.4 ~A) ~3) U)
Habitat Maintenance
5.8.4 (A) (3) (j) (i)
Habitats identified in the
biological inventory and
habitats created through
mitigation shall be
maintained in accordance
with the Resources
Management Plan and/or
a conservation easement
agreement; and
5.8.4 ~A) ~3) U) ~~~)
Maintenance of habitats
shall be minimal,
consisting primarily of
maintaining buffers and
enhancements, removal
of exotic (non-native)
plant species, and
keeping drainage ways
functioning properly.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (I)
Public Road Access
5.8.4 (A) (3) (t) (i)
Access to the school
project shall be via
existing public roads and
shall conform to and be in
compliance with any
public road access
management plan
adopted by Orange
County.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No
X Yes No
X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
A Resource
Management Plan,
specifically Sheet C6 of
the site plan submittal,
contains the required
information
Existing
vegetated/wooded areas
are going to be
preserved as denoted on
Sheet C4 of the site plan
Access is provided from
Friends School Road
(SR 1719) and Mt. Sinai
Road (SR 1718)
NC DOT has approved
the driveway connection
as denoted on the site
plan.
64
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes No
_Yes No
Yes No
65
Ordinance Requirements
5.8.4 (A) (3) (m)
Maintenance of
Improvements
5.8.4 (A) (3) (m) (i)
All site improvements
such as roads, utilities
(including irrigation and
drainage structures),
habitat enhancements,
recreational amenities,
signage, landscaping,
open space, etc. will be
maintained in function and
appearance. Maintenance
specifications, if any, for
on-going site
management (including
provisions for handling of
storm debris in open
space areas) shall be
submitted as part of the
Resources Management
Plan as defined in
Definitions (Article 10).
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n)
Additional Standards
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (i)
For non-charter public
schools the minimum lot
size shall be, as required
by the School
Construction Standards
adopted from time to time
by the Board of County
Commissioners, the
Orange County Board of
Education and the Chapel
Hill-Carrboro Board of
Education.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No
X Yes No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
The property owner shall
maintain all
improvements.
109.71 acres (total) -
approximately 38 acres
of this total acreage is
already supporting
existing school
operations under the PD
zoning designation.
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes No
_Yes No
66
ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (ii)
For all schools, the lot
size shall be adequate to
accommodate all
activities. The proposed
methods to handle the
maximum number of
participants and patrons
for any single event shall
be provided while also
adhering to safe vehicular
and pedestrian circulation.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (iii)
Negative visual impacts
shall be minimized along
any major roadway.
Negative visual impacts
include, but are not limited
to, loading/unloading
areas, delivery areas, air
handling units (roof top
and other), parking areas
for machinery, and
storage buildings.
Appropriate screening
methods shall be used to
enhance the aesthetic
value of a project.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (iv)
Transportation
improvements as deemed
necessary by the Traffic
Impact Study.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No
X Yes No
Not Applicable X
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
Safe vehicular and
pedestrian circulation is
provided for and denoted
on Sheet(s) C2 a, b, c
and C3 of the submitted
site plan.
The areas along Friends
School Road and Mt.
Sinai will be preserved.
Not required due to low
volume of traffic
generation.
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Yes No
_Yes No
Not Applicable _
ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (v)
The site shall be designed
to take advantage of
multiple shared use
opportunities, which may
include a Park and Ride
facility for public
transportation.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (vi)
Site Access
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (vi) (a)
There shall be a minimum
of two access points to
the site
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (vi) (b)
Access points shall
separate student drop-off
areas and visitor parking
from bus traffic.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (vi) (c)
If school buses are used,
then at least one access
shall be limited to school
employee and bus use
during normal school
hours
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (vi) (d)
All access points shall be
located to provide
maximum visibility and
safety.
5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (vi) (e)
No driveway shall be
permitted in a location
that will hinder or congest
traffic movement
on a public street.
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS FINDINGS
Not Applicabie X Planning Board and staff
has found that there is
no need for shared
facilities on this property
based on staff testimony
at the November 21,
2011 Quarterly Public
Hearing.
X Yes __No The submitted site plan
shows the required
access points
X Yes __No The submitted site plan
demonstrates the
separate access points.
There is no bus traffic
proposed for this use.
Not Applicable X There is no bus traffic
proposed for this use.
X Yes __No The submitted site plan
demonstrates
compliance
X Yes __No The submitted site plan
demonstrates
compliance
67
BOCC
FINDINGS
Not Applicable _
_Yes No
Yes No
Not Applicable _
_Yes No
_Yes No
Section 5.3.2 (B)
Section 5.3.2 (B) (1)
Method and adequacy of
provision for sewage
disposal facilities, solid
waste and water service.
Section 5.3.2 (B) (2)
Method and adequacy of
police, fire and rescue
squad protection.
Section 5.3.2 (B) (3)
Method and adequacy of
vehicle access to the site
and traffic conditions
around the site.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
X Yes No
X Yes No
X Yes _No
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS
The applicant submitted
documentation indicating
that the school is
supported by a State
approved wastewater
treatment system. This
system will be relocated
to address environmental
concerns.
