HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-01-2015 - 5b 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 1 , 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-b
SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit— Solar Array off White Cross Road in Bingham
Township (Receipt of Planning Board Recommendation — No Additional Public
Comment or Testimony Allowed)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1 . Vicinity Map Patrick Mallett, Planner II, (919) 245-2577
2. July 1 , 2015 Planning Board Abstract Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, (919) 245-2597
3. Excerpt of Draft Minutes from the May 26, Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245-2592
2015 Quarterly Public Hearing
4. Excerpt of Approved Minutes from the
July 1 , 2015 Planning Board Meeting
5. Planning Board Recommended Findings
of Fact and Conditions of Approval
6. Letter from Applicant Accepting
Imposition of Recommended Conditions
7. Script for Acting on Findings of Fact
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a
decision on a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') application submitted by White Cross
Solar LLC and the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. William and Carol Byron, proposing the
development of a solar array in accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6
(C) So/arArray-Public Utility of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
The reconvening of this hearing is solely to receive the Planning Board recommendation and
any additional written evidence submitted since the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing.
This hearing is not intended to solicit additional input from the public or the applicant. While the
BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments from the public
or the applicant shall not be solicited.
As a reminder the review of this item is carried out in a quasi-judicial format. Decisions relating
to the approval or denial of SUP applications are based solely on the sworn testimony of all
parties involved with the case, both those for and against, as well as the review of competent
material and substantial evidence submitted during the public hearing. Hearsay or
unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing and
the July 1 , 2015 Planning Board meetings. Agenda materials for the Quarterly Public Hearing
can be viewed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/150526QPHKC.pdf
2
STAFF COMMENT. The following testimony/evidence was entered into the record at the
public hearing:
i. Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan,
presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing.
ii. Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the
UDO.
iii. Applicant sworn testimony from Ms. Beth Trahos, Mr. George Retschle, Mr.
Thomas Hester, Mr. Richard Kirkland, Mr. Richard Moretz, and Mr. Thomas
Cleveland, on how the project complies with the UDO.
The applicant entered copies of affidavits and a real estate report, completed
by Mr. Hester, into the record providing additional information on the project's
compliance with applicable standards.
iv. Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public.
During the hearing, the following comments/questions were posed concerning the application:
• Several BOCC members requested clarification on the proposed land use
buffer modifications:
RESPONSE: The applicant testified there would be an additional 15 feet of
buffer along the northern property line. This would include the preservation
of approximately 20 feet of existing foliage along the common property line
with the property to the north, which would be included within the proposed
land use buffer.
• A Planning Board member asked the applicant to clarify testimony related
to the fiscal impact analysis. Specifically to review the methodology used in
determining how the project would `maintain or enhance' the value of
contiguous property.
RESPONSE: Mr. Thomas Hester outlined the methodology and indicated
his report provided an assessment of existing property values near a
previously constructed solar facility within Orange County. Mr. Hester
indicated it was his professional opinion there was no evidence indicating
the development of this facility would impact adjacent property value.
It should be noted there was no competent material evidence or expert testimony entered
into the record demonstrating the project did not comply with the UDO. Minutes from the
public hearing are contained within Attachment 3.
Agenda materials from the July 1 , 2015 Planning Board meeting can be viewed at:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/Planning Board Agenda Packet July 2015.pdf. The abstract
and handouts from this meeting are contained in Attachment 2. Minutes from this meeting are
contained within Attachment 4.
Additional information, as contained within this abstract, will be entered into the record at the
September 1, 2015 regular meeting.
As testified to at the public hearing, the applicant is proposing to develop a solar facility on a 20
acre portion of the subject property with the remaining 15 acres being retained by the current
property owner. Proposed individual arrays shall be approximately 7 to 9 feet in height, with
3
approximately 2 to 3 feet of ground clearance, and 47 feet in length. Approximately 20 acres of the
site will be initially disturbed with 11 .5 acres containing the actual solar facility. A 6 foot high
chain link security fence, topped with 3 strand barbed wire, shall enclose the perimeter of the array to
prevent access and the array shall be surrounded by a Type D 50 foot wide landscaped buffer.
There shall be no business or other occupied office located on the property and vehicular access is
off of White Cross Road and shall be restricted via a 24 foot access gate.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.7.4 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
`cause an analysis to be made of the application' and pass that analysis on to the reviewing
body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following:
a. Application submittal requirements detailed within Section 2.7 of the UDO have been
satisfied.
b. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with respect to landscaping and buffering
requirements as detailed within Section 6.8 of the UDO.
c. Staff has made the determination that a formal Environmental Impact Statement would
not be required per Section 6.16 of the UDO.
d. The applicant has complied with specific development standards associated with the
development of a solar facility as detailed within Section 5.9.6 (C) of the UDO.
e. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal,
Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation, Orange County Health) indicate there
are no concerns associated with the request.
Please refer to Attachment 3 of the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing packet
(http://www.orangecountync.qov/150526QPHKC.pdf) for additional information.
f. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the various goals outlined within the
Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including:
a. Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 1: Energy conservation, sustainable use of
non-polluting renewable energy resources, efficient use of non-renewable energy
resources and clean air.
b. Objective AE-15: Foster participation in green energy programs such as
installation incentives for solar hot water/solar generation/solar tempering in
residential or commercial construction. The County should develop programs that
will link citizens and businesses with options for alternative and sustainable energy
sources.
c. Objective AG-8: Encourage the use and production of natural fuel alternatives to
petroleum based products and pursue new types of energy sources.
Planning Board Review: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its July 1 , 2015 regular
meeting(s) and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the SUP as well as the
imposition of several conditions associated with the development of the project.
Please refer to Attachment 5 for the Board's recommendations. Attachment 6 contains a letter
from the applicant accepting the imposition of the recommended conditions.
4
Planning Director's Recommendation: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.4 of the
UDO, the Planning Director recommends approval of the application subject to:
• Approval of the recommended Findings of Fact as detailed within Attachment 5,
• The imposition of the recommended conditions detailed within Attachment 5, and
• The BOCC's ability to make an affirmative finding on the general standards outlined
within Section 5.3.2 of the UDO.
Staff has provided a script denoting the cadence of review and action on the recommended
findings in Attachment 7.
Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) of the UDO,
evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning
Board's recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board
only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public
hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning
Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has determined the project would not require augmentation of
County budgetary outlays to support services and that anticipated revenues from property taxes
should supplement any increases in cost.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no specific Orange County Social Justice Goal impact
associated with this item.
Please note the review and required findings of fact associated with special use permits is
detailed within State law and the UDO. A finding that a project supports or in some way
contributes to the concept of Social Justice is not a required finding and cannot be a basis of
approval or denial.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1 . Receive the Planning Board's recommendation;
2. Close the public hearing;
3. Approve the Findings of Fact, and impose the recommended conditions, as detailed
within Attachment 5; and
4. Make a motion approving the Special Use Permit.
As a reminder there is a script to aid Board members in their deliberations of this request in
Attachment 7.
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
5
R9 I
y �G�
n I
Approximate location of array rn I
(illustrative purposes only) S 70
W I
I
NC54W � o
Q'
0
co
J
W
W
2
White Cross Recreation center
�O
5
V
SubjecropPerty
IN 9748-32-0786
o f 1
( .
Parce OLD GREENSBORO RDA
�4
PIN#: 9748320786 Q
CAROL B BYRON `
WILLIAM J BYRON Q
1606 WHITE CROSS RD Q
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516
+N 1 inch=294 feet
0
•�n �
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
05/11/2015
Attachment 2 6
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: July 1 , 2015
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit— Solar Array off White Cross Road in Bingham
Township
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1 . Vicinity Map Patrick Mallett, Planner II (919) 245-2577
2. Additional Correspondence/Evidence Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597
Submitted since May 26, 2015 Public Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2592
Hearing
3. Special Use Permit Findings of Fact
Under Separate Cover — Full Scale Copy of
Revised Site Plan
PURPOSE: To complete review of, and make a recommendation on, a Class A Special Use
Permit (hereafter `SUP') application proposing the development of a solar array in accordance
with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array-Public Utility of the
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
As a reminder the review of this item is carried out in a quasi-judicial format. Decisions relating
to the approval or denial of SUP applications are based solely on the sworn testimony of all
parties involved with the case, both those for and against, as well as the review of competent
material and substantial evidence submitted during the public hearing. Hearsay or
unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony.
CADENCE OF REVIEW: The review of a SUP is as follows:
• STEP ONE — NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The first step in the
review of an SUP application is a holding of a NIM to allow the applicant to meet with
local property owners to review the project.
STAFF COMMENT. The required NIM was held on April 9, 2015 from 5:30 p.m. to
7:30 p.m. in accordance with the UDO. The applicant held a second
neighborhood meeting on Thursday May 7, 2015 at the White Cross Recreation
Center.
• STEP TWO — PUBLIC HEARING: The next step in the review of an SUP application is
the holding of a public hearing to allow the applicant and other interested parties to
provide sworn testimony related to the proposal.
7
STAFF COMMENT. The required public hearing was held at the May 26, 2015
Quarterly Public Hearing where the following testimony/evidence was entered into
the record:
i. Staff abstract and attachments, including the actual SUP application,
Master Plan site plan, staff comments on the project, and copies of the
UDO and Comprehensive Plan.
ii. Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various
provisions of the UDO.
iii. Applicant sworn testimony from Mrs. Beth Trahos, Mr. George Retschle,
Mr. Thomas Hester, Mr. Richard Kirkland, Mr. Richard Moretz, and Mr.
Thomas Cleveland, on how the project complied with the UDO.
The applicant entered copies of affidavits and a real estate report,
completed by Mr. Hester, into the record providing additional information
on the project's compliance with applicable standards.
The applicant further testified they had been working to address an
adjacent property owner's questions and concerns as they relate to the
preservation of existing vegetation along a common property line.
During the hearing the applicant testified a private agreement had been
made with the adjacent property owner to the north for an additional buffer
width of 15' and the provision for an undisturbed area along the common
property line.
It should be noted this will become a requirement if the SUP is approved.
iv. Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public.
• STEP THREE — PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviews the request
and makes a recommendation on the project's compliance with specific development
standards (Section 5.9.6) and the general standards (Section 5.3.2 Special Uses) of the
UDO. Staff prepares a script to aid the Board in making required findings and denoting
the `evidence' utilized in rendering a decision as contained in Attachment 3.
STAFF COMMENT: This review will begin at the July 1 , 2015 regular meeting
where the Board will be asked to make a recommendation.
• STEP FOUR — DECISION: The BOCC will receive the Planning Board recommendation
as well as any other written evidence, deliberate, certify the record, close the public
hearing, and then render a final decision.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing where
staff indicated the applicant is proposing to develop a solar facility on a 20 acre portion of the subject
property with the remaining 15 acres being retained by the current property owner.
Proposed individual arrays shall be approximately 7 to 9 feet in height, with approximately 2 to 3 feet
of ground clearance, and 47 feet in length. Approximately 20 acres of the site will be initially
disturbed with 11 .5 acres containing the actual solar facility. A 6 foot high chain link security
fence, topped with 3 strand barbed wire, shall enclose the perimeter of the array to prevent access
and the array shall be surrounded by a Type D 50 foot wide landscaped buffer.
8
There shall be no business or other occupied office located on the property and vehicular access is
off of White Cross Road and shall be restricted via a 24 foot access gate.
Agenda materials from the Quarterly Public Hearing can be viewed at:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/150526QPHKC.pdf
During the hearing, the following comments/questions were posed concerning the application:
• Several BOCC members requested clarification on the proposed land use buffer
modifications:
RESPONSE: The applicant indicated there would be an additional 15 feet of buffer
width along the northern property line. This would include the preservation of
approximately 20 ft. of the exterior of the proposed land use buffer.
• A Planning Board member asked the applicant to clarify testimony related to the fiscal
impact analysis. Specifically to review the methodology used in determining how the
project would `maintain or enhance' the value of contiguous property.
RESPONSE: Mr. Thomas Hester outlined the methodology and indicated his
report even provided an assessment of existing property values near a previously
constructed solar facility within Orange County.
Mr. Hester indicated it was his professional opinion there was no evidence
indicating the development of this facility would impact adjacent property value.
• There were general comments from the BOCC and Planning Board members over the
construction of solar facilities in Orange County.
It should be noted no one from the public spoke at the hearing.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.7.4 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
`cause an analysis to be made of the application' and pass that analysis on to the reviewing
body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following:
a. Application submittal requirements detailed within Section 2.7 of the UDO have been
satisfied.
b. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with respect to landscaping and buffering
requirements as detailed within Section 6.8 of the UDO.
c. Staff has made the determination that a formal Environmental Impact Statement would
not be required per Section 6.16 of the UDO.
d. The applicant has complied with specific development standards associated with the
development of a solar facility as detailed within Section 5.9.6 (C) of the UDO.
e. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal, DEAPR,
Orange County Health) indicate there are no concerns associated with the request.
Please refer to Attachment 3 of the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing packet for
additional information.
f. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the various goals outlined within the
Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including:
9
a. Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 1: Energy conservation, sustainable use of
non-polluting renewable energy resources, efficient use of non-renewable energy
resources and clean air.
b. Objective AE-15: Foster participation in green energy programs such as
installation incentives for solar hot water/solar generation/solar tempering in
residential or commercial construction. The County should develop programs that
will link citizens and businesses with options for alternative and sustainable energy
sources.
c. Objective AG-8: Encourage the use and production of natural fuel alternatives to
petroleum based products and pursue new types of energy sources.
