HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-03-1996 - IX-A 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 3, 1996
Action Agenda
Item#_X)
SUBJECT: Sibling Pine Estate - Preliminary Plan
ACTION BY: October 18, 1996
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes_X_No
BUDGET AMENDMENT Yes_X—No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Extension 2582
Resolution of Approval
Application
Vicinity Map TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Private Road Justification Hillsborough- 732-8181
Staff Analysis of Private Road Justification Durham - 688-7331
8/21/95 Planning Board Minutes Mebane - 227-2031
Draft 8/7/96 Planning Board Minutes Chapel Hill - 967-9251
Preliminary Plan
PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Sibling Pine Estate.
BACKGROUND: The property is located in Eno Township on the east side of Pleasant Green Road(SR
1567). It is zoned Agricultural Residential and Lower Eno Protected Watershed. The
property is wooded with large residential lots to the north and south. The tract is 30.64
acres in size with seven(7)new residential lots proposed that average 4.38 acres in size.
Each lot will have an individual well and septic system. The new lots will have access to
Pleasant Green Road via Sibling Pine Drive, a proposed new private road. The
applicant's private road justification and the Planning Staff s analysis are attached.
The private road is justified through the subdivision's location in the Lower Eno
Protected Watershed, lots that are over twice the minimum lot size and side and rear
setbacks that are over twice the minimum required. Also,the subdivision will not be
visible from Pleasant Green Road. The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed
private road meet class B standards.
11
2
The area suitable for septic disposal is limited to the north side of the proposed private
road. The septic disposal area for lot 7 is connected to the remainder of the lot by a 30'
strip approximately 1150 feet in length. The septic disposal area for lot 6 is similarly
connected by a strip approximately 800 feet in length.
The property is located in the Lower Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District.
Watershed protection requirements in Article 6.23 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibit the
use of easements for off-site septic systems except as needed for repair area. The remote
areas for septic disposal are connected to lots 6 and 7 in a manner which serves the same
purpose as a septic easement.
Section IV-B-5a(Lot Layout) of the Subdivision Regulations states the following:
The shape and orientation of lots shall be appropriate to the location of the subdivision
and the development intended. Interior lot lines extending from a street should be
approximately perpendicular or radial to the street right-of-way line. Lot lines shall be
located...... to maximize buildable area, and, where applicable, to provide a suitable
area for septic systems. .......
While the proposed design does provide an area suitable for a septic system and repair
area on each lot, including lots 6 and 7, the proposed design does not maximize building
area for lots 6 and 7. Approximately 24,000 square feet(1/2 acre)of lot 6, and 33,000
square feet(roughly 3/4 acre) of lot 7 are contained in the strip which connects the septic
disposal area to the buildable portion of the lots. Those areas are neither buildable, nor
usable for septic disposal.
The Planning Staff finds that compliance with the intent of Section IV-B-5 (Lot Layout)
of the Subdivision Regulation, and Article 6.23 (Watershed Protection) of the Zoning
Ordinance is compromised in order to avoid the creation of septic easements, which are
specifically prohibited in protected watersheds. The intent of these provisions would be
better met through clustering lots in the northern portion of the property, and creating
open space in areas where soils are not suitable. Another alternative would be to
eliminate lots 6 and 7.
At the August 21, 1995 Planning Board meeting the Planning Staff recommended that the
Concept Plan for Sibling Pine Estate be redesigned to eliminate the strips which connect
remote septic disposal areas to lots 6 and 7. However,in a 7 to 3 vote the Planning Board
approved the Concept Plan as proposed(minutes attached.)
At the August 7, 1996 Planning Board meeting,the Planning Staff recommended that the
Preliminary Plan for Sibling Pine Estate be redesigned to eliminate the strips which
connect remote septic disposal areas to lots 6 and 7. However,in a 6 to 2 vote the
Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan for Sibling Pine Estate
per the attached Resolution of Approval. (minutes attached)
3
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recognizes that the Planning Staff concerns regarding the lot
layout and design of the Sibling Pine Estate Preliminary Plan have merit. The
Administration further recognizes that a flexible development approach to this
subdivision may have produced a better design. Its recommendation of approval
is based principally on the fact that this development is not subject to the flexible
development regulations because it was initiated prior to their adoption. The
Administration further recommends that provisions related to lot design and
remote septic systems be revisited in the context of the flexible development
regulations for possible further consideration at the November 1996 Quarterly
Public Hearing.
� 1
4"
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date September 3. 1996
Name of Subdivision Sibling Pine Estate
Owner/Applicant Reginald K. Degraffenreidt
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Sibling Pine Estate subdivision
preliminary plat,dated April 19, 1996 and containing 7 lots, subject to the fulfillment of
requirements specified herein.
Before the Final Plat of Sibling Pine Estate can be recorded:
A. Sewage Disposal
1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for septic disposal,and repair
area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health.
2. Disclosure that the septic system location may restrict the size and location of
improvements shall be included in a document describing development
restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall
also disclose that information regarding the tentative location of septic systems is
available from the Orange County Health Department, Division of Environmental
Health.
