Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA agenda 111212AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LOMItIM(CONFIRI MIROW11 Wam 4m) 1'' UMM OFFNE WW b J r 131 W. MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA NOVEMBER 12, 2012 TIME PAGE AGENDA ITEM 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 001 -041 a. May 14, 2012 4. PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent /vibrate. 042-135 S. A -3 -12 — Appeal of a Decision Made by the Zoning Officer Submitted by Clifford Leath In accordance with the provisions of the Orange County UDO, the applicant has appealed a decision of the Zoning Officer related to the approval of a site plan and the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) allowing for the expansion of a research facility located at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (PIN 9728 -93- 1820). The applicant alleges the aforementioned research facility is required, per Section 3.3 Residential Districts — Agricultural Residential Base Zoning District — Specific Development Standards of the UDO, to apply for and receive a Class A Special Use Permit to allow for the development of a `wastewater treatment facilities with a design capacity of 3,000 gallons per day or more'. The research facility is supported by a septic system that has a design capacity to treat over 3,000 gallons of wastewater per day. In a letter, dated April 9, 2010, Orange County Planning staff informed UNC representatives a Class A Special Use Permit would be required to allow for a proposed expansion of the existing research facility due to the size of the septic system. This determination was later reversed as detailed in a letter dated November 16, 2010 where staff made a finding the Special Use Permit was not required. The applicant is appealing the determination that the aforementioned Special Use Permit is not required. 6. AD30URNMENT IF UNABLE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT (NUMBERS LISTED BELOW — PRESS 1 PLUS EXTENSION 2575 OR 2585). STAFF CAN THEN DETERMINE IF A QUORUM WILL BE PRESENT FOR THE MEETING. HILLSBOROUGH - 732 -8181 MEBANE - 227 -2031 CHAPEL HILL - 967 -9251 DURHAM - 688 -7331 DRAFT -1- MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 14, 2012 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Dawn Brezina, Full Member (Acting Chair) David Blankfard, Alternate Member James Carter, Full Member Mark Micol, Alternate Member Larry Wright, Full Member, Planning Board Liaison STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor Debra Graham, Board Secretary Sahana Ayer, Staff Attorney AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Dawn Brezina: Our regular Chairman, Mr. Brown, has resigned from this committee as Chairman and we need to determine another person to take that position. After some discussion, Larry Wright said that he could do that. Would anyone else want to take that position? Any discussion on any other nominations. MOTION made by Mark Micol to nominate Larry Wright as Chairman. Seconded by James Carter. VOTE: Unanimous Dawn Brezina: Can we amend that nomination to say he will start next month? AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. JANUARY 9, 2012 Michael Harvey: Dr. Wright had asked staff to secure from the attorney's office, an opinion on the minutes, the review and approval electronically, etc. I forgot to ask Mr. Roberts if he had finished his memorandum which is why you don't have it tonight. We have been told it will be complete in the next week and we will get that to you in advance of the next meeting so you have an answer. MOTION made by Larry Wright to approve the January 9, 2012 minutes. Seconded by James Carter. VOTE: Unanimous AGENDA ITEM 4: PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices* such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Pagel of 41 DRAFT 55 56 AGENDA ITEM 5: A -1 -12 —APPLICATION FOR CLASS B SUP FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A CLASS II 57 KENNEL 58 59 Michael Harvey: As the typical rules of procedure of this board require where all individuals 60 intending to speak or provide any comments please come forward to be sworn in. 61 62 Individuals sworn in: Bob Hornik Mike Wheeler Nora[ Stewart David Schmidt Tammy Purner Robert Long Kathleen Schenley Chad Abbott Claudia Harris Cornelius Kirschner Cecil Griffin 63 64 Michael Harvey: At this time, I would ask the board to accept staff's abstract which begins on 65 page 3 of the packet into the record. This includes for purposes of the record, Attachment 1 66 which is the actual Special Use Permit application including the site plan and other attachments. 67 Attachment 2, which is an aerial photograph of the property; and Attachment 3 which is staff 68 correspondence concerning this request. I will call to the board's attention which begins on 69 page 63 of the packet and that includes the septic permit issued by Orange County Health, 70 comments from the Sheriff's Department, Fire Marshal, Animal Control, the Department of 71 Environment and Natural Resources for Orange County and Attachment 4 which are the 72 Findings of Fact for this request. This is a script that will be reviewed by you prior to the closing 73 of the public hearing outlining the various standards to be held to. As you are aware, the 74 planning staff provides a recommendation on specific items as specified by the ordinance. An 75 example is, do we have a site plan, and was it submitted in accordance with the code as 76 containing required information. You will be reviewing our responses to that information. This 77 Board is obligated, once the public hearing is closed and deliberation begins, on page 97, you 78 are required to make specific findings of fact dealing with the project's compliance to Section 79 5.3.2(A)(2), the General Findings of Fact, that the use will maintain or promote the public health 80 safety and general welfare, that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous 81 property, and the location and character of the use of development according to the plans 82 submitted will be in harmony with the area which is it to be located. In making motions to affirm 83 or negate, you will have to make specific findings of the information that has been entered in the 84 record allowing you to make this decision either for or against. I will also ask that you enter into 85 the record a statement from the applicant further identifying this project's compliance to the 86 Comprehensive Plan. You also have notes and a presentation from an adjacent property owner 87 who is asking you to take some things into consideration. You also have a copy of the public 88 notice we sent out to the adjacent property owners. I would like to submit the certified mail 89 receipts to be entered into the record that we complied with the provisions of notification for the 90 ordinance. We can now briefly review the application and turn it over to the applicant. 