HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-20-2012 - 6b r
" 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 20, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-b
SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit Major Subdivision — Dunhill (Weekly Homes LLC) —
Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments from the Public or
Applicant Accepted)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. October 3, 2012 Planning Board Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, 245-2597
Abstract Package Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2575
2. Additional Information Supplied to the
Planning Board at the October 3, 2012
Meeting.
3. Excerpt from August 27, 2012 Quarterly
Public Hearing Minutes
4. Excerpt from Approved October 3, 2012
Planning Board Regular Meeting
Minutes
5. Letter from Applicant Accepting
Recommended Conditions
6. Planning Board Recommended
Findings of Fact
7. Script for Acting on Findings of Fact
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a
decision on a Class A Special Use Permit application submitted by David Weekly Homes LLC
proposing a 26 lot single-family residential development off of Mt Sinai Road in accordance with the
provisions of Section(s)2.7 and 5.15.6 of the Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter'UDO').
As a reminder, the reconvening of this hearing is solely to receive the Planning Board
recommendation and any additional written evidence submitted since the August 27, 2012
Quarterly Public Hearing. This hearing is not intended to solicit additional input from the public
or the applicant. While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item,
comments from the public or the applicant shall not be solicited.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing.
Materials from the public hearing can be found using the following link:
http://orangecountync.gov/OCCLERKS/120827.htm
A summary of comments received during the hearing are contained within Attachment 1, the
abstract from the October 3, 2012 Planning Board regular meeting. Staff will be introducing this
document, and all attachments, into the record at the re-convened public hearing for the BOCC
to consider as part of its deliberations.
2
Planning Board Recommendation: At its October 3, 2012 regular meeting, the Planning Board
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project finding that:
1. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of
Section 2.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
2. The property is of sufficient size to support the proposed development and the proposed
density is consistent with the provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Joint
Planning Area Land Use Plan.
3. The proposed land use buffer complies with the provisions of the UDO.
4. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal, DEAPR,
Orange County Health, State Clearing House) indicate there are no concerns associated
with the request.
5. A formal Environmental Impact Statement is not required per Section 6.18 of the UDO.
6. The applicant has submitted sufficient documentation denoting compliance with specific
development standards as detailed within Section(s) 5.15.6 and Article 7 of the UDO.
7. The proposal is consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan
concerning development, including:
a. 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.
b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and
community character.
c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program
and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes
land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system.
8. The applicant has submitted sufficient documentation denoting compliance with Section
5.3.2 (A) Special Uses— General Standards of the UDO.
9. The lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the record demonstrating the
request is not in compliance with the various provisions of the UDO.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to not recommend the applicant be required to install a
trail connecting to the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC) property to the east. Further, the
Board modified a recommended condition relating to the development of geothermal wells. The
Board unanimously recommended prohibiting `open loop' geothermal wells from being
developed within the subdivision rather than an outright ban on all geothermal well systems.
The Planning Board concluded that an outright ban was too restrictive.
Please refer to Attachment 6 for additional detail. It should be noted that in rendering its
decision, the Planning Board recommended the imposition of several conditions. The applicant
has agreed to the imposition of these conditions in writing. Please refer to Attachment 5 for
additional detail.
3
Planning Director's Recommendation: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.4 of the
UDO, the Planning Director recommends approval of the SUP application, subject to the
following:
• Approval of the recommended findings of fact associated with the Class A Special Use
Permit as detailed within Attachment 6,
• The imposition of the recommended conditions as detailed within Attachment 6, and
• Based on the BOCC's ability to make an affirmative finding on the general and specific
standards outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) and (B) of the UDO.
Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) of the UDO, the
BOCC has requested the Planning Board recommendation be made available in time for the
November 20, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. As a procedural note, additional comments on the
application must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board meeting in order to become
part of the official record of these proceedings.
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. Take action on the request by:
a. Utilizing the script contained within Attachment 7, review and approve the Findings
of Fact contained within Attachment 6 of this abstract and make the appropriate
findings that the application complies with the various sections of the UDO,
including the general findings as denoted within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2); and
b. Approve the Special Use Permit imposing those recommended conditions
contained within Attachment 6.
r
Attachment 1 4
October 3, 2012 Planning
Board Abstract ORANGE COUNTY
ACTION A EN A I E ABSTRACT
COPY Meeting Date:
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit Major Subdivision — Dunhill (Weekly Homes LLC)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) 0
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Property and Vicinity Map Michael D. Harvey, Planner III 245-2597
2. Staff Generated Correspondence Craig Benedict, Director 245-2575
3. Applicant Responses to Questions
4. Findings of Fact Worksheet
PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter
`SUP') application submitted by David Weekly Homes LLC proposing a 26 lot single-family
residential development off of Mt Sinai Road in accordance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.7 and
5.15.6 of the Unified Development Ordinance(hereafter'U DO').
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing.
Materials from the public hearing can be found using the following link:
hftp://orangecountync.gov/OCCLERKS/120827.htm
Public Hearing: During the hearing, the following comments/questions were posed concerning the
application:
• An adjoining property owner expressed concern over the proposed community well and
potential impacts on adjacent property owners.
A BOCC member expanded on this comment and expressed concern over well recharge
rates in the area and inquired about the anticipated completion of a comprehensive
ground water study for the County.
Staff Comment: There is no evidence in the record indicating the proposed
community well will impact adjacent wells or have any greater impact than 26
individual wells located on each proposed parcel.
The development of the community well would be in accordance with applicable State
regulations. Orange County Environmental Health will only issue a well permit,
authorizing development of the aforementioned well, once a copy of the State's
approval is received.
According to Mr. Tom Davis, of Orange County Department of Environment,
Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation (DEAPR) there is a groundwater observation well
located near Millhouse Road that is included in the County's Orange Well Net (OWN)
groundwater observation well network. The primary use of the well network is drought
monitoring.
5
Information related to the OWN groundwater observation well network can be found at
the following link: http://orangecountync.gov/ercd/h2orange/index.asp
• A citizen expressed concern over the use of geothermal wells throughout the County,
especially `pump and dump' systems. This individual went on to state given the regions
propensity for droughts, and the reliance on local wells for drinking water, geothermal
wells should be banned.
A BOCC member asked staff to explain the difference in the different types of geothermal
wells. Another BOCC member stated he thought `pump and dump' systems would not be
permitted in Orange County based on previous comments made by Orange County
Environmental Health staff.
Staff Comment: The project does not involve the development of a geothermal well of
any type. There is no reference on the site plan or within the application narrative to
the development of a geothermal well being developed to serve the anticipated 26
single-family residential lots.
Staff has received a memorandum from Mr. Tom Konsler of Orange County
Environmental Health related to the permitting of geothermal wells in the County
(Please refer to Attachment 2).
At the hearing, the applicant voluntarily agreed to the imposition of a condition
prohibiting the development of geothermal wells of any type within the project.
• A Planning Board member asked how much draw (i.e. gallons per unit per minute during
peak usage) the proposed community well would have and what potential impact there
would be on adjacent property owners.
Staff Comment Mr. Chad Abbott of Summit Engineering indicated they did not have
recharge rate data or peak usage data available but would work to formulate a
response. Please refer to Attachment 3 for the applicant's responses.
• BOCC and Planning Board members asked what would happen in the event the
proposed stormwater feature was breached, specifically where would the water go.
Staff Comment Mr. Abbott indicated in the event of a breach, water would flow into
the adjoining stream and onto adjacent property. Mr. Abbott stated a breach was
highly unlikely and even in such an event, major flooding should not result given the
identified water infiltration rate detailed on the submitted site plan.
• A BOCC member asked about the possibility of requiring a trail through the Dunhill
project to connect to an adjacent parcel owned by the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC).
Further, this BOCC member inquired about why a memo from DEAPR was not included
within the quarterly public hearing agenda packet.
Staff Comment: TLC provided a written response (see Attachment 2) on September
26, 2012 outlining the various conditions associated with development of a trail. The
applicant did not have sufficient time to review or formulate a response. This will be a
discussion item at the meeting. In reviewing the response, it would appear the
development of a trail is plausible and should be considered as a condition.
With respect to the submission of the DEAPR memo, Planning staff did not receive
the document until August 16, 2012 after the public hearing package had been
completed and mailed to BOCC and Planning Board members.
6
• BOCC and Planning Board members expressed concern over the sample homeowners
association (HOA) documents and asked the developer to provide specific HOA
documents for this project. Board members identified specific examples of the sample
document contradicting applicant testimony.
A BOCC member expressed concern over a HOA requirement for a minimum building
size for a single-family residence.
Staff Comment: Submission of HOA documents is not a required component of the
application. The sample document was submitted so BOCC and Planning Board
members could have an understanding of how the applicant manages their projects
and obtain an understanding on some of the limitations and standards normally
incorporated into a Weekly Homes LLC project.
• BOCC and Planning Board members asked if the applicant would prohibit the location of
solar arrays within the project. A BOCC member cited specific language within the
submitted HOA documents indicating solar arrays would not be permitted.
Staff Comment: The applicant indicated it was not there intent to limit the
development of a solar array on any of the proposed parcels. The County Attorney
indicated recent modifications to State law prohibits a local HOA from adopting such a
limitation.
• A BOCC member inquired about the transfer of mineral rights for the proposed lots.
Staff Comment: The applicant indicated they were not intending to transfer or sell
mineral rights to third parties for development purposes.
• BOCC and Planning Board members requested the site plan and HOA documents be
revised to require local, indigenous, drought tolerant vegetation throughout the project
were landscaping is required.
Staff Comment: The applicant indicated the modification would be made.
• BOCC members requested additional information on the operational parameters of the
off-site septic field. Specifically the question was asked would remote pumps be used
and who would be responsible for property maintenance and upkeep.
Staff Comment: The applicant indicated the HOA would be responsible for mowing
and maintaining the common septic area but that individual property owners would be
responsible for maintaining their individual septic fields. With respect to the operation
of the system, the applicant agreed to supply additional information.
• A local citizen stated the project was too dense and the applicant should increase
average lot size to 5 acres per dwelling unit.
Staff Comment. This proposal is in accordance with the anticipated densities for
properties located within the Rural Buffer land use category as defined within the adopted
Comprehensive Plan, Rural Designated area as denoted on the Growth Management
Systems Map, and the requirements of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan.
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan can be viewed using the following link:
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/compre cpupdate.asp
The Joint Planning Land Use Plan can be viewed by using the following link:
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/JPALUPDocument.pdf
7
• A local citizen said lots 23 through 26 should be eliminated and turned into open space.
• A BOCC member asked about flexible development projects within the Rural Buffer
zoning district.
Staff Comment: The flexible development subdivision option involves the preservation of
a minimum 33% of the total tract's land area as protected open space. Development of
individual lots is allowed consistent with 3 `flexible development' subdivision
classifications, namely:
• Estate Lot Option: Characterized with lots having a minimum area of 4 acres
where the building envelope does not exceed 50% of the total lot area,
• Conservation Cluster Option: Characterized by lots clustered together with a
potential minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet. Allowable density is based on
compliance with provisions of the UDO,
• Village Option: Allows for mixed use development including various residential
options (i.e. single-family, multi-family, townhome, etc.) as well as public/civic areas
and non-residential development. This option is expressly prohibited within the RB
zoning district as detailed within Section 7.13.2 (C)of the UDO.
The clustering of lots down to 40,000 square feet in the RB zoning district is not permitted
based on language contained within the UDO and the Joint Planning Land Use Plan
requiring lots '2 acres in size or greater (i.e. Section 6 — Future Use — Joint Planning
Area).
While it is true the applicant could cluster lots, with a minimum 2 acre lot size, and provide
the required 33% open space typically associated with the flexible development process,
there is no incentive for the developer to do so. As a result they chose to abide by the
conventional subdivision design standards and present the project as is.
• A BOCC member expressed support over a potential re-assessment of the Joint Land Use
Plan seeking to revise language clarifying the ability to have flexible development subdivisions
on property located within the Rural Buffer-Rural Residential Joint Plan land use category.
Another BOCC member indicated she felt the aforementioned re-assessment was not in
order.
• A BOCC member expressed frustration over requiring subdivisions to go through a land
use development process and suggested the UDO be revised to not require a Class A
Special Use Permit for subdivisions proposing more than 20 lots.
• A BOCC member asked staff to separate explanation, discussion, or review of land use
buffers and open space areas in future memorandum on this and all other similar
projects.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.7.4 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
`cause an analysis to be made of the application' and pass that analysis on to the reviewing
body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following:
1. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of
Section 2.7 and Section 5.15.6 of the UDO.
2. Staff has determined that the property is of sufficient size to support the proposed
subdivision.
8
3. The proposal appears consistent with the various goals outlined within the
Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including:
a. 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.
b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and
community character.
c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program
and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes
land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system.
4. Staff has determined that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the provisions and
goals of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Joint Planning Agreement.
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 July 20, 2012. As of this date staff has not
received any comments.
Public Hearinq Procedural Information: In accordance with Sections 2.7.8 (A) (3) of the UDO,
the BOCC has requested that the Planning Board recommendation be made available in time
for the November 20, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. As a procedural note, additional comments
on the application should be submitted in writing to the Planning Board, prior to its meeting, in
order to become part of the official record of these proceedings.
Planninq Director's Recommendation: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.4 of the
UDO, the Planning Director recommends approval of the application subject to:
• Approval of the recommended Findings of Fact as detailed within Attachment 4,
• The imposition of the recommended conditions detailed within Attachment 4, and
• The BOCC's ability to make an affirmative finding on the general standards outlined
within Section 5.3.4 of the UDO.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has determined the project would not require augmentation of
County budgetary outlays to support services and that anticipated revenues from property taxes
should supplement increases in cost.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Deliberate as necessary,
2. Review the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval as contained in Attachment 4,
3. If deemed necessary, suggest additional conditions or modifications to the site plan, and
4. Make an affirmative recommendation to the BOCC regarding the Findings of Fact and
Conditions of Approval as detailed within Attachment 4.
PLANNING BOARD - October 3, 2012 MEETING
Attachment 1
Weekly Homes LLC Class A Special Use Permit
Project Vicinity Map
z a
7,1 MT SINAI RD° 1 � � O
70
E6 <O
�
' O
\6 151
er �•.
HOLLY G��
� PIN# 881157138
0
W
0
z • ti
: , GEORGE CSR
far f
r
f'
Y s
k i
01i MOBILE: 0 E',PAR%f•
Parcels ' ' N
W�S R�, 1 in=300 ft
Zoning LE rFeet
^" 0 100 200
Parcel of Interest
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson.6/8/2012
PLANNING BOARD - October 3, 2012 MEETING
Attachment 2 - Staff Comments 10
azth Department
Colleen Bridger,MPH,PhD Prevent• Promote•Protect
Health Director tr 3' 3: Partnering for tl;e Publics Health
cr�5 LrSt9�\
Memorandum
To: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
CC: Dr. Colleen Bridger
From: Tom Konsler,Environmental Health Director 'PC
Date: September 6, 2012
Re: Geothermal Well Permitting
This memo is in response to your questions regarding concerns about geothermal wells. There
are many types of geothermal wells which can be classified as open or as closed-loop exchange.
Construction and permitting of all types of wells are covered under the stiles adopted by the
Orange County Board of Health and administered through the Health Department. The vast
majority of other counties regulate only drinking water wells. The state also has an approval
process for geothermal wells,most of which are"deemed permitted"with minimal site review.
By far the most common geothermal wells in this area are closed-loop and direct exchange
systems. While these systems do require the construction of wells,water is not withdrawn from
them. They are constructed to provide bore-holes into which watertight or gastight pipe loops
are inserted for thermal exchange with the deep groundwater.
Your questions were concerning the open exchange wells,commonly referred to as"pump-and-
dump"systems. In these systems water is withdrawn from a conventional deep-bore well, and
piped into the HVAC exchange unit. After the water runs through the unit,the water is either
discharged back into the same well,discharged into a second well that is approved for injection,
or discharged onto the ground,or into a creek or pond. I assume that the concerns were
expressed about this third type of system as all of the other systems described would have no
impact on groundwater reserves.
The open discharge of geothermal water is not regulated by the state as it is not classified as
wastewater. We rarely see permit requests for this type of well anymore. Our records indicate
that the last one we issued a permit for was in 2009. It is my understanding that the open
Environmental Health Services
131 W.Margaret Lane,Suite 100•Hillsborough,NC 27278
Phone:(919)245-2360 J Fax:(919)641-3006
www.oratigecountync.gov/envhlth
systems are not as efficient or cost-effective as closed-loop and operational costs are high. The
industry and consumer demand has moved toward the closed-loop well systems in our area.
We occasionally hear concerns from homeowners who perceive that these pump-and-dump wells
could affect neighboring wells,causing them to run out of water, For that matter,we hear
similar concerns about irrigation wells. In reality,we have no documented cases where a well
(geothermal,irrigation,or other) has negatively impacted the productivity of a viable
neighboring well. While this could in theory happen,the nature of our geology and the
construction of fractured bedrock wells would likely preclude this. In the eastern part of our
state,where wells may tap into a widespread aquifer with a common water table,effects can be
more direct between wells. In the piedmont fractured bedrock wells, the groundwater reserves
are stored in the saprolite(weathered rock)that overlies the bedrock. Drilled wells in our area
draw water from fractures deep in the bedrock that get their water from the overlying saprolite.
The Board of Health rules and those of the state currently allow construction of open discharge
geothermal wells and wells used for irrigation,carwashes,livestock,etc. For protection of the
groundwater,these wells must meet the same siting and construction requirements as any other
water supply well in the county. To date,there has been no movement by the board to prohibit
construction of wells that otherwise meet the requirements of the rules,
Please let me know if I can answer any other questions you might have about this.
12
Michael Harvey
From: Jeff Masten <jmasten@tic-nc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:34 AM
To: Michael Harvey
Subject: RE:Trail from Dunhill Subdivsion
Yes,here you go,a signed letter will be emailed later today. This language does not specify costs or expenses, but for
the county's needs I believe it fits the intended goal of knowing whether TLC would allow a trail connection.
September 26,2012
Michael D. Harvey
Current Planning Supervisor
Orange County Planning Department
P.O. Box 8181
131 West Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: Dunhill Subdivision Trail Connection to Johnston Mill Nature Preserve
Dear Michael,
The Triangle Land Conservancy was recently approached by David Weekly Homes to consider a potential trail
connection between the proposed Dunhill Subdivision located on Mt Sinai Road and the trail network located on TLC's
Johnston Mill Nature Preserve. TLC has conducted an analysis of the suitability of such a trail connection.
Traditionally,TLC does not endorse the connection of singular social trails between individual properties and its
nature preserves. The number of individual neighbors each having their own trails can get excessive and lead to a
diminution of the property's conservation values. Limiting individual trails is a challenge to enforce. When presented
with a potential subdivision being constructed on a neighboring property it behooves TLC to analyze the impact of the
subdivision on the Nature Preserve including consideration of developing a singular approved access point to the Nature
Preserve on a sustainable appropriately built trail.
In considering additional trail connections,TLC must consider the environmental impacts of increased use and
trail alignment. It must consider the cost to maintain new trail and the stewardship obligations imposed on TLC staff in
the future. And lastly,TLC must consider how the new trail fits with the organization's mission. TLC constructed
and sustains the Johnston Mill Nature Preserve as a publically accessible amenity to further TLC's goals of connecting
people with nature and educating the public about conservation,water quality and wildlife habitat.
Upon review of these and many more conditions,TLC has determined that Johnston Mill Nature Preserve does have the
capacity to handle the anticipated foot traffic proposed by the Dunhill Subdivision trail connection.
TLC will entertain discussions about the construction of a trail between the Dunhill subdivision and Johnston Mill
Nature Preserve dependent upon the following conditions and understandings:
a. Only a singular TLC approved trail connection may be constructed between the Dunhill Subdivision and
Johnston Mill Nature Preserve. No trail connections are otherwise permitted between the Dunhill
Subdivision and the Johnston Mill Nature Preserve.
b. Any trail built on TLC property must be built to TLC specifications and conditions,constructed by TLC
chosen/managed means or contractors.
c. TLC will be compensated for its costs in facilitating the neighboring trail construction and signage.
d. TLC will require a one-time stewardship endowment contribution for future stewardship costs related to
the maintenance of the trail. The trail connection and stewardship calculation is calibrated to the
i
13
population size of the subdivision and does not consider other users that enter from outside the
subdivision.
e. TLC retains the right to reroute,close or alter any trail on the Johnston Mill Nature Preserve in the
future that negatively impacts the health and vitality of the nature preserve.
f. Users of the trail are invited guests of TLC. Users must follow the TLC rules while on the Preserve. TLC
reserves the right to change the rules related to the Preserve in the future,should the need
arise. Violators can be excluded from the Preserve.
g. A minimum thirty foot buffer be vegetated and maintained on the Dunhill property at the TLC boundary.
h. TLC Land Manager and Dunhill Homeowner's association shall work to maintain communications to
provide an outlet for issues,should they transpire,including off trail activities,dumping of yard waste
and other issues deemed detrimental to the Preserve's conservation values or well being.
L The connector trail should be built with natural surface materials,with a tread no wider than 6
feet. Timing for construction should be coordinated with TLC, but be constructed within 6 months of
the completion of trail connector located on the Dunhill Subdivision property.
The Triangle Land Conservancy is open to consideration of the trail connection between the Dunhill Subdivision
and Johnston Mill Nature Preserve subject to acceptable terms and remuneration.
t
2
PLANNING BOARD - October 3, 2012 MEETING 14
Attachment 3 -Applicant Responses
919.732.3883 SUMMIT-ENGINEER.COM
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES SO4 Meadorvland Drive, Hittsborough,NC 27278
September 25, 2012
Mr. Michael Harvey
Orange County
Planning Department
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough,NC 27278
Re: Responses to Comments/Concerns Raised at Quarterly Public Hearing
Mr. Harvey:
On behalf of our client and the applicant, David Weekly Homes, Summit Design and
Engineering Services is providing responses to all comments/concerns discussed at the
August 27,2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and as noted from staff in subsequent
meetings.
Summit Design and Engineering Services will be more than happy to address and provide
any clarification needed on the attached responses and looks forward to discussing these
matters with you or the respective review agencies and boards further.
Sincerely,
SUMMIT DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
Chad E. A Att., E.
Project Engineer
15
Responses to Public Hearing Comments will be in Bold Red Italics.
• A local citizen expressed concern over the proposed community well and
potential impacts to adjoining property owners.
A BOCC member expanded on this comment and expressed concern over well
recharge rates in the area and inquired about the anticipated completion of a
comprehensive ground water study for the County.
Staff Comment: Staff understands the concerns over potential impacts to
existing wells by the development of any project in the area. Unfortunately
there is no evidence in the record indicating the proposed community well will
have any greater impact than 26 individual wells located on each proposed
parcel of property.
The development of the community well would be in accordance with
applicable State regulations. Orange County Environmental Health will only
issue a well permit, authorizing development of the aforementioned well,
once a copy of the State's approval is received.
According to Mr. Tom Davis, of Orange County Department of Environment,
Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation (DEAPR) there is an observation well
along Millhouse Road as part of the County's observation well network. The
use of the well network is strictly for drought monitoring.
Information related to the drought monitoring program can be found at:
http://orangecountync.gov/ercd/h2orange/index.asp
No further comment necessary, the applicant concurs with the responses providing by the
Planning Staff and is of the opinion that the initial comment has been adequately addressed.
Additionally, please find attached as "Attachment #1", additional documentation from Mr.
Tom Konsler regarding the local geography and ground water.
• A local citizen expressed concern over the use of geothermal wells throughout
the County, especially `pump and dump' systems. This individual went on to
state given the regions propensity for droughts, and the reliance on local wells for
drinking water, geothermal wells should be banned.
A BOCC member asked staff to explain the difference in the different types of
geothermal wells. Another BOCC member stated he thought `pump and dump'
systems would not be permitted in Orange County based on previous comments
made by Orange County Environmental Health staff.
Staff Comment: As stated by staff during the hearing the applicant is not
proposing a geothermal well as part of the project. There is no reference on
the site plan or within the application narrative to the development of a
geothermal well of any type being developed to serve the anticipated 26
single-family residential lots.
Staff has received a memorandum from Mr. Tom Konsler of Orange County
Environmental Health related to the permitting of geothermal wells in the
County (Please refer to Attachment 2).
At the hearing, the applicant voluntarily agreed to the imposition of a
condition prohibiting the development of geothermal wells of any type within
the project.
