Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 10-04-1993 - III-H
1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 4 , 1993 Action Agenda Item # zY- H SUBJECT: FOX HILL FARM PHASE TWO SECTION A - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: November 18 , 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 Preliminary Plan Mebane - 227-2031 9/20/93 Draft Planning Board Minutes Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Fox Hill Farm Phase Two Section A. BACKGROUND: The property is located in Eno Township on the east side of Baldwin Road (SR 1554) at the intersection with Miller Road (SR 1555) . Miller Road is a paved state-maintained road, however, Baldwin is an unpaved state-maintained road. A 1992 traffic count on Miller Road indicated 150 trips per day. Baldwin Road had a traffic count of 80 trips per day in 1992 . The total acreage of the area to be subdivided is 101. 7 . Forty-three (43) lots are proposed which average 2 . 25 acres in size. All lots will be served by individual wells and septic tanks. The first phase of Fox Hill Farm was approved in 1992 and is located on the west side of Baldwin Road south of Miller Road. The property is zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) . It is also designated Agricultural Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. Public roads are proposed to serve the subdivision. The Town of Hillsborough has indicated that the main entrance road into the subdivision is designated as a proposed major thoroughfare and part of the Town's proposed loop system on the 1987 Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan. This plan was adopted by the Town and NCDOT, but not by the County. The Plan indicates this road is a 2 third priority which is designated between the years 2000 to 2005. As of now, the project has not been included on the Town's TIP requests to NCDOT. Since this road is -proposed to be a major thoroughfare and part of the proposed loop system, access for lots 1, 3 , 4, and 5 will be provided from internal access roads. NCDOT has indicated temporary cul-de-sacs or turnarounds must be provided at the end of Northfield Lane and Little Leaf Lane. Also sight distance triangles must be located at each intersection. The Planning Board reviewed the Concept Plan for Fox Hill Farm Phase Two Section "A" at its April 13 , 1993 meeting. The plan was approved with the following conditions: 1. All lots shall receive access from the internal roads instead of Miller Road, Baldwin Road or the main entrance road. 2 . Access for lots 1 through 7 shall be provided by another internal road instead of the main entrance road or include lots 1 through 7 in Phase Two Section B and provide internal access at that time. 3 . Extend the cul-de-sac between lots 20 and 21 to provide internal access for lots 8 and 9 . 4 . Extend the road between lots 23 and 24 to eventually allow the road to reconnect to the main entrance road. 5. Before additional concept plan phases are submitted, a master plan of the proposed development of the property shall be submitted. Agency Comments were received from the following: Emergency Management July 28, 1993 Town of Hillsborough April 1, 1993 July 29, 1993 Soil and Water Conservation August 5, 1993 Recreation and Parks August 11, 1993 NCDOT August 24, 1993 Erosion Control August 25, 1993 Applicable comments have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. The Planning Board considered the Preliminary Plan for Fox Hill Farm Phase Two Section A on September 20, 1993 and unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Fox Hill Farm Phase Two Section A subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMILSSIONERS Date October 4. 1993 Name of Subdivision Fox Hill Farm Phase Two Section "A" Owner/Applicant Randolph D. Fox The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Fox Hill Farm Phase Two Section A subdivision preliminary plat, dated July 19, 1993 and revised August 2, 1993 and containing 43 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. Fox Hill Farm Drive, Northfield Lane, Rosebriar Place, Little Leaf Lane, Spring Knoll Place and Glen Mist Place 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 Fox Hill Farm Drive, Northfield Lane, Rosebriar Place, Little Leaf Lane, Spring Knoll Place and Glen Mist Place. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Fox Hill Farm Drive, Northfield Lane, Rosebriar Place, Little Leaf Lane, Spring Knoll Place and Glen Mist Place 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 Fox Hill Farm Phase Two Section "A" 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. B. Roads and Access 1. Fox Hill Farm Drive, Northfield Lane, Rosebriar Place, Little Leaf Lane, Spring Knoll Place and Glen Mist Place 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. 1 OR A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure construction of Fox Hill Farm Drive, Northfield Lane, Rosebriar Place, Little Leaf Lane, Spring Knoll Place and Glen Mist Place 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. All lots shall receive access from the internal subdivision roads instead of Miller Road or Fox Hill Farm Drive. 3. At the street rights-of-way intersections, sight-triangles shall be indicated in accordance with NCDOT design standards. 4. Approved street name signs shall be erected at intersections as required in Section W-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. 5. Temporary turn grounds to NCDOT standards shall be constructed at the end of Northfield Lane and Little Leaf Lane. 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. 2 D. Parkland 1. Cash in the amount of $3,025.00 [($2,407/acre x 44/35 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. 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 A001111Ppproved. 5. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. , / / 4 / 0 it " ..A° ' / t‘/fr Signature f Applicant Clerk • the Board I , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, an .cknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. 41101/11&A..._ /ó - c75 - ? 3 Applicant Date 3 APPLICATION FL...,- ", PREL1MINAR\T. PLAN APPR \t' nL MAJOR SUBDIVISION 2/90 6 0 RRNGE COUNTY DATE: 7/19/93 PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) SUBDIVISION NAME: Fox Hill Farm (Phase 2 Section A) LOCATION: Miller Road (SR 1555) OWNER/DEVELOPER: Randolph D. Fox • ADDRESS: 2726 Croasdaile Dr Suite 102 TELEPHONE NO.: 383-5681 Durham, NC 27705 AGENT/CONTACT: Vic Knight TELEPHONE NO.: 732-3521 932-9908 P.O. Box 850 Hillsborough, NC 27278 • A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: ' Orange County Tax Map 13 Block Lot(s) 14 Township Eno , Zoning District(s): Orange County Total Number of Acres: 101.7 Acres Phases: Phase 2 Section A Total Number of Lots: 44 Average Lot Size: 2 , O t,4jiinimum Lot Size: 1.21 Acres Number/Type of Structures: (existing) 4 Barns (proposed) None Lineal Feet in Streets: Approx. 6,200 LF Acres in Open Space: None Water Supply: Public (specify)----`----`--Community Well Needed Individual Wastewater Disposal: Public (specify) 'Community Septic Needed Individual School District: Orange County Fire District: Orange Rural General Land Uses in Area: AgriculturalTResidential Critical Areas: N/A stream/drainageways N/A flood prone areas N/A watershed (specify) N/A historic sites • other (explain) N/A Is the property to be subdivided currently under "farm use value taxation"? Yes X 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: zr1 0 x c _ subdivision name X ''•�?^I zoning of tract and adjacent properties O ^' name & address of owner(s) ;:::::.. X *M building setback lines by notation or typical lot :` name & address of subdivider ga layout y U (if other than ner o w ) X _ : location and width of existing and proposed EW _x,_ '-.:i_ name of surveyor, engineer, M. easements (drainage, utilities, roads, etc.) W :';_:;rii o '. landscape architect or architect, X WM existing, proposed and adjoining rights-of-way ,t ? address, registration k and seal including dimensions and street names and state L) O x P! (title) Preliminary Plan Mg road numbers. Lineal. feet of road centerlines and [' X �': scale, north arrrow approximate acreage of new street rights-of-way a ?'- - 's•'c' i pP 9 9 Y (4 x ? date (including revision dates) X +'`.:3_ existing and proposed utilities, including type, U 'a x ftm township, tax map-block-lot Dg sizes, hydrants, valves, manholes t references 'Xt« existing and proposed curbs, gutters and culverts, X `_ Parent Parcel Identification k i including sizes and grades U X p= deed book and page A' of property X - location and width of alleys, sidewalks, bike lanes, to be subdivided transit systems, and bus stops (please complete reverse side) _/,.._ ; <: boundary described with bearings X i' > 7 g typical street cross sections and intersection ;<: and distances details including design and width of travelway and X _: total acreage of the tract and EM• shoulders ry acreage of lots, including and X `�<' horizontal alignment and Z c'r.::: : g general curve data (public O ?