Planning Director's Recommendation: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.4 of the
UDO, the Planning Director recommends approval of the application subject to:
• Approval of the recommended Findings of Fact as detailed within Attachment 3,
• The imposition of the recommended conditions detailed within Attachment 3, and
• The Planning Board's and BOCC's ability to make an affirmative finding on the general
standards outlined within Section 5.3.2 of the UDO.
Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) of the UDO, the
BOCC has requested that the Planning Board recommendation be made available in time for
the September 1 , 2015 BOCC regular meeting. As a procedural note, additional comments on
the application must be submitted in writing to the Planning Board in order to become part of the
official record of these proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has determined the project would not require augmentation of
County budgetary outlays to support services and that anticipated revenues from property taxes
should supplement increases in cost.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1 . Deliberate as necessary,
2. Review the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval as contained in Attachment 3,
3. If deemed necessary, suggest additional conditions or modifications to the site plan, and
4. Make an affirmative recommendation to the BOCC regarding the Findings of Fact and
Conditions of Approval as detailed within Attachment 3 in time for the BOCC's September
1 , 2015 regular meeting.
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
10
R9 I
y �G�
n I
Approximate location of array rn I
(illustrative purposes only) S 70
W I
I
NC54W � o
Q'
0
co
J
W
W
2
White Cross Recreation center
�O
5
V
SubjecropPerty
IN 9748-32-0786
o f 1
( .
Parce 0121D GREENSBORO RDA
�4
PIN#: 9748320786 Q
CAROL B BYRON `
WILLIAM J BYRON Q
1606 WHITE CROSS RD Q
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516
+N 1 inch=294 feet
0
•�n �
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
05/11/2015
Attachment 2
North 11
Carolina
Department of Administration
Pat McCrory, Governor Bill Daughtridge, Jr., Secretary
June l., 2015
Mr. Mike Harvey
Orange County
Orange County Planning& Inspections Department
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough,North Carolina 27278
Re: SCH File 9 15-Em0000-0596; EA; Proposal is for the development of a solar facility on a
35.8 acre parcel located at 1606 Trite Cross Road (submitted pursuant to Orange County
SEPA ordinance)
Tear Mr. Harvey:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made in the review of this document. Because of the nature of the
comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review action on your part is
needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The attached comments
should be taken into consideration in project development.
Sincerely,
Cryst Best
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region J
Mailing Address: Telephone: (919)807-2425 Location Address:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax(919)733-9571 116 West Jones Street
Raleigh,NC 27699-1301 State Courier#51-01-00 Raleigh,North Carolina
e-mail statc.clearinghouse@doa.nc.gov
An Equal Opportunity/A rmative Action Employer
12
'
NCDENR
� NMh Carolina Department nf Environment GDM N8fUnl ReGOUR}eS
! Pat fAcCfory Donald R. van dor VaOrt
Governor Secretary
!
MEMORANDUM
�
'
| To: Crysta| Best
| StateC(emhnohuusm
From: Lyn Hardison
�
Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service
Environmental Assistance and Project Review Coordinator
HE� 15-0596
SCOPinE—Proposal is for the development of a solar facility on 35.8 parcel located at
1606 White Cross Road (Submitted pursuant to Orange County SEPA ordinance)
'
Orange County
| Dates May 29, 2OI5
/
The Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources has completed its review of the proposa|for the
�
referenced project. Based on the information provided, several of our agencies have identified permits
|
that may berequired. The agencies have offered some valuable guidance Tnbe performed prior to
application submittals and ground disturbance which will help to minimize impacts to the natural
resources, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources within and around the project area, The comments
' are attached for the applicant's review.
if the applicant has any questions pertaining to NCDENR permitting processes, please suggest to the
a pplicant to contact David Lee, Permit Assistance Coord inator, in the Depa rtrnent's Raleigh Regiona|
Office, (919)791-4200 for more permitting assistance, The proposed project'is located within his
geographic working territory.
Thank you for the opportunity torespond.
Attachments
1639�100endoeC�er3Raick���C�N ���G�
CustonmrSeM4�c TOFme>-8J7-62B'8J48\�momatwn�w*onc�*
13
r
V Norte Carolina Wildlife, Resources Commission ,
Gordon IV[yers, l xecutive Director'
MEMORANDUM
`1"O: Lyn Hardison, Environmental assistance and SEPA Coordinator
NCDENR Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Services
FROM: Shari L. Bryant, Western Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
DATE: 27 May 2015.
SUBJECT: Request for Review of Development Application for Solar-Facility Located Off White Cross
Road, Orange;County, DENIM.Project No. 15-0596
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission(NCWRC) have reviewed the
subject dOCUment and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our cornments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife,Coordination Act(48 Stat.40 t., as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667c), and North Carolina General Statutes(G,S. 113-131 et sect.).
White Crtass Solar, LLC proposes to construct a solar array on a 35.8 acre parcel on White Cross
Road, The facility will include photovoltaic cells ii-iounted on posts and two gravel parking spaces. The
facility will be fenced and area: beneath the solar panels will be planted with grass or alfalfa. Erosion control
measures and -environmental buffers will be maintained and the site will comply with County stormwater
regulations. Utility and transmission lines will be placed undergmmd to the extent feasible, Electricity
generated by the faeility wilt to be sold to Duke Energy.
Wildcat Branch, a tributary to Collins Creek in the Cape Fear River basin flows along the eastern
boundary of the site. In addition, there is a wetland located adjacent to the stream channel. The southern
portion of the site strains to Terrells(Ferrells)Creek, There are records for the federal species of conctrn and
state endangered brook floater-(Alasmidonto varicrosa):in Collins Creek. According to Sheet C1001,the site is
p€-irnarfly forested,, and a minimu€n 65-foot riparian buffer will be maintained along the stream,
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently listed the Northern long;-eared hat (AS yotrs sepenlrionalis)
as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Northern long-eared bat may be present within or in the
vicinity of the project site. Th.crefore,the project may impact this species and consultation with the U.S. fish
and Wildlife Service may be required. For more information, please see.
ltttp' �tG��« fry . � 1� i�l.te�t.17 !<r€ ucl nnItlul `i;It1�rlrt� In� �ITIcti�'(:L 13,}ttcTLl or contact the U.S.
Irish and Wildlife Service at(919) 856-4520 to ensure that any issues related to this species are addressed.
Mailing Andress: Division of Inland Fisheries - I721 Mail Service Center A Raleigh,NC 27699-1721
Telephone: (919) 707-0220 - Fax: (919) 707-002.8
14
27 May 201.5
While Cross Road Solar F'aciiity
DENR Prgjec.t.No. 15-0596
We.offer the following general recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife resources.
1. Wetlands and streams within the site boundaries should he identified through orh-site survey's prior to
any land disturbing activities, If wetlands and/or streams will be impacted by construction activities,
then the project:should be coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C, Division
Of Water Resources.
2. Maintain or establish a minimuin 100-1700t undisturbed, native,forested buffer along each side of
perennial strearns and 50-foot undisturbed, native forested buffer aiong each side of intermittent
streahhhs and wetlands. Forested riparian buffets provide habitat areas for aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife species and travel corridors for terrestrial wildlife. In addition, forested riparian buffers
protect water quality by stabilizing streanh banks and filtering;storn1water runoff.
3. Avoid or'mininhize impacts to wetlands during constr trctian. in addition to providing wildlife habitat,
wetland areas perform important functions of f food control and water gUalityT protection. Temporarily
disturbed wetland areas should be returned to original soils and contours, and reseeded witch annual.
small grains appropriate for the season (e.o, oats, millet, rye, or wheat) and should be allowed to revert
to natural wetland vegetation.
4. if additional overhead transmission lines will be installed,then measures to minimize impacts to birds
should be implemented, These can include increasing line visibility, insulating; wires to cover exposed
connections, and increasing the distance between wires so no contact with ground or other energized
wire can be made. For more information See httP ew fws.>ovlbirclsklocun to.nt_/no vo lines,,jid I:m
5, Consider-establishing vegetative cover on the site that is beneficial to to kvildhfe such as native warm
season -grasses, We refer the rhpplieant to Jason Alien,'District Wildlife Biologist,at(330)524-9801
€ rlc LrfL,.,t�Fi for information on developing a site-specific vegetation plan.
or c1.5or 3 ch ilrr(.d rh(�3
6, If pesticides or chenhicals will be Lised for site maintenance, then stormwater runoff frorn the site
should be directed to bio-retention areas prior to discharge to streams or wetlands to provide additional
protection for eater quality and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife/habitats,
7. Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land cimiring or construction.
The use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or oiler products should have loose-weave netting that is
Whack of natural fiber materials with.movable joints between the vertical and horizontal twines. Silt
Fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it impedes the
movement of terrestrial wildlife species. These measures should be routinely inspected and properly.
maintained. Excessive silt and sedirnent loads can have nunherous detrimental effects on.aquatic
resources including destruction of spawning habitat,suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of
aquatic species.
'['hank you for the opportunity to comment on this prgiect. If we can be of further assistance, please
contact our office at(336)449-7625 or sh iii_hr 4ta.�li tr roc a ildlit'c:.o ,
cc: Kathy Matthews, USF WS
Jason Allen, NCWRC
15
_... ... ... _... .... .......................................................__ .............. _ __.........
,
�
North Carolina Department OfEnvironment and Natural Resources
�
Rat McCrory Donald R. van der V8ar\
GoWImn| Secretary
�
Date: May ZZ, 1015
' To: Linda Culpepper, Director
Division of Waste Management
Through: Jim Bateson, 5operfumJ Section Chief /
From: Pete Domrn' Special Remediahon Branch Head
Subject: SEP4Project#15'O59b, Proposed Construction ofa Solar Array-Public UtiU�y,
Orange County, North Carolina
�
�
The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of CERCLIS and other sites under their
jurisdiction to the proposed site of so|ararnay'pub|ic utility in Orange County.The proposed
project involves the construction of a solar energy facdity on a 35.8 acre parcel of property at 1606
White Cross Road in Orange County.
No sites were identified within a l-rnUe radius ofthe proposed project. Please contact me at
9I9.707.8369 |f you have any questions.
'
1646 klail8mnoe C*Ner.RmIE��Kjh Non CaroNmM9�,--164&
Pho� @13�0 D�OVn�mo ��/�uoun�mmu��e�mm
;
� 16
l
............................... _ __.____ _ .... ........... .... ............___-___-_'__-- _ _ _- ......
__'-___
A.`
NCDENR
'
North Carolina Department Of Environment and Natural Resources
` Pa(kACC[Vry Donald R van der Va6M
�
Governor Secretary
`
`
'
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 13. 2015
TO: Linda Culpepper, Division Directoi' thmughKathleen Lance
FROM: [}ob Aja. Western District Supervisor ' Solid WuNc S:odou
o
K� SEPA Review ProJect 4-15'0596, Orange County, N.C.
�
White Cross Sn|u� L.bC Solar FmoUby
v � cnuo�u! Review d�oum�nt0orth� proposed solar Solid Waste Section m
| u Tay Public utility onu3S.8 acre parcel n7 property off o{White Cross Road in QmogcC000Ly,
|
�
North Carolina. The review has been completed and has seen no adverse irupwu(oo the surrounding
� cuomnmu11i1yand likewise koov/x of no situations in the conomunity, which would ufilectthio project
� Umonu solid waste perspective.
|
During C01IStmdiOn,{he applicant Should make every feasible effort to nainbnize \he generation of
� waste, to nzycio materials for which viable markets exist, and N use recycled modmctx and
materials io the development of this project where suitable. Any waste generated by this project
that cannot be beneficially,reused or recycled must be disposed of at a solid waste management
facility upprnvod |o manage the ros p�ctivuwa��t�p�� Tl�u ��o�iomabnou]yroconunueods that any
contractors are required 1oprovide proof nfproperdisposal hn at] waste generated ax part ofthe
�
project. The nuormxipconidmd ±aoUitieu to the p jootnrm the Drauoc County C&U Landfill,
Chapel Hill, the Waste Mmnogenoeol- ChadhunnCooutyTrunmferStatioo, Si|er City, the Stone
Court Park Transfer Station, Z)urbuzu, and the Chv of Durham Transfer Station, Durham. North
Carolina. Additional solid waste facility information for solid waste facilities may be found on the
Solid VYum1e Section portal site at: 6ttp- %v!lUs lv/facilitvUxt.
P|caxu contact Mr. John Pu1rone, Environmental Senior Specialist, for with unyqueStiOnn regarding
'
solid waste management, Mr. Putrooc may bc reached m1 (336)-77b'Y67g.
Cu: Jason Watkins, Field Operations Branch }|cud
John Votrone, Environmental Senior Specialist
Sarah VLixc, Compliance Officer
Dennis Shackelford, Eastern District Supervisor
2090 VSP,�hwav70.Sviawoonoo.Nnm�Carol�na20778
Phone 828'2984500\FAX 828'2919-/O43 |mpJpoxa!n�oomrg��mwm
17
A*A
NCDENR
North Gal-olina Department of Environment and Natural ReSOtlrces
Pad McC;tory Donald R. v @n der Vaat!
overrio! Secretary
Mav 22, 2015
To: Linda Culpepper, I)ir°ector
Division of Waste-Management
From: Jenny Patterson, Eastern Region Supervisor, Compliance Branch
Hazardous Waste Section
Subicel: Hazardous Waste Section Comments on White Cross Solar Array Construction(Orange County)
Project Number: l�-0596
The I-lazardous Waste Section (l-IWS) has reviewed tine subject Scoping Request for the proposed presject.
which consists of'the development:of a solar facility on a 35.8 acre pareel located at 1606 White Crass Road in
Chap;l Hill, NC in Orange County.
