HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-29-2012 APPROVED 8/21/2012
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
May 29, 2012
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at DSS Offices,
Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Alice
Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager
Michael Talbert, and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be
identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:, Vice Chair Larry Wright, Pete Hallenbeck, Mark
Marcoplos, H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Andrea Rohrbacher, Lisa Stuckey, Maxecine Mitchell, and
Tony Blake
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Rachel Phelps Hawkins,
Alan Campbell, and Johnny Randall
Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:04:05 PM.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Pelissier said that the Board needed to add a closed session for the following
purposes:
PER NCGS 143-318.11(a)...
(5) To establish, or to instruct the public body's staff or negotiating agents
concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the public body
in negotiating (i) the price and other material terms of a contract or
proposed contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase,
option, exchange, or lease; and (ii) the amount of compensation and
other material terms of an employment contract or proposed
employment contract.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee
to add the closed session as stated above.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Pelissier asked for the Board to approve adding an item at the end of the meeting
before going into closed session to appoint an Interim Tax Administrator.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to add an agenda item at the end of the meeting to appoint an Interim Tax
Administrator.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planning Board Vice Chair Larry Wright introduced this item.
1. Zoning Atlas Amendment and Class A Special Use Permit Modification - To review
an application to modify an existing Class A Special Use Permit governing the
development of the Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development by
removing a parcel from the project and rezoning it from PD-H-R1 (Planned Development
Housing Rural Residential) and RB (Rural Buffer) to RB (Rural Buffer). The property is
located off of Pathway Court, a private road.
Michael Harvey: This is a special use permit. At this time, all individuals that are seeking to
provide testimony have to be sworn.
Those who were speaking to this item were then sworn in.
Michael Harvey: I have been sworn. This item involves a request to review a modification to
an existing special use permit and the review of a general use rezoning application for lot 31 R in
the Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development. As you will note, in attachment 2
in your packets, Mr. Spence Dickinson is the owner of this property property that is currently
split-zoned Rural Buffer and Planned Development Housing rural Residential. I would like to
remind the Board that you have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation at your places for your
review. As indicated in the abstract, the property is currently split zoned and approximately two
acres is located within the boundary of the special use permit. The Heartwood at Blackwood
Mountain project is zoned Planned Development Housing Rural Residential and is directly
adjacent to existing camp/retreat center, also owned and operated by Mr. Dickenson. The other
portion of this property, which is two acres in area is to the north zoned Rural Buffer. It is not
and was not part of the original Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development. As
you will note from the abstract provided to you, at some point, Mr. Dickenson recombined this
tract of land (staff identified the portion of property zoned Planned Development) with this tract
of land (staff identified the portion of property zoned Rural Buffer), which technically constituted
a special use permit modification and should have been approved by the County at the time the
recombination occurred. This was done in the mid-90's. This proposal will correct that problem.
Ultimately, what Mr. Dickenson is requesting is lot 31 R in its entirety, this two-acre portion
currently zoned Rural Buffer, and this two-acre portion currently zoned PD-H-R1, be rezoned
totally to Rural Buffer and removed from the provisions of the Heartwood special use permit.
You will find a copy of the application in Attachment 1 of your abstract packet. As we indicated
in our abstract, as Mr. Dickenson argues the request is an attempt to address existing and long-
standing septic and development issues at the creative learning center, specifically the camp
retreat center operating to the east. Mr. Dickenson has been working with the current Planning
staff for several years to bring this particular parcel of property into compliance with the
provisions of the code. He is currently operating the retreat center on the property in
accordance with a previously issued Class B special use permit, issued by the Board of
Adjustment in 2008.
As indicated in the application and in this PowerPoint, the applicant only intends to recombine
the separate parcel with the adjacent camp property and construct the required septic system
and repair area for compliance not only with the special use permit, but the Orange County
Health Department.
This is a two-tiered process. The application involves a rezoning request changing the property
from PD-H-R1 and Rural Buffer to just Rural Buffer. That is a legislative decision. I will call the
Board's attention to Attachment 4 of your packet where staff has provided a chart outlining the
differences between legislative and a quasi-judicial, which is a special use permit process. We
also are looking at a modification of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with Section
2.7 inclusive of the Unified Development Ordinance. What Mr. Dickenson is modifying would be
to remove lot 31 R as it's currently shown on this map (staff identified the property on a map)
from the provisions and requirements of the special use permit. The decision on this
modification is rendered and based on the sworn testimony from the applicant, any supporters,
any detractors. The applicant still bears the burden of proof in order to determine whether or
not the request complies with the provisions of the code, the previously approved special use
permit and the required findings of fact. You will note from the abstract that staff's initial findings
are that the applicant has submitted all required documentation with this proposal, the request
does not appear to invalidate previously issued conditions or dimensional standards associated
with the Heartwood subdivision.
I will call your attention specifically to pages 2, 3 and 4 of your abstract where staff breaks down
the various provisions associated with the Heartwood special use permit. The removal of this
tract does not invalidate existing ratio standards or proposals for land use that Mr. Dickenson
had originally proposed for the Heartwoods project as approved by the County in the mid to late
80's. Finally, I will say that there are policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence
to the viability of this proposal.
What you are being asked to do tonight is receive the application, conduct the public hearing,
accept County Commissioner and Planning Board comments, refer the matter to the Planning
Board with a request that a recommendation be referred to the County Board of Commissioners
in time for your September 18th meeting, and that you adjourn the public hearing until this date
and time certain in order to receive the Planning Board recommendation. Mr. Dickenson, the
applicant is here this evening. If you have any other questions, I'd be more than happy to
answer them.
There were no questions from the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners.
Spence Dickenson: I have been sworn in. I have owned Spence's Farm since 1984, and I've
worked with over 10,000 children at the farm. I've made a significant difference in the people
that have been there for 15 years and even worked for me at this point. At some point we
looked at what to do to have the farm be legal, in compliance with everything. As a farm, it was
exempt from the Planning zoning. We have been trying to bring it all into compliance. The only
thing left at this point is the septic system. I have been turned down by the Health Department
as far as being able to find any septic system on Spence's Farm proper. I own the adjacent
land. Michael Harvey is of the mind that we couldn't go across the PDD to put it where we were
going to put it on the upper piece until we took it out of the special use.
Chris Lamb: My name is Chris Lamb, and I have been duly sworn in. I live in the Heartwood
community and know Spence well and drive by his farm every day. I do support resolving the
issue around the septic system. It's been going on for too long, it needs to be resolved. My
main concern with this change this piece of property will no longer be subject to our existing
covenants as well as the provisions of the special use permit. In the plans I see here and
potential interpretations of the special use permit and whoever may own that piece of property in
the future, I do not see enough protections of my property value rights. This property will now
extend that farm/camp/retreat into the Heartwood community. And while Spence has done a lot
to improve appearances of the farm with Heartwood, recently that's not been the history and it
might not be the history of future owners of that property. So I would like to see some sort of
protection where this piece of property can only be used for that septic field and no other
activities or services or hindrances into the farm so that we could still have this border that
protects the Heartwood community and the value of our properties for the many activities on the
farm. I think this plan really opens up a whole host of interpretations of what could be run on
that piece of property right next to our Heartwood homeowners and our pond. I would like to
see some type of extra specification be put in that it could be only be used for that septic system
and no other services or buildings or structures.