91 92 Bob Hornik: I am an attorney with the Brough Law Firm in Chapel Hill. I am representing the 93 applicant here this evening in connection with the Special Use Permit application. Our team 94 includes David Schmidt; one of the people behind the application, and we have Tammy Purner, 95 and her husband, Andrew Purner, two of the applicants. We have Margie Schmitt, Dave's wife; 96 she is involved with the team. We have Cecil Griffin who is the property owner to the north of 97 the property and also an applicant. Chad Abbott from Southern Engineers, who will give you 98 the design details and site plan layout for the proposed kennel facility. Also, Michael Wheeler, a 99 certified real estate appraiser will talk about property value and Noral Stewart will provide a 100 noise impact that might be associated with the kennel operation. I am not going to go into any 101 detail right now regarding the application. Mr. Harvey did a good job of presenting the general 102 outline of the application. Kennel use is permitted in the Rural Buffer district with a special use OC Board of Adjustment — 5/1412012 Page 2 of 41 Q±A DRAFT -3- 103 permit from this board. As Mr. Harvey has indicated he has reviewed the application and 1 104 guess we would not be here tonight if the application itself were not in compliance with the 105 requirements under the Orange County UDO. Hopefully the accumulated testimony of all who 106 will speak to the board tonight will show the board that we satisfy the requirements of the UDO, 107 both the specific requirements of the kennel operation and the general requirements that are 108 generally for site plans and that as a result entitled to the special use permit. We first have 109 Dave Schmitt to testify and give a presentation of the background about the application and 110 what the proposal is about. 111 112 Dave Schmidt: Thank you for coming out tonight and thanks for the attention you paid to the 113 package. Michael assured us that you would be familiar with the packet. I had not planned to 114 speak tonight but Drew is sick and so if there are questions that come up, I might be called upon 115 to answer, so I thought I needed to introduce myself. My wife and I have been in Chapel Hill for 116 about 11 years now. We have two kids in the Chapel Hill Schools; we are very involved in the 117 local community. I have done a lot of coaching for Culbreth basketball and baseball. Margie is 118 the president of the PTA at Culbreth. We are very involved in the St. Thomas Moore 119 community. We like the community involvement and we would like to continue that with the 120 kennel project. I have done a lot of corporate America stuff for longer that I would like to recall 121 and now we want to own and operate a business. We are referenced in the narrative as the 122 second family. This kennel is like a dream of ours. The tag line would be clean, green, safe 123 and fun. The green aspect would be cisterns for some power generation. The clean aspect 124 would be, we have toured other kennels, and the one thing that would be a distinguishing factor 125 would be the mechanisms that we use to keep the kennel clean and our commitment to keeping 126 it clean for the dogs. The safe aspect would be that we want to at all times to be safe. People 127 love their dogs and we want to take great care of them when they are in our care. The fun part 128 is that we want these dogs to be very active. We have play yards specifically designed for them 129 in an outside lot. Some of the kennels we toured, the dogs would only be outside for minutes or 130 a half hour a day. We are pleased to say that we meet the standards, as we understand them 131 and we want to thank your colleagues in Orange County for helping us work with them. We met 132 with Bob and Irene at Animal Services and learned a lot from them and look forward to working 133 with them in the future and the other departments with whom we have met. You have been very 134 cooperative and highlighted the things we needed to do to meet the standards. We have taken 135 a lot of care in the design of the project. I hope that comes through in the material. We wanted 136 to have a lodge type atmosphere. There are some kennels that are low key, very casual. We 137 want this to feel great and for people to feel their dogs are in great care in a great facility when 138 they are traveling. An element \s that came through clearly is the site design aspect. We look 139 forward to working with you tonight and going forward. 140 141 Tammy Purner: I was sworn. My husband is the co- applicant and he is never ever sick. He 142 has been working months and months on this so I am going to speak on his behalf. I grew up 143 on Millhouse Road which is the main road our kennel is going to be off of. I spent all of my 144 childhood there and most of my adult life now. I was in California 13 years and we moved back 145 about 10 years ago to raise our kids here. I have seen a lot of changes on Millhouse Road. 146 When I grew up it was a dirt road. I would walk my horse to the local store and pay on a tab 147 without cash and had my kittens riding on the horse. I have seen it from what it was to what it is 148 now. I see Spence's Farm has moved in there and growing more and more. There are more 149 camps and traffic on the road. Waldorf School has gone in there which is a ton of traffic on the 150 road. The Town of Chapel Hill has put their operations sites and trash trucks and buses go Y2 151 mile from my house. Now that Orange County has bought our adjacent property, they are 152 putting parks there and they run an office with all their equipment there. I guess my point is that 153 we are not the only people on the road that want to start a business. There are a lot of other 154 people who have businesses. Lots of smaller horse boarders along that road as well. Then we 155 have the animal shelter that is at the end of Millhouse Road off Eubanks Road and the UPS 156 station. The Town of Chapel Hill is in the process of trying to improve the Edge, a. huge OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 3 of 41 DRAFT -4- 157 development at the end of Eubanks Road at 1 -40 and 86. Things are going to change. The city 158 has definitely moved out our way. I am hoping we are not changing it too much. We are trying 159 to stay as far away from Millhouse as we can. As far as being able to see our facility, you 160 should not be able to see it at all from the main road. We are back in the woods. My husband 161 and I and my dad have tried to meet with most of our neighbors before tonight to go over the 162 plans with them and answer any questions they had. My neighbor Neal had a bunch of 163 technical questions so we had Chad come out and meet with him to go over any concerns he 164 had. The reason we want to build this business is my husband had a job over in China 165 developing wind bars and we were living over there a couple of years. We just got back last 166 year and we need a new business and we thought this would be a lot of fun to do. It has been 167 in the back of my mind for a long time. In our lives now, it seems like the right fit and time. We 168 have two boys, ages 11 and 14 and we want to see a business they can work in through high 169 school and their friends can work in so we can keep an eye on them. My husband used to be a 170 K -9 handler, a police officer in California so we have been around dogs our whole lives basically 171 and it seems like the right fit for us now. You will see the site plan in a few minutes and more 172 detail. 173 174 Bob Hornik: Can you explain where you live in relation to the site? 175 176 Tammy Purner: If you see the red star, which is the site of the kennel itself. To the left is the 177 pond and up to the left of the pond is my house. This 15 acres basically borderlines my 178 property on the east and the west.sides. 179 180 Bob Hornik: Does your father still live ... 