HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-21-1993 - VIII-D 1
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 21, 1993
Action Agenda
Item #_ 1
SUBJECT: GOVERNOR' S GROVE - PRELIMINARY PLAN
ACTION BY: October 21, 1993
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Extension 2582
Resolution of Approval
Application
Vicinity Map TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Fiscal Impact Analysis Hillsborough. - 732-8181
Agency Comments - Durham - -. 688-7331
1/25/93 Planning Board Minutes Mebane - 227-2031
Traffic Impact Analysis Chapel Hill - 967-9251
Preliminary Plan
8/16/93 Draft Planning Board Minutes
PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Governor's
Grove.
BACKGROUND: The property is located in Cedar Grove Township on the
east and west side of Governor Scott Road (SR 1351) .
Governor Scott Road is an unpaved state-maintained
secondary road and considered a major local road in the
Comprehensive Plan. The tract is 177 . 28 acres with 116
lots proposed. Lot sizes range from . 92 to 4 . 50 acres.
The property is not zoned, however, it is designated as
Agricultural Residential, Watersupply Watershed and Water
Quality Critical Area on the Land Use Plan. It is also
classified as WS-II by the State. State-mandated
standards for the protection of classified watersheds must
be implemented by January 1994 . When zoning or watershed
standards are adopted, this area will be zoned as Water
Quality Critical Area and require a two-acre minimum lot
size. Out of the 116 proposed lots, only 14 will comply
with the pending two-acre minimum lot size standards. The
County is in the process of considering watershed
standards which are scheduled for public hearing on August
23 , 1993 .
Paved, public roads are proposed throughout the
development. A 1992 traffic count on Governor Scott Road
indicated 140 trips per day. With 116 lots proposed,
2
additional traffic could reach 1, 160 trips per day (10
trips/day/dwelling unit) at buildout. A traffic impact
analysis has been submitted.
NCDOT has just updated the priority listing for paving
rural secondary roads. Governor Scott Road is number 13
on the rural secondary road priority. This road is
scheduled to be paved during the 1993-94 NCDOT Secondary
Roads Paving Program. Turn lanes on Governor Scott Road
will be required with final plat approval of Phase 7.
The subdivision will be served by individual wells and
septic tanks.
The Town of Hillsborough has completed and adopted a
feasibility study for the proposed reservoir site. At
this point an intake structure is not being considered for
the initial planning period through 2030. The Town is in
the process of drafting and obtaining State approval for
the Environmental Impact Statement. They have indicated
this should be completed in November. Final design plans
would come at a later time.
The Planning Board reviewed the Concept Plan for
Governor's Grove at its January 25, 1593 meeting. The
plan was approved with the following conditions:
1. All lots must meet the minimum 130 foot lot width
requirement as provided in Section IV-B-5 of the
Subdivision Regulations unless they are located on the
turning circles of cul-de-sacs.
2 . All lots shall receive access from the internal
subdivision roads.
3 . A right turn lane shall be constructed in the
northbound travelway of Governor Scott Road
approaching the intersection of the 20 foot asphalt
travelway, and a left turn lane shall be constructed
in the southbound travelway of Governor Scott Road
approaching the intersection of the 20 foot asphalt
travelway. These turning lanes shall be constructed
to standards of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation with final plat approval of Phase 7 .
4 . Additional right-of-way for turn lanes on Governor
Scott Road shall be provided where deemed necessary by
NCDOT.
5. Along the frontage of this tract, Governor Scott Road
shall be paved to standards of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation with final plat approval
of Phase Four.
6. Stream buffers and infiltration standards shall be
complied with on the preliminary plan as required in
Sections IV-B-9-b and IV-B-9-c of the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations.
3
7 . Payment-in-lieu of dedicated recreation area shall be
required.
Agency comments were received from the following:
Emergency Management June 28, 1993
Soil & Water Conservation July 1, 1993
Town of Hillsborough July 22 , 1993
Erosion Control July 27, 1993
NCDOT July 28, 1993
August 2 , 1993
Recreation and Parks August 12, 1993
Applicable comments have been incorporated into the
Resolution of Approval.
The Planning Board considered the Preliminary Plan for
Governor ' s Grove on August 16, 1993 and recommended
approval subject to the conditions contained in the
attached Resolution of Approval, with exception of the
underlined text in Section E. The vote of the Planning
Board was 8-2 . See the attached draft minutes for the
Planning Board discussion.
ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO THE AUGUST 16 PLANNING BOARD ME4TING
Since the Planning Board recommendation on August 16, the
Planning Staff has met with the developer to discuss the
feasibility of meeting the minimum standards required by
the State. Concerns about watershed protection were
raised by the Administration, and renewed concern was
expressed by the Town of Hillsborough.
The subdivision has been designed with the intent to
provide affordable housing. In developments such as this
. Farmers Home Administration looks favorably on a mix of
housing (60% affordable, 40% higher value) and a maximum
lot size of about 1 acre. Governor' s Grove is consistent
with those standards. The smaller lots are proposed to be
developed with 1100-1200 square foot homes, at a price of
$65, 000 to $85, 000 dollars. The application of a 2-acre
minimum lot size would not allow for the development of
this type of project.
The State mandate, however, can alternatively be met
through limitations on impervious surface. Though
compliance is not mandatory until January 1, it would be
in keeping with the intent of the proposed amendments, and
provide for a higher level of protection than is required
by existing regulations in an area which is highly
sensitive due to its proximity to the proposed reservoir.
The Planning Staff recommends that the lots on the eastern
edge of the development; nearest the west fork of the Eno
River, adhere to the two-acre minimum lot size, and that
the total development adhere to the impervious surface
limits required by the State mandate for the critical area
of WS-II Watersheds.
3A
This would entail the combination of several lots along
the eastern border and a lot-by-lot allocation of
impervious surface. The Planning Staff and developer have
calculated impervious surface needs for the development
(including roads) and have determined that if joint
driveways are utilized, and homes are built relatively
close to the 40 foot landscape setback, the 6%
impervious surface limit is feasible.
The State mandate allows for local approval of minor
variances to numerical standards such as lot size and
impervious surface limits. The model ordinance prepared
by DEM suggests that a 'Minor Variance' be defined as a
change of 10% or less in a numerical standard. This
provision is included in the proposed watershed protection
standards. The Planning Staff recommends that the
applicant be allowed (with approval of the Planning
Director) to utilize an additional 0. 6% impervious surface
if driveways and/or houses cannot be sited in a manner to
fully comply with the 6% .
The Planning Board will consider the proposed changes at
its meeting on September 20. The Planning Staff will
report the Planning Board recommendation to the Board of
Commissioners on September 21.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
changes to the Governor ' s Grove Preliminary Plan,
specifically:
1) That lots located on the eastern boundary of the
property, adjacent to the West Fork of the Upper Eno,
contain at least two acres;
2) That a project-wide impervious surface limit of six
percent (6%) (463 , 339 square feet) be applied, with an
additional ten percent (10%) (46, 334 square feet)
available with approval of the Planning Director; and
3) That the Final Plat show proposed building envelopes,
driveways, and an impervious surface allotment for
each lot.
The Resolution of Approval, modified to show the above
changes, is attached.
RESOLUTION 4
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date September 6, 1993
Name of Subdivision Governor's Grove
Owner/Applicant Sellars Manufacturing Corporation
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Governor's Grove subdivision
preliminary plat, dated June 15, 1993 and containing 116 lots, subject to the fulfillment of
requirements specified herein.
Governor Moore Street, Governor Sanford Street, Governor Martin Street, Governor Holt
Boulevard, Governor Umstead Circle, Governor Cherry Circle, Governor Broughton Street,
Governor Hodges Street, Governor.Holshauser Circle and Governor Huey Street shall be
irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be constructed to standards of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. The approval of this resolution authorizes and
directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange County and on behalf of the public
generally, the offer of dedication of Governor Moore Street, Governor Sanford Street,
Governor Martin Street, Governor Holt Boulevard, Governor Umstead Circle, Governor
Cherry Circle, Governor Broughton Street, Governor Hodges Street, Governor Holshauser
Circle and Governor Huey Street. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to
the general public of Governor Moore Street, Governor Sanford Street, Governor Martin
Street, Governor Holt Boulevard, Governor Umstead Circle, Governor Cherry Circle,
Governor Broughton Street, Governor Hodges Street, Governor Holshauser Circle and
Governor Huey Street shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be
maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as they are accepted for maintenance by
the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before
the Final Plat of Governor's Grove can be recorded:
A. Sewage Disposal
1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for septic disposal, and
repair area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental
Health.
2. The septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements.
This disclosure shall be included in a document describing development
restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document
shall also disclose that information regarding the tentative location of septic
systems is available from the Orange County Health Department, Division of
Environmental Health.
1
B. Roads and Access 5
1. Governor Moore Street, Governor Sanford Street, Governor Martin Street,
Governor Holt Boulevard, Governor Umstead Circle, Governor Cherry Circle,
Governor Broughton Street, Governor Hodges Street, Governor Holshauser
Circle and Governor Huey Street shall be constructed to standards of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, within a 50 foot right-of-way, and the
construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT.
OR
A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure
construction of Governor Moore Street, Governor Sanford Street, Governor
Martin Street, Governor Holt Boulevard, Governor Umstead Circle, Governor
Cherry Circle, Governor Broughton Street, Governor Hodges Street, Governor
Holshauser Circle and Governor Huey Street and the required turn lanes on
Governor Scott Road to the standards of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a
certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning
and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of
that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to
business in North Carolina.
The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the
Final Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the
road construction has been inspected and approved by NCDOT.
2. Provided Governor Scott Road is not already paved to NCDOT standards prior
to approval of Phase Four, Governor Scott Road shall be paved along the
frontage of this tract to NCDOT standards with final plat approval of Phase
Four. Security shall be provided for this improvement with the final plat
submittal of Phase Four.
3. Site distance at the intersection of Governor Scott Road and Governor Moore
Street is limited. Grading shall be completed at this intersection to meet
NCDOT site distance requirements.
4. A right turn deceleration lane shall be provided in the north and southbound
travelway of Governor Scott Road approaching Governor Holt Boulevard.
Left turn lanes shall also be constructed in the north and southbound travelway
of Governor Scott Road approaching Governor Holt Boulevard, These turning
lanes shall be constructed to standards of the North Caroina Department of
Transportation with final plat approval of Phase 7.
5. All lots shall access onto the new subdivision roads. This restriction shall be
stated in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to
be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
2
6. At the street rights-of-way intersections, sight-triangles shall be indicated in 6
accordance with NCDOT design standards.
7. Approved street name signs shall be erected at intersections as required in
Section IV-B-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Evidence
shall be submitted by the applicant that signs are in place or a copy of the
receipt for purchase of the signs shall be submitted to the Planning
Department.
C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the approved
landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and
Inspections Department.
OR
Guaranteed financially through a letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond
submitted to secure required landscape installation and preservation. An
estimate of the cost for required preservation, plantings and their installation
must be provided. The financial guarantee shall reflect 110 percent of the
estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do
business in North Carolina.
2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape
plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with
the Final Plat.
D. Parkland
1. Cash in the amount of $3,314.00 [($1,000/acre x 116/35 acre)) shall be paid to
Orange County as payment in lieu of parkland dedication.
E. Miscellaneous
1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with
Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
2. The following buffer shall be shown on the plat:
a. A 50-foot stream buffer shall be provided along the West Fork of the
Eno River as required in Section IV-B-9-b of the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations.
3. The 100 year floodplain along the West Fork of the Eno shall be indicated.
3
7
4. Impervious surface shall be limited to six percent (6%) of the total area of the
development (463.339 square feet), with an additional ten percent (10%)
06.334 square feet) permitted upon approval of the Planning Director. The
impervious surface limit for individual lots shall be shown on the Final Plat.
Building envelopes and driveway locations shall also be indicated on the Final
Plat.
5. All lots adjacent to the West Fork of the Eno River shall contain a minimum
lot area of two (2) acres.
F. Certifications
1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor
shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat.
2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section
V-D-6-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the
landowner and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a
document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with
the Final Plat.
