The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 10-06-2015 - 5a 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 6, 2015 Action Agenda Item No. 5-a SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit — Schools (Elementary, Middle and Secondary) Public and Private) for the Emerson Waldorf School (Receipt of Planning Board Recommendation — No Additional Public Comment or Testimony Allowed) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Vicinity Map Patrick Mallett, Planner II, (919) 245-2577 2. July 1, 2015 Planning Board Abstract Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, (919) 245-2597 3. Excerpt of Approved Minutes from the Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245-2592 May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing 4. Excerpt of Approved Minutes from the July 1, 2015 Planning Board Meeting 5. Planning Board Recommended Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval 6. Script for Acting on Findings of Fact PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a decision on a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') application submitted by the Emerson Waldorf School located at the intersection of New Jericho and Millhouse Roads in Chapel Hill Township. The applicant is proposing revisions to the school's current SUP and requesting approval of a Master Plan outlining the long-term expansion of the school's facilities and infrastructure in accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.8.4 "Schools: Elementary, Middle and Secondary" of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The reconvening of this hearing is solely to receive the Planning Board recommendation and any additional written evidence submitted since the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. This hearing is not intended to solicit additional input from the public or the applicant. While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments from the public or the applicant shall not be solicited. As a reminder, the review of this item is carried out in a quasi-judicial format. Decisions relating to the approval or denial of SUP applications are based solely on the sworn testimony of all parties involved with the case, both those for and against, as well as the review of competent material and substantial evidence submitted during the public hearing. Hearsay or unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony. BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing and the July 1, 2015 Planning Board meetings. Agenda materials for the Quarterly Public Hearing can be viewed at: http://www.oranpecountync.povf15052QP C.pdf 2 STAFF COMMENT. The following testimony/evidence was entered into the record at the public hearing- i. Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and Master Plan, presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. ii. Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO. iii. Applicant sworn testimony from the applicants and their consultants. The applicant entered copies of affidavits and a real estate report, completed by Mr. Vic Knight, into the record providing additional information on the project's compliance with applicable standards. iv. Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public. During the hearing, the following comments/questions were posed concerning the application: • BOCC and Planning Board members requested clarification on the process for site plans and development following the SUP approval, roadway and pedestrian crossing improvements, Environmental Health permitting and wells. RESPONSE: The applicant testified, and staff confirmed, that the project would require additional permitting with NCDOT for roadways, encroachments and crossings; NCDEHNR for the state approved septic field; Site Plans and Stormwater/Erosion Control Permits with Orange County Planning; and building permits with Orange County Inspections. Approval of this SUP and Master Plan allows the applicant to move forward with the school's long-term vision for the school without multiple revisions to the SUP. It should be noted there was no competent material evidence or expert testimony entered into the record demonstrating the project did not comply with the UDO. An excerpt from the minutes from the public hearing is contained within Attachment 3. Agenda materials from the July 1, 2015 Planning Board meeting can be viewed at- ht!p-://www.oranqecountvnc.qov/Planninq Board Agenda Packet July 2015.pdf. The abstract and handouts from this meeting are contained in Attachment 2. An excerpt of minutes from this meeting are contained within Attachment 4. Additional information, as contained within this abstract, will be entered into the record at the October 67 2015 regular meeting. Proposal: As testified at the Public Hearing, the applicant is requesting to modify and expand the existing school campus. Part of the request is to have the County approve a Master Plan detailing the construction and location of new buildings and support facilities over the next 15 years. The plans are envisioned to support an increase in student population to approximately 350 students by 2030. Currently the school has 259 students enrolled. If the request is approved, the school is expected to see an increase of 91 students over the next 15 years. 3 Vehicular access to the site is restricted to New Jericho Road via three existing driveway access points. During peak student drop-off and pick up times (i.e. between 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.), drivers will be restricted to accessing the site via the northern driveway to avoid congestion. School personnel will be responsible for traffic management during these times. Analysis: As required under Section 2.7.4 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of the application' and pass that analysis on to the reviewing body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following- 1. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.7, 2.9, and Section 5.8.4 of the UDO. 2. Staff has determined that the property is of sufficient size to support the proposed expansion. 3. The proposal appears consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: a. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. 4. Staff has determined that the proposed Master Plan and the expansion(s) of the school's facilities are consistent with the provisions and goals of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Joint Planning Agreement. 5. This item was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review. Initial comments have not indicated a concern. The response from the Clearinghouse indicated there were no significant issues with the proposed Master Plan and SUP. Planning Board Review: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its July 1, 2015 regular meeting(s) and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the SUP. Please refer to Attachment 5 for the Planning Board's recommendations. Planning Director's Recommendation: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.4 of the UDO, the Planning Director recommends approval of the application subject to: • Approval of the recommended Findings of Fact as detailed within Attachment 5, • The imposition of the recommended conditions detailed within Attachment 5, and • The BOCC's ability to make an affirmative finding on the general standards outlined within Section 5.8.4 of the UDO. Staff has provided a script denoting the cadence of review and action on the recommended findings in Attachment 6. 4 Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) of the UDO, evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board's recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has determined the project would not require augmentation of County budgetary outlays to support services and that anticipated revenues from property taxes should supplement any increases in cost. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no specific Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated with this item. Please note the review and required findings of fact associated with special use permits is detailed within State law and the UDO. A finding that a project supports or in some way contributes to the concept of Social Justice is not a required finding and cannot be a basis of approval or denial. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation; 2. Close the public hearing; 3. Approve the Findings of Fact, and impose the recommended conditions, as detailed within Attachment 5; and 4. Make a motion approving the Special Use Permit. As a reminder, there is a script to aid Board members in their deliberations of this request in Attachment 6. Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map 5 A R9 I n I rn d 70 VV I Emerson Waldorf s ' PIN 9871-54-8635 o I 1.75 acres �m i Q NC54W o GALILEAN TROPIFFm c� 't 4 r .k�zk >�Uj Emerson Waldorf . ' PIN 9871-64-5632 `f" 2: 2.6 acres $ o 1 i . 0 -> 'Emerson Waldorf° � R1 PI Ng9871-6 7391 ,4 22 acres . y Emerson�Waldorf ,14 5.6 acres r Emerson Waldorf R PIN 9871 172-1935 a iM, BVACKWOOD MOUNTAIN RD J 17 acres s , A i Emerson Waldorf Property (multiple parcels) 6211 New Jericho Road Chapel Hill Township MANOR pR IN 1 inch=417 feet 0 500 Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 05/14/2015 Attachment 2 6 COPY I ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: �� %' Action Agenda Item No. 7 SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit (SUP) — Schools (Public and Private); Elementary, Middle and Secondary in Chapel Hill Township DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Vicinity Map Patrick Mallett, Planner II (919) 245-2577 2. Additional Correspondence/Evidence Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 Submitted since May 26, 2015 Public Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2592 Hearing 3. Special Use Permit Findings of Fact PURPOSE: To complete review of, and make a recommendation on, a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') application proposing the expansion/modification of an existing private school in accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). As a reminder the review of this item is carried out in a quasi-judicial format. Decisions relating to the approval or denial of SUP applications are based solely on the sworn testimony of all parties involved with the case, both those for and against, as well as the review of competent material and substantial evidence submitted during the public hearing. Hearsay, or unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony. CADENCE OF REVIEW. The review of a SUP is as follows: • STEP ONE — NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: In accordance with Section 27.2. of the UDO, a Neighborhood meeting was held on April 10, 2015. STAFF COMMENT: The applicants, their consultants Orange county staff and one adjacent property owner attended the meeting. The property owner attended to learn more about the request and determine if the Master Plan included any development along his common property line. Note, the request does not propose any development along this portion of the school's property. • STEP TWO — PUBLIC HEARING: The first step in the review of an SUP application is the holding of a public hearing to allow the applicant and other interested parties to provide sworn testimony related to the proposal. STAFF COMMENT: The required public hearing was held at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing where the following testimony/evidence was entered into the record: 7 i. Staff abstract and attachments, including the actual SUP application, Master Plan site plan, staff comments on the project, and copies of the UDO and Comprehensive Plan; ii. Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO; iii. Applicant's sworn testimony, including a submitted financial impact assessment completed by Mr. Everett V. Knight, providing additional information on the project's compliance with the UDO; and iv. Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public. • STEP THREE — PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviews the request and makes a recommendation on the project's compliance with specific development standards (Section 5.8.4) and the general standards (Section 5.3.2 Special Uses) of the UDO. Staff prepares a script to aid the Board in making required findings and denoting the `evidence' utilized in rendering a decision as contained in Attachment 3. STAFF COMMENT: This Planning Board review will begin at the July 1, 2015 regular meeting where the Board will be asked to make a recommendation. • STEP FOUR — DECISION: The BOCC will receive the Planning Board's recommendation as well as any other written evidence, deliberate, certify the record, close the public hearing, and then render a final decision. BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing where staff indicated the school began operations in 1984 offering educational opportunities, based on the State curriculum guidelines, for kindergarten through 12th grade students. Through this proposal the applicant is requesting to modify and expand the existing campus with the construction and location of new buildings and support facilities over the next 15-years. The plans are envisioned to support an increase in student population to approximately 350 students by 2030, which represents an overall increase in 91 students from current enrolment. Agenda materials from the Quarterly Public Hearing can be viewed at: 1ht!J „,// .A.A.,,o r«�,Ir�„ ,qc ,u irk,,y! ,q,,,,,, r/,,,,, , . I , . During the hearing, the following comments/questions were posed concerning the application: • A BOCC member asked if the applicant would be required to secure building and zoning permits prior to the commencement of construction: RESPONSE: The applicant will still be required to obtain all the necessary additional development permits (e.g. erosion control, stormwater, site plan(s), building, environmental health) prior to the commencement of land disturbing activities. The granting of this SUP will allow the required permit review process to move forward under the guidance of an approved SUP Master Plan. • A BOCC member asked what happens if the school does not get approval to expand the existing septic system. RESPONSE: If the existing septic system cannot be expanded then development would be curtailed to only those uses and impacts that could be supported with the existing septic system. The applicant understands and accepts the risk. 8 Note: Initial staff review of the system, soils and potential upgrades indicates that an expansion of the state permitted system would not likely pose any significant issues. • There was general consensus from BOCC and Planning Board members the applicant's plan for student drop off and pick up was reasonable as denoted on the submitted site plan and that all efforts needed to be taken to ensure there was no congestion on New Jericho Road during peak demand. • A BOCC member expressed concern over students walking along New Jericho Road. RESPONSE: Both staff and the applicant indicated students do not typically walk along New Jericho Road. There is an existing crosswalk in Millhouse Road allowing students to cross the street to access the existing athletic field. Students access individual school buildings through existing internal (off road) pedestrian paths. • A Planning Board member asked when the required stormwater system would have to be installed. RESPONSE: Staff indicated the stormwater system would have to be installed with the proposed reconfiguration of the parking areas along New Jericho Road. Analysis: As required under Section 2.7.4 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of the application' and pass that analysis on to the reviewing body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: a. Application submittal requirements detailed within Section 2.7 of the UDO have been satisfied. b. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with respect to landscaping and buffering requirements as detailed within Section 6.8 of the UDO. c. The applicant submitted an Environmental Impact Statement, Biological Inventory and Natural Resource Protection Plan as required in Section 2.25 of the UDO. d. The applicant has complied with specific development standards associated with the development of a school as detailed within Section 5.8.4 of the UDO. e. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal, DEAPR, Orange County Health) indicate there are no concerns associated with the request. f. Staff has filed the request with the North Carolina State Administrative Clearinghouse and to the Town of Chapel Hill for review and comment. The applicant's proposal does not pose any issues from these agencies and/or jurisdictions. Comments from the Clearinghouse are contained within Attachment 2. g. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis and Internal Circulation Plan to the District Engineer and NCDOT Municipal School Transportation Assistance (MSTA) offices. The plans and proposed improvements meet all their initial concerns. Planning Director's Recommendation: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.4 of the UDO, the Planning Director recommends approval of the application subject to: • Approval of the recommended Findings of Fact as detailed within Attachment 3, • The imposition of the recommended conditions detailed within Attachment 3, and 9 • The Planning Board's and BOCC's ability to make an affirmative finding on the general standards outlined within Section 5.3.2 of the UDO. Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) of the UDO, the BOCC has requested that the Planning Board recommendation be made available in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. As a procedural note, additional comments on the application must be submitted in writing to the Planning Board in order to become part of the official record of these proceedings. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has determined the project would not require augmentation of County budgetary outlays to support services and that anticipated revenues from property taxes should supplement increases in cost. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Deliberate as necessary, 2. Review the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval as contained in Attachment 3, 3. If deemed necessary, suggest additional conditions or modifications to the site plan, and 4. Make an affirmative recommendation regarding the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval as detailed within Attachment 3 in time for the BOCC's September 1, 2015 regular meeting. Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map 10 • RIB •. 4•�"`r la`{j=' ,3' .'a f 'r 6 S 70 VV Emerson Waldorf 1z!`:�;: i'r '' �:�`'ti'v,.., PIN 9871-54-8635 1.75 acres NC54W o I � I � GALILEAN TR tv W r� e Emerson Waldorf PIN 9871-64-5632 2.6 acres Emerson Waldorf r11 ,- PIN 9871-64-7391 22 acres Emem6rf --aldorf L PIN 9871 (septic lot) WqY ,i- i•..� :µ , � Emerson Waldorf I PIN 9871 172 11935 '• N, * J 17 acres �<< BLA_ CKWOOD'MOUNTAIN-RD,,'r Emerson Waldorf Property (multiple parcels) 6211 New Jericho Road Chapel Hill Township MANOR DR x .. 1 inch=417 feet 0 500 4 Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 05/14/2015 Attachment 2 North 11 Carolina Department Sa Pat McCrory, Governor Bill Daughtridge, Jr., Secretary June 1, 2015 Mr. Mike Harvey Orange County Orange County Planning&Inspections Dept. Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough,North.Carolina 27278 Re: SCH File # I5-E-0000-0597; EA; Proposal is for the re-development/expansion of the Emerson Waldorf private school off of Millhouse Road. (submitted pursuant to Orange County SEPA ordinance) Dear Mr. Harvey: The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this letter are comments made in the review of this document. Because of the nature of the comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review action on your part is needed for compliance with the North. Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The attached comments should be taken into consideration in project development. Sincerely, Crysta Best State Environmental Review Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Region J Mailing Address: Telephone. (919)807-2425 Location Address: 1301 Mail Service Center Fax(419)733-9571 11.6 West Jones street Raleigh,NC 27699-1301 State Courier 951-01-00 Raleigh,North Carolina e-mail state.clearinghouse @doa.ne.gov An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer 12 m__.... _.. ....... __m.. .... _.. . __ Noilh Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Pat McCrory Donald R, van der Vaart Governor secretary MEMORANDUM To: Crystal Best State Clearinghouse From: i_yn Hardison Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service Environmental Assistance and Project Review Coordinator RE: 15-0597 Scoping—Proposal is for the re-development/expansion of the Emerson Waldorf private school off of Millhouse Road (submitted pursuant to Orange County SEPA ordinance) Orange County Efate: May 29, 2915 The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has completed its review of the proposal for the referenced project. Based on the information provided, several of our agencies have identified permits that may be required. The agencies have offered some valuable guidance to be performed prior to application submittals and ground disturbance which will help to minimize impacts to the natural resources, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources within and around the project area. The comments are attached for the applicant's review. if the applicant has any questions pertaining to NCDENR permitting processes, please suggest to the applicant to contact David Lee, Permit Assistance Coordinator, in the Department's Raleigh Regional Office, (919)791-4299 for more permitting assistance. The proposed project is located within his geographic working territory. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Attachments 16N z�Iail Service Comer,Raidgh,NOhGarolina 27699-'63° CUEtO€ner SCIOICB I o Free 1-8117-623-6748,,lttf�rnet'��r;v.�ed�nr_g�x� All Er.,uaJ Op,rcrlur!!;,`, Fjmiat,n i c3in;;"ear;[dye*:-I,A ups,r p.:rt by rv,irfe e�i ps,�,er 13 t North Carolina Wildlife Resources Co.m iss o n Gordon Myers, Executive Director MEMORANDUM TO: Lyn Hardison, EnvironmentaI Assistance and SEPA Coordinator NCDEN-R Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Services FROM: Shari L Bryant, Western Piedmont Coordinator Habitat Conservation DATE: 27 May 2015 SUBJR-CT: RegUeSt for Review of Development. Application for the Proposed.Recieveloprrnerrt and Lspernsion of the.Ei.nerson.Waldorf School, Orange.County. DENR Project No, 15-0597 Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have revioved the subject dMnnent and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act(48 Stat.=401., as amended; 10 U.S.C. 661-667e)and North Carolina General Statutes(G.S. 113-131 et seq.). Waldorf Educational Association of'North Carolina, Inc. is request-Mg to amend their Current Special Use Po-mit to modify and expand the Emerson Waldorf School. The proposed master plan includes construction of buildings and boil-di-rig additions, and improvements to internal roadways, surface parking, pedestrian areas. potable water and septic systems, and stormwater infrastructure, The prirpose of file project is to support an increase in students and staff. All Unnamed tributary to Old Cield Creek in the Gape fear River basin flows through thca sotithern portion of the site. It appears the northern portion of the site drains to New Hope Creek. There are records For the federal species of concern and star:endangered Carolina creckshell (Villasa vzauglacraaian a), brook floater(Alasmidonto varicosa),and Atlantic pigtoe(Frasconuia mason ),the state special concern notched rainbow(Villosa c©nsiricta), and the state significantly rare Eastern creekshell. (Villosa delumbis)and Lompsilis sp. in New Hope Creek. In addition, there are records for the state special concern four-toed salamander(Ilemiclac°lyliwn scufal m) near the site, The Natural.Heritage Natural Arca-CPF/New Hope Creel:Aquatic Habitat-- is located along the section of`New Hope Crock downstream of the site. The E.J.S. Fish a nd Wildlife Service recently listed the Northern lortg-eared Fiat.(jItvratis septenlrion alis) as threatened under the F ndanoered Species Act, The North.cm long-eared bat may be present within or in the vicinity of the.projeet site. Therefore,the project may impact this species and consultation with the J.