181 182 Tammy Purner: My father lives over the river and through the woods. My parents are the only 183 house we can see from our house. They are just to the north. Our house, which is off this map, 184 the bare in the area you see is my Dad's barn and a field and his garden. 185 186 Bob Hornik: Just to the south of this site, is that the property? 187 188 Tammy Purner: The County of Orange owns that. 189 190 Bob Hornik: (inaudible) 191 192 Tammy Purner: They will eventually develop; they claim to put park land there like soccer 193 fields. 194 195 Bob Hornik: You talked a little about Spence's Farm and Waldorf School. Can you tell the 196 board where they are in location to the property? 197 198 Tammy Purner: About Y mile north on Millhouse Road, which is the main winding road there, 199 there's Spence's Farm and Waldorf School is attached or adjacent to it. 200 201 Bob Hornik: How about where the Orange County Operations Center is in connection to the 202 property? 203 204 Tammy Purner: Across the railroad tracks. 205 206 Bob Hornik: And you think it is a little further south... 207 208 Tammy Purner: Then the county landfills are the other property that is up against the county 209 land. 210 OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 4 of 41 DRAFT -5- Bob Hornik: Just west of the County .... Tammy Purner: South. Which will hopefully be gone.. Bob Hornik: Where are the railroad tracks in relation to the property? Tammy Purner: To the right of that end north and goes along the border of the picture. Bob Hornik: How about 1 -40? Tammy Purner: Just on the other side of that. Bob Hornik: We now have Cecil Griffin. Cecil Griffin: I have been sworn in. I have lived in the area since 1962 and according to my recollection there is only one resident within a mile of me who has been in the area longer than I have. There are a couple of residents, especially here, that have been here as long as I have but not in the general area. I bought my original plot in 1978, moved into my house in 1980. We originally wanted the plot that I now own and was not able to buy it but I was able to purchase this 10 or 15 years ago and I often wondered what would happen to it. I wanted it to stay in the family because I didn't buy the property just to make money off someone else buying it. When my son -in -law and daughter decided to build a kennel, I said that sounds good to me because that is a way I can make some needed income to supplement my Social Security. I like the idea they are taking into consideration keeping it as isolated as possible for my neighbors because we don't need to make anything more difficult for our neighbors. We have enough traffic as it is. We are doing everything necessary to have minimal impact on the neighbors but give us the opportunity to have a growing, thriving business that my grandsons can work. Bob Hornik: Next, we have Chad Abbott who will provide more detail about the plan, site and property. Chad Abbott: I have been sworn. We were asked to assist in this application to provide them with a site plan and service for stormwater, sewer, and just site plan issues. I have a presentation. Michael Harvey: We are going to refer this as Petitioner's Exhibit 2; Exhibit 1 was the memorandum at your desk. Chad Abbott: Everything in the presentation should be pretty clear, just some of the contrast in the pictures is a little different on the screen. Larry Wright: What is Exhibit 2? Michael Harvey: The PowerPoint presentation handout. Chad Abbott: The property is located on Millhouse Road. There is approximately 15 acres associated with the project but it is glass holed with another section in the rear which is another property to the east, and the road will be extended to the rear. As you see, the yellow line is going off the left side of the exhibit almost like a connection to this property. This is a picture from the wintertime so it commonly has evergreens, pines, cedars and down in the bottom, there is substantial park woods. The land does perk. A while back we had a problem with the land being perked but this has been approved for a septic permit with a repair area so everything is in line for a project to be successful on this property. I have outlined the adjacent OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 5 of 41 DRAFT -6- 265 properties which are also shown on the plans we submitted. You can see a little detail as far as 266 who the owner is but I wanted to let you know what the uses were around the property. Number 267 one is Mr. Griffin's property, the barrier where the one is, is the barn. All the way around the 268 property except for number six are the same uses which are residential uses. Number six 269 would be the parkland that was alluded to earlier that the County has recently purchased for a 270 future park area. Number seven is the lot that the Purner's live on and in the lot connecting 271 expands to the rear of the property. This project is nestled in the woods in the evergreen 272 portion of the project to maintain the privacy and the surrounding sounds that exist now for 273 existing homeowners and landowners in that area. You also received a copy of this in the 274 original application packet. This is an elevation of what the Purner's and Schmidt's and our 275 architect .in our office, Brian Shelby, has come to an agreement as far as the concept on what 276 they would like the building to look like. Certain elements could change a little depending on the 277 final structural design, etc. but the concept is there. How the roof pitches, and I don't know a lot 278 about those details because I am not an architect, but I know that the Purner's and Schmidt's 279 have worked heavily with the architect and could probably answer any questions about that. It 280 will contain about nine kennels. Nine units are about 9,800 square feet with about 23 parking 281 spaces. Some will be equipped with fences in the rear as required by your ordinance at least 282 six feet high. Pools, exercise yards, solar panels and the twenty foot drive that will come onto 283 the existing easement that was granted for the use of this property. We will. also to have to 284 pretreat the pet waste before it goes to the conventional septic fields which I will talk about later. 285 The pet waste will be treated and then from there will go to the septic field. The system we 286 discussed, aimed in the stormwater treatment for the quality and quantity required by the 287 Orange County Stormwater division. This project airs on the side of low density so treatment of 288 stormwater will not be a problem. Are there any questions related to the site plan? 289 290 As you saw on the site plans, there is a septic repair area that the kennel is centrally located on 291 the site to maintain the wooded area from there to Millhouse Road to help protect the adjacent 292 residencies. You can see there is a large fenced area for the exercise yard where the solar 293 panels will be located. It is also a pool there. Then you have the kennel which is not your 294 typical kennel where you have a metal building full of dog runs or cinder block buildings full of 295 dog runs. They have tried to be innovative. I am not an architect but I have been involved in 296 some of the conversations with the architect and he said it is one of the neatest projects he had 297 worked on to date. 298 299 Bob Hornik: David Schmidt had talked a little about the green features of the design. Can you 300 tell us about those features and where they are located? 