Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-23-1987 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MONDAY. NOVEMBER 23 , 1987 7 :30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM NEW COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA A. BOARD comma= B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1 . Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked.) 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. PUBLIC CHARGE, The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored. the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Page D. PUBIJC HEARINGS 005 1. MasteL _Recreation, jd Parks__Plan 2. environmental jmpact Ordinance (This item has been deleted from the agenda and will be scheduled for public hearing at a later date. ) 3 . Lana Use Plan Amendments 011 a. Cedar Grove Township Land Use Plan Update 4. Zoning Atlas Amendments 045 a. PD-2-87 Chandler Concrete 089 b. PD-4-87 McL ennan' s Farm (All persons to offer testimony pertinent to Planned Development applications must be sworn in. ) • Page 5 . Amendments 151 a. Home Occupation Provisions (1) Revision of Article 6 .16 .6 - Home Occupations 163 b. Traffic Impact Analysis Provisions (1) New Article 13 - Traffic Impacts (2) New Article 6.17 - Traffic Impacts (3) Renumbering - Article 8.8 a) (4) New Article 8 .8 e)-Traffic Impacts (5) Renumbering - Article 20 .3 .2 f) (6) New Article 20.3 .2 f) -Traffic Impacts (7) Addition to Article 22 - Definitions 6 . Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments. 183 a. Traffic Impact Analysis Provisions (1) Renumber Section IV-B-3-d (2) Renumber Section IV-B-3-e (3) New Section IV-B-3-e - Traffic Impacts (4) Addition to Section II - Definitions E. ADJOUREMEN ' r 11 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OP COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MONDAY. NOVEMBER 23 , 1987 7 :30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM NEW COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked. ) 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. Punic CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner. both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge. the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Page D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 005 1 . Master Recreation and Parks Plan 2 . (This item has been deleted from the agenda and will be scheduled for public hearing at a later date.) 3 . Land Use Plan Amendments 011 a. Cedar Grove Township Land Use Plan Update 4. Zoning Atlas Amendment. 045 a. PD-2-87 Chandler Concrete 089 b. PD-4-87 McL ennan' s Farm (All persons to offer testimony pertinent to Planned Development applications must be sworn in. ) • Page 5 . Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. 151 a. Home Occupation Provisions (1) Revision of Article 6 .16 .6 - Home Occupations 163 b. Traffic Impact Analysis Provisions (1) New Article 13 - Traffic Impacts (2) New Article 6 .17 - Traffic Impacts (3) Renumbering - Article 8.8 a) (4) New Article 8 .8 e) -Traffic Impacts (5) Renumbering - Article 20 .3 .2 f) (6) New Article 20.3 .2 f) -Traffic Impacts (7) Addition to Article 22 - Definitions 6 . nbdivision Regulations Text Amendments 183 a. Traffic Impact Analysis Provisions (1) Renumber Section IV-B-3-d (2) Renumber Section IV-B-3-e (3) New Section IV-B-3-e -- Traffic Impacts (4) Addition to Section II - Definitions E. ADJOURNMENT r ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOO 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 AAII / O A.. , NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED MASTER PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN. A PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE► AND PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE PLAN, ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE► AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Section 323 and 343► Article 20 - Sections 20.5 and 20.6 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, and Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regula- tions► notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Court- house (New) , 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina. on Monday, November 23 , 1987 , at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against a proposed Master Parks and Recreation Plan for Orange County. Citizens will also be given the opportunity to speak for or against proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan, Zoning Atlas, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations of Orange County. ORANGE COUNTY MAE= BECREATIQN AND PARKS FLAN The purpose of the Master Recreation and Park Plan is to assess the current and future recreation and park needs of Orange County citizens. The plan is organized into five major components, including the following: (1) Goals and Objectives (2) Current and Projected Factors Pertinent to Orange County (3) Analysis of Current Recreation Programs and Park Facilities, Development of Recreation Standards, and Community Needs Assessment (4) Plan Proposals and Recommendations (5) Action Plan Implementation Of particular importance are components 4 and 5. Component 4 002 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PAGE 2 proposes a system of district and community parks and green- ways for the County. along with a proposed time schedule for implementation. Component 5 itemizes the facilities and costs associated with developing each proposed park or greenway. EANGE CQQNTY ENVUUONMBNTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE The proposed ordinance identifies those circumstances when any special-purpose unit of government or private developer of a major development project will be required to file a statement which identifies the affect of the project on the quality of the environment. The ordinance also specifies the procedures for preparation and submission of an environmental impact statement as well as the content of the document. ORANGE COUNTY LAND UBE PTjAN. Amend the ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLANr SECTION 3 .6 - CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIPr to address changing land use and population patterns in the township. An element of concern to be addressed is water quality concerns related to the Little River. Back Creek. and Upper Eno water supply water- sheds. The plan amendment is also in response to a five (5) year update schedule specified at the time of plan adoption in 1981. ORANGE COUWTy ZONING ATLAS The proposed amendments to the Zoning Atlas under considera- tion are as follows: 1. PD-2-87 Chandler Concrete Company A Planned Development-Industrial (PD-I-3) district has been proposed on property located on the south side of Old NC 10 (SR 1710) approximately one-half mile from the intersection with new NC 86. The property that would be rezoned is 2.0 acres of Lot 32 on Hillsborough Township Tax Map 45. The property in question is proposed for use as the site for a water reclamation system adjacent to an existing concrete plant. The proposed PD-I-3 district would be developed in accordance with the 1-3 Heavy Industry zoning district. the requirements of the PD-I district. and the "Class A" Special Use Permit that would be required for the project. 2 . PD-4-87 McClennan' s Farm A Planned Development-Residential (PD-H-RB) district has been proposed on property located on the east side of Bowden Road (SR 1946) approximately one- 003 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PAGE 3 half mile south of the intersection with Old Greensboro Highway (SR 1005) . The property that would be rezoned is 37 acres of Lot 24 on Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 115 . The proposed development will consist of 14 residential building lots served by a community nitrification field. The proposed PD--H--RB will be developed in accordance with the RB Rural Buffer zoning district, PWII Protected Watershed zoning district, the requirements of the PD-H district, and the "Class A" Special Use Permit that would be required for the project. ORANGE CQUjTX ZONING ORDINANCE The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance under con- sideration are as follows: 1 . Amend Article 6 .16 .6 REGULATIONS CONCERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS AS AN ACCESSORY USE to provide additional restrictions on home occupations permitted on smaller residential lots. A new paragraph will outline permit procedures for issuance of home occupation permits. 2. Create a new Article 13 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY that will require preparation of a traffic impact study for zoning changes. special use permits, and site plans that will result in development that will produce 800 or more trips per day. 3 . Create a new Article 6 .17 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REQUIRED that will require preparation of a traffic impact study as outlined in Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance before issuance of a zoning compliance permit. 4 . Renumber Article 8.8 a) 10) to Article 8.8 b) . Article 8.8 a) 11) to Article 8.8 c) . Article 8.8 a) 12) to Article 8.8 d) . No text change is proposed. These amendments are organizational changes needed to accommodate the following proposed amendment. 5 . Create a new Article 8.8 e) requiring preparation of a traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance as part of an application for a special use permit. 6 . Renumber Article 20 .3 .2 f) to Article 20 .3 .2 g) . No text change is proposed. This amendment is an organizational change needed to accommodate the following proposed amendment. 7 . Create a new Article 20.3 .2 g) requiring preparation of a traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance as part of an application for an amendment to the Zoning Atlas. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PAGE 4 004 8. Amend Article 22 DEFINITIONS to include definitions for terms used in the proposed new Article 13 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations under consideration are as follows: 1. Renumber Section IV-B-3-d to Section IV-B-3-d-1 . This section identifies criteria under which private roads may be permitted in subdivisions. No change in text is proposed. The amendment is an organizational change needed to accommodate the proposed amendment in *3 below. 2 . Renumber Section IV-B-3-e to Section IV-B-c-d-2. This section requires private roads to meet Orange County standards. No change in text is proposed. The amendment is an organizational change needed to accommodate the proposed amendment in #3 below. 3 . Create a new Section IV-B-3-e TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. This section would require preparation of a Traffic Impact Study for subdivisions containing 8,0 or more lots. 4 . Amend Section II DEFINITIONS to include definitions for terms used in the proposed new Section IV-B-3-8-e TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment must be received during the public hearing. Those wishing to oppose the proposals must provide competent material and substantial evidence as to the specific manner in which they are opposed to the amendments. Following the close of the public hearing. only evidence presented at public hearing will be examined by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debater objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposal should be directed to the Orange County Planning Department. The Planning Department is located in the Orange County Agricultural/Environmental Center. 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough. N.C. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. . Monday through Friday. V Marvin Collins. Planning Director 005 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date November 231 1987 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Anne Black • Summary Report Draft Master Recreation & Parks Plan (Separate document) TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed Master Recreation and Parks Plan for Orange County. BACKGROUND: In April of 1987. work was begun on the preparation of a Master Recreation & Parks Plan for Orange County. The preparation of the Plan was carried out by the consulting firm of Woolpert Associates. working with the Master Recreation & Parks Plan Advisory Group. Following nine months of work and a series of public meetings. the completed draft Plan is being presented at public hearing for citizen comment. In preparing the Plan. community input through public meetings. coupled with a review of typical recreation and park standards. aided in identifying immediate and long- range recreational needs of the County. Once these needs were put into quantitative terms. they provided a guide in determining land requirements for various types of recreation and park facilities. These standards were then used to formulate the direction of future recreation and park development. The Master Recreation & Parks Plan is designed to become one element of Orange County' s Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with other County land use plans and ordinances. The Plan recommends that Orange County concentrate its efforts in the provision of four types of recreation and park facilities/areas: (1) community parks (serving the more densely populated unincorporated areas of the county) ; (2) district parks; (3) greenways; and (4) swimming pools. A crucial element in the success of the Master Plan is the 006' effectiveness of cooperative efforts between Orange County and the two school systems. the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, the University of North Carolina, Duke University (forest properties) , and the municipalities. The Master Plan envisions providing park facilities and recreation opportunities for All citizens of Orange County and will require a long-term commitment and coordinated action on the part of these and other agencies. RECOMMENDATION: The Recreation & Parks Director and the Planning Director recommend approval of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan and incorporation by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County. 007 SUMMARY REPORT This report summarizes the major findings and recommendations of a nine month study of the recreation and park needs of the citizens of Orange County. The county recognized the need to develop a comprehensive Master Recreation and Park Plan (Master Plan) to guide community leaders in the orderly and adequate provision of leisure opportunities. The study was accomplished through a combination of in-house staff effort, technical assistance from a qualified park planning/consulting firm, and guidance from a citizen group which monitored the plan's progress throughout the planning period. This "team" approach to planning for the needs of the community resulted in a more thorough and comprehensive assessment, with resulting recommendations truly responsive to citizen input. The Plan is designed to become one element in the county's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with other county comprehensive plans and ordinances. The recommendations contained within this document should be assessed and updated as necessary. The Plan was written to be adequately flexible but responsive to the challenges of changing government's ability to preserve and protect the recreational needs of Orange County citizens. Obtaining community input through a series of public meetings coupled with a review of typical recreation and park standards effectively aided in recognizing the immediate and long-range recreational needs of the citizens. Once these needs were put in quantitative terns, they provided a guide in determining land requirements for various types of park and recreation areas or facilities. These requirements, or standards, are then used to formulate the direction of future park and recreation development. Historically, the majority of recreation facilities have been provided by the towns of Chapel Hill and;Carrboro and the private or quasi-public sectors of the county. The County Recreation and Parks Department has concentrated on providing programs but has recently taken a more active role in the provision of facilities. In order to facilitate the projected land requirements of an adequate parks system, responsibilities for providing certain types of parks should be divided among several public (primarily municipal and county governments) , quasi-public and private entities, with a majority of the responsibility falling to public entities to ensure accessibility and availability of facilities and programs to all citizens. 008. It is recommended that the county concentrate efforts in the provision of four types of recreation and park facilities/areas: (1) community parks (serving the more densely populated unincorporated areas of the county), (2) district parks, (3) greenways, and (4) swimming pools. Each type is described in detail in the document text. A crutial element to the success of the Master Plan is the effectiveness of cooperative efforts between the county and agencies such as the two school systems, OWASA (reservoirs), the University of North Carolina, Duke University (forest properties), and the municipalities. This plan envisions . providing park facilities and recreation opportunities to all citizens of Orange County. This will require a long-term committment and coordinated action on the part of these and other agencies to insure our children have playgrounds, and families and groups have places to picnic or walk a nature trail. The 20-year Plan recommends that the county provide four (4) community parks during the planning period in addition to their two existing community parks (Northern Recreation Center and Fairview Community Park). These four are proposed to serve the more densely populated yet unincorporated areas of: Cheeks Township's Efland community Eno Township's University Station community (or other area of significant residential development) Bingham Township's White Cross community Little River Township's Caldwell community A community park is typically twenty-five (25) acres or more, provides recreational opportunities for the entire family and should contain areas suited for intense recreational purposes such as athletic fields, tennis courts, and paths for walking/jogging. Community parks also usually contain areas of natural quality for outdoor recreation such as picnicing, viewing, and sitting. The Plan also recommends four (4) district Parks to be provided in the twenty year planning period. The proposed locations are: Bingham Township (in association with Cane Creek Reservoir) Cheeks/Hillsborough Townships (near Corporation Lake) Chapel Hill Township (at the existing/proposed landfill sites) Little River/Cedar Grove Townships A district park is typically seventy-five (75) acres or more, easily accessible to the public and within one-half (h) hour driving time. A district park typically includes activity areas found in community parks in addition to an indoor recreation building. A water feature (pond or lake) is typically found within this type of park. G 009 Another recommendation of the Plan is for the county to develop a greenways system. National, state, and regional efforts to establish these "green corridors" are especially strong in our area. Greenways are usually linear areas of land, usually along rivers and streams, which can link public areas to the citizens for access by foot, bike, or even canoe. Greenways also serve purposes other than for man's transportation convenience and it is important that areas of natural significance be protected through greenway and open space plans. Population projections indicate an immediate need for two (2) public swimming pools. In order to maximize resources and avoid duplication of service, it is recommended that these pools be located at the two county high schools. These locations provide the best accessibility to the greatest number of participants. Many agencies and individuals contributed to the preparation of this Plan and special acknowledgement should go the members of the Master Plan Advisory Group who monitored the process and provided input into the recommendations: Gail Condie Laura Mansberg Patrick Davis Kirk Pelland Richard Drake Bob Strayhorn Judsen Eideburn Barry Torain Ron Hyatt Ira Trollinger Special thanks is also extended to the following: Orange County Board of County Commissioners Carrboro Recreation and Parks Department Chapel Hill/Carrboro School System Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Department Duke University Mebane Recreation and Parks Department Orange County Manager's Office Orange County Planning Department Board and Staff Orange County Recreation & Parks Department Advisory Council and Staff Orange County School System Orange water and Sewer Authority Recreation Division, North Carolina Natural Resources and Community Development Recreation Resources Service, N. C. State University Triangle Land Conservancy University of North Carolina and The news media for such excellent coverage 010 011 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date November 23 , 1987 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: DRAFT CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING , X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell Draft Cedar Grove Plan 11-6-87 Memo to Marvin Collins Cedar Grove Work Plan 11-17-87 Memo to Marvin Collins 11-18-87 Memo to Gene Bell TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane -- 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Orange County Land Use Plan, Section 3 .6 - Cedar Grove Township. The proposed amendment addresses, primarily, watershed protection in the Township. BACKGROUND: When the Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981, a five year update schedule was specified by the County Commissioners. In accordance with this schedule, work was begun on updating the Little River Township Plan in the spring of 1986 . As the work on Little River was nearing completion in May 1987, data collection and analysis was begun for Cedar Grove Township. The plan update process for Cedar Grove began officially on July 21 at a TAC meeting wherein the plan update strategy was presented. This was followed by a public information meeting on August 11 to present background data and distribute a questionnaire, a meeting on October 6 to discuss alternative plans, and a final meeting on October 27 to present the Draft Plan. With one major exception, the Draft Plan does not differ substantially from the 1981 Plan. The major change is the designation of additional water supply watersheds in the Township, in particular, the Back Creek and Little River drainage basins. This increases from 28.5% to 88%, the amount of township land area designated water supply watershed. Township activity nodes and the designation of the entire township as Agricultural-Residential are unchanged from 1981. 012 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3 .6 of the Land Use Plan. The Planning Board will consider the TAC recommendation and prepare a recommendation on the Plan amendment at its December 21r 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on January 4. 1988. 013 TOWNSHIP PROFILE: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Cedar Grove Township, in northwestern Orange County, is the largest of the County ' s seven townships . Its 51 ,700 acres make up 20% of the County ' s total area. The character of Cedar Grove Township is predominantly rural and agricultural with a limited amount of low density commercial and residential development. Of the seven townships in Orange County, Cedar Grove Township is the farthest removed from urban growth pressures. The Township should retain its rural character during the plan period, even as other townships experience significant non-farm development. Socio-economic Feat_ures. The 1980 U .S . Census figure for Cedar Grove Township was 3, 166 residents, which accounted for 4% of the County ' s total population . The average annual growth rate for the decade 1970-1980 was a stagnant 0 .06%, and the 1980 population was lower than it had been in 1960. In part, this was a reflection of the Township ' s distance from major area employment centers and isolation from urban development pressures . Since 1980, the stagnation of the Township ' s population has ended, with the population reaching 3,883 residents in 1987 . While the growth rate during this time of 2 .96% annually represents a drastic increase of that prior to 1980, it is still less than the county rate of 3 .69% . The primary economic activity in Cedar Grove Township is agriculture. The Township is one of the most important agricultural areas of Orange County and has more acreage in use value taxation than any other township in the county . Land Use DJ stribut ion arid I nfrastrLgturQ Cedar Grove Township is agriculturally based and contains a limited amount of commercial and non-farm residential development. The major employment centers of Chapel HiII , Durham, and Burlington are well outside a convenient commuting distance from the Township. Completion of 1-40 from Chapel Hill to Hillsborough is unlikely to cause any significant change in the commuting pattern . There is currently no public water or sewer in Cedar Grove Township and no plans exist to extend such services into the Township. As a consequence, the Township is likely to retain its rural character and experience only minimal development pressure over the course of the plan period. Household Sizg and Housing Stock The housing stock of Cedar Grove Township in 1980 consisted of 1176 units. Seven years later the number had increased by almost 23% to an estimated 1 ,445 units, based on 3 . F-1 01'4 building permits issued during that period . Manufactured housing accounted for over half of the increase. Site built homes, though , still predominate in the Township, outnumbering manufactured homes by a ratio of four to one. Ownership is the primary form of tenure in the Township, although rental units comprise a significant portion of the housing stock. In 1980 , slightly less than three-quarters of the homes in Cedar Grove Township were owner occupied . Cedar Grove Township has followed the state and national trend of gradually decreasing household sizes . The average household in the Township had 3 .69 persons in 1970 . This dropped to 2 .69 persons in 1980 . Circulation A modified version of the - North Carolina Highway Functional Classification System is used to describe Orange County ' s road network. This system describes parts of the network according to mobility and access factors. The most important roads , Interstates and arterial highways, provide the shortest travel time and best service between important activity centers . Roads of lesser importance, collector roads, do not provide as high a level of service, but do provide large areas with access to major roads. Local roads have the most limited service capacity, but in the aggregate serve to provide large land areas with access to the collector and arterial systems . The two most traveled roads in Cedar Grove Township are arterial highways ; NC86, extending northwest from Hillsborough towards Yanceyville; and NC49 , which bisects the northwest quarter of the township, running northeast from the Alamance County line. The two roads join Just south of the Caswell County line near the community of Prospect Hill . Other important roads in the township include the collectors Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR1004 ) , Carr Store Road ( SR1004 and SR1352) , Corbett Ridge Road (SR1004) , Walnut Grove Church Road (SR1001 ) , Little River Church Road ( SR1543) , Wilkerson Road (SR1507 ) , Lynch Store Road (SR1364) , Saw Mill Road (SR1545) , and Mill Creek Road (SR1343) . These roads provide the most direct access to the arterial system in the northern part of the county.. All other roads provide a local level of service. The objective of any component of a transportation system, such as a street or highway, is to accommodate a specific amount of traffic while providing the operator with a specific level of service. A level of service ' C' is ' frequently used as an appropriate criterion for highway and _ street design purposes and is defined by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as a zone of stable flow with speed and maneuverability more closely controlled by higher volumes. Levels of service range from ' A, ' which is a condition of low volume and high speed, to the forced flow operation at low speeds that characterizes level of service ' F . ' 3 . g-7 015 Traffic on Cedar Grove Township arterials is within capacities that allow for a relatively free flow of traffic. NC86, the main north-south route through the Township, has a capacity of 2,790 vehicles per day ( vpd ) given a 55 mph speed limit and providing a level of service ' C. ' ith a spee limit of 45 mph the capacity increases to almost 7 ,000 vpd. The average 1984 daily traffic on NC86 was 4,600 vpd just north of Phelps Road ( SR1551 ) and dropped to 2, 100 vpd between Hawkins Road (SR1508) and Hurdle Mills Road ( SR1504 ) . prior to its junction with NC49 at rospect i e average daily count was 1 ,700 vpd. For NC49 , the 1984 traffic counts were slightly lower, ranging from a high of 2, 100 vpd at Carr to a low of 1 ,600 vpd at Prospect Hill . The 1984 traffic counts reflect a minor increase over 1980 . The increase on NC49 ranged from 5% at Carr to 23% at Prospect Hill while the increase on NC86 was 15-21% at all recorded locations in Cedar Grove Township. Agriculture Cedar Grove Township is one of Orange County ' s most important agricultural areas. Tobacco, small grains, and soybeans are the leading crop commodities in the Township. Dairying and hog production are also important agricultural activities in Cedar Grove Township. Orange County' s tobacco production is centered in Cedar Grove Township with 70-80%, over 1650 acres, of the County ' s total tobacco acreage in the Township . County wide in 1985, tobacco generated almost $5.5 million, making it second only to dairying as a source of farm income. Additionally, Cedar Grove Township provides the County with 20% of its small grain production and 25% of its soybeans. Six of the County forty-four Grade A dairies are in Cedar Grove Township with an estimated total of over 400 cows. The trend of rapid farmland conversion evident in other areas of the county has not occurred in Cedar Grove Township. This is, in part, a reflection of the Township ' s distance and isolation from urban areas. From 1955 to 1977 the North Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service reported virtually no change in the amount of harvested and idle farmland (Table 3-1 ) . While the North Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service discontinued acreage counts by township after 1977, a more recent source seems to indicate a continuation of the stability of Cedar Grove Township farmland acreage. Orange County ' s use valuation program, which allows for farmland to be taxed at use value rather than the higher market value, registered a 17% increase in Cedar Grove acreage between 1982 and 1986 . While much of the increase can be attributed to increasing knowledge of the program, which began in 1981 , viewing the increase in the context of other data lends 7 . g-7 ors support to the claim that the conversion seen elsewhere in the County is not occurring in Cedar Grove Township . TABLE 3-1 CEDAR GROVE FARMLAND TRENDS , 1955-1977 Acreage 195 1977 Change % Change TOTAL CROPLAND 15, 567 ac. 13,689 ac. -1 ,968 -12 .6% TOTAL PASTURE 3,649 ac. 5 ,452 ac. +1 ,803 +49 .4% TOTAL FARMLAND 19,306 ac. 19, 141 ac. . -165 0 .9% Source: North Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service Natural Environmental CQDgtraints. Cedar Grove Township contains four natural environmental constraints to development activity ; floodplains, water supply watersheds, steep slopes, and poor soil conditions. Water Supply Watersheds : The headwaters of three water suppl watersheds, serving four water systems, rise in Cedar Grove Township. The three, Back Creek, Eno and Little Rivers together cover almost 90% of the Township ' s total area. Two impoundments on the Eno River downstream of the Township, Lake Ben Johnson and Corporation Lake, are the primary sources of water for the Town of Hillsborough and the Orange Alamance Water System (OAWS ) respectively. OAWS serves Efland and portions of Mebane and Alamance County. Upstream of those two impoundments, in Cedar Grove Township, is county owned Lake Orange. The lake is an augmentation reservoir from which water can be released during low flow periods to increase availability of water to downstream users. The headwaters of the North and South Forks of the Little River originate in the eastern third of the township and flow into Durham ' s Little River Reservoir. The western third of the Township gives rise to Back Creek, which flows into the Back Creek Reservoir, a source of water for Graham and Mebane. Finally, the northeastern corner of the township (an area of about 400 acres) lies in the Flat River Waters ed, which feeds Lake Michie, Durham' s main water supply at present. While these reservoirs do not directly serve Cedar Grove Township, they do serve Township residents who work or shop in Graham, Mebane, or Durham. Water system interconnections and contractual agreements additionally create the potential for water from these reservoirs to serve Orange County residents. Floodplain : The majority of the Township ' s 100-year 017 floodplain lies adjacent to five waterways ; the North Fork and South Fork of the Little River, the East Fork and West ork of the Eno River, an . :ack reek. :ecause e ea ' wa ers of these streams lie to the Township, the stream valleys are relatively narrow and the extent of flooding during a 100 year flood is not great. Along Back Creek and the two forks of the Eno River the floodplain rarely exceeds 500 feet from the center of the stream an up o I • f ee a ong e wo forks of the Little River. Floodplain covers approximately 8 .5% of the Township, some 4,430 acres. Steep Slopes : Steep slopes present a constraint to development because they increase the potential for runoff and erosion . Steep slopes and the soils associated with them pose additional problems for the use of septic tanks . Slopes , of greater than 15% pose only a limited problem in the Township and are most prevalent in the stream valleys of the Hyco Creek drainage basin in the northern portion of the Township. Poor Soils: Two soil types predominate in Cedar Grove Township. The southern and eastern portions of the Township are characterized by soils of the Georgeville-Herndon Association, which are well -drained and suitable for most land uses. The northern and western sections of the Township, though, are characterized by the more heavily clayey soils of the Appling-Helena Association . While adequate for many land uses, soils of this association are rated poor for septic tank absorption fields and most building types because of poor absorption and shrink-swell problems . Cultural and Natural Eesoirces Certain areas within Cedar Grove Township possess unique _ or exemplary natural and physical attributes that are of some value, value that may not necessarily be monetary. It may be spiritual , educational , biological , cultural , or of value to the planning process . One endangered plant site has been identified by the North Ca-rolina Natural Heritage Program in Cedar Grove _ Township, the Heartleaf site east of NC86 in the Hyco Creek drainage basin. Two additional sites in the Township are known to have species of special concern ; the Nothched Rainbow, in the Eno River and the plant, Carolina Beech Drops, north of Lake Orange. A species of special concern is one that is faced with major habitat loss in the County, is the target of exploitation, or exists in small populations. One dozen churches serve as the spiritual , and often commun y, cen ers of the rura communities in edar rove Township. There are also several community centers and buildings, including the Ruritan Club, Lindsay Place in Cedar Grove Village, and the North Orange County Human ervices Center on NC86 . Existing Land Use The existing land uses on Cedar Grove Township' s 51 ,700 018 acres can be broken down in the following manner: Agricultural : 30,610 acres 59 .2% of the Township Rural Residential : 950 acres 1 .8% of the Township (Lots <5 acres ) Agricultural Residential : 450 acres 1 .0% of the Township (Lots 5-10 acres ) Commercial : 180 acres 0 .3% of the Township Institutional : 100 acres 0 .2% of the Township Vacant/Other 19,410 acres )7 .5% of the Township TOTAL 51 ,700 acres 100 .0% Agricultural acreage is based on land enrolled in the use value taxation program and the results of a field survey. Rural Residential maximum lot size is tied to North Carolina General 5tatu+es regarding annexation. Two-thirds of the commercial acreage consists of the Cedar Grove Golf Club . The rest of the commercial land, along with most of the institutional ( primarily churches and community facilities ) - land, is scattered throughout the Township . Development Trends From 1980 to 1986, eighty-four subdivisions created 143 new lots in Cedar Grove Township, the lowest of any Township in the County . The subdivisions involved 397 acres, less than one percent of the total acreage in the Township. Only six of the eighty-four subdivisions were considered major, those creating more than four new lots. The largest portion of the new lots were created in the southeastern quarter of the Township, closest to Hillsborough . Approximately 40% of both new subdivisions and new parcels created from 1980 to 1986 were in that quarter of the Township. The area of least activity was in the northeast quarter. 'Z 4_r 019 PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND ANALYSIS The structure of the Plan ' s framework begins with the organizing concepts which are policy statements that create the foundation for the Cedar Grove Plan . The concepts state the general consensus as to what patterns of growth and development are desirable for the Township. Many variables are represented in the organizing concepts, including existing patterns of development, environmental constraints and the stated desires of Cedar Grove residents. The second component of the framework consists of future projections for population, housing, and land requirements. These projections make no value judgements about the growth . They merely indicate what would happen if historical growth trends continued throughout the plan period . These components are then used to create allocation guidelines. Criteria are established which distribute land into Land Use Plan categories initially defined in the body of the Orange County Land Use Plan. Distribution is reflected in both map and text form. Organizing Concepts The following policy statements reflect the organizing concepts around which the Cedar Grove Township Plan is constructed : 1 ) Cedar Grove Township should retain its agricultural and low density residential character. 2) The integrity of the Township ' s small crossroads communities should be maintained. 3) Low density commercial uses should be encouraged in order to serve Township needs. 4 ) Rural industrial uses should be accommodated where appropriate in the Township. 5 ) The Eno River, Back Creek, Little River, and Flat River water supply watersheds should be developed in a manner that will minimize adverse impacts on water quality and not conflict with agricultural uses. Population an0 Land Requirement Projections One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is the calculation of the amount of land needed to accommodate projected growth . Generally, the amount of land required for residential growth and associated non- residential growth is a direct function of population and household size. Table 3-2 summarizes population estimates and projections for population while Table 3-2a projects the number of additional homes needed to meet the demand of new 3 . 6-7 020 residents. The average household size will continue to decline, leveling off towards the end of the twenty year plan period . The projected average household size used is slightly higher than for other townships, reflecting a historically higher average household size in Cedar Grove. Table 3-2b , using the projected number of new households, estimates land requirements for development through the year 2005 . The population projections are based on the average annua grow h ra e rom 1970 to 1 .87 , projected out from the es ma e. popu a on in Is prov .es a m e o e road" estimate between the average annual growth rate of 1970- 1980 ( 0 .06% ) and 1980-1987 (2.96%) . The average annual growth rate used is similar to that of Alamance County . TABLE 3-2 CEDAR GROVE POPULATION PROJECTIONS, 1987-2005 a b c c c c year 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 TOTAL POPULATION 3, 166 3,883 4,030 4,287 4, 561 4,852 POPULATION CHANGE FROM 1980 ( NUMBER) --- 717 864 1 , 121 1 ,395 1 ,686 a 1980 U . S . Census of Population b Estimate based on building permits issued by the Orange County Planning Department c Projections based on a standard exponential extrapolation of the 1970-1987 average annual growth rate of 1 .25% per year . TABLE 3-2a CEDAR GROVE HOUSING PROJECTIONS , 1987-2005 year 1980 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 a POPULATION 3, 166 3,883 4,030 4,287 4,561 4 ,852 AVG. HOUSEHOLD b SIZE 2.69 2 .67 2.60 2.56 2.50 2 . 50 c d HOUSING UNITS 1 , 176 1 ,452 .1 ,550 1 ,675 1,824 1 ,941 HOUSING UNIT CHANGE FROM 1980 --- 276 374 499 . 648 765 a From Table 2 b Assumes continuous proportional drop to 2 .5 persons/house- ' hold in the year 2000 . . g_p 021 C Source: 1980 U . S . Census of Housing d • Based on building permits issued by the Orange County Planning Department TABLE 3-2b CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP LAND USE REQUIREMENTS, 1987-2005 time period 1987-1995 1995-2005 1987-2005 a DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED 223 266 489 b RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 608 727 1 ,334 C TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 638 763 1 ,401 a From Table 3 b Based on a density of 2 .77 acres/unit, the average size of a lot subdivided between 1980 and 1986. c Based on a commercial/ institutional multiplier of 0 .05 The projected population of 4,852 residents in the year 2005 would require an estimated 765 dwelling units beyond _ the housing stock that existed in 1980 . This would place an additional 1 ,334 acres of land into residential use based on the average size of a lot subdivided from 1980 to 1987 . In addition to acreage needed for homes, residential development creates in its wake the need for land to accommodate institutional and commercial uses, such as churches, shopping facilities, and recreational areas. The 1986 ratio of commercial and institutional land to residential land was 1 : 15 . The rate of residential growth, however, grew faster than the rate of commercial growtTi between 1980 and 1987 . Hence, a ratio of 1 :20, or 0 .05 acres of non-residential land for every acre of residential land, is used. This brings the total land requirements to 1 ,401 acres. Ai1ocation of Groh The primary task of the Land Use Plan is to geographi- cally allocate growth throughout the Township in accordance with the County-wide goals and policies and the Township organizing concepts. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to accommodate projected growth is substantially greater than the calculated need. This allows for varia- tions in the availabi fty of land and the exercise of market forces. The following allocation guidelines, which incorporate the descriptive framework of the County land use classifica- tion system, are derived from the County and Township 3 .6-9 022 policies to facilitate the process of determining the location of new growth in Cedar Grove Township: o The majority of the Township is to be maintained as rural and agricultural since the predominant land use activities will remain related to the land . o Rural non-farm commercial development will be allocated to designated activity nodes chosen so as to avoid negative environmental or economic impacts on agriculture. o Industrial and high intensity commercial and non- farm residential development will be directed away from areas that, if developed at those intensities, would create negative impacts in the Upper Eno, Back Creek, Little River, or Flat River water supply watersheds . Information about land in the Township is "filtered" through a set of locational criteria, including the alloca- tion guidelines, to determine whether a specific land use is appropriate for a particular area. The resulting analysis creates the basis for the classification of land in Cedar Grove Township. Distribyfion of J.jsnd Us9 Plan Dategories and Activity Nodes Land in Cedar Grove Township falls into five land use classifications. The distribution is based on expressed policies outlined in the Orange County and Cedar Grove Township Plans, the allocation guidelines and locational criteria, and the effect of projected growth on the Township. RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS : Land classified as such consists primarily of slopes greater than 15% and flood lains . This land is considered unsuitable for most development activity. AGRICULTURAL AREAS : This is the predominant classification in the Township . It refers to land currently assessed for farm use under County provisions for use value taxation and ac ive farm and forestry lands that are not a part of the use value taxation program. The pattern of agricultural land is extensive and uniform throughout the Township . AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL: While limited low density residential development occurs in land categorized as --RFTuuTfural residential , the prevailing Ian uses are agricultural in nature. The entire Township is classified as agricultural residential due to the existing agricultural /- residential distribution and the low rate of residential growth projected during the planning period. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: With the exception of the South Hyco Creek drainage basin which lies in the north, central portion of the township and accounts for 12% of the total township acreage, the remainder of Cedar Grove Township is designated water supply watershed . Portions of four watersheds account for this designation . These include Back Creek, the Upper 3 .6-10 023 Eno, Little River and Flat River watersheds . WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREAS : The southern portion of the Upper Eno Water Supply watershed adjacent to Lake Orange and par ions o e as and "es or s o e no are • esigna e' Water Quality Critical Area. In addition to classifying land in the Township, the county planning strategy includes identifying and evaluating potential activity nodes. The purpose is to direct commercial and industrial uses to the most appropriate areas of the Township, prevent strip development, and promote a more efficient and clustered land use pattern that takes advantage of major intersections and existing community identities. Three types of activity nodes are appropriate for Cedar Grove Township ; Rural Community and Rural Industrial , with radii of 1 /2 mile and Rural Neighborhood with a 1/4 mile radius . A total of six activity nodes have been designated in Cedar Grove Township. REFERENCE: CG-1 , Carr LOCATION: NC 49 and Carr Store Road (SR 1004 ) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Community ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION : Existing land uses at this node include a small store, a car wash and single family residential units. There are no significant environmental constraints. The commercial facilities at this intersection make it a place where local people frequently go to socialize as well as to shop. REFERENCE: CG-2, The Village (Cedar Grove) LOCATION: Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004 ) and Carr Store Road (SR 1352, SR 1004) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Community ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION : A well established community character is present in the area of the node which contains three commercial uses, a church, a post office and several residences. Commercial development which occurs in the Water Quality Critical Area of the Upper Eno watershed will require certain site design features to protect water quality. REFERENCE : CG-3, Toler ' s Store LOCATION: NC 86 and Walnut Grove Church Road (SR 1001 ) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: An existing commercial use is present at this node. No disruption of the existing residential character would result from development at the node. There are no environmental constraints in the area . REFERENCE: CG-4, Villine' s Store LOCATION: NC 86, Saw Mill Road (SR 1545 ) and Carr Store Road (SR 1352) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood 7 C , , 024 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION : A commercial use is present at the intersection . No environmental constraints hinder small - scale commercial development in the area. There is some residential development in the area of this node and additional commercial development could be potentially disruptive. The area west of Highway 86 is in the Water ,Quality Critical Area of the Upper Eno watershed . REFERENCE: CG-5, Walnut Grove LOCATION : Walnut Grove Church Road (SR 1 ')01 ) , Saw Mill Road (SR 1545) and Little River Church Road (SR 1543) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of three collector roads. Moderate environmental constraints in the form, of flood prone areas exist, but should not hinder ' small -scale commercial development at this node. A commercial use exists in the area of this node. REFERENCE : CG-6, Prospect Hill LOCATION: NC 49 and NC 86 PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Industrial ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of two arterials. It, therefore, has good access for rural commercial as well as rural industrial uses. No environmental constraints hinder small -scale rural industrial development at the node. The absence of municipal water and sewer services would limit the scale of future rural industrial development in the node area . Minimal disruption of residential uses would result from such development. 3 .6-12 11111 . • Ii;ç " •'ta'�. + .Y'w+ ',`- ••n max, I. v 4;.••:,2.-., ' �°- t'1 w �, x ° ' ' a, J _ i .4dir T ` _ -' . Y ��Yyi4•'•. \�- •,.'x•�_!•. 4y�• bL ,73.4; . 'k?l+:Lj.4, ,1 - t t•'� ,:� 0 m r• co r}, J '' 'l M1 'r nyt`r s !K 1:7m: �,r. ''''1:11',1.., �• `F r t�.. a �.. '"Seti 4.'t. ti. `� R', "1 d U 47 tt,d • 444 ri,„..-%-,• .,Et•- .52IP'' --■711 .e,.. •� f ~. 01% Q. •4 V10•KER1ON• �' j- ., t " IF. „I1W �x _ 7(�jam' •e ."µWf• C: -... O m atfir Iy �V G V I ` :• 1. � 7 y • 1 V O ,.,y jy 44 . � a � � k � w a w L � t•} s h•7,_ ,41 6 -. t: '&41.4.4f...44412!.,41,41 lip i i„ = [, ' E 4' d„ ,,i, iiii....” -A- , At-t- 'I' e. = Jar.0._„,,, . ?.-$ .4, - • 4 i.14.,1,..---- , ' ti : }131 164 �..� 7gJ �, � a ..+y r ' � L+:41,:" . T•• r ti+y. '-^v!j:i"r•":: �j0' yr pp�� p y ..7^.44t...- :4.a- .., her -.r'�r�` r--g1' '°�17 I° 1►' F''r �,��,� ', .T; i a a •c• . . .. ...a pia `w�v. `%" ;` r �� r' e a i lakii•mow we, a"'t. �:+"� 1? j;� ain4- t ` ,, f' . ...:., •k3('.. p- . 4.t .f a+ �.ry• 4,-.• - ' .,# 4.W f'" i5. .P .(C.�S,� F 1, -- 4 .. i ` '` S` +�' c_�: �e ti $":1t-�.��, ■'<`, c" E. a % ... 1P-'1,--■ . ...%.4.1 .i.'2'6:a:;Th, ..• -. t4'.-• 'tiretit'''T'a"fryflgt/ !IV' f4.' •-•"I. I.• 5 ›,.....: ., ._, , 'Uri,: - _ - ■4$• ,• ,,::-• •N ,. . 0 ..34•.*.rit•-•':$ 1 M '._ : tr-7-417/4.r.s.,(x-t- i'•'3 i 'Ilf?"%41-. ,;:47;.' (.) ...1 It l''' E , --7:4, --- —A E.,,,,,- .4 % -,.4, ;11, z fk'''9AI'vtv-- to-- 4:6 '‘z,',44t 4-4-.- Al ' -+- rt.-•,. ",3.c./-;C-4:' t ,2 04.. .� p CO e0 C .,_ : e: kl\i,,,, .a °d:•.d Y r�-4.-A- 9" s''1.,• W terv.„t '- A } -vim-y.°i'��`x(, •y tir :t �Fi ar �ii ° n 1 A ■ .�- ,may • v+r r' - `,,n`..' •-i.� �!/' -•fit,•.' .�:. I _ , -.1 Y V• tip_ , ' � g $� 1• . , •s, 14.0,54 _ .. •'..WE-.-,-.‘V.'"-.-4.•'jjk,:•0g-.e. ...V',..4114-- -"-1.64S,..tOVA ••C :Mc_ cA 0 -f ? r' •..4 Jr ` -F...4C - 1. �.!�='.:• =r:: r.:'. ........ .... Yom. _ .�.. ..,.r. 1�.... :*:1':-..._ 026 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 2 7 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 O R A N G E C O U N T Y INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8711 -1101 TO: Marvin Collins, Planning Director FROM: Gene Bell , Planner III G 13 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove Township Land Use Plan Update DATE ; November 6, 1987 At the staff meeting on Tuesday morning you asked that I address in more detail the Cedar Grove Township Land Use Plan Update. Below I have briefly addressed the reasons for the update, proposed policy changes, and how the draft plan differs from the current plan. Reasons for Update There are three reasons for updating the plan. First, a five-year plan update was scheduled when the plan was adopted in 1981 . This update process began in 1986 with Little River Township and Cedar Grove is an extension of that. The second, and primary, reason for updating the plan is to address water quality concerns. Since 1981 , development of municipal reservoirs in Alamance and Durham Counties have resulted in the western and eastern thirds of the township being included in water supply watersheds. Finally, the township plan is being updated for consistency in planning methodology countywide. This concerns the environmental assessment approach used in the Joint Planning Area and Little River Township and currently underway in Bingham Township . Policy Chartges, The only policy changes in the plan update concern the watershed protection issues mentioned above. Policy is addressed in two sections of the township plan, "Organizing Concepts" and "Allocation of Growth" . INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8711 -1101 ®2 8 Cedar Grove Township Land Use Plan Update November 6 , 1987 Page 2 Organizing concept 5 addressed protection of the Upper Eno watershed in the 1981 plan . This has been expanded in the draft plan and reads as follows : The Eno River, Back Creek, Little River, and Flat River water supply watersheds should be developed in a manner that will minimize adverse impacts on water quality and not conflict with agricultural uses. The last allocation guideline in the 1981 plan addressed intensive non-farm land uses in the Upper Eno watershed . This has been expanded to include the other watersheds as well and reads as follows : Industrial and high intensity commercial and non- farm residential development will be directed away from areas that, if developed at those intensities, would create negative impacts in the Upper Eno, Back Creek, Little River, or Flat River water supply watersheds. The major change from the 1981 plan is the designation of additional water supply watersheds in the township. The 1981 Plan identified the Upper Eno watershed which is composed of 14,750 acres and accounts for 28 . 5% of township land area . The draft plan designates those portions of the Back Creek, Little River, and Flat River drainage basins in the township as water supply watershed . This increases water supply watershed acreage by 30,750 acres ( 59 . 