> excluding area within rights-of-way roads) N X `?>:`•: control corner ` M::). X centerline radius on all proposed streets X "` i proposed lot tines with dimensions X .. permanent features such as buildings, cemeteries, X > lot S block numbers historic landmarks el _ :.!7 phasing lines x adjoining lot layout names of adjoining property u W ::i:: topography at ten foot (10) intervals ME owners. If subdivided, subdivision plat name, plat O X WK water bodies, streams, floodway and ME book & page number, and perimeter tot numbers. J $.-1� ::iftoodplains X ; landscaping and buffer requirements y X � stream buffers X :: township, corporate and extra-territorial planning y ti _ ` location and size of parcels dedicated jurisdiction lines which cross the property O m >: for public use, recreational use or X ..::::::%''% location and size of lots of restricted development Ty ; M reserved in common, with purpose noted Ugn potential and notation on plat regarding same Y N X m..-,: impervious surface data (if located in x EM stormwater detention and/or retention sites and _— _-ii water supply watershed) ^` undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes (if J ) X `?: 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 REOUIREMENTS • 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 fora 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 a final plat). I, the a licant, hereby certify that the foregoing appticat' is complete and accurate. . APPLICANT'S SIGNATU ERAS 1GNATURE 7(17, 3 7/( 7P3 DATE DATE FEES: Amount �l/ Date Paid r / / Recei t # PD P • :41 I N Z2 II{ Fox Hill Farm 8 8814 1,1 8538 I Phase Two Section A I •E, \�, Applicant: Vie Knight 26) .\F ._ Zoning: AR ,\ 12 3 AC(`' '''\ LUP: Agricultural Residential l ,,A; ,'\\ I i^' Ec.4•` :071 \\ J60? r 10 11A: \ T \2 0IA� ` �., '� 5v4 I w,,71 . ;`212� �` a I 62=ti 11 78U AC ' 66Ti 'i j I 48 A. 1� 0522 I 5 • 322 AC I <21A� 1I I�15 1 - ar,- 1 5315 I AC 11 _________x421 I I, j I \ . IFS — — — i I'\ I ,,21, ! --'< II / I FU i � r 7500 �I j 1225 AC 5 i'> ii�Dw1 iii SEXY °I F° :II i I e l 2 // ) ,!I I I W j ` / 11I i4.27 AC I i 2 VIII I l%� � I; ■ / 1 11 ii ,—;34 .,\ <115 _ I it d 3r I I° I :sa I .1 1 I II ' 9352 I1 f 725 i 11i , I ' —____—_______ 1 1029L. jj ,I•t3 }�� I i :I 1\ j ,14 -z Jo \\ ,l. 31 \1 I f' ° 0. .5637 �' �I ; F157 / 31• w;\ ( 2 // .--125.I I Z k 1°."'l I• �,2 87AC /i I• H A1� LINE /// ■ I i I .. • �/e') I // DEER R.JN •RES 5 3-118 § MATCH _J // ,JAMES k p Q(D a _1-32� m ■ 4 // BILL Y L.+..:. m I I V I VELMA S WAGONER. 47-36 // w MAP.THA JA7.Y9IN FTCI 4 "S W 9875 9885 PLAT REFERENCES iI 'OBEs ONLY .1 11•111-•' __ 1: EARL WOODS ' 17.131 I I DANIEL 8 MENZEL 8 W I L L A TEE 39-83;j �,,,n uwc — 9 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR FOX HILL FARM SUBDIVISION PHASE 2 - SECTION "A" SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH Prepared by The Orange County Planning Department August, 1993 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Fox Hill Farm [Phase 2 - Section A] is a proposed 43-lot major subdivision located on the east side of Miller Road and northeast of Baldwin Road. The average lot size is approximately 2.26 acres. All lots will be served by individual wells and septic tanks, and public roads. For Fox Hill Farm [Phase 2 - Section A] , 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 $337,500, including the lot. The actual range of housing prices will vary from $225,000 to $450,000. 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 Per 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 method 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. 