301 302 Chad Abbott: The fenced in area will be here where there will be a row of solar panels in the 303 middle. That will be in the open area as a means to generate the electricity they are anticipating 304 as well as providing a shaded area for the dogs since you have a large exercise yard with no 305 real trees. Right now, we have not planned for the plumbing and where everything will be 306 located but there will be a cistern located to collect roof water and runoff used for washing down 307 the kennels. Those are the two items I know of and the design of the building has been done to 308 maximize the elements of natural sunlight. Those are the items I know of from the site plan 309 phase. Are there any questions regarding those items? 310 311 Larry Wright: With respect to the solar panels and the exercise area, I know that a co- member 312 of the planning board has a variety of solar panels, I think 40, and that requires cables because 313 that is generally what they do and I was wondering how that will interface with the exercise area 314 and the safety of the dogs. 315 316 David Schmidt: There are two envisioned arrays of photo cells. I think the picture shows along 317 the front of the building is one location and then the other is along the back. The cells 318 themselves would be raised on platforms. The platform is to provide shade because it gets hot OC Board of Adjustment — 5114/2012 Page 6 of 41 DRAFT 319 in the summer and the dogs need the shade. The cables would be buried underneath the 320 artificial turf which would run back up through the building. 321 322 Larry Wright: So they would be protected with conduit so they won't get chewed? 323 324 David Schmidt: The dogs will absolutely have no access to those. We would agree to anything 325 for the dogs to be safe. 326 327 Larry Wright: Relative to the cisterns and collecting that in the septic tanks, etc. and this will be 328 a pretty large kennel and will these animals be housed in cages? 329 330 David Schmidt: Not cages, pens or runs. 331 332 Larry Wright: Has the health department addressed the water used per day to wash the 333 kennels and how much water is used per day to wash each kennel? Can the septic system 334 handle that? 335 336 Chad Abbott: Yes. I believe on the site plans it is listed as 900 gallons per day is the 337 anticipated usage. That septic field has been sized to treat that amount per day. They 338 generated a permit that states they are approved for that amount of discharge so the water used 339 to wash down these kennels is incorporated into that 900 gallons per day. That is how you 340 generate that number. 341 342 Larry Wright: They know the number of kennels and that is all on the record? 343 344 Michael Harvey: Yes. Dr. Wright, if you will look at page 63 in your abstract, Attachment 3, the 345 Orange County improvements permit is submitted as part of staff's comments and that provides 346 the system is sized for a 9,800 square foot pet facility for 90 canines at 450 gallons per day, 20 347 foot lines, 100 gallons per day, 10 animal grooms per day which is 100 gallons per day, 250 348 gallons per day for a design flow of 900. 349 350 David Schmidt: 90 dogs is the application maximum. We think we would rarely have 90 dogs, 351 maybe Christmas or Thanksgiving or some weeks in the summer. The capacity is meant to ask 352 for room to accommodate that for those peak periods but it is much like a hotel where it is very 353 rarely fully booked. We think that for great stretches of time, we will be in the 60% utilization or 354 something like that. That 90 dog capacity gives room to move dogs around for cleaning but 355 very rarely we think it would be maxed out. 356 357 David Blankfard: In the narrative, you stated it will have 90 dog runs and 20 felines. Is it 90 358 plus 20 orjust 90? 359 360 David Schmidt: It will be 90 plus 20. The number of animals, we think the cattery would be way 361 under - utilized compared to the canines. We have done a lot of research on kennels and people 362 say you should have a cattery but don't count on high utilization. 363 364 Michael Harvey: That is also spelled out on the actual health permit itself where it says 365 maximum per day capacity, 90 dogs or 90 canines and 20 felines and then certain activities 366 limited to 10 per day. If this permit is issued, this is part of the record, they will have to abide by 367 this permit. If they choose not to, the health department will invalidate the permit and that is 368 grounds for revocation of the special use permit. 369 370 Chad Abbott: Any other questions on the site plan? 371 372 Larry Wright: Could you outline the pathway on the site plan of entry and exits? OC Board of Adjustment — 5114/2012 Page 7 of 41 _7_ FUNIFINWA 373 374 Chad Abbott: We have an exhibit that we submitted... Here is the entrance and exit of 375 Millhouse Road as it comes into the site here. All this area is fully wooded. They do have the 376 septic area here and the department has approved them to put it in without clearing all the trees. 377 This is part of a field that is on the county property for the parks area. It starts here. 378 379 Larry Wright: And the traffic? 380 381 Chad Abbott: There was no use in the latest manual of the ..... 382 383 Larry Wright: Just tell me how they come in and out and where they park. 384 385 Chad Abbott: They can circle here and park here and back up and come out. There are more 386 parking spaces as they come in to park. There is parking on this side and that side. 387 388 Larry Wright: I had a hard time with this. 389 390 David Blankfard: For future use of the park, do you know what the county is planning to use for 391 this road? Are they going to pave it someday? Will it be a major entrance into the park? 392 393 Bob Hornik: My understanding is easement will be reserved for the Purner's for access to their 394 property so the county's plan, as far as I know, I don't know if they are allowed to buy the 395 easement and use that driveway for access to their property. 396 397 Davis Schmidt: We were told the park plans were up in the air and maybe several years away 398 from putting fields or selecting what they will do with it. 399 400 Michael Harvey: Mr. Blankfard, if I could call your attention to page 83 of your packet, we have 401 a memorandum from the Department of Agricultural, Parks and Recreation, which is in charge 402 of parks. The master plan has not been completed yet. They did put the applicant on notice 403 and it is reflected here that there is more than likely going to be athletic fields, soccer, baseball, 404 etc. toward the northern property line. There was some discussion about getting a road 405 maintenance agreement to allow for county access but that has not been finalized but you will 406 read that the applicant has been put on notice that as the park is developed, there is the 407 potential for intensive uses to that northern property line. That may necessitate the county to go 408 to the applicant to secure rights for access. 409 410 Mark Micol: This was a larger parcel that was subdivided and an easement was put in at that 411 point in 2004? 412 413 Tammy Purner: That easement was there back in 1972. My three acres are to the left of that 414 pond that was in the middle of this property. A gentleman bought that land from the Blackwoods 415 who owned all this property. They gave him that easement right -of -way to get to that property. 