5% of township land area) and coupled with the Upper Eno totals 45 ,500 acres or 88% of the township. Other differences in the draft plan include those changes ushered in by the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan . These include the designation of resource protection areas, the identification of existing agricultural lands, and identifying arterial and collector roads on the land use plan map. Portions of the plan that have remained unchanged include activity nodes (there are still six) , the Upper Eno Water Supply watershed, and the designation of the entire township as agricultural residential . I hope the foregoing has adequately addressed your questions on the Cedar Grove plan update. Please advise if additional detail is needed. PAGE I OF 3 WORK PLAN PROJECT: CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN OBJECTIVE NO. DATE b- 12-BI OBJECTIVE: TO DEVELOP A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SECTION 3.5, CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP. OF THE LAND USE PLAN WHICH CAN BE INTEGRATED SMOOTHLY INTO THE OVERALL LAND USE PLAN UPDATE FOR THE COUNTY. TASK ACTIVITY STAN; J F M A M J J A S O N D ASSIGNENT DFL INEATE BOUNDARY OF STUDY AREA Prepare 1" 1000' base map of Planning . Q Township Intern IDENTIFY EXISTING SOCIOLOGICAL Nap locations of land uses and Planning ` Q CHARACTERISTICS density of development Interns Compile data on demographic char- Planner I[ acteristics, existing population and population projections. IDENTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL. CONSTRAINTS Identify most restrictive/permis- Planner [1[ . AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT live environmental features for development. Nap location of each environmental Planning . feature. Intern Prepare composite map showing Planning . most suitable locations for Intern development. IDENTIFY PUBLIC SERVICES AND Compile data on public safety Planner I1 INFRASTRUCTURE facilities and road system. to include classification, design capacities, and actual traffic volumes. IDENTIFY LAND USE PREFERENCES OF Prepare questionnaire for identi- Planner II TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY fication of owner/resident pref- d OWNERS. CONDUCT PUBLIC TNFORMA- erences regarding development Planner III TION MEETING TO OBTAIN COMMENT ON within the study area. LAND USE PREFERENCES AND DEVELOP-1 MENT ISSUES. Notify residents/owners, Township Planner III AL Council, and Planning g Board members of meeting. Clerk Typist 7_2 CJ ACTIVITY SYMBOLS* A ACTIVITIES TO BE COMPLETED At A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. A ACTIVITY COMPLETED. AF A ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. � • i, #r'T- Iry r%F1 .v:n 1n lir, rnp!niri1r)i1 r)ATF I PAGE 2 OF 3 WORK PLAN FROIECT: CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN OBJECTIVE NO. I DATE: 6- 12 OBJECTIVE= TO DEVELOP A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SECTION 3.6. CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP, OF THE LAND USE PLAN WHICH CAN BE INTEGRATED SMOOTHLY INTO THE OVERALL LAND USE PLAN UPDATE FOR THE COUNTY. TASK ACTIVITY STAFF J F M A M 1 1 A 5 O Pi a ASS G1011111 _ IDENTIFY LAND USE PREFERENCES OF Conduct meeting - review back- Planner Iii . TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY ground data and suitable areas d -II OWNERS. CONDUCT PUBLIC INFORHA- for development and solicit public Planning TTON MEETING TO OBTAIN COMMENT ON comment regarding preferred areas Intern LAND USE PREFERENCES AND DEVELOP- for development. Nand out ques- MENT ISSUES (CONTINUED). tionnaire to be completed during the meeting. Compile questionnaire results and Planning L rank resident/owner preferences Intern in order of importance. PREPARE ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR Compile/review comments from Planner ITT . DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE STUDY AREA public information meeting. Prepare plan alternatives which: Planner III . -Reflect existing Land Use Plan; & -Reflect community locational Interns preferences; -Reflect environmental con- straints to development; -Reflect development locational trends and preferences. CONDUCT SECOND PUBLIC INFORMATION Notify residents/owners, Township Clerk Typist HF.ETiNG .TO OBTAIN COMMENT ON PLAN Advisory Council , and Planning ALTERNATIVES. Board members of meeting. 9- IS- Conduct meeting - review draft Planner III Q �.� plans and solicit public comment. Planning Intern 9 2 10� ACTIVITY SYNIBOIS- A ACTIVITIES TO BE COIAPLETED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE. A ACTIVITY COIAKETED. AE— ❑ ACTIVITY COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCHEDLI1,E. ,�..-.-TV nr.r ..-r. TI-1 I r}rnrr nN1r PAGE 3 OF 3 WORK PLAN PROJECT' CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN OBJECTIVE NO. DATE: 6- 12-117 OBJECTIVE: TO DEVELOP A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SECTION 3.6. CEDAR GROVE TOWNSIIIP. OF THE LAND USE PLAN WHICH CAN BE INTEGRATED SMOOTHLY INTO THE OVERALL LAND USE PLAN UPDATE FOR THE COUNTY. TASK ACIIYIFY ASS GI i 1 F M A M 1 1 A S O N D PREPARE DRAFT PLAN BASED ON PUS- Compile/review comments from pub- Planner III ►. LIC COMMENT AND ADVISORY BOARD lic information meeting. NECOAIMENDATIONS. Prepare Draft Plan Planner Ill ►. Review and comment by the Cedar Planner III Grove Township Advisory Council . Recommendation sent to Planning 10-27 Board. Review and comment by the PlanninF Planner Il[ U Board. SECURE PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING Conduct PUBLIC HEARING to receive Planner LAND USE PLAN FOR STUDY AREA public comment/recommendations of L1 advisory boards and commissions. 1143 Refer draft plan to Planning Board for recommendation regarding adoption. SECURE ADOPTION OF LAND USE PLAN Review and recommendation regard- Planner 1 1 Q ing adoption by the Planning Board 12-21 Review and recommendation regard- Planner III Q ing adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. 1-4 88 Plan implementation Staff Q —1— �"► ACTIVITY 5Y7dBOl5: D ACTIVITIES 10 BE t07.APlEffD Al A SPEt1F1C FUTURE DATE. L ACTIVITY C07JiPlEiED, AF 6 ACTIVITY tObAPiEIED AHEAD OF SCIiEilL1,,E ' "fI+• I F v hr.l tycr1 1n ffrw rriF.+ptfIlr j 0 AIF 032 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 033 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 •' Tlo L ORANGE C O U N T Y INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8711-1102 TO: Marvin Collins, Planning Director FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III G- ii SUBJECT: Planning Board Concerns About the Draft Cedar Grove Township Land Use Plan DATE: November 17, 1987 In reviewing the DRAFT Cedar Grove Township Land Use Plan at their meeting on November 16, the Planning Board raised the issue of zoning. For informational purposes, they asked that two additional items be included in the Public Hearing agenda. These items are: (1) An overview of how zoning would be applied if done in conformance with the DRAFT plan; and (2) The zoning question and answer sheet originally prepared for Little River Township (attached) . If zoning were applied in Cedar Grove Township consistent with the DRAFT Plan, the zoning classifications of Agricultural Residential (AR) , Protected Watershed (PW-II) , Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) , Existing Commercial (EC-5) , Local Commercial (LC-1) , Neighborhood Commercial (NC-2) , and Agricultural Services (AS) would be applicable. Agricultural Residential - The AR district would apply to the entire township. This would require a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet (0.92 acres) for residential use. It would impose setbacks of 40 feet front and 20 feet side and rear. In addition, newly subdivided lots would have to have 150 feet of road frontage. Uses such as churches, schools, fire stations, and clubs would also be permitted in the AR zone. w 5 034 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8711-1102 Planning Board Concerns About the Draft Cedar Grove Township Land Use Plan November 17 , 1987 Page 2 PW-II is an overlay zoning district. It would apply additional restrictions to the underlying AR zone. Adoption of the DRAFT Plan would place 88% of the Township in the PW-II district. Lot sizes and setbacks would remain the same, but there would be a 12% limitation on the creation of impervious surface. Likewise. there would be a 2-acre minimum lot size imposed on new commercial development in all activity nodes except Prospect Hill. Water Qgallty Critical Area - WQCA is a more restrictive overlay district contained within the PW-II district. The south central portion of the Township lying between Mill Creek Road and N.C. 86 is designated WQCA. Residential uses require a minimum lot size of 801000 square feet (1 .84 acres) and are limited to 6% impervious surface. The WQCA district prohibits new commercial use. This would preclude any commercial use in the southern one-third of the Cedar Grove Community Activity Node and the western half of the Villine' s Store Neighborhood Activity Node. Existing Commercial - EC-5 is applied to existing commercial uses located outside of activity nodes. The use must be identified as appropriate in the Zoning Ordinance table of permitted uses, however. for the EC-5 designation to be applied. Examples of permitted EC-5 uses include/ but are not limited to, beauty and barber shops, auto body shops. service stations. restaurants/ and general retail and convenience stores. Local Commercial - LC-1 would apply to existing and new commercial uses inside activity nodes that meet the require- ments of the LC-1 zone. The zoning ordinance limits to 5 acres/ the amount of land in an activity node that can be zoned LC-1 . - NC-2 would apply Commercial PP Y to existing and neighborhood new commercial uses inside activity nodes that meet the requirements of the NC-2 zone. The zoning ordinance limits to 5 acres/ the amount of land in an activity node that can be zoned NC-2 . p,gricultural Services - the AS zone applies to agricultural support services such as farm equipment sales and feed and seed storage and processing. AS uses are mt restricted to activity nodes and can occupy up to 10 acres per use. Finally, I would emphasize that the North Carolina General Statutes exgmpt agricultural uses from the require- ments of county zoning ordinances. 1 035 ZONING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1 . WHAT IS ZONING? Zoning is the division of a county or city into districts for the purpose of regulating the use of private land . These districts, or zones, are shown on a map . Within each of these districts the text of the zoning ordinance specifies the permitted uses, the required distance of buildings from property lines, .the number of off-street parking spaces and other prerequisites to obtain permission to develop. The primary objective is to protect residential areas from commercial and industrial encroachment . 2 . HOW IS IT APPLIED? Zoning is applied in conformance with the Adopted Land Use Plan . The plan identifies those areas most suitable for residential , commercial , industrial , and agricultural use. 3 . WHAT IS A LAND USE PLAN? The Land Use Plan is a statement of the county ' s goals, policies, and recommendations regarding future land development. As an official public document adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, it reflects general county consensus about how, when, and where the county should encourage or discourage future development and is embodied in both map and text form. When, and if , the Land Use Plan is translated into regulations, it is usually through a zoning ordinance. A key feature of the Orange County Land Use Plan is the creation of activity nodes . These are areas around major road intersections in the county that are considered most appropriate for certain commercial and industrial uses. 4 . WHO ADMINISTERS ZONING? Day to day administration is the responsibility of the Planning Department. Initial questions about procedure, initiation of applications for special use permits and rezoning, and the issuance of other permits begin with the department. r 2 036 5 . WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE VARIOUS BOARDS AND COUNCILS AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN ZONING? The TACs (Township Advisory Councils ) play an advisory role to the Planning Board, primarily on issues affecting that township . The Planning Board plays an advisory role to the Board of County Commissioners, as well , including review of rezoning requests and ordinance amendments . The Planning Department can make decisions on home occupations and zoning permits . The department' s role in requests for rezoning and Class "A" Special Use Permits is advisory only . Final decision making powers on those issues lies with the Board of County Commissioners . The Board of Adjustment is the final decision making body on dimensional variances , appeals of the decision of the Zoning Officer, and Class "B" Special Use Permits . 6 . WHAT HAPPENS TO EXISTING USES WHEN A TOWNSHIP IS ZONED? Existing uses are generally "grandfathered" in . Depend- ing on the use and location commercial uses receive either a Neighborhood Commercial (NC-2) , Local Commercial (LC-1 ) , or Existing Commercial (EC-5 ) designation . 7 . ARE ALL COMMERCIAL USES RESTRICTED TO ACTIVITY NODES ? Yes, except for existing commercial uses which receive an EC designation and those allowed in an Agricultural Services (AS ) district. EC uses are simply those that existed prior to zoning and commercial uses allowed in an AS district are those that support the horticultural , sylvi - cultural , and agricultural uses of an AR district, such as farm equipment dealers, and crop storage and processing sites . 8 . WHAT IS A NON-CONFORMING USE? A non-conforming use is a use that is not permitted in the zoning district in which it is located. An example would be a sawmill in a residential area. A non-conforming use may continue to operate but is not allowed to expand. 9 . WHAT IS A NON-CONFORMING SITUATION? It is a situation where the use is permitted in the zoning district, but some other aspect of the Zoning Ordinance is violated. The most common situation would probably be violation of setbacks. For example, Rural Residential (R-1 ) and Agricultural Residential (AR ) zoning 037 3 requires that a dwelling be at least 40 feet from the front property line and at least 20 feet from the side and rear property lines. A dwelling closer to the front, side or rear lines than the specified distances would constitute a non- conforming situation . 10 . WHAT HAPPENS TO NON-CONFORMING SITUATIONS ? A non-conforming situation can continue indefinitely unless one of the following occurs : 1 ) The non-conforming use ceases for more than 180 days during any two year period ; or 2 ) 60% or more of the floor area of a non-conforming commercial or industrial building is destroyed (75% for non-conforming residential buildings ) . If either of the above occurs, the use or building cannot be re-established unless it conforms to the regulations govern- ing that district. 11 . WHAT IS A HOME OCCUPATION? A home occupation is one that takes place on a piece of property whose primary use is as a place of residence. Business types are not explicitly stated in the zoning ordinance ; however, they are generally assumed to be craft and service oriented businesses, such as cabinetmaking, small engine repair, or bookkeeping, that take place in the home. 12 . HOW DOES ZONING AFFECT HOME OCCUPATIONS ? Zoning affects home occupations by placing restrictions on how much floor space can be used for the occupation , whether or not an accessory building can be used, the amount of noise, glares and vibration permitted, and the number of employees who do not live in the home . 13 . WHAT USES NOW PERMITTED WILL NOT BE PERMITTED BY ZONING? That depends on the district. New commercial and industrial uses are, for the most part, prohibited outside activity nodes . Commercial uses permitted under LC-1 and NC-2 zoning are generally for small -scale retail service establishments designed to meet the needs of local residents . 14 . ARE AUTO BODY SHOPS ALLOWED IN LC-1 OR NC-2 DISTRICTS? 038 4 No, they are not allowed in these districts . They could, however , be permitted as existing uses ( initially zoned EC-5 ) or as a home occupation . In order for an auto body shop to be considered a home occupation in an AR or R-1 zoning district, the business would have to, meet the following guidelines : For lots less than 200,000 square feet ( about 4 . 5 acres ) 1 ) Maximum of 1 ,000 square feet of floor area can be used for the home occupation . This can either be in the home/garage or in an accessory structure ; _ delivery of 2 ) The on site sale and dei y goods which a re not produced on the premises is prohibited, except where the sale is incidental to the provision of a service ; 3) No more than 2 people not residing in the home may work in the home occupation ; 4) No outside storage of goods or material is permitted . For lots greater than 200,000 square feet the maximum floor area increases to 2,000 square feet and outside storage is permitted if it is screened from view . 15 . HOW WILL ZONING AFFECT THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS ? Zoning would establish different lot size requirements and setbacks based on the zoning district . A significant change zoning would contribute to the subdivision process would be a change in road frontage requirements . Currently, a frontage of only 20 ' is required in Cedar Grove Township. That would increase to 130 ' in the R1 district and, 150 ' in the AR district. Subdivision regulations are separate from the Zoning Ordinance and in effect county wide. 16 . WHAT IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT? A Special Use Permit is a permit required for a use which, because of its nature and effects on surrounding properties requires special care in the control of location and methods of operation . Permit procedure requires extensive site plan review and places additional restrictions or regulations on operations and/or site design . There are two types of Special Use Permits . Class "A" Permits, which include, but are not limited to, airports; Junkyards, adult uses, and rock quarries and require approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Class "B" Permits, 039 5 which include, but are not limited to, commercial cemeteries, day care centers, and radio transmitting towers and require the approval of the Board of Adjustment. Class "A" uses are those having a greater impact on the surrounding community than Class "B" uses . 17 . WHAT LEGAL ACTION CAN BE TAKEN AGAINST ZONING ORDINANCE VIOLATORS ? Appropriate action can be taken by the county to prevent construction or an illegal use, to correct or abate the violation , or to prevent occupancy of the building, structure, or land . Violations are criminal misdemeanors punishable by up to a $50 fine and 30 days in jail . 18 . WHAT IS THE REZONING PROCESS ? It is the process by which zoning districts are changed in order to accommodate changes in residential densities or permitted uses . It involves an initial application, staff review, and public hearing before going to the Planning Board for its recommendation and the Board of County Commissioners for approval or disapproval . If zoning were enacted in Cedar Grove Township most new commercial establishments would require rezoning of the property first. 19 . HOW LONG DOES REZONING TAKE? The entire process usually takes 3 to 4 months . All rezoning requests must go to public hearing . Public hearings are scheduled the fourth Monday of February, May, August, and November. The Planning Board usually makes its recommenda- tion and the Board of County Commissioners its final decision within six weeks of the public hearing . Applications must be submitted no later than six weeks prior to the public hearing . 20 . HOW MUCH DOES REZONING COST? The only fee required by the county is an application fee of $120 plus $5 per acre. For example, the application fee for a ten acre site would be $170. 21 . WHAT IS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? The Board of Adjustment, whose members are appointed to three year terms by the Board of County Commissioners, have the power to grant or deny variances and some Special Use Permits, and to hear and decide on appeals of the decision of 040 6 the Zoning Officer . 22. WHAT IS A VARIANCE? A variance is a relaxation of zoning standards such as setbacks or lot width that might otherwise prevent a land- owner from putting the land to a reasonable use. Variances can be for dimensional requirements only . Use variances are not permitted . A finding of facts is necessary to grant a variance and requires practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships in developing the site that are unique and singular to the lot in question . 23 . WHAT LAND USE ORDINANCES CURRENTLY AFFECT CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP? There are four ; the Orange County Private Road Standards, which govern when and how non-state maintained roads for, subdivisions may be built; the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, which regulates grading, excavation , filling, and earth storage; the Subdivision Regulations, governing the dividing of land ; and the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, which regulates building in floodplains and streamways . 24 . WHAT EFFECT WILL ZONING HAVE ON HORSE OWNERSHIP? The private ownership of horses will not be affected by zoning. However, new commercially operated boarding stables would require a Special Use Permit. 25 . HOW DOES ZONING AFFECT FARMING? None whatsoever. State law exempts bonafide farms from zoning. 26 . HOW WILL ZONING AFFECT THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS? Dimensional requirements will have to be met before a permit can be issued . This includes minimum lot size, building heights and setbacks . The use must also be permitted in that particular district. For residential building permits, a plot plan which shows the property lines of the lot and how the proposed dwelling sits in relation to them is required . Also, a $10 zoning permit is required as part of the building permit process. 041 7 • For commercial building permits , detailed building and site plans which identify required landscaping and screening, signage, and parking must be submitted . These plans must be reviewed before a building permit can be issued . This review takes at least one day, sometimes longer . A $10 zoning permit is also required for commercial building permits . 042 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 043 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8711-1001 TO: Gene Bell. Planner III (Comprehensive) FROM: Brad Torgan. Planner II (Comprehensive) SUBJECT: Planning Board Remarks on Draft Cedar Grove Land Use Plan and Possible Staff Responses DATE: November 18. 1987 COPIES: Marvin Collins. Planning Director 1 . Barry Jacobs expressed disagreement with the assumption that 1-40 will not will not significantly alter commuting patterns from Cedar Grove Township. 2. Steve Yuhasz and Dan Eddleman did not feel comfortable with the middle-of-the-road population projections based on the 1970-1987 growth rate of 1 .25% annually. Yuhasz, in particular. would prefer using the 1980-87 rate of 2.96% annually. Using building permits issued as a guide. the 1980-1987 rate looks like a fairly stable trend. rising or remaining relatively stable every year but 1984 . The number of residential building permits, though, has been at least double and even triple the number of new subdivided lots. Furthermore. the majority of subdivisions have been only one lot. This could lead you to believe that: a. New building is occurring on lots of record faster than new lots are being created. a trend which would eventually suppress the growth rate; or b. Much of the new housing involves family members cutting off a new lot for a relative or putting another dwelling on an existing parcel for a 044 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8711-1001 Planning Board Remarks on DRAFT Cedar Grove Plan and Possible Staff Responses November 18. 1987 Page 2 relative. both of which would suppress the growth rate. Rousing permit data for the 1980-1986 period and a comparison of population projections. based on differing growth rates are as follows: YEAR *HOUSING PERMITS *NEW SUBDIV. LOTS 1980 34 • 14 1981 39 16 1982 39 21 1983 53 22 1984 44 18 1985 52 17 1986 59 35 TOTAL 320 143 YEAR POPULATION PROJECTION AT 1 .25% AT 2 .96% 1990 4.030 4.238 1995 4,287 4,904 2000 4.561 5 .674 2005 4.852 6 .564 3 . Peter Kramer wanted to know what the features of the WS- I classification Durham is seeking for Little River were and how they could be applied to Cedar Grove. What could be suggested is an expansion of organizing concept *5 to incorporate elements of WS-I that apply to Cedar Grove watersheds. One addition could be discouraging activities specifically resulting in any point source pollution. 4 . One of the TAC members mentioned that the Orange- Alamance Water Authority has extended water lines into the Township. Barry Jacobs and Chris Best both 'expressed a desire to see some policy guideline to prevent the extension of water and sewer lines into the Township. 045 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date November 23. 1987 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: PD-2-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk • Application Vicinity Map Agency Comments Findings of fact Certificate of Mailing Site Plans TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comments on an application for a proposed Planned Development-Special Use Permit for Chandler Concrete. BACKGROUND: Chandler Concrete Company has submitted an application for a PD-I-3 (Planned Development-Industrial-3) zoning classification on 2 .0 acres of property located on the south side of Old N.C. Highway 10 east of N.C. Highway 86. The property is currently zoned PD-I-I-3 and R-1 Residential. and is designated Ten-Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Activity Node in the Land Use Plan. The request has been made in order to bring an existing washwater recycling facility and the use of the site for truck parking into compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. A history of the request is as follows: 10/10/85 - Chandler Concrete Company was granted a secondary Land Use Plan amendment. Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for 1 .41 acres of land on N.C. Highway 10. The request was prompted by State-mandated requirements to contain runoff from the existing concrete plant. 12/12/86 - Following a challenge to Orange County' s approvals. the court ruled that the Special Use Permit was invalid since the applicant did not meet the required two-acre minimum lot size 046 2 standard. and since evidence had not been presented to indicate the project would maintain the value of existing properties in the area. The effect of the court ruling was to place Chandler Concrete Company in violation of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 10/5/87 - The Board of Commissioners approved a request by Chandler Concrete to expand the Ten-Year Transition Area and Commercial- Industrial Activity Node by an additional 0 .59 acres. Combined with the 1.41 acres currently in the same designation. the two-acre lot size requirement could be met. NCDOT has indicated that a driveway permit will be required for driveway "D" (the easternmost driveway) . This permit has been obtained and the driveway constructed. Encroachment agreements will be required if any drainage structures or other work is performed within the right-of- way of Old N.C. Highway 10 . Both the Orange Rural Fire Department and the Orange County Rescue Squad have indicated their ability to provide emergency services to the site. The Sheriff' s Department has indicated that no additional manpower will be needed. The Erosion Control Officer has indicated that a stormwater management plan will be required for the project. The Recreation Director has indicated no elements exist which would warrant comment from a recreation perspective. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request with conditions (see attachment) . 047 Article 8.2 .2 states that where a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use, and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless it is found. in some specific manner, that: 1 . The use will not 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 not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; 3 . The use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The burden of proving one or more of the above findings is on those opposing the application. The proof must also be in the form of competent material and substantial evidence. No information has been received which would establish grounds for making one or more of the above findings. The Planning Staff has reviewed the application. the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant does comply with the general standards. specific rules. and required regulations with the exception of minimum gross land area requirements and the underground utilities requirement. Section 7 .3 of the Zoning Ordinance permits the Board of Commissioners to make modifications of the regulations in a particular case where the Board makes findings that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree by the actions, designs or solutions proposed by the applicant. Rather than considering a modification, the Planning Staff has recommended to the applicant that the request be amended from a PD-I-3 to a PD-I-1 designation. The findings of fact provided by the Staff have indicated that the proposed use complies with the requirements of the PD-I-1 district. The applicant will indicate whether or not he is willing to accept the PD-I-1 classification at the public hearing. The Planning Staff recommends approval with the amendment of the district designation from PD-I-3 to PD-I-1 and with the attachment of of the following conditions: 1 . The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County. in a form acceptable to the County Attorney. a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all improvements plus 10% . The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certifica- tion by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. As improvements are completed a corresponding amount of money may be released from the 048 2 security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 2 . Security shall be provided for the replacement of dead or damaged landscaping plants and planting of Loblolly Pines in the Reforestation Area. 3 . Roads. parking areas and landscaping shall be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 4. Screening and landscaping requirements shall be provided as required in Articles 7 and 12 and shall be maintained as constructed. including the replacement of dead or damaged plant materials. 5 . The five percent (5%) interior landscaping requirement of the vehicular use area shall be constructed as shown on the approved site plan. 6 . A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 7 . The final site plan and narrative of the project. incorporat- ing all changes. deletions and additions through the final approval of the project. are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Any applicable permits. upon application. will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 8 . The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. ` sr„\ ., s.c.: , ._ 0. a r..,•.. r.; = 2 1 lif ...ht•••••■4215. ----"•-- ... ;/`.i. ;:r: t,,yi ` _ J •71'+ },i�1� 1 ..' I 1 ,:,'. ,4tuk,'e.tit. ,i , i 'r: • 1,1: • 1 ( • a1.:r h I I r I SEE MAP• 0 ' i I I 19 21- 74A ENO .......... � A.. JJ 13.17 AC. 1 0453 ..•..tx•*_- ;• _,,fit... .,C. 1 9052. mar n i 1'- ..{>C. - .I I .", -2 //7,, 1 M e•3e 004 GOlAigD kW A:4 2al-•p1 i111s1i1m4.m.4c...5-..02 \/o .. /././. 6.56 - '...•�1`« / \ / SEEEN02 I1 • �ip^gK�„�1 1 J/ // _1 hJ,O� 74 tmo I 1 I I I \ o� o • ) I/ . 1 I I I I 1 , SEEI :MAP 45.. I I I I 1 l i t I I I ` rc” N III /J ' 1 t (✓o x CJAK$l„,,I 4.1OPPA C.t.:''S,Sc C 51 1 SEG r. ill I a �.% �C 9 43 % r 1�1 i I 11 �.09 SEE \`�'�,4, ; 131 I I I a` z�° �. N. ; rt.C. ( Iii I I I • \, rrT, �1 1-1 I 1 1 �� ;3_:...41 3p 13 :c�_1 \/ i • ' •• ° • i I I -1 I 1 .50126X — 17. ,, 41 .7M" I I , 1 is 1.3�r. t s . �--r er �� I ( I I ®!;195 \ ,..0.4.1) ;1 �e _ DA/t5, ~1 I 1 1I(36 __ .AG,_ _ _ _ �a 9 36,000 •, C.31 SEE I I MAP 45$=4-, -� -.....:, � � �too –2 err — Tot``� 1 I I I •� !� I I(JOPP OAKS, I II 16 16 16g,� 11 .• - 11 SEC 41 I I 1.98 1.99y•1.AC, 1 I I I I A C. .-ass .l___\ :, I I / / 3e31 (2ee31- I (2.4.D . ......_ _ .._.... ..„. -... ...j\ • --I ••-. ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA • APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT 05 b' • Date : July 9, 1(187 • TU THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY,, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of , - Orange County as hereinafter requested . 1 . The property is Located on the south side of S .R.#17111 Street/Rood) between S .R . # 86 end S .R.# 1709 It is known as Lot (s) 32 , Block , of Orange County Tax Map 45 _ Hillsborough Township . It has a frontage of feet and a depth of feet , and contains square feet or acres . 2. It is desired and requested that the . foregoing property be rezoned from Rural Residential to Planned Development InOustrial III. .3.• The -fo l L.owi ng information has been attached in_ support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlss (* - required on all applications) . *a. A fully dimensioned map at • seals of not leas then one (1) inch e quals one—hundred (100) fast nor more than one (1) inch equals 'twenty- (20') feet ' showing—the lend which is proposed to be rezoned. •b. A legal description of the Ladd proposed to be rezoned. 'c. A statement of justification addressing one or wore of the following: (1) The alleged error in the Zoning ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas end detailed reasons how the proposed ewendment will correct the error. (23 The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or ? in the County generally, which make the proposed ■menament reasonably nes00000y to the promotion of the public health, safety end general welfare. •(3) The wanner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent end purpose of she adopted Lend Use Plan or pert - thereof. *(4) All other circumstances, factors and reason' which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not Limited to, ooeuwentetion from service soancies (e.g. fire, police, rescue end utilities agencies] assuring services provision capability to the development. d. A list of all individuals, fires or corooretions owning property adjoining or within five hundred (5003 feat of the property sought for rezoning is attached. The List is current as of • • Mete) I certify that all information furnished in this application is accurate ;o the best of m dlk ow edge . _ / • %pplicent(s] • Chaner Concrete Co. . Inc. ►ddress _ P.O. Drawer 1239 Burlington. N,C, 27216 'hone: 919-226-1181 • REZONING REQUEST 'C11ECKLIST A. OWNER'S NAM. Chandler Concrete Co., Inc. ADDRESS V. Drawer 1239, Burlington, N C 27215-1239 Current zoning Rural Residential Total. number of acres 4. 3� Current land use Parkin for concrete truck & wa r basins for collecting water run-off. Type of rezoning YequestedPlanned Development Ind.III proposed land usesame plus reforestation of adjoining land to the East. Tax map # 45 Block U, Number of lots 32 proposed Water Supply: Public x_ xx Community. _- Individual Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public Community Individual septic tank xxx Access onto state road # 1710 Average daily traffic count on the state road Describe existing critical areas: Flood prone areas Poorly drained areas Streams other,,sensitive areas .Describe land use's in: General Area A proaching the nlant from th° �t°st thprp is a hnijrP,�garaT ��eraZ mini warehouses, another auto garage, a convenience store,,a mobile home park, concrete plant, a wooded area across the rnad Adjacent parcels of land C, 52 CHANDLER CONCRETE CO.,• INC. READY MIXED CONCRETE POST OFFICE DRAWER 1239 BURLINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27215 (919) 226-1181 July 10, 1987 To the Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina Re: Lot 32 Map 45 Hillsborough Township Dear Members of the Board:. My company requests a change in the zoning for 2.00 acres of a 4.43 acre tract located on State Road 1710. Currently 2.91 acres of adjoining land is zoned 1-3 and we request 2.00 acres be rezoned from rural residential to Planned Development Industrial III. The following information is submitted for section 3 of the zoning change application. 1 Item 3-D As you approach this property from N.C. highway 86, you pass 2 auto garages, mini warehouses and our concrete plant on the right. A convenience store and a trailer park are on the left. The concrete plant and the roads for part of the trailer park was the first construction in the area. The concrete plant was built in 1972. Trailers began moving in after this date. The balance of the trailer park, the garages, mini warehouses and convenience store were all built later. These types of business conditions indicate a change in the conditions of this area. The Department of Environmental Management is requiring us to control the wash water and waste water from our concrete plant on our property. We have constructed three lagoons to catch this water and installed a pump that will recycle the water to our concrete plant for reuse. This will conserve water and also stop the run-off. This will eliminate any potential pollution to nearby streams. Item 3-E A request for the Land Use Plan to be amended from rural residential to commercial/industrial transition node has been submitted. This would carry out the intent of Secondary Amendment and item "B" which reads, extension of any plan area where the additional area is contiguous with the existing area and does not increase the existing area by more than 100 acres. LJ ) Page Two Item 3-F The 2.00 acres being rezoned would be used as follows: 1.41 acres rezoned P.D.I.- III would be fenced and used for 3 lagoons for wash water and waste water control. A pump would be installed and the water recycled to our concrete plant for reuse. The property would provide parking for some of our trucks. A drive through the property would allow our concrete trucks to enter State Road 1710 at a better grade. It also would increase the visibility for our drivers and provide a much safer access. .59 acres rezoned P.D.I.-III would be outside the fenced area and planted in Loblolly pine. Adjoining this area to the east would be 2.43 acres of rural residential land planted in Loblolly pine also. Very truly yours, CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, Inc. \j! ej/74.41,eati T.E. Chandler President TEC/gn 1 CHANDLER CONCRETE CO., INC. 054 READY MIXED CONCRETE POST OFFICE DRAWER 1239 BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27215 (919) 226-1181 Purpose: Rezone 2.00 acres of a 4.43 acre tract from Rural Residential to Planted Development Industrial III classification. Current Situation: The Chandler Concrete Plant is located on 2.89 acres now zoned I-3, located on Old NC 10 (SR 1710) . The plant has been in operation since the early 1970's. The land is a narrow strip between Old N.C. 10, and the southern railroad track. The N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development has requested that the storm water run-off from the plant be retained on site and not flow off Chandler Property. Proposed Situation: The land adjacent to the eastern boundary of the concrete site belongs to Chandler Concrete. Of this 4.43 acre tract, 1.41 acres is required to provide the manuevering room and basin space to provide ample storage for the run-off water. In addition .59 acres is needed ko be rezoned so the entire area is 2.00 acres which is required for P.D.I. -III zoning. A. Landscaping: 1-3 zoning required that the lot have 26% of the useable land landscaped. We have provided landscaping along the front of the property and the eastern side past basin E3. We have also provided landscaping on the south side of the rear fence between the basins and railroad track. The six foot fence will provide immediate screening of the basins from the adjacent property and on N.C. 10. The trees and shrubs will soften the appearance of the fence and the trees will grow 40 to 50 feet tall. This will provide the screening required for a Type A Screen. B. Water Reclaimation System: The N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development has requested that three sources of water be controlled from running off the site. The sources are as follows: (1) Truck wash water, (2) Plant run-off water, and (3) Storm water. The volume of water can vary from 3000 gallons per day to a maximum of 55,250 gallons after a 100 year storm. CHANDLER CONCRETE CO•, INC. 0 5 5_ ; READY MIXED CONCRETE POST OFFICE DRAWER 1239 BURLINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27215 (919) 225.1181 Page Two The basins work as a unit, basin #1 remains at a constant 4' depth, acting as a settling pond, before the water overflows into basin #2. In basin #2 a sump pump is installed that pumps the water to a station to be reused. The water in the holding tank is used as wash water for the trucks and is also used to temper the truck's concrete load, prior to leaving the site. More water can be used from the reclaiming system than flows into the basin daily. The third basin is used exclusively for catching rain water run-off. A 100 year storm can be contained with basin #2 half full and basin #3 empty. Basin #3 is emptied by the sump pump in basin #2. Sedimentation that accumulates in the bottom of any of these basins can be removed with a backhoe. Depth of sediment is only critical in basin #2 and #3 since they are needed to store the maximum storm water run-off volume. A copy of the permit granted by the Department of Community Development and Natural Resources is attached. C. Truck Circulation: 1 In the proposed system, the truck would come into the plant at driveway "B" and park in a parking space. When the dispatcher is ready to send a load the truck backs under the plant. The truck is loaded with cement, rock, sand and water. The truck drives to the water station and has his load tempered. When his tank is full, the truck leaves through driveway "D". By having driveway "D", the drivers have better vision and can make entrance onto State Road 1710 safely. D. Truck cleaning: Every two to three weeks the outside of the trucks are washed with a concrete removal solution. The solution reacts with the cement residues and removes the residue from the truck. The reaction of the two items neutralizes the concrete removal solution. This solution is further diluted when it flows into Basin #1. E. Water Circulation: Water is generated from three distinct sources: (1) truck wash water, (2) plant run-off water, and (3) storm run-off. In order to control the storm water run-off from the plant, three basins are required to hold the water from a 100 year storm. Investigating the elevations of the exisitng property, the run- off flows into the basin as shown. The site spot elevations also indicate that the water will not flow to any other part of the site. The rain water will flow to the area shown, which is the lowest area adjacent to the plant. Water from the railroad ditch will not flow into the basins. C5 6 CHANDLER CONCRETE CO., INC. READY MIXED CONCRETE POST OFFICE DRAWER 1239 BURLINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27215 (919) 226-1181 Page Three The normal water circulation will occur in the following manner. Truck wash water and plant run-off water will flow into basin #1 at the normal rate of 3000 gallons per day. It will take approximately 11 days to fill the basin water to a 4' level. In this basin all particles will settle to the bottom and clear water will flow into basin #2. A sump pump is installed in basin #2 and the sump pumps the clear water back to be used in the loads of concrete. The water is pumped into the trucks as temper water and as wash water. Excess water can be used in the plant if necessary. The water level in basin #2 be no higher than 2' during normal operation. During rainy periods the storm water run-off flows from the plant site into basin #1, settles out the particles and flows into basin #2. When basin #2 fills up the water automatically flows into basin #3. The pump is capable of pumping water from both basins. f.! . - - - _ 1kJ� NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION RALEIGH P E R M I T For the Discharge of Sewage, Industrial Wastes, or Other Wastes In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations. PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO Chandler Concrete, Co. Orange County FOR THE construction and operation of a 3,000 GPD wastewater Recycle System consisting of one 33,660 gallon lagoon, one 30,518 gallon lagoon, one 33,510 gallon lagoon, one .70 GPM pump, one 40 GPM pump, one 2,000 gallon storage tank and associated piping to serve Chandler Concrete Company, pursuant to the application received May 20, 1985 and in conformity with the project plans, specifications, and other supporting data, subsequently filed and approved by the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and considered a part of this permit. This Permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until rescinded, and shall be subject to the following specified conditions and limitations: 1. This permit shall become voidable unless the facilities are constructed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and other supporting data. 2. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of wastes described in the application and other supporting data. • 3. The facilities shall be properly maintained and operated at all times. 4. The wastewater collected. by this system shall be adequately treated in the Chandler Concrete Co. Wastewater Treatment Plant and shall not result in a discharge to the ground or surface waters of the state. 5. This Permit is not transferable t • nit No. ,12431 5 k, 'age 2 .R' 6. In event the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily including the creation of nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take such immediate corrective action as may be required by this Division, including the construction of additional or replacement wastewater treatment or disposal facilities. 7. The sludge generated from these treatment facilities must be disposed of in accordance with General Statutes 143-215.1 and in a manner approvable by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 8. The Permittee, at least six (6) months prior to the expiration of this Permit, shall request its extension. Upon receipt of the request, the Commission will review the adequacy of the facilities described therein, and if indicated, will extend the Permit for such period of time and under such conditions and limitations as it may deem appropriate. 9. The issuance of this permit shall not relieve The Permittee of the responsibility for damages to surface or ground waters resulting from the operation of this facility. 10. The facilities shall be effectively maintained and operated as a non-discharge system to prevent the discharge of any wastewater into the surface waters of the State. 11. Freeboard in the Lagoons shall not be less than two feet at any time. 12. The Raleigh Regional Office, Phone No. 919/733-2314 shall be notified at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of operation so that an• in-place • inspection can be made of said system prior to operation. Such notification to the Regional Supervisor shall be made during the normal office from 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. on Monday through Friday, excluding State Holidays. Permit issued this the 8th day of November, 1995 NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL. MANAGEMENT COMMISSION R. Paul Wilms, Director Division of Environmental Management By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission Permit No. 12431 • ORANGE COUNTY 059 HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 EMERGENCY SERVICES 106 EAST MARGARET LANE Established 1752 October 28, 1987 Mr. Gregory Szymik Orange County Planning and Zoning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Mr. Szymik, This is to confirm that Orange County Emergency Medical Services, Orange County Rescue Squad and Orange Rural Fire Department will provide services to property located on Lot 32 of Map 45 in Hillsborough township. This property is located on the south side of state highway 1710, adjacent to land owned by Chandler Concrete Co. i Sincerely,,, Bobby L. Baker Emergency Services Director • BB/pdg cc: Thomas E. Chandler Chandler Concrete Co., Inc. P.O. Drawer 1239 Burlington, N.C. 27216 , C60 . a�'t p roia, D • ■-• ler/ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN October 29, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS,P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Mr. Greg Szymik Orange County Planning Department 306—F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Chandler Concrete Expansion • Off SR 1710 (Old NC 10) 1 Dear Mr. Szymik: • Please be advised a driveway permit will be required for the proposed driveway "D". If there are any drainage structures or other work within the right—of—way, and encroachment agreement will be required. If there are any questions .please advise. Yours very truly, "K'IZZ 3. M. Mills, P. E. IISTRICT ENGINEER Jf/SPI:jbh 061 • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 v MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Szymik FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Chandler Concrete DATE: November 5 , 1987 . This project requires the submittal of a stormwater management plan for controlling the first half inch of runoff . I do not see any conditions that should prevent the design of a successful plan. .1.6a6.--Ei14.19--- 1 Oft' LINDY PENDERGRASS Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 07_28_87 Residence Phone: 929-5535 Thomas E. Chandler Chandler Concrete Co, Inc. PO Drawer 1239 Burlington,NC 27216 Dear Mr. Chandler: We will have no trouble providing service to the area to be rezoned, known as lot 32 of Map 45 in Hillsborough Township. I foresee no additional costs for manpower to provide this service. Si cerely, /...0 PUICtiA-,9\44-el, Li dy Pe ergrass Sheriff of Orange County 4 Orange County Recreation and Parks Department «� 300 West Tryon Street • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 w-1:7 Life.Beinit. �r�„► Mary Anne Black, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Szymik, Planner III FROM: Mary Anne Black 71115 DATE: November 9, 1987 RE: Courtesy Review -- McLennan's Farm ( PD-2) Chandler Concrete (P0-4) Upon review of the preliminary plan for the proposed Planned Development within the JPA (McLennan's Farm) please be advised that I would recommend that the County Commissioners accept payment-in-lieu of the required dedication of land for public recreation and park purposes. The designated "open space/intrification field" needs to be carefully maintained and operated by some entity such as a homeowner's association, especially if exercise stations are installed. I see no element(s) on the Chandlei Concrete preliminary plan warranting comment from a recreation and park perspective. • Thank you for the opportunity to offer these staff comments. I will present my recommendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their December meeting and will forward to you any changes/additional comments they may have. MAB/pbl CC: Lorraine Parker, Chair, Recreation & Parks Advisory Council Telephones: 919 732-8181 • 919 967-9251 • 919 688-7331 • 919 227-2031 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 °n d' b o I 0 MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: November 19. 1987 • SUBJECT: PD-2-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANTS: T. E. Chandler. President Chandler Concrete Company. Inc. P. 0. Drawer 1239 Burlington. NC 27216 LOCATION: South Side of Old NC 10 (SR 1710) REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Planned Development-Industrial III rezoning and Special Use Permit PURPOSE: To bring an existing washwater recycling facility and the use of the site for truck parking into compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. LOT SIZE: 2 .00 acres of a 4.43 acre tract EXISTING LAND USE: Washwater recycling facility and truck parking SURROUNDING LAND USE: NORTH - Frontage on Old NC 10. a dedicated public right-of- way. Undeveloped land and a pond on the north side of the road zoned R-1. EAST - Undeveloped lot zoned R-1. SOUTH - Southern Railroad. WEST - The existing Chandler Concrete plant zoned 1-3 . LAND USE PLAN: Designated Ten Year Transition Area and Commercial- Industrial Activity Node in the Land Use Plan. ZONING: The property is zoned Residential--1. The Ten Year Transition Area plan category allows a range of residential zoning districts from R-1 to R-13 . The Commercial-Industrial Activity Node allows a wide range of Commercial-Industrial districts. FINDINGS OF THE ORAiJGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO APPLICATION ' PD-2-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE CO. Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth In Article 8 for Special Uses as well as those set forth in Article ] for Planned Developments. Article 8.2. 1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: (1 ) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth in Article 8.8. These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which include: (a) Application components; and (b) Specific standards for Planned Developments (Article 8.8.23 refers to Article ] standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4) (2) Other requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, Including the provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements) ' Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Staff regarding the application in question. The findin have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board In its deliberations. ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 : APPLiCAT1ON 'COMPONENTS ("Yes" Indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Findings Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evldence Submitted To Support findings Findings 8.6-Application submitted on forms X Yes No Application, narrative and site plans Yes No providing full and accurate submitted by applicant. decsription of proposed use, includ- ing location, appearance and opera- tional characteristics 8.8 a) twenty-six(26) copies of the site X Yes No 26 copies of. the site plan' submitted by Yes No plan prepared by a registered N.C. the applicant. Site plan was prepared land surveyor or engineer containing: by Philip Post & Associates, Inc. 1 . North point, scale and date X Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No 2. Extent of area to be developed X yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No 3. Location!.and width of ail ease- X Yes No Shown 'on site plan. Yes --c'-No ments and rights-of-way within C77 or adjacent to the site ARTICLE 8.8.23-SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Article 8.8,23 indicates thht the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article ]-Planned Developm( ARTICLE 7-SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANHED DEVELOPMENTS ("Yes" indicates compilance;"No" indicates-noncompli, Planning Staff Findings Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7.4 indicates the applica- tion must first comply with all requirements specified In Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements include: 20.3.2 a) .Map showing affected X Yes No Provided with application. .. Yes No property at scale of not less than l" 1001 nor more than 1" 20' . 20.3,2 b) Legal description of X Yes No Provided with application. Yes No property 20,3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No ;bo error alleged. Yes No error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, If X Yes No Conditions within the area have not Yes �Io any, which make amendment reasona- changed other than the lack of con- bly necessary to promote public formity between the use of the site health, safety and general welfare (truck parking and detention basins) and the correct zoning designation. 