16
No further comment necessary, the applicant concurs with the responses providing by
the Planning Staff and is of the opinion that the initial comment has been adequately
addressed Additionally, please find attached as"Attachment V", additional
documentation from Mi. Tom Konsler regarding the local geography, ground water
and the use of Geo-thermal wells.
• A Planning Board member asked how much draw (i.e. gallons per unit per minute
during peak usage) the proposed community well would have and what potential
impact there would be on adjacent property owners.
Staff Comment: The applicant indicated they did not have recharge rate data
or peak usage data available but would work to formulate a response.
The applicant indicated he recently had spoken with Mr. Tom Konsler of
Orange County Environmental Health with respect to well issues in this area
of the county.
According to the applicant, Mr. Konsler indicated the geography of the area
did not lend itself to there being a negative impact on adjacent well recharge
rates as the direct result of the proposed development. Further, Mr. Konsler
indicated other community wells operating throughout the area had not
appeared to impact adjacent property as feared by local residents.
This level of data related to an un-drilled well is not easily calculated and is still
something that the applicant can not define at this time. The requested figure would
depend on the pump that is used, how deep the well is, and other items. Again, see
"Attachment I':
• BOCC and Planning Board members asked what would happen in the event the
proposed stormwater feature was breached, specifically where would the water
go.
Staff Comment: The applicant indicated the water would flow into the
adjoining stream and onto adjacent property. They did not anticipate major
flooding, however, resulting from a stormwater breach given the anticipated
filtration rate for the feature as detailed on the submitted site plan.
The BMP or SCM will be designed in accordance to and subsequently be permitted by Orange
Count'sy Stormwater Division under Planning and Inspections Dept. Currently,BMP's/SCM's
are designed to accommodate a certain storm, typically lyr-241ir storm in Orange County.All
other storms that exceed this runoff amount will utilize an "Emergency Spillway"as is typical
on all treatment facilities. Depending upon the type and location of the final designed
BMP/SCM a level spreader may or may not be warranted per current county and state
regulations.
• A BOCC member asked about the possibility of requiring a trail through the
Dunhill project to connect to an adjacent parcel owned by the Triangle Land
Conservancy (TLC). Further, this BOCC member inquired about why a memo
from DEAPR was not included within the quarterly public hearing agenda packet.
Staff Comment: Staff has received correspondence from TLC indicating their
desire not to have a trail from Dunhill connecting to their property. The
concern is over liability issues as well as encouraging access to an existing
trail system utilizing existing access points.
17
With respect to the submission of the memo, Planning staff did not receive
the document until August 16, 2012 after the public hearing package had
been completed and mailed to BOCC and Planning Board members.
No further comment necessary, the applicant concurs with the responses providing by
the Planning Staff and is of the opinion that the initial comment has been adequately
addressed.
• BOCC and Planning Board members expressed concern over the sample
homeowners association (HOA) documents and asked the developer to provide
specific HOA documents for this project. Board members identified specific
examples of the sample document contradicting applicant testimony.
A BOCC member expressed concern over a HOA requirement for a minimum
building size for a single-family residence.
Staff Comment: Submission of HOA documents is not a required component
of the application.
The sample document was submitted so BOCC and Planning Board
members could have an understanding of how the applicant manages their
projects and obtain an understanding on some of the limitations and
standards normally incorporated into a Weekly Homes LLC project.
The applicant concurs with the responses providing by the Planning Staff and is of the
opinion that the initial comment has been adequately addressed. Additionally,please
note that the documents provided were neither all inclusive nor exhaustive and will
adhere to all current local and state laws.
• BOCC and Planning Board members asked if the applicant would prohibit the
location of solar arrays within the project. A BOCC member cited specific
language within the submitted HOA documents indicating solar arrays would not
be permitted.
Staff Comment: The County Attorney indicated during the meeting recent
modifications to State law prohibits a local HOA from adopting such a
limitation. The applicant indicated this was not there intent and would ensure
the final HOA document(s) associated with the subdivision would allow for the
location of solar arrays.
No further comment necessary, the applicant concurs with the responses providing by
the Planning Staff and is of the opinion that the initial comment has been adequately
addressed.
• A BOCC member inquired about the transfer of mineral rights for the proposed
lots.
Staff Comment: The applicant indicated they were not intending to transfer or
sell mineral rights to third parties for development purposes.
No further comment necessary, the applicant concurs with the responses providing by
the Planning Staff and is of the opinion that the initial comment has been adequately
addressed.
• BOCC and Planning Board members requested the site plan and HOA
documents be revised to require local, indigenous, drought tolerant vegetation
throughout the project were landscaping is required.
VI
18
The applicant will provide all required vegetation in accordance with the request above as well
as include in the HOA documents to encourage homeowners to use local, indigenous, drought
tolerant vegetation.
• BOCC members requested additional information on the operational parameters
of the off-site septic field. Specifically thE; question was asked would remote
pumps be used and who would be responsible for property maintenance and
upkeep.
Staff Comment: The applicant indicated the HOA would be responsible for
mowing and maintaining the common septic area but that individual property
owners would be responsible for maintaining their individual septic fields.
With respect to the operation of the system, the applicant agreed to supply
additional information.
The individual septic systems will pump the septic systems most likely using a low pressure
system often utilized and approved by the state offices. The applicant is proposing the force
main within the street ROW until the point that it reaches the easement to outlet at
conventional septic fields.As stated at the meeting,the subsurface and operational elements of
the system will be the responsibility of the individual owners and will be subject to yearly
maintenance inspections as required by the state. The actual septic field and surficial elements
will be maintained as open space by the HOA.
• A local citizen stated the project was too dense and the applicant should increase
average lot size to 5 acres per dwelling unit.
Staff Comment This proposal is in accordance with the anticipated densities for
properties located within the Rural Buffer land use category as defined within the
adopted Comprehensive Plan, Rural Designated area as denoted on the Growth
Management Systems Map, and the requirements of the Joint Planning Land
Use Plan.
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan can be viewed using the following link:
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/comps cpupdate.asp
The Joint Planning Land Use Plan can be viewed by using the following link:
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/JPALUPDocument.pdf
No further comment necessary, the applicant concurs with the responses providing by
the Planning Staff and is of the opinion that the initial comment has been adequately
addressed
• A local citizen said lots 23 through 26 should be eliminated and turned into open
space.
This request is not viable and is not warranted as the inclusion of lots 23-26 do not
affect the proposed developments abilities to meet the required findings of fact. The lots
as proposed are generally deep lots further contributing the required 30'buffer already
shown.
19
• A BOCC member asked about flexible development projects within the Rural'
Buffer zoning district.
Staff Comment. As staff indicated during the public hearing the flexible
development subdivision option involves the preservation of a minimum 33% of
the total tract's land area as protected open space. Development of individual
lots is allowed consistent with 3 `flexible development' subdivision classifications,
namely:
• Estate Lot Option: Characterized with lots having a minimum area of 4
acres where the building envelope does not exceed 50% of the total lot
area,
• Conservation Cluster Option: Characterized by lots clustered together
with a potential minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet. Allowable lot
yield is based on compliance with density limits denoted within Section
4.2.4 of the UDO or as required by the underlying zoning district,
• Village Option: Allows for mixed use development including various
residential options (i.e. single-family, multi-family, townhome, etc.) as well
as public/civic areas and non-residential development. This option is
expressly prohibited within the RB zoning district as detailed within
Section 7.13.2(C)of the UDO.
The clustering of lots down to 40,000 square feet in not permitted on this property
based on language contained within the UDO and the Joint Planning Land Use
Plan requiring lots 2 acres in size or greater' (i.e. Section 6 — Future Use—Joint
Planning Area). While it is true the applicant could cluster lots, with a minimum 2
acre lot size, and provide the required 33% open space typically associated with
the flexible development process, there is no incentive for the developer to do so.
As a result they chose to abide by the conventional subdivision design standards.
No further comment necessary, the applicant concurs with the responses providing by
the Planning Staff and is of the opinion that the initial comment has been adequately
addressed.
• A BOCC member expressed support over a potential re-assessment of the Joint Land
Use Plan seeking to revise language clarifying the ability to have flexible development
subdivisions on property located within the Rural Buffer-Rural Residential Joint Plan land
use category.
Another BOCC member indicated she felt the aforementioned re-assessment was
not in order.
No firrther comment necessary.
• A BOCC member expressed frustration over requiring subdivisions to go through
a land use development process and suggested the UDO be revised to not
require a Class A Special Use Permit for subdivisions proposing more than 20
lots.
No further comment necessary.
• A BOCC member asked staff to separate explanation, discussion, or review of
land use buffers and open space areas in future memorandum on this and all
other similar projects.No further comment necessary.
Attachment # 1
21
Orange County Health Department
, col,
Colleen Bridger,MPH,PhD : Prevent •Promote •Protect
Health Director , ;„ Sz Partnering for the Public's Health
r
yr
Memorandum
To: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
CC: Dr. Colleen Bridger
From: Tom Konsler,Environmental Health Director
Date: September 6, 2012
Re: Geothermal Well Permitting
This memo is in response to your questions regarding concerns about geothermal wells. There
are many types of geothermal wells which can be classified as open or as closed-loop exchange.
Construction and permitting of all types of wells are covered under the rules adopted by the
Orange County Board of Health and administered through the Health Department. The vast
majority of other counties regulate only drinking water wells. The state also has an approval
process for geothermal wells,most of which are"deemed permitted"with minimal site review.
By far the most common geothermal wells in this area are closed-loop and direct exchange
systems. While these systems do require the construction of wells,water is not withdrawn from
them. They are constructed to provide bore-holes into which watertight or gastight pipe loops
are inserted for thermal exchange with the deep groundwater.
Your questions were concerning the open exchange wells,commonly referred to as"pump-and-
dump"systems. In these systems water is withdrawn from a conventional deep-bore well, and
piped into the HVAC exchange unit. After the water runs through the unit,the water is either
discharged back into the same well,discharged into a second well that is approved for injection,
or discharged onto the ground,or into a creek or pond. I assume that the concerns were
expressed about this third type of system as all of the other systems described would have no
impact on groundwater reserves.
The open discharge of geothermal water is not regulated by the state as it is not classified as
wastewater. We rarely see permit requests for this type of well anymore. Our records indicate
that the last one we issued a permit for was in 2009. It is my understanding that the open
Environmental Health Services
131 W.Margaret Lane,Suite 140•Hillsborough,NC 27278
Phone:(919)245-2360 1 Fax:(919)644-3006
www.oratigecountync.gov/envhlth
22
systems are not as efficient or cost-effective as closed-loop and operational costs are high. The
industry and consumer demand has moved toward the closed-loop well systems in our area.
We occasionally hear concerns from homeowners who perceive that these pump-and-dump wells
could affect neighboring wells, causing them to run out of water. For that matter, we hear
similar concerns about irrigation wells. In reality,we have no documented cases where a well
(geothermal,irrigation,or other)has negatively impacted the productivity of a viable
neighboring well. While this could in theory happen,the nature of our geology and the
construction of fractured bedrock wells would likely preclude this. In the eastern part of our
state,where wells may tap into a widespread aquifer with a common water table, effects can be
more direct between wells. In the piedmont fractured bedrock wells,the groundwater reserves
are stored in the saprolite(weathered rock)that overlies the bedrock. Drilled wells in our area
draw water from fractures deep in the bedrock that get their water from the overlying saprolite.
The Board of Health rules and those of the state currently allow construction of open discharge
geothermal wells and wells used for irrigation,carwashes,livestock, etc. For protection of the
groundwater,these wells must meet the same siting and construction requirements as any other
water supply well in the county. To date,there has been no movement by the board to prohibit
construction of wells that otherwise meet the requirements of the rules.
Please let me know if I can answer any other questions you might have about this.
23
B3. Groundwater
Data
Private wells account for the water supply for approximately 40 percent of the population
in Orange County.' Approximately 350 new drinking water wells are constructed every
year in Orange County.
The Orange County Board of Health adopted the state's first local well construction
programs in North Carolina in 1980. The scope of this program has since expanded to
encompass groundwater protection. The well construction standards exceed those of the
state's 2C Well Construction Regulations with respect to the type and amount of casing
required in new well construction and have more stringent well siting criteria. In 2008,
the groundwater protection program in Orange County will be expanded to require more
inspections of wells during construction and will require sampling of all new wells.
Potential sources of ground water contamination include leaky storage tanks, septic
systems, hazardous waste sites, and landfills.
Documented groundwater contamination events in Orange County are illustrated below.
Most of these contamination events are due to leaking underground storage tanks for
home heating oil and petroleum products.
Ground Water Contamination Incidents in Orange County
N 6
C
� 5
C 4
O
3
.G
E 2
7
Z 1
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 12, 133-1: Ground water contamination incidences in Orange County2
Well Water Quality
The Orange County Health Department provides sampling of private wells to assist
homeowners in assessing the safety and quality of their drinking water. Samples are
analyzed at the State Laboratory of Public Health and results are reported to the well
owners. The following paragraphs represent the results of private well sampling from
2002 to 2005.
' Investigation of Groundwater Availability and Quality in Orange County,North Carolina. U.S Geological
Survey Available at:httpY/nc.water.usgs.gov/rel2orts/wri004286/pdf/rei)ort.pdf
2 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Water Quality.Groundwater
Section.Available at:http://its.enr.state.no.us/owi/.(Accessed May 2007)
24
Coliform Bacteria is a standard indicator of drinking water quality used to indicate
whether a well is properly protected from biological contaminants. Total coliform and
fecal coliform are associated with the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals and are
not considered to be harmful, but are used by the labs as indicator bacteria for the
presence of other, harmful bacteria. The presence of coliform bacteria indicates that
surface water contamination is present in a well, either through a shallow, unprotected
vein of water (generally less than 60 feet from the ground surface), or from an
inadequate length of casing or other well construction deficiency. Current Orange
County well construction standards require at least 63 feet of casing on all new drilled
wells. Since enacting this requirement, there has been a marked decrease in the
instances of fecal coliform contamination of new wells.3
Bacteria- Orange County
Fecal
Coliform Total
4% Coliform
32
Bact er i a N_1459
Absent
64%
Figure 12, B3-2: Presence of bacteria in Orange County wells
Because coliform is used as an indicator of contamination, a well with persistent coliform
bacteria or with fecal coliform present should be considered an unsafe source of drinking
water. The presence of coliform indicates that conditions are favorable for the presence
of other bacteria that can cause health problems such as diarrhea, upset stomach,
cramps, and vomiting.4
Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in the soil and rock formations that can leach
into the groundwater. It can also be associated with agricultural activities and various
industrial processes. Arsenic found in the groundwater of Orange County is considered
to be naturally occurring as there are few industrial sources of arsenic in the county.5
The EPA recommended drinking water limit for Arsenic is 0.01 mg/I, however the NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources recommends a limit of 0.00002 mg/I.
The lowest level of Arsenic that the state public health laboratory can detect is 0.001
mg/I
3 Orange County Health Department.Cancer Prevalence Assessment Water Quality Assessment Mill Creek
Road Area.
4 Ibid
5 Ibid
25
Arsenic-Orange County
0.001 or more
14%
N-100 40
<.001
86
Figure 12, 133-3: Presence of Arsenic in Orange County
Several studies have shown that long-term exposure to inorganic arsenic can increase
the risk of lung cancer, skin cancer, bladder cancer, liver cancer, kidney cancer, and
prostate cancer. Long-term exposure is defined as the consumption of two liters of
water each day over a period of 70 years.6
Other common groundwater contaminants:
Iron occurs naturally in groundwater and is the most common source of nuisance
problems with well water in Orange County. While not considered a health risk, levels of
iron above 0.3 mg/I can cause the water to have a red or brown muddy appearance and
can stain white plumbing fixtures and clothes. Of 1,208 recent well water samples
collected by the Health Department, 47% of the samples had iron levels exceeding the
recommended EPA limit for drinking water of 0.3 mg/I.'
Manganese is an element that dissolves in water from the natural rock formations.
Manganese levels above 0.05 mg/I can turn well water black or brown and stains
plumbing fixtures and clothes. Of 1,208 recently sampled wells, 27% were in excess of
the recommended level for manganese.$
PH is a measure of how basic or acidic water is. With a pH below 6.5, the water is
considered acidic and there could be concerns about corrosion of plumbing components
resulting in lead leaching into the water from soldered joints. Water with a low pH can
also react with copper pipes to cause blue-green stains and a metallic taste.
Approximately 14% of the wells tested in Orange County have a pH below the
recommended limit while less than 4% have elevated copper or lead levels.9
Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas found in most of NC's groundwater,
especially in the Piedmont area where granite is common. Direct exposure of radon in
water is of little concern for health effects, however once aerosolized in the air, it can
contribute to an increase risk for lung cancer. Remedies include proper ventilation of
bathrooms and kitchen areas where water may aerosolize.
The recommended drinking water limit for radon is:
o 300 PicoCuries per Liter (pCi/L) for states that have no EPA approved radon in
indoor air program,
6 Ibid
Orange County Health Department.Sampling results and records.
6 Ibid
s Ibid
26
o 4000 PicoCuries per Liter (pCi/L) for states that have a radon in indoor air
program.
Orange County does not have a radon indoor air program. Of 142 wells tested for radon
in Orange County, 41%contained radon levels in excess of 300 pCi/L.10
10 Ibid
27
Chad Abbott
Subject: FW: Mt. Sinai Rd.Subdivision
Attachments: Groundwater Quality in OC from CHA.pdf, geo mh.pdf
From:Tom Konsler fmailto:tkonsler@)orangecountync.(IovI
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 1:15 PM
To: Joe Lyle
Cc:Jackson, Ryan
Subject: RE: Mt. Sinai Rd. Subdivision
Hello Joe&Ryan,
In response to your request,I thought it may be most direct for me to give you a copy of an interoffice memo to the
Planning Department in which I have addressed some of these concerns.
1. During our public meeting some neighbors were concerned that wells on the proposed subdivision could cause their
well to run dry. You responded that the geography in Orange County does not lend itself to wells negatively impacting
adjacent wells in terms of yield or quality.
0 See memo
2.When a asked how the water quality was in the area around this proposed subdivision you mentioned that
approximately 20%of the wells in the county had high levels of manganese and iron and low ph levels.You also
mentioned that these levels could be easily treated and very rarely cause a well to be abandoned.
Refer to the second attachment which is an excerpt from an earlier Community Health Assessment. You will find
the more accurate percentages in this publication.
3. 1 mentioned that if we proceed with a community well it would be turned over to Aqua. I asked if you have had any
problems with the Aqua company.You responded that you have not had any pervasive problems with Aqua and that
you thought they were one of the largest water system providers in NC.
• Correct, I am not aware of problems with AQUA,although most complaints with public water supplies that they
operate would be handled by The Public Water Supply Section(PWS)of the Division of Water Quality at the
state. You may be able to check with them as well. (919-791-4200)
4. When asked about the approval of community wells,you mentioned that it involves both the county and state.You
said that both are involved in the pre-drilling inspection and that we should allow about 2-3 weeks to schedule an
inspection.You also mentioned that your role regarding community wells would mostly be involve permitting and
location and that the state would be involved in long-term monitoring.
• That is correct. Our office would issue a well construction permit that also considers the proposed location that
is approved by the state. We would also conduct construction inspections of the well,and do a completion
inspection and approval of the well. The PWS would impose the sampling, monitoring,and operational
requirements for the well once it is approved for use.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Tom
'
28 ,
From: Joe Lyle
Sent: Wednesday,August 29 2012 4:08 PM
To:Tom Konsler
Cc: 'Ryan Jackson'
Subject: RE: Mt. Sinai Rd. Subdivision
O`Z9-12
TomKons|er,
During the public meeting the county attorney asked us for a written statement from you regarding our conversation.
Could you please draft something in your own language in response to the questions below?Please also copy Ryan
Jackson ( 'd above)with your response
Thankyoul
Joe Lyle
Subject: Mt. Sinai Rd. Subdivision
Orange County Health Dept.
Tom Konsler,
I wanted to make sure I had accurate notes from our earlier conversation.
1. During our public meeting some neighbors were concerned that wells on the proposed subdivision could cause their
well to run dry. You responded that the geography in Orange County does not lend itself to wells negatively impacting
adjacent wells in terms of yield or quality.
2.When a asked how the water quality was in the area around this proposed subdivision you mentioned that
approximately 20%of the wells in the county had high levels of manganese and iron and low ph levels.You also
mentioned that these levels could be easily treated and very rarely cause a well to be abandoned.
3. 1 mentioned that if we proceed with a community well it would be turned over to Aqua. I asked if you have had any
problems with the Aqua company.You responded that you have not had any pervasive problems with Aqua and that
you thought they were one of the largest water system providers in NC.
4.When asked about the approval of community wells,you mentioned that it involves both the county and state.You
said that both are involved in the pre-drilling inspection and that we should allow about 2-3 weeks to schedule an
inspection.You also mentioned that your role regarding community wells would mostly be involve permitting and
location and that the state would be involved in long-term monitoring.
Please let me know if this is an accurate representation of our conversation or if any changes are needed.
Thankyou
Joe Lyle
PLANNING BOARD - October 3, 2012 MEETING 29
Attachment 4 - Findings of Fact
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
DAVID WEEKLY HOMES LLC
REQUESTING A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL
FOR A 26 LOT MAJOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVSION
AT 2301 Mt. Sinai Road (PIN: 9881-16-7138)
As required under Section 7.2.3 (A) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), a
Class A Special Use Permit is required for a major subdivision in the Rural Designated area of the
Growth Management System map proposing between 21 and 40 lots in accordance with the provisions
of Section 2.7 of the UDO. Such permits shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in
Section 5.3.2 and 5.15.6 of the UDO.
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following:
(1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located
where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted;
(2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a
public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of
contiguous property); and
(3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will
be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with
the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or
in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners;
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following
specific standards:
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO,
(2) Specific regulations governing the development of Major Subdivisions as set forth in
Section(s) 5.15.6 and 7.14.6 of the UDO,
(3) 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
(4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department and Planning Board regarding
the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the
Planning Board in its deliberations.
30
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("Yes"
indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
-Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 2.2 X Yes No Attachment I of the Yes No
August 27, 2012
The application for a Quarterly Public Hearing
Class A Special Use packet contains a
Permit shall be on forms complete application for
provided by the Planning the project.
Department.
2.2.4 (D) X Yes No As staff denoted during —Yes No
the August 27, 2012
Applications must be Quarterly Public Hearing,
accompanied by the fee the applicant paid the
amount that has been required fee.
established by Board of
County Commissioners.
Application fees are
nonrefundable.
2.7.3 (B) (1) X Yes No Attachment 1 of the —Yes No
August 27, 2012
A full and accurate Quarterly Public Hearing
description of the packet contains the
proposed use, including required narrative
its location, appearance, detailing the nature of
and operational the proposed project.
characteristics.
2.7.3 (B) (2) X Yes No Attachment 1 of the —Yes No
August 27, 2012
The names and Quarterly Public Hearing
addresses of the owners packet contains the
of the property owner(s) names as
required.
2
'
31
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates
non-comp ance
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Reauirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
August 27, 2012
Relevant information Quarterly Public Hearing
needed to show packet contains various
compliance with the documents, including a
general and specific site plan, containing the
standards governing the necessary information
Special Use establishing compliance
with the provisions of the
2.7.3 (B) (4) X Yes No Twenty-six(26) copies of —Yes No
the site plan, prepared
Twenty-six (26) copies of by Summit Engineering
the site plan prepared by have been submitted.
a registered N.C. land
surveyor, architect, or
2.7.3 (B) (5) X Yes No The submitted site plan Yes No
contains the necessary
If the application involves information denoting the
a Preliminary Subdivision proposed preliminary
Plat, 26 copies of the Plat subdivision plat.
prepared in accordance
with Section 7.14 shall be
August 27, 2012
A list of all parcels located Quarterly Public Hearing
within 500 feet of the packet, the applicant has
subject parcel and the provided the required list
name and address of of adjacent property
each property owner, as owners.
currently listed in the
Orange County tax
August 27, 2012
Elevations of all structures Quarterly Public Hearing
proposed to be used in packet contains
the development. renderings of proposed
~
32
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance, "No" indicates
non-compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
2.7.3(13) (8) X Yes No Attachment 1 of the Yes No
26 copies of an August 27, 2012
Environmental Quarterly Public Hearing
Assessment or packet contains a:
Environmental Impact
Statement as required by 1. Detailed soils
Section 6.16 of the UDO assessment and
wetland delineation,
completed by Soils
Services PLLC,
2. A Surface Water
Identification (SWID)
form completed by
Orange County
Erosion Control,
3. The site plan
contains a site
analysis map
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.
2.7.3 (B) (9) X Yes No The site plan contains a —Yes No
Method of disposal of note indicating that any
trees, limbs, stumps and construction or land
construction debris clearing debris
associated with the generated on-site will be
permitted activity, which disposed of in
shall be by some method accordance with the
other than open burning. County's Solid Waste
Management Ordinance.
2.7.3 (B) (10) X Yes No Attachment 1 of the Yes No
Statement from the August 27, 2012
applicant indicating the Quarterly Public Hearing
anticipated development packet contains a
schedule for the build-out narrative indicating
of the project. construction would
commence in 2014.
Housing would take 2 to
3 years to complete.
4
'
33
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance, "No" indicates
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
2.7.3 (B) (11) X Not Applicable The applicant is not Not Applicable
Statement from the requesting vesting of the
applicant in justification of project.
any request for vesting for
a period of more than two The applicant, however,
years (five years has provided a detailed
maximum) timeline for the
development of
necessary infrastructure,
utility extensions, and the
construction of single-
family residences.
-
'
34
SECTION 2.7.6 CLASS A SPECIAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance;
"No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Ordinance Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 2.7.5 (a) X Yes No The Abstract and —Yes No
Attachment 7 of the
The Planning Director shall August 27,2012 Quarterly
give public notice of the Public Hearing package
date, time and place of the indicates staff complied
public hearing with this requirement.
published in the News of
Such notice shall be Orange and the Chapel
published in a newspaper of Hill Herald on August 15,
general circulation in 2012 and again on August
Orange County once a 22,2012.
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.
Attachment 7 of the
The Planning Director shall August 27, 2012 Quarterly
post on the affected Public Hearing package
property a notice of the indicates on August 16,
public hearing at lest ten 2011 staff posted a sign
days prior to the date of said on the property providing
hearing. a notice of the date,
time, and location of the
public hearing.
2.7.5 (d) X Yes No The Abstract and —Yes No
Attachment 7 of the
Written notice shall be sent August 27,2012 Quarterly
by certified mail to all Public Hearing package
adjacent property owners indicates on August 10,
not less than 15 days before 2012 staff sent written
the hearing date. Adjacent notice by certified mail to
property owners are those all adjacent property
whose property lies within owners located within
five hundred feet of the 500 feet of the subject
affected property and whose property as required.
manes and addresses are
currently listed in the
Orange County tax records.
'
/
~
36
SECTION 7.14.2 (B)–MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS Preliminary Pla
("Yes" Indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
In General
X Yes No According to information —Yes No
a. The Preliminary Plat detailed on the site plan,
shall be prepared by a the plan was created by
North Carolina registered Summit Engineering
land surveyor, professional land
professional engineer or surveyors.
registered architect or
landscape architect.
X Yes No According to information —Yes No
b. The Preliminary Plat detailed on the site plan,
shall be drawn in black ink the submitted plat was
or pencil at a scale of not drawn at a scale of 1'
less than 200 feet to the 100".
inch nor more than 20 feet
to the inch. The scale
chose shall be large
enough to show all
required detail clearly and
X Yes No The submitted —Yes No
c. Approximate preliminary plat contains
dimensions and locations the basic information that
are acceptable provided will be formalized on the
that on the Final Plat all final submittal.
information shall be based
on an actual field survey
X Yes No The submitted document —Yes No
d. The sheets shall be contains 3 individually
numbered in sequence if numbered sheets
more than one sheet is containing the required
used information.
~
–
'
36
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicates co Wiance: "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Title Block: The title block
shall contain the following
X Yes No The title block located on —Yes No
a. The proposed name of the submitted site plan
the subdivision, preceded contains the required
by the words "Preliminary information.
Plan of which
shall not duplicate not
closely approximate,
phonetically or in spelling,
the name of any other
subdivision in Orange
County
X Yes —No The site plan and title —Yes No
b. The scale, approximate block contain the
north arrow, date of required information.
preparation and any other
pertinent legend data:
X Yes —No The site plan and title —Yes No
c. County and township block contain the
location; Parent Parcel required information.
Identification
X Yes —No The site plan and title —Yes No
d. The name and address block contain the
of the owner(s) of the land required information.
to be subdivided, the
name and address of the
subdivider if other than
the owner, and the name,
address, registration
number and seal of the
registered land surveyor,
professional engineer or
registered architect or
landscape architect
responsible for
preparation of the plat.
'
37
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-cam liance
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (2) (13) (3)
Vicinity Map
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
a. A vicinity map showing the required information.
the general location of the
subdivision in relation to
the surrounding area shall
be placed on the plat
X Yes No The vicinity map is of —Yes No
b. The vicinity map shall sufficient size as
be shown at a sufficient required by the UDO.
size to show the
relationship of the tract to
the existing street or
highway system and
readily recognized Orange
County landmarks
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
c. Street and roads shall the required information
be identified by State road for the surrounding
number and name streets.
9
-
38
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicate com0lance, "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Existing Site Data:
Information on existing
conditions shall be shown
as noted below
a. Boundary lines
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
i. The approximate or the required information.
survey location,
including distances
and bearings for
boundary lines
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
ii.The location, width the required information.
and purpose of all
recorded easements
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
iii. The approximate the required information.
location of boundary
lines, which abut the
tract shall be shown
as dashed lines
X Not Applicable The property is within Not Applicable
iv. The approximate Chapel Hill Township
location of corporate and is not near township
limit lines, township boundary lines,
boundaries, and corporate limits of a
county lines town, or the County line
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
v.The names of the required information.
owners of adjacent
un-subdivided land
X Yes No The site plan contains the —Yes No
vi. For adjacent required information.
subdivided land, the
subdivision plat
name, plat book and
page number, and
perimeter lot
numbers abutting
the tract to be
subdivided
'
~
, 38
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicate comilance; "No" indicates no -compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
b. Streets and Transportation
Systems
i. The location, name X Yes No The site plan contains a the —Yes No
and right of way width location of existing and
of streets, roads and proposed streets.
railroads abutting the
X Yes No The site plan contains the —Yes No
ii.Surface material and required information.
width of travel ways
X Yes No The site plan contains the —Yes No
iii. The location of any required information.
existing curbs, gutters
and culverts, These
features shall also be
shown in cross
X Yes No The site plan contains the —Yes No
iv. The location and required information.
width of alleys,
sidewalks, bike lanes,
transit systems, and
bus stops.
c. Utility Systems
i. The location and size X Yes No The site plan contains the —Yes No
of all above ground required information.
installations of major
electric, CATV and
telephone transmission
lines, underground gas
transmission mains,
underground water
mains and sanitary
sewer lines, and
important storm sewer
systems on or abutting
the tract shall be
'
40
SECTION 7.14.2 (B)CON INUED("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
-Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
d. Contour information
i. Existing contours X Yes —No The site plan contains —Yes No
on the tract shall be the required information.
shown at vertical
intervals of not more
than ten feet.
ii. Contours shall be X Yes No The site plan contains Yes No
referenced to mean the required information.
sea level datum as
obtained from the
latest applicable
USGS topographic
map or other geodetic
iii. Where a field X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
topographic survey of the required information.
the tract has been
performed, contours
shall be referenced to
a permanent
identifiable
'
~
41
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicates comt)liance; "No" indicates no comg)liance
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
e. Other Conditions
i. Streams and rivers, X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
ponds, or lakes, the required information.
swamps or
marshes, and Attachment 1 of the
natural areas August 27, 2012
identified in "An Quarterly Hearing Packet
Inventory of Sites of contains additional
Cultural, Historic, information on streams
Recreational, and natural areas
Biological and contained on the
Geological property.
Significance in the
Unincorporated
Portion of Orange
County" or
"Inventory of the
Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitats of
Orange County,
North Carolina.
ii.Manmade features X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
including houses, the required information.
barns, and known or
identified cemeteries
shall be shown in
their approximate
iii. The zoning of the X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
subject tract and the required information.
adjacent properties
shall be noted.
-
'
42
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicates c Wiance, "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Subdivision Layout Data:
Information on the
proposed development
shall be shown as noted
(a) Site calculations shall X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
be shown as follows: the required information.
(i)Acreage in tract to
be subdivided;
(ii) Lineal feet of road
centerlines and
approximate acreage
within new street
rights of ways;
(iij)Acreage in
recreational areas and
other non-residential
(iv)Total number of
lots or parcels
(b) Lot Arrangement X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
the required information.
(i) Proposed lot lines,
lot and block numbers
and the approximate
dimensions and area
of each proposed lot
shall be shown on the
(ii) Lot areas exclusive
of road right of way
shall be shown.
(iii) Blocks shall be
consecutively
numbered or lettered
in alphabetical order
and all lots in each
block shall be
consecutively
(iv) Required building
setback lines shall be
shown for each lot or
noted on the plat.
-
~
43
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates no -comDliance
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
continued
(c) Dedications, X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
Reservations, and the required information.
Easements
(i) The location and
approximate
dimensions of all
property to be set
aside for recreational
use or other public or
private dedications,
reservations or
easements shall be
(ii) The purpose and
conditions of the
dedication, reservation
or easements shall be
(iii) For recreation
areas with
improvements, a
separate sheet shall
be provided showing
the proposed site
dimension and
improvements drawn
at a scale of not less
than 50 feet to the
inch, or at a different
scale if approved by
the Planning Director.
~
/
_
44
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicates cornollance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
continued
(d) Streets and X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
Transportation Systems the required information.
(i) The location,
dimensions and
classification (public or
private) of all
proposed streets,
easements, alleys and
other right of ways
shall be shown on the
(ii) The location and
dimensions Of
proposed pedestrian
paths and sidewalks,
bike lanes or paths,
and bus stops shall
also be shown.
(iii) Proposed streets,
pavement or travelway
widths shall be
denoted as well as
typical roadway cross
sections. The
approximate centerline
radius shall be shown
on all proposed
(iv) Proposed street
names shall be
indicated on the plat.
Such names shall not
duplicate or
approximate the name
of any other street in
Orange County except
where a proposed
street is the
continuation or
extension of an
existing street.
'
'
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates no -comollance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Reouirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Utility and Drainage
Data
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
a. Proposed utility the required information.
systems shall be shown
on the plat, including but
not limited to
(i) Public or private
community water
supply systems
(ii) Public or private
community sewage
disposal systems, and
(iii) Storm drainage
facilities including
existing and proposed
drainageways and
channels
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
b. Any easements the required information.
associated with such
utility systems shall also
be denoted and the
purpose for the
easements designated on
the plat.
Section 7.14 (2) (13) (7) X Yes No The site plan contains the —Yes No
required information.
Landscaping and Buffer
Data: The following The site plan denotes
information shall be denoted anticipated plantings of in-
on the Preliminary Plat to between lot and street trees
demonstrate compliance with to comply with established
the provisions of Section 6.8 landscaping, buffer, and
of this Ordinance: tree protection standards as
detailed within Section 6.8
(a) Existing trees and/or of the UDO.
vegetation to be
preserved and proposed
trees and/or landscape
materials to be installed.
(b) Required buffers.
-
'
46
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED("Yes" indicate comt)liance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Reaulrements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA) Standards
X Not applicable The property has no Not applicable
a. The boundary of the identified floodplains and
Special Flood Hazard is not located within the
Area zoning overlay SFHA Overlay District
district shall be
designated and labeled on
the plat as required by this
X Not applicable The property is not Not applicable
located within a
b. For subdivisions Watershed Protection
located within a Overlay District.
Watershed Protection
Overlay District, as
identified on the Orange
County Zoning Atlas, the
following information shall
be designated and labeled
on the plat:
(i) Impervious surface
data as required by
Section 4.2 of this
(ii) Stream buffers as
required by Section
6.13 of this Ordinance;
and
(iii) Stormwater
detention . and/or
retention sites and
undisturbed areas for
infiltration purposes as
required by the
Section 6.14 of this
'
47
SECTION 5.16.6 – MAJOR SUBDIVISION CLASS A SPECIAL USE (RURAL DESIGNATED OR
URBAN DESIGNATED)SPECIFIC STANDARDS
("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-cornalance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Submittal Requirements
In addition to the
information required in
Section 2.7, the following
shall be submitted as part
of the application
a. Stamped envelopes x —No The applicant supplied Yes No
addressed to each owner Yes the necessary stamped
of property within 500 feet envelopes as required by
of the property proposed the LIDO.
for subdivision. The
names and addresses of
property owners shall be
based on the current
listing as shown in the
Orange County Land
Records system
b. A statement, from the x No Attachment 1 of the —Yes No
applicant, indicating the Yes August 27, 2012
anticipated development Quarterly Hearing Packet
schedule for the build out contains a narrative
of the project. denoting the required
development schedule
for the project.
c. Water and Wastewater X Yes No Attachment I of the —Yes No
August 27, 2012
Quarterly Hearing Packet
contains a narrative
denoting proposed water
and wastewater services.
The site plan also
provides required
-
-
48
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTIN ED ("Yes" indicates co Pliance: "No" indicates no -comi)liance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
continued
x —No The site plan contains —Yes No
d. Open Space Yes the required information
Connectivity demonstrating
compliance with the
A map that demonstrates UDO
that the open space
composition, accessibility,
shape and size
requirements as set forth
in Section 7.13 of this
Ordinance are to be met.
e. Natural & Human- X Yes No Attachment 1 of the Yes No
Made Resources August 27, 2012
Quarterly Hearing Packet
A written and graphic site contains a narrative
analysis illustrating soils, denoting required
depth to water table, information.
slope, hydrology,
vegetation, natural areas The site plan contains a
and habitats of special sheet providing a
concern, infrastructure detailed site analysis
and other constructed map denoting the
features, historic and required information as
archaeological sites, and well.
visual analysis of views
into and from the site. Staff has determined
there are no significant
environmental features
on the property.
'
~
49
PLANNING BOARD
Ordinance EVIDENCE SUBMITTED RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
f. Pedestrian / Bicycle The project is not located
Plan within a transition area.
x No —Yes No
(i) If the subdivision is Yes The submitted site plan
located in a Transition denoted the location of
Area designated as access walkways to
such on the Land Use proposed open space areas
Element of the located on the southwest
Comprehensive Plan, portion of the property.
a plan for sidewalks or
pedestrian/bike lanes
as part of the public
roads using, where
alternative North
Carolina Department
of Transportation
design guidelines that
include
pedestrian/bike lanes
as part of the public
road system.
(ii) For proposals not
located in a transition
area an off-road,
pedestrian plan shall
be submitted.
~
'
50
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTIN ED("Yes" indicates co Wlance: "No" indicates non-co Wiance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
continued
9. Landscape Plan X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
Details the proposed landscaped
plan and land use buffer
A landscape and tree preservation plan.
preservation plan that
shows the following: A condition of approval is
that the final landscape
W The proposed plan shall be approved
locations, and types prior to the
of, plantings, commencement of earth
(ii) The existing natural disturbing activities and
landscape with the applicant shall
existing topography, physically identify those
trees slated for
(iii) The width of roadside preservation during
and perimeter buffers construction in
to be left undisturbed, accordance with the
(iv) The open space provisions of the LIDO.
(proposed undisturbed
and proposed
improved) as well as
type of ownership.
Section 5.15.6 (2) X Not applicable This project is not Not applicable
proposing over 40 lots.
Additional Submittal
Requirements - For all As a result the
applications of over 40 requirements of Section
applicable
'
~
- 61
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTIN ED ("Yes" indicates co, Miance; "No" indicates non-co, pliancell
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Reaulrements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Standards of Evaluation
A. The project meets all The application package
applicable design standards X Yes No contains the necessary —Yes No
and other requirements of information demonstrating
this Ordinance compliance.
B. The project meets all
service provision criteria as
set forth below:
1. Fire � identifies the X Yes No Fire Marshall has indicated —Yes No
primary and secondary the New Hope Fire
responders and the Department is primary
source(s)of water. responder.
2. Police – identifies the X Yes No The Sheriffs office is the —Yes No
primary and secondary primary responder. State
responders. police will be secondary for
certain types of issues.
3. Rescue Services – X Yes No Primary–New Hope —Yes No
identifies the primary and Secondary – Orange
secondary responders. County and Town of Chapel
Hill(Mu ual aid)
4. Water Supply– source X Yes No Community well —Yes No
and capacity of water
5. Wastewater Treatment X Yes —No Individual septic systems —Yes No
Methods – provider and permitted by Orange
capacity of wastewater County Environmental
treatment source. Health.
-
52
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTIN ED ("Yes" indicates co Wiance: "No" indicates no -compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
-Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Standards of Evaluation
continued
C. Habitats shall be
identified and evaluated in
the Biological Inventory
required by Section
subject to the following:
i. An undisturbed buffer is X Yes No Attachment 1 of the —Yes No
required around the August 27, 2012
boundary of habitats of Quarterly Public Hearing
rare, threatened, or package contains
endangered species as required information.
shown on the biological
inventory. Buffer width No buffers are required
shall be determined by as no habitats were
site evaluation in identified on the
consultation with the property.
applicant's biologist and
County staff
ii. Habitat enhancements X Yes No Attachment 1 of the —Yes No
as described in the August 27, 2012
biological inventory shall Quarterly Public Hearing
be made for a broad package contains
range of species to help required information.
mitigate the loss of wildlife
habitat during No mitigation is required
construction. as no habitats were
iii. Conservation X Yes No No wetlands areas were —Yes No
easements or other denoted.
acceptable means such
as dedication to a public Streams and other water
agency, conservancy or a bodies are located in
similar agency are either a dedicated open
required to protect space parcel or within
wetlands and other landscape buffers and
habitats while insuring shall be maintained and
proper long-term managed by the Home
maintenance; and Owners Association.
'
~
53
SECTION 6.15.6 CONTIN ED ("Yes" indicates co Dliance; "No" indicates non-co Dliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Standards of Evaluation
continued
iv. Provide barriers or X Not No habitat buffers are Not
fencing, and signage at –Applicable proposed as there were Applicable
the edge of habitat buffers no habitat areas
to prohibit vehicular and identified on the
pedestrian access. property.
Limited access may be
allowed if proposed in a
sensitive manner for
environmental education
D. Landscaping and
Buffers
i. Existing vegetation X Yes No The site plan denotes —Yes No
shall be preserved as areas where existing
indicated on the vegetation will be
approved landscape preserved.
plan in accordance
with the provisions of
Section 6.8
ii. Tree protection X Yes No Notes contained on the —Yes No
measures shall be site plan indicate the
installed and clear cutting of individual
maintained between lots and mass grading
all areas of are prohibited.
disturbance and trees
to be retained as Protected areas on
shown on the individual lots shall be
approved landscape fenced off during
plan. A detail of the construction.
tree protection barrier
proposed shall be
included as part of the
landscape plan
submitted with the
-
54
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTIN ED ("Yes" indicates co oliance: "No" indicates no compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Standards of Evaluation
continued
iii. Corridors connecting _X_ Not No habitat buffers are Not
habitats identified in the Applicable proposed as there were Applicable
biological inventory shall no habitat areas
be preserved along identified on the
streams, buffers, or other property.
wooded areas. If
destroyed during
construction, such
connections shall be
restored using
appropriate plant
iv. Trees and stumps cleared X Yes No The submitted site plan, the Yes —No
for roads and building project narrative states that
construction shall either no burning of construction
be used for timber debris will occur.
purposes or shredded for
landscape mulch,
composted, buried or
otherwise disposed of
BUT NOT BURNED.
V. Berms, fences and X Not applicable No berms, fencing, or walls Not applicable
landscaping walls may be are noted to be necessary.
used with plant materials
for screening, provided
such features are
designed and located in
harmony with other site
features and functions.
vi. To minimize visual impact X Yes No —Yes No
by blending architecture
into the surrounding
landscape, foundation
plantings are required at
all freestanding entrance
L Use of xeriscaping X Yes No Preservation is the top —Yes No
principles. priority in the landscaping
plan. Suitable plant
materials will be used.
'
-
55
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates co oliance• "No" indicates non-com fiance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.15.6 (A) (3)
Standards of Evaluation
continued
E. Stormwater
Management
i. A stormwater X Yes No Initial review of —Yes No
management plan shall calculations by Orange
be prepared and County Erosion Control
reviewed in accordance indicates there will be no
with the provisions of issues.
Section 6.14;
A condition of approval is
that the formal
stormwater management
plan shall be reviewed
and approved prior to
earth disturbing activity.
ii. All drainage structures X Yes No According to the —Yes No
will be installed and applicant, equivalent
maintained according devices in accordance
to the approved with NC DENR
Stormwater stormwater manual will
Management Plan. be used.
A condition of approval is
that the formal
stormwater management
plan shall be reviewed
and approved prior to
earth disturbing activity
iii. Subdivisions that x Yes No A condition of approval is —Yes No
include structural that the formal
stormwater measures stormwater management
shall comply with the plan shall be reviewed
requirements in Section and approved prior to
6.14. earth disturbing activity
27
~
56
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
-Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Standards of Evaluation
continued
F Grading and Erosion
Control
i. Plans for grading and X —No Initial review of grading Yes No
erosion control comply Yes plans by Orange County
with standards Erosion Control indicates
contained in the there will be no issues.
Orange County
Erosion and Sediment A condition of approval is
Control Manual and that the formal grading
this Ordinance; and erosion control plan
shall be reviewed and
approved prior to earth
disturbing activity.
ii.Construction is X No Staff has determined that —Yes No
phased to the extent Yes the project will comply.
practical to minimize
disturbance and
iii. Sediment control X No Detention basins to —Yes No
measures will be Yes handle silt and turbidity
properly installed to will be installed prior to
filter sediment from any grading. Conversion
runoff during of the devices will occur
construction and as stabilization occurs in
maintained until the sub basins.
grading is complete
and a permanent A condition of approval is
vegetative cover has that the formal grading
been established and and erosion control plan
all slopes stabilized; shall be reviewed and
and approved prior to earth
disturbing activity.
iv. Permanent X No A condition of approval is Yes No
landscaping, Yes that the formal grading
groundcover, mulch, and erosion control plan
etc. will be installed as shall be reviewed and
soon as practical after approved prior to earth
construction activities disturbing activity.
for each phase are
'
57
SECTION 5.15.6 CONTINUED "Yes" indicates com liance• "No" indicates non-com liance
. PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.15.6 (A) (3)
Standards of Evaluation
continued
G. A solid waste X No The preliminary plan and _Yes No
management plan, Yes narrative contain the
submitted as part of the required information
Resources Management
Plan, shall include the
method(s) of disposal and
recycling of construction
debris.
H. Irrigation X Not applicable Provisions dealing with _Not applicable
irrigation are not
applicable as the
applicant is not
proposing to install such
systems.
I. Habitat Maintenance
i. Habitats identified in X No As denoted on the site _Yes No
the biological inventory Yes plan a large area along
and habitats created the southwestern portion
through mitigation shall of the property is to be
be maintained in left in protected
accordance with the landscaped space due to
Resources the presence of identified
Management Plan stream buffers
and/or a conservation
easement agreement;
and
ii. Maintenance of X No Open space areas will be _Yes No
habitats shall be Yes left undisturbed except
minimal, consisting for the installation of
primarily of maintaining utilities and stormwater
buffers and devices.
enhancements,
removal of exotic (non-
native) plant species,
and keeping drainage
ways functioning
properly.
29
58
SECTION 5.15.6 CONTINUED "Yes" indicates com liance• "No" indicates non-com liance
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Requirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.15.6 (A) (3)
Standards of Evaluation
continued
J Access to the x Yes No According to the _Yes No
subdivision and access to submitted site plan the
lots within the subdivision project will have access
to existing public roads off of Mt. Sinai Road (SR
shall conform to and be in 1718)
compliance with any
public road access Local roads shall be
management plan developed to State NC
adopted by Orange DOT standards.
County.
K. Maintenance of
Improvements
i. All site x Yes No All maintenance will be _Yes No
improvements such as incorporated into the
roads, utilities Homeowner's
(including irrigation Association documents
and drainage with the exception of the
structures), habitat public streets.
enhancements,
recreational amenities,
signage, landscaping,
open space, etc. will
be maintained in x Yes No All maintenance (trails, _Yes No
function and stormwater devices) and
appearance ongoing private
ii. Maintenance expenses (lights,
specifications, if any, mowing, etc.)will be
for on-going site incorporated into the
management Homeowner's
(including provisions Association documents
for handling of storm with the exception of the
debris in open space public streets.
areas) shall be
submitted as part of
the Resources
Management Plan and
incorporated into
Homeowners'
Association
documents.
30
~
58
SECTION 6.3.2 (B) Special Uses – Specific Standards ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No"
indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Reouirements STAFF FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (13)
Specific Standards: In
addition to the general
standards stated in
Section 5.3.2 (A) the
following specific
standards shall be
addressed by the
applicant before the
issuance of a Special Use
Permit
X Yes No Attachment 3 of the —Yes No
Quarterly Public Hearing
Method and adequacy of packet contains a
provision for sewage memorandum from
disposal facilities, solid Orange County
waste and water service. Environmental Health
indicating the proposed
septic systems are
A condition of approval is
recommending requiring
easement language
allowing for the proposed
off-site septic
development shall be
reviewed and approved
by the County Attorney's
office and Environmental
Health prior to the
recordation of the final
,
60
SECTION 6.3.2 (13) CONTI UED("Yes" indicates ornollance, "No" indicates non-com W lance)
Section 5.3.2 (B) (2) X Yes No Fire protection will be —Yes No
provided by the New
Method and adequacy of Hope Volunteer Fire
police, fire and rescue Department, rescue
squad protection. service by the Orange
County Emergency
Management, and police
protection by the Orange
County Sheriffs
Attachment 3 of the
October 3, 2012
Planning Board packet
contains a memo from
Mr. David Sykes of
Orange County
Emergency Management
concerning approval of
the project.
Section 5.3.2 (B) (3) X Yes No The submitted site plan —Yes No
shows the required
Method and adequacy of access points and
vehicle access to the site denotes that the roads
and traffic conditions serving the site shall be
around the site. development to NC DOT
A recommended
condition of approval is
the applicant secure a
NC DOT drive permit
allowing for the project to
be accessed via Mt.
Sinai Road.
Further, a recommended
condition of approval is
road names shall be
submitted and approved
by Orange County GIS
prior to the recordation of
the final plat.
'
~
61
SECTION 6.3.2 (A) Special Uses—General Standards ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates
non-com oliancell
PLANNING
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD
Ordinance TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED
Renuirements STAFF FINDINGS 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 on these items.
general conditions before
the application for a
Special Use can be
Section 5.3.2 (A)(2)(a) —Will —Will Not —Will —Will Not
The use will maintain or
promote the public health,
safety and general welfare,
if located where proposed
and developed and
operated according to the
plan as submitted.
Section 5.3.2(A) (2)(b) —Will —Will Not —Will —Will Not
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).
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
62 _
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has not received any information that would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the general
standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare,
maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in compliance with the general plan
for the physical development of the County.
Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the
applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO
Provided the Planning Board 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 Planning Board makes a recommendation to issue the
permit, Planning Staff recommends the attachment of the following conditions:
A. Development of off-site septic fields:
1. Only lots 23 through 26 shall be served through an off-site septic system
developed on the parcel denoted on the approved site plan.
2. Lots 23 through 26 shall have an individual septic systems and repair area on the
designated lot serving as the joint septic area within the project. A combined
system shall not be developed.
3. The property housing the off-site septic systems shall be maintained by the HOA.
Each individual septic system shall be maintained by the homeowner. Language
governing the maintenance of the lot, as well as the maintenance responsibility for
each septic system, shall be contained within the deeds restrictions and
covenants for the development.
This document shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's office,
Orange County Environmental Health, and the Planning Director prior to
4. The applicant shall develop an agreement outlining the use, maintenance
responsibility, and liability issues for a proposed easement transferring waste from
lots 23 through 26 to the off-site septic lot. This easement agreement shall be
reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's office, Orange County
Environmental Health, and the Planning Director prior to the recordation of the
final plat.
5. The applicant shall execute a utility extension and installation agreement
consistent with the aforementioned easement agreement covering the extension
of sewer lines from lots 23 through 26 to the off-site septic lot. This agreement
shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the Orange County Staff
Engineer in consultation with the Planning Director, County Attorney, Orange
County Health, and other essential County personal involved with the process.
6. Orange County Environmental Health and the staff engineer shall approve the off-
site septic line construction drawings, including stubbed out service lines for lots
63
23 through 26, prior to any clearing or grading on the site. No sewer lines shall be
placed underneath paved or concreted areas with the exception of perpendicular
crossings.
7. Signed encroachment agreements, if required by North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT), shall be executed for all sewer lines that are placed
within public right-of-ways serving lots 23 through 26. Copies of signed
encroachment documents shall be provided to the Planning Department and the
County Staff Engineer prior to Planning signatures on the Final Plat.
B. Provision of Water Services
C. Roads and Access
1. Proposed roads shall be designed and constructed to standards of the NCDOT
Subdivision Road manual, dated January 2011, within a fifty (50) foot right-of-way
as denoted on the approved plan.
2. Erosion control plans for construction of the proposed roads shall be submitted to,
and approved by, the Erosion Control Division prior to any clearing or land
disturbance.
3. Approved double-bladed street name signs shall be erected at all street
intersections shown on the Final Plat prior to issuance of any building permit if
road construction is not completed prior to recording of the final plat.
4. Prior to any construction or alteration of any existing access within the platted
rights-of-way, the owner/applicant shall secure a driveway permit from the NCDOT
District Office. The owner/applicant shall submit a copy of the NCDOT-approved
permit and NCDOT approval letter to the Planning Department prior to or at the
same time as the request for a grading permit is made, or before Planning
Department signatures are affixed on the Final Plat, whichever is first.
5. Sight triangles with dimensions of ten (10) feet by seventy (70) feet shall be shown
and labeled at all street intersections as depicted on the Final Plat. These areas
are to remain clear of plantings, fences, vehicles, and all structures.
6. Dedicate, in fee simple, a fifty (50) foot wide right-of-way, centered on the existing
right-of-way of Tinnin Road, to the northern property line. Said dedication shall
meet local residential road right-of-way standards as required in Section 7.8.2 of
the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
D. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall be preserved as indicated on the approved preliminary plan
and Resources Management Plan that show the typical building envelopes/open
space areas and shall be inspected and approved by the Planning and
Inspections Department prior to signatures on Final Plat. No part of the
landscaping shall encroach into the 10' x 70' sight triangles at the intersection.
35
64
OR
Guaranteed financially through a letter of credit or escrow agreement submitted to
secure required landscape installation and preservation. An estimate of the cost
for required preservation, plantings and their installation must be provided. The
financial guarantee shall reflect 110% of the estimate and be issued by an
accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina in a form
approved by the County Attorney.
2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved site plan shall
be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements
to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
No clear cutting on individual lots or mass grading is permitted pursuant to Section
6.8 of the UDO.
3. The applicant shall retain and maintain existing plantings within the Typical
Building Setbacks as indicated on the Site Plan.
4. A minimum of thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained (i.e. left undisturbed)
along the subdivision perimeter. Language shall be provided in the Homeowners
Association documents to the effect that clearing within the thirty (30) foot buffer
shall not be permitted.
5. Stream buffers shall be maintained around an identified water feature denoted on
the approved site plan in accordance with the provisions of the LIDO.
6. No mass grading of the site shall occur. Lots shall be graded only after lot specific
plans showing the extent of grading are submitted to the Planning Department
and approved at the time of building permit applications.
7. Common area landscaping trees and shrubs shall be of a native species and
drought tolerant.
E. Storm Drainage
1. Drainage easements shall be located on the Final Plat as required following
review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan by County staff.
2. All structural stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP's), as defined in the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Stormwater
BMP Manual shall be within stormwater easements and shown on the Final Plat.
A stormwater maintenance agreement shall be recorded along with the Final Plat.
The agreement shall designate the responsible party for maintenance. Public
access to the BMP devices shall be provided.
3. Drainage culverts shall be sized and located appropriately by a licensed North
Carolina Professional Engineer as required by NCDOT and Orange County
Erosion Control.
4. The site runoff for the one (I)-year twenty-four (24)-hour storm shall be the same
36
~
65
post-development as pre-development regardless of the BMP option chosen.
5. The Jordan Lake (Cape Fear Basin) nutrient reduction rules apply to this site.
6. Sediment and erosion control measures shall be installed prior to and during any
land clearing or construction.
F. Parkland and Recreation
1. Lawful currency of the United States in the amount of$10,972.00 ($422 x 26 lots)
shall be paid to Orange County as payment-in-lieu of parkland dedication at the
time of recordation of the Final Plat.
2. The applicant shall incorporate provisions into the declaration of restrictive
covenants that effectively restricts and maintains the common area open space.
These protected areas shall be shown and labeled accordingly on the Final Plat.
All maintenance responsibilities for the open space shall be with the Homeowner's
3. Section 7.11.2 of the LIDO requires a minimum recreation space based on the
a. 1157 of an acre dedicated for each dwelling unit (i.e. individual lot). This
translates to .456 acres or 19,863 square feet (26/57 = .456 acres).
b. Section 3.3 Base Zoning Districts — Rural Buffer of the UDO establishes a
recreation space ratio of 0.028 square feet of space per land area
dedicated to residential use. For this project approximately 1.92 acres or
83,635 shall be required as denoted on the approved site plan (0.028
68.51 acres = 1.92 acres, or 83,635 square feet).
According to Section 7.11.2 of the UDO in those cases where there is a difference
in these 2 ratios, the difference shall be established as private recreation space
for the residents of the development. In this case the applicant is required to
maintain approximately 1.46 acres of private recreation space for the use of the
residents of the development.
4. The applicant shall provide and maintain the proposed 1.48 acre recreation and
open space lot as denoted on the approved site plan for use as a community
picnic and park area. Further, the applicant shall provide and maintain a 3.62
acre open space recreation area, including a 25 foot wide pedestrian open space
access (POSA) area, as identified on the approved site plan.
G. Construction Waste
I. Per the Orange County Solid Waste Ordinance, clean wood waste, scrap metal,
corrugated cardboard, and all present construction waste shall be recycled.
2. All haulers of construction waste shall be properly licensed. The applicant shall
confirm that hauling contractors are licensed to haul waste in Orange County.
~
66
3. Prior to any demolition or construction activity on the site the applicant shall
arrange for a pre-demolition / construction conference with Orange County Solid
Waste staff. This may be the same meeting held with other county officials.
H. Miscellaneous
1 The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with
Section 7.14.3 of the LIDO.
2. The Homeowner's Association (hereafter 'Association) shall be incorporated and
a deed conveying the open space into the Association shall be submitted along
with the Final Plat for review and approval by the County Attorney's office,
Planning Department signatures will be affixed to the Final Plat after attorney
review is complete. The County Attorney shall approve the declaration of
restrictive covenants applicable to the property.
3. Tree cutting in the roadside open space is prohibited except for necessary
maintenance purposes that have been approved by County staff prior to any such
tree cutting taking place.
4. All street lighting shall conform to the Outdoor Lighting Standards as set forth in
Section 6.11 of the UDO. The light fixture shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval prior to entering into a contract or sales
agreement or purchase of lighting fixtures from the utility provider.
5. A sign permit shall be obtained from Orange County for the subdivision sign
located at or near the entrance of the subdivision prior to beginning construction.
Any lighting for the sign shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to
purchase or installation.
6. Methods of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps, and construction debris associated
with construction activity shall be by some method other than open burning as
required in the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance.
7. Parcel Identification Numbers for the existing lots shall be shown on the Final Plat.
8. The maximum number of lots approved is twenty-six (26); the final number of
approved
platted lots shall be determined after compliance with all ordinances, regulations
or conditions of approval. No ordinance, regulation or condition of approval shall
be relaxed in order to accommodate more than twenty-six (26) lots.
9. The owner shall file, with the Planning Department and record with the Final Plat,
a declaration of covenants and restrictions, articles of incorporation, where
required, and/or by-laws, all as approved by the County Attorney, that will govern
the maintenance and control of the improvements as set forth in Section 7.14.3 of
the LIDO.
Said documents shall provide for ownership of open space and the dedication of
easements to access open space, common area POSA's, drainage easements
and buffers, for maintenance. The Owner has agreed that said documents shall
not restrict the use of energy efficient measures, including but not limited to
38
67
clotheslines by the lot owners, nor shall said documents require any lot owner to
engage in water intensive lawn maintenance.
10. No geothermal wells shall be developed within the project for any purpose.
I. Certifications
1. All Certificates and Endorsements as set forth Section 7.14.3 of the LIDO signed
by the landowner, developer and appropriate staff persons shall be on the face of
the plat and included in a document describing development restrictions to be
recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
2. Certificate of Improvements as set forth in Section 7.14.3 of the UDO signed by
the County Manager shall be on the face of the Final Plat.
3. Orange County Environmental Health shall certify on the Final Plat that perk sites
have been approved for all lots and the off-site septic area has also been
approved in accordance with applicable standards.
4. The NCDOT shall certify that the platted portions of the proposed roads have
been entirely constructed to State standards or that construction plans have been
approved with a letter of credit or cash bond security posted prior to Planning
Department signatures on Final Plat.
39
Attachment 2 68
Otic
TRIANGLE LAND
CONSERVANCY
September 26, 2012
Michael D. Harvey
Current Planning Supervisor
Orange County Planning Department
P.O.Box 8181
131 West Margaret Lane
Hillsborough,NC 27278
RE: Dunhill Subdivision Trail Connection to Johnston Mill Nature Preserve
Dear Michael,
The Triangle Land Conservancy was recently approached by David Weekly Homes to consider a potential
trail connection between the proposed Dunhill Subdivision located on Mt Sinai Road and the trail
network located on TLC's Johnston Mill Nature Preserve. TLC has conducted an analysis of the suitability
of such a trail connection. Upon careful review,TLC has determined that Johnston Mill Nature Preserve
can accommodate an additional foot trail to the proposed Dunhill Subdivision .
Traditionally,TLC does not endorse the connection of singular social trails between individual properties
and its nature preserves. The number of individual neighbors each having their own trails can get
excessive and lead to a diminution of the property's conservation values. Limiting individual trails is a
challenge to enforce. When presented with a potential subdivision being constructed on a neighboring
property it behooves TLC to analyze the impact of the subdivision on the Nature Preserve including
consideration of developing a singular approved access point to the Nature Preserve on a sustainable
appropriately built trail.
In considering additional trail connections,TLC must consider the environmental impacts of increased
use and trail alignment. It must consider the cost to maintain new trail and the stewardship obligations
imposed on TLC staff in the future. And lastly,TLC must consider how the new trail fits with the
organization's mission. TLC constructed and sustains the Johnston Mill Nature Preserve as a publically
accessible amenity to further TLC's goals of connecting people with nature and educating the public
about conservation,water quality and wildlife habitat.
Upon review of these and many more conditions,TLC has determined that Johnston Mill Nature
Preserve does have the capacity to handle the anticipated foot traffic proposed by the Dunhill
Subdivision trail connection.
Triangle Land Conservancy 1101 Haynes Street Suite 205 Raleigh, NC 27604 (o)919-833-3662
1 1 1
69
TLC will entertain discussions about the construction of a trail between the Dunhill Subdivision and
Johnston Mill Nature Preserve dependent upon the following conditions and understandings:
a. Only a singular TLC approved trail connection may be constructed between the Dunhill
Subdivision and Johnston Mill Nature Preserve. No trail connections are otherwise
permitted between the Dunhill Subdivision and the Johnston Mill Nature Preserve.
b. Any trail built on TLC property must be built to TLC specifications and conditions,
constructed by TLC chosen/managed means or contractors.
c. TLC will be compensated for its costs in facilitating the neighboring trail construction
and signage.
d. TLC will require a one-time stewardship endowment contribution for future stewardship
costs related to the maintenance of the trail. The trail connection and stewardship
calculation is calibrated to the population size of the subdivision and does not consider
other users that enter from outside the subdivision.
e. TLC retains the right to reroute,close or alter any trail on the Johnston Mill Nature
Preserve in the future that negatively impacts the health and vitality of the nature
preserve.
f. Users of the trail are invited guests of TLC. Users must follow the TLC rules while on the
Preserve. TLC reserves the right to change the rules related to the Preserve in the
future,should the need arise. Violators can be excluded from the Preserve.
g. A minimum thirty foot buffer be vegetated and maintained on the Dunhill property at
the TLC boundary.
h. TLC Land Manager and Dunhill Homeowner's association shall work to maintain
communications to provide an outlet for issues,should they transpire,including off trail
activities,dumping of yard waste and other issues deemed detrimental to the Preserve's
conservation values or well being.
I. The connector trail should be built with natural surface materials,with a tread no wider
than 6 feet. Timing for construction should be coordinated with TLC,but be constructed
within 6 months of the completion of trail connector located on the Dunhill Subdivision
property.
The Triangle Land Conservancy is open to consideration of the trail connection between the Dunhill
Subdivision and Johnston Mill Nature Preserve subject to acceptable terms and remuneration.
Sincerely,
tom AL6 6�
Tom McGuire
Interim Director
-s.� v? :'�F ::: 3', -1-3 f-;7*7-,A (01 .74 r� '>'3`$.',)
rgle ::o 652
70
SU 'IT 919.732.3883 SIPPIrf-MINEER.COM
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES 504 MeadovAand Drive, HIRsborough,NC 2727 8
October 1,2012
Mr. Michael Harvey
Orange County
Planning Department
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough,NC 27278
Re: Responses to Trail Connection to TLC—Johnston Mill Nature Preserve Trail
Mr. Harvey:
On behalf of our client and the applicant,David Weekly Homes, Summit Design and
Engineering Services is providing responses to email correspondence issued by TLC to
the County Planning Staff and subsequently forwarded to Summit on Wednesday,
September 26,2012.
The applicant has express concerns over a trail connection to the Nature Preserve and at
this time is not inclined to make this connection for several reasons as stated below:
• Cost—It is very clear that the TLC has many requirements related to the
construction,quality and future maintenance of any trail connection.These are
additional cost that the applicant has not considered in the overall budget of the
project and are cost that have no current real value as what the construction cost
would be as well as the one-time endowment contribution have not been assessed
and could preclude improvements proposed that would otherwise be feasible.
• Safety—A distinct trail connection to the Dunhill Neighborhood would allow
unmanaged foot traffic access to the proposed residential properties and could
result in motorists using the shoulders and cul-de-sac of the sub-division as
additional parking areas for trail access.This could also encourage the use of the
Sub-Division road as an outlet to Mt. Sinai road where trail users would then be
encouraged to proceed up Mt. Sinai road to the nearby parking area near Cascade
Drive.
• Findings of Fact—There have been no findings of fact required of the applicant
that would necessitate a trail connection.
71
4
Summit Design and Engineering Services will be more than happy to address and provide
any clarification needed on the attached responses and looks forward to discussing these
matters with you or the respective review agencies and boards further.
Sincerely,
S MMIT DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
Chad E.Abbott,P.E.
Project Engineer
Attachment 3
August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public 72
Hearing Minutes - Excerpt
APPROVED 10/16/2012
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
August 27,2012
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday,August 27, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Central
Orange Senior Center, Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Alice
Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, 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 Board David Hunt(All other staff members will be
identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Wright, and Planning Board members
Pete Hallenbeck, Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, Tony Blake, Rachel Phelps Hawkins,
Alan Campbell, and Johnny Randall
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: H.T. "Buddy' Hartley, Lisa Stuckey, Dawn Brezina
Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. She asked for a motion to add a
closed session at the end of the meeting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to add closed sessions after the public hearing:
1. Per N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3): To Consult with the Attorney to protect the
attorney-client privilege.
2. Per[N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(5)] To establish or instruct the staff or agent
concerning the negotiation of the price and terms of a contract concerning the
acquisition of real property
3. Per [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(4)]: To discuss matters relating to the location or
expansion of business in the area served by this body.
4. Per [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(6)] : To consider the qualifications, competence,
performance, condition of appointment of a public officer or employee or
prospective public officer or employee.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
A. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
73
B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Class A Special Use Permit-To review an application for a Class A Special
Use Permit for a proposed 26 lot single-family residential Major Subdivision
on a 68.51 acre parcel of property off of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718).
Michael Harvey: I will remind the Board that you are dealing with a Class A Special Use
Permit, which by definition is a quasi-judicial hearing. If you are speaking either for or against
the application—that includes the applicant and the applicant's engineer and staff—you need to
be sworn. Mr. Chairman, if you will swear in all interested parties in for this hearing.
Larry Wright: All parties approach the bench, and while they're doing so, I'd like t 1 0 inform
everyone that additional testimony can be accepted in written format to the Planning
Department to be submitted prior to the Planning Board meeting. It will be part of the Planning
Board deliberations, and this will offer the opportunity for the Board of County Commissioners to
have material where they can consider this in their deliberations thereafter.
AN interested parties were sworn in at this time.
Michael Harvey: You have a rather lengthy agenda item here this evening, and I'm going to try
to go through it as methodically and as quickly as possible and allow the applicant and citizens
the opportunity to speak. As the Chair has already articulated, we have a major single-family
residential subdivision of 26 lots being proposed on a parcel of property off of Mt. Sinai Road.
We have two additional pieces of information concerning this project,which I'd like to call your
attention to. The first item is a printout of a PowerPoint presentation so that the Board members
can follow along. The second is a salmon-colored piece of paper, which contains
correspondence from Orange County's DEAPR department as well as State review documents.
We also have an email sent by Mr. David Sykes of Orange County Emergency Services on
Thursday,August 16th for your consideration on this item. Unfortunately, this information was
received after we had distributed the packets so we were not able to include it.
Attachment 1 is the application packet, and very briefly, I just want to run down what that entails.
The application packet begins on page 11 with a detailed narrative statement from the applicant
demonstrating compliance from their standpoint with the various provisions of County code and
the Comprehensive Plan with respect to this project.
Page 27 provides pictures of existing structures on the property. Page 28 is the Soil Service
report for this property. Page 60 is a Surface Water Identification completed by Orange County
Erosion Control with respect to the streams that are located on this property. Page 64 is a
Water Utility Agreement concerning the proposed community well. Page 81 is the adjacent
property owner list. Page 83 contains letters submitted to the applicant from the State
Department of Cultural Resources concerning this project. Page 87 is the Agreement of
Purchase and Sale of this property. Page 89 is the proposed draft Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions for this property. Page 129 begins a property information data
sheet submitted by the applicant's expert in an attempt to demonstrate compliance with various
provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance, specifically that this project will maintain or
enhance the value of adjacent property. Page 133, you will note there are sample elevations of
the houses proposed for this project. On page 144 you have some additional maps showing
environmental features.
74
Attachment 2,which is a vicinity map created by staff is on page 150. Attachment 3 contains
staff memorandum from Orange County Solid Waste and Orange County Health Department.
Attachment 4 is a fiscal analysis that we produced outlining the anticipated costs to service the
proposed neighborhood and what monies the County could expect to receive from this project
and if it is developed. Attachment 5 is notes of the neighborhood information meeting, which we
are going to discuss in the general abstract Attachment 6 is the Finding of No Significant
Environmental Impact statement completed after County staff determined the project would not
have any significant impacts on this and surrounding property. Finally we have the notification
certification that we typically provide for these types of projects outlining our compliance with
established notification requirements.
As detailed on pages 4 and 5 of your abstract, the applicant is proposing a conventional
subdivision on a parcel of property located in the Rural Buffer Zoning District. As we articulate
in our abstract, this particular parcel of property is located in the rural portion of the County that
is defined on our Growth Management System Map, and it is located within the Rural Buffer
Rural Residential area as defined and noted within the Joint Land Use Plan that we have with
the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
The next slide is a vicinity map with the location of the property as well as a brief overview of
surrounding development. As you will note, on the map that we have provided we have a
mobile home park to the south, the J&J Mobile Home Park. To the east of this property,we
have Triangle Land Conservancy property. This area denoted in green is a conservation
easement. You also have to the north a major subdivision with lots ranging from 2-3 acres in
area. You have to the southwest of this property the Green Valley subdivision with lots ranging
from 40,000 square feet to two acres in size. To the west you have lots essentially one acre in
area. Across the road is the Blackwood Forest subdivision with lots approximately two acres in
area.
The project as we identified in the abstract, the applicant is proposing lots with a minimum of
two acres in area. The overall density for this project is one dwelling unit for every two acres.
The proposed roads for this project will be built to DOT standards, and it's the applicant's desire
to turn the roads over to NCDOT for maintenance at the appropriate time.
According to the site plan lots 1-22 are going to be served by on-site septic systems. The
applicant is proposing that lots 23-26 be served by an off-site septic area. The site plan denotes
that there will be a utility easement transferring the affluent just outside of the NCDOT right-of-
way to the proposed off-site septic area. There will be individual septic sites for each of these
lots and there will not be one giant septic system. The rationale for that is to ensure that all four
lots don't expect problems if the septic system fails. There will be a 30-foot land use buffer
around the perimeter of this project and there will also be a 75-foot land use buffer along Mt
Sinai Road as required by the code. The applicant is proposing at this point in time to service
the project with a community well. This is going to be located on a proposed open space lot.
There is also proposed to be picnic, recreational center,for use by all of the residents.
I - I
75
This slide denotes the site plan. You will note the land use buffer here, the 30-foot land use
buffer around the perimeter of the property. Lots 23-26 will be served by off-site septic, which is
in this general area of the project. We have two open space lots here,which is where the
community well is proposed to be located. This area down in here where there is an existing
stream, as I previously articulated to you,the County completed what we call a surface water
identification inspection to not only verify the location of this stream, which is shown buffered on
the site plan, but verify that the stream actually will have to be buffered in accordance with
Article 6 of our land use standards. The applicant is showing a potential storm water basin in
this general area that will have the storm water for the project. The storm water system has
been designed for a 6,000 gallon detention basin.
Within the site plan, the applicant is also showing the proposed street system that will have to
be installed along the project. They have also identified areas where foliage will be installed in
between proposed lots. Interior lot plantings will have to be planted in order to bring the project
into compliance with Article 6 of our Unified Development Ordinance. As you will all remember,
the UDO does require in between lot planting designed to preserve the aesthetic of the area.
The applicant has already the trees that they are going to try and preserve to meet this
requirement, and they have also identified the planting of approximately 60-70 trees that will be
planted in between various lots in order to ensure compliance with the code.
Our comments, which are contained throughout pages 5-11 of the abstract is that the project's
density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan; i.e., one
unit for every two acres of property. As contained within Attachment 3, Orange County Erosion
Control has already tentatively approved the proposed storm water plan and grading plan. Final
approval will not be received until the formal Erosion Control and Grading Plan is submitted for
review.
We also have the memorandum from Orange County Environmental Health within Attachment 3
articulating that they have found suitable soils supporting septic system development in each of
the lots of these 1-22 and that the main lot to serve as the central depository for lots 23-26
appears to be sufficiently sized. They also stipulate that the community well that is currently
proposed will have to be reviewed and approved by the State.
We held a neighborhood information meeting on this project on August 6th. We had good
attendance from local residents and the concerns can be summarized as follows. There was a
lot of concern on the community well and whether or not that would have a negative impact on
adjacent property. Although not mentioned here, I believe you have a copy of a letter sent to
Commissioner Pelissier outlining a local residents'concern over the use and installation of
geothermal wells that utilize the pump and dump system. That concern is not necessarily
associated to this project, it is a countywide concern. The concerned resident has asked that
the County begin a comprehensive review on whether or not there should be limits or outright
bans on the use of geothermal wells, specifically focusing on pump and dump and geothermal
wells in general. Given the fact that Orange County does not had a true aquifer, that most of
our water resources are taken from fractures within the ground, and that by eliminating
geothermal wells would help to alleviate some of the identified concerns over ensuring the
availability of adequate water supply for personal use and not for the heating or cooling of a
residence.
~
76
~
Statements and comments were made over concerns about this development causing taxes for
existing residents rise There were concerns over mff-oite
related traffic impacts that could be generated bv the project, specifically to Alexander Drive, Mt.
Sinai, and NC 86. There was a concern over the protection cf the existing stream inthe
southwest corner of the property. |t was suggested by some of the residents in attendance that
the applicant provide a plan to have a density of one dwelling unit for every five acres as well.
Staff's recommendation ie articulated on page 1Oof your abstract:
1\ Receive the SUP application,
2) Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, Planning Board,and BOCC sworn
testimony on the application,
3) Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 20, 2012
BOCC regular meeting, and
4) Adjourn the public hearing until November 20, 2012 in order to receive the Planning
Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Unless there are any specific questions of me at this time, I'd like to turn it over to the applicant
and allow them to provide additional detail on this project. There are a few residents signed up
to speak.
Larry Wright: Do the Commissioners have any questions of Mr. Harvey? Members of the
Planning Board?
Chad Abbott: I'm Chad Abbott, with Summit Consulting. I have been duly sworn. I'm here on
behalf of Weekley Homes- Mr. Jeff Akin and his staff are here to answer any questions related
to the details of how the subdivision will be built,the geothermal comments, as well as the
individual septic comments. I am here to answer any technical questions you may have related
to the 26-lot subdivision proposed.
Commissioner Hemminger: Concerning the general well situation, the neighbors of this
property have identified concerns over their wells going dry,do you know how deep their wells
are and how deep this one is supposed to be?
Chad Abbott: I do not think a survey has been conducted on the adjacent wells.
Diana Walstad: Mine is 250 feet.
Commissioner Hernminger: How deep is this one supposed to be?
Chad Abbott: The exact depth, you would have to run it until it hit the water that would meet
the demands of the subdivision. Individual wells would be allowed and would be in compliance
with any other standards for a subdivision. That is an option they have.
Commissioner Hemminger: For the four lots that have septic that runs all the way underneath
all the other lots, thafs a long run, how does that technically work? It's pretty far away.
Chad Abbott: The-technical design of that has not been done either way. If it cannot be a
gravity feed,there will be a pump to disperse the waste in that area.
l - I
77
Commissioner McKee: In reference to the pump and dump geothermal, could you elaborate a
little bit more on the specifics of that type of system versus what the County is using as a
geothermal system.
Chad Abbott: I'm not an expert at geothermal. We can get some more information on that and
provide it to you.
Commissioner Yuhasz: I'm just wondering, looking at the remote septic system,was any
thought given to a design that would provide that same kind of remote system somewhat less
remotely from the lots being served? It's probably in here and I've missed it, but who is going to
own the property that the septic systems actually are on?
Jeff Akin: My name is Jeff Akin and I'm with Weekley Homes and I have been sworn. Those
will basically be extensions of the individual lots. They will be owned by the individuals. It is not
really a remote system, it is actually just an extension of their lot that is connected at the end of
the easement. They will more than likely be force mains. We have done systems like this
before and we have never had any problems with them. It's just trying to access the available
soils in a different location. It's part of the lot that is owned by the individual, there is no
combination of systems. It's pretty much standard.
Commissioner Yuhasz: I'm familiar with those kinds of systems and I've actually been
involved with one that could pump as much as 6,000 feet, so I know it's possible. But I'm also
aware that part of what is important for a septic system is that there will be regular inspection of
the field by someone to make sure that there is not any obvious signs of failure. I just want to
make sure that in this case, that kind of inspection will occur. With this being owned by
individuals who are several thousand feet away, there is a concern with it being owned
individually that those will not get that kind of inspection.
Jeff Akin: I believe they are required to be inspected periodically. Joe Lyle is our expert in this
area.
Joe Lyle: Joe Lyle and I have been sworn. There will be an operation maintenance agreement
in place by a certified septic system operator for each of the remote systems. And they will be
inspected on a regular basis.
Jeff Akin: And the second item is we intend in the homeowner's documents to add a provision
where that is maintained by the HOA just so we don't have an issue with someone who doesn't
go down and maintain that area. I think it would be worthwhile to have that included in the
maintenance contract. It won't be unsightly and it will be inspected.
Michael Harvey: I think I can add a little more information to that, if you refer to the
documentation provided to you with respect to Environmental Health comments, they asked us
that we include the off-site wastewater system procedures provision. There are numerous
regulatory requirements associated with the development of off-site septic areas including a
requirement for annual certification and inspection. There are inspection requirements and
certainly you do have the authority, as this is a special use permit, as you've done with a few
projects in the past-most recent memory is Carolina Friends School—you required annual
inspections to ensure the operation of the system. I would encourage you, if you have that
concern to ask the applicant to consider the imposition of such a condition.
Commissioner Gordon: One of the comments made here was a question about the
geothermal well. The person who answered said he wasn't an expert. Is there any expert here
that could speak to that concern? If there is not and there is additional information, then I would
ask the Attorney how one handles that.
78
John Roberts: If the additional information is not to be presented at this hearing, it could be
submitted as a written comment to the Board prior to either the Planning Board's hearing, or
prior to the final hearing on this, which is scheduled for November.
Michael Harvey: November 20th is the County Commissioners' reconvening of the public
hearing. The October regular meeting is the Planning Board issue.
John Roberts: The reason it has to be written comment is that, traditionally and usually when
this Board continues or adjourns these public hearings, it adjourns them solely for the purpose
of accepting the Planning Board recommendation and written comments.
Commissioner Gordon: Is it the case then that there is not an expert or someone from the
developer that wishes to testify and therefore it would be a written comment?
Michael Harvey: I'll let the applicant speak to that specifically. The subject of geothermal wells
only came up as a result of a neighbor concern on the general use of such a system. There is
no pump and dump geothermal well proposed for this site, in fact, it doesn't appear anywhere in
the narrative of the application that there will be such systems on the project. It is fair to
recognize that you've had a citizen that has asked the Board to begin a comprehensive
assessment on the installation and use of such systems. The applicant indicated at the
neighborhood information meeting that it was not their intent to promote or encourage the
installation of geothermal wells with a pump and dump system. I think the issue here is two-
fold. You have a concern that transcends this particular project, but the County Commissioners
need to give us some direction on it. But you also have a situation where you have an applicant
that has not proposed the installation of such systems on the property in the first place. I do not
feel qualified to provide any kind of detail of the benefits of the various types of geothermal
wells.
Commissioner Gordon: Well, if there could be a definitive statement that there would be no
geothermal wells on this property, then there would be a more general question and not
specific.
Jeff Akin: We will consider that to see if that's likely a request from a homeowner, but we were
not anticipating the use or installation of geothermal well systems. The comment that was made
was directed at water usage and the concern was water usage on an individual lot in an area
with wells. We're trying to find an answer to that question, and it would probably be best to
submit a written response just so we respond accurately to that person's comment.
Commissioner Gordon: Just so it is definitive when we have to make a definitive decision.
Jeff Akin: It should be. I don't think it's a major issue, so a resolution should be reached.
Chair Pelissier: What is our role vis'-a-vis' the draft of the covenants? I have some questions
about that.
Michael Harvey: I think it's perfectly appropriate for the County Commissioners to address
those comments and concerns to the applicant so that they can begin to take notice of whether
they need to modify. These are draft covenants that they are proposing for this project. I think it
is perfectly reasonable for you all, if you have concerns or you would like specific answers to
specific questions that they can provide that to you.
Chair Pelissier: I do have a couple of comments and questions. One is just an inconsistency
with the presentation. The covenants say on page 97 that there will be 14 lots served by off-lot
septic area and I understand it's only 13.
-
78
Jeff Akin: These are not draft covenants for this project. These are actually just sample
covenants from a project that is somewhat similar. We have not gone through the draft
covenants process, but we took a neighborhood that was similar as far as having septic and
other things. All inconsistencies like that are going to be addressed will be done so to ensure
the standards are specific for this site.
Chair Pelissier: The other comments I had were on page 103 where it talks about that you
can't have any structure for providing alternative sources of energy unless you have permission
from the architectural review committee. I did have concerns about that because with a lot of
people wanting solar panels and other things for alternative energy, I just don't like to see
restrictions for that.
Jeff Akin: These are general restrictions, we generally want to make sure that those panels
are located in the least visible area and still be functional. We want to make sure that they're
not reflecting or doing anything to inhibit someone's use of their personal property. We don't
generally restrict anything like that. We want to encourage that, but if we don't have them come
through the process of architectural review,we may end up with two parties having a
discrepancy over the locations. In all of our history we have never had an issue where we were
not able to work out a location acceptable for an alternative use. So, we're very open to that.
There is an appeal process if someone gets denied. Basically, you couldn't deny them without
due process, without a purpose for denying.
Chair Pelissier: Maybe it could be written a little dearer. I also did want to have some
discussion about the off-site wastewater treatment and that the homeowner's association would
be responsible. I just want to stress that I have some concerns about that, because the people
that would be responsible are not the property owners. I don't know if there would be any
problems with maintenance because they would be assessing the charges for the repairs to the
actual owners of specific properties with off-site. I don't have an answer to it except that it is just
a concern of whether that actually works since the people who are responsible are not the
Jeff Akin: Everyone deals with their own maintenance in the maintenance for the HOA. The
system,the repair field, anything to do with the pumps will remain individually the homeowner's
responsibility. So there is going to be no separation. It will simply just be an obligation for the
grounds maintenance.
Chair Pelissier: The last question I had was about the water, I was just curious, why were the
individual wells not considered? As I understand it, maybe I misread it, that the old property
owners will have to pay the company for their well. Normally, when we have individual wells,
property owners only have to pay if there is a problem with the pump.
Jeff Akin: I understand that the concern over a community system and difficulty in finding the
necessary amount of water. We're leaving options open for the use of individual wells on each
property if we cannot get sufficient water yield with the community system in accordance with
State law. We've met with a couple of drill companies in that area. Our hope would be to drill
deep and provide a large water supply for the community system,and therefore there would be
no concern with tapping. We're still investigating that. If that's not the case and it's not the best
avenue to go,we'll go back to the individual wells. If we're running into a situation where we'll
have to put a lot of wells in and not a lot of power and have the potential of wells running dry,
we'd much rather put the expense in. Typically, because of the issue that came up with the last
one convinced us that we really should try to go that route first. We're still in the process with it.
Commissioner McKee: In an adjoining county, an issue of mineral rights has come up and I
wonder if that has been addressed. I might ask that the Attorney address this concern.
~
80
John Roberts: I would be unable to answer that at this time.
Jeff Akin: We have never made any attempt to retain mineral rights on any lots whatsoever.
Basically, the laws of the local jurisdiction,state laws,would apply to the individual rights. I
would assume that it's their rights to the minerals.
Larry Wright: Any more questions from the County Commissioners? The Planning Board?
Johnny Randall: I just wanted a clarification on the geothermal wells in that there should be
perhaps a question about the use and operational characteristics of pump and dump and the
closed loop system. I assume a closed loop system does not require any more water than it
does to build up pipes. The closed loop does not use groundwater, so that should be
encouraged, and the pump and dump should be discouraged.
Commissioner Yuhasz: I don't remember the details, but at the last Board of Health meeting,
which was last week, this subject did come up and Tom Konsler, the Environmental Health
Director did say that the pump and dump system is not one that's generally used or approved in
Orange County and that he would anticipate that any geothermal system that was approved in
Orange County would not be a pump and dump variety.
Larry Wright: For the general well, the communal well, how many gallons per unit timed would
you estimate that it would take in peak hours? Part b to that question is how would that
influence, if any, neighboring wells from adjacent neighbors?
Joe Lyle: Let me address the second part of that question first. My Name is Joe Lyle and I
have been sworn. I've had several discussions with Tom Konsler. Tom has issued the
following statements to me regarding this well or any proposed wells. I know there was concern
from neighbors that maybe a community well could impact their existing wells. The statements
made by Mr. Konsler is that the geography of the area does not lend itself to drying or reducing
the peak gallons per minute of neighboring wells,to speak to the geography and the fracture in
this part of the county. I also asked him about the sampling limits and what his experience has
been, and he said that they have done extensive sampling in the County. The contamination as
well as yields, and also assured that this has not been the case. He did not see an issue with
that. We also spoke with a company that would eventually take over the operation of a
community well system, one of the largest bore utility providers here in the state. They have not
had any problems with their other community well systems in the County impacting neighboring
wells. It's our thought, based on that information,that it should not be an issue, based on the
geography here.
Larry Wright: So this is independent of a water table.
Joe Lyle: The way it was put to me, is that there are not individual aquifers that would spread,
that these are pockets of water underneath the particular piece of land. Your neighbor next
door could have 100 gallons a minute and you could end up with 2 gallons a minute, and they
are completely different water sources. That's the way that Tom explained it to me.
Larry Wright: My second question is maybe for somebody else to answer. With the 6,000-
gallon retention pond,you have homes coming in here with lawns that have a high runoff
coefficient and then you have roads and then you have these deep ditches and they take water
rapidly to this 6,000-gallon retention pond. It's my understanding, I could be wrong. If it
happens that this retention pond overflows, where does that overflow go?
0 1 -
81
Jeff Akin: I'm not sure if we're at that level yet. We're not at the point that we have designed
the stormwater conveyance system,the ditches that you're talking about. It would be our belief
and hopes that water would not be quickly conveyed off of individual property homeowners to
that pond. Most of that 6,000 gallons would be used for the road construction on a temporary
basis as well as some of the roadside ditches. The way that this property drains, it doesn't all
drain to that spot. Some of it drains naturally off to the side.
Larry Wright: My concern here is with neighboring properties.
Jeff Akin: I understand. We're simply not at the engineering level right now to be able to
comment on how that system would really be designed. There may end up being two storm
water ponds.
John Roberts: There was a response to Mr. Wright's first question regarding community wells.
I believe your response was based on a conversation you had with Tom Konsler?
Joe Lyle: That's correct.
John Roberts: Heresay testimony is generally not allowed for this type of hearing. I
recommend that you respond to the Board in writing to that question.
Joe Lyle: I would be glad to. I have requested that in writing from Mr. Konsler.
Michael Harvey: I just want to make a statement concerning the storm water. If you can refer
to page 163-164 of your packet. You do have a memorandum that has been produced by Mr.
Terry Hackett, our Storm Water Resources Officer, who indicates that based on the preliminary
assessment, a 6,000-gallon depression area seems sufficient. But obviously,a formal storm
water plan is going to be required. That is going to be a required and mandated condition for
approval of this if we get to that point. If the Planning Board can make an affirmative
recommendation, staff will recommend a formal storm water plan. But at least as it has been
sized currently, Mr. Hackett does not see an issue with it complying with local or state storm
water or nutrient issues.
Commissioner McKee: If I might point out one thing. This abstract on page 164 refers to a
6,000-square foot potential storm water treatment area. That is entirely different than a 6,000-
gallon. I'm sitting here thinking that 6,000 gallons is approximately one tractor trailer. This
would be smaller than a child's wading pool
Michael Harvey: I apologize for the misuse of the term and for the confusion it has created.
John Roberts: I have a comment with regard to the Chair's question regarding the restrictive
covenant document. This document actually predates a General Assembly law in 2009 that
made it illegal for these types of covenants to outright ban solar reflectors on homes. They are
still allowed to regulate the location. That's just for your information on that question.
Johnny Randall: Shouldn't the retention pond be measured in cubic feet and not square feet?
Larry Wright: It would seem so.
Commissioner Gordon: It just strikes me that there are a number of questions that have been
unanswered that are going to be answered by written comments. If they are not answered, then
I would strongly urge us, if it is approved, that any development that is here have any conditions
so that if something is missing and not definite, that before it is built,that there be a condition
that would specify. There have been a number of questions that we have asked that haven't
been answered that would be deferred to written comments. I would just urge that at the
Planning Board level and at the County Commissioners level that there be conditions that
address anything that's important that's not definitively addressed.
~
82
Michael I'll just remind everyone here the applicant has an obligation to respond to
any and all questions in writing that will be presented bx the Planning Board and also bnthe
County Commissioners. | would dare say that if staff does not feel those questions have been
adequately addressed or answered,we have never been shy to recommend conditions for the
applicant tm have tm adhere to. But the applicant also runs the risk/f they don't submit the
necessary information and get m negative finding b the County Pl i Board,the County
Planning staff will ultimately deny the project. So, obviously, it is in their best interest to address
those comments, and we will work with them in order to make sure that the comments and
questions will be addressed by the Planning Board meeting.
Larry Wright: Any more questions by the Planning Board or Commissioners? Any more
presentations from the applicant? At this time, I'd like to entertain any testimony from the public.
I have Mary Jo Fife for item 1. Would you please come to the podium, state your name, and
that you've been duly sworn.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mary Jo Fife: Hi, I'm Mary Jo Fife, and my husband and I own 3 acres of land that back up into
this development just exactly east. Myself and one other person have wells on that land. Our
projected idea is to build homes on those 3 acres for land for families. The well that we have is
directly east of what is proposed to be built. This well that we have, although it serves only one
person and has for the last 10 or 12 years, has gone dry and we've had to have it re-drilled
again. That is only sufficient for one person right now. We know there's going to be problems.
There is a family with two or three kids next door,juxtaposition to this one, and I'm not sure
what their position is on their well. If there is an excessive well use on a well that is very close
and juxtaposition to this well, I'm looking at the land and I think it's maybe 300 feet or so from
that, and I think that it could have an effect upon our well. We do not want it to go dry,just
because it's a new housing development. That's our major concern.
After the comments, it was discovered that Ms. Fife had not been swom in. She was then
sworn in and repeated her comments.
John Roberts: Ms. Fife,you need to repeat your comments since you were just sworn in. You
need to repeat, if you can, the essence of what you just testified to.
Mary Jo Fife: We have three acres of land. Two acres that bridge back up to this
development. There's only one other person in that area that has property and has a well on it.
Our well from my best observation,from having attended the first meeting, I think it was August
, is in close proximity to the area where the well is going to be put for this development. My
concern is, that because our well has gone dry and we had to have it drilled again about ten
years ago, plus the fact that the well has only been serving one person for the last 10-12 years,
that there may be a problem with the well given if this huge well is put in close juxtaposition to
our well.
Diana Walstad: My name is Diana Walstad, and I was the one that wrote the letter about the
pump and dump system. I would just like to say, though I wrote it in the letter, in 2002 my well
went dry and one of the neighbors next door in a ritzy development had a pump and dump
system and it was running continuously, the well was pumping out water into the creek.
Meanwhile, my well was almost dry and I couldn't take a shower. These rich people were using
the water, pumping it out,for their house. I thought it was outrageous. If you want people to
support this, then people like myself need to be protected. I'm all for a re-circulating system,
that's fine, but pump and dump is just a terrible waste of groundwater. I live in a lot adjoining lot
~
83
Jeff Akin: I'd like to respond to Ms.Walstad. The applicant would be willing at this time to
officially agree that we would restrict pump and dump systems on this site. We would be more
than happy to restrict that.
Donna Jean Benson: I've lived on a lot that neighbors this proposed development for 33
years. I have been duly sworn. I'm not particularly opposed to this new development. I guess
my biggest concern is wells, because my neighbor, at the same time her well went dry, mine
was pretty close to getting dry. I've talked to other people in the neighborhood who aren't here
tonight but were at the first meeting that had a real strong concern about the same thing. That
was the main thing at the last meeting was the water. There is a development, a new clean
place that Diane was talking about with a pump and dump and it borders lots 1-10,that area on
that side, I think. I think the Planner was describing that they were two and three-acre lots, but
there's at least one that's ten and I think there's one that's sixteen, and they have a community
well there that's enormous. Then there was one guy that had pond and he's the one that had
the pump and dump thing. The pond was like a waterfall that ran into the creek, the woods,
etc., and that was during the serious drought when everybody in our neighborhood was going to
the Laundromat and using the dishwater to water the plants and stuff like that. I guess my
biggest concern is about the wells. I'm also excited because this area has the rural buffer zone.
I'm kind of wondering what's the point of a rural buffer if it seems like this whole area is turning
into subdivisions. It just seems like it's a little too dense. Another thing, I keep thinking if I was
going out into this rural buffer area and buying land and they came in and said, "your land
doesn't perk, you can't put septic here,"they're probably not going to allow me to build a house
there. I'm thinking that one proposal might be for this developer to take lots 23,24, 25, and 26
that can't take septic and maybe make that open space or maybe even a park for his
development. It would cut the density down a little bit and solve the problem of this remote
septic system, which might cause problems for the adjacent property owners. Plus,there's a
real cute, nice trailer park over there. I know people don't like trailers, but it's a very nice, clean,
nice families that live there, and I know they don't want a nasty septic field for four other remote
lots in their backyard. That might make it a little easier to swallow. You know, tone it down a
little bit, maybe not so dense, maybe a nice park, and get rid of that remote septic field.
Commissioner Jacobs: First,whatever the size of the retention pond is, there's a comment on
page 8 from the Fire Marshal. Is there a response to that regarding having a source of water for
fighting fires?
Michael Harvey: Not at this time, the applicant is working on a response.
Commissioner Jacobs: So,we could make a comment about it in this public hearing that they
have to address that.
Michael Harvey: That's right.
Commissioner Jacobs: There's a comment from, in this document, about having a trail that
connects with the Johnson trail on the adjacent Triangle Land Conservancy property. Do we
have a response to that?
Michael Harvey: The applicant has not provided a response and we have not heard from TLC
as to whether or not they would even allow a trail from this neighborhood to connect to their
Commissioner Jacobs: I'd like to see a response before I vote on this.
^
84
Joe Lyle: On Friday one of the consultants, Michelle Kimpenski, spoke with Jeff Masten with
the Triangle Land Conservancy. There was a question about trail access through this property.
This is the statement that was made, if they certainly prefer one point of an access into the
Triangle Land Conservancy property, so that they can not only control that point of access but
also control the hours of when that access is, and if there was a second point of access, they
would listen to that opportunity, but they don't prefer that opportunity.
Commissioner Jacobs: So, it's the situation that the Attorney mentioned before, if you could
get that in writing.
Michael Harvey: The TLC property is this property right here (pointed out on the map).
Commissioner Jacobs: I also had a question about the 25-foot access easement. This is
between 16 and 18, and that's specifically to allow members of the community to get to the
open space areas, is that why it's there?
Michael Harvey: Correct, yes sir.
Commissioner Jacobs: And the homeowner's association is supposed to maintain that, is that
correct?
Michael Harvey: The homeowner's association will be maintaining it. That information that
was not provided will have to be provided. Unfortunately,the previous engineer with Summit,
who was working on this project, is no longer part of the company so there has been some
information lost in the transition.
Commissioner Jacobs: Let me go back to a question that Commissioner Pelissier had. I'm
very uncomfortable with the homeowner's association agreement that's been provided that
doesn't specifically respond to this development. Let me give you two specifics. We've had
these issues before with homeowner's association agreements. One is on page 102 at the
bottom,Waste. It sounds to me that you can't have a compost bin on your property, based on
this scripture. On page 103,#13, Landscaping, it sounds like you have to put in sod. We are,
believe it or not, in a period where the climate is changing,and we don't have as much water
and there are some grasses that are actually more drought resistant than others. I would hate
to see us require people to put in grasses that are not drought resistant. We need to
understand that the developer may be phased out of the decision-making process. So, what's
in these documents......and we have seen in the legislature that one of the big issues in
homeowner's associations is that people can be pretty intolerant of difference. I just don't want
to keep bringing that into Orange County neighborhoods at the same time that we're trying to
promote certain kinds of energy conservation and natural resource preservation.
Michael Harvey: Commissioner Jacobs, can I just interject and say that Article 6 of our Unified
Development Ordinance,the land use buffer,the street and interior lot landscaping, existing
regulations require the installation of drought-resistant indigenous foliage and grass. Individual
lot owners would be addressing this requirement with the builder in terms of the installation of
required foliage. There needs to be some modifications to this document to make it specific as
it has been submitted but will remind all here the ordinance does not require the submission of
the documents in the first place. I believe the applicant wanted to provide the Board with a feel
for the types of local development limitations they typically impose on their projects.
I =J
~
85
Commissioner Jacobs: I have concerns about the remote septic area, and I didn't think
Commissioner Yuhasz actually got an answer to his question. His specific question was did you
consider something different than a pump system having to pump affluent over a great distance,
that question wasn't answered. The answer that was given was based on the legality of the
system and the approval process. That's not the same as saying what Ms. Benson was asking.
The question was whether the remote septic area is the optimal alternative for the people who
live there and the people who live around there. I didnl think that Commissioner Yuhasz got a
direct answer to that question. I will say I know what the concern is with that type system. I
think the concern was trying to have it more proximate to the houses which would be
responsible for maintaining it.
Jeff Akin: That's the maintenance issue with the HOA. We felt like this was a good land use
plan for this particular site. We thought that it was going to be a nice transition area there.
That's not going to be an unsightly area, it's going to be a beautiful mowed meadow. All of the
system is below ground. It's going to make a nice green buffer and a transition to the adjoining
mobile home park. So we thought it was a really good land use. As far as this tract of land and
the testimony about the area in that development,we looked at many properties in this area that
are unsuitable for development. There's a tremendous amount of that area that does not work.
There are tributaries, the New Hope Watershed, and there are a lot of properties that are not
developable. This is really one of the few nice developable tracts. It is mostly not treed. We
designed the entire project to have minimal impact on that land. Obviously, economics require
us to try to put the maximum allowable number of lots in the project, but we try and meet the
code another way. We've put these systems in and there are absolutely no problems with them.
They function well. Pumps are absolutely nothing new, they're part of the large percentage of
septic systems. They function exactly the same. We'd be happy to address any concerns that
come up through the process, but we think this is good land planning and we think we've
optimized the site to preserve the trees, to stay away from the creeks, and to have a nice
looking neighborhood. We'll make adjustments if we need to.
Michael Harvey: We had asked the applicant to provide a sample and they did exactly what
we told them to do. There are a few unresolved issues, unfortunately some of which were
precipitated by the lateness of which the comments came in from other County departments and
other agencies. The Department of Transportation had submitted initial comments. The
applicant will provide written responses as they're required to do.
Commissioner Yuhasz: I just have to make one comment, and since I probably won't have
the opportunity to address this in the future, there is nothing special about a subdivision and I
think it's inappropriate for a subdivision to have to go through the time and the expense of this
kind of special use permit process, whether its 20 lots, 24 lots, or 30 lots. It's still just a
subdivision. It's still just a body of land to use for development process- I just wanted to raise
my objection to this process.
Commissioner Jacobs: I have two comments that I'd like to direct to staff and the Planning
Board. One is on page 7,just the way in which the material was presented. I would think it
would be more clear to separate out land use buffers from open space in cases like this
because it confuses what is open space. I think you're saying there is specifically designated
open space in the subdivision, then there is space set aside that is required based on our buffer
standards. Is that correct?
Michael Harvey: Yes sir. It should be remembered that there is technically no independent
open space area required for a conventional subdivision, although the applicant is providing
~
88
~
Commissioner Jacobs: So, it would just ba easier for me,and probably for others. To the
point though, and K8a- Benson made it as well, and staff made it on page G in the next tothe last
paragraph. When vve adopted the Joint Planning Agreement,and there were many objections
from property owners in the rural buffer about the restriction on their property, one of the things
we discussed isvvmwould revisit the two-acre minimum. Over time, the two-acre minimum
produces exactly what Ms. Benson said,just o two-acre parcel property, unless the land can't
perk. Staff mentions that you're going to be working on something that actually looks at creating
a true flexible development option for lots in the rural buffer area as to a subdivision in a band
around Chapel Hill and Carrboro. I would hope that we see that in the near future as opposed
to the distant future. The other thing has to do with what all the neighbors were talking about,
which is groundwater. I don't remember the name of the subdivision, it was probably about five
years ago, the one on Arthur Minnis Road, where it goes from pavement to dirt. The neighbors
were very concerned about the effect of the subdivision on their groundwater, on their wells.
One of our responses was to hire a staff person full-time to study groundwater in Orange
County. And here we are, I don't see that we've made any progress in providing any report or
methodology for reviewing development impacts on well usage, maybe there is no update to
provide. Maybe that's the answer. We do have places where we have policies in place if there
are impacts from a commercial use or from something we did. I just don't think we have
adequately addressed the concerns that people in rural areas have about subdivisions that go in
next to them in a time when water is becoming more scarce. Basically, I feel like I sit up here
and I listen and I empathize, but I'm not sure we're doing anything to help people. I would hope
that we can do something a little more proactive,whatever it may be.
Commissioner Gordon: I am not anxious to revisit the rural buffer. I think we've done
reasonably well in the rural buffer. There are a lot of other things that I think take priority.
Maybe we'll eventually get to reconsidering it, and I think it's worked well and I don't think we
should rush to reevaluate it.
Chair Pelissier: There is one item in the covenant that I forgot to express my concern. I'm not
sure I support the square foot size of the house of 3,000 square feet. I know it's a boilerplate,
but I don't know if that's the intention here. I'd also like to just say something to what
Commissioner Jacobs had said about water. I was on the Commission for the Environment
some years ago when we did have a geophysicist on the board who had actually done studies
in Orange County. And one of the lessons I learned from him was, as one of the presenters
said tonight, that there are little pockets and this fractured rock. He said that the most important
thing to do and that some counties do it is to zone your land according to the recharge rate for
that area. There is a study that tells us about the water recharge rate, and that is something
that can give you guidance. That would require looking at zoning according to the water for that
area of the county. I don't know if we're ready to go there, but that's what was mentioned. We
need to assure citizens that they have water for the development there.
Commissioner McKee: In response to the last comment, I want to make sure that we're very
careful that we don't micromanage ourselves into a taking of property.
Chair Pelissier: I'd like to entertain a motion to "refer the matter to the Planning Board with a
request that a recommendation be returned in time for the November 20, 2012 BOCC regular
meeting, and
Adjourn the public hearing until November 20,2012 in order to receive the Planning Board's
recommendation and any submitted written comments."
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
87
refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
in time for the November 20,2012 BOCC regular meeting, and adjourn the public hearing
until November 20,2012 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and
any submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. Zoning Atlas Amendment—To review an application to rezone
approximately 14 acres of a 36 acre parcel of property located at 99 NC
Highway 57 from Agricultural Residential (AR) to NC Highway 57 S eedway
Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) for the pu ose of
developing an enclosed mini self-storage facility with accomp ying
ccessory uses including office space, a retail office selling oxes and
p king supplies, and a truck rental area.
Michael Harve ade reference to the PowerPoint presentation This is near the go-cart
track on NC 57, which is rrently for sale. The Orange County Spe way is also nearby. This
proposed use is consistent ith the land uses that are anticipated hin the adopted NC 57
Speedway Area Small Area n that was adopted in 2007 by th County Commissioners. This
land use is listed as a permitte se. The applicant is in a pos' on where he needs some
guidance from the County Commi sioners before moving fo ard. The abstract identifies the
concerns related to this project and a staff needs directi from the Board. There will be
approximately 400 individual storage ckers. The appli nt is proposing the installation of a
land use buffer. There is also some tra portation pl ning concerns. Staff is asking the Board
to give necessary feedback on this issue.
STAFF COMMENTS:
- Land use consistent with recen EDA- -1 district amendment
- Approved Small Area Plan visioned this an acceptable land use in the area
- Staff is concerned over t lack of well for the 'te and recommends the applicant
revisit this matter
- Erosion Control ha xpressed concern over propos d storm water plan
- Transportation p nning comments will need to be addr ssed
- Staff will nee direction on the proposed land use buffer m difications
Commissione uhasz informed the Board and the public that he id represent Mr.
Chandler during th time of the development of the NC 57 Small Area Plan nd that
representation a ed when he became a County Commissioner. He has no ' terest in this
particular proje
Co issioner Foushee made reference to toilet facilities and that the app ant has
been ma aware of this condition and expressed reservations. She asked what ne ded to be
done s hat this does not continue to be a concern.
88 _
Approved 11/7/82 Attachment 4
EXCERPT OFPLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 3,2012
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: L3nY Wright (Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Peter Hallenbeck (Vice-chair), Cheeks
Township Representative; Maxgcine /Ni(choU. At-Large Bingham Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township
Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little FUwor Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township
Representative;Dawn Brezino` Eno Township Representative;Tony Blake,Bingham Township Representative
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Gtuohav Chapel Hill Township Representative;Johnny RaDd3|! At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
Andrea Rohrbacher,At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
STAFF PRESENT:Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz;Special
Projects Coordinator; Abigaile Pittman, Land Use/Transportation Planner 11; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor;Jennifer Phillips, Property Development Specialist;Tina Love,Administrative Assistant 11
OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Baker, Ryan M,Jackson,Jeff Akin,Chad Abbott
Agenda Item 7: Class A Special Use Permit-To make a recommendation to the BOCC on an application for a
Class A Special Use Permit for a proposed 26 lot single-family residential Major Subdivision on a
68.51 acre parcel of property off of Mt Sinai Road (SR 1718). This item was heard at the
August 27,2012 quarterly public hearing
Presenter: Michael Harvey,Current Planning Supervisor
Alan Campbell recused himself because he may represent the owner on this project in the future if approved and left the
table to sit in the audience,
Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract.
Larry Wright: Is this in the rural buffer?
Michael Harvey: Yes.
Larry Wright: Can you tell me how this conforms to the Comprehensive Plan?
Michael Harvey: The minimum lot size is two acres,this is not located in a protected or critical watershed overlay,there
is no density limit, it conforms to the rural buffer in that it is proposing a level of development consistent with the
definition of the rural buffer, it is rural in nature that it is going to be making use of utilities in order to serve its needs, it
will be preserving natural buffers,it is consistent with existing development in the rural buffer.
Larry Wright: On page 5-11 of the Comprehensive Plan it states that the rural buffer serves as a low density;would you
say these lot sizes are low density?
Michael Harvey: Yes. As defined by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance or Unified Development Ordinance which
stipulates you have a minimum lot size of two acres for development of this property.
Approved 11/7/12
Craig Benedict: If the BOCC, in conjunction with Chapel Hill-Carrboro since this is the rural buffer's part of the joint
planning area, had any intent of having lower density, we would have had to vote that in back in 1987 when they put
these rules into effect. At that time,rural was classified as two acres density.
Maxecine Mitchell: I remember one of the residences had asked who was going to maintain this well.
Michael Harvey: There are two issues with maintenance, One is the joint septic field and the other is the proposed
community well. With respect to the maintenance of this joint septic area, the applicant testified that the homeowners
association will be responsible for mowing and maintain foliage on the property but that each individual property owner
will be responsible for maintaining their individual septic area. With respect to the community well, that will be turned
over to a private utility contractor and the HOA would have maintenance responsibilities of the property itself.
Tony Blake: What if there is damage by the HOA to someone's septic system as there may be a public health issue.
Michael Harvey: If the HOA damages the septic system, in my opinion they would be liable for replacing the system in
the designated repair area for that lot, From a health department standpoint, if the system doesn't function properly, it
would be incumbent for the property owner to apply for a permit to install a new septic system in the area.
Rachel Hawkins: Why did they choose to go way over to the corner to lots 23 to 26?
Michael Harvey: The applicants choose that as the most desirable location for them to pump the septic,
Rachel Hawkins: Won't that have to have a lot of pipe?
Michael Harvey: Yes and they are going to be maintaining an easement that is outside the proposed right-of-way and
the HOA and property development people will be responsible for maintaining that easement. Each property owner will
be responsible for maintaining their own connection to that easement.
Peter Hallenbeck: The geothermal wells, on page 21, the applicant voluntarily agreed to the imposition prohibiting the
development of geothermal wells of any type, then look at attachment I and they talk about two types of geothermal
wells. It would make more sense for the applicant to ban pump and dump and allow the closed loop well. The
geotherrnal heating systems are more efficient and use less energy.
Michael Harvey: I don't disagree at all, On page 73,we have the recommended condition under miscellaneous that no
geothermal walls be developed in the project for that purpose as testified to during the hearing.
Tony Blake: This particularly relates to drought conditions?
Michael Harvey: The concern expressed at the quarterly public hearing was these systems robbed water that supported
individual wells.There was a concern this heightens the failure of wells.
Larry Wright: You also have the runoff.
Peter Hallenbeck: My main comment is that it seems as long as this is a closed lid system that everyone's concern
should be that we don't have to ascertain that pump and dump.
Larry Wright: On page 50, Section 7.14 (13)(5)(d)(ii), pedestrian paths and bike lanes has been met and then on page
55,item F,this has been met,and where is that met?
Michael Harvey: Section 7.14.2 (13)(5) requires that you provide different items but does not necessarily mandate that
you have provide bike lanes or paths, etc. On page 55, they show the pathways,and the narrative specifically states
they will not provide individual bike lanes but they could utilize existing road way to walk as well as ride.
Approved 11M12 90
Larry Wright: It disgusts me that this board repeatedly hears applications for cul-de sac communities,ail residents go in and out on
the same road,there is one access so the only place anyone can walk or children play is on the street and the Comprehensive Plan
encourages sidewalks. It seems we are consistently approving these with no sidewalks. Does not the check list indicate sidewalk
requisites have been met?
Michael Harvey: On page 55,what the controlling language is that if the subdivision is located in a transition area,then
you have to provide X,Y and Z and this is not located in the transition area.
Larry Wright: For the record,please define Transition Area.
Michael Harvey: Transition areas are areas as delineated and defined in the Comprehensive Plan where you are going
to have more urban densities and provision of services. Primarily,the largest transition area Orange County has is along
highway 70. The Efland-Buckhorn area,the Eno,the Durham area and the area surrounding Hillsborough.
Larry Wright: Thank you. Now,let's go to the applicant.
Chad Abbott: I would like to enter into the record a response to the letter we received last Wednesday from Triangle
Land Conservancy. These are just a couple of items relating to the development of a trail that caused immediate
concern for us. First would be the cost, there was a condition imposed by TLC that the trail could be closed at any
moment TLC determines it necessary but we are still responsible for the construction cost and a one-time payment to the
TLC stewardship fund that would be nonrefundable.Then there are concerns over the perpetual costs of maintaining the
trails, etc. These are costs we did not anticipate. Another item was the safety, environmental issues. These are the
reasons we would not like to provide trail access. If you read the email, this is not like they say yes to everyone who
wants a trail connection. Also a main concern of the applicant is if the trail becomes a condition of approval, and TLC
requires the trail to be closed,we are technically in violation of a SUP condition that could impact the overall project.
Larry Wright: The applicant doesn't want to provide access to the trail because they feel there would be traffic and
possibly parking in the cul-de-sac?
Chad Abbott: There is a concern that people may use our subdivision for parking and access to this trail location yes.
Larry Wright: Why aren't they doing that now?
Chad Abbott: There will be no direct connection to our subdivision road.
Tony Blake: There is no reason HOA can't open this issue later?
Chad Abbott: I think it should be left up to the homeowners.
Buddy Hartley: I don't think we need to open that. The homeowner's association will be responsible for taking care of
those.When you open it up to people,the safety factor would be a problem.
Larry Wright: This is not on staffs recommendation,correct?
Michael Harvey: Yes.
Larry Wright: I have a question about the well. Part of this would be there should be adequate water to the residences.
How do we know there will be adequate if we don't know how much can be pumped out of that soil?
Chad Abbott: We did explore that. That number is a hard number to quantify. Since it is a permit from the state,they
will be required to pump the well at so many hours for so long and then gauge gallons per minute. This is a permit issue
to the state.
Larry Wright: You have a base layer of rock,then soil,then pockets with water and there is not an aquifer that flows but
there are pockets. You have all these septic systems.
3
91
Approved 11/7/12
Chad Abbott: That is the reason there are required setbacks for wells. There is a required distance by the state that you
have X amount of feet between the well. Once it goes from any horizon where the septic system is located into the well,
the state has deemed that distance appropriate.
Larry Wright: I am a quarter of a mile from where there was a leaking underground storage and people around it had to
have water brought in.
Chad Abbott: That tank was spilling chemicals versus affluent flows from a house,
Michael Harvey: On page 33,Mr. Konsler expresses a lack of concern over the potential for a community well to impact
adjacent wells. Also,data in his response on pages 27-32 on well contamination.
Craig Benedict: The discussion of what type of hydrology we can put on another meeting. There is not the typical type
of aquifer type of program in Orange County. We will provide more information by USGS to give you an idea of why it is
difficult to make definitive determinations of water flow.
Tony Blake: Utility is restricted to this subdivision,right?
Chad Abbott: I would let the applicant speak to that.
Jeff Akin: Aqua requires you to find a surplus on your property. Basically this issue is our risk of what happens with this
project. We will have studies done.
Rachel Hawkins: At what point will we know? Will we vote on this tonight?
Chad Abbott: He is speaking to the amount of water we can provide to the residents in our subdivision. In Mr. Konsler's
letter,he anticipates no impact from any wells drilled whether it be a community well or individual wells.
Jeff Akin: My issue is that if you cannot get the flow for a community well,we will have to abandon that process.
Peter Hallenbeck: What is the location of the well?
Chad Abbott: In the center.
Peter Hallenbeck: With that one well feeding all the houses from the center, if there is uniformity under is indeed as if
each house had it owns well. With the caveat that if you had to choose ground water behavior and economic behavior,
the wise person would not say a word.
Michael Harvey: Reviewed findings of fact
MOTION made by Maxecine Mitchell to accept staff findings regarding the projects compliance with Sections 2.2, 2.73
and 2.75 of the LIDO(page 36-40 of the abstract package).Tony Blake seconded,
VOTE:UNANIMOUS
MOTION made by Maxecine Mitchell to accept staff findings regarding the projects compliance with Section 7.14.2(b) of
the UDO(pages 41-52 of the abstract package). Tony Blake seconded.
VOTE:UNANIMOUS
MOTION made by Maxecine Mitchell to accept staff findings regarding the projects compliance with Section 5.16.6 of the
LIDO(page 53 of the abstract package),Tony Blake seconded,
VOTE:UNANIMOUS
4
Approved 11/7/12 92
MOTION made by Maxecine Mitchell to accept staff findings regarding the projects compliance with Sections 5.3.2(b)of
the LIDO(page 65-66 of the abstract package),Tony Blake seconded.
VOTE:UNANIMOUS
Larry Wright: Let's move to page 67.
MOTION made by Peter Hallenbeck: to find in the affirmative the project complies with the provisions of Section 5.3.2(a)
of the LIDO in that the use will maintain and promote public health safety and general welfare if located where prosed an
developed and the project complies with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (b) in that the project will maintain or enhance
the value of contiguous property and finally the project is consistent with the requirements of Section 5.3,2(c)specifically
the location and character of the proposed use is in harmony 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 and the Comprehensive Plan
adopted by the BOCC and there is no evidence entered into the record to the contrary. Maxecine Mitchell seconded.
VOTE:UNANIMOUS
Michael Harvey: With respect to these findings, you are required to include evidence contained within the record
justifying your actions,which can include the letter from Joe Lyle,the broker,the environmental report contained in the
narrative, the applicant's attachment 1, letters from State Department of Cultural Resources memorandum from Health,
Orange County Solid Waste,Transportation Planning, Orange County Erosion Control, Orange County Fire Marshall as
well as the Physical Impact Analysis prepared by staff and entered the record.
Larry Wright: Now we move to the recommendations.
Michael Harvey: On page 73,the board would like to make a statement concerning the connection to the TLC property.
Peter Hallenbeck: On page 73 of the application, number 10, 1 would like to suggest that the change to"no open loop"
geothermal shall be developed within the property for any purpose rather than banning all geothermal wells outright.
Larry Wright: Are there any recommendations about the trail?
MOTION made by Buddy Hartley that the applicant is not required having a trail that connects to the Johnson Mill Nature
Trail and that the recommended condition related to the prohibition of geothermal wells be modified per Pete
Hallenbeck's suggestion. Maxecine Mitchell seconded.
VOTE:UNANIMOUS
Larry Wright: Given these two caveats listed from page 68-73,do I have a motion relative to staffs recommendations?
MOTION made by Maxecine Mitchell to accept the recommendations with the changes.
Tony Blake seconded,
VOTE:UNANIMOUS
5
Attachment 5 Raleigh 93
15401 We ton Parkwac.Mute 115
Carp,Nc._'i 511
David Weekley Homes a1�15--`'FAX:v19fii i-7-iSiV
November 08,2012
Michael D. Harvey
Current Planning Supervisor—Planner III
Orange County Planning Department
131 West Margaret Lane
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough,NC 27278
Mr.Harvey,
David Weekley Homes acknowledges and accepts the proposed conditions revised and
received on November 8, 2012 from Orange County Planning Staff for the proposed
Dunhill subdivision.
Thank you,
i z
)M.Jackson
David Weekley Homes
Land Manager
Atlanta ♦ Austin ♦ Charleston + Charlotte * Dallas/Ft.Worth # Denver♦ Greater Hilton Head
Houston + Jacksonville # Orlando • Panama City + Raleigh # San Antonio 4 Tampa
'� Cgyy itht N110ltmol WAky H.m,.:-All Ri�4w R.--J.
Attachment 6 94
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
DAVID WEEKLY HOMES LLC
REQUESTING A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL
FOR A 26 LOT MAJOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVSION
AT 2301 Mt. Sinai Road (PIN: 9881-15-7138)
As required under Section 7.2.3 (A) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), a
Class A Special Use Permit is required for a major subdivision in the Rural Designated area of the
Growth Management System map proposing between 21 and 40 lots in accordance with the provisions
of Section 2.7 of the LIDO. Such permits shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in
Section 5.3.2 and 5.15.6 of the UDO.
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the LIDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following:
(1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located
where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted;
(2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a
public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of
contiguous property); and
(3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will
be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with
the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or
in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners;
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following
specific standards:
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO,
(2) Specific regulations governing the development of Major Subdivisions as set forth in
Section(s) 5.15.6 and 7.14.6 of the LIDO,
(3) 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
(4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange 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.
~
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("Yes"
indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 2.2 X Yes No Attachment 1 of the —Yes No
August 27, 2012
The application for a Quarterly Public Hearing
Class A Special Use packet contains a
Permit shall be on forms complete application for
provided by the Planning the project.
2.2.4 (D) X Yes No Staff testimony during —Yes No
the August 27, 2012
Applications must be Quarterly Public Hearing,
accompanied by the fee indicating the applicant
amount that has been paid the required fee.
established by Board of
County Commissioners.
Application fees are
August 27, 2012
A full and accurate Quarterly Public Hearing
description of the packet contains the
proposed use, including required narrative
its location, appearance, detailing the nature of
and operational the proposed project.
August 27, 2012
The names and Quarterly Public Hearing
addresses of the owners packet contains the
of the property owner(s) names as
~
QG
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates comi3liance; "No" indicates
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
August 27, 2012
Relevant information Quarterly Public Hearing
needed to show packet contains various
compliance with the documents, including a
general and specific site plan, containing the
standards governing the necessary information
Special Use establishing compliance
with the provisions of the
the site plan, prepared
Twenty-six (26) copies of by Summit Engineering
the site plan prepared by have been submitted.
a registered N.C. land
surveyor, architect, or
2.7.3 (B) (5) X Yes No The submitted site plan Yes No
contains the necessary
If the application involves information denoting the
a Preliminary Subdivision proposed preliminary
Plat, 26 copies of the Plat subdivision plat.
prepared in accordance
with Section 7.14 shall be
August 27, 2012
A list of all parcels located Quarterly Public Hearing
within 500 feet of the packet, the applicant has
subject parcel and the provided the required list
name and address of of adjacent property
each property owner, as owners.
currently listed in the
Orange County tax
August 27, 2012
Elevations of all structures Quarterly Public Hearing
proposed to be used in packet contains
the development. renderings of proposed
-
~
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates
non-com oliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
26 copies of an August 27, 2012
Environmental Quarterly Public Hearing
Assessment or packet contains a:
Environmental Impact
Statement as required by 1. Detailed soils
Section 6.16 of the UDO assessment and
wetland delineation,
completed by Soils
Services PLLC,
2. A Surface Water
Identification (SWID)
form completed by
Orange County
Erosion Control,
3. The site plan
contains a site
analysis map
Staff testified during the
hearing they had
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.
2.7.3 (13) (9) X Yes No The site plan contains a —Yes No
Method of disposal of note indicating that any
trees, limbs, stumps and construction or land
construction debris clearing debris
associated with the generated on-site will be
permitted activity, which disposed of in
shall be by some method accordance with the
other than open burning. County's Solid Waste
Management Ordinance.
2.7.3 (B) (10) X Yes No Attachment 1 of the —Yes No
Statement from the August 27, 2012
applicant indicating the Quarterly Public Hearing
anticipated development packet contains a
schedule for the build-out narrative indicating
of the project. construction would
commence in 2014.
Housing would take 2 to
3 years to complete
98
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates
non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
2.7.3 (B) (11) X Not Applicable The applicant is not _Not Applicable
Statement from the requesting vesting of the
applicant in justification of project.
any request for vesting for
a period of more than two The applicant, however,
years (five years has provided a detailed
maximum) timeline for the
development of
necessary infrastructure,
utility extensions, and the
construction of single-
family residences.
99
SECTION 2.7.5 CLASS A SPECIAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance:
"No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Ordinance Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 2.7.5 (a) X Yes No The Abstract and _Yes No
Attachment 7 of the
The Planning Director shall August 27, 2012 Quarterly
give public notice of the Public Hearing package
date, time and place of the indicates staff complied
public hearing with this requirement.
2.7.5 (b) X Yes No The legal ad was _Yes No
published in the News of
Such notice shall be Orange and the Chapel
published in a newspaper of Hill Herald on August 15,
general circulation in 2012 and again on August
Orange County once a 22,2012.
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.
2.7.5 (c) X Yes No The Abstract and _Yes No
Attachment 7 of the
The Planning Director shall August 27, 2012 Quarterly
post on the affected Public Hearing package
property a notice of the indicates on August 16,
public hearing at lest ten 2011 staff posted a sign
days prior to the date of said on the property providing
hearing. a notice of the date,
time, and location of the
public hearing.
2.7.5 (d) X Yes No The Abstract and _Yes No
Attachment 7 of the
Written notice shall be sent August 27, 2012 Quarterly
by certified mail to all Public Hearing package
adjacent property owners indicates on August 10,
not less than 15 days before 2012 staff sent written
the hearing date. Adjacent notice by certified mail to
property owners are those all adjacent property
whose property lies within owners located within
five hundred feet of the 500 feet of the subject
affected property and whose property as required.
manes and addresses are
currently listed in the
Orange County tax records.
100
SECTION 7.14.2(B)—MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS Preliminary Plat
("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (2) (B) (1)
In General
X Yes No According to information _Yes No
a. The Preliminary Plat detailed on the site plan,
shall be prepared by a the plan was created by
North Carolina registered Summit Engineering
land surveyor, professional land
professional engineer or surveyors.
registered architect or
landscape architect.
X Yes No According to information _Yes No
b. The Preliminary Plat detailed on the site plan,
shall be drawn in black ink the submitted plat was
or pencil at a scale of not drawn at a scale of 1' _
less than 200 feet to the 100".
inch nor more than 20 feet
to the inch. The scale
chose shall be large
enough to show all
required detail clearly and
legibly.
X Yes No The submitted _Yes No
c. Approximate preliminary plat contains
dimensions and locations the basic information that
are acceptable provided will be formalized on the
that on the Final Plat all final submittal.
information shall be based
on an actual field surrey
X Yes No The submitted document _Yes No
d. The sheets shall be contains 3 individually
numbered in sequence if numbered sheets
more than one sheet is containing the required
used information.
'
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicates comMiance; "No" indicates o -compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Title Block: The title block
shall contain the following
X Yes No The title block located on —Yes No
a. The proposed name of the submitted site plan
the subdivision, preceded contains the required
by the words "Preliminary information.
Plan of which
shall not duplicate not
closely approximate,
phonetically or in spelling,
the name of any other
subdivision in Orange
County
X Yes No The site plan and title —Yes No
b. The scale, approximate block contain the
north arrow, date of required information.
preparation and any other
pertinent legend data:
X Yes No The site plan and title Yes No
c. County and township block contain the
location; Parent Parcel required information.
Identification
X Yes No The site plan and title —Yes No
d. The name and address block contain the
of the owner(s) of the land required information.
to be subdivided, the
name and address of the
subdivider if other than
the owner, and the name,
address, registration
number and seal of the
registered land surveyor,
professional engineer or
registered architect or
landscape architect
responsible for
preparation of the plat.
102
SECTION 7.14.2(B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicate corrivilance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Vicinity Map
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
a. A vicinity map showing the required information.
the general location of the
subdivision in relation to
the surrounding area shall
be placed on the plat
X Yes No The vicinity map is of —Yes No
b. The vicinity map shall sufficient size as
be shown at a sufficient required by the UDO.
size to show the
relationship of the tract to
the existing street or
highway system and
readily recognized Orange
County landmarks
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
c. Street and roads shall the required information
be identified by State road for the surrounding
number and name streets.
103
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicate compliance; "No" indicates no -comollancel
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Reauirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (2) (13) (4)
Existing Site Data:
Information on existing
conditions shall be shown
as noted below
a. Boundary lines
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
i. The approximate or the required information.
survey location,
including distances
and bearings for
boundary lines
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
ii.The location, width the required information.
and purpose of all
recorded easements
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
iii. The approximate the required information.
location of boundary
lines, which abut the
tract shall be shown
as dashed lines
X Not Applicable The property is within Not Applicable
iv. The approximate Chapel Hill Township
location of corporate and is not near township
limit lines, township boundary lines,
boundaries, and corporate limits of a
county lines town, or the County line
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
v.The names of the required information.
owners of adjacent
un-subdivided land
X Yes No The site plan contains the —Yes No
vi. For adjacent required information.
subdivided land, the
subdivision plat
name, plat book and
page number, and
perimeter lot
numbers abutting
the tract to be
subdivided
~
104
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicate compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
b. Streets and Transportation
Systems
i. The location, name X Yes No The site plan contains a the Yes —No
and right of way width location of existing and
of streets, roads and proposed streets.
railroads abutting the
X Yes No The site plan contains the Yes No
ii.Surface material and required information.
width of travel ways
X Yes No The site plan contains the Yes No
iii. The location of any required information.
existing curbs, gutters
and culverts. These
features shall also be
shown in cross
X Yes No The site plan contains the Yes No
iv. The location and required information.
width of alleys,
sidewalks, bike lanes,
transit systems, and
bus stops.
c. Utility Systems
i. The location and size X Yes No The site plan contains the Yes No
of all above ground required information.
installations of major
electric, CATV and
telephone transmission
lines, underground gas
transmission mains,
underground water
mains and sanitary
sewer lines, and
important storm sewer
systems on or abutting
the tract shall be
105
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates comoliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14 (2) (13) (4)
d. Contour information
i. Existing contours X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
on the tract shall be the required information.
shown at vertical
intervals of not more
than ten feet.
ii. Contours shall be X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
referenced to mean the required information.
sea level datum as
obtained from the
latest applicable
USGS topographic
map or other geodetic
benchmark.
iii. Where a field X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
topographic survey of the required information.
the tract has been
performed, contours
shall be referenced to
a permanent
identifiable
benchmark.
�
~
106
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicate cornvIiance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
e. Other Conditions
i. Streams and rivers, X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
ponds, or lakes, the required information.
swamps or
marshes, and Attachment I of the
natural areas August 27, 2012
identified in "An Quarterly Hearing Packet
Inventory of Sites of contains additional
Cultural, Historic, information on streams
Recreational, and natural areas
Biological and contained on the
Geological property.
Significance in the
Unincorporated
Portion of Orange
County" or
"Inventory of the
Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitats of
Orange County,
North Carolina.
ii.Manmade features X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
including houses, the required information.
barns, and known or
identified cemeteries
shall be shown in
their approximate
iii. The zoning of the X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes i�_O_
subject tract and the required information.
adjacent properties
shall be noted.
107
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates no comDliancel
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Subdivision Layout Data:
Information on the
proposed development
shall be shown as noted
(a) Site calculations shall X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
be shown as follows: the required information.
(i) Acreage in tract to
be subdivided;
(ii) Lineal feet of road
centerlines and
approximate acreage
within new street
rights of ways;
(iii)Acreage in
recreational areas and
other non-residential
(iv)Total number of
lots or parcels
(b) Lot Arrangement X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
the required information.
(i) Proposed lot lines,
lot and block numbers
and the approximate
dimensions and area
of each proposed lot
shall be shown on the
00 Lot areas exclusive
of road right of way
shall be shown.
(iii) Blocks shall be
consecutively
numbered or lettered
in alphabetical order
and all lots in each
block shall be
consecutively
Ov) Required building
setback lines shall be
shown for each lot or
noted on the plat.
108
SECTION 7.14.2 B CONTINUED "Yes" indicates com liance• "No" indicates on-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 7.14_(2) (B) (5)
continued
(c) Dedications, X Yes No The site plan contains _Yes No
Reservations, and the required information.
Easements
(i) The location and
approximate
dimensions of all
property to be set
aside for recreational
use or other public or
private dedications,
reservations or
easements shall be
shown.
(ii) The purpose and
conditions of the
dedication, reservation
or easements shall be
noted.
(iii) For recreation
areas with
improvements, a
separate sheet shall
be provided showing
the proposed site
dimension and
improvements drawn
at a scale of not less
than 50 feet to the
inch, or at a different
scale if approved by
the Planning Director.
~
109
SECTION 7.14.2 (B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates no -compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Reguirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
continued
(d) Streets and X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
Transportation Systems the required information.
(i) The location,
dimensions and
classification (public or
private) of all
proposed streets,
easements, alleys and
other right of ways
shall be shown on the
(ii) The location and
dimensions of
proposed pedestrian
paths and sidewalks,
bike lanes or paths,
and bus stops shall
also be shown.
(iii) Proposed streets,
Pavement or travelway
widths shall be
denoted as well as
typical roadway cross
sections. The
approximate centerline
radius shall be shown
on all proposed
(iv) Proposed street
names shall be
indicated on the plat.
Such names shall not
duplicate or
approximate the name
of any other street in
Orange County except
where a proposed
street is the
continuation or
extension of an
existing street.
'
110
SECTION 7.14.2(B) CO -,,, -INUED ("Yes" indicate com0lance; "No" Indicates on-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinanc RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Utility and Drainage
Data
X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
a. Proposed utility the required information.
systems shall be shown
on the plat, including but
not limited to
(i) Public or private
community water
supply systems
(ii) Public or private
community sewage
disposal systems, and
(iii) Storm drainage
facilities including
existing and proposed
drainageways and
channels
X Yes No The site plan contains Yes No
b. Any easements the required information.
associated with such
utility systems shall also
be denoted and the
purpose for the
easements designated on
the plat.
Section 7.14(2) (13) (7) X Yes No The site plan contains the —Yes No
required information.
Landscaping and Buffer
Data: The following The site plan denotes
information shall be denoted anticipated plantings of in-
on the Preliminary Plat to between lot and street trees
demonstrate compliance with to comply with established
the provisions of Section 6.8 landscaping, buffer, and
of this Ordinance: tree protection standards as
detailed within Section 6.8
(a) Existing trees and/or of the UDO.
vegetation to be
preserved and proposed
trees and/or landscape
materials to be installed.
(b) Required buffers.
,
111 '
SECTION 7.14.2(B) CON INUED ("Yes" indicate com0lance, "No" indicates no -comollance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Reauirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA)Standards
X Not applicable The property has no Not a�plicable
a. The boundary of the identified floodplains and
Special Flood Hazard is not located within the
Area zoning overlay SFHA Overlay District
district shall be
designated and labeled on
the plat as required by this
X Not applicable The property is not Not applicable
located within a
b. For subdivisions Watershed Protection
located within a Overlay District.
Watershed Protection
Overlay District, as
identified on the Orange
County Zoning Atlas, the
following information shall
be designated and labeled
on the plat:
(i) Impervious surface
data as required by
Section 4.2 of this
(ii) Stream buffers as
required by Section
6.13 of this Ordinance;
and
(iii) Stormwater
detention and/or
retention sites and
undisturbed areas for
infiltration purposes as
required by the
Section 6.14 of this
112
SECTION 6.16.6 – MAJOR SUBDIVISION CLASS A SPECIAL USE JRURAL DESIGNATED OR
URBAN DESIGNATED) SPECIFIC STANDARDS
("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Reguirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Submittal Requirements
In addition to the
information required in
Section 2.7, the following
shall be submitted as part
of the application
a. Stamped envelopes x No Staff testimony during —Yes No
addressed to each owner Yes the August 27, 2012
of property within 500 feet public hearing indicating
of the property proposed the applicant supplied
for subdivision. The the necessary stamped
names and addresses of envelopes as required by
property owners shall be the UDO.
based on the current
listing as shown in the
Orange County Land
Records system
b. A statement, from the X —No Attachment 1 of the Yes —No
applicant, indicating the Yes August 27, 2012
anticipated development Quarterly Hearing Packet
schedule for the build out contains a narrative
of the project. denoting the required
development schedule
for the project.
c. Water and Wastewater X Yes No Attachment 1 of the —Yes No
August 27, 2012
Quarterly Hearing Packet
contains a narrative
denoting proposed water
and wastewater services.
The site plan also
provides required
~
'
113
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTIN ED("Yes" indicates co Wiance: "No" indicates non-co Wlance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Reguirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
continued
x No The site plan contains Yes No
d. Open Space Yes the required information
Connectivity demonstrating
compliance with the
A map that demonstrates UDO
that the open space
composition, accessibility,
shape and size
requirements as set forth
in Section 7.13 of this
Ordinance are to be met.
e. Natural & Human- X Yes No Attachment 1 of the —Yes No
Made Resources August 27, 2012
Quarterly Hearing Packet
A written and graphic site contains a narrative
analysis illustrating soils, denoting required
depth to water table, information.
slope, hydrology,
vegetation, natural areas The site plan contains a
a!nd habitats of special sheet providing a
concern, infrastructure detailed site analysis
a d other constructed map denoting the
features, historic and required information as
archaeological sites, and well.
visual analysis of views
into and from the site. Staff had indicating
during the August 27,
2012 public hearing
there were no significant
environmental features
on the property other
than the identified
114
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTIN ED ("Yes" indicates co Pliance: "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD
Ordinance RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOCC
-Requirements FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
f. Pedestrian / Bicycle The project is not located
Plan within a transition area and,
X —No therefore, a pedestrian plan —Yes No
(i) If the subdivision is Yes is not required.
located in a Transition
Area designated as The submitted site plan
such on the Land Use denoted the location of
Element of the access walkways to
Comprehensive Plan, proposed open space areas
a plan for sidewalks or located on the southwest
pedestrian/bike lanes portion of the property.
as part of the public
roads using, where
alternative North
Carolina Department
of Transportation
design guidelines that
include
pedestrian/bike lanes
as part of the public
road system.
(ii) For proposals not
located in a transition
area an off-road,
pedestrian plan shall
be submitted.
'
^
115
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTIN ED("Yes" indicates co Dliance; "No" indicates non compliance
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
continued
9- Landscape Plan X Yes No The site plan contains —Yes No
Details the proposed landscaped
plan and land use buffer
A landscape and tree preservation plan.
preservation plan that
shows the following: A condition of approval is
that the final landscape
(i) The proposed plan shall be approved
locations, and types prior to the
of, plantings, commencement of earth
(ii) The existing natural disturbing activities and
landscape with the applicant shall
existing topography, physically identify those
trees slated for
(iii) The width of roadside preservation during
and perimeter buffers construction in
to be left undisturbed, accordance with the
(iv) The open space provisions of the LID0.
(proposed undisturbed
and proposed
improved) as well as
type of ownership.
Section 5.15.6 (2) X Not applicable This project is not Not applicable
proposing over 40 lots.
Additional Submittal
Requirements - For all As a result the
applications of over 40 requirements of Section
applicable
~
,
116
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTIN ED("Yes" indicates clo Pliance: "No" indicates no compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Standards of Evaluation
A. The project meets all The application package
applicable design standards X Yes No contains the necessary Yes No
and other requirements of information demonstrating
this Ordinance compliance.
B. The project meets all
service provision criteria as
set forth below:
1. Fire — identifies the X Yes No Fire Marshall has indicated —Yes No
primary and secondary the New Hope Fire
responders and the Department is primary
source(s)of water. responder.
2. Police — identifies the X Yes No The Sheriffs office is the —Yes No
primary and secondary primary responder. State
responders. police will be secondary for
certain types of issues.
3. Rescue Services — X Yes No Primary—New Hope —Yes No
identifies the primary and Secondary — Orange
secondary responders, County and Town of Chapel
Hill(Mutual aid)
4. Water Supply— source X Yes —No Community well —Yes No
and capacity of water
5. Wastewater Treatmen—t X Yes No Individual septic systems —Yes No
Methods — provider and permitted by Orange
capacity of wastewater County Environmental
treatment source. Health.
�
-
117
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTIN ED ("Yes" indicates co oliance; "No" indicates non-co oliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Standards of Evaluation
continued
C. Habitats shall be
identified and evaluated in
the Biological Inventory
required by Section
subject to the following:
i. An undisturbed buffer is X Yes No Attachment I of the —Yes No
required around the August 27, 2012
boundary of habitats of Quarterly Public Hearing
rare, threatened, or package contains
endangered species as required information.
shown on the biological
inventory. Buffer width No buffers are required
shall be determined by as no habitats were
site evaluation in identified on the
consultation with the property.
applicant's biologist and
County staff
ii. Habitat enhancements X Yes No Attachment 1 of the —Yes No
as described in the August 27, 2012
biological inventory shall Quarterly Public Hearing
be made for a broad package contains
range of species to help required information.
mitigate the loss of wildlife
habitat during No mitigation is required
construction. as no habitats were
iii. Conservation X Yes No No wetlands areas were Yes No
easements or other denoted.
acceptable means such
as dedication to a public Streams and other water
agency, conservancy or a bodies are located in
similar agency are either a dedicated open
required to protect space parcel or within
wetlands and other landscape buffers and
habitats while insuring shall be maintained and
proper long-term managed by the Home
maintenance; and Owners Association.
118
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTIIN ED ("Yes" indicates co ollance: "No" indicates no compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Standards of Evaluation
continued
iv. Provide barriers or X Not No habitat buffers are Not
fencing, and signage at Wplicable proposed as there were Applicable
the edge of habitat buffers no habitat areas
to prohibit vehicular and identified on the
pedestrian access. property.
Limited access may be
allowed if proposed in a
sensitive manner for
environmental education
D. Landscaping and
Buffers
i. Existing vegetation X Yes No The site plan denotes —Yes No
shall be preserved as areas where existing
indicated on the vegetation Will be
approved landscape preserved.
plan in accordance
with the provisions of
Section 6.8
ii. Tree protection X Yes No Notes contained on the —Yes No
measures shall be site plan indicate the
installed and clear cutting of individual
maintained between lots and mass grading
all areas of are prohibited.
disturbance and trees
to be retained as Protected areas on
shown on the individual lots shall be
approved landscape fenced off during
plan. A detail of the construction.
tree protection barrier
proposed shall be
included as part of the
landscape plan
submitted with the
~
_ 119
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTIN ED("Yes" indicates co Wiance; "No" indicates non-co Dliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Standards of Evaluation
continued
iii. Corridors connecting _X_ Not No habitat buffers are Not
habitats identified in the Applicable proposed as there were Applicable
biological inventory shall no habitat areas
be preserved along identified on the
streams, buffers, or other property.
wooded areas. if
destroyed during
construction, such
connections shall be
restored using
appropriate plant
iv. Trees and stumps cleared X Yes No The submitted site plan, the —Yes No
for roads and building project narrative states that
construction shall either no burning of construction
be used for timber debris will occur.
purposes or shredded for
landscape mulch,
composted, buried or
otherwise disposed of
BUT NOT BURNED.
v. Berms, fences and X Not applicable No berms, fencing, or walls Not applicable
landscaping walls may be are noted to be necessary.
used with plant materials
for screening, provided
such features are
designed and located in
harmony with other site
features and functions.
vi. To minimize visual impact X Yes No The site plan contains notes Yes No
by blending architecture indicating foundation
into the surrounding planting shall be required.
landscape, foundation
plantings are required at
all freestanding entrance
i. Use of xeriscaping X Yes No reservation is the top Yes No
principles. priority in the landscaping
plan. Suitable plant
materials will be used.
SECTION 5.16.6 CONTIN ED ("Yes" indicates so vilance: "No" indicates no comollance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Standards of Evaluation
continued
E. Stormwater
Management
i. A stormwater X Yes No Initial review of —Yes No
management plan shall calculations by Orange
be prepared and County Erosion Control
reviewed in accordance indicates there will be no
with the provisions of issues.
Section 6.14;
A condition of approval is
that the formal
stormwater management
plan shall be reviewed
and approved prior to
earth disturbing activity.
ii. All drainage structures X Yes No According to the —Yes No
will be installed and applicant, equivalent
maintained according devices in accordance
to the approved with NC DENR
Stormwater stormwater manual will
Management Plan. be used.
A condition of approval is
that the formal
stormwater management
plan shall be reviewed
and approved prior to
earth disturbing activity
iii. Subdivisions that X Yes No A condition of approval is —Yes No
include structural that the formal
stormwater measures stormwater management
shall comply with the plan shall be reviewed
requirements in Section and approved prior to
6.14. earth disturbing activity
121
SECTION 5.16.6 CONTINUED ("Yes" indicates co iofiance• "No" indicates non-com oHance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Reguirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.15.6 (A) (3)
Standards of Evaluation
continued
F Grading and Erosion
Control
I. Plans for grading and X No Initial review of grading —Yes No
erosion control comply Yes plans by Orange County
with standards Erosion Control indicates
contained in the there will be no issues.