B. Roads and Access
1. Sibling Pine Drive shall be constructed to Class B private road standards within a
60 foot right-of-way.
Sibling Pine Drive shall be inspected, and the construction certified in writing to
the Orange County Planning Department by a North Carolina Professional
Engineer, or a North Carolina Registered Land Surveyor. The location of the
travelway within the platted private road right-of-way shall also be certified.
OR
A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure
construction and inspection of Sibling Pine Drive to Class B private road
5
standards. An estimate of the construction and certification costs must be
prepared by a certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to
the Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must reflect
110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed
to do business in North Carolina.
The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final
Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road
construction has been certified by a North Carolina Professional Engineer or a
North Carolina Registered Land Surveyor.
2. An erosion control plan for construction of the road shall be submitted by the
applicant for review and approval by the Orange County Erosion Control
Division.
3. A Private Road Maintenance Agreement for Sibling Pine Drive shall be submitted
to the Planning and Inspections Department and approved by the County
Attorney.
4. Sight triangles shall be provided as required by NCDOT.
5. An approved street name sign shall be erected at the intersection of streets as
required in Section IV-B-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant that the sign is in place or a copy of
the receipt for purchase of the sign shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the approved
landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and
Inspections Department.
The applicant shall secure landscape requirement installation and preservation
through a letter of credit, escrow agreement,or bond. 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.
2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape
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.
3. The approval includes a waiver of a Type A Land Use Buffer along Pleasant
Green Road.
D. Drainage
1. Impervious surface data, as pursuant to Article 6.23.3 of the Zoning Ordinance
shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the
Final Plat.
2. Locate drainage easements as required following review and approval of the
Erosion Control Plan.
E. Parkland
1. Cash in the amount of$2,730.00 shall be paid to Orange County as payment in
lieu of parkland dedication.
F. Miscellaneous
1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with
Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
2. The following easements shall be shown on the plat:
a. 60-foot private right-of-way for Sibling Pine Drive.
3. A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of the
right-of-way of Sibling Pine Drive. Side yards shall be a minimum of 40 feet, and
rear yards a minimum of 80 feet. These setback requirements shall be stated on
the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements
to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
G. Certifications
1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall
be notarized on the face of the Final Plat.
2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section
V-D-6-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner
and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document
describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final
Plat.
3. The Division of Environmental Health shall certify that each lot contains a
suitable area for septic disposal.
7
4. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections
Department.
Signature of Applicant Clerk to the Board
I, , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and
acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat.
Applicant Date
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8
306F REVERE ROAD ,
HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27278
L ~0
V,
V C'
1
gat !.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Emily Cameron, ASLA,Planner II/Landscape Architect
SUBJECT: Land Use Buffer Waiver Request- Sibling Pine Estate
DATE: July 23, 1996
The attached land use buffer waiver request is submitted by Steve Yuhasz,RLS, on behalf of the
applicants for Sibling Pine Estate,a major subdivision. The property is located in EnoTownship
on the east side of Pleasant Green Road(SR 1567) across from St. Thomas Woods Subdivision.
The applicants propose to divide 30.64 acres into seven(7) lots. A waiver is requested for a 30-
foot Type A land use buffer on the 9450-square foot portion of lot 1 adjacent to the right-of-way
for Pleasant Green Road.The purpose of the buffer is to reduce impacts associated with a
collector road adjacent to a residential land use. The applicants would like to be able to construct
a bus shelter for school children in the required buffer area.
Section IV-B-8-g of the Subdivision Regulations allows the Board of Commissioners to reduce
or alter a required land use buffer shown on a Preliminary Plat when strict adherence to the
ordinance would serve no useful purpose. In the case of lot 1 of Sibling Pine Estate, the
configuration of the lot and the location of the building site relative to Pleasant Green Road
justify a waiver of the 30-foot buffer requirement. The portion of lot 1 to be used for a residence
is located over 400 feet from Pleasant Green Road, which serves the purpose of a buffer.
A 40-foot building setback from road rights-of-way also applies to this portion of lot 1. However,
according to Article.21.4_of the Zoning Ordinance,-the bus shelter proposed by the applicant will
not require a zoning compliance permit,provided is does not exceed 100 square feet in size or
cost more than$100 to construct.
APPLICATION FOR P,7,EL!N11NARY PLAN APPROVAL
MAJOR SUBDIVISION 9
ORANGE COUNTY
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY)
SUSCIVISION NAME. y�t1L� ���� F-su " t.
LOCATION: 7t..;=Astc�AT G19-s1-rA 1ZL;A�
OWNER/OEVELOPER: ���L-D �•- A �� a�T
ADDRESS: Cj;�X-'fin/1..1 0 u- Jam- TELEPHONE NO.:
AGEN' CONTACT-: TELEPHONE NO.: -727L-(a1-(o 2-
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION:
Orange County Tax Map �_ slack — Lat(s) 2 _ Township }.Lp
Zoning Oistrict(s): P•IfL, L-E7YO-PV4
Total Number of Acres: 4- Phases:
Total Number of Lots: �Average Lot Size: 3 � Minimum Lot Size: 2•0v iae..
Number/Type of Structures: (existing) }sUT-� (proposed) zS17+1Ct1� p rA►LIJ
Lineal Feet in Streets: lAco't Acres in Open Space:
Water Supply: Public (specify) Community yC Individual
Wastewater Disposal: Public (specify) Community Individual
School District: Fire District:
General Land Uses in Area: Zfe3lD=�J't�At--�
Critical Areas: streamldrainagaways flood prone areas
t-- - P\) 4 watershed (specify) historic sites
other (explain)
Is the property to be subdivided currently under 'farts use value taxation'? Yes_No_. If 'yes',
please contact the Orange County Tax Office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of
deferred taxes under 'farm use value taxation%
8. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two-hundred feet (1 2001 a*nd
no larger than one inch equals twenty feet (t' 201 and must contain the following'information:
subdivision name / x zoning of tract and adjacent
✓ ✓ name & address of owner(s) properties
�3 A AEC name & address of subdivider ✓ building setback lines by notation
(if other than owner) _ or typical lot layout
a ✓ "'i " name of surveyor, engineer, " location and width of existing and
_ landscape architect or architect, proposed easements (drainage,
address, registration 0 and seal utilities, roads, ate.)
ttitiel Preliminary Plan ?' existing, proposed and adjoining
/ scale, north arrow rights-cf-way including dimensions
� � ✓ � date Gncluding revision dates) and street names and state road
—township, tax map-block-lot numbers. Linea( fast of road
references centerlines and approximate
Parent Parcel Identification 4 acreage of now street rights-of-
y7 deed book and page It of property way
:6J ti- to be subdivided 11A existing and proposed utilities,
a!
'-+ M > ' .gin boundary described with bearings including type, sizes, hydrants,
E L. and distencos valves, manholes
` ,/A
a co tow acreage'a'f the tract and � existing and proposed'curbs,
Y acreage of lots, including and gutters and adverts. including
excluding area within rights-of- sizes,and grades ---
N way 4 P1 location and width of BOGY,.
control corner sidov sks. bks fans.transit
systems, and bus stops
(please cxnplets reverse side) "'
aracosed at ..nee with dernensscns ✓ typical street cress-sections and sr
_ . tot L olocz nurnoars intersection detaus :ncluding 10
ip(l�1 .6LGS. anesing tines design and wictn ci traveiway anc
✓ _ t000craonv at ten root I10) shoulders •�
inter.,ais kA horizontal alignment and general
water oodies, streams, `IooOwaY /, curve data (pub::c roads)
J -rte anc fteacclains ✓ centerline radius cn all proposed
stream buffers streets
1411, NL:
loeatian and size of parcels NA permanent features such as
dedicated for public use, buildings, cemeteries, historic
recreational use or reserved in landmarks
common, with purpose noted adjoining tot layout names of
/ ✓ impervious surface data (if located adjoining properrr owners. If
in water supply watershed)
subdivided, subdivision plat name,
vicinity map showing general plat book & pace number, and
ice-,ion of subdivision with streets �.,((JJ perimeter lot numbers.
' and roads :•+.r•tl.= b•: =-eta road location and size a: :ots of
L number and name
restricted development potential
_V �_ �_ landscaping and buffer and notation on plat regarding
Z. - requirements same
township, corporate and extra- stormwater detention and/or
territorial planning jurisdiction lines retention sites anc undisturbed
which cross the property areas for infiltration purposes fit
located in water supply
watershed)
OT
HE SUBMITTAL RECUIREMENTS
I. Twenty-rive (25) Copies of the preliminary plat.
2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tax map (with tax parcels involved clearly marked in
pencii).
Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating
Health Oepartment sails analysis approval/denial for each lot shown thereon.
Where a private road is proposed a written statement by the applicant or his/her authorized
rsaresentative which sets forth the justification for a private road (see Section IV-8-3-d-1 of the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations).
Auxiliary documents, in draft form. prepared in accordance with Section VL of.this Ordinance
which assure completion and/or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance.
Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance ocraz anent, and
articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to a homeowner's association.
These documents may be required as necessary as evidence that the ordinaries requirements
are being.met.
Fee - $350.00 plus MOO per lot 0 fee 'or preliminary and fins( plat).
If the subdivision contains 10 lots or more the following information shall be su=milted with the
application:
e. Number of years to buildout.
b. Number of houses to be built during each year to buildout.
c Average pries of houses including lots for each year to buildout._
ant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate.
y
: 'NVS S(GNA E / NER'S SIGNATURE
GATE
aunt Oats Paid �� Receipt 'l
Sibling Pine Estate
Applicant: Reginald K. Degraffenreidt 11
Zone: AR, L-ENO-PW
LUP: Agricultural Residential and Lower Eno Protected Watershed
�699
7 3r ' I 7 3 s 3723 .6637
' -BNB 3.52."-C
ORES L 23=°
' s .5467 4a:5 355 -- - -
e
9 21H 21 J \7` �2 30 A'; !�,�m AC.