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may he required. For more information,please see 11th fws.t ov ntidwesl 'vrJClfI�-�r od main11inIS"nIIeb/tnterrlr a.dPtiI_Kev I FB,I)iml or'cotitact the Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries ^ 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, N .27699-1.721 Telephone: (9I9) 707-022.0 • Fax: (919) 707-0028 14 Page 2 27 May 2015 F..mason Waldorf School DENR Pr(oJcct No.: 15-0597 U.S. fish and Wildlife Service at(919) 856-4520 to ensure that any issues related to this species are raddressed. We are pleased 10 see the appiieant has a Forest Management flan (Jane 2014) for the site and that future site plans will preserve desirable vegetation and other unique natural features when practical, Also, we are pleased to see-that stormwater collection will include low impact design and disconnecting ilarpervious surfaces 1.0 maximize stormwater infiltration, We offer file following general recommendations regarding development projects to nainin-Lize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources. 1. ]]"wetlands and/or streams will be impacted by construction activities, then the project should he coordinated with the U.S. Army Carps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of'1�'ater Resources. 1 Measures to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands sho€rid be implemented during construction. In addition to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas perform important functions of flood. control and water quality protection. 3. Maintain a minimum 100-1`00t undisturbed, native,forested buffer along perennial streams, and a mininium 50-foot:buffer along intermittent strearns and wetlands. Maintaining undisturbed, forested buffers along these areas will minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources, water duality, and aquatic habitat both within and downstream of the project area. Also, wide riparian buffers are helpful in maintaining stability of stream banks and for treatment of pol atants associated with urban stormwater. In addition, these buffers Will pr•ovidC art adequate traval corridor for wildlife species. 4. Avoid development and fill in the 100-year floodhlain. Development and fill in tire li.00dplain increases the potential for iloodin:g and i nterfcres with the natural hydrologic process of the waterways. It also disrupts the cnntir.Auity of migration corridors for wildlife. 5. Locate sewers and other utilities as far away from streams as functionally possible and minimize stream and wetland crossings. It is preferable that sewers are located outside floodplains and the riparian buffers described in##3. 6. Li.nt.it iul.pervious surface to less than 10%or use stormwater control measures to mimic the hydrograph consistent with an impervious coverage of less than 10%. 7. Use non-invasive native species and Low impact Development (LID)technology in landscaping. Using native species instead of ornamentals should reduce the need for water, fertilizers and pesticides. Using LED technology in landscaping will not only help maintain the predevelopment hydrologic regime, but also enhance the aesthetic and habitat value of the site. 8. Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or construction. These measures slap€r.ld be routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive silt and sediment toads can have numerous detrim.entat effects on aquatic,resources including dVStrt1Cfl01l of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species. Thank, you for the opportunity to comment on this project. K we can be of forther assistance, please contact our office at (336) 449-7625 or har i.bry /tat rr rt.�l rlcl_i_i.l; _car�. 15 � � ' ` ` NCoDENR � North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources | Office of Land and Water Stewardship Pat McCrary 8ryonGouuaVe DBO6|d R. van der V8xt � G0Ve0o[ Oiouiur Secreia[y May 22, ZO15 TO Lyn Hardison, NCDENR State Clearinghouse Coordinator ` FROM: Allison (Sch»varz)Weak|ey, North Carolina Natural HeritaQeProgram � SUBJECT: Scoping—Proposed re-development/expansion of the Emerson Waldorf Schoo|off New ]erhico and 8AiUhouse Roads,Chapel Hill,Orange County, North Carolina REFERENCE: Project No, 1S41597 Thank you for the opportunity to provide information from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (N[NHP) database for the proposed project referenced above, The NCNHP database does not show any records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas � within the proposed project area as depicted in Figure C-1 (by Summit Design and Engineering Services) ' submitted with the ycopinDrequest. Attached are tables that show records from the NCNHP database for element occurrences (rare species and natural commuuities), natural areas, and coucemation/mxn aged areas that occur within one mile of the project area, A map that shows natural heritage resources documented within one mile ofthe � project area is attached as well, The Blackwood Mountain natural area is located ra 03mikasm/eotoftheponjectaremthemojqrityof | . . . t#b natural area is part of Duke Forest and is owned and managed for conservation by Duke University asa Registered Natural Heritage Area. There are also records for rare aquatic species located ca.0.4 miles north of the project area,within the New Hope Creek Aquatic Habitat natural area. The locations of natural areas and conservation/managed areas near the project area may be viewed by accessing the , online map viewer,orby downloading and msin 98 � 6wta} borhoptions are available from the NCNHP Data Services vvebpege (see . Please note that although the NCNH9 database may not show records forranyspedeswbhinthe proposed project area, |t does not necesssr|[y mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed, Occurrences nf rare species documented within one mi|eofthe ' proposed project area increase the likelihood that these species may be present within the project area if suitable habitat exists, The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, If rare species are found during field surveys,the NCNHPvvuu|d appreciate receiving this information sothat *e may update our database. Feel free to contact meo1 or9l9'707-OG29|fvou have queutmnsor additional information is needed. �0i'�Ay!|Surv!uoCag�.R�o�h.N��Cem}ioo2r0A1801 Phone: 83,0 x^�"y iar�uv��y "'i c. w'-mul'�'m1,;n ,r ��, Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas,and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area Emerson Waldorf School -Re-development and Expansion Project Project No. 15-0597 May 22, 2015 NCNHDE-307 Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area Taxonomic_ E0 l0 Scientific Name Coi m' on Name Last Element Accuracy Federal state Global State Group, Observation Occurrence Status Status_. Rank Bank Data. status Butterfly 34564 Erynnis martialis Moffled Duskywing 1952-07-01 Historical 5-Very -- Signifir;anily G3 S2 Low Rare Dragonfly or 33764 Somatochlora georgiana Coppery Emerald 2004-PRE Historical 5-Very --- Significantly G3G4 S2? Damselfly Low Rare Freshwater 25465 Villosa constricta Notched Rainbow 2010-03-23 Current 3-Medium --- Special G3 S3 Bivalve Concern Freshwater 25466 Villosa deiumbis Eastern Creeksheil 2013-08-16 Current 3-Medium --- Significantly G4 S3 Bivalve Rare Liverwort 22666 Piagicchila ludoviciana A Liverwort 1933-04-03 Historica[ S--Very --- Significantly G5 S1 Low Rare Peripheral Natural 24140 Dry Oak--Hickory Forest -- 2010 Current 3-modium. --- G4G5 S4 Community (Piedmont Subtype) Natural 5283 Mesic Mixed Hardwood --- 198€3-05-12 Current 4-Lok-v __ --- G3G4 S4 Community Forest(Piedmont Subtype) Natural 24139 Piedmont Monadnock --- 2010 Current 2-High --- --- G3G4 S3 Community Forest(Typic Subtype) Natural 19548 Xeric Hardpan Forest --- 2010 Current 2-High --- --- G203 S2 Community (Basic Hardpan Subtype) Vascular Plant: 15014 Carex bushii Bush's Sedge 2001-07-03 Current 3-Medium --- Significantly G4 S1 Rare Peripheral Vascular Plant 10621 Pycnanthernum torreyi Torrey's Mountain-mint 2001-07-31 Current 3-!Medium Species of Significantly G2 S1 Concern Rare Throughout Natural Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the project Area site Name.- Representational Rating Collective Rating Blackwood Mountain R1 (Exceptional) C4 (Moderate) Page 2 0f4 Natural Areas Docuimnted Within a One-revile Radius of the project Area Site Nar a -. Regresentational`F7ating Collective.Rating. Eubanks Road Xeric Hardpan Forest R5(General) C5(General) Henry J. Ousting Natural Area R3 (High) C5(General) CPFINew Hope Creek Aquatic Habitat nla (Not Applicable) C3(High) Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type Duke Forest Duke University Private Duke Forest Duke University Private Orange County Open Space Change County: multiple Ioca;government Local Government Triangle Land Conservancy Preserve Triangle Land Conservancy Private NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund Easement. NC DEN R,Clean Water Management Trust State Fund Blackwood Mountain RHA Duke University Private Blackwood Mountain RHA Duke university Private Duke Forest Post Oak/Blackjack Oak Site RHA Duke university P ivate Henry J. Ousting Natural Area RHA Duke university Private Definitions and an exp-'.an ation of sta?,s des>gna*.ions and codas can he°^s d ,r.Bata que y ge ,edl c I May 22.2015;source:NCNHP,02 April 2015.Please reFub !Year: nformatio n request if more than one year elapses before prci__t i 'E€nt „ac °;✓ ro, a!i;n is added t�!he Nr N,HP da'abase i i s Page 3 of 4 NCNHDE-307: Emerson Waldorf School - FRe-development and Expansion Project , V. art � 5 ff k § s n r.; Y 7 �n May 22,2015 1:25,227 C .02 0.4 0.9 mi E] Pro;eci_Boundary NHP Nptural Area( HNA) ------i-------i__..__y. 0,85 8::`fered Pmject Be rdary t,�lanagcd Area FNA.AREAI .AC V'S" E Page 4 of 4 00 19 HCDENIZ a North, Carolina Department of. nvjronment and Natural Resources Pat McCrory D qnald l: der Vert Governor Secretary May 22, 2015 `T w Linda Culpepper. Director Division of Waste Management From: Jenny Patterson, Eastern Region Supervisor, Compliance Branch Hazardous Waste SectiOn Subject: Hazardous Waste Section Commenis on Emerson Waldorf School Expansion(Orange County} Project Nunnber: 15-0591 The 'Ha7r srdous Waste: Section (EWS) has reviewed the subject Scopingr Request for the proposed project which consists of the re-development/expansion of the Emerson Waldorf School located at 6211 New Jericho Road in Chapel Hill,NC in Orange County. Any hazardous waste generated from the construction, demolition, maintenance, and/or remediation (e.g. excavated sail) from the proposed projects must be managed in accordance with the North Carolina Hazardous Waste. Mules. The construutinn,demolition, maintenance, and remediation activities conducted will most likely generate a solid waste, and the facility must determine if the waste is a hazardous waste. If the project site generates more than 220 pounds of hazardous waste in 3 calendar month,the I IWS must be notified, and the site nIerst cornPly with floe small quantity €venerator recluircn7erIts. If a project site generates more than 2200 pounds of"hazardous waste in a calendar nionth, the HWS must b!notified, and the facility must comply with the large quantity generator requirements, The proposed prqj.ect site does not curr-en:tly have an.f IIA Identification number for hazardous waste: generation assigned to the property, There are no active hazardous waste generators located within 2000. 1'ett of the proposed project area in Chapel Hill,'NC. *]'his review does not preeirrde the possibility of historical waste inanagernent activities at this site that may have contributed to contamination unknown to this officu. Should any questions arise:, please contact nee at 336-767-0031. }6,,6)I'd}e31=us-i'vice cenle.Y Nrxth Lore-Fnrr 646 �''hptl @:�1:':_?ri-{-��3ti',.^'�€rtwt:,ryv^.i.r•Ct.`�€,r.g0's�'w�biw;r 20 A NCDENR Nogh Carolina Departnment of nv+ronment and Natural Remirces Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Va arf Covernot� Secretary MEMORANDUM L)A'1`E: May 13. 