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Section 1 - Project Data Project Name, Township, School District Beginning Year, Ending Year, Inflation Character= stics 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 11 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: Fox Hill Farm [Phase 2 - Section A] TOWNSHIP: Eno CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: Beginning Year: 1994 Ending Year: 1996 Inflation Rate: 2.90% CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS: Persons/House: 2.57 Children/House: 0.44 % Non-Elderly: 0.00% HOME SALES DATA: Average Distribution Number of Sales of Units Year Homes Price by Year 1994 15 337500 34.9% 1995 15 337500 34.9% 1996 13 337500 30.2% 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 43 19 0.440 Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex 0 0 0.000 Apartment/Condominium 0 0 0.000 Town House 0 0 0.000 Totals 43 19 0.440 12 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 ($) : EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA General Government 5878463 59.59 Public Safety 537235.6 54.46 Public Works 2548812 25.84 Human Services 13824259 140.14 Education (Recurring Capital) 750000 7.60 Non-Departmental 2438243 24.72 PER COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE ($) : 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 ($) : EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT County Government 6817240 1310.00 School District 0 0.00 State 16671230 3203.54 SCHOOL DISTRICT PER PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES ($) : 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 97.23 Elderly Exemption 0 $11,000 Where applicable. 13 _.....== SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 HOUSING UNITS 15 30 43 43 43 POPULATION 39 77 111 111 111 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 3 7 9 9 9 Middle 2 3 4 4 4 High School 2 4 5 5 5 TOTAL 7 13 19 19 19 COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES General Government 0.0 0.1 0. 1 0.1 0. 1 Public Safety 0.0 0. 1 0.1 0.1 0. 1 Public Works 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Human Services 0. 1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 TOTAL 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 SCHOOL DISTRICT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 HOUSING UNITS 43 43 43 43 43 POPULATION 111 111 111 111 111 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 9 9 9 9 9 Middle 4 4 4 4 4 High School 5 5 5 5 5 TOTAL 19 19 19 19 19 COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES General Government 0. 1 0. 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Public Safety 0.1 0.1 0.1 0. 1 0.1 Public Works 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Human Services 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 TOTAL 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 SCHOOL DISTRICT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 14 --- -- SECTION 4 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT ---------: ----- YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TAX BASE ($1000) 4922 9987 14543 14965 15399 REVENUES ($) Property Tax 39166 79469 115718 119074 122527 Other Taxes 1423 2928 4319 4444 4573 Intergovernmental 3032 6240 9203 9470 9744 Service Charges 826 1701 2508 2581 2656 Miscellaneous 405 834 1230 1265 1302 TOTAL ($) 44853 91171 132977 136834 140802 EXPENDITURES ($) General Government 2297 4728 6973 7175 7383 Public Safety 2099 4321 6372 6557 6747 Public Works 996 2050 3023 3111 3201 Human Services 5402 11118 16398 16873 17363 Education 8939 18397 27133 27920 28730 Non-Departmental 953 1961 2892 2976 3062 TOTAL ($) 20687 42574 62792 64613 66487 NET FISCAL IMPACT 24166 48598 70186 72221 74315 YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 TAX BASE ($1000) 15845 16305 16778 17264 17765 REVENUES ($) Property Tax 126080 129736 133499 137370 141354 Other Taxes 4706 4842 4982 5127 5276 Intergovernmental 10027 10318 10617 10925 11242 Service Charges 2733 2812 2894 2978 3064 Miscellaneous 1340 1379 1419 1460 1502 TOTAL ($) 144885 149087 153410 157859 162437 EXPENDITURES ($) General Government 7597 7818 8044 8278 8518 Public Safety 6943 7144 7352 7565 7784 Public Works 3294 3390 3488 3589 3693 Human Services 17866 18384 18917 19466 20031 Education 29563 30420 31302 32210 33144 Non-Departmental 3151 3243 3337 3433 3533 TOTAL ($) 68415 70399 72440 74541 76703 NET FISCAL IMPACT 76471 78688 80970 83318 85735 15 SECTION 5 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 REVENUES ($) County 8939 18397 27133 27920 28730 School District 0 0 0 0 0 State 21143 43513 64177 66039 67954 TOTAL ($) 30082 61910 91311 93959 96683 EXPENDITURES ($) County 8939 18397. 