Michael Harvey: I will speak the best that I can to that. What the Board is essentially being
asked to do this evening is allow lot 31 R to be removed from the existing special use permit and
have it rezoned to Rural Buffer. Mr. Dickenson is not going to be able to develop the septic
system on the property until it goes back to the Orange County Board of Adjustment and
combines this parcel with the existing special use permit, where it will have to be reviewed and
approved at a public hearing. Mr. Dickenson will have to allow the Board of Adjustment to
develop findings of fact making the determination that the request is consistent with the various
general standards detailed within Section 2.7 as well as 5.3.2 of the Unified Development
Ordinance. He will also be required to maintain buffers as required by the ordinance in terms of
separation, the natural buffer separating this particular parcel of property from the Heartwood
development. There will be limitations imposed by the Board of Adjustment through that
process relating to the developability and use of the property consistent with existing standards
within the Ordinance. I think the concerns expressed this evening are more appropriately
addressed through the Class B Special Use Permitting review process, as Mr. Dickenson will
have to prove compliance with the various applicable standards including the required
landscaping separation buffers at that time. I will also state for the record here this evening,
Planning staff would not allow for a connector onto Pathway Court from the campy property.
The reason being is that this is a private road governed by a special use permit for the
Heartwood planned development. There is no guarantee of access from the farm because it is
not governed by the Heartwood special use permit and such an action would invalidate a
required buffer.
Commissioner Jacobs: I just want to ask Mr. Harvey if he could please make sure that Mr.
Lamb gets a notification of the Board of Adjustment meeting.
Michael Harvey: He will certainly, because he is within the 500 feet of the property boundary,
and as you know, we are required and obligated to send letters to everyone within 500 feet, so
he will be notified.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to receive the application, refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a
recommendation be returned to the Board of Commissioners for the September 18th regular
meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until September 18th in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. 2. Zoning Atlas Amendment—To review an application to rezone two parcels of property
approximately 1.71 acres in size from R-1 (Rural Residential) and NC-2 (Neighborhood
Commercial) to NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial). The properties are located on US 70 East.
Glenn Bowles from the Planning Department introduced this item. This rezoning was
property owner initiated. The two platted lots involved total 1.71 acres, 0.58 acres of which are
zoned R-1 and the remainder are zoned NC-2. Only the R-1 portion of the lots is affected.
Chair Pelissier said that she is curious how the County has zoning that does not match
up.
Michael Harvey said that this is indicative throughout the County. The Planning staff has
been trying to fix these instances. A lot of them are the result of previous interpretation of
former Planning staff and the former County Attorney.
Public Comment:
Michelle Kempinski said that she works with Southern Design and Engineering Services
and she is available to answer questions on the project.
Commissioner McKee verified that this rezoning would bring this property in compliance
with the current use.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee
to receive the proposal to amend the zoning atlas, refer the comments to the Planning Board
with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in
time for the August 21 st regular meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until August 21, 2012 in
order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and submitted written
comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. 3. Zoning Atlas Amendment—To review an application to rezone two parcels of property
approximately 2.11 acres in size from R-1 (Rural Residential) and NC-2 (Neighborhood
Commercial) to NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial). The properties are located on US 70 East.
Glenn Bowles introduced this item. This is property owner initiated. There are two
platted lots involved totaling 2.11 acres, 0.83 of which are zoned R-1 and the remainder of
which are zoned NC-2. Only the R-1 portion of the lots is affected.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
receive the proposal to amend the zoning atlas, refer the comments to the Planning Board with
a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for
the August 21St regular meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until August 21, 2012 in order to
receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
4.
5. 4. Class A Special Use Permit - To review and application for a Class A Special Use
Permit to develop a solar array/public utility station on 46 acres of a 122 acre parcel of property
located off of White Cross Road.
Michael Harvey presented this item.
The Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt swore in all of the parties that would speak to
this item.
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT OF A PUBLIC UTILITY— SOLAR ARRAY
PROPERTY INFORMATION
• PIN(s): 9748-34-9639.
• Size: 122 acres. Strata Solar is proposing to lease approximately 53 acres of the
property.
• Zoning : Agricultural Residential (AR). A portion of the property, is located within the
Haw River Protected Watershed Overlay District.
• Future Land Use Map Designation: Agricultural Residential
• Growth Management System Designation: Rural
Michael Harvey: The portion of the property north of the proposed development is not located
in a protected or critical watershed overlay district, meaning that there are no impervious
surface requirements. However, the applicant will be required to maintain identified and
protected stream buffers and will be required to submit a detailed erosion control and
stormwater management plans as currently required by the Unified Development Ordinance and
State law.
REQUEST:
• Erect approximately 960 individual solar array panels on a 53 acre portion of the subject
property.
• Typical array is 7 feet in height, with approximately 2 feet of ground clearance, and 47
feet in length.
• Arrays will be screened by existing vegetation and a 6 foot high chain link security fence,
topped with 3 strand barbed wire, shall enclose the perimeter of the array to prevent
access.
• Gravel paths/drives will be installed around these arrays in order to permit access by
Strata Solar technicians to service the panels. In certain areas there will be natural,
grass, paths depending on soil.
• Vehicular access to the site is restricted by a 24 foot access gate off of White Cross
Road.
• An overhead, medium voltage, power line will be installed on the north of the identified
leased area, adjacent to the existing mobile home park, allowing the proposed facility to
tie into the power grid.
SITE PLAN:
Michael Harvey: This is the copy of the site plan. Very quickly what I would like to do is sort of
identify, here are the individual arrays that we talked about (staff identified the arrays on a map).
This is an existing identified stream, and you will note from your abstract, Attachment 3, under
staff comments, we do have what is known as a Surface Water Identification where Orange
County Erosion Control staff have gone out and verified the location of the stream. Strata Solar
personnel have gone out and verified the location of the stream on the site plan, and the site
plan denotes the required stream buffer as detailed within Article 6 of our zoning, excuse me our
Unified Development Ordinance that will have to be left in a natural state. You will also note
that the site plan delineates required landscaped areas per the Unified Development Ordinance.
They are using what we is defined within Article 6 known as the Overhead Utility Option
landscape standard that would allow smaller trees in order to ensure that a taller tree would not
cast a shadow on the array, rendering it virtually useless. The site will be buffered, however, so
that it will not be visible from White Cross Road, but the trees will be managed so that they don't
interfere with the natural operation of the proposed array.
REQUIRED REVIEW:
Project involves the review of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of
Section 2.7 of the UDO.