3. The Department of Environmental Health shall certify that all residential lots
contain sufficient area for septic tank disposal and repair.
4. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that all roads
have been constructed to State standards or that construction plans have been
approved.
5. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and
Inspections Department.
Signature of Applicant Clerk to the Board
, accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval,
and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat.
Applicant Date
4
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL
MAJOR SUBDIVISION 2/90 8
ORANGE COUNTY .
DATE: JUNE 21 , 1993
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY)
SUBDIVISION NAME: GOVERNOR ' S GROVE
LOCATION: CEDAR GROVE TWSP . , GOV . SCOTT RD. , 1 . 3 MI . N . OF EFL AND—CEDAR GROVE RD .
OWNER/DEVELOPER: SELLARS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
ADDRESS: PO BOX 128 TELEPHONE NO.: 919 376-3122
SAXAPAHAW , NC 27340
AGENT/CONTACT: HUGH SHARPE/MAC JORDAN TELEPHONE NO.: 919 376-3122
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION:
Orange County lax hap 44 Block Lot(s) 1 Township CEDAR GROVE
Zoning District(s): AR -
Total Number of Acres: 177 . 28 Phases: 9
Total Number of Lots: 116 Average Lot .Size: 1 . 37 A- inimum Lot size: 0 . 92 ACRES
Number/Type of Structures: (existing) NONE (proposed) 116 — RESIDENTIAL
Lineal Feet in Streets: 10 , 30o . Acres in Open Space: NONE .
Water Supply: Public (specify) Community X X X Individual
Wastewater Disposal: Public (specify) Community X X X Individual
School District: ORANGE COUNTY Fire District: CEDAR GROVE
General Land Uses in Area: RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL
Critical Areas: YES stream/drainageways YES flood prone areas
UPPER ENO watershed (specify) NONE . historic sites
other (explain)
Is the property to be subdivided currently under "farm use value taxation"? Yes No__. If "yes", please
contact the Orange-County Tax Office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under
"farm use value taxation".
B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two-hundred feet (1"=200') and no larger
than one inch equals twenty feet (1"=20') and must contain the following information:
/
� V subdivision name ✓/ zoning of tract and adjacent properties
vf _ name & address of owner(s) � building setback lines by notation or typical lot
✓ name & address of subdivider layout
U (if other than owner) location and width of existing and proposed
Lw name of surveyor, engineer, easements (drainage, utilities, roads, etc.)
landscape architect or architect, existing, proposed and adjoining rights-of-way
L / address, registration 0 and seal including dimensions and street names and state
,p ✓/ (title) Preliminary Plan road numbers. Lineal feet of road centerlines and rtl /� scale, north arrrow approximate acreage of new street rights-of-way
=" date (including revision dates) existing and proposed utilities, including type,
'c f township, tax map-block-lot sizes, hydrants, valves, manholes
references
-x rj / existing and proposed curbs, gutters and culverts,
T
,/ Parent Parcel Identification # including sizes and grades
tr ✓ deed book and page k of property V/ location and width of alleys, sidewalks, bike lanes,
to be subdivided transit systems, and bus stops
(please complete reverse side)
■ boundary oescribet with bearings v// -s- typical street cross-sections and intersection
____
9
and cistances H .-.- . details including aesign and width cf traveiway and
,....-
47 total acreade of tne tract and shoulders
/
n i
acreace of tots, including and horizontal alignment and oeneral curve data (public
----
O : excluding area within rights-of-way i::: . . roaos)
/ ' control corner 7 centerline radius on all proposed streets
Q■ --__ ---- ---- -----
proposed lot lines with dimensions tio/(‘ -- permanent features such as buildings, cemeteries,
1//' .::. lot & block numbers ''' — h. . t ndm rk
.J.:. . istor, ic q a a _
• -. ' '' phasing tines
E i V/i--i v". ':'' '' adjoining lot layout names of adjoininc property
- --
/' -- '.1 topography at ten foot (10) intervals :,:_: owners. If subdivided, subdivision plat name, plat
.. .
(7) __/ water oodles, streams, floodway and :::::::::: book F. page number, and perimeter lot numbers.
_ ----.
/ . , floodplains y/ landscaping and buffer requirements
Q. c,
, . .. .. ::
L" / ':':'>::: : stream buffers No#e i' .::.; township, corporate and-extra-territorial planning
location and size of parcels dedicated ' .:::: :::.: jurisdiction lines which cross the property
• for public use recreational use or / :'.::..-. .:: location and size of lots of restricted development
C• T
U reserved in common, with purpose noted ::::::iiii:
:: : , potential and notation on plat regarding same
7 / .':gN: : i • • in / : . .
,. impervious surface data (if located .---:. stormwater detention and/or retention sites and
ea 03 ii: Wi water supply watershed) i": " undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes (if
"f-i-i "---: 7 ...1.:.:.:::::::::.
C Lo .: ::::.; vicinity map showing general location located in water supply watershed)
• of subdivision with streets and roads
identified by State road number and
name
. . _ .
. .
- '
C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS • . . .
. .
, _ , , • ;
1. Twenty .-five (25) copies of the preliminary plat.
2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tax map (with tax parcels involved clearly marked in pencil).
3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health
Department soils analysis approval/denial for each lot shown thereon.
4. Where a private road is proposed a written statement by the applicant or his/her authorized representative
which sets forth the justification for a private road (see Section IV-B-3-d-1 of the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations).
5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section VI of this Ordinance which assure
completion and/or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may include, but
not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, and articles of incorporation and restrictive
covenants pertaining to a homeowner's association. These documents may be required as necessary as
evidence that the ordinance requirements are being met.
6. Fee - S350.00 plus S5.00 per lot (1 fee for preliminary and final plat).
the applicant ;,here ' ertify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate.
7 7,
. ---)
----------1 , / ■7
Alii...._
Alibi'
. 4 ■ //77 .
:CA— ..7 -.....r407111i&lik•- -- r'l ' i ,/, 4',"1:- ,i'■44:---c /
)../ .
AP 'S /,-0' 'R'S SIGNA1UR'
..,.7
--77f--
DATE ,
FEES: Amount 'f? C ' Date Paid -2/- Receipt
_. - r,...r.A..
_ I ---•••e--i L z / I
--.._i, 1 / I ;: . 0•, ',
.1'
10
• ,
\ ''r,\ •-:,•.
• .
,... . .-
i 1
g _ ,
V C
0- L.)/-",
■I ',
../"---- -
■ 000 IN,■ 7 -1-4-\
\ •--- i (---' .
c
(7 \, g-
0,
---___/—• ---, - --
,..,
\s------ '::
--,
.- .
...
.,,
, 1
.
1 ,......
/ t.)
E" L------------I---'-----"--
I , n't \•
,I
t ....„ ,, .......„.„,- oz
? = t
C) 17.7. 7.,...., ,...
•
..,... ---- .- 1-2
,.• —
4.... = _
• , , , _
.• - .1.! !:-....).. . - U = 0 ..1-"'
'77, -.= t-z.
7------ ,(1.5 8 .,-7,
,. .
. :.1.1 ,..... .., 0., _
i -
— 0 ._...
_. ., i• ..,,, c:-...)r
/ - Z -ry: r---••
7-,
, S - - . , •• __, L/:`,
'•/..‘
,.
0 -.< •= -C'z
:•'-'2.(e'' u.,, c) GO
i / / c, :, ••••• <
1---,!i.,,,,,.....,,,,, ,,,, •,//<.'"' \
, 1
L-. It-%•
L., 77i
,,L ... i < t•4
---
■ , & // C -.L.-'•-. I
.4'/..
•// I I
,
e'
1 ...-`;''. •
,..V/,,4/ • .
! • ! I'. ,:3:-.V
I .
1 1 •
. .----.
1,-----
I , ,
I
\ • I i .,
..-___ .„ • ,.,
Io
1 \ : ,,, 1 1 ,:,,<'
I ,,
0 :
1 ,,AllShhh.. , ....._
■
.9.
. p.
I ...,
.\
,...•
)
1 I
' • 7./_•.'7,
/"& 1
■ / ,
: ,t5/-;:;q- 1 . 1 ■
I .,\
,. .
t,''.`,.,,)
,:„.,y, , i
i / 1
) ! ---_-=–.—
.......–
—.. 1
I
---=,--7--
,,
,
• :: ,
11
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GOVERNOR'S GROVE SUBDIVISION
SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH
Prepared by
The Orange County Planning Department
July, 1993
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Governor's Grove is a proposed 116-lot major subdivision located on the east and west
sides of Governor Scott Road between Mill Creek Road and Efland-cedar Grove Road. Tne
average lot size is approximately 1.40 acres. All lots will be served by individual
wells and septic tanks, and public roads.
For Governor's Grove, project build-out is estimated at three years. Housing units will
be constructed, beginning in 1994, with completion of the project scheduled for 1996 .
Units will consist of detached single-family homes, and the applicant estimates the
average sales price to be $75,000, including the lot.
METHODOLOGY
Fiscal impact analysis is a projection of the direct, current, public costs and
revenues associated with residential and non residential growth in the jurisdiction in
which the growth is taking place. Fiscal impact analysis considers only direct impact
in that it projects only the primary costs that will be incurred and the immediate
revenues that will be generated. it calculates the financial effect of a planned
development or new subdivision by considering the current costs and revenues such a
development would generate if it were completed and occupied today. Fiscal impact
analysis does not consider the private costs of public action. It is concerned only
with public (governmental) costs and revenues.
The method used in preparing the fiscal impact analysis is the Service Standard
Approach. While only gross expenditures by service category are derived from the Pe:
capita Method, the Service Standard method determines the total number of additional
employees by service function that will be required as a result of growth. This met.-oc
employs average county government costs per person, average school costs per pupil, an
employee to population ratio, and average operating expenses per employee for each
service category and school district. The number of new employees are projected and
multiplied times the average operating expenses (includes personnel, operating and
capital costs) per employee. These average costs are then weighed against per capita
and per pupil revenues to project the total net fiscal impact of the development.
12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH
PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Section 1 - Project Data
Project Name, Township, School District
Beginning Year, Ending Year, Inflation
Characteristics of Households
Construction Schedule/Cost Data
Section 2 - Local Government and School District Data
Budget Year
Per Capita Revenues
Per Capita Expenditures
Per Student Expenditures
School District Per Employee Expenditures
Employees Per 1000 Population
County Per Employee Expenditure
Other Data
Other Model Constants
School District Data
Section 3 - Demographic Projections Based On Project Data
Total Housing
Total Population
School Children
Additional County Employees
Total
School District Additional Employees
Section 4 - Projected Net Fiscal Impact on County
Tax Base
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Fiscal Impact
Section 5 - Projected Net Fiscal Impact on School District
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Fiscal Impact
Section 6 - Summary of Projected Impacts
Additional Housing
Additional Population
Additional School Children
Tax Base
County Government Balance
School District Balance
Total Net Fiscal Impact
EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND DATA SOURCES
13
FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD
Bureau of Economic & Business Research - Univ of Fla
Modified 10/5/92 - Orange County, NC Planning Department
SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA
ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT:
PROJECT: Governor's Grove r
TOWNSHIP: Cedar Grove
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD:
Beginning Year: 1994
Ending Year: 1996
Inflation Rate: 2.90%
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS:
Persons/House: 2.73
Children/House: 0.46
% Non-Elderly: 0.00%
HOME SALES DATA: Average Distribution
Number of Sales of Units '
Year Homes Price by Year
1994 38 75000 32.8%
1995 39 75000 33.6%
1996 39 75000 33.6%
1997 0 0 0.0%
1998 0 0 0.0%
1999 0 0 0.0%
2000 0 0 0.0%
2001 0 0 0.0%
2002 0 0 0.0%
2003 0 0 0.0%
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: Enter "1" in ( ) beside school district in which
project is located to generate distribution of
students by school type.
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County ( 1 ) Elementary School 49 .53%
Chapel Hill- ( 0 ) Middle School 23.49%
Carrboro High School 26 .98%
School Age Children/Household: Enter number of units by housing type to
generate school age children/household.