416 When my husband and I bought the land 10 years ago, that property still belonged to Mrs. 417 Blackwood and she was in talks with a developer to develop homes on that property and it was 418 our understanding that if we put our driveway in where the easement was, they could use that 419 driveway as well to get to their home and we didn't really know what was going to happen and 420 thought we are not building a driveway and paying for it when they can come back a year later 421 and use it. So my Dad rented us an easement for this property but if I ever was to sell my 422 property, that is the only legal easement. 423 424 Cecil Griffin: When I bought property here, she had to grant me an easement to a portion of the 425 back so I have granted easement on the same easement. It didn't extend anything but it was 426 the same easement that already existed. OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 8 of 41 DRAFT -9- Bob Hornik: Chad, can you tell us about existing vegetation on the property, how much will remain and how much will be cleared? Chad Abbott: The only portions cleared are at the building location in the fenced area, about 20 % -30% vegetation and around the edges of the pond. Of course we have the buffers that are required around the perimeter. The layout has been done to maintain the largest portion of vegetation between the road and the site to protect the adjoining residents. Bob Hornik: What is the distance between the kennel building itself and Millhouse Road? Michael Harvey: 423 feet according to the site plan. Chad- Abbott: The animal waste treatment; once the kennels are washed down or the other drains are washed down that are used to house and use animals will flow to a pretreatment system like you would use where there is no perkable soils. There will be a holding tank, a septic tank just like you have in a conventional system where the septic tank will have a wall that will keep solids and liquids from spillover. It will be pumped to a sand bed to filter out the fine particles which are called suspended solids and allow some bacterial processes to take place through the sand. That is called the pretreatment. That is an example of a sand filter from a residential project I did. That was about 12x12 for 480 gallons per day so one for a kennel might be 24x24 or a couple of 12x12s together to allow the same surface area because it is all surface area driven based on gallons per day so you can imagine two of those at the top, two of those beside each other would be enough to treat from the actual dog operation and that is for a whole 900 gallons and the whole 900 gallons will not go to this system. If you would take two of those, that would treat everything, however, there are bathrooms for normal uses that would go straight to a septic field just as it does at your house. Everything for the pets will go here and filter out any solids that get through the septic tank and allow some of those processes to take place as it goes through the sand. Then it goes through a disinfection, fluorination or UV chamber to disinfect it so that when it leaves this system, often times in residential cases, like this, you can discharge it into a creek or ditch because it has been treated to that satisfaction of the State. When the water leaves this system, it will get additional treatment because it will not be released into a ditch. In some places you spray, you drip but because you have perkable soil, the State would rather you treat it through the soil so this treated water will be pumped to the septic field they use to treat. That whole field has been sized for the 900 gallons per day so this water will definitely be treated from the dog kennels using this pretreatment and disinfection system and then be dispersed to the ground rather than sprayed or dripped. That is how the septic will work on this site. I know there may be questions relating to the quality of the water from this facility. The grading, Stormwater and Erosion Control Issues, the county parkland here has a drainage running way back into the county property. The drainage area is pretty deep so the storm water coming to this point and that gray hatched area by Millhouse Road is a wet pond area. I am not sure if the pipe that was put in by DOT was undersized or if it was put in at a bad invert but it is just a wet pond area you can see in some pictures later. This may just be a seasonal issue but that is approximately the area that stays wet and that, the pond and any conveyances on the property has been cleared by Orange County Stormwater. There are not any wetlands, jurisdictional streams, etc. That wet area is there and there is a lot of water coming into that point. As I was talking about grading and stormwater erosion control, when we grade the site, we will maintain it at the existing drainage, to the greatest extent possible to put it on the highest point on the site we can so that uphill drainage is achieved across the site and we will catch our drainage and treat our drainage as required by the county ordinance. On the board, we have these areas coming from the county parkland. There is already, during large rain events, areas where it scours the leaf and off the ground. This was back in March when I took these pictures. These areas are in bare areas where the water rushes through and has already displaced the vegetation or leaf cover and OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 9 of 41 DRAFT -10- 481 there is erosion and scouring that takes place as it exists now. I would say the pond may help 482 that situation to allow some of the stuff to settle out. We will use standard erosion control 483 practices to maintain the dirt on our site. When the construction is going on, and this is a low 484 density project which is about 15% impervious if you look at the total site acreage which is less 485 than 24% and we discussed it with the county stormwater and Terry Hackett said it would be 486 fine as far as our plans for treatment. There is a system that will catch water that will help 487 reduce the water from the well issues and use some of the rain water to wash down some of the 488 kennels and play areas. Then there are the traffic and driveway issues. This road is a bad road 489 all together from an engineering standpoint. You can look at the picture on the bottom right and 490 it is hard to pull out on any point on that road without being in a dangerous situation. We feel 491 that the access at the easement location is the most optimal point to maintain. As an engineer, 1 492 am supposed to maintain the public health, safety, and welfare and the point we have chosen to 493 access this property is the best point. It is located on the outer radius of a horizontal turn. In 494 traffic terms that curve is a horizontal curve so when you pull up to it from the driveway, you will 495 be able to see all the way to the curve which isn't optimal but it is the best situation at this site 496 without moving further. If you try to move the driveway this way, when you get into this 497 horizontal curve, on the inner radius of it, you have to look behind your shoulder and by the time 498 you turn back and check this one, there could be someone coming the other way. This location 499 is the most optimal location. 