Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-05-1995 - IX-C � 1 ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date June 5, 1995 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: ENO WOODS SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: July 20, 1995 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron Resolution of Approval Extension 2580 Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Access Illustration TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Loop Road Illustration Hillsborough - 732-8181 Fiscal Impact Analysis Durham - 688-7331 5/15/95 Draft Planning Mebane - 227-2031 Board Minutes Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Eno Woods Subdivision. BACKGROUND: The property is located in Eno Township on the Durham County line at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cole Mill Road and Umstead Road. It is 95.6 acres in size, with approximately 83.4 acres located in Orange County. The parcel contains a 100-foot AT&T right-of-way and a 150-foot Duke Power right-of-way. AT&T has indicated its intent to reduce the 100-foot right-of-way to a 33-foot right-of-way. There are also three springs on site with spring houses and the remnants of what appears to be the old Cole Mill Road as shown on an 1891 survey of Orange County. Current zoning of the tract is Rural Residential (R-1) and Lower Eno Protected Watershed. Adjacent land uses include low density residential, agriculture, and the Eno River State Park. Thirty-five (35) new residential lots are proposed that average 2.55 acres in size'. Each will be served by new public roads and by individual wells and septic systems. ` 2 The western portion of the site, especially the southwest corner, contains slopes that exceed fifteen percent. The soils in this area are shallow and may not be adequate for sewage disposal. Drainage ways as shown may also limit placement of septic systems, although stream buffers are not required. Access to the site will be provided by an entrance road joining Umstead Road in Durham County. Based on the total number of lots proposed and after examining surrounding development patterns, the Planning Staff has recommended that a right-of-way stubout be dedicated at the western boundary of the site following the southern lot line of lot 19 to allow a future connection to Pleasant Green Road when adjacent property is developed. The applicant has submitted an illustration of the proposed stubout which is included in the attachments. Refer to the attached map which illustrates the location of another proposed subdivision on the east side. of Pleasant Green Road which could provide the western end of the connecting road. The purpose of such a connection is not to create a thoroughfare, but to improve access by the Eno Volunteer Fire Department and other emergency services while also allowing easier access to the west for subdivision residents. Construction of the stubout portion of the road is not required until adjacent property is subdivided and would then be the responsibility of the owner/developer of the adjacent tract. Agency comments were solicited on the proposed subdivision and the potential for a connector road between Pleasant Green and Umstead Roads. The Durham District Office and the Graham District Office of the Department of Transportation divide responsibilities for design review, inspection, and maintenance of the subdivision roads at the county line. The roads must meet DOT specifications. Access to the proposed lots will be restricted to the new subdivision roads. Based on recommendations from Durham Transportation Planning and Orange County EMS, the Planning Staff proposes that the two cul de sacs on the north side of the entrance road, be joined to create an internal loop road. Such a connection will provide better access during emergencies. The attached illustration shows how the loop may be accomplished. 3 Staff also had concerns with the configuration of lot 13. The proposed house site would be near the cul de sac on Laurel Creek Way, while the approved site for sewage disposal is approximately one quarter mile to the west at the northwest corner of the subdivision across the AT&T and Duke Power rights-of-way. Staff recommends that lot 13 be deleted or recombined to achieve a more efficient and practical relationship between the proposed house site and the approved site for sewage disposal. The NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation submitted comments with regard to Eno River State Park. DEHNR Staff is concerned with stormwater runoff from the proposed development. The design for Eno Woods meets Orange County's requirements for stormwater management with larger lots, grassed swales, drainage easements, and a limit on impervious surface. If a structural stormwater control such as a detention pond were used, it would necessitate clearing and grading within the 100-foot buffer adjacent to the State Park. The Planning Board reviewed the Preliminary Plan on May 15. Discussion focused on the loop road recommenda- tion and soil suitability for sewage disposal. The Planning Board members voted (7 in favor, 3 opposed) to recommend approval of the plan without the loop road. Those opposed to the motion for approval cited concern for safety of the residents and emergency access. RECOMMNDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Eno Woods Subdivision as per the attached Resolution of Approval. The subdivision recommended for approval is consistent with the Planning Board recommendation and does not include connection of the two cul de sacs. • 4 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date June 5. 1995 Name of Subdivision Eno Woods Owner/Applicant Eno Land Company, LLC The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Eno Woods Subdivision Preliminary Plat, dated 3/20/95 (last revised 4/6/95) and containing 35 lots, with public road access. All roads 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 Eno Woods Trail, Laurel Creek Way, Wild Harvest Court, Few's Ford Lane, Trading Path, and the 50-foot right-of-way stubout on lot 19. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Eno Woods Trail, Laurel Creek Way, Wild Harvest Court, Few's Ford Lane, Trading Path, and the 50-foot right-of-way stubout on lot 19 shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as they are accepted for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before the Final Plat of Eno Woods Subdivision can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal 1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for septic disposal, and repair area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health. 2. Disclosure that the septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements. 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. 3. Lot 13 shall be deleted or recombined to achieve a more practical and efficient relationship between house site and sewage disposal site. 5 B. Roads and Access 1. Eno Woods Trail, Laurel Creek Way, Wild Harvest Court, Few's Ford Lane, Trading Path 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 A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure construction of Eno Woods Trail, Laurel Creek Way, Wild Harvest Court, Few's Ford Lane, Trading Path 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. An erosion control plan for construction of the roads shall be submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the Orange County Erosion Control Division. 3. The intent for future extension of the right-of-way on lot 19 Road shall be indicated on the Final Plat by the words "Subject to Future Extension". 4. A 10' by 70' sight triangle shall be shown at all road intersections. 