20,3,2 e) Manner In which proposed Yes No A Land Use Plan amendment was approved, Yes No amendment will carry out purpose designating the site as part of a and intent of adopted Comprehensive Commercial-industrial Activity Node. Plan The Land Use Plan permits an Industrial-3 (1-3) zoning district classification. - O ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Findings Based on Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings 4. Location of all existing or pro- gYes No No structures are proposed. Detention Yes No posed structures on the site basins are shown on site plan. 5. Location of all areas on the site _ x Yes No There are no flood prone areas on the Yes No subject to flood hazard or inunda- site according to the FEMA-FIA maps tion as shown on flood maps or and soils maps. soil maps 6. Location of all water courses X Yes No No water courses present on site. Yes No on the situ including the direction of flow ' ]. Existing topography at a contour x Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum 8. Proposed or existing fencing, X Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No screening, gates, parking, service and storage areas g. Access to site including site X Yes ' No Shown on site plan. Driveway "D" has Yes No distances on all roads used for received a driveway permit from NCDOT access and is constructed. Driveway "C" has been closed. ' 10. Elevations of all structures _._X_ Yes ' No No structures are proposed other than Yes No proposed to be' used in the in-ground detention basins. development 11 . Names and addresses of -owners " ' Yet " No Submitted with application. Yes ' No and applicants 12. A fee, as set by the Board of X Yes " No $200.00 application fee paid. Yes No County Commissioners O O ARTICLE 7 -- SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Findings Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings findings Article 7.4 then Indicates the application must comply with certain specific requirements common to all Planned Develop- ments. These Include: 7.4.1 So located with respect to x Yes No Proposed use has direct access to Old Yes No major streets and mass transit NC lO (SR 1714) a road classified as a facilities and designed so as not collector in the Land Use Plan. Use to create traffic on minor streets will not create adverse traffic impacts in residential districts on minor residential streets. 7.4.2 So located with respect to X Yes No Proposed use will not require system Yes No water, sewer and storm drainage use or expansion. facilities that enlargement or extension will not result in higher net public cost or earlier incursion of public cost and So located with respect to x Yes No Proposed use wii.1 not require services. Yes No police fire and rescue services, Appropriate letters have been received. and schools and parks so as to have access in the same manner as permitted under the existing zoning 7.4.3 Site suitable for develop- X Yes No Ho critical development areas are present Yes No ment without hazard from flooding, on site. O erosion, and soil subsidence or slipping. UO ARTICLE 8.2.4 SPECIFIC STANDARDS/ALL SPECIAL USES ("Yes" indicates compliance, "No" Indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Findings Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant to address the following: a) Method and adequacy of provision Yes ' No Not applicable. Yes No for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service b) Method and adequacy of police, Y, Yes No Police, fire and rescue agencies have Yes No fire and rescue squad protec- indicated their ability to serve the tion site. e) Method and adequacy of vehicle X YeS' No Access .to site is proposed via Old NC 10 ' ' Yes No access to the site and traffic (SR 1710) . Three driveways previously conditions around the site served the site. The applicant constructed a •fou'rth driveway referenced as Drive D and closed an existing driveway referenced as Drive C to provide a safer entranceway to the site. NCOOT previously commented that the driveways are adequate and meets sight distance requirements. C) ART!CLE ] - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Findings Based On Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the appli- cation of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a pp-1-3 designation. The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2. and are as follows: a) Site is located outside the _X Yes No Applicant received approval of a Land Use Yes No Chapel Bill Joint Planning Plan amendment to Commercial-lA ustrial Area and within an area designated Transition Activity Node. Industrial Transition Activity Node. b) Water and sewer mains exist Yes No Not applicable to proposed use. Yes. No or will be made available as part of the development process. c) Access consists of direct X Yes No Site has direct access to Old NC 10 Yes No vehicular access to arterial (SR 1]10), a road classified. as a or collector. collector in the Land Use Plan. d) Yes No Yes No e) Yes No Yes No C • �z ARTICLE 4 - ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMITTED USE TABLE AND SCHEDULE ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Findings Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table Use is a permitted use or requires the issuance of a special use permit to locate in the PD-1-3 district. X Yes No The property is located in a Commercial-industrial Transition Activity Node. This designation, allows the full range of commercial- industrial districts, upon rezoning. C ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Findings Based on PLANNING BOARD SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO Article 7.17 sets forth develop- ment standards with which an applicant must comply as follows: a) PD-1 districts must be X Yes No Proposal satisfies provisions and Yes No established In accordance intent with the provisions of Article 7.7.4 - 7.9 and with the intent of the district as expressed in ].17.1 . Proposal includes two acres of land but fronts on a road (NC1O) classified b) Minimum net land area for ___X_Yes No as a collector in the Orange County Yes No the use Is two acres; the Land Use Plan. NC 10 is classified minimum frontage requirement as a major thoroughfare or arterial in is 200' on an arterial street. the adopted -Hiilsborough Thoroughfare Plan. The frontage is 524.09 feet. Applicant meets the requirements of Yes No c) PD-1 districts must be X Yes NO these districts. established in accordance with Articles ti,5,6,9,10 and 12. d) €idctrlcallteleohone service Yes X No Method of electrical service to Yes No lines and underground, reclamation basins has not been shown. e) Applicant must comply with X Yes No Applicant's submittal complies- Yes No site planning standards with specified standards. specified for PD-1 districts 7.15.10. c ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Findings Based on PLANNING BOARD ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDEPCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Section 7.15.10 provides that the application must comply with the following site planning standards: Proposed use is oriented away from a) External Relationships minor residential streets and separated 1 . Uses and structures are X Yes No from residential neighborhoods by street Yes No oriented away from minor and railroad rights-of-way. Landscaping residential streets and has been provided to screen the view of residential neighborhoods. the detention ponds and truck parking from residential areas. 2 . Vehicular access points are X Yes No Applicant opened driveway and closed an Yes No designated to encourage smooth existing driveway to reduce traffic traffic flow and controlled conflicts at the site. NCDOT has turning movements. Merging, approved this change. turn-out lanes, traffic dividers etc. shall be required where needed and may be included in the required yard setbacks, except landscaped portions. Pedestrian access is, where practical , separated from vehlcular access points. 3. External yard of 35' must X Yes No Applicant provides for 35' yard setback Yes NO be provided along perimeter, along Front, rear and eastern property except where they adjoin other lines. comm./Ind. districts; and landscaped as follows: a. Along collector or arterial X Yes No Applicant provides for a 1$' landscaped Yes No streets or frontage streets strip along the frontage of the property the nearest 15' to the ROW as shown on the site plan. shall be landscaped; where a turn-out or merging lane is provided, the landscpaed area shall be 101 . The remainder may be used for off-street parking. W ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Findings Based on PLANNING BOARD ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS b. Along side property lines X Yes No Applicant proposed reforestation area Yes No adjoining a residential - along eastern property line to the rear district and not separated of the proposed drainage basins. Standard by an intervening street, requires a landscaped strip 40' in length. the nearest 15' to the property line shall be landscaped for a distance equal to the minimum front yard depth of the adjoin- ing residential district. c. Where a residential Yes No Not applicable. Yes No district faces this district across a minor street, the 10' nearest to the ROW within the district shall be landscaped and no off- street parking permitted. d. The nearest 10, of all X Yes No Applicant indicates existing vegetated Yes No other yards, not adjacent strip along the rear of the property. to a commercial or indus- The rear property line serves as the trial district, shall be centerline for a 200' railroad right-of- landscaped to reasonably way. conceal parking, service areas and undesireable views. Fences, walls, hedges, etc. may be required to protect against adverse impacts of noise, lights or undesireable views. b) Internal Relationships ro - 1 . Plan provides for a unified, X Yes No Plan, as proposed,osed• satisfies this Yes No well organized arrangement standard. of buildings and use areas. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Findings Based on Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings Article 5 lists standards For minimum lot size, lot width, Front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building height and lot coverage, and development intensity. The applicant has applied For a PD-1 -3 designation. The standards ' For that district are set. Forth in Article 5.1 . 2 and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per X Yes No Applicant proposes minimum lot area Yes No use - 20,000 of 2 acres or 8],120 square feet. sq.ft. ( 1 -1 requires 80,000 sq.ft.') b) Minimum lot width - x Yes No No setback requirement specified for Yes No 0 sq. ft. this PD-district. c) A(Sam for 1-1 ) equired Front setback - x Yes NO No setback requirement specified for Yes No _ 0 -ft. this PD-district. (Same for 1-1) d) Required side and rear 'LYes. No No setback requirement specified for Yes No setbacks - 0 ft. this PD-district. (Same for 1-1 ) e) Maximum building height - ,. Yes . No Not applicable. No structures are Yes No 45 ft. proposed. (Same for 1-1 ) Compliance with lot coverage and development intensity , . ' standards is addressed in ; Article 6 i 1RTICLE b APPLICAITON OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Findings Based on ]rdinance Requirements Submitted. Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings findings lrticle 6 iists specific standards which apply to carious types of development tipplications. ' lrticle 6.12 contains those development intensity _standards which apply to Troup developments controlled ')y the Land Use Intensity . , (LUI) system. Planning Staff recommends amendment of application from PD-1-3 to PD-1-1 . Applicant a} Minimum gross lend Yes x No meets minimum gross land area requirement of Yes No area - 623,144 sq. ft. 80,000 sq. ft. for PD-1-1 . Site contains two acres or 87,120 sq. ft. u} Maximum gross land Yes No No maximum specified For district. Yes No area - sq. ft• (Same applies for PD-1-1 district) c)-Haximum floor area ratio .- -.-Yea No Mot applicable. No structures are proposed. Yes No .450 (Maximum FAR for PD-1-1 is 0.200. No Maximum floor area structures are proposed.) r permitted - sq. f t. , • • ' Yee No 1) Required minimum open ]( Yes - No ., Applicant proposes 81 ,276 square feet of space ratio - .650 • open space. (Required OSR for PD-1 -1 is Required minimum open 0.75 or 65,307 sq. ft.) space - . 56,599.4 sq• ft: e) Required, minimum pedestrian) Yes . No landscape ratio - . 163 Applicant proposes pedestrian/landscape area Yes No Required minimum pedestrian (26,730 sq. ft.) in excess of the minimum landscape area - 14,193.38 square feet required. (Required P/LR for PD-1-1 is 0. 187 or 16,283.2 sq. ft. ) ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Findings Based on Ordinance Requirements Submitted AR L ation Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 6.24 contains those standards applicable in the MIC-Major Transportation Corridor district. These standards include the following: a) Minimum of 25% of total Yes No Yes No lot area shall remain uncovered. J b) 100-foot buffer Yea No Not applicable. Yes No re(lui red ndjacer►t to edge of Interstate highway r.ighL-of-way. Kept in natural state or landscaped in accordance with approved landscape plan. e) Front, rear, and Yes No Not applicable. Yes No side yard setbacks required as follows: 1 . 100 feet adjacent to Interstate right- of-way. 2. 50 feet adjacent to oilier property lines. _Q ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED) Planning Staff Findings Based on Planning Board ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Findings Article 6.2h Standards) (continued) d) Off-street parking and X Yes No Applicant satisfies requirements. Yes No loading shall conform with the requirements of Article 10. e) Signage shall conform Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No with the requirements of Article 9. f) Landscaping shall conform X Yes No Applicant meets all landscaping. Yes No with the requirements of Needs to replace some existing Article 10. trees that have died. C 00 ARTICLE 9 - SIGNS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No'.' indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Findings Based on Planning Board ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Findings a. Signage is erected outside . Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No of sight preservation triangles, ROWS, and districe setbacks. b. sign area does not exceed Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No 72 square feet c. signage is limited to two Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No single or double-faced signs d. signage does not exceed Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed Yes No twelve (12) feet in height e. signage meets setback Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No requirements of feet from ROW; feet from side/rear property lines; feet from adjacent residential district. C) cc ARTICLE 10 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Findings Based on Planning Board ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Findings Off street parking shall conform with the requirements of Article 10. 1 . The off-street parking T Yes ' No Applicant is proposing 10 Yes No standard for the 12 x 30 parking spaces. proposed use is as follows: Parking standard is not applicable as no structure is proposed on this parcel . 1 space per employee on shift of maximum employment. (Alternative standard: 1 space per each 2 employees + 1 space per each company vehicle) Application of the standard results in a requirement of (see comment) spaces. 2. The off-street loading Yes " No Not applicable. Yes No standard for the proposed use is as follows: Application of the standard results in a requirement of spaces. O 00 O ARTICLE 12 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Findings Based on Planning Board ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Findings The development shall conform with the requirements of Article 12 - .Landscaping and Screening. These standards are as follows: 1 . Street frontage land- X Yes No Applicant provides an 18 foot land- Yes No scaping must include a scaped strip along the frontage of 10-foot landscaped area Old NC 10 which satisfies the planted with one tree per standard. 40 feet, a hedge or other durable landscape material at least 3 feet In height and grass or ground cover. 2. Peripheral landscaping X Yes No Applicant provides an 18 foot land- Yes No must include a 10-foot scaped strip along the eastern landscaping area planted property line which satisfies this with one tree per 60 feet, standard. a hedge or other durable landscape material at least 3 feet in height and grass or ground cover. 3. Interior landscaping must X Yes No Applicant provides for additional Yes No provide coverage of at landscaping adjoining the proposed least 5% of any vehicular parking area. use area. C) C ) ARTICLE 12 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING (continued) Planning Staff Findings Based on Planning Board ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Findings No more than 10 parking Yes No Not applicable. Yes No spaces allowed in a continuous row without division by landscaped median strip Every fourth row of Yes No Not applicable. Yes No parking separated by 8-foot median with at least one tree for each 60-feet of median length. 4. Type A screen is X Yes No Applicant satisfies screening require- Yes No required. Standards ment along front, side and rear pro- for that type include perty. Reforestation Area will the following: provide additional screening. A screen opaque from the ground to a height of (6) feet, with inter- mittent visual obstructions to a height of (20) feet. May be composed of wall , fence, berm, existing or planted vegetation. Intended to exclude visual contact and create impression of spatial separation. OCJ �J ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0b3 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 II CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA I. Marvin E. Collins , Zoning Officer, Orange County. North Carolina. DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about November 6 . 1987 . I mailed by certified mail. postage prepaid. a Notice of Public Hearing to be held on the request for a planned devejopinent-special use permj.t for Chandler Concrete Co. . located on OM NC 10 ill Bjllsborough Township . to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6 .3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date. time. place and subject ' of the Public Hearing on the zoning Classification change. WITNESS my hand, this the 20th day of November/ 1987 . IlbAtAacEOZAM,t, MARVIN E. COLLINS ZONING OFFICER 084 103 „'S7A7E n Ifl_ t --- -__"._ jj r nom..:' STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Greensboro , NC 27429-0278 August 21 , 1985 JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY Ms . Susan Smith Planner OrangeCounty Planning Department Hillsborough , NC 27278 Dear Ms . Smith : This is in reference to driveway use at Chandler Concrete on SR1710 (Old NC10) in Orange County . This driveway is designated as driveway "D" on the site plan . Sight distance is adequate and this driveway should not present a safety problem. If we can be of any further help please advise . Sincer: , , A10G'.2.....;-?" `.L-,-- Watkins D • SION ENGINEER JWW/DEK/cb cc : Mr. Chandler Chandler Concrete Co . Mr . D. B. Kelly An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer d(A °j ...---,r-- n" r� ` c v J c ..,,,,) (,,,,,.STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES G. MARTIN Greensboro, NC 27429-0278 GOVERNOR August 23, 1985 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY Ms. Susan Smith, Planner Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Smith: This has further reference to my letter to you dated August 21, 1985 concerning the proposed driveway on SR 1710 for Chandler Concrete Company. The proposed driveway "D" has a greater sight distance and is a safer entrance than the driveway that is currently being used. Sincerely, i . A. W. Watkins DIVISION ENGINEER JWW:mdj cc: Mr. Tom Chandler Mr. D. B . Kelly An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer UbE• HILLSBOROUGH THOROUGHFARE STUDY 1987 THE DEVELOPMENT OF A THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH AND CENTRAL ORANGE COUNTY . PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Prepared by the Thoroughfare Planning Unit of the North Carolina Department of Transportation Planning and Research Branch Local Access Streets provide access to abutting property. They are not intended to carry heavy volumes of traffic and should be located such that only traffic with origins and destinations on the streets would be served. Local streets may be further classified as either residential, commercial, and/or industrial depending upon the type of land use which they serve. Minor Thoroughfares are more important streets in the city system. They collect traffic from local access streets and carry it to the major thoroughfare system. They may in some instances supplement the major thoroughfare system by facilitating minor through traffic movements, A third func- tion which may be performed is that of providing access to abutting property. They should be designed to serve limited areas so that their development as major thoroughfares will be prevented. Major Thoroughfares are the primary traffic arteries of the city. Their function is to move antra-city and inter- city traffic. The streets which comprise the major thor- oughfare system may also serve abutting property; however, TI IR MAJOR FUJNCTION IS TO CARRY TRAFFIC. They should not be bordered by uncontrolled strip development because such development significantly lowers the capacity of the thorough- fare to carry traffic and each driveway is a danger and an impediment to traffic flow. Major thoroughfares may range from a two-lane street carrying minor traffic volumes to major expressways with four or more traffic lanes. Parking normally should not be permitted on major thoroughfares. Idealized Major Thoroughfare System A coordinated system of major thoroughfares forms the basic framework of the urban street system. A major thor- oughfare system which is most adaptable to desire lines of travel within an urban area and which permits movement between various areas of the city with maximum directness is the radial-loop system. This system consists of several functional elements-radial streets, crosstown streets, loop system streets, and bypasses (Figure 2) . Radial streets provide for traffic movement between points located in the outskirts of the city and the central area. This is a major traffic movement in most cities, and the economic strength of the central business district de- pends upon the adequacy of this type of thoroughfare. If all radial streets crossed in the central area, an intolerable congestion problem would result. To avoid this problem, it is very important to have a system of crosstown streets which form a loop around the central business dis- trict. This system allows traffic moving from origins on _ _ •,, 088. ,, AT ......, i n n 9.?n s A ,.i .I\_ v. IT•MB... :SAW. /I 1 .... o'',.jk/ .... i 4 ,...„.„. .....,,,.,..., • ,,,.....t.. .. ,,-- , „.:.____,. ),-,-- ,....: -- --,--,--1, - -. , , . \_,:, v - ..,,,A : : -- ,.. 0 . .,.,...,,, ,. .,. ,,,„. _, ,, ,. 4 ._...,..__)„ . , 2 -- ..._... _h____\-... -..--,... .iti.._ , _ ,.1.._ .___....7"74 zr... • -<-, ^ I _1 J 1 ` f "� ry .O..0 A r \• , 1 $ /��i'� J a197S . ;rA ti. LI3551 'r' ? 1r/ \`1 -.) / 1 IF ,41 CN A 4 1 / 1 I , ,0 -ii, . • 7"1"111111F i ....//. ._.- L'i\EIO.afP'%Ja.1 - ILL . .4 I i ' , ip' ., - / . li''r.' 7; „IV- r .... , _. . ,, -, 1- ' . A 1\J/1 a ,�. ,�� ; ' � f �.� �/ 1 S Fr :/ I , 1 ' „-, /__- .. : A.' ''- . , ffifile.44.1. _____..- • - • 11- rps • lit i � LL '�, *� f Iohd•r,.... „ .,_ ,..,,r .11.11. 171041117..i........, ,,, ..j. ',,! \ ... , C.544... , , .-....._I _.-:.: ; I . opop '-----'... 1 --.S ....._ .--1 - le /. .P..ir ' r ,, ..... 4" / t , 4a , I 9 p s f . f_ 1 -1 1 1 4. _y 1 E. 1J • u r . t.< , , A . - (3 •9 _ / - • :1_ 1 _ �,.7, ` ��.. f a p _■/ :i ti y tee,; i 1 �' �..-, ' -., ''-' 1 - 2-, ) 1 ),_>_ —/-----4 • 1 1 7-,!...q., ! . . \. r---.....t 7 I , , ,,,,___, _____,, ,, 1 ' ' plillakik .',.. : . ; . ° •r \ F / Y - i 1 • _ E CIS ' 1. �/ " ; © • , 1 r .. r'GLUE 3 I.LGRAGI T�.e [n,ITISO ..oeosto 1_a.q-SAUaq e.,o. PROPOSED • (wwSEO6MATO __ .,..`.r__ HILLSBOROUGH �� FUNGI. T..a/COyy , WAAL u._._T.a_ , THOROUGHFARE waa.r[e er, PLAN TOSA OS ..1.r,,)Wwgyyu OSA,w COIA.Tr DECEMBER 17. 1966 MGCONNKNOPO POS +MSOVA. OT _. INC KWI •AO SOOEASCM OSA.CI Y"'� ■000TEC IT T•O COSTS CAwg611•■ OCtr.ST11RMT 0/ TS ASY.OSTwTIOw • 0S8 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date November 23 . 1987 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: PD-4-87 McLENNAN'S FARM DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup Application Vicinity Map General Information Agency Comments Findings of Fact Certificate of Mailing TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on an application for a Planned Development Special Use Permit for McLennan' s Farm. BACKGROUND: Mr. Leon Todd has submitted an application for PD-H-RB (Planned Development-Housing-Rural Buffer) classification on 37 acres on the east side of Bowden Road (SR 1946) approximately one-half mile south of Old Greensboro Highway (SR 1005) . The proposed development would consist of fourteen (14) residential lots which average 2.17 acres in size. Each of these lots will have individual wells and will be served by a common nitrification field for septic tank disposal. The current zoning is Rural Buffer and Protected Watershed II. The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential. The Recreation Director has recommended that payment-in-lieu be accepted rather than dedication of land. Based on 14 lots or housing units. the payment-in-lieu would be equivalent to $983. The Recreation Director has also recommended that the designated open space/nitrification field be maintained and operated by a homeowners association if exercise stations are to be installed. The proposed development is to be served by proposed public roads (McLennan' s Farm Road and George Poe Road) constructed to NCDOT standards. NCDOT has reviewed the plan and recommended the following: 1. Property lines are to follow the sight triangles at 090 2 Bowden Road (SR 1946) . 2 . A proposed island at the entrance to the development must be maintained by a homeowners association. Additional right-of-way must be dedicated to accommodate a six- foot wide shoulder and a ditchline with 2:1 slopes. 3 . A sight easement must be provided at the intresection of George Poe Road and McLennan' s Farm Road. 4. Lots 8. 9. 10 and 11 must have driveways off George Poe Road. 5 . If McLennan' s Farm Road is extended. the cul-de-sac right-of-way must revert to the adjoining property owners. Both the South Orange Rescue Squad and the White Cross Volunteer Fire Department have indicated their ability to serve the proposed development. The Sheriff' s Department has indicated that the development will result in an additional 12 .3 manhours needed for responding to service' calls. While the Sheriff' s Department will be able to handle ' such service. the demand. combined with other developments. could cause the need for additional manpower. The Erosion Control Officer has indicated that a stormwater management plan is required for the project. Grading permits will also be required prior to the start of construction. Comments from Orange Water and Sewer Authority are summarized as follows: 1 . Additional information should be provided to confirm that the proposed wastewater disposal system is properly designed and to assure its long-term reliability. This information should include a detailed site analysis to address soils which are only "marginally" suitable. the depth of the restrictive horizon. soil permeability above the restrictive horizon. and the extent of mounding that can be expected to occur. 2 . OWASA recommends a lower hydraulic loading rate not exceeding 0 .75 gallons per square foot per day. and a lower pollutant loading rate to protect long term ground and surface water quality. 3 . Install a dual. alternating absorption field system and provide an additional undisturbed reserve area in case either system fails. 4 . Provide adequate measures to prevent the accidental discharge of wastewater from the proposed facilities into surface and ground waters. 5 . What is the impact of recreational uses of the area on 03j 3 the long-term suitability of the soil absorption area? 6 . Establish appropriate monitoring of surface and ground- water. OWASA also recommends that a detention pond be built for stormwater runoff to further protect water quality. 7 . The proposed system should be constructed and inspected according to acceptable standards. Sewer and utility easements should be reserved for construction and maintenance of the system. 8 . Provide assurance that disposal of solid wastes from septic tanks and from process-pumping facility will be carried out by a certified party in accordance with State regulations. 9. All components of the system should be periodically inspected. 10 . The system should be operated by a technically qualified party. 11 . Pump life. repair. and replacement costs should be addressed. Regarding the development layout. OWASA had the following comments: 1 . Development in the watershed should be consistent with the primary public objective of protection of the public drinking water supply. 2. A detailed investigation of site suitability and con- sideration of the need for dual absorption fields may result in the need for greater absorption field area. which in turn could require modifications to the proposed subdivision layout and development density. 3 . Provide assurance that open space areas will not be developed. 4. Provide assurance that sedimentation and erosion control measures will be installed in a timely manner and permanently maintained. 5. Public utility easements should be obtained to facilitate the provision of public sewer services in the event such extension is determined necessary in the future. The Town of Carrboro has provided the following courtesy review comments regarding the proposed planned development. The comments are based on Carrboro-designated watershed zoning district requirements. 1 . A fifty-foot buffer would be required on either side of the intermittent streams located on the site. 092 4 2 . Proposed plans for the tract of land to the north would be required (ie. . as a phased development) . 3 . Impervious surface limitations (maximum allowed and proposed) should be on the plans. 4. Trees having a diameter greater than 18" should be located on landscape plans. 5 . The agency or organization which will be responsible for maintenance of the proposed sewer treatment facilities should be clearly noted on the plans. 6 . Copies of all State permits required for the sewage disposal systems should be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits. 7 . The exact nature of all potential recreation activities (passive or active) expected for the recreation space should be addressed on plans. Also the distance between the edge of the nitrification field and the existing stream is not clear. 8. Proposed grading and clearing limit lines would be needed. 9 . Proposed stormwater culvert sizes should be indicated. and hydrologic calculations verifying their adequacy should be provided. Detailed drawings of the culvert and road crossings are also needed. 10 . If the road is to be extended. a notation to that effect should be on the plans. and signage should be installed at that end of the cul-de-sac when the road is built. 11 . Proposed house locations and driveways are needed to verify proposed impervious surface areas. 12. Proposed well sites should be indicated. The Town of Carrboro also recommended that State permit records be reviewed for previously approved LPS sewage disposal systems to ascertain if there have been problems with failures of such systems. RECOMMENDATION: Comments received from OWASA and the Town of Carrboro were received too late for the Planning Staff to adequately review and consult with the applicant and agencies about necessary changes to the plans. For this reason, the Planning Staff recommends that citizen comment be received on the application. and that the public hearing be continued to December 1, 1987 (or other suitable date) for review/consultation purposes. A Staff recommendation will be presented at that time. _ ---■ .... - 'el:;! . (.)a 3 ., lTy Li ' \ _ .... ,- ,...... . .., ..„...0... I:----- -1„ ' 109 / ......_.. v o: C)i •Ter.14 • I ...1F.410 . • N, (42 . , Tr ■ \ /./ \ — - -1 _ . _ • w § ; w 0 te, . :: 0 4. . • -‘ 1 ' r...r.-- s --,.. I ..” • , ----7.-------6 1 X . I • 1' .^••• ••.. ' . o . P. I: : • . -.•••- CD : ......... d. 1 t•w , z .;.•',1" . , an 11 I t, c• ••.•:• • .p.....;,-,8-......... V;..,i•4. 1-1a-p-aa i)R 1, II,.' I;:_i• • •■• .v.,, V 11 V 1 4 el C. - ,. ,?. 0Pr.11,I.1 ■10 m0 I 1 •v•1I1• !1.I • ./•• 5 1• ... \..0.:,),,i...... .50 % I t { ; i I • 1 VO ••.• 1 D le F. ... li I 1 11 1 e) ' ■•F.i 0 I `.r. 1 11 . • 4:.. . • . \ I re) — i — 6 = ..,„ -,,,, IIIIIII • / :it., , .• .....--. • . ,....C.)I i ......... -... . .,...J.b..e.r.,,,-,.... t. .._.. . ... . . . ,__.... r , ,. „ ,, < . . e I H„gi , , ,■ • .. , . . mri- -- '''• .. .t) " _ o' rr . , .. _ I ss • -------- es':, .1"1 • . "• -. • • IMO . , , , II . • • &I 1.! I 1 i! 1 1 1 . I lil , 1 1 1. jaal IL . . ICJ 4 • • - 1 7••• ! .., . I ri ' : ; ; i • 14.11c:0 I . Is 1 PI I 11 • 1 4 ' V•••••••••■• ...:n..........kl 1 . • 0 ...... ..\.....r.` •'''"...•• ••\ - . 1 .1• ! 8. .. 11 g i i i L• 1 r 4 1 t g 6 t 7 i 6 .8 S. •I ; . 1 ! • f■n I Pi i r 41 -- • :: : 1 . ..• ,I., i ! ■ „I..... ............ 1 lfA 1 . • C P E r, r PROPOSED ZONING : PD-H -RS /PWIL:-. , PRESENT ZONING. R13 / Pv1/4111 -: :.: - " :7' LANt) USE PLAN t RURAL , • O 4 110 .- f ca - -J 'aye g •^.:r�1 .,'f:,. ,FI r,-1-,- -C:•CS±.''�.:r i1, 2:: :: , �^ .2.. rI a l •r^ - i_` .,, - r �� _ 'It 11 'n .7 ....ko _ * .I. l' I 11%. ",..; i't'—' r , ---,....., ., ,,, 11..-/ 4 0 _r r / 7\ - -n - Imo `». . L :� '' I .\ ;7 •• .l /` / : '1 p;/ . Y • - .•`Ty_..,▪- \ � r - ~e4.'--- r ! '■�� _ _ r Cam .= j _ - y ▪ y __ 1 ';I. 'bye 1L '. 7 ... b : 1J ' ' . 'K --- : ``"N'ma=r-. :.-� / � - -.. . -\.'_ ' 'I• ^•: - __±.� - - -_S-' / . . .. / r �_ ``W'#-', / ♦ ( I./L..'� \ f...�1,�.�.l yr:._ r-I S-w •, ._• �— • rF l' -• - '/ / i ice` `-A\ ,( •*--V-�-_ ` J"(:n+rt`QO .Cr.':. I .�/'1• [• 1 /:•..',• •lyr / C• Q ._� t~ 7 _'•_. 1.;: 74sT-044Wfr :2,. 1.-:: ' :i. .'L'.-.,'...:- .:;:. / ' / ,..':, 0:..'-'--; "; '.' _ . ier," r�y � �� ':r f y am � t .- \ i‘ -44. ,i,,/I. .___:,..il 1 ........ . . ..; 8 -,_-:„. .,-._---,,-.. ..,.. .:-..-.-1, . _. . . , .L„, -:,......, r . , .,,,z-; - -z--71.,.v.........ra,..-j'-•=x-if. ' 1.,.. ' / r- '`.rn-.---.-317-V i \1C1)( 1—'7°---.---itiloo ' 11 �_ l`.Sr. 1, i I( ` '�/ice'_: ;Y, , �F ► rr . SLT ` •+sue=�. 0r (� 1 1 :::.::....:::.:* %, - li, ii ;itp. :, _ ___ . ---..6.,4.. •' . agar w. .. r •_ , • • . • 'r.`u 13�yveQ ; �1y:�' �r';�: �"+ . - + `- `'�rr^ +�` + r: � :s-',•_ :. iY�r IIi— .;c,p . • 4 C35 411 • CHR ASSOCIATES 4 4 4 4 ▪ i' ;■!,c; Dt:Vp:1 • McLENNAN'S FARM 4 • 4 • REPORT 0 PLANNED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT/ SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION • OCTOBER 9, 1987 CHR# 5774 1 ;:ror:.45sxrate.s.P.A. Creel(Cer.to P En aw e ALM; .nape!1-!-Lut. 4 nifrr:L706CriG133 cm;L TJL7 4 4 4 AnAur n Cogswod.FAY. ?t•s:ter!1:-..Lwtt..,:AIA Agno.:PE 9 112 T CUR 096 ASSOCIATES f McLennan's Farm Subdivision f Bowden Road at Old Greensboro Highway Chapel Hill Township f Orange County, North Carolina Tax Map 7.115.24 0 General Description f McLennan's Farm is a 2-acre + lot subdivision proposed for a f 37-acre parcel of land which is part of the Aubrey McLennan Farm. The project is located in southern Orange County with access to t Bowden Road approximately one-half mile south of Old Greensboro Highway. The site is characterized by gently rolling pasture land f and wood lots. The open spaces are predominantly covered with a lush growth of common bermuda grass formerly planted for grazing. f The wooded lots are dominated by hardwoods of the oak hickory association with sizes ranging from 6 to 36 inch caliper. Fairly 4 light understory growth is the rule except in the lower areas along the two intermittent streams where growth is dense. The •two 4 streams appear as intermittent on USGS Quadrangle maps and had very low flows during inspection after a few days of rain. • The development is characterized by a main entrance road to be 1 called McLennan's Farm Road. This road will have ten lots fronting on it. A short cul-del-sac to be named George Poe Road will provide access to the remaining four lots. McLennan's Farm Road terminates in a cul-de-sac but the right-of-way continues to M the north property line. It is anticipated that the land to the north will become available for development sometime in the 0 future, at which time the road will be extended to serve the additional property and connect with Old Greensboro Highway at Neville Road (see appendix C) an entrance sign of stone and wood along with a low wood fence and plantings is proposed for the entrance at Bowden Road. The fence will terminate at a pair of low stone walls paralleling the road at the first stream crossing. Existing vegetation will be almost entirely preserved, with some minor clearing at the cul-de-sacs of the two roads. Detailed planting plans showing street yard, side and rear yard plantings • in accordance with Orange Co. standards will be submitted with final plans. 40 • 4 n 113 Mc.ennan's Farm 097 Subdivision Page 2 Utilities The project is not located in OWASA's present service area, and. since it is in the University Lake protected watershed there are no current plans for extension of lines. Therefore, water and sewer service will be handled on site. Wastewater disposal will be handled by a low pressure system which collects wastewater at each lot and conveys it to a central community-owned nitrification field. This system is explained in further detail in the attached report by Craig Morgan, PE, our wastewater consultant. Domestic water will come from private individual wells installed by the lot purchasers. Since this area of the County does not have a good record of high flow wells, a community system is not deemed economically feasible. Electrical service will be supplied by Duke Power and will be underground along the road right-of-ways. Telephone and cable television lines will also be installed underground. A twelve foot easement is provided on either side of both roads for utilities. Storm Water Management Since the site is characterized by center slopes in the 2 to 10 percent range, we feel that stormwater will run slowly enough across land surfaces to provide infiltration for water quality purposes. Storm drainage from the new roads will be conveyed with shallow swales on the high side to numerous culverts located at natural drainways. Water flowing from the culverts will be dissipated with rip rap aprons and allowed to flow overland through areas of existing dense bermuda grass and woods, finally entering the existing natural streams. Detailed calculations of infiltration rates, swale and culvert design and outlet control will be provided with the submittal of final plans. Erosion control devices will be installed during construction operations in accordance with Orange County requirements. A detailed erosion control plan will be submitted along with final plans. Recreation/Open Space A tract of land 4.22 acres in size has been set aside for use as both a nitrification field and improved open space. This tract is about 70% open field and 30% woods. A jogging trail will be installed to connect with Mclennan's Farm Road and loop through the open space. Numerous exercise stations and picnic tables will 0 114 O 448 • r McL ennan's Farm Subdivision H Page 3 be provided thru its course. The lawn will be mowed and O maintained by the Homeowner's Association for use as an open play area. This tract will be provided for the private use of the A community, ,and the developer will pay a fee in lieu of dedicating public recreation space. 0 0 Financing and Overation 0 The developer will secure a loan for financing of the horizontal 0 improvements. This loan will be paid off through sale of lots to builders and individuals. A Homeowners Association will be set up with a monthly fee. This fee will go to a general fund which will pay for maintenance of common areas and facilities such as O entrance features, picnic tables, plantings, etc. Membership shall be required by all buyers. O • 0 Schedule 0 It is anticipate that a permit will be obtained in early April and construction will commence soon after. All roads, fences, 0 plantings, signs, utilities and recreational improvements will be installed at this time and should take two to three months to 0 complete. The State Department of Transportation will be petitioned to take over road maintenance as soon as a sufficient 0 number of homes are built. 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 cr A N • 115 APPENDIX A 0 Adjacent Property Owners 0 p T.M. 7.115.24 Aubrey McLennan Rte. 4, Box 477 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 D T.M. 7.115.9 Nettie Gambill Rte. 7, Box 315 Mooresville, North Carolina 28115 E D T.M. 7.117.2 Sadie Jones Rte. 5, Box 3 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 t T.M. 7.117.56 Charles Vincent r 6083 Guild Hall Ct. Burke, Virginia 22015 I' 4 D 4 1, • 116 100 APPENDIX B Land Areas • Tract Actual Square Footage d Lot 1 90,300 e Lot 2 88,500 0 Lot 4 Lot 3 88,725 Lot 5 89,500 • Lot 6 87,500 Lot 7 87,500 Lot 8 87,900 Lot 9 87,600 0 Lot 10 108,950 Lot 11 91 ,545 Lot 12 126,530 Lot 13 107,710 0 Lot 14 90,300 Open Space 187,100 Dedicated to Homeowner's Association 0 Right-Of-Way 116.500 Dedicated to State 0 TOTAL AREA 1 ,625,660 a 37.32 Acres 0 Gross Residential Land Area = 1 ,402,800 sf 0 Required Recreation Space (Gia x .031) = 43,487 sf Provided Recreation Space = 183,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0 4 wo .0 4) i) y • + • L "....- '''' •I' a••=-PlicT.C...Zir,,, ------.-0..--a.r...t_,A. 1 - ..,• ,/;17/7; n 110117 � ti - Fri N .�rriav "o -20ME a o I I 0 '' - p I a 511 1 O ; a ! .r4 i 1 rorA.. ,-.2.A_r = 47.16 AZ. a., 0770 0 I re r..r a = 1) ' ^i , St.7.L .4.:. yy pr p NI�� A:/.... I\ I1 I. D I'" I . izi 1 I A.G . 1� ." I rr..I I 1 i i lay; i ' I. w 1 F Y • 1 : w V 1 M V I - 7 1 - 0 i• 1. ' �! _ . ,,,rte 014 • r°—'a v.n�ar I M C L E N A N'S FARM °i := •-••(-7 rAf 140..Su 1 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT :- ,„ n ,„ tc„ %II . 1 \' 102 ....ago-i'-----' ---fl . \ • lti n 118 4:; . i . ., r i r:._ \ (JD : i r I \. / '' \ -" :: i p �•�•r y 0:i e i r r r , el....,. . .1" 01 --,. ...-' cvagfAv...4, D ' - TE, . .....F....1 0 4.. Ns, ''.1 I V I ' Ig.3 1 11177 es • . ' =, I li , cfl +• �. III ! © _ �' I ; . III ! 0 • IIII �� I Q . ■Li! .1 i i ' 0 Eton s y 0 rr 0: ®: . ®, . • . CA \ III i y i1.j 1 Q tsti - 1 I If, 1 I' I ,1I , 4 i 1� 1 fv I . 11:1 0 ' d . I , : 3 • ! �ti • �••O �� C:. 4 �` ,: i j . g ° r ∎ r S. • 1 II ;gi ti. :IL 1 i : • 0, -.-- E ;' ' E 1 . r 5 , y 119103 n 0 0 0 McLENNAN'S FARM SUBDIVISION 0 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 0 0 0 WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLANNING REPORT . liani\ 0 0 0 0 Prepared for: 0 0 0 - CHR Associates, P.A. 0 Bolin Creek Center imwmamNS)......1 Chapel Hill, North Caroina 27514 0 • 0 October,1987 - - 0 t ..._. .'1,',, t - • -• AL t • - ' 1 o R. �y�.p...4:CIN. -.. : •, 9/ v . - - q� k � B. "' er el,- Z CRAIG B. MORGAN & ASSOCIATES, PA. Consulting Engineers D - O .o«�T,e 4 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27707 . El lt Cr4r,rya stse - D 120 ' 1o4 0 McLENNAN'S FARM SUBDIVISION 0 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 0 WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN 0 Introduction 0 As urban development continues to spread outward beyond the existing 0 infrastructure support capabilities of local governments, developers must recognize their obligation to insure that their projects are planned and, 0 developed in such a manner that the environmental sensitivity of the area is preserved. 0 When a project is proposed within known "Areas of. Environmental Concern", 0 conventional approaches to development densities and infrastructure design may not be sufficient to the environmental preservation needs, of the 0 area. Consequently, new and more technically complex approaches must be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts and preserve the ecologi- 0 cal balance within and around the project area. 0 The planning and design of the McLennan's Farm Subdivision reflects the developers awareness of the sites environmental sensitivity and a 0 commitment to the development of a project which will exist in harmony with nature. 0 Background The McLennan's Farm Subdivision, as proposed, is a 14—lot subdivision � located off Bowden Road in southern Orange County. The project site is north of Neville Creek, which is a principal tributary to University 0, Lake. Consequently, the project site is in the secondary watershed area for University Lake and thus is regarded as an Area of Environmental Con- 0 cern relative to any land disturbance activity. 0 The proposed development is outside the current Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) sewer service area, and based on discussions with OWASA 4 representatives, sewer service expansion along Jones Ferry Road to Bowden Road is not anticipated within five years. Major factors affecting the extension of OWASA sewer service to the project area are: 4 1) Current sewer and water expansion moratorium in effect until April, 1989 for all reservoir watershed areas; 4 2) Project area is within the jurisdictional area for Orange County t' zoning. Under Orange County zoning regulations, no municipal sewers are being permitted within the watershed areas of University Lake; 3) Developers extend sewer systems at their own expense and then turn 4 systems. over to OWASA. Due to the high cost of sewer extension, such action is only feasible for large projects. G ` CRAIG B.MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES.P.A. ..� L 121 N105 ' Based on the site limitations for wastewater disposal, CHR Associates requested the N.C. Department of Human Resources and Orange County Health ' Department to conduct on-site soils suitability evaluations for septic tank treatment. Investigations concluded that individual, on-site septic systems could not be approved due to generally poor soils suitability. However, approximately 2.75 acres of land was found to have marginal soils suitable for subsurface soil absorption. The following sections present our recommended wastewater treatment plan and the project approach methodology required to implement the proposed action. Wastewater Process Recommendation The only viable alternative for wastewater treatment in this environment- ally sensitive area is a "cluster" septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) system concept with treatment by individual septic tank systems with centralized effluent collection and disposal by low pressure subsurface ' irrigation. The exact size of the system is determined by the area of suitable soil and the soil loading rate established by the Orange County Health Department. Wastewater collection would be provided by a small diameter, pressure sewer system. The proposed system would consist of the following components: 1) Individual residential septic tank/pump tank system (each lot); 2) Small diameter pressure sewer located in street right-of-way; 1 3) Central effluent processing and irrigation pumping system; and 4) Low pressure pipe, subsurface irrigation system (LPPS). Although this is not a widely used wastewater treatment concept, nonethe- less it is in use across the State and is regarded by State regulatory agencies as an acceptable method of treatment in areas with special soil or topographic conditions. A more in-depth explanation of the STEP system is provided in Exhibit A in the Appendix. Process Design Parameters The principal wastewater system design parameter influencing size and facility location are as follows: A. Origin & Flow 1 1) Service Area: 14 lots 2) Source of Waste Load: Single family residence 3) No. of Bedrooms/Residence: 3-1/2 bedrooms 4) Waste Load Assessment: 120 gpd/bedroom 5) Design Flow: 5,880 gpd l CRAIG S.MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES.P.A. 1 r 122 . . 4 ,106 4 B. Proposed Method of Treatment ♦ 1) Pre-Treatment (per lot): One 1,200-gal. septic tank One 1,200-gal. pump tank ♦ 2) Effluent Transport: Small diameter pressure sewer system ♦ 3) Effluent Disposal: LPP drainfield ♦ C. Process Design 4 1) Residential Septic Tank: 1,200 gals. 2) Residential Pump Tank: 1,200 gals. ♦ 3) Pressure Sewer System: 3" PVC 4) Irrigation Pump Station: 7,000 gal. capacity, quad- ♦ raplex pumps and controls 5) LPP Drainfields: 4 fields at 14,700 sq. ft. 4 each; 1002 reserve area State recommended design criteria for STEP sewage systems is provided as Exhibit B in the Appendix. 0 Process Operation 4 Domestic wastewater generated by single family homes on lots 1-14 will be discharged to a 1,200-gal., pre-cast concrete septic tank. The treated effluent will discharge to a second 1,200-gal. septic tank, which is *. equipped with a submersible ejector pump and pump controls. Each lot shall have its own septic tank/pump tank system. Each pump tank will discharge to a pressure sewer collection system located in the street right-of-way. The sewer will serve all 14, lots and will transport the septage effluent to a central process pumping facility. 9 The central process-pumping facility shall be a masonry block tank with 0 three separate chambers. Chamber 1 shall be designed for surge equaliza- tion and emergency storage. Chamber 2 shall house three static plate separators (Zabel Filters) which will reduce the effluent suspended solids level by nearly 40 percent. Chamber 3 shall be a quadraplex pumping chain- a ber equipped with mercury float level control switches. Pump operation and dosing will be regulated by a main control panel located above ground,- - at the pump tank. The treated effluent is then discharged to two of four drainfields, the alternate dosing of which is regulated by the control panel. The drain- fields have a soil loading capacity of 0.10 gpd/sq. ft. and a total field area of 58,300 sq. ft. Operation and maintenance of the system will be provided by a private contract operation and management firm, who operates the system in accord- ance with State criteria. • 9 9 • CRAIG B.MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES,P.A. 4 • 12" Nk 107 Process Management The "cluster" STEP system concept of wastewater treatment requires that ♦ the service area establish a governing body to oversee the care and regu- latory compliance of the system. It will be necessary for the McLennan's ♦ Farm Subdivision to create a homeowners association for the purpose of maintaining the subdivision's wastewater system. The developer's attorney ♦ will draft special covenants to insure equal representation by all lot owners. A monthly service charge shall be assessed to cover contract operation, maintenance and management, as well as any capital expenditures associated with maintenance repair and regulatory compliance. ♦ Project Implementation Under the "cluster" STEP wastewater management system proposed herein, the 4 developer will install the pressure sewer collection system, extend sewer service connections to each lot, construct the central effluent processing 4 and pumping station, and construct the 58,800 sq. ft. LPP drainfield system. The individual on-site septic/pump tank installations will be the respon- / sibility of each lot owner. The residential pre-treatment systems will be installed in accordance with subdivisional standard specifications, compliance with which will be monitored by the Association's wastewater system manager and the Orange County Health Department. Engineer's Overview Statement The "cluster" STEP wastewater system has been successfully designed, per- t' mitted and constructed by Craig B. Morgan & Associates, P.A. The project was a 14-lot cluster within First Flight Village in Kill Devil Hills, 1 North Carolina. The 14 lots were located adjacent to Croatan Sound and were within 100 feet of designated wetland areas. 1 The implementation of the STEP system concepts permitted safe development 1 of lands which were considered to be Areas of Environmental Concern. The process design and technology application was reviewed by the Dare County 1 Health Department, Office of Coastal Area Management (CAAA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Department of Human Resources. The "cluster" STEP system is specially suited to the Y P Y project site require- ! ments of the McLenanan's Farm Subdivision and should comply with the goals of the Orange County Planning Board with regard to providing optimum envi- e ronmental protection within a developing Area of Environmental Concern. 1 1 • 4 4 CRAIG B.MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES.P.A. d, 4 1 `�4 1Q k 4 4 i 4 4 4 APPENDIX 4 EXHIBIT A - Pressurized Alternative Wastewater System - Septic Tank Effluent Pumping EXHIBIT B - N.C. Department of Human Resources Draft Design Criteria for STEP Systems 4 9 9 CRAIG B.MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES.P.A. 9 • ' . . 12 4 10 t- Pressurized Alternative Wastewater ♦ c • 4 (Septic Tank Effluent Pumping) • 4 ♦ FULFILLING A NEED CONCEPT DEFINITION Although many sanitary consulting • 1.1 One of the most difficult problems engineers have had some ex- , for today's individual home builder perience with pressure sewers, there 4 and residential developers is finding are others who have had little exposure available land for building homes to the concept. Therefore, as a start, 4 that will readily lend itself to sewage let's define a pressure sewer system. disposal either by on-site systems _ or gravity sewers. The price of good A pressure sewer is sometimes 4 land for development has become described as a potable water system so expensive in many areas that it in reverse. By this, we mean a water 4 has forced the individual builder and system will have one inlet pressuri- zation point and a number of end on what is referred to as undesirable user connections, while a pressure ' 4 land. These areas can be normally sewer will normally have a pressuriz- described as rocky, contain major ed inlet point at each end user con- 4 elevation differences and may have nection and one discharge outlet at high water tables. In addition, soil a treatment plant or discharge point. 4 structures in many areas of the The number of end user connections United States do not lend themselves could be anywhere from a few to to on-site treatment systems. several thousand. 4 It is universally recognized that there A pressure sewer system is made up 4 is a major need for a more econom- ical method of collecting, transport- A. Pump package system (basin, ing and treating sewage other than pump piping, controls, control . gravity sewers.This would be espec- panel, alarm) pally true in areas containing rock, B. Service lines and force mains 4 rough terrain, sparsely settled and C. Discharge treatment point high water table areas. There are two primary types of • pumps used in pressure sewers. One of the most viable alternatives One is referred to as a grinder pump 4 to gravity sewers that has gained a (GP) and the other an effluent pump great deal of attention over the past (STEP) which is located in or behind 4 several years is the concept of pres- a septic tank The major difference sure sewer systems.There have been between the two pump types is how over 150 of these systems (100-1500 the solids are handled. 