27133 27920 28730 School District 0 0 0 0 0 State 21143 43513 64177 66039 67954 TOTAL ($) 30082 61910 91311 93959 96683 NET FISCAL IMPACT 0 0 0 0 0 --- YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 REVENUES ($) County 29563 30420 31302 32210 33144 School District 0 0 0 0 0 State 69924 71952 74039 76186 78395 TOTAL ($) 99487 102372 105341 108396 111540 EXPENDITURES ($) County 29563 30420 31302 32210 33144 School District 0 0 0 0 0 State 69924 71952 74039 76186 78395 TOTAL ($) 99487 102372 105341 108396 111540 NET FISCAL IMPACT 0 0 0 0 0 16 • SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 HOUSING UNITS 15 30 43 43 43 POPULATION 39 77 111 111 111 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 3 7 9 9 9 Middle 2 3 4 4 4 High School 2 4 5 5 5 TOTAL 7 13 19 19 19 COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.20 0.39 0.56 0.56 0.56 SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES 0.29 0.58 0.84 0. 84 0.84 TAX BASE ($1000) 4922 9987 14543 14965 15399 COUNTY OPERATING BUDGET ($) Revenues 44853 91171 132977 136834 140802 Expenditures 20687 42574 62792 64613 66487 BALANCE 24166 48598 70186 72221 74315 SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET ($) Revenues 30082 61910 91311 93959 96683 Expenditures 30082 61910 91311 93959 96683 BALANCE 0 0 0 0 0 COMBINED COUNTY/SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGETS ($) Revenues 74935 153081 224288 230792 237485 Expenditures 50769 104483 154102 158571 163170 BALANCE 24166 48598 70186 72221 74315 YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 HOUSING UNITS 43 43 43 43 43 POPULATION 111 111 111 111 111 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 9 9 9 9 9 Middle 4 4 4 4 4 High School 5 5 5 5 5 TOTAL 19 19 19 19 19 COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 TAX BASE ($1000) 15845 16305 16778 17264 17765 COUNTY OPERATING BUDGET ($) Revenues 144885 149087 153410 157859 162437 Expenditures 68415 70399 72440 74541 76703 BALANCE 76471 78688 80970 83318 85735 SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET ($) Revenues 99487 102372 105341 108396 111540 Expenditures 99487 102372 105341 108396 111540 BALANCE 0 0 0 0 0 COMBINED COUNTY/SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGETS ($) Revenues 244372 251459 258752 266255 273977 Expenditures 167902 172771 177781 182937 188242 BALANCE 76471 78688 80970 83318 85735 1.7 EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND DATA SOURCES SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA Project date 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. Inflation 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. 18 • 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 19 information derived from the approved budgets remains constant throughout a fiscal year (July-June) and is changed only with the approval of new budgets. 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 Hill- 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. 20 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 per 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. 21 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 • FOX HILL FARM 22 2726 CROASDAILE DR,SUITE 102 DURHAM, NC 2 705 383-5681 HAND DELIVERED August 11, 1993 Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 RE: Impact Statement - Fox Hill Farm Phase II, Section A Dear Eddie, This letter is written in an effort to respond to your recent requests concerning the Impact of the proposed 43 lot subdivision of Phase II, Section A of Fox Hill Farm. We anticipate that this will be sufficient information to answer your questions as it pertains to the Orange County Subdivision Ordinance. 1) The likely value of the homes when complete on the proposed 43 lots of Phase II, Section A will typically range in value between approximately $225,000 to $450,000. This range of values is based on our extensive covenants which all future owners will be required to abide by when constructing their new homes. These construction standards coupled with the lot values establish this likely value range. The lower value range is likely to be achieved only for those properties that construct homes which meet the absolute minimum standards set by our Design Review Committee. 2) The anticipated absorption rate of the 43 lots in Phase II, Section A will be approximately 15 lots per year (1.25 lots sold each month, after all improvements to this Section are complete). Therefore, within 3 years Phase II, Section A will likely be absorbed by the Market. If you have any additional questions please give me a call at 932-9908. I will be glad to supply additional information to you or others within the Planning Department as necessary. Thank you for your assistance with these matters. Sinc ely yours, Vic Knight SPEED LETTER- TO FROM 6PDg 7Zt rn i k 23 PLA/41.1it.