• Decision is based on sworn testimony from applicant, supporters, and detractors
• Applicant bears the burden of proving compliance with the UDO
• Those in opposition to the project are required to submit evidence demonstrating project
does not comply.
STAFF INITIAL REVIEW:
• Applicant has submitted all documentation required for the review of a proposed utility
(i.e. required by Section 5.9.3)
• Applicant has submitted required documentation for a Class A Special Use Permit (i.e.
required by Section 2.7.3)
• There are policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence to the viability of the
proposal
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive the application,
2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments.
3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the September 18, 2012
BOCC regular meeting.
4. Adjourn the public hearing until September 18, 2012 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Beth Trehos: Manager and members of the County Commissioners, Mr. Vice Chair and
members of the Planning Board, my name is Beth Trehos, I'm the Attorney with Smith, Moore,
and Leatherwood. My address is 434 Fayetteville St., Raleigh, N. C. I am here today on behalf
of Strata Solar, who is the contract tenant of the project. As you've heard, they would like to
construct a solar array on 53 acres out of the 112-acre farm. As has been explained to you,
your process is a quasi-judicial one, which requires that we provide expert testimony to indicate
that we have met the findings of fact that are set out in your Unified Development Ordinance. In
the interest of not taking up too much of your time, we have put together affidavits of the experts
that we have brought to testify before you tonight. They will summarize the testimony provided
in those affidavits for you and of course answer any questions that you might have.
I must apologize to you, I misunderstood and thought that this initial hearing was just the Board
of County Commissioners and I thought I was arriving with an ample number of affidavits, and I
find now that I don't have quite enough and I apologize to you. Mr. Harvey has indicated that he
would be happy to include those in the Planning Board packet so that everybody can have a
copy. I do apologize.
Here with me tonight is engineer Phil Post of Philip Post and Associates, real estate appraiser
Rich Kirkland, and Lance Williams of Strata Solar, as well as Beth Bradshaw, who is a
representative of the family who owns the property. I will ask each of them to come forward and
share their testimony with you. I wonder if it might be appropriate at this time to pass up the
affidavits that we have and to ask that they be included in the record. I would of course ask that
the staff report and associated attachments be incorporated into the record. Is that acceptable
to the Board? It was answered yes. Thank you very much. So at this time I'll call Phil Post, our
engineer.
Phillip Post: Members of the Commissioners and members of the Planning Board, my name is
Phil Post. I reside in Chapel Hill. I've been properly sworn. I've been an engineer in Chapel
Hill for over 33 years. I'm really happy to be associated with the Bradshaw property, and
particularly this element of the development property. This is White Cross Road here. The
entire parcel is 122 acres. The Strata project will occupy about 53 acres. The Bradshaw Mobile
Acres is here, that will continue to operate as it has for residential purposes. The array will be in
this area. The stream buffers, these hashed areas represent the area of the stream buffer that
the County and we agree is the protected stream buffer area. The other piece that we have on
this is the Type E 75-foot buffer that we're proposing around the entire perimeter of the project.
It doesn't include of course the right-of-way. It does not include the power line; it's in addition to
that. I'll just point out a few features of our proposed plan here. There is one part of the
Bradshaw Mobile Acres; most of it is really heavy, nice, old hardwood. There is one area that is
sort of a lawn area, so we're going to have an alternative buffer right here. That's why there's a
discontinuation. We'll still have a Type E buffer, but it will be planted in a slightly different way
and a little more intense and narrow buffer.
Our proposed driveway is here. It will be a gravel drive directly opposite to the existing gravel
residential driveway on the opposite side of White Cross. There will be a small gravel area here
where the array materials and construction materials will be deposited as it's being erected.
That will be a permanent sort of parking area with the gate right here. As Michael has told you,
the array really rests off the ground, so underneath the array would be grass. It will really be a
grass field with the raised arrays on it. The only feature that is kind of different about it, is the
little square places right here, and I think there's five of them. There will be sort of some
electrical equipment that will gather the electricity that is generated by these solar panels so that
it can be converted from DC power to AC power, and then distributed back to Duke Power. I'm
really pleased to be associated with a project of this type because I think it provides so many
benefits to our County and particularly in advancing the environmental goals, not only of the
Board, but of the County Comprehensive Plan. There are many citizens in Orange County that
would like to see us be less dependent on fossil fuel and more dependent on sustainable
renewable energy. This is a project that will produce electricity and be able to support about
750 homes. My colleagues will explain a little bit more about the exact benefits that are derived
from this. I just want to point out that it will be a tremendous investment in the County and will
provide very little pressure or new addition to the County services. In other words, there won't
be any new school children, there won't be any new school buses, there's no new traffic, there's
no water needs, there's no sewer needs, there's no additional refuse removal, there's no need
for any emergency services. It provides a nice investment in the County with virtually no impact
on any County services. So I'd like to point that out as being not only an advancing our
environmental goals but also just being a nice positive addition to our County.
This application we believe meets all of the requirements of Section 2.7 of the UDO. We
therefore ask for your support. We further note the objective, the specific objectives in the
County Comprehensive Plan regarding sustainable energy and reduction of carbon footprint.
We believe that this project will take some giant steps in those directions. I'll stop there and
answer any questions.
Chair Pelissier: Yes, could you tell us a little bit more about the power line that would be
installed there and where are the other power lines that it's going to hook up to?
Phillip Post: Let me start with the power lines that it will hook up to. As you know, White Cross
Road municipal Duke Power lines are on the west side right here, along the edge of the right-of-
way. So that's the existing power line, the Duke Power line that's been there for many years.
The collection line that will be much, much smaller and it will be tied into these five west points
here that I've pointed out to you, will be underground wires that run to an overhead line that will
be right on our fence line. So it will not be in the green area, but it will be right along this area
here and it will tie into a Duke Power pole right there. So, it's inside the 75-foot type E buffer,
and it's inside our fence. It will be basically what we call single-phase lines where it will just
have two wires on a short pole. It will be fed by underground lines and feed into the Duke
Power line.
Commissioner Gordon: I just want to have you explain again about the trees along the road
that you're saying you cannot see.
Phillip Post: The 75-foot type E buffer will be composed of the existing vegetation. The only
penetration will be just our one single driveway right here. Otherwise, there will be no
disturbance of the 75-foot buffer. We believe that the buffer, which is composed of large trees,
we believe that the spacing of the vegetation will keep the arrays unseeable. It's much shorter
than even the shortest amount of vegetation.
Mark Marcoplos: Speaking about the issue of the view, it sounds like it is considered
undesirable to see.
Phillip Post: I haven't considered that. It's happens at our houses and our businesses and
they're pretty innocuous. These are low to the ground, seven feet high at the most, so they're
not gigantic things. They absorb the sunlight, so they don't reflect anything. Being very
innocuous, they don't create any noise or any humming. They are only working when the sun is
shining, and of course when the sun is down, there is absolutely nothing going on there.
Mark Marcoplos: It seems like there might even be some benefits for being able to see it a
little bit, for public education.
Phillip Post: I think that's true. I think it's an advantage for folks to know about what's
happening in the County.
Rich Kirland: My name is Rich Kirkland, I've been duly sworn in. I've been appraising in the
Triangle area for the last 16 years and grew up in the area. What I have found is that there is
no information out there that suggests any kind of negative impact. The standard criteria would
be any kind of noise, site detriment, any kind of odor, and there's nothing along those lines on
any of these properties associated with solar power. As far as the site goes, even if you could
see it, it looks remarkably similar to greenhouse type of uses, which don't have a negative
impact. To that end, around this property the uses are either agricultural, vacant land, and a
mobile home park.
Andrea Rohrbacher: I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time to ask this question, but the
plan talks about the power generator being sold to Duke Power. What if there were a future
purchase or acquisition with respect to Duke Power company and the new owner was no longer
interested in purchasing this power?What would happen?
Beth Trehos: One of the reasons that green energy like solar power is so attractive in this area
is that there are state law requirements that the energy companies contract with providers, so
there is an incentive for a company that would buy Duke Power to continue on. Also, we are
actively involved in the negotiations of a contract which would bind that.
Lance Williams: Hi, my name is Lance Williams, I'm in site development for Strata Solar. We
have a regulated power industry. There are regulations that require power companies to buy
power. We sell our power at a competitive rate of other sources of power. This model is to sign
a power purchase agreement for a 15-year term.
The construction process, I'll just tell you a little bit about that. We look for sites that don't have
more than a 7% grade. So basically, we come into the site and we install fence posts. They go
six to ten feet in the ground. Then we attach the solar panels. Then the wires run together and
we attach them into the power grid. So it is a very nonintrusive piece of the land. We're not
normally reshaping the way that the work goes off the property. Many people find this a very
compatible use to rural agricultural land. As mentioned before, they don't create a lot of noise.
There is not a lot of traffic. If there is a problem with the array, then we send someone to check
it out, so the amount of traffic we're creating is less than what would be created for a single
house. It is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan and it is also considered a public good by
both the state and the federal government. This site creates enough energy for about 748
houses. This equates to about the same as 2.8 million miles of vehicular traffic the amount of
savings in greenhouse emissions that is created by one solar panel.
Construction takes about 14 weeks, so, we're not intrusive to neighbors other than during the
construction period. Once again, we're not causing a large increase in cost to the County.
Thank you very much. We look forward to building a solar farm in Orange County. Since
Orange County is our home, we have strong ties to the site and I think this use fits very well into
the surrounding community.
Commissioner Jacobs: What is the life of one of these panels?
Lance Williams: Well, we haven't quite lived that long yet. The best guess is 50 to 60 years.
At the end of 25 years, the panel is at 85% capacity. The panels do not have moving parts, they
are not trackers, so they don't follow the sun. So it is a fairly old technology adopted in the 70's,
with silicone as the base material, which is some glass and basically dirt, so there's not a whole
lot there that could go wrong. The upkeep for one of these farms is small in comparison to other
utility projects.
Pete Hollenbeck: Do I understand this correctly that you're saying it is roughly a 6.3
megawatts setup.
Lance Williams: Yes, 6.38 megawatts is DC. Most people speak in terms of AC. This is 5
megawatts AC.
Pete Hollenbeck: And there are 960 individual solar panels. That would mean about 6.8
kilowatts per panel? Is that clusters of panels?
Lance Williams: An array is made up of individual panels. While there may be 960 arrays
there are somewhere between 26,000 and 27,000 panels. The panels are typically between
235-240 watts.
Pete Hollenbeck: So the 960 individual solar array panels means 960 clusters of groups of
individual panels?
Lance Williams: Yes. And the individual panel is about the size of a piece of plywood.
Pete Hollenbeck: And you mentioned that there would be grass underneath. How is that
maintained?
Lance Williams: That is sort of a work in progress. The story that we like to say and it's not
true in all seasons, is that normally there are sheep on farms, so during growing season there
are sheep grazing there. We do allow the shepherd to use the property to help keep the grass
down. We would work with the various grass types to figure out what the best low-growth grass
is for the area.
Pete Hollenbeck: The key concept here is that one way or another it is getting cut and the plan
is not to let it grow wild.
Lance Williams: That's the plan and the less we need out there, the less chance of somebody
damaging it.
Pete Hollenbeck: One last question. You said it's a single-phase power connection to Duke
Power? I have some issues with this and I think it would be very acceptable to come back to
the Planning Board after talking to Duke with greater detail. For 190 amps going into a single-
phase feed, I was surprised you could take that much in an imbalanced feed.
Lance Williams: We met with Duke on site today. We normally look for areas that have three-
phase lines. There's a three-phase line at the street and the substation is within a couple
hundred feet of the end of the property. So both three-phase lines are close to a substation to
help with those issues. I can't really answer whether the line coming off the array is single or
three-phased. Duke actually wants a 90-degree angle off the wire coming into the site, I think
they said about 120 feet.
Beth Trehos: In conclusion, we believe that we have met the burden of proof that is required of
us and we have provided substantial material to accomplish our task in demonstration
compliance with the findings of fact we were required to make. Thank you for your time.
Christen Smith: Good evening, my name is Christen Smith and I've been duly sworn. I am the
Director of Public Policy at the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. We wanted to
enthusiastically express our support for this project. We have a chance for economic
development, community improvement, and reputation building that comports with our
community's values and commitment to the environment and sustainability. This is a local
company that has put down roots here and has a great reputation at quality work throughout the
state and in the southeast. You have a great partner. Strata Solar won the 2012 Business of
the Year Award and has the Chamber's full trust and confidence. We are happy to comment
and encourage you to support this project. This is a local company creating local green jobs
with an economic impact and an increased use of renewables, showing again Orange County's
commitment to sustainability. This is also a movement towards developing solar as a potential
cluster??? in our economic development strategy. It is consistent with our expressed values of
our commitment to the environment, our commitment to people and jobs, and our commitment
to the economy. We are very excited to support this project.
Michael Harvey: I have a couple of closing remarks. I want to call the Board's attention to
Attachment 3, which contains various memorandum from departments indicating that they have
no issues or concerns with the proposed development. We also have a memorandum from
Orange County Health Department saying they have done reviews and have no issues. We
have not received any concerns from the Sheriff's Department, the fire department concerning
this site. Obviously, there will not be facilities, so again, there is no septic or well.
I'd like to remind the Board, as we have identified in your abstract, specifically on page 2, this
property is in a forest management plan. Meaning there is tree harvesting and replacing trees
throughout the property. Our goal at the Planning department is to continue to allow the family
to adequately farm their property while working with Strata Solar to preserve sufficient
landscape buffers. On page 3 of our abstract, we have outlined the various development
requirements associated with a Class A Special Use Permit. You will note specifically with
respect to Section 5.9.3 of the UDO we have found this project to be complaint. As I already
talked about, there will be a 75-foot managed landscape buffer and the trees will be managed
properly so that they don't create an adverse impact on the array but they still provide the
necessary visual obstruction. I'll conclude my remarks by saying the County staff has not been
provided any documents or comments or concerns from the adjacent property owners indicating
their lack of support for the project. The Planning Director's recommendation is to receive the
application, conduct the hearing, refer the matter to the Planning Board for their review and
comment, that you adjourn this public hearing to September 18th for a recommendation.