4 connections) installed since 1970 with a large number currently under In the case of GP units, the solids 4 evaluation, design, or installation. are ground into a slurry and pumped to a discharge point. Pressure sewers under the US-EPA t With a STEP grants program are defined as alter- pump, the settleable solids and 4- native systems, but not innovative - most of the grease accumulation since their performance and reli-. remain in the septic tank. Conse- 4_ ability has been proven in over 14 quently, the STEP pump conveys a- years of operation. fairly clear effluent to the discharge point. . - ■ _ _ _ 1 �• CRAIG B.AAORGAN AND ASSOCIATES.P.A.- 1 4 ■ 110 4 4 Service lines from the pump basin Elevated Drain Fields- In this situa- 4 to the street are usually 1-%" I.D. tion, the soil conditions near the Type I Schedule 40 PVC solvent welded home are not acceptable for a drain pipe. Force mains will normally be SDR26 and 5DR21 PVC pipe with field. Consequently, the effluent is ♦ pumped to another location on the elastomeric sealed joints running property which has acceptable soil 4 anywhere from 1-W" to 6" 1.0. in conditions. size, depending on the number of Alternate Drain Fields- In this case, + house connections. Occasionally, one drain field is not quite adequate polyethylene pipe is used for the for proper field disposal. A second force mains, especially in extremely drain field is installed and the two 4 cold climates. fields are alternated by using a valve and a STEP pump. ♦ Septic tank effluent flowing from a Cluster Concept- In this application. STEP pressure sewer can be dis- a cluster of several homes will install 4 charged to a gravity manhole, treat- septic tanks and STEP pumps. The ment plant, lagoon or large drain effluent is then pumped by a field. However, if discharging to a common force main to a drain field gravity manhole, care must be taken located some distance from the to handle potential odor and corro- individual homes. 4 Sion problems generating from septic Dosing Fields - In this application, tank effluent. Due to the reduction it has been shown that the effluent 4 in .organic and hydraulic loadings, from the septic tank may not flow the cost of treatment would be lower properly by gravity throughout the in comparison to conventional gravity drain pipe.By installing a STEP pump flow. the drain field is dosed by pressure generated by the pump insuring that 9 APPLICATIONS FOR the effluent reaches the entire drain field. y . EFFLUENT PUMPS In pressure sewer applications we There are basically two markets for normally define a pressure sewer as j STEP pumps. One is referred to as a system containing at least 25 pumps onesy-twosy(OT) applications. Here, discharging into a common force 9 we mean that only one or a few main.Most residential STEP pressure STEP pumps will be installed in a sewers are designed with one pump given application. The other market per home. In some pressure systems 4 area is pressure sewer applications. there will be multiple residential con- Specific STEP applications in the nections to one simplex or duplex * OT market would be as follows: STEP pump. Apanments/Condos Trailer Parks Due to the administrative problems 4 Schools Small Office . of who pays for power,where power Small Motels Buildings Interstate Rest Small Hospitals is connected,obtaining right-of-ways, Stops Nursing Homes etc., the majority of STEP pressure Individual Homes Campgrounds sewers being installed are using one Intermediate Pump State and Federal pump per home. The decision on Stations Parks single or multiple pump connections Restaurants Industrial Plants will be up to the design engineer 4 The OT applications for effluent .and his client based on their specif- pumps differs from grinder pump is needs. Specific applications for applications as they would relate to STEP pressure sewers are: 0 discharge.In OT grinder applications the sewage is, in most cases, being I discharged to a collection system •Small rural commund1ef and ultimately to a treatment plant. •Tr Trailer parks RV campgrounds In STEP OT applications,the effluent •outer Suburbs is usually being discharged to a •Isolated pockets within cities (low lying drain field. areas) a •Recreational lake developments Over the past several years, there . ,as co condo c`on'es%es• have been a number of OT STEP •Smau variable gravity sewers applications that have been developed that utilize an effluent pump. Some * typical examples are: _RA M. _ _� __ 2 N.—. CIG S. ORGAN AND ASSOCIATES,P.A. 1 0 . i S 1 I em/ / 4 EFFLUENT PUMPING . For maximum corrosion resistance. EQUIPMENT FOR the discharge piping, junction box PRESSURE SEWERS and shutoff valve are made of plastic ✓ materials. Mercury ball level controls In grinder pump pressure sewer are standard. Some engineers speci- + systems there has been only one size ty a redundant check valve to be lo- centrifugal grinder pump (2 hp) avail- cared in service line for added able for installation at the individual protection. An anti-siphoning valve O home. However, in a STEP pressure is added to the internal piping if low sewer, the engineer can choose from heads or negative heads (downhill $ a variety of horsepowers and sizes. runs) are expected to prevent any STEP pumps can be 1/3, .4, 1/2, 1, siphoning action. In most cases, the 1-1/2 and 2 hp, depending on the cover is made of steel so that it can O head and flow requirements.The per- withstand the weight of a riding lawn formance, weight, and cost of the mower. Pump basin covers are nor- O STEP pumps increase as horse- mally installed flush with the ground power increases. The STEP pumps level. An anti-flotation flange held that are available are basically sump by concrete is provided to prevent ♦ pumps, small hp sewage ejectors or the basin from moving upward in modifications thereof. , highwater table areas. 0 One of the drawbacks of currently • available STEP pumps is that they generate much higher flows than PERFORMANCE needed. As an example, a 1/2 hp 4 STEP pump can generate up to 80 Since STEP pumps are pumping a gpm with shut oft heads to 78 feet. clarified liquid from a septic tank, y Since the peak wastewater flow there is usually very little problem generated from an average individual with the pump plugging.The risk of home is no more than 8-15 gpm,you plugging is greater if an old septic 4 can see that the flow rates are much tank is used which is generating higher than needed. The high flow heavy flows and possibly some carry 4 rates make it more difficult to hydrau- over solids due to infiltration. lically design a pressure sewer and will increase pipe sizes. In addition, iAt one time, it was assumed that the high flow rates of the standard a high percentage of old septic tanks effluent pumps can create problems could be utilized as part of a STEP * when discharging into a variable pressure sewer. Now, the consensus gravity sewer system. of opinion is that the majority of old 4 septic tanks should be replaced with new ones. One of the problems Septic tanks can be made of fiber- in using old septic tanks is the owes- * glass,polyethylene or concrete. Con- tion of how do you determine if the crete is the most readily available. tank is leaking. By the time you 4 The most common size used is 1000 pump out the septic tanks, find the gallons,although 500 and 750 gallon leak and repair it (assuming this can ' size tanks have been used in some be accomplished), it may be less pressure systems. In commercial expensive to put in a new septic tank. applications, larger size septic tanks - 4 will be required. Two potential problems associated with STEP systems are corrosion - Variations of an audio and visual and odors. As previously indicated, alarms are used, although the most corrosion can be overcome by popular and cost-effective is a red . choice of materials. Since the septic y flashing alarm light mounted on con- tank is vented through the house trol panel. Most all control panels plumbing system, no outside venting 4 with a disconnect switch are located is required. Care must be taken to outside so they will be easily acces- . insure the cover to the wet well is sible to the serviceman. The prefer- sealed properly. Odors can be a 4 able location of the panel and alarm problem at intermediate pump sta- is on the side of the home or garage tions if vented to atmosphere. This to minimize aesthetic concerns of can be solved by installing an under- the home owner. If desired, the ground venting system. 4 panel can be located at the septic tank/pump basin and mounted on a pedestal. 4 _ __ 3 y CFtA1G B.MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES,P.A.- e 4 4 , 128 �2 d SYSTEMS DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ✓ where as gravity lines must be Once the design engineer has made a decision to design a pressure aligned in a continuous down- • sewer system, he must then decide ward slope. Deep cuts for gravity on design parameters that would lines become quite expensive, effect the operation of the system, especially where rock and high i The most important considerations water tables are present. C. Narrow and Shallow Trenches - would be design flow, friction loss. • pump type, scouring velocity and Pressure sewer service lines and air venting. force mains can be easily installed inr narrow trenches just below the • frost line. In the case of the Friction losses are determined by Sunbelt states, the pipe has to be • the Hazin-Williams method with laid deep enough for mechanical appropriate C factor. A C factor of protection. 4 150 is used most frequently in STEP D. Minimum Equipment & Labor • pressure sewer designs. A scouring , Pressure sewers can be installed velocity of 2 to 5 f/sec. is normally • with a trencher and backhoe. The II recommended for the service lines force mains usually are installed and force mains. However, since a in the right-of-ways along the road. 4 high percentage of solids and grease In comparison, gravity sewer in- is left in the septic tank, some en- stallations require large power gineers use a minimum scouring • shovels and it may be necessary to install the mains in the streets. velocity of 1 f/sec. Air venting is Labor and equipment require- important to prevent binding at the ments to handle large diameter high points of the pressure mains. gravity sewer pipe in comparison . There is a limit to how many homes to small PVC pipe can be substan- tially higher. can be paralleled together in one E. Road and Bridge Crossings - 4 system depending on pump head Small diameter pressure sewer capabilities and the TDH require- service lines and pressure mains • ments of the system. About 500 can be bored under roads with homes would be the upper limit with minimum difficulty (assuming no relatively flat topography. rock) since precise slope and align- ment are not critical. Small force ADVANTAGES OF EFFLUENT mains can be installed across � bridges without the use of pump PRESSURE SEWERS • stations. If freezing is of concern. VERSUS GRAVITY the small pipe can be insulated A.Small Diameter Plastic Pipe-One F. Reduction or Elimination of Pump 4 of the advantages of pressure Stations and Manholes - Another sewers over gravity systems is the advantage of pressure sewers is ability to use small diameter the ability to eliminate manholes plastic pipe for the service lines and pumping stations within limit- and force mains. In pressure ations of the grinder pumps head 4 systems,the service line is normal- capabilities. Manholes are not ly 1-14" I.D. and 1-1/2" to 6" I.D. required with pressure sewers. 4 • for force mains. This is in.com- _ However, a valve box is recom- parison to gravity service lines of . mended about every 1000 feet or 4" and 6"and gravity mains up to ' major change in direction. If inter- 4 14" and 16" for a comparable mediate pump stations are re- number of house connections. quired in a pressure sewer system, 4 Consequently, there is a major they are usually much smaller cost advantage in the piping col- pumps and wetwells due to lower lection system for pressure sewers flow requirements. 4 versus gravity. G.Infiltration & Inflow - One of the B. Pipe Alignment - Based on the major problems with gravity sewers 4 pumping capability of the pump, is the problem of heavy infiltration the service lines and force mains . due to broken pipe and leaky can run up and downhill following joints. In the flooding seasons this 4 the contour (within shutoff head can cause problems at the treat- limitations) of the topography 4 __ _ _ _ __ 4 ., CRAIG B.MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES,P.A.• de a 4 4 , 12 l. 113 + ment plant by overloading the chanical equipment which will treatment system due to the heavy have to be serviced in perpetuity. inflows. In the case of pressure This is especially true when an • sewers, infiltration is virtually individual pump system is installed eliminated due to the design of a at each home. However, a STEP • tight system throughout. pump can be looked upon as H. Service Connections - In older another appliance and is subject communities, the septic tanks are to the same ongoing service 0 usually located in back of homes requirements as a home furnace. with the house plumbing oriented refrigerator, hot water heater, etc. 0 to the back.This can create a prob- Obviously, with the amount of lem of installing a gravity sewer equipment involved, it is important line to the street without changing to have a service capability estab- the house plumbing. On the other fished to handle it. This can be hand, the STEP system will utilize done by a service department • the old septic tank or replace it within the sewer authority, or local with a new one. The service line service center established by the • can be laid around the house to manufacturer or local pump the street at a minimum cost using representative. small diameter PVC pipe. B Power Outages-With the holding 0 I.Treatment Plant Size- If the treat- capacity of the pump basin and ment plant is being designed to the freeboard area of the septic d handle flow from a pressure sewer tank, the homeowner has in system only, the size can be excess of 24 hours storage • reduced over normal design require- capacity, if the power goes off. ments due to the elimination of Since the national average power infiltration and inflow, outage is around 2 hours this will J. Water Conservation-Since water provide adequate storage unless conservation is gaining a great the power is oft for several days. • in many Hopefully, the homeowner would deal of attention y parts of refrain from washing clothes and the country, the value of pressure $ 0 sewers in this regard becomes an taking to minimize e a during rob time important consideration. By elim- frame to minimize any problems. import infiltration consideration. and inflow, the With a gravity collections system, amount fi water and inflow, i , re- the homeowner can continue to duced considerably.Since no man- use standby sewage system available to 0 holes are used in pressure sewers, operate power in a taiio s d the drain wastewater from wash- operate the pumping stations and inn cars and lawn watering doesn't potable water is still available. end up being polluted by the C. Power Costs - With the ongoing domestic sewage and is returned increase in power costs, a home- 4 in part to the water table. owner is concerned about any K. Land Planning - Public officials equipment that will increase his in rural areas can limit the amount electric bill by any substantial of population expansion in a corn- amount. Since a simplex STEP munity by the amount of potential pump only operates on the aver- growth that is sized into the ores- age of 10-15 minutes a day, the annual power cost will be under sure sewer mains. This alleviates - some of the fear of rapid growth $10.00 a year, based on an aver- -0 if gravity sewers are installed. age kilowatt per hour cost of six Since pressure sewers are more cents. 4 adaptable to hilly, rocky and high D.Aesthetics of System - Some water table areas. the developer homeowners are concerned about has more flexibility in laying out the their yard. i the theip assn his lots for maximum lot-sales in their yard. Sinus the basin dollars in comparison to some cover is buried flush with the restrictions with gravity. ground,it is difficult to notice from the road.Control panels with alarms . V DISADVANTAGES OF are attached to the sides of the EFFLUENT PRESSURE home,making them inconspicuous except if visual alarm is 4 SEWERS VERSUS GRAVITY _ activated. The e homeowner owner may y 4 A. Mechanical Equipment- Probably also be concerned about the the major concern of installing a damage to the premises when in- pressure sewer system is the ad- stalling the basin and service line. * dition of a large amount of me- CRAIG B.MOAGANAND ASSOCIATES,P.A. 4 4 .130 T f • t 114. $ Actually, restoration is less of a up, the STEP pump should operate problem than with installing a 4" up to 10-15 years before major over- or 6" gravity service line due to haul will be required (replace seals, • the narrow and shallow trenches bearings, motor). During the interim required. some pumps will require service but • E. Operating Problems - Once a this should be in the range of 1% of pressure sewer system is started units in operation per year. This • up and any initial problems are means that if you have 1,000 units in Corrected, the system will require a given project you could expect ongoing service as with any other approximately 10 service calls per • sewer system.Occasionally a pump year on the pump. This percentage will plug when some large solid would increase accordingly as you object such as a propylactic gets approached 10 years of operation. by the septic tank baffle. However, this is a rare occurance. Grease In addition to the pump, there will * does not present a potential prob- be service requirements for other lem of fouling controls as in the problems, such as control failures, • case of grinder pressure sewers occasional pump plugging, pump air since most of the grease remains lock, etc. These types of nuisance in the septic tank. It must be problems can usually be corrected * remembered that the septic tank at the installation site and will ac- of a STEP pressure sewer will count for another 3% of service calls 0 continue to accumulate solids. per year. This, in conjunction with This will require that the septic pump failure service calis, would add tank be pumped periodically. up to 4% service calls per year for 4 Based on past experience the pump*systems in operation. pump-out cycle should be 10 » years or greater using a 1000 It is a general consensus of opinion gallon septic tank. The septage that a once a year preventive main- * can be used as a soil conditioner tenants program is helpful to reduc- or fertilizer under proper treat- ing potential service problems. This merit and control. would include removing cover, oper- 4 ate pump manually, exercise shutoff OPERATION & valve, check alarm system and meas.. ure sludge level of septic tank. M MAINTENANCE One important step to reduce poten- The most important consideration in tial service calls is the education of installing a STEP pressure sewer the homeowners. It is very helpful 4 system, aside from capital costs, is to distribute a pamphlet to the public the effect and cost of ongoing main- describing how a pressure sewer tenance. It is generally recognized works and what the homeowner 1 that pressure sewers will require should do in case of a failure. A list more maintenance than a convention- of 'Do's and Don'ts' will reduce the • al sewer system due to the large possibility of the user discharging amount of mechanical equipment on unwanted items into the drain system, •hand. This is especially true if you such as towels, panty hose and cloth- are installing a pump system at each ing articles. Although the STEP individual home,which would be the pump is designed to handle small >A case in over 80%of pressure sewers solids within reasonable limits, it is installed to date. better to keep such articles out of • Since the induct has over 14 years . either conventional gravity sewers or industry y pressure sewers whenever possible of field experience with STEP pres- . In the case of a STEP pressure sure sewer operation, it is possible • sewer, most of the heavy solids will to offer some observations on their settle to the bottom of the septic tank. a operation and sewer requirements. . If a pressure sewer is designed prop- Experience has indicated that the maintenance cost t a erly, installed correctly and quality maintain the service lines and force mains is negli- • pump equipment is utilized, the sys- gible. Occasionally a pipe is frozen N tern will perform satisfactorily. The or a pipe broken due to excavation submersible centrifugal STEP pump . work in the area. is the most reliable component with- a in the pump system. Once any bugs are worked out of system on start a CRAIG B.MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES,P.A. ! • . . . _ i1,5 131 4 RECOMMENDED DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMPS . (STEP) SEWAGE SYSTEMS 0 0 A. Septic Tank CI PA 1 . Use two-compartment tank, sized and constructed in accordance with sewage regulations. 0 2. Extend access manhole above sanitary tee to ground surface. i B. Pump Tank 1 . Tank must be large enough to provide: ♦ - 12 inches of pump submergence, minimum; - 3-minute minimum pump run time (15 gallon per minute minimum pump flow - rate) ; - full day of emergency storage capacity above high-water alarm on level . 0 This may include septic tank freeboard capacity, if effluent will remain below ground and below building drain outlet invert. 4 2. Tank must be sealed, watertight tank (fiber glass or one-piece, precast- septic tank or special provisions for assuring watertight tank indicated) . 4 3. Anti-buoyancy provisions must be adequate. 4. ; All pipe and wire conduits into tank must be through hubs or fittings made during the construction of the tank and installed in a watertight and gastight fashion. 4 5. Tank access riser must extend at least six inches above finished grade. 4 C. Pump 1 . Must be an effluent pump capable of delivering at least 15 gallons per minute at the expected total dynamic head at each station. 2. All pumps in a single STEP system-must be the same model and size. 3. Pumps must be activated by mercury level control switch(es) . 4. Pump discharge pipe must be of Schedule 40 PVC, or stronger material , and include a check valve, disconnect union, and gate valve within the pump tank. Pump must be readily removable from the ground surface. y D. Wires must be conveyed to a watertight (NEMA 4X) , outside, vandal-resistant junction box through waterproof and gasproof conduits, with no splices made inside the lift station. Junction box may be mounted on the outside of the lift station riser above the ground surface. 0 9 4 4 132 Recommended Design Criteria for Septic Tank Effluent Pumps (Cont.) Page 2 . . 116 + E. Control panel must be mounted on the side of the house nearest the pump + tank and readily accessible. 1 . Panel must be in a NEMA 4X, vandal -resistant enclosure. 2. Panel must be U.L. listed and include a pump run light and hand-off- automatic (H-O-A) switch. . • • 3. An audible and visible high-water alarm must be provided. The visible d alarm must be visible from the road. The audible alarm must be audible • inside the house and may be located in the house. 4. Two separate circuits must be supplied from- the main house electrical panel--one circuit for the pumps and pump controls and one circuit for the high-water alarm. F. Service laterals must be of Schedule 40 PVC, or stronger material , and • must include a check valve and gate valve within a valve box adjacent to the property line, prior to connecting into the force main. I. G. Force main must include a cleanout at the end and at least every 500 feet. • *. Air re ease valves must be provided at any high spots along the line. • H. Surge storage tank must be provided in front of the final common dosing tank with liquid capacity of at least 10 percent the total required septic tank capacity for the project as a whole to give further solids retention in case of upset at one or more of the individual lift stations. I . Legal Arrangements/Ooeration'and Maintenance'Requirements 1 . Developer or owners association must be responsible for installing the individual lift stations and for continuous station maintenance. They 4 • must retain easements permitting access and maintenance to each lift station and to the electrical controls. iO 2. Developer or owners association must retain a licensed wastewater treat- ment plant operator to be responsible for operation and maintenance of the entire system, including individual lift stations and maintenance 00 of individual septic tanks. 00 3. An inventory of at least 10 percent of the active pumps, level control floats, and complete control panels must be maintained by the developer 00 or owners association and readily available to the system operator. 00 4. The tri-party agreement among the developer, owners association, and health department must clearly indicate ownership, operation and main- * tenance requirements for the individual lift stations. 4 SB/gb 00 Nov. , 1986 I 4 • .1 AlpN Orange County Recreation and Parks Department 117 300 West Tryon Street • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 r •��c�� ._ ,,a,,, ife.Bernt. Mary Anne Black, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Szymik, Planner III FROM: Mary Anne Black %;7110,5 DATE: November 9, 1987 RE: Courtesy Review — McLennan's Farm ( PD-2) Chandler Concrete (PD-4) Upon review of the preliminary plan for the proposed Planned Development within the JPA (McLennan's Farm) please be advised that I would recommend that the County Commissioners accept payment-in-lieu of the required dedication of land for public recreation and park purposes. The designated "open space/intrification field" needs to be carefully maintained and operated by some entity such as a homeowner's association, especially if exercise stations are installed. I see no element(s) on the Chandler`Concrete preliminary plan warranting comment from a recreation and park perspective. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these staff comments. I will present my recommendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their December meeting and will forward to you any changes/additional comments they may have. MAB/pbl CC: Lorraine Parker, Chair, Recreation & Parks Advisory Council Telephones: 919 732-8181 • 919 967-9251 • 919 688-7331 • 919 227-2031 1L�I�IDY PENDERGRASS ri<,'b. 11• Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 Residence Phone: 929-5535 To: Orange County Planning Department Prom: Shen.ibb Lindy Pendengnass Re: Law itnboncement Senv.ices i=on McLennan's Faun Date: Octaben 8, 1987 Fan Fiscal yeah 1986, the Orange County Shen.ibb'4 Department responded to 17,022 cats ban senv.ice countywide. County Planning population bigunes show appnox.ima thj 45,000 persons Listed within the county. Based on these b.Lgunes the natio ob catt4 bon senv.Lce countywide .( .37 calls pen person. The proposed McLennan's Farm project .c.s in an undeveloped area, thene- bone, a countywide avenge must be applied. Maten.iaZ bunn.ished to Orange County Shetiii's Department .indicate (15) dwellings to be constn.ucted in this 4ubdiv.cs.ian. Based on county iigunes 45 persons wilt Likely occupy these homes. • using the county av era g a this will g enerva to 16.5 ctW.a Lan. 4 env.ice bon this anew On one yeah. Each call nequ nes an average ob 45 minutes to respond and c teat. Th i.6 woad generate 12.3 manhouns bon responding to catt4 bon s e2v.ice in this anew. The addition ob this project and the projected 12.3 manhouns will not, by .ttseC1, cause a s.ign.ib.icant .impact on the ability ob the Orange County Shetibb's Department to provide service bon this area. However, this combined with other pnopas ed projects in this area could cause the need bon additional manpowe2 to maintain the cunnent .Levels ob se'w.ice. LP:ti cc: Daniel: A. Jaya CHR Ass o c.iate6 300 Botin Creek Chapel Hitt, N.C. 27514 135 ORANGE COUNTY p f WED 119 HILLSBOROUGH to- $7 NORTH CAROLINA 27278 EMERGENCY SERVICES 106 EAST MARGARET LANE Established 1752 M E M O R A N D U M T0: Greg Szimik SUBJECT: E.M.S. Coverage FROM: Bobby Baker DATE: October 7, 1987 South Orange Rescue Squad and Orange County Emergency Services will provide E.M.S. coverage for the proposed development on Bowden Road in Orange County. cc: Daniel Jewell 300 Bolin Creek Center P.O. Drawer 2678 Chapel Hill,NC 27514 I 136 Fs] MJE D 120 io w % WHITE CROSS VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC. ROUTE ONE CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 October 9, 1987 Mr. Greg Szimik Orange County Planning Department Churton Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Project: McLennan's Farm Project # 5774 Bowden Rd @ Old Greensboro Hw. Dear Mr. Szimik After reviewing the plans and looking at the site of the above • proposed subdivision, we can adequately service this subdivision providing the streets and driveways are large enough to accomodate fire department equipment. I Yours truly, ())t1vrra. Wayne Wiles President Copy: Daniel A. Jewell ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 137 306F REVERE ROAD L 121 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 '•/ a r•r•rr MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Szymik FROM: Warren Faircloth , Erosion Control ,Officer SUBJECT: McLennan ' s Farm Subdivision DATE: November 5, 1987 This project requires the submission of a stormwater management plan for controlling the first half inch of runoff and the peak rate of the 10-year 24-hour storm. The subdivi - sion;nrjeets the minimum lot size for controlling the first halfnof runoff . The large lot size and use of grassed swales may contribute to controlling,, the peak rate of runoff , but a plan must be submitted showing how the peak rate will be controlled. The amount of disturbance to construct the new road and and nitrification field will require submittal and approval of an erosion control plan prior to the start of construction . I see no conditions that should prevent the successful design and implementation of a plan. lL�d � 138 C 122 d,.sr4G rte 1 D i r*I7 kifiEB • STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G.MARTIN October 29, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS,P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Mr. Greg Szymik Orange County Planning Department- 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Preliminary Plan for McLennan's Farm Off SR 1946 (Bowden Road) Dear Mr. Szymik: This office has reviewed the subject preliminary plan and offers the following recommendations: 1. Have property lines follow the sight triangles at SR 1946 (Bowden Road) if possible. 2. If a divided entrance is used, enough right-of-way must be dedicated to accomodate a six (6) foot shoulder and a ditchline with 2:1 slopes (see attached typical section). Please be aware if the island is not satisfactorily maintained by someone involved with the subdivision, the island will be removed. The Division of Highways will not maintain-any island or median section. 3. Sight easement shall be provided at intersection of George Poe Road and McLennan's Farm Road. 4. Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11 must have driveways off. George Poe Road. 5. If McLennan's Farm Road is extended, cul-de-sac right-of-way shall revert back to property owners. An Cn,, l M�n.a,..:•.•I Af+:...•�:••r, n��:��[.....�....... 139 123 Mr. Greg Szymik October 29, 1987 Page 2 The proposed horizontal alignment and sight distance appear to meet minimum standards. The above recommendations are noted in red on the attached plan. Please review these recommendations and re—submit revised plans to this office for further review. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, J M. Mills, P. E. ISTTICT ENGINEER JMM/SPI:jbh Atta. cc: Mr. Leon Todd with attachment. 140 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA SUBJECT f-aTT,L.C,4M1 �T `, A•, - 12 4 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION / PROJECT DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS �� /r �i C� ', A r7 COUNTY HIGHWAY BUILDING PREPARED BY _ DATE STATION P. 0. BOX 25201 I RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27611 CHECKED BY. DATE STR NO..- _,.. SHEET OF j I I � I ! I i 1 I ■ I I + � ! � I -,- j j .�`____�_`i_ I ! I •! ! 4 ! I i ; I ! 1 i 1 i � ! I 1 j I .I I- � — — II L_ i - ! 1- - "- H I I I I I `C j"r i i I I _� i�. TI ' i' I ! I . I I I ! I • ! I I I I i 1 YI j + i I I -� I o�: . ! ! I I _ w i I , I 1 j I £ , �:---- - i • I , I I I j I I n I 11 1 ; 1 I t_ i I I r . 1 I I I t i 1 w I ■ a j I I - !n I ( I I I I `4, I 1. ; I I I 1 j i I I ! i I j I I 111 ; I YII I + � � I � i ll I -I I I 1 1111 I I 1 1 •. ( : I . I I I I I 1 1 1 i l 1 I I I l I ——f � I � 1 I I j . 1 i '1 i( -I I I 1 I •-I- I I 7 • V 4_ I t I.- . - I a I._•-1'- . ... 6 125 Orange Water and Sewer Authority - 7 400 Jones Ferry Road f OWASA P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 November l6,- 1987 Mr. Marvin E. Collins Director Planning Department Orange County 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 - Dear Marvin: Thank you very much for providing Orange Water and Sewer Authority (NASA) with the site plan and subsurface wastewater disposal system information relative to the proposed McLennan's Farm Subdivision project. OWASA staff has reviewed this proposal and comments relative to the project are described in the attached report. The Board of Directors of OWASA has not had the opportunity to review and consider the proposed project and the enclosed staff comments. However, the Board of Directors has previously expressed concern about the increasing dependence upon community wastewater disposal systems, such as that proposed for this project, and may wish to submit additional comments relative to the project. Your consideration of these comments is appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning OWASA staff's position on this project. Si c re , Patrick K. Davis Assistant to the Executive Director wp Enclosure cc: CWASA Board of Directors Everett Billingsley Albert Kittrell, Acting County Manager, Orange County Robert Morgan, Town Manager, Town of Carrboro David R. Taylor, Town Manager, Town of Chapel Hill An Equal Opportunity Employer 126 ORANGE WATER AND SEVER AUTHORITY CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MCLENNAN'S FARM SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL INCLUDING THE PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM November 16, 1987 Introduction Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) has reviewed plans for the McLennan's Farm Subdivision project, including preliminary information describing the proposed wastewater disposal system. This 14-lot residential development is planned to be located west of Carrboro, within the University Lake watershed. The project is located near Neville Creek, a major tributary to the lake which serves as the Chapel Hill - Carrboro community's primary drinking water supply. The project will result in increased nonpoint pollution from additional automobile traffic, soil disturbance and other activities. Additionally, the wastewater treatment and disposal system proposed to be utilized could result in adverse impacts on surface and ground water quality. Full assurances must be provided that this development, including the wastewater disposal system utilized, will not result in degradation or contamination of public and private drinking water supplies. OWASA staff offers the following comments and recommendations concerning the development plan and proposed wastewater treatment and disposal system for the McLennan's Farm Subdivision. Many of these comments are applicable to all development projects which propose to utilize subsurface and alternative wastewater disposal systems in public water supply watersheds. Comments on Wastewater Disposal System: 1. OWASA is not opposed to the utilization of subsurface soil absorption systems in public water supply watersheds where it is fully documented that the system is properly designed and long-term assurances are provided that the system will be well operated and maintained. The information provided on the proposed wastewater disposal system is inadequate to assure the long-term reliability of this system. Additional investigation is needed. The project engineer has reported that soils within the project area are only "marginally" suitable for subsurface wastewater disposal purposes. Furthermore, these soils are located in an environmentally sensitive area- the University Lake public water supply watershed. The proposed location for the wastewater absorption field area appears to be less than desirable for such a system due to soil limitations, slopes and close proximity to natural drainage channels. It may be difficult to orient and maintain trenches parallel to ground contours. The design factors utilized should be based on a detailed site analysis of soils, topography, hydrogeology, long-term acceptable rate of soils, system hydraulic loading, and anticipated agronomic rates of uptake. Prior to the consideration of a permit for the proposed system, a detailed site evaluation must be performed by a registered professional soil scientist/hydrogeologist experienced in the siting and design of large soil absorption facilities, with appropriate assistance provided by the Agricultural Extension Service, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and other 127 agencies or firms with expertise in this field. Detailed inspections of the soil morphological characteristics to a depth of at least 6 feet below the infiltrative surface must be conducted and a full evaluation made of both the vertical permeability characteristics and the horizontal flow potential of the site. Some of the specific questions which the applicant should be required to address include: (a) the depth of the restrictive horizon; (b) the soil permeability above the restrictive horizon; (c) the extent of mounding that can be expected to occur. 2. The preliminary design has been based upon a soil hydraulic loading rate (HLR) of 0.1 gallon of wastewater per square foot per day. This rate may be acceptable for subsurface absorption systems serving single family units on lots which have an assimilative area of one acre or more. Based on discussions with other parties who design these systems, CWASA recommends that an HLR not exceeding 0.075 gallons per square foot per day be utilized in designing the proposed system, provided there is sufficient documentation showing that the design loading rate will not result in surface or ground water contamination problems. OWASA staff has completed a basic evaluation of the hydraulic loading rate and nitrogen loading rate for the proposed system. The proposed system would be designed to receive nearly 2.15 million gallons of wastewater per year. This equals an application rate of about 59 inches of wastewater per• year over the proposed absorption area. That rate is about 1.2 times greater than the annual rate of precipitation for this area and would be in addition to rainfall absorption. Assuming the wastewater has a Total Nitrogen concentration of 25 parts per million (the actual concentration will probably be greater) and it is applied over an absorption field area of about 1.35 acres as proposed, more than 330 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year would be applied on the site. Even if it were assumed that the vegetative cover on the absorption field surface could utilize a substantial amount of that nitrogen, that rate would greatly exceed the expected rate of uptake by any established cover crop. Fescue 31, a common grass cover, has an uptake rate of approximately 150 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year. Even if Tifton 44 Coastal Bermudagrass is used to provide about the highest nitrogen uptake rate that could be expected for grass cover crops in the Piedmont (300 pounds per acre per year) , the nitrogen loading rate would be considerably more than the plant uptake rate. However, actual plant uptake rates would be much lower because subsurface wastewater disposal is utilized. The excess nitrogen not taken up by plants will be carried away from the site by surface water runoff and/or seepage into the groundwater table. Higher nitrogen levels in surface waters can lead to algal growth and increased eutrophication in University Lake as well as bitter taste in drinking water. The present drinking water standard for nitrogen is 10 parts per million. Excessive nitrogen concentrations have been reported to cause health problems in infants and children. Similar concerns exist relative to excessive loadings of chlorides and sulphates. -2- 128 From this analysis, it appears that the proposed hydraulic and pollutant loading rate may be too high for the proposed absorption field area, given the concern for long-term protection of the quality of surface water and groundwater supplies. This concern is heightened by the fact that soils are only marginally suitable for wastewater disposal and the proposed nitrification field is located near a natural drainage channel. 3. The proposal to reserve a backup soil absorption area equal in size to the initially installed absorption field provides only an "after-the fact" approach to correcting future wastewater disposal problems. Under that approach, if a failure of the primary system occurred it would continue while the replacement system was being installed in the backup field. A greater degree of reliability and operational flexibility should be incorporated into this community system since a failure of the system would create a greater problem than failure of a single septic tank. To provide added assurance that the system will have a long, useful life, the primary soil absorption area should be periodically rested. This will allow the absorption field to gradually drain, thereby exposing the infiltrative surfaces to the air allowing bacteria to restore the field's infiltration capability. Periodic resting requires that a second absorption field exist to allow continued disposal while the first is in the recuperative phase. The systems can be alternated on a yearly basis (Reference #1) . This approach is required in Fairfax County, Virginia and other areas. NASA recommends that at a minimum a dual, alternating absorption field system be required to be installed and utilized for this project. Additionally, the need for reserving an undisturbed backup area should be considered in the event either of the dual absorption areas fails. The combination of a lower hydraulic loading rate and redundant absorption facilities, together with a good maintenance and operation program should provide substantially greater reliability of the community waste disposal system functioning adequately and properly. As recommended in the literature, this conservative approach is justified "because (1) it is more difficult to achieve even distribution of effluent in large systems, thus making localized overloading more likely, (2) groundwater mounding may be a problem with these large systems, and (3) surface failures of these systems may present larger environmental and health consequences because of their size." (Reference *4) 4. Adequate, measures must be taken to prevent the accidental discharge of wastewater from the proposed facilities into surface and ground waters. It is recommended that: a. A reserve storage tank be constructed to store the volume of wastewater which would be generated during a 24-hour peak day period. That would provide backup storage in the event a pump station failure occurred; b. The pump station must be capable of handling peak-hour flows with the largest pump out of service; and c. Emergency standby power and alarm systems be installed at the pump station. -3- 129 5. The impact of the recreational uses of the area on the long-term suitability of the primary and back-up soil absorption area is not addressed. 6. When system failure does occur from soil clogging and wastewaters do seep to the surface, overland flow from rainfall may carry contaminants directly to a stream or lake. Another type of failure is when pollutants move too rapidly through soils. O. SA recommends that appropriate surface water and groundwater monitoring be established to provide for early identification of system operating problems. The level of monitoring required should be reflective of the intensity of loading proposed. Stormwater runoff from the absorption field should be routed through an adequately sized detention pond as a further means of protecting stream quality. The detention pond can serve as a polishing lagoon and a sampling point. . 7. The project developer has proposed to construct a small diameter pressure sewer system. GJASA recommends that because these lines are an important component of the system, the County or DEM should require that they be constructed to acceptable standards. This will help to reduce the potential for problems resulting from failure of the collection system. Utility construction should be properly inspected to assure compliance with the required standards. OWASA also recommends that sewer utility easements be reserved so that such lines can be properly maintained. The easements must permit the lines to be maintained, repaired, constructed or reconstructed by the operating utility, in the event that it becomes necessary. 8. A frequent cause of early failure of soil absorption systems is the use of poor construction techniques. Regular inspections during construction of the system must be undertaken by the Division of Environmental Management, Division of Health Services and/or the County Health Department to assure proper construction techniques and compliance with the approved plans. 9. The disposal of the residue in the individual septic tanks is a concern. Also, the disposal of the solids separated in the central process-pumping facility has not been addressed. Will these solids be disposed of at the • County landfill? The developer should be required to provide assurances that septage will be pumped out on a regular basis and that it will be disposed of by a certified party in accordance with applicable State regulations. -4- e 130 10. Operation and maintenance of the system, including pressure mains, includes periodic cleaning, repairing of leaks, and major replacement of pipe sections. The proper long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed system must be assured. It is stated that "The individual on-site septic/pump tank installations will be the responsibility of each lot owner." This is, in essence, no control over major components of the system. CWASA recommends that periodic inspections be conducted by the Division of Environmental Management, the Division of Health Services and/or the County Health Department during ongoing operation of the system. Such inspections should include an evaluation of all components of the system, including gravity collection lines, pumps, tanks, and distribution piping. 11. Assuming that the system is ultimately installed as approved, assurance should be required that the operating organization is well-qualified with a sufficient history of satisfactory experience.' The'system engineer has stated that there will be a "homeowners association for the purpose of maintaining the subdivision's wastewater systems." This will be necessary for providing for the ongoing financing of the system, but the actual operation and maintenance of the system should be the responsibility of a technically qualified party. 12. The useful life of the proposed pumping units, and the associated costs .of pump repair and replacement, should be addressed. Comments on Development Layout: 1. OWASA is not opposed to development activities within the University Lake watershed, provided that such development does not impair University Lake water quality. Development activities in the watershed should be consistent with the primary public objective of protection of the public drinking water supply. 2. The subdivision plan is based upon the preliminary design for wastewater disposal. A detailed investigation of site suitability and consideration of the need for dual absorption fields may result in the need for greater absorption field area, which in turn could require modifications to the proposed subdivision layout and development density. 3. Full assurance must be provided that those areas identified as conservation and open space areas will remain as such and not be further developed. 4. Construction of the roads and dwellings will result in the disturbance of sloped areas, some of which are fairly steep (by Lots 1, 13 and 14 and Lots 8 and 11) . OWASA has previously expressed concerns relative to the need for effective sedimentation and erosion control measures during and after project construction. Erosion problems exist at other recent subdivisions within the watershed and are of continuing concern to OWASA. Assurance must be provided that sedimentation and erosion control measures will be installed in a timely manner and permanently maintained. -5- 131 5. Public water and sewer service extensions into this area are not presently anticipated; however, public utility easements should be obtained as shown on the enclosed site plan to facilitate the provision of public sewer services in the event such extension is determined necessary in the future. By obtaining these easements in advance of site development, the costs, difficulty and timetable for extending public water and sewer lines into the area can be reduced. REFERENCES: 1. USEPA. Design Manual: Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. 1980. 2. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. On-Site Wastewater Treatment: Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium. 1985. 3. Canter, Larry W. and Know, Robert C. Septic Tank System Effects on Ground Water Quality. 1985. 4. Cogger, Craig G. and Rubin, A. Robert. General Guidelines for Subsurface Treatment of Wastewater. 1983. -6- c 0 ! 133 McLennan' s Farm November 18 , 1987 Page 2 -if the road is to be extended, a notation to that effect should be on the plans, and signage should be installed at that end of the cul-de-sac when the road is built -proposed house locations and driveways are needed to verify proposed impervious surface areas -proposed well sites should be indicated. It is recommended that state permit records be reviewed for previously approved LPS sewage disposal systems to ascertain if there have been problems with failures •of such systems. It is my understanding that the upcoming November 23 , 1987 meeting is to receive preliminary information and comments, and that a formal decision will not be made on that date. We would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on future plan submittals for this project if substantially revised plans are submitted to the County prior to the public hearing for final approval . Per their request , a copy of these comments will be forwarded to our Board of Aldermen and Planning Board. Sincerely, Amy Pa ker Development Coordinator cc: Carrboro Planning Department Carrboro Board of Aldermen Carrboro Planning Board Robert Morgan, Town Manager ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( 134 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 •d AI• 1 O 4' N CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA I. Marvin E, Collins. ► Zoning Officer., Orange County. North Carolina. DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about November 6 ► 1987► I mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid. a Notice of Public Hearing to be held on the request for a planned • - - • •! - — • - U- - •- I • _ . . o_ , _ 11 - • • t I • • • • • ' . t i ..00 - : •w. - !. - • in ChApel Hill Township. to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20 .6 .3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date► timer place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning Classification change. WITNESS my hand. this the 20th day of November. 1987. . kti-0411,� MARVIN E. COLLINS ZONING OFFICER ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT l 135 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 nx.il i MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 1987 SUBJECT: PD-4-87 McLENNAN'S FARM t ' Applicant: Mr. Leon Todd 133 W. Franklin Street Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Location: East side of Bowden Road (SR 1946) one-half mile south of Old Greensboro Highway (SR 1005) . Chapel Hill Township, University Lake Watershed Requested Action: Consideration of Planned Development- Housing-Rural Buffer rezoning and Special Use Permit Purpose: To allow a planned single-family housing development on 14 lots containing a minimum of 87 .120 square feet served by a common nitrifi- cation field for septic tank disposal. Lot size: 37 acres divided into fourteen (14) lots which average 2.17 acres in size. Existing Land Use: Agricultural Surrounding Land Uses: Agricultural, Residential Land Use Plan: Rural Buffer, Water Supply Watershed Zoning: Rural Buffer/Protected Watershed II 138 MEMORANDUM PD-4-87 McLENNAN'S FARM NOVEMBER 19. 1987 PAGE 2 Compliance with Subdivision Regulations: The proposed plan has been reviewed by the Planning Staff as a preliminary application. It is in general compliance with the Subdivi- sion Regulations with regard to lot access. lot sizes and dimensions. recreation require- ments. and required landscaping. The system for sewage disposal is subject to approval by the Division of Environmental Management. All revisions to the plan necessary to meet preliminary approval requirements will be listed as conditions of approval. Os 13'7 3 c -o 0 0 0 0 O en � .� z I I I 1 0 C dC I. 0 H C b en N of Vt w •- in - O )- }- = C> 0 C C C } C 1 E 0 •o f0 -o v a_ I 1 1 I- 4.1 U 4r �a ¢ C)Ln a ro a u O U I •--O LA N N C) N A >- O ral a) L L Ill 7-L CL C L r — 0 .. A U O a) 4- c a) v1 •0 u -o a) v, C 0 C a+ - •-+' E a1 N •- O n•- v' u O v � J C > .-I - u 4- .0 Q + C - I- U) C 0 U C o C w V rn C j L I) C 1- •- •IA a • ^ O C. m o n L v C y CO d 0 tar a) 0 - ~ n c Cm •- Cl)a.' a+ • O d •- Cl) 0 ro .L - 7D C C a) 4' v_Q L U 0 00 .- 0 L u L .0 -0 - - - C 1> .0 L �„ 4 > ar us c = +- •U c0 O Q c .00 0 � - IX G a+ •• 0 a 1. cn N ro 0 co n �; c v, q. W O Q < +-' 0. C - O 4_, L `� ¢ C' X C 'q) - I0 1 C — C 0 r •- co L mac- m a� 0 o w •- L7 4- o) U) x r. b -_ 2 E c a) - = n N - C L w = E a) �► -C w 01 L •- v cn c a' fa ra C 3 C • L v1 .0 ►J al w _J u L E L a) •c 2 ro N .- L L C O s- O U •-- c0 a) O - ' - L E v' s c .aa ca • 0 r"'% b e °A tO E +J ° 0 N T) 2 0 0 0 L 0 CL O CO C b - • L O C N T L 3 0 3 � • > C — w F- a c o 0) • c er c E a) 1n C O cn co c ro C, -, -- v' _ co a1 L C 0 Q) C c0 a) q 0 •- +0 Co x a) C V ro C) -°C 0.ro V a E L Q c 0 4 0 a` N aci v -- �' - u u io c a '^ :� w 0 VO co 3 a) a) 0 Q.) 4-,+ m w Y1 L C C al ++ > O L O O A 0 •++ > .7 cn c u, M W U d VO' a+ 0 0 01 L r0 y� Z 0. I- es: - V) V) 0 4- 41 E a) L C ++ U I •- • d C • vt 4¢' W �- •y "0 C C a.) -O CO 0. O 1- a) C . ate.+ 0 E (C0 .� C x n v) O. O. •. I) C 0. A w 4- I 0 0 = 0 r 0 N a) 0 �, Lo_ Z C 0 m 0 0 O 4-, .0,, >- r) in x ( C) d f0 > ( U H C 0 -- N 0-5 I f 7CI 2 U 0 C 'C C > C i.+ V C F.- C C C) 0 C c I CI) co VI Q C --I C C ' . V O1 a) W C {L } } } ]- a 0C � - a) - -- ( � a � x� x� `` d — 3 0 c`C . s 4 0` C Z c L C f0 N L +Q.+ co L c) I 01 .- C 0- • 0 .0 -0 I ID c 3 0 c 0 •- aD 1- 0 x 1 4 ._ y L N r0 iJ TA I) �+ a' 0 a) 4-' C -. E C• C• C I .N. > U C w O a) 4- t0 -0 a) C O al 0 u m u 0 a) 4 0 O d Z 4-' O. 0 s . S a) a1 Q, u, V V C Cl ti rr 0 � 01— — S -o C r0+ 0 a) 3 a.+ — 3 C E r~0 d 4 C ar 0. 0 4 C) C L U •p C) r' 3 -1 - 0 0 0 0 `-•- N 10 1- O. -0 r0 0 ' O rD 0 a) U C �+ •0 C < Q C) 1- 0 0 U) CI -C -p r0 �.+ E C w C 3 O co: co E Iv 4 _q 1 y +_' V U C V' al 01 c f0 .0 o 1. V1 U) m C, O -4-8 u = 0 - s -q CO C •E I, 0 L •u •ni •Cl d -C O c C .0 C 4-1 0 C CO) — — — �'' 4-■ 0 v7 Cl 7 0 0 C)) In 0 C 1p 4+ .- I i r0 3 C 4.+ V no a1 V _ �. o .0 U 0. E i co i z _` N 0. Q L. >. 1. In 0 3 o) 0 4- - ••• 0 0.1 0. 0. a L i 0 In < O 0 — w a y _- 4; 0 'a ._ I1 +' -3 -- 'o Q N) V) L •- 3 L 40 0 ' ` C C L C a) 0 C 4- ro L C-"> C V d-- •--• a) 7 0 3. rJ "t7 a) ^ .0 U op a1 1' } 0 0 0 0 ro -0 Cl C In b -- O . 6C1 N U CT— u ,c I,.1 d 0.3 D_ L O c0 al C 0 -p � C O.•- 0. V I L 7 y .-. C 1.+ O. "••-•' v N C_1 c C-0- L 0. IA L i0.+ u C '- 0 E " 0 -- 1 > u' C C -0 0 x J E 0 a rco v - `� c o m no c Z w _1 .c Q O co 0.b -- L ab 7D d_— — N M -o 138 L z 0 z z z z z z z I I I I . I I f I I C• •C) U) U) in N N U) N UI in C a a a) a) a) a) 4) a) a) C •- r 7- 7- 7- 7- >- )- 7- . )- ea 1I I I ! I I I Co c (0 rn c co a) .0 U) us� •- o 4.1 •- •- Q) C N - 0-^ a -- u m 0) 1 �(-1. • N (0 3 c L - D E a) U • n Cn a •- -o 0 a) (0 C 0- • a) 0 .0 Cl) -0 CO • C C 4.■ L 0) 0. > > O m a) U I- cn (0 0 • +' C m • C 0) L v) a) U C 1- O .0 0) 14 a) N C •- 4 - a) .c C 'O a) c'- +•' 1 C c -0 (0 co L 4-1 a +) (U 0 •- no C • ' a) . N C C) Lt. - 0 • 0- 0 • a) - C C +J a) > CO a •- O +) Z) a) -0 -0 +) 0) 0 C (0 10 0. •- c +•• a) L O c (0 a) 00 L t- a) c+-- -0 •- as 3 0 L- +) O O -0 3 O a) -o a) > -0 0 O (0 O .- -0 O 4- 0) +) C C O O 4-1 CD 0 '0 - U 2 4- a) C +' a +' 0 Q (0 aC L I- a) -- -o +-' > CV Q a(0N= C O L 4.I t) U 4-1 U) C CO 7 0. U) C • C 0 0- U -0 U 113 N ■ a) 0) c.7 - in C E +•1 -0 C U 0) -0 L C U a) • +' 7- (0 a) O +J 7 C a) U 3 00 3 '0 C a) f.• •a) in in •- 0 a) L 0 O O •- 4- '(- U 0 O 0 -- • 4- 5- Q C 3 L (0 O .0 • O fn -0 03 C ▪ O 0- te N y - N +) C a) 0 +•1 a) in N.O L 4r L +) O E 0 0 rr 0 0 C O +-r 3 N Lf1 a) O U) •- CO • CO cC 4-1 L c O. • 4-, c a (n C m +1 o +.J o c .-- La o (a . +-1 0 U C .- +' (Cl 0 w 0. 0 .- U) E c LL a) a) (o E C a u) •- a) 4.- Q • C 0) O -0 U •- m I- I- .0 U jni 4-1 Q L •-• 'O 4.1 — -10 4-1 U L C Q U (0 a) N a) L' _ (0 •- a C +•' (+- a (o ¢ C 0. 7 C v) C LL L - 3 (n 4 4 •W •- -- o 0 4- `-' a) o 0) to (o 0 0 0 d- N (o vt C •E O (0 7• 4- U) L > 4- +' w (0 in O 0 a. L L C U -C • 0 (0 O u) - U 0 C •- (0 C) a) L E ) a O 0 - a•0 0) 4-1 C a) C o +) v . V U 7 Q 4-I -- 3 ms (0 a) 0 ^ m - C -0 (0 U 0 - 03 a) O C C •- a) +1 O n 0 4-' O c L 10 ac E O C C _) +) U -0 0 U L U - U C •- 0).- -ki ) •- •- •_ • 1 c CO U (0 •- L 7 a) a) L a O > N 3 U - 4--P -c a 4-+ X > - 7 co a) L L > -0 • •- L iJ 0. 0 - C U 0)_I U) Cl) 0. 0 LA > w in C ((00 < -o •- C I- O. w cn0 UO.. �O 0.c/) Z •0 o Lu ((0 0 -o 0 O C C CO `;=+' t 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z z C X I I I I I x! ! i U) C -O U) to UI (A to in UI 1/1 U) I.. 4. C Cl) CO a) a) d U. LU C •- 7- >- 7- )- >- 7- >- } >-a 0. I x! XI x I xi I :. XI I O O .- c L • -O L �- N C 0 .IA a+ N . 4 tQ 0 ti- a C 0 Q N L O 4 L. 4..• t N US C l-0 Cl) 0 ..v O •_ r., L Q L 0 0 f0 0 -C 4-I U 01 N N N = .0 5 ' c E 0 v (0 0 C c m 0) 7 +a +-1 0 (o CE 0- r., O 'L. `o U a) E a) .-. a) C U N 0 L C (0 +) L f0 's:) -p L. C 0 d •- ..--- co O+ o c 0 +' in a (0 .- a-• -o 7-Lf1-0 C d_ 0 m .0 U.N .0 tk '-' a0 U L 0 CO C 3 - 3 - . 7 U C-O c U 0 o 0) 0) in in L °co E - 4 O O .-- C - L > > r Q Q «- (o a -0. tZ ro ° - L~ 0)•- a) X 4 1 4-.1 4 0 en a 5 C O ►� .- a (0 U) t{- '0 4-1 U)•_ 4a -4- ¢ a) •- 0 0 -0 c •¢ a 4 U , O w a 0 O CO L- -0 U) 0 0 +' (0 (U in E O L o a . 0 .., .s-' O a) O - c v) ++ C U a (n v) •- C U) 0) (a 0 0 c Cl) •a .- C 4' C O. c U) 0 0)-- C 4-P a) 0 -v E c - m co O wt O4-' (A O 0 •- C f0 C 0 •- a) U - 0) 0. CO Q 0 -- U a E a 1 •- > CO u) C U N C Ut 4' v) o a` WU "0 +.' m 4- -0 U 4-1 L 0 0 0) -- (n fa U) (0 O — to (0 a a) ro -• c .- (0 4-1 a) (A a) E a a) 7 a) -1-1 4.1 7 0_ a) a) 0c J (0 U n U O O .- U t- +' O L L U N u a) O > E -0 ti-.-. U C O O 0 0 • • O O c •- X C C L_ 0 a) U •- U . L a) CO C -J 0. -' UI u U) J 0 •0 Lt) •- 0 0. U) U1 4 "O (U 1••• b LU 0_10 2 fp Q t_) cd t. _ Q d 4- 611 %.0 n co C)1 O e'Y U 13 9 'o z O 0 L.O In I I 2 acs en C C "O In )4 C O) 0 of 1 W c Y U CLL. O C to I I •— ca o E O a) o c 0 so `0 O O 0 O c L .17 L -. (o _o E d a) 4-. U C E 4- 0 -0 - L u) so y +..( -C C u) O of +J +-1 4- .0 V1 X 4- + .-4- -0 - -o - C - . a) ) - a) 3 C 'o v) c •- -0 in 1 n 0 •- C 4- 0 ID C (o N E 3 c c 7- a) 3 — a) 3 •— -0 4- 'V 3 c _c 4-1 • 0 co us = a) c L O c •- - c -c O L c in +A r•J -- 0 0_+� 1- O ro L v) 7 Vn 0) 0 ++ u ++ () ro C •- y C C a) 4- 0 4• •- X a) = a) If) O 4) -i ++ co C •- O_ (0 N (p (0 - 4- - +a a) .'0 +-i C C 0 L •- U L a) -C -o () d- U (i 4-P u C CU 0 � 0_ 0Z u m E 3 — a 0_ 0 E (V • � •p �, 4- u •_ L c • ut a� 7. a1 a) 0 0 -o 40+ a) 7 L) 4) -0 4 c. a 0 • (v +' O L.-. - u +r a) L Os y U (o (v 7 z +1 a OC - .- a) 0 4- a) C" a) C +4 0) (0 u O 4- -- n -o •- 0 4-+ c (a u c.U +4•1 a) - 7 •- 3 ()) (0 d in +.1 a) v •- C +-) _ O VI C •-,.- C C 4 3 — 0 -C .•- a) (0 J7 • a) 7 7 03 0 - C •- 0 O 4- 0 a) (o 0 L) +' - 0 0 4 L C 3 a) .O u 2 4n 0 +-1 0. •- o u E L - 0 C Q •- +.1 0 L O O L L ._ a v) v) i.• a) E a). (o a).-0 a) 7 •- 0- ro - •- •- (0 • v •- •- - 4-, - v) 0 a7 v) 0) C E L- 3 C a)h 0 L -0 C •- •- ut U O b C C (0 y . a) a) C 3 0 Q) v) 0- ' • 'o U (D C ro 0) ro L C v) '0 C7) (0 a) ' L +-1 C 10. • 4) .- V) a) +-1 +-1 L "0 .- 7 '0 L ,• (0 O (0 L - In L V) O U 'O 7 a) 01 C a) -0 N - L Q u) a•- 0 0 0 a+-, '0 +-1 in (1) •- a) C 07 O -o co u 0 -0 -C7 .0 •- -o co a) a) '-( '0 C 0 CO N 1.0 +-' .0 (0 +1 L 3 •- E ro u 3 C o) co U Q (0 -- 0) C O C X 0-•- +-, --- ++ 0. (0 a) •-1 E a) (D •- a) • C •- U 7 E .0 •- L 0 a) - u) a 0 L. 0 ++ E L so +-) 7 0) 0 .1.- -o •.d U C L C .0 -E E ro 7 L 4) U 0 4 co 4 E +J L L — L (D C 0• a) 0- 04-1 o -0 v) E a) •- o. O. 1.4 ro c a) t 4- •- -0 u -- P a 0 (o -p u) L a) co O vs L Q. o D +a O +•1 c 3 U v) ++ 4- ^ a) 0 7.4- -0 3 L (0 O (n -o •- . n) (D u +-1 (D ro O • "o a) in •-- 4- A L ++ - (0 'o 7 v) u) +-1 •- - all O C L -0 7 +-1 4- •- cn -0 7 0 U 0 a) C 0 a) 0 a) '0 L V) 4- a) C) U co 1- cO.) -0 'O uro) p`--Q) •a) O •- i C 0) 4) (0 c4 ++ L +..1 L O +-) w Ila(U C 0 7 a) O L d +-1 ^ 0- O 0 en C . • C a) U ° U -o v0.) o U +� n• 0- 0. 0_v) 0.. Li) +' L 7 -C (0 E 0 +r •- C •- C C E +J• E 0. a) 0 0 E sn Q 3 0- v). +-I 0 - +-+ I- -J (a D a) -o (o (0 E .0 0.-C L C 7 •- (1) $ 0 7 (0 4- ID E O •- a) co u +-0 C a) c +•' L O c 7 c y-) d ++ 0..- 0.-0 .0 C) t in 3 0 _J uJ 3 .0 LL c/) -- J7 in I- u 0 In in O 7- 4�- 2 p 0 ro 2 2 U) 4a . � W V•) C C7) x I • I U) CT 7C C y • < c '- } U @3 Ill ILI I XI J y J < u •C vs; .� d - N 0 O) U u d U u .- 0C U Q a � a( H d a U ,n gip- > 4 -' v, In 4+ ro ++ 0) 04- 1L O W 0. -p L) In w >. �: �-• a 0 ro ) LL C L O ro w 3 (0 vi 7+ +' 0 •w 0 0 0 .0 -1--'+O+ (a E •a •— --. c a 0- 0 ate) U) c -0o u a N = N .._ 0) V- b .- (0 3- ro -a m in .O a) 0 -0- .c -0 0) +, 'p ++ c 4 cc N Cu rp r0 ro "0 c O C CO 0 00 vii .0 031 3 'a 0 r0 a' O w C 0 i ,� _ .0 0) c 0 U) +a ~J -p �( >r - +, 0 o v, •- c� C U -0 0 0 0 0 •— __ -- sa U c H -- f0 X u z `+- '-' 0) 0 0 e[ 0-.. — 4D U d C) Q 4-' ( .0 n U C.) ra E •- 140 E C) 0 7 U 1 0 0 _O c Nr C 'O C CO I 1 I CI I / as c C) al-- C +' C b N N in N in •- C C) C) C) C C_ _ 7- y 7- } }C •- Cl.,. 1 17 ID 1� - A. I I 1 C) _ U O Z ;, L N • < 4) 4_ C O 4.+.•-••-•. - O C N in ro O E ' L .0 a) �n (0 UU II N (1)+.- C) .- 0 0 r a) a- a 3 _4r{d L 0 - u C 7 0 DA > • C C N .- H. A ++ s- ell 3 C C]. U a) • d- (0 E CU ID K) •- a) 7- U1 -0 7 4-J L •- C 4- -C7 +J 41 V1 C ++ CD b F . IO • C "O 4- C C a) 4_ a) = IM V9 ro C L E L 0 U C, a) •- 4-s OD J C _Cs•W a) Cl a) 0 a U C L L 0 d (II a).- v, w � �N E 7 L . L 0 0 .- 4n 3 O a L N N T N +. 4-s ..0 .0 L+!J O. a) L Cn 4-1 aQ cs_ in as A _a .c I- C) C co a) a) CO L a) LU 3 .J ++ Z U (0 C 0-� w- a) E C) c C E• (13 Z 0. A. 0 O CD C .-3 X d 0. al I c - •U LtJ 4 'a ) I I O. CT+.a C .-- - C T• ; 4-1 Cr d a) •in - U 7 � .ca 'O .0 4- 4) 0 •C Q) 0 Into- .- 7 w E of Z Z Z 1.-- '0 3 'a C .-- ui 0 3 sn 2 O W Z' U O J a A. Lii Z .0 Z 4- Z 2 2 Z a in a I0 I4-I Nc CT X 1 1 l J N M +-I Z CT.- N In U1 N in C •a as C) C) W U Q C - } } ? }` cc O. J ro W X1 I I 1 x� LLLL I0 9 d N . W I +• 1 C) 'O V) O 0 C U 7. (0 1. C) •- t C U C) 17 .O C in d N C a _ U E w ] 4 �+ LI. a. +. i 'a 0 -a in .- — 0. 0 CC) 2 JD H a 1- .- m N .-41 C) vs a) .0 Cl) 0 0...0 r .c a (0 .0 < a U C) IO 0 ^ U C L a a s .. 4.1 0 O..- Cl O. C) •- C Cam) I 4�.) 4.0 LO. - 4-• CN.1 in 0 2 3 L 4_ 4-+ O. 4- L a.+ C C) I U 4-+ o 0 C 4- 0 0 as y m -- a v 4-1 E In 7•b O •C L .- U(0 LL. E o -CO r a as C 0 '0)- U en C ) O - o 4- U O W c C1 ,-- C)L.) .- C) i.I E 4- .0 • O N •- .O u a) L 13-1 -0 C) C U U • r L C +.+ 4+ E 0_-0 - L a- u 0. C' CteN .- Lt_ L C CO C C C) 0 C L U -pa I - "C) 4- 0. n n (0 r0 E cm a) is C)rrs re's a C In In +• U - (0 N N w CT L C 0. an a, C•'1 O. A C ID ID >, .w C - w Co CO 1/) C) .- -' E IO a G X C E U e co w co '3 O � � 4-. y E x a� � ..J W CO CO N. C `a IO co 00 C) N. .1-J C) C .-. II .--. ..-. .0 N U) ..+ �-. U wt C 4-1 C W O w U N E E c) •)• IO 7• 1] ?• U -O C) G a) C) C Cl) a w a) ., J .� ms E L b N L -- N s- N i. o N $ C N E C ca u U c U - a • y H L r -1-4 C •7 I U r+% 0. CJ - r+1 0. c-. O 0. - el C - C: Q L C' L L .- C) O C O L .0 C) C) 0 O L 0 7` 7+ r0 E C CD- < 0 4 ++ L N N 0. +-r N N 0. N 0 O. N 10A •C N IO I7a. • L 141 0 osi co• 01, c• -0 In In an on c 0 0 a) N d € � T T T T CO L N - C 4 c C -c Q u C lzo (C O +P In 4 7 L -0 -17 C to Q) L LL. 7\Q) c ro a) C N cC t co ^ v1.- - to +-1 v1 a. ro — u, L V1 L C L (a o1 O (0 a) (o (1) 7 L a) C ' ^ to O a) L . 17 ra a n U 3 r0 -o ^ Z a) in 4) C - t o) +' a) •- v1 - ro a) r0 7- to C 10 (O a 7 0 C ^ = ra -o L X C I- 01 O. J 7- c 7 a) - 0--17 U (0 L i • .+ -O tn 7 c ro •- a) C 0 N Cr1 co N -- L o +J - (7 J L O a) C (0 LI y L 4 d+-1 N d +_. .N1 Q) T (0 E +J +J rn 7- 3 -a •U ca C C +J a) -- 2 I 3 O C 7 0 (ten c 0 z w L 'oU c 0 L ra L 0. >0.1 00- al 0 - " CO +OJ 4J O O C - OL L o a C 'In 3 C .^ . W �_ d Li- -C C L aa) 0 u1 +LJ w •> C 7 O 0 7 X C O 0 0 W H m _0 7 r) a) -- 10 0 W 2 7_ 4 a 4 4- 0 0 _ O a�.1 y 2 •y x 0 z c-o 01 I I I I I Q C C C N In in N v1 w ro 6i 0 T } T T•• }. 0 XI • 1 I I o +J Le. • ) a) ,-I y - H E 0 0 J C - re a- U • to r0 0- C 0 JJ •.. CJ (0 a) d ^ 0. 6,) J co L •• -o L o, 2 -cm — c > Q1 N +J (U ¢ •C yf Q y E N 1_ 10 a) •- -» Q) 0..— Q) Cr)— -o 0 C I- 1- -C4-113C14/1 -0 .- • 00_ _C C (0 7 C •- C CA IJ1 H O i■ N .- a) U O +J •- L • - (Q ca •- G r C ... - -o -0 +J .- (0 a) C 7 C U E .0 0_ N R) +J V) 7- C C' 1- C C +J a) 4- .- C 0. c L .. 0 O .0 (0 0 •- 0 c -- JJ - Cf f0 (CO ++ q +-J -0 L q_ a iJ 3 LI L C 3 L •- a) L O O C O L V1 7 +J 7- ''1 . Q) a c •C a O - r-- A r0 J-' C 0 a _0 U - a = -0 C +J 0 I— — o J L C CO U •— a) a) • N -- U q) N 10 C O a) .— .—• •— L .-- 1' to 1 W •• • •O - L N +J C4 0 a) 0 a (0 > a.( .— L lV r 10 c L a) •- .. a) 0 (+- ) L (n 0 - co • 3 0 O O 4- L co v1 +'1 '- a) +' a) -- U 0 ^ 0 4' +J w .- '' a) 10 (0 3 co -o (n C VI -o •J 7. La C a) CO O (C 'O m .1..o pt +J — -' 'O0 C L R1 0 O J 0) .to C U O In O G) •U N 1p .-(n 7 I- 0 C .N _0 a-+ 3 O f1 0 a) 0 7 -o (0 a) L ro a) L O 1 -0 i1 - 4_4 en 0. L a) a) -0 C U cC (0 J a' = 3 v) r0 < U -0 U -co 10 1- (0 10 fo - U -o W ' 142 0 L x o 0 0 t,, I x z z o 0 I I I co ti c 17 U1 C) N N w •c - • d 7%oll 0 9- C co k ' I 7- I a I a) 0 as L a) C 4I ro c in - . 1- O _ • 01 ca >. t N v, U ^ N C -0 a a) 1- U r a) 3 a) C 3 a -0 I ro (7n o - -0 CL 0 0 a) c O s- a) .0 4-J _ 4- -0 -- u+ O •- C 0- O o +a a o +- a) C • 7 ro - in ro 0 � 0 d 0 u +a C .-- U E (13 0 0 (n 0 -- L �, C) • 0 L 0 - 0 +- L 01 1-. 0-I. 0: a) E 4- C O •• to •7 L - 0_ C a) 0 L L 4- a) •U) +a p ca s- a ro .-- L. 1, L • 4) L O •1-Q L E C C C C C 0 2 a) 0 0 -0 -- a) +-1 0. (0 Q a) 0 0. > a) a) • - 3 4r '- a) 4- .0 v, a) E .--. ca .0 •3 a) a) .- a) > +a -0 L 4) 4J 13 I -0 • in L +a -- •0 0 .O0 -,-' • co C U a) -0 .-.•- -o C) -O C ..D �- a) C 7 u CCa 0 •- +-0 n C +' C •- CD a •- c a) L +a +•-1 0- 4) 7 +1 N f0 0 •7 dl 3 01 E 0 0 Q) k - U1 CT C C E L u 0 -0 '- - 0_� • 0 -0 4 +� a) 0 4) 0 a C L CO vi .N O ro in U ro c C v+ L. +- +- I- 0 o. o cc � a) 3 a) a) a) •- w +a v O cc Cl) a) 0 a) •- U 0) a) E •X 0 +a •-as? 4-1 L .�-+ . Ur a) 7 U 4 C .0 • a) 17 C E N (0 7 L U1 4) 1- 3 •Vi ,n i b +L.c N -C ,- .0 D a) ro 4) c - E a) c E C I U1 CO ro N .0 •- 7 L 7 Q U - ^ 4) 44 f0 L O w LL O ++ 0 7 U CL ro CO v �ro •-.U1 c .0 a tr .- U a) 0. (0 u1 CCs 7 Q 3 CO •- +a 0 W C) in ro 0) v1 4- +a 0) G u. N U N Ul 4.0 U - C •- •-- 0 0 4) Q f0 C a) 4-1 O 0-4.1 a) c 0 - w '0 C 0 -C U1 -0 -0 m -0 C L O a1 fn ._ 4- O (0 C) +r a) C a) LU +) C 3 a) 0- L U! co 1- L. Ut 4- a) O U co - f0 1^ ' U C 0 -0 0. N C N a) •- 7 •- C c W C1 0 m •- U1 a) •- .0 +i 7 L U 4- •- O E 0 7 CO ' L J N .- a) u f0 01 +■ a a) Ln 0- (0 O ro 0- U O a) C .0 U L .- a) 1- ..0 4) O 0_ >^ col a- r N Lu 0- M +-5 L +a I- (0 -0 .c J 0.51-) 5.- 2 (0 -0 CO 4- 0_ L w E o o 0 o J 4- 2 2 2 Z ro I I I z 4-1 a 4 N C1, C )- Cr•- in in vs in 4 C 10 4) C) 0 4) a •- c 7- 7- 7- >~ < (0 X X x f x l W - 0. (s; C) .5-1 44 L 01 LL 0 0 0 0 0) ( C 4.1 C 0 ++ a) •- in p1 p-._ L N C) I 44 L 0) L Cl 0 L- C 0 -0 0• A -C in O. u .- in +a ++ cc 0 L U +• Cl - •- 0 a 4 C 4• 0 U w (o N t) C C (a c 4a 0 O 0 G N C C) C d +a •-- 4.) 7 N C N 7 .- U C) C) 0- (0 O 1- • co c O L (0 ro .- C) 4- C ¢ 3 E y 04-' C m, m -0 L. E - 0 +a � us 0 0 � E -0 H (0 7- s- C� i -0 -- a.e L C) 7 N 4- N C) {.. 0 •- N in t) ' -- (n C) E U E 01 0 4-, O U C) E 0 0 1- U1 4-a - 0- 0 '0 •• .0 N C L L 0 U1 U 0 7 In (D -C IF 4- C) C 10 E O- 0 0 N ro C n C L +a 0 (0 L O R u >C en +a 7 O C o o Cro • E - 0 +a + — U u n n L C "C N LL E •_ U L C 0 3 us In 3 N C -' .- C C 10 C L C) ro - -0 0 U ._ 0) 0 u - 1- tY 0.-C C) -0 MI •- L) L C as U -- •U '0 C -o -- -a '0 '0 C -- .0 ++ 10 (0 N •_ U) •-- C) U1 -- CL C C) CO 4_ C) C 4-' 7 -C 10 -C) C as (0 0 CL •0 -C 7 '1 ••• i -0 4_ - +a ro f0 - .0 0. -0 +a C C C 0 -- -C N Cl) 0' "a E •_ ID N c Ks ro (0 .0 - 0 4-. C0( 3 f 0 ro •- -0 v0i +-� -17 C) u . C) u +a ro L u L +a ._ ( ce - C a) (0 N 0 0 4-4 •+ O Cs 3 0 0 in N 0 7 C • 0 0- 4) ^ C) in C - 3 N L -0 L - N u C)- 0 ro � 0 n•- N O .0 L C) O C) C) C) C C) C 0 -- 0 0 +a +a .0 - U 4.1 +• 1^- 0 +a 4■ -0 0 v1 •- 0 c 0 ' 14- 0 U E N 1_+ C 0) lal C Cl ro c N N a•• ro -- N a.+ .. _J A - U -- C • C) 0 --- Ut L •U1 U C) U (D L O1 7I 0 -- c-> C U .- co O N . L ^ L O (V L .- C 0 L O U N 0C M •- d • ._ `" +a E 4-' • o .- U L • a C) .0 7 ■ _ 0 0.-- • a.• N 0. F- -0 u 0. L E c --1 U - U +-c 01 U '0 > C C 0 .- CC 5- L 0. 0 0 Cl..) • ro It 0 C (0 (D X -- C O 0 C ro in 0 • 0) L - Q C) et CO U U E n E 4- +a ._ • 1� 3 •_ Cl C -- N CL fa .0 ro N n E a N Q 143 0• - ml I C-O CO N •.1 C m Y } CO 07 C L. Y A } ea CL I I 1 E I ' v i +C a) a) 7- U v+ F- m a) ^ W n) .0 • 0 c) rcoL o ¢ L m 3 ro I-- C •- a) U- z -a) a (U C a a) 0 +' (-D x C +-) N • '0 0 -0 -0 O > U) •- (U 1T a) CO C O- a) _ _c L a) a•' 0 •- +-' •- •.Y 0 • a -O - Uf a) ^ U C N -O • as 0) Id. L no , a (0 > +' .- `�3 C C (n C a) ++ 4) E O C -1 0 a) U 0) '0 (0 L a) C (U L L CL (0 O ro L U- to -0 7 L 4-1 3 •- 0 O. OL -CO C -09- 0 0 • 4' C 0 I4- -.0 Cr OIn 7 -- 0 +4) (0 `c . U -- CO 0 C L Ui +' N 3 in a) a) C 4.1 a) .0 a) -0 C U) .- N -0 O 41 _0 O C E 0) C c O +' aJ 7 L o • 4) m 7 C a) a) 4) •- 4' CO •- O 0 • 01 a' n H IT^ > E U) U1 C C L 4.1 C V1 . -0 - - a) ^ a) 11 4) ro +• -0 (0 0 U - 0) '1 •7♦0 L •- 0) C ut a) -0 (U t0 U a) a) LI- •- •0- (I) 7 0) 0 - 3 L (0 C 0 -- I-- U L (0 C .G + L m v 0 v+ a) m C a -0 03 43 >...4-I U .+ -.1 a.3 0.r C U1 a) a) 0 (0 a) O.^ U) U1 +a •-1 (0 4-' to •W 7- a) U) ^ E 10 4) u, C -- -0 O O E 4) -0 a) 7 4-1 O N O_ L a) 0 0 C C '• _ (0 u1 4) 0 U U (0 -O U C r0 O w U 7 0 4-I L • L .- ca C O L1 4) C m �) L ^ t0 • a) to C • C 4-' C .1-' 4-1 Ul il a-' 0 O_ L U •3 E L E ro 7 ro U1 - a) Ul • O 4- t0 - ro - c c 7 •- 0 4' ^ 7 C (U Z ro 0 0 0_ 0 L u L -0 0 (0 Q "0 (0 0 a) an o U - N a-+ U C O ^ }' 0 4-+ a) a) .-E 4) L a) '+- a) -C 3 a) :C -O 11 -- L _0 U U- 'O > 7 C) -0 Cl 0 -J Cl) 01 a) O L -Q a-' a..CQ 9 O '- (0 O a) O O N a) •- .0 U 03 -- 0 O N 7 'G C 41) L ¢ 0 E T7 U- C .- Q CI) (11 = .0 CI) C •-- _0 CC < a) U } W 0 0 I-61 z w z 1• .¢.J .1.) N 0 0 O O 0 G 2 • z Co.-) I xi x X - C W CO I r C •01 m 03 CO 1 < C L_ 3- • m W W O m T 7 Y Y J - 4 0. X - I I { XI W CC . m r. .0 C) C - � y -0 CT - W CO � -0 01 CI) Wm • I d Cf 'O 10 m +• 0 1.cA O •-. CC C7 a0 G C 14 E 0 I C' co -.1 C CC C 07 .a.a 07 co W ..-4 -D-D 7 0 W 1I-• 0) aa.1 W •� -O C •"1 O E m CO G. 7 C 07 G a). O 0 G. •• co 0 - .0 C 0 -0 14- 4.+ •.1 c. W a a 7 0 W 0 10 4.1 0) 14 1 •--I o- 4 m m m ci t 3 .ea m ``- C 0 O IA 0 F. -.1 W m m C 0.0 a) C •ra C) a.a ,1 0 c - a-1 -C (U (U C-. C E t. • 7 000 4.3 .1-1 U W '0 rob m � O 0 O ,j 13 U O C 1 . R. 4-1 •-1 > } .-I CO C 0 ..1 C CO • U 0 u � 4 'a -, C .1 N 0 ••1 • m 0 -1 -0 .-1 --1 -0 m 0 N 0 .0 F. 0 a • I C.1 CO aa 7+•U C � 3 „y' 14 1'+ .0 0 C 7 A --1 10 as •••1 •.-I ..1 u O- CO CL 111 F. 3 •-I a1 10 m ,.y 0.a.a F. W 0 .0 N C CO N 7 N 0 0) 1r 4) 1+ W > 0 CO 0 H • .. CU CO 01 0..--I 0 a.a ••y CO ..1 m 0.-4 O 4) (U m 14 a., -D 0 a C .-a .-1 -p L.. E +1 '0 E a) C) O C N .0 1. co > -1 -0 4. -O c C) N a.a C of 14 C -•1 0 0) C] tm. Cm) 0 RCr E O a+ 0) a� �+ U C L. U m C 0- O as 01 O C 1i-1 "1 -O m .. .,Ci CO O C 7 m •.1 O O 7. d. O. CO 0. E CC 10. 000 o u .0 C a) m C m aa- u 4- u Fa-0 >....-- -., a_► m .O c 1'- 01 rI m m CC 7 r•1 C a..l .1..1 N 0 m -c E 0 CO C. L. 1.. W 0) .11 F. al) 14 • CO •-1 0) 0 4- "-I N s. 0 CO CO X 3 0. CT 4.3 CO a.a ••1 a.a 07 -0 '0 0 E-1 --1 N co a-a m .a-a 1 y 1� •,y 0--1 F. 7 U +a 7 0 0 CO •••1 > 1. CO F. C m a•a •-1 •--1 C •-1 m 0 0. C) 1.- a.a LI .0 W 0. N I CC ' CO C s .-1 CO C. 3 0 0 a.- a.a 0) 0 0 7.0 -.1 0 3 .1 0 •-1 CO C «0. m r- m • ^1 07 7 E 1:. N 1a •m E •1 1r .0 •.1 U U 1r. Q► 14 o CO W w {q m 0) Fr 01) u s 01 0 a1 0 3 CD w 0 -I m 3 0 as ..1 .0 •.i -.1 . I C .Fa �[ -a-) -0 m 0) CU CO C T C C I.- u 0 0 C T N - C CO I.- 0 •O 1- C N 0 1 0 _C -0-3 y CO O N '0 u CO R. CT G. m 0 'O m UI.rl C m C W -.1 u C •-1 C CO m •.1 -H 10 F. C CO 0 •.1 0 m c. O •-1 .,i C m •..I W m C) ••-1 as C 1r ) 0 Q CO 0. •. C 0. C f) O CO N V U) � d a-• CO -D- (U 0 -o Y ? W a m m m C 0 C . .. G r W • a r y a CO 1 CO a- N .1+ C. .1 0- m 1. .•r ^ ^ .-- 4 O d O CO 1•4 CO CO 0 CO m CO 01 I 1 I 1 I f C t 144 C).- O a7 to CO t77 m ..CI C a) a) a) a) m a) C -.•1 )- 7- 7• 7• 7• 7- I { I I l I n• +� tr O .O m C T C Ln c E C -o U) L E • N 7 -- O 0. a) in _ O L - 4 O 0) O O. 0 • •14J (13 vt o. O X , .N U • N a) ! 0 +a O E b a a) + C U L p 0)c O 0 U CD w 'O - a c t O u c C N N .a t0 o a) 4-4 U) n C n 0 0 a U D O • - + (4 La. .. 0 + • O. U + c O 17 O •- •■ v C E (o U m Ln ¢ fa -(.. +' • C.1 .0 U) L 7 L t0 O m ) N •- • L 4' 0. C O C a) L C 0 L •_ O •- O L -O a U = U C Q) 4• 4-1 ++ - 0 L1 •C!! C 3 C b 1-+ a) 3 •- Ui C a) C 0. . o a) .- "O +-4 C 4- U. L +' 7 •W (0 a) .-. ►- U) 10 - (0 O +.J a) N C > w r0 .0 y .- - 0 _ U • - 4-1. •3 01 7 C L +' 0 L 141 C ) O •_ -o V a) a] E O) a Amt 4) L 7 C 7 O a) C 0 -Q -0 co +' •.•1 .Ca -C a.-- O a) C a) N 3 . c 01 If • -o U N > 0) 3 C .S 0) 4- 4- U 3 C L • O C O •- O •- L N.3 O a) .0 a•• 3 0 0 v1 +' C.) N07 .- C O a) CO 3 N L C U) 0 0 U7 0) •- 0 C - 4- •- U CO DO 0 N ^ _ U U +., Z C .0 ++ U 7 r0 C •r0 C O C -D L 3 E U W C - (0 C N U O L •O a) (0 ,- rn 4-4 a. 0) +' a) C C .O - Uf O •Vt CO N C 11 Q - o. U a) C • •� E C C CD L N N E U Q W - a)U E O 0) E co E U) la �� U a.r w 1'-1 10 O O 0- .- O 0 ro 0 O co x = U 7 n V N 771 •- V) +' 3 w = = a)W A O W z C,_ Z 1i- . J Qa CI Z Z Z z 1 Z Z z L - CC x OD O.) 7C I I 1 x ,--r -••1••i {b co 0) r C Ir.. O O O 0)` 0) 0 < O. x U C • 0 0 - , c .w O CO .0 01 1 c+ -0 C) '0 .-I C. C - 14- • C C C C) C . Ls •.i CO Co 0 a.' X U (n •CA. •.1 0 •.i •1 a) •.•1 0 7 CO C t. w 0 C 1 Q •-1 •• X C.) 1-1 .-1 ca -0 -Y .W O a) - C 1* 1 0) m a) •-1 C) C'= 0) 0 a) C+ •-1 -• •1 O O -.i G CO N w C CO a) C to co U. O..-•t V" ‹C C .-i C 3 CO -0 a) CO ^♦ Cr > CO 0) 0. CO CO .0 a•' O 4) • C 0 © V ••1 U G O O. C 3 0) CO -1•3 0 0 0. L. U C 0 U CO O CO -0 O "C) .0 C .1 03 r♦ (0 -o•-+ E C .n G • co co v+-o ••I U 0) C a-+ C 0) CO +' .0 Co -O a.' •-•1 U O o 0. 0 tT C 0] O •- o ..i C) (I) a) ID a) I- -0 ..1 a-a O Ca C 0 C a) R.. -•1 U 0) -a-) 01 C ••i C .I-' -1-1 0) a.' •,i -.t U) 0 Lf7 a) G 3 G r•1 .v' Q -.1 4.. O 0 O G O ■ C --+ ..0 O (.. 4_ .,y a.' -p 01 a Y. +' CO ON 0 • U CO 4- a) as a) ••I CT 0) 0) -.I .-i CO ••-1 U) 0 CO 0 •-i 10 014- a) CJ C -0 C a) 4_ N a) L ' Co t0 t0 7 Co 0) 7 C (1) CO 7 •i CO 0) CO .0 co .,..1 G 0) C a) --1 a) C •.4 CU (r a_I CT CO 0) 0) a) a) F•1 •.1 a) Co 5-. 4) 0. CO a•' E U 0) C -A Cr .1•' L.. E CO -O •.i .1•' • r a) ..1 C 7 a) Cl) A G C) a) •1 0 c. a) 3 -0 -0 •r1 E N (o •.I •.I .-1 0 --1 a) 4-1 .i •-1 a) 1/40 • 3 -1-1 Co ••1 -0 a) 0 U • 0 co •1 C) O CO -O C 0.) 3 C. a) 4- a) - ••i 'O C C-1 G a) •.1 0. Co - a) -O G s-I ••1 U C o7 CO 0) Co a.' •••--1 0 N 0) •-•i N C W ••"I 7 E 4 1 • .0 a) F• CO -0 7 U N a•1 a) 0 2 co 3 0 C) 0 -0 .--i O 4_ 7, -V Cd 3 co co 1 7 M .0 0 CO .-i uY U CO• 0 CO 01 0 N C. 3 .i- -0 �. U a•) If, co 0) O .•1 0) 0) 3 -o a) U•I • • U -0 U O C C)C1 •• C-. C.. C ••1 CO O 4) U ••i a) to a-•+ Lr 4_ 01 C71 a) 7. O a) •7 E C+ •.i 0) a.' CO 4) 0. 0o C.a-1 a) 0) .-1 •-I a) a) a) > a) C 0) CO .N 4_ 7.a-' C a.' E c L. -t7 t CC - O 44 CO as •--1 V 1n •.•1 - C E O 7 •--1 C+ N (+ F. is co 0 U C CO 0 C •.1 •.1 O N a) E .0 -0 C,, U 03 Cr -c a) a) a) a) V 0 O +' a) -•4 a) a.' L U O O Cr 3 a) •-4 co E N 7 co C) n V •.1 on C . ..-1 C 0 01 (5) 0) CO ..-1 U ..-t 1+- CA •-1 -0 CO tl) -V CO r1 U a•' Y •.i .--I C -.-1 3 ..1 (0 U a) x •.i Co co 0 -a c (a O) C 13 -0 0 C •-1 C CO 4r x '.' .-1 co J c .-0D C Co 0) .a.' C Ca •.-1 U L. 0 a' (..1 O C C .-1 a) 0) --. -.-. CO N 3 4- CO N CU G U C U .0 Z •C N •..•1 4 CI) CO CO � CI) CO 7 Co CO .O 9 CO CO .0 3 > -G 0 Z .0 -O Co - ••i -•1 i-I • • C O • • • -- .O y C .D n W -1 •-- CV N 10% = C+ C.. 0 rr r► 1' CD 0'• r. .r O < U CO CO V1 Ca .0 .0 .0 .0 C f . 0 O Z ii' I ( 145 a) ^ .. - - • •t0 - •. t 4 Li. (p tT • O 3 C Fs -tl O 01 •. O Q) L .p . • C U •� • • cn 'c c:r. -C 0. - - . o *-1.a • . . O U �-. - m` .as E V v+ U L a) '0 •- co' Q) (D a a) d-c.LL • . C y N 3 ..� •.4 � .4.) ••w • C'-p._ . o to 03 _ O c C C o a) in 0 .O L .) • 0)}J Z . • W O N a) l •o •-1 a) -n vi • .. O 7 a) U C a) . W La -c N Q 113 E H L V E } O _ D - La : Z U- 2 /4.- _ W CO 0 a.) Cr 2 C. U, C 2 01 I CO C• . 1 C CO I— Cu.. a) cc a 0 Y � - H x cr o- L a C . LI- T. • 4 CC 'O +) a) I Ca 7. d CO CO .�-1 O C 0Y •-O-( "O N O dal -0 03 G i ' a o O -•• U CO ••' CO I C t L. C.• +( E -•1 c+ c. 0) • 0. CO m a, •w O O O ••( .0 C CO • ••y r+ O O(. - 07 •* 0 C CO ••-I E '0 7 r+ C CO "U'•t C C 0 0 --1 > Cl) CD .0 -0 ••r tF• E co CC 's E 00 2 0 -0 Ca - `Q W ... O N U C O J.) ca to W C ••I tll G.. 7 M1 7 CO a .1.0 ..-1 U - O C 0a d 0 .--1 3 co U O 0 A [) a) .7 >. a - -Oa 4.1 • t..( w 4-)) Pr% O. 0 -I ) rr r• m -•I C U •-( a CO U-•-• m Cl) c. • 3 O . v( ao � 0 CO a) 0) a� ¢ C)) r- •• - cD U ••4 .0 w c. � C 3 d /•-( D) 0) C 0.-1 0 0 O CO d m La cCD .y C CO ca >. O O t., Q C c. a) 0. a) a) U C I -C 07 A .0 L) to a, d Lr) G .0 Lr) (.• -6.' C -7 M1 CC• 0 4 [) an . 0 y CO co 0 0 Z I Z I ` ( 146 . Cl I w I C m °CZ C •Ch-0 C C W a) d C) } C I I ^, I I d a) v1 O I r CO • o- E " • 4-J I C vs • O O 3 O 4- C 0 u s in . a) a) O C) 0 C 3° > C • C U■D .O N U � O D E C n O v1 v1 -0 4 VI CO C U's Q U 10 I- M 5 ° •7 ./ . .'.I ...1 i. _1.11 L Cr a. .L) N C .) 7` 4- O- 0 CC • 0 rar (II a) L u1 C 0. C 0 r In C1 uw • (0 N a) C 7 C ti. Q• C -O L Ut _0 01++•° • 0 N 0 m - +� a) .a) o 0 C0 Cu,• 3 4-1 '" (CO t ro .0 t 3 g a) -' 0) C (J) U • CO o o - .c c - •.1 a) . s in 4- N -0 0 r I_ • •CI N �� p O ns � � -- E .- • • Z 1l 0 5 O ++ C) 0 Q. •7 a) - C Q- . • O N -0 3 E • 0 E c a) 0) c E 4- E ( U C .-G) 3 E 'v ro i) G "C CO• • •0 0. 0— T cLO •X '7 — O •7 • L J 5 u�i z +4 I- Ca. I- U) 5 _0 0._0 .0 . .• • E • 0 - U CO - . .. - .• ..4 Ch .Z Z Z . Z Z ro Inc I ` x •C .00 ` 0 .C•L.I 0 0 C 0) Cu. T. . a y � �� • x� x1 x.{ ... a 'I' z Z U.1 • • Z w • CM •-4 I O� I CC w 0) is a0) c >. 'CI .0 ° • ii c.1 >. C a •0 o Li ••.I •..w a) Lr a) _ Cam) CO i.) Ch 0 .,iii •.-I .'J G+ +•I -0 CO •••I •.•I CO 0 rl d • CO a)) '4- •_, > CO Z1 Q N 0 •.-I CT C •0. 'C n Z • u c o .I� 'O C •.i co C � , C 0) • co Q C C N a) 0 0) ./ Cl. CO CO y � Cl)O C p C p C 0)).0 w E •N N > C CO Ci) Co CD •• CD t,C1 CO 0) ) .0 CO N ..1 .ii r1'r1 L.1 {.1 •r1 • W ROw CO CO ro.1 7 C) •.1 0) ro 14- ro CO O ii 3 CO a) C) m o .,'.-4 Cr 0 o J 00 .•1 .0 .0 ro ••i O .)) to E Ci C m � .•1 r1 y •04 .1.4 � C CO C CO .O I ..x O 00) i) .� p4 0 0 C 0 1 co 1 n .1••1 E N a) •-I ii co •--4 E C I • to J.+ w 1-•1 3 E •0 co t CC -n E C E ro o a •G°1 Q co z 'C • O 0 Li C) d C.) 0 C d "0) . cn C) v� E « C .0) .-•I - -a-i C E •-'I Ern •'I Co E C� .0 t� ) 0 > _ N CO > co 0) w C a) C Ct > 0. 0 CO -•� LI C 0) t,_ C r Cr C � •x •••1 ) CD 1 CO •U •a « U .0 0 o^ C � L0 0 0/0 Z U C - Er 0 X -C7 CO CO ..-1 CJ+�i J co CQ = -30 C0 Z 0.b C yi •..I -1 Cab - •�-° 0) R+ N Li I+ ^ ►� .-. r••. 0 0 w I. ~ '� Ca 0 ••i CI) a) C C 0 0) 0 0 C ^ C0 CO U) 4 • O ¢ � S m .0 CO 1- 4- t] 54- CO CO .0 C) ro • r (.4 O O O 0 co mop Z Z Z z L 14'7 pt..Cr I I ! - I O 0) CO 03 ..-1• C a) a) a) m C •- T >• Y • `I.._a co a) . U - C CO - -a -1 E O r+ - w • C E C co to _ar CC) - •C .U-► .C.1 p CO •E E 03 'CI N O1 in -a .• CSI \ a N - C7- •O La.. ∎ t- C U -.4 J..) (0 0) n N n . t0 +-� 4- M F C. • .1 G u ._ - - - - a • to I. C 03 0 to C7 a) o +O - -' U - C -u a) O co 1.-C CO C O U �- ..+ ..- •-• ) C O • C �4- - u o —1) H ._ p • va+ U 7 C ++ 4.+ O r 0 - C CO Lt) _ N r - 0..E N Cr E -- - o co V to to — ti_ to - . N o C - •. U�►a+ a 0.-I aJ J ++. p •.C.1 7 - 1.) l'--• d . 7 u - u 4-1 W uE .r. L —'4- 0 L (U C.O 0- co • �▪• • to 4F• - _ ' • C - 1.- . Z 4J C cr z z Z z CC Cn 10 M C C I I• I - - I • C La. a - a) co m . � CC - "r ?- r - L C o 0 - • . . - .4 . . - ., z - . •.H 4.1 . •-1 ,., - . - a) .- - '� Q C 0) 0) - Z. 00EO. .QC oIo.i � CO CO 0 Z •-1 .N o aJ Ja -.ti G Q t tr. d C) 0. 0 • 0) ti .-t C CO 01 CO 0 C. C. r• .)..► -.4 A 0) O >. >. 0 C •D 'G -.i CO • 0 CO I 0 Q si C C.) •--i > C 4-1 rt Cl 0 C C 1 O) o- • y, Q 0) 0) 0. CO -.-) -H C C 4-1 C13 CO -0 CO r.. Cn E E u', X C_I E a rim co Cn C . 0) C - Q •••1 0 Fa a) 7 7 • -.i — J L. CO CO t� C 0) CO C co N 0) (a w - ..-1 E b CL -a 0) .0 0 0 .1-1 .0 a) a) m - m 4) •U 0 0 C I C M 0) c n• 7 U U C U E c) 0� O C y 0 O I ••-1 O •-a • �a CO •..4 ao -.t •-5 a s~ c. o a .1 •.-, E ..1 E— a 0) •-•I L 0) O N .0 0 E 01^ C71 Z N t- w 'L7 iJ 4 I C ••i 3 a C e- J, 3 -4 -o a) 0) -o m -o >1 o • C 0) C E E E oo E ..a °D. to c. 0) I a) vC 0) ..p co a) •..1 .0 a) co 7 O O 7 t a I a t.n 7 .11 ao Ia a 0) u ti .tJ E "0 C) •.J >. E E E a E ••t N •rt 0 •..s a LO W C 6) Cr O co C) C1 c. "0 CO •-1 ca ..-) O ••r --1 E 7 U 7 K) _J CO -4 to 7 U .-i O CO 4) C Q) X 0) X x R.. - Cr CO Q CO U C U -a 0 •--1 U ••'t 0..0 L.-• --i R. CO c. ;O co 0) Cr 0) 0. (2) C. ••-• ••i •■-) C ..- .•.1 ••• 0) C 7 - •--t Z CO i CO -Z Z Cl- CC 0) CC GI 0) — "Q .1J CO C. 0. •• > O 0 =•CL 6.r t ..i co 0. R 0) 4-1 L. 7• +► ..•••• .1...1 0 4 Cr O CO > 0 4 '0 CO O+.O•-• co .0 :U •L7 z o O O X48 I z I 0 O CO I c c-o co N O aOi a) r co a • cn . n C as m E d O E • a) E •-- •- >. co . CV ar - vl a) — • O E a) • r - IA CT L O CO In. 0 L L O L.c a) C ...1 d .0 _ 'N C Ia 7 a)-N•- C co •.1 U c E L..,0 0 C Q) JJ C C = C •c .-- � U Co .� ro E a) - 7 -v *I o a) 1_ -' •— a) w • C V O o .0 U -0 • In 0 m 13 �ro ,- .a) v N N u u O in •, X 4-1 O o N a) C 7 4J N ro a N • c C . Cu . •.y — a • C 3 0.•c :o C - . • �o ro.-. O a) a) C • in . in 4.I- C3) (13 M ro a) U U C C In r0 .,.• • j 10 E CO a a•.9 (J 0. C. 0. C W U O V 0)-.1- aC) UI C of � •• _ Cu &I •.3 •- ••N E C 4J ++ .0 Q. C a M T a) .v .6.1 .- O d' 4 .0 O. O = 0 2 0 U E ' La •4.1 O) 2 Z Z Z = 0 C I cc c C I I co .. ▪ CO CC I "'� xl G• O r-) C 1:1"W 1 C C CO E - o) �,� O • O 7 "0 .0 • Ca U co ••.i C . 1 Q) 0.a+ a) a) • aj .0 C C) •X L+ W a.) 4.. k• ••-1 3 0 O O I LI CO 1r L+ r V C E LI 0) CC ID FO+ O U O co CC -� C7 •> > N 0. w CO U cc .. 4-1 -p .-r -.•1 0 +) CT O O •.1 0 —1 r C L+ .N a) -•i co 0 O D U CO' 0. X 4 CO CO E CO CC •-1 E E u)1 E � C) Q 0) •.-1 .i '' E E M` E .) co 4- -p .-1 C) •fl CO C E L+ ..i C •-1 M ••-•1 - Ca 0 0..0 = C W 'C U -� 1 'C O C co '� �-1 CO r Q. ) E Q) C• C. 0. 7 CO •.i .w O -.4.u� •.1 U CO . ..-1 C) C C a 4 E CO Op_ --1 E •6-1 E E CD 3 7-. M .0 C) 3 •� 4 a) tv CO ""1.N 'O b CT 1• A s- CO C -C 0 0 CU 1 CL' r-. ) ■ `� C) .o O L+ - r• E tT i. i• L. 1 L+ •CO LC .0 L4 'C] CO •40 d CC •.) C.■. tf) .r.. 0) •CA a) •-1. C E ' •r4 Co ..-1 C) "0 CO O C .Oi O L+ U 7 Ur► E O CO C ..-1 C Cr CO CO Q CO ••-1 +1 V Cd U co : .c •• L •C C c m •.j C) 0. a) 0. 0) 0. 7 L+ o) CO ,., a) 0. .0 a) C>" N CC CO CC CO p 0. Ln 1-- y ..• 7 CO 0 L. - L+ C O L+ ••C 0 O 'C �G.. U r-. . ^� 4 O V C1--- Z T_ 149 L 0 0 0 0 0 O ti 2 z z z m Cr) I I I I I O) C C •- N U) U, in u, •- -0 a) a) a) a) a) c } r rl r �I c •- (0 Li_ a I 1 l ae 9 Oti 7 • E • u, -o - -10 a) -o - a) o C L a) U) U a) L • x 4-, Q) L u, RI in U) •- In C In E 4- - N C >- 4- 0 .- 7 4-' fa C (0 4- a) •7 L a) -- +' -to -O L o. Q•- 4-' f0 3 a) 7 .0 0- 0 I- -o L a) C) 7 O 4-' N E L m U 4- co C a) L 4-, U) L U L L U 4- 4- U - L ¢ • •- U) a 0) a) •- 0 0 f0 - •-• -O "o C .- 7 •— -0 •-1 0) o_ +-J I (U . C (3) a) I- (D Q - (D -- O _0 0,-- 4-1 0.1 1- 3 .n L +-' 4.1 0-•- a) O (D L Cn N (0 C 7 •- (D L C L 0 a 4 a- C U, ,n a) 0 cc C .-- 7 c .O c c L 0 -- 0 E C 40 - Cr (71- 0 a) a) (0 a) .- -o L a++ 4-I 0 - N •- -C 3 - 0 0 (o r o. 3 L- U) 7 U) a) U) • a) a-' - 4- L a) D +J a) cis 9 o.- (D () .0 4-' •c f1 L a) 4-' C +.• "O (o a) - - L O .0 v) a) 4- C (o O O a) +-' • L a o -- a) a) 0 0 a) — -v 4-' 5- 0 3 (U 4- 4- 4-1 t L X 9 a L C) 4-1 C a) • _C O • 4-1 a)U - +-' 0 a) � -C •- -o (I L a)) U) a) -0 U, 4- L fT — U 3 L. O - 0 4..1 a) U (U a) -0 w RI (D O fo 7 4-1 +r C (0 0 (U a) 0 a) a) E a) a e L a) u) +.' 4-' • C a) 4- c 7 4- C - 4.4 N N f0 4-i 4-1 U) Q) a) E L O - L L f0 .0 Q 4-' •- U1 9 c L - •E - +-' a) 7 0 7 O 7 co E U, U, co 0 0 .E -o .0 .0 4-' (I) U) ++ C U) 4- U) 4-1 0 T L 0 4- L C 7 co -- co O .- U) •■ L U) ++ Z) a) a) 7 v) U E a) ut .-- ut N •- 7 a 0 a) 4-' c U, a .- L 7 c 7 0 U, a) -I .0 f0 • 0 0 C a) a) a) O C N O (0 O - 4i 0 3 •- f0 Cr)•- . U o_4-' 0) - U CO •- .-- 4-i -o (0 f0 •- E a) U) - 0 (0 C 0. 0 (D •7 10 -0 > a Q) U) C L L O a -- E a) a) . co .- C L a) L L +.' O L L .0 O .- L -O (I) 7 'o - a) a) a) a) O -- a a) a) (0 4.-' 7 a) N - L c •- .� o �fo a L > a •- •E u) 4-' +r 4-I U) Cr' N •- 7 O L L E 0 (D E •- L — to In a) C .- 7 0 4-' w 2 (0 G - 4- . •- Cl) a -1 -o f0 3 a) < L < C) .0 +.' C 0 U In 4- r 4- 0 0 0 0 0 z (I1 2 2 z 2 z LU W �_ I 1 X X Z V) U) CG C) e - C Lo U) U, U, U) c e r� r >` I" i W a I Q z -- 0 0) Q - 4- 1 7 N c - I a) I - 0- 0 E 0 v) In U L fo 0 -0 E •- z a -0 fa (1.) t a) as o +-, lil '— a) 4- 7-- E 4-i I 0 t 4-' U) C U Z -0 -C L _0 a) CO (1) > N 0) 4-' -- 7 a L +J L L to •- -O U) 0 - -0 a) +-' L a) 9 +' L i_ 0 •u •- a) +-I d A -o - (0 E a) v) 7 +-' ,n C C U) (1) 4-' (U 3 • (0 4- w 0) L C Q L Q a) (D 7 a) •- 4-' N 0 - 3 0 cn L 0 ill +' a) U O • -o E +-' U L E C a) a) •- - U 2 ++ U) L 'A (0 -- (o •- L C C) •- O . - '0 E U 7 - Q () C .- E 4- > a) U a 0) 4 4- L C .-• a) 7 a) Q fa a) +J a C u 40 L a) L L a) 4 E 0 4— -- O +• E c 0 .0 _a I- c 9 L a) 7 44 N co L a) 4-1 L a) L U .- L w 4-1 Q 0) a) 'D U L U U a -o (D d t 4- U Y 0) C (0 c.) E L Q) 4- 4-' a) 9 44 9 a) +-' 4- a c 4-1 -- a) a - C7 ) -I a) •- -c 4- U) VI 4-' -- 0 7 a) L OOE w0)7 U 7 7 0 E -0 4-' 0) +-) c ((U L L. 0) -- - 0- 0- 1- .o - 0 1- -0 •- 4-' U 7 � d (0 14- y L d 7 a) N f0 -- LL a) L C - L •- L L 0 -0 L • 7 Q L4-1 E •- > 3 0 .- - a C L 7 .0 C - N 7 .o -to a▪ re) (0 0 C L C O 43 E fo 4-' -- 4.1 4- U) •- in .0 U) I CL' (Ns f0 3 0 C a) •- - a) C (D • C U) 0 - C A L C -a • L L a) o_ - a) 0 3 a) +P .- U) - A U 7 U, •- a) .D -O ) L -C (1) .- .- -o..--. 7 (0 .- 4-' 7 U X N tf N - a) 0 1- N 44 _ 3 - 0 L �j L In O -0 L • L)J C a) a) 4.-) Q 4-1 9 N w 40 - -IN-- V) a.' -- -- a) 7 U7 -I (0 U - 40 7 ol.P U1 .- 40 U n- •--• 7 CO U) -O > T) 4-i U) U C U U, N • 0) E N • V) 3 •- L V) - C L •- V) a) 4-' 4-' M C ('e1 7 •- M M-0 C a) 4-' M-7 7 a) > .- U I- "O -' U, 0 N 0 N o) X N +.' a) . N a) U a C N 0. 0 -0 0 • a) (o U) • 0 C E1. • .0 C E a) • - 4- E L C L co < a w as .D z -- .o - +) (D .0 U) -- .- 9 .O - 0 •- o_ 7 0_ 150 151 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date November 23► 1987 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - HOME OCCUPATION PROVISIONS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X _Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins Proposed Amendments - Article 6 .16 .6 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Article 6 .16 .6 of the Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND: Recent complaints concerning the operation of home occupations resulted in Ordinance Review Committee recommendations for strengthening the ordinance provisions. The recommendations included the following: 1. In all residential zoning districts except RB. AR and R-1 , add a provision limiting traffic generation by a home occupation and requiring off-street parking other than in a required yard area. 2. In RB. AR and R-1 zoning districts where the minimum lot size is 200.000 sq.ft. or less► add the following: a. Limitations on the size of a detached accessory structure in which a home occupation is conducted to 1►000 sq.ft. b. A requirement that the accessory structure as well as off-street parking be screened by means of an evergreen hedge or a combination of a stockade fence and deciduous plant materials. c. Limitations on the effects of odor and electrical interference on adjoining properties. d. A requirement that outside storage of materials must be screened and the storage area limited to 500 sq.ft. e. Limitations on traffic and off-street parking as described in #1 above. • 1'5 2 3 . In RB. AR and R-1 zoning districts where the minimum lot size is over 200.000 sq.ft. . add the following: a. A requirement concerning screening as described in #2-b above. b. Limitations on the effects of odor or electrical interference on adjoining properties. In addition to the above. provisions are recommended which describe the permit approval procedures. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments. The Planning Board will consider the proposals and prepare a recommendation at its December 21. 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposals for decision on January 4. 1987 . 153 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: 6 .16 .6 - ' • , • , T I , • ..• u - • ._ • i . As An Accessory Use ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x_Staff Planning Board xBOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: ._._.x High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 23, 1987 PURPOSE: To amend Article 6 .16 .6 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide additional conditions to when home occupations may be permitted and to clarify the approval process for Home Occupation Permits. IMPACTS/ISSUES: The County has received complaints about several home occupations. The complaints involve impacts on adjoining residential areas that result from operation of the home occupations. The question raised in response to these complaints was whether the definition of home occupation was too broad, thereby allowing inappropriate uses in residential areas. An evaluation of the home occupation provi- sions in other jurisdictions indicated a range of approaches being used varying from more restrictive to less restrictive than Orange County provisions. Requirements addressing external impacts were noted in particular and are recommended for addition to the Zoning Ordinance. This approach is recommended to address concerns regarding the impacts of home occupations. While providing requirements limiting home occupations to truly incidental uses of residential property, the proposed amendments would allow County residents latitude in the type of home occupation activity in which they may engage. The latter point is important, considering the rural character of Orange County. The proposed amendments concentrate new 154 2 restrictions on those home occupations permitted on smaller residential , lots. Few changes are proposed on large (more than 200,000 square foot) residential lots. This approach is consistent with the emphasis on impact rather than use. A new paragraph is also proposed to outline and clarify the procedure under which home occupations are permitted. It describes the approval procedure and the nature of the activity that is being allowed by a home occupation permit. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 6 .16 .6 Regulatiops Concerning Home Occupations, As An gccessory Use 6 .16 .6 .1 JiomQ Occupations In All Residential Districts Except RB, AR and R-1. The following restrictions shall be applied to all home occupations in all residential districts, except RB, AR and R-1: a) No external evidence of its existence shall be visible, except a sign as permitted by Article 9. b) No more than thirty-five percent of the floor area of the dwelling unit or five hundred square feet, whichever is less, can be used for the home occupation. c) No equipment or process shall be employed that will cause noise, vibration or glare detectable to the normal senses at the lot lines in the case of detached dwelling units or outside the dwelling unit, in the case of attached dwelling units. d) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. e) All activities shall be conducted within the dwelling unit. f) No more than 1 individual, not residing in the dwelling unit, may work in the home 155 3 occupation. 6 .16 .6 .2 Home Occupations In The RB, AR and R-1 Districts. The following restrictions shall be applied on home occupations in the RB, AR and R-1 districts on lots less than 200.000 square feet. a) A maximum of 1,000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation. This floor area can be a detached accessory structure. b) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9 . c) The on premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. d) No equipment or process shall be employed that will generate noise, vibration, or glare detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. e) No more than 2 individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation. f) No outside storage of goods, or materials. 6.16 .6 .3 Rome Occupations In The RB, AR and R-1 Districts (Min. 200,000 square foot lots) . The following restrictions shall be applied to home occupations in the RB, AR and R-1 districts on lots in excess of 200,000 square feet. a) A maximum of 2,000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation. This floor area can be in a detached accessory structure. b) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9 . c) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited. except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. d) No equipment or process shall be employed that will generate noise. vibration or glare 156 4 detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. e) No more than 2 individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation. f) If an accessory structure is to be used for the home occupation the following criteria must be met: 1 . The accessory building shall be set back at least 30 feet farther from the road than the residence. 2. The accessory building shall not be closer than 40 feet to the side and rear lot lines. 3 . The accessory building shall be adequately screened from view of the road and adjacent property by a densely planted evergreen hedge of shrubs or trees. 4. Any outside storage of materials for use in the home occupation shall be totally screened from the road and from adjacent property in the same manner as the accessory structures. The storage area shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. The setback from the side and rear property lines shall be the same as for an accessory building for use as a home occupation. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 6 .16 .6 Regulationg Concerning Home Occupations, As An Accegsory Use. 6 .16 .6 .1 Home Occupations In All Residential Districts Except RB, AR and R--1 The following restrictions shall be applied to all home occupations in all residential districts, except RB, AR and R-1. a) No external evidence of its existence shall be visible, except a sign as permitted by Article 9 . b) No more than thirty-five percent (35%) of 157 5 the floor area of the dwelling unit or five hundred (500) square feet, whichever is less. can be used for the home occupation. c) No equipment or process shall be employed that will cause noise. vibration, glare, odor or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses at the lot lines in the case of detached dwelling units or outside the dwelling unit, in the case of attached dwelling units. d) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. e) All activities shall be conducted within the dwelling unit. f) No more than one (1) individual, not residing in the dwelling unit, may work in the home occupation. g) No traffic shall be qDP;at by such home occupation in significantly greater volumes. than would normally be expected in residential neiahborhood. and any need or parking generated by the conduct of the home occupation shall be met off the street al& other than in a required yard area. 6 .16 .6.2 Nome Occupations In The RB, AR and R-1 Districts The following restrictions shall be applied on home occupations in the RB. AR and R-1 districts on lots less than 200,000 square feet. a) A maximum of 1,000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation. This floor area can be a detached accessory structure. When a detached ac_cessory structure is used for the home occupation. the __total floor area of the accessoLv_ structure cannot exceed 1_400 square feet. b) If an accessory structure is to be used for the home occupation, the following standard must be met: 1 . The accessory building and apy required off-street parkina shall be adequately screened from view of the road and 158 6 • adjacent property by a densely planted evergreen hedge of shrubs or trees. �h lieu of an evergreen hedge_, a six. (6) foot stockade fence and deciduous plant materials may be used for screening purposes. . c) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9 . d) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. e) No equipment or process shall be employed that will generate noise, vibration, glare, odgi elgctrical interference detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. f) No more than two (2) individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation. g) My outside_ storage of materials for use in the home occupation shall be total_bY screened from the road and from adjacent property in the one manner as the accessory structures. The storaqe area shall not. exceed 509 square feet. Thg setback from the side and rear property lines shall be the. sane as for an accessory building used as a home occupation. h) No traffic shall be generated by such home. occupation in significantly greater volumes than would normally Pe expected in a _ residential neighborhood, and any need for. parking generated by the conduct of the home occupation shall be met off the street and other than in a required yard area, 6 .16 .6 .3 Home Occupations In The BB, AR and R-1 Districts, (Min. 200,000 square foot lots) .. The following restrictions shall be applied to home occupations in the RB, AR and R-1 districts on lots in excess of 200,000 square feet. a) A maximum of 2,000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation. This floor area can be in a detached accessory 159 7 structure. b) If an accessory structure is to be used for the home occupation the following criteria must be met: 1 . The accessory building shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet farther from the road than the residence. 2 . The accessory building shall not be closer than forty (40) feet to the side and rear lot lines. 3 . The accessory building and any required off-street parking shall be adequately screened from view of the road and adjacent property by a densely planted evergreen hedge of shrubs or trees. In lieu of an gve_rargj_ bedaei a_ six (6) foot_ stockade_ fep_ce apd deciduous plgpt mateigls may bg used for screening purposes. 4. Any outside storage of materials for use in the home occupation shall be totally screened from the road and from adjacent property in the same manner as the accessory structures. The storage area shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. The setback from the side and rear property lines shall be the same as for an accessory building for use as a home occupation. c) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9 . d) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. e) No equipment or process shall be employed that will generate noise, vibration, glare, odor ar electrical .interfarence detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. f) No more than two (2) individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation. 6 .16 .6 .4 Jlome Occupation Permit - Application Procedure • • 160 8 No home occupation mss be o,Rerate a r except as permitted under this Ord i nan-ce and only after Home Occupation Permit has been issued by. the Zoning Officer� An application for a Home Occupation Permit shall. he filed with the Zoning Officer and shall _ be • , • it . • ■ = . . , - • , 18 0 icer , R • „ I . 0 = _ . _ - . • , - , , en completed a full and accurate description of the proposed, use, including its location, appearance..and operational characteristics are disclosed . In addition to the application, the applicant is required to submit a site plan of the property on. which the home occupation is to be located . The Bite plan shall show the location of the residence or accessory building in which the home occupation is to he _located in relation tQ existing property Lines and adjacent homes : the location, number, and means of access to required_ off-street parking areas ; and the location and type of requ_i_c. d • landscaping and/or screening, The applicant is also required to submit a floor plan of the residence Qr accessory building in which the home occupation Is to be located. The plan shall show the location, size, and use of each, room or area wjthin the residence Qr accesssQrY building. Upon a determination that the application is. complete. the Zoning Officer shall cause a review - . .. . • • , • . . /1 . 4 = I = = - t , 4 = - iI , o , = . . . e - 4 , e II ? • • - 4' 0 • , • u with all requirements of this Ordinance, Based on the reYiew, the application will be approved, approved wtth conditions, or denied. If conditions are attached to the approval of a permit, they may address deficiencies in meeting specific Ordinance requirements or they may address specific _impacts which result from the operation of. the home occupation . In the latter case, the. conditions may include, but not be limited to,. limitations on the hours of operation, the number of vehicles to be parked on the premises, and the location of an accessory building, storage area or, parking on the property. In addition, the Zoning Officer may require greater setbacks and/Qr. additional landscaping or screening tp adequately screen the home occupation from adjoining properties. 161 9 I f • the application is approved,_ either __with or. without conditiobsi the Zoning Officer shall send the . 1 „ _ = 1 • , • • • approval and of the requirements of the Ordinance that apply to the home occupation , The permit - _ u ., x • 1 - . . 1 a - . . . • 1 I - his/her willingness to operate the home occupation. in conformance with the requirements .000 oondJtions set forth in the permit letter. Each permit letter Shall be kept oq file by the Zoning Officer and Shall constitute the Home Occupation Permit for the. particular use In question._ The home occupation may. be operated by the applicant as long as it is operated in conformance with the requirements and conditions set forth in the permit letter. If the application is denied, the Zoning Officer shall notify the applicant of the denial and. shall state tbe r2DSSa11S for slInI 1 in writing. The applicant may Sppga L the (( j 21541 Qi th2 ZQD i Ilg Offlogr tp fh$ Board of Adjustment as set forth in Article 21 of this Ordinance. (. 162 GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING A SITE PLAN FOR A HOME OCCUPATIOM Indicate street name and type (public/private) and show right-of-way and roadway dimensions Ae--"F"--. \ 50' R/W COUNTY ROAD (Public) 20' .Roadway 4/' O . N .• is 40' Front Show driveways and location/size of / 1\ off-street parking areas 100' I Show existing 10' x-60' and/or proposed ` setbacks ) 10--40'..--0- o Indicate lot ,i ,...i:11 w location i of existing dimensions o residence Show location of adjacent homes and r 30' structures , Designate which structure 1 25' is to be used for home PROPOSED HOME - occupation and provide o floor plan showing use OCCUPATION -� u) - «+----___ Show location of and dimensions of floor rp accessory building(s) - area -o and dimensions I c Show existing and _ � N�QO O � v proposed landscaping 25 STORAGE AREA for screening If exterior storage area is proposed, show location ( !) dimensions and method of screening SCALE.: 1" = 60'-0" i I � H -P---20' Rear Provide north arrow, •, 200' - 0" r • scale, name of owner and date -f---/- \\,,, . t----- 20' Sides JOHN Q. DOE - 0000 COUNTY ROAD - ANYWHERE, NC - 12/12/12 163 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date November 23 . 1987. Action Agenda Item 4 SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS - TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes — No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins Proposed Amendments Article Article 6 .17 Article 8 .8 a) TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Article 8 .8 e) Hillsborough - 732- 8181 Article 20.3 .2 f (Existing) Durham - 688- 7331 Article 20 .3 .2 f (Proposed) Mebane -- 227- 2031 Article 22 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments 'which would require a traffic impact analysis to be submitted as part of a development application. BACKGROUND: The proposed amendments would require that a traffic impact analysis or study be submitted with all applications for zoning changes. special use permits or site plans where the estimated traffic generated by the project exceeds 800 trips/day. Proposed amendments for incorporating the requirement into the Zoning Ordinance include the following: 1. Renumber Articles 8.8 a) and 20.3 .2 f) to permit incorporation of the provisions into the Zoning Ordinance. 2 . Add Articles 6 .17. 8.8 e) and a new 20.3 .2 f) which state that a traffic impact study is required for site plans. special use permits and zoning changes. respectively. 3 . Add Article 13 which sets forth the contents required in a traffic impact study. and submission and implementation procedures. 4. Add definitions to Article 22 which define the terms used in a traffic impact analysis. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments. The Planning Board will consider the proposals and prepare a recommendation at its December 21. 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposals for decision on January 4. 1988. 164 165 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE : Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 6 . 17 Traffic Impact Study RequjcaA ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: �x Staff �x Planning Board BOCC _ Public Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION : High Middle`xLow Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 23, 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: Article 6 . 17 will require submission of a traffic impact study as described in Article 13 before issuance of a zoning compliance permit. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : Article 6 . 17 will require preparation and submission of a traffic impact study as described in Article 13 prior to issuance of a zoning permit. A traffic impact study would then be required as part of site plan approval when traffic generated by the development on the site plan exceeds 800 trips per day. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISION: There is no existing provision . PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 6 . 17 Traffic Impact Study Required Preparation and sunm i ssjon of a___traf f i c impact study as required by Article 13 is. required prior to Issuance of any zoning cQmpljancQ permit bQtng issued in Qonjunc- tion tjth Q b_u_iIding permit being issned _i L Lonstruction of improvements shown on an approved site plan. 166 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE : Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE : Article 13 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: --x---_ Staff �_ x Planning Board Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION : High Middle,x__Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE : November 23, 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: Article 13 will create a new require- ment for developments that produce 800 or more trips per day. These develop- ments will be required to prepare and submit a traffic impact study . IMPACTS/ ISSUES : Large-scale development has a significant effect on a community ' s and in some cases a region ' s environment, economy, and public facilities. A traffic impact study is used to determine whether the roadway network in the area of a proposed major development will be able to handle the existing traffic plus additional traffic that will be generated by the development. If , in preparing the study, it is determined that the roadway network cannot adequately handle the additional traffic, the study should provide useful information for determining the types and extent of improvements necessary to handle the additional traffic. In this way, it can provide a basis for linking roadway improvements with develop- ment project approval . This amendment would require preparation and submission of a traffic impact study as part of an application for a zoning atlas amend- ment, a special use permit, or site plan approval that would result in Pproductionaof more than 800 trips per day. included that would allow Orange County to require preparation of a study for smaller proposals as well as an exemption procedure for larger proposals when it can be demon- strated that the proposal would not produce a need for transportation improvements . 167 2 Recommendations for transportation improve- ments resulting from the study will be incorporated into the approval process . EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : None. This is a new require- ment. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: ARTICLE 13 . TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 13 . 1 pURpDSE A traffic impact study shall he required of zoning changes, special use permits, and site pions as defined in Article. The study will enable Orange County to assess the impact of a proposed zoning ch.ngeL special use permits or development on the highway system when that system is at Qr near capacity or a safety problem exists. its purpose i $ IQ insure that proposed developments dg not edYersely affect the highway network and tQ identify any traffic problems_ Qeoociated with access icpm the site to ' the existing transportation network. The pllrpoSe Qf the ,tudY is also to identify, solutions to potential problems and to present improvements to be incorporated into the proposed development. 13 .2 CONDUCT A traffic impact study shall be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer and/or transportation planner with previous traffic study experience. The procedures and standards_ for the traffic this Ordinance. 13 .3 APPS. LQAB I LJ TY Except as described beLcA a traffic impact study shall he required for all Zoning changes , special Yoe permits, or site plane that meet the following criteria: • l O • 1 . 1 . - • n + . - generated by uses permitted in the zone being applied for exceeds B00 trips/day Special USe Permit: estimated traffic geIlerated by the permit exceeds 800 trips/day 168 3 Site Plan: estimated traffic enerate by the BOO trips/AA Zoning changes, special use permits, or site Plans that produce more than 800 trips per day may be exempted fr2 tbg requirements to prepare and submit a traffic impact study if materiai is submitted to demonstrate that traffic created by. the proposal when adding to existing traffic will not result in a need for transportation improvements. Planning Department staff will review material submitted in support of an exemption and will determine from that material whether or not to grant the exemption . If an. exemption js granted, documentation of the exemption will be sublrritted as part of the staff. recQmmen.dation .. Orange county may require any zoning change, special use permit, or site plan appjicati.n to be accompanied by a traffic impact study when a road capacity or safety issue exists. If one is. Lequired, the County will notify the applicant. of the reason for the regu_i rement., 13 . 4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS The traffic impact study shall contain the following InformatiQ.a.;., a) GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION. The site description shall include the size, location= proposed land uses, construction staging and completion date of the proposed land development. If the development is residential ,. types of dweijing unit bedroom. shalJ 8150 he included . A brief description of other major existing and proposed land deyelopuent5 within the study area shall be provided . The general site description shall - . - 1 . - . • , . . _ . .- • f • l characteristics of potential site ysera to the extent tbat they may affect the transportation needs of the site Si .e, , number of senior citizens ) . b ) TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES DESCRIPTION. The description shall contain a full docymentatign of the proposed internal and existing external transportation system. Thi.a descrjptign shall include proposed internal. vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation, 169 4 all proposed _ingress and egress locations, all internal roadway widths _ and r i gilts-of-way, Darking_ conditions, traffic channellzations, and any traffic signals or other Intersection control_ devices at alL intersections within the site . The report shall describe the entice external roadway system within the study area. Major .intersections In the study area shall be identified and sketched . All existing and proposed public transportation services arid facilities within one-mile of the site shall - • . - 4 • , improvements, including _proposed construction and traffic signalization, shall be noted . This information shell be obtained from North Carolina 's Transportation Improvement Program. Any proposed roadway improvements due to proposed surrounding deYelopments shall also be noted., c) EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Existing traffic conditions shall be measured and documented for all roadways and intersections in the study area, Existing traffic volumes for average daily traffic, peak highway hour ( s) traffics and peals development generated hQur( s) traffic shall be recorded ., Manual traffic counts et ma_jpr intersections in the study area shall _be copdyted, encompassing the peak highway and development-generated hour (s), and documentation shall be included in the report. A volume/capacity analysis based upon existing volumes shall be performed during the peek highway bQU,r( s) end the peak development-generated hQur(s) for all roadways aad major intersections in the study area. Levels of service shall_ be determined for each locations This analysis will determine the adeouacy of the existing roadway system to serve the current traffic demand . Roadways end/or intersections experiencing levels of service E or F shall be noted as congestion locations . d ) TRANSPORTATION _IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT Estimation of vehicular trips to result from the proposal shall be completed for the average daily peak highway houris) and peak deve) opmerit generated houris ) . Vehicular trip generation r 170 5 rates, to be used for this calculation shall be. ohtaineJ from an accen±ed source such as the Transportation and Traffic Fn...i niter i na Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers . These. development-generated traffic movements as estimsteP2 and to e( s ) and Methodology followed shall be documented . All turning movements shall be calculated . These generated yolumes shall be distributed to th . study Brea and assigned to the existing roadways. and intersections, throughout the study area. Documentation of ell assumptions used in the. distribution and assignment phase shall be pro- vilied. Traffic volumes shall be assigned to individual access points . Pedestr inl1. .YQlLLm- 1 I . • a - - - 1 ■ ■ . ■ - school crossings are to be used_, pedestrian ■ O • . 1 - . • - 1 • 1 • 11 characteristics of the site that will cause particular trip generation problems shall be noted .. e) ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT . The total traffic demand that will result front construction of the proposed development shall be calculated. This demand shall consist of the. combination of the existing traffic and traffic. • - 1 - _ - 4 . 1 - b • • • . 4 - - • . I1 - 1 _ • • 1 • . 1 - . • • • - . . - - • . 0 - 1 anticipated, calculetierL for each sta of completion shell be made. This Analysis shall be, g - • ( - • I • I . I - . - . 1 • • 1 , . i • . -' I ° peak development-generated hour ( s ) for all. • . 1 . . . A 1 u - •• - 1 — — ■ 1 ' I A — t • area . Vo I upre/_cepaci ty cal cu I at i ons shall be. completed for all major intersections . It is usually at these Iocetlofs that capacity is most. restricted, elles_tr i.aB crossing$ sha I .L be examined as to the feasibility of i nstal l i ng traffic signals . This evaluation shell compare the projected traffic and pedestrian volumes to thin warrants for traffic signal installation . f ) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Levels of service for all roadways and intersec- tions shall be I i sted , A l l roadways and/or intersections sbgwing a level of service below C I . • - • , - a — — a • - . - 1 . 1 ° . - ,reccmmendations for the elimination of these. problems shall be listed . This listing of 171 6 recommended imnrovem.ente shall incliide, but not be limited to the following elements : _internal circulation design site access location and design, external roadway and intersect i on design and improvements, traffic signal installation and operation including signal timing, and transit design improvements . All physical roadway improvements shall be shown in sketches. The listing of recommended improvements for road impLQYements shall include for Qach improvement_, the party responsible for the improvement, the cost and funding of the improvement, and the 13 .5 SUBMISSION AND IMPLEMENTATION The traffic impact study will be submitted to the Orange County Planning Department within the applicable time frame indicated below. The Plan- n ing Department will review the study as part of w ill be incorporated into the approval process ae indicated below . • a) ZONING CHANGES 1 . TIME OF SUBMISSION The traffic impact $titsLy shall be submitted_ to the Planning Department with the application for the zoning change. 2 . IMPLEMENTATION The Planning Department and such other agencies or officials as may appear appropriee in the circumstances of the case shall_ review the II . - I • - I - - I - . - I • I . any traffic problems that till occur due to the - - • . - I ■ I - I • . • - I • I ' I . , - : • - . • • 11 11 • I - I . • I g '• I - • 11 . - and the analysis of the impact study before any change Qf zoning is approved of denied . b ) SPECIAL USE PERMITS 1 . TIME OF SUBMISSION The traffic Impact study will be submitted to the Planning Department with the applicatjQn for the specs_ei life permit. 2 . 1MELEMENTATION 172 7 ThQ planning Department and such ofheL__agencj.es or officials as may appear appropriate in the circumstances of the _ L.gaa shall reyj ew the. impact study to an - - . • = ' ■ • I • any t r a f f i c p r c b l e m s t.h���iiJ_L�s.�yL_ ug__fQ_the proposed use. The Board of Commissioners or Board of Adjustment, as appropriate, shall consLder the impact study and the analyai_s of the impact. study before the application is approved or denied. The Board of Commissioners or Board of Adjustment as appropriate may decide that. u , • 711 - I • I • - , • he site are mandatory for special use permit approval and may make these improvements conditions of. approve] , may regJljre mod-iflcations in the use,. or may deny the permit, c) SITE PLAN APPROVAL 1 . TIME OF SUBMISSION. The traffic impact study will be submitted to ±ba Planning Department with the_site_.�1an ._ 2 . IMPLEMENTATION Ita__Elann.ing Department and such other agencies or officials as may appear appLQgr_Late in the circumstances oi__±he case _,.aha I1 review the impact study to analyze its adequacy in solving. any traffic problems that will occur due _ PL development prQposegi on the site plan . The. Planning Department may ,-Qcommend±hat certain. improvements on or adjacent to _the__a1te_ are mandatory for site plea approval and may requ i re these improvements to be on the.approved _a1±e plan . WJ 173 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE : Articles 8 .8 a ) 10 ) , 11 ) , and 12) Governing 1DS)lvidual Special Uses ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: �x Staff �x Planning Board BOCC Public Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION : High Middle_x„Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE : November 23, 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: These Articles will be renumbered as follows : Article 8 .8 a) 10 ) will be renumbered Article 8 .8 b ) , Article 8 .8 a ) 11 ) will be renumbered Article 8 .8 c) , Article 8 .8 a) 12) will be renumbered Article 8 .8 d ) . There will be no change in text. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : The renumbering of Articles 8 .8 a) 10 ) , 11 ) , and 12 ) is part of a reorganization of this part of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to accommodate changes resulting from the inclusion of a traffic impact study require- ment as a new Article 13. There is no change in the text of Articles 8 .8 a) 10 ) , 11 ) , or 12) proposed in conjunction with the reorganization . PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Article 8 .8 a) 10) will be renumbered Article 8 .8 b ) . Article 8 .8 a) 11 ) will be renumbered Article 8 .8 c) . Article 8 .8 a) 12) will be renumbered Article 8 .8 d ) . *Amended i) Any change in a setback required by the provisions 174 7-5-83 of this Ordinance or imposed as a condition of approval shall constitute a modification. *Amended j) Any change in the location or extent of street and 7-5-83 utility improvements or rights-of-way, including water, sewer and storm drainage facilities, which would provide a different level of service shall constitute a modification. 8.7.2 Review of Record Required *Amended 7-5-83 The Zoning Officer shall, before making a determination as to whether a proposed action is a minor change or a modification, review the record of the proceedings on the original application for approval of the Special Use. The determination shall be based upon the request of the applicant, the review of the record of the approval of the original request and the Zoning Officer's findings under the criteria of Section 8.7.1. Action Required on Proposed Minor Changes or Modifications *Amended The Zoning Officer shall, if it is determined that the proposed 7-5-83 action is a minor change, state the findings in writing to the applicant. The applicant shall file with the Zoning Officer an amended site plan, or written statement, outlining in detail the minor change(s) proposed. The Zoning Officer shall file the amended site plan or written statement with the approved site plan. If it is determined that the proposed action is a modification, the Zoning Officer shall require the applicant to submit a request for modification of the approved special use permit. The applicant shall provide an amended site plan and written narrative outlining the specific changes requested. The Zoning Officer shall submit the request to the Board which approved the original application. The Board shall set a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the modification request. Any public hearing called pursuant to a modification of an approved special use permit shall be held in conformity with the require- ments of Section 8.4.4. The Board may approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application for a modification. The Zoning Officer shall file the Board's action in his office as an amendment request to the original application. 8.8 Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses The regulations for each Class A and Class B Special Use are divided generally into two sections: the first consists of additional and specific components of the application beyond those necessary to comply with Section 8.6, while the second consists of the specific standards which are supplementary to the general standards in Section 8.2 and to the required con- ditions in Subsection 8.4.7. 8-6 The following additional information is required for all 175 Special Use Applications : r 'd a) For Class A Special Uses tweety-six (26) copies of the Site Plan , and for Class B Special Uses ten ( 10) copies of the Site Plan, prepared -nended by a registered North Carolina land surveyor or engineer, which shall /1/85 contain the following: 1) North point scale and date. 2) Extent of area to be developed. 3) Locations and widths of all easements and rights -of-way within or adjacent to the site. 4) Location of all existing or proposed structures on the site. 5) Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown on flood maps or soils maps. 6) Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow. 7) Existing topography at a contour interval of five feet based on mean sea level datum. 8) Proposed or existing fencing, screening, gates , parking, service and storage areas. 9) Access to site including sight distances on all roads used for access. 10) Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development. 11) Names and addresses of owners and applicants. 12) A fee, as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. ended 6.8. 1 Extraction of Earth Products (Class A Special Use) 1/85 8.8. 1 . 1 Additional Information In addition to the information required by Subsection 8.2 , the following shall be submitted as part of the application. ended a) Twenty-six copies of the site plan , prepared by-a North Carolina 5/63 registered land surveyor or engineer, which shall contain the following: 1) Extent of area to be excavated or mined. 2) Aerial photograph of site and all areas within 1 ,000 feet of the perimeter of the property flown within two (2) months of the application for a Special Use Permit. 3) Existing topography at a contour interval of two (2) feet based on mean sea level datum. 4) Land use, road system, natural features and topographical ( 10 foot contour intervals) details for the area within 1 ,000 feet of the perimeter of the property. 176 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE : Article 8 .8 e) (traffic impact study required for Special Use application ) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff _x Planning Board BOCC Public Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION : High Middle__.xLow Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE : November 23, 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: Article 8 .8 e) requires Special Use applications to include a traffic impact study described in Article 13. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : Article 8 .8 lists additional information that is required for all Special Use appli - cations . Article 8 .8 e) will require such applications to include a traffic impact study as described in Article 13 . Such studies would be required with applications that would produce 800 trips per day or more. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : There are no existing provisions . PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Article 8 .8 e) A traffic_imAa t_tudy. as required by Article 13 . 177 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE : Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE : Article 20 .3 .2 f ) contents of Application ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x x Board BOCC Public Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION : High Middle x_Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE : November 23, 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: Article 20 .3 .2 f ) will be renumbered as Article 20 .3 .2 g) . There will be no change in text. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : The renumbering of Article 20 .3 .2 f ) to Article 20 .3 .2 g ) is part of a reorganiza- tion of this part of the Zoning Ordinance ' made necessary by the inclusion of a traffic impact study requirement as a new Article 13 . There is no change in the text of the existing article 20 .3 .2 f ) proposed in conjunction with the reorganization . PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Article 20 .3 .2 f ) will be renumbered as 20 .3 .2 g ) . 178 ARTICLE 20 . AMENDMENTS 20 . 1 Statement of Intent For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound , stable and desirable development within Orange County this ordinance shall not be amended except to correct a manifest error in the ordinance or , because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the county generally , or to extend the boundary of an existing zoning district , or to rezone an area either to a different zoning district or to a corresponding Planned Development district , or to change the regulations and restrictions thereof. These amendments shall be reasonably necessary to promote the public health , safety , and general welfare and to achieve the purposes of the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof. 20 .2 AmaaluaLaaltaatlaa Subject to the limitations of the foregoing Statement of Intent , an amendment to this ordinance may be initiated by: a) The Board of County Commissioners on its own motion; b) The Planning Board ; c) Application , by any person or agency 20 .3 Procedyre >loc Submission, A z. 20 .3 . 1 £oplication Submitted To Zoning Officer, All applications for amendments to this ordinance shall be in writing , signed and filed , two copies with the Zoning Officer and one copy with the County Manager for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners . (For Planned Development amendments see Article 7 ; for Special Use Permits see Article 8) . The Zoning Officer shall , before accepting any amendment application , ensure that it contains all required informa- tion , as specified in this ordinance . Applications which are not complete , or otherwise do not comply with the provisions of this ordinance , shall not be accepted by the Zoning Officer , but shall be returned to the applicant , with a notation by the Zoning Officer of the deficiencies in the application. 20 .3 .2 ;ontents of Application Amended 3-18-86 Applications for amendments to the Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text , without limiting the right to file additional material , shall contain at least the following: 20-1 179 a) For amendments to the Zoning Atlas , a fully dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one hundred feet to the inch showing the land which would be covered by thr proposed Zoning Atlas amendment , and a legal descriptio. of the land; b) For amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text , a copy of the existing text provision(s) which the applicant proposes for amendment , and a written statement which describes in detail changes which the applicant proposes to make to the text of the Zoning Ordinance; c) The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct same; . d) The changed or changing conditions , it any, in the area or in the County generally , which makes the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health , safety and general welfare; e) The manner in which the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof; and f) All other circumstances , factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text amendment . 20 .3 .3 Zoning Officer Prepares Analysis and Recommendation Amended 3-18-86 The Zoning Officer shall , within 30 days of the receipt of an application to amend the Zoning Atlas , cause an analysis to be made of the application and , based upon that analysis , prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners . The 30-day period may be extended with the written consent of the applicant , up to a maximum of 60 days . The 30-day provision shall not apply to applications for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text . 20 .4 Amended 3-18-86 The Zoning Officer shall submit any application for amendment to the Zoning Atlas to the Planning Board at the first regular meeting after the expiration of the 30-day period specified in 20 .3 .3 or any extension thereof. This provisior shall not apply to any application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text . 20-2 180 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE : Zoning Ordinance. REFERENCE : Article 20 .3 .2 f ) Contents of Application. ( New ) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x x Board BOCC _ Public Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION : High Middle_xLow Comment : EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE : November 23, 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: The new Article 20 .3 .2 f ) will require submission of a traffic impact study as described in Article 13 as part of the application for an amendment to the Zoning Atlas or Zoning Ordinance text. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : Article 20 .3 .2 lists the required contents of applications for amendments to the Zoning Atlas and the Zoning Ordinance text. The new Article 20 .3 .2 f ) will require such applications to include a traffic impact study as described in Article 13 . Such studies would be required with applications that would produce 800 trips per day or more. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : There are no existing provisions . PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Article 20 .3 .2 f ) A traffic impact stydy as required by Article 13. 181 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE : Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE : Article 22 DEFINITIONS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff x Planning Board BOCC Public Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION : High Middle_xLow Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE : November 23, 1987 • PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: Article 22 will be amended by adding definitions of terms used in the traffic impact study requirements proposed as Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : The traffic impact study requirements that are proposed as a new Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance contain certain terms that should be defined within the Zoning Ordinance. Article 22 will be amended by adding definitions for the following terms : Level of Service, Major Intersection, Study Area, Trip Generation Rates, and Volume/- Capacity Analysis. These terms will be added alphabetically . No other change in Article 22 is proposed . PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The following terms will be added alphabetically to Article 22 : described in the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual , indicates hQl well traffic moves on a particular highway facility or through_ a specific intersection . Mara ara six IeveJs Lev J of service 9 indicates generally free movement. Level of service E represents maximum capacity of the facility. Level F indicates congestion . Level of service_ C is considered the design leYel of service, representing a .f b l e traffic flow and a relatively satisfactory travel speed . MAJQR INTERSEC11QN - Any Intersection where traffic gQngrated by the proposal will have 182 2 • • - - . 1 - q . . • I 4 - • i - • i • i - intersection . STUDY AREA - This area will extend approxi - mately one-half mile along tht adjacent roadway_ _i in both directions from all access, points or to a major intersection along thest roadways . TRIP GENERATION RATES The total count of. trips to and from_ a study site per unit of land use as measured by parameters like dwelling unitsi acres, etc. VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS - This procedure compares the volumt of a roadway ox inter- section approach to its capacity (m,ximu,m number of vehicles that can pass a given poipt during a given t_imt perioJI . The procedures described in the 1965 Highway. Capacity Manual , Highway Research Board SpeQjal Report Q7 . 183 O R A N G E COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date November 23. 19$7 Action Agenda Item it SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS - TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins Proposed Amendments Sections IV-B-3-d and e (Existing) Section IV-B-3-e (Proposed) Section II TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments which would require a traffic impact analysis to be submitted as part of a subdivision application. BACKGROUND: The proposed amendments would require that a traffic impact analysis or study be submitted with all subdivision applications where 80 or more lots or building sites were proposed or the estimated traffic generated by the subdivision exceeded 800 trips/day. Proposed amendments for incorporating the requirements into the Subdivision Regulations include the following: 1. Renumber Sections IV-B-3 d and e to d-1 and d-2. respectively. to permit incorporation of the provisions into the Subdivision Regulations. 2. Add Section IV-B-3-e which sets forth the contents required in a traffic impact study. and submission and implementation procedures. 3 . Add definitions to Section II which define the terms used in a traffic impact analysis. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed Subdivision Regulations text amendments. The Planning Board will consider the proposals and prepare a recommendation at its December 21. 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposals for decision on January 4. 1987 . 184 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE : Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE : IV-B-3-d STREETS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x_ Staff __x Planning Board BOCC Public Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: H i g h M i d d l e e,..__x_Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE : November 23, 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: Section IV-B-3-d will be renumbered to Section IV-B-3-d-1 . There will be no change in text. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : The renumbering of Section IV-B-3-d, to Section IV-B-3-d-1 is part of a reorganiza- tion of this part of the Subdivision Regula- tions made necessary by the inclusion of a traffic impact study requirement as a new Section IV-B-3-e. There is no change in the text of Section IV-B-3-d proposed in con- junction with the reorganization . PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Section IV-B-3-d will be renumbered as Section IV-B-3-d-1 . 185 IV - B - 3 - c - 11. Street Names - Names of streets which duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets within Orange County, in- cluding all municipalities , shall not be approved. Extensions of existing and named streets shall bear the name of such existing streets. House numbering shall comply with standards recommended by the Planning Board and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. IV - B - 3 - c - 12 . Street Name Signs - Approved street name signs shall be erected by the subdi- vider at the intersection of streets. IV - B - 3 - d. Private roads may be allowed in a subdivision where: (1) in the judgement of the Planning Board and with the approval of the County Commissioners, it is found that the nature and location of the subdivision, including such considerations as topography, the surrounding area, the present and future road plans, and access by public safety vehicles , are such • that a private road is justified (2) and if one or more of the following conditions are met: A) the subdivision consists of less than ten (10) lots B) the subdivision preserves a natural area throught deed restrictions and special design features C) the subdivision does not embrace or abut any part of a thoroughfare or street shown on the Orange County thoroughfare plan, or a municipality's thoroughfare plan within the County, or does not lie within a designated transition area as determined by the County. D) the subdivision joins or extends an existing subdivision where the streets of the existing subdivision are private or unpaved and when the new subdivision shall be platted to connect with the streets of such existing subdivision and be compatible with and in harmony with the surrounding community area. E) the subdivision roads, even if constructed to State Standards, would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or some other State requirement that the subdivision cannot meet. For a subdivision to be approved with privy roads, it should meet as many of the above criteria as possible. The meeting of one (1) or more of the specified conditions will not insure automatic approval of private roads. -30- 186 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE : Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE : Section IV-B-3-e STREETS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff x Board BOCC Public Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION : High Middle_x .Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE : November 23, 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: Section IV-B-3-e will be renumbered to Section IV-B-3-d-2 . There will be no change in text. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : The renumbering of Section IV-B-3-e to Section IV-B-3-d-2 is part of a reorganiza- tion of this part of the Subdivision Regula- tions made necessary by the inclusion of a traffic impact study requirement as a new Section IV-B-3-e. There is no change in the text of the existing Section IV-B-3-e proposed in conjunction with the reorganization . PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Section IV--B-3-e will be renumbered as Section IV-B-3-d-2. 187 IV - B - 3 - e. A private road shall be required to meet standards set by Orange County. Satisfactory proof that the standards are met will be required by the County Manager or his appointed agents . If a subdivision is to contain private roads, the subdivider shall guarantee (a) a right of access to any private road in the sub- division by all lots served by the road, and (b) perpetual maintenance of any private road in the subdivision at the standards set for approval. See Section III - E - 5 - k for additional requirements. -31- 188 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Section IV-B-3-e (New) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x., Staff _x Planning Board BOCC Public. Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle,x_Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 23. 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: The new Section IV-B-3-e will require preparation and submission of a traffic impact study as part of the application for approval of sub- divisions with 80 or more dwelling units or where the estimated traffic generated by the subdivision exceeds 800 trips/day. IMPACTS/ISSUES: Large-scale development has a significant effect on a community' s and in some cases a region' s environment. economy. and public facilities. A traffic impact study is used to determine whether the roadway network in the area of a proposed major development will be able to handle the existing traffic plus additional traffic that will be generated by the development. If. in preparing the study, it is determined that the roadway network cannot adequately handle the additional traffic. the study should provide useful information for determining the types and extent of improvements necessary to handle the additional traffic. In this way. it can provide a basis for linking roadway improvements with develop- ment project approval. This amendment would require preparation and submission of a traffic impact study as part of the application for preliminary plan approval for subdivision containing 80 or more dwelling units. Procedures are included that would allow Orange County to require preparation of a study for smaller subdivisions as well as an exemption proce- 109 yy pp 2 dure for larger subdivisions when it can be demonstrated that the subdivision would not produce a need for transportation improve- ments. Recommendations for transportation improvements resulting from the study will be incorporated into the subdivision approval process. Certain improvements may be attached as conditions for approval of the subdivision. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: None. This is a new require- ment. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Section IV-B-3-e A tra is mpac study_shallk�_ required of subdivisions as defined in Section IV-B-3- 3: The study will enable Orange County to assess the impact of a proposed subdivi- sion on the highway system when that system is at or near capacity or a safety problem exists* Its_purpose is,___to insure that proposed developments do pgt adversely affect the hiabway network and to identify c from the site to the existing transporta- tion network. The pprpose gf the study is also to identify solutions to pote.Dtial s incorporated into the proposed devslQpment_., IV-B-3-e-1 Conduct A traffic impact study shall be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer and/or transportation planner with previous traffic ,stpdy experience. The procedures and standards for the traffic impact study are .get forth in Section IV-B-3-e-3 of this ordinance,. IV--B-3-e-2 Applicability Except as descr b below. a traffic impact study gball be required for all, subdivisions containing $Q or pore dwelling units or where the estimated traffic generated by the spbdivisjon exceeds 8Q0 trips/day. A subdivision containing 80 or more dwelling units or which generates traffic ii excess of 800 trips/day may be exempted from the requirement tp prepare and submit a traffic impact study if, as part of sketch plan review demonstrate that traffic created by tit subdivision when added to existing traffic will not result in a need for transportation improvements. Planning Department staff will 190 3 - 0- - _ • fl • - ._ ' 4 . .. • t _ whether or not to grant the exemption. If an exemption is granted. documentation of the exemption will be submitted as part of the staff recommendation on the preliminary plan. Orange County may require any subdivision approval application to be accompanied by a traffic impact study when a road capacity or safety issue exists. If one is required. the County will notify the applicant of the reason for the requirement.. IV-B-3-e-3 - GENFRAIJ REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS t- i i •-. . • - f-- • 1 ti - following ipformatiop:. (a) GSNERA-I SITE DESCRIPTION. locaions proposed land uses. construction staging and completion date of the proposed land. development. If the development is _residential.. • typge of dwelling units and number of bedrooms shall also be ,inclOed. A brief description of other major existing and proposed land develop- ments within the study area shall be provided. The general site description shall also include • . - . - • . 0-- . i •.�t1C C. _ . -C - • - potential Bite users to the extent tht they may affect the transportation needs of the site. ' I . (L. - • _. - t 1• (b) TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES DESCRIPTION. The description shall contain a full documenta-. tion_ of the puppses7 internal and existing external transportation system. This description shall include proposed internal vehicular. bicycle and pedestrian circulation. all proposed. 1pgress and egress locations. all internal roadway widths and rights-of-wyy. parkins 4"t • . t ! -EI - ' - '• . . - +d traffic signals or other intersection control, devices at all intersections within the site. The report shall describe the entire external • _ . , - - R i. . t tc - • -. - - - • intersections in the study area shall be identi- - d - ! • 4. I • - I. • • ••S- • . . , , .. ' • � ' . - _ - td -c ' i - within opg mile 9f the site shall also be p 191 4 documented. Future highway improvements, including promised construction and traffic. signalization, shall be noted. This information shall be ohtained from North Carolina' s Transportation Improvement Program. Any propgeed roagiway _improvements due to proposed surrounding developments shall also be noted. (c) EXISTING TRAFFIC_ CONDITIONS Existing traffic onditigns shall be measured and documented for all roadways and intersections in the study area, Existing traffic volumes for a er,ge daily traffic, peak highway hour(s1 traffic, and peak development generated hou r(s) traffic shall be recorded. Manual traffic counts at_ major intersections in the study area shall be conducted, encompassing fhe peak hiah� way _ and __ develop a _g nerat_e hour(s) , and documentation shall be included in th& reportL volume/capacity analysis based upon existing volumes shall be performed during the peak highway hour(s) and the peak development-generated hour(s) for all roadways and major intersections in the study area. Levels of service shall be dete;inined for each location. This analysis will determine the adequacy of the existing roadway_ system to serve the current traffic demand. Roadways apd/or inte;sectiong experiencing levels of service E or F shall be noted as congestion locations. (d) Estimation of vehicular trips to result from the proposal mall be completed for the average daily peak highway hour(s) and peak development generated hour(s) ., Vehicular trip generation rates to be used for this calculation shall he C Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, deyelopment-generated traffic movements as estimated, and the reference source(s) and methodology followed shall be documented. All turning movements shall be calculated. These generated vol _ es sriall be distributed to the study area and assigned to the existing roadways Documentation of all assumptions used in the ' • - • . • • - c • • 11 — t ! s — 0 . • — • •- vided, Traffic volumes shall be assigned to 5 192 - - .s • • .1 ft- shall also be calc schogl crossj.ngs are to be used/ pedestriAn volumes shall_be assigned to each_ crssing, Any, characteristics of the site that will cause • -tioi •roblems sh.11 ' - noted. (e) ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT t - • . _ • - _ t.• 1 - - - - • construction of the-proposed. development shall be calculated. This demand shall consist of the. combination of the existing traffic and traffic generated by the proposed development. It staging_ of the proposed develn ment_ is completion shall be made. This analysis shall be. performed during the peak highway hour(s) and peak development--generated hour(s) for all. roadways and major intersections in the study area. Volume/capacity calculations shall be. completed for all major intersections. It is usually at these locations that capacity is most restricted_ - - - S• 1 1.. •- • - • t . • - . • 1 • .. 1 - be examined as to the feasibility of Installing traffic signals. This evaluation shall compare, the projected traffic and pedestrian_ volumes to the warrants for traffic signal installation. (f) 4oD .1_ • 4 _ op . D .• i• . . ...._. Levels of service for all roadways and intersec ti9ns shall be listed. All roadways and/or intersections showing a level of service below C shall be considered deficient. aad specific. recommendations for the elimination of these problems_ shall be listed, Thj.s listing of. recommended Improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following elements: internal circulation design, site access location and deign. elcternal roadwy and intersection design and _improvements, traffic signal installation and operation including signal timing. and transit design_ imprQyementp. p1l physical. - • - { - . - - 1.- . - 0_40 1 1 The listing of recommended improvements for road improvements shall include for each improvement. the party usponsj.ble for the improvement, thg cost and funding of thg improvement. and t • t • • 1. . . _ . 1.- •r• -31- t 193 6 IV-B-3-e-4 - SUBMISSION AND IMPLEMENTATION The traffic impact study will be submitted to the Orange County Planning Department within the applicable time frame indicated below. The Plan- ning Department will review the study as part of the development review process. Recommendations will be incorporated into the approval process as indicated below. (a) TIME OF SUBMISSION The sketch plan should be sufficiently detailed to allow the Planning Department to assess the need_ fo; a traffic impact study. The traffic impact study shall be submitted to the Plannina Department with the preliminary plan application for subdivision approval. (b) IMPLEMENT4TION Th& Plannina Department and such other agencies or officials as may appear appropriate_ in the des of the - -c � shall review_ the impact study to analyze_its adeauacy in solving any traffic problems that will occur due to the subdivision. The Planning Department and Planning Board may recommend and the Orange County Board of Commissioners may decide that certain improvements on Dr adjacent to the site are mandatory for plan approval and may attach these conditions to trig approval. If the Board of Commissioners cgncludea that additional have the opportunity to resubmit alternative improvement designs for approval. 194 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE : Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE : Section II DEFINITIONS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff .__x Planning Board BOCC Public Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION : High Middle__..xLow Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE : November 23 , 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: Section II will be amended by adding definitions of terms used in the traffic impact study requirements proposed as a new Section IV-B-3-e of the Subdivision Regulations . IMPACTS/ ISSUES : The traffic impact study requirements that are proposed as a new Section IV-B-3-e of the Subdivision Regulations contain certain terms that should be defined in the Sub- division Regulations . Section II will be amended by adding definitions for the following terms : Level of Service, Major Intersection , Study Area, Trip Generation Rates, and Volume/Capacity Analysis . These items will be added alphabetically . No other change in Section II is proposed . PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The following terms will be added alphabetically to Section Il . - - - • - - ` described in the 1965 Highway Capacit. Many_al , indicates how well traffic moves on a particular highgay facility or - tbroygh a specific intersection. There are six levels of servicing ranging from A through F . • - - ' u . ' . - . - , ; - - movement. Levej of service E representa maximum capacity of the facility . Level F. i nd i caj-es congestion . Level of service it is considered the design I representing a stable traffic flow and a relatively satisfactory travel speed . 1Q 2 MAJOR INTERSECZLON - Any _intersect1Qn where traffic generated by the propo _aJ will have a significant impact op the operation of the intersection . STUDY AREA - This area will extend_ approxi - mately one-half mile a_lortg the adjacent roadway in 1Pta directioaa from 011 access points or to a major intersection along, these roadways . TRIP QENERAT I Ot RATES - The total count of trips to and from a study aito per unit of land use as measured by parameters like VQLQMEJCAPAQITY ANALYSIS - This procedure compares tha voluma of a roadway or inter- . section approach to its capacity (maximum number of vehicles that can paste a given point during a given time period ), The procedures descrL12aA an the 1965 highway Capacity Manual , Highway Research Board Special Report 87 . 16 �. of EIVE�7 1i-z3-a-/ November 20, 1987 Mr. Marvin Collins Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, North Carolina Mr. Collins: 1, Aubrey McLennan, owner of Lot 24, Map 115 in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, do hereby give authority to Mr. Leon Todd to make application for a planned housing development of 14 lots on said property, and also grant my approval of this action. Sincerely, Aubrey McLennan /77/7<er T ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT Date : November 17, 1987 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested . 1 . The property is located on the East; side of S.R.#, 1Q4k ( Bowden Street/Road) between S .R .# inns and S.R .# 1942 It is known as Lot (s) 24 , Block N/A ,, of Orange County Tax Map , 115 ChnpP1 i 11 Township . It has a frontage of 401.7R feet and a depth of 117(4A7 feet , and contains 1,525,FFn square feet or `27 17 acres . 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from RB to RB-PD-H 3 .- The •-following information has been attached in support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas Is - required on all applications) . •a. A fully dimensioned map at a scale of not Less than one (1) inch aqua la one-hundred (100) feet nor wore than one (1 ) inch equals twenty (20) fast showing the land which is proposed to be rezoned. •b. A legal description of the land proposed to be rezoned. •c. A statement of justiflcetion •ddresaing ono or sore of the following: (11 Tha alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detail Led sap lanation of such to the Zoning Atlas and Metalled reasons how the proposed amendment el ll correct the error. (2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the urea or in the County generally. which arks the proposed sarndment rseaonably nee u•aary to the promotion of the pub lie health, safety and general welfare. •(3) Ths ■ann•r in which the proposed amendment WiLL carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or pars thereof. •(4) All other circumstances, factors and reeson• which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including. but not limited to, documentation frogs service agencies (e.g. firs, police, rescue and utlLiti•s egrns'sa) assuring services provision capability to the d•veLopment. d. A list of all individuals, firma or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred (500) feat of the property souplh,t, f&rn rezoning is attached. The List 1s currant ea of (Data) • I certify that ell information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge . App ti cent ( s) :, T.Pnn Tnriri Address :.J„31 W rranirlirrCtra,Rt ( hapP1 Hill. NI- 97c1 Phone . 1A19] - 119a - 9,12) SPECIAL USE PIlat liT Notice is betaby given the Board Adjustment and the zoning Officer- of an appeal from the ruling of the Zoning officer on the day of which ordered that - —��--` _.��_ • . _ or I request a Special Use Permit as provided for in Section 7 for Planned T]euelopraeat - 14 Lots premises located Parcel 24, Chapel-Hill Township Tax Map 115 . said premises being within the area of jursidictioa of a Zoning Ordinance for Orange County as applied to Chapel still and Eno Townships, adopted by the Orange County . Euard of. Commissioners. Title for this property is in the name of Aubrey McLennan', Route 4, Box 477, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 • - • The grounds for this appeal are as follow: `Planned Development - Housing_is a permitted use under the Orange County Zoning Ordinance but is required by that Ordinance to be permitted pursuant to a Special Use Permit. • _Jjyyeinber. 17, 1987 Date — nr,tr re of 11pfx:ll<<�t 13_3___V. Franklin Sr., Chnriei~ rill, NC 27114 _ Address If title to above mentioned property is not in the ncrrne of the applicant and appeal. is on behalf of such property, attach a letter from the owner signify in7 his approval. - Appeal line;t be ac:oompanied by a stmt].l scale vicinity map, ::hawing exact location of of property with respect to existing streets, street numbers and size of lots, nature of adjarout property use.:, and other important features:, within'and contiguous to the. property. The bare-: of the owners of all lots within SOO feet in all directions from the property will be shown. A tax map must also accompany your request. • • • SregiaLC VL buwCVJJC IC/DC b 141l4 WLC4 KV' peatedly asked not to? No.6. Is it not breaking the law to buns a trash barrel and open fires for warmth on someone else's property without theiC permission? Is there no public protection from these types of violations?If this were bappeningt on a vacant lot in nearby Hope Valley or 4 more affluent neighborhood,would the pos lice and other public officers still say them was nothing that could be done? I am putting on the record with this let; ter my frustrations as to the past events and am asking that the public's and mg personal rights be acknowledged and pro! tested. ROBERT B.GUNTEE I H►. Rd About Property? 6 i % If you own land., , ch contains a creel; - (greenway) and are concerned about your :, , ,rivacy,peace and quiet,beautiful -: d flowers, not to mention trash: and strangers on your property,I urge you, - .:to attend the hearing on this issue Nov.2 at 7:30 p.m.in the Superior Court Room at the courthouse in Hillsborough. 4.: f According to the joint planning land usa� - �`'plan in Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro,many parks and open spaces art planned.These parks have been generall$ located throughout all of these areas These parks will be joined by a-system of . greenways (creeks) which belong to yo4 •as a landowner. -. „- >.--.-. -_ ;v The greenway issue will be first on thq. agenda. It would be advisable to come tq: the courthouse early and sign up to speak out-on your concerns and fears for yob _land, -- : _ - LINDA LEE HENRI •---v,,r,r naSeq- rLLEhI SP104LT 300 JAMES STREET CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27510 H: 967--3054 W: 967-1886 ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING ON Mc LENNAN'S FARM November 23, 1987 Chair Marshall and members of the Board of Commissioners. I am Allen Spalt . My family and I live at 300 James Street , in Carrboro. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Board on the subject of the proposed McLennan's Farm subdivision . I 'd like to relate my comments to watershed protection . In July, on behalf of a group of concerned Carrboro and Orange County citizens, now 1$sely organized as "Protect Our Water" , I addressed this Board and asked your help because we faced the impending construction of a large and ill -conceived development in the University Lake watershed. We appreciated the concern of this Board then , and I know that you are still concerned about protecting the quality of the principal drinking water source for southern Orange County. The issues involved with McLennan's Farm are a part the larger situation . The basic question is what level of development can be permitted in the watershed consistent with a long-term supply of safe drinking water? We don' t yet know for sure . NASA is conducting a study of the University Lake Watershed to help find the answer . A study of Cane Creek is to follow. What do we do in the meantime? I think it is best to do proceed with extreme caution and to do as little as possible . In debates over watershed protection in Carrboro, nationally recognized water quality experts testified that the level of development is directly related to water quality. As Dr . Daniel Okun put it , "degradation (of the water quality] is a function of development . . . in every instance" . The more development , the more problems, sooner and later . McLennan's Farm proposes to use a common septic system to dispose of waste water . What do we know about such systems and what is their effect on development? It is easy to answer the latter question first--community systems allow greatly increased density of development . In the current case , public water and sewer is not available- -OWASA has a moratorium on extension of service pending the outcome of its study. According to the developers' consultant , only about 2 acres of the land perks. Without an alternative system, most of the land could not be developed. With such a system, 14 houses 2 are proposed for phase one , with what looks like at least an equal number proposed for later . Cluster development with community systems may be a good idea in some places. But it is not suitable for the watershed. We have had to learn a lot about such systems in recent months, and the news for the watershed is not good. Among the problems are : --new technology: these systems have not been used long enough to know how they will stand up in critical areas; OWASA plans to use University Lake until the end of the next century-- how long will these untested systems last? --elaborate equipment prone to failures: read the consultants' report on low pressure systems carefully--there are a lot of potential problems with the expensive pumps and electrical and plumbing systems. The report is a cross between a sales pitch and a technical report and is very sobering. --uncertain responsibilities: who is to maintain the system? the howeowner? a homeowners association (such groups have a very poor record in these areas)?, a public utility? It is not clear from the proposal . Who puts up the money right away when a pump ar drain field fails? --unclear jurisdiction : approval is by the Division of Environmental Management if it is to be operated by a public utility and by the Health Department if by a homeowners association--the proposal refers to both as if they were the same . If the permit is to be granted by DEM, the county has little or no say and the public has no right of appeal --only the developer if he or she is turned down . --inadequate regulations: the state rules on these systems make NO distiction between low pressure systems in just any watershed and those impacting public drinking water supplies; higher standards are needed for the later . The OWASA comments are very pertinent on this question . OWASA also offers further critique of the relation of this design to the state standards. It's conclusion : there is too little margin for error . "Marginal " Piedmont soils in a watershed are not suitable . A public water supply is not an appropriate place for reasearch on alternative waste systems. This conclusion holds whether they are to serve 14 units or 158. It would be apprpriate for Orange County to consider implementing a moratorium on such systems at least until the OWASA study is completed and evaluated. I suggest you to do just that . It is important to ask how a development such as McLennan's Farm fit into the County policy on the watershed? I was surprised when I called the Planning Department to find that the staff wasn' t sure at first if the land in question was in the 3- watershed. The "Action Agenda Item Abstract" prepared for the Planning Board's November 16th meeting just last week did not mention that it was in the University Lake watershed. I suggest that all such proposals be highlighted in big red letters. People rightfully protested when Carrboro approved a major development in the watershed. Some citizens, including myself , have gone to court over it . Watershed issues played a major role in Carr_boro election . But Carrboro does not hold all the keys to the watershed. Far from it . More land is controlled by the county. We must not have Amberly by degrees. It won' t take many McLennan's Farms to add up to Amberly. We are at one of those junctures where science and politics, short-term pressures and long-range interests, all intersect . And, as always, we are forced to make choices on the basis of the best available information without "all the facts" or a crystal ball to tell us how everything will turn out . We are at one of those forks in the road where the road not taken is as important as the one we choose . We do not have a perfect water supply now, but the OWASA area is blessed with very good quality water . The University Lake watershed has been well protected by both foresight and good fortune . We are now past the point where we can afford to rely on luck--only a determined effort to keep it free from potentially harmful effects will now suffice . It is also clear that a high quality water source is as much a matter of dollars as it is of health . New standards that are a part of the recently passed federal drinking water act will be difficult to meet ; read that "expensive" to meet . Guess who will bear the costs? We have cleaner watersheds than many places, yet ours are not pristine . Many drink out of the Hudson , the Potomac , or , closer to home , the Haw. Your constituents and their grandchildren will not thank you if we let University Lake , Cane Creek , and other local sources deteriorate . Given the long-term nature of the problem and the irreversibile effects of development , I urge the Board to err on the side of excessive caution in dealing with the watershed. In sum, I urge you to reject the proposal for McLennan's Farm, to initiate a moratorium on community systems in the watershed, and to continue to protect our water for the long haul . Thank you very much for your consideration of these views. IBAtiSCB1P_1_QE_QQMME.dI.S_MAQ 8V DANLQIiUN_AT SEA.IEMBE11-2..._12115y@QABQLDE_ALQ.ERMElal!I—MEEI M My name Is Dan Okun, I am a professor of environmental engineering at the university, sort of semi -retired . I have a little more time to engage In consulting activities, which took me away from here during July . And , when I came back , 1 heard about the projected development and some people approached me and suggested that I might participate In the deliberations . I 've been engaged in activities of this kind in other parts of the United States and I do have something to say of a . general nature as well as speaking specifically to the amendment . I hope that If I do overstep my bounds in terms of what I speak about , call to account and I ' ll try to get back on it . But I didn 't have a chance to speak before. We in this area are very fortunate in our water resources and I commend Carrboro for. :its level of activity in this regard . I was privileged to testify before the Water, Quality Task Force . First I might say I live in the county, i • don 't live in Chapel Hill , I own property in Carrboro and my son and his family live In Carrboro on the property I own . I feel I have a stake here . But my biggest stake is professional because am concerned with drinking water quality . . Carrboro and all communities that have responsibilities for the protection of water quality are in a very difficult position--one which is not of your making or anyone 's making , but times have crept up on us and we can see what is occurring by the passage just a few months ago of the new addition of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is far stricter than what was passed in 1974, which was the basis upon which the deliberations of the Water Quality Task Force were based upon . And we all In every jurisdiction with which I work , largely in California, is faced with the fact that we are going • to have to deal with many more contaminants , some of which we have difficulty in measuring , and we are going to have to be far more stringent in the future . We should not feel badly that what we once thought was adequate we now have to perhaps go over and refine because at one time in 1974 or at the time ,the Water Quality Task Force was in operation , we had about 26 chemicals In our drinking water standards and in a few years we are going to have a minimum of 83. And every couple years after that Congress has mandated that there be more. So there is going to be a lot more surve.l-llanc'e of our water quality because in fact there Is considerable concern with it . And we are fortunate because we have watersheds , which in the new North Carolina classification both University Lake and Cane Creek have the prospect of being classified In the highest of three classifications of drinking water called W- S-1 . And to maintain that Is something we should strive for . Now the degredation is a function of development . We per- ceive this in every instance . Now mitigation measures that are taken that have been proposed over the years for con- trolling stormwater--all kinds of devices--at best, and we have had a study at the University on this--at best they •r• only partially successful . Even if they are very well designed , they at best are from 50 to 70 percent successful In reducing the impact of that development. What they may do Is delay to some extent the erosion of the water quality. And erosion Is a good word because a lot of the problem deals with sediment control and that gets us to another factor which mitigation measures require of us and which we are really not prepared to do and that is to maintain the facil - ities that we put in for mitigation . We don 't have in North Carolina or Orange County sufficient forces to go around and look at every construction project and exert the kinds of controls that are necessary because we see the streams, despite the regulations that we have, running red after rain storms . So on paper we can look very good and we can build facilities that meet what we feel are the best standards that we now have, but there is still one thing that Is Inexerable, development on the watershed is going to effect the quality of water drawn from that watershed in direct proportion to the level of development. And we need to be particularly careful about that. Now the prressures of development that we are feeling here are very great, but I would like to cite one example of an area where the pressures of development are far greater and the money values of lands have been substantially greater than here and that Is northern Virginia in the surburban area of Washington , Fairfax County specifically . Now the Fairfax County Water Authority is something in the same position that OWASA is here and Fairfax County has half of the watershed called Aquatron Lake on Aquatron River . They control half of that watershed and they had zoning on that wateshed on an average of one dwelling unit per acre. They had a study made of what levels of development could be admitted to sustain the quality of that water for Fairfax County Water Authority . And as a result of that study over the whole area the reco- mmendations made to them by the consulting engineers that the zoning of the watershed in the Fairfax County half be reduced from one unit for a acre to one unit for five acres and that was a very brave thing to do because development pressures there are very high and land values are very, very much higher than they are here . Homes that are being built there are way out of scale for anyone Who has ever been there recently to try to buy. Even modest homes are in the $200, 000 and $300, 000 range, so land values are very high . They did this and they were sued by - t'he developers because they saw one acre they could make money beoause the value of land was high and developers here with one acre zoning can make money . They could see that making money on five acres was going to be very difficult but the courts in Virginia upheld the Fairfax County Supervisors on that stance . There have been many other similar cases where local communi - ties--state , county and community--have taken watersheds and protected them by what appears to be an Infringement on development rights . In every case because this Is done for the protection of the public health, the courts have upheld the local authority—county, state, local community--in doing this . And this is what we have, we have the heart for it. In Wake County I made a similar presentation . They take water from the Neuse River . And they are admitting on their watershed package plants and package plants sound good on paper they do everything they are suppose to, but the problem comes with maintenance and so on. And they are faced with the problem too that If they are not going to be very, very strict on their watershed, they have other counties that responsible for the rest of the Neuse River watershed--Its a multi-county position and it requires leadership and courage to maintain the control of development. So my words to you are that we ought to try to develop our regulations, not for the purpose of making development possible, which Is what I read here, for example, it says here that--this is in Section 6(q) "and without a crossing over 50% of the tract would be without access and therefore undevelopable." Maybe that is a very fortunate thing . There is no need for every acre of land in the watershed to be developed . Now because 50% of a pOrticular tract is undevelopable, it may be feasible to have somewhat greater development elsewhere, but there is no need to try to encourage development. There is a need to encourage development In areas outside the watershed . That 's where we need all kinds of housing--low-cost housing , dense housing . We need a mix and we can have very high-class housing also, but outside the watershed . . Inside the water- shed we want to have development that is compatible with water supply and that means very limited densities because the perimeters we use in measuring the impact of an area on a watersupply so many pounds of a pollutant--lead whatever it might be per current mile or so many per dwelling unit--is a function of density of development . And elsewhere this idea about sewers, now I am not a great believer of septic tanks as my mother used to call them skeptic tanks as we have a reason to be skeptical about them. On the other hand while I would like to believe and I did once believe this in Guilford County, in Greensboro, and 1 turned out to be wrong, I was asked if I would come in and speak against a sewer on the watershed there because there was houses that had septic tanks and the septic tanks were giving trouble. So 1 said I wouldn 't speak against the sewers because I think the sewers are better than the septic tanks . But what happened there in Guilford County in Horsepan Creek was that they put the sewer in and I agree with Mr . Rose that I wish this wouldn 't have happened and I trust in you and those that follow you that it will not happen . As a result of that -sewer there has been far more development in Horsepan Creek than would have been the case If the sewer was not built, because the sewer allowed much greater densities . Mayor Porto: Did they have a task force . Mr . Okun : No. I said what you have done is very good . One of the problems with allowing cluster development and allowing sewers is the precedent you set for others on the same watershed not only on this watershed but Cane Creek. _ It 's not In your Jurisdiction, but others are going to look at If they can have on University Lake this kind of thlwg with the sewers and they have to pump the sewers--In this regard I might cite Durham County, what they have done Is they allow sewers on the watershed but only the extent that they can flow out of the watershed by gravity, no pumpts. Now that has the Impact of limiting what developers can because I can foresee that later on a developer will want to come in and put in a package plant on the watershed and he can show that it meets all of the standards and so forth . So my concern It that, and I would urge upon you, you have made a very careful examination and there is new evidence coming up all the time, Is that it Is really not feasible to control the watershed Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction because It has to be some Joint effort by all those who have providence over the watershed . And if there Is a certain level of development which can occur, that development be divided over the whole area, but If Carrboro, Orange County and whoever else has control , wants to exact from its piece of property the most development, then over the whole area you will have an Impact , on the watershed that will Just be devasting, but If there is a plan all together , then the burden of develop- ment can be spread evenly and it can be done to the extent that it will be perceived technically. We have the tools now to measure what the impact (tape ran out) . I Ile 4v.t, THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT The School of Public Health CHAPEL HILL The Unn•emih of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Department of Rnvnnu 11311 201 11 Fnvironmental Science%and Engineering Chapel 11. v.< 27314 July 21. 1987 Carrboro Board of Aldermen Town Hall Carrboro, NC 27 510 Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the hearing on July 28 concerning the Amberley Project. This letter represent^ my views. Regardless of how the Amberley project is provided with water - and sewerage services, a decision on the project should be delayed until a study of the University Lake watershed is completed. 04ASA is in the process of contracting for this study, which will determine the carrying capacity of the watershed. This will indicate the intensity of development that can be permitted without having an undue detrimental impact on water quality. How this allowable density will then be utilized depends on the local authorities that have domain over the watershed, including Carrboro. Should the Amberley project be approved before the permissible intensity of development is established, water quality may be seriously threatened. Furthermore, a precedent will have berm established and other land owners and jurisdictions on the watershed may well feel they have a right to the same density of development as Amberley which, if permitted, would place a burden on water quality that might result in a loss of the resource. This has already happened in Raleigh with Lakes Wheeler and Benson, which had to be abandoned as water sources because of residential development on their watersheds. University Lake now Serves more than 50 ,000 people and it is not unreasonable to expect that 100,000 will be served within the next few decades. The Amberley project is not so urgent that it needs to be authorized before we understand the water health consequences of development quality and pment on the university Lake watershed. - w Carrboro Board of Aldermen Page two July 21, 1987 As a professional engineer involved in water quality issues for almost fifty years, and in recognition of the growing appreciation of the health significance of our drinking water as indicated by thy^ increasing severity of the Safe Drinking Water Act regulations, I would urge that you delay a decision on Amberl ey until the OWASA study is completed and plans can be made for the entire watershed. Furthermore, as a Carrboro property owner and taxpayer, I would he happy to forego, at least temporarily, such benefits as would accrue to Carrboro from this project in the interests of preserving the quality of the water supply for people in Carrboro and the rest cf the OWASA service area. Sincerely yours, Daniel A. Okun Kenan Professor of Enviromental Engineering, Emeritus `. DAO:sp cc: Chapel Hill Newspaper • El, a* a-7 16 Kendall Drive �gr� ,, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Vi1 July 28, 1987 Mr. James Porto, Mayor Town of Carrboro Carrboro, NC Dear Mr. Porto: This letter addresses the annexation of the proposed Amberly Subdivision that will be located in the University Lake watershed. My interest in the general problem of watershed protection is longstanding. With two of my colleagues in the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC-CH, I am a coauthor of a national report on the topic, and, as Director of the Water Resources of the University of North Carolina, I am complet y a special study of watershed protection in the western counties of North Carolina. I have a special concern for the ! University Lake watershed. I am a consumer of water from that source, and I am currently serving as a member of the advisory committee for OWASA's study of the watershed. r The potential for contamination of the lake that was cited in the earlier round of discussions and public hearings about the Amberly project are only slightly diminished by the current proposal to build a private, low pressure disposal system for household wastes. Although that solution to the problem of disposing of household wastes remains problematical for the type of soils that exist in the watershed, the major issue is not that of household wastes. Rather the major impact of development on the watershed is most likely to come from construction activities, increased traffic, and the accelerated transport of a wide variety of substances in stormwater runoff. While the evidence from other watersheds is sufficient to justify reasonable controls on land development within the watershed, there has been no formal assessment of the impacts of that project on University Lake. Furthermore, the Amberly project should not be considered as a one and only development, but any assessment should address the broad issue of a policy that permits intensive urban development in the watershed. It is the purpose of the watershed study that OWASA is undertaking to examine alternative development policies and their probable impacts on the lake. To accomodate the desires of developers and the Town of Carrboro, OWASA has reduced the time period for the study from two years to one. To proceed with the construction of a new development before that study is completed is at best premature. At worst it has has the appearance of disregard for expert opinion about impacts on the lake. Thus, I encourage you not to proceed to grant the necessary permits for the construction of the Amberly project until the study of the watershed has been completed and the findings are considered. Sinc- ely, David H. Moreau 300 JAMES STREET CARRBORO, NC 2 510 (919) 967-3054 COMMENTS TO THE CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN ON THE AMBERLY DEVELOPMENT July 28, 1987 Mr . Mayor and members of the Board of Aldermen . I am Allen Spalt . I live at 300 James Street . I am Director of the Agricutlural Resources Center and its PESTicide EDucation project based in Carrboro. This Board is faced with Amberly once again . It may be a fine project , but it is in the wrong place at the wrong time . It is proposed for the University Lake drinking water watershed before we know how much development that area can stand and still provide safe drinking water . You should exercise great caution . You prudently rejected the development in April when it ( called for public water and sewer . You were right to be concerned about the effects--and the precedent---of extending public utilities into the watershed. But that has never been the primary issue . The only changes in the proposal are for the worse . I would like to reafirm my statement to you in opposition to the devolopment at the public hearing April 14, 1987. Amberly should be rejected again . The key issue is density, not the method of waste disposal . Major development should not be allowed until the watershed study is completed. My earlier statement did not • specifically mention extension of water and sewer lines, though some are now saying that that was the major , even the only, objection to Amberly. --What of the new proposal ? The only changes in the new plan are for the worse . Chief among them is the plan for a private low pressure undergraound injection system. Private waste disposal systems have a mixed record, at best . They can work if they are well designed, properly installed, carefully maintained, and not overloaded. Unfortunately , that is often not the case . Ten to 15X of low pressure ground systems permitted in NC have failed. AMBERLY HEARING PAGE 2 ( The Carrboro ordinance requires preliminary approval of the waste disposal system before granting a CUP. The State has said that it cannot give such review--not even a "rudimentary" one . A general statement by the state that the technology CAN work is no subsitute for assurance that it WILL work , or that it will work AT Amberly. It should not be sufficient to satisfy the ordinance reqirement for preliminary state approval . Without preliminary approval of the sewage or water system, the application is incomplete and should not even be considered. OWASA staff has submitted a review of the preliminary plans submitted by the developer . It is not encouraging. OWASA Staff found that the proposed system would be on soils only "provisionally accepotable" ; discharge at the "maximum permissible hydraulic loading rate" ; discharge the equivalent of 117 inches of waste per year over the absorption area ( in addition to normal rainfall ) ; and have inadequate provisions for a backup field. All this is in addition to questions about who would operate the system. The Amberly waste disposal system is not conservatively designed; it is not appropriate for a drinking water watershed. It should not be accepted. State permits for such systems are renewable for C periods of 3-5 years. That procedure is a recipe for the future assumption of responsibility by taxpayers at the point when needed modifications exceed the residents ability to pay. --Abandonment of the Watershed. A very disturbing aspect of the Amberly debate has been a barely hidden agenda--abandonment of University Lake as a drinking water source and conversion of its land to intensive development . I have heard this argument at town hall and from the developer . If it is to happen , it should only be after an open debate by all of the people affected. Abandonment should not be forced by the gradual erosion of water quality. It would take very few "Amberly's" before there would be little choice . Abandonment should have been laid to rest on July 22nd when OWASA's Board of Directors reafirmed long-term plans that , "University Lake will continue . . . as a major[ , ] permanent . . . water supply" . OWASA has plans for University Lake that stretch out to 2097--a view that should please people who think of grandchildren . Pressure to over -develop the watershed will , however , no doubt continue . AMBERLY HEARING PAGE 3 --What is the Rush? It may seen strange to charge that Amberly is being rushed through , for it has been around a long time . But , we recently came back from a short vacation to find that Amberley was on the fast track . Meetings held, hearings scheduled, official positions staked out , planning staff directed to work through the weekend to analyse exotic technologies. Is it a hurry up while people are out of town? What is the rush? In April the Board prudently refused to approve Amberly while the OWASA study of the watershed was underway. What is so different now? The study is progressing and the only changes in Amberly are for the worse . --Conflict of Interest? Who is working for whom? The town's " independent" consultant is now working for the developer . Barrett Kays was hired Carrboro to evaluate the original proposal . At the time he was the subject of charges of conflict of interest in his dealings with developers and authorities in Wake County. Now he is representing the developer in redesigning Amberly, including incorporating his own earlier recommendations. He is also a potential operator of the waste disposal system which he is designing. Where is the independent view? --Amberly or no growth'? Some officials have been quoted as suggesting that rejection of Amberly is the equivalent of adopting a no growth policy for Carrboro. This is not so. Carrboro has grown , is growing, and will continue to grow. Analysis of construction permits granted by the town demonstrates this growth clearly. More units have been approved in the past two years but are not yet completed than have been completed in the past seven years. That is, more growth is already in the pipeline than we have seen since 1980 . More bluntly, what you've seen ain' t half of what we're going get (even if no more consruction were allowed) . The question isn' t "growth" or "no growth" . It is how fast , what kind, and where growth should be? It is whether or not Carrboro will exercise responsible control over growth or abdicate that responsibility? And, how shall we protect our water . AMBERLY HEARING PAGE 4 Opponents of Amberly have been called "elitists" . But , it won' t wash . Amberly is the opposite of "affordable housing" . It proposes luxury estates surrounding a polo field and "equestrian center" . It is not elitist to be concerned about water quatity. The wealthy can always buy safe water , imported or domestic . Ordinary folk are dependent on what comes out of the tap . --Development and Taxes. At least one alderman is quoted as favoring Amberly because it will increase Carrboro's tax base . But , residential development increases demand for services at a greater rate than it produces tax revenue . Where are the examples of towns which develop and lower their taxes? In NC or elsewhere? Development means higher taxes, sooner and later . I do not oppose justifiable tax increases. But , it is irresponsible to pretend that further development , Amberly and others, will not lead directly to higher taxes. --Amberly and Precedent . I 've heard some unusual views on precedent in discussing this development . I 'm told the Town Attorney was asked to discuss how approval could be granted without setting a precedent . But , what happens tonight will be (, precedent , make no mistake . It will affect how other such decisions are made by developers, officials and others. The Board has been proud that it has never rejected a request for voluntary annexation . If it annexes tonight , that record will stand. If it doesn' t , it will set the precedent that annexation decisions will be carefully weighed in the interests of all rather than being simply automatic . If it increases density in the land currently zoned one unit per two acres, it will set a precedent in the watershed that is the opposite of what is needed. And the opposite of what has been promised--consideration of lower densities. This decision will be a precedent--that is it will "go before" many others--however this Board may wish it wouldn' t . --Amberly and Joint Planning. It is unfortunate that the Amberly decision seems to hahave become tied up with the negotiations over the agreement on joint planning with our neighbors. Those talks are difficult because there are real differences over how development should proceed. The discussions have been hard AMBERLY HEARING PAGE 5 to follow from from the outside . Some have been and any agreement is, at least , postponed. Perhaps it is only a coincidence that Amberly is being rushed to judgement while the talks are broken down . But , with all due respect , there is at least the appearance of government by tantrum. Such a situation is inappropriate and may be irresponsible when the impact is on an issue of such importrance as protecting our drinking water . I sense that some on the Board feel that only people from outside of town oppose Amberly. But I speak as a Carrboro citizen who has talked with many other Carrboro residents who agree : Amberly is in the wrong place at the wrong time . With or without an agreement with anyone else , Carrboro has a responsibility to its own citizens to protect the water quality. The very development that is sought adds to the long-run demand for quality water and increases the need to preserve University Lake as a drinking water source . Carrboro can' t grow without it . It seems unthinkable that Carrboro would increase the density of any part of the watershed pending the outcome of the OWASA study. I thought that Carrboro was going to take up the question of reducing density in the watershed, at least as an interim measure , immediately after adopting the watershed amendments last fall . But , there has been no such action . Two weeks ago the Carrboro Planning Board was interested in zoning all of the Amberly land at two units per acre , but they could not as the only proposal before them was for the land which might be annexed. Whatever else happens, increasing density now is clearly the wrong way to go. A Question of Covenants. Much has been promised by the developer of Amberly. Much of that is to be included in the covenants. I have expressed considerable concern to the the developer and this Board about the covevenants, particularly as they relate to pesticide use . But there are no covenants. Not even a draft . A close student of developers recently observed that developers are salesmen whoe job is to promise anything that will get their projects accepted. We've heard a lot of promises here . Approving the conditional use permit without seeing this critical document is accepting a pig in a poke . AMBERLY HEARING PAGE 6 ( As a minimum, it should be a condition of the CUP that violations of the covenants will be violations of the CUP. After all , the Aldermen have a covenant with the people , too. --The Bottom Line. How much degradation of our water supply will we allow? Given the increasing demand for good water , I don' t think we should tolerate any. --the quality of our water is directly related to the amount of development in the watershed; --new federal drinking water standards (and increased public concern) require more attention water quality; --Carrboro is blessed with a safe water supply, unusually good even for the immediately surrounding area, which it would be foolish to destroy; --it is inappropriate to permit major development in the watershed shared by Chapel Hill and Orange County and entrusted to Carrboro for safe keeping; --it is an affront to approve development during the recently approved study of the carrying capacity of the watershed. --serious questions raised by the Orange County Planning Board in its March 12th letter remain unanswered; that Board recently voted not to recommend Amberly. Amberly is no more appropriate now than it was in April . Protection of our drinking water is a long-term, continuing enterprise . Amberly should not be approved. Thank you very much . Rev . 8/6 . STATEMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON WATERSHED PROTECTION August 18, 1987 Chairman Marshall and members of the Board of Commissioners. I am Allen Spalt . I live at 300 James Street in Carrboro. I have come on behalf of a group of Carrboro and Orange County citizens. We are concerned about the effect of development in the University Lake watershed -on the quality of our common source of drinking water . We are particularly concerned about the potential impact of the recently approved Amberly development and of its proposed low pressure underground injection sewage system. The central issue is the density of development . We petition the Board of Commissioners to take whatever action you can within your power and authority to protect University Lake by delaying the recently approved development at least until completion of the OWASA study. OWASA Executive Director Everett Billingsley and several nationally recognized water quality experts have testified in public hearings that the Amberly project , if completed as proposed, could materially endanger the public water supply for 55,000 residents of southern Orange County. There is great concern among citizens that proceeding with this project , before completion of the OWASA study of the carrying capacity of our watershed, could cause irreversible damage to this vital resource . We are worried and feel somewhat helpless at this point . Public hearings before the state { WATERSHED PROTECTION PAGE 2 Division of Environmental Management (DEM) , which must approve the proposed waste system, are not required by state statute , and the necessary permits can be issued routinely and quickly once minimum state. standards are met . Such standards may not be sufficient to protect our water . It is particularly unfortunate that there is no provision in the applicable state regulations for more stringent standards for alternative private waste systems in drinking water watersheds. We ask you to do all that you can on behalf of the citizens of southern Orange County to protect our water . Specifically, we ask you to intercede on our behalf : --to petition for hearings before the DEM on the water and sewer systems. DEM is the agency responsible for reviewing permits for Amberly's proposed utilities. We note that citizens were told at the local level that imput should be directed to the state . But DEM permitting officials now say there is no provision for public imput in what they characterize as strictly a " technical review" . --to petition for hearings before the state public Utilities Commission which must license the company to operate the private utilities; --to support OWASA in maintaining its policy of not extending public water and sewer service into the watershed during the period of its study. We note that the developer has asked OWASA to help design , own , and/or operate the septic system and to provide water for fire protection . Either of these constitute extension of service and are a clear attempt to get around the moratorium. --to require the developer to prepare an environmental impact assessment under the state environmental policy act and to adopt a county environmental policy ordinance which would facilitate such actions in the future . WATERSHED PROTECTION PAGE 3 --to consider such legal action as may be appropriate to challenge the validity of actions annexing the portion of Amberly that was outside Carrboro town limits, rezoning the annexed land to one unit per acre , and issuing a conditional use permit (CUP) for Amberly. We believe that there are sound grounds for challenging each of these actions and note that the deadline for appeal of the CUP is next week , just thirty days after the permit was issued. --to take any other appropriate actions to prevent or delay the construction of Amberly in the watershed at least until the OWASA study of the carrying capacity of the watershed is completed and evaluated. Some of these actions may be difficult sensitive and we do • not ask lightly. We come to you out of frustration and with a sense of urgency. Amberly was wisely defeated in April when it called for public water and sewer . It was revived suddenly in July with a much more risky alternative system. It was rushed through while many citizens, and some officials, were on - vacation . Approval in late July meant that the short time for appeal runs in August , a very difficult time for citizens to coordinate action . We come out of a sense of the over—riding importance of preserving the watershed for the long term. University Lake is a priceless resource for all present and future residents of this area. We as citizens are doing all we can to fight for safe drinking water . Will you help us? Thank you very much for your attention to these comments. We would be happy to try supply information you may need or to try to answer any questions. cA,l _. The ENO GROUP ( TO CONSEPVE . FRE.:DOM ,' RT . 4 , BOX 722 - • SINCE 1973 - - STSEART G. HARBOUR 9a 1..LSBORWJG11 , :!C 2:Z7a SECRETARY November 22, 1987 _ CHAIRMAN: FEW doubt ENO should be saved . FEW think ENO oan be savled. a FEW think a State Park will save ENO a FEW think a Greenway will save ENO a FEW think a Mountain to Sea Trabl will 8eave ENE, MANY think a PARK, ( REENWAY, and Mountain-Sea TRAIL will indeed save ENO from a much needed REa ERVOIR at CABEZ FORD) to the DETRIMENT of the MANY THIRSTY CITIZENS of " BOROUGH TRIAgGI. to the BENEFIT of the FEW. / Stewar Barbour, Sealy ENO RIVER BrROUP ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 23, 1987 AGENDA A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA 2. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA C. PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. PAGE # D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 005 SM 1. MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN - MARYANNE BLACK WILL MAKE THE INTRODUCTIONS. GARY STEWART AND CARL ARMANINI FROM WOLLPERT CONSULTANTS WILL MAKE A 20-30 MINUTE PRESENTATION INCLUDING THE USE OF SLIDES. RECOMMENDED MOTION: APPROVAL OF THE MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN AND INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ORANGE COUNTY. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE - DELETED 011 SM 3. LAND USE AMENDMENTS - CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN UPDATE - GENE BELL RECOMMENDED MOTION: REFER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JANUARY 4, 1988. BJ 4. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS - MARVIN COLLINS NOTE: ANYONE OFFERING TESTIMONY ON THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS MUST BE SWORN IN. Jam` DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE YOU SHALL GIVE AT THIS HEARING SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD. 045 a. PD-2-87 Chandler Concrete RECOMMENDED MOTION: REFER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JANUARY 4, 1988. 089 b. PD-4-87 McLennan's Farm RECOMMENDED MOTION: TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DECEMBER 1, 1987 (OR OTHER SUITABLE DATE) TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE PLANNING STAFF TO REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM OWASA AND THE TOWN OF CARRBORO. BJ 5. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS - MARVIN COLLINS 151 a. Home Occupation Provisions - Revision of Article 6.16.6 RECOMMENDED MOTION: REFER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JANUARY 4, 1988. 163 b. Traffic Impact Analysis Provisions - MARVIN COLLINS RECOMMENDED MOTION: REFER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JANUARY 4, 1988. 183 BJ 6. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS - MARVIN COLLINS a. Traffic Impact Analysis Provisions RECOMMENDED MOTION: REFER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JANUARY 4, 1988. E. ADJOURNMENT CHANDLER CONCRETE CO•, INC. READY MIXED CONCRETE POST OFFICE DRAWER 1239 BURLINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27215 (919) 226-1161 November 23, 1987 • Orange County Planning & Zoning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Attention: Mr. Eddie Kirk Dear Mr. Kirk: I am in agreement with the recommendation of the planning staff to a PDI-I classification for the rezoning request of our property. Chandler Concrete Company, Inc. T.E. Chandler President TEC/cl o ECEIVE _-) November 20, 1987 Mr. Marvin Collins Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, North Carolina Mr. Collins: I, Aubrey McLennan, owner of Lot 24, Map 115 in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, do hereby give authority to Mr. Leon Todd to make application for a planned housing development of 14 lots on said property, and also grant my approval of this action. Sincerely, Aubrey McLennan ,z/7 71/7‹,jer • . ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT Date : Nov mber 17. 1987 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested . 1 . The property is located an the East side of S.R.# 1948 ( ,Powdep Street/Road) between S .R .# inns end S .R . # 1942 _• It is known as Lot (s) 94 , Block N/A , of Orange County Tax Map _ILL- rhApe1 Hill Township . It has a frontage of 4D1.7g feet and a depth of 1S9Q 7 feet , and contains 1,62.5,M1 , square feet or '27 `79 acres . 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from RB to RB-PD-1-1 . 3 .- The -following information has been attached in support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas Is - required on all applications) . •a. A fully dimensioned sap at a Boole of not lass than one (11 inch equals one—hundred (100) fret nor sore than one 111 inch equals. twenty 1203 feet showing the land which is proposed to be rezoned. •b. A legal description of the land proposed to be rezoned. •c. A statement of justification addressing one or more of the following: (1) The alleged error In the Zoning ordinance, if soy, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with • detailed saplenstion of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed Leeson• how the proposed smendment will correct the error. (2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the arms or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare. 11(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Lend use Plan or part thereof. e(4) All other clreuaatances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not limited to, documentation from service •gentle• [e.g. fire, police, rescue end utilities agencies) assuring services provision capability to the development. d. A list of all individuals, firms or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred [5001 fest of the property sought for rezoning 1s attached. The list is current as of IDetel I certify that all information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge . • Applicant (s) :, TennTnrlrl Address : 134 W Prs]nklin citiruat (':hnpP1 uill Nr 97;1 a Phone :, /Ai o) _ o2g _ q191 4 .- sl2► Ca:Ar, USE PLMr•f T\atico is hereby given the fo:rd .of Adjustment and the Zoning Officer of an appeal from the ruling of the Zoning Officer on the _-- day of • 19 _. which ordered that -- or I request a Special Use Permit as provided for in Section 7 for _Phinned B avtalnpmwrtt- . 14 t nts premises located Parcel 24, Chapel:Hill Township Tax Map 115 said premises being within the area of jursidictio:i of a zoning Ordinance for Orange - ,,. . County as applied to Chapel l i11 and Eno Townships, adopted by the Orange County . ,card of Contmiswi,oners. Title for this property is in the name of Aubrey McLennan Route 4, Box 477, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 The grounds for this appeal are as follows: Planned Development - Housing is a permitted use under the Orange County Zoning Ordinance but is required by that Ordinance to be permitted pursuant to a Special Use Permit. •.QyeJnher 17, 19R7 Date • mitt re of Appellant 13Ll4. Franklin St.,'Chat:ie1 Bill, N..0 27514 _ Address If title to above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant and appeal is on behalf of such property, attach a letter from the owner signifying his approval. - / ")Peal must be ncoompt:nicd by a ,mall scale vicinity reap, showing exact location of of property with respect to existing streets, street numbers and size of lots, nature of adjacent property users, and other important features, within and contiguous to the property. The nanu•s; of the owners of all lots within 500 feet in all directions from the property will be shown. A tax map must also accompany your- request. • • ORANGE WATER AND SCR AUTHORITY Oi SA STAFF STATEMENT ON DRAFT mom RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN FOR ORANGE COUNTY Presented by Patrick Davis, Acting Executive Director, OUiSA November 23, 1987 Public Hearing, Hillsborough I am Patrick Davis, Acting Executive Director of Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) . GVASA staff has reviewed the draft Master Recreation and Parks Plan for Orange County and commends the County Recreation and Parks Department and Planning Department for their work on this project. The following comments are offered relative to the impact of the plan on OWASA's programs and facilities. OWASA presently provides and manages limited recreational opportunities at University Lake, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro community's primary water supply source. Those opportunities include picnicking, rowing, canoeing, sailing and boat fishing, and are offered without the financial assistance of other agencies. (1IASA anticipates developing similar recreational facilities at Cane Creek Reservoir; however, staff has not yet begun to prepare a recreation facilities plan for the reservoir. Reservoir construction is underway and scheduled for completion by mid-1989. OWASA staff welcomes and appreciates the assistance of Orange County and others in the development of a recreational facilities plan for Cane Creek Reservoir. OWASA has five concerns relative to the development of recreational facilities at Cane Creek Reservoir. First, any recreational activities at or in close proximity to the lake must be consistent with the primary purpose of the reservoir- that is, provision of a high quality drinking water supply. The protection of lake water quality must be a primary consideration in development of a recreational plan for the lake. Second, those uses must be planned in cooperation with the residents of the Cane Creek area. Third, the operation, management and maintenance of those facilities and activities must not present a financial burden on OWASA or pose a threat to the operation and maintenance of the water supply facilities and structures at the reservoir. Fourth, the legal liability of OWASA for personal injuries and property damages associated with proposed recreational uses must be minimized. Finally, OWASA's Lake Warden and Lake Warden's staff, in addition to the County Sheriff's Department, will retain authority for security at all Cane Creek Reservoir facilities. OWASA has not yet set aside any funding for the development of Cane Creek Reservoir recreational facilities; however, it has been anticipated that OWASA's expenditures would not be substantial. OWASA also anticipated that the operations and maintenance expenses of future recreational facilities would not be significant and that reservoir personnel could also manage recreational facilities at the lake. Comments on Master Recreation and Parks Plan November 23, 1987 Page Two The master recreation and parks plan proposes the near-term development of a district park at Cane Creek Reservoir. The report recommends that substantial recreational facilities be constructed at the park, including docks, picnic areas and shelters, play areas, ballfields, tennis courts, trails and restrooms. The total cost of these facilities is estimated to be $290,400. Although this proposal has not yet been discussed with OWASA's Board of Directors, I think that OWASA's financial contribution to these facilities would be a fraction of that amount. Furthermore, the monitoring and management of these facilities and users would require a substantial commitment of OWASA staff time- certainly much greater than that previously anticipated by OWASA. Finally, the upkeep and maintenance of these facilities, including the wastewater disposal facilities, will require additional staff and financial resources. Several important issues must be resolved prior to development of a recreational facilities plan for Cane Creek Reservoir. OWASA staff will work cooperatively with Orange County and all interested parties, including residents of the Cane Creek area, to develop a financially feasible recreation plan which is compatible with the goal of providing a safe, high quality water supply. Thank you very much for providing this opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Master Recreation and Parks Plan for Orange County. These comments and the draft plan have not yet been reviewed by the Board of Directors of OWASA. The Board may wish to provide additional comments to Orange County relative to the Master Plan, and particularly to the development of recreational opportunities at Cane Creek Reservoir. Patrick Davis Tfig - 7 & j L44 _ ee■&<rCi - - C PA" e- e4fL_. 5/71 00°2 ill 6/Li, • ...... . 1/19a....t:#4.12--. . ----. . . . ----- - .-- .- 1 0461.--., ..1/4.-.2_._..(.:I: .... • .C2-- ____,..__. • - • " • " ...j.). . . _ .. / -;.T.:5(---- -". I./17-1 2' -.--.---"—"" . ,-■461S•P-0, 2ti-dr''' . . . . .. , • ...-<'-'-1..' 7' 4:7----2-1. - Q .... . s . . a,ou .1../c/.. ,.......2._. rip . .. . . .. . .. . . . _ . .. • _. . •• ._•. _ • ... • � � , l9YyO • . . I ` • . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . . ._._..... ,. .._.. . ....._.. . . . . . _ . ......_.• . . . . . . . . . . ._.. ..... • • . . • • . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . -lip.. g a,:. n: ;ate �.� w.. r. r ►. .._ ° .. --'- .,,;... „_.:..,...o,;o, O7 2 0 '87.. ` LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUDGET N.C. Department of Human Resources 0 CT Revision Number Division of Health Services Adult Health Services 2 8j SFY Office,Section or Branch 9 3 coo P. O. Number 09 / 01 / 87 06 / 30 / 88 $ y e . L► o o (n $ Effective Date Termination Date Contract Number Contractor: Orange County Activity: Health Promotion - 4 /'. Project Director: Charles L. Harper Total Budget:$ 17,462./3 _ ITEM DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATION ITEM AMOUNT E STATE EXPENDITURES: X Salaries Sti Fringe Benefits SA/FR 1000 :. :17,462.23 Operating Expenses OP EXP -. 2000 p Purchase of Equipment �-,, EQUIP 5000 E General Contracted or :-7' r N Purchased Services GENERAL 6100 School Health _ ai ..,..;. D Clinician F.:3 � Delivery Servi ces ca _ ? ; - - EN TLaboratory , a . :�... �� .....:.t:w;:�.>.;.•...:.............."`"`�zt• :.v. Pharmacy Services i :<. . R " ,.:. ::>::;::: :<:<<« : .::,:s?... U Transfer TXIX/SSBG ,Y:-, . is,'` ` R Subtotal State Expend. - $ 17,46273 ,. • LOCAL EXPENDITURES: LOCAL EXP 9000 - TOTAL EXPENDITURES—equal to Total Receipts $ 17,462.13 R LOCAL FUNDS: _ E Appropriation APPROP 101 TXIX/SSBG Fees 102 C Other Receipts OTHR REC 103 E Subtotal Local Funds , X1011 2137e, $ I ' STATE/FEDERAL/SPECIAL FUNDS: -'Va v `'� P DES Funds (Adult Heal th) F',�' 1��$��.d- 17,462. q ! ter- t.1V a Z3 T co �'' kisaVal - pivis+$e �y6 T� S /5/a- 4/o$ -5-to - e r .,w)ar. f-.-- Subtotal State/Federal/S cial L^ �, ,y ," '�"`. _ pe �, „ 1; $ 17,462.3 `mss TOTAL RECEIPTS—equal to Total Expenditures $ 17,46213 • C'. ►,,eui e 9/po47 , YhC- _ m ids? Local Authorized Official Signature Date Bnnch -• DHS S ..Chief Signature Date g - --'-. . 2247 Finance Officer Signature ate Ac nro�. of S BifgetO Signature //to . ,vii fHS 2948(Revised 2.'M7) ■:++ntracts Administration(Review 2/88) nemmar NUMBER 1 ..,,i '6T1 to CCNSOLIDATED CONTRACT between THE STATE and • THE Orange COUNTY/DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT This Contract covering the period fran 9 01 87 to 06 30 88 (Month) (Day) (Year) (Month) (Day) (Year) is hereby amended to add the following activities: ACTIVITY Health Promotion All provisions and clauses set forth in the Contract are hereby incorporated in this Amendment and constitute the terms and conditions applicable for the above activities involving State funding. -- CONTRACTOR SIGNATURES ravIsioN OF HEALTH SERVICES SIGNATURES 6614"(6*.#fl 9307 fi Health Director . (Date) Administrative Procedures (Date) �= Chief Finance Officer Date) State Health Director (Date) '"r Division of Health Services .. / L m MAC.. �+ - `• County (Date) '`` - Commissioners DHS 2946A (Rev. 08/86) _ Administrative Procedures - i. k :. //elect VERNON,VERNON,WOOTEN',BROWN & ANDREWS,P.A. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW Josh H.VERNON,JR. 522 SOUTH LEXINGTON AVENUE GRAHAM OFFICE: JOHN 8.VERNON,III 36 COURT SQUARE,S.W. WILEY P.IVOOT8x BURLINGTON,NORTTA CAROLINA GRAHAM,NORTH CAROLINA E.LAWSON AROWN,JR. TELBPHONE 919-227-Sal S JEFFREY A.ANDREWS TELEPHONE 919-227-6861 R.JOYCE GARRETT MAILING ADDRESS T,RANDALL SANDIER P.O.11O7C 8366 BURLINGTON,N.C.22216-8348 December 2, 1987 Ms. Shirley Marshall, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Chandler Concrete Our File: 1293A-56 Dear Ms. Marshall : In accordance with the request of a member of the Planning Board during the recent public hearing, we are submitting a written report prepared by John Capewell, Appraiser, substantiating our position that the rezoning of the property contiguous with the present Chandler Concrete Plant will not have an adverse effect on values of surrounding residential property. I respectfully request that in accordance with your directive at the public hearing, this report be made part of the record. If I need to take any further action in this matter please call me. Yours very truly, (27°L-1/4--4141---- r_ R. oyce Garrett RJG:lbw Enclosure cc: Chandler Concrete, Inc. c/o Mr. Thomas E. Chandler (w/encls. ) WORK52 :12-2-87 1 CAPEWELL & CAPEWELL, INC. Real Estate Appraisers - Consultants 21 November 1987 Mr. Thomas E. Chandler President ' Chandler Concrete Co. , Inc. P.O. Box 1239 Burlington, N. C. 27215 Re: Impact Study - Sensitivity Analysis Dear Mr. Chandler: ' In accordance with my understanding of your instructions I have completed the above study in the geographical area of the Chandler concrete plant located on N. C. 1710 in ' Hillsborough, N. C. This report is a summation of my investigation, analyses, conclusions, and opinions as to the effect - if any - on the change in values in the immediate neighborhood of the concrete plant' s property zoning change. 1 It was deemed, for the purpose of this report, that in order to ascertain if any change in the values of the properties ' which surround the subject site due to a change in zoning; there would have to be an investigation of sales of properties in other areas where industry had become an impact on the neighborhood. The results of that investigation then may be applied to the area around the concrete plant. ' Sensitivity Analysis is used to answer some likely "What would happen to . . . . if . . . . " type questions about the real estate investment. Basically, Sensitivity Analysis is used to find the impact on, or effect on, some investment as some of the factors are changed -- as may certainly happen in our real world of constant change and uncertainty. As the problem is now defined - that of a zoning change and the possible alteration of property values due to said change - the next step is to determine if there were other ' areas nearby which could produce an insight into what the possible effect on values might be. Three (3) other areas in Orange County were researched. They were; (1) Eflin ' Hosiery Mill, (2) White Furniture Factory in Hillsborough, and (3) Piedmont Power in Hillsborough. POST OFFICE BOX 3670, CHAPEL HILL, NC 27515-3670 OFFICE 967-4141 r 1 1 1 The first area produced the following sales and tax data - obtained from the County records: I Sale Stamp Bldg. Size Tax incr. Parcel Date Value Land/Bldg. $/SF 3. 37.C.4 11/87 $19, 000 lot 52%/0 I3 .37.C.7 9/86 $26,500 lot 40%/0 I3.37.C.8 4/86 $30,000 700SF 39%/38% $42.86 3.38.A.5 6/82 $35,000 1120SF 53%/27% $31.25 I3 . 38.B.4 5/87 $33,500 1300SF 74%/38% $25.77 3.38.B.7 5/79 $52, 000 1986SF 18%/18% $26. 18 II3.40.A. 1A 11/86 $127, 000 1581SF 52%/48% $80.33 1 3 .40.D. 1 10/85 $65, 000 1478SF 65%/31% $43 .98 The foregoing sales took place on both sides of the II construction date of 1984 and show no apparent effect to sales values of land or improvements. The ratios and factors determined by the data as presented are as follows: 1 Land value (tax) increases: mode 52% mean - 49% IBuilding value (tax) increases: mode - 38% mean - 33% 11 The sales prior to the construction of the industry were significantly lower in dollars per square foot ($/SF) of 11 improvement and in percentage of building tax increase indicating no detrimental effect on the values in the neighborhood due to the change in land use. IThe next are observed was the White Furniture Factory. Here the information was somewhat different with the following results: 1 1 I CAPEWELL & CAPEWELL, INC. Real Estate Appraisers - Consultants 1 II I I Sale Stamp Bldg. Tax incr. Parcel Date Value Size Land/Bldg. $/SF 1 4.41.A.1 2/84 $46,500 862SF 92%/33% $53.94 4.41.A. 1A 4/87 $63, 000 1118SF 92%/35% $56. 35 I2/84 $53, 000 1118SF $47.41 4.41.A.4 8/83 $50,500 848SF 92%/36% $59.55 1 4.41.A.5A 11/84 $72,000 1676SF 92%/23% $42.96 II The corresponding data produced by this sample are as follows: Land value (tax) increase: ' mode - 92% mean 92% U Building value (tax) increase: mode 35% mean - 32% II Building $/SF: mean $52 . 