School Age Children
Housing Type Units Children Per Household
Single-Family 116 53 0.460
Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex 0 0 0.000
Apartment/Condominium 0 0 0 . 000
Town House 0 0 0.000
Totals 116 53 0.460
14
SECTION 2 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA
BUDGET YEAR: 1992-93
COUNTY POPULATION: 98648
SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT POPULATION: 5204
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER CAPITA
General Government 107 .50 0. 0011
Public Safety 124 . 00 0.0013
Public Works
43.00 0 .0004
Human Services 228.90 0. 0023
Education (School District) 746.00 0. 0076
SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER STUDENT
TOTAL 746. 00 0. 143
COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES ($) : REVENUES PER CAPITA
Taxes - Other Than Property 3641000 36.91
Intergovernmental 7758493 78.65
Service Charges 2114697 21.44
Miscellaneous 1036728 10.51
COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES ($) : - EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA
General Government - 5878463 59;59
Public Safety 5372356 54.46 -
Public Works 2548812 25.84
Human Services 13824259 140.14
Education (Recurring Capital) 750000 7.60
Non-Departmental 2438243 24.72
PER
COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE ($) : EXPENDITURES EMPLOYEE
General Government 5878463 54683.38
Public Safety 5372356 43325.45
Public Works 2548812 59274.70
Human Services 13824259 60394 .32
Education (Recurring Capital) 750000 1005 .36
SCHOOL DISTRICT
PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES ($) : EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT
County Government 6817240 1310.00
School District 0 0. 00
State
16671230 3203.54
SCHOOL DISTRICT
PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES PER
($) � EXPENDITURES EMPLOYEE
County Government 6817240 9138.39
School District 0 0.00
state 16671230 22347.49
TAX DATA:
County Tax Rate ($) 0.7957 Per $100 Assessed Valuation.
School District Tax Rate ($) 0.0000 Per $100 Assessed Valuation.
Assessment Ratio 99.17
Elderly Exemption 0 $11, 000 Where applicable.
15
SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA
YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
HOUSING UNITS 38 77 116 116 116
POPULATION 104 210 317 317 317
SCHOOL CHILDREN .
Elementary 9 18 26 26 26
Middle 4 8 13 13 13
High School 5 10 14 14 14
TOTAL 17 35 53 53 53
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government 0. 1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3
Public Safety 0. 1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
Public Works 0.0 0. 1 0.1 0. 1 0. 1
Human Services 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7
TOTAL 0.5 1. 1 1.6 1.6 1.6
SCHOOL DISTRICT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES 0.8 - 1:6 2.4 ., 2.4 2 .4 .-
YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
HOUSING UNITS 116 116 116 116 116
POPULATION 317 317 317 317 317
SCHOOL CHILDREN ,
Elementary 26 26 26 26 26
Middle 13 13 13 13 13
High School 14 14 14 14 14
TOTAL 53 53 53 53 53
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Public Safety 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Public Works 0. 1 0. 1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Human Services 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
TOTAL 1.6 1 .6 1.6 1.6 1.6
SCHOOL DISTRICT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
16
SECTION 4 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT
YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
TAX BASE ($1000) 2826 5809 8878 9136 9401
REVENUES ($)
Property Tax 22489 46222 70644 72,693 74801
Other Taxes 3829 7984 12376 12735 13104
Intergovernmental 8159 17012 26372 27137 27924
Service Charges 2224 4637 7188 7397 7611
Miscellaneous 1090 2273, 3524 3626 3731
TOTAL ($) 37791 78128 120104 123587 127171
EXPENDITURES ($)
General Government 6182 12890 19981 20561 21157
Public Safety 5650 11780 18261 18791 19336
Public Works .2680 5589 8664 8915 9173
Human Services 14538_ 30313 _ 46990 48353 49755
Education 23688 49390 76564 78784 81069
Non-Departmental 2564 5346 8288 8528 8775
TOTAL ($) 55301 115308 178748 . 183932 189266
NET FISCAL IMPACT -17510 -37179 -58644 -60345 -62095
YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
TAX BASE ($1000) 9673 9954 10242 10539 10845
REVENUES ($)
Property Tax 76970 79202 81499 83862 86294
Other Taxes 13484 13875 14278 14692 15118
Intergovernmental 28733 29567 30424 31306 32214
service Charges 7832 8059 8293 8533 8780
Miscellaneous 3839 3951 4065 4183 4305
TOTAL ($) 130859 134654 138559 142577 146712
EXPENDITURES ($)
General Government 21771 22402 23052 23720 24408
Public Safety 19896 20473 21067 21678 22307
Public Works 9439 9713 9995 10285 10583
Human Services 51198 52683 54210 55782 57400
Education 83420 85839 88329 90890 93526
Non-Departmental 9030 9292 9561 9839 10124
TOTAL ($) 194754 200402 206214 212194 218348
NET FISCAL IMPACT -63896 -65749 -67655 -69617 -71636
17
SECTION 5 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
REVENUES ($)
county 23688 49390 76564 78784 81069
School District 0 0 0 0 0
State 55998 116760 180999 18E248 191649
TOTAL ($) 79685 166150 257563 265033 272719
EXPENDITURES ($)
County 23688 49390 76564 78784 81069
School District 1) 0 0 0 0
State 55998 116760 180999 186248 191649
TOTAL ($) 79685 166150 257563 265033 272719
NET FISCAL IMPACT 0 0 0 0 0
YEAR 1999 _2000 - 2001 - 2002. 2003 =
REVENUES ($)
County 83420 85839 88329 90890 93526
School District 0 0 0 0 0
State 197207 202926 208811 214867 221098
TOTAL ($) 280627 288766 297140 305757 314624
EXPENDITURES ($)
County 83420 85839 88329 90890 93526
School District 0 0 0 0 0
State 197207 202926 208811 214867 221098
TOTAL ($) 280627 288766 297140 305757 314624
NET FISCAL IMPACT 0 0 0 0 0
18
SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS
YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
HOUSING UNITS 38 77 116 116 116
POPULATION 104 210 317 317 317
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 9 18 26 26 26
,
Middle 4 8 13 13 13
High School 5 10 14 14 14
TOTAL 17 35 53 53 53
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.53 1.07 1. 62 1.62 1.62
SCHOOL DISTRICT
EMPLOYEES 0.78 1. 59 2.39 2.39 2.39
TAX BASE ($1000) 2826 5809 8878 9136 9401
COUNTY OPERATING
BUDGET ($)
Revenues 37791 78128 120104 123587 127171
Expenditures 55301 115308 178748 183932 189266
BALANCE -17510 -37179 -58644 -60345 -62095
SCHOOL DISTRICT . -
OPERATING BUDGET ($) : •
Revenues .79685 166150 257563 265033 272719 _
.
Expenditures 79685 r66150 257563 • 265033 272719-
BALANCE 0 0 0 • 0 0
COMBINED COUNTY/SCHOOL DISTRICT
OPERATING BUDGETS ($)
Revenues 117477 244279 377667 388620 399890
Expenditures 134987 281458 436311 448964 461984
BALANCE -17510 -37179 -58644 -60345 -62095
YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
HOUSING UNITS 116 116 116 116 116
POPULATION 317 317 317 317 317
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 26 26 26 26 26
Middle 13 13 13 13 13
High School 14 14 14 14 14
TOTAL 53 53 53 53 53
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 1.62 1. 62 1.62 1.62 1.62
SCHOOL DISTRICT
EMPLOYEES 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.39
TAX BASE ($1000) 9673 9954 10242 10539 10845
COUNTY OPERATING
BUDGET ($)
Revenues 130859 134654 138559 142577 146712
Expenditures 194754 200402 206214 212194 218348
BALANCE -63896 -65749 -67655 -69617 -71636
SCHOOL DISTRICT
OPERATING BUDGET ($)
• Revenues 280627 288766 297140 305757 314624
Expenditures 280627 288766 297140 305757 314624
BALANCE 0 . 0 0 0 0
COMBINED COUNTY/SCHOOL DISTRICT
OPERATING BUDGETS ($)
Revenues 411486 423419 435699 448334 461336
Expenditures 475382 489168 503354 517951 532972
BALANCE -63896 -65749 -67655 -69617 -71636
1q
EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND DATA SOURCES
SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA
Project data includes information about the specific development project. Much, if not
all, of the information is supplied by the applicant. Data inputs include:
Project Name: Name of the project.
Township: Township in which the project is located.
School District: school district in which the project is located.
Beginning Year: The first year of the project in which dwelling units are completed and
occupied.
Ending Year: The last year in which dwelling units are completed and occupied. The
template is set to calculate fiscal impacts for a ten-year period.
Inflatio:: Rate: Unless an inflation rate is entered, the template will calculate fiscal
impacts based on constant dollars. Since the inflation rate changes frequently, the
Finance Department must be contacted for the most recent figure.
Persons/Household: The estimated average number of- persons/household .(dwelling unit)
based on 1990 Census data for the township in which the project is located. This
information is supplied by the Planning Department and will be updated as necessary
using population projections and building permit data.
Children/Household: The estimated average number of school age children/household
(dwelling unit) based on 1990 Census data for the township in which the project is
located. This information is supplied by the Planning Department and will be updated as
necessary using school membership data.
% Non-Elderly: N.C. General Statutes permit an $11, 000 exemption to the elderly and
disabled who meet certain income criteria. In the event that elderly units are part of
the project, the percentage of eligible non-elderly units is entered. The tax base
will automatically be adjusted to reflect the exemption.
Number of Homes: The number of dwelling units to be constructed in the project in each
year.
Average Sales Price: The average sales price of all dwelling units based on the number
and sales price of dwelling unit types to be constructed in each year.
2U
SECTION 2 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA
Local government data includes information regarding expenditures required to provide
county services and revenues received based on the approved orange County budget for
the fiscal year in which the project is considered for approval. All information
derived from the approved budget remains constant throughout a fiscal year (July-June)
and is changed only with the approval of a new budget.
Local government revenue and expenditure information is compiled on a per capita (per
person) basis. Per capita figures are derived by dividing the total expenditures for a
particular service function or revenue source by the estimated population of orange
county for the year in which the project is considered for approval. Populations
estimates are prepared by the Planning Department.
Data inputs include the following:
Budget Year: The current fiscal year; i.e. , 1992-93.
Per Capita Revenues: The sources of revenue by major category are as follows:
Taxes - Other Than Property: Revenues from taxes other than property taxes include
those from sales and use taxes, franchise taxes, and animal taxes.
Intergovernmental Aid: Revenues from this source, in the form of categorical aid or
shared-tax revenues, are provided through State and federal assistance programs.
Service Charges: Service (or user) charges support numerous functions and are charged
to those who voluntarily receive governmental services or use governmental facilities.
Miscellaneous: Miscellaneous revenues include interest earnings on investments,
proceeds from license and permit fees, and all other revenues.
Per Capita Expenditures: Expenditures by major category are as follows:
General Government: services related to the legislative, administrative, financial, and
legal functions of government.
Public Safety: Law enforcement services and emergency medical services.
Public Works: Efforts related to the maintenance of County-owned property and the
provision of sanitation (solid waste disposal) services.
Human Services: Departments responsible for the provision of health, social, and
recreation-related services.
Education: Orange County supports two school units, the Orange county school system and
the chapel Hill\Carrboro school system. This category includes appropriations made to
the designated school system for Recurring Capital items. Recurring Capital funds are
used for general maintenance, purchase of new equipment/furnishings and vehicle
maintenance.
Non-Departmental: contributions to agencies providing cultural and social services
outside the formal structure of county government. other expenditures include
equipment replacement and contingency funds. Although there are no employees generated
by this category, it has been included as an operating expenditure. It will be
included in Section 4, "Total Annual County Expenditure. " These expenditures will be
calculated on a per capita basis as opposed to a per employee basis.
Per Student Expenditures: Information regarding expenditures required to provide
educational services and revenues received are based on the approved school system
budgets for the fiscal year in which the project is considered for approval. All
information derived from the approved budgets remains constant throughout a fiscal year
(July-June) and is changed only with the approval of new budgets.