Any hazardous waste generated from the construction, maintenance, and/or remediation (e.g. excavated soil)
front the proposed project must be managed in accordance with the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Rules.
The construction., maintenance, and remediation activities conducted will most likely generate a solid waste, and
the facility mist determine if the waste is a hazardous waste. lt`the project site generates more than 22{t pounds
of hazt rdours .waste in a calendar month, the If?WS must he notified,ed, and the site must comply with the small
quantity generator requirements. If a project site generates rrtor•e than 2200 pounds of hazardous waste in a
calendar month, the IIWS rrusf be notified, and the facility niust comply with the lai quantity generator
requirements.
The proposed project site does not currently have an EPA Identification number for hazardous waste generation
assigned to the property. 'There are no active hazardous waste generators located within 2000 feet of the
proposed project area in Chapel Hill, NC.
This review doses not preclude the possibility of historical waste management activities at this site that may have
contributed to contamination Unknown to this office.
Should any questions arise, please contact me at 336-767-0031.
fob mar' N`cr+.t:%lydin8`W 7 nc,1-1546
PI�'JE?F'��',�'•��-��".)�'.IGtr,°?El£::tis.1�`'..i?Ofi�IIS.�CVf`:uwlJr`tlrrr
i p.
18
NCDENPv
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
'at McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
May 26, 2415
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lyn Hardison, Environmental Assistance Coordinator
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM: Harold Brady, SEPA Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: Seeping—Proposed White Cross Road Solar facility
DENR# 1.5-0596
Thank you for providing the Division of Water Resources (DWR) an opportunity to provide
comments regarding the proposed development of a solar facility on a 35.8-acre parcel located
at 1606 White Cross Road in Orange County. Scoping conducted pursuant to Orange County
SEPA ordinance.
DWR has no objection to the proposed project, but offer the following comments from Danny
Smith ((919) 791-4252)of the Raleigh Regional Office;
1. A project that disturbs 1 acre or greater is required to secure an erosion and sedimentation
control plan and must comply with construction stormwat.er permit conditions(NCG010000).
2. The project is in the Cape rear basin (tributary to Wildcat Branch Water Supply IV- NSW),
3. If stream,wetland or riparian buffer impacts are proposed,this project will need to comply
with/secure a 404 permit from the USACE,obtain a 401 Water Quality Certification and/or
secure a riparian buffer authorization. Project is within the Jordan Labe Watershed and will need
to comply with Jordan Lake buffer rules if Impacts to buffers occur.
If you have any questions about this comment, please contact me at (919) 707-9005 or
harold m.,brady @ nccJ�ov. Thank you.
160 A;ii Senile"'enter, ?8ie1r`,r.,Nk)iih Carolina 2760;L1601
;j7_F60; . ,if,I£.'fi;£iC'.'1'1'::i?l,r1CC'.Eflf.q V
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office: RRO
19
Department of El nviromnem and Natural Resources
'A'L R F -Prqject Number 15-0596 . Due Date:,5/2,5/2015,
INTL,RGOVERNIVIEN'T ;VIE,W,-�PROTFCl'-COMiAI,117,,NT,�fS
County ORANGE
Allier vcMcw of ibis projmt a..has been clocrinined that the EN It licimit(s)ancVorapprovals indicated may riccd to be obtained in order for this project to comirly with
North Carolina Ultv.Quvslions rcgardjmg these pens its should he addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse ofthe k)mi.Ali applications,information
and guidelines relative tot these pLim and ficimits ive available(ron)the same Regional Office.
Norma!Process"fibre
PERMITS
SPCC[f.APP[JCtV1'K)N, PROCEDURES or REQUIRENIFNTS (stamlory time limit)
11crink,io coiistruri&operate waszewaler facilities,
Applica(ioTi 90 days.before 6cgin consiruction of-award of cousiruction 30 days
,cwc,systein emcmiorts&qckve syswmq not discharging
contracts Oil-site mspcciion�Poil-applie'lli(ITI technical Conference ti.qual. (90 days)
into slate surface wal��m
Nl')VS-permiL to dischuge vo siirface wam andfot- Applicalk)I IS0 dilys K'Iorc be"M a0ijVily.()FI-9iC h)SjCC00Dr I'm-
application coni'mace astrat.Additionally,obtain permit to cointruel 90-1_0(lays
El pcimii to gate and conmict tvasiewater facilities
wastewaler Ircainicot faciliTy-gramed after NJ IDES.Reply time,30 days alierg (NYA)
discharging into state sorfiac wxcvs
receipt ofplans or issue or NPD[-'S pmnit-whichever is later
30 days
Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference irstially necessary
(NTIA)
Wet I construcl ion pelmlit.
Coarp4ew application must be ioceived and Ivi-nin issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. {IS days)
Application copy musr be served on cach adjacent riparian property ownet".
On-site inspection.Pro-applicator coriltrence usual.Filling may Te(JUITe 55 days
I)redgeall(I Fill 11crildi
Hasonlom to FM from N.C..I)CI)XIIII011.of Adir ini5iralion and 190 days)
Federal Drozige and Fill Permit.
ApplicaOon must be submitted and permit reccked prior to
Permit it)construe! opera.te Air Flolludon Abatemmu constroction and operation ofth��source. 11'a perrtiji is rcqu;red in at,,
lkilitit�sand!or Fmission Sonrices,as per 15 A NCAC 90 days
area withoul local mning,then are addilionul and
1hru 2Q,0300)
timelines(2Q,01333.
ITIM&Qpt;ate]lansport"'lion Fa6lity a",pci Application must be 3Libnlit'Od W least 90 days I)rI01 to COMUTIClioll
El 1151��Aln'�to cons 90 days
NCAC(2 D.0800,2Q,(1601 or modification of source.
Airy open huming associated with subject proposal rlusf be
in compliance with 15 A NCAC 21).19U0
Demolition or renovations of structures containing asbestos
Maim ial rintist he in compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1110 60 days
,al(I)-,vliicli requires poifficafion and removal prior to NIA (CIO days)
t1cm,i!i6on.Contact Asb ,tol,Control Group 919-707-5950.
Complex Source Pcmi4 required 11TI&F I S A NCAC
El 21msoo
Conlrot Act of 1973 mast be properly addressed for arty land distiirbing.aesivily.An erosion&sulimentntion
control plan will be re aired if or more acres to be disimlx�d Plan ClIed with proper Regional Office(LArld Quakly Scclion)At leasi.30
-0 days
days before beginning activity.A fee or$65 for the first time or any pan ofan acre. An express review option is avaitable With additional (3G days)
Cces.
❑ Sedimentation and erasion coatial mum be addiessed in accordance wi0i N< 01's approved program, Particular attention should be given (30 days)
fn design and installation ufappropjimc tievinivicr sc6awni trapping devices as well as stable-
.,tortljWaTejL conveyances and outle(s.
Can site inspection usual.Surety bond fled with FNR Bond amount%,,]ties
with tyi)c mine and number ofacres ofallcoed land,Any arc mined greater 30 clays
s
than one acre must be permitted.The aflpvopriaic bond Must he received (60 days)
Wfoic the permit can be issued.
On-site inspection by N,C,Division Forest itesunrccs if permit exceeds 4 1 day
North Carolina Burning pellnit days
(N/A)
On-size ins
pection by N�C�Division Forts i kcsourov's rectaired"irmore Own
E]
Special Ground Clearance Binning Permit 22 1 day
Ivtacces ca,gvouml sloartn arrivare,arc involved.Inspections-,hould.be
cotallies in coastal N.C.with organic solls (NA)
requested at icast wn days before actual hum is planned
90-12
Oil Ref njn2 FariEtics j T4?,A
N/A)0 days
HPUnil required,apph=:ion 60 days befibic begin constriiciion.Applicant
must faire N.C.qualified engineer to;pi-que plans,inspect construction.
Certify construction is.according,(c,ENR approved plans.May also require
permit wider mosquito control program.Au4l a 40-1 permit from Corps of 30 days
Dam Safety permit
An inspection of sin,is necessar y' to verity I iazard Classification, (60 days)
A uninimum fee of'S200.00 must accompany dic vppkaiion.An additional
procv,Nsin¢lee based on a imee0t2gle or Phe total pfQjeel Cost will he required
upon completion.
20
_. ...... . ._...W..... . . Projecta*itimber, 15-0536__ DL Date 5/25/2015 OR A Normal Process Time -
__ {stanttor}bale iuxn]
PFRMIT'S SPECIAL. PROC'F-Dl.IRFSnrR6C UIRi'.R'ENT'S
File surety'bond ot'S5,000���ith G'NR running to slate OFNC Conditional that anv well 10 days
❑ Permit to drill exploratory oil nr gas well opened by ddh operator shall,upon ahandomncn(,be plugged according io F.NK rules hi!A
and regulations.
Application filed with E t at least 10 I)rio to issue or permit. Application be] 16 days
Geophvsical Exploration Pelniit
letter.No stan&rd application Farm. NIA
❑ Application roe based on structure sire is charged.Musl include descriptions&' i 15-20 days
State Lakes C.otrsttuciion Perrsrit
(trasvatgs a1 str7arttzte Y t)Lroofoi'oxrVttership ofripariara lrrolxrty, N1;A
❑ - 60 day's --
401 W.ticr(ual#ty Certi ficai un NIA (7 30 days)
S)d vs
CAMA pt5rmit for NIMORdevelo pent � S2�0.00 lee must aceonipany appfication
t {i5fl days)
7?da}'ti
CWMA I'crnrid tit A,IliJE,)l2 tie.1'elopnreni. S50.0(1 fee must acconrparty aplrliaation
Several geodc(ic monutttcnis ate located ill of acar the project area.if ary mmiumem reeds to he moved or destroyed,please nohr
ti.C.Geodetic Survey,Box 27647 Raleigh,NC"2761 i
II
Abandonment ol'any wclls,ifvequircd musl be in accordance at hh'l ittc 15A.Subchapier 2C AIM
® Notiticaiion of"the proper regimal otTice is requested if"orphan"undergrouml s!orage tanks(UST':S)are discovered during any exuvaadon operatiexr. da
❑ C.'omplianee with 15A.NCAC'2I 1100D(C[�sstal Stomiwaitr I ICS)is recluircd. 45 PA)
(N.i)
❑ t',':alawba,Jordan Lake,Randaiman, Pita Pa mlieo or Neusc.Riparian t.3nlfer Ruics required.
Plans and specifications foi the casasltttcGon,expatraion,ar ailcraltvn of at public watey system must he approved toy the€ivisiion of 11',mi
R4sourceyil'uh4ic hater snpply Section prior to they award of a eonlfael or the initiation of construction as per ISIS NCA('I SC.0300 et.seq.Plans:and
spectCcationsshould be submitted W 1631 Mail Scrvicv Center,z?vigb,Noitri Catolina 27699-16384. All public wales salary systems must comply 30 days
with stale and federal tlrinkingwaterinoniioiinz requirements.Foa more inrormation,costsCT the Public WatcrSupj*Scciion,(919)707-9100.
ft c gisting w ater lines will be r6ocatrd daring the construction,plans Vor the water line relocation must IV suhrnitted to the Division of S:'aier
Rcsource511'ubbc water Supply Sectiw at 1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27599'-1034.For mort,information,,contact the Public 30 days
Watcrr Sttppiy Seetion,019)707-9100.
C3titcr coutntents(auaeh ad titionu'pages a-neeessary,heing cmain to cite cominetft actthority)
Division � tnitlals No Comments ( Date
i
comment Review
QAQ ddtm ❑ 5/15/35
DWR-WQRC35 E ds ❑ YN 5/27/15
(Aquifer&Surface);; rb ❑ 5J28{75
DWR-PWS N/A
DEMLR(LQ&5W) JLH ❑ This site appears to be addressed appropriately udder the local ordinance, j 5/2.2./15
_DE
-UST MRP ❑ Notify the UST Section at the Raleigh Regional Office if petroleum- ! 5/26/15 I
f
contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered during construction,
REGIONAL OFFICE
Questiotis regardirfc,these perniits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
❑ Asheville Regional Office ❑ Mooresville Regional Office ❑Wilriihigton Regional Office
2090 CIS Highway 70 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301. 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Swannanoa,NC 28778 Mooresville,NC 28115 Wilmington,NC 28405
(928)296-4500 (704) 663-1699 (910)796-72 t5
❑ Fayetteville Regional Office Raleiglit Regional Office ❑Winston-Salem Regiafial Office
225 North Green Street,Suite 714 3800 Bane€t[)five,Suite 101 450 West Manes Mill Road,Suite 300
l avetteville,NC 28301-5043 Rateigh,NC;27609 Winston-Salem, NC"27105
( 910)433-3300 (913)791-4200 (336)771-9800
❑Washington Regiollial Office
943 Was hingtou Square Mall
Washington,NC 27889
(252)946-6481
February I I,2015
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
4L r
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGO`7ERNIMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: ORANGE H I I,: ENERGY RELATED STATE NUMBER: IS-E-0000-0596
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES DATE RECEIVED: 04/28/2015
AGENCY RESPONSE: 05/25/2015
REVIEW CLOSED: 05/28/2015
MS CARRIE A.TKINSON
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEWIDE PLANNING - MSC 41554
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
7
CC&PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DENR LEGISLATI'V'E AFFAIRS �
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE a� m
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
'q-
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION art
TRIANGLE J COG
PR067ECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Orange County C
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Scoping
DESC: Proposal as for the development of a solar facility on a 35.8 acre parcel located.
at 1606 White Cross Road (submitted pursuant to Orange County SEPA ordinance)
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1307,.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919) 807-2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REV E THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: NO COMMENT F—] COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNER BY: '. DATE;
�, _ ;4
NORTH CAROL:: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMI: _) ` ADMINISTRATION 22
INTER(..._,vERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: ORANGE H11: ENERGY RELATED STATE NUMBER: 15-E-0000-0596
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES DATE RECEIVER: 04/28/2015
AGENCY RESPONSE: 05/25/2015
P tii
f4 �r M R VIEW CLOSED. 05/28/2015
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR , f.\p p
DEPT OF CULTURAL, RESOURCES
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE j
�F a
MSC 4617 M ARCHIVES BUILDING
..,
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DENI2 LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE : ; `� f°� M
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRIANGLE J COG
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Orange County _ {
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act rr
Scoping
DESC: Proposal is for the development of a solar facility an a 35 .8 acre parcel located
at 1606 White Cross Road (submitted pursuant to Orange County SEPA ordinance)
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919) 807-2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: X NO COMMENT ❑ COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY: DATE:
Y r
MAY 0 1 2015
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 23
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: ORANGE H11: ENERGY RELATED STATE NUMBER: 15--E-0000-0596
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES DATE RECEIVED: 04/28/2015
AGENCY RESPONSE: 05/25/2015
REVIEW CLOSED: 05/28/2015
MS CAROLYN PENNY `a°�'""`
E 20 1;.,
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
CC&PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
MSC # 4719
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRIANGLE J COG
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Orange County
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Scoping
DESC: Proposal is for the development of a solar facility on a 35.8 acre parcel located
at 1606 White Cross Road {submitted pursuant to Orange County SEPA ordinance)
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919) 807-2425.
AS A RESULT Off' THIS REVIEW T E FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: NO COMMENT 1:1 COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY: d ti DATE:
; y!
ZP
. w
.:a
a tea,
Z tz
24
Attachment 3
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
WHITE CROSS SOLAR LLC AND MR. WILLIAM AND CAROL BYRON
REQUESTING A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT A SOLAR ARRAY-PUBLIC UTILITY
ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY OFF OF WHITE CROSS ROAD AND OLD GREENSBORO ROAD
FURTHER IDENTIFIED UTILIZING ORANGE COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PIN)
9748-32-0786.
As required under Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO), a Class A Special Use Permit is required for the development of a solar facility. Such
permits shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 and 5.9.6 of the
UDO.
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following:
(1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located
where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted;
(2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a
public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of
contiguous property); and
(3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will
be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with
the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or
in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners;
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following
specific standards:
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO,
(2) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a. Sewage disposal facilities,
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site
(3) Specific regulations governing the development of school as set forth in Section 5.9.6 of
the UDO,
(4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange Planning staff regarding the application in question. The
findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board in its
deliberations.
25
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
APPLICATION COMPONENTS
Proper forms 2.2 Application (Attachment 1 of May Yes
26, 2015 quarterly public hearing
packet), Staff testimony
Fees paid 2.2.4(D) Staff Testimony/Application
Yes
Full description of use 2.7.3(8)(1) Application
• Location Yes
• Appearance
• Operational characteristics
Owner Information 2.7.3(8)(2) Application Yes
Information needed for Use 2.7.3(8)(3) Application and site plan
Standards Yes
Site Plans 2.7.3(8)(4) Application/Staff Testimony (Site
(26 for Class A) plan) Yes
Preliminary Subdivision Plat (if 2.7.3(B)(5) [No subdivision proposed.] N/A
necessary)
List of parcels within 500 feet 2.7.3(B)(6) Application Yes
Elevations of all structures 2.7.3(8)(7) Application and site plan provide Yes
elevation of proposed arrays; staff
testimony and pictures as part of
power point presentation. No
structures (i.e. buildings) are
being proposed.
Environmental Assessment (or 2.7.3(B)(8) Application and site plan, Yes
EIS) applicant testimony, staff
• Topography testimony, State Clearing House
• Drainage issues comments (Attachment 2 July 1,
• Natural or Cultural 2015 Planning Board packet)
resources
• Mining
• Hazardous Wastes
• Wastewater treatment
• Water usage
Method of Debris Disposal 2.7.3(8)(9) Application and site plan Yes
Development Schedule 2.7.3(B)(1 0) Application and site plan Yes
Extended Vesting Request 2.7.3(B)(1 1) Not requested N/A
26
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Public Notice 2.7.5(a) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes
• Date Hearing Abstract (Attachment 5)
• Time and staff testimony
• Place
Published in Newspaper 2.7.5(b) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes
• Two successive weeks Hearing Abstract (Attachment 5)
• First notice at least ten days and staff testimony
prior but no more than twenty-
five days prior
Sign Posting on Property (at least 2.7.5(c) Staff Testimony Yes
10 days prior) posted sign on May 14, 2015
Mailed Notice 2.7.5(d) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes
• Certified mail Hearing Abstract (Attachment 5)
• All adjacent property owners and staff testimony
(within 500 ft.)
• Not less than fifteen days prior
27
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
SPECIFIC STANDARDS
Waste Disposal 5.3.2(8)(1) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes
Method and adequacy of provision Hearing Abstract (Attachment 3)
for sewage disposal facilities, solid and staff testimony.
waste and water service. Both Environmental Health and
Solid Waste have indicated they
have no concerns. As there are
no structures (i.e. office) there
will be no septic system on the
property.
Conditions are recommended to
require Solid Waste Permit as
part of development process.
Safety 5.3.2(8)(2) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes
Method and adequacy of police, Hearing Abstract (Attachment 3)
fire and rescue squad protection. and staff testimony.
Orange County Emergency
Service staff and the Sheriff's
office have indicated the project
can be served.
Fire protection will be provided
by the White Cross volunteer
fire department and rescue
services by Orange County.
Vehicle Access 5.3.2(8)(3) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes
Method and adequacy of vehicle Hearing Abstract (Attachment
access to the site and traffic 3), applicant testimony, and staff
conditions around the site. testimony.
There will not be an appreciable
traffic increase in the area
associated with the development
of the solar array.
The applicant shall be required
to obtain a driveway permit
through NC DOT.
28
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
STANDARDS for Solar Array— Public Utility
Site Plan 5.9.6 (C) (1) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes
A site plan prepared in accordance (a) through Staff Testimony, and Site plan.
with Section 2.5 of and 5.9.6 (C) (1) (d) Site plan provides elevations for
inclusive of UDO proposed arrays, detailed
landscape plans (Sheet(s) C1001
and 1002). The application
contains required soils report
(Attachment 1 of May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing package).
Standards of Evaluation
5.9.6 (C) (2) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes
On-site utility and transmission (a) Staff Testimony, and Site plan
lines placed underground when (Sheet C1001 — Note 19)
feasible
5.9.6 (C) (2) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes
Height of array shall not exceed 40 (b) Staff Testimony, and Site plan
ft. (Sheet C1001)
5.9.6 (C) (2) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes
Individual arrays shall be designed (c) Staff Testimony, and Site plan
and located to prevent reflective (Sheet C1001 — Note 20)
glare toward inhabited buildings on
adjacent property and rights-of-
way.
Warning signs concerning voltage. 5.9.6 (C) (2) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes
(d) Staff Testimony, and Site plan
(Sheet C1001 — Note 15)
Mechanical equipment and arrays 5.9.6 (C) (2) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes
shall be enclosed by a minimum 8 (e) Staff Testimony, and Site plan
ft. high fence and screening per (Sheets C1001 and 1002)
Section 6.8 of UDO.
Proof of liability insurance — 5.9.6 (C) (2) Application and Applicant Yes
minimum of$500,000.00 per (f) Testimony
occurrence.
Type D land use buffer around 5.9.6 (C) (2) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes
perimeter of project (g) Staff Testimony, and Site plan
(Sheets C1001 and 1002)
29
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
STANDARDS for Solar Array— Public Utility (continued)
Decommissioning of solar facility 5.9.6 (C) (3) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes
(a) through Staff Testimony, and Site plan
(f) inclusive (Sheet C1001 — Note 21).
Applicant acknowledges
requirement and agreed to the
condition in the event the use of
the site as a solar array — public
utility is ceased.
30
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
SPECIFIC STANDARDS
In accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), the Planning Board shall also consider the following general
conditions before the application for a Special Use can be approved.
NOTE: Planning Staff does not provide a recommendation on these items as the Board is expected to provide
a recommendation based on the sworn testimony provided at the hearing. Staff is providing a brief synopsis of
the information contained within the submittal the applicant argues demonstrates compliance for reference
purposes only.
The use (will / will not) maintain or Section 5.3.2 Application package and
promote the public health, safety and (A) (2) (a) testimony including:
general welfare, if located where
proposed and developed and Mr. George Retschle a
operated according to the plan as licensed professional
submitted. engineer,
• Mr. Thomas Hester a
licensed real estate
appraiser,
• Mr. Richard Kirkland a
licensed real estate
appraiser,
• Mr. Richard Moretz a site
developer with Cypress
Creek Renewables LLC and
its subsidiary White Cross
Solar LLC, and Mr.
• Thomas Cleveland a
licensed professional
engineer,
on how the project complied
with the UDO.
Staff testimony and abstract
package from May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing.
31
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
Section 5.3.2 Application package and
The use (will / will not) maintain or (A) (2) (b) testimony including:
enhance the value of contiguous
property (unless the use is a public Mr. Thomas Hester a
necessity, in which case the use licensed real estate
need not maintain or enhance the appraiser,
value of contiguous property). . Mr. Richard Kirkland a
licensed real estate
appraiser,
Staff testimony and abstract
package from May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing.
Section 5.3.2 Application package and
The location and character of the (A) (2) (c) testimony including:
use, if developed according to the
plan submitted, (will /will not) be in Mr. George Retschle a
harmony with the area in which it is licensed professional
to be located and the use is in engineer,
compliance with the plan for the . Mr. Thomas Hester a
physical development of the County licensed real estate
as embodied in these regulations or appraiser,
in the Comprehensive Plan, or
portion thereof, adopted by the Board • Mr. Richard Kirkland a
of County Commissioners. licensed real estate
appraiser,
• Mr. Richard Moretz a site
developer with Cypress
Creek Renewables LLC and
its subsidiary White Cross
Solar LLC, and Mr.
• Thomas Cleveland a
licensed professional
engineer,
on how the project complied
with the UDO as well as the
submitted site plan.
Staff testimony and abstract
package from May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing.
32
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has not received any comments from local residents and property owners indicating they do not believe the
proposed facility complies with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) inclusive. These standards include
maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of
contiguous property, the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located, and the use being in
compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County.
Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the
applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO with respect
to the submittal of required information for the project.
Provided the Planning Board finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards as detailed herein, and
no evidence is entered into the record demonstrating the applicant has either:
a. Failed to meet their burden of proof that the project complies with the specific development standards for a
school, or
b. Fails to comply with the general standards detailed within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2)
of the UDO, the Board could make an affirmative recommendation on this application to the BOCC.
In the event that the Board makes an affirmative finding, staff recommends the attachment of the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall cause a formal and detailed landscape and tree preservation plan to
be submitted and approved by the Orange County Planning Department within 180 days
from the approval of the Special Use Permit. This plan shall incorporate the additional
15 ft. land use buffer along the northern property line as testified to during the public
hearing.
2. A revised site plan shall be submitted denoting the required development ratios, required
under Section 3.3 of the UDO, as part of the staff review and final approval of the site
plan in accordance with Section 2.5 of the UDO.
This revised sheet shall be submitted within 180 days from the approval of the Special
Use Permit.
3. The applicant shall cause a subdivision plat shall be submitted creating the individual lots
as testified to during the public hearing prior to the issuance of a building permit
authorizing land disturbing activities.
4. That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County
Inspections Department requesting authorization to commence construction of the
proposed solar array. The application, including all applicable fees, shall be submitted
within 180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
5. That the Orange County Fire Marshal's office shall review and approve the final site plan,
as part of the normal building permit review process, and that any and all modifications
be made to address fire code issues and access prior to the issuance of the permit
authorizing the commencement of land disturbing activities.
6. The applicant shall provide a detailed, scaled, map to the Orange County Fire Marshal's
office and the White Cross Volunteer Fire Department denoting the location of all storage
areas for batteries, master cut-off switches, and other similar devices to ensure the
33
protection of emergency responders in the event of a catastrophic incident on the
property. This map shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
by the County allowing for operation of the facility to commence.
7. The applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management application for the project within
180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
8. That prior to the commencement of land disturbing activity the applicant shall submit all
necessary stormwater, grading plans, and erosion control applications to the Orange
County Erosion Control Department for review and processing. These applications shall
be submitted within 180 days from the issuance of the SUP.
9. That the applicant shall submit the approved site plan to NC DOT for review and
comment. In the event it is determined that the applicant is required to apply for, and
receive a, driveway permit from NC DOT to allow for the project to be developed, the
applicant shall submit all necessary applications as required by NC DOT within 180 days
from the issuance of the SUP and provide planning staff with a copy of the issued permit.
10. The Special Use Permit will automatically expire within 12 months from the date of
approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or
proceeded unless a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the
Board of Adjustment.
11. If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special
Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect.
1 34
Attachment 3
1 DRAFT MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
4 May 26, 2015
5 7:00 P.M.
6
7 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning
8 Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on May 26, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in
9 Hillsborough, N.C.
10
11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Mia
12 Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Barry Jacobs
14 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Clerk to the Board
16 Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
17 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning Board
18 members Lisa Stuckey, Herman Staats, Paul Guthrie, Tony Blake, Laura Nicholson, and Lydia
19 Wegman, Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley
20 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: James Lea and Bryant Warren
21
22 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
23 Chair McKee said that Commissioner Jacobs would be unable to attend the meeting
24 tonight.
25 Chair McKee noted the following items at their places:
26 - White sheets: PowerPoint slides for Items C1-5
27 - Notebook for Item C-3- Request for Special Use Permit - solar array/public utility station
28
29 Chair McKee said staff requested that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
30 consider moving Item 5 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment— forward to
31 the beginning of the agenda, as it is a short presentation.
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
34 move Item 5 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - forward on the agenda
35 to the beginning of the agenda.
36
37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
38
39 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR-Chair McKee and PB Chair Pete Hallenbeck
40
41 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
42 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge
43
44 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
45
46 3. Application for a Class A Special Use Permit—To review and receive sworn testimony
47 on a Special Use Permit application seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station on
48 a portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property located at 1612 White Cross Road within the
49 Bingham Township.
50
51 THIS IS VERBATIM.
2 35
1
2 Michael Harvey: Good evening.
3
4 Chair McKee: Good evening, again.
5
6 Michael Harvey: At this juncture, I'd like to ask everyone intending to offer testimony on this
7 item, to come up and please be sworn.
8
9 Those who were planning to speak were sworn in.
10
11 Patrick Mallet: Good evening Commissioners. I'm still Pat Mallet with the Planning
12 Department and I've been duly sworn. I'm going to skip through a few of these slides because
13 for the sake of avoiding redundancy and repetition. But the same rules apply, obviously, as
14 we've just discussed. But I did want to call your attention to this slide. This sort of highlights the
15 property in blue. The area and the limits of the Special Use Permit are defined roughly in red on
16 the aerial photo. The site is at the intersection northwest quadrant of White Cross Road and
17 Old Greensboro Road. The area here is the —just to orient you —this is the White Cross
18 Recreational Facility, which has been in existence for quite some time. The zoning is
19 agricultural-residential. It's in the Haw River protected watershed. Future land use calls for
20 agricultural-residential. Gross management system designation is rural.
21
22 Patrick Mallet made the following PowerPoint presentation:
23
24 MAY 26, 2015
25 AGENDA ITEM: C-3
26 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
27 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
28 DEVELOPMENT OF A
29 SOLAR ARRAY - PUBLIC UTILITY
30
31 PROPERTY INFORMATION
32 • PIN(s): 9748-32-0786.
33 • Size: Approximately 35.8 acres.
34 • Zoning : Agricultural Residential (AR) Haw River Protected Watershed Protection
35 Overlay District.
36 • Future Land Use Map Designation: Agricultural Residential.
37 • Growth Management System Designation: Rural.
38
39 REQUIRED REVIEW
40 Project involves the review of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of
41 Section 2.7 of the UDO.
42 • Held in a quasi-judicial format meaning all parties, for and against the application,
43 provide sworn testimony as well as competent material and substantial evidence on the
44 merits of the proposal.
45 • Applicant has burden of demonstrating project complies with the provisions of the UDO.
46 • Anyone opposing the application is required to demonstrate through sworn testimony as
47 well as competent material and substantial evidence that the project does not comply
48 with the provisions of the Ordinance.
49 • Hearsay and/or unsubstantiated opinions are not considered sufficient testimony.
3 36
1 • If applicant proves compliance with applicable standards, and there is no evidence in the
2 record the project does not comply, the SUP must be issued.
3
4 REQUEST
5 • Erect individual solar array panels on approximately 20 acres of property.
6 • Typical array is between 7 and 9 feet in height, with approximately 2 to 3 feet of ground.
7 clearance, and approximately 63 feet in length.
8 • Arrays will be screened by an installed 50 ft. wide Type D Land Use Buffer.
9 • An 8 foot high chain link security fence shall surround the perimeter of the 11.5 solar
10 array field, outside of the proposed land use buffer, to prevent access.
11 • Gravel paths/drives will be installed around these arrays in order to permit access by
12 technicians to service the panels. Depending on the soil and topography, areas around
13 the solar panels will be a combination of natural groundcover, grassed, and/or paths.
14 • Vehicular access to the site is restricted by a 24 foot wide drive with gated access via
15 White Cross Road.
16
17 SITE PLAN
18 • Cross Section of Northern Property Line
19
20 SITE PHOTO — NORTHERN PROPERTY
21
22 SITE PHOTO —WHITE CROSS REC PROPERTY
23
24 SITE PHOTO — UTILITY SUBSTATION
25
26 SITE PHOTO — PROPERTY FROM OLD GREENSBORO ROAD
27
28 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
29 • Held on April 9, 2015,
30 • Adjacent property owners expressed concern over impacts on their property values,
31 • The northern property owner expressed concern required land use buffers were
32 insufficient,
33 • Adjacent property owners expressed concerns over traffic and access to the facility,
34 • There were concerns over what was going to happen the rest of the property (i.e. how
35 would it be developed/redeveloped).
36
37 REVIEW PROCESS
38 • Step One: Review of application at a joint Quarterly Public Hearing by BOCC and
39 Planning Board. BOCC adjourns the public hearing to a date/time certain to receive the
40 Planning Board recommendation.
41 • Step Two: Review of application by Planning Board who make a recommendation on
42 the application based on the evidence and testimony offered into evidence during the
43 public hearing.
44 — STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Board is currently scheduled to meet and
45 review this item at their July 1, 2015 regular meeting 7:00 p.m. held in the
46 lower level conference room of the West Campus Office Building at 131
47 West Margaret Lane in downtown Hillsborough.
48 • Step Three: BOCC reconvenes public hearing to receive Planning Board
49 recommendation. No additional public comment/testimony is accepted.
4 37
1 • BOCC takes action on the proposal.
2
3 STAFF INITIAL REVIEW
4 • Applicant has submitted documentation required for the review of the project
5 • Applicant has submitted required documentation for a Class A Special Use Permit (i.e.
6 required by Section 2.7.3)
7 • There are goals/objectives/policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence to
8 the viability of the proposal
9
10 RECOMMENDATION
11 1. Receive the application,
12 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments.
13 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
14 returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the September 1, 2015
15 BOCC regular meeting.
16 4. Adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
17 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
18
19 Patrick Mallet: I am going to note at this point that the Applicants, and I'll let them get into the
20 details, but I believe that they've been into extensive discussions with some of the adjacent
21 property owners. Namely one property owner, in particular, to the North. And have revised the
22 buffer that they would be providing on the northern side, and the chain —the type of fencing, 1
23 believe, is another element to their request. The Applicants' submitted today some revised
24 plans which I believe you have copies of those revised plans. And we'll let them speak to the
25 specifics of those revisions.
26
27 The request includes the treatment around the solar array system. Essentially, they're
28 proposing gravel paths and natural areas. That will vary depending on the type of soil and
29 topography. Vehicular access would be restricted to White Cross Road. As you may have
30 noticed the parcel is 35.88 acres and it does have some access on to Old Greensboro Road.
31 But they're proposing access essentially right next to the White Cross Recreational Facility.
32
33 This is the site plan. The square areas are obviously the solar arrays. This is White Cross
34 Road here. This is the staging area for construction. This red perimeter is the fenced in area.
35 This is the northern property line. As I mentioned that buffer, I believe, has been revised. And
36 the southern portion of the property is being retained by the property owner. This area is
37 approximately 20 acres. This shows the typical cross section of the solar array system and a
38 typical section of the 50 foot wide type B buffer around the perimeter.
39
40 This shows the cross section of the northern property line. As I stated, that buffer has been
41 revised so I'll let the Applicant go into further details regarding the treatment of that buffer. This
42 shows a series of photos around the property. This is a view of the house to the north. New
43 construction —there's a pasture that's been cleared in front of the house that goes to the
44 property line. And then the picture in the lower left hand corner shows the existing vegetation
45 on the subject property.
46
47 This is a view of the White Cross Ball Field area, which is facing north in the general direction of
48 the of that home and through the midsection of the property. In the lower right hand corner
49 you've got a picture that shows the topography change from White Cross Road. There is
5 38
1 probably a good 15-20 foot change in elevation from the White Cross Facility to the actual road.
2 And in the lower left hand corner around that curve would be the proposed entrance.
3
4 This is a view of the utilities substation that the solar array would connect to theoretically and is
5 adjacent to the property to the north. This is a view of Old Greensboro Road. As I stated, the
6 property technically has frontage roughly where that crossing sign — intersection of 35 mile an
7 hour speed limit sign is. But they are not proposing access and that area would be retained by
8 the owner.
9
10 Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on April 9t". Adjacent property owners expressed
11 a variety of concerns including impact on their property values, the treatment of the buffer, traffic
12 access, and concerns over what was going to happen with the remainder of the property. 1
13 would also note that the applicant did have one additional meeting above and beyond what was
14 required with the neighborhood information meeting at the White Cross Recreational Facility.
15 Much of the same was discussed but there was more attention to the treatment of the buffer to
16 the north. This just goes through the same process that I reiterated at the beginning with the
17 first Special Use Permit—where step one: the public hearing, step two: you would refer the
18 application to the Planning Board and they would make a recommendation on the application,
19 based on the evidence and testimony offered. The Planning Board Meeting would hopefully be
20 set for July the first, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. Step three: the Board of Commissioners reconvenes the
21 Public Hearing to receive the Planning Board recommendation, no additional comment or
22 testimony is accepted. The Board of Commissioners takes action on the proposal.
23
24 Staff initial review: the Applicant has submitted the documentation required for the review of the
25 project. The Applicant has submitted the required documentation for a Class A Special Use
26 Permit as required in the UDO section 2.7.3. And there are goals, objectives and policies which
27 are consistent with the comprehensive plan, leading credence to the viability of the proposal.
28
29 The recommendation is to receive the application, conduct the public hearing, accept the public,
30 the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board comments. Refer the matter to the
31 Planning Board, with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of
32 Commissioners in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. Adjourn the Public
33 Hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's
34 recommendation and any submitted written comments.
35
36 And with that, I will turn it over to the Applicant's attorney, Beth Trahos.
37
38 Pete Hallenbeck: Before we turn it to the Applicant, are there any questions so far from the
39 Commissioners?
40
41 Commissioner Dorosin: Just one quick question: it is going to still be one parcel, or was that
42 picture that you showed with the...
43
44 Patrick Mallet: I believe the intent is to subdivide the property. Which could be done with an
45 exempt subdivision, both parcels would be greater than 10 acres. This area, roughly in red —
46 roughly depicts the area that would be subdivided.
47
48 Beth Trahos: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, and Chair Person and
49 Planning Board Members. My name is Beth Trahos. I'm an attorney with Smith Moore
50 Leatherwood, and I'm here tonight on behalf of White Cross Solar, with our application to allow
51 a solar farm on White Cross Road. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that there are a number folks
6 39
1 signed up to speak on this and I think I'm responsible for many of them. In our expert group, we
2 have Engineer George Retschle, Appraiser Tom Hester, Appraiser Rich Kirkland, Cypress
3 Creek Renewables Employee Rich Moretz, and Mechanical Engineer Tommy Cleveland. They
4 are all on that list and are all a part of our presentation. And I handed out to you a notebook
5 that you will find at your seat that includes sworn Affidavits, copies of the site plan, and of the
6 prospective that were provided as a part of our submittal packet. And I would ask you to move
7 into the record the staff report and associated documents and that you also include in the record
8 the notebook that we have handed to you.
9
10 We're going to attempt to be efficient with your time and rely largely on those Affidavits. All of
11 those folks are here today and available for cross examination. We'll call a few of them up to
12 talk with you and we'll bring others, as needed, to answer questions that you, or others, may ask
13 of us. We recognize you've been here for a long time, and we'll try to get you out— get our part
14 done as quickly as we can. As staff indicated, we have been working hard with neighbors in the
15 area. We had first the staff sponsored community meeting in April. We had our own meeting in
16 May and we have continued our dialogue with adjacent property owners. And our belief is that
17 our neighbors are comfortable with what it is that we're proposing. Staff indicated the property
18 is zoned AR and a solar farm is permitted as a Special Use in that district. The solar farm site
19 plan meets all of the criteria that are set out in your ordinance for approval of a Special Use
20 Permit. And I'm going to ask folks to come forward and confirm for you that all those
21 requirements have been met.
22
23 I'll start with Mr. Retschle, who is the Project Engineer. I ask him to talk with you briefly. And of
24 course at any time please feel free to ask questions.
25
26 George Retschle: Good evening. My name is George Retschle, I'm the President of
27 Ballentine Associates in Chapel Hill. I have been duly sworn. I do appreciate your time this
28 evening. I am a Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina and in Virginia. 1
29 have been involved with a little over hundred solar farms in the past three years. I was
30 responsible for the preparation of the site plan that you have before you tonight. Pat (Mallet) did
31 mention a few modifications that have been made to the site plan since the original submittal.
32 One of those modifications involves a buffer along the northern property line. As a result of
33 some negotiations between our client and the adjacent neighbor, we have widened that buffer
34 from the minimum 50 foot required to a 65 foot buffer. So there's a substantial amount of
35 existing vegetation that's going to remain on that northern property line. And with solar farm we
36 need to be careful of shading on the west, east and south portions of the array, so that we don't
37 have inefficient panels. But along the northern property line, we were able to to provide a much
38 wider buffer than what was required and what we had originally anticipated. That's one of the
39 major changes.
40
41 Another change was that we pulled the southern property line up to reduce the amount of
42 overall property within the property that's going to be subdivided out. I think it went from 23
43 acres down to 19.8, so it's gotten a little bit smaller. The size of the array within the fence is
44 somewhere around 10.5 acres. And that final acreage and size will be determined by the final
45 electrical design. What you see on the plan now, is a preliminary layout of the panels, and
46 some of that will gyrate a little bit as the final electrical design is done. That won't happen until
47 after we receive approval from the County Commissioners and just before the permitting
48 process.
49
50 1 know that you've been handed an Affidavit that's got my full testimony on it. But I wanted to
51 just kind of summarize a couple of the major points. In my professional opinion, this project, as
7 40
1 it is shown currently on the latest plan that it meets all the applicable portions of the UDO. And 1
2 believe, in my professional opinion, that if the project's built as designed it will be harmonious
3 with the area given the buffering that we've provided. And it will not be injurious in any way to
4 the public's health, safety or welfare.
5
6 And I'm here to answer any questions that you have.
7
8 Chair McKee: Seeing none.
9
10 Beth Trahos: Mr. Chairman, just one note. I would be remiss if I didn't tell you that as a part of
11 our discussions with adjacent property owners, we're going to be tweaking the plan and we will
12 be resubmitting a new plan that will require that along the northern property line, thirty feet of the
13 buffer, closest to the property line remain, be undisturbed. Closest to the property line, to the
14 north, remain undisturbed. And that there be a green screen installed on the fence facing the
15 northern property line. And we will add that to our site plan so that it is available to you in the
16 record.
17
18 1 would ask, ah, Mr. Hester to come forward. Mr. Hester is a North Carolina Real Estate
19 Appraiser.
20
21 Tom Hester: Hello. My name is Tom Hester. I'm a State Certified Real Estate Appraiser in
22 North Carolina. I have a North Carolina Broker's License, and I'm a designated member of the
23 Appraisal Institute, which is a National Professional Organization. I have the MAI designation.
24 I've been active in appraising properties in central North Carolina for about 33 years. My
25 assignment in this case was to make a determination of whether this proposed use would have
26 a negative effect on adjacent property values. To make that determination I at first am looking
27 at what types of properties— or what characteristics —would have an effect on adjacent
28 properties. And so I'm considering traffic, noise, lighting, dust, hazardous materials, and visual
29 effect. And for this proposed use —for the Solar Farm-it's a very passive use. So there's really
30 no traffic, there's no noise, there's no lighting, there's no dust. The only effect on adjacent
31 properties is visual: can you see it? And my determination is to look at other existing farms and
32 make a determination. If you can see the solar farm, does it have an effect on values? So to
33 make that determination, I looked just— not just at this property but at about 30 other, existing
34 solar farms. All put into service since 2011. And I used an analysis called paired sale analysis.
35 I'm looking at transactions, sales of real estate, sales of properties—generally residential
36 properties —that are potentially effected by solar farms. I looked at sales of properties that
37 occurred before the solar farm was built. And then similar properties after it was built. And 1
38 also looked at properties that have close proximity to existing solar farms versus transactions of
39 properties that are further away but in the same general vicinity.
40
41 My finding, using that paired sale analysis, before and after— and also inside and outside the
42 ring surrounding the solar farms — is that the existing solar farms that I investigated have had no
43 effect on actual transaction prices. Sales generally the same price—the same price range —
44 before and after, and close in versus further out. So my conclusion is that this proposed farm
45 would not have any effect on the adjacent properties or the nearby community. And then,just to
46 continue, this site plan has got a really lower density than most of the existing solar farms that
47 have been built in the last two or three years. That's fewer solar— a smaller array—versus the
48 total land area. It's got significantly more set back and buffer and screening. I think the visibility
49 of this —of the solar panels on this property—will be very limited. I just don't think that you'll be
50 able to see with the natural vegetation that will surround the array.
51
8 41
1 My finding says that being adjacent or being able to see those solar arrays doesn't have an
2 effect on the value. In this case, you won't be able to see it or very, very limited visibility. My
3 conclusion is this will have no effect on the values of the adjacent properties.
4
5 Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
6
7 Beth Trahos: Mr. Chairman, I would tell you that with those experts, in combination with the
8 testimony of your staff, we believe meets the prima facia burden of proof under your Ordinance.
9 We would point out to you also that you have previously approved a solar farm just up the road.
10 There is an existing one in operation today, a five megawatt solar farm just up the road, and you
11 made all of the same findings of fact relative to that solar farm that you would be required to
12 make with regard to this solar farm. And so we would say to you that nothing has changed
13 since you made those findings except that you have amended your Ordinance to require
14 additional buffers and screenings. And we are, of course, complying with that. I would tell you
15 that, again, we do have a variety of experts that would be available to come and talk with you.
16 We have a Mechanical Engineer, we have someone very knowledgeable about solar and we
17 have another appraiser. If there are any questions that you have we would be happy to bring
18 those folks forward. We would reserve time for rebuttal and we would thank you very much for
19 your time and ask for your support of this green and renewable energy project. Thank you.
20
21 Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Are there any questions
22 from the Planning Board members?
23
24 Lydia Wegman: question...
25
26 Pete Hallenbeck: I'm sorry, go ahead.
27
28 Chair McKee: Could you step to the microphone, please?
29
30 Lydia Wegman: My name is Lydia Wegman. I'm a member of the Planning Board. I haven't
31 had a chance to look yet through this document and the appraisal that was just discussed by
32 Mr. Hester, and I'd like a chance to do that— and we'll have a chance to talk about that, in our
33 next Planning Board meeting. But I do want to get a sense for whether the situation that he
34 examined in his paired analysis are, in fact, comparable to the situation in White Cross, where
35 there's already an existing solar farm. And, I haven't had a chance to look through this yet since
36 1 just received it. So I just wanted to flag a concern, and that I want to better understand the
37 kind of appraisal that he did.
38
39 Chair McKee: I think you may be getting ready to get an answer.
40
41 Lydia Wegman: Okay. Great.
42
43 Tom Hester: Tom Hester again and I have two answers, I guess. One is that the communities
44 that I've investigated are very similar to this location. Where you have a of a combination of
45 agricultural uses, wooded land, and residential uses. So, very similar in surrounding counties in
46 central North Carolina. I've also investigated in Catawba County and further west and I went
47 there because I think there's five or six, farms there and a couple of the largest farms in the
48 State. And so I really wanted to look at the communities around where they are more prevalent
49 and more has been developed and where they are larger. And really the same finding's there.
50 Even surrounding the larger farms there is no effect on the sales prices. When the properties
51 sell, when the house sells — and I really try to focus on residential uses rather than large land
9 42
1 tracks. I think if the houses aren't affected, I think the bigger tracks of land are not going to be
2 affected. So I was really focusing on the residential uses.
3
4 Pete Hallenbeck: And, of course, your report is entered as evidence. So the Planning Board
5 will be able to review that, correct.
6
7 Tom Hester: Good. Thank you.
8
9 Pete Hallenbeck: And I think we have a question from a Commissioner.
10
11 Commissioner Rich: I have a question. I think this is possibly for Mr. Harvey. Can you just
12 run through the process so we're talking about a portion of this property that's as Commissioner
13 Dorosin asked, is staying one property, it's not being broken down into any or into two parcels.
14 What is the process for development of the other part of the property?
15
16 Chair McKee: We have to follow the procedure. I'm sorry. You'll get a chance to speak.
17
18 Michael Harvey: One of the conditions that'll be associated with the Special Use Permit is,
19 obviously, it'll have to go through a subdivision process. As this will be an exempt subdivision —
20 meaning it'll be larger than 10 acres—will be exempt. And what that translates to is that the
21 County Planning Staff will actually have to verify that the boundaries of the new lot here actually
22 comply with any approved site plan for the Special Use Permit. But it will be reviewed and
23 approved through the exempt process. Meaning, we're not going to do anything else other than
24 verify its compliance with the SUP. As far as development of the southern parcel of the
25 property, it will allowed — be allowed to develop consistent with its current zoning. The issuance
26 of the SUP has no bearing on this potential parcel of property. So, for example, if it was an
27 undeveloped parcel, could they develop a single family residence on it? The answer is yes.
28 They would have to go through the site plan review process or the plot plan review process as
29 spelled out in section 2.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance, consistent with the building
30 permit application.
31
32 Patrick Mallet: I would just like to add to that. The revisions that they submitted today, clarify
33 that there's a line that defines the limits of the Special Use Permit.
34
35 Commissioner Rich: Sorry, I didn't get a chance to read that until it got set down.
36
37 Patrick Mallet: Understood.
38
39 Commissioner Rich: I wasn't in my easy chair, checking it out.
40
41 Patrick Mallet: It defines the future lot line and the limits of the Special Use Permits. So, 1
42 think, in this case, it's very well specified where they intend to locate the solar arrays. And 1
43 would add —this is a little bit unique, in the sense that you would typically see a lease
44 arrangement. This is a purchase. And as a result the purchase will create a specifically defined
45 property boundary area through the subdivision process.
46
47 Commissioner Rich: Thank you.
48
49 Pete Hallenbeck: Alright. We have a number of people who signed up to speak on this. What
50 I'd like to do at this point is have anyone who wishes to speak on this come up and get sworn in.
51 And then we'll listen to what you have to say. Do we have anyone here who wishes to speak?
10 43
1 We have people who signed up. If you signed up and you haven't been sworn in, this is the
2 time to come up and get sworn in so we can hear from you.
3
4 Chair McKee: Call the names.
5
6 Pete Hallenbeck: Okay. So the names —just to make sure we don't miss anyone. Beth Trahos
7 —
8
9 Beth Trahos: Yes sir that was me.
10
11 Pete Hallenbeck: I'm sure I'll be saying some of the people who were on the team. That's ok,
12 we want to make sure we don't miss anyone. Uh, Rich Moretz—
13
14 Rich Moretz: Yes sir.
15
16 Pete Hallenbeck: Okay. Hope Horton —oh, wait a sec, I have item 2 — my mistake. Moving
17 on. Tommy Cleveland? —okay. Carol Rigsbee? Carol Bryant? Steve Haggerty? And to be
18 absolutely sure, is there anyone else here who wishes to speak on this? Alright. In that case,
19 then I will turn this back over to Commissioner McKee.
20
21 Chair McKee: Is anyone— because several of these people are on the team, is there anyone
22 whose name was called that wishes to speak to this assembly? Okay, I just want to make sure.
23 Being that several of these people are on the development team and we know they're not going
24 to speak, or assuming they're not going to speak because the presentation's been made. I want
25 to make sure we don't forget or eliminate anybody from speaking.
26
27 Beth Trahos: No sir. We are assuming that this is a part of the record and so their testimonies
28 (Ms. Trahos held up the notebook with the affidavits) are a part of the record without them
29 taking up any more of your time.
30
31 Chair McKee: I am making the assumption that we have no one in the room that wishes to
32 speak to this item from the public? Then we'll move on.
33
34 Patrick Mallet: I will just add the same formality that Michael added with the first Special use
35 Permit. That we would enter the abstract and all its contents formally into the record. And then
36 the revisions that were handed up, and submitted, today by the Applicant.
37
38 Chair McKee: Prior to making that motion, I do have a couple of questions for our Attorney.
39 We received new material from the Applicant tonight. What—from a technical aspect—does
40 that involve as far as the impact on this application? Does it impact it, in that we need to delay
41 because of new information has not been made to the public, or it has no effect, and we can
42 move forward with it?
43
44 James Bryan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's fine to proceed. There was proper notice of this
45 meeting so that's the due process notice that is given to the Public that there may be additional
46 information. As long as the application was complete at its submittal, amendments can be fine.
47 There was, however, a mention of an amended site plan to be presented in the future. And that
48 would cause some concern, if it's not clearly proffered and articulated now what those are. So,
49 if it's included in the binder, that's fine. If it's something else that was demonstrated in some
50 sort of exhibit, that's fine— if it's going to be presented in another format. But anything like that
51 has to be clearly articulated today.
11 44
1
2 Chair McKee: Okay that was going to be my second question. There was a new site plan
3 submission for a buffer— moving the buffer from 50 to 65 feet. That, I believe, is part of this
4 abstract so does that therefore generate any concern on your part?
5
6 James Bryan: If we could just get the attorney just to confirm on the record, "yes".
7
8 Beth Trahos: Yes. It is included on the site plan as I am told, that the green screen as well is
9 indicated on the site plan. So those changes are a part of the plan that was submitted today.
10
11 Chair McKee: So, again, to the attorney, you are comfortable that the late submissions, for
12 lack of a better word —or the submissions at the meeting tonight— are acceptable.
13
14 James Bryan: Yes, if I may—just to take just a second longer to describe the process—, so, a
15 Special Use Permit says that you've got a general right to the use of this property— for this
16 intended use, if you meet these conditions. If there is some area where there's a lack of
17 meeting any of this —that's where these conditions get put on. It's very common for these
18 conditions to be changed throughout this Public Hearing process. It's evidence that there's a
19 need —that there was an awareness of this need prior to—and a solution — prior to this meeting.
20 It's just a benefit provided by the Applicant and the neighbors. They did good work beforehand
21 and the staff as well. So everything should be good.
22
23 Chair McKee: Okay. Very good. Then I —then I will assume we will move forward with this...
24
25 James Bryan: Yes
26
27 Beth Trahos: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. Let me just add one more thing as we were talking. I
28 do want to confirm that a condition also is that 30 feet of the 65 foot buffer along the northern
29 property line will be an undisturbed area. And that is not particularly or specifically laid out on
30 the site plan itself but we would offer that as a condition.
31
32 Chair McKee: And I believe you had mentioned that in your your previous testimony.
33
34 Beth Trahos: Yes sir.
35
36 Chair McKee: Very good. Are there any other questions, specifically on this project from the
37 Board, or for the Planning Board?
38
39 Chair McKee: Seeing none. Yes....?
40
41 Commissioner Dorosin: Just to clarify...it's going to be subdivided into two parcels, or there's
42 just a line that's delineating...
43
44 Beth Trahos: The property will be formally subdivided via your exempt subdivision process.
45
46 Commissioner Dorosin: Okay.
47
48 Chair McKee: Any further questions? If not, we'll move forward. And I guess the first thing is a
49 motion to accept all relevant material that has been submitted by the Applicant, as well any
50 other relevant document, as part of the record.
51
12 45
1 Commissioner Price: So moved.
2
3 Commissioners Burroughs: Second.
4
5 Chair McKee: It's been moved, and seconded to include all relevant documents as part of the
6 record. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. Motion passes unanimously.
7
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 Chair McKee: And then as before, the only two points that we really need to decide tonight are
11 items 3 and 4. Item 3 being: to Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a
12 recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the September
13 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. Do I hear a motion?
14
15 Commissioner Price: So moved.
16
17 Commissioner Dorosin: Second.
18
19 Chair McKee: Moved, and seconded. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. Motion passes
20 unanimously.
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 Chair McKee: And then I need a motion to adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015
25 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written
26 comments.
27
28 Commissioner Dorosin: So moved.
29
30 Commissioner Rich: Second.
31
32 Chair McKee: Got the motion, and a second. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. That motion
33 also passes unanimously.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 Chair McKee: Thank you very much. We will see you on a very busy September 1St
Attachment 4 46
Approved 8/5/15
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 JULY 1,2015
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6
7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel
8 Hill Township (Vice Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill
9 Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative;
10 Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell,At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats,
11 At-Large, Cedar Grove Township;Andrea Rohrbacher,At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township
14 Representative;Andrea Rohrbacher,At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
15
16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz,
17 Planning Systems Coordinator;Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Patrick Mallett, Planner II.
18
19 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
20
21 Pete Hallenbeck: Called meeting to order
22
23 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
24 a) Planning Calendar for July and August
25
26 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
27 a) APRIL 1,2015 REGULAR MEETING
28 b) JUNE 3,2015 REGULAR MEETING
29
30 Pete Hallenbeck: Andrea Rohrbacher's name was listed at Laura Rohrbacher. Tony supplied an email that
31 should be attached to the minutes.
32
33 Perdita Holtz: There were also the April 1 ORC notes that I emailed out.
34
35 MOTION by Paul Guthrie to approve the Planning Board minutes with corrections and the attached email.
36 Seconded by Tony Blake.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS To AGENDA
41
42 No changes to the agenda.
43
44 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE
45
46 Introduction to the Public Charge
47 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina
48 General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold
49 the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is
50 to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall
51 do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its residents
1
47
Approved 8/5/15
52 and business through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and
53 promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will
54 make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public
55 services during our deliberations, decision, and recommendations.
56
57 Public Charge
58 The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The
59 Board asks its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner,
60 both with the Board and with fellow residents. At any time, should any member of
61 the Board or any resident fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the
62 offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal
63 control. Should decorum rail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until
64 such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
65
66 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS
67
68 Pete Hallenbeck: I have no comments.
69
70 AGENDA ITEM 8: APPLICATION FOR A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT: To make a recommendation to
71 the Board of County Commissioners on a Special Use Permit application seeking
72 to develop a solar array/public utility station on a portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of
73 property located at 1612 white Cross Road within the Bingham Township. This
74 item was heard at the May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing.
75
76 Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II
77
78 Pat Mallett: Reviewed abstract and revised site plan.
79
80 Lydia Wegman: The 65 foot buffer is not reflected in the conditions on page 85? Should it be reflected
81 there?
82
83 Pat Mallett: We are noting that this was provided into the record as evidence; I would believe that it is
84 covered.
85
86 Lydia Wegman: So this plan, plus this statement about the 15 foot additional setback...
87
88 Pat Mallett: I would think you could include that as part of your recommendation.
89
90 Beth Trahos: I am an attorney with Smith, Moore, Leatherwood and I am here tonight on behalf of the
91 applicant. The 65 foot buffer was very carefully designated on the plans which are part of the approval
92 itself. We are held to the 65 foot buffer in the conditions that are included in the plans. We will draft a
93 written condition for inclusion as well that echoes the requirement of the site plan itself.
94
95 MOTION made by Lydia Wegman to approve the recommendations on page 78-82. Tony Blake seconded.
96 VOTE: Unanimous
97
98 MOTION made by Tony Blake that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general
99 welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted and
100 there is no evidence to the contrary. Laura Nicholson seconded.
2
48
Approved 8/5/15
101 VOTE: Unanimous
102
103 MOTION made by Lydia Wegman that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property
104 based on the evidence provided on page 84 and there is no counter evidence. Andrea Rohrbacher
105 seconded.
106 VOTE: Unanimous
107
108 MOTION made by Tony Blake that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan
109 submitted will be harmony with the area in which it is to be located with no evidence to the contrary.
110 Andrea Rohrbacher seconded.
111 VOTE: Unanimous
112
113 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to recommend the special use permit for approval and all eleven
114 recommended conditions. Laura Nicholson seconded.
115 VOTE: Unanimous
116
117 AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT
Pete Hallenbeck, Chair
3
49
Attachment 5
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
WHITE CROSS SOLAR LLC AND MR. WILLIAM AND CAROL BYRON
REQUESTING A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT A SOLAR ARRAY-PUBLIC UTILITY
ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY OFF OF WHITE CROSS ROAD AND OLD GREENSBORO ROAD
FURTHER IDENTIFIED UTILIZING ORANGE COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PIN)
9748-32-0786.
As required under Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO), a Class A Special Use Permit is required for the development of a solar facility. Such
permits shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 and 5.9.6 of the
UDO.
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following:
(1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located
where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted;
(2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a
public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of
contiguous property); and
(3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will
be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with
the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or
in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners;
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following
specific standards:
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO,
(2) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a. Sewage disposal facilities,
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site
(3) Specific regulations governing the development of school as set forth in Section 5.9.6 of
the UDO,
(4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Board regarding the application in question.
The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of County
Commissioners in its deliberations.
50
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC
Board
APPLICATION COMPONENTS
Proper forms 2.2 Application (Attachment 1 of May Yes
26, 2015 quarterly public hearing
packet), Staff testimony
Fees paid 2.2.4(D) Staff Testimony/Application
Yes
Full description of use 2.7.3(8)(1) Application
• Location Yes
• Appearance
• Operational
characteristics
Owner Information 2.7.3(8)(2) Application Yes
Information needed for Use 2.7.3(8)(3) Application and site plan
Standards Yes
Site Plans 2.7.3(8)(4) Application/Staff Testimony (Site
(26 for Class A) plan) Yes
Preliminary Subdivision Plat (if 2.7.3(B)(5) [No subdivision proposed at this N/A
necessary) time]
List of parcels within 500 feet 2.7.3(B)(6) Application Yes
Elevations of all structures 2.7.3(8)(7) Application and site plan provide Yes
elevation of proposed arrays;
staff testimony and pictures as
part of power point presentation.
No structures (i.e. buildings) are
being proposed.
Environmental Assessment (or 2.7.3(B)(8) Application and site plan, Yes
EIS) applicant testimony, staff
• Topography testimony, State Clearing House
• Drainage issues comments (Attachment 2 July 1,
• Natural or Cultural 2015 Planning Board packet)
resources
• Mining
• Hazardous Wastes
• Wastewater treatment
• Water usage
Method of Debris Disposal 2.7.3(8)(9) Application and site plan Yes
Development Schedule 2.7.3(B)(1 0) Application and site plan Yes
Extended Vesting Request 2.7.3(B)(1 1) Not requested N/A
51
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC
Board
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Public Notice 2.7.5(a) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes
• Date Hearing Abstract (Attachment 5)
• Time and staff testimony
• Place
Published in Newspaper 2.7.5(b) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes
• Two successive weeks Hearing Abstract (Attachment 5)
• First notice at least ten and staff testimony
days prior but no more than
twenty-five days prior
Sign Posting on Property (at least 2.7.5(c) Staff Testimony Yes
10 days prior) posted sign on May 14, 2015
Mailed Notice 2.7.5(d) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes
• Certified mail Hearing Abstract (Attachment 5)
• All adjacent property owners and staff testimony
(within 500 ft.)
• Not less than fifteen days
prior
52
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC
Board
SPECIFIC STANDARDS
Waste Disposal 5.3.2(8)(1) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes
Method and adequacy of Hearing Abstract (Attachment 3)
provision for sewage disposal and staff testimony.
facilities, solid waste and water Both Environmental Health and
service. Solid Waste have indicated they
have no concerns. As there are
no structures (i.e. office) there
will be no septic system on the
property.
Conditions are recommended to
require Solid Waste Permit as
part of development process.
Safety 5.3.2(8)(2) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes
Method and adequacy of police, Hearing Abstract (Attachment 3)
fire and rescue squad protection. and staff testimony.
Orange County Emergency
Service staff and the Sheriff's
office have indicated the project
can be served.
Fire protection will be provided
by the White Cross volunteer
fire department and rescue
services by Orange County.
Vehicle Access 5.3.2(8)(3) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes
Method and adequacy of vehicle Hearing Abstract (Attachment
access to the site and traffic 3), applicant testimony, and staff
conditions around the site. testimony.
There will not be an appreciable
traffic increase in the area
associated with the development
of the solar array.
The applicant shall be required
to obtain a driveway permit
through NC DOT.
53
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC
Board
STANDARDS for Solar Array— Public Utility
Site Plan 5.9.6 (C) (1) Application, Applicant Yes
A site plan prepared in (a) through Testimony, Staff Testimony, and
accordance with Section 2.5 of (d) Site plan.
and 5.9.6 (C) (1) inclusive of Site plan provides elevations for
UDO proposed arrays, detailed
landscape plans (Sheet(s)
C1001 and 1002). The
application contains required
soils report (Attachment 1 of
May 26, 2015 quarterly public
hearing package).
Standards of Evaluation
5.9.6 (C) (2) Application, Applicant Yes
On-site utility and transmission (a) Testimony, Staff Testimony, and
lines placed underground when Site plan (Sheet C1001 — Note
feasible 19)
5.9.6 (C) (2) Application, Applicant Yes
Height of array shall not exceed (b) Testimony, Staff Testimony, and
40 ft. Site plan (Sheet C1001)
5.9.6 (C) (2) Application, Applicant Yes
Individual arrays shall be (c) Testimony, Staff Testimony, and
designed and located to prevent Site plan (Sheet C1001 — Note
reflective glare toward inhabited 20)
buildings on adjacent property
and rights-of-way.
Warning signs concerning 5.9.6 (C) (2) Application, Applicant Yes
voltage. (d) Testimony, Staff Testimony, and
Site plan (Sheet C1001 — Note
15)
Mechanical equipment and 5.9.6 (C) (2) Application, Applicant Yes
arrays shall be enclosed by a (e) Testimony, Staff Testimony, and
minimum 8 ft. high fence and Site plan (Sheets C1001 and
screening per Section 6.8 of 1002)
UDO.
Proof of liability insurance — 5.9.6 (C) (2) Application and Applicant Yes
minimum of$500,000.00 per (f) Testimony
occurrence.
54
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC
Board
STANDARDS for Solar Array— Public Utility (continued)
Type D land use buffer around 5.9.6 (C) (2) Application, Applicant Yes
perimeter of project (g) Testimony, Staff Testimony, and
Site plan (Sheets C1001 and
1002)
Decommissioning of solar facility 5.9.6 (C) (3) Application, Applicant Yes
(a) through Testimony, Staff Testimony, and
(f) inclusive Site plan (Sheet C1001 — Note
21).
Applicant acknowledges
requirement and agreed to the
condition in the event the use of
the site as a solar array — public
utility is ceased.
55
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC
Board
SPECIFIC STANDARDS
In accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), the BOCC shall also consider the following general conditions before
the application for a Special Use can be approved.
The use (will / will not) maintain Section 5.3.2 Application package and The use
or promote the public health, safety (A) (2) (a) testimony including: will
and general welfare, if located Mr. George Retschle a maintain
where proposed and developed ..
and operated according to the plan licensed professional
as submitted. engineer,
• Mr. Thomas Hester a
licensed real estate
appraiser,
• Mr. Richard Kirkland a
licensed real estate
appraiser,
• Mr. Richard Moretz a site
developer with Cypress
Creek Renewables LLC and
its subsidiary White Cross
Solar LLC, and Mr.
• Thomas Cleveland a
licensed professional
engineer,
on how the project complied
with the UDO.
Staff testimony and abstract
package from May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing.
Planning Board packet from July
1, 2015 regular meeting.
A lack of competent material
evidence in the record
demonstrating the applicant did
not comply with the UDO.