500 501 David Blankfard: Looking to the right, is that the picture on the top? 502 503 Chad Abbott: Yes sir. There you also have a vertical curve and this is as far south as you can 504 go on the property without going off the property but at the same time you would not want to be 505 closer anyway because of that car stopping on that hill. 506 507 David Blankfard: What is the site distance between where you are exiting and the hill? 508 509 Chad Abbott: The distance is shown on the plan to be about 250 -300 feet to the crest of that 510 hill. That is about the best we can get there but we would like to optimize the distance coming 511 from the other way because that is the immediate adjacent lane of impact if something were to 512 happen coming around here. 513 514 Larry Wright: Is this subject to DOT approval? 515 516 Chad Abbott: Yes. I have corresponded with DOT. Anytime you have a commercial operation 517 they would like for the site distances to be 500 feet. We might get close to 500 feet looking 518 back that way (due north) and we discussed that with them and they are in concurrence that you 519 can only deal with what you have got so we have responded. You can't be denied access to 520 your property; you have to explain what parameters you can meet and why you can't meet the 521 ones you can't. 522 523 Bob Hornik: The top right hand photo is from the approximate location of the driveway looking 524 southbound on Millhouse. The bottom right hand corner is from just south of the driveway 525 location looking northbound on Millhouse and the photo on the bottom left is looking eastbound 526 down the proposed driveway across the street (Mr. Kirshner's house). 527 528 Chad Abbott: The view of the lower left photo is not the view which someone would be coming 529 towards that drive. That was the view to show the screen and the pipe area and the location of 530 the adjacent property because the drive is coming at a skew so it is not pointing perpendicular 531 to the road like my camera was. I would also like to point out with respect to the site distance at 532 the top of the hill that the traffic coming from that location is also coming from a four way stop 533 and going through a tight curve, almost a 90 degree turn before you top that hill so you won't be 534 traveling quite as fast. That is just the exhibit we had shown shows the angle of the driveway OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 10 of 41 DRAFT -11- coming out and the sweeping of headlights across adjacent properties as they would make their way on Millhouse so that at any point the only time someone will be shining a light on adjacent properties would be when they make that turn not when they are sitting there perpendicular to the road. Larry Wright: A line of vision to the north will be maintained there? Chad Abbott: Yes. That is the good thing about being located on the outside of the curve is that the line of vision is in the right of way so there is no trees or anything that the owners could keep or plant or do anything to help or hurt that line of site. That is the view of the buffer; you can see the water in the bottom picture. That is the wet area I was referring to and on every one of those pictures, Millhouse Road is in the background and I am standing a couple of hundred feet off the road so you can see there are a lot of existing, mature trees as well as the undergrowth and the site will be double the distance this was taken from the road. Bob Hornik: Using photographs up there now, you are standing about 200 feet into the property from Millhouse Road and you are looking at Millhouse straight ahead? Chad Abbott: Yes. If you look at the site plan, the hatched gray area is what I am standing behind. Right there it may be pushed back into the woods because as it is shown on the plan at the time was looked at and plotted... Bob Hornik: Let us talk about what you have on the screen now because it is your analysis of compliance with standards of evaluation. Chad Abbott: Per the Orange County Ordinance there are several standards of evaluation that I am sure Mr. Harvey is aware of to address your decision on this project. The size is of adequate size to protect the adjacent properties from adverse effects of the kennel and riding stable /academy. I think it is apparent that the actual proximity of the site related to the surrounding area will only be visible from the applicant's residence. It is fully nestled between the existing wooded areas between Millhouse Road and the project. No part of any building structure, runway or riding area in which animals are housed or exercised shall be closer than 150 foot from the property line except by the property occupied by the owner /operator of the kennel. We met that standard. Of course, Mr. Griffin and the Purner's are both adjacent to the site and they are owners /operators of the kennel and have met that 150 foot buffer around the rest of the property by location of the facility. Any kennel which is not wholly enclosed shall be enclosed by a security fence at least 6 foot in height. Any time the dogs will be out of the enclosed facility, there is a large play area or fenced area where the solar panels are and where the pool is, there will be a fence around it. The site plan shows the parking, the access areas, and the existing buffer to be used for the screen. It can be supplemented if needed but it has been determined that it is so heavily wooded that we don't feel additional screening will be required. The site plan shall be reviewed by the Orange County Animal Control Department. That has been done and they have issued their letters and met with the applicant several times. Building plans have been provided. The plan Mr. Wright was looking for that shows the floor plans and the units was issued at the same time and has been approved. A sign clearly visible from the ground shall be posted at the main entrance of the facility. It shall contain the names, addresses and phone numbers of the persons responsible for the facility. We have shown the location for a sign, obviously the DOT permit will dictate if it needs to be put back further if they say they want a larger site triangle than normal. However, a 10x70 site triangle is typical and we can clearly accommodate that at the entrance if it doesn't need to be pushed back further I am sure the applicants would be willing to, but right now we do have a sign proposal in the plan but the details of the sign have not been worked out. The sign will comply with any portions of the ordinance it is required to. Where required by the animal control ordinance, Class II kennel permits shall be obtained from the Department of Animal Control. OC Board of Adjustment — 5/1412012 Page 11 of 41 DRAFT —12— 589 590 Michael Harvey: The appraisal is actually part of Attachment 1 in your packet beginning on 591 page 25. 592 593 Mike Wheeler: I have been sworn in. I came out of construction management in 1991 and went 594 into the appraisal business full time as an associate broker for a national franchise. In 1998, 1 595 decided to get into the appraisal side of the business and after two grueling years as a trainee, 1 596 applied for and received my certificate with the North Carolina Appraisal Board. In 2000 1 597 started my company 'The Real Estate Shop' and have been running it on a full time basis ever 598 since. 599 600 Bob Hornik: You prepared an Impact Analysis in respect to the Green Beagle Lodge 601 application? 602 603 Mike Wheeler: That is correct. 