21
Expenditure information is compiled on a per student basis for County Government
Current Expense, School District and State appropriations. County Government Current
Expense funds are used for general operation purposes including Instruction and support
services. Federal revenues and expenditures and other local revenues such as Fund
Balance have not been included since they are not directly growth related. Per student
figures are derived by dividing the total appropriation for educational purposes from a
particular source by the estimated number of students to be enrolled in the applicable
school system for the year in which the project is considered for approval. Student
enrollments are obtained from the approved school system budgets. ,
County Government: Expenditures in this category are based on appropriations to the
school systems by Orange County for Current Expense. The minimum level of per student
appropriation is determined by the State Board of Education.
School District: Expenditures in this category are unique to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro
school system and are based on the level of expenditures possible through assessment of
a supplementary school tax.
State: Expenditures in this category are based on appropriations from the State Board
of Education.
School District Per Employee Expenditure: Expenditures per employee based on County,
School District and State appropriations, and the total number of school district
employees.
Employees Per 1000 Population: The number of employees in a 'particular service category
per 1000 population.
County Per Employee Expenditure: The average operating and capital expenses per
employee in a particular service category. Total expenses in each category includes
personnel, operating and capital costs.
Other Data:
County Government Tax Rate: The County tax rate per $100 of assessed valuation. Since
the per capita method focuses only on operating expenditures, the tax rate is reduced
by an amount equal to the debt service payments from property taxes for capital
projects.
School District Tax Rate: The supplementary tax assessed on behalf of the Chapel Hi::-
Carrboro school system.
Assessment Ratio: The ratio of market (sales) value to assessed value based on
information supplied by the Tax office. The assessment ratio is used to convert market
value to assessed value for the purpose of computing the tax base.
Other Model Constants
Elderly Exemption: For projects developed partially or exclusively for elderly (65 and
older) or disabled individuals whose annual income does not exceed $12,000, an $11, 000
tax exemption is used in projecting the tax base.
School District Data:
Employees Per Student: The number of employees per student in a specific school
district.
22
SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA
Demographic projections provide information about the number of new residents and
school children anticipated in orange County resulting from project development.
Projections also provide the number of additional employees required per service
function and school district as a result of the new development.
Total Housing Units: The cumulative total of new housing units added each year by
project development.
Total Population: The total population added each year by a project derived by
multiplying the number of homes to be constructed by the number of persons per
household (see Section 1) .
School Population: The total number of school children added each year by a project
derived by multiplying the number of homes constructed by the number of children per
household (see Section 1) .
Additional County Employees: The number of additional employees required per service
category based on project development.
Total: Total of all additional county employees required based on project development.
School District Additional Employees: The number of additional employees required s)er
school district based on the project development.
SECTION 4 - PROJECTED NET FISCAL IMPACT ON COUNTY
Tax Base: The tax base represents the increase in assessed property value expected each
year resulting from project development. The values shown are in $1, 000's and are
derived from a formula which includes the number and sales price of homes, and the
assessment ratio. Where applicable, the percentage of non-elderly units and elderly
exemption are also used.
Revenues: All revenues are derived from a formula which multiplies the per capita
revenues (Section 2) times the projected population (Section 3) . The exception to this
is the property tax which multiplies the tax base times the county government tax rate.
Expenditures: All expenditures are derived from a formula which multiplies the per
employee expenditure (Section 2) times the number of additional employees (section 3) .
Net Fiscal Impact: The net balance is the difference between projected expenditures and
projected revenues. A negative net balance indicates that it costs orange County more
to provide services to a project than it receives in revenues. A positive net balance
indicates that more revenues are received than it costs to serve a project. Positive
net balances in one project may thus be used to offset negative balances in another.
23
SECTION 5 - PROJECTED NET FISCAL IMPACT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
Revenues: The County contribution is derived by transferring education expenditures by
County government (Section 4) . Revenues derived from the school district tax are
derived by multiplying the school district tax times the tax base. State revenues are
derived by multiplying the per student expenditure figure times the total projected
number of school children (Section 3) .
Expenditures: Expenditures are derived from a formula which multiplies each per student
expenditure (Section 2) times the total projected number of school children (Section 3)
and adding the results.
Net Fiscal Impact: The net balance is the difference between projected expenditures and
projected revenues. A negative net balance indicates that it costs the school system
more to provide educational services for children in a project than it receives in
revenues. A positive net balance indicates that more revenues are received than it
costs to serve a project. Positive net balances in one project may thus be used to
offset negative balances in another.
SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED IMPACTS
SELLERS 24
MANUFACTURING CO,INC.
P. 0. Box 128
June 22, 1993
Saxapahaw, N. C. 27340
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Eddie Kirk
Planning and Inspections
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Mr. Kirk:
This is in response to your request for information on the following
two items:
1. We anticipate the price of the houses that we sell on the 116
lots at Governors Grove will range between $60, 000 and $90, 000
with an average of $75, 000.
2. We anticipate that it will take approximately three years to sell
these 116 lots which translates into about 38 lots per year.
Hopefully this answers your request and if not, please notify us for
any further information.
Sincerely yours,
i
/J t d
1-/ j --- -
John M. Jordan, Vice President
JMJ/pr
Telephone: Saxapahaw (919) 376-3121
25
SPEED MESSAGE
Edda. "Thifte
eea4/Atit_ •_://kbet____/).zo„t
Goviovie
/9‘_f
•
eee
6I44_42.0
ORIGINAL WilsonJones•ca•con.e,•MADE t`.USA
SOL & WATR 26
CONSE � VATION
Orange SoII and Water Conservation District
306 Revere Road • P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278 • Phone: 919-732-8181 • Ext. 2750
July 1, 1993
TO: Eddie Kirk, orangee ou ty�Planning Department
, ��__
FROM: Gail Hughes , Soil Cons rvationist
RE: GOVERNORS GROVE
According to the Orange County Soil Survey, the following soils are locatec
on this site:
GEORGEVILLE SILT LOAM (2-6% slope and 6-10% slope)
Septic tank absorption field - moderate limitations due to slow
percolation and steep slope
Building site development - slight limitations (2-6%) and moderate
limitations due to steeper slopes (6-10%) , for dwellings with or
without basements
ENON SILT LOAM (2-6% slope)
Septic tank absorption field - severe limitations due to slow
percolations and "heavy" clays
Building site development - severe limitations due to shrink-swell
capacity and low strength
TATUM SILT LOAM (15-25% slope)
Septic tank absorption field - severe limitations due to shallow rock
depth and steep slope
Building site development - severe limitations due to steep slopes
NOTE: The Enon & Tatum soils are located closer to the river.
GH:jw
B / !
27
4r
wl CEUWn of 3ritashoraugil 101 E. Orange Street
Y.O. Box 429
1, ' = t HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA (919) 732-2104
4t 3�. 27278
MEMORANDUM
To: Eddie Kirk, Orange County Planning
From: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director f-Y tic-
Date: July 22, 1993 ;
RE: Governors Grove Subdivision ,
i
I have no new comments relating to this subdivision. It is not in the Town's jurisdiction for
planning, zoning or transportation. I echo the cdncerns mentioned in an earlier memo from our
Town Engineer, Tom Hartye, relating to the iroximity. of this development to the town's
proposed reservoir on the West Fork of the Eno' River, -
On a separate note, could you send me a plat fir the newest phase of Cornwallis Hills (where
roads connect to Oakdale Drive)? Mike Venable NCDOT, asked if the town had any comments,
since it is in our transportation area, Thanks,
•
•
si,1 F-Ay .
To : & e/t, 0 -
-,oM,, (oy'— 3fO
k, ,
"`��,; uiur� f �itit aru 101 E. Orange Street 28
■ P.O. Box 429
-0� HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA (919) 732-2104
?G � 7
....
27278
Mr. Edward B. Kirk, Planner II
Orange Co . Planning Dept.
306F Revere Rd.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
December 21 , 1992
Re: Governer's Grove
Proposed Subdivision
Dear Mr. Kirk:
Thank you for your December 15 , 1992 letter and transmittal which
were fowarded to my office for a response. For your information I
have enclosed a copy of a synopsis of the State's Water Supply
Watershed Protection Rules . I believe your own department is in the
process of developing standards which mimmick those of the State.
As you may be aware the Eno river has been classified as WS II (with'
nutrient sensitive waters) . The most recent DEM interpretation of
"critical area" applies only to Class I reservoirs which have an
intake. The Town is still conducting a feasibility study which is
due to be completed late next month. At this point it is anticipated
that for the initial planning period through 2030. that an intake
structure will not be constructed. However , the Town may at some
time need to do so, in which case it would be wise not to preclude
that option. The Town would therefore suggest that the "critical
area" apply to this reservoir when the County adopts zoning for this
area.
I have also enclosed a copy of the proposed reservoir site for your
information. The normal pool and flood ( 1/3 PMP) pool elevations are
currently proposed to be 643 and 648 feet MSL respectively. The Town
will be required to control a fifty (50) foot buffer outside of the
normal pool elevation by easement or ownership. I emphasize that we.
are currently in the study phase and these elevations (and even the
dam site location) may change by the time that the design phase has
been completed.
Please call if you should have any further questions .
Sincerely,
,5Y?e:,,,_ t- j'
Thomas E. Hartye PE
Town Engineer
cc: Eric Swanson
Marvin Collins
Geoffrey E. Gledhill
1972-VROTOSED AHrHrHF.Nrs 717 T1rE r
I UATFR S11rrI.J VA70111ED PITMEC'T10N RtNJS
- i�• i. Allrrr..bin Drnslly Argnlrr•1 _, ' TT
rrc4arrrl Lnrvi llvn V10 Stotmwntnr, a/Stotawntrr, Control with Nrn-reglrlen. Sltvlga llnrrrd,�M S•'wrr Aqr ICU)t"to 1M..ltl Tr w'bati
elasslflcation Dlsclurgers DesrrIptIon Low Tin. Opt 111911 Den. Opt I1191, Drn. Opt Developa.ent Appl- 1.nAFIIJs lintetlals Cladrr Llnes We Ntre r�1
'-----
11S-I SlAtersbd NOM brv4 vnloprd None ]kxe None Nate 1k" Noe Nine X.A ik.,e ' it-PIs-1 RngnlrM ' Mgulr
IS-II Critical arra rrneral 1d47ac or 6-741 built Control the Allwrd No t No ry- lnvenlory. Allow Allow Prrpirnd Argnlr.vl ' R«Till
rrlmlls rr""lnnntly 61 lArllt upon tgron area 1" storm sites latv11111-4 spLI-viallnro
urvinvelot d
lTatrC�lNYI rN`Mr\I ldn/1 ar or 12-301 btllt Co trot the Allo+A, Allowrl Po row 1mrnF.nry, 111w Allow ' Ptvprlrad ` Rrgulr.d • Raq•ilt
rermlts 121 bdlt upon urro Area I" storm Also 51/701 tllndh tglnq -rLll/raLluro
provWoo latxlrllle ,
US-ill Critical artia Grrora] ldn/tar, or 12-301 built. Control the Allot•ed No rMe No rows lnvrntory, Allow A11ov ' Re.ptlrrrl ` A-Vilrod ' Rtvynlr,
remit-, txv 10 m I. l21 bul]t upon upon area 1•' storm sites landfills spLUjfal)r¢a
Wtrtsbvl Doodle f ltln/jac or 24-501 bnUt Control the Al)tr+rtl, AI]ovorl No nry lmrnlorJ, Allow Allrrr Ar-ptl(nd " ` Rr.lnir.A r R�Jnir>
i:' non-promo 2.11 huUt upon npon area 1" storm also 51/701 dlschir 1
g nq spill/failure
lrrduslriai provision lardfLUs
WS-Iv Critical area UrnrctIc C ' Ifit/)ac or ' 21-501 Imut Control the Allowed No new No nry Ittventotj, Allow Allow ` A-inlrod ` Aegulr.d ' kognlry
lydavtrial ykdrrntn to 211 lAtUl upon opts area V storm sites I.Mr]1Lt spUl/faUure
highly tinsel.
rrotectrd area D-er?t.lc C ''' ]thr/(nc or "' 24-701 buLlt. Cootrol the 11Llowrd MCKILd A)]rn*d In.entory, Allow Allow ' Rerprtr«I ` Regolred ' R&falrr,
lrvlalrlal 241 bullt rtpro upon area 1" storm spill/fal lot I
VI-v Rivrr S V-A r--.tic L On PrstticUmew othnr lha» Instra�.water qukil if stjort.rds nM)lcahle to all water s,tppiJ ira ton
t'.• .1 inhulrlal ._
t WM,,.- Critical aura Is 3 ■Lle and dralninq to vntrr sgJl.ir_. from thn normal pool alnvaUon of rrnrraolrs, or i mile and draining ' 1/3 nQn In'; or 361 WIL-lion Area is allow i for prnl+cti vllboot
to a rlvrr lntmin. A cuth Arvl getter strut rJvlm.