Orange County
Erosion and Sediment A condition of approval is
Control Manual and that the formal grading
this Ordinance; and erosion control plan
shall be reviewed and
approved prior to earth
disturbing activity.
ii.Construction is X No Staff has determined that —Yes No
phased to the extent Yes the project will comply.
practical to minimize
disturbance and
sedimentation;
iii. Sediment control X No Detention basins to —Yes No
measures will be Yes handle silt and turbidity
properly installed to will be installed prior to
filter sediment from any grading. Conversion
runoff during of the devices will occur
construction and as stabilization occurs in
maintained until the sub basins.
grading is complete
and a permanent A condition of approval is
vegetative cover has that the formal grading
been established and and erosion control plan
all slopes stabilized; shall be reviewed and
and approved prior to earth
disturbing activity.
iv. Permanent X No A condition of approval is —Yes No
landscaping, Yes that the formal grading
groundcover, mulch, and erosion control plan
etc. will be installed as shall be reviewed and
soon as practical after approved prior to earth
construction activities disturbing activity.
for each phase are
completed.
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTINUED("Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates non-compliance)
"
122
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Standards of Evaluation
continued
G. A solid was X -No The preliminary plan and —Yes —No
management plan, Yes narrative contain the
submitted as part of the required information
Resources Management
Plan, shall include the
method(s) of disposal and
recycling of construction
H. Irrigation X Not applicable Provisions dealing with Not applicable
irrigation are not
applicable as the
applicant is not
proposing to install such
1. Habitat Maintenance
i. Habitats identified in X No As denoted on the site —Yes No
the biological inventory Yes plan a large area along
and habitats created the southwestern portion
through mitigation shall of the property is to be
be maintained in left in protected
accordance with the landscaped space due to
Resources the presence of identified
Management Plan stream buffers
and/or a conservation
easement agreement;
and
ii. Maintenance of X No Open space areas will be —Yes No
habitats shall be Yes left undisturbed except
minimal, consisting for the installation of
primarily of maintaining utilities and stormwater
buffers and devices.
removal of exotic (non-
native) plant species,
and keeping drainage
ways functioning
"
123
SECTION 6.16.6 CONTIN ED("Yes" indicates co Pliance; "No" indicates no compliance
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOCC
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Standards of Evaluation
continued
J Access to the x Yes No According to the —Yes No
subdivision and access to submitted site plan the
lots within the subdivision project will have access
to existing public roads off of Mt. Sinai Road (SR
shall conform to and be in 1718)
compliance with any
public road access Local roads shall be
management plan developed to State NC
adopted by Orange DOT standards.
K. Maintenance of
Improvements
i. All site x Yes No All maintenance will be —Yes No
improvements such as incorporated into the
roads, utilities Homeowner's
(including irrigation Association documents
and drainage with the exception of the
structures), habitat public streets.
recreational amenities,
signage, landscaping,
open space, etc. will
be maintained in x Yes No All maintenance (trails, —Yes No
function and stormwater devices) and
appearance ongoing private
!I. Maintenance expenses (lights,
specifications, if any, mowing, etc.)will be
for on-going site incorporated into the
management Homeowners
(including provisions Association documents
for handling of storm with the exception of the
debris in open space public streets.
areas) shall be
submitted as part of
the Resources
Management Plan and
incorporated into
Association
124
SECTION 6.3.2 (B) Special Uses Specific Standards ("Yes" indicates compliance; ."No"
indicates non-complianc
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Reauirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (B)
Specific Standards: In
addition to the general
standards stated in
Section 5.3.2 (A) the
following specific
standards shall be
addressed by the
applicant before the
issuance of a Special Use
Permit
X Yes No Attachment 3 of the —Yes No
Section 5.3.2 (13) (1) August 27, 2012
Quarterly Public Hearing
Method and adequacy of packet contains a
provision for sewage memorandum from
disposal facilities, solid Orange County
waste and water service. Environmental Health
indicating the proposed
septic systems are
acceptable.
A condition of approval is
recommending requiring
easement language
allowing for the proposed
off-site septic
development shall be
reviewed and approved
by the County Attorney's
office and Environmental
Health prior to the
recordation of the final
plat.
"
125
SECTION 6.3.2 (13) CONTI UED ("Yes" indicates OMDI!ance; "No" Indicates n n-compi4ance
Section 5.3.2 (B) (2) X Yes No Fire protection will be —Yes No
provided by the New
Method and adequacy of Hope Volunteer Fire
police, fire and rescue Department, rescue
squad protection. service by the Orange
County Emergency
Management, and police
protection by the Orange
County Sheriff's
Attachment 3 of the
October 3, 2012
Planning Board packet
contains a memo from
Mr. David Sykes of
Orange County
Emergency Management
concerning approval of
the project.
Section 5.3.2 (B) (3) X Yes No The submitted site plan —Yes No
shows the required
Method and adequacy of access points and
vehicle access to the site denotes that the roads
and traffic conditions serving the site shall be
around the site. development to NC DOT
A recommended
condition of approval is
the applicant secure a
NC DOT drive permit
allowing for the project to
be accessed via Mt.
Sinai Road.
Further, a recommended
condition of approval is
road names shall be
submitted and approved
by Orange County GIS
prior to the recordation of
the final plat.
^
126
SECTION 6.3.2 (A) Special Uses–General Standards ("Yes" indicates compliance, "No" indicates
non-com pliancel
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
In accordance with Section
Commissioners shall also
consider the following
general conditions before
the application for a
Special Use can be
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) X Will –Will Not The August 27, 2012 —Will –Will Not
Quarterly Public Hearing
The use will maintain or agenda packet and the
promote the public health, October 3, 2012
safety and general welfare, Planning Board agenda
if located where proposed packet containing the
and developed and following information:
operated according to the
plan as submitted. The application
package and project
narrative contained
within Attachment I
of the August 27,
2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing package.
A letter from Joe
Lyle, real estate
broker, indicating the
project will not impact
the value of adjacent
property contained
within Attachment I
of the August 27,
2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing package.
The environmental
report contained
within Attachment 1
of the August 27,
2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing package
127
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) • Various letters from
the State Department
Continued of Cultural Resources
indicating no
significant impact as
the result of the
proposed
development
contained within
Attachment 1 of the
August 27, 2012
Quarterly Public
Hearing package.
• Staff memorandum
contained within
Attachment 3 of the
August 27, 2012
Quarterly Public
Hearing package,
• Applicant, engineer,
and staff testimony
from the August 27,
2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing and the
October 3, 2012
Planning Board
meeting.
• The applicants
letters, dated
September 25, 2012
and October 2, 2012,
addressing questions
about the project.
and
• A lack of competent
material and
substantial evidence
entered into the
record demonstrating
the project's lack of
compliance with
established
standards.
a
128
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2)(b) X Will _Will Not The August 27, 2012 _Will Will Not
Quarterly Public Hearing
The use will maintain or agenda packet and the
enhance the value of October 3, 2012
contiguous property(unless Planning Board agenda
the use is a public packet containing the
necessity, in which case following information:
the use need not maintain
or enhance the value of • The application
contiguous property). package and project
narrative contained
within Attachment 1
of the August 27,
2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing package.
• A letter from Joe
Lyle, real estate
broker, indicating the
project will not impact
the value of adjacent
property contained
within Attachment 1
of the August 27,
2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing package.
• Applicant testimony
from the August 27,
2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing and the
October 3, 2012
Planning Board
meeting.
and
• A lack of competent
material and
substantial evidence
entered into the
record demonstrating
the project's lack of
compliance with
established
standards.
"
138
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Quarterly Public Hearing
The location and character agenda packet and the
of the use, if developed October 3, 2012
according to the plan Planning Board agenda
submitted, will be in packet containing the
harmony with the area in following information:
which it is to be located and
the use is in compliance The application
with the plan for the package and project
physical development of narrative contained
the County as embodied in within Attachment I
these regulations or in the of the August 27,
Comprehensive Plan, or 2012 Quarterly Public
portion thereof, adopted by Hearing package.
the Board of County Applicant, engineer,
Commissioners. and staff testimony
from the August 27,
2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing and the
October 3, 2012
Planning Board
• The applicants
letters, dated
September 25, 2012
and October 2, 2012,
addressing questions
about the project.
and
• A lack of competent
material and
substantial evidence
entered into the
record demonstrating
the project's lack of
compliance with
established
*
130
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Planning Board has not received any information that would establish grounds for making a negative
finding on the general standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, oafetv. and
general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in compliance—with
the general plan for the physical development of the County.
Both staff and the Planning Board have reviewed the application, the site 9|an, and all supporting documentation
and has found that the applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within
fheUOO
Provided the Board of County Commissioners finds in the affirmative om the specific and general standards, the
Board could make a positive finding on this application. |n the event that the Board makes o recommendation to
issue the permit, the Planning Board recommends the tta h t of th following conditi
A. Development of off-site septic fields:
1. Only lots 23 through 26 shall be served through an off-site septic system
developed on the parcel denoted on the approved site plan.
2. Lots 23 through 26 shall have an individual septic systems and repair area on the
designated lot serving as the joint septic area within the project. A combined
system shall not be developed.
3. The property housing the off-site septic systems shall be maintained by the HOA.
Each individual septic system shall be maintained by the homeowner. Language
governing the maintenance of the lot, as well as the maintenance responsibility for
each septic system, shall be contained within the deeds restrictions and
covenants for the development.
This document shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's office,
Orange County Environmental Health, and the Planning Director prior to
4. The applicant shall develop an agreement outlining the use, maintenance
responsibility, and liability issues for a proposed easement transferring waste from
lots 23 through 26 to the off-site septic lot. This easement agreement shall be
reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's office, Orange County
Environmental Health, and the Planning Director prior to the recordation of the
final plat.
5. Orange County Environmental Health and the staff engineer shall approve the off-
site septic line construction drawings, including stubbed out service lines for lots
23 through 26, prior to any clearing or grading on the site. No sewer lines shall be
placed underneath paved or concreted areas with the exception of perpendicular
6. Signed encroachment agreements, if required by North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT), shall be executed for all sewer lines that are placed
within public right-of-ways serving lots 23 through 26. Copies of signed
131
encroachment documents shall be provided to the Planning Department and the
County Staff Engineer prior to Planning signatures on the Final Plat.
B. Provision of Water Services
1. The applicant shall adhere to established submittal and permit requirements for
the proposed community well as required by the State. Copies of all permit
applications and approvals, related to the community well, shall be submitted to
Orange County Planning and Environmental Health.
2. The applicant shall copy Orange County Planning and Environmental Health on
the results of all tests completed with respect to the development of a community
well. This includes water yields, recharge rates, and other relevant items.
3. In the event the applicant determines not to pursue a community well for the
project, they shall adhere to established application submittal requirements for the
development of individual wells on each lot as established by Orange County
Environmental Health.
C. Roads and Access
1. Proposed roads shall be designed and constructed to standards of the NCDOT
Subdivision Road manual, dated January 2011, within a fifty (50) foot right-of-way
as denoted on the approved plan.
2. Erosion control plans for construction of the proposed roads shall be submitted to,
and approved by, the Erosion Control Division prior to any clearing or land
disturbance.
3. All street names shall be submitted to the Orange County Address Administrator
for review and approval prior to the recordation of the final subdivision plat.
4. Approved double-bladed street name signs shall be erected at all street
intersections shown on the Final Plat prior to issuance of any building permit if
road construction is not completed prior to recording of the final plat.
5. Prior to any construction or alteration of any existing access within the platted
rights-of-way, the owner/applicant shall secure a driveway permit from the NCDOT
District Office. The owner/applicant shall submit a copy of the NCDOT-approved
permit and NCDOT approval letter to the Planning Department prior to or at the
same time as the request for a grading permit is made, or before Planning
Department signatures are affixed on the Final Plat, whichever is first.
6. Sight triangles with dimensions of ten (10) feet by seventy (70) feet shall be shown
and labeled at all street intersections as depicted on the Final Plat, These areas
are to remain clear of plantings, fences, vehicles, and all structures.
D. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall be preserved as indicated on the approved preliminary plan
and Resources Management Plan that show the typical building envelopes/open
132
space areas and shall be inspected and approved by the Planning and
Inspections Department prior to signatures on Final Plat. No part of the
landscaping/plantings shall encroach into the 10' x 70' sight triangles at the
intersection.
OR
Guaranteed financially through a letter of credit or escrow agreement submitted to
secure required landscape installation and preservation. An estimate of the cost
for required preservation, plantings and their installation must be provided. The
financial guarantee shall reflect 110% of the estimate and be issued by an
accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina in a form
approved by the County Attorney.
2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved site plan shall
be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements
to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
No clear cutting on individual lots or mass grading is permitted pursuant to Section
6.8 of the LIDO.
3. The applicant shall retain and maintain existing plantings within the Typical
Building Setbacks as indicated on the Site Plan.
4. A minimum of thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained (i.e. left undisturbed)
along the subdivision perimeter. Language shall be provided in the Homeowners
Association documents to the effect that clearing within the thirty (30) foot buffer
shall not be permitted.
5. Stream buffers shall be maintained around an identified water feature denoted on
the approved site plan in accordance with the provisions of the UDO consistent
with the Surface Water identification (SWID) completed by Orange County
Erosion Control as detailed in a June 8, 2012 letter to the applicant as contained
within their application package.
6. No mass grading of the site shall occur. Lots shall be graded only after lot specific
plans showing the extent of grading are submitted to the Planning Department
and approved at the time of building permit applications.
7. Common area landscaping trees and shrubs shall be of a native species and
drought tolerant.
E. Storm Drainage
1. Drainage easements shall be located on the Final Plat as required following
review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan by County staff.
2. All structural stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP's), as defined in the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Stormwater
BMP Manual shall be within stormwater easements and shown on the Final Plat.
I - I
133
A stormwater maintenance agreement shall be recorded along with the Final Plat.
The agreement shall designate the responsible party for maintenance. Public
access to the BIVIP devices shall be provided.
3. Drainage culverts shall be sized and located appropriately by a licensed North
Carolina Professional Engineer as required by NCDOT and Orange County
Erosion Control.
4. The site runoff for the one (l)-year twenty-four (24)-hour storm shall be the same
post- development as pre-development regardless of the BMP option chosen.
5. The Jordan Lake (Cape Fear Basin) nutrient reduction rules apply to this site.
6. Sediment and erosion control measures shall be installed prior to and during any
land clearing or construction.
F. Parkland and Recreation
1. Lawful currency of the United States in the amount of$10,972.00 ($422 x 26 lots)
shall be paid to Orange County as payment-in-lieu of parkland dedication at the
time of recordation of the Final Plat.
2. The applicant shall incorporate provisions into the declaration of restrictive
covenants that effectively restricts and maintains the common area open space.
These protected areas shall be shown and labeled accordingly on the Final Plat.
All maintenance responsibilities for the open space shall be with the Homeowner's
Association.
3. Section 7.11.2 of the UDO requires a minimum recreation space based on the
following:
a. 1157 of an acre dedicated for each dwelling unit (i.e. individual lot). This
translates to .456 acres or 19,863 square feet (26157 = .456 acres).
b. Section 3.3 Base Zoning Districts — Rural Buffer of the LIDO establishes a
recreation space ratio of 0.028 square feet of space per land area
dedicated to residential use. For this project approximately 1.92 acres or
83,635 shall be required as denoted on the approved site plan (0.028
68.51 acres = 1.92 acres, or 83,635 square feet).
According to Section 7.11.2 of the UDO in those cases where there is a difference
in these 2 ratios, the difference shall be established as private recreation space
for the residents of the development. In this case the applicant is required to
maintain approximately 1.46 acres of private recreation space for the use of the
residents of the development.
4. The applicant shall provide and maintain the proposed 1.48 acre recreation and
open space lot as denoted on the approved site plan for use as a community
picnic and park area. Further, the applicant shall provide and maintain a 3.62
acre open space recreation area, including a 25 foot wide pedestrian open space
access (POSA) area, as identified on the approved site plan.
134
G. Construction Waste
I Per the Orange County Solid Waste Ordinance, clean wood waste, scrap metal,
corrugated cardboard, and all present construction waste shall be recycled.
2. All haulers of construction waste shall be properly licensed. The applicant shall
confirm that hauling contractors are licensed to haul waste in Orange County.
3. Prior to any demolition or construction activity on the site the applicant shall
arrange for a pre-demolition / construction conference with Orange County Solid
Waste staff. This may be the same meeting held with other county officials.
H. Miscellaneous
1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with
Section 7.14.3 of the LIDO.
2. The Homeowner's Association (hereafter 'Association') shall be incorporated and
a deed conveying the open space into the Association shall be submitted along
with the Final Plat for review and approval by the County Attorney's office.
Planning Department signatures will be affixed to the Final Plat after attorney
review is complete. The County Attorney shall approve the declaration of
restrictive covenants applicable to the property.
3. Tree cutting in the roadside open space is prohibited except for necessary
maintenance purposes that have been approved by County staff prior to any such
tree cutting taking place.
4. All street lighting shall conform to the Outdoor Lighting Standards as set forth in
Section 6.11 of the LIDO. The light fixture shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval prior to entering into a contract or sales
agreement or purchase of lighting fixtures from the utility provider.
5. A sign permit shall be obtained from Orange County for the subdivision sign
located at or near the entrance of the subdivision prior to beginning construction.
Any lighting for the sign shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to
purchase or installation.
6. Methods of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps, and construction debris associated
with construction activity shall be by some method other than open burning as
required in the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance.
7. Parcel Identification Numbers for the existing lots shall be shown on the Final Plat.
8. The maximum number of lots approved is twenty-six (26); the final number of
platted lots shall be determined after compliance with all ordinances, regulations
or conditions of approval. No ordinance, regulation or condition of approval shall
be relaxed in order to accommodate more than twenty-six (26) lots.
9. The owner shall file, with the Planning Department and record with the Final Plat,
a declaration of covenants and restrictions, articles of incorporation, where
135
required, and/or by-laws, all as approved by the County Attorney, that will govern
the maintenance and control of the improvements as set forth in Section 7.14.3 of
the UDO.
Said documents shall provide for ownership of open space and the dedication of
easements to access open space, common area POSA's, drainage easements
and buffers, for maintenance. The Owner has agreed that said documents shall
not restrict the use of energy efficient measures nor shall said documents require
any lot owner to engage in water intensive lawn maintenance.
10. No 'open loop' geothermal wells shall be developed within the project for any
purpose.
I. Certifications
1. All Certificates and Endorsements as set forth Section 7.14.3 of the UDO signed
by the landowner, developer and appropriate staff persons shall be on the face of
the plat and included in a document describing development restrictions to be
recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
2. Certificate of Improvements as set forth in Section 7.14.3 of the UDO signed by
the County Manager shall be on the face of the Final Plat.
3. Orange County Environmental Health shall certify on the Final Plat that perk sites
have been approved for all lots and the off-site septic area has also been
approved in accordance with applicable standards.
4. Appropriate certificates shall be included on the Final Plat denoting the existing of
individual well sites for each lot or the approval of a community well to serve the
development.
5. The NCDOT shall certify that the platted portions of the proposed roads have
been entirely constructed to State standards or that construction plans have been
approved with a letter of credit or cash bond security posted prior to Planning
Department signatures on Final Plat.
Attachment 7 136
SCRIPT FOR ACTING ON DUNHILL—DAVID WEEKLY HOMES LLC
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION:
November 20, 2012 BOCC meeting
NOTE—Blue text denotes BOCC Chair/Member required action
1. Chair will explain the purpose of the item is to receive the Planning Board
recommendation.
For the Dunhill project, the purpose of the meeting is as follows:
To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on a Class A Special Use Permit application submitted by David
Weekly Homes LLC proposing a 26 lot single-family residential development off
of Mt Sinai Road in accordance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.7 and 5.15.6
of the Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter'UDO).
2. Chair will declare the public hearing re-convened for the purpose of receiving the
Planning Board recommendation and ask staff to make their presentation.
NOTE—The re-convening of a hearing is solely for the purpose of receiving the Planning
Board recommendation and allowing any new information, previously submitted in
writing, to be entered into the record. The hearing is not intended to solicit additional
input from the public or the applicant.
While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments
from the public or the applicant shall not be solicited. The accepting additional public
comments at this stage of the review (i.e. the reconvened hearing) would constitute a
violation of the UDO.
3. Staff will review the abstract and ask it be entered into the record. Staff will review the
Findings of Fact(Attachment 6)for the Special Use component of the project.
4. Questions will be asked of staff.
5. A motion will need to be made to close the public hearing.
NOTE—once this is done staff cannot answer questions or provide additional detail.
6. The BOCC will first need to take action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The
findings of fact have been organized per relevant LTDO section to aid in making motions
to approve or deny. The cadence on taking action should be as follows
137
ti
a. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and
2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
Attachment 6 of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence,the project is in compliance with the UDO.
b. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of
the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
Attachment 6 of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence,the project is in compliance with the UDO.
c. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of 7.14.2 (B) of the
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 6
of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence,the project is in compliance with the UDO.
d. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of 5.15.6 of the
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 6
of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
11
138
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence,the project is in compliance with the UDO.
e. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of
the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
Attachment 6 of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence,the project is in compliance with the UDO.
f. A motion will need to be made regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2)of
the Ordinance as follows
(NOTE — Whomever makes the motion will have to cite the 'evidence' in the
record utilized justifying the motion to approve or deny. Attachment 6 contains
the recommendations of the Planning Board including the evidence utilized to
reach the conclusion. This 'evidence' must be spelled out explicitly by the
Commissioner making the motion.
If the motion is to deny then the Commissioner making the motion will have to
spell out explicitly the evidence within the record utilized to justify a negative
finding):
L Motion finding either there is or is not sufficient evidence in the record
the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the
use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general
welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according
to the plan as submitted.
•
139
This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the
record of these proceedings, including:
NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If
the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find
compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) this list must be read verbatim
so it is in the record.
• The August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing agenda packet
and the October 3, 2012 Planning Board agenda packet
containing the following information:
• The application package and project narrative contained within
Attachment 1 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing
package.
• A letter from Joe Lyle, real estate broker, indicating the project
will not impact the value of adjacent property contained within
Attachment 1 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing
package.
• The environmental report contained within Attachment 1 of the
August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package
• Various letters from the State Department of Cultural
Resources indicating no significant impact as the result of the
proposed development contained within Attachment 1 of the
August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package.
• Staff memorandum contained within Attachment 3 of the
August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing package.
• Applicant, engineer, and staff testimony from the August 27,
2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and the October 3, 2012
Planning Board meeting.
• The applicants letters, dated September 25, 2012 and October
2, 2012, addressing questions about the project.
and
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered
into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance
with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find
the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the
Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is
absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the
claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)
(2) (a).
140
ii. Motion finding there is or there is not sufficient evidence in the record the
project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use
will maintain the value of contiguous property.
This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the
record of these proceedings, including:
NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If
the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find
compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) this list must be read verbatim
so it is in the record.
• The application package and project narrative contained within
Attachment 1 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing
package.
• A letter from Joe Lyle, real estate broker, indicating the project
will not impact the value of adjacent property contained within
Attachment 1 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing
package.
• Applicant testimony from the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing and the October 3, 2012 Planning Board meeting.
and
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered
into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance
with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find
the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b), the
Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is
absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the
claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)
(2) (b).
Motion finding there is or is not sufficient evidence in the record the
project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO in that the use
is 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 and in the Comprehensive Plan.
This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the
record of these proceedings, including:
141
NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If
the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find
compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) this list must be read verbatim so
it is in the record.
• The application package and project narrative contained within
Attachment 1 of the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing
package.
• Applicant, engineer, and staff testimony from the August 27,
2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and the October 3, 2012
Planning Board meeting.
• The applicants letters, dated September 25, 2012 and October
2, 2012, addressing questions about the project.
and
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered
into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance
with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find
the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c), the
Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is
absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the
claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)
(2) (c).
7. Motion to either approve or deny the Special Use Permit
If the motion is to approve the Special Use Permit, this motion would also need to
include language indicating the BOCC imposes the recommended conditions as detailed
within Attachment 6 of the abstract package. Second. Vote
I