HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-17-1995 - IX-C ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 170 1995
Action Agenda
Item # :ry-r-
S BJECT: Black Walnut Farm - Preliminary Plan
ACTION BY: March 3, 1995
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No
ATTACM4ENT(G) ; INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
EXt. 2582
Resolution of Approval
Application
Vicinity Map TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Historic Preservation Commission - Hillsborough - 732-8181
Letter Durham - 688-7331
Fiscal Impact Analysis Mebane - 227-2031
11-21-94 Planning Board Minutes Chapel Hill - 967-9251
Draft 12-19-94 Planning Board Minutes
PURPOSE: To consider the Preliminary Plan for Black walnut Farm.
BACKGROUND: The property is located on the east side of Baldwin
Road (SR 1554) at the intersection of Baldwin and St.
Mary's Road (SR 1002) in Eno Township. It is zoned
-Agricultural Residential and designated Agricultural
Residential in the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Land uses in the area include farming and scattered
residential houses. The area proposed for development
is 44.30 acres in size with 25 lots. The minimum lot
area ,is 1.0 acres with an average lot size of 1.39
acres.
Access to the property is from Baldwin Road (SR 1554) _
A public road is proposed to serve the subdivision. A
1992 traffic count on Baldwin Road indicated 110 trips
per day just north of the intersection with St. Mary's
Road.
A Duke Power Company Transmission line runs through the
northern part of the property and a 50 foot buffer is
provided on each side of the right-of-way. Lots will
be served by individual wells and septic tanks.
2
The Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan calls for Baldwin
Road to be realigned to connect to Lawrence Road. It
also indicates that Baldwin Road is to have a 100 foot
right-of-way. orange County has not adopted the Town
of Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan.
The Planning Board approved the Concept Plan for Black
Walnut Farm on August 15, 1994 with a dedicated right-
of-way being provided to the northern property line.
Agency comments were received from the following:
Town of Hillsborough July 22 , 1994
Environmental Health SADtAIR15Ar 19, 1004
Soil & Water Conservation September 22, 1994
Emergency Management September 27, 1994
Duke Power September 27, 1994
Recreation and Parks October 5, 1994
County Attorney October 11, 1994
Erosion control October 17, 1994
K.C.D.O.T. November 3, 1994
The Planning Board reviewed the Preliminary Plan for
Black Walnut Farm on November 21, 1994. Due to
concerns raised by adjoining property owners the
Planning Board voted to postpone consideration of the
subdivision to allow time for discussion between the
developer and neighbors. The adjoining property owners
were concerned about the impact on the historical
nature of the area. A letter from the Historic
Preservation Commission is attached indicating these
concerns. The applicants and neighbors met on December
10, 1994. The adjoining property owners requested
larger lots with larger houses be provided. They also
expressed concern that the Buffer as proposed would be
improperly maintained by the homeowners. Finally, they
requested that the realigned Baldwin Road be moved
further east.
When the road is paved, the applicant has agreed to
move the road approximately 30 additional feet from the
original preliminary plan. This will take the right-
of-way entirely off the Baldwin property. The
applicant has also offered to provide a 50 foot buffer
along the property line to the east to preserve the
trees and to plant trees along the back of lots 22, 23
and 24 to protect the view from St. Mary's Road. This
50 foot buffer and additional planting requirements
have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval.
On December 19, 1994 the Planning Board again reviewed
the Preliminary Plan for Black Walnut Farm. A
discussion between the neighboring property owners, the
developer, and the Planning Board ensued. The
r
3
neighboring property owners again expressed their
concerns and the developer indicated his intention to
move and pave Baldwin Road provided he could obtain
NCDOT approval.
The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of
the Preliminary Plan for Black Walnut Farm subject to
the conditions contained in the attached Resolution of
Approval.
The Planning Board also unanimously recommended that
Planning Staff work with NCDOT in obtaining approval to
pave Baldwin Road in the proposed location and that the
Board of Commissioners use their influence to request
the paving of Baldwin Road be moved further up the
priority paving list.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plan for Black Walnut Farm subject to the
conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval.
4
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVIISSIONERS
Date January 17, 1995
Name of Subdivision Black Walnut Farm
Owner/Applicant F. Reid Roberts
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Black Walnut Farm Subdivision
Preliminary Plat, dated September 16, 1994 and containing 25 lots in Orange County, subject
to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein.
Black Walnut Farm Road shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be
constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The approval
of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange
County and on behalf of the public generally, the offer of dedication of Black Walnut Farm
Road. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Black
Walnut Farm Road shall be without maintenance responsibility. This road shall be
maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as it is accepted for maintenance by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before the
Final Plat of Black Walnut Farm 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. The septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements.
This disclosure 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. Black Walnut Farm Road shall be constructed to standards of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, within a 50-foot right-of-way, and the
construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT.
OR
5
A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure
construction of Black Walnut Farm Road to the standards of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. An estimate of the construction cost
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 inspected and approved by NCDOT.
2. Submit an erosion control plan for construction of the road.
3. A sight triangle to NCDOT standards shall be shown at the intersection of
Baldwin Road and Black Walnut Farm Road.
4. A turn around to NCDOT standards shall be provided at the end of Black
Walnut Farm Road.
5. The intent for future extension of Black Walnut Farm Road shall be indicated
on the Final Plat by the words "Subject to Future Extension".
6. The .19 acre parcel at the end of Black Walnut Farm Road indicated as public
road right-of-way shall be dedicated to Orange County.
7. 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 signs are in
place or a copy of the receipt for purchase of the signs 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.
OR
Guaranteed financially through a letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond
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 percent of the
estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do
business in North Carolina.
6
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. A Type D Land Use Buffer shall be provided along the overhead electrical
power lines. The buffer shall be 50 feet in width and provide sufficient
vegetation to meet the standards of Section IV-B-8-e of the Subdivision
Regulations. Said buffer shall be so noted on the plat, and described in a
document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared
by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
4. A 50 foot buffer shall be provided along the east property line to preserve the
existing trees.
5. Additional trees shall be planted along the rear property line of lots 22, 23 and
24 to provide additional plantings and to protect the view from St. Mary's
Road.
D. Parkland
1. Case in the amount of$1,384.00 [($1,938/acre x 25/35 acre)] shall be paid to
Orange County as payment in Lieu of parkland dedication.
E. Miscellaneous
1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with
Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
F. Certifications
1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor
shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat.
2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section
V-D-6-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the
landowner and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a
document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with
the Final Plat.
3. The Department of Environmental Health shall certify that all residential lots
contain sufficient area for septic tank disposal and repair.
4. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that Black
Walnut Farm Road have been constructed to State standards or that
construction plans have been approved.
7
5. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and
Inspections Department.
Signature of Applicant Clerk to the Board
accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval,
and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat.
HrrLl�.,i-; i r-url rr C:LlP%(llNAhY r'LAN At-t- t-;UVAL -
MAJOR SUBDIVISION 2190
ORANGE COUNTY •
8
DATE:
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY)
SUBDIVISION NAME: -IL.N-K
LOCATION: 5-1- WiA9-y'5
OWNER/DEVELOPER: ,
ADDRESS: 2-)00 ��. �)Z�J`$ QO A� TELEPHONE NO.:
IaLt.LST3o��uC,�3 ,N4-- Z712
hte=r.tCONTACT: L.ay�� S w.rcu 3 `.n c TELEPHONE NO.: 73 2
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION:
Orange County Tax Map l� Lot(s) L�' Township 1:.�
Zoning District(s): A19- U-S.Np—P,/�/
Total Number of Acres: 3 7.3 I Phases: y
Total Number of Lots: Average Lot Size: 1.3 9 A Minimum Lot Size: L.o o A,-
Number/Type of Structures: (existing) (proposed) 5)N(L.- )-ArA%% -J
Lineal Feet in Streets: 2100*/ Acres in Open Space:
Water Supply: Public (specify) Community Individual
Wastewater Disposal: Public (specify) Community Individual
School District: Fire District:
General Land Uses in Area: A&;ACuL;fJ AL. SLy.4I'D Critical Areas: stream/drainageways flood prone areas
watershed (specify) historic sites
other (explain)
Is the property to be subdivided currently under "farm use value taxation"? Yes-c 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". -
B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two-hundred feet (1"=200') and no Larger
.� than one inch equals twenty feet 0"=20') and must contain the following information:
0 ✓ ` `: subdivision name
V : � zoning of tract and adjacent properties
name & address of owner(s) ✓ building setback lines by notation or typical Lot
name & address of subdivider layout
U :s: Cif other than owner) / location and width of existing and proposed
0) 4-4 > i` name of surveyor, engineer, / '=` easements (drainage, utilities, roads, etc.)
0 = landscape architect or architect, ✓ existing, proposed and adjoining rights-of-way
. address, registration a and seal including dimensions and street names and state
u w 1 (title) Preliminary Plan road numbers. Lineal feet of road centerlines and
" m i i scale, north arrrow s:'. approximate acreage of new street rights-of-way
E ✓ `' z' date (including revision dates) existing and proposed utilities, including type,
U township, tax map-block-Lat ' : sizes, hydrants, valves, manholes
k N references
existing and
proposed curbs, gutters and culverts,
Q) (a ✓ ?' :�: Parent Parcel Identification a including sizes and grades
U y ✓ deed book and page p of property location and width of alleys, sidewalks, bike Lanes,
to be subdivided transit systems, and bus stops
(please complete reverse side)
bouncary descriith bearings V typical street cross sections antl intersection 9
' :. bed w bear �::
antl distances details inctuding oesign and width of travelwav or,
total acreage of the tract and "": shoulders
acreage of lots, including and horizontal aligrynent and general curve data (puo;i_
excluding area within rights-of-way roads)
control corner / := :. centerline radius on all proposed streets
,-^ proposed lot lines with dimensions :>✓`:>: permanent features such as buildings, cemeteries,
/ lot b block numbers historic landrre rks
(J phasing lines ! ;?3:J : : adjoining lot layout names of adjoining property
topography at ten foot (10) intervals owners. If subdivided, subdivision plat name, plat
.s _<.
� water bodies, streams, ftoodwa and book $
y page number, and perimeter tot numbers.
n floocplains landscaping and buffer requirements
::.
L p, corporate and extra-territorial planning
k�=l<: stream buffers townsni
Location and size of parcels dedicated jurisdiction lines which cross the property
for public use, recreational use or location and size of lots of restricted develccment
:
J / reserved in common, with purpose noted potential and notation on plat regarding same
J / impervious surface data (if located in i� stormwater detention and/or retention sites and
.: ..':
/ water supply watershed) undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes (if
Zli ✓ ".t% ,` vicinity map showing general location located in water supply watershed)
of subdivision with streets and roads
identified by State road number and
name
C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Twenty-five (25) copies of the preliminary plat.
2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tax map (with tax parcels involved clearly marked in pencil),
3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health
Department soils analysis approval/denial for each tot shown thereon.