2015 TO: Linda Culpepper, Division Director through Kathleen Lance FROM: Deb Aja. Western District Supervisor- Solid Waste Section RE SEPA Rcviow Project 14 15-0597--Chapel I-1il1, Orange County, N.C. Emerson Waldorf School t.a»provements-- Updated Campus Masterplan The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the Environmen:tal. Review document for the proposed Emerson Waldorf School improvementS/Llp fated campus rnasterplan, Chapel Hill, Orange;C:ourrty, North Carolina. The review has been c:ompleed and has seen no adverse irapact on the surrounding community and likewise knows of no situations in the camtrat.anity, which would affect this project born a solid waste perspective, During construction,the applicant should make every feasible effort to minimize the generation of waste:, to recycle materials Ivor which viable markets exist, and to Use recycled products and materials in the development of this project where suitable. Any',vaste generated by this project that cannot be benefi.cia.11y.reused or recycled must be disposed of at a solid waste management facility approved to manage the respective waste type. The Section strongly recommends that any contractors are required to provide proof of proper disposal far all waste generated as part of the prof;ct. The nearest permitted facilities to the project are the Orange County C&D Landfill, Chapel Hill, the baste Nlanagerttent - Chatham Count,Transfer Station, Slier City, the Stone Court Park Transfer Station, Durham, and the City of Durham Transfer Station, Durham,North Carolina. Additional solid waste facility information for solid waste facilities may be found on the Solid Waste Section portal site at: �l,.i.�cl�� Please contact Mr. John Patrone,l nvironniental Senior Specialist, For with any gcacs6011s regarding solid.waste management. Mr. Patrone may be reached at (336)-776-9673. Cc: Jason Watkins, f=ield Operations Branch I lead John Patrone, Environmental Senior Specialist Sarah Rice, Compliance Officer Dennis Shackelford, Eastern District Supervisor 2 i O LS is gt1Nra 70, N,irlh Cxdlilra 2t 778 Ph !ie 823-29G-4 5`0`i t'fiK826-2;;?!`043 InI err,et:{..ivlipo,tnl_rmcEry raS,,veDi%`l �cnEo,I, M")Je - 21 NCDENR a � No th Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Pat McCrory Donald R, van der Vaart Governor Secretary Date: May 22,2015 To: Linda Culpepper, Director Division of Waste Management Through: lira Bateson, Superfund Section Chief '.;.,.:. From: Pete Doorn,Special Remediation Branch Head Subject: SEPA Project# 15-€1597, Proposed Expansion of Emerson Waldorf Private School, Orange County, North Carolina The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of CERCLIS and other sites sander their Jurisdiction to the proposed redevelopment/expansion of the Emerson Waldorf private school. The Emerson Waldorf School is proposing to re-develop and expand their existing campus.The plans are envisioned to support an increase in student population from approximately 260 students to approximately 350 students by 2030. The school obtains its potable water from a supply well located on the campus. One site was identified within a 1-mile radius of the proposed project as noted on the attached map and in the table below. Due to the proximity of groundwater contamination at the identified site and the projected increased pumping of the school well to meet future demands for potable water, it is strongly recommended that site files be reviewed and appropriate precautions taken to ensure a continued safe water supply for the school. Superfund Section site files can be viewed at: http j/Dortal,ncdenr.orR/web/wm/sf-file-records. Please contact me at 919.707.8369 if you have any questions. ID##. — Site'Name Status 3 NONCDO001961 Kirschner,George Property Op site on the Inactive Hazardous Sites entory 1646 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1646 Prone; 919-707-8200 t Internet: www.nr-denr.gov AnLquafOp"Wniry[Afkn,anrakkn Employ-50%R"C Od 110%Pas!'GoRisumor r'a�ci P #15-0597, Orange County, NC E v -+ fa Y E i i r o E Waldo , CDEi ' i'pus -re CAB sid R !E E H T,I- 4 qg ds, U% R�yt F a�! �� s= et: � ; a 4 - KIRSCHNE.A.GC4p.GE PROE?ERJ May 20, 2015 1:18,056 Buffer of DWM All Sites S PA 040815 ue result n 0.15 Q3 o_® ms �Y Buffer ofDWM_All Sites:SEPA_040815 �--�—�.W......... y__..__�-�.__._ Override: 1 a 0.25 0.5 1 km EsrE, �'; ]? .U Long a - ':ar = - ?P Gom � DVVM IHSB 033015 �z�ca.USGc ,FAO,rt?s.NRCAN ,t'�P zJGN.Kadaca NL N N }hp_p A;�':fa€dr3cw Sr,.r ly-r.^tC i 23 NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Pat tvic(.'rory DonaU R. van der Vaart Governor Secfetary May 26, 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Lyn Hardison, Environmental Assistance Coordinator Department of Environment and Natu4 Resources FROM: Harold Brady, SEPA Review Coordinator SUBJECT: Scoping--Emerson Waldorf private school DENR# 15-0597 Thank you for providing the Division of Water Resources(Dig R) an opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed re-development/expansion of the Emerson Waldorf private school off of Millhouse Road in Orange County. Scoping conducted pursuant to Orange County SEPA ordinance, L?'J',IR has no objection to the proposed project, but offer the following comments from Danny Smith ((919) 791-4252)of the Raleigh Regional Office: 1, A project that disturbs 1 acre or greater is required to secure an erasion and sedimentation control plan and must comply with construction stormwater permit conditions(NCC010000). 2. The project is in the Cape Fear River Basin (unnamed tributary to Old Field Creek-Water supple V, -NSW),The USGS Topographic map depicted crenulations and blue line streams that course through the footprint of this tract. Note:the soil survey was not reviewed. 3. If stream,wetiand or riparian buffer impacts are proposed,this project will need to comply with/secure a 404 permit from the USAGE,obtain a 401 Water Quality Certification and/or secure a riparian buffer authorization. Project is in the Jordan lake Watershed and will need to comply with Jordan Fake buffer rules. Please contact the Raleigh Regional Office for stream or riparian buffer call (919) 791-4200. If you have any questions about this comment, please contact me at (919) 707-9005 or hareslci.rT.ksraeaY .ncclewc��l. Thank you. I'M`Mlai l Se'vice 1'eflter.S-i41:?`=t1�"'..1'•h'fi�`3 Cal9'At1Ei 277E;f"-%fit 1 F'riCz:'izi'�?1;-707-,600'EftIF.'iti�?I'.1`J`tT.'.i::[IL'{li.(:�(;V State of North Carolina Reviewing Office: RRO 24 Department of Environment and Natural Resources INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW e PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number 15-0597 Due Date: 5/25/2015 County ORANGE After review of this pr'oiect it has been delennined that the ENR perinit(s)andlor approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to cotatply with North Carolina Law.Questions regarding these pennits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the fonn.All apphcations,information and guidelines relative to these plans and pennits are available from the same Regional Office. Normal Process Time PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time limit) Permit to construct&operate wastewater treatment facilities, ® sescer system extensions&sewer systems not discharging Application 90 days before begin coustruction or award aCconstruction 34 days into state surface maters. contracts On-site inspection.Post-application technical con€ereace nsual. (90 days) NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity.On-site inspection.Pre- permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities application conference usual.Additionalty,obtain permit to construct 90-120 days discharging into stale surface waters. wastewater treatment facility-granted afler NPDES,Reply time,30 days ii der (NIA) receipt of plans or issue of NPDES permit-+whichever is later. ❑ Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days (NIA) ® Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days installation ofa well. 0 5 days) Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. ❑ Dtadgc and Fill Pennit On-site inspection.Pre-application conference usual,Filling may require 55 days Easement to Fill firm N.C.Department of Administration and (90 days) Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. Permit to construct&operate Air Pollution Abatement Application must be submitted and permit received prior to ❑ facilities andlor Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC, construction and operation or the source. if a penrrit is required in an 90 days (2Q,01 04 thin 2Q.0300) area without local zoning,then there are additional requirements and y timelines(2€x3.01!3). 1 `1 Permit to construct&operate Transportation Facility as per Applical ion must be submitted at least 90 days prior to construction 90 days l 1 I SA NCAC QD.0F 00,2Q.0601 or modification of the source. rn Any open burning associated with subject proposal must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900 Dernolilion or renovations or structures containing asl^_estos ® material must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1110 (a)(1)which requires notification and removal prior to NIA 60 days (40 days) demolition.Contact Asbestos Control Group 919-707-5950 E] Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC 2D.0800 Tire Scdimcntation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity.An erosion&sedimentation ® control plan will he required if one or more acres to be disturbed.Plan filed with proper Regional Office(Land Quality Section)At least 30 20 days days before beginning activity.A fee orS65 for€he first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional (30 days) fees. Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance wish NCDOT's approved program. Particular attention should be given (30 days) to design and installation ofappropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable stormwater conveyances and outlets. On-site inspection usual.Surety bond filed with L•NR Bond amount varies ❑ Mining Pcmtii with type mine and number of acres of affected land,Any are mined greater 30 days than one acre must be permitted.The appropriate bond trust be reccived (60 days) before the pemtil can be issued. ® North Carolina Burning inspection by N.C.Division Forest Resources if permit cscecds 4. 1 day Burning permit days (NiA) ❑ Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit 22 On-site inspection by N.C.Division Forest Resources required"if more than - I day counties in coastal N.C.with organic soils live acres of ground clearing activities are involved.Inspections should be (NIA) requested at(cast tca days before actual burrs is planned." ❑ Oil Relining Facilities NIA �—— 90-120 days (NIA) If permit required,application 60 days before begin construction.Applicant must hire N.C.qualified engineer to:prepare plans,inspect constructionr certify construction is according to FNR approved plans.May also require ® Dam Safety Permit permit under mosquito control program.And a 404 permit from Corps of 30 days Engineers.An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. (64 days) A minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application.An additional processing fee based on a perecnlage or the total project cost will be required upon completion. 25 f County ORANGE Project Number: 15-0597 Due Date: 5/25/2015 Normal Process Time (statutory time limit) PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS File surety bond of 55,000 with E.NR running to State of NC conditional that any well ]U days ® Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well opened by drill operator shall,upon abaadomtteot,be plugged according to ENR rules N!A and regulations. ❑ Geophysical Exploralion Permit Application filed with EMIR at least 10 days prior to issue of pennit. Application br 10 days letter.No standard application form, NIA I ® State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged.Most include doseripnons& 15-20 days f drawings of stcztcttcre&proof of-ownership of riparian property. NiA ❑ 401 Water Quality Certification NIA 0 da Y days s) ( 55 days ® LAMA Permit for MAJOR developnim 5250.00 fee must accornpany application (150 days) ❑ CAM Pen nit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany apphcaliun 22 days (25 days) Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area.if any monument creeds to be rnox•cd or destroyed,please notify ❑ N.C.Geodetic Survey,Bu.x 27687 Raleigh,NC 27611 Abandonment of any walls,if require4 must he in accordance with Title 15A,Subchapter 2C.0 1001 ® Notification of the proper regional office is requested if"orphan"underground storage tanks gJSTS)arc discovered during any exeavalion operation., ® Compliance tivith 15A NCAC 211 1400(Coastal Stomtwater Rules)is rcouired. 