Commissioner Jacobs: On page 39, the letter from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, their recommendation is a 100 foot vegetative stream buffer on the property. I
don't recall what he said about the buffer on the stream.
Michael Harvey: It's going to observe the appropriate stream buffer as defined within Article 6
of our Unified Development Ordinance. You're going to have a 65-80-foot buffer depending on
the slope. So if I could call your attention to that too. This slide, Commissioner Jacobs, the
protected stream buffer is consistent with what is required within Article 6. The edge of the
leased area essentially is the center of the stream. The stream buffer is going to be preserved
and maintained. We would allow under the current guidelines for it to be maintained and to
replace the existing dead vegetation so that it does not cast a shadow on the array. Even the
forest management plan that the Bradshaw family is operating under falls under the
preservation and protection of the stream, so there will be trees necessarily harvested from the
stream buffer.
Commissioner Jacobs: So, this is what the Wildlife Resources Commission recommended?
Michael Harvey: Correct. And you will note, if I could call your attention to page 33, you have
the letter offered by Mr. Wesley Poole delineating the stream as part of the stream buffer.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to receive the application, refer the matter to the Planning Board to come back with a
recommendation for the September 18th meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until
September 18th in order to receive and accept the Planning Board recommendation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6.
7. 5. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas Amendments —To
continue review of government-initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Map of approximately 493.5 acres in the vicinity of the Interstate 85/US Highway 70 interchange
(in the vicinity of the Eno Economic Development District near the eastern county line) and to
change the zoning district of approximately 245.82 acres of property in the same but limited
general area. This item was continued to the May quarterly public hearing from the February 27,
2012 quarterly public hearing.
Craig Benedict introduced this item and made a PowerPoint presentation.
Agenda Item C.5
Eno Township and Economic Development Area
Land Use and Zoning Amendments
Contextual Plans and Agreements
1. 1981 Orange County Land Use Plan map (Durham's Urban Growth Boundary)
2. 1988-1993 Land Use Elements Updates
3. 1994 Land Use Plan Map Amendments to Economic Development
4. 1994-1996 Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
5. 1996-2001 Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement
(WASM P BA)
6. 2006-2009 Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan
7.a. Orange County/Durham County Utility Service Agreement (2011-2012)
b. BOCC Consensus to proceed with land use amendments to provide consistency with
Orange County Land Use and Durham City Urban Growth Boundary— November 2011
OUTREACH MEETING DATES
PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETINGS
FEBRUARY 22, 2012
and
APRIL 25, 2012 - Pictures
• Rail looking east from Mt. Herman
• Industrial opposite Mobile Home Acres
O Mt. Herman looking north, Caddy Shack on east side, 1-85 Overpass in the distance
O Mt. Herman looking south, 1-85 in background
O Stonegate MHP off Mt. Herman with Industrial Warehouse use across road
O dac Awnings opposite Stonegate MHP
O Old Hillsborough Road looking east; Whispering Pines on north and some residential
and undeveloped on South
O Old Hwy 10 from Mt. Herman looking west
O Old Hwy 10 from Mt. Herman looking east
O High Power Transmission Substation off of US 70
Eno Neighborhood Meeting
Citizen Comments
1. Stoney Creek Basin EDE-1 vs. EDE-2
The EDE-2 is suggested by staff because of the frontage along 1-85 and its
relative isolation between the interstate, Mt. Herman Church Road, railroad
tracks, and high voltage primary electric transmission lines. The opposite side
(east) of the road is also presently EDE-2. Also to the east is Existing
Commercial zoning (EC-5).
2. Resource Protection Areas (RPA)
RPAs are a layer of the land use plan and are still operational in the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) to protect environmental areas (i.e. stream buffers,
steep slopes, etc.).
3. What is light industrial; compare Orange County and Durham County?
The uses were discussed during the Eno EDD SAP meetings and comparability was
achieved. Uses are not of the higher impact industrial. List of specific uses were
added to webpage.
4. Why now public utilities?
This area has been noted as an urban growth land use since 1981 and reconfirmed
in 1994 and 2008. Recommendations in the Eno Small Area Plan suggested an
agreement with the City of Durham which was accomplished in January 2012.
Orange County is facilitating the proposed land use pattern since any one small or
large business could not afford to build infrastructure. Job growth is more important
than ever in designated areas. 84% of the county is rural and only 16% including
cities and along interstates is designated as Urban.
5. Annexation
These land use and zoning amendments do not create annexation programs. If a
new business or resident wants public water and sewer, they will sign a voluntary
annexation form and if the City of Durham decides the petition meets state law and is
fiscally feasible then it may be annexed. (See annexation monograph from City of
Durham)
6. Why are there two plans Orange County and City of Durham?
There are two land use plans (Orange County and City of Durham) and one zoning
plan (only Orange County). The area is within Orange County which has a land use
and zoning program. If a city also has an area of county within its future urban
growth boundary (UGB) then they also have a future land use plan map. Land use
comparability is key in these urban but non-extraterritorial jurisdictions (non-ETJ).
7. Mobile Home Parks
The northern mobile home park is being rezoned to EDE-2 which has frontage on I-
85. The southern mobile home park will remain Planned Development HR 4 zoning
since its approval contains special `Planned Development' conditions until such time
a different project is proposed. The future land use and existing zoning would allow
residential to remain and/or be upgraded.
O Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity (EDE-1)
EDE-1 Allows:
• Finance
• Government
• Services *
• Transportation
• Miscellaneous
• Residential
EDE-1 Doesn't Allow:
• Agricultural
• Construction
• Information
• Manufacturing, Assembly & Processing
• Recreation
• Wholesale Trade
EDE-2 Allows:
• Agricultural
• Construction
• Finance
• Government
• Manufacturing, Assembly & Processing
• Retail
• Services
• Transportation
• Wholesale Trade
EDE-2 Doesn't Allow:
• Information
• Recreation
• Residential
Recommendations
1. Receive the proposal to amend:
a. Land Use
b. Zoning
2. Conduct the Public Hearing and receive public, BOCC and Planning Board comments,
3. Refer the matter to Planning Board to be returned for BOCC action by September 6,
2012,
4. Adjourn the Public Hearing until September 6, 2012 to receive any written comments
between May 29, 2012 and Planning Board recommendation.
Commissioner Gordon asked why the County was doing the land use amendments and
the zoning amendments together.
Craig Benedict said that the UDO allows government-initiated amendments to have a
land use and zoning change together. Also, the differentiation between land use and zoning to
the general public is a nuance. For clarity, it is better to bring them forward together.
Public Comment:
Charles Gunter said that he has written a number of letters to the elected officials and
his concern with this matter. He said that he is not opposed to economic development. He has
owned a business for 31 years. This is a heavy construction business. He is concerned that
there are unintended consequences that can occur. He said that Stoney Creek from Gorilla
Materials runs through his property. He does not want to see the County make another mistake
by inviting other businesses that might also follow that same pattern. He asked the Board to
look at this further and to look at the effects that this one business is causing and consider how
other ones like that might affect the people there. He said that in the future it should be
proposed to the public differently. It should be explained and then the questions that should be
asked by the public should also be brought forward. He asked the County to do further
investigation on this.
Darcy Willson said that one of the things that concerns him is that some residential
areas have been removed and others have not. He said that this does not seem fair. He said
that he would like to be removed as well. He said that the negative financial and social impacts
to area residents are too great to allow this zoning change to move forward. He said that this
zoning change will greatly reduce the buffer between new non-residential development and
existing small residential properties. He said that by incorporating the small residential
properties, it will reduce the required buffers from the current 100 feet to as little as 25 feet. He
said that the tax value of the residential properties will go up and many people will be unable to
afford the increases. The areas affected by this change have a high percentage of affordable
housing. He said that the Eno economic Development District Small Area Plan states that
"development in the Eno Economic Development District is intended to occur under Orange
County development regulations with coordination with the City of Durham." The interlocal
agreement between Orange County and the City of Durham for construction and operation of
water and sewer facilities in the Eno Economic Development zone of Orange County does not
include provisions for this to occur. He said that it needs to be amended so that it complies with
the Eno Economic Development Small Area Plan regarding this matter.
Babette Brown lives in Weldon Ridge and her house backs up on Old NC 10. She said
that she is here to voice her concern about the proposed zoning changes. She said that they
moved here because of the rural character and the great school system. She is worried that the
entire character of the area will change, particularly on Old NC 10. She referred to the letter
from Ms. Kelsey, which the County Commissioners received. She said that she supports the
points on the character of the rural residential area. She said that this area does not seem to fit
with commercial development. She said that a lot of this seems to be requested to benefit one
or two large landowners. She said that there seems to be some space to do economic
development north of the railroad tracks. She asked about any legal implications for the County
if the property values decrease. She said that she wonders if Commissioner Yuhasz has a
conflict of interest because he also does work for the largest landowner, who was his largest
contributor. He said that one of his other contributors owns Cardesec, the business.
Jim Brown said that he agrees with his wife, Babette Brown. He made reference to the
access to 1-85 and NC 86 and said that this property has not been used. He made reference to
the impact of high speed rail, which will use the existing tracks. This rail will bisect EDD. He
asked if this has been taken into account.
Sarah Glass lives in Weldon Ridge also and has lived there for about a year. She spoke
about the rural character and the close proximity to places like RTP, Duke, Durham, etc. She
said that at the time the house backing up to Old NC 10 was not a big issue. She said that she
did call someone before they bought the house and was assured that there was not going to be
any changes happening around this area in the near future. She said that the Planning Board
has not been forthcoming with information. She said that the negative environmental impacts
need to be explored, especially the species of wildlife. One of the major issues that bother her
is that the proposed changes seem to be driven by some financial interests of a few landowners
in the area. She said that it is not equitable to allow one landowner to benefit at the cost of a lot
of the residents surrounding the area.
Oliver Glass (husband of previous speaker) spoke of the rural character of this
development. He said that the proposed amendments to the zoning and land designation will
take away all of the enjoyment living at Weldon Ridge and negatively impact the future of quality
of life of his family. Environmentally, the amendments will destroy the natural habitat of
numerous wildlife species.
Matthew Edwards also lives in Weldon Ridge. He thanked Craig Benedict and the
Planning Board for all of the work and for changing the zoning from ED-1 back to R-1.
However, he is concerned with the future land use change because it sets a permanent
precedent. He said that his family decided to move to this area because of the rural character.
Robin Jacobs is the Executive Director of the Eno River Association and an Orange
County resident. She came to represent the Eno River Association and herself. She applauded
the Planning staff for modifying the recommendations that were initially made to rezone
property. There are some proposed changes that she thinks are unnecessary. The area that is
proposed to be zoned EDE-2, the more intense zone, is right next to Stoney Creek. She made
reference to Attachment 7-c and said that it shows the boundary of the Stoney Creek Small
Area Plan. This property is in the small area plan for Stoney Creek and that is why it was not
included in the EDD when it was zoned several years ago. It was left out on purpose. She said
that the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan was strictly talking about residential development and
there was nothing about commercial development in there at all. One of the guidelines is
protection of natural terrain and features and sensitive ecological areas including Duke Forest,
wildlife corridors along Stoney Creek, and other identified natural areas. Another one of the
guidelines is protection of the character of existing neighborhoods from incompatible uses,
densities, and direction of growth not rural in character. She pointed out one of the bullets
under that, which says, "no new commercial development in the planning area." This is the
Stoney Creek Overlay area, which is now proposed to go from Rural Residential to EDE-2. She
said that, in reality, there is an agreement that can legally provide for water and sewer, but this
will be really expensive. It means that some developer will have to acquire enough property and
have big enough lands to run the lines all the way into this district, or the County will have to find
the money somewhere. She asked about the EDE-2 at the mobile home park and if that would
make the current use non-conforming.
Blythe Ardyson has lived on Mt. Herman Church Road on 13 years. She spoke about
the yellow area, C. She is also concerned about the dark purple areas, A, where commercial is
being brought into residential areas. She said that they moved into this area specifically
because of the rural residential character. She knew that there were commercial centers
nearby when she moved here, but this would change the nature of the neighborhood
tremendously and would hurt the quality of life. She said that her family bikes every weekday
around here and this commercial development would pose a danger. She said that there are
underutilized or not yet developed areas with easy interstate access that are very close by, such
as Waterstone.
Janet Arvik lives in Weldon Ridge. She said that this development has become special
in more ways than just being small. She said that it is a mixed age community that gets along
well with all of the neighbors. She asked the Board to please not commercialize the area.
Heidi Hackney lives in Weldon Ridge. She read a letter from the Crabtree builders. This
letter was sent to the County Commissioners prior to this meeting.
"On behalf of Crabtree Home Building, we would like to express our concerns regarding
the proposed zoning change along Old NC 10 and Orange County. Several years ago, we
chose to develop a small community that would complement the current character of Old NC 10
and would be important to the long-term land use plan and current zoning. The neighborhood is
called Weldon Ridge and consists of nine homes, each built on one-acre lots. Those would
purchased property in our neighborhood did so because they wished to live in a rural Orange
County neighborhood. The proposed zoning changes, which would allow numerous enterprises
to be established on this rural residential road are simply not consistent with the character of
Old NC 10 and will significantly compromise the charm and appeal of this part of the County.
As a homebuilder, we chose this area in part because of the current zoning and long-term land
use plan. If non-residential entities are allowed to be mixed among homes along this road, this
will seriously compromise home values and severely diminish the desire for future homebuyers
to purchase properties in this part of the County.
I would strongly suggest that the County Commissioners, in conjunction with the
Planning Board, retain the current long-term land use plan and current zoning for Old NC 10.
Sincerely,
Gail Crabtree"
Jon Arvik is a retired research scientist and a resident of Weldon Ridge. He said that he
and his wife hope this is their final home in rural Orange County. He said that this zoning
change will cause significant noise and air pollution. He said that the last 30 years of his career
included growth studies in urban, suburban, and rural areas, as well as environmental
management. This experience has led him to express his concerns. His primary concern is the
EDE-2 zoning. The commercial operations that will be permitted here will result in high rates of
particulate, which cause increases in cardiac and respiratory diseases. He is also concerned
about traffic, which could triple or quadruple.
Ray Hackney lives in Weldon Ridge. He said that he is concerned about the safety of
their children. In the neighborhood, there are seven children under the age of 8 and more on
the way. The proposed rezoning would bring businesses that could present some hazards for
their children. He urged the Board to reconsider these changes.
Chris Kelsey lives along Old NC 10. He spoke to Amendment#3. He said that this is a
beautiful, quiet, historic, rural residential road. He said that Craig Benedict has indicated that it
has been proposed by the Planning Department to retain the rural residential zoning along this
road. He wholeheartedly agreed with this decision. However, it is still proposed to change the
land use classification along Old NC 10 to EDE-2, which allows a number of non-residential
enterprises. This inconsistency will lead to future tension and discord. Furthermore, the
Durham long-term plan calls for the same area in yellow to be residential. This is a discrepancy
between the zoning, the land use plan, and Orange County's plan and the City of Durham's
plan. He said that EDE-1 would allow government, real estate, banking, and other commercial
enterprises to be added haphazardly among rural residential neighbors.
Christi Kelsey is a stay-at-home mom and she lives in Weldon Ridge. She has three of
the seven children mentioned before. She spoke against the zoning change in this rural
residential area. She said that she grew up in the city where she could easily walk to
commercial industry and she did not feel safe. She said that she moved to Orange County to
get away from this.
Emily Bane said that her mother is Dorothy Bane. She said that part of the property that
was removed in the yellow is her family's property and the other part was the mobile home park.
She said that the family is appreciative that the County values the property that her mother sold
that is Weldon Ridge. Her mother has been a wonderful steward of the property in that area
and she is a large landowner. She said that property that is changing, which is Mobile Acres 2
in the B section, does not belong to her mother. She said that this would not be a conflict of
interest. She said that she appreciates everything that Commissioner Yuhasz has done for
them as a surveyor and a friend. She said that the landowners in this area care deeply about
this area.
Kristen Smith is the Director of Public Policy and Member Engagement at Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. She is an Orange County resident. She said that she is
representing 1,100 local lawyers who employ about 80,000. She thanked the Board and
encouraged the County Commissioners to continue to strengthen the County's positioning on
availability for economic development, extending a real invitation to businesses to come and
grow in Orange. She said that they support the proposed rezoning and increasing the County's
commercial tax base, reducing the tax pressure on the homeowner, and retaining and recruiting
employers in Orange County, and increasing work opportunity for the children of the community.
She said that Orange County identified EDDs and locations for economic development over 25
years ago and today is the right time to take the steps needed to rezone them for that long plan
and much needed economic development opportunity, including job opportunities.
Jennifer Sharpe is a single mom and she pointed to where she lives on the map. She
works for the Orange County Health Department. She lives in her grandmother's house, which
was bought in 1965. She moved there in 2003. She said that she lives exactly halfway on Old
NC 10 and people turn around in her driveway. She said that she has done a lot of research to
oppose this rezoning and said that this road is rich in history.
Barbara Robertson said that she did not find out about this except through their neighbor
and they have lived in the neighborhood for 34 years. She spoke about sustainability and said
that the County should really be thinking about this. She spoke against the rezoning.
Laura Streitfield was representing the citizens of Preserve Rural Orange. She thanked
the staff for the maps because in the past she has found some of the proposed maps a little
confusing. She said that all of the residential properties should be reconsidered. She has a list
of 137 affected property owners. She said that 500 feet in a rural area is not very much in terms
of who is actually affected. She urged the staff to make sure that everyone that is affected is
contacted before reaching any kind of decision. She said that there needs to be a lot more
information about the purpose for these changes.
Todd Orr lives in Weldon Ridge neighborhood. Agreed with his neighbors about the
inconsistency between the land use plan and the zoning does not make sense. He requested
that the section in yellow be removed from the EDD area or create something else besides
EDE-1 or EDE-2. He said that there should be a residential land use plan.
Donna Underwood submitted a prepared statement:
"I am writing to respond to the rezoning of NC 10. We are a concerned family that lives
at 4010 Old NC 10. We are right beside the middle railroad tressel. We have twin 8 year old
girls and a 15 year old boy. Right now, the speed is 55 mph. I do not let the kids ride the bus,
letting off on the other side, the traffic coming over the hill would not be able to stop.
The road is already heavy with traffic, which is not wise to check mail from 3pm —7pm
daily. Now, there are more and more bicycles sharing the road and they are extremely narrow.
Many would have to be spent to widen the road and widening and raising the railroad tresses.
The schools here— New Hope Elementary, Stanback, and Cedar Ridge are our only
schools for this area. They are already crowded, so new ones will have to be built.
When I found out about the rezoning that Mrs. Bane wants approved, I became so
stressed with worry. We moved here 15 years to take advantage of the wonderful schools. The
traffic back then wasn't as bad.
I know Mrs. Bane has a lot of land and it would benefit her financially. She would break
her land into smaller pieces and sell. It would not benefit any of us. Thank you for reading my
letter since I had to work. Please consider the feelings and safety of the families that live in this
little neighborhood, unless Mrs. Bane is willing to pay for the new roads, tresses, and schools."
Commissioner Jacobs asked Craig Benedict to go back to slide 4 (a map of Eno EDD
Area Small Area Plan —Area Perspective). He said that it looks like continuous development
from Hillsborough to the Durham County line.
Craig Benedict said that this was a map that came out of the Eno Small Area Plan.
There has been a modification since then with the Strategic Growth Plan with Hillsborough. The
boundary has been contracted and the larger green area is a long-term interest area.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 23 and different intensities based on
EDE-1 and EDE-2. He asked about the asterisks next to "services."
Craig Benedict said that"services" means it is not commercial or retail. For example,
banks are in the services category.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the Eno EDD that was adopted after the small
area planning effort and asked how far west the EDD went.
Craig Benedict said that it was suggested to go out to the Stoney Creek Basin. It was
suggested by the small area plan that the area south of Old NC 10 switch to a soft economic
development zoning category.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 5 and said that he would like to see links
to the Eno EDD Small Area Plan, the Stoney Creek Basin study, and the City of Durham's
Urban Growth Plan that goes into Orange County.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would also like to see the meeting notes from
February 25th. Craig Benedict said that he would provide those.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the comments from citizens about the railroad
crossings and the non-conforming uses. He asked that these questions be answered in writing
when it is discussed by the Planning Board and the County Commissioners.
Craig Benedict said that he took notes during the public comment and he will provide the
answers during the Planning Board meeting.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he has worked on the NC 57 Small Area Plan, the
Hillsborough EDD, the Buckhorn EDD, and to some extent on the Eno EDD. He said that in
none of those cases did the County go in defiance of the people who lived in the area. He just
wanted to report this to the Board.
Commissioner McKee asked about road construction on Old NC 10 and Mt. Herman
Church Road. He said that he understood that this was a sight line improvement and a safety
issue. He does not think it has anything to do with potential development. He asked about
residential development in EDE-2.
Craig Benedict said that no new residential development could happen in EDE-2. Any
existing residential development such as the mobile home park would be a legal non-
conforming use.
Commissioner McKee asked about the impact of the high speed rail on the crossings.
He asked if these crossings would be closed.
Craig Benedict said that he would give formal responses at a later time.
Commissioner Gordon reiterated that she would like to have the links to the information
sources and the questions asked by the citizens should be answered formally.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the thinking for changing the zoning in these
residential areas.
Craig Benedict said that all through the Eno Economic Development Small Area Plan
and going back to the mid-80's, Area 2 was designated as a commercial, non-residential node.
For 30 years, those two areas have been intended for non-residential activity. It was actually
changed so that there could be mixed uses and residential development allowed.
Commissioner Gordon said that it would be helpful if some alternatives to the proposed
zoning are given for the Planning Board and the County Commissioners to consider, along with
the pros and cons.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that everyone needs to recognize that change will occur and
the alternative to changing some residential areas to commercial use is to maintain exactly the
same kind of residential to commercial tax base that the County currently has. This has been
damaging to the County's ability to provide the services that people want without having an
exceedingly high property tax rate. He said that the County is trying to get a handle on the
property tax rate that every resident of Orange County has to pay. In order to expand the
commercial tax base, the County needs to expand opportunities for commercial enterprises to
locate in the County.
Mark Marcoplos said that a couple of people mentioned that they thought the Planning
Board let them down a few years back and did not warn the citizens about things happening in
the neighborhood. He said that the Planning Board had the information when the staff brings it
at the appropriate time. He said that they only got this information a couple of months ago
before the last public hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
receive this proposal, refer the matter to the Planning Board to return to the Board of County
Commissioners for action by September 6, 2012 and adjourn the public hearing until September
6, 2012 in order to receive any written comments between now and the Planning Board
recommendation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8. 6. Zoning Atlas Amendment - To review government-initiated amendments to the Zoning
Atlas to apply the Special Flood Hazard Zoning Overlay District to portions of ten parcels located
in the vicinity of the Orange-Alamance county line. These parcels were affected by the
adjustment of the county line which became effective on January 1, 2012.
Planning staff Glenn Bowles made a PowerPoint presentation.
ZONING ATLAS (MAP) AMENDMENT
FROM: AGRICULTUREAL RESIDENTIAL (AR)
TO: AR WITH SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
BACKGROUND
• May 25, 2011 NC General Assembly session law transferred 65 parcels into Orange
County.
• November 2011 BOCC public hearing to zone the parcels to AR.
• Planning Department received information from the State Floodplain Mapping Program
that 10 of these properties contain floodplain.
Information
• Ten parcels containing 320 acres,
• 20.7 acres of Floodplain
• No structures involved
Mark Marcoplos left at 10:13PM.
Glenn Bowles said that an open house was held and the property owners that were
affected were invited. No one attended, however.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to refer this matter to the Planning Board asking for a recommendation to be returned to the
Board of County Commissioners in time for the August 21, 2012 meeting and adjourn the public
hearing until August 21, 2012 for final action.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9. 7. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments - To review government-
initiated amendments to the text of Article 3 of the UDO to revise various Dimensional and Ratio
Standards in commercial and industrial zoning districts if the district is applied to property located
in Commercial or Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Nodes, as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map contained in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Planner Perdita Holtz made a PowerPoint presentation.
Unified Development Ordinance
Proposed Text Amendments
(UDO/Zoning 2012-11)
Task
Propose amendments to the UDO that will allow for a greater intensity of property use in the
Commercial and Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Nodes.
- Existing ratios developed for areas that are not served by public water
and sewer systems and which are intended to remain rural.
Proposal
- This proposal is similar to the revisions made to the Economic
Development (ED) zoning districts earlier this year and to the 0/1 district
last year.
- Proposed ratios and height limits for the zoning districts applicable to
CTAN and CITAN areas are in keeping with similar ED zoning districts.
➢ Would allow for greater floor area (e.g., building with more square
feet) and less "open space" in Nodes.
- Other requirements of the UDO, including impervious surface limits, still
apply.
Simple Example
3 acre tract zoned Light Industrial (LI)
located in a CITAN
Current
FAR max = 0.20 = 26,136 s.f.
Height, max = 45 ft.
Open Space, min. = 0.80 = 104,544 s.f. (2.4 acres)
Pedestrian/Landscape, min = 0.20 = 26,135 s.f.
Proposed
FAR max = 0.60 = 78,408 s.f.
Height, max = 45 ft.
Open Space, min. = 0.45 = 58,806 s.f. (1.35 acres)
Pedestrian/Landscape, min = 0.05 = 6,534 s.f.
Recommendation
1. Receive the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance as detailed in
the abstract and attachments.
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
the proposed amendments.
3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the BOCC in time for the August 21, 2012 BOCC regular meeting.
4. Adjourn the public hearing until August 21, 2012 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Commissioner Jacobs asked how to coordinate traffic studies before a development is
proposed when the ultimate square footage is not known.
Perdita Holtz said that this would be done in conjunction with the developer, so the
square footage would be known.
Pete Hollenbeck said that buildings higher than two stories should have sprinklers,
because it can affect the fire district insurance rating.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
refer this amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to come back to the Board of
County Commissioners for the August 21, 2012 meeting and to adjourn the public hearing until
August 21, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any
submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Yuhasz to close the Quarterly Public Hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8. Resolution to Appoint Paul Laughton as Interim Tax Administrator(Added item)
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to approve a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to appoint Paul Laughton as interim
Tax Administrator.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
CLOSED SESSION:
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to go into closed session at 10:34 p.m. for the purposes of:
PER NCGS 143-318.11(a)
(5) To establish, or to instruct the public body's staff or negotiating agents
concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the public body in
negotiating (i) the price and other material terms of a contract or proposed
contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange, or
lease; and (ii) the amount of compensation and other material terms of an
employment contract or proposed employment contract.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION:
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to reconvene into regular session at 10:57 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
adjourn the meeting at 10:57 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
David Hunt
Deputy Clerk to the Board