A. Where a private road is proposed a written statement by the applicant or his/her authorized representative
which sets forth the justification for a private road (see Section IV-9-3-d-1 of the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations).
5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section VI 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 agreement, and articles of incorporation and restrictive
covenants pertaining to a homeowner's association. These documents may be required as necessary as
evidence that the ordinance requirements are being met.
6. Fee - $350.00 plus s5.00 per lot (1 fee for preliminary and final plat).
I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate.
W "6tt
APPLICAN 'S SIGNATURE OWNER'S SIGNATURE
DATE DATE
FEES: Amount u75, Date Paid ���( /� Receipt 0770 / 3
BLACK WALNUT FARM 10
APPLICANT: F. REID ROBERTS
ZONE: AR 153 9976 A C.
LUP: AR
2.46AC
04
IB
1 0
4D,cco
402
jq. 99 AC.
33.2.4 AC-
4
7 672
co
MAP 6-4BLOCKS > c
P/O 326.5 AC. 238
HILLSBORO TOWNSHIP
5278
'5352
1
39, 32 AC 0.014c.
�� i,Q �2z ���f�J4
21A ,\� /���
.5067
16AC
22A 4.2107
..'(DAC
..064�1 114.. sill
1.4
2 22C : 15C
0
P'C4i7l
M
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMSSION
December 9, 1994
Mr. William J. Waddell, Jr.
Chairman, Orange County Planning Board
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Re: Black Walnut Farm Subdivision
Dear Mr. Waddell:
The Orange County Historic Preservation Commission is concerned about the proposed Black Walnut Farm
subdivision on St. Mary's Road. In our opinion, the proposed development is inappropriate for the rural
and historic characteristics of the area. Two adjacent properties, Maple Hill Farm and Sunnyside, will be
adversely impacted by this development. Maple Hill Farm is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places,and is one of Orange County's preeminent historic sites. Sunnyside is also an important historical
resource and potentially eligible for the National Register.
The Planning Department informs us that the proposed Black Walnut Farms subdivision complies with
existing development guidelines. Nonetheless, we are extremely concerned that future proposals for
conventional subdivisions will continue to negatively impact the historic nature of the St.Mary's Road area.
St.Mary's Road is a historic corridor. It follows the route of The Indian Trading Path,and several historic
sites and potential archeological sites lie along it. We believe that future development along St. Mary's
should preserve the historic integrity and visual qualities of the corridor by employing innovative open
space design concepts.
The Historic Preservation Commission applauds the efforts of the Planning Board in recommending flexible
development options that will satisfactorily address the issues arising from the Black Walnut Farms
subdivision proposal.
We share your belief that sustainable development,i.e.,allowing for economic growth while protecting our
historical, environmental, and cultural resources, is critical to the future well-being of Orange County.
Sincerely,
Todd Dickinson /Vu
Chairman
/db
cc: Mr- Moses Cary, Jr., Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners
Mr. John M. Link, County Manager
Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director
12
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR BLACK WALNUT FARM SUBDIVISION
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH
Prepared by
The Orange County Planning Department
November, 1994
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Black Walnut Farm Subdivision is a proposed 24-lot major subdivision located in Eno Township
on the northeast corner of Baldwin Road and St. Mary's Road. The total area of the subdivision is 37.32
acres, and the current zoning is Agriculture-Residential.The average lot size is approximately 1.39 acres.
All lots will be served by individual wells and septic tanks, and public roads.
For Black Walnut Farm, project build-out is estimated at six years. Housing units will be
constructed, beginning in 1995, with completion of the project scheduled for 2000. Units will consist of
detached single-family homes, and the applicant estimates a beginning average sales price of$200,000,
including the lot.
METHODOLOGY
Fiscal impact analysis is a projection of the direct, current, public costs and revenues associated
with residential and non residential growth in the jurisdiction in which the growth is taking place. Fiscal
impact analysis considers only direct impact in that it projects only the primary costs that will be incurred
and the immediate revenues that will be generated. It calculates the financial effect of a planned
development or new subdivision by considering the current costs and revenues such a development would
generate if it were completed and occupied today.Fiscal impact analysis does not consider the private costs
of public action. It is concerned only with public (governmental) costs and revenues.
The method used in preparing the fiscal impact analysis is the Service Standard Approach. While
only gross expenditures by service category are derived from the Per Capita Method,the Service Standard
method determines the total number of additional employees by service function that will be required as
a result of growth. This method employs average county government costs per person, average school
costs per pupil, an employee to population ratio, and average operating expenses per employee for each
service category and school district. The number of new employees are projected and multiplied times the
average operating expenses(includes personnel,operating and capital costs)per employee. These average
costs are then weighed against per capita and per pupil revenues to project the total net fiscal impact of
the development.
13
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH
PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Section 1 - Project Data
Project Name, Township, School District
Beginning Year, Ending Year, Inflation
Characteristics of Households
Construction Schedule/Cost Data
Section 2 - Local Government and School District Data
Budget Year
Per Capita Revenues
Per Capita Expenditures
Per Student Expenditures
School District Per Employee Expenditures
Employees Per 1000 Population
County Per Employee Expenditure
Other Data
Other Model Constants
School District Data
Section 3 - Demographic Projections Based On Project Data
Total Housing
Total Population
School Children
Additional County Employees
Total
School District Additional Employees
Section 4 - Projected Net Fiscal Impact on County
Tax Base
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Fiscal Impact
Section 6 - Projected Net Fiscal Impact on School District
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Fiscal Impact
Section 6 - Summary of Projected Impacts
Additional Housing
Additional Population
Additional School Children
Tax Base
County Government Balance
School District Balance
Total Net Fiscal Impact
EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND DATA SOURCES
RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD 14
Bureau of Economic& Business Research — University of Florida
Modified 11/5193 — Orange County,NC Planning Department
SECTION 1 — PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT:
PROJECT: » Black Walnut Farm Subdivision
TOWNSHIP: Eno
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD:
Beginning Year: 1995.
Ending Year: 2000
Inflation Rate: 2.90%
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS:
persons/House• 2.57
Children/House: - 0.44
%Noo--Elderly: 100.00%a
HOME SALES DATA:
Average Distribution
Number of Sales Price of Units
Year Homes S by Year
1995 . 4 200000 _ 16.67%
1996 4 210000 16.67%
1997 4 220000 16.67°,
1998 4 230000 16.67%XX
1999 4 240000 ! 16:67%'
2000 4 250000 16.67%a
2001 0 0 0.00%0
2002 0 _ 0 0.00%
2003 Q 0.00%
2004 0 0 0.00°10
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA ENTER"1"IN( }BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO BE
LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE.
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County ( <!! 1. Elementary School 50%
Middle School 23%
Chapel Hill-Carr
boxo 0 High School 27°r
SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN/HOUSEHOLD: ENTER NUMBER OF UNITS BY HOUSING TYPE TO
GENERATE NUMBER OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN.
Children School Age
Housing a Units Per House Children
Siingtc--fianatly 0.44 11
DuplexlTriplex/Quadplex 0 0 0
,: Apartment/Qondominium 0 0 0
Town House 0 0 0
Totals 24 0.44 11
SECTION 2 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA 15
BUDGET YEAR: 1993-94
COUNTY POPULATION: 100758
SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT POPULATION: 5444
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER CAPITA
General Government 108.60 0.0011
Public Safety 134.00 0.0013
Public Works 50.00 0.0005
Human Services 24629 0.0024
Education School District 726.00 0.0072
SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER STUDENT
Total 726.00 0.1334
COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES (S): REVENUES PER CAPITA
Taxes — Other Than Property 4127000 40.96
Intergovernmental 8778421 87.12
Service Charges 2969123 29.47
Miscellaneous 787197 7.81
COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES S : EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA
General Government 6251551 6105
Public Safety 5854402 58.10
Public Works 2760727 27.40
Human Services 15528989 154.12
Education(Recurring Capital) 750000 7.44
Non—Departmental 2343967 23.26
COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE (S): EXPENDITURES PER EMPLOYEE
General Government
6251551 5756493
Public Safety 5854402 4368957
Public Works 2760727 5521454
Human Services 15528989 63051.64
Education(Recurring Capital) 750000 1033.06
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES S EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT
County GovernmenE.` ?420172.. 1363.00
School District 0 0.00
State : 17594881 3230.14
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES (S): EXPENDITURES PER EMPLOYEE
County Government 7420172 1022062
School District 0 0.00
State. -. 17584881 24221.60
TAX DATA: ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIO AND ELDERLY EXEMPTION:
County Tax Rate ($) 0.7460 Per$100 Assessed Valuation
School District Tax Rate ($) 0.0000 Per$100 Assessed Valuation
Assessment RaticY 100.00.
Elderly Exemption 0 $11,000 Where Applicable
•
SECTION 3 -- DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA 16
YEAR 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
HOUSING UNITS 4 8 12 16 20
POPULATION 10 21 31 41 51
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 1 2 3 3 4
Middle 0' 1 1 2 2
High School 0 1 1 2 2
TOTAL `2. 4 5 7 9
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.1'
Public Safety 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Public Works 00 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.t3
Human Services 0.0; 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
TOTAL 0.1> 0.1 06,2:; 0.2 0.3.
SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.1 0.1 <0.2 0.3 0.4
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
YEAR 2oa 2001 zo0z 2003 2004
HOUSING UNITS 24 24 24 24 24
POPULATION 62 62 < 62 62 :.
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 5 5 5. 5 5
Middle 2 2 2'< 2 2'
High School 3' 3 3' 3 3
TOTAL 11 11 11 : 11 11
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government 0.1 0.1 O 1 0.1 0.1
Public Safety 01:; 0.1 01:;:. 01 0.1
Public Works 0.0: 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0
Human Services f1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0:2
TOTAL 0.3. 0.3 0.3- 0.3 0.3
SCHOOL DISTRICT 0:4 0.4 0.4 0.4 . 0.4
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
SECTION 4 — PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT 17
YEAR 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
TAX BASE($1000) 800 1663 2591 3587 4651
REVENUES (S)
Property Tax 5968 12407 19332 26756 34693
Other Taxes 421 867 1338. 1835 2360
Intergovernmental 896 1843 2845 3903 5021
Service Charges 303 623 962 1320 1698
Miscellaneous 80 165 255 350 450
TOTAL ($) 7668. 15906 24732 34165 44223
EXPENDITURES ($)
General Government 638' 1313 2026` 2780 3575
Public Safety 597. 1229 1897 2603 334$
Public Works 282:'' 580 895 1228 1579
Human Services 1584 3261 5033 6905 8882.
Education 2.475 5094 7863 10788 13876
Nan—Departmental 239 492 760 1042 1341
TOTAL ($) 5816 11969 18474 25346 32601
NET FISCAL IMPACTS 1852' 3937 6258 8819 11622
YEAR 2E100 2001 2002 2003 2004
TAX BASE($1000) 5785 5953 6126. 6304 6486.