• rtotncled area Is 5 atolls arvl dtrinlnq to vnter sggrllra fro. the ncnmrl pmt ^tInvntlon of mnervolrs, or 10 mUeq vpstre� SpUI cvntalrnt strmtar s oro rr+prir.l for n•v 1nlnrtrJ vlere
or aryl dralnlog to a tivrr Ininkn. barnrrlr.0 .oalrrlalA or. olthnr u-1, sterr.l or ammr(wrlam.•1.
• Ihtntclpal with pr.ltrpimrnt prrprrre 1711 .OrK)i) Is mn.irlrnd IrvM.strinl dle:rhargn- � s Agticnitural ar tvltlrs are t"rct to prmlxlms of tb fon'1 AwcmltJ
• Dls:bnrgcs rpnilrylnq for a renernl remit Intrnnnl to TI .0177 v11,1 Rlso 1+ aUo,,,I In NU arras of US-111 Act of 1995 And thn Prod, Agrlcait"rv, Cort rrRUm nnrl Trtvir Act of
aryl 1S-I11 vatrr:.hniv along with the ol.lra,rd dlrrhiryns mind In the table. 1990. In WS-1 anterst—ts Ant crltlml air— of is-IT, tr; Tit nor)46-I1
• Purfrrs will be enlntnlnrd aroowl all Ivtranlal watrrs v)th a minion uldth of 30 [eat for low dea:ity arras, agrlcnitntal activitlt•s .Act rrtlntaln a 10 fort vegmtatad horror
dnvelorarnt nntl a minlrmn 100 [riot buffer for high&,mitt a"e_lrgr.rnt. or errilraleot control, And mnimtl nprratlnns MM enlaml mails what vse
• Gr""Ivaler rtv llxtlm dl3d irprs may he allwrd vhen no other practicable allrtnntty. evlTla. _ lrf6's as detrrmirr4 4 Ike Soil .M u-rtnr Cm—r»tlon C—Is.1ne-
• lnral gowrrrrrnts will Aram ultlmtn racTcanslhilltl [or oroxnLi n and mnlntrnnnrn or stnro atrr mntrols. ` SUvlc IttrrR artlrlt.les ora st",rt to the pr-1-ni n, Of tie (matt
Hry Im1irtr1rd ]roes wn_•ttev:.ter dlxcirgry atn allow.1 bit will trrptlre twidlUrmal trertnrnl r"drrv._nts. rrrcUrrs Gnidellrr-rRelattrl to W%ter Ptality (151 WIC LI .0101 .02[77).
Applies only to projrcts r"drin9 a Stdlaentjrrmnlon Control Plan. ' 11" bnrarttrnt er T"ol- rrI.Atlrn tract tvVq PMPi as tlnArrllvd in tb.ir
f.
1yrt ,1� docrmnnt, 'haler Stgg1J tE.lrrxMd trst ILinng+rnt rr.cticss^.
.r,.1 4' hham' r.ga111.v9
r_
9 ,
N
Cf]
. - . - �. _ `�,�; -_•• - ,.. P t''''''..''' 30
•�" ,'- i -fie -• ?••, •
•
i ..-- C.'r ;�!' //� a .ice
•
� _ i
1•t+ a" ,q- ,,j ^' f '•F ` i .
•y s , -. , t _ _l — —
yo-. �«;: Jtir a�� Y... . x ^'" - F7 L> r"1
•
• • -�"+r +,.... y�x - �' r <i. \ .�1•�• , rk �.
'ji /.
rill I
�`,+ r � r...7$,C.. Mv� �`.=. ` 5' .�� y \ CEDAR
• J ...-?7,. r .' _ . -. \GROVE R
t. �,
, , . --■ ik-e _
. - .' yam --rt..:�=�P-�' ,..m . a— 1 .•
7 , :_,iltik:t • AIL— �.... ,.., ,-,.. %.t.':- .
. I I,. . i ii."-;41,1
. .7'41,
''4i;".
' t `-rte, r , rr
s\ ,
I . r. ,
•■'
'S.-
-
V\, , O 'C cal
I *4
� f •,1, K 1 IS f �T. .,,
•
5I I1 Or K
. ,
\� I` f i . ,,
' ...,
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 31
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
01‘ -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner II
FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor
SUBJECT: Governor's Grove Subdivision
DATE: July 27 , 1993
Erosion control plans have already been approved for all phases
of this project.
#14 7-27-93.B
Post Office Box 8181
CarrborolChapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 FAX 919-644-3002
Extension 2586
"r ' 32
'&\
; "ror
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
E.HUNT- Ik DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SwN, HUNT
GOVERNOR SEC:J [TAI:i
P . 0. Box 766
Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766
28 July 1993
ORANGE COUNTY
Eddie Kirk
Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Rd.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 732-8181 ext . 2582
SUBJECT: Final Plan Review: Governor ' s Grove Subdivision
Located along Governor Scott Rd. (SR 1351)
Dear Mr. Kirk:
This office has completed its review of the subject ' s proposed
final plans for compliance with current Department of Transportation
minimum subdivision construction standards . We wish to advise that
the final plans received at this office are hereby approved.
Pursuant to this approval, this office would respectful request you
to make the owner/developer aware of the following requirements and
comments before starting any construction.
1 . The owner shall adhere to all the items listed in my approval
letters dated 25 May and 27 July 1993 .
2 . Prior to any construction of any new access or alteration of any
existing access within the right of way, the developer/owner is
required to secure a permit with this office.
3 . The owner/developer shall adhere to all the attached
requirements and/or the noted marked on the submitted plans and
attachments .
4 . As you review the attached approved plans , you will not find any
plans for the turn lane required by your office on 25 January
1993 . At this time , the engineering company for the project ,
Landmark Surveying Inc . , has not designed and/or submitted the
proposed turn lanes . NCDOT will review and approve the turn
lane (s) as part of the required driveway permit .
33
Final Plan Review: Governor ' s Grove Subdivision Located along
Governor Scott Rd. (SR 1351 )
PAGE 2
5. Per your request , attached you will find a copy of NCDOT
standard turn lanes design with the recommended minimum design
length for this project . (See Attachment I and II)
At this time , NCDOT does not expect a need for any additional
right of way to accommodate the require turn lane ; however NCDOT
may need a maintenance and/or a construction easement in the
area . When the construction plans for the improvements along
Governor Scott Road are completed, NCDOT will be able to
determine the limits of the expected easement.
6 . In lieu of the developer actual constructing and paving Governor
Scott Road (SR 1351) with turn -lanes , NCDOT would recommended =
that the developer make a deposit with Orange County into an
escrow account an amount equal to the cost of the said
improvements . Orange County would reimburse NCDOT at such time
when the improvements are completed. Cost estimate should be
submitted to NCDOT for review and approval.
If you have any questions , feel free to call myself or Mr. Michael
Venable at (919) 570-6833 .
Sincerely,
T. J . Dyer
DISTRICT ENGINEER
TJD/MSV/msv
Attachments
cc : J. W. Watkins , Division Engineer
SUB30728 .MV1
,.,
V
34•
.....•
• •/•'- ,---_-- --1---/ • ... ' ,.. . e
k ' • - -_- _,.-:.- ' ; 0 s-t v
7._
-----.4---z------- 0,. (-....- i , • ,
,:. ....
.,_
7_ 1 •' . • • L.
0... .',
.-.
kl.) ...*:: 1 •
L.--,;:„No
-...._
. . : . ...
..., : ., ., :, . .
k
-,. , . . •
---,._
• , , ,•• e /1' I-.. :
v)_.54..„.
\ 4.1, •
i.,
-• •.•- • / .::.:• ' t
•• c.6
.."
f.P.'4.: / • '- .4 * .• .,
'a.
.
' 1-2t-- ": .• .
4- ,';' .
...,
• ,st.
•• •••• ..-.- --s .
,••.:
...,,,...• - '...... •\ -.•••3. 7
-.) \--• '''.•....
-• , . '::..% c:.•3
'..,,,,t ,=..tr.. .
••. •- .. •
i .•2 ..3. ....,....
r ..:- ).x .: • - .
.- .:,,..... • ..,,--,„ . 1 ..,.•-;
12
.,„,
•••...3: - .,
1 '
-.S." -',.. •-ct 7" •.
,
. -
77, ...,, -7::., • (-
...• . .
:all lial.....:I:i,i . ...7:.. •••,...i .
''" ---7":-:,---... .... • ,,....-17..._
. . .
S. ,.,
-c .S.- --S" .... se
\<, L.
0 rr •"'
. sr.
..1,
e. -' - _.... 's--- , ,.,
.._,,
.__..) --,p .....)
-4, . •5.1.,
N& 4, .,- •
\ a' •• .
.
/". o,
c..• - ., 1/4-c: ..„-- N
••■•• -"*. , . -•
, :1
•
.. . .
1
-...
-..
...--7.
' '5".- A. •'7,
1
)
CI • 1...
/.
. . . ,N.,e....,, •
..----\ \-C), %-°' CY r., 4 •
•:." .- '`..: -.,..3 .', kt'''''''t:,
4., .......;:li . 0
•
' cp L, -•' •i. . •"'..li 1:. ,.7 - ' • .. ,/
: - •:::1::.: \" . m..: . . ;
N.,...-
- f'. :i':. -,.. . ' .,•i+, V;4•%,,. , :r
\ rs
0 •v_
'r-, ... sz
...
• i-, x c.,, i• ::. o
-.:::. ... ..,:zE ; :: •.r.'' -....
. .•
\- C.
N.-\•■ .:, ., diC t ' „ = i)
'-sr+
0 )•-;\\ 1 '
.•:., •,..:
1-7 • ANIPr liolow._ ,L)
••
' . .
...
, - •
l';•\74A
.. .
. • •
•
_
\/ ....\i..-,•.'
i'. •1l41i111P,,1
..„,-.i.s., , .i
•.i-E: ..• ..:
'
•
c ••
'I... ,....i .
..,
.••....... :.: r , ' ‘•.r
■!/,i_
'101
04.4, CCVKTY 1,"r■••C...4•37.4., .
'I
r.l...----.........■.r---1
.. L AM" .„..• - , '
•
GOVERNER'S GROVE. SITE P_AN FIGUR':
2
, l
N`DCT Recommended Turn Lane Design I I 35
For Governor's Grove Subdivision
Intersection Nose = 50' min 4
Storage Length = 100' min I 1
Bay Taper @10' Lane = 200' N
Approach Taper @10' Lane = 300' I '
Departure Taper @101 Lane = 300' I '
Departure
If the sight distance cannot be I I Tape r (NB)
improved at Governor Moore Street
then NCDOT will also recommend a I I
turn lane for the subject intersection.
I II
Ili
P
Hf . 4 .I
. J
Cross
Street .-
(2-Way) Intersection - -,I
Nose
Ii I `
Storaoe
Length
- III r-
Bay
I + i a;of
1 0 .