(6 lR� SUBJECT i 1 j.L � r i . sC'r--)[9 A 'DLO•Q.Yd 10 _ MESSAGE Li5Z5L Fi4 . � s� c.3EAt6 W N.1 Avv/ A"•sS ft/LS DATE 5)'- b r..3 SIGNED (I r I,, REPLY DLO IOt HO.9 �lD FOt W.19 DATE SIGNED WllsonJonss crsOni...•MADE IN U.SA. 4.402 Trolral.•O WrrUon96,1989 -- -------- RECIPIENT:RETAIN WHITE COPY,RETURN PINK COP) ' �:,� '' '�f ������ l01 E. Orange Street �r P.O. Box 429 24 ;\ .� fps /1 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA (919) 732-2144 lt�/,.+f, i 27278 - i MEMORANDUM To; Eddie Kirk, Orange County Planning De t From: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director 'r Date: April 1, 1993 RE: Fox Hill Farm, Phase Two, Section A T have the following comments on the concept Nan referenced above: The proposed subdivision is located within the 'Down's Transportation Planning Area. The 1987 Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan (adopted by the Town and NCDOT, but not Orange County) shows the main entrance road into the subdivision as part of Northside Drive, a major thoroughfare and part of the Town's proposed lopp system. The Plan describes: "Northside Drive is a propdsed two-lane facility with a four-lane divided ultimate section." The building of Northside Drive is listed as a gird priority in the Plan. No portion of this project has yet been included on the Town's TIP requests to NCDOT. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call. • I?!CS 1UFD =pnH eke! , ` Town UI 1 15hnraax 8 Street 101 E, Oran e !'' - F P.O. Box 429 HILLSBOROUGH, N RTH CAROLINA (919} 732-21 t9 .i. qtly, r c , MEMORANDUM To: Eddie Kirk, Orange County Planning rook- Date: ��t� From: Margaret A. Haut'', Planning Director July 29, 1993 r I r. RE; Fox Hill Farm Preliminary Plan 1. I just wanted to reiterate my earlier comments[about Northside Drive, which has now been reduced to a stub road in the revised plan. r Additionally, since Northside Drive is on the oroughfare Plan and is planned to have an ultimate 4 lane section, an additional note speci i ing that driveways for lots 1, 3, 4, and 5 will be from interior roads is desirable. ryou have any questions, or I can be of assistance, do not hesitate to call. Fi &Li re., K i. r k , oc Pl . �. 6yy - 3aon_. 26 • ORANGE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT P.O. BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 AUGUST v, 1993 MEMO TO: Eddie Kirk , Hrar See Co. Planning Department FROM: Gail Hughes , So i I .onnser-vat i on i st RE: FOX HILL FARM SUBDIVISION (PHASE 2j* SECTION A) According to the Orange County So i I Survey, the f o l l o w i n g soils are located on this site : GeB - Gec'r-:Aevi l Ie Si It loam (2-6;; slope ) Building site development : slight limitations Septic tank absorption f i e i d : moderate I i rn i tat i ores , percs slowly. GeC: - Gec'r Rev i I I e s i l t loam (6-1O> slope ) B u i l d i n g site development : moderate I i rn i tat i ores due to steeper- slope . Septic tank absorption f i e f d : moderate I i m i tat i ores due to slow percolation . Ch - C:hewacla loam (0-2% slope ) primari ly in drainage areas . L-Bu i I d i rig site development : severe I i rn i tat i c'ns due to wetness , f l c'od i rig . Septic tank absorption field : severe I i rn i tat i c'ns due to wetness , flooding . C,^„ NOrange r'runty Recreation and Parks Department • Post Office Box 8181 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 7 c��rpN A� Life.Be in jt. ME)1DRANDL+M TC+: Eddie )-{i r•k, arrni r,g Department FRQMM; Robert A. Jones, Jr.. , Lei r•ect or. 4', Th TEz August 11 , 1993 RE: Courtesy' Revi Fir --- Fox Hi 1 .2 Farm I have reviewed the preliminary plan for Fox Hi 13 Far-rn Sutdi-VIc.ion. The 44 lot subdivision proposer would require a dedi cat i on of r-•ec•r•eet i c,rr., open, space if such sites were found to be designated on the adopted C:ompr•ehe•r,sive Land Use Plan for the property in question. No such sites are designated for this property, and so payment-ire—lieu of ded i cct i orr i s required. I have presented my findings to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their August meeting, RA_71pbl • • Offices located at 300 W. Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC Telephones: 919 732-8181 • 919 967-9251 • 919 688-7331 • 919 2272031 • Fax: 919 732-4743 r 28 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B.HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT GOVERNOR SECRETARY P . 0. Box 766 Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766 24 August 1993 ORANGE COUNTY Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough NC , 27278 919-732-8181 SUBJECT: Preliminary Review: Fox Hill Farm, Phase Two Section A Located off Miller Road (SR 1554) Dear Mr. Kirk: Per your request , a second review of the proposed subject subdivision has been completed by the personnel at the Graham District Office . Based on the results of our investigation, we are sending you a redlined copy of the plans for the subject. All conditions of the original approval are still valid and should be adhered to in addition to these comments . If you have any questions , feel free to call myself or Mr. Michael Venable at (919) 570-6833 . Sincerely, T. J. Dyer DISTRICT ENGINEER Attachments cc : J . W. Watkins , P . E. , Division Engineer TJD/MSV/eil LTR30824.EL1 • CURVE DATA 29� , t CURVE i RAMS ' LENCT TANGENT i CHORC• GEARING I °ELT/. r^ C-1 , 5578.57 • 317.25 • 158,67 317,21 I N 31'54 54 W I 0315 3C �" .& C-2 1 826.06 I 748.2'. 401,97 ! 722.90 I N 59'26 33 w 51'5348 1.10 ' \ C-3 I 530.00' 1 97.47' 48.88' 97,34' S 1112'31' E 1 10'321'' \ v Cw I C-4 , 593.36 208.45 , 105.31 207.38 1 N 70'45046 1 20'07'43' \ \ S E 0( �\ \6 .i A B1 09 / O FOX HIED SEC. C�� \\ �Q e / 4V 0:_ , ' .- 32•i A 11 1>>'Z� - i�J' \ `��........ 1 L- 1.57 A' O' ,.02.00 At N 62.65' v. /L n f'----- �� . . ` ; Io v� / I I c / < Jrn / I / , q, �; \ rn rte' Zo ^ory / \ .1 \6 `/ I.r- C I S 05'46'17• w I J r - ^'ry / , \ `\ W `, / \ O O / N J I 4.3.33' \ I ? ' 2.C{' AC. / J / V' •� C ..J 1 357.24' \ /S 8510'31' E /402.02' L„..... 1[7 / C•q ` `', •% / y I S 82'50'1 \\\ 1 r /`_ C � , ._,.4 1 / •� I r Oo / 1 \ I !!/ / \ `` / / S..,.... .,.... .. r.,Z / 1 ` ` 1 1 L2.96Ac.`�'')i<? , i M / In r G / 1 \` ,` 9�• \1 J 2145 AC. �) r .� , `\- +� `../ ,[/ r 11.79/AC. `\ �� -- -J a ' r - /^•�� 4/ © rr _ R..20314 l r �' 'J, /� Q` `> W L ( o:4- — f 0 ; v 1 I r'.00 1 / 2.06 AC. / i , / n -'� I ' / / / ` 1 0 O ■ t nom\ 1 Z IA J , 1 r O t 1 -CD M, 1 O r-- 600--/ / o z 1.82 AC, i 1 2.11 AC. 2.01 A;, `1 -Sr,' / L. 1 I 1.341+C' ` I I --- -' r --I-- r '' 1• \ 1 ) L ■ 5R 1\555 �`N 85'26'27 W R°BSS l i "-------! __ _ 1---i l \ 106.20' R.B?6 "oe. `,, // 1 -- r \\ \\ M\l�`'�� p/'R OC. C. i \ i i© .69{\AC.rr ��\ `1 -r 6 1.4= 60 ? \ < 1.93 AC. r / 1 r 260 AC. \O o , \ /` I . ,,/ \ /h�J /-- rr \ \\ \\\ i'' 7D9.J5. U7G 5 .� (� ` / r-- ` •1.65\AC. `� a c / / r1 / ^ O v _ f`J 4 0 L J �J`'J �i ,�/®2.37 A�. j l•� ` \ //�\ y \ �� \—_ _ ?x,`10. �O /� , ' ,� \` v ( 2.3_` .S 2C0•,''' IZ / S 56'27'21' ,`)J. \\ / i / \`- ��^ r 60.00' J2• `� �' / i 31 I ..)r �` Z I �'�Jm. x' 42 AC. 1 (_ I r __�, - It, Af /1 2.291 AC. r �r �� �t� 4' .0 ` trA i \/ \\vim, '/. '� \\ `,\ / I O --^∎ �* '/ __el,s /../.... \ F 5 ?'' \ I N 76U8'O3 g.p 43 / 1 I ��,_ \\` �k'' ' W 417. • • ��\��/ 5 \ / I 1 I �`�-'' ‘7.4'1. \ \ N 3017'09" w S 1 FOX HILL F O ((.,r.) / FUTRUE PHASE Tµ �'c&12?/. I \ 73.99' L` :�•_`(._ r• �� J • \ :._AREA 785.6 \ � FpySF<< F / \\ - 7)1,04'?/,/ \_� 30 �o ti6 \a .-Vei'L fie' ire J� -c'5 '',0 (W `i r. \ e^ I 3 d J n 1'2.00 Al / 12 n 0 L_9 RO- \\) —5-83'48'07. E 587.3i' 1 ! p \SSS OLIO C - Z c x•00 ---- - - z �C \\ \ '.83 AC. l • 3.42 •*,C. oo e/ `\ I I'll'?®,-- 4' '^� `.`1 `\ I / / h / r i r ` / // /NO I y / o I ^ / 2.�O AC. ' S. NOTE._/ � / `.. I 1. TOTE / ' i ,,.r 2. PARE /' / a TAX 3. DEED i /^� \ �A Q•-- - THE AC. / / w / \. ""'�.< C 4. ALL / / 9)(4. o \ �'- J 75 : / // / �- ".,> ( 1'c — H AS F / / o .^ -. / ` \\ \ 1�-._,8 AL.- UY.0 o � --0G ' - 1 0 r , N _ - 1 1.43\C. --J `o) / AC. \\ \k.7...-f___...---\ 4 ©2.37 AC. "/ l \ I / ® r , . R 1p9.;!•- \I L LI/ / _ 1 r 1 / ir^' -. \ / / • ---1 \ / ®�1 \ ©1.65/AC. / , PREL IN c 2.35 At. I \ J / • V"\ `�`" J Fox \ \ � JI ! 1----,\ l / f 291AC. r rr \\ \J ® 1.95 AC. / C r rr \ - J -- / — 1 r _ / rr rr 2.12 AC.`�/ '- / r r -- Ao _' / ! R. `-- w 76 803r W •- __J\� �'` S W //l i 2726 . ���y ENO TWP. _K FOX HILL FARM \ ��/.