45 days (N;A) ❑ Catawba,Jordan Lake,RandaJman,Tar Pamlico or Neuse Riparian Buf*r Rules required. Plans and specifications for the construction,expansion,or alteration of a public water system must be approved by the Division of Water ® RescurcesfPublic Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction as per 15A NCAC I SC.0300 et.seq.Plans and 30 days specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1634, All public water supply systems must comply with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements.For snare information,contact the Public Waux Supply Section,(919)707.9100. If exisring water lines will be relocated during the construction,plans for the water line relocation must he submitted to the Division ar Water ® Resources/Public water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1634.For more information,contact the Public 36 days Water Supply Section,(9t9)707-9100. Other comments(attach additional pages as necessary,being certain to cite comment authorit,) Division initials No Comments Date comment Review DAQ ddm 7 5/15/15 DWR-WQROS ds ❑ 5/21/15 (Aquifer&Surface) rb ❑ Expansion of capacity may require a modification to the existing non- 5/28/15 discharge permit DWR-PWS wan ❑ See East two checked boxes -W 5/13/15 D EM LR(LQ&5W) JLH This project appears to be adequately addressed under the local S&E 5/22/15 program. DWM-UST MRP ❑ Notify the UST Section at the Raleigh Regional Office if petroleum- 5/26/25 contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered during construction activities. REGIONAL OFFICES Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below. ❑Asheville Regional Office ❑ Mooresville Regional Office ❑Wilmington Regional Office 2090 US Highway 70 610 East Center Avenue,Suite 301 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Swannanoa,NC 28778 Mooresville,NC 28115 Wilmington,NC 28405 (828)296-4500 (704)663-1699 (910)796-721.5 ❑Fayetteville Regional Office ® Raleigh Regional Office ❑Winston-Salem Regional Office 225 North Green Street, Suite 714 3300 Barrett Drive, Suite 101 450 West Hanes Mill Road,Suite 300 Fayetteville,NC 28301-5043 Raleigh,NC 27609 Winston-Salem,NC 27105 ( 910)433-3300 (919)791-4200 (336)771-9800 ❑ Washington Regional Office 943 Washington Square Mail February 11,2015 NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COUNTY: ORANGE B03: SCHOOLS (PRIMARY/SECONDARY) STATE NUMBER: 15-E-0000-0597 DATE RECEIVED: 04/28/2015 AGENCY RESPONSE: 05/25/2015 REVIEW CLOSED: 05/28/2015 MS CARRIE ATKINSON CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF' TRANSPORTATION STATEWIDE PLANNING - MSC 41554 RALEIGH NC N56 7� � REVIEW DISTRIBUTION CC&PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT te DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS FIR DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES s' DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TRIANGLE J COG .� PROaECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Orange County ZZ ti 4 `° TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act Scoping DESC: Proposal is for the re-development/expansion of the Emerson Waldorf private school off of Millhouse Road. (submitted pursuant to Orange County SEPA ordinance) The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301. If additional review time is needed, please contact this offi at (919) 807-2425. AS A RESULT OF THIS REV THE FOLLOWING IS SCJBMITTED: NO COMMENT COMMENTS ATTACKED SIGNED BY: DATE: d 61 �� NORTH CAROT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEFARTM OF ADMINISTRATION 27 INTER( 'NMENTAL REVIEW COUNTY: ORANGE B03: SCHOOLS (PRIMARY/SECONDARY) STATE NUMBER: ...___.J.5.-E--0000-0597 " DATE RECEIVED: 04/28/2015 ` AGENCY RESPONSE,`: 05/25/2015 Sat REVIEW CLOSED: 05/28/2015 MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY 2 CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR s 45 t DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES r STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE � u..a... MSC 4617 - ARCHIVES BUILDING a RALEIGH NC " � REVIEW DISTRIBUTION CC&PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION ' TRIANGLE J COG aN PRaaEcT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Orange County TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act Scoping DESC: Proposal is for the re--development/expansion of the Emerson Waldorf private school off of Millhouse Road.. (submitted pursuant to Orange County SEPA ordinance) The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. Please review and svhmit your response by the above indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699--1301. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919) 807-2425. AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: NO COMMENT ❑ COMMENTS ATTACHED SIGNED BY: DATE: a ® � g � � � NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 28 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COUNTY: ORANGE B03: SCHOOLS (PRIMARY/SECONDARY) STATE NUMBER: 15-E-0000-0597 BATE RECEIVED: 04/28/2015 :AGENCY RESPONSE: 05/25/2015 REVIEW CLOSED: 05/28/2015 MS CAROLYN PENNY CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR CC&PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MSC ## 4719 RALEIGH NC REVIEW DISTRIBU'T'ION CC&PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TRIANGLE J COG PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Orange County TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act Scoping DESC: Proposal is for the re-development/expansion of the Emerson Waldorf private school off of Millhouse Road. (submitted pursuant to Orange County SEPA ordinance) The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919) 807-2425. AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: NO COMMENT ❑ COMMENTS ATTACHED _ {{ V SIGNED BY: �� . a�a�a�' �� • DATE: B � � ED P 29 Attachment 3 FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE EMERSON WALDORF SCHOOL REQUESTING CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR THE EXPANSION OF ITS CAMPUS AT 6211 NEW JERICHO ROAD (SR 1899) (PINS: 9871- 64-7391; 9871-64-5632; 9871-65-8140; 9871-74-3098; and 9871-72-1935) As required under Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), a Class A Special Use Permit is required for the development/expansion of a school. Such permits shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 and 5.8.4 of the U DO. Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: (1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; (2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property); and (3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners; In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following specific standards: (1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO, (2) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of: a. Sewage disposal facilities, b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site (3) Specific regulations governing the development of school as set forth in Section 5.8.4 of the UDO, (4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2). Listed below are the findings of the Orange Planning staff regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board in its deliberations. 30 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board APPLICATION COMPONENTS Proper forms 2.2 Application (Attachment 1 of May Yes 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing packet) Fees paid 2.2.4(D) Staff Testimony/Application Yes Full description of use 2.7.3(B)(1) Application • Location Yes • Appearance • Operational characteristics Owner Information 2.7.3(B)(2) Application Yes Information needed for Use 2.7.3(B)(3) Application and site plan Standards Yes Site Plans 2.7.3(B)(4) Application/Staff Testimony (Site (26 for Class A) plan) Yes Preliminary Subdivision Plat (if 2.7.3(B)(5) [No subdivision proposed.] N/A necessary) List of parcels within 500 feet 2.7.3(B)(6) Application Yes Elevations of all structures 2.7.3(B)(7) Application and site plan; staff Yes testimony and pictures as part of power point presentation Environmental Assessment (or 2.7.3(B)(8) Application package including: Yes EIS) Topography • Biological Inventory • Drainage issues completed by The Catena • Natural or Cultural Group; • Forest Stewardship Plan resources completed by Kelly • Mining Douglass; • Hazardous Wastes • Impact Analysis completed • Wastewater treatment by Everett `Vic' Knight • Water usage • State Clearing House comments (Attachment 2 July 1, 2015 Planning Board packet) Method of Debris Disposal 2.7.3(B)(9) Application and site plan Yes Development Schedule 2.7.3(B)(10) Application and site plan Yes Extended Vesting Request 2.7.3(B)(11) Not requested N/A 31 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Public Notice 2.7.5(a) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes • Date Hearing Abstract (Attachment 4) • Time and staff testimony • Place Published in Newspaper 2.7.5(b) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes • Two successive weeks Hearing Abstract (Attachment 4) • First notice at least ten days and staff testimony prior but no more than twenty- five days prior Sign Posting on Property (at least 2.7.5(c) Staff Testimony Yes 10 days prior) posted sign on May 14, 2015 Mailed Notice 2.7.5(d) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes • Certified mail Hearing Abstract (Attachment 4) • All adjacent property and staff testimony owners (within 500 ft.) • Not less than fifteen days prior 32 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board SPECIFIC STANDARDS Waste Disposal 5.3.2(B)(1) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes Method and adequacy of provision Hearing Abstract (Attachment 3) for sewage disposal facilities, solid and staff testimony. waste and water service. Both Environmental Health and Solid Waste have indicated they have no concerns. Conditions are recommended to require Solid Waste Permit as part of development process. Safety 5.3.2(B)(2) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes Method and adequacy of police, Hearing Abstract (Attachment 3) fire and rescue squad protection. and staff testimony. Orange County Emergency Service staff and the Sheriff's office have indicated the project can be served. Vehicle Access 5.3.2(B)(3) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes Method and adequacy of vehicle Hearing Abstract (Attachment access to the site and traffic 3), Transportation Impact conditions around the site. Analysis (TIA) completed by SEPI Engineering, and staff testimony. There will not be an appreciable traffic increase in the area associated with the expansion of the school. 33 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board STANDARDS for Schools (Elementary, Middle and Secondary) Site Plan 5.8.4 (A) (1) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes A site plan prepared in accordance Staff Testimony, and Site plan with Section 2.5 of and 5.8.4 of UDO Standards of Evaluation 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes Project meets applicable design (a) Staff Testimony, and Site plan standards of UDO 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes Project meets service provision (b) Staff Testimony (Attachment 3 of criteria: quarterly public hearing packet), i. Identifies primary and and Site plan secondary police (public service), rescue services, and fire responders , ii. Identifies sources of water for use by fire fighters, iii. Identifies water source and wastewater treatment method iv. Identifies process for removal of solid waste 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes Completion of biological inventory (c) Staff Testimony and (identification of habitats) Biological Inventory completed by The Catena Group; • Forest Stewardship Plan completed by Kelly Douglass; • State Clearing House comments (Attachment 2 July 1, 2015 Planning Board packet) 34 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board STANDARDS for Schools (Elementary, Middle and Secondary) — continued 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes Landscaping and buffers (d) Staff Testimony and (protection of existing vegetation, • Biological Inventory tree protection measures, etc.) completed by The Catena Group; • Forest Stewardship Plan completed by Kelly Douglass; • State Clearing House comments (Attachment 2 July 1, 2015 Planning Board packet) Stormwater management and 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes drainage plan (e) and (f) Staff Testimony (Attachment 3 of inclusive quarterly public hearing packet), and Site plan A recommended condition of approval is that as new development is approved for the site the applicant will have to submit the formal stormwater management plan for approval by Orange County. 