Departure 1 t:
Take-r (SB) I
Approach
I I Tac (NB)
. i
• ICI
_ Ii I _ t
I I1 I :
r1/2gha Full Shadowed •
A TTA ei-irY our # z
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
!AMES B. HUNT II DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR SECI:FTARI'
P . 0. Box 766
Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766
2 August 1993
ORANGE COUNTY
Carol Carter
Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Rd.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 732-8181
SUBJECT: Follow Up to Final. Approval of Governor ' s Grove Subdivision
Located along Governor Scott Rd. (SR 1351) ,`
Dear Ms . Carter: -
Per your request , this letter is a follow up to your conversation
with Mr. Michael Mills , Assistant Division Maintenance Engineer
regarding my last letter of 29 July, 1993 . In my letter , item number
six (6) suggested a payment in lieu by the developer for the
improvements required by your office on Governor Scott Rd (SR 1351) .
After reviewing the proposed Secondary Road Program now pending
approval by the Orange County Commissioners and the Board of
Transportation and consideration of right of way availability, this
office would recommend the county to require the developer to make
all the required improvements as needed.
Because NCDOT does not know when we will be able to pave SR 1351 nor
do we know our budget restraints at this time , we can not guarantee
the necessary grade improvements needed on Governors Scotts Groove in
order to eliminate the necessary turn lane described in my attachment
number one (1) of my last letter. Therefore , the county will need to
decide if the developer will be allowed to regrade SR 1351 in order
to improve the site distance or will you require an additional turn
lane . If the developer is allowed to regrade SR 1351 then he needs
to submit his plans for our review before starting any work. If the
developer decides to build the turn lanes instead then NCDOT will
review his plans as part of his driveway permit.
In order to eliminate any conflict in the time of the developers
plans regrading and NCDOT' s plans to pave SR 1351 , NCDOT will reserve
the right to disapprove the developers regrading plans and require
the turn lane if the developer ' s construction timing interferes with
NCDOT' s paving priority.
37
PAGE 2
If you have any questions , feel free to call myself or Mr. Michael
Venable at (919) 570-6833 .
Sincerely,
T. J. Dyer
DISTRICT ENGINEER
TJD/MSV/msv
cc : J. W. Watkins , Division Engineer
SUB30802 .MV1
38
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
R. HUNT. jP`
DIVISION OF HIGH WAYS SAM, HUNT
GOVERNOR
SECRFT.ARY
P . 0. Box 766
Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766
2 August 1993
ORANGE COUNTY
Carol Carter
Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Rd.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 732-8181
SUBJECT: Follow Up to Final Approval of Governor ' s Grove Subdivision
Located along Governor Scott Rd. (SR .1351)
Dear Ms . Carter:
Per your request , this letter is a follow up to your conversation
with Mr. Michael Venable , Assistant District Engineer regarding the
Traffic Impact Analysis by Kimley Horn. In the impact study, Kimley
Horn suggested, a "separate right-and-left turn lanes exiting the
development. . . " (p 13) . At this time , the capacity does not warrant
this type of connection and NCDOT would disapprove this type of
street connection. After the development is complete , NCDOT will
review the subject roadway connection and if our study showed the
development justifies this type of connection then would we allow the
roadway to be striped in the suggested manner.
If you have any questions , feel free to call myself or Mr. Michael
Venable at (919) 570-6833 .
Sincerely,
T. J. Dyer
DISTRICT ENGINEER
TJD/MSV/msv
cc : J . W. Watkins , Division Engineer
SUB30802 .MV2
Orange County Recreation and Parks Department 39
N;it H4C
Fun Office Box 8IQl • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Tif . I����~' �
�.�� l^t`
TO: Eddie KirA, Planning Department
FROM: Robert P. Jones, Jr. , Di rect.or- g���
DATE August 21, 1993
*E: Courtesy Review -- Governor' s Grove
I have reviewed the preliminary p1an for Governor' s Grove
Subdivision. The 11G 2ot subdivision proposal would require
a dedication of recreation/open space 'if such sites were
found to be designated on. the adopted Comprehensi°e Land USE'
an for ty`e prnperty in 'qyestion. loo such sites .ar-e
designated for- this property, and so payment-in-] ieu of
ded tion js required.
I have presented my findings to the Drange County Red-resit ion
and Park E. Advisory Council at their August meeting.
RAJ/pb.2
Offices located at 300 W. Tryon Strvet, HUbhonmgh, NC
Telephones: 919 7328181 ^ 9loo67-925l • 919 6S8-7331 • 919 227'2031 • Fax: 919 7324743
1/25/93 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 40
Later on agenda.
e. Planning Board/Economic Development Work Group
Later on agenda.
f. Historic Preservation Commission
Emily Cameron reported that the HPC has made
application for Certified Local Government
status. This would increase chances of obtaining
grants. They have also made application for a
1993 grant from the State Historic Preservation
Office. She concluded that the architectural
survey of Chapel Hill Township is to be followed
by an archaeological survey.
g. Transportation Advisory Subcommittee
Hamilton stated that she was unable to attend the
last meeting of the TAS. She continued that she
will be unable to continued on the TAS because of
her present work hours . Hoecke is also a member
of the TAS .
h. Solid Waste Committee
Gray reported that the Bingham TAC met on
January 21 at the Orange Grove Community Building
and members of the Solid Waste Committee and
Solid Waste Management presented a program on the
proposed manned solid waste sites for Orange
County. The Committee asked that the TAC help
locate properties for the manned sites . Gray
continued that the Committee indicated that, when
completed, there will be seven or nine manned
sites and no more "greenboxes" .
Scott expressed concern that more trash would be
dumped on the side of the roads. Gray responded
that was also a concern of the Committee and was
discussed at length.
AGENDA ITEM #10: SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS
a. Concept Plans
( 1 ) Governor's Grove
Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
The property is located in Cedar Grove Township
on the east and west side of Governor Scott Road
(SR 1351 ) . Governor Scott Road is an unpaved
41
state-maintained secondary road and considered a
major local road in the Comprehensive Plan. The
tract is 177 . 28 acres with 131 lots proposed.
Lot sizes range from . 92 to 3 . 35 acres .
The property is not zoned, however, it is
designated as Agricultural' Residential,
Watersupply Watershed and Water Quality Critical
Area on the Land Use Plan. It is also classified
as WS-II by the State. State-mandated standards
for the protection of classified watersheds must
be implemented by January 1994 . When zoning or
watershed standards. are adopted, this area will
be zoned as Water Quality Critical Area and
require a two-acre minimum lot size. Out of the
131 proposed lots, only 12 will comply with the
pending two-acre minimum lot size standards . The
County is in the process of considering watershed
standards which are scheduled for public hearing
in May with_ possible_ adoption in August 1993 .
Paved, public roads are proposed' throughout the development. A -1990 traffic count on Governor
Scott Road indicated 230 trips per day. With 131
lots proposed, additional traffic could reach 1,
310 trips per day ( 10 trips/day/dwelling unit) at
buildout. A traffic impact analysis must be
submitted as part of the preliminary plat
process.
NCDOT has indicated they are in the process of
updating the priority listing for paving rural
secondary roads. Governor Scott Road is number
24A on the rural secondary road priority. The
rural secondary road program included roads up
through number 21, thus this road is very high on
the present listing. However, there are several
owners who are unwilling to dedicate the
necessary right-of-way in order to pave the road .
The subdivision will be served by individual
wells and septic tanks.
The Town of Hillsborough has indicated that a
feasibility study is being conducted for the
proposed reservoir site. At this point an intake
•
structure is not being considered for the initial
planning period through 2030 . The reservoir is
in the planning process, however, plans have not
been submitted to the State for review or
approval.
Emergency Management has indicated their concerns
with cul-de-sacs and dead end roads, however,
42
there were no specific recommendations . The
developer tried to lay out the lots with the
drainageways located at the rear of the property
lines . Also, two stubouts were provided along
the south side of the property to allow future
circulation possibilities .
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
Concept Plan for Governor's Grove with seven
conditions:
1 . All lots must meet the minimum 130 foot lot
width requirements as provided in Section IV-
B-5 of the Subdivision Regulations unless
they are located on the turning circles of
cul-de-sacs;
2 . All lots shall receive access from the
internal subdivision roads;
3 . A right turn lane shall be constructed in the
northbound travelway of Governor Scott Road
approaching the intersection of the 20 foot
asphalt travelway, and a left turn lane shall
be constructed in the southbound travelway ;of
Governor Scott Road approaching the
intersection of the 20 foot asphalt
travelway. These turning lanes shall be
constructed to standards of the NCDOT with
final plat approval of Phase 7 .
4 . Additional right-of-way for turn lanes on
Governor Scott Road shall be provided where
deemed necessary by NCDOT.
5. Along the frontage of this tract, Governor
Scott Road shall be paved to standards of the
NCDOT with final plat approval of Phase Four.
6 . Stream buffers and infiltration standards
shall be complies with on the preliminary
plan as required in Sections IV-B-9-b and IV-
B-9-c of the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations.
7 . Payment-in-lieu of dedicated recreation area
shall be required.
Eidenier noted that, in the past, NCDOT would
"bump" a road on down the list and go to the
next one if residents did not sign the right-of-
way documents for a road to be paved. She
expressed concern with the possibility that the
developer would pave the road in front of the
subdivision and it would remain gravel on either
side. Kirk responded that could happen if NCDOT
is unable to obtain the right-of-way.
Hamilton asked what would happen if the Concept
Plan is approved and then a two-acre minimum lot
43
size is adopted. Kirk responded that the
applicant must have preliminary plan approval
prior to the adoption of a two-acre minimum lot
size in order to develop the subdivision as it is
proposed. Willis indicated that by the time the
watershed standards are adopted, the subdivision
would have to increase the lot sizes to two
acres.
Burklin noted it might be beneficial to have turn
lanes for both directions . Kirk responded that
with the right-of-way the applicant must already
provide, that should not be a problem. He noted
that the Board could add that as a condition of
approval.
David Thompson, surveyor for the project, stated
that the developer is willing to provide the
funds for the necessary paper work for NCDOT to
condemn the land and pave the road.
Eidenier asked that the surveyor or applicant
address the cul .de-sacs° that were of concern tcq
EMS. Mr. Thompson responded that there are very
significant topographical features that the road
would have to cross such as a 20 to 25 foot drop
which would not be considered safe.
Burklin asked is they were standard cul-de-sacs.
Kirk responded yes they would be built to State
standards.
Waddell expressed concern that lots at the
eastern end were in the floodplain and asked if
all of those lots were buildable. Kirk responded
that would be determined by soils checks by the
Environmental Health Department and the required
buffer on the preliminary plan. It is possible
that there would have to be some changes in lot
sizes or combination of lots.
MOTION: Scott moved approval with conditions as
recommended by Planning Staff . Seconded by
Boland.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
1 opposed - Hamilton - concerned with the
possibility of a portion of the road remaining
gravel and 2-acre lot sizes .
(2 ) Oak Pointe
Presentation by Jim Hinkley.
44
DRAFT 8/16/93 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Resolution of Approval (a copy is an attachment
to these minutes on pages ) .
MOTION: Eidenier moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Reid.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(2) Governor's Grove
( 116 Lots - Cedar Grove Township)
Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
The property is located in Cedar Grove Township
on the east and west side of Governor Scott Road
(SR 1351) . Governor Scott Road is an unpaved
State-maintained secondary road and considered a
major local road in the Comprehensive Plan. The
tract is 177 .28 acres with 116 lots proposed.
Lot sizes range from .92 to 4 .50 acres.
The property is -not zoned, however, it is
designated as Agricultural Residential,
Watersupply Watershed and Water Quality Critical
Area on the Land Use Plan. It is also classified
as WS-II by the State. State-mandated standards
for the protection of classified watersheds must
be implemented by January 1994 . When zoning or
watershed standards are adopted, this area will
be zoned as Water Quality Critical Area and
require a two-acre minimum lot size. Out of the
116 proposed lots, only 14 will comply with the
pending two-acre minimum lot size standards. The
County is in the process of considering watershed
standards which are scheduled for public hearing
on August 23, 1993.
Paved, public roads are proposed throughout the
development. A 1990 traffic count on Governor
Scott Road indicated 230 trips per day. With 116
lots proposed, additional traffic could reach 1,
160 trips per day, ( 10 trips/day/dwelling unit)
at buildout. A traffic impact analysis has been
submitted.