56
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC
Board
Section 5.3.2 Application package and
The use (will / will not) maintain (A) (2) (b) testimony including: The use
or enhance the value of contiguous Mr. Thomas Hester a will
property (unless the use is a public maintain
necessity, in which case the use licensed real estate
need not maintain or enhance the appraiser,
value of contiguous property). . Mr. Richard Kirkland a
licensed real estate
appraiser,
Staff testimony and abstract
package from May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing.
Planning Board packet from July
1, 2015 regular meeting.
A lack of competent material
evidence in the record
demonstrating the applicant did
not comply with the UDO.
57
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC
Board
Section 5.3.2 Application package and The
The location and character of the (A) (2) (c) testimony including: location
use, if developed according to the and
plan submitted, (will /will not) be licensed George professional a character
in harmony with the area in which it licensed professional of the
is to be located and the use is in engineer, use, if
compliance with the plan for the . Mr. Thomas Hester a develope
physical development of the licensed real estate d
County as embodied in these appraiser, according
regulations or in the to the
Comprehensive Plan, or portion • Mr. Richard Kirkland a plan
thereof, adopted by the Board of licensed real estate submitted
County Commissioners. appraiser, will be in
• Mr. Richard Moretz a site harmony
developer with Cypress
Creek Renewables LLC and
its subsidiary White Cross
Solar LLC, and Mr.
• Thomas Cleveland a
licensed professional
engineer,
on how the project complied
with the UDO as well as the
submitted site plan.
Staff testimony and abstract
package from May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing.
Planning Board packet from July
1, 2015 regular meeting.
A lack of competent material
evidence in the record
demonstrating the applicant did
not comply with the UDO.
58
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has not received any comments from local residents and property owners indicating they do not believe the
proposed facility complies with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) inclusive. These standards include
maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of
contiguous property, the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located, and the use being in
compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County.
The Planning Board and Staff have reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and
has found that the applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the
UDO with respect to the submittal of required information for the project.
Provided the BOCC finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards as detailed herein, and no
evidence is entered into the record demonstrating the applicant has either:
a. Failed to meet their burden of proof that the project complies with the specific development standards for a
school, or
b. Fails to comply with the general standards detailed within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2)
of the UDO, the Board could make an affirmative recommendation on this application to the BOCC.
In the event that the Board makes an affirmative finding, the Planning Board recommends the attachment of the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall cause a formal and detailed landscape and tree preservation plan to
be submitted and approved by the Orange County Planning Department within 180 days
from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
This plan shall incorporate a sixty-five foot (65') wide buffer along the northern boundary
line of the subject property. The thirty feet (30') of the buffer closest to the common
boundary line with properties identified by Orange County Property Identification
Numbers (PIN): 9748-33-1814 (now or formerly owned by Steven A. Haggerty) and
9748-33-6770 (now or formerly owned by Julia A. Haggerty) shall remain undisturbed.
Additional evergreen plant materials will be added within the remaining thirty-five feet
(35') of the buffer to meet the requirements of the County's Type D land use buffer as
detailed in Section 6.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). To the extent
practicable, existing trees and shrubs will be preserved to assist in meeting the
requirements of the Type D land use buffer within this area.
2. A revised site plan shall be submitted denoting the required development ratios, required
under Section 3.3 of the UDO, as part of the staff review and final approval of the site
plan in accordance with Section 2.5 of the UDO.
This revised sheet shall be submitted within 180 days from the approval of the Special
Use Permit.
3. The applicant shall cause a subdivision plat shall be submitted creating the individual lots
as testified to during the public hearing prior to the issuance of a building permit
authorizing land disturbing activities.
4. That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County
Inspections Department requesting authorization to commence construction of the
proposed solar array. The application, including all applicable fees, shall be submitted
59
within 180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
5. That the Orange County Fire Marshal's office shall review and approve the final site plan,
as part of the normal building permit review process, and that any and all modifications
be made to address fire code issues and access prior to the issuance of the permit
authorizing the commencement of land disturbing activities.
6. The applicant shall provide a detailed, scaled, map to the Orange County Fire Marshal's
office and the White Cross Volunteer Fire Department denoting the location of all storage
areas for batteries, master cut-off switches, and other similar devices to ensure the
protection of emergency responders in the event of a catastrophic incident on the
property. This map shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
by the County allowing for operation of the facility to commence.
7. The applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management application for the project within
180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
8. That prior to the commencement of land disturbing activity the applicant shall submit all
necessary stormwater, grading plans, and erosion control applications to the Orange
County Erosion Control Department for review and processing. These applications shall
be submitted within 180 days from the issuance of the SUP.
9. That the applicant shall submit the approved site plan to NC DOT for review and
comment. In the event it is determined that the applicant is required to apply for, and
receive a, driveway permit from NC DOT to allow for the project to be developed, the
applicant shall submit all necessary applications as required by NC DOT within 180 days
from the issuance of the SUP and provide planning staff with a copy of the issued permit.
10. The Special Use Permit will automatically expire within 12 months from the date of
approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or
proceeded unless a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the
Board of Adjustment.
11. If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special
Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect.
Attachment 6 60
t t
LEMHERWOOD
A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W
August 24, 2015
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFO, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor
Orange County Planning Department
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Re: Special Use Permit Conditions—White Cross Solar, LLC- White Cross Road
Dear Michael:
Thank you for sharing the draft special use permit conditions. The conditions set out
below are acceptable to White Cross Solar, LLC:
1. The applicant shall cause a formal and detailed landscape and tree preservation plan to be
submitted and approved by the Orange County Planning Department within 180 days
from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
This plan shall incorporate a sixty-five foot (65') wide buffer along the northern
boundary line of the subject property. The thirty feet (30') of the buffer closest to the
common boundary line with properties identified by Orange County Property
Identification Numbers (PIN): 9748-33-1814 (now or formerly owned by Steven A.
Haggerty) and 9748-33-6770 (now or formerly owned by Julia A. Haggerty) shall remain
undisturbed.
Additional evergreen plant materials will be added within the remaining thirty-five feet
(35') of the buffer to meet the requirements of the County's Type D land use buffer as
detailed in Section 6.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). To the extent
practicable, existing trees and shrubs will be preserved to assist in meeting the
requirements of the Type D land use buffer within this area.
2. A revised site plan shall be submitted denoting the required development ratios, required
under Section 3.3 of the UDO, as part of the staff review and final approval of the site
plan in accordance with Section 2.5 of the UDO.
This revised sheet shall be submitted within 180 days from the approval of the Special
Use Permit,
3. The applicant shall cause a subdivision plat shall be submitted creating the individual lots
as testified to during the public hearing prior to the issuance of a building permit
authorizing land disturbing activities.
4. That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County
Inspections Department requesting authorization to commence construction of the
Elizabeth C.Trahos I Direct 919.755.8760 1 Fax 919.838.3167 1 beth.trahos @smithmoorelaw.com
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP a Attorneys at Law • www.smithmoorelaw.com
434 Fayetteville Street Two I Iannover Square Suite 2800 PO Box 27525 (27611) Raleigh,NC 27601 . 919.755.8700
Atlanta,GA a Charleston,SC a Charlotte,NC a Greensboro,NC ® Greenville,SC a Raleigh,NC • Wilmington,NC
61
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFO, CZO
August 24, 2015
Page 2
proposed solar array. The application, including all applicable fees, shall be submitted
within 180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
5. That the Orange County Fire Marshal's office shall review and approve the final site
plan, as part of the normal building permit review process, and that any and all
modifications be made to address fire code issues and access prior to the issuance of the
permit authorizing the commencement of land disturbing activities.
6. The applicant shall provide a detailed, scaled, map to the Orange County Fire Marshal's
office and the White Cross Volunteer Fire Department denoting the location of all storage
areas for batteries, master cut-off switches, and other similar devices to ensure the
protection of emergency responders in the event of a catastrophic incident on the
property. This map shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
by the County allowing for operation of the facility to commence.
7. The applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management application for the project within
180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
8. That prior to the commencement of land disturbing activity the applicant shall submit all
necessary stormwater, grading plans, and erosion control applications to the Orange
County Erosion Control Department for review and processing. These applications shall
be submitted within 180 days from the issuance of the SUP.
9. That the applicant shall submit the approved site plan to NC DOT for review and
comment. In the event it is determined that the applicant is required to apply for, and
receive a, driveway permit from NC DOT to allow for the project to be developed, the
applicant shall submit all necessary applications as required by NC DOT within 180 days
from the issuance of the SUP and provide planning staff with a copy of the issued permit.
10. The Special Use Permit will automatically expire within 12 months from the date of
approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded
unless a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of
Adjustment.
11. If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special
Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
SIB MOORS LEATHEERWOOD LLP
Elizabeth C. Trahos
ECT/cdf
Attachment 7 62
SCRIPT FOR ACTING ON WHITE CROSS SOLAR LLC FOR SOLAR FACILITY OF
WHITE CROSS ROAD
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION:
September 1, 2015 BOCC meeting
NOTE—Blue text denotes BOCC Chair/Member required action
1. Chair will explain the purpose of the item is to receive the Planning Board
recommendation.
For the project, the purpose of the meeting is as follows:
To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and make
a decision on a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP) application submitted
by White Cross Solar LLC and the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. William and Carol
Byron, proposing the development of a solar array off of White Cross Road in
accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array-
Public Utility of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
2. Chair will declare the public hearing re-convened for the purpose of receiving the
Planning Board recommendation and ask staff to make their presentation.
NOTE— The re-convening of a hearing is solely for the purpose of receiving the Planning
Board recommendation and allowing any new information, previously submitted in
writing, to be entered into the record. The hearing is not intended to solicit additional
input from the public or the applicant.
While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments
from the public or the applicant shall not be solicited. The accepting additional public
comments at this stage of the review (i.e. the reconvened hearing) would constitute a
violation of the UDO.
3. Staff will review the abstract and ask it be entered into the record. Staff will review the
Findings of Fact(Attachment 5) for the Special Use component of the project.
4. Questions will be asked of staff.
5. A motion will need to be made to close the public hearing.
NOTE — once this is done, Planning Staff cannot answer
questions or provide additional detail.
63
6. The BOCC will first need to take action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The
findings of fact have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions
to approve or deny. The cadence on taking action should be as follows
a. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and
2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
Attachment 7 of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
b. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of
the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
Attachment 7 of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
c. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 3.3 and
6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
Attachment 7 of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
d. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of 5.9.6 (c) of the
64
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 7
of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
e. A motion to either affirm or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board
concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of
the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
Attachment 7 of the abstract package. Second. Vote.
NOTE — if the motion is to reject, meaning the BOCC does not agree the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the specific provision of the UDO,
the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying
the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and
substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with the UDO.
f A motion will need to be made regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of
the Ordinance as follows
(NOTE — Whomever makes the motion will have to cite the `evidence' in the
record utilized justifying the motion to approve or deny. Attachment 5 contains
the recommendations of the Planning Board including the evidence utilized to
reach the conclusion. This `evidence' must be spelled out explicitly by the
Commissioner making the motion.
If the motion is to deny then the Commissioner making the motion will have to
spell out explicitly the evidence within the record utilized to justify a negative
finding):
i. Motion finding either there is or is not sufficient evidence in the record
the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the
use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general
welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according
to the plan as submitted.
65
This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the
record of these proceedings, including:
NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If
the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find
compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) this list must be read verbatim
so it is in the record.
• Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application
and site plan, presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing.
• Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various
provisions of the UDO.
• Applicant sworn testimony from Mrs. Beth Trahos, Mr. George
Retschle, Mr. Thomas Hester, Mr. Richard Kirkland, Mr.
Richard Moretz, and Mr. Thomas Cleveland, on how the
project complied with the UDO.
• Copies of affidavits and a real estate report, completed by Mr.
Hester, entered into the record providing additional information
on the project's compliance with applicable standards.
• Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general
public.
And
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered
into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance
with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find
the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the
Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is
absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the
claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)
(2) (a).
ii. Motion finding there is or there is not sufficient evidence in the record the
project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use
will maintain the value of contiguous property.
This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the
record of these proceedings, including:
66
NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If
the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find
compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) this list must be read verbatim
so it is in the record.
• Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application
and site plan, presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing.
• Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with
various provisions of the UDO.
• Applicant testimony from Mr. Thomas Hester, a licensed real
estate appraiser, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, a licensed real
estate appraiser, on how the project complied with the UDO.
This included a real estate evaluation indicating the project
would not have an impact on adjacent property value.
And
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered
into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance
with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find
the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b), the
Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is
absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the
claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)
(2) (b).
iii. Motion finding there is or is not sufficient evidence in the record the
project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO in that the use
is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in
compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as
embodied in these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan.
This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the
record of these proceedings, including:
NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If
the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find
compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) this list must be read verbatim so
it is in the record.
• Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application
and site plan, presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing.
67
• Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various
provisions of the UDO.
• Applicant Testimony, specifically:
• Mr. George Retschle a licensed professional
engineer,
• Mr. Thomas Hester a licensed real estate
appraiser,
• Mr. Richard Kirkland a licensed real estate
appraiser,
• Mr. Richard Moretz a site developer with Cypress
Creek Renewables LLC and its subsidiary White
Cross Solar LLC, and
• Mr. Thomas Cleveland a licensed professional
engineer,
on how the project complied with the UDO as well as the
submitted site plan
And
• A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered
into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance
with established standards.
If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find
the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c), the
Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is
absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the
claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)
(2) (c).
7. Motion to either approve or deny the Special Use Permit
If the motion is to approve the Special Use Permit, this motion would also need to
include language indicating the BOCC imposes the recommended conditions as detailed
within Attachment 5 of the abstract package. Second. Vote