5. Lots 25-28 shall access onto Few's Ford Land and lots 20-24 shall access onto Eno Woods Trail. All lots shall access onto the new subdivision roads. This restriction shall be stated in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 6. Approved street name signs shall be erected at the intersection of streets as required in Section IV-13-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant that the sign is in place or a copy of the receipt for purchase of the sign shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 7. Dedicate a 50-foot public right-of-way along the southern lot line of lot 19 extending from Laurel Creek Way to the western boundary line. Provide a deed to Orange County for the stub-out. C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 6 1. Existing trees shall be preserved as indicated on the approved landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. 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 both sides of the 150-foot Duke Power Company right-of-way. 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. Type F Land Use Buffer shall be provided adjacent to Eno River State Park. The buffer shall be 100 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. D. Drainage 1. Impervious surface data, as pursuant to Article 6.23 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 2. Indicate a 30-foot drainage easement where 20-foot drainage easements are shown on the Preliminary Plat. Extend a 30-foot drainage easement onto lots 19 and 20 to accommodate the spring shown beginning on lot 19 flowing through the road intersection. Locate additional drainage easements as required following review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan. E. Parkland 1. Cash in the amount of$3,990 ($3,990/acre x 35/35 acre) shall be paid to Orange County as payment in lieu of parkland dedication. F. Miscellaneous 1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2. The following natural and man-made site features shall be shown on the plat: 7 (Include.streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, swamps, marshes, sites in "Inventory", houses, barns, sheds, railroads, overhead utility lines, cemeteries) a. springs/spring houses b. drainage swales C. old roadbed (old Cole Mill Road) 3. The following easements shall be shown on the plat: a. 30=foot drainage easements b. 50-foot stub-out on lot 19 4. A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right-of-way of all roads. Side yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet, and rear yards a minimum of 20 feet except where land use buffers apply. These setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 5. All lots adjacent to the Duke Power or AT&T right-of-way shall have a minimum lots size of 40,000 square feet outside of said rights-of-way. 6. Obtain subdivision approval from Durham prior to or simultaneously with the Final Plat for the first phase of Eno Woods. G. Certifications 1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section V-D-6-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. The Division of Environmental Health shall certify that each lot contains a suitable area for septic disposal. 4. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that Eno Woods Trail, Laurel Creek Way, Wild Harvest Court, Few's Ford Lane, Trading Path have been constructed to State standards or that construction plans have been approved. 5. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. 8 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. Applicant Date APPLICATION—FOR PRELIMINARY. PLAN APPROVAL to MAJOR SUBDIVISION r ORANGCCOUNTY —DATE: 3/20/95 PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT IINK ONLY) SUBDIVISION NAME: Eno Woods Subdivisiori LOCATION: Umstead & Cole Mill Roads OWNER/DEVELOPER: Eno Land Company, LLC (Edward L. Holloway, Manager) ADDRESS: 1824 Snow Wind Drive TELEPHONE No.: 829-6088 Raleigh, NC AGENT/CONTACT: Jerry Gambill TELEPHONE NO.: 493-0395 FICKe prouse R971ty P:O. Box 521 Dur am, NC 27717 493-1523 (Fax) A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Map 2 3 Block – Lot(sl 2 5 B Township Eno Zoning Districtls): g-1 Total Number of Acres: 9 5"6 0 Phases: Total Number of Lots: 35 Average Lot Size: 2.55 M'nimum Lot Size: 1.IR AG. Number/Type of Structures: (existing)3 sma.11 Spr M,91PWAM' 35 homes Lineal Feet in Streets: SOop Acres in Open Space: 0 Water Supply: Public (specify) Community X Individual Wastewater Disposal: Public (specify) Community X Individual School District: Orange County Fire*District: u o R r a l General Land Uses in Area: State Park southside) & undeveloped other sides ) Critical Arose: no streams stream/drainageways no f lood areas flood prone areas Lower Eno watershed (specify) 36 historic sites other (explain) _.. Is the property to be subdivided currently under "farm use value taxation'? Yes No_. If "yes", please contact the Orange County Tex Office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under "form use value taxation B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smeller than one Inch equals two-hundred feet 11" 2001 a* nd no larger then one inch equals twenty feet (1'•20') and must contain the following*information: X_ subdivision name X zoning of tract and adjacent _ name &address of owner(s) properties _X name &address of subdivider X building setback lines by notation (if other then owner) or typical lot layout name of surveyor, engineer, location and width of existing and o landscape architect o►architect, proposed easements (drainage, address, registration f1 and seal utilities, roads, etc.) ai _�' (title)Preliminary Plan _� •, existing, proposed and adjoining y_ scale, north arrow rights-ol-way including dimensions H u X date (Including revision dates) and street names and state road W w X_ township, tax map-block-lot numbers. Unsel feel of road -4 o references centerlines and approximate Parent Parcel Identification # acreage of new street rights-of- wdeed book and page / of property way to be subdivided W NZA M.�.... existing and proposed utilities, o _}- boundary described with bearings including type, sizes, hydrants, E W and distances valves, manholes u v --X-- total acreage of the tract.ond X existing and proposed curbs, x y acreage of lots, Including and gutters and culverts, including 0 excluding area within rights-of- sizes and grades L)En En (yr(g f location and width of alleys, X control corner sidewalks, bike lanes, transit systems, and bus stops (please complete reverse side) _�- :: p•;Y. `'"'""" typicer let cross-sections and pra✓ossd Pit lines dimensions X _ >�'•`.:i lot & block numbers intereet—on details including 11 - -- '►" design and width of travelway and phasing lines topography at ten foot (10) shoulders J( -+ intervals horizontal alignment end peneral �`�` o �( :::::>., water bodies, streams, (looifway _ curve date (public roads) csntaline radius on all proposed y and floodplains ax <Y streets stream butlers l : location and size of parcels �_ ''"" permanent features such as d IA "' buildings, cemeteries, historic yr u dedicated for public use, 0E3 w recreational use or reserved in landmarks sJ w s�e:<s::x adjoining lot layout names of .,.i O common, with purpose noted X_ ......«, impervious surface date Of located adjoining property owners.subdivided, subdivision plat n Herne, W o in water supply watershed) u w plat book flt page number, and .W - I.b,.,',,M,,w vicinity map showing general E location of subdivision with streets perimeter lot numbers. end roads Identified by State road N,L�- '. i Iocstion end size of lots of t7 m restricted development potential U number and name � and notation on plat regarding x m _�_ `w.,•,>,:. landscaping and buffer W M requirements EEO" same ''C I" v<i township, corporate and extra- N/A sto►mwater detention end/or retention sites end undisturbed territorial planning jurisdiction tines which cross the property arses for infiltration purposes (if located in water supply watershed) C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Twenty-five (25)copies of the preliminary plat. 2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tex 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 •oils analysis approval/denial for each lot shown thereon. 