REVENUES ($)
Property Tax .43160 44411 45699 47024 48388
Other Taxes 2915 2999 33086 3176 3268
Intergovernmental 6200:' 6379 6564; 6755 6951:
Service Charges .. 209? 2158 2220 2285 2351
Miscellaneous 556 572 ;::5,89::' 606 623
TOTAL ($) 54926 56519 58159:: 59845 61580
EXPENDITURES {S)
General Government " 4415: 4543 .4675 4810 4950'
Public Safety 4135; 4254 4378 4505 4635
Public Works 1950 2006 2064 2124 2186
Human Services 10967 11285 11612: 11949 . 12296
Education 17135 17631 18143;, 18669 19210
Non—Departmental 1655. 1703 1753 1804 1856
TOTAL {5) 4025 ': 41423 . 42625: 43861 45133:
NET FISCAL IMPACTS "14670 15096 15534 15994 16448
4
18
SECTION 5 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
YEAR 1995 1996 1997.. 1998 1999
REVENUES (S)
County 2475 5094 7863 10788 13876
School District 0 0 0 0 0
State 5685 11700 18059 24777 31869
TOTAL (S) 8160 16794 25922 35565 45745
EXPENDITURES (S)
County 2475 5094 7863 10788 13876
School District 0 0 0 0 0
State 5685 11700 18059 24777 31869
TOTAL (S) 8160 16794 25922 35565 45745
NET FISCAL IMPACT (S) 0 0 0 0 0
YEAR 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
REVENUES (S)
County 17135 17631 18143 18669 19210
School District 0 0 0 0 0
State 39352 40493 41667 42875 44119
TOTAL (S) 56486 58124 59810 61544 63329
EXPENDITURES (S)
County 17135. 17631 18143 18669 19210
School District 0 0 0: 0 0
State 39352 40493 41667 42875 44119
TOTAL (S) 56486 58124 59810 61544 ' 63329
NET FISCAL IMPACT S 0.
0 Q 0 0
SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHICJFISCALIMPACTS 19
YEAR 1995 1996 1997° 1998 1999
HOUSING UNITS 4 8 12 16 20
POPULATION 10 21 31:: 41 51
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary l' 2 3 3 4
Middle 0 1 I 2 2
High School 0 1 1: 2 2
TOTAL 2 4 5 7 9
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.1 0.1 (.2 0.2 0.3
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.1 0.1 0.2: 0.3 0.4
TAX BASE($1000) 800 1663 2591. 3587 4651
COUNTY BUDGET($)
Revenues 7668 15906 24732 34165 44223
Expenditures 5816: 11969 18474:: 25346 32601
BALANCE 1852 3937 6258 8819 11622
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET($)
Revenues 8160 16794 25922 35565 45745
Expenditures 8160< 16794 2592Z< 35565 45745'
BALANCE 0: 0 O O 0
COMBINED BUDGETS($)
Revenues 15828: 32700 Sg654 69729 89968
Expenditures 13976- 28763 44396`; 60911 78346
BALANCE 1852 3937 6258 8819 11622'
YEAR 2000 2001 2002. 2003 2004
HOUSING UNITS 24` 24 24 24 24
POPULATION 62>: 62 62 62 62:
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 5 5 5 5 5
Middle 2' 2 2:> 2 2
High School 3 3 3: 3 3
TOTAL 11'' 11 11.. 11 11
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.3: 0.3 0,3 0.3
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0:4 0.4 0.4_ Q,4 0.4
TAX BASE($1000) 5785 5953 6126.` 6304 6486
COUNTY BUDGET($)
Revenues 54926 56519 59159 59845 61580
Expenditures 40256. 42625. 43861 45133
BALANCE 14670 15096 15534 : 15984 16449
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET($)
Revenues 56486;: 58124 59810': 61544 63329
Expenditures ` 56486:;; 58124 59810;: 61544 63329
BALANCE Q 0 . O: 0 0
COMBINED BUDGETS($)
Revenues 111413; 114644 117968: 121389 124910
Expenditures : 96142.:: 99548 102435; 105405 108462'
BALANCE 146701 15096 15534` 15994 16448
20
EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND DATA SOURCES
SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA
Project data includes information about the specific development project. Much, if not all, of the
information is supplied by the applicant. Data inputs include:
Project Name: Name of the project.
Township: Township in which the project is located.
School District: School district in which the project is located.
Beginning Year: The first year of the project in which dwelling units are completed and
occupied.
Ending Year: The last year in which dwelling units are completed and occupied. The template is set to
calculate fiscal impacts for a ten-year period.
Inflation Rate: Unless an inflation rate is entered, the template will calculate fiscal impacts based on
constant dollars. Since the inflation rate changes frequently, the Finance Department must be contacted
for the most recent figure.
Persons/Household:The estimated average number of persons/household(dwelling unit) based on 1990
Census data for the township in which the project is located.This information is supplied by the Planning
Department and will be updated as necessary using population projections and building permit data.
Children/Household: The estimated average number of school age children/household (dwelling unit)
based on 1990 Census data for the township in which the project is located. This information is supplied
by the Planning Department and will be updated as necessary using school membership data.
%Non-Elderly:N.C.General Statutes permit an$11,000 exemption to the elderly and disabled who meet
certain income criteria. In the event that elderly units are part of the project, the percentage of eligible
non-elderly units is entered. The tax base will automatically be adjusted to reflect the exemption.
Number of Homes: The number of dwelling units to be constructed in the project in each year.
Average Sales Price: The average sales price of all dwelling units based on the number and sales price
of dwelling unit types to be constructed in each year.
21
SECTION 2 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA
Local government data includes information regarding expenditures required to provide County
services and revenues received based on the approved Orange County budget for the fiscal year in which
the project is considered for approval.All information derived from the approved budget remains constant
throughout a fiscal year (July-June) and is changed only with the approval of a new budget.
Local government revenue and expenditure information is compiled on a per capita (per person)
basis. Per capita figures are derived by dividing the total expenditures for a particular service function or
revenue source by the estimated population of Orange County for the year in which the project is
considered for approval. Populations estimates are prepared by the Planning Department.
Data inputs include the following.
Budget Year- The current fiscal year; i.e., 1993-94.
Per Capita Revenues: The sources of revenue by major category are as follows:
Taxes-Other Than Property:Revenues from taxes other than property taxes include those from sales
and use taxes, franchise taxes, and animal taxes.
Intergovernmental Aid: Revenues from this source, in the form of categorical aid or shared-tax
revenues, are provided through State and federal assistance programs.
Service Charges: Service (or user) charges support numerous functions and are charged to those who
voluntarily receive governmental services or use governmental facilities.
Miscellaneous:Miscellaneous revenues include interest earnings on investments, proceeds from license
and permit fees, and all other revenues.
Per Capita Expenditures: Expenditures by major category are as follows:
General Government: Services related to the legislative, administrative, fmancial, and legal functions
of government.
Public Safety: Law enforcement services and emergency medical services.
Public Works: Efforts related to the maintenance of County-owned property and the provision of
sanitation (solid waste disposal) services.
Human Services: Departments responsible for the provision of health, social, and recreation-related
services.
Education: Orange County supports two school units,the Orange County school system and the Chapel
Hill\Carrboro school system. This category includes appropriations made to the designated school system
for Recurring Capital items. Recurring Capital funds are used for general maintenance,purchase of new
equipment/furnishings and vehicle maintenance.
Non-Departmental: Contributions to agencies providing cultural and social services outside the formal
structure of county government. Other expenditures include equipment replacement and contingency
funds. Although there are no employees generated by this category, it has been included as an operating
expenditure. It will be included in Section 4,"Total Annual County Expenditure." These expenditures will
be calculated on a per capita basis as opposed to a per employee basis.
22
Per Student Expenditures:Information regarding expenditures required to provide educational services
and revenues received are based on the approved school system budgets for the fiscal year in which the
project is considered for approval. All information derived from the approved budgets remains constant
throughout a fiscal year (July-June) and is changed only with the approval of new budgets.
Expenditure information is compiled on a per student basis for County Government Current Expense,
School District and State appropriations. County Government Current Expense funds are used for general
operation purposes including Instruction and Support Services. Federal revenues and expenditures and
other local revenues such as Fund Balance have not been included since they are not directly growth
related. Per student figures are derived by dividing the total appropriation for educational purposes from
a particular source by the estimated number of students to be enrolled in the applicable school system for
the year in which the project is considered for approval. Student enrollments are obtained from the
approved school system budgets.
County Government: Expenditures in this category are based on appropriations to the school systems
by Orange County for Current Expense. The minimum level of per student appropriation is determined
by the State Board of Education.
School District:Expenditures in this category are unique to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school system and
are based on the level of expenditures possible through assessment of a supplementary school tax.
State: Expenditures in this category are based on appropriations from the State Board of Education.
School District Per Employee Expenditure: Expenditures per employee based on County, School
District and State appropriations, and the total number of school district employees.
Employees Per 1000 Population: The number of employees in a particular service category per 1000
population.
County Per Employee Expenditure: The average operating and capital expenses per employee in a
particular service category. Total expenses in each category includes personnel,operating and capital costs.
Other Data:
County Government Tax Rate: The County tax rate per $100 of assessed valuation- Since the per
capita method focuses only on operating expenditures, the tax rate is reduced by an amount equal to the
debt service payments from property taxes for capital projects.
School District Tax Rate:The supplementary tax assessed on behalf of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school
system.
Assessment Ratio:The ratio of market(sales)value to assessed value based on information supplied by
the Tax Office. The assessment ratio is used to convert market value to assessed value for the purpose
of computing the tax base.
Other Model Constants
Elderly Exemption:For projects developed partially or exclusively for elderly(65 and older) or disabled
individuals whose annual income does not exceed$12,000, an$11,000 tax exemption is used in projecting
the tax base.
School District Employees Per Student:The number of employees per student in a specific school
district.
23
SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA
Demographic projections provide information about the number of new residents and school children
anticipated in Orange County resulting from project development.Projections also provide the number of
additional employees required per service function and school district as a result of the new development.
Total Housing Units: The cumulative total of new housing units added each year by project
development.
Total Population: The total population added each year by a project derived by multiplying the number
of homes to be constructed by the number of persons per household (see Section 1).
School Population: The total number of school children added each year by a project derived by
multiplying the number of homes constructed by the number of children per household (see Section 1).
Additional County Employees: The number of additional employees required per service category
based on project development.
Total: Total of all additional county employees required based on project development.
School District Additional Employees: The number of additional employees required per school
district based on the project development.
SECTION 4 - PROJECTED NET FISCAL IMPACT ON COUNTY
Tax Base: The tax base represents the increase in assessed property value expected each year resulting
from project development.The values shown are in$1,000's and are derived from a formula which includes
the number and sales price of homes, and the assessment ratio. Where applicable, the percentage of
non-elderly units and elderly exemption are also used.
Revenues:All revenues are derived from a formula which multiplies the per capita revenues (Section 2)
times the projected population (Section 3). The exception to this is the property tax which multiplies the
tax base times the county government tax rate.
Expenditures: All expenditures are derived from a formula which multiplies the per employee
expenditure (Section 2) times the number of additional employees (Section 3).
Net Fiscal Impact: The net balance is the difference between projected expenditures and
projected revenues. A negative net balance indicates that it costs Orange County more to provide services
to a project than it receives in revenues.A positive net balance indicates that more revenues are received
than it costs to serve a project. Positive net balances in one project may thus be used to offset negative
balances in another.
24
SECTION 5 - PROJECTED NET FISCAL IMPACT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
Revenues: The County contribution is derived by transferring education expenditures by County
government(Section 4).Revenues derived from the school district tax are derived by multiplying the school
district tax times the tax base. State revenues are derived by multiplying the per student expenditure
figure times the total projected number of school children (Section 3).
Expenditures: Expenditures are derived from a formula which multiplies each per student
expenditure (Section 2) times the total projected number of school children (Section 3) and adding the
results.
Net Fiscal Impact: The net balance is the difference between projected expenditures and
projected revenues. A negative net balance indicates that it costs the school system more to provide
educational services for children in a project than it receives in revenues. A positive net balance indicates
that more revenues are received than it costs to serve a project. Positive net balances in one project may
thus be used to offset negative balances in another.
SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED IMPACTS
25
HOUSEHOLD OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NC
BY TOWNSHIP
(1) (2) (3) .(4) (5)
Children Children School Age School Age
Number Persons Persons Under 18 Under 18 Children. Children
of In Per In Per In Per
Township Households Households Household Households Household Households Household
1990 CENSUS
Bingham 2156 5177 2.40 1122 0.52 721 0.33
Cedar Grove 1345 3676 2.73 865 0.64 624 0.46
Chapel Hill 23942 53108 2.22 9939 0.42. 6.980 0.29
Cheeks 2036 5422 2.66 1340 0.66 999 0.49
Eno 2037 . 5245 2.57 1285 0.63 896 0.44
Hillsborough 3811 9816 2.58 2567 0.67 1777 0.47
Little River . 777 2183 2.81 580 0.75 402 0.52
Orange County 36104 84627 2.34 17698 0.49 12399 0.34
1980 CENSUS
Bingham 1660: 3954 238. 1021 0.62 N/A 0.56
Cedar Grove 1176 3166 2.69 919 0.78 N/A 0.66
Chapel Hill 18599 50572. 2.72 8379 0.45 N/A 0.67
Cheeks 1693 4821 2.85 1466 0.87 N/A 0.70
Eno 1770 4450 2.51 1230: 0.69 N/A 0.62
Hillsborough 3233 8599 2.66 2421 0.75 N/A 0.65
Little River 576 1493 2.59 443 0.77 NIA 0.64
Orange County 28707 77055 2.68 15879 0.55 N/A N/A
NOTES: (1)Number of households included under 1980 Census data is number of housing units.
(2)Persons in households included 1980 Census data includes population in households as well as group quarters.
(3)Number of children under 18 years of age includes children living in group quarters due to lack of breakdown
by household in available Census data.
(4)Data not available from 1980 Census.
(5)1980 data calculated using demographic multipliers from "The New Practitioner's Guide to Fiscal Impact
Analysis'by Burchetl,Listokin,and Dolphin.
26
GENERAL FUND REVENUES - FY 1993-94 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET
1993 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION 100758
% OF % OF PER CAPITA
TYPE AMOUNT SUBTOTAL TOTAL REVENUE
PROPERTY TAXES
Current Taxes $36,119,679 98.33% 67.64% $358.48
Delinquent Taxes $475,000 1.29% 0.89% $4.71
lr-4ereaton Delinquent Taxes $140,000 0.38% 0.26% $1.39
Late Listings $0 0.00% 0.00% $0.00
Vehicle Ust Penalties $0 0.00% 0.00% $0.00
SUBTOTAL $36,734,679 100.00% 68.80% $364.58
OTHER LOCAL TAXES
Saiesand.Useax $3,950;040 95.71:% 740% $3920
Privilege License Tax N/A 0.00% 0.00% $0.00
Franchise Tax $107,000 25996 0:20%
Animal Tax $70,000 1.70% 0.13% $0.69
SUBTOTAL $4,127,000 100.00% 7.73% $40,96
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
Intangibles Tex $2,073.000 2361%;, 3.88%. $20.57`
Beer&Wine Tax $157,437 1.79% 029% $1.56
Health $389>063 4.4396 0 73% $3.86
Social Services $4,523,440 51.53% 8.47% $44.89
Aging/CAT ".. $320.-`?25 .3:65% 0:60% $3:1'8
Other State $789,946 9.00% 1.48% $7.84
Local $525,040 5.98% 0.9696 $5:21
SUBTOTAL $8,778,421 100.00% 16.44% $87.12
SERVICE CHARGES
Registe of Deed# ?:.. $91 t:,902 30:7196 1 X196 $9:05
Land Records $30,975 1.04% 0.06% $0.31
Planning Fees $52.000 3.t0% 01,7% $O.S1
Sheriff $767,213 25.84% 1.44% $7.61
EMS $163,:620 5.5t 96 0 31% $t.62
APS Fees $4,200 0.14% 0.01% $0.04
Health... $534,768 18.x1% 1.00% $5:3t:
Social Services $38,000 1.28% 0.07% $0.38
Aging/CAT $19i«985 6,47% 036% $1.91
_.
Recreation& Perks $63,412 2.14% 0.12% $0.63
Tax Collection Charges $72,000 242% 01396 $0,71
Miscellaneous Charges $99,068 3.34% 0.19% $0.98
SUBTOTAL $2,969,123 100.00% 5.56% $29.47
27
GENERAL FUND REVENUES - FY 1993-94 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET
(CONTINUED)
1993 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION 100758
% OF % OF PER CAPITA
TYPE AMOUNT SUBTOTAL TOTAL REVENUE
MISCELLANEOUS
Interest Earnings $310,000 39.38% 0.58% $3.08
Licenses&Permits $230,700 29.31% 0.43% $2.29
All Other Revenue $246,497 31.31% 0.46% $2.45
SUBTOTAL $787,197 100.00% 1.47% $7.81
FUND TOTAL $53,396,420 100.00% 100.00% $529.95
Source:FY 1993-94 Approved Budget,Orange County, N.C.
28
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES- FY 1993-94 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET
1993 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION 100758
% OF % OF PER CAPITA
TYPE AMOUNT SUBTOTAL TOTAL EXPENSE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Commissioners $304,099 4.186%. 0.59% $3:02
Courts $11,000 0.18% 0.02% $0.11
Elections _ $261,283 4.18% 0.51% $2.59_
Manager $521,356 8.34% 1.01% $5.17
Personnel $357,.1 33 5.71% 0.69%
$3.54
Budget $148,268 2.37% 0.29% $1.47
Finance $239,849 3.84% 0.47% $2:38
Purchasing $159,082 2.54% 0.31% $1.58
Data Processing $425,353 6.80%. 0.83% $4.22
_.
Central Services $653,144 10.45% 1.27% $6.48
Register of Reeds $589,441 9.43% 1 A 4% $5.85
Tax Assessor $723,433 11.57% 1.40% $7.18
Lsnd Records $3E5,635 5.05% 0;61%
Tax Collector $310,467 4.97% 0.60% $3.08
Planning&Inspections $1,232,008 19.71%:,.,, 239% $12.23=
SUBTOTAL $6,251,551 100.00% 12.14% 562.05
PUBLIC SAFETY
Sheriff $3,842,497 65:63% 7:46% $38:13
Domestic Violence $38,188 0.65% 0.07% $0.38
EmergencySOM66s $1,9741037 33:72% 3,83% $19.53
SUBTOTAL $5,854,402 100.00% 1137% $58.10
I
PUBLIC WORKS
Buildings 4,Grounds $1,507,002 54.59% 293% $14,96
Other $177,134 6.42% 0.34% $1.76
motor Foal. $72,387 2.62%. Q t4% $0:72
Sanitation $1,004,204 36.37% 1.95% $9.97
SUBTOTAL $2,760,727 100.00% 5.36% $27.40
,HUMAN SERVICES
Sail&water
Economic Development $187,691 1.21% 0.36% $1.86
Social Services.. $9,195,Et43 59:21% 17:86% $92.26
Health $3,367,943 21.69% 6.54% $33.43
Agricultural Extensron ? $268 945 1.74% 05246 32.68:
_.
Recreation& Parks $542,847 3.50% 1.05% $5.39
Aging _ $51E#,1;12: 3:32% 1.:Q(}46. $5.12
CAT $407,979 2.63% 0.79% $4.05
0:479Commssion for Women $73,408 Q t4% $0.73
Library $393,934 2.54% 0.76% $3.91
Child Support $411,559r 268% t7:a90% $4.08
SUBTOTAL $15,5289 100.00% 30.15% $154.12
29
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES- FY 1993-94 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET
(CONTINUED)
1993 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION 100758
% OF % OF PER CAPITA
TYPE AMOUNT SUBTOTAL TOTAL EXPENSE
EDUCATION
Current 6cpense
Orange County $7,420,172 39.56% 14.41% $73.64
Chapel Hill $9,838,134 52.45% 19.10% $97.64
Recurring Capital
Orange County $750,000 4.00% 1.46% $7.44
Chapel Hill $750,000 4.00% 1.46% $7.44
SUBTOTAL $18,758,306 100.00% 36.43% $186.17
NON—DEPARTMENTAL
Agency Contributions - $1,893,978 80.80% 3.68% $18.80
Fund Tranfers $15,000 0.64% 0.03% $0.15
Miscellaneous $434,989 18.56% 0.84% $4.32
SUBTOTAL $2,343,967 100.00% 4.55% $23.26
FUND TOTAL $51,497,942 100.00% 100.00% $511.11
Source:FY 1993-94 Approved Budget,Orange County, N.C.
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES- FY 1993-94ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET 30
1993 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION 100758
PERMANENT FTE %b OF % OF POSITIONS
FUNCTION POSITIONS SUBTOTAL TOTAL PER CAPITA
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Commissiorner5 3.225 2.97% 0..15%
0.00003
Courts N/A 0.00% 0.00% 0.00000
Elections 3.500 3.22% 0.16% 0.00003
Manager 8.000 7.37% 0.37% 0A0008
Personnel 6:000 6.53% 0:28% 0.00006
Budget 3.000 2.76% 0.14% 0.00003
Finance 5.000 4.60%. 0.23% 0:00005
_. ..
Purchasing 3.000 2.76% 0.14% 0.00003
Data Processing 5,3?0 4.94% . 0:25% 0.04005
Central Services 3.000 2.76% 0.14% 0.00003
Register of Deeds, 14.750 13.58% 0.68% 0.00015
Tax Assessor 18.000 16.58% 0.84% 0.00018
fi.0 0:28% 0.00006 Rocorda
_
Tax Collector 6.000 5.53% 0.28% 0.00006
planning&.Inspectlona 23150 21.87% 1,.10% 0.00(?24
SUBTOTAL 108.595 100.00% 5.04% 0.00108
PUBLIC SAFETY
SherNf 85:500 63.81 94 3:97% 0.00085
Domestic Violence 1.000 0.75% 0.05% 0.00001
Emergency SenAces 47:540 35.45% 2 21% 0.00047
SUBTOTAL 134.000 100.00% 6.22% 0.00133
PUBLIC WORKS
6uiklings Grounds 28.400 58:40% 1:30% 0:04028
Other N/A 0.00% 0.00% 0.00000
Motor Pool 5.000. 10<40% 4.23% 0,00005 �
Sanitation 17.000 34.00% 0.79% 0.00017
SUBTOTAL 50.000 100.00'% 2.32°x, 0.00050
HUMAN SERVICES
Soil&Watex ; >: 4,040 1.82% 0:19% 0:.00004
Economic Development 3.000 1.22% 0.14% 0.00003
SodaE:Senrices 147;100 43,49% 497% 0.00106
Health 69.650 28.28% 3.23% 0.00069
Agricultural Extensrarl 9:750 3:96% _ f145% Ok00010
Recreation& Parks 11.375 4.62% 0.53"x% 0.00011
Aging: _ 10:450 42446 0.49%. 0.00010
CAT 10.515 427% 0.49% 0.00010
Commission for warren 1.7W
Library o:QO0o2
_ _. - -
Library 6.700 3.53% 0.40% - o.0000s
Child&uppo►t 10.000 x.06% 0,46% aaoato
SUBTOTAL 246.290 100.00% 11.44% 0.00244
i
31
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES- FY 1993-94 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET
(CONTINUED)
1993 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION 100758
PERMANENT FTE % OF % OF POSITIONS
FUNCTION POSITIONS SUBTOTAL TOTAL PER CAPITA
EDUCATION
OrangsCounty 726.000 44.97% 333.7294 0.00721
Chapel Hill 888.410 55.03% 41.26% 0.00882
SUBTOTAL 1614.410 100.00% 74.97% 0.01602
FUND TOTAL 2153.295 100.00% 100.00% 0.02137
Source:FY 1993-94 Approved Budget,Orange County, N.C.
32
Date: November 8, 1994 HAND DELIVERED
TO: Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Attn: Mr. Eddie Kirk
Subject: Impact Statement - Black Walnut Farms
Dear Eddie:
This letter is written in an effort to respond to your recent
request concerning the Impact of the proposed 24 lot subdivision
of Black Walnut Farms.
We anticipate that this will be sufficient information to answer
your questions as it pertains to the Orange County Subdivision
Ordinance.
The likely value of the homes when complete on the proposed 24
lots of Black Walnut Farms will typically range in value
beginning with $200, 000 in the first year increasing in $10, 000
increments per year. (Example: 1994 : $200, 000, 1995: $210, 000,
1996: $220, 000. ) There will be four (4) houses sold per year
with a sell out period of six (6) years.
Sincerely,
Steve Yuhasz
ENT Land Surveys, Inc.
I
33
11/21/94 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES'(Approved 12-19-94)
collector roads in the development.
Agency comments were received from Environmental
Health, Soil & Water Conservation, Emergency
Management, Recreation and Parks, County
Attorney, Erosion Control, and NCDOT. Applicable
comments have been incorporated into the
Resolution of Approval.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plan for Fox Hill Farm Phase One
Section C subject to the conditions contained in
the Resolution of Approval (copy an attachment to
these minutes on pages ) .
Burklin asked when the Board would see the
overall plan for Fox Hill Farm. Kirk responded
the overall plan will be presented with the next
concept plan. Burklin continued that it is very
difficult to determine how one phase relates to
the other, particularly regarding the streets .
Barrows asked about the impact letter. Kirk
responded that it addresses question C 7 on the
application which is:
If the subdivision contains 10 lots or more the
following information shall be submitted with the
application:
a. Number of years to buildout.
b. Number of houses to be built during each year
to buildout.
c. Average price of houses including lots for
each year to buildout.
MOTION: Burklin moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(2) Black Walnut Farm
(24 Lots - Eno Township)
Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
The property is located on the east side of
Baldwin Road (SR 1554) at the intersection of
Baldwin and St. Mary' s Road (SR 1002) in Eno
Township. It is zoned Agricultural Residential
and designated Agricultural Residential in the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Land uses in the area include farming and
34
scattered residential houses. The area proposed
for development is 44 .30 acres in size with 25
lots. The minimum lot area is 1 .0 acres with an
average lot size of 1. 39 acres.
Access to the property is from Baldwin Road (SR
1554 ) . A public road is proposed to serve the
subdivision. A 1992 traffic count on Baldwin Road
indicated 110 trips per day just north of the
intersection with St. Mary' s Road.
A Duke Power Company Transmission line runs
through the northern part of the property and a
50 foot buffer is provided on each side of the
right-of-way. Lots will be served by individual
wells and septic tanks.
The Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan calls for
Baldwin Road to be realigned to connect with
Lawrence Road. It also indicates that Baldwin
Road is to have a 100 foot right-of-way. Orange
County has not adopted the Town of Hillsborough
Thoroughfare Plan.
The Planning Board approved the Concept Plan for
Black Walnut Farm on August 15, 1994 with a
dedicated right-of-way being provided to the
northern property line.
Agency comments were received from the Town of
Hillsborough, Environmental Health, Soil & Water
Conservation, Emergency Management, Duke Power,
Recreation & Parks, County Attorney, Erosion
Control, and NCDOT- Applicable comments have been
incorporated into the Resolution of Approval.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plan for Black Walnut Farm subject to
the conditions contained in the Resolution of
Approval (copy an attachment to these minutes on
pages j .
Kirk referred to a letter received from Diane
Lea, Preservation Director with North Carolina
Estates. Ms. Lea expressed concern with the
protection of rural viewsheds and Maple Hill
which is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. Kirk noted that the applicant
has offered to provide a 50-foot buffer along the
property line to the east to preserve the trees
and, also to plant trees along the back of lots
22, 23, and 24 which would protect the view from
St. Mary' s Road. This was just offered by the
applicant/representative Stephen W. Roberts and
35
is not a condition in the Resolution of Approval.
Kirk further noted that concerns have been raised
regarding the Baldwin house, Sunnyside, which has
historical significance.
Laura Baldwin spoke expressing the concerns of
her family regarding Sunnyside which is adjacent
to the proposed subdivision. She expressed the
concern that the right of way on Baldwin Road
would come within 15 feet of the Baldwin house, a
historical landmark of Orange County that was
built by Captain John Berry over 150 years ago.
She noted also that it is under consideration by
The National Register of Historic Places .
Ms. Baldwin continued expressing concern that the
minimum lot sizes are not conducive with the
current setting of the area. She noted that
there seemed to be considerable "hop scotch"
development occurring along St. Mary' s Road and
felt the impacts of increased traffic is an issue
that should be addressed.
Ms. Baldwin stated that she does respect the
rights of others to develop their property but
she felt she should have some say in how the
development appears and how it affects her
property and its historic designation. (The
letter from the Baldwin Family is an attachment
to these minutes on page . )
Mr. Jim Myers stated that he and his wife own
property immediately to the east of the proposed
subdivision. He read a letter written by his
wife, Ann Hollandsworth Myers, which is an
attachment to these minutes on page
Mr. Stewart Barbour read a statement opposing the
development of the proposed Black Walnut Farm
subdivision. A copy of that statement is an
attachment to these minutes on pages
Chair Waddell asked that Mr. Barbour indicate the
disputed property lines on the map provided by
the Planning Staff.
Mr. Barbour asked that the subdivision be placed
on hold until such time as all the boundary
disputes with the Reids are settled to the
satisfaction of the people involved.
Ms. Josephine Barbour asked if the Township
Advisory Councils are in effect and why they were
36
not informed of the proposed subdivision. She
expressed concern with the current traffic on
Lawrence Road, St. Mary' s Road and Baldwin Road.
Turns to the right or left off Lawrence Road to
Baldwin Road are extremely difficult. She also
asked if the dedication for recreation and/or
payment-in-lieu requirement is still in effect.
In response to Ms. Barbour' s question regarding
notification of the proposed subdivision, Kirk
stated that adjoining property owners are not
notified of proposed subdivisions. In the case
of a planned development, rezoning or special use
permit, property owners within 500 feet. Neither
Waddell or Kirk could respond to the question
regarding the status of the Township Advisory
Council for Eno Township; staff will get
information on this question.
Ms. Barbour emphasized that the road situation at
the present time is very dangerous and encroaches
very close to the Baldwin house. She agreed with
Ms. Baldwin' s concern for protection. Waddell
responded that at the concept plan stage for the
subdivision, the Planning Board was concerned
about the "non-conjunction" of the two roads. Ms.
Baldwin stated Stephen Roberts approached her
regarding the paving of the road and that was the
way she learned of the proposed subdivision.
Waddell responded that by ordinance, it is not
required to notify adjacent property owners of
proposed subdivisions, only planned developments,
rezonings, and special use permits.
Waddell continued, regarding the Planning Board' s
concern about alignment of Lawrence and
Baldwin roads; the Board was informed that the
realignment was listed as a priority by NCDOT.
Waddell addressed the question from Ms. Barbour
regarding dedication or payment-in-lieu stating
that requirement is still in effect.
Jim Myers asked about the process to place the
subdivision on hold to provide the additional
information asked for by adjacent property
owners. Waddell responded that if the Planning
Board approves this preliminary plan, it will be
forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for
discussion and decision. Waddell agreed with Mr.
Meyers that this was the time to present their
concerns.
Diane Lea read the letter she had prepared and
37
FAXED to Kirk. A copy of the letter is an
attachment to these minutes on pages
Ms. Lea referred to the recently completed
architectural and historic inventory for Orange
County noting that both Maple Hill and Sunnyside
have been identified as particularly important
projects. She continued that the Meyers ' had
commissioned for and received the nomination for
placement on the National Register. She felt that
all of the research involved in this procedure
is encouraging to developing the next step of the
County planning process which is to develop a
Preservation Element for the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms . Lea continued, speaking to the issue of case
studies and historic preservation. She noted that
her work with preservation and marketing of
historical properties indicated it is the setting
of the properties and maintaining its historical
context that is as important to conveying the
message of the historic property as intact
architecture and well-maintained property. She
felt the consultant will be able to recommend
some new/additional techniques to the County to
protect such areas as the one under discussion.
While she -was encouraged with the buffering and
landscaping to protect the view from St. Mary' s
Road indicated by Kirk, she felt it was only the
first step. With everything that is happening in
Orange County at the present time, she felt it is
very important that the historic properties be
protected. She felt it would be advisable to
postpone a decision on this subdivision until the
consultant can review this as one of the case
studies.
Mr. Jay Ladd, new owner of Maple Hill, asked that
the process for subdivision approval be
explained. Kirk responded that the three steps
for subdivision approval are: Concept Plan,
Preliminary Plan and Final Plan. He explained
the requirements of each step.
Mr. Ladd stated that he was not opposed to
development; his concern was with the density of
25 homes on 35 acres of land on a dirt road and
the traffic impact.
Steve Yuhasz, surveyor, responded that one unit
per acre is not dense development; five units per
acre is dense development. He felt there was a
certain amount of perspective that must be taken.
He felt that the area of US 70 and St. Mary' s
38
Road must be viewed as a large number of
residential properties with scattered large
parcels . He continued that there is no
discrepancy or controversy regarding the
eastern property line. It agrees with previous
surveys. The dispute between Reid Roberts and
Stewart Barbour is exactly where the property
line is from some point on St. Mary' s Road to
some point in the Eno River. Yuhasz noted that he
had suggested to Mr. Barbour that "if he would
put his foot down where he believes the line to
be, then we would be more than willing to look
for that to be a reasonable point to agree to a
line so as to end this controversy" . Yuhasz
noted that is still the situation and that
disputed parcel will be part of Lot A which is
larger than what is required. Wherever the line
is will not affect the subdivision in any way.
Scott asked for clarification of the approximate
location of the line. Yuhasz responded that the
Barbour line goes into the Eno River somewhere
west of the bridge; the exact point is
undetermined. He continued that he has it
narrowed down to approximately thirty (30) feet
either way and the original deeds from which
these properties were taken have errors up to
sixty (60) feet. Thus, what it will take to
settle the issue is an agreement with the
property owners. He reiterated that this dispute
has no impact on this subdivision.
Howie asked if Lot A is the 25th lot. Yuhasz
responded that it is and it is the owner' s
residence. Howie continued, asking about the
possibility of further subdivision of Lot A.
Yuhasz responded that was a possibility, any
parcel larger than the minimum lot size has the
potential for further subdivision. However, that
is not a part of the owner' s plan at this time.
In regard to the realignment of Baldwin Road,
Yuhasz stated that the applicant will provide for
the realignment of Baldwin Road with St. Mary' s
Road.
Kirk stated that he had contacted NCDOT and they
indicated they had no plans for realignment of
Lawrence to connect to Baldwin.
Diane Lea reiterated that she felt this was
definitely intense development for St. Mary' s
Road despite comments from Mr. Yuhasz. She
suggested that the Planning Department Staff do a
39
survey of St. Mary' s Road to determine what is
dense development for that area.
Jay Ladd, owner of Maple Hill, asked who sets the
speed limit and the response was NCDOT and any
requests for changes should be made directly to
NCDOT.
Mr. Myers asked about written material regarding
specifications on the cost of the homes. It was
noted that the cost of the homes would not be
determined by the Planning Board. Mr. Myers
expressed concern that property values might be
affected. Waddell responded that estimates in
the agenda materials indicated $200, 000 to
$220, 000. Scott stated that most developers have
covenants that address size and styles of houses,
as well as other marketing features. Those
issues are determined by the developer.
Walters asked about the time limit that the
Planning Board has to make a recommendation.
Waddell responded that a recommendation could be
delayed, action is required by January 5, 1995 .
Stephen Roberts, representing his father, Reid
Roberts, stated that his family does want to
build a subdivision. He noted that he would like
to become a prominent developer in this area at
some point in the future. He continued that his
family has taken great pains to take everyone' s
thoughts and considerations on how to develop the
property. He expressed his apologies that the
neighbors were not notified but noted that he
thought the Planning Department would take care
of the notification.
Mr. Roberts stated that he has been in contact
with the district engineer for NCDOT from the
beginning of the proposed subdivision. He noted
that at the concept plan stage, the Planning
Board had expressed a preference for the entrance
to the subdivision to be on Baldwin Road and he
stated that the traffic from a subdivision of
twenty-four lots is not a great amount of
traffic. He continued that Baldwin Road will be
paved from St. Mary' s Road 200 feet past the
entrance by the developer, (his family) . To
address the Baldwins concerns, this road will not
encroach on their property at all. Roberts will
give up the sixty-foot right-of-way all the way
to the entrance of the subdivision.
Mr. Roberts continued that his family proposes to
40
create a subdivision that is an outstanding
example of what they would like to have in this
community. He stated that they are a family of
integrity and responsibility and would not do
anything to harm the community. He continued
that the homes in the subdivision would be
$200,000 to $225,000 including the cost of the
lots. Nice landscaping and restrictive covenants
will be a part of the subdivision.
In response to the boundary line dispute with Mr.
Barbour, Mr. Roberts indicated he has been in
communication with Mr. Barbour' s family and they
are sincerely trying to settle the issue. He
stated: "Mr. Barbour, we just want you to put
your foot down where you say it is and we will go
with it" . He continued that they want to be good
neighbors and provide a good development on this
property for Orange County. He indicated respect
for every question that had been asked. He
expressed respect for the historical register and
the preservation of historical properties. He
indicated the intent to plant 400 trees in the
open pasture area and make an upscale development
for the area. Mr. Roberts continued that
everything asked for by the Planning Staff and
Planning Board has been done or provided. He
indicated understanding of the concerns and
reiterated that he intends to do what is right
and preserve the historical nature of the area.
He concluded his comments requesting that the
subdivision be approved so he could move forward
with the development, building nice homes to
bring nice clientele to Orange County.
Ann Myers asked about the price range of the
lots. Mr. Roberts responded that has not been
determined. When that decision is made and the
property marketed, it will be publicized.
Waddell reminded the citizens that the cost of
the lots is not a decision factor for the
Planning Board.
Laura Baldwin asked why there is not a proposal
for the joining of Lawrence Road with Baldwin
Road with the developer assuming the costs. She
felt this would be a more simple solution than
having Mr. Roberts provide a sixty-foot right-of-
way. She emphasized again that she was not
against the Roberts' family developing their
land, just wanted the area residents to have some
say in how the area will be developed.
Stewart Barbour expressed concern that more
41
development than this 25-lot subdivision would be
approved due to the remainder of the
Roberts property. He was concerned that it
would eventually be a 150-lot subdivision. He
emphasized again that consideration of the
subdivision should be delayed until all the
boundary disputes are settled.
Mr. Jay Ladd requested that consideration be
postponed until the residents of the area could
give intelligent points of view on the issues . He
emphasized that the right of the Roberts to
develop their property is not being questioned;
the impact on the area is the concern. There has
not been sufficient time for determination of
those impacts.
Waddell informed the citizens that, if the
Planning Board should recommend approval of the
subdivision, it would be forwarded to the Board
of Commissioners and they would have the
opportunity to speak their concerns at the Board
of Commissioners first meeting in December.
Laura Ladd asked if an environmental impact study
had been done on this development. Waddell
responded that there are requirements for sizes
of developments and apparently, the size of this
development does not require an environmental
impact statement. Ms. Ladd continued, asking
about water runoff. Kirk responded that would be
reviewed and addressed by the Erosion Control
Officer.
Stephen Roberts spoke to Ms. Baldwin' s
comment regarding the alignment of Lawrence Road
to come into the Roberts property. He stated that
his first objective was to realign Lawrence Road
into the subdivision to lessen the dangers of the
intersection at Lawrence. That was not approved
when the concept plan was presented. It was not
the intent to join Baldwin Road because of the
amount of thoroughfare traffic that would be
created. Mr. Roberts referred to a letter sent
to him by Tommy Dyer, District Engineer with
NCDOT, which details everything that must be done
in order to pave Baldwin Road. Property has been
given to NCDOT for sight distance. The
intersection coming into St. Mary' s Road is safe
according to NCDOT guidelines. He noted that the
road by Ms. Baldwin' s home will be paved.
Mr. Roberts again expressed understanding for the
neighbors' concerns and stated that every
42
consideration will be taken to protect their
property. Erosion control will be handled by
County Staff and he noted that he had installed
proper terracing for control of the water. The
final comment addressed by Mr. Roberts was the
neighborhood concern regarding notification of
the proposed subdivision and Planning Board
meeting. He stated that he did not feel his
family should be penalized because they did not
receive notification. He apologized, but felt it
was not his responsibility for notification.
Jobsis asked about the existing density in the
area. Kirk responded that there is not a lot of
development in the immediate area. East of the
creek toward Hillsborough is higher density.
There are large tracts of land along Baldwin Road
to Lawrence Road.
Scott noted that Thompson' s Cross Subdivision is
about 1 1/2 miles away and it contains 1-acre
lots. While there are large tracts of farmland
adjacent to this property, there are some 1-acre
lots close by.
Burklin noted that a letter was included in the
last agenda from the Town of Hillsborough
regarding alignment and asked for an update.
Kirk responded that the Hillsborough Thoroughfare
Plan includes the realignment of Baldwin Road to
connect with Lawrence Road and indicates that
Baldwin Road should have 100-foot right-of-way.
However, Orange County has not adopted the
Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan. Kirk continued
that a copy of the preliminary plan for Black
Walnut Farm Subdivision was forwarded to the Town
of Hillsborough and comments were the same as for
the concept plan - they would like realignment.
Rosemond asked Ms. Baldwin about her statement
regarding the road coming within fifteen feet of
her chimney. Ms. Baldwin responded that Mr.
Roberts had answered that concern when he stated
he would be giving the right-of-way for Baldwin
Road. Mr. Roberts stated that NCDOT has given
his family a proposal for participatory paving
with a sixty-foot right-of-way. That moves the
road off the Baldwin property.
Mr. Jim Myers asked that consideration be delayed
until the Planning Board can visit the site.
Scott reminded the Board that the applicant has
met the ordinance requirements.
43
Ms. Baldwin expressed concern .with hop-scotch
development and indicated that she felt the
current guidelines and regulations do not address
all of the rural areas of the County.
Scott stated again that the applicant has applied
under the existing rules and regulations and has
met the requirements. He agreed that some of the
rules and regulations should be changed, but he
felt the Planning Board is obligated to make its
recommendation on the current regulations . It is
a two-way street; some give and take, but, the
developer should not have to do all the giving.
Burklin observed that he agreed with much of the
information presented, but felt there were not
many tools to work with without an open space
plan in place. He felt an open space plan would
provide premium incentives, such as historic
preservation, scenic vistas, etc. as tools to
help developers.
Rosemond stated that a definition for the
preservation of historic areas has not been
determined and she would like to hear more
discussion of what is really meant by the term
"preservation of historic areas" . She asked
about the possibility of the developer and
neighbors working together to determine a more
agreeable development plan. Mr. Roberts
responded he would have to speak with his father
about such a possibility.
Steve Yuhasz stated that he felt that there might
be a possibility of more discussion, but, he felt
the compromise the neighbors are looking for is a
reduction of lots and that may not bean
acceptable alternative to the property owners.
He also felt there would be on-going discussion
regarding buffers but he did not see a
compromise that would be acceptable to all those
involved.
Hoecke stated that the developer has made a
point about being a good neighbor. He felt it
was time for discussion between the neighbors and
developer, so, he was in favor of postponement.
MOTION: Reid moved to accept the Planning Staff
recommendation with the addition of the condition
that a fifty-foot buffer be placed on the eastern
property line. Seconded by Scott.
It was determined that delaying a decision until
44'
the December 19 Planning Board meeting would
still keep the Board within the time frame
indicated by the Subdivision Regulations .
Barrows expressed support for the suggestion made
by Hoecke for discussion between the developer
and neighbors. Burklin stated that suggestion
would also allow for more information from NCDOT.
Mr. Yuhasz stated that a letter has already been
received from NCDOT agreeing to participatory
paving of Baldwin Road and some details remain to
be worked out. Howie also agreed with the
suggestion for postponement.
VOTE: 5 in favor.
6 opposed.
Motion failed.
MOTION: Hoecke moved for postponement until the next
Planning Board meeting on December 19, 1994 .
Seconded by Barrows.
VOTE: 6 in favor.
5 opposed.
Waddell reminded the Planning Board and citizens
that, if the Planning Board does not make a
recommendation within its timeframe, it becomes
an automatic recommendation for approval.
AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING
(5/5/94,5/23/94,6/30/94)
a. Open Space Development Proposals
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
Collins reviewed the information on the agenda
abstract (copy an attachment to these minutes on
pages ) .
DRAFT 12/19/94 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 45
VOTE: Unanimous.
b. Preliminary Plans
( 1) Black Walnut Farms
(25 Lots - Eno Township)
Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
The property is located on the east side of
Baldwin Road (SR 1554 ) at the intersection of
Baldwin and St. Mary' s Road (SR 1002 ) in Eno
Township. It is zoned Agricultural Residential
and designated Agricultural Residential in the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Land uses in the area include farming and
scattered residential houses. The area proposed
for development is 44 . 30 acres in size with 25
lots. The minimum lot area is 1.0 acres with an
average lot size of 1.39 acres.
Access to the property is from Baldwin Road (SR
1554) . A public road is proposed to serve the
subdivision. A 1992 traffic count on Baldwin Road
indicated 110 trips per day just north of the
intersection with St. Mary' s Road.
A Duke Power Company transmission line runs
through the northern part of the property and a
50-foot buffer is provided on each side of the
right-of-way. Lots will be served by individual
wells and septic tanks.
The Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan calls for
Baldwin Road to be realigned to connect to
Lawrence Road. It also indicates that Baldwin
Road is to have a 100 foot right-of-way. Orange
County has not adopted the Town of Hillsborough
Thoroughfare Plan.
The Planning Board approved the Concept Plan for
Black Walnut Farm on August 15, 1994 with a
dedicated right-of-way being provided to the
northern property line.
Agency comments were received from: Town of
Hillsborough, Environmental Health, Soil & Water
Conservation, Emergency Management, Duke Power,
Recreation & Parks, County Attorney, Erosion
Control, and NCDOT.
The Planning Board reviewed the Preliminary Plan
for Black Walnut Farm on November 21, 1994 . Due
46
to concerns raised by adjoining property owners
the Planning Board voted to postpone
consideration of the subdivision to allow time
for discussion between the developer and
neighbors. The adjoining property owners were
concerned about the impact on the historical
nature of the area. A letter from the Historic
Preservation Commission indicating these concerns
is an attachment to these minutes on pages
Kirk continued that the applicant and the
neighbors met on December 10 and the adjoining
property owners requested larger lots and larger
houses. They expressed concern that the proposed
buffer would not be properly maintained by the
homeowners association. They also requested that
Baldwin Road be relocated farther to the east.
The applicant has indicated to the Staff that
when the road is paved it will be moved an
additional thirty feet to the east. This will
take the road right-of-way completely off the
Baldwin property.
The applicant has offered to provide a 50 foot
buffer along the property line to the east to
preserve the trees and, also to plant trees along
the back of lots 22, 23 and 24 to protect the
view from St. Mary' s Road. This 50 foot buffer
and additional planting requirements have been
incorporated into the Resolution of Approval.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plan for Black Walnut Farm subject to
the conditions contained in the Resolution of
Approval. The resolution is an attachment to
these minutes on pages
Ms. Josephine Barbour read a statement prepared
by Mr. Stewart Barbour (a copy of the statement
is an attachment to these minutes on page
Ms. Barbour stated that the neighbors had met
with Mr. Stephen Roberts, Mr. Steve Yuhasz, Mr.
Eddie Kirk, and Don Belk. She indicated that some
of the questions had not been directly answered
and some had. She asked that the other questions
and concerns be addressed.
Barrows asked what questions Ms. Barbour felt
were not adequately answered. Ms. Barbour
responded that one question concerned the buffer.
The neighbors thought that the buffer was to be
trees along the back property line which is
mostly scrub and brambles. Other information
47
indicated to them that buffers were just areas
that could not be developed. There were also
questions about trees along the lot 24 . The main
concern was with the west side and the backs of
the houses along Baldwin Road. Ms. Barbour
continued that Mr. Ladd had made an offer to Mr.
Roberts to buy the property and build larger
houses and that question was also not answered.
Laura Baldwin spoke noting that she is part
owner of a historic home which was brought as a
concern and has not been answered.
Ms. Baldwin continued, "We did meet, there have
been some questions answered, there have been
some efforts made by the Roberts family to meet
some of the requirements we have requested. They
have supplied me with a small diagram which
indicates they will pave the road and how it
would move away from the house. Currently, for
your information, and partly why I 'm speaking
now, is because I understand from your statement
in the beginning of the meeting there are certain
constraints that this board has as far as saying
yes or no to this development. I do want to
reiterate for the record, that we do not say that
the Roberts cannot develop their land. That is
not at issue here at all, and how they develop
their land is up to the Roberts. Whether or not
it was up to the Roberts family to notify the
neighbors is also not at issue. I feel that the
Board was not presented with all of the
information and I have listened to several
developments being presented here and several
times Y ou have asked if there are comments from
the audience. If I am not in the audience, I am
not there to comment and what my concern is, 'who
is my advocate with this Board if I am not
represented here? ' So, what I am suggesting is
that perhaps this method has some fault in it, in
that this issue would not have come to our notice
had Ms. Barbour not been informed of the meeting
and things would have gone along fine. At this
point we were able to negotiate with the
neighbors, and I do think that, in fairness to
the Roberts, they have made some efforts on our
part. I still have some concerns and I 'm not sure
where I go with that information. Or, that
concern, the fact that I have a historical home
and there will be a road, and that was the
original road that was a dirt road has no
designated right-of-way. It is currently fifty-
two feet from the chimney of the house. The edge
of the road is close to my house. At this point,
48
the road will now be moved over with a designated
right-of-way of thirty feet so that the center
point, now this is based on their map, the road
will now be eighty feet from my chimney which, I
don't have a right-of-way on my property line but
it still has some effect on my house. It ' s an
issue that I understand you can't address, but, I
think it is an issue that needs to be addressed,
over time, in a different manner or perhaps with
you coming up with some kind of regulation that
prevents subdivisions from infringing on historic
homes. That is the only issue that we are
bringing forward to you tonight. We are not
trying to say 'don't allow the Roberts to have a
subdivision. ' There are other issues we would
like to have met, I don't think those will be met
in this room, but I am saying to the Board
tonight that I would ask you to please become an
advocate for all the people, not just for the
developer because the individual property owners
do not know what is going on in this room at all
times. What I see is several developments coming
to you every time and getting approved. So what
-you're having is hopscotch development, I 've
brought that up before, and my concern is that
Orange County' s value is in its land and its
rural community. If you continue to develop
subdivisions as you are, you will end up with a
little Cary in the Hillsborough area. I am asking
you to please to look at that and, somehow,
without making it a long drawn out process, it
could be five years, at which point every
developer in town will have had an opportunity to
put forward to you at least three or four
developments. And I am asking you to make some
efforts to go forward with this at a rapid speed
and come up with some regulations to allow the
landowners some way of preserving the historic
value of the land. "
Waddell asked for Ms. Baldwin' s suggestion
regarding better notification. Ms. Baldwin
responded that someone should review such
developments and the areas in which they are
located to determine the type of surroundings.
That would have made it obvious, with the two
large homes, that a subdivision such as Black
Walnut Farm is not suitable for such an historic
area. Ms. Baldwin agreed with Waddell that owners
of historic properties should be notified when
development is proposed which would come within a
certain distance of the historic home/area. Ms.
Baldwin continued, asking that the Planning Board
come up with a plan where the historic homes are
49
protected. She noted that St. Mary' s Road is one
of the most scenic roads in Orange County and if
something is not done to protect St. Mary' s Road,
even the Roberts subdivision would be harmed in
the long run. She felt that St. Mary' s Road would
be the selling point for the property and the
rural aspect of the road must be protected. Her
concern was that something would be lost that
could never be replaced.
Brown asked Ms. Baldwin if there were issues that
were not satisfied at the meeting with the
developer. Ms. Baldwin responded that the
neighbors wanted assurance that the homes would
meet the landscape and she felt that there was a
difference in values of what was wanted. She
continued that there were some issues that would
probably never be resolved. The neighbors had
suggested that the developer use the two historic
homes be used as a gateway to the subdivision and
then build homes that would fit the historic
homes. She noted that one problem is that the
developer has done a lot of work and the
neighbors have come in at the last minute with
their concerns and questions because there did
not seem to be a forum where the concerns could
be heard. She expressed sympathy for the
developer for the issue of making changes after
all of the work he has done. She indicated,
however, that they did feel that there is a
better way to develop a subdivision in an
historic area. The developer should be
encouraged to do creative development that would
have homes of equal value to those historic homes
on either side. She also asked for assurance
that the developer would be bound by conditions
such as one requiring that the road be paved.
Waddell responded that the conditions imposed on
a subdivision by the Planning Board would be sent
to the Commissioners and, on their approval, the
developer is bound by those conditions. Ms.
Baldwin emphasized the request that a condition
be imposed that the road be paved in the latest
position that the developer has indicated.
Mr. Jim Meyers stated that the issue is not
whether or not the applicant should be allowed to
develop his property. The hope/concern is that
the development that occurs be appropriate for
the area. It is hoped that there could be a
change in thinking about what is appropriate to
fit with the tone of the area and that it would
be profitable to both the developer and the
neighborhood.