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes Grading and erosion control (g) Staff Testimony (Attachment 3 of quarterly public hearing packet), and Site plan A recommended condition of approval is that as new development is approved for the site the applicant will have to submit formal erosion control plans for approval by Orange County. 35 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board STANDARDS for Schools (Elementary, Middle and Secondary) — continued Solid Waste Management 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Testimony, Yes (h) Staff Testimony (Attachment 3 of quarterly public hearing packet), and Site plan A recommended condition of approval is as new site plans are submitted the applicant will submit the formal solid waste management plan for approval by Orange County Solid Waste. 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application and site plan Yes Irrigation (i) 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application and site plan Yes Habitat Maintenance (j) 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application and site plan; Yes Public Road Access (k) Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) completed by SEPI Engineering 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application and site plan Yes Maintenance of Improvements (I) 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application package including: Yes Additional Standards (m) • Biological Inventory i. Minimum lot size consistent completed by The Catena with adopted County school Group; construction standards. • Forest Stewardship Plan ii. Lot size shall be adequate to completed by Kelly accommodate all activities. Douglass; iii. Negative visual impacts shall • Impact Analysis completed be minimized along major by Everett `Vic' Knight roadways. • Transportation Impact iv. Required transportation Analysis (TIA) completed improvements are installed. by SEPI Engineering V. Site designed for multiple • State Clearing House shared use opportunities. comments (Attachment 2 vi. Site access July 1, 2015 Planning Board packet) Applicant and staff testimony. 36 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board SPECIFIC STANDARDS In accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), the Planning Board shall also consider the following general conditions before the application for a Special Use can be approved. NOTE: Planning Staff does not provide a recommendation on these items as the Board is expected to provide a recommendation based on the sworn testimony provided at the hearing. Staff is providing a brief synopsis of the information contained within the submittal the applicant argues demonstrates compliance for reference purposes only. The use (will / will not) maintain or Section 5.3.2 Application package and promote the public health, safety and (A) (2) (a) testimony including: general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and • Biological Inventory operated according to the plan as completed by The Catena submitted. Group; • Forest Stewardship Plan completed by Kelly Douglass; • Impact Analysis completed by Everett `Vic' Knight • Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) completed by SEPI Engineering • State Clearing House comments (Attachment 2 July 1, 2015 Planning Board packet) Staff testimony and abstract package from May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. Section 5.3.2 Application package and The use (will / will not) maintain or (A) (2) (b) testimony including: enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public by Analysis completed necessity, in which case the use by Everett `Vic' Knight need not maintain or enhance the Staff testimony and abstract value of contiguous property). package from May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. 37 Section 5.3.2 Application package and The location and character of the (A) (2) (c) testimony including: use, if developed according to the plan submitted, (will /will not) be in • Biological Inventory harmony with the area in which it is completed by The Catena to be located and the use is in Group; compliance with the plan for the • Forest Stewardship Plan physical development of the County completed by Kelly as embodied in these regulations or Douglass; in the Comprehensive Plan, or • Impact Analysis completed portion thereof, adopted by the Board by Everett `Vic' Knight of County Commissioners. . Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) completed by SEPI Engineering • State Clearing House comments (Attachment 2 July 1, 2015 Planning Board packet) Staff testimony and abstract package from May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. 38 RECOMMENDATION: Staff has not received any comments from local residents and property owners indicating they do not believe the proposed facility complies with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) inclusive. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County. Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO with respect to the submittal of required information for the project. Provided the Planning Board finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards as detailed herein, and no evidence is entered into the record demonstrating the applicant has either: a. Failed to meet their burden of proof that the project complies with the specific development standards for a school, or b. Fails to comply with the general standards detailed within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO, the Board could make an affirmative recommendation on this application to the BOCC. In the event that the Board makes an affirmative finding, staff recommends the attachment of the following conditions: 1. That the school be limited to serving 350 students as proposed by the applicant within the Special Use Permit application. 2. The granting of this Special Use Permit does not confer onto the applicant authorization to commence construction/land disturbance activities. No land disturbance activity shall commence until all applicable approvals, as detailed within the Unified Development Ordinance, have been obtained. 3. The submittal of a Solid Waste Permit application shall be required for every individual development project associated with this project. 4. Existing vegetation shall be preserved and remain in an undisturbed state in general conformance with Sheet(s) C4, C5, and C6 of the approved site plan, as appropriately adjusted pursuant to Site Plan review for individual construction phases. 5. That the Fire Marshal and representatives of the New Hope Volunteer Fire Department shall review and approve the floor plan of proposed new buildings prior to the issuance of any Building and/or Zoning Compliance Permit(s) approving construction verifying that the structures comply with all applicable NC Fire Protection Code standards. 6. The applicant shall install required wastewater treatment system improvements necessary to support approved expansion projects prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activities. Further, the school is required to supply Planning and Environmental Health staff will any and all permits issued by the State of North Carolina allowing for the operation/modification of the system. 7. That an annual inspection of the wastewater treatment facility shall be conducted by the Orange County Health Department, consistent with established Departmental policy, in order to ensure that the system is functioning within established parameters. The 39 applicant shall bear the burden of paying all fees associated with this inspection of the wastewater treatment facility as imposed by the Health Department. 8. That the applicant secure any necessary Soil Erosion and Grading, Stormwater, or other similar permit(s) from the Orange County Erosion Control Division, prior to any land disturbing activity occurring as part of the approved site plan. 9. That the applicant adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by North Carolina Department of Transportation in accordance with the driveway permit for this project. 10. That the provision of outdoor sports field lighting shall be deemed a SUP modification requiring the applicant to apply for a new Class A Special Use Permit as detailed within the UDO. 11. Development proposals shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Fish and Wildlife for review comment as part of the site plan review process of the County to ensure no endangered species are impacted. 12. The Special Use Permit will automatically expire in 12 months from the date of approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of Adjustment. 13. If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect. ATTACHMENT 3 —Excerpt of 40 Approved May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes 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 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. 41 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 DEVELOPM ENT/RE-DEVELOPM ENT OF THE EMERSON WALDORF SCHOOL PROPERTY INFORMATION • PI N(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. 42 • 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 43 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 44 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 45 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. 1 attended NC State, graduated 2005 with a 46 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. 47 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 48 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... 49 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. 50 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. 51 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. 52 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. 53 Approved 8/5/15 1 Attachment 4 2 Excerpt—Approved July 1, 2015 3 Planning Board Minutes 4 5 6 MINUTES 7 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 8 JULY 1,2015 9 REGULAR MEETING 10 11 12 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel 13 Hill Township (Vice Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 14 Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; 15 Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell,At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, 16 At-Large, Cedar Grove Township;Andrea Rohrbacher,At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 17 18 MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township 19 Representative; 20 21 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, 22 Planning Systems Coordinator;Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Patrick Mallett, Planner II. 23 24 AGENDA ITEM 7: APPLICATION FOR A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT: To make a recommendation to 25 the Board of County Commissioners on a Special use Permit application seeking 26 approval of a school redevelopment/master plan for Emerson Waldorf School's 27 existing facility located at 6211 New Jericho Road within the Chapel Hill Township. 28 This item was heard at the May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. 29 30 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 31 32 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 33 34 Pete Hallenbeck: Is there a requirement for sprinklers for schools? 35 36 Patrick Mallet: Part of the review with Jason Shepherd, Orange County Fire Marshal, is whether it is a 37 situation whether they go left or right, they may or may not require sprinklers, there are ways we can 38 overcome that. This is why we have the recommended condition that all building plans are reviewed by the 39 Fire Marshal to ensure compliance with applicable standards. 40 41 MOTION made by Lydia Wegman to approve pages 49-54 of the agenda packet. Lisa Stuckey seconded. 42 VOTE: Unanimous 43 44 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general 45 welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted based 46 upon the evidence listed on page 55 and there are no items to the contrary. Laura Nicholson seconded. 47 VOTE: Unanimous 48 49 MOTION made by Tony Blake that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property based 50 on the evidence provided and there is no counter evidence. Andrea Rohrbacher seconded. 51 VOTE: Unanimous 1 54 Approved 8/5/15 52 53 MOTION made by Lydia Wegman that the location and character of the use if developed according to the 54 plan submitted will be harmony with the area in which it is to be located. Tony Blake seconded. 55 VOTE: Unanimous 56 57 MOTION made by Paul Guthrie to recommend the special use permit for approval and all thirteen 58 recommended conditions. Laura Nicholson seconded. 59 VOTE: Unanimous 60 2 55 Attachment 5 FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE EMERSON WALDORF SCHOOL REQUESTING CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR THE EXPANSION OF ITS CAMPUS AT 6211 NEW JERICHO ROAD (SR 1899) (PINS: 9871- 64-7391; 9871-64-5632; 9871-65-8140; 9871-74-3098; and 9871-72-1935) As required under Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), a Class A Special Use Permit is required for the development/expansion of a school. Such permits shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 and 5.8.4 of the U DO. Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: (1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; (2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property); and (3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners; In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following specific standards: (1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO, (2) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of: a. Sewage disposal facilities, b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site (3) Specific regulations governing the development of school as set forth in Section 5.8.4 of the UDO, (4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2). Listed below are the findings of the Orange Planning Board regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the BOCC in its deliberations. 56 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC Board APPLICATION COMPONENTS Proper forms 2.2 Application (Attachment 1 of Yes May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing packet) Fees paid 2.2.4(D) Staff Testimony/Application Yes Full description of use 2.7.3(8)(1) Application • Location Yes • Appearance • Operational characteristics Owner Information 2.7.3(8)(2) Application Yes Information needed for Use 2.7.3(8)(3) Application and site plan Standards Yes Site Plans 2.7.3(8)(4) Application/Staff Testimony (26 for Class A) (Site plan) Yes Preliminary Subdivision Plat (if 2.7.3(B)(5) [No subdivision proposed.] N/A necessary) List of parcels within 500 feet 2.7.3(B)(6) Application Yes Elevations of all structures 2.7.3(8)(7) Application and site plan; staff Yes testimony and pictures as part of power point presentation Environmental Assessment (or 2.7.3(B)(8) Application package including: Yes EIS) Topography • Biological Inventory • Drainage issues completed by The • Natural or Cultural Catena Group; • Forest Stewardship Plan resources completed by Kelly • Mining Douglass; • Hazardous Wastes • Impact Analysis • Wastewater treatment completed by Everett • Water usage `Vic' Knight • State Clearing House comments (Attachment 2 July 1, 2015 Planning Board packet) Method of Debris Disposal 2.7.3(8)(9) Application and site plan Yes Development Schedule 2.7.3(8)(10) Application and site plan Yes Extended Vesting Request 2.7.3(B)(11) Not requested N/A 57 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC Board NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Public Notice 2.7.5(a) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes • Date Hearing Abstract (Attachment 4) • Time and staff testimony • Place Published in Newspaper 2.7.5(b) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes • Two successive weeks Hearing Abstract (Attachment 4) • First notice at least ten days and staff testimony prior but no more than twenty- five days prior Sign Posting on Property (at least 2.7.5(c) Staff Testimony Yes 10 days prior) posted sign on May 14, 2015 Mailed Notice 2.7.5(d) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes • Certified mail Hearing Abstract (Attachment 4) • All adjacent property and staff testimony owners (within 500 ft.) • Not less than fifteen days prior 58 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC Board SPECIFIC STANDARDS Waste Disposal 5.3.2(8)(1) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes Method and adequacy of provision Hearing Abstract (Attachment for sewage disposal facilities, solid 3) and staff testimony. waste and water service. Both Environmental Health and Solid Waste have indicated they have no concerns. Conditions are recommended to require Solid Waste Permit as part of development process. Safety 5.3.2(8)(2) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes Method and adequacy of police, Hearing Abstract (Attachment fire and rescue squad protection. 3) and staff testimony. Orange County Emergency Service staff and the Sheriff's office have indicated the project can be served. Vehicle Access 5.3.2(8)(3) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Yes Method and adequacy of vehicle Hearing Abstract (Attachment access to the site and traffic 3), Transportation Impact conditions around the site. Analysis (TIA) completed by SEPI Engineering, and staff testimony. There will not be an appreciable traffic increase in the area associated with the expansion of the school. 59 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC Board STANDARDS for Schools (Elementary, Middle and Secondary) Site Plan 5.8.4 (A) (1) Application, Applicant Yes A site plan prepared in accordance Testimony, Staff Testimony, and with Section 2.5 of and 5.8.4 of Site plan UDO Standards of Evaluation 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Yes Project meets applicable design (a) Testimony, Staff Testimony, and standards of UDO Site plan 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Yes Project meets service provision (b) Testimony, Staff Testimony criteria: (Attachment 3 of quarterly public i. Identifies primary and hearing packet), and Site plan secondary police (public service), rescue services, and fire responders , ii. Identifies sources of water for use by fire fighters, iii. Identifies water source and wastewater treatment method iv. Identifies process for removal of solid waste 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Yes Completion of biological inventory (c) Testimony, Staff Testimony and (identification of habitats) Biological Inventory completed by The Catena Group; • Forest Stewardship Plan completed by Kelly Douglass; • State Clearing House comments 60 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC Board STANDARDS for Schools (Elementary, Middle and Secondary) —continued 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Yes Landscaping and buffers (d) Testimony, Staff Testimony and (protection of existing vegetation, . Biological Inventory tree protection measures, etc.) completed by The Catena Group; • Forest Stewardship Plan completed by Kelly Douglass; • State Clearing House comments (Attachment 2 July 1, 2015 Planning Board packet) Stormwater management and 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Yes drainage plan (e) and (f) Testimony, Staff Testimony inclusive (Attachment 3 of Quarterly Public Hearing packet, and Master Plan) A recommended condition of approval is that as new development is approved for the site the applicant will have to submit the formal stormwater management plan for approval by Orange County. 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Yes Grading and erosion control (g) Testimony, Staff Testimony (Attachment 3 of quarterly public hearing packet, and Master Plan) A recommended condition of approval is that as new development is approved for the site the applicant will have to submit formal erosion control plans for approval by Orange County. 61 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC Board STANDARDS for Schools (Elementary, Middle and Secondary) —continued Solid Waste Management 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application, Applicant Yes (h) Testimony, Staff Testimony (Attachment 3 of quarterly public hearing packet, and Master Plan) A recommended condition of approval is as new site plans are submitted the applicant will submit the formal solid waste management plan for approval by Orange County Solid Waste. 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application and Master Plan Yes Irrigation (i) 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application and Master Plan Yes Habitat Maintenance (j) 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application and site plan; Yes Public Road Access (k) Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) completed by SEPI Engineering 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application and site plan Yes Maintenance of Improvements (I) 5.8.4 (A) (3) Application package including: Yes Additional Standards (m) • Biological Inventory i. Minimum lot size consistent completed by The with adopted County school Catena Group; construction standards. • Forest Stewardship Plan ii. Lot size shall be adequate to completed by Kelly accommodate all activities. Douglass; iii. Negative visual impacts shall • Impact Analysis be minimized along major completed by Everett roadways. `Vic' Knight iv. Required transportation • Transportation Impact improvements are installed. Analysis (TIA) completed v. Site designed for multiple by SEPI Engineering shared use opportunities. • State Clearing House vi. Site access comments • Applicant and staff testimony. 62 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC Board SPECIFIC STANDARDS In accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), the BOCC shall consider the following general conditions before the application for a Special Use can be approved. The use (will / will not) maintain or Section 5.3.2 Application package and The use promote the public health, safety and (A) (2) (a) testimony including: WILL general welfare, if located where • Biological Inventory maintain proposed and developed and ... operated according to the plan as completed by The Catena submitted. Group; • Forest Stewardship Plan completed by Kelly Douglass; • Impact Analysis completed by Everett `Vic' Knight • Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) completed by SEPI Engineering • State Clearing House comments on how the project complied with the U DO. Staff testimony and abstract package from May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. Planning Board packet from July 1, 2015 regular meeting. A lack of competent material evidence in the record demonstrating the applicant did not comply with the UDO. Section 5.3.2 Application package and The use The use (will / will not) maintain or (A) (2) (b) testimony including: WILL enhance the value of contiguous . Impact Analysis completed maintain property (unless the use is a public ... necessity, in which case the use by Everett `Vic' Knight need not maintain or enhance the on how the project complied value of contiguous property). with the UDO. Staff testimony and abstract package from May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. Planning Board packet from July 1, 2015 regular meeting. A lack of competent material evidence in the record demonstrating the applicant did not comply with the UDO. 63 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Planning BOCC Board Section 5.3.2 Application package and The The location and character of the (A) (2) (c) testimony including: location use, if developed according to the and plan submitted, (will /will not) be in • Biological Inventory character harmony with the area in which it is completed by The Catena of the to be located and the use is in Group; use if compliance with the plan for the • Forest Stewardship Plan develope physical development of the County completed by Kelly d as embodied in these regulations or Douglass; accordin in the Comprehensive Plan, or • Impact Analysis completed g to the portion thereof, adopted by the Board by Everett `Vic' Knight plan of County Commissioners. . Transportation Impact submitte Analysis (TIA) completed d, WILL by SEPI Engineering be in • State Clearing House harmony comments on how the project complied with the U DO. Staff testimony and abstract package from May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. Planning Board packet from July 1, 2015 regular meeting. A lack of competent material evidence in the record demonstrating the applicant did not comply with the UDO. 64 RECOMMENDATION: Staff has not received any comments from local residents and property owners indicating they do not believe the proposed facility complies with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) inclusive. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County. The Planning Board and staff have reviewed the application, the Master Plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO with respect to the submittal of required information for the project. Provided the BOCC finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards as detailed herein, and no evidence is entered into the record demonstrating the applicant has either: a. Failed to meet their burden of proof that the project complies with the specific development standards for a school, or b. Fails to comply with the general standards detailed within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO, the BOCC could make an affirmative recommendation on this application to the BOCC. In the event that the BOCC makes an affirmative finding, staff and the Planning Board recommends the attachment of the following conditions: 1. That the school be limited to serving 350 students as proposed by the applicant within the Special Use Permit application. 2. The granting of this Special Use Permit does not confer onto the applicant authorization to commence construction/land disturbance activities. No land disturbance activity shall commence until all applicable approvals, as detailed within the Unified Development Ordinance, have been obtained. 3. The submittal of a Solid Waste Permit application shall be required for every individual development project associated with this project. 4. Existing vegetation shall be preserved and remain in an undisturbed state in general conformance with Sheet(s) C4, C5, and C6 of the approved site plan, as appropriately adjusted pursuant to Site Plan review for individual construction phases. 5. That the Fire Marshal and representatives of the New Hope Volunteer Fire Department shall review and approve the floor plan of proposed new buildings prior to the issuance of any Building and/or Zoning Compliance Permit(s) approving construction verifying that the structures comply with all applicable NC Fire Protection Code standards. 6. The applicant shall install required wastewater treatment system improvements necessary to support approved expansion projects prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activities. Further, the school is required to supply Planning and Environmental Health staff will any and all permits issued by the State of North Carolina allowing for the operation/modification of the system. 7. That an annual inspection of the wastewater treatment facility shall be conducted by the Orange County Health Department, consistent with established Departmental policy, in order to ensure that the system is functioning within established parameters. The 65 applicant shall bear the burden of paying all fees associated with this inspection of the wastewater treatment facility as imposed by the Health Department. 8. That the applicant secure any necessary Soil Erosion and Grading, Stormwater, or other similar permit(s) from the Orange County Erosion Control Division, prior to any land disturbing activity occurring as part of the approved site plan. 9. That the applicant adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by North Carolina Department of Transportation in accordance with the driveway permit for this project. 10. That the provision of outdoor sports field lighting shall be deemed a SUP modification requiring the applicant to apply for a new Class A Special Use Permit as detailed within the UDO. 11. Development proposals shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Fish and Wildlife for review comment as part of the site plan review process of the County to ensure no endangered species are impacted. 12. The Special Use Permit will automatically expire in 12 months from the date of approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of Adjustment. 13. If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect. Attachment 6 66 SCRIPT FOR ACTING ON EMERSON WALDORF SCHOOL AT THE INTERSECTION OF NEW JERICHO AND MILLHOUSE ROADS CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION: October 6, 2015 BOCC meeting -- Bft.ic. lc.m dc.iiolc.s BO(V ('hair/Mc.rnbc.r rc.clt.drc.d aclioll 11, 0air will (..xplain lhc pt.rrposc of lhc ilc,�rn is to lhc,; Planning Board For the project, the purpose of the meeting is as follows: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a decision on a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter 'SUP) application submitted by Emerson Waldorf School proposing a revised SUP with a Master Plan to allow for the long-term expansion of school accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.8.4 "Schools- Elementary, Middle and Secondary" of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). 2, 0air will thcr pt.iblic,, hc aring rc.-c,,onvc.nc.d Im lhcr pt.rrposc of lhc, Planning Board and asl, stall'to lhc.ir prc.sc.ii tali on, NOTE-The re-convening of a hearing is solely for the purpose of receiving the Planning Board recommendation and allowing any new information, previously submitted in writing, to be entered into the record. The hearing is not intended to solicit additional input from the public or the applicant. While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments from the public or the applicant shall not be solicited. The accepting additional public comments at this stage of the review (i.e. the reconvened hearing) would constitute a violation of the UDO. 3. Staff will review the abstract and ask it be entered into the record. Staff will review the Findings of Fact(Attachment 5) for the Special Use component of the project. 4. Questions will be asked of staff. 5, A rnotion will to bc rnadc to c1osc thcr pt.iblic,, hc.aring, N 0"'IT ................... oince this is doine, R�anning Staff cannolt answer questioins w�r VIII iiirovide additioinaVIII detai 11L 67 6. The BOCC will first need to take action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The findings of fact have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions to approve or deny. The cadence on taking action should be as follows a, A rriotioti litiditig applic,,atit leas or eas iuiot c,,orripli(..d with lh(., provisiolls of 2,2 atid 2,'7,3 ofth(.. Oratig(.,, Cotnity t4iflk.d D(.w(..Ioprri(..iiI Orditiatic,,(..; as d(.,Iafl(.,d by th(.,, litiditigs (,-,,otitaitu.d withiti Attachrri(.,iii 5 of abstract pacl%ag(.,;, NOTE — if the motion is to reject the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with Section(s)2.2 and 2.7.3 of the UDO. b, A rriotioti litiditig th(.,, applic,,atit leas or eas iuiot c,,orripli(..d with lh(., provisiolls of 2,'7,5 oflh(., Oratig(.,. Cotnity t4ifli(..d D(.w(..Ioprri(..iiI Orditiatic,,(..; as d(.,Iafl(.,d by ter(., litiditigs (,-otitaitu.d within Attachrri(.,iii 5 ofth(.. abstract pac,4,ag(.% S(..(-,'olld, Vot(.% NOTE — if the motion is to reject the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with Section 2.7.5 of the UDO. A rriodoti litiditig applicatit leas or leas iuiot c,,orripli(..d with lh(., provisiolls of gtt~� tarn 5,32 (B) of th(.,, Oratig(.,. Cotnity t4iflk.d D(.w(..Ioprri(..iII Ordillallc,(..; as d(.,Iafl(.,d by th(.,, litiditigs (,-,,otitaitu.d withiti Attachrri(.,iii 5 of abstract pac,4,ag(.% NOTE — if the motion is to reject the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (B) of the UDO. d, A rriotioti litiditig th(.,, applic,,atit has or has tiot c,,orripli(..d with th(.,, provisiolls of gtt~� tarn 5,8A ofth(., Oratig(.,. Cotnity t4ifli(..d D(.w(..Ioprri(..iiI Orditiatic,,(..; as d(.,Iafl(.,d by ter(., litiditigs (,-otitaitu.d within Attachrri(.,iii 5 ofth(.. abstract pac,4,ag(.% S(..(-,'olld, Vot(.% 68 NOTE — if the motion is to reject the individual making the motion will need to provide some explanation justifying the finding that the applicant has not established, through competent material and substantial evidence, the project is in compliance with Section 5.8.4 (B) of the UDO. A rnotion will to b(.,, rnad(., r(..garding c,,ornplianc,,(..: with S(..(,-,,don 53,2 (A) (2) of Ordinanc,,(..; as 1`61lows (NOTE — Whomever makes the motion will have to cite the 'evidence' in the record utilized justifying the motion to approve or deny. Attachment 5 contains the recommendations of the Planning Board including the evidence utilized to reach the conclusion. This 'evidence' must be spelled out explicitly by the Commissioner making the motion. If the motion is to deny then the Commissioner making the motion will have to spell out explicitly the evidence within the record utilized to justify a negative finding): i, Motion linding is or is snot in lh(. r(.,;(,-,ord proJ(..(,-,,1 with S(..(,-,,don 53,2 (A) (2) (a) ofth(., UDO in that th(.,, will maintain and prornot(.. th(.,, pt.iblic,, h(.,,alth, sal'(.,ty and g(..iu.ral w(..11'an.., if loc,,at(..d wh(.,.r(.,.: propos(..d and d(.w(..1op(..d and op(.,.rat(.,:d a(,-,,(,-,,ording to th(.,,plan as st,ibrrdtt(.,,d, This motion is bas(..d on rnak.rial and into th(.,, r(.,.(,-ord ofth(..s(. proc,,( (..6ngs, inc,,ft,iding- NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record. • Application package and testimony including: • Biological Inventory completed by The Catena Group; • Forest Stewardship Plan completed by Kelly Douglass; • Impact Analysis completed by Everett `Vic' Knight • Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) completed by SEPI Engineering • State Clearinghouse comments on how the project complied with the UDO. • Staff testimony and abstract package from May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. • Planning Board packet from July 1, 2015 regular meeting. 69 AND • A lack of competent material evidence in the record demonstrating the applicant did not comply with the UDO. If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a). prrrf(�(,°,1 ith (.;(,°,don 5,3 (A) ( ) (fir) of°th(., UDO in that ter(.,; will maintain rofr(;vrrfrr(., rr1vr-,,on1fgu.rrru.rs prop(.:rrty, This rrrrrtfon is bas(..ed on rrrrrkrrial and into th(.,, rr(.r°rrrrd of th(..s(. err°rrr�°,� elf ;�r, fmdt'i ing- NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record. • Application package and testimony including: o Impact Analysis completed by Everett `Vic' Knight on how the project complied with the UDO. • Staff testimony and abstract package from May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. • Planning Board packet from July 1, 2015 regular meeting. AND • A lack of competent material evidence in the record demonstrating the applicant did not comply with the UDO. If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b), the Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b). fff, Motion finding ing is or is not in lh(., rr.r°rrrrd th(.', is in harrriony with th(.,, arr(.,a in frfr°,h it is to b(.,.; lo(,a1(..ef and th(, is in 70 with plan for th(.,, phy�;i(,-,,al d(.w(..1oprn(..ii1 of th(.'; Col.111ty w; (..mbodk d in r( gtflatiow; and in th(.,. Plan, Thig rnotion i�; bw;(..d on rnak.rial and into th(.,; r(.,.(,-ord of th(..s(..� imdt'iding- NOTE — the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record. • Application package and testimony including: • Biological Inventory completed by The Catena Group; • Forest Stewardship Plan completed by Kelly Douglass; • Impact Analysis completed by Everett `Vic' Knight • Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) completed by SEPI Engineering • State Clearing House comments on how the project complied with the UDO. • Staff testimony and abstract package from May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. • Planning Board packet from July 1, 2015 regular meeting. AND • A lack of competent material evidence in the record demonstrating the applicant did not comply with the UDO. If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c), the Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c). 7, Motion to approve, or deny th(.,, Sp(.,,(,-,,ial U;(.. P(..rrrdt 11' th(.,, rnotion fir to approv(.,. th(.,; Sp( (,-,,ial U;(. P(..rrrdt, thin rnotion wotfld allo to langi.iag(., indi(,-ating th(.,, BO CC irnpor ;(..s th(.,; (,-,,onditiow; w; d(.'Iafl(.;d within A11a(-,,hrn(.,ii1 5 ofth(.; aN;1ra(,-,,1 pa(-,4,ag(..�, S(..(,-,,ond, Vot(.,;