NCDOT has just updated the priority listing for
paving rural secondary roads. Governor Scott
Road is number 13 on the rural secondary road
priority. This road is scheduled to be paved
during the 1993-94 NCDOT Secondary Roads Paving
Program. Turn lanes on Governor Scott Road will
be required with final plat approval of Phase 7 .
The subdivision will be served by individual
45
wells and septic tanks.
The Town of Hillsborough has completed and
adopted a feasibility study for the proposed
reservoir site. At this point an intake
structure is not being considered for the initial
planning period through 2030 . The Town is in the
process of drafting and obtaining State approval
for the Environmental Impact Statement. They
have indicated this should be completed in
November. Final design plans would come at a
later time.
The Planning Board reviewed the Concept Plan for
Governor's Grove at its January 25, 1993 meeting.
The plan was approved with seven conditions:
1. All lots must meet the minimum 130 foot lot
width requirements as provided in Section
IV-B-5 of the Subdivision Regulations unless
they are located on the turning circles of
cul-de-sacs.
2 . All lots shall receive access from the
internal subdivision roads.
3. A right turn lane shall be constructed in the
northbound travelway of Governor Scott Road
approaching the intersection of the 20 foot
asphalt travelway, and a left turn lane shall
be constructed in the southbound travelway of
Governor Scott Road approaching the inter-
section of the 20 foot asphalt travelway.
These turning lanes shall be constructed to
standards of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation with final plat approval of
Phase 7 .
4 . Additional right-of-way for turn lanes on
Governor Scott Road shall be provided where
deemed necessary by NCDOT.
5 . Along the frontage of this tract, Governor
Scott Road shall be paved to standards of the
NCDOT with final plat approval of Phase Four.
6. Stream buffers and infiltration standards
shall be complied with on the preliminary
plan as required in Sections IV-B-9-b and IV-
B-9-c of the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations.
7 . Payment-in-lieu of dedicated recreation area
shall be required.
Agency comments were received from Emergency
Management, Soil & Water Conservation, Town of
Hillsborough, Erosion Control and NCDOT.
Applicable comments have been incorporated into
the Resolution of Approval.
In
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plan for Governor's Grove subject to
the conditions contained in the Resolution of
Approval (a copy an attachment to these minutes
on pages ) .
Burklin asked for a definition of intake
structure. Kirk responded that according to the
letter from Thomas E. Hartye, Town Engineer, Town
of Hillsborough, it appears to be referring to
construction of the reservoir.
A great deal of discussion followed regarding the
proposed reservoir and the lack of dialogue and
communication with the Town of Hillsborough.
After research, Willis reported that an intake
structure is a pipe that goes directly to the
reservoir for direct water supply.
David Thompson, -Surveyor, stated that the land ,
was purchased with no knowledge of the proposed"
reservoir. As they began to work on the concept
plan, articles began appearing in the newspapers
regarding the proposed reservoir in Cedar Grove
Township. He noted that a significant amount of
money had been spent so they continued with the
project.
Eidenier noted that this was the purpose of
concept plans to inform the applicants of
potential problems.
Hamilton noted that she felt that it is the
responsibility of the buyer of the land to
find out those potential problems.
Cantrell reminded the Board that it is not
appropriate for the Planning Board to consider
the expense to the applicant and developers.
There have been questions regarding decisions
when financing/costs have been discussed.
Mr. Thompson responded that his mention of money
was simply to indicate that his clients had
proceeded in good faith. He continued that they
had also worked very closely with the Planning
Department on their plans.
Burklin indicated he would like to encourage
communication between the applicants and the Town
of Hillsborough so that this could be a mutually
good plan for Hillsborough as well as the
47
developers. He felt the uncertainty of the
location of the lake would delay development of
the subdivision.
Hugh Sharpe, Sellars Manufacturing Company,
stated that there had been communication with the
Town of Hillsborough and that there have been no
definite decisions/plans made by the Town
regarding the reservoir.
Eidenier asked if building sites have been
identified on the large lots on the Eno where the
engineer had noted problems with the soils. Mr.
Sharpe responded that well sites and septic tank
sites have been identified on each lot and that
there is sufficient buildable area.
Barrows expressed concern with the demographic
data in the fiscal impact analysis. She
indicated she felt the .046 children per
household was not accurately reflected. She felt
this subdivision would, attract young families
with one, two or more children which would impact
on the schools and community much greater that
was indicated in the analysis.
MOTION: Jobsis moved approval with the conditions in
the Resolution of Approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Boland.
Eidenier stated that she felt this plan was a
good one, however, she noted she would be voting
against it out of frustration that Hillsborough
has not been able to make a more timely decision
regarding the future reservoir site.
Waddell indicated he could understand the
frustration. However, the Board must make
decisions to protect the minority as well as the
majority. The lack of decision may be very
costly for the Town of Hillsborough.
Reid expressed concern with the size of the
development and that it will be in the WS-II
designation.
Burklin asked the status of the watershed
process. Kirk and Willis both responded that it
will be presented at the August 23, 1993 public
hearing. The effective date, State deadline is
January 1, 1994 .
There were questions regarding "vested" and the
creation of lots less than two acres. Willis
48
responded lots less than two acres prior to the
new standards can be built on but will be
considered non-conforming lots. It is not really
a vesting issue but, rather if a lot exists at
the time the new regulations become effective,
that lot can be built on, but any new lots
created after that time would have to be two
acres in size.
Mac Jordan, developer, made a statement regarding
the water quality issue. He stated that the
large lots that bordered the Eno and the areas
that would affect water quality are much larger
than the new standards would recommend. He felt
that there would be ample amount of undisturbed
area to protect the river and any water problems
that might occur because of the development.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
2 opposed (Eidenier & Reid - both concerned with
the area of the Eno River being
developed for a possible reservoir.
As a representative -of Hillsborough,
Eidenier noted concern with the area
being developed. )
Burklin stated that he was influenced by the lack
of comment and concern from the Town of
Hillsborough. He suggested again that the Town
be encouraged to be more active in such concerns.
AGENDA ITEM #8: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (5/24/93)
a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
( 1) Articles 6.23, 6.24 & 6.25 -
Impervious Surface Regulated
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
At the June 21, 1993 meeting of the Planning
Board, a question arose about the wording
contained in the first sentence of Section
6.24 .4, Subsection b. Specifically, the Board
focused on the "in perpetuity" provision and the
hypothetical case of a farmer who provided a
conservation easement. If the impervious surface
requirements were eliminated at some future date,
could the farmer have the easement dissolved,
given the existence of the perpetuity provision?
The Board's concern was that Orange County may
seek to hold onto such an easement even though
the purpose for its creation was no longer valid.
49
SUMMARY OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
GOVERNOR'S GROVE SUBDIVISION
Area in Lots [Acres] Total Impervious
Percent Impervious Surface
Phase Number Excluding Including Impervious Surface Limit
Number of Lots Street ROW Street ROW Surface [SgFt] [SgFt]
1 11 16.63 17.63 4.75% 36445 46077
2 9 9.28 10.37 7.37% 33308 27103
3 11 12.25 13.14 5.64% 32303 34342
4 13 14.42 16.57 7.16% 51701 43307
5 14 15.17 16.99 7.33% 54217 44405
6 11 21.07 22.00 3.70% 35469 57499
7 13 15.23 17.24 7.35% 55219 45058
8 16 25.34 26.90 4.72% 55253 70306
9 15 28.70 30.73 4.47% 59814 80315
•
Total 113 158.09 171.57 5.54% 413729 448412
50
SUMMARY OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
PHASE 1 - GOVERNOR'S GROVE SUBDIVISION
Lot Size [Acres] Lot Area
Percent Impervious Required
Lot Excluding Including Impervious Surface To Comply
Number Street ROW Street ROW Surface [SgFt] [Acres]
1 0.95 1.02 6.46% 2863 1.10
2 0.92 1.05 8.38% 3826 1.46
3 0.92 1.00 7 .13% 3115 1. 19
4 1.77 1.89 4.64% 3824 1.46
5 2.17 2.25 3.34% 3270 1.25
6 3.31 3.35 1.81% 2640 1.01
7 2.23 2.27 2 .67% 2640 1.01
8 1.60 1.68 4 .39% 3221 1.23
9 0.92 0.99 6.83% 2953 1. 13
10 0.92 1.01 7 .21% 3160 1.21
11 0.92 1.12 10.12% 4933 1.89
Total 16.63 17.63 4.75% 36445 13.94
Average 1.51 1.60 4.75% 3313 1.27
NOTE: The actual total acreage in Phase 1 is 17 .62 acres. Impervious
surface for Phase 1 may not exceed 6% or 46052 sq.ft.
51
SUMMARY OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
PHASE 2 - GOVERNOR'S GROVE SUBDIVISION
Lot Size [Acres] Lot Area
Percent Impervious Required
Lot Excluding Including Impervious Surface To Comply
Number Street ROW Street ROW Surface [SqFt] [Acres]
12 1.21 1.29 5.46% 3070 1.14
13 0.92 1.03 7.88% 3528 1.35
14 1.04 1.14 6.86% 3412 1.31
15 1.12 1.15 4.58% 2296 0.88
17 1.17 1.25 5.54% 3007 1.15
18 0.92 1.14 10.73% 5329 2.04
19 0.92 1.10 9.75% 4672 1.79
20 0.92 1.12 10.09% 4924 1.88
21 1.06 1.15 6.18% 3070 1.17
Total 9.28 10.37 7.37% 33308 12.71
Average 1.03 1.15 7.37% 3701 1.41
NOTE: The actual total acreage in Phase 2 is 11.78 acres. Impervious
surface for Phase 2 may not exceed 6% or 30788 sq.ft.
52
SUMMARY OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
PHASE 3 - GOVERNOR'S GROVE SUBDIVISION
Lot Size [Acres] Lot Area
Percent Impervious Required
Lot Excluding Including Impervious Surface To Comply
Number Street ROW Street ROW Surface [SqFt] [Acres]
23 1.16 1.24 5.41% 2899 1.11
24 1.24 1.32 4.99% 2845 1.09
25 0.92 1.00 6.97% 3034 1.16
26 0.92 1.04 7.68% 3448 1.32
27 1.46 1.54 4.55% 3052 1.17
28 1.42 1.44 3.34% 2098 0.80
29 1.09 1.12 4.43% 2161 0.83
30 1.09 1.14 4.91% 2440 0.93
31 1.11 1.19 5.46% 2809 1.07
32 0.92 1.02 7.44% 3304 1.26
33 0.92 1.09 8.96% 4213 1.61
Total 12.25 13.14 5.64% 32303 12.35
Average 1.11 1.19 5.64% 2937 1.12
NOTE: The actual total acreage in Phase 3 is 13.09 acres. Impervious
surface for Phase 3 may not exceed 6% or 34212 sq.ft.
53
SUMMARY OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
PHASE 4 - GOVERNOR'S GROVE SUBDIVISION
Lot Size [Acres] Lot Area
Percent Impervious Required
Lot Excluding Including Impervious Surface To Comply
Number Street ROW Street ROW Surface [SgFt] [Acres]
16 0.95 1.14 6.65% 3304 1.26
34 0.92 1.09 10.28% 4879 1.87
35 1.08 1.10 4.38% 2098 0.80
36 1.08 1.13 5.01% 2467 0.94
37 1.05 1.12 5.83% 2845 1.09
38 1.05 1.26 9 .18% 5041 1.93
39 0.92 1.02 7.18% 3160 1.21
40 0.92 1.02 7.18% 3160 1.21
41 0.92 1.02 7.18% 3160 1.21
42 1.69 1.86 5.63% 4562 1.75
43 1.28 1.40 6.02% 3673 1.41
44 1.64 2.23 7.84% 7618 2.91
45 0.92 1.18 11.16% 5734 2.19
Total 14.42 16.57 7.16% 51701 19.78
Average 1.11 1.27 7.16% 3977 1.52
NOTE: The actual total acreage in Phase 4 is 16.84 acres. Impervious
surface for Phase 4 may not exceed 6% or 44013 sq.ft.