A condition has been
recommended that the
system be inspected
annually by the Orange
County Health
Department.
Primary fire protection
will be provided by the
New Hope Fire
Department, with
secondary service by
Eno, rescue service by
the Orange County
Emergency
Management, and police
protection by the Orange
County Sheriff's
Department.
The submitted site plan
shows the required
access points and
denotes that the roads
serving the site shall be
development to NC DOT
standards.
68
BOCC
FINDINGS
Yes No
_Yes No
_Yes No
69
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS FINDINGS
In accordance with Section ** NOTE - staff
5.3.2 (A) (2), the Board of does not make a
Commissioners shall also recommendation
consider the following with respect to
general conditions before these findings **
the application for a
Special Use can be
approved:
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) The applicanYs testimony
at the November 21, 2011
The use will maintain or public hearing and the
promote the public health, January 4, 2012 Planning
safety and general welfare, Board meeting,
if located where proposed
and developed and the application narrative
operated according to the providing documentation
plan as submitted. on the provision of water
and wastewater treatment
services to the project,
and the approval of the
project by the Orange
County Fire Marshal,
Solid Waste, NC DOT,
and Planning staff.
Further the Board made
this determination based
on a lack of evidence
submitted into the record
indicating that the
applicant had not met
their burden of proof.
BOCC
FINDINGS
_Will WII
Not
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b)
The use will maintain or
enhance the value of
contiguous property (unless
the use is a public
necessity, in which case
the use need not maintain
or enhance the value of
contiguous property).
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c)
The location and character
of the use, if developed
according to the plan
submitted, will be in
harmony with the area in
which it is to be located and
the use is in compliance
with the plan for the
physical development of
the County as embodied in
these regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or
portion thereof, adopted by
the Board of County
Commissioners.
Based on evidence
presented at the
November 21, 2011 public
hearing and the January
4, 2012 Planning Board
meeting, specifically a
letter composed by Ms.
JoEllen Mason, a local
realtor, providing an
analysis of the projecYs
economic impact and that
the proposed addition(s)
will not have a negative
impact on adjacent
property value.
Further the Board made
this determination based
on a lack of evidence
submitted into the record
indicating that the
applicant had not met
their burden of proof.
Based on evidence
presented at the
November 21, 2011 public
hearing and the January
12, 2012 Planning Board
meeting, the applicant's
narrative denoting
compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan
Further the Board made
this determination based
on a lack of evidence
submitted into the record
indicating that the
applicant had not met
their burden of proof.
Will
Is
Will
Not
Not
70
Is
71
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Board, and County staff, have reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation
and have found that the applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within
the UDO.
Provided 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 BOCC makes the determination that
the permit can be issued, the Planning Board and staff recommends the attachment of the following conditions to
the Special Use Permit:
1. That the Board of County Commissioners approve an Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning
Atlas to rezone the properties detailed within the application submitted by Carolina Friends School from
Rural Buffer (RB) and Planned Development Housing Rural Buffer (PD-H-RB) to Rural Buffer
Conditional Use (RB-CU) to allow for the requested expansion as denoted on the approved site plan.
2. That the school be limited to serving 500 students as proposed by the applicant on Sheet C1 of the
approved site plan.
3. That the hours of operation for the school be consistent with the information provided on Sheet C1 of
the approved site plan.
4. That existing vegetation shall be preserved and remain in an undisturbed state in general conformance
with Sheet(s) C4 and C6 of the approved site plan, as appropriately adjusted for site-specific
conditions pursuant to Site Plan review for individual construction phases.
5. That the lifetime rights of the Klopfer's to utilize their existing residential structure(s) shall be preserved
as part of the site re-development process.
6. That the Fire Marshal and representatives of the Eno and New Hope Volunteer Fire Department shall
review and approve the floor plan of proposed new buildings prior to the issuance of any Building
and/or Zoning Compliance Permit(s) approving construction verifying that the structures comply with all
applicable NC Fire Protection Code standards.
7. That the applicant shall install any required wastewater treatment system improvements necessary to
support approved expansion projects prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activities.
Further, the school is required to supply Planning and Environmental Health staff will any and all
permits issued by the State of North Carolina allowing for the operation/modification of the system.
8. That an annual inspection of the wastewater treatment facility shall be conducted by the Orange
County Health Department, consistent with established Departmental policy, in order to ensure that the
system is functioning within established parameters. The applicant shall bear the burden of paying all
fees associated with this inspection of the wastewater treatment facility as imposed by the Health
Department.
9. That the applicant shalt apply for all necessary Building and Zoning Compliance Permits prior to the
initiation of construction projects consistent with the approved site plan.
10. That the applicant secure any necessary Soil Erosion and Grading, Stormwater, or other similar
permit(s) from the Orange County Erosion Control Division, prior to any land disturbing activity
occurring as part of the approved site plan.
11. That the erection of outdoor sports field lights shall be construed as a modification requiring the
applicant to apply for a Class A Special Use Permit modification as detailed within the UDO, and
12. That the applicant adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by NCDOT in accordance with
their driveway permit for this project as part of the permit review for this project.