604 605 Bob Hornik: Did you arrive at a conclusion as to whether the project, if built and developed as 606 operated as proposed will enhance or maintain the value of contiguous properties? 607 608 Mike Wheeler: Yes. I would like to direct your attention to page 3 of the report, the last 609 sentence in the last paragraph in bold print: "Thus the surrounding properties and the 610 general neighborhood vicinity near the proposed Kennel project should maintain their 611 current market values, and over time, their respective appreciation levels." 612 613 Bob Hornik: What did you base your analysis on? 614 615 Mike Wheeler: I found two model facilities to use and then I examined the real estate sales 616 surrounding those two facilities over the past 10 years. One that I used was Sunny Acres Pet 617 Resort located in Orange County but has a Durham mailing address. I examined the residential 618 real estate sales to the east, to the west and to the south of that facility. There was nothing to 619 examine to the north because that is owned by the Eno River State Parks. The results of that 620 investigation showed that property values over the past 10 years have appreciated at the rate of 621 2.04 %. Please keep in mind this includes four years of recession. Our multiple listing services 622 has Orange County divided into sections not squares. These boundaries are normally county 623 lines and state highways. The section I used to examine the Sunny Acres Pet Resort properties 624 is identified at Section 214 which is a pretty large section. The overall properties for this entire 625 section over that same 10 years appreciated at a rate of 2.64% which is right in line with those 626 properties that are in a closer proximity to Sunny Acres. The next facility I used was Hampton 627 Point which is not a kennel. It is located at the intersection of Interstate 85 and Highway 86. 628 This is where the Wal -Mart is located and the Home Depot. Hampton Point was developed 629 after the majority of the sections surrounding that area had been developed. Property values 630 within the closed proximity to Hampton Point over the past 10 years have appreciated at a rate 631 of 2.43 %. Going back to our multiple listing sections, it is identified as Section 213. It is a much 632 smaller section than 214 but that entire section appreciated over. the past 10 years at a rate of 633 .86 %, not even one percent so those properties that are located within the closest proximity to 634 Hampton Point appreciated at a better rate than those who are in a further proximity. 635 636 Bob Hornik: Based on your investigation and analysis, is the conclusion that the Green Beagle 637 Lodge, if developed as proposed, will retain the value of contiguous properties, the properties 638 immediately surrounding the site. 639 640 Mike Wheeler: Yes it is. 641 642 Bob Hornik: No further questions. OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 12 of 41 DRAFT -13- 643 644 Larry Wright: Over the last 10 years, has the development of any enterprise in Orange County 645 depreciated surrounding property values. 646 647 Mike Wheeler: I didn't find any data to support that. 648 649 Larry Wright: In your experience, have you ever shown that or seen that? 650 651 Mike Wheeler: Ever? 652 653 Larry Wright: In the last 10 years. 654 655 Mike Wheeler: No. 656 657 Noral Stewart: I am with Stewart Acoustical Consultants, 7330 Chapel Hill Road, Raleigh, N.C. 658 1 have been sworn. I am a professional acoustical consultant. I have been in this business for 659 over 30 years. I obtained my training at North Carolina State University in the Department of 660 Mechanical Engineering through PhD. I am a Fellow of the Acoustical Society of America, a 661 Fellow of ASDM International, a member of the Institute of Control Engineering and a past 662 president of the National Council of Acoustical Consultants. I was asked by Mr. Purner to 663 review his plans and visit his site with respect to any potential problems from the sound of dogs 664 affecting the neighboring areas and assure they would be able to comply with the county noise 665 ordinance. I did calculations and reviewed the site plan, the concept of the building, did some 666 calculations, visited the site, discussed it with Mr. Purner in length, listened to the sound in the 667 vicinity, observed this is an area in some ways not particularly noise and in other ways it does 668 have some noise sources around; the railroad, the interstate highway, the city facilities, a 669 shooting range not too far away and the potential of the park being developed with recreational 670 activities and I did observe there were already some barking dogs in the community. I did an 671 analysis of the dog sounds outdoors with the plan as it is shown and found they should easily be 672 able to comply with the daytime limits in the County Noise Ordinance. I have reviewed the 673 building plans as they are. The concept is the dogs will be indoors during the nighttime hours 674 and only outdoors during the daytime hours. They do not have the building plans complete... all 675 the little details have not been worked out yet. The concept and plan is that I would continue to 676 work with the architect on the development of those details to ensure there are no fatal flaws in 677 the design. I am confident the building can contain the sound to where they would meet the 678 nighttime limits to the closest boundary which would be the one to the south, the County park, 679 assuming the residential limits would apply at that boundary which are the most stringent limits 680 so we would have to work with the architect to make sure there are no fatal flaws in the detail of 681 the plans as they are worked out and submitted for a building permit but it can certainly be 682 done. I have done this with others who have been through this in the 'last couple of years so we 683 know we can do that. 684 685 Bob Hornik: Mr. Stewart, are there any particular features either of the plan or the site itself that 686 helped you form your analysis? 687 688 Noral Stewart: Yes. The layout of the building and the site is very good. The building is 689 situated such that the outdoor areas for the dogs are to the north side. There are some runs on 690 the exterior of the building on the north side. The shape of the building and its location does an 691 excellent job of blocking that sound going to the south where the parkland would be. To the 692 east where there are neighbors you have from the building itself would be 400 feet but from the 693 area where these dogs would be outside it is more like 500 feet. And that distance alone is 694 extremely helpful in reducing the noise reaching that area. The general layout with the buffer 695 space to the nearest non -owned boundaries and the owners having large parcels of land which 696 create buffers to the north and west are extremely helpful. I consulted the Noise Ordinances OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 13 of 41 DRAFT -14- 697 and did my calculations with the expected sound levels from the dogs that might be barking 698 outdoors. 699 700 Bob Hornik: Mr. Purner or Mr. Schmidt can answer this question. I don't think we have 701 discussed the hours of operation? 