54
SUMMARY OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
PHASE 5 - GOVERNOR'S GROVE SUBDIVISION
Lot Size [Acres) Lot Area
Percent Impervious Required
Lot Excluding Including Impervious Surface To Comply
Number Street ROW Street ROW Surface [SgFt] [Acres]
46 1.41 1.52 5.32% 3520 1.35
47 1.63 1.84 6.58% 5291 2.02
48 0.92 1.12 10.20% 4987 1.91
49 0.92 1.03 8.01% 3610 1.38
50 0.92 1.06 8.69% 4015 1.54
51 1.84 2.12 6.84% 6326 2.42
52 0.92 0.95 5.47% 2260 0.86
53 1.01 1.04 4.99% 2260 0.86
54 1.00 1.05 5.54% 2521 0.96
55 0.92 1.15 10.87% 5455 2.09
56 0.92 1.01 7.32% 3169 1.21
57 0.92 1.11 9.96% 4825 1.85
58 0.92 1.00 7.01%- 3052 1.17
59 0.92 0.99 6.78% 2926 1.12
Total 15.17 16.99 7.33% 54217 20.74
Average 1.08 1.21 7.33% 3873 1.48
NOTE: The actual total acreage in Phase 5 is 17.20 acres. Impervious
surface for Phase 5 may not exceed 6% or 44954 sq.ft.
55
SUMMARY OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
PHASE 6 - GOVERNOR'S GROVE SUBDIVISION
Lot Size [Acres] Lot Area
Percent Impervious Required
Lot Excluding Including Impervious Surface To Comply
Number Street ROW Street ROW Surface [SqFt] [Acres]
60 1.24 1.31 5.20% 2980 1.14
61 1.32 1.39 4.83% 2926 1.12
62 1.61 1.68 4.11% 3005 1.15
63 2.36 2.43 2.87% 3036 1. 16
64 2 .81 2.88 2.44% 3054 1. 17
65 4.50 4.57 1.54% 3072 1.18
66 1.76 1.84 3.89% 3113 1.19
67 1.74 1.77 3.06% 2357 0.90
68 1.89 1.93 3.05% 2564 0.98
69 0.92 1.08 9.28% 4384 1.68
70 0.92 1.12 10.19% 4978 1.90
Total 21.07 22.00 3.70% 35469 13.57
Average 1.92 2.00 3.70% 3224 1.23
NOTE: The actual total acreage in Phase 6 is 22.05 acres. Impervious
surface for Phase 6 may not exceed 6% or 57629 sq.ft.
56
SUMMARY OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
PHASE 7 - GOVERNOR'S GROVE SUBDIVISION
Lot Size [Acres] Lot Area
Percent Impervious Required
Lot Excluding Including Impervious Surface To Comply
Number Street ROW Street ROW Surface [SqFt] [Acres]
71 1.22 1.32 5.89% 3385 1.30
72 1.59 1.80 6.62% 5183 1.98
73 0.92 1.15 10.92% 5491 2. 10
74 0.92 1. 15 10.82% 5419 2.07
75 1.26 1.37 5.84% 3475 1.33
76 1.26 1.38 6.13% 3682 1.41
77 1.08 1.18 6.60% 3394 1.30
78 0.92 1.01 7.21% 3160 1.21
79 0.92 1.01 7.21% 3160 1.21
80 0.92 1.16 10.93% 5500 2.10
81 2 .04 2.38 7.09% 7347 2.81
82 1.02 1.10 6.50% 3124 1.20
83 1. 16 1.23 5.41% 2899 1.11
Total 15.23 17.24 7.35% 55219 21.13
Average 1.17 1.33 7.35% 4248 1.63
NOTE: The actual total acreage in Phase 7 is 17.34 acres. Impervious
surface for Phase 7 may not exceed 6% or 45320 sq.ft.
57
SUMMARY OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
PHASE 8 - GOVERNOR'S GROVE SUBDIVISION
Lot Size [Acres] Lot Area
Percent Impervious Required
Lot Excluding Including Impervious Surface To Comply
Number Street ROW Street ROW Surface [SqFt] [Acres]
84 1.17 1.24 5.50% 2980 1.14
85 1.21 1.29 5.46% 3070 1.17
86 1.29 1.36 5.01% 2980 1.14
87 1.43 1.53 5.02% 3340 1.28
88 1.50 1.58 4.68% 3230 1.24
89 1.98 2.05 3.45% 3086 1.18
90/91 2.36 2.51 4.05% 4440 1.70
92 3.05 3.09 1.99% 2676 1.02
93 2.73 2.76 2.09% 2514 0.96
94 1.11 1.32 8.95% 5158 1.97
95 0.92 1.15 10.85% 5446 2.08
96 1.20 1.23 4.33% 2323 0.89
97 2.06 2.09 - 2.75% 2505 0.96.
98 1.49 1.51 3.50% 2323 0.89
99 0.92 1.16 11.08% 5608 2.15
100 0.92 1.03 - 7.95% 3574` 1.37
Total 25.34 26.90 4.72% 55253 21.14
Average 1.58 1.68 4.72% 3453 1.32
NOTE: The actual total acreage in Phase 8 is 27.11 acres. Impervious
surface for Phase 8 may not exceed 6% or 70855 sq.ft.
58
SUMMARY OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
PHASE 9 - GOVERNOR'S GROVE SUBDIVISION
Lot Size [Acres] Lot Area
Percent Impervious Required
Lot Excluding Including Impervious Surface To Comply
Number Street ROW Street ROW Surface [SgFt] [Acres]
101 0.96 1.22 11.00% 5824 2.23
102 0.94 1.02 7.01% 3124 1.20
103 3.89 3.93 1.55% 2649 1.01
104 4.05 4.37 3.70% 7041 2.69
105 2.93 3.06 3.02% 4026 1.54
106/107 3.29 3.48 3.27% 4953 1.90
108 3.23 3.27 1.88% 2676 1.02
109 2.78 2.81 2.02% 2469 0.94
110 0.92 1.01 7.21% 3160 1.21
111 0.92 1.01 7.21% 3160 1.21
112 0.92 1.01 7.21% 3160 1.21
113 0.92 1.01 7.21% 3160 1.21
114 0.95 1.19 10.69% 5527 2.11
115 0.92 1:16 10.53%. 5500 2.10
116 1.08 1.18 ,6.58% - 3385, 1.30
Total 28.70 30.73 4.47% 59814 22.88
Average 1.91 2.05 4.47% 3988 1.53
NOTE: Total acreage in Phase 9 is 30.91 acres. Impervious surface
for Phase 9 may not exceed 6% or 80786 sq.ft.
RESOLUTION
'HIE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVIISSION]EILS
Date September 21, 1993
Name of Subdivision Governor's Grove //
Owner/Applicant ellLrs M -;anufacturin . j
Ca o r-$tron
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Governors Grove subdivision
preliminary plat, dated June 15, 1993 and containing 116 lots, subject to the fulfillment of
requirements specified herein.
Governor Moore Street, Governor Sanford Street, Governor Martin Street, Governor Holt
Boulevard, Governor Umstead Circle, Governor Cherry Circle, Governor Broughton Street,
Governor Hodges Street, Governor Holshauser Circle and Governor Huey Street shall be
irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be constructed to standards of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. The approval of this resolution authorizes and
directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange County and on behalf of the public
generally, the offer of dedication of Governor Moore Street, Governor Sanford Street,
Governor Martin Street, Governor Holt Boulevard, Governor Umstead Circle, Governor
Cherry Circle, Governor Broughton Street, Governor Hodges Street, Governor Holshguser
Circle and Governor Huey Street. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to
the general public of Governor Moore Street, Governor Sanford Street, Governor Martin
Street, Governor Holt Boulevard, Governor Umstead Circle, Governor Cherry Circle,
Governor Broughton Street, Governor Hodges Street, Governor Holsluser Circle and
Governor Huey Street shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be
maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as they are accepted for maintenance by
the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before
the Final Plat of Governors Grove can be recorded:
A. Sewage Disposal
1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for septic disposal, and
repair area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental
Health.
2. The septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements.
This disclosure shall be included in a document describing development
restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document
shall also disclose that information regarding the tentative location of septic
systems is available from the Orange County Health Department, Division of
Environmental Health.
1
B. Roads and Access
1. Governor Moore Street, Governor Sanford Street, Governor Martin Street,
Governor Holt Boulevard, Governor Umstead Circle, Governor Cherry Circle,
Governor Broughton Street, Governor Hodges Street, Governor Holshluser
Circle and Governor Huey Street shall be constructed to standards of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, within a 50 foot right-of-way, and the
construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT.
OR
A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure
construction of Governor Moore Street, Governor Sanford Street, Governor
Martin Street, Governor Holt Boulevard, Governor Umstead Circle, Governor
Cherry Circle, Governor Broughton Street, Governor Hodges Street, Governor
Holshauser Circle and Governor Huey Street and the required turn lanes on
Governor Scott Road to the standards of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a
certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning
and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of
that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do
business in North Carolina.
The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the
Final Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the
road construction has been inspected and approved by NCDOT.
2. Provided Governor Scott Road is not already paved to NCDOT standards prior
to approval of Phase Four, Governor Scott Road shall be paved along the
frontage of this tract to NCDOT standards with final plat approval of Phase
Four. Security shall be provided for this improvement with the final plat
submittal of Phase Four.
3. Site distance at the intersection of Governor Scott Road and Governor Moore
Street is limited. Grading shall be completed at this intersection to meet
NCDOT site distance requirements.
4. A right turn deceleration lane shall be provided in the north and southbound
travelway of Governor Scott Road approaching Governor Holt Boulevard.
Left turn lanes shall also be constructed in the north and southbound travelway
of Governor Scott Road approaching Governor Holt Boulevard. These turning
lanes shall be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation with final plat approval of Phase 7.
5. All lots shall access onto the new subdivision roads. This restriction shall be -
stated in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to
be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
2
_-
Z-.--.--.----'
6. At the street rights-of-way intersections, sight-triangles shall be indicated in
accordance with NCDOT design standards.
7. Approved street name signs shall be erected at intersections as required in
Section IV-B-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Evidence
shall be submitted by the applicant that signs are in place or a copy of the
receipt for purchase of the signs shall be submitted to the Planning
Department.
C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the approved
landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and
Inspections Department.
OR
Guaranteed financially through a letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond
submitted to secure required landscape installation and preservation. An
estimate of the cost for required preservation, plantings and their installation
must be provided. The financial guarantee shall reflect 110 percent of the
estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do
business in North Carolina.
2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape
plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with
the Final Plat.
D. Parkland
1. Cash in the amount of$3,314.00 [($1,000/acre x 116/35 acre)] shall be paid to
Orange County as payment in lieu of parkland dedication.
E. Miscellaneous
1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with
Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
2. The following buffer shall be shown on the plat:
a. A 50-foot stream buffer shall be provided along the West Fork of the
Eno River as required in Section IV-B-9-b of the Orange County -
Subdivision Regulations.
3. The 100 year floodplain along the West Fork of the Eno shall be indicated.
3
4 Impervious surface shall be limited to six percent (6%) of the total area of the
development (463.339 square feet), with an additional ten percent (10%)
(46.334 square feet) permitted upon approval of the Planning Director. The
impervious surface limit for individual lots shall be shown on the Final Plat.
Building envelopes and driveway locations shall also be indicated on the Final
Plat.
5. All lots adjacent to the West Fork of the Eno River shall contain a minimum
lot area of two (2) acres.
F. Certifications
1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor
shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat.
2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section
V-D-6-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the
landowner and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a
document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with
the Final Plat.
3. The Department of Environmental Health shall certify that all residential lots
contain sufficient area for septic tank disposal and repair.
4. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that all roads
have been constructed to State standards or that construction plans have been
approved.
5. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and
f' ;Inspections Department.
7 ' /7/ / _ .7 4,,
i _ i -
„„4' ,,,,„ dip „.„,,,,,, „ „/
Signature of Applicant
. �� %, Clerk o the Board
/� .,�
— , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval,
anddaGknowledge�;that each/must be met prior to recordation of the final plat.
� f f ,�
A 1: t r, ;%r, 4 / /
�/ pp, Date
7
4