8175
3.59AC �28� 2 �'��"�?,,AC. ' 7. 53 AC
� 4 3 4:J7 AC
4.29 HC 2 73AC
32
7988
21 1.49 %
2 0:4 / /m(31 AC. '
2.2 3 AC /'I" HARRY WALK
c 3 s
65151 "
I � I
2449 I
vY 00?S ^
% '•,�3�I r�a I � ngAC
j.434 :s
0
1055 v
:rr 2. / _ 4' •158
E 3 : �. ✓. p
7.
i
I
r g
�i
�1
LEGEND O
• LC' OR PGYCE, NJb19ER 0-P
_ _.aE•.1EN-o ;:iA? �R _ -- -- 6-i=, ,7,MAP "Jl."-PC•`t I•.;�-
12
ENT
.Zand Y anv4I , j/nr..
226 S. Churton St., Hillsborough, NC
732-6262
July 28, 1995
PRIVATE ROAD JUSTIFICATION
SIBLING PINE ESTATE
Sibling Pine Drive
A private road in this subdivision is appropriate for the following reasons:
1. The lots in this subdivision are significantly larger than required. All lots
are at least twice the minimum lot size, and the average lot size (4.38 Ac.), is more
than four times the required minimum.
2. This subdivision is in a protected watershed (L-ENO-PW), and a private
road , requiring less grading and paving, will reduce the amount of impervious
surface created.
3. This road, serving only seven lots, will never be extended to serve
additional lots. Restrictive covenants will prohibit further subdivision of the
proposed lots.
4. Larger than required setbacks (40'internal, 80' external)will preserve the
natural wooded buffer along the boundaries of these lots and help to preserve the
rural character of the lots served by the private road.
5 �
13
P_ r
14
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
STAFF EVALUATION OF PRIVATE ROAD JUSTIFICATION
SUBDIVISION: Sibling Pine Estate - Preliminary Plan
DATE: July 12, 1996
The standards contained in the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to public and private roads are
listed below. The Planning Staff comment regarding each is provided in italics.
IV-B-3-d-1. Roads - Public roads are generally required in all subdivisions and will be
required where it is found that:
1. The subdivision roads would be accepted by the State for maintenance if:
a) They are built in a manner which satisfies the minimum State
design and construction criteria for subdivision roads; and
(If the proposed private road was built to State standards, it would
be accepted by the State when the required density is met.)
b) They would satisfy other requirements for addition to the State
maintenance system, including, but not limited to,the general
density standard of at least two occupied residences for each
one-tenth of a mile of subdivision road; or
(According to the Department of Transportation, a road less than
one mile in length must provide ingress and egress for at least S
occupied permanent residences and have a minimum density of two
houses per tenth of a mile. This private road will serve a total of 7
residences when the subdivision is fully developed. NCDOT would
consider this positively when reviewing any request for State
maintenance.
2. The subdivision roads extend existing roads which are public; or
(The subdivision road does not extend an existing public road.)
1
3. The subdivision roads are part of a development which is located in an 15
•• area designated as Urban or Transition on the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan; or
(The subdivision is not located in a Transition Area as shown on the
Comprehensive Plan.)
4. A proposed road is designated as an arterial or collector on an approved
Thoroughfare Plan for a municipality or in the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan; or
(The road is neither an arterial nor a collector.)
5. The subdivision roads are part of a non-residential development consisting
of office, retail, industrial, and similar businesses, each located on a
separate lot. This provision shall only apply to that portion of a
subdivision being developed for non-residential purposes.
(Not applicable.)
However,private roads may be allowed in a subdivision where, in the judgment
of the Planning Board and with the approval of the Board of County
Commissioners, it is found that the nature and location of the subdivision with
respect to other development and the Comprehensive Plan are such that a private
road is justified.
In determining whether to permit private roads in subdivisions,the following
design features will be considered:
1. The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves
the rural character of the County through:
a. The provision of lot sizes and building setback lines significantly
greater than required by ordinance provisions. Compliance with
this standard is assured in University Lake Watershed where a
subdivision is required to provide a minimum required lot size of
five acres. Where the minimum required lot size is less than five
acres, compliance is assured when each lot in the subdivision
contains at least twice the minimum required lot size; and/or
(All lots in the subdivision are more than twice the minimum lot
area of.929 acres. The average lot size is 4.38 acres. Proposed
building setbacks will be 40 foot side and 80 foot rear, which is
much larger than the 20 foot required minimum.
b. The retention and/or provision of landscaping and use of clustering
of dwelling units to screen the view of the subdivision from public
roads, maintain a wooded or forested character, maintain scenic
.l
16
views, or preserve wildlife, botanical, historic, archaeological
and/or recreation sites.
(The proposed subdivision will not be visible from public roads.