� SCALE: 1"=200' (FUTRUE.PHASE TWO, SEC. .8-)\ a0 „lei' SA'r' AREA = 785.8- ACRES ,c ,\ \$ ,� CREDLE ENGI ok>� �O C La 200 0 '00 ^- J I--- ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 31 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 • MEMORANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner II FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Fox Hill Farm Phase 2 Section A DATE: August 25 , 1993 Construction of the new road requires that an erosion control plan be submitted and approved before any timbering, clearing, or other land-disturbing activity begins. xc: Randy Fox #14 8-25-93.8. Poet Office Box 8181 Carrboro/Chapcl Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 FAX 919-644-3002 Extuuion 2586 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9/20/93 32 Eidenier asked about possible pollution of the creek by septic se tic lines. Cameron responded P that the septic line crossing the creek is a solid line. If any back up occurred in the system, it would likely happen at the house. MOTION: Reid moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: Unanimous. • (3) Fox Hill Farm Phase Two Section A (43 Lots - Eno Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The property is located in Eno Township on the east side of Baldwin Road (SR 1554 ) at the intersection with Miller Road (SR 1555) . Miller Road is a paved State-maintained road, however, Baldwin is an unpaved State-maintained road. A 1992 traffic count indicated 150 trips per day on Miller Road and 80 trips per day on Baldwin Road. The property is zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) and is designated Agricultural Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. Public roads are proposed to serve the subdivision. The Town of Hillsborough has indicated that the main entrance road into the subdivision is designated as a proposed major thoroughfare and part of the Town's proposed loop system on the 1987 Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan. This plan was adopted by the Town and NCDOT, but not by the County. The Plan indicates this road is a third priority which is designated between the years 2000 to 2005. Sipce this road is proposed to be a major thoroughfare and part of the proposed loop system, access for lots 1, 3, 4, and 5 will be provided from internal access roads. NCDOT has indicated temporary cul-de-sacs or turnarounds must be provided at the end of Northfield Lane and Little Leaf Lane and sight distance triangles must be located at each intersection. The Planning Board reviewed the Concept Plan for Fox Hill Farm Phase Two Section A at its April 13, 1993 meeting and was approved with 5 conditions. Those conditions, as well as agency comments, have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. Kirk reviewed the 33 Ce conditions of the Concept Plan explaining how they have been met. There have been no more preliminary plans received and a master- ter plan must � be provided before any further preliminary plans are submitted. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Fox Hill Farm Phase Two Section A subject to the conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval. (A copy of the Resolution is an attachment to these minutes on pages . ) MOTION: Eidenier moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jobsis. VOTE: Unanimous. (4 ) Grassy Creek ( 12 Lots - Cedar Grove Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The property is located on the south side of Sawmill Road West (SR 1545) in Cedar Grove Township. Sawmill Road West is a paved State- maintained secondary road. Approximately twenty- seven (27) acres are proposed to be developed out of a 77 .8 acre tract. Twelve ( 12) lots are proposed with lot sizes ranging from 2 . 00 acres to 3. 12 acres. The average lot size is 2.23 acres. The property is not zoned and is designated Agricultural Residential and Protected Watershed in the Comprehensive Plan. A private Class A road is proposed to serve all 12 lots. The private road is justified with twice the minimum lot size required, larger than required setbacks and a large stream buffer. Lots will be served by individual wells and septic tanks. All lots would receive access from the subdivision road. A 1991 traffic count on Sawmill Road West indicated 700 trips per day. The Planning Board reviewed the Concept Plan for Grassy Creek at its June 21, 1993 meeting. The plan was approved with the condition that all lots shall receive access from the interior subdivision road. Applicable comments from the agencies have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval (a