Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-26-2015 APPROVED 9/1/2015 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING May 26, 2015 7:00 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on May 26, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney) COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning Board members Lisa Stuckey, Herman Staats, Paul Guthrie, Tony Blake, Laura Nicholson, and Lydia Wegman, Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: James Lea and Bryant Warren Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Chair McKee said that Commissioner Jacobs would be unable to attend the meeting tonight. Chair McKee noted the following items at their places: -White sheets: PowerPoint slides for Items C1-5 - Notebook for Item C-3- Request for Special Use Permit - solar array/public utility station Chair McKee said staff requested that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) consider moving Item 5 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—forward to the beginning of the agenda, as it is a short presentation. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to move Item 5 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment-forward on the agenda to the beginning of the agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR-Chair McKee and PB Chair Pete Hallenbeck B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to incorporate recent changes in State law with respect to the review and permitting of temporary health care structures. Ashley Moncado, Orange County Planning Inspections, presented the following PowerPoint slides: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Temporary Health Care Structures Quarterly Public Hearing May 26, 2015 Item C5 Purpose To hold a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment regarding proposed standards for temporary health care structures to be added into Sections 5.5 Standards for Residential Uses and 10.1 Definitions of the UDO. Background What is a Temporary Health Care Structure (THCS)? • General Definition o A mobile, modular unit, which may include health care amenities, designed to be temporarily placed on a caregiver's property for rehabilitation and extended care of an impaired relative. • Purpose o Provide a temporary, affordable, higher quality, and accessible housing option for those in need, and for families in place of a nursing home facility. • Similar to a state of the art hospital room • Also known as: • MEDCottages • Granny Pods Session Law 2014-94 • Background • Concerns with existing zoning regulations limiting temporary health care structures • Adopted (August 1, 2014) to accommodate use and limit permitting obstacles statewide • Modeled after 2010 Virginia State Legislation • Purpose o Allow people with mental or physical impairments to live and reside with their families in order to receive the care they need. • Outlined Definition and Regulations Proposed Amendments • Proposed Revisions to: • Section 5.5, Standards for Residential Uses • Article 10, Definitions • Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format • Renumbering and reformatting of identified Sections Proposed Amendments Definition • A transportable residential structure facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for a mentally or physically impaired person that is primarily assembled offsite, is limited to one occupant, has no more than 300 gross square feet, and complies with applicable standards of the North Carolina State Building Code. Temporary health care structures shall not be installed on a permanent foundation. Temporary health care structures are classified as an accessory use to single family detached dwellings. Proposed Amendments Submittal Requirements • Must meet Section 2.4, Zoning Compliance Permits • Documentation identifying the relationship of the occupant of the THCS and occupant of the single family dwelling • Physician's certification Proposed Amendments Standards of Evaluation • Existing single family residential dwelling unit must be located on the same parcel as the THCS • No more than one THCS per lot • Must meet setback standards contained in Section 5.5.1, Accessory Structures and Uses • Occupancy shall be limited to one mentally or physically impaired individual • No signage or advertisement promoting the THCS shall be permitted • Shall be required to connect to water, wastewater, and electric utilities serving the principal structure • All applicable state and local approvals and permits shall be acquired Proposed Amendments Standards of Evaluation • Approval of the application shall not exceed one year and require annual renewal • Must be removed 60 days after the mentally or physically impaired person is no longer receiving care or is in a need of assistance • Caregiver shall allow inspections of the property by the County Public Notification • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO o Newspaper legal ads for two successive weeks Joint Planning Area Partners • Proposed amendments provided on January 14, 2015 o No comments have been received Recommendation The Planning Director recommends the Board: • Receive the proposed amendments to the UDO as detailed in this abstract and attachments. • Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendments. • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. • Adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the building of a THCS is permissible, only if the recipient of the care is related to the landowner. Ashley Moncado said that is correct. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the THCS must be removed from the property, once the relative improves or moves on to a different living situation. Ashley Moncado said currently only one company makes this type of THCS, and they are built to be temporary. She said the THCS are built out of Virginia, where there are almost the same state regulations as North Carolina. She said the TCHS cost about $100,000, and there is no restriction on the word "temporary," so it could be on a property long term. Commissioner Rich asked if the TCHS remains on a property for many years, must it always be inhabited by the ailing relative. Ashley Moncado said yes. Commissioner Rich asked if there appears to be a need for the TCHS in Orange County. Ashley Moncado she said no one has gone through the process to be permitted, but there have been inquiries. Commissioner Price asked if a domestic partner would fall under the category of relative, and be able to reside in a TCHS. Ashley said that would apply for the family relationship. Commissioner Price asked for clarification regarding how water and sewer would work. Ashley said the applicant would have to go through Environmental Health to make sure that their present system has the capacity to accommodate this usage. Commissioner Price asked if this would also pertain to the Rural Buffer, and would Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) be involved. Ashley said yes, but properties in the rural buffer on mostly well and septic systems. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the Board: To refer the matter to the Planning Board, with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Dorosin) Motion Passes Commissioner Dorosin said he likes the idea of the THCS, but he would like for the Board to consider amending the UDO, making such structures more accessible and the regulations less onerous. Commissioner Pelissier said the BOCC could direct the Planning Board to deliberate on this issue, and to consider other options before returning to the Board of County Commissioners with their recommendation. A motion was made by Commissioner Price seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1. Application for a Class A Special Use Permit—To review and receive sworn testimony on a Special Use Permit application seeking approval of a school redevelopment/master plan for Emerson Waldorf School's existing facility located at 6211 New Jericho Road within the Chapel Hill Township. THIS ITEM IS VERBATIM. Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck opened the public hearing, and introduced this item. Pete Hallenbeck: We are going to open up the public hearing for an Application for a Class A Special Use Permit for the Emerson Waldorf School. I'll turn it over to Michael Harvey, and we'll be bringing up the people who will be providing testimony so they can be sworn in. Michael Harvey: Yes Sir. Michael Harvey, Orange County Current Planning Division. At this time, I'd like to ask any individual who is going to be offering sworn testimony, or evidence, with respect to the Emerson Waldorf Class A Special Use Permit to please come forward, so they can be sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Those who were planning to speak were sworn in. Michael Harvey: Again, Michael Harvey, and I have been sworn. As the Chair has already pointed out we are here to review a Class A Special Use Permit for the Emerson Waldorf School. You will note from your packet of information the School actually is on five separate parcels of property, totaling 54 acres in area. Or 55 acres in area, excuse me. These parcels are all zoned rural buffer, and are located within the rural buffer land use category as designated in the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan. The property is also located within the rural buffer rural residential area, as defined within the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. As the Chair has already alluded to, this is a Class A Special Use Permit and is held in a quasi- judicial format. Meaning those parties for and against the application have to provide sworn testimony, as well as competent material and substantial evidence on the merits of the proposal. The Applicant ultimately, by our Unified Development Ordinance, has the burden of demonstrating this project complies with the provisions of the UDO. Anyone opposing the application is required to demonstrate, also through sworn testimony and competent material and evidence, how it doesn't comply and how the Applicant has failed to meet their burden. As has already been alluded to, hearsay or unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony and are not admissible. If the applicant proves compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance, and there is no evidence in the record that the project does not, then we have an obligation to issue the permit. So with that brief synopsis, what I would like to do is turn this over to Mr. Patrick Mallet of my staff, and the Applicant, to present the actual components of the application package. Thank you. Patrick Mallet: Good Evening Commissioners. I'm Pat Mallet, and I've been duly sworn. I'm going to be fairly brief with my part of the presentation, because my understanding is that Emerson Waldorf has a presentation that they would like to make. So, for the sake of redundancy, I'll go quickly. The School was formed in 1984. That predates our requirements under the section 5.8 of the UDO, to require a Class A Special Use Permit. And basically, the way that the UDO is structured is any expansion of the School would treat it as if it was a new Class A Special Use Permit application. So that's why we're here tonight. Reviewing the case and the essence of, basically, the better part of a year's worth of work, has been the School's effort to develop a Master Plan, get all of their envisions—expansions for the next ten, fifteen, twenty years approved in one fell swoop, so they can not have to come back to you each and every time they do a building. Patrick Mallet reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: MAY 26, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: C-1 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT DEVELOPMENT/RE-DEVELOPMENT OF THE EMERSON WALDORF SCHOOL PROPERTY INFORMATION • PIN(s): 9871- 64-7391; 9871-64-5632; 9871-65-8140; 9871-74-3098; and 9871-72- 1935. • Size: Approximately 55.27 acres total (total). • Zoning : Rural Buffer (RB). • Future Land Use Map Designation: Rural Buffer. • Growth Management System Designation: Rural. • Joint Land Use Plan Designation: Rural Buffer— Rural Residential Area. REQUIRED REVIEW Project involves the review of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 of the UDO. • Held in a quasi-judicial format meaning all parties, for and against the application, provide sworn testimony as well as competent material and substantial evidence on the merits of the proposal. • Applicant has burden of demonstrating project complies with the provisions of the UDO. REQUIRED REVIEW • Anyone opposing the application is required to demonstrate through sworn testimony as well as competent material and substantial evidence that the project does not comply with the provisions of the Ordinance. • Hearsay or unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony. • If applicant proves compliance with applicable standards, and there is no evidence in the record the project does not comply, the permit must be issued. BACKGROUND • School opened in 1984 prior to establishment of Orange County's school development standards (i.e. Sec 5.8.4 of UDO), and requirement for a Class A SUP for Schools, • Nature of request requires Staff review the request as if it were a new Class A SUP application (Sec 8.6 of UDO). — STAFF NOTE: proposal does not alter operational parameters of the school in a manner making it inconsistent with current regulations. PROPOSAL • Develop new classroom(s), gymnasium, administrative office building, and performing arts center, • Develop additional recreational fields (i.e. multi-purpose field.) on property south of Millhouse Road, • Additions to existing buildings (i.e. classroom and administrative), • Expansion of parking and drop-off areas, • Modify/update infrastructure (i.e. stormwater, septic, and well water distribution, etc.), • New internal pathways. SITE PLAN (PHOTO) SITE PLAN (PHOTO) NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) • 2 NIMs were held on January 8 and April 10, 2015, • No member of the general public attended January 8, 2015 meeting, • During April 10, 2015 meeting an adjacent property owner expressed concern over athletic field lights. The applicant informed this individual that no such lights were proposed. • No other comments have been received. Site Photographs- Existing Facilities Site Photographs- Existing Facilities Site Photographs- Millhouse RD & New New Jericho RD REVIEW PROCESS • Step One: Review of application at a joint Quarterly Public Hearing by BOCC and Planning Board. BOCC adjourns the public hearing to a date/time certain to receive the Planning Board recommendation. • Step Two: Review of application by Planning Board who make a recommendation on the application based on the evidence and testimony offered into evidence during the public hearing. — STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Board will begin the review of this item at their July 1, 2015 regular meetings, which convene at 7:00 p.m. in the lower level conference room of the West Campus Office Building at 131 West Margaret Lane in downtown Hillsborough. • Step Three: BOCC reconvenes public hearing to receive Planning Board recommendation. No additional public comment/testimony is accepted. • BOCC takes action on the proposal. STAFF INITIAL REVIEW • Applicant has submitted documentation required for the review of the project. • Applicant has submitted required documentation for a Class A Special Use Permit (i.e. required by Section 2.7.3). • There are goals/objectives/policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence to the viability of the proposal. RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive the application, 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept sworn testimony and evidence. 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the October 6, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until October 6, 2015 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Patrick Mallet: And with that I have Charlie Viles, who is going to walk through the different elements of the school, and give you an overview. Pete Hallenbeck: Do the Commissioners have any questions at this point? Or are we going to wait until we hear from the applicant? The Commissioners had no questions or comments. Peter Hallenbeck: Alright. Go ahead, Sir. Charlie Viles: My name is Charles Viles. I am duly sworn. My connection with the School is — I've been on the School's— Chairman of the School's Camus Planning Committee for the last six years. I was on the School's board from 2007 to 2014 and was Board President for two of those years. I've also been a parent at the School for fifteen years. I want to quickly introduce the other folks that may come up here to speak. Rebecca Rogers who is the School's treasurer, a member of the Board, and also a practicing attorney, if there is a need for cross examination and things like that, then she would serve in that capacity. Chad Abbott is the Consultant that we've hired with Summit Engineering. He's a practicing Engineer and he will —anyway, a little technology issue there— he will address the technical details of the application. And then we also enlisted Vick Knight, who is an appraiser, and if needs to get up and speak about the property value, the maintenance of the property values, or the proposal, then he's ready to do that as well. Although, if that's not required, we won't do that. So, my job here is really to provide a bit of a human face. I'm the expert for the School. I understand what the School is about. And to provide you a picture of what goes on at the School, and so you can better get a feel for what we're trying to accomplish. Waldorf Education is a style of education that has been around for about a hundred years. Charlie Viles presented the following PowerPoint slides: Application for Class A Special Use Permit Orange County Board of County Commissioners May 26, 2015 Emerson Waldorf School Presentation Overview Introductions School Overview, History, and Planning - Charles Viles- Emerson Waldorf School Technical Highlights of Application - Chad Abbott-Summit Engineering Waldorf Education • Early 1900s in Germany. • 1,000 schools world-wide. • US -150 schools. • NC - 1 EWS!! Facets of Waldorf Education • Arts focused. • Curriculum delivery based on stage of child dev. • Connection to the natural world. • Student-created texts "Main Lesson Book" • Minimal traditional media. • "Grades" teacher • Low testing burden • Multi-sensory education Emerson Waldorf School • Founded 1984. • Current site -1987. • 55 acres. • 260 students PK-12. • 80% Orange County residents. EWS- Internal Planning Process 2020 Strategic Goal - "World Class!" • Attract and retain committed teachers. • Grow enrollment- 300+ students • Conscious growth of physical campus to support curricular goals, improved safety. The External Planning Process Campus Master Plan Highlights • Grow 259 --* 350 students. • New buildings to support curriculum. • Re-engineered parking, traffic flow to provide improved safety, accessibility, and coherence. • Develop with environmental ethic - "Walk our Talk" Supporting Evidence • Biological Inventory-Catena Group • Tree and Forest Survey- NC Dept of Forestry • Property Value Assessment- Everett V. Knight • Traffic Management Plan — NCDOT/Summit • Traffic Impact Analysis—SEPI • Comments— DEAPR, Solid Waste, Stormwater, Fire, NCDOT, Town of CH, Health Dept. General Standards - 5.3.2(A)(2) Standard Support Maintain Public Health. Physical plan, NCDOT recommendations, comments from Fire, Solid Waste, OC Health. Maintain Property Value. Market and impact analysis, existing use as school, physical plan. Harmony of existing area and Physical plan, Biological Inventory, tree survey, existing use comprehensive plan. as school, comments from Parks Charlie Viles: And, I think I'm going stop there. And, I'll turn it over to Chad. Chair McKee: And before you start, I might note for our Board members, that we have extra paper copies of the plats, if you find that this is hard to read. Chad Abbot: Good evening. My name is Chad Abbott. I have been duly sworn. Commissioners, I'd like to thank you for your time tonight. And I hope by the end of this you will see that we have done our best to meet the findings of facts and address the items that are required for the Special Use Permit Class A in Orange County. I am a licensed engineer in the State of North Carolina. License number: 036242. I attended NC State, graduated 2005 with a Bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering and Construction Engineering, with management concentration. I'm employed at Summit Design and Engineering, here in Hillsborough. We have been representing the Emerson Waldorf School in this application, to provide planning assistance and help bring their master plan and goal and vision to the County. So, we have been working several months now, probably near a year, trying to get this master plan such that it was complete, and could appear before you guys. The biggest challenge was addressing one of the findings of fact, which was the public health safety and welfare, which was on the DOT (NC Department of Transportation) side of things. Addressing the congestion and traffic items and concerns that DOT had, as well as MSTA, when we submitted our master plan submittal. We have satisfied those comments and, per your packets, in the staff reports, and I know that they do a thorough staff report, and I'd like to thank the staff for their work over the past year in helping us meet all these standards of evaluations, and explain those to the details, so we could adequately address those. We presented all the environmental findings, the tree inventories. You will see all —and I know that you have a lot on your agenda tonight, so I don't know that I need to go through each one of those in detail. If you do need me to, then I can answer questions later. But, in short, I would like to, first and foremost, really just address the findings of fact. They may be listed in your packets on a certain page. I know your packets are pretty full. But on our narrative, they were on the second page of our narrative. In number one, there was the Public Health Safety and Welfare. We are proposing a school, there's nothing dangerous about the use as a school. You know some may say, "well you're going to bring a school into a community." Sometimes if it's a new use, you may worry about crime and children's safety, etc. The fact that the School has been there since '87 1 think speaks to the fact that the use as a school on this property is not a concern, or it's not an adverse impact, so the Public Health Safety and Welfare of the general public surrounding. Like I said, the DOT comments and concerns were the biggest item to address, which we have done. And you should see their approval. I think in the email they have said they are okay with us to proceed on to a more detailed site plan level. The next finding of fact was that the "use would maintain, or enhance, the value of contiguous properties." I will let Mr. Vick Knight speak to that effect. I would say our thought all along, as we developed this master plan, was we definitely didn't want to get to this point and say, well somebody say, "it's going to affect my property in an adverse way." But our thinking the whole time, and our justification would be that I'm sure several houses in that area have sold since the use of the property in '87, and there's nothing new. It's just an expansion of an existing use. So it's not a new use on a new site, but an existing use. Lastly, "that the location and character of the use if developed as approved, or submitted, would be in harmony with the area in which it's to be located." I would say that and you know, again — the fact that it's an existing school, and it's been used as that since—going on thirty years now —would speak to the fact that it's in harmony with the area. And per Mr. Viles presentation, you'll see that they try to blend in with their existing environment, with the master planning and with the previous development. With the way the School is formatted and just go in and blanket grade the whole site or masquerade the whole site. It's a right steep topography in that area, and they went in and just blended with the environment,just like their surrounding residential homes and subdivisions that are in there. Like I said, we have also spoken to the specific standards of evaluation, and I'd be happy, at the conclusion, to address any questions you may have regarding that. Usually schools are somewhat challenging sometimes, when you go into an area but the fact that this is an existing use helps cover a lot of that ground, in my opinion. So, with that said, I did have the map shown and along with several other colored versions along with the traffic plan, since your prints are not in color, and because of the legibility, may be diminished. Should you have questions, I can scroll to those, and I would additionally like for these PDF versions of this to be entered into the record, as well as everything else we've submitted in the staff's packet. Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any questions from the Board members, for the applicant? Yes. Commissioner Dorosin: Other than the colors on these, is there anything different than what we've already got? Chad Abbott: No, Sir. We thought it best to— and in case some of the public had questions of what's new, what's not. So on —what the screen you have before you, the red buildings are the new buildings. We put a legend on the side of the plans for you guys to see what was proposed. They're labeled P buildings, E is for existing. And this is just a colored version of what you had to help with the Public and anybody else that had any questions. Commissioner Rich: I don't know if this question is for you or for our staff. How come the septic system is reviewed by the State as opposed to Orange County? Chad Abbott: It is because the system at this site —and we designed these as well — I don't know that we designed this system, but the system at this site, there was no conventional septic field big enough for the uses on this site when it was built as a school. So therefore, they took in the State—that is by Orange County deferred to the State, for design and approval by a consultant and the State approves an Alternate Septic System, is what it's called. And it's an alternate septic system. It's not your conventional septic tank with drain lines. It's a spray field. Commissioner Rich: Follow up? So as you get more students in here, and you're building more and more, it says that you're going to need to have additional septic field capacity? Chad Abbott: Possibly, yes. Commissioner Rich: Do you have room to have the additional capacity for the septic fields? Chad Abbott: The way that would work would be an additional design. You know, the reason for these alternative systems is that you don't have soil that perks, in the first place. And so there's —you can look at the campus- there is abundant room to design an alternate system, such that it can be—the discharge of those systems, or the spray, or the drip of those systems is, is predicated by the infiltration rate of the soil. So whatever—there is abundant land, in whichever section, if needed to add on to the existing system, you know would just be, the design would be per that section of land. It's not a matter of it could be designed, it can be. It's just whether or not— if it doesn't perk, you know it just requires a little bit more area, which there's abundant area on the site. If one of the buildings shown creates a volume of waste water that can't be treated on site, then obviously they'd just wouldn't be able to build that building. Commissioner Rich: And is that also regulated by the State, as you grow? So you would have to get the State to approve that? Chad Abbott: I think, I think, yes, I think the building permits with the County somehow through this approval — I'm not going to speak for them — but would be tracked. The occupancy of each building —which then, you know—the waste water flow is based on number of students. So as those students grow, obviously it'll hit a trigger, for which the old septic system is now insufficient, and would require a new design, or upgrade. Patrick Mallet: I'll just add to that. So, this is the master planner conceptual part of the process. So we're looking at things in what I would call a cartoon fashion. After that point, they continue to refine, and there's not a necessary sequence in terms of the building, so they can't really define their septic field. But, yes, when they would go and submit for any one of the buildings, they would have to submit site plans for that building or buildings and then part of the check off process would be to insure that there's enough capacity, and if not, they would have to expand the field. The other thing that I would note is that the area that they are currently using is — it's probably not even a third of the area south of Millhouse. They have a large undeveloped, or underdeveloped, portion of property on the south side of Millhouse. Commissioner Rich: Thank you. I mean I guess my biggest concern is that the State is approving it, and I just want to make sure that we're also keeping track of it. I'm sure you all are. I just want to make sure that Orange County is making sure that it's a clean system as well. Chad Abbott: Orange County would, in essence, approve the site plan that allows the building to be built, however, they wouldn't provide that approval until the—we have provided them documentation the State has approved the septic system, which has been my experience in the past. Michael Harvey: Michael Harvey again. Let me just say, historically, especially with Carolina Friends School, that went through a similar process several years ago. When we accept site plans for review, they also get submitted to Orange County Health Department, and Orange County Health Department's copied on all correspondence with the State. The State has an obligation to keep Orange County informed of what's essentially going on with that system. We then get copied on those approvals. We don't issue zoning compliance permit to allow construction until we've received in hand the State's approval of any septic expansion. Commissioner Rich: Thank you, Mr. Harvey. Commissioner Price: With regards to the safety and accessibility, it's hard to see the entire— details of the property on this map. But are there areas along — I guess it's Jericho — New Jericho Road that the School owns, and will there be walkways along there? I know the abstract talks about internal walkways, but I also know, having come through there a couple of times —you know, there are like outdoor classes—and you know, I have to make way for the class coming down the road. So —which is a good thing — but I'm just thinking —you know, with an increase in students it means more cars coming, and the road becoming more popular and does the School own any of the —you know, enough of the frontage on Jericho Road, where they'd be putting in any walkways there? Chad Abbott: I mean 1, the School can correct me at any point, and I don't want to speak where I shouldn't, but based my experience with schools, and the design of schools, they would want to keep the walkways away from the road. So their goal is to plan for internal circulation to keep the kids on site, away from the streets. By the DOT Right of Way— if you would look at the screen —the very southern most entrance there. The DOT Right of Way stops just north of there. You can see the dashed lines and the site triangles. And where that site triangle ends, I can see it being here... Commissioner Price: Do you have a pointer? Chad Abbott: Let me zoom in for you. So the DOT Right of Way ends about right here. The rest of that is a private easement. It's a private right of way. Commissioner Price: Owned by whom? Chad Abbott: By which —typically— DOT or the County, in my experience has not required sidewalks in the County either. But you know, unless we were connected to another sidewalk, I really think that the School probably would be best just to try to keep the walkways onsite, so that they don't bring children down near the right of way, or increase the potential that some children may wander up sidewalks, along the right of way. Commissioner Price: Well that's what I was talking about. I think that there— I may be wrong, it may be— have been another group of children. But I was over in the area, and I know that there was a group, a chaperoned group of people walking along the road. And I know that the County, we don't do roads. I was just wondering if that property—that you're saying is north of the right of way— is owned by the School, whether they were going, whether they would incorporate that into the master plan to have walkways so that their not on the road when they're out doing field trips. Chad Abbott: And like I said, I can speak to the school Commissioner Price: I think someone behind you would like to speak. Chad Abott: They may want to speak about the details of why that occurred. It may have been something to do with the existing parking situation or congestion, which we've done everything to move that off of the right of way. But I'll let Charlie speak. Charlie Viles: Do I need to say I'm still sworn? Chair McKee: Please come as close to mic as is comfortable, so it picks up. Charlie Viles: So should not be anybody walking in the road there. And if there were— and it were our students - they shouldn't have been there. We don't have any plans to put in sidewalks next to New Jericho, for example. Commissioner Price: Okay Charlie Viles: There's one kind of spot that we're concerned about, which is where they cross over Millhouse Road to go to the playing fields. And they cross right now at a —and we've actually been out there with the traffic engineer, Chuck Edwards, to talk about that. And he's told us, and we're willing to work with him to figure out how to make that as safe as possible. But currently, the only time that people—the only place that people would be crossing Millhouse, would be to go over to the playing fields, or to the garden at that one crossing point there at the curve— right there where Spence's Farm is. Commissioner Price: Okay, I stand corrected. It was on Millhouse Road. Charlie Viles: Okay. Yes and they should not—and if they're there then that freaks us out just as much as it does you. Commissioner Price: As it does me. Okay, thank you. Charlie Viles: Okay. Pete Hallenbeck: Any other questions from the Board of Commissioners? Are there any questions from the Planning Board members? We don't show anyone who is signed up to speak on this. Is there anyone of the public that would like to speak on this? Alright, I'll turn it back over to Commissioner McKee. Chair McKee: We have the recommendations to receive the application, conduct the public hearing, and then the two actions to refer the matter to the Planning Board, with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the October 6, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt please. I'm sorry. Before there's a motion on sending this forward, I have a house cleaning item I'd like the Board to take care of for me. As this is a quasi-judicial item, it's based on sworn testimony and evidence, and while Mr. Abbott made a request that items be entered into the record, the Board ought to acknowledge what has been entered into the record as part of this application. So if you will indulge me for a moment. What you have is an almost 230 page abstract packet, that includes the Special Use Permit application, a narrative beginning on page 12, a biological inventory beginning on page 20, a tree survey beginning on page 46, a market impact analysis, beginning on page 79, a traffic impact analysis, beginning on page 115, an initial staff review of the project and the Applicants response, beginning on page 131, you also have a very detailed site plan in this application packet. You have a property and vicinity map, prepared by staff, a staff review comments on this particular item, an Orange County Health Department, Fire Marshal's Office, etc., the Neighborhood Information Meeting comments, and letters that have gone out; last but not least, notification materials for the Public Hearing. I ask that there be a vote, or an acknowledgement by the County Commissioners, that this packet, as submitted, is entered into the record. Commissioner Price: So moved. Chair McKee: We've got a motion. Commissioner Rich: Second. Chair McKee: And a second. All... Commissioner Rich: Question. Chair McKee: Yes. Commissioner Rich: Is, Mr. Harvey, is this map in the packet as well? Is that considered the same as our large map? Michael Harvey: That's what Mr. Abbott actually entered, so it would be both. Commissioner Rich: It's both. Okay. Michael Harvey: Yes. Commissioner Rich: Thank you. Commissioner Price: Chair, I have some questions, I'm sorry. Just for clarification —and I may be misreading this— but on one page you say that this has been operating —the School's been operating as a defacto Class A, and on another page it says Class B Special Use Permit. Michael Harvey: Well that's unfortunately a staff error, and I'm sorry for the confusion. Commissioner Price: Okay. Michael Harvey: This School actually began in 1984 before the County had adopted comprehensive regulations governing development of schools, or the requirement that this be reviewed as a Class A Special Use Permit. Per Article 8.6 of the UDO, it's actually considered to have a defacto Special Use Permit, making it a legal land use. It's not non-conforming. It's viewed to be a legal use of property. But as they're modifying the project, they have to go back through this process. So I apologize for the confusion. That's my error. Commissioner Price: So it will be— it's been operating as a Class B, but will be a Class A. Michael Harvey: No, it's a Class A Special Use Permit. I think the confusion is, there is a daycare facility operating on the property, that is not connected with this application project, that is operating under previously issued Class B Special Use Permit. Commissioner Price: Oh, okay. Got it. And one other question —or just a minor housekeeping thing, I guess. On page 4—a staff comment about the roadways says, "it will not be unnecessary to support the project"— right at the very bottom. Commissioner Price: Oh, you've got it too. Okay. Michael Harvey: Yes, it will not be external roadway improvements required to support the project, ie: New Jericho will not have to be widened, no turn lane will have to be installed, and no work will have to be done to Millhouse Road. Michael Harvey: They'll be unnecessary. Commissioner Price: Be unnecessary. Okay. Chair McKee: We've got a motion, and a second on the floor. Any other questions on that. Got a motion, and second on the floor to accept all relevant, submitted documents as Mr. Harvey outlined. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. Passes unanimously. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair McKee: Now we go to the recommendations to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the October 6, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. Do I hear a motion? Commissioner Rich: So moved. Commissioner Burroughs: Second. Chair McKee: It's moved and seconded. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. Passes unanimously. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair McKee: And then, I need a motion to adjourn the Public Hearing until October 6, 2015 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Rich: So moved. Commissioner Burroughs: Second. Chair McKee: Got a motion, and a second. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. Motion passes, unanimously. Thank you. Thank you all. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Dorosin: You know, there was just an episode of The Simpsons that featured a Waldorf School. Just two weeks ago. Yes, they turned Springfield Elementary into Springfield Waldorf School. So you should watch that— it's hilarious— serendipitous. 2. Zoning Atlas Amendment (Conditional Zoning District) —To review an application requesting the rezoning of 112 acres of property from Rural Residential (R-1), Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District to Master Planned Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ), Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District in order to allow for the development of Hart's Mill Village within the Cheeks Township. Pete Hallenbeck, introduced Michael Harvey, who presented the following PowerPoint slides: MAY 26, 2015 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM:C-2 CONDITIONAL ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT AND SITE PLAN HART'S MILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INFORMATION PIN: 9835-74-8573 Size : 112 acres Zoning: Rural Residential (R-1), Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay Future Land Use Map Designation: 20 Year Transition Growth Management System Designation: Urban CONDITIONAL ZONING PROCESS • Applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e. does not require sworn testimony or evidence). • are based on determination project is consistent with the purpose/intent of the Decisions Comprehensive Plan. • Mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed if they address: — The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, — Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, screening and buffer areas, etc.) and/or — All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose. REQUEST • Rezone 112 acres of the property to: Master Planned Development— Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) in support of a proposed new residential development and farm. • Application package includes required site plan. • Narrative contains synopsis of suggested zoning regulations. PROPOSAL • Construction of 34 residences on approximately 22 acres of the 112 acre property, — Walkable design with limited traffic access points. Parking of private vehicles will not be allowed near proposed houses. — Access road around residences designed for emergency vehicle access (i.e. fire, EMS, etc.). • Maintaining of existing farm (i.e. crop and animal pasture) operations maintained by community residents, • Preservation of existing forest and woodlands along eastern property line. • A common house/shared community facility shall be built, • Applicant proposing a 100 foot residential building setback around perimeter of property as well as a Type A 20 ft. wide land use buffer, • Central septic system proposed to support project(take up approximately 5.5 acres of property), • 6 inch water line shall supply water, — Water line maintained by Orange Alamance Water System via an existing 6 inch line in Frazier Road. — Hydrants are also proposed in an around the residential area of the project. Site Plan - Rendering SITE PLAN — Residential Area SITE PLAN — Septic Area SITE PLAN — Housing Types STAFF COMMENTS • Proposal is consistent with existing Land Use Category designation and the MPD-CZ zoning district, • Proposed density of 1 dwelling unit for every 3 acres of land exceeds current allowances (i.e. 1 unit for every 40,000 sq. ft.), • Project is consistent with existing development trends in the area, • Staff is encouraged about the total amount of open space/farm area preserved as part of the project. • Additional information is necessary on the proposed water line to verify it will be adequate for development as well as for use during emergencies (i.e. house fire). — Staff has been informed by the Efland Volunteer Fire Department they have equipment to address pressure problems and believe the proposed water line is adequate. • Stormwater and erosion control permits will have to be issued for the project, if approved by BOCC. • Staff has requested additional landscape plans denoting planting of foliage in and around the proposed houses. • Staff has informed the applicant the solar array denoted on the site plan can only be viewed for illustrative purposes. Development of said facility will have to comply with Class B Special Use Permit process detailed within UDO. RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive the application, 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, Planning Board, and BOCC sworn testimony, 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting, and 4. Adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation, and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Pelissier asked if Orange County would approve the alternative to the traditional septic, or would the State need to give approval. Michael Harvey said an email written by Alan Clapp, of Orange County Environmental Health, states that it would be reviewed jointly by the State and the County. However, depending on the nature of the system, it may defer to a total State approval. He added that if this were the case, the County would receive notification from the State that the septic system had been approved before any further development would be allowed. Commissioner Rich asked if any of the 32 properties will go in to the Community Home Trust for affordable housing. Michael Harvey said probably not, but recommended asking the Applicant. He added that he finds the metrics and economics of this project to be different than most, considering it will be based on a condominium ownership model. He said he believes that houses will be more affordable than most housing in the area. He added that it was not required of the Applicant to designate properties to the Trust. Commissioner Rich asked if there are conditions when it is required. Michael Harvey said in accordance with section 6.1.18 of the UDO, there is a process where a developer can request density bonuses. He reminded the Board that there is language within the regulations that prohibits density bonuses being awarded for affordable housing in watershed protection overlay districts, in which this project is. Commissioner Price asked if there would need to be additional screenings between homes as there is only 10 feet in between. She added as this is one big property, perhaps additional screenings may not apply. Michael Harvey said Commissioner Price is partially correct. He added that a home occupation would have to be applied for, in accordance with the applicable standards as they are relayed in the UDO. He said if additional screenings are required the owner will have to abide by the UDO. He said this problem is not anticipated. Commissioner Price said as this is one big property and has no property lines, there is nowhere from which to measure the 10 feet between the two houses. Michael Harvey said although there are no property lines, there will be a defined ownership area. He said this will not meet the technical definition of a property line, per the UDO, but additional landscaping may be required to comply with code. Commissioner Price said she liked the project and would not want to see it stumble based on technicalities. Michael Harvey said the Applicant has methodically worked through the majority of concerns, as they have arisen. Commissioner Rich referred to page 15 where two small group homes, with three to five private suites, are mentioned. She asked if this scenario would fall under the ordinance of unrelated people living together or some other category. Michael Harvey said he believed it will fall in a category of a different situation. He added that in the review of this narrative, this arrangement has not been viewed as a potential problem. Commissioner Rich asked if it will open a can of worms down the road. Michael Harvey said not in his opinion, based on what he knows today. He added that the question can be raised with the Applicant, and answered more fully for the BOCC. He said the BOCC is approving a new zoning district with this project. He said this zoning district can specify individual components as to how the development operation of this project will go in perpetuity. Chair McKee said this project is effectively a condominium and asked if approval of this unique project would place it by default in the Orange County UDO. Michael Harvey said no. He said the Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning is handled on a case by case basis, where an applicant must submit a proposal to the BOCC. He said this project does not set a precedent unless an applicant wanted to go through the very same process as Hart's Mill. He added that this is a unique opportunity to approve a project that accomplishes a lot of Orange County's goals with respect to the environment and affordable housing. He said this type of project is only possible in the urbanizing areas of the County. Chair McKee asked if a developer should come forward with this model, would they have to go through the same process as this one. Michael Harvey said that is correct. Lydia Wegman asked for an explanation as to why this project would be a Class B Special Use Permit. Michael Harvey said it is based on mega-wattage. Anything over 20,000 and fewer than 100,000 megawatts is a Class B Special Use permit. Paul Guthrie said he ran all the aerial photographs of the property since 1955. He said it is clear that the area surrounding this property has boomed with development since that time. He asked if this new form of organization would be able to make internal changes without having to return to the County every time. Michael Harvey said any changes would require a return to the BOCC. He said there is no room to deviate from the mutually agreed upon set of conditions created by the applicant and the BOCC. Hope Horton and Katy Ansardi of Hart's Mill Village made a PowerPoint presentation. Hope Horton began by thanking the BOCC and reviewing the following slides: Hart's Mill Village and Farm Presentation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners May 26, 2015 Who We Are • Local Triangle residents • Singles, couples and families of all ages • Professionals in education, business, health, technology, farming, city planning, and the arts living independent and modern lives • Our desire is to create an old-fashioned neighborhood where people actually know each other and do things together This is Our Future Home • We are creating Hart's Mill for ourselves; we are not commercial developers • Currently we have about 45 members • We have a very personal long-term interest in creating a livable community • We want to be good neighbors Our Model Hart's Mill is being designed and organized in a way that is different from a conventional residential development, as distinguished by our: • Guiding principles • Legal structures • Governance method • Site plan design • Guiding Principles Social: create a diverse and collaborative community Environmental: restore and protect ecosystems Economic: adopt simpler, less expensive lifestyles and enable income-generating activities Service: become a model for others through example, education, and outreach Katy Ansardi continued the PowerPoint presentation: • Legal Structures • Undivided ownership of all land & common facilities • Active management by the community association • At least 80% of homes will be owner occupied • Common ownership of up to 20% of homes for transition housing • Farm/forest operating agreements closely managed by the association • Conservation &/or farm preservation easements • Dynamic Self Governance Hope Horton resumed the PowerPoint presentation: • Developed in a business context to promote transparency, equivalence and efficiency • Increasingly being applied in cohousing communities • We have invested in community-wide training and ongoing consulting • Has proven to be a very effective method for organizing and achieving our goals Katy Ansardi continued the PowerPoint presentation: • Village Plan • Village Site Plan Detail • Village Street • Energy: An Integrated Approach Reduce demand • Superinsulated building envelopes • Climate responsive design (solar, wind, humidity) • High efficiency equipment • Operational and lifestyle choices Produce energy onsite • Stand-alone and building-integrated photovoltaics • Solar hot water • Water Supply Reduce domestic & irrigation demand • Low-flow plumbing fixtures • Rainwater catchment & design for infiltration • Climate-sensitive landscape design • Lifestyle choices Provide for fire protection • Distributed small ponds to supplement hydrants • Access to large pond with standpipe • Keep option open for community well, if needed • Farm and Woodland Michael Hughes, Civil Engineer for the Hart's Mill project, said he has expertise in water supply engineering, and waste water conveyance and engineering. He said he is willing to answer any questions regarding the water supply, the lot layout or roadway design, or the septic system. Chair McKee said it seems there is sufficient access for emergency vehicles to enter but asked for clarification regarding space for emergency vehicles to turn around. He also asked if Michael Hughes could clarify the purpose of the supplemental hydrants. Michael Hughes said the Efland Fire Department expressed excitement that the Hart's Mill plan included fire hydrants. He added that the Fire Department said the pond was very important as a means to get water into the pumper trucks in the case of a fire. He said the Fire Department asked for an access road to the pond specifically for their trucks. He said this was accommodated. He said the stand pipe is a pipe that is accessible to the pumper truck to retrieve water from the pond. He said the other hydrant that was requested is one that can be flowed to refill the pond, as necessary during those times. Katy Ansadi resumed the PowerPoint presentation: Purposes • Provide food &fiber for the community • Practice & demonstrate restorative, sustainable approaches to agriculture and silvaculture • Provide employment opportunities on the land Characteristics • Small-scale, integrated plant & animal systems • Farmstead structures: barn, workshop, sheds, greenhouse, farmhouses • No onsite retail sales Hope Horton completed the PowerPoint presentation: Hart's Mill Village & Farm provides many benefits to Orange County: • Open space and farmland preservation • Low-impact development that protects natural resources & reduces demand on infrastructure • Variety of efficient housing choices for all ages • Live/work opportunities • Innovative model for future development Commissioner Dorosin asked if he were interested in owning one of these homes what would he actually own. Katy Ansadi said he would own his home and he has rights to utilize his "yard". She said the yard is common space but it is limited common space. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the home owner would be required to maintain this grassy area. Katy Ansadi said that is yet to be determined by the Home Owners Association. Commissioner Dorosin asked for explanation of the process of becoming a resident. Katy Ansadi said it will be a self-selecting process. She said there is a group that has tiers from exploratory members to those who are fully engaged in the process. She said as the next phase of building and selling begins people who come forward will be seriously interested in the concept and lifestyle. Commissioner Dorosin said there are other co-housing developments in Orange County and he asked if these developments have the same condominium type model or something different. Katy Ansadi said there are different models in Orange County. She said this project will likely have a modified condominium structure that will act as a housing cooperative as much as possible. Commissioner Price said that the properties have yet to be sold and asked if shares will be sold in a certain way. She asked if one wanted to move into the community would one go directly to an owner or would there be a vetting process. Katy Ansadi said this process is not yet clearly defined. Commissioner Price said there are beavers in the area and asked if the group had any plans regarding the animals. Katy Ansadi said it is felt that the beavers are far enough away at this time to leave them alone. Commissioner Price said there is bus service near the proposed site. She also asked if there could be clarification regarding the stated desire for no curbside recycling. Katy Ansadi said the community is committed to recycling but trucks going through the site are undesirable. She said there will be a common pick up area toward the entrance of the development, as can be seen on page 229. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hope Horton said she had no further comment. Daniel Steenwike said he is a property owner, adjacent to the proposed site. He said the community is welcomed to the area, and he is glad that this is a sustainable living community. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for the Board to: • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to: • Adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Dorosin asked if a decision was reached regarding the quarterly public hearing process. Chair McKee said it was discussed in a work session but no conclusions were reached. Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said on June 2nd an amendment outline of guidelines for this process will be brought to the BOCC for discussion. He added that any changes that the BOCC approves will not apply to the amendments in front of them this evening. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Application for a Class A Special Use Permit—To review and receive sworn testimony on a Special Use Permit application seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station on a portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property located at 1612 White Cross Road within the Bingham Township. THIS IS VERBATIM. Michael Harvey: Good evening. Chair McKee: Good evening, again. Michael Harvey: At this juncture, I'd like to ask everyone intending to offer testimony on this item, to come up and please be sworn. Those who were planning to speak were sworn in. Patrick Mallet: Good evening Commissioners. I'm still Pat Mallet with the Planning Department and I've been duly sworn. I'm going to skip through a few of these slides because for the sake of avoiding redundancy and repetition. But the same rules apply, obviously, as we've just discussed. But I did want to call your attention to this slide. This sort of highlights the property in blue. The area and the limits of the Special Use Permit are defined roughly in red on the aerial photo. The site is at the intersection northwest quadrant of White Cross Road and Old Greensboro Road. The area here is the—just to orient you —this is the White Cross Recreational Facility, which has been in existence for quite some time. The zoning is agricultural-residential. It's in the Haw River protected watershed. Future land use calls for agricultural-residential. Gross management system designation is rural. Patrick Mallet made the following PowerPoint presentation: MAY 26, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: C-3 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A SOLAR ARRAY - PUBLIC UTILITY PROPERTY INFORMATION • PIN(s): 9748-32-0786. • Size: Approximately 35.8 acres. • Zoning : Agricultural Residential (AR) Haw River Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District. • Future Land Use Map Designation: Agricultural Residential. • Growth Management System Designation: Rural. REQUIRED REVIEW Project involves the review of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 of the UDO. • Held in a quasi-judicial format meaning all parties, for and against the application, provide sworn testimony as well as competent material and substantial evidence on the merits of the proposal. • Applicant has burden of demonstrating project complies with the provisions of the UDO. • Anyone opposing the application is required to demonstrate through sworn testimony as well as competent material and substantial evidence that the project does not comply with the provisions of the Ordinance. • Hearsay and/or unsubstantiated opinions are not considered sufficient testimony. • If applicant proves compliance with applicable standards, and there is no evidence in the record the project does not comply, the SUP must be issued. REQUEST • Erect individual solar array panels on approximately 20 acres of property. • Typical array is between 7 and 9 feet in height, with approximately 2 to 3 feet of ground. clearance, and approximately 63 feet in length. • Arrays will be screened by an installed 50 ft. wide Type D Land Use Buffer. • An 8 foot high chain link security fence shall surround the perimeter of the 11.5 solar array field, outside of the proposed land use buffer, to prevent access. • Gravel paths/drives will be installed around these arrays in order to permit access by technicians to service the panels. Depending on the soil and topography, areas around the solar panels will be a combination of natural groundcover, grassed, and/or paths. • Vehicular access to the site is restricted by a 24 foot wide drive with gated access via White Cross Road. SITE PLAN • Cross Section of Northern Property Line SITE PHOTO— NORTHERN PROPERTY SITE PHOTO—WHITE CROSS REC PROPERTY SITE PHOTO— UTILITY SUBSTATION SITE PHOTO— PROPERTY FROM OLD GREENSBORO ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING • Held on April 9, 2015, • Adjacent property owners expressed concern over impacts on their property values, • The northern property owner expressed concern required land use buffers were insufficient, • Adjacent property owners expressed concerns over traffic and access to the facility, • There were concerns over what was going to happen the rest of the property (i.e. how would it be developed/redeveloped). REVIEW PROCESS • Step One: Review of application at a joint Quarterly Public Hearing by BOCC and Planning Board. BOCC adjourns the public hearing to a date/time certain to receive the Planning Board recommendation. • Step Two: Review of application by Planning Board who make a recommendation on the application based on the evidence and testimony offered into evidence during the public hearing. — STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Board is currently scheduled to meet and review this item at their July 1, 2015 regular meeting 7:00 p.m. held in the lower level conference room of the West Campus Office Building at 131 West Margaret Lane in downtown Hillsborough. • Step Three: BOCC reconvenes public hearing to receive Planning Board recommendation. No additional public comment/testimony is accepted. • BOCC takes action on the proposal. STAFF INITIAL REVIEW • Applicant has submitted documentation required for the review of the project • Applicant has submitted required documentation for a Class A Special Use Permit (i.e. required by Section 2.7.3) • There are goals/objectives/policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence to the viability of the proposal RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive the application, 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments. 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Patrick Mallet: I am going to note at this point that the Applicants, and I'll let them get into the details, but I believe that they've been into extensive discussions with some of the adjacent property owners. Namely one property owner, in particular, to the North. And have revised the buffer that they would be providing on the northern side, and the chain —the type of fencing, I believe, is another element to their request. The Applicants' submitted today some revised plans which I believe you have copies of those revised plans. And we'll let them speak to the specifics of those revisions. The request includes the treatment around the solar array system. Essentially, they're proposing gravel paths and natural areas. That will vary depending on the type of soil and topography. Vehicular access would be restricted to White Cross Road. As you may have noticed the parcel is 35.88 acres and it does have some access on to Old Greensboro Road. But they're proposing access essentially right next to the White Cross Recreational Facility. This is the site plan. The square areas are obviously the solar arrays. This is White Cross Road here. This is the staging area for construction. This red perimeter is the fenced in area. This is the northern property line. As I mentioned that buffer, I believe, has been revised. And the southern portion of the property is being retained by the property owner. This area is approximately 20 acres. This shows the typical cross section of the solar array system and a typical section of the 50 foot wide type B buffer around the perimeter. This shows the cross section of the northern property line. As I stated, that buffer has been revised so I'll let the Applicant go into further details regarding the treatment of that buffer. This shows a series of photos around the property. This is a view of the house to the north. New construction —there's a pasture that's been cleared in front of the house that goes to the property line. And then the picture in the lower left hand corner shows the existing vegetation on the subject property. This is a view of the White Cross Ball Field area, which is facing north in the general direction of the of that home and through the midsection of the property. In the lower right hand corner you've got a picture that shows the topography change from White Cross Road. There is probably a good 15-20 foot change in elevation from the White Cross Facility to the actual road. And in the lower left hand corner around that curve would be the proposed entrance. This is a view of the utilities substation that the solar array would connect to theoretically and is adjacent to the property to the north. This is a view of Old Greensboro Road. As I stated, the property technically has frontage roughly where that crossing sign — intersection of 35 mile an hour speed limit sign is. But they are not proposing access and that area would be retained by the owner. Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on April 9th. Adjacent property owners expressed a variety of concerns including impact on their property values, the treatment of the buffer, traffic access, and concerns over what was going to happen with the remainder of the property. I would also note that the applicant did have one additional meeting above and beyond what was required with the neighborhood information meeting at the White Cross Recreational Facility. Much of the same was discussed but there was more attention to the treatment of the buffer to the north. This just goes through the same process that I reiterated at the beginning with the first Special Use Permit—where step one: the public hearing, step two: you would refer the application to the Planning Board and they would make a recommendation on the application, based on the evidence and testimony offered. The Planning Board Meeting would hopefully be set for July the first, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. Step three: the Board of Commissioners reconvenes the Public Hearing to receive the Planning Board recommendation, no additional comment or testimony is accepted. The Board of Commissioners takes action on the proposal. Staff initial review: the Applicant has submitted the documentation required for the review of the project. The Applicant has submitted the required documentation for a Class A Special Use Permit as required in the UDO section 2.7.3. And there are goals, objectives and policies which are consistent with the comprehensive plan, leading credence to the viability of the proposal. The recommendation is to receive the application, conduct the public hearing, accept the public, the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board comments. Refer the matter to the Planning Board, with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of Commissioners in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. Adjourn the Public Hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. And with that, I will turn it over to the Applicant's attorney, Beth Trahos. Pete Hallenbeck: Before we turn it to the Applicant, are there any questions so far from the Commissioners? Commissioner Dorosin: Just one quick question: it is going to still be one parcel, or was that picture that you showed with the... Patrick Mallet: I believe the intent is to subdivide the property. Which could be done with an exempt subdivision, both parcels would be greater than 10 acres. This area, roughly in red — roughly depicts the area that would be subdivided. Beth Trahos: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, and Chair Person and Planning Board Members. My name is Beth Trahos. I'm an attorney with Smith Moore Leatherwood, and I'm here tonight on behalf of White Cross Solar, with our application to allow a solar farm on White Cross Road. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that there are a number folks signed up to speak on this and I think I'm responsible for many of them. In our expert group, we have Engineer George Retschle, Appraiser Tom Hester, Appraiser Rich Kirkland, Cypress Creek Renewables Employee Rich Moretz, and Mechanical Engineer Tommy Cleveland. They are all on that list and are all a part of our presentation. And I handed out to you a notebook that you will find at your seat that includes sworn Affidavits, copies of the site plan, and of the prospective that were provided as a part of our submittal packet. And I would ask you to move into the record the staff report and associated documents and that you also include in the record the notebook that we have handed to you. We're going to attempt to be efficient with your time and rely largely on those Affidavits. All of those folks are here today and available for cross examination. We'll call a few of them up to talk with you and we'll bring others, as needed, to answer questions that you, or others, may ask of us. We recognize you've been here for a long time, and we'll try to get you out—get our part done as quickly as we can. As staff indicated, we have been working hard with neighbors in the area. We had first the staff sponsored community meeting in April. We had our own meeting in May and we have continued our dialogue with adjacent property owners. And our belief is that our neighbors are comfortable with what it is that we're proposing. Staff indicated the property is zoned AR and a solar farm is permitted as a Special Use in that district. The solar farm site plan meets all of the criteria that are set out in your ordinance for approval of a Special Use Permit. And I'm going to ask folks to come forward and confirm for you that all those requirements have been met. I'll start with Mr. Retschle, who is the Project Engineer. I ask him to talk with you briefly. And of course at any time please feel free to ask questions. George Retschle: Good evening. My name is George Retschle, I'm the President of Ballentine Associates in Chapel Hill. I have been duly sworn. I do appreciate your time this evening. I am a Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina and in Virginia. I have been involved with a little over hundred solar farms in the past three years. I was responsible for the preparation of the site plan that you have before you tonight. Pat (Mallet) did mention a few modifications that have been made to the site plan since the original submittal. One of those modifications involves a buffer along the northern property line. As a result of some negotiations between our client and the adjacent neighbor, we have widened that buffer from the minimum 50 foot required to a 65 foot buffer. So there's a substantial amount of existing vegetation that's going to remain on that northern property line. And with solar farm we need to be careful of shading on the west, east and south portions of the array, so that we don't have inefficient panels. But along the northern property line, we were able to to provide a much wider buffer than what was required and what we had originally anticipated. That's one of the major changes. Another change was that we pulled the southern property line up to reduce the amount of overall property within the property that's going to be subdivided out. I think it went from 23 acres down to 19.8, so it's gotten a little bit smaller. The size of the array within the fence is somewhere around 10.5 acres. And that final acreage and size will be determined by the final electrical design. What you see on the plan now, is a preliminary layout of the panels, and some of that will gyrate a little bit as the final electrical design is done. That won't happen until after we receive approval from the County Commissioners and just before the permitting process. I know that you've been handed an Affidavit that's got my full testimony on it. But I wanted to just kind of summarize a couple of the major points. In my professional opinion, this project, as it is shown currently on the latest plan that it meets all the applicable portions of the UDO. And I believe, in my professional opinion, that if the project's built as designed it will be harmonious with the area given the buffering that we've provided. And it will not be injurious in any way to the public's health, safety or welfare. And I'm here to answer any questions that you have. Chair McKee: Seeing none. Beth Trahos: Mr. Chairman, just one note. I would be remiss if I didn't tell you that as a part of our discussions with adjacent property owners, we're going to be tweaking the plan and we will be resubmitting a new plan that will require that along the northern property line, thirty feet of the buffer, closest to the property line remain, be undisturbed. Closest to the property line, to the north, remain undisturbed. And that there be a green screen installed on the fence facing the northern property line. And we will add that to our site plan so that it is available to you in the record. I would ask, ah, Mr. Hester to come forward. Mr. Hester is a North Carolina Real Estate Appraiser. Tom Hester: Hello. My name is Tom Hester. I'm a State Certified Real Estate Appraiser in North Carolina. I have a North Carolina Broker's License, and I'm a designated member of the Appraisal Institute, which is a National Professional Organization. I have the MAI designation. I've been active in appraising properties in central North Carolina for about 33 years. My assignment in this case was to make a determination of whether this proposed use would have a negative effect on adjacent property values. To make that determination I at first am looking at what types of properties— or what characteristics —would have an effect on adjacent properties. And so I'm considering traffic, noise, lighting, dust, hazardous materials, and visual effect. And for this proposed use—for the Solar Farm-it's a very passive use. So there's really no traffic, there's no noise, there's no lighting, there's no dust. The only effect on adjacent properties is visual: can you see it? And my determination is to look at other existing farms and make a determination. If you can see the solar farm, does it have an effect on values? So to make that determination, I looked just— not just at this property but at about 30 other, existing solar farms. All put into service since 2011. And I used an analysis called paired sale analysis. I'm looking at transactions, sales of real estate, sales of properties—generally residential properties—that are potentially effected by solar farms. I looked at sales of properties that occurred before the solar farm was built. And then similar properties after it was built. And I also looked at properties that have close proximity to existing solar farms versus transactions of properties that are further away but in the same general vicinity. My finding, using that paired sale analysis, before and after—and also inside and outside the ring surrounding the solar farms— is that the existing solar farms that I investigated have had no effect on actual transaction prices. Sales generally the same price—the same price range— before and after, and close in versus further out. So my conclusion is that this proposed farm would not have any effect on the adjacent properties or the nearby community. And then, just to continue, this site plan has got a really lower density than most of the existing solar farms that have been built in the last two or three years. That's fewer solar—a smaller array—versus the total land area. It's got significantly more set back and buffer and screening. I think the visibility of this— of the solar panels on this property—will be very limited. I just don't think that you'll be able to see with the natural vegetation that will surround the array. My finding says that being adjacent or being able to see those solar arrays doesn't have an effect on the value. In this case, you won't be able to see it or very, very limited visibility. My conclusion is this will have no effect on the values of the adjacent properties. Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Beth Trahos: Mr. Chairman, I would tell you that with those experts, in combination with the testimony of your staff, we believe meets the prima facia burden of proof under your Ordinance. We would point out to you also that you have previously approved a solar farm just up the road. There is an existing one in operation today, a five megawatt solar farm just up the road, and you made all of the same findings of fact relative to that solar farm that you would be required to make with regard to this solar farm. And so we would say to you that nothing has changed since you made those findings except that you have amended your Ordinance to require additional buffers and screenings. And we are, of course, complying with that. I would tell you that, again, we do have a variety of experts that would be available to come and talk with you. We have a Mechanical Engineer, we have someone very knowledgeable about solar and we have another appraiser. If there are any questions that you have we would be happy to bring those folks forward. We would reserve time for rebuttal and we would thank you very much for your time and ask for your support of this green and renewable energy project. Thank you. Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Are there any questions from the Planning Board members? Lydia Wegman: question... Pete Hallenbeck: I'm sorry, go ahead. Chair McKee: Could you step to the microphone, please? Lydia Wegman: My name is Lydia Wegman. I'm a member of the Planning Board. I haven't had a chance to look yet through this document and the appraisal that was just discussed by Mr. Hester, and I'd like a chance to do that—and we'll have a chance to talk about that, in our next Planning Board meeting. But I do want to get a sense for whether the situation that he examined in his paired analysis are, in fact, comparable to the situation in White Cross, where there's already an existing solar farm. And, I haven't had a chance to look through this yet since I just received it. So I just wanted to flag a concern, and that I want to better understand the kind of appraisal that he did. Chair McKee: I think you may be getting ready to get an answer. Lydia Wegman: Okay. Great. Tom Hester: Tom Hester again and I have two answers, I guess. One is that the communities that I've investigated are very similar to this location. Where you have a of a combination of agricultural uses, wooded land, and residential uses. So, very similar in surrounding counties in central North Carolina. I've also investigated in Catawba County and further west and I went there because I think there's five or six, farms there and a couple of the largest farms in the State. And so I really wanted to look at the communities around where they are more prevalent and more has been developed and where they are larger. And really the same finding's there. Even surrounding the larger farms there is no effect on the sales prices. When the properties sell, when the house sells— and I really try to focus on residential uses rather than large land tracks. I think if the houses aren't affected, I think the bigger tracks of land are not going to be affected. So I was really focusing on the residential uses. Pete Hallenbeck: And, of course, your report is entered as evidence. So the Planning Board will be able to review that, correct. Tom Hester: Good. Thank you. Pete Hallenbeck: And I think we have a question from a Commissioner. Commissioner Rich: I have a question. I think this is possibly for Mr. Harvey. Can you just run through the process so we're talking about a portion of this property that's as Commissioner Dorosin asked, is staying one property, it's not being broken down into any or into two parcels. What is the process for development of the other part of the property? Chair McKee: We have to follow the procedure. I'm sorry. You'll get a chance to speak. Michael Harvey: One of the conditions that'll be associated with the Special Use Permit is, obviously, it'll have to go through a subdivision process. As this will be an exempt subdivision — meaning it'll be larger than 10 acres—will be exempt. And what that translates to is that the County Planning Staff will actually have to verify that the boundaries of the new lot here actually comply with any approved site plan for the Special Use Permit. But it will be reviewed and approved through the exempt process. Meaning, we're not going to do anything else other than verify its compliance with the SUP. As far as development of the southern parcel of the property, it will allowed — be allowed to develop consistent with its current zoning. The issuance of the SUP has no bearing on this potential parcel of property. So, for example, if it was an undeveloped parcel, could they develop a single family residence on it? The answer is yes. They would have to go through the site plan review process or the plot plan review process as spelled out in section 2.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance, consistent with the building permit application. Patrick Mallet: I would just like to add to that. The revisions that they submitted today, clarify that there's a line that defines the limits of the Special Use Permit. Commissioner Rich: Sorry, I didn't get a chance to read that until it got set down. Patrick Mallet: Understood. Commissioner Rich: I wasn't in my easy chair, checking it out. Patrick Mallet: It defines the future lot line and the limits of the Special Use Permits. So, I think, in this case, it's very well specified where they intend to locate the solar arrays. And I would add —this is a little bit unique, in the sense that you would typically see a lease arrangement. This is a purchase. And as a result the purchase will create a specifically defined property boundary area through the subdivision process. Commissioner Rich: Thank you. Pete Hallenbeck: Alright. We have a number of people who signed up to speak on this. What I'd like to do at this point is have anyone who wishes to speak on this come up and get sworn in. And then we'll listen to what you have to say. Do we have anyone here who wishes to speak? We have people who signed up. If you signed up and you haven't been sworn in, this is the time to come up and get sworn in so we can hear from you. Chair McKee: Call the names. Pete Hallenbeck: Okay. So the names —just to make sure we don't miss anyone. Beth Trahos Beth Trahos: Yes sir that was me. Pete Hallenbeck: I'm sure I'll be saying some of the people who were on the team. That's ok, we want to make sure we don't miss anyone. Uh, Rich Moretz— Rich Moretz: Yes sir. Pete Hallenbeck: Okay. Hope Horton — oh, wait a sec, I have item 2 — my mistake. Moving on. Tommy Cleveland?—okay. Carol Rigsbee? Carol Bryant? Steve Haggerty? And to be absolutely sure, is there anyone else here who wishes to speak on this? Alright. In that case, then I will turn this back over to Commissioner McKee. Chair McKee: Is anyone— because several of these people are on the team, is there anyone whose name was called that wishes to speak to this assembly? Okay, I just want to make sure. Being that several of these people are on the development team and we know they're not going to speak, or assuming they're not going to speak because the presentation's been made. I want to make sure we don't forget or eliminate anybody from speaking. Beth Trahos: No sir. We are assuming that this is a part of the record and so their testimonies (Ms. Trahos held up the notebook with the affidavits) are a part of the record without them taking up any more of your time. Chair McKee: I am making the assumption that we have no one in the room that wishes to speak to this item from the public? Then we'll move on. Patrick Mallet: I will just add the same formality that Michael added with the first Special use Permit. That we would enter the abstract and all its contents formally into the record. And then the revisions that were handed up, and submitted, today by the Applicant. Chair McKee: Prior to making that motion, I do have a couple of questions for our Attorney. We received new material from the Applicant tonight. What—from a technical aspect—does that involve as far as the impact on this application? Does it impact it, in that we need to delay because of new information has not been made to the public, or it has no effect, and we can move forward with it? James Bryan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's fine to proceed. There was proper notice of this meeting so that's the due process notice that is given to the Public that there may be additional information. As long as the application was complete at its submittal, amendments can be fine. There was, however, a mention of an amended site plan to be presented in the future. And that would cause some concern, if it's not clearly proffered and articulated now what those are. So, if it's included in the binder, that's fine. If it's something else that was demonstrated in some sort of exhibit, that's fine— if it's going to be presented in another format. But anything like that has to be clearly articulated today. Chair McKee: Okay that was going to be my second question. There was a new site plan submission for a buffer— moving the buffer from 50 to 65 feet. That, I believe, is part of this abstract so does that therefore generate any concern on your part? James Bryan: If we could just get the attorney just to confirm on the record, "yes". Beth Trahos: Yes. It is included on the site plan as I am told, that the green screen as well is indicated on the site plan. So those changes are a part of the plan that was submitted today. Chair McKee: So, again, to the attorney, you are comfortable that the late submissions, for lack of a better word —or the submissions at the meeting tonight—are acceptable. James Bryan: Yes, if I may—just to take just a second longer to describe the process —, so, a Special Use Permit says that you've got a general right to the use of this property—for this intended use, if you meet these conditions. If there is some area where there's a lack of meeting any of this—that's where these conditions get put on. It's very common for these conditions to be changed throughout this Public Hearing process. It's evidence that there's a need —that there was an awareness of this need prior to—and a solution — prior to this meeting. It's just a benefit provided by the Applicant and the neighbors. They did good work beforehand and the staff as well. So everything should be good. Chair McKee: Okay. Very good. Then I —then I will assume we will move forward with this... James Bryan: Yes Beth Trahos: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. Let me just add one more thing as we were talking. I do want to confirm that a condition also is that 30 feet of the 65 foot buffer along the northern property line will be an undisturbed area. And that is not particularly or specifically laid out on the site plan itself but we would offer that as a condition. Chair McKee: And I believe you had mentioned that in your your previous testimony. Beth Trahos: Yes sir. Chair McKee: Very good. Are there any other questions, specifically on this project from the Board, or for the Planning Board? Chair McKee: Seeing none. Yes....? Commissioner Dorosin: Just to clarify...it's going to be subdivided into two parcels, or there's just a line that's delineating... Beth Trahos: The property will be formally subdivided via your exempt subdivision process. Commissioner Dorosin: Okay. Chair McKee: Any further questions? If not, we'll move forward. And I guess the first thing is a motion to accept all relevant material that has been submitted by the Applicant, as well any other relevant document, as part of the record. Commissioner Price: So moved. Commissioners Burroughs: Second. Chair McKee: It's been moved, and seconded to include all relevant documents as part of the record. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. Motion passes unanimously. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair McKee: And then as before, the only two points that we really need to decide tonight are items 3 and 4. Item 3 being: to Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. Do I hear a motion? Commissioner Price: So moved. Commissioner Dorosin: Second. Chair McKee: Moved, and seconded. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. Motion passes unanimously. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair McKee: And then I need a motion to adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Dorosin: So moved. Commissioner Rich: Second. Chair McKee: Got the motion, and a second. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. That motion also passes unanimously. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair McKee: Thank you very much. We will see you on a very busy September 1 sc 4. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to clarify existing regulatory requirements regarding the development of stormwater features and incorporate a State recognized process allowing for the installation of additional impervious surface area. Michael Harvey thanked the BOCC for their patience. He said that this proposed text amendment specifically seeks to amend existing regulations to allow for a third option with respect to the modification of an impervious surface limit. He reviewed the following PowerPoint presentation: MAY 26, 2015 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM:C-4 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REGULATIONS BACKGROUND • Staff and Board members have received numerous inquiries related to increasing allowable impervious surface area. • Staff summarized issues/options in memo presented at the March 3, 2015 regular BOCC meeting. • BOCC authorized amendment process at its March 17, 2015 regular meeting. PROPOSAL • Proposed amendment seeks to allow additional impervious surface area through development and incorporation of an infiltration based stormwater feature, consistent with State allowances. • Feature has to be designed/certified by a professional (i.e. engineer) • Ordinance establishes a cap on the total amount of additional impervious surface area that can be placed on a property. • Property owner has to record maintenance agreement outlining perpetual care/maintenance of feature. EXAMPLE (Arial graphic) PEER REVIEW • Staff presented proposal to the Orange County Commission for the Environment (CFE), Orange Water Sewer Authority (OWASA) board, and submitted proposal to the planning staff of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for review. • In summary, while various entities expressed support for the proposal there was a universal concern the County lacks the staff resources to properly monitor and inspect these stormwater features in perpetuity to ensure their continued viability. RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive the application, 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, Planning Board, and BOCC sworn testimony, 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned in time for the June 16, 2015 BOCC regular meeting, and 4. Adjourn the public hearing until June 16, 2015 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Burroughs asked if there was a detailed explanation of the process involved in monitoring impervious surfaces. Michael Harvey said there is a requirement in the UDO, as well as in State law, that all stormwater features have a recorded operations agreement. He said this agreement will detail the care and maintenance of that facility in perpetuity, including the responsibility of the current, and all future, property owners. He said the property owner would have to submit documentation showing that the system is functioning properly. He said the County is required to inspect biannually. He said some difficulty arises based on the complexity of the various systems. He added that the Applicant's documentation would have to be certified by an Engineer. He said the long term concern is that, over time, the property owners may have to remove and reinstall, or massively up-fit, the system to guarantee its viability as an infiltration based stormwater feature. Commissioner Burroughs asked if there is a reason that the surface would fail. Michael Harvey said the generic term of infiltration based storm water feature as the State is currently revising its manual. He said the current stormwater feature, which is recognized by the State, is permeable pavement. He said permeable pavement calls for the removal of dirt, planting of rock, sand and other substrata allowing the water to percolate through. He said permeable pavement is still not completely pervious and the allowance is based on the soil content. He said not all soil can take advantage of this program. Michael Harvey said permeable pavement is not going to be the only option. He said engineers may come up with other solutions consistent with the State stormwater management manual with respect to the development and installation of what can be classified as an infiltration based stormwater feature. These alternatives will be evaluated by local and State staff. Commissioner Burroughs said the budget recommendation includes another soil erosion staff person and asked if that position would conduct the inspections to which Mr. Harvey refers. Craig Benedict said yes, the Erosion Patrol Stormwater staff would conduct the inspections. He said they are very aware of best practices. He said vacuuming is a maintenance that can occur on permeable pavement where sediments clog its permeability. Commissioner Rich said two or three emails were received about this topic. She asked if these emails should be passed along to the Planning Department. Michael Harvey said he has received one email. Commissioner Rich said it is important that the Planning Department receive these communications and perhaps determining a way to insure this in the future would be helpful. Bonnie Hammersely said she would forward all the emails to the Planning Department. Commissioner Rich said one of Orange Water and Sewer Authority's (OWASA) comments stated, "this conclusion is predicated on the assumption that development densities and riparian buffer requirements are not relaxed." She said the General Assembly may change some of these things and asked if such changes would affect OWASA's comment. Michael Harvey said the comments from OWASA are valued but the actions of the State are beyond the County's control. He said the County has achieved a reasonable solution to the problem and puts the responsibility on the property owner to come up with a solution. He said there may be exemptions to the State's potential changes as well as studies that the County can complete to show the importance of restrictive stream buffers. Michael Harvey said even though the State may modify the Stream Buffer Program it does not invalidate the benefits of this process. Michael Harvey said he has heard Commissioner Jacobs express concern that while this may have universal application for protected watersheds there is concern that tinkering with the impervious surface limit in the critical watersheds should be prohibited. He asked for both the BOCC and the Planning Board to consider this comment. Chair McKee said he is concerned with the odd shaped lots that have been developed due to the configuration of the land. He said some have very long driveways that eat up the impervious surface. He said he feels this option would allow people to build a larger house, garage, or some other out building on their property which is currently difficult to do. Chair McKee said one of the emails received concerned the ownership of a ten acre property with a 1.8 or 2.3 percent impervious surface, which is well under the 6 percent allowance. He said this particular configuration is affected by the way the developer assigned the impervious surface and puts extreme limits on what a person can build on their property. Michael Harvey said the Board has asked staff to look into whether the Subdivision Ordinance needs to be amended to include a mandatory minimum percentage of impervious for every lot, thus preventing developers from robbing Peter to pay Paul. Chair McKee said the matter must be reviewed thoroughly. Michael Harvey said both Planning and Erosion Control staff meet with individuals seeking to develop property to try to identify alternative means to develop driveways. He said one example is geoweb, a hard composite plastic that is buried subterranean and can support the weight of a vehicle. He said it is not counted as impervious and would allow developers to address the specific instance to which Chair McKee referred. Commissioner Pelissier asked if staff, with regard to a maintenance agreement, is suggesting that the homeowner pay for the additional inspections. She asked if such funds would cover the additional staff required to conduct the inspections. Michael Harvey said the funds could supplement the need for additional staff. He said different options are being considered. Commissioner Pelissier said ask the Planning Board or staff to consider giving home owners up front notification about the repairs, their costs and the exact responsibility the home owner incurs. Michael Harvey said currently the Erosion Control staff clearly details the operations agreement and does a detailed walk through of all expectations. He said cost is not currently discussed but estimates could be provided. Planning Board Member Tony Blake said he just went through this process at one of their fire substations. He said a deeded easement would be required if the County needed to come in and make repairs. He said he pays a service to inspect his septic system annually and the company files paperwork with the County. He asked if this same process could occur with the inspection of impervious surfaces. Michael Harvey said this option is being considered currently. Lisa Stuckey asked if there are consequences when a person builds a shed but then fails to maintain it. Michael Harvey said if one installs a BMP, while receiving additional impervious allotment, and fails to maintain the BMP, then one will be in violation of the operations agreement and must demolish the additional impervious surface or bring the BMP into compliance. Craig Benedict said Orange County itself is a property owner and maintains their own BMPs. He said there are ways to get compliance. PUBLIC COMMENT: Janel Sexton said she petitioned the Board in December 2014 and she was warned when purchasing a property in Triple Crown Estates. She said she was completely unaware of how restrictive the impervious rules are. She said every single resident in her development has less than 6 percent of impervious surfaces. She said she has nothing on her property but a house, a short driveway and pervious pavers. She said she would like to install a pool but there is not enough impervious surface to do so. She said somehow the neighborhood got short changed and she should be entitled to put a pool in her yard. She said she is a scientist and has looked at the science behind this issue. She feels that passing this amendment will not adversely affect the water and would allow tax-paying residents to have a bit more freedom to do as they please with their land. EMAILS THAT WERE RECEIVED ON THIS ITEM: • Please approve the amendment to give impervious credit to residents who use approved "best management practices" as a stormwater runoff protection measure. I pay taxes on 10 acres of land but can only use less than 2% of my property. I would like to have a parking pad big enough to park three cars and would be willing to use the more expensive pervious pavers. Dale Thompson 221 Whirlaway Lane Chapel Hill • Dear Orange County Board of Commissioners, My name is Steven Raets. I live in the Triple Crown Estate, Orange County, Chapel Hill. I am writing you regarding tomorrow's public hearing, agenda item 4: Unified Development Ordinance Text amendment. I might not be able to make it in time for the discussion (as I can only leave at 20:15) and hence I am writing you a mail with my thoughts/comments. I have been in regular dialogue with Mr Harvey from planning for the last 4-5 years regarding impervious surface restrictions in our community. I very much welcome that the board is now looking into potentially amending the ordinance to allow for storm water harvesting systems as a way to allow credits on impervious surface. I would like to ask your support and approval for this change, as it would be very helpful allowing us to have a bigger parking lot and additional garage space as our kids grow up and get their own cars. I have a 10 acre property with only 1.8% allowed impervious surface causing us lots of headaches. For instance each time we get a delivery truck to come down with a package, chances are high our landscaped lawn gets ripped up because there is not enough space to turn around. When considering these changes in the UDO, please try to find a reasonable way to achieve a balance between the county's need for continued proper functioning of the storm water harvesting systems, and the initial cost and maintenance on the properties owner part. If the burden becomes too high, then no one will implement these systems and storm water run off will continue polluting at its current pace. However with the proper incentives (impervious surface credits), people will install these systems and the runoff will be greatly reduced because most system will collect from the roof of the whole house. While you are reviewing these storm water systems, I would like to flag another item that is related to impervious surface restrictions. I am a pretty keen proponent of green/clean energy and hence have installed several energy saving systems in my home. One of them is a roof mounted solar system. Given my roof is fully maxed out with solar panels, I approached planning department earlier this year to ask if I could extend my system by installing rack mounted solar panels in my yard. Due to impervious restrictions, planning said I would not get permission to install such a system. I would like to ask the commissioners to look into this. How can it be that a solar power system could be denied based on allowed impervious surface? It is not that I want to install a mega system,just to provide for my own use. I currently generate about 25% of my energy usage and duke energy can allow me a system 3 times as big as I have currently. I discussed with planning department the solar and wind access policy of NC state. They looked at it but said that their interpretation of this law remains consistent with the initial verdict that rack mounted solar power panels would count towards my impervious surface usage (even though the solar and wind access policy explicitly states that is supersede any county ordinance prohibiting the installation of solar power), and that given that I am at the maximum allowed, I would not be able to install it. My question would be if you could look into solar power systems and impervious surface restrictions? I believe that some counties adjusted the ordinances to exclude solar power from the impervious surface restrictions. Many thanks for considering. Kind regards, Steven Raets • I am requesting you approve the amendment to give impervious credit to residents who use approved "best management practices" stormwater runoff protection measure at tomorrow's meeting, just like our surrounding counties do. Thank you, Eva Labro 225 Whirlaway Lane Chapel Hill • This is with regard to land use for construction and impervious allocation on private property in Orange County. I am a resident at 101 Whirlaway lane, Chapel hill, NC which is in the Triple Crown subdivision. We are currently highly restricted with regard to impervious allocation (presently maxed) even though we have approx 3.5acres of land on this property. I am requesting that the board consider reassessment of the impervious land allocation for properties like ours that sit on large acreage but get limited by what can be built, especially since we need to have handicapped access built for our elderly parent who is a resident of this property. Thanks, Harendra Arora Chair McKee asked if the subdivisions use part of the impervious surface allotment for the roads structure themselves. Michael Harvey said yes. Chair McKee said perhaps this is where the excess impervious surface allotment was used up. Michael Harvey agreed. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the Board to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for its June 16, 2015 regular meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adjourn the public hearing until June 16, 2015 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to modify sign regulations within certain Activity Nodes. Chair McKee said he received word that Commissioner Jacobs has concerns about this item. He said Commissioner Jacobs was unable to attend tonight and asked for the Board to consider waiting until September to discuss this item, when Commissioner Jacobs can attend the meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin seconded by Commissioner Rich to delay the discussion of this item until Commissioner Jacobs can be available since he has concerns. Commissioner Price asked if the nature of Commissioner Jacobs' concerns is known. Chair McKee said he does not know the nature of Commissioner Jacobs' concerns. Commissioner Burroughs asked if this item is time sensitive. Michael Harvey said no. Chair McKee said to defer discussion until the September 1 st Quarterly Public Hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The Clerk to the Board clarified that the date of the next Quarterly Public Hearing is actually September 8, 2015 (not September 1 std D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adjourn the meeting at 9:59 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board