4. 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-8-3-d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations). , S. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section Vl of.this Ordinance which assure completion and/or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may include, but not be limited to, s private rood 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. �yt e. Fee• $350.00 plus 45.00 per lot 0 fee for preliminary and final plat). •R SZSDI? 7. If the subdivision contains 10 lots or more the following information shall be submitted with the application: a. Number of years to buildout. 1995-1998 b. Number of houses to be built during each year to buildout. 10-12 houses per year C. Average price of houses including lots for each year to buildout. $ 275 r 000 - $ 300 r 000 1. the applicant, hereb ee ify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. A PLI 'PS"SWN A T U R E OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE ~ DATE FEES: Amount$5'25 •O 0 bate Paid 4"�$ ' 9 S Receipt rT 089 O1 l _ EAJO WOOP5 SUBDIVISlOA! n L.O W E!' EA1 O PQoI'�GTE� WAT Z O 12 APPUC"T. JEe -(CAM 8lL L- Fie - 1 ----------------------- -- J F to LA.Qp COHPAnIYjue / Is Vac . I, Ac // L `J ,• 1 { 2K 10 0,Ac 1179 ]MO •.•„•.. { \') ,..r ,, •r- !..(KCAL 21 !! fn•..,� 12 r1•K G. NY N{ �� H r w3K ►r 2. 16 - /4233 N 91AC ••'� AD ' •G— 1•C '° `.s.., / K . 261 K T07•L C.:• .1 i:Y7� ' n O �. O O O V,K*.p /.17K0 x7C 2 Vs •.•M z. - al1K C YK ••''C 0>• 060 _— ISK •1 3tlK i 369 VV! ; 2699 I 169!!K 2; A Qsa K I 22!2 K 7 76 K I �! C - 1604 6 AC 674AC .0 AC Wj 6 JFN� 2iilc AC "A Cle Ax TOT& W )t, Ot• .� I I ry w K. IM ar/ N)♦ O(006 . AC o I / r–NO Rive ' { \\i7M K .wn 60 K MO. .0,12.c . •!4 1116•C fcc / SAC I/OITK A�.. M ` / Lu 769 Cs) 1• / K � ! 6666 .•1 .61r Tw '"•'" ? f•C 6 ` 101SAC a7r•K m 79 K""AL ?MAC 9092K« •�/ O Ip r7r s RN!K a7oAc �f ><s• .lu 322 K / 19.11 W.Cy . mMAC+c 1 666! "a At - .,,i{C �rl K / . O/+K f ! !K S I., _ j � n � � to- .N. SAC N T O `% { II lK+1+• ' $62 K 2 2006 K SAC' •� •deaf «, 4µK {6K w 27, •C — .648 l[CAL 3.2 AC >toK i72tIK 140 p t K . 5' �. ►f , �I s r b C7 LOT 18 r x! ► / 2.25 AC.-EXCL. R/W} t 20'. e4, / ,' ; LOT 9 stoRla ' < , i , % ; j, 2.62 AC. 1 ASE O r ,1 / 344 88' Jt,Q N g '4t)of E ,• t ' r t- � ri r' �. t �. �• j $ w, v l.'opt \r �� LOT 19'• 1 � t 4.57 AC. C SPRING • 1 _ _ ^ .�• C , ,�� r ,� � 5Sg 43 � ,. � ter,; , :, NEW 30' \ ! STORM-DRAINS • >� LOT 20 o♦ ` ,� � �� �\ `� " 3.66 AC` cd N LOT 21 / 1.47 AC. LOT 25 1 a� ` ��\ a'�1 a 1.65 AC. / LOT 24 ' NEW 4.05 AC. LOT 22 •• ;- - _ Sri XE sin 1.99 AC. . - - ICJ / / , , /' / /''/ // /• ,/' Uy Od 14101 Wits t 15 ad PC 83� yW C! I Pi to 00 Z C-i Q X\ 04 + N W:k Zj ."AlNfioo- A �e. IX LJ a 7D to V OF.zo N P• A 3�—6P*, 1 ta 0 LO c4 00+ z Ci 6?, 46. 9 In L4 % . m �no 070-1�' c',cm w 0 co C; Cw %n ca < 6v N C C*4 (n �d Go co C co W, Z 'j..J w co) I w 3o 2w NOW Ap X. II le ow (n oo z 06 x -V N I C,4 Nap F— Lu In l Uj 6) 1 0 4 0 4— m ao c A J ono I x C-4 W 19+Lt Id 7- C) rl: cj CL A 14. z too -Z. Ir r4�X z z co cy C4 Go s ,J�`S c J R" CI\ uj p 0 s ..9 16 FISCAL IlKPACT ANALYSIS FOR ENO WOODS SUBDIVISION RESIDENTIAL SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH G ...- Prepared by The Orange County Planning Department April, 1995 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Eno Woods Subdivision is a proposed 42-lot major subdivision located in Eno Township on the southwest corner of Umstead Road and Cole Mill Road.The total area of the subdivision is approximately 96 acres, and the current zoning is R1 - Rural Residential and Lower Eno Protected Watershed. The average lot size is approximately 2.55 acres.All lots will be served by individual wells and septic tanks,and public roads. The site is adjacent to the Eno River State Park. For Eno Woods, project build-out is estimated at four years. Housing units will be constructed, beginning in 1996, with completion of the project scheduled for 1999. Units will consist of detached single-family homes, and the applicant estimates the average sales price to be$287,500,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. 17 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 5 - 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 18 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, 19 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., 1994-95. 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, financial, 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. 20 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. 1 21 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. 22 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 SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD 23 Bureau of Economic dt Business Research — University of Florida Modified 3/15/95 — Orange County,NC Planning Department SECTION 1 — PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT: PROJECT: Eno Woods Subdivision .. TOWNSHIP: Eno CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: Be ' guuuttg `ear: . Ending Year: 1999 Inflation Rate: 2.90% CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS: Children/House: 0.44 1a Now-Elderlty; IOOAO% HOME SALES DATA: Average Distribution Number of Sales Price of Units Year Homes S by Year 1996 11.. ;: 287500 26.19%x,: 1997 11 287500 26.19% ... . 10: '>' 287 500` ...................... ...... ..... 23.8I°x. 1999 10 287500 23.81% . 200Q` 0 : ";..:: Ui::;. .;:>: `:. .0:00%a . . .. ........ ....... _.. 2001 0 0 0.00%0 ,.. ......... .....: ....... . 2003 0. 0 0.00% 2fJ04:; .: 0:. 0.. .:: ' 0,{JO°Io ..... .. ...... .. .. ... .:.,..._. .::,. . 2005 0 0 0.00% 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: Or Gciunty.... ;:. : (. .:: . . :. Ehmentacy$chooI. :: Middle School 23% Cho 1Ht11-Caa[rb+�rca�:`::::: `.'' Hi School::, 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 $.. ........ 1' ...::.:..... ....:..:::::.:::.....::::.:::...: ...:..:::.-...............: ... .......... ..::::>:::::...::... ....42... ` .:; ........ Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex 0 0 0 .Condomtmwn: ......... : .. .. .. Q Town House 0 0 0 42 0.". 18. SECTION 2 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA 24 BUDGET YEAR;. 1994-95 COUNTY POPULATION: 102894 SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT POPULATION: 5582 COUNTY EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER CAPITA General Government.; 0.0011 Public Safety 138.75 0.0013 Public Works 50 00005 Human Services 25338 0.0025 ducation School District 619.00. _: 0.0060 SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER STUDENT Total 619A0 0.1109 COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES S : REVENUES PER CAPITA Taxes.-Other Than Fro . . Pe ny .4387997 .. 42. 65 Intergovernmental. 9053572 87.99 rvicc 15167— 26.39 Miscellaneous 1089416 10.59 COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES $ : EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA neral. :. : " :. >: 6532710 63.49 Public Safety 6350477 61.72 Pnlahc 273 ::..... ... ..:.. : 9666:; 26.63 Human Services 16618148 16151 ucauon R curr ein (.. ta..: .... g.... Pt: ..).:.,.;;: :.;;:.::.;:...::::::.....::.::::. .: >::..:<. ..:>; : . ;:. :;:;. ..:::> > :,.:::.:.:::>:< :::>; 50000:;::..'::; :: 7.29 Non—Departmental 2787882 27.09 COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE S : EXPENDITURES PER EMPLOYEE eral: :: < .......... . Public Safety 6350471 4576920 Pubfic:.World ;:... 5479332 Human Services 16618148 65587.17 Educa 'o n Re o .... . .. ... SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES S : EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT County • ......;:: _ >:;;::::;;.,::;:;:...:84994$2:::: >>' 1451.00 School District 0 0.00 ::>:.:.::.> ;`:>` ::.;»>:>::: «.-::>:.::>::`::>: 4779f)ff': : : 33 tats ISM- SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES S : EXPENDITURES PER EMPLOYEE Coun Government. : .. . .<:.<:>:<::;:: :.::;<;.: <: 809948 .:' School District ......... .........:..:.:.::...... State` 0... ... . 0.00 '.,3065898 TAX DATA: ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIO AND ELDERLY EXEMPTION: . . .. .: 0;T4p >:;Per:�lOQAs: .....:uu tyT axRt ed Val::............:::;.:: u at�on .. .:....:.....:..:.. .. School District Tax Rate $ ( ) 0.0000 Per$100 Assessed Valuation Elderly Exemption 0 $11,000 Where Applicable 25 SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 . 2000 HOUSING UNITS 11 22 32 42 42 POPULATION 28 57 82 108 108 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 2 5 7. 9 9 Middle 1 2 3 4 4 High School 1 3 4 5 5 TOTAL 5 10 14 18 .: .18 COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES .. General Government ...... :... O.Q.. 0.1 U,1. 0.1 0.1 Public Safety <`': ''': '; '::X1.0: 0.1 :: :`:a1 0.1 :- 0.1 Public Works :.0.0 0.0 0.0: 0.1 0,1 Human Services 0:1:,. 0.1 :'0:2. 03 0.3 TOTAL r`::0.2;> 0.3 0.4 0.6 '' :: 0.6 SCHOOL DISTRICT 0,2 0.3 " :: ..:':,: 0.5- 0.6 . :>:: :::. :0.6 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES YEAR 2001:: 2002 2003 2004 2005 HOUSING UNITS 42; 42 42 42 42 POPULATION 1©8 108 . 408 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary . <: .... .::.:.... Middle 4: 4 4 4 .:.., School ... High 5 5:;: 5 TOTAL COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES . ....:............ .... General Government .,..: t. :: 0.1 >`; Q:1 0.1 `°as Public Safety : ... 0.1 Q: Public Works 0. 0.1 Human Services 03 Q3: 03 03 TOTAL 4.G 0.6 ';:.::Q;6 0.6 SCHOOL DISTRICT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES SECTION 4 — PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT 26 YEAR 1996 1997 1998. 1999 2000 TAX BASE($1000) 3163 6417 9478, 12628 12994 REVENUES($) Property Tax 23592 47869 70704 94202 96934 Other Taxes : 1206. 2481 3714:. 5015 5161 Intergovernmental 2487 5119 7662 10348 10648 Service Charges 746 1535 2298 3103 3193 Miscellaneous 299 616 922 1245 1281 TOTAL (S) 28331 57620 85300 113914 117218 EXPENDITURES ($) General Government 1795 3694 5529.:: 7467 7683 Public Safety 1745:: 3591 °5374: 7258 7469 Public Works 753: 1549 :,2919. 3131 > > 3222 Human Services .: <: '::::;4566' 9396 14064: 18994 ';..;19545 Education '7229'. 14877 22267::: 30073 30945 Non—Departmental 766 1576 „ . .:..:: :059,:: 3186 3279 TOTAL ($) :16853. 34684 51912;:; 70110 >'> ;:.:..:;:: : 72.143 NET FISCAL IMPACTS 11478 22937 `.333$8 43804 45074 YEAR 2001:; 2002 2003: 2004 2005 TAX BASE 51000 23371' 13758 ` " 41 7.: 14568 "': 4 ( ) >::::::;:<::;..... ... 1990 REVENUES S . :Property T ax ; : 49745: 102638 ,: :.... 1829 . Other Taxes 531.1 5465 : 5623: 5786 Intergovernmental :2495T: 11275 . 11602:': 11938 Service Charges »;:::3286 3381 3479:< 3580 ': <;'<: :;:' . 3684 Miscellaneous :;1318_:: 1357 : »: < .._<.:.. . ..: 14 78 TOTAL 124115 `127714 131418 >:;: 135229 ( ) EXPENDITURES ..::..:.:.:.:.:.. (S) General Government 'T906 8135 "'83? > 4 Public Safety ::7686 7908 813$ 8374 . `?:`: _ 8617 Public Works 3316:: 3412 ;:' :::3511: 3613 3717 Human Services 0 _.Z 1.12 20695 ':: . .:>:: ::::: 1 21913 ::' '`:.' > ::;:: '< 2295>' 2254 Education >;.:'31842' 32766 34694 .>'`< :.: ` 35700 Non—De artmental x:3374 3472 35.7 3: M76 3783 >::::......:.... TOTAL ($) 74236:; 76388 :::::78604;; 80883 83229 NET FISCAL IMPACTS 46382: 47727 $2000 ' $2000 SECTION 5 — PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT 27 YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 Z000 REVENUES (S) County 7229 14877 22267 30073 30945 School District 0 0 0 0 0 State 16455 33865 : 50686 68455 : 70440 TOTAL (S) 23684 48742 72953 98528 101385 EXPENDITURES (S) County 7229, 14877 22267 30073 30945 School District 0 0 0 0 State ::;16455.- 33865 50686 68455 70440 TOTAL (S) 23684 48742 72953. 98528 101385 NET FISCAL IMPACTS El 0 , 0: 0 -0.j YEAR '<..2001.:: 2002 °: ...;:: 2003 2004 , 2005 REVENUES (S) County `31842' 32766 "33716 34694 , '`., 35700 School District State ?2483;:: 74585 76748 78974 81264 TOTAL 107351 110464:; 113668 . .:::: :: `:11 61. EXPENDITURES I TURFS $ Conn `::.31$42 327 tY 66 <:33716 34694 35700 School District 0 <' p Q State 74585 7 6748: 78974 81264 TOTAL O S i 26>107351 .; >> :. 110464 113668 ; '::::: .116964 NET FISCAL IMPACTS a' 0 0 .0. SECTION 6 — SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCALIMPACTS 28 YEAR :1996 - 1997 1998_ 1999 2000 HOUSING UNITS 11 22 32 42 42 POPULATION 28 57 82. 108 108 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 2 5 7 9 9 Middle 1 2 3 4 4 High School i s 3 4 5 . 5 TOTAL 5 10 14 18 . 18 COUNTY EMPLOYEES -0.2 0.3 0.4: 0.6 0.6 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 TAX BASE(S1000) 3163: 6417 9478. 12628 ._:: 12994 COUNTY BUDGET(S) Revenues >:2833I : 57620 ,. 113914 ::. .:: ': 117218 Expenditures 16853: 34684 51912 70110 .. 72143 BALANCE 11478 22937 `:. ``:>::.:`::3338$:: 43804 4074 SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET(S) RevenuesG84` 48742 72953:; 98528 >: :1.01385 Expenditures ::;236H4. 48742 :::... -.-72.953.:> 98528 BALANCE Q` Q : Q. O .':'_::>:::'.: :: >:: COMBINED BUDGETS S Revenues S2f15 106362 15$253 212442:' ` ::'':;: 218603 Expenditures ; -. : ape 40537 83426 I248bS: 168638 :: ': 173529 BALANCE :><'. .11478 22937 : `:33388 43804 :: ,::`` _:45074 YEAR 2001 2002 . _<:.... 2004 ::..: '::' :;.< . 2005 HOUSING UNITS 2:: 42 4 ..: 42 42 POPULATION ; ....:::::..:.: 1Q$`' 108 ...::<:`:: °. . :> .>:::> 1.;.;.: 108 :':'' >>:::;:::.:108 .....:..::..:::...:::::.:.::::..:. SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary Middle High School .:.::::::::«:.:...:.. 5 : ;: ::.::::: ':r:5 TOTAL COUNTY vNTY E MPLo YBE3 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES YEES TAX BASE $1000 1337.1:: 13758 :.:. ..::...... ( ) 141157: 14568 COUNTY BUDGET Revenues enues 120617: 124115 1277-14..,12714 131418 :`::.: ::". 135229 Expenditures :::>> :::::;;'X.4236: 76388 : ;: :7860 : 80883 : :>': 83229. BALANCE ; .tb3$2 47727 `491i1 50535 SCHOOL DISTRICT CT B UDG ET Revenues nues :<>:::::<:,::. :;:`1U432G:: i 0735 < .:.......:..:. ..::... 1 .> _'` ;:.110x64; 113668 Expenditures 10432 ? n 107351 .;.' 110464: 113668: :_> 1..964 d. BALANCE COMBINED BUDGETS S Revenues 493 `;' �...::... 231466 :'`'`::' '<:2381'z9 245086`::''. ; >>: ><> >:252193 Expenditures 183739 _: 189(X8: 194551 ;'> `204193 BAL wrrcE "?46382' 47727 491L2. 50535 »:"` 52000 29 SECTION 7 — SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS 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—Carrboro, 0 High School 27% YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 2 5 7 9 g Middle 1 2 :: : 3 4 : 4 High School 3 . . .:.. 4 5 5 TOTAL 5` 10 14 18 18 YEAR ' 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary ;<:: ;4 9 Middle 4: 4 : ;: .. 4 4` High School 5 5 5 5 TOTAL 18 18. 18 . ?': : 18. SCHOOL CAPACITIES—ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT —ALL SCHOOLS omentarymen :;2838. :. Elemen tw 2767 Middle 1232 Middle 1290 1518 '. High School 1505' TOTAL 5588 ITOTAL 5562 YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Elementary < 2772 ' 4: 2776 ; `,.:2776 Middle L29 .;: 1292 1293: 1294 :.:::. ........ .. High School 1508 . :<: ;..::::>1 1510 < : : :::. °<':;:1510. TOTAL ... °SS i7': 5572 ..:;5576 5580 5580 YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT _MENT Elementary 2 76: 2776 :'.:: >'..: : ' ><; ,,. :,.:, 2776 :;.::''>;:` > :: `> 2776 Middle 1294:: 1294 .:::<::; :::: 1294:; 1294 High School ;151. 0.. 1510 >:> ::»:_ <: ::.::::.:. ::. ..:. ISifl., 1510 ::.:<;'; TOTAL »:5580. 5580 55 80::-: 5580 : 5580 30 HOUSEHOLD OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS FOR ORANGE COUNTY,NC BY TOWNSHIP a Chlldren::...;:...School°A e'::'.SChoo >;::;.:: Numb :...:.. er; >;:;:: . ersons>:>:: ;::::;;:Persons;::;:;<;:� Under 18 ::><»Unde r 18 ::>::::::::>;:p ;,. ;:»:::; :;::.;:::> ownshi :: :;Households:;:<Households:: :.:Household '::Households Household::: Households::;;Household: . 1990 CENSUS 8. ... :..:.:..<::::::.:.:::::.::.:.:.::.:::::2156 ....::::. .:::::.::5177:>>::::::>:.>.»::.:::::::>: :::>;:;...; ..........::.:.::.::::::.:;..:::::::::::.::::. ..:...:..:.....:.::.::.:..:.:.:::::.: ..::.....::.:2: ::<::<:.>::;.>:.;;:;:::.:;1122: OS ......:...:::.. 2:...::......... .....:T21.::. :.::.:::.: 033. Cedar Grove 1345 3676 2.73 865 0.64 624 0.46 Chia AHM'':` <::<: :::>:::;:::::>::> :..;:.:::: :::;:<:;::::<:.>:::<:::;::»;: :: ::::.;::.;.: ;::..::.:::.<:.;;:.:;:::;., :.:.. . ::::........23942:.::::::::> >::>::;;;:53108 :::..;.;::::..;:..:::::: :.::: .......P......................................:.:::::::.:::. ..............................:.:.....:..:::::..:....2.22:<:..;:::»:<:::>::;::>:::.993 ::::::;:<>:<:>:;>:::<;. :...::.. Cheeks 2036 54M. 2.66 1340 0.66 999 0.49 :.::: 4 . : ::::.::.::::;T.S7.::... . .......... 1.85::...:::. :::.::::..::.. .................................:...:::::::::::.:::: , 3 : <896»;::>::::>:::::::<.:;:;0.Q4:: Hillsborough 3811 9816 2.58 2567 0.67 1777 0.47 ttte . 2.81 :.;:.:. .;..;.;. . . .. :.:. ;:..:..:::...:.... 58Q.:::<:;.;.;::;::::;.>::;>:<E�.7�::::•:::<:; <:::>:>:<.:::>::402::;:::»::::;::>.><>�:>;:::::452 .. ................. ...... Orange County 36104 84627 2.34 17698 0.49 12399 0.34 1980 CENSUS . Cedar Grove 1176 3166 2.69 919 0.78 N/A 0.66 ......... 87�....... .. 45 ......... .......... A........................Q.67:. Cheeks 1693 4821 2.85 1466 0.87 N/A 0.70 ».. z�.. 445Q .. . .. .. ., 1 z ..... . : 0.69:;::::::::;::::>:> >;.::>:>:: € . :... .... ..........::....:..... .::....... ::: .:::::::.:;:.;:;;:.;:.;::::.;::;.;; ,6 : Hillsborough 3233 .8599 2.66 2421 0.75 N/A 0.65 Rnrer... . ...: ....... .. ..::�76:......... 143 . .. ....: . :.ZS� :...... :443 ,.0?7 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 quartets. (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 Burchell,Ustokin,and Dolphin. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES- FY 1994-95 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET 31 1994 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION 102894 PERMANENT FTE % OF % OF POSITIONS FUNCTION POSITIONS SUBTOTAL TOTAL PER CAPITA GENERAL GOVERNMENT Commisaro nets.:. :; .... :;;»?::::::::.:::: :`::>;: >;:;:'.:::.::::,; >:;; >':':3.225: : 29. .::.. ..;:.: .: _: . ::<;:.. 0.15%.:. »::.0.00003.. Courts WA 0.00% 0.00% 0.00000 El actions:;;'. <:>:<:::'> .................:::::..: .::.::.;:.;;;::...;.;:.::.:.;:; :;•.«................ :.:,::..::::::......:..........::.:.:.. .:.....::... .........::::.: -1794..:.::.:..:::. .:.::.::.; 0,00003 Manager 8.000 7.27% 0.38% 0.00008 ...........:.....::::.:.... ...::.:.:::..: ..::::::..::... ,:.;.::.......: 7.000 6.3696;.:::::>: :::;;.>i.Q33% ::.:;:.:::.. ... .::...0.00007 .......... Budget 3.000 2.73% 0.14% 0.00003 :. ..........no .::::...:. . 5,000:.;:::;;:::.:>::..:..4.549f►. fk00005 ............................... Purchasing 3.000 2.73% 0.14% 0.00003 DatiLRriciosealn 9 ..::...:::::..:............::5.600' 5:0996:;:>;;:.;::;.;:::::::..0.27%.......................0.00005_: ............::::::::::.:::::::..::...........:...::::::::.:::.:::.............................. Central Services 3.000 2.73% 0.14% 0.00003 orON' .... ......:.......4:750.:. :`.:: >;::.;:;:;>::;:.;:::::<;: ::.::::::..:..::..::..::.::. ;;' :.;;::.;::.:.: .::::t..:..:....:.:::::.......:::.1:3.4096...:............:..:0,TO%..:...............:....::.:.0.00014. ::.:::::::..:::::.:.::::.............:::::::::::::::::.::.::::::::........ Tax Assessor 18.000 16.35% 0.85% 0.00017 Caiid°.Kato cfa !...` :s:;?:: <<> <`':>>:> <> >'> : < > ..€<'? ......< :: > :>: :> <:::.:: . .:::.::...:.:.::.................................................:....::... .::.. 7:000 _::::'.:"::::>:>'6: . .....................:........... ........................................................:.:...:.::...:............. 3896::;`>::>:> !.....::::..::::::.:::::.::::.::.. ..:.:..:.:.:.::::::::::.:::::.:::._:::.::::.:.::....:. Tax Collector 6.000 5.45% 0.28% 0.00006 rtttlRg:&fieEc1[ana..:.. 23.000 .20.89% :::.:::•:..:.::•adQ022 SUBTOTAL 110.075 100.00% 5.22% 0.00107 PUBLIC SAFETY :...:........::..:..::.....:.................................. ..............:.90250::::::><::::><: :»` :: > >:::> ::::>:>:::::::; ;::>::::>>:;<:;:: .......... o`iwoea:. .............................................................................................. ....... Domestic Violence 1.000 0.72% 0.05% 0.00001 Eme r9.. . !!.. ::;::.:.•;;,:;..::.::::::< :':::`'.c`>::;:34:23%. .::..22546:..::<:«:>::;<;<:;><;::<:::>:>:;(?00046: SUBTOTAL 138.750 100.00% 6.58% 0.00135 PUBLIC WORKS Buiidr a; "Q u" &. ro ..... ......................... ... . ..................................... .26 >:<':::»;.:>. :;::::;:.:.;.,.....:::.:..: ..............9........................::....::...........:............................:..:::::.:::::::::,:.:::::::::::::._:::....... .......88.00%:•;:;:..;.;::::.:::::.:.;;.:.1..3396::»::.<. ; .......................................................................................::............:.....:...:::::.......::.:. Other WA 0.00% 0.009A 0.00000 10.0096 :0.0000.x. Sanitation 17.000 34.00% 0.81% 0.00017 SUBTOTAL 50.000 100.00% 237% 0.00049 HUMAN SERVICES Soil: ....:.w.. Water:::>::::.:<::'»><:>::::::: :::>:::::«<::<:><:>::::.:«>::«::<:<:<:::::::>« ;;:::;: »::<»:::>;<:::;:::?:: 4 ;:::>::<:<::>:::»t. .. 0,00004 ::::::::::.:::::::.:::.:::::.....:...............................:.:.:::::.. .......... ............. .5896:...::.;:.;:;:;:.;:.;;:.;:.:G 1 96 ......r;<::;:;;:«<::>;»<::::: :...:.....::::.:..:.::::.::::::::::..::.:::::.:....::::::..::::::::::::::::.::.:.:::.:::.::,.:....................................... Economic Development 3.000 1.18% 0.14% 0.00003 {.:::. >: Sccta 9 ..::::.::...: . ............. ...............................:.::...:::.:..109..t.Of2 ` ;:::::>:::<::: . .00108 Health 72.075 28.45% 3.42% 0.00070 u[turai. g.:.:...:.:: ::::::.::::.:.::::.::............................9750:...::..:::.::.: E1000 : ........................................ Recreation 6 Parks 11.750 4.64% 0.56% 0.00011 ..................................................................... CAT 11250 4.44% 0.53% 0.00011 Comm iteton! Woirieiti';°>»:` `.: : :::< , ? ? :>: : >'.<'<:> <'::>:: " >< :;< »>:::;.:> is:>;`.s:':<>``><'`':::>::;;::.>:: :.:. ..........:....::::::::.. :.::.::.:.:...:.:::......:..:..:::::...::.:::::: :....::.:...::.:....::.2750...:::..:....::.: ]..099& • 0 y&%:>::>::::;;:::.>:;. .::::: :D,�i0003. ................................................................... .............:..:.:...:....... ......::::::::.::.:::..:....................................................... Library 9.100 3.59% 0.43% 0.00009 0.� 953 % .....hill SUBTOTAL 253.375 100.00% 12.02% 0.00246 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES- FY 1994-95 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET 32 (CONTINUED) 1994 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION - 102894 PERMANENT FTE % OF % OF POSITIONS FUNCTION POSITIONS SUBTOTAL TOTAL PER CAPITA EDUCATION :a ..::...Q...�an s Cou ..6: ..9:0... 0 .. . ......M <<: �..% :::>::::::.;;::. ;0.00602 Chapel Hil 936.410 60.20% 44.43% 0.00910 SUBTOTAL 1555.410 100.00% 73.80% 0.01512 FUND TOTAL 2107.610 100.00% 100.00% 0.02048 Source:FY 1994-95 Approved Budget,Orange County, N.C. GENERAL,FUND EXPENDITURES- FY 1994-95 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET 33 1994 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION 102894 % OF % OF PER CAPITA TYPE AMOUNT SUBTOTAL TOTAL EXPENSE GENERAL GOVERNMENT Corr..... skar►e ;: ::.:: $3f6,.506:......:::::: 4.84% ;;:.. : 0.5596.; ;..::::..,$3.08 Courts $15,000 0.23% 0.03% $0.15 ;>.<>:::,;.:.::;: T 568 3.33%::.::,.:. :.:. ........ :.. :.;.;.::::0.3896.::..:..........::::..........$211 Manager $544,747 8.34% 0.95% $5.29 .... .. ...... . Persorvsi:ii<( i,.. i::i+ J;:.:'ii:i:ii'.;: ::'.;:;::'::%` °:;;i:,. :::.: :.::.:.. ...... .::.;...;..:$40'2.004.:::.......... :.::`.6..... .....:..:.; Budget $157,661 2.41% 0.27% $1.53 Finance:;::>:>: ::::;<:::>::::>:;:.;::><:::;;.::>;:;::::;:>::::.>'::.;:::: ;>:.,. :.. 341 3.8996>:.::» :>::::;::::0. >::.::.:::.: ::._:;:::::;;::;:.::.>:.::_::.::.:.::::;:;;:.;:..;::;::::.;.;...>;;:::.;;:<:: :;;:. :.:::.:::.:....:::::... $254,......:........,..:.:::. ... $2.47 Purchasing $166,711 2.55% 0.29% $1.62 :::::•::..:::::..:.:::.:::::.::.:::::::.:::..::.:::.::::::::.:.::::.:..: . ....................:.::::....,:..:..........:....:....::..::..:.:.:.:::.::.:::.::..:::.:...:::.:...:.. .. Dexa Prdcssafn ;'.>::;::::><»:::::>.<.> ::>:>::>;:: ::>:::; >:; :::: :«:::>::>:::.<:::>>:> ;:>;:>:.:: , :::;<;:<:::;:: ...............:.. g..;;:.;::.::::;.;:::.:;;.:;;.;;.;;;.;:: ::,.:::.:::::.:.:.:.::::.;: $494.836.: 7.5796.:.:: ; ><::.:::..:.0.86%::.;:.::::.;.:;..:.::.:: ::.::::.. 81 ...... ............................................................::::::::::.:::...:.............:.. $654,644....:.........:::::10.02%::.::.:::::::::.:.:::1 14% :...::.:::.:..::.:.::..::::::::$6.36 Central SeNicea . ..... ...... .. . $62303T:..:..:::'>:' ::.:.9.54 ;,;.. •:.:.::;.:.,.....;:.::.:. :::.............................. .....:::.::::::.::::::::.:.::.....:::.:::::::::..:.::.....:::.:.:..::..:.:.::::::..::..:::.::::.......-:..,.:,.:;.............::1.089....... ..:.::::>:,>s::>; >::>56.06:: Tax Assessor $761,791 11.66% 1.32% $7.40 tea . o ::.. . .................:..:....:.... :.::...$363os :; ::;::: .::.. :<:::5;;s9 Tax Collector $318,585 4.88% 0.55% $3.10 ?'>Plartn .. :::.:.:.. ..,.:.$1,242;.192`:<:;:::.' :;;:::>:::>�>$12:07' SUBTOTAL $6,532,710 100.00% 1135% $63.49 PUBLIC SAFETY ;:. ::......:.:::.:>:;;:::.:::;:.;:. .:.:. ........:::::::.:.::: . 1.4 45 x6.3696»:: <: :;:;;> , Domestic Violence $39,354 0.62% 0.07% $0.38 Erne r9encY &`'.t19�878;::::'.::::::;:::: :.:_33:02963849fi $ 0.38: SUBTOTAL $6,3501,477 100.00% 11.03% $61.72 PUBLIC WORKS Buildki s &c#ro>: Other $167,435 6.11% 029% $1.63 3&;643.:: . . :..............:..:.::....:::::::::::::::::..::.::::::..::::.:.::::.::::.:..:::::.:::.:.::::.::::::.:::::. Sanitation $906,968 33.10% 1.58% $8.81 SUBTOTAL $2,739,666 100.00% 4.76% $26.63 HUMAN SERVICES oitNr ..;..........;;;:;:.:;;.;:.:;.::.::.::.:.:::• .:::.::::::::::::::.:.:.::::::... .:::::....: ... :..:....._:::..:.......:<.;;;;:.::;:;;:-:.:.;::-;...3096:.;;::.; Economic Dwsbpment $190,177 1.14% 0.33% $1.85 >; ........:.. ......:...... f�..::...:::.:...:::.16;5196........................:.....:..:!t:61: ...... .. Health $3,693,873 2223% 6.42% $35.90 rfc ....................................:..::::.::::.::::.::.::::::3 ,#^6.:... ::::.:::.............:::.::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::,..:::::::::::.:.......... ..:. �aR,Aecreation& Parks $564,896 3.400A 0.98% $5.49 . ..: :...<. .:. :..................... :....... ......:..5 .. 32496>;>:>` ' : ;:...:& ::.:::...::::::;::.:.:.:.. ..:.$6...:... CAT $423,034 255% 0.73% $4.11 >:rill♦.ioER<>.::°'::;.::•:;>:<»::::> '•>»<<<>:` > ` :< >>>< >`« >>`.`> `?> ;`':. .<>:;.:;,;;::.:;: <: :> ;> _<<:;;;-.�:<;;. ..GoE iAloR!sci. :::.:.:.:.:.:.. .21 :::::......::::..:.;.021%:::;::;:;::.>:.>:::<;:<:,:;::,:.;: 1g: LbrarY $441,711 266% 0.77% $429 DDott •:::.,x:;:27894;:.':.:?<`< ::G:8094;«';_>:: <:>;;'«::::;';':;:> .�i4.48, SUBTOTAL $16,618,148 100.00% 28.86% $16151 34 • GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES- FY 1994-95 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET (CONTINUED) 1994 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION 102894 % OF %OF PER CAPITA TYPE AMOUNT SUBTOTAL TOTAL EXPENSE EDUCATION Current Expense rd :::. ::.. :.: 12 Chapel Hill $12,083,243 53.59% 20.99% $117.43 Recurring Capital :29 e. ::.::..:::...........:...:..:.. ..........::..:..:...:,::..<,:.:::..57 ..00 ........:::..:.:;..... Chapel Hill $750,000 3.33% 1.30% $7.29 SUBTOTAL $22,547,841 100.00% 39.16% $219.14 NON—DEPARTMENTAL ,.:. ;:C'Data'bt�tlons:::.:..::::::::::::::.::::..:..::::................:,..:..:::.::,:::.:::::::::::::12:1:1:4,&?0:::::; Fund Tranlers $15,000 0.54% 0.03% $0.15 itifEiacaNeneous•:>;:;:::>:.::::>::>:::<:;;<:>;:::;:>;<::.;>:::;::;::::.;:;<.,,:.,>::::.::.:::::.::.::.::..:.....::..::::::::::.$6W'0i2............... . A : SUBTOTAL $2,787,882 100.00% 4.84% $27.09 FUND TOTAL 557,576,724 100.00% 100.00% $559.57 Source:FY 1994-95 Approved Budget,Orange County,N.C. 35 GENERAL FUND REVENUES - FY'1994-95 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET 11994 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION 1028941 % OF % OF PER CAPITA TYPE AMOUNT SUBTOTAL TOTAL REVENUE PROPERTY TAXES Curren: $40.767.790:.: 69.49 $ 11 ............... ........ ......................... .... ............ .................... Delinquent Taxes $500,000 121% 0.85% $4.86 .lrdejvd'6n Dolln !4Taes '­.. ... . 1..46 .............. cent axes.': :. ... ....... .... ............ Late Listings $0 0.00% 0.00% $0.00 ............... ........ .. ..... X­ ........ ::::Vshk;l*::UrtNna ........ $().()0 SUBTOTAL $41,407,790 100.00% 70.60% $402.43 OTHER LOCAL TAXES ............ ............. &ales;j!nd­ T .... .......................... .. .......................... ............................... ........ . 4 73 so ............ .. ...... ...... Privilege License Tax N/A 0.00% 0.00% $0.00 ............. ........................................... ....... ...... .... ... .......... J. ................................ .............................................. Animal Tax $104,000 237% 0.18% $1.01 SUBTOTAL $4,387,997 100.00% 7.48% $42.65 INTERGOVERNMENTAL ...... ....... .. ........ . . ... ............:.....'... .... ....... Z.40%000 ............._............. . ........... XXI. . .... ...............X. XX::-::X ..... k ........$ ......... . ........................ ......................................... ...... . ....... Beer&Wine Tax $168,727 1.86% 029% $1.64 .............. ......... ........................... . ..... ........... .........as . . ................................ ................... ....... ......... ........ ... ....... ...... .. . ..................... ..... .... . ... ...... ........... .... .......... ...................... Social Services $4,454,075 4920% 7.59% $43.29 ........... .. ....... . ............ ................. ....... ....... ............ ......... ....... . ........ ..... X xxxx X ............. ...................................... ......... .-I.............,........... Other State>: $838,616 926% 1.43% $8.15 ........................... ........ ....... ... ..... ....................... ............... $4.60: SUBTOTAL $9,053,572 100.00% 15.44% $8799 SERVICE CHARGES .............. .... .......... .... ....... .......... X ...... .. ... . ............... .......... ...... X w. ........ .... Land Records $0,800 0-99% 0.05% $026 .. ........... ... ............. . . .... ............... ........... ... ......... .. .. . .. ...... .:X. . ................... . ......... .Planning ..... ....... ....... ....... ... Sheriff $773,739 28.50% 1.32% $7.52 ................................... ........... ............. ....... ....... ............ ...... .......................... ........................ .......... .. .................... .... ......... X .............. .. . .. ............. ....... .. X .... . .. ............... ........... ........ .. APS Fees $4,000 0.15% 0.01% $0.04 .............. ...... ..... .-Hea ............ ............ :X ... .... ... . .. .... .:::::.:.:::::::::::::::::9796.:.::.::.::::::::::::.::.. Social Services ... ........... .. .. ............................. ......................................A.. ....... $38,000 . 1ACK. ... .. 0.06% ...... $0.7 37 . . . . ... . ..X ....... . . ..... ...... .... .... ............ .... ..M ..... .. .. ..... . ............. Recreation&Parks $78,980 291% 0.13% $0.77 aaC. -X, .................. Miscellaneous Charges $73,800 2.72% 0.13% $0.72 SUBTOTAL $2,715,167 100.00% 4.63% $2639 36 GENERAL FUND REVENUES - FY 1994-95 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET (CONTINUED) 1994 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION 102894 % OF % OF PER CAPITA TYPE AMOUNT SUBTOTAL TOTAL REVENUE MISCELLANEOUS :<; .:::;»<:..;:<:;<.::: ":t: 413 c 0.7796:<:..: >:.' ::> s;:: $4 37' ! c t. ::>:;:>::::>:::>:::»:::::;>::.;::::::.>:::.:.::.»:::..:..; .:: 5450,OQ0:.. . 196.:.....:...:::::::... rKe as 90.1N.:.;:::.;;:.;:,:::::::::::::::..::.:::::.:::.:::::.:::::.::.....:..:.:::.. :. Licenses&Permits $462,600 42.46% 0.79% $4.50 S 1.72 5176,816.:: :Z;:ir.i>:;':1 . SUBTOTAL $1,089,416 100.00% 1.86% $10.59 FUND TOTAL $58,653,942 100.00% 100.00% $570.04 Source:FY 1994-95 Approved Budget,Orange County,N.C. 5/15/95 PLA"14i 60AIZP Fi 140TCS D � LtU 37 b. Preliminary Plans ( 1) Eno Woods (35 Lots - Eno Township) Presentation by Emily Cameron. The property is located in Eno Township on the Durham County line at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cole Mill Road and Umstead Road. It is 95.6 acres in size, with approximately 83.4 acres located in Orange County. The parcel contains a 100-foot AT&T right-of-way and a 150-foot Duke Power right-of-way. AT&T has indicated its intent to reduce the 100-foot right-of-way to a 33-foot right-of-way. There are also three springs with spring houses and the remnants of what appears to be the old Cole Mill Road as shown on an 1891 survey of Orange County. Current zoning of the tract is Residential-1 and Lower Eno Protected Watershed. Adjacent land uses include low density residential, agriculture, and the Eno River State Park. Thirty-five (35) new residential lots are proposed that average 2 .55 acres in size. Each will be served by public roads and by individual wells and septic systems. The western portion of the site, especially the southwest corner, contains slopes that exceed fifteen percent. The soils in this area are shallow and may not be adequate for sewage disposal. Drainage ways as shown may also limit placement of septic systems, although stream buffers are not required. Access to the site will be provided by an entrance road joining Umstead Road in Durham County. Based on the total number of lots proposed and after examining surrounding development patterns, the Planning Staff has recommended that a right-of-way stubout be dedicated at the western boundary of the site following the southern lot line of lot 19 to allow a future connection to Pleasant Green Road when adjacent property is developed. The applicant has submitted an illustration of the proposed stubout. Construction of the stubout portion of the road is not required until adjacent property is 0 D a 38 subdivided and would then be the responsibility of the owner/developer of the adjacent tract. Cameron referred to a map which illustrates the location of another proposed subdivision on the east side of Pleasant Green Road (an attachment to these minutes on page ) which could provide the western end of the connecting road. Such a connection would improve access by the Eno Volunteer Fire Department and other emergency services while also allowing easier access to the west for subdivision residents. Agency comments were solicited on the proposed subdivision and the potential for a connector road between Pleasant Green -and Umstead Roads. The Durham District Office and the Graham District Office of the Department of Transportation divide responsibilities for design review, inspection, and maintenance of the subdivision roads at the county line. The roads must meet DOT specifications. Access to the proposed lots will be restricted to the new subdivision roads. Based on recommendations from Durham Transportation Planning and Orange County EMS, the Planning Staff proposes that the two cul-de-sacs on the north side of the entrance road, be joined to create an internal loop road. Such a connection will provide better access during emergencies. (Illustration an attachment to these minutes that shows how the loop may be accomplished) . Staff also had concerns with the configuration of lot 13. The proposed house site would be near the cul-de-sac on Laurel Creek Way, while the approved site for sewage disposal is approximately one quarter mile to the west at the northwest corner of the subdivision, across the AT&T and Duke Power rights-of-way. Staff recommends that lot 13 be deleted or recombined to achieve a more efficient and practical relationship between the proposed house site and the approved site for sewage disposal. The Concept Plan for Eno Woods was approved by the Planning Board in September 1994. The Planning Board's recommendation did not include the stubout requirement. The loop road was not considered with the Concept Plan; however, the proposed number of lots was not definite until the Preliminary Plan was prepared. 39' The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Eno Woods Subdivision with public roads constructed to State standards and the conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval (copy an attachment to these minutes on pages ) . Cameron presented a map prepared by Environmental Health Soil Scientist, Jerry Stimpson, which indicated the areas of suitable soils for septic systems. Brown asked about the number of off-site septic systems and the response was that none of the systems would be off-site. Brown continued that this did not seem to be very suitable soil for septic systems. Cameron responded that this was about average for Orange County. Brown asked why such maps are not provided for other subdivisions. Cameron responded that the map was prepared for this subdivision because of the number of steep slopes, drainageways, and irregular lot shapes to determine if the tract was more suitable for a cluster subdivision. It was determined, based on the soils map, that larger lots would be the best way to develop this subdivision rather than cluster. The map helps to realize how scattered the suitable soils are on this particular tract. Brown asked if the Board could continue to see such maps with future subdivisions. Cameron responded that such a request would have to be presented the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department. She noted that such maps involve a lot of work and are only done in special situations when more extensive evaluation is needed. Jerry Gambill, agent, expressed agreement with all of Staff's requirements except the requirement for the loop road. He noted that the original Concept Plan contained 42 lots. This has now become 34 lots due to locations of soils. He noted agreement to combine lots 12 and 13. Mr. Gambill continued that he felt the Preliminary Plan as proposed meets the Orange County ordinance requirements. He noted also that there are a number of cul-de-sacs throughout developments in Orange County. He requested that the Planning Board approve the plan as submitted with requirements as proposed by the Staff with the exception of making the two cul-de-sacs into a loop road. He noted the Sheriff's Department's D � � 40 support for cul-de-sacs and the feeling that more and faster moving traffic would be created by a loop road. He also expressed concern that this requirement for the loop road was not mentioned at the Concept Plan stage. Brown expressed concern with septic lines on easements and the responsibility for septic systems. Cameron responded explaining how septic lines may cross the power easement noting that Duke Power has provided guidelines regarding the allowable uses of such easements. Brown continued expressing concern with the responsibility for septic tanks location and maintenance. Willis clarified that there are no requirements from the Health Department that the septic system be close to a house, it is very likely, on large lots, that the septic system will be remote. This is not the same thing as a septic easement where disposal of effluent occurs on a different lot. Brown asked how one would know the location of the septic system. Willis responded that off- site systems are surveyed on the plat so the location is known; however, on-site systems are not surveyed on the plat. The owners, as well as the Health Department, keep records on the location. Brown continued expressing concern that future purchasers (second, third owners) would be unable to locate the system. Willis responded that information is usually found during the process of buying, the loan process and deed search. John Hartley, who installs septic tanks, stated that risers are now required for septic tanks. This makes the location very visible and the fields can be very easily seen from the riser. Jobsis expressed concern that River Park had been approved with more lots on a cul-de-sac than Eno Woods. She asked the rationale for the inconsistency. Cameron responded that EMS may not have reviewed River Park Subdivision yet. Willis noted that there are no specific provisions for the number of lots on a cul-de-sac. The concern of EMS is that all of the lots can be accessed in the event of an emergency. Topography, shape of the lot can affect the road system. She noted that it is somewhat a judgment call in trying to balance all the factors. c Q � � 41 Jobsis reiterated the fact that the topography makes this development more restrictive and it would be more difficult to build a loop road. Mr. Gambill emphasized locations of other subdivisions within the area that have cul-de- sacs. He felt what was being asked by the developer is not unreasonable. Price asked about the sewer lines for the backup system. Cameron responded that with average slopes, average soils, approximately ten thousand square feet is needed for the system and repair system for a three bedroom house. Reid asked about the size of the dwelling units noting that the number of bedrooms is the determining factor for the septic system. Cameron responded that Stimpson had indicated there were some marginal soils. The agent stated that the units would be four bedrooms with the exception of lots 9, 12, 13,&23 which may only accommodate three bedrooms. Price asked about the contour of the lines and expressed concern with proper drainage. Cameron responded that a system could be designed to pump to the field and gravity flow into the field rather than a low pressure system. Willis noted that the Health Department will not sign off on the final plat unless each lot is found to be adequate for the septic system. They certify on each plat that there is sufficient area for septic system and repair area. All of the concerns being expressed are addressed by the Environmental Health Department. Price continued asking about the natural springs on the property. Mr. Gambill responded that they are natural drainage areas. Cameron stated that they are not indicated as intermittent streams on USGS maps and do not require stream buffers. Katz asked if Eno State Park has reviewed and commented on this subdivision. Cameron responded that they were concerned with drainage from the site. Discussion with the Erosion Control . Supervisor had indicated the design meets the County Stormwater Management requirement by having larger lots and grass swales. Detention ponds would create more disturbance in the buffer areas. Mr. Gambill noted that the County Ordinance permits 26% impervious surface on this tract; however, there will only be 7% impervious © ®r, 42 surface. Katz asked about the fiscal impact analysis. Cameron responded this analysis is provided for any subdivision over ten ( 10) lots. Katz continued that he felt spreading the costs of Planning and Inspections over the entire county hurts rather than helps the analysis. Waddell agreed that it was an under-estimate. Ed Holloway, owner, asked why he was not informed at the Concept Plan stage about the road being a loop road rather than two cul-de-sacs. Reid also expressed concern about the road. He understood the reasoning, but, still felt it to be unclear. MOTION: Jobsis moved approval of the Preliminary Plan for Eno Woods Subdivision as presented by the Planning Staff excluding changing the cul-de- sacs to a loop road. Seconded by Allison. Howie expressed concern that a loop road would create more traffic. She felt the safety issue would be better addressed with the two cul-de- sacs. Brown asked if EMS's safety concern was the only reason that Staff recommended a loop road. Cameron responded that it made easier access and did not result in having people cut off during an emergency. Brown continued asking about the inconsistency referred to in Pleasant Green Woods. Willis responded that there were 102 lots on the original concept plan. Only one phase has been completed. The overall design included access onto another public road. Jobsis stated that there would always be issues between EMS and the Police/Sheriff's Department (EMS favoring the loops and Sheriff's Department favoring cul-de-sacs) . She felt it was legitimately a judgment call and even though she realized it is controversial, she would prefer the cul-de-sacs. Waddell stated he would be more comfortable with the cul-de-sacs if the connection to Pleasant Green Road was made. Jobsis responded that she felt the loop road would cause more traffic. Waddell noted that he felt the stubout to Pleasant Green Road was far into the future. Consequently, access to the subdivision will be through Durham County and take longer to reach 43 the residents. Waddell apologized for not recognizing the problem and raising the issue at the Concept Plan stage. Mr. Gambill referred to the two stubouts in Pleasant Green Woods. Willis responded that one of the stubouts will connect to Willett Road. Katz asked if evidence has been provided that either cul-de-sacs or loop roads are more safe. Waddell responded that, as a volunteer fireman, he was glad it was a public road and would be paved and that does mitigate the distance that it takes to get there but he did not know of any real evidence. There is a tradeoff. Price also expressed concern that emergency assistance would have to come through Durham County. Barrows expressed agreement with Jobsis that the amount of time gained in getting to the lots was not sufficient to require the developer to construct a loop road. Walters stated that conversation with the Sheriff's Department had indicated that their records clearly prove that they have much less trouble and fewer calls in areas where there are cul-de-sacs. VOTE: 9 in favor. 3 opposed - Waddell, Brown, Price - (All concerned with the safety issue) . (2) Stone Knoll (14 Lots - Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Emily Cameron. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the west side of Old NC 86 (SR 1009) southwest of Calvander in the University Lake Watershed portion of the Rural Buffer. The tract is zoned Rural Buffer and University Lake Protected Watershed. Adjacent land uses are agricultural and residential. The total acreage of the tract is 48.86 acres. The proposed subdivision consists of two adjacent lots of record as of 10/2/89. A recent Zoning Ordinance amendment allows the tracts to be combined for development, provided the resultant subdivided lots do not exceed the sum of the