The first lot is over 300 feet from Pleasant Green Road with woods
between the road and the building site.)
2. The number, location and/or size of lots to be located in the subdivision
are such that, even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not
be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State
requirements;
(Upon buildout, the subdivision will meet NCDOT density requirements.)
3. Recreation and/or open space areas, including lands containing significant
botanical, wildlife, historic and/or archaeological sites, are to be dedicated
and/or preserved through restrictive covenants in amounts significantly
greater than required by standards for recreation/open space dedication.
(Not applicable.)
4. Significantly larger than required stream buffers and lot sizes, and/or other
design features are proposed as part of a subdivision to be located in a
Protected Watershed as designated on the Orange County Comprehensive
Plan to reduce the amount of impervious surface and cause infiltration of
storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water supply reservoirs.
(This subdivision is located in the Lower Eno protected watershed. A
private road would create less disturbance and less impervious surface
than a public road. The lots are also significantly larger than required.)
5. Topographic and environmental features, such as streams, steep slopes, or
watersheds,that would be adversely affected by the use of roads
constructed to State standards because of factors such as significant
amounts of earthwork(cut and fill)that would contribute to increased
run-off of stormwater and siltation.
(Building the road to State standards would require grading significantly
more.area than with the proposed private road.
6. The site is already developed to 100% of the capacity which could be
achieved after approval of the subdivision and some or all of the non-
conforming aspects of existing development on the site will be made more
conforming as a result of the proposed subdivision, and all conforming
aspects of the development will remain conforming.
(Not applicable)
3
17
7. There is only one subdivision road proposed. Its length does not exceed
350 feet. It serves no more than five lots. Its grade does not exceed nine
percent. The land being subdivided is not connected to or is part of
another subdivision required to be served by public roads. In addition, the
average lot size within the subdivision is at least 40,000 square feet.
(Not applicable.)
EVALUATION SUMMARY: The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed road be
approved as a Class B private road based on its location in a protected watershed, the fact that
large lots are proposed with larger than required setbacks and the subdivision will not be visible
from the State maintained road.
4
8/21/95 Planning Board Minutes
18
Howie indicated she would be in support of the ,• :
Staff recommendation because of continuity of
the road system and future development.
MOTION: Katz moved to grant Mr. Carter's appeal.
Seconded by Rosemond.
Reid indicated agreement with the Staff concern
about a rational way to extend the road, but
noted he would like to grant Mr. Carter's appeal.
VOTE: 5 in favor.
5 opposed.
A tie vote, the motion does not pass.
MOTION: Reid moved to accept the recommendation of the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Barrows.
VOTE: 6 in favor.
4 opposed (Hoecke - principle, felt the spirit of
the law was being violated; Rosemond - reasons
already stated; Jobsis - felt it was not a road
extension, but a driveway; Katz -reasons already
stated.
Katz asked that this issue be referred to the
Ordinance Review Committee for study and
possible revision/amendment.
b. Concept Plans
(1) Sibling Pine Estates
Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
The. property is located in Eno Township on the
east side of Pleasant Green Road (SR 1567) . It is
zoned Agricultural Residential and Lower—Ena------ - -
Protected Watershed. The property is wooded with
large acreage residential lots to the north and
south. The tract is 30.64 acres in size with
seven (7) new residential lots proposed that
average 4.38 acres in size.
Each lot will have an individual well and septic
system. The new lots will have access to Pleasant
Green Road via Sibling Pine Drive, a proposed new
private road. The applicant's private road
justification and the Planning Staff's analysis
are attachments to these minutes on pages a 3-,27.
The private road is justified through the
subdivision's location in a protected watershed,
the large lots and larger than required setbacks.
19
Also, the subdivision will not be visible from
Pleasant Green Road. The Planning Staff
recommends that the proposed private road meet
Class B standards.
The area suitable for septic disposal is limited
to the north side of the proposed private road.
The septic disposal area for lot 7 is connected
to the remainder of the lot by a 30 , strip
approximated 1150 feet in length. The septic
disposal area for lot 6 is similarly connected by
a strip approximately 800 feet in length.
The property is located in the Lower Eno
Protected Watershed Overlay District. Watershed
protection requirements in Article 6.23 of the
Zoning Ordinance prohibit the use of easements
for off-site septic systems except as needed for
repair area. The remote areas for septic disposal
are connected to lots 6 and 7 in a manner which
serves the same purpose as a septic easement.
The proposed design does provide an area suitable
for a septic system and repair area on each lot,
including lots 6 and 7. The Subdivision
Regulations do not contain specific standards
relating to the shape of lots as applied to
inclusion of septic areas disposal. There are
specific numerical standards regarding the use of
flag lots, which are similar in concept in that a
narrow strip of land connects the buildable
portion of the lot to a public or private road.
For flag lots, the maximum length of the strip
ranges from 308 to 700 feet, depending on the
size of the lot. Although the specific numerical
limitation on the length of the "flagpole" on a
flag lot is not applicable to other features of
lot design, it does, in the view of the Planning
Staff, indicate an intent to minimize lot area
included in long connecting strips.
The proposed design does not maximize building
for lot 6 and 7 in that approximately 24,000square
feet (1/2 acre) of lot 6, and 33,000square feet
(roughly 3/4 acre) of lot 7 are contained in the
strip which connects the- septic disposal area to
the buildable portion of the lots, rendering that
area neither buildable nor usable for septic
disposal.
The Planning Staff finds that compliance of the
proposed subdivision with the intent of Section
IV-B-S (Lot Layout) of the Subdivision
Regulations, as well as the intent of Article 6.2
20
r
3 (Watershed Protection) is compromised in order
to avoid the creation of septic easements, which
is specifically prohibited in protected water-
sheds. The intent of these provisions would be
better met through an alternative design which
could involve clustering of lots on the northern
portion of the property where suitable soils are
located, and creating open space in areas where
soils are not suitable. ' Another alternative would
be to eliminate lots 6 and 7 .
The Planning Staff recommends that the Concept
Plan for Sibling Pine Estate be redesigned to
eliminate the strips which connect remote septic
disposal areas to lots 6 and 7.
Steve Yuhasz, surveyor, stated that the lot
design is to provide septic systems for lots 6
and 7. He continued that he did not understand
the reasons for Staff's objections since the lots
are designed in comformance with the Subdivision
Regulations. The number of septic systems has
has not been increased; any design would create 7
lots. He noted that redesigning the subdivision
so that all lots are on the north side of the
road would not maximize the building area for
any of the lots. He also felt there was nothing .
in the Ordinance to suggest objection to the
design of the subdivision.
Katz asked why septic easements are not permitted
in watersheds. Kirk responded that the intent
was so there would not be offsite septic systems.
Kirk continued that Staff also felt the intent of
Section IV-B-5 and Article 6.23 is compromised.
Waddell stated that the concern was that long
septic lines-might-be-subject to failure and
would not be seen for a long period of time.
Reid noted that he felt the reason this was not
better clarified was that people do not
understand the difference between the two
systems. He continued that a pump system is an
electronic system that has an alarm system. He
noted that an alarm system could also fail, but,
if the alarm fails, the area flooded is not the
field, but the individual's yard where the tank
itself is located.
Waddell noted that a part of the concern was that
the line could be cut or otherwise disturbed if
it was in a remote area, on another property,
and discharge could occur before reaching the
21
nitrification field.
Walters commented that her concern with the lot
layout related to serving on the E & R Board.
There were odd shaped lots and two people were
paying tax on the same lot. She felt there would
be problems when lots were sold'.
Barrows noted that in flexible development
discussions, one of the perks to encourage
developers to use open space design was allowing
offsite easements. She felt it should not be
allowed for conventional subdivisions.
Rosemond noted that her understanding was that
this was not an easement and Yuhasz concurred.
Barrows responded that she felt it was the same
as an easement/offsite system in a watershed.
Rosemond continued that this was more difficult
since the technicality was not the same as a
easement.
Reid asked for clarification of the "flags" that
were set aside at the rear of Lot 5. Yuhasz
responded that was the location of the
nitrification field. He referred to a letter from
Neal C. Floyd, Soil Scientist, included in the
agenda materials and an attachment to these
minutes on page a8
MOTION: Reid moved acceptance of the Concept Plan for
Sibling Pine Estate as drawn. Seconded by Katz.
VOTE: 7 in favor.
3 opposed (Barrows - reasons already stated,
Walters concerned with narrow lanes, Waddell -
concurred with Barrows and Walters) .
Reid stated that he felt there would be more
subdivisions drawn the same as this due to the
soils in Orange County and the regulations in
effect.
(2) La Mesa
Presentation by. Emily Cameron.
The property is located in the northeast corner
of the county on the south side of Bacon Road
between NC Highway 57 and the Person County line.
it is currently zoned Agricultural Residential
and Flat River Protected Watershed. In the Land
Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan it is
designated as Agricultural Residential and Water
22
M
August 7 , 1995
Steve Yuhasz +
r^NT Land Surveys , Inc.
226 S. Chuz-ton Street
Hillaborough, NC
RE: Sibling Pine Fatate
Lots 6 & 7
Dear Steve,
I have reviewed Sibling Pine Estates to determine the
feasibility of the design concerning lots 6 & 7 . The
discussion about lots 6 and 7 is completely unwarranted when
it comes to their onsite septic system= . The distance to
pump or the potential pump size have no bearing on the
success of wastewater systems . Historically, pumped
systems, especially conventional pump systems, have
performed superior to gravity flow systema. Furthermore,
pump technology and controls have been shown to operate
efficiently and "trouble free" over years of service.
Denial of this type of lot design based on creating sewage
systems Problem= is simply incorreCt.
Also, a quick review of the health departments guidelines
doesn't remotely entertain system denial based on distance
of pumping.. It actually appears that refusal, on this
argument invalidates portions of the health department' s
rules which is not possible by any other agency.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Neal C. Floyd
Soil Scientist NCSSS 0 37
-i
8108 @ENTWCCO PtACZ / RALEIGH. NORTH i-ARCUNA 276 f5 / 91�-8it7-79o3
1
Draft August 7, 1996 Planning Board Minutes 23
b. Concept Plans
(1) Davi-Net
(21 Lots-Eno Township)
Presentation by Mary Willis.
The property is located at the northwest intersection of Mr.Herman Church Road
(SR 1713)and Old NC#10(SR 17 10)in Eno Township. It is zoned Rural
Residential (R-1)and designated Lower Eno Protected Watershed(L-ENO-PW)in
the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
The area proposed for development is 28.62 acres in size with 21 lots proposed.Lot
sizes range from 40,000 square feet to 1.64 acres.The lots will be served by
individual septic systems and a proposed community well.
Access to the property is from Old NC#10. The streets will be public and
constructed to NCDOT standards.All lots will receive access from the internal
subdivision roads.
The subdivision application materials were submitted on June 18, 1996,prior to the
implementation date for the current Flexible Development provision.The Planning
Staff recommended changes to the original design in order to improve access.The
Subdivision Regulations in effect at that time required that the subdivision be
presented to the Planning Board within 45 days of acceptance unless a longer period
is approved by the applicant.
The 45 day time limit would have been up on August 2. However,we have received
a letter from the applicant indicating approval of a longer period. Due to the
Planning Board meeting being moved up in July from the 15th to the 9th and the
changes being made to the original design,the subdivision did not get on the July
agenda. Based on these factors the subdivision is being considered under the
provisions prior to the implementation date for the Flexible Development provisions.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Concept Plan for Davi-Net
Subdivision with public roads built to State standards and two conditions:
1. All lots shall meet minimum lot size and lot width requirements.
2. All lots shall receive access from the internal subdivision roads.
Preliminary Plans
(1) Sibling Pine Estate
(7 Lots-Eno Township)
Presentation by Mary Willis.
The property is located in Eno Township on the east side of Pleasant Green Road
(SR 1567). It is zoned Agricultural Residential and Lower Eno Protected
Watershed.The property is wooded with large acreage residential lots to the north
.i
24
and south. The tract is 30.64 acres in size with seven(7)new residential lots
proposed that average 4.38 in size.
Each lot will have an individual well and septic system.The new lots will have
access to Pleasant Green Road via Sibling Pine Drive,a proposed new private road.
The applicant's private road justification and the Planning Staffs analysis are
attachments to these minutes on pages
The private road is justified through the subdivision's location in a protected
watershed,the large lots and larger than required setbacks.Also,the subdivision
will not be visible from Pleasant Green Road.The Planning Staff recommends that
the proposed private road meet Class B standards.
The area suitable for septic disposal is limited to the north side of the proposed
private road. The septic disposal area for lot 7 is connected to the remainder of the
lot by a 30' strip approximately 1150 feet in length. The septic disposal area for lot
6 is similarly connected by a strip approximately 800 feet in length.
The property is located in the Lower Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District.
Watershed protection requirements in Article 6.23 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibit
the use of easements for off-site septic systems except as needed for repair area. The
remote areas for septic disposal are connected to lots 6 and 7 in a manner which
serves the same purpose as a septic easement.
Section IV-B-5a(Lot Layout)of the Subdivision Regulations state:
The shape and orientation of lots shall be appropriate to the location of the
subdivision and the development intended. Interior lot lines extending from a street
should be approximately perpendicular or radial to the street right-of-way line.Lot
lines shall be located.....to maximize buildable area, and, where applicable, to
provide a suitable area for septic systems......
While the proposed design does provide an area suitable for a septic system and
repair area on each lot,including lots 6 and 7,the proposed design does not
maximize building for lots 6 and 7 in that approximately 2400 square feet(1/2 acre)
of lot 6 and 3300 square feet(roughly 3/4 acre)of lot 7 are contained in the strip
which connects the septic disposal area to the buildable portion of the lots,rendering
that area neither buildable nor usable for septic disposal.
The Planning Staff fords that compliance of the proposed subdivision with the intent
of Section IV-B-5(Lot Layout)of the Subdivision Regulations,as well as the intent
of Article 6.23(Watershed Protection)is compromised in order to avoid the creation
of septic easements,which is specifically prohibited in protected watersheds.The
intent of these provisions would be better met through an alternative design which
could involve clustering of lots in the northern portion of the property where suitable
soils are located,and creating open space in areas where soils are not suitable.
Another alternative would be to eliminate lots 6 and 7.
At the August 21, 1995 Planning Board meeting the Planning Staff recommended
that the Concept Plan for Sibling Pine Estates be redesigned to eliminate the strips
which connect remote septic disposal areas to lots 5 and 7.However,in a 7 to 3 vote
the Planning Board approved the Concept Plan as proposed
The Planning Staff recommends that the Preliminary Plan for Sibling Pine Estate be
redesigned to eliminate the strips which connect remote septic disposal areas to lot
i,
25
6 and 7. If the Planning Board does decide to recommend approval as proposed,the
Planning Staff recommends approval per the Resolution of Approval{copy an
attachment to these minutes on pages
Brooks asked who owned tract 3. Steve Yuhasz,surveyor,responded that Doug
Bivins owned tract 3. He originally owned this entire tract and subdivided. Brooks
continued asking if there could be any way to get a perc site on it for lot 7. Yuhasz
responded that when the property was last subdivided,lot 3 was very large due to the
fact that only one perc site was located.
Jobsis asked what the rationale was for the Planning Board to approve the concept
plan. Willis indicated she was unsure.
Allison asked if the lots,as presented,were in violation of the ordinance. Willis
responded that,from the Planning Staff's viewpoint,they are not consistent with the
Subdivision Regulations. Staff feels that such remote systems are the same as septic
easements. Allison continued asking if this is the only issue and Willis responded
yes.
Barrows asked if the landscape waiver was for the bus shelter or if it was really a
setback. Willis responded that the setback requirement of forty feet must still be
met. Barrows continued that she was opposed to this design at concept plan stage
and still felt the same. She noted that she felt this property speaks to the use of
clustering or alternative design. There are suitable soils on one side of the road and
unsuitable on the other side. Given the soils,it does not seem to be the best design
for this property. There is sufficient property to allow plenty of leeway for a better
design.
Brooks asked if the areas with suitable soils are for three or five bedroom
construction. Steve Yuhasz responded that they are for a minimum of three. Some
are four and others may be three or four. Brooks continued asking the possibility of
mixing homes and thus giving everyone something,creating a tradeoff. She
also expressed dissatisfaction with the remote septic lines.
Strayhom indicated he felt the lot lines could be better drawn and clustering could
possibly allow more houses to be built. Willis responded that the soils are limited;
even with a cluster design a significant increase in the number of lots may not be
possible. Strayhom continued asking the rationale behind not allowing sewer
easements in watersheds. Willis responded that there was a lot of discussions on this
issue when watershed standards were being adopted. The Planning Staff had
recommended that the prohibition of septic easements in the watersheds not be
included in the watershed provisions;however,they were adopted with that
prohibition. She continued that part of the rationale was the concern that the septic
system would be more removed from the house and the possibility of problems with
a system not be realized for a longer period of time. Strayhom noted that the
systems he was more familiar with were pump systems and he felt failure of such a
system was more noticeable and Jobsis stated that had been the opinion of former
Planning Board member Larry Reid. Thus,Strayhom felt that argument had no
merit.
Price shared the concern with the remote septic system and asked what could be
done with the property if they did not have the remote systems. Willis responded
that the worst case scenario would be that they would have five lots instead of seven
26
lots. Price asked what would become of lots six and seven. Willis responded that
they would become a part of another lot because those lots would be unbuildable.
Price continued,asking about the proximity of the remote systems to the creek.
Willis responded that there had been no discussion on that issue.
Steve Yuhasz,surveyor,stated that the remote systems have been approved by the
Environmental Health Department. The systems are going to be the same regardless
of the distance being pumped. The concerns with the septic systems themselves is
not really relevant to the design of the subdivision. Regardless of how the
subdivision is designed the septic drain fields will be in the exact same location. He
continued that there are other ways to do this subdivision,one of which is smaller
lots. If this was a subdivision for sale,smaller lots might be considered. He noted
that the people who are developing this property did so to live on themselves,
rather than lots for sale. They wanted larger lots. This design does meet all of the
ordinance requirements and gives each lot the maximum buildable area which suits
the owners the best.
Jobsis asked if Mr.Yuhasz had addressed the Planning Staff's concern regarding
the remote septic systems. Mr.Yuhasz responded that he was not sure that was the
main concern. The ban on easements may not be a question of distance or proximity
but a question of ownership,who owns the land the system is on. It may be a
question of greater density since this is not the greatest density that could be
achieved on this property. He noted again that these are not easements.
Jobsis asked for an explanation of a pump system and the concern with failure. Mr.
Yuhasz responded that there are two tanks-a holding tank and a pump tank. When
the pump stops working,you know it-there is backup. The last point of treatment is
what is remote. Everything else is the exact same as any pump septic system.
MOTION: Price moved approval with the Resolution of Approval. Seconded by Strayhorn.
Barrows again expressed her concern with the remote systems noting that lots 6&7
could be open space.
Howie expressed agreement with Barrows that there are too many opportunities for
failure.
Brooks wondered why,since the applicants knew of the Planning Staff's concerns,
that they did not bring back more than one option. However,she had no problem
with approving the plan as presented since the Health Department had approved the
systems.
Allison indicated he did not see a problem.
Hoecke noted that the individuals were all aware of the sites. This is also a different
situation,private rather than to be sold. Therefore,he felt there was not a problem in
approving as requested by the applicant.
VOTE: 6 in favor.
2 opposed(Barrows,Howie-reasons already stated).