04 I In this case the industry has been established for a long time and therefor would show a more mature trend in property values under the influence of a zoning which is not normal I for a residential neighborhood. This also demonstrates how a residential neighborhood has continued to grow in value even with an industrial zoning in the immediate area. In this case one sale showed about a 19% increase in value over I three years or over 6% per annum. A very reasonable increase. The higher than normal land value increases could possibly be explained by the location close to the downtown I area and by being in a well established residential neighborhood. There have been some recent industrial developments in the area near this neighborhood. 1 I I I CAPEWELL & CAPEWELL, INC. Real Estate Appraisers - Consultants 1 1 II The last area studied was that on US route 86 across from I the new Piedmont Power building. Here again are the results: I Sale Stamp Bldg. Tax incr. Parcel Date Value Size Land/Bldg. $/SF 4.45J. . 1 5/85 $27, 500 1008SF 37%/44% $27.28 II4.45J. .6 5/84 $45, 000 1050SF 45%/58% $42.86 1 4.45N. . 1 12/86 $64, 000 916SF 45%/62% $69.87 10/85 $58,000 916SF $63.32 1 4.45Q. .2 10/87 $78,500 736SF $106.66 6/87 $10,500 lot 4.45J. .4 6/87 $43, 000 1173SF $36.66 1 9/83 $36,500 1173SF $31. 12 4.45J. .8 4/87 $58, 000 1120SF $51.79 1 10/83 $43,000 1120SF $38.39 Again there were sales which were selected to show that II there was an increase in values during and after the change in land use to industrial in the immediate area. The last sale showed an increase of 35% from before the industry to after, or about an 8.7% per annum. The next to last sale 1 showed an increase of 18% total (4.5% per annum) and the other sale about 10% (10% per annum) for an overall mean of about 21% (7.7% per annum) . The tax value increases are as Ifollows: Land value (tax) increase: I mode - 45% mean 42% Building value (tax) increase; I mode - none mean 55% 1 The area around the Chandler plant produced the following values: Land value (tax) increase: IImean 41% Building value (tax) increase: Imean - 26% I CAPEWELL & CAPEWELL, INC. Real Estate Appraisers - Consultants I i ' As can be seen the closer to the center of the government or town the higher the increase trend appears to be. In addition it appears that the smaller sites went up at a higher rate than the larger parcels. This would indicate that the area around the Chandler plant would have a value increase at a slower rate than other higher density areas. There is no indication that the researched industrial complexes had any adverse effect on the surrounding residential properties. In fact it appears that as the neighborhoods mature there is a larger increase in values compared to those which are fairly new. A summary of the data gathered is presented below: ILand Bldg. Increase ocaon Mode/Mean Mode/Mean in values Eflin Hosiery 52%/49% 38%/33% - White Furniture 92%/92% 35%/32% 36% Piedmont Power 45%/42% 0%/55% 46% ' Chandler 0%/41% 0%/26% In conclusion, it is this appraiser's opinion that, based on the data researched, analyses performed, and conclusions as ' presented, that there will be no adverse effect on property values to the surrounding real estate with the zoning change completed as requested. Respectfully, P Y, .! q4AA-ige/neF 'hn Cap r well, ASA 1 1 ' CAPEWELL & CAPEWELL, INC. Real Estate Appraisers - Consultants 1 d APPROVED JANUARY 4, 1988 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 23, 1987 MINUTES The Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board met in joint session on November 23, 1987 at 7: 30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr. , Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and members Chris Best, Virginia Boland, Abbie Dickinson, Dan Eddleman, Peter Kramer, Mike Lewis, Sharlene Pilkey, Brenda Swann, Prince Taylor and Steve Yuhasz. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Albert Kittrell, Planner Gene Bell, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Administrative Secretary Joanna Bradshaw, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Emily Crudup, Eddie Kirk and Brad Torgan. A. BOARD COMMENTS Albert Kittrell, Interim County Manager, announced that the next meeting of the Board of Commissioners would be held in the Superior Courtroom rather than the Old Courthouse due to boiler problems. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None. - 2 . MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Vern Miller asked to speak to the tax situation in Orange County. He expressed concern with the way tax monies are being spent and tax increases. He commented that balancing the budget should occur without the raising of taxes. He expressed concern with the real estate transfer tax, and the tax on unneutered and unspayed dogs which is called animal control. He indicated he felt the raising of taxes to provide for schools is due to poor budget balance and control. Chair Marshall responded that the Board appreciated Mr. Miller's concerns and that the Board would be working on a long range plan instead of a year-by-year plan. She suggested that Mr. Miller carefully observe the budget process and attend the public hearings on the money issues and make comments as appropriate. C. PUBLIC CHARGE 4 2 Chair Shirley E. Marshall read the Public Charge. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN (The Master Recreation and Parks Plan Draft proposal is on file in the Clerk to the Commissioners' Office, the Planning Department and the Recreation and Parks Department. ) Mary Anne Black, Recreation and Parks Director, addressed the Boards and the citizens to introduce the Draft proposal for the Master Recreation and Parks Plan. In April of 1987, work was begun on the preparation of a Master Recreation & Parks Plan for Orange County. The preparation of the plan was carried out by the consulting firm of Woolpert Associates, in conjunction with the Master Recreation and Parks Plan Advisory Group. Following nine months of work and a series of public meetings, the completed draft plan is being presented at public hearing for public comment. In preparing the Plan, community input through public meetings, coupled with a review of typical recreation and park standards, aided in identifying immediate and long-range recreational needs of the County. These needs put into quantitative terms, provided a guide in determining land requirements for various types of recreation and park facilities. Standards were then used to formulate the direction of future recreation and park development. The Master Recreation and Parks Plan is designed to become one element of Orange County's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with other County land use plans and ordinances. The Plan recommends that Orange County concentrate its efforts in the provision of four types of recreation and park facilities/areas: (1) community parks (serving the more densely populated unincorporated areas of the county) ; (2 district parks; (3) greenways; and (4) swimming pools. ) A crucial element in the success of the Master Plan is the effectiveness of cooperative efforts between Orange County and the two school systems, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, the University of North Carolina, Duke University (forest properties) , and the municipalities. The Master Plan envisions providing park facilities and recreation opportunities for all citizens of Orange County and will require a long-term commitment and coordinated action on the part of these and other agencies. The Recreation and Parks Director and the Planning Director recommend approval of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan and incorporation by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County. F 3 Ms. Black introduced Gary Stewart and Carl Armanini of Woolpert Consultants to present the proposed plan. Gary Stewart stated that the Master Recreation and Parks Plan was prepared jointly by the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department, the Orange County Planning Department and Woolpert Consultants. He listed the six major components of the plan as follows: (1) Goals and Objectives, (2) Current and Projected Factors Pertinent to Orange County, (3) Inventory of Current Recreation Programs and Park Facilities, (4) Recreation Standards and Community Needs Assessment, (5) Plan Proposals and (6) Recommendations and Plan Implementation. He indicated the focus at this time would be on the Plan Proposals and Recommendations and the Plan Implementation. The planning process began in March with a purpose statement. This involved assessing the recreational needs of the County, insuring there would be ample open space for generations to come (20 years from this point) and also be sure that sound planning principles and procedures are followed. Goal: To provide the citizens, elected officials and staff of Orange County a 20 year course of action that ade addresses the needs of all citizens within the community regardless of age, sex, race, handicap or income and provides an economically attainable time table for acquiring, developing and administering recreation and park resources, programs, and facilities adequately. Objectives: 1) To involve the public throughout the planning and implementation process by soliciting input as to their wants and needs. 2) To insure that the Master Plan is consistent with other county comprehensive plans and ordinances. 3) To accurately and adequately assess and analyze the county's existing and potential recreation and park facilities and programs, so as to set forth attainable schedules for development, maintenance and funding. 4) To ensure that the Master Plan is responsive to the county's projected population characteristics and is adequately flexible but responsive to the challenges of defend g dtherecreationalaneedsyofotherpubllic. protect and P 5) To structure the Master Plan to provide a framework for orderly and consistent policy development and decision making as it relates to recreation and park issues. • 4 6) To structure the Master Plan to ensure it's utilization as a management tool for the Recreation and Parks Department in administering resources, programs and facilities through adequate staffing, funding and programming. 7) To identify useful mechanisms for the funding of proposed additional recreational facilities or programs (i.e. donations, government programs, etc. ) . Carl Armanini began his presentation with Chapter Three: Current and Projected Factors Pertinent to Orange County. These factors were sorted into two areas, cultural and natural features. Cultural factors would be land use, roads, economy, and population. The natural features would be physical and environmental features, water resources and natural areas. He indicated that it is understood how important the agricultural areas are to the county and there are some rural residential areas that will have recreational needs in the future. He indicated the County would need to meet recreational needs for urban development around Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. Meeting the recreational needs for future growth is a primary concern. Mr. Armanini continued with Chapter Four: Inventory of Current Recreation Programs and Park Facilities He presented slides identifying the locations of existing recreational programs and placing them in the categories of public, private and quasi-public. These also were identified on a township basis. Once the inventory was done, the next step was Chapter 5: Recreation Standards and Community Needs Assessment The allocation of recreation land and facilities for a community or special population is determined by standards established in the recreation and parks industry. importance of establishing and using recreation stanardsTis recognized as: * tYPes�of park anderecreationnareasganrements for various and facilities. * An expression of minimum acceptable facilities for citizens of a community. * A means by which recreational needs can be related to spatial requirements within a recreation and parks system. * A comprehensive planning element that can be used to guide and assist development. 5 * A tool to justify recreational needs within communities. Once a set of standards was developed, an identification of a park system was made. The types of parks identified were Mini-Parks (Vest Pocket Park) , Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks, District Parks (large park) , Regional Parks and Unique/Special Areas. He continued giving a description of each type of park (on pages 5-3 and 5-4 of the Draft Plan) . The needs assessment encompassed a need for 3, 000 acres public parkland to be developed by the year 2005. Standards were also developed for individual facilities. (These are described on pages 5-4 through 5-8 of the Draft Plan) . Also in the Draft Plan are tables and exhibits showing the different types of parks. The next step is Chapter Six: Plan Proposals and Recommendations. This chapter discusses the responsibilities or roles of the providers of the facilities. The proposals and recommendations by township are also discussed at length in Chapter Six. Most important is to concentrate on the county-wide responsibilities. This would be the development of community parks for the unincorporated places, district parks, swimming pools and current existing facilities such as the Homestead Building in Chapel Hill Township, Central Recreation Center in Hillsborough and the North Human Services Center. Mr. Armanini explained that a typical community park would have approximately twenty-five acres with facilities such as tennis and basketball courts, play area, ball fields, etc. There would be some passive recreation such as a lake for fishing and a nature trail. A community park is easily accessed by being located on a residential collector street with parking provided. A district park would be a park of over seventy-five acres with ball fields, camping areas, picnic areas, fishing and possible greenways which must be located by a thoroughfare. Since Eno River State Park is in Orange County, the need for a regional park would probably not occur prior to the end of the twenty year planning process. A State Park would include many natural areas for fishing, boating, nature trails and camping areas. Many different types of greenways are proposed. The more urban areas may have paved greenways which connect activities. Unpaved greenways are trail systems and natural areas to be saved are the types of greenways throughout the rural areas of the county. He continued presenting slides which identified the locations for the different types of parks proposed for Orange County. The implementation of the Plan has been divided into a twenty year Captial Improvements Program which has been further divided into individual park sites and a twenty year plan has been done for each site. An operation budget was proposed outlining staffing, maintenance and any other items which operating the park would entail. 6 Methods of funding were reviewed such as revenue sources, federal assistance, contributions, fees and partnerships. The Twenty Year Capital Improvements Program was approximately twenty-two million dollars which included acquisition and development of all proposals. When the operations budget was included, the total was forty-three million dollars for the twenty year planning period. The overall cost per Orange County resident is estimated to be $15.19 per year over the twenty year planning period. A priority schedule was set by the Advisory Committee. This schedule as well as cost and all other pertinent information regarding implementation are found in Chapter Seven of the Draft Plan. Swimming pools and greenways were concerns expressed at every public information meeting. The swimming pools would be dependent on the schools cooperation. Greenways can be planned for throughout the twenty year period without any development occurring. Gary Stewart stressed that the process was fair and objective which involved professional staff, individuals that are familiar with park planning and also input from citizens of the community. He noted that the Plan presented was for the minimum facilities which will be required of Orange County in the next twenty years. Planning Board member Dan Eddleman asked if all the green lines on the maps indicating greenways were active or developed greenways. Mr. Stewart responded that there are various types of greenways. Some will be developed such as walkways and bikeways in the areas where the pressure for urban development is high at the present time. The greenways in rural residential areas are to be conserved and reviewed in the subdivision review process but not necessarily to be developed. Commissioner Carey asked if the greenways were included in the 3,000 acre figure which the Plan estimated would be required by the year 2008. Mr. Stewart responded that the 3,000 acres was just the parkland which would be needed to meet the minimum standards for the parks which would be required. Barry Jacobs, Planning Board Chair, explained that the circles indicating possible park sites on the maps designate general locations and not actual properties targeted for park sites. As one involved in the process, he also noted that North Carolina is 50th in per capita spending for parks and with federal and state funding being cut, the County's obligation for the provision of parks would be greater. He stated that the opportunity to provide volunteer labor in implementing the Master Park 7 Plan would be seriously considered. He indicated that several citizens had stated during the planning process that they would rather offer their time than see taxes increased. He noted that he felt the most unique, natural area in the County, Occoneechee Mountain had not been adequately addressed in the plan. Another area, property already owned by the County along Seven Mile Creek and identified by consultants as a significantly unusual area, could be designated as park land. He stated that Pegge Abrams, Chair of the Cheeks TAC, had informed him that Cheeks residents were very much interested in recreational facilities that provided picnic areas and tot lots for children and desired to see walkway/greenway areas and swimming pools. Chair Marshall asked Mr. Stewart if the reports that Corporation Lake may silt up completely have been considered. Mr. Stewart responded that that report as well as others were considered in the planning process. Lorraine Parker, Chair of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council, expressed pride that the project was almost completed. She stated that the purpose of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan is to assess the current and future recreation and park needs for Orange County citizens. Well planned recreational activites and facilities have an impact on the quality of life in a community by providing space for the release of stress created by every day demands on people. Also, a well planned system for recreation contributes to the stabilization of a community, a neighborhood and a county. A recreational system facilitates interaction of residents, promotes community awareness and creates a sense of pride among the residents. She continued that the Plan will guide community leaders in the orderly and adequate provision of leisure opportunities. She stated the Plan must be adopted, not just accepted, and used in daily planning. It was designed to become an element in the County's Comprehensive Plan. It was written to be flexible but responsive to the preservation and protection of the recreational needs of Orange County citizens. She reminded the Boards that the recreation needs and demands are greater now than in 1974 when a previous plan was written. She expressed the concern that Orange County must have long-range goals in every area of human services to provide for its citizens. Richard Ward presented the steps in the process of the creation of the Draft Plan beginning with the assembling of the project team to the awarding of the contract to Woolpert and Associates in late March. He referenced the public information meetings and noted that comments and concerns from those meetings were incorporated with the final draft being presented at this public hearing. He expressed thanks to the public for their attendance and 8 noted that everyone who had taken a part in any capacity in the process should be recognized. Kathy White, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, stated that she would speak to the importance of the park and recreation master plan, to having an adequate leisure service system and to the state funding of park and recreation areas. She continued that NRCD administers the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF Program) which is a federal grant program providing grants to local units of government for acquisition and development of outdoor recreation areas and facilities. In North Carolina, each project submitted for LWCF funding is evaluated, rated and ranked by established criteria and a point system. If the Comprehensive Master Plan is adequate it will directly or indirectly increase the points given to every question in the grant rating system. She noted that the most points can be awarded in the planning consideration section of the evaluation. Points are given to a project according to the extent the applicant has planned parks and recreation. Additional points are given to the applicant when the governing body has formally adopted the plan. She stated that a Comprehensive Master Plan shows the services available for the citizens and is a planning tool to avoid duplication of services. Each project is scored according to its relationship to existing, complimentary and competing recreation opportunities. An adequate master plan will guide the proper selection of programs and activities and the proper placement of the facilities. The questions used to evaluate each grant proposal are: (1) To what extent is the site suitable for the intended development; (2) Is access to the site adequate; and (3) To what extent is the site enhanced or hindered by its location and by the effects of the adjacent properties. If a sound comprehensive recreation and parks plan is adopted and implemented it is obvious how a proposed project would receive the highest possible scores for these questions. Thus, County parks can be on suitable sites with good access for users, the parks will be good neighbors and adjacent properties will not negatively affect the park. Proper placement of facilities also assures compatible uses, more efficient maintenance and the most potential revenue. Next is the administrative consideration section of the scoring. The same administrative considerations are addressed in the comprehensive plan, such as staffing, support services, adequate financing, etc. Ms. White noted that her objective has been to share the direct correlation between comprehensive planning and the granting of LWCF funds in North Carolina. She challenged the Board to adopt the Plan, use it as a funding tool to determine where the county will spend its development and acquisition dollars for parks and recreation, make it the management and planning tool and guide that it can be and not a dust collector. It should allow flexibility to initiate new concepts and implement new 9 programs as needs change. She continued challenging the Board to prepare individual park master plans with considerations given to all the findings and recommendations in the larger comprehensive plan and the same challenge would be presented for a Greenway/Open Space Master Plan. She concluded asking that the plan be updated and be used to determine the level of leisure services Orange County will be providing. Lindsey Efland, speaking as a property owner whose property will be affected by the Plan, indicated he appreciated the County's efforts to provide parks for its citizens living outside municipalities but expressed objections to the proposed greenways system. He stated he felt this proposal diverts attention from the acquisition of land for community and district parks. He continued that Orange County is not ready for a mandated network of greenways involving private land and that most citizens would view this as a taking of property rights. Mr. Efland continued expressing concerns that resources are not available to adequately control and administer such a plan. He cited the Efland Sewer Project as an example indicating it is a necessary and worthwhile project but has, in his opinion, been poorly administered. He indicated that he had some slides that showed the destruction of a creek in Efland with the implementation of the sewer project. He noted that had a private developer been responsible for such environmental destruction, he felt the County would have secured a court injunction stopping construction until good practices were restored. He expressed concern that Orange County is not acting as a good steward of the land in this case. He continued that he felt the language of the Master Plan is too vague for his support of the greenway plan. Mr. Efland stated that while the County needs to be aware of the continuing development pressures, the government mandated public access across private land is not the answer. He asked that the committee concentrate on the location and development of specific park projects so that the public can focus positively on that process rather than react negatively to the entire package primarily because of objections to greenways. Mr. Efland, as an Orange County School Board member, stated that he felt a representative of Parks and Recreation should make a presentation to the school board explaining how these proposals will affect property owned by the school system. He indicated that some staff had participated in discussions of the plan but his concern was that there had been no direct address to the school board. At this point, he presented the slides demonstrating that there is a thirty to fifty foot cleared space at the location where the property owners had signed to the County a twenty 10 foot right-of-way. He stated that the creek is completely dammed up with debris and proper erosion control actions have not been taken. He indicated he felt this damage would not or could not be rectified. This erosion and destruction is clearly visible from Efland-Cedar Grove Road at the crossing of McGowan Creek, one-half mile from US 70. Chair Marshall asked that County Manager Kittrell prepare a report of this project; what has happened and why and what will be done to resolve the situation. Commissioner Willhoit asked if Mr. Efland had reported this damage to any County employee or Commissioner. Mr. Efland stated that the project had been on-going since mid-August. Willhoit continued asking how long Mr. Efland had known of the erosion that had occurred. Mr. Efland responded that he had been watching the project since it began. Willhoit expressed concern that this problem had not been reported prior to such extensive damage. Mr. Efland added that the County Staff seemed to be able to pinpoint the misdeeds of private developers and felt that this was all in the context of greenways and stewardship of the land. Chair Marshall expressed concern that the problem had not been reported so that action could have been taken earlier. Doug Efland commented that as he was taking the photographs for the slides, two county vehicles had passed on the road. He also noted concern that there was an open culvert approximately ten-foot deep that would present danger to any child. Grainger Barrett spoke in support of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan and commended those involved in the preparation of the Plan. He indicated that his view, particularly regarding his family's use of parks and recreational facilities, is that recreation and parks have become a necessity of life rather than a luxury. He noted that he is a resident of Chapel Hill Township and expressed concern that many of the existing parks have become so crowded. The completion of I-40 will allow for easy access to many of the parks being planned. He noted that he felt that good recreational facilities and parks that are accessible to municipal residents will help to share a sense of community and bonding. Regarding funding, he noted that it would only become more costly in the future and now is the time to set aside the space for parks and recreational facilities. He felt the per capita cost is not an unreasonable figure. Again, he expressed enthusiasm for the Master Plan and encouraged adoption of the plan. Ralph Warren, while commending the amount of work involved in preparing the plan, felt he could not recommend adoption of the plan until a significant amount of work is done on the greenway definition. He indicated that definitions of pre- existing conditions must be used as a base for the wide- spread greenway that was defined. He noted that the greenway program implies general public use of land without public ownership and there was no indication of how the conflicts and concerns might be resolved. He felt with much of the land being considered for greenways being under residential ownership, the only mechanism to enforce that part of the plan would be condemnation and this is a costly and socially unacceptable solution. He expressed concern with preservation of natural habitats which cannot withstand human intrusion yet are included within the greenway system. Chair Marshall stated that the Board felt that condemnation of land was a very serious issue and there is no intent to condemn land for the Master Recreation and Parks Plan. With an adopted plan, there is a way to acquire those lands under the Subdivision Regulations or the Planned Development procedures. Also, payment-in-lieu of recreational space, enables the building of a fund to buy land that may be vital to the Plan. Mr. Warren responded that he felt such options should be "spelled out" in the plan. Ms. Marshall concurred. Linda Heitzer expressed concern and opposition to the greenway plan. /A copy of her comments in a letter to the Durham Morning Herald are an attachement to these minutes.: Laura Lloyd stated that her family are property owners in the Joint Planning Area and Bingham Township. She expressed opposition to the proposed greenway system which would allow the unsupervised public to walk up and down most of the creeks in Orange County. She asked that the portion of the Plan be omitted which called for the taking of private lands for a public greenway system. She expressed concern that she had already had to donate easements on her property with a five-acre lot subdivision in order to have the subdivision approved with a private road. She felt that the County did not have the right to take private land for public use and she did not desire to have people walking along her property which is in a protected watershed. She continued asking if the County would be securing the stream buffer easements from private property owners in the same manner it had with her subdivision. Max Kennedy, member of the Orange County Board of Education, expressed concern with priorities. The two that he was most concerned about were education and water. He was concerned with the figure of $43,000, 000. 00 to be spent on recreation over a period of twenty years when he felt that education and water are not adequately addressed both in the current and capital point of view. He questioned whether or not parks could be maintained for the figures presented even if park lands were donated. He expressed concern that the schools had been mentioned as 12 one of the agencies involved in the development of the plan. He noted that the Orange County School Board had not been involved in the project even though some personnel have contributed information for those involved in the plan development. He emphasized that his Board had neither endorsed nor condemned the Plan at this point nor were they part and parcel of the Plan. Mr. Kennedy continued in reference to the comment that greenways would develop as adjacent property is developed, that it would be required of the individual developers to donate to the County as a provision of the Subdivision Regulations. He expressed concern that the rights of property owners are subordinate to those desiring to walk on their property. Dawson Sather indicated he has been working with the Triangle Land Conservancy and Orange County to survey the remaining natural areas in Orange County. His concern was for the wildlife and botanical greenways. He noted that Orange County does have some outstanding natural areas and outstanding population of wildlife and his hope was that those streams followed by the wildlife and connecting the greenways system would be protected. He noted that Occoneechee Mountain and the Seven Mile Creek area are very important for several species of plants which are not found elsewhere in the county. Patrick Mulkey, a resident of Bingham Township, expressed concerns with the district park proposed for Cane Creek reservoir. He felt that there had been sufficient concerns expressed for watershed protection that a district park should not be considered for the reservoir area. He stated that the community park proposed for the White Cross area would fullfill the recreational needs of Bingham Township. B. B. Olive, Triangle Land Conservancy Board member, referenced a Recreation and Parks Plan from June, 1974, indicating there were several important differences between the 1974 plan and the current proposed plan. He expressed the desire for both plans to be reviewed and possibly combined in order to present the best possible plan to the citizens of Orange County. He indicated a desire for the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board to meet with trustees of Duke Forest properties and ask that they allocate some lands for the greenway system. He expressed concern that the School Boards had not been consulted in the process. He suggested that a delegation from the Wake County Recreation Department be asked to address a joint session of the School Board, Planning Board and Board of Commissioners and present the plan in which they are involved with the schools. He noted that Durham County is involved in a greenways program and suggested contact be made with a representative from Durham for information from their program. He referenced his association with the Eno River Task Force and noted that at that time, according to the history of the State Parks Commission, land 13 had never been condemned in the state of North Carolina to establish a state park. Forrest Heath, resident of Chapel Hill Township, expressed support for the Master Recreation and Parks Plan provided the County can properly fund, manage, maintain and patrol those facilities. He indicated strong opposition to the greenways system as proposed in the Plan. He felt the County could not properly manage, maintain and patrol the greenways. He expressed concern for the private properties adjacent to those greenways. He was concerned that in a recent subdivision he was required to donate an easement to the Recreation and Parks Department prior to approval of his subdivision. Ms. Marshall asked if this requirement was more than that required in the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Heath responded that the requirement was a part of the Subdivision Regulations which he considered a "taking" of his private property for public use. He read from a Supreme Court decision in Los Angeles County, California, that stated: "Consideration of the compensation question must begin with direct reference to the language of the Fifth Amendment which provides in relevant part that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. " He suggested that the County Attorney review this issue and indicated he felt there would be suits against the County in the future for the "taking" of private property. Ms. Marshall noted that the County Attorney is doing extensive research on those recent Supreme Court decisions regarding planning issues. Don Cox expressed the desire to re-enforce the wildlife habitat needs along the greenways as indicated by Dawson Sather and emphasized the responsibility man has to those creatures within the wildlife habitats. The active development of greenways and putting sewer lines along streams destroys the wildlife. He expressed support for the idea of greenways and the setting aside of stream buffers throughout the County but in most cases for the preservation of the wildlife habitat, active greenways should not be along stream banks. He addressed the historic values of some of the areas and asked that those values be considered from the standpoint of preserving wildlife habitat and also a greater enhancement and understanding of the history for citizens of these areas. He informed the Boards that the land which is indicated as being in Eno River State Park lying between 1-85 and US 70 is in private ownership and has not been parkland for several years. James Plymire indicated he felt the Plan was a very workable and attainable plan with the exception of the proposed greenways system. He noted that he felt such an extensive line is not attainable, is not manageable and not supportive maintenance wise. He urged the Boards not to hold up or "bog down" a workable plan with one such element. 14 Carl Walters, Cedar Grove Township resident, expressed concerns that conservation methods will be destroyed by greenways. The invasion of public access will destroy the wildlife as well as agricultural preservation. Stewart Barbour, representing the Eno River Group, spoke from a prepared statement (attachment to these minutes) Rev. George Allison, pastor of Mt. Bright Baptist Church, asked what barometer was used to determine the location, the size of the parks and the number of parks throughout the County. He also asked what impact the Recreation and Parks Plan will have on agriculture use, residential use and commercial use of the land. The third question he asked was what impact the Plan would have on residential development in the future. Mary Johnson, Cedar Grove resident, expressed concern with the source for the money ($15. 00 per capita) to establish and operate the park in Cedar Grove. She noted the pride in ownership of land and the desire to keep it private. She indicated that she felt freedom was being taken from property owners to allow public use of their land. She stated that there was no need for a park in the Cedar Grove area. Dennis Hills, (Cheeks Township resident, Chairman of the Parents Advisory Council of Efland-Cheeks School, Executive Director for the Orange County Soccer Association and coach for the Hillsborough Rainbow Soccer Program) , expressed the concern that the #1 resource of the County, the children, had been focused on by only one person. His concern was the lack of permanent, multi-use athletic fields and parks for those children to play and participate in team sports. He asked that the Boards consider very seriously the need for basic and fundamental recreational facilities in Orange County. Ben Lloyd, Cheeks Township resident, concurred with the concerns expressed by other citizens regarding greenways and their locations. He noted that he was pleased that there was no intent of condemning property for the parks, particularly since he owns property on both sides of McGowan Creek and both sides of Seven Mile Creek. He indicated it was a well designed plan but there were problems. He expressed concern that, this year, the taxpayers of Orange County would be paying the largest tax increase in the history of the County. He expressed concern that the fund balance was at an all time low. He stated, that with the need for funds from Chapel Hill School System and Orange County Schools, he felt it was unrealistic to anticipate the kind of burden the Recreation and Parks Plan would place on the taxpayers. Ms. Marshall stated that the fund balance did not hit the 3 .1% low that was anticipated but is now 5. 25% and perhaps should be back to 8% by the end of the year. 15 ' Pat Davis, Acting Executive Director of OWASA, summarized his prepared statement on the Draft Master Recreation and Parks Plan. /(Copy of complete statement an attachment to these minutes).. � Ron Hyatt spoke as a member of the Master Plan Advisory Group. He referenced the former Recreation Plan and noted that only three parks had been built since that time and that none of them conform to that plan. He indicated he felt total county planning had been involved in the development of the Plan. He expressed to the Orange County School Board members present that there seemed to be a breakdown in communications since one of the Assistant School Superintendents had attended several of the planning sessions. He assured those members that information would be sent to the School Board. He noted that all the meetings were public and everyone was invited to comment and make recommendations. The intent is to have the best for the citizens of Orange County and provide for the children of our future a place to play that is wholesome and safe where fun can be had. Oscar Compton, Cedar Grove resident, expressed concern with the cost of the parks and questioned the need for so many parks in such a rural county. He stated that recreational facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and lighted ball fields were already in existence in Cedar Grove Township and were not being utilized anywhere near to capacity. He expressed the concern with the amount of money proposed to be spent on recreational facilities when there is a lack of funds for educational purposes in the county. Commissioner Marshall stated that many good and thoughtful comments had been presented at the hearing. There were areas that need to be reviewed in more detail and there are areas that need more explanation. With these questions unanswered, it is much too soon to consider adoption of the plan. She continued asking the County Manager to outline a process to receive those answers and proceed to place the plan on an agenda for discussion. She noted also that portions of the plan would be discussed as the CIP is discussed over the next six weeks. Commissioner Willhoit asked if the plan was to be referred to the Planning Board or Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Marshall responded that she felt it more appropriate for the County Manager to develop the process. Commissioner Willhoit commented that he felt the groups involved in the development of the plan should have the opportunity to address those concerns presented. Marshall agreed, but desired the Manager to develop the process by which this would be handled. 2 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE - DELETED 16 3 . LAND USE AMENDMENTS - CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN The staff presentation was made by Planner Gene Bell. When the Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981, a five year update schedule was specified by the County Commissioners. In accordance with this schedule, work begun on updating the Little River Township Plan in the spring of 1986. As the work on Little River was nearing completion in May 1987, data collection and analysis was started for Cedar Grove Township. The plan update process for Cedar Grove began officially on July 21 at a TAC meeting where the plan update strategy was presented. This was followed by a public information meeting on August 11 to present background data and distribute a questionnaire, a meeting on October 6 to discuss alternative plans, and a final meeting on October 27 to present the Draft Plan. With one major exception, the Draft Plan is not different from the 1981 Plan. The major change is the designation of additional water supply watersheds in the Township, in particular, the Back Creek and Little River drainage basins. This increases from 28.5% to 88%, the amount of township land area designated water supply watershed. Township activity nodes and the designation of the entire township as Agricultural-Residential are unchanged from 1981. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and its incorporation into Section 3.6 of the Land Use Plan. The Planning Board will consider the TAC recommendation and prepare a recommendation on the amendment at its December 21, 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on January 4, 1988. A detailed summary and analysis, included in the agenda materials, is an attachment to these minutes in the permanent agenda file. Planning Board member Peter Kramer stated that the Planning Board expressed the concern that the population projections for Cedar Grove were too low considering the impact the Board felt would occur with the completion of I-40. Carl Walters, resident of Cedar Grove Township, stated that he would prefer to see land in his immediate area remain agricultural. He noted, however, that he felt the growth projection of 1.25 is too low and his expectations are that the completion of I-40 will bring considerable growth to Cedar Grove. He continued expressing the concern that the protection of water quality is not for the Cedar Grove area but for surrounding areas and that protection should be aimed at the individual 's investment in house and lands. He stated that he felt the updating of the Land Use Plan alone was 17 ridiculous and the only real help for the landowner would be the zoning of Cedar Grove Township. He urged the Board of Commissioners to follow the Update of the Land Use Plan with zoning. Oscar Compton, resident of Cedar Grove Township, began by stating that he is very much opposed to zoning. He indicated that there is no land available for sale in Cedar Grove Township and he does not foresee there being any land for sale. He noted that he felt that the population projections by the Planning Staff of 1.25% would more likely be just 1/2 of 1% rather than higher as Mr. Walters indicated. He continued that the residents of Cedar Grove Township do not anticipate any growth during the next twenty year period. He urged the Board of Commissioners not to consider zoning for Cedar Grove Township until such time as the majority of the residents had a desire for zoning. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, that the public hearing be closed and the Update of the Land Use Plan for Cedar Grove Township be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on January 4, 1988. VOTE: Unanimous. 4. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS a. PD-2-87 Chandler Concrete The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Chandler Concrete Company has submitted an application for a PDI-I-3 (Planned Development--Industrial-3) zoning classification on 2 .0 acres of property located on the south side of Old NC Highway 10 east of NC Highway 86. The property is currently zoned PDI-I-3 and R-1 Residential, and is designated Ten-Year Transition and Commerical Industrial Activity Node in the Land Use Plan. The request has been made in order to bring an existing washwater recycling facility and the use of the site for truck parking into compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. A history of the request, recommendation and conditions of approval are an attachment to these minutes. Collins noted that there was no designation on the plan to indicate whether or not the recycling facility is to be served by electricity and whether the utility would be underground. Thus, a 9th condition has been added that underground utilities must be provided. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked what the effect would be to change the proposal from PDI-I-3 to PDI-I-l. Collins responded that all the uses permitted in PD-I-3 are also permitted in PD-I-1. The question is one of impact. In this particular use, no structure is involved, it is all open use of land. An I-1 district would entail slightly more restrictive control. Phil Post, consulting engineer for the Chandler Concrete Company request, reviewed for the Boards the project describing the recycling facility, parking facility and the reforestation to complete the project. He noted that the applicant agreed with the conditions imposed but stated that the only utility used would be for the single phase pump and that has been placed underground. He reviewed the reasons for the project which was to bring it into compliance with the Department of Environmental Management. John Capewell listed his qualifications as a real estate appraiser. He indicated that it is his professional opinion that the rezoning request will not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. (A copy of Mr. Capewell 's report is an attachment to these minutes) . Tom Chandler, applicant, presented his request to the Boards. (A copy of his statement and permit from DEM are included as attachments to these minutes. ) r Robert E. Rhine, adjoing property owner, stated that he and his two sisters (also adjoining property owners) were the major opposition for the original rezoning request of Chandler Concrete. He stated that they no longer oppose the request and are confident that, upon approval, Mr. Chandler will reforest the area as promised. Planning Board member Pilkey asked if it is Mr. Rhine's understanding that the land will not be reforested unless the rezoning is approved. Mr. Rhine indicated that he felt if the rezoning is not approved, the land will not be used nor reforested. Pilkey asked if Mr. Rhine agreed with the appraiser's statement. He responded that he really was not qualified to agree or disagree with that opinion, he had faith that Mr. Chandler would replant trees as proposed. Moreland Claytor, property owner on US Highway 70A across from the old Hines Liner Company, indicated that lack of water from the creek on her property for her cattle was her concern. She indicated that there was a significant amount of concrete in the stream which prevented the flow of water to her property. Commissioner Halkiotis asked where the concrete was coming from. Ms. Claytor responded that concrete had been poured down a bank and covered the stream. Mr. Chandler stated that a firm had been contracted to begin the replanting of trees as soon as the rezoning is approved. 19 In response to Ms. Claytor, he indicated that the concrete she referred to is on private property across from the old livestock market owned by a marina. He continued that the owner had allowed the washing on that property approximately two years ago. He stated that no further washing of trucks would be conducted anywhere other than the property owned by Chandler Concrete. He also noted that the reclamation ponds have been cleaned out and the concrete removed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, that the public hearing be closed and the Chandler Concrete rezoning request be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on January 4, 1988. VOTE: Unanimous. b. PD-4-87 McLennan's Farm The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Comments received from OWASA and the Town of Carrboro were received too late for the Planning Staff to adequately review and consult with the applicant and agencies about necessary changes to the plans. For this reason, the Planning Staff recommends that citizen comment be received on the application, and that the public hearing be continued to January 4, 1988. Recommendation will be presented at that time. The public comments received will be included in the minutes for January 4, 1988. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to continue the public hearing on McLennan's Farm to January 4, 1988 for the receipt of a staff and Planning Board recommendation. Vote: Unanimous. 5. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Home Occupation Provisions - Revision of Article 6. 16. 6 The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Collins noted that the requirements for home occupations vary according to the zoning district in which they are located and also the lot size. Recent complaints concerning the operation of home occupations resulted in Ordinance Review Committee 4 , 20 recommendations for strengthening the ordinance provisions. The recommendations included the following: 1. In all residential zoning districts except RB, AR and R-1, add a provision limiting traffic generation by a home occupation and requiring off-street parking other than in a required yard area. 2. In RB, AR and R-1 zoning districts where the minimum lot size is 200, 000 sq. ft. or less, add the following: a. Limitations on the size of a detached accessory structure in which a home occupation is conducted to 1, 000 sq. ft. b. A requirement that the accessory structure as well as off-street parking be screened by means of an evergreen hedge or a combination of a stockade fence and deciduous plant materials. c. Limitations on the effects of odor and electrical interference on adjoining properties. d. A requirement that outside storage of materials must be screened and the storage area limited to 500 sq. ft. e. Limitations on traffic and off-street parking as described in #1 above. 3. In RB, AR and R-1 zoning districts where the minimum lot size is over 200, 000 sq. ft. , add the following: a. A requirement concerning screening as described in #2-b above. b. Limitations on the effects of odor or electrical interference on adjoining properties. One of the major additions was an effort to be more specific in the requirements for application materials. In addition to the present application, there must be a full description of the nature and extent of the home occupation. A provision is also being added that allows the Planning Staff to add conditions to the approval after the review of the application materials much like conditions which can be recommended by the Planning Board and approved by the Commissioners. Those conditions must address specific deficiencies in the application or address some specific impact which may result from the operation of the home occupation such as hours of operation, number of vehicles which can be parked on the premises, etc. L 21 Another provision is that once the permit is in a form for approval, the applicant must also sign the permit. This serves as real evidence that the applicant has reviewed and agrees with the conditions of approval. A sketch has also been provided which indicates guidelines in the preparation of a site plan. Henry Morris stated that he felt an auto repair shop should not be considered a home occupation and also that a home occupation should not be permitted in a development which is served by a private road. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey, that the public hearing be closed and the amendment for Home Occupation Provisions be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on January 4, 1988. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Traffic Impact Analysis Provisions (The descriptive narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) (1) New Article 13 - Traffic Impacts (2) New Article 6.17 - Traffic Impacts (3) Renumbering - Article 8.8 a) (4) New Article 8.8 e) - Traffic Impacts (5) Renumbering - Article 20.3 .2 f) (6) New Article 20.3.2 f) - Traffic Impacts (7) Addition to Article 22 - Definitions 6. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS - MARVIN COLLINS a. Traffic Impact Analysis Provisions (The descriptive narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) (1) Renumber Section IV-B-3-d (2) Renumber Section IV-B-3-e (3) New Section IV-B-3-e - Traffic Impacts (4) Addition to Section II - Definitions Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to dispense with the presentations for Items 5 (b) and 6 (a) and refer to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on January 4, 1988. VOTE: Unanimous. With no other items to be considered, Chair Marshall adjourned the public hearing at 12:10 a.m. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Secretary