50
Walters asked if the developer would be providing
restrictive covenants regarding the type of
construction. Waddell responded that the
developer would be asked to respond to questions
before a recommendation/decision by the Planning
Board.
Burklin encouraged the residents of the area to
participate in the small area planning process
noting that would provide more tools to work out
better preservation options. Mr. Meyers responded
that he felt citizens would be interested in
providing input in such a process.
Brown asked if Mr. Meyers had seen the Planning
Staff ' s recommendation for this subdivision and
the response was no. Waddell referred to the
Resolution of Approval asking that they review it
to assure that their concern regarding paving of
Baldwin Road was addressed.
Ms. Barbour stated that the Township Advisory
Councils (TACs) are the forum that Ms. Baldwin
had asked about at which to address concerns and
comments regarding development. She noted that
she is a member of the Eno TAC and she had
received no notification of meetings or the
disbanding of the TAC. She also noted that there
had been no advertisement for applications for
membership. She continued that the TAC should be
restored so that information and opportunity to
comment would be available to the community when
subdivision plans are in the concept plan stage.
Waddell responded that he would investigate and
determine what had happened to the Eno TAC.
Steve Yuhasz, surveyor for the proposed project,
stated that he would address the technical
questions. In regard to the concern regarding
planting of trees along Baldwin Road, he noted
that there are some existing trees and whatever
planting needs to be done to meet the Subdivision
Regulations requirements will be done. Wherever
the developer feels that additional trees will be
beneficial either to the subdivision, the
adjacent lots or to the Roberts ' lot, additional
trees will be planted. He assured the Board that
at least the minimum requirement will be met in
every case and that would require planting along
Baldwin Road. Mr. Yuhasz distributed a drawing
that had been shown to Ms. Baldwin about the
realignment of Baldwin Road. Mr. Yuhasz
continued that the Concept Plan had the road for
51
the subdivision accessing St. Mary' s Road. The
Planning Board' s recommendation was that the
applicant move that access to Baldwin Road and
the applicant did that. It is and has been the
desire of the developer to pave Baldwin Road.
Discussions are underway with NCDOT regarding
participatory paving for that portion of Baldwin
Road. There is a letter of interest on the part
of NCDOT; however, work is still in progress with
them to determine whether or not that can be
done. It is in the interest of the developer for
Baldwin Road to be paved. If there is any way
that can be worked out with NCDOT, that will be
done. It does depend on cooperation with NCDOT
and that cannot be guaranteed by the developer.
Since cooperation from NCDOT cannot be guaranteed
by the developer, Mr. Yuhasz stated that he would
not like to see a condition that Baldwin Road be
paved. However, he noted that he would be
agreeable to the following: "If Baldwin Road is
paved through a participatory situation with the
State, the right-of-way of Baldwin Road would be
no closer to the Baldwin property line than shown
on the drawing. " He felt that was as far as the
developer could commit himself until commitment
from NCDOT.
Howie asked if the proposed paving of 200 feet
past the entrance to the development is the same
as presented at the last Planning Board meeting.
Yuhasz responded yes; it is simply a question of
working out details with NCDOT regarding the
participatory agreement with the Roberts.
Baldwin asked if the 200 feet of Baldwin Road
would be paved regardless of what action is taken
by NCDOT. Yuhasz responded that it is dependent
on NCDOT. However, every indication at this point
in time is that there will be agreement between
NCDOT and the developer for the paving. Mr.
Yuhasz reminded the Board that the paving was not
suggested by the Planning Board but proposed by
the developer because he felt it would be to the
advantage of the subdivision and all properties
on Baldwin Road. He emphasized again that such a
condition might be impossible to meet and felt
such a condition should not be imposed since it
depends upon cooperation of NCDOT.
Waddell stated that he would like the developer
to hold to any promises made to the Planning
Board. He noted that he did understand the
developer' s wish to be clear regarding
participatory paving. Mr. Yuhasz stated that the
52
developer does want to pave the road, but, it
must be in cooperation with NCDOT in order to
move the road as indicated by the drawing. What
he felt the developer would pledge is, if it is
paved, it will be no closer to the Baldwin
property than is shown on the sketch. If it is
possible to move it farther away, that will be
done. Discussions are continuing with NCDOT.
Howie asked about Black Walnut Farm Road. Mr.
Yuhasz responded that it would be State-
maintained. It will be built to State Standards
by the developer.
Walters asked if the problem with Baldwin Road
was in changing the location of the existing
road. Mr. Yuhasz responded that DOT would have
to make the determination that the road could be
relocated and the decision on participatory
paving. Discussion will continue with DOT until
such time as the road can be paved and moved
farther from the Baldwin property.
Burklin asked if perk sites had been located on
each lot. Yuhasz responded yes.
Waddell asked about the alleged line irregularity
and the lots in question. Yuhasz responded the
line irregularity in question does not involve
this proposed subdivision.
Ms. Baldwin asked if DOT does not allow for
participatory paving of Baldwin Road, does it
then become the road used by the subdivision with
designated right-of-way twelve feet from her
chimney.
Waddell asked if Mr. Yuhasz would commit to
placing the dirt road in the same place as
has been indicated the paved road would be if DOT
does not allow the participatory paving. Yuhasz
responded no, but he continued that if the dirt
road remains, it will remain as a ditch to ditch
road. Currently the public has the right to use
it as a ditch to ditch road and that is all.
There will be no other dedicated right-of-way.
There will be no other action by the developer to
bring the road any closer to the Baldwin property
than it is now.
Ms. Baldwin expressed concern with the
possibility that the road might not be moved, but
would be paved at a later time in the same
location.
53
Mr. Stewart Barbour referred to a petition
twenty-five years ago for the paving of Lawrence
Road. He continued that a petition was sent to
him by Mr. Roberts to pave Lawrence Road. After
reviewing it, he would not sign for the right-of-
way because the boundary line was not right. He
stated that later Mr. Roberts sold his house on
the south side of St. Mary' s Road and built a
house on the north side of St. Mary' s Road. He
indicated he was vague about this and about the
location of the line going to the Eno River.
However, he expects this to be settled in a court
of law.
Larry Roberts, son of Reid Roberts made the
following statement:
"We have an interesting situation. I appreciate
the wisdom the Planning Board had in getting the
neighbors together. I 'm sorry I was not able to
be there. Out of that meeting came some good
things. One is communication. Some excellent
suggestions on the theme of the subdivision, the
size of the houses and how it could fit into the
historical theme along St. Mary' s Road.
Particularly along the historical part of that.
With that in mind, we have every intention of
making sure that it doesn't impact the historical
part of St. Mary' s Road. That' s the reason we
chose not to develop on St. Mary' s Road, but, in
fact move the lots away from St. Mary' s Road. We
also have every intention of putting in screening
so that you cannot see the houses and we plan to
do that. Out of the meeting with the neighbors
came something else; communication and hopefully,
some good feelings. I certainly sensed that. And
we do not want in any way to be a problem in the
neighborhood, we never have. There are six of us
children and we were raised there and we want
this property to be something very special. We
intend to make it that way. We intend to look at
the theme, we intend to look at the style, we
intend to look at the size. We also intend to
pave the road. A dirt road is not a very
desirable thing when you are trying to sell
$200, 000 to $300,000 homes. DOT has given us
their intentions. We plan to go forward with the
paving of the road. We also plan to plant trees
on the property, it not only increases the value,
but it also makes it look better. There is a
little bit of concern I have personally, and that
is with consistency. There has been some
inconsistency along the areas of the environment
and the habitat and the concerns about that by
54
our neighbors; particularly with some of the
logging that has taken place around us. We have
not said anything about that and we won't. We
will put trees up to screen along the sides. As
far as the property line dispute, Jim, I think
you agree there is not a dispute (Mr. Meyers - as
far as I know there isn't) . We know where the pin
is in the middle of St. Mary' s Road and we know
where the cedar tree is. I don't think you and
Ann have a problem with the property line. We
don't either, so there' s no dispute there. What
Mr. Barbour addresses is across south of St.
Mary' s Road and we would like to settle that.
That ' s not for this Board and that' s not for
discussion here. I 've dealt with his son
personally and we have tried to settle it and
have not been able to do it. We would like for
you to approve the subdivision and move it on to
the County Commissioners. Thank you. "
Walters asked Mr. Roberts if he planned to have
restrictive covenants controlling the type of
housing in the subdivision and the response was
yes. Mr. Yuhasz indicated that Steve Roberts
would probably build the majority of the homes in
the subdivision and that he could better address
the question of restrictive covenants. Mr. Steve
Roberts responded that there would be dedications
and very stringent covenants. He reiterated that
this was the Roberts' home and that it would be a
nice subdivision.
Mr. Larry Roberts continued, "As a result of the
neighborhood meeting, we came out of there with a
commitment to upgrade and go with a common theme
that ties in with the historical homes around us.
We think that is attractive, we think that will
be a selling tool" . Walters responded that she
felt it would be helpful to the neighborhood if
the restrictive covenants did restrict the
housing to something that would blend with the
historical features of the area.
Mr. Jim Meyers responded to comments about
logging. He stated that it was not inconsistent
with the environment and that it was done because
that particular forest was overmature and on the
advice of foresters. A fifty-foot buffer was
left around the property facing St. Mary' s Road.
No damage was done.
Burklin commented that he was pleased with the
moving of the road off of St. Mary' s and he felt
that would help preserve St. Mary' s as a scenic
55
road. He noted also that he was pleased with the
larger lot sizes in other developments that had
been presented and hoped to be able to offer more
incentives for open space. He also indicated he
felt it would be beneficial to have a system to
notify property owners . He also expressed
agreement with the exchanging of ideas with
property owners early in the process.
Brown asked Mr. Meyers if he had additional
comments about the Staff recommendations and he
indicated there were none that had not already
been expressed.
Howie noted concerns with the potential for more
development and the possibility of the road not
being paved. Waddell responded that one of the
things that the Planning Board is bound by is
that developers are obligated to provide a public
paved road to connect to an access road and it is
not required that the road be paved. He felt the
Planning Board recommend to the Commissioners
that due effort be made to influence NCDOT to
make a favorable determination for participatory
paving of Baldwin Road and, also, that the
Planning Staff contact with NCDOT encourage the
same.
MOTION: Howie moved approval of Black Walnut Farm as
recommended by the Planning Staff with the
Resolution of Approval. Seconded by Walters.
VOTE: Unanimous.
MOTION: Waddell moved that the Commissioners and Planning
Staff attempt in all ways to move up in priority
the paving of Baldwin Road and move it farther to
the east away from the Baldwin property. Seconded
by Jobsis.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Burklin suggested that the Planning Staff provide
information regarding a system for involving
neighborhoods earlier in the process and the
notification process. Jobsis also wished to
included notification and revitalizing of the
TACs.
AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING
(5/5/94,5/23/94,6/30/94)
a. Open Space/Flexible Development Proposals (This
item will be considered at the Planning Board' s