702 703 David Schmidt: The proposed hours are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. There are two components to 704 the services we are offering. One is a boarding service; the other is a daycare service. You 705 would expect the daycare to be people picking up dogs after work and the boarding would be 706 drop -.off when they wanted to with a maximum of 7:00 p.m. There is a quiet time in the middle 707 of the day and a lot of restricted hours on Sunday. 708 709 Michael Harvey: For the board's information that is contained on sheet C1 on your site plan. 710 711 Mark Micol: The hours would not change during the summer? 712 713 Noral Stewart: One of the things you plan when you are planning these facilities is that dogs 714 bark at strangers coming up and cars approaching and the layout is such that the dogs are on 715 one side of the building and the people coming and going are on the other so the dogs don't 716 have that distraction. 717 718 Bob Hornik: That is all we have as our presentation. I don't know if the practice is for a brief 719 summation or after others who wish to speak. 720 721 Dawn Brezina: We do the summaries at the end. If that is complete, we can open it up to the 722 people who would want to speak with any objections to the project. 723 724 Michael Harvey: Does anyone who wishes to speak this evening have any questions? 725 726 Kathleen Schenley: I am sworn. I want to ask Mr. Stewart whether you measured the acoustics 727 from across the street on the east side. The sound bounce off Blackwood Mountain is pretty 728 significant. 729 730 Nora[ Stewart: No, I have not. 731 732 Kathleen Schenley: I am the property owner directly opposite the property where you go back 733 to the first, I am number 4 and I received no notification about this meeting. I found out about it 734 in the newspaper. 735 736 Michael Harvey: A certified letter was mailed on the 27th of April. 737 738 Kathleen Schenley: Never made it 739 740 Michael Harvey: I'm sorry but we did send it. 741 742 Kathleen Schenley: My name is Kathleen Schenley. My home is at 6714 Millhouse Road. It 743 was built in 1981. My property is directly across the street from the proposed facility. Here are 744 my concerns. First, water pollution; the runoff from this facility will drain directly into the pond 745 beside my home, the wetlands across the street and the ground water area in which my well is 746 located. Having witnessed the amount of runoff that occurs in this low lying area in a moderate 747 rainstorm, I need to see hard evidence that adequate measures are in place to protect the area. 748 1 have attached to my statement documents for your perusal that outline the problems that result 749 from improper management of pet waste and storm water runoff. The potential for disease is 750 undeniable. The impact on the surface and ground water in this area could be disastrous. OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 14 of 41 DRAFT -15- 751 Noise pollution; already our once peaceful, rural buffer community has been impacted with 752 noise from the town operations center. We hear the coming and going of buses and 753 maintenance vehicles and the testing of sirens and the disconcerting shots from small arms 754 practice and the increased noise from 1 -40 caused by the removal of the buffer of trees that 755 used to protect us from the worst of this traffic sound. Now we are asked to add the sound of up 756 to 90 dogs to this mix. On an acoustical basis alone, the project is not suitable for our 757 neighborhood. Traffic; Millhouse Road is a small winding road... a scant two miles long. This 758 road is heavily used during rush hours. Parents are delivering their children to the Waldorf 759 School. Commuters from the southwestern part of the county use the road as a short cut to 760 Highway 86. UPS trucks use it to avoid the stoplight at Eubanks Road. City and County 761 vehicles use it as a shortcut to Hillsborough. After many years, we were finally granted a 30 762 mile per hour speed limit posting although it is not enforced and speeding remains a problem. 763 The planners of this project have chosen the worst possible location on the road for a new 764 entryway. The location is on a blind curve on a blind hill. Each dog owner represents two trips 765 down Millhouse Road for each visit. Add to these staff vehicles and the deliveries of supplies, 766 hopefully in small amounts because nothing larger than a pickup truck would be able to make 767 the angle of that turn at that location. Adding a new entry and more traffic to Millhouse Road is 768 not a safe proposal. Quality of life; I hear a lot of talk about the value of the Rural Buffer and the 769 preservation of space and the need to make careful decisions about commercial. expansion. It 770 is time to walk the walk. If this permit is granted, what other commercial ventures might it open 771 the door for? Mobile homes, stone quarries, fraternity houses. All of those are Class B 772 projects. This permit application should never have been allowed. According to (my reading of) 773 the Unified Development Ordinance adopted in 2011, this type of permit is only allowed in 774 designated economic development areas and we are not one. We are still zoned as a rural 775 buffer. Therefore, I feel the authorizing of the permit is not valid. 776 777 Michael Harvey: Did any other citizens want to ask questions? Unless the board has any 778 questions for Mr. Stewart or Mr. Wheeler. 779 780 Dawn Brezina: Considering the comments from Mrs. Schenley, does anyone have any 781 questions for Mr. Wheeler or Mr. Stewart concerning noise? 782 783 David Blankfard: I know you said you would be involved in the project to make sure there are 784 no fatal flaws to the detailing, is there a report you can turn in with the design drawings? 785 786 Noral Stewart: If requested, that can be done, that is at the time of the building permit, you 787 could, as a condition, say that we have to have a report saying we have reviewed the plans and 788 the building will function and meet the ordinance. 789 790 James Carter: This question is for Mrs. Schenley and Mr. Stewart. She asked you a question. 791 Mrs. Schenley, did he answer your question about what you wanted in terms of the acoustics. 792 793 Kathleen Schenley: He just said he had not tested the acoustics from across the street where 1 794 live. My question was because the way the topography of the land is, the mountain acts as a 795 backdrop so when the cougars are running around the mountain, we hear them quite loudly at 796 our house so I was curious if he tested how it would be with taking into account that acoustic 797 factor of a mountain behind. 798 799 Noral Stewart: As I indicated, I have not done any testing or measuring. Topographical 800 features like that if you have a strong high rising hill, you can hear the echo off of it. Echos are 801 typically not as loud as the direct sound you hear to follow up the echo sound. Sounds from 802 distant places like that are often heard when atmospheric conditions are strong and someone 803 might think they are reflecting off the hill but it may just be the atmospheric conditions. Did you 804 notice there were certain times of the day; early in the morning or in the evening when you hear OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 15 of 41 DRAFT -16- 805 things from a great distance more loudly than you do over the afternoon? That has to do with 806 atmospheric conditions. It will cause you to hear these distant things sometimes. 807 808 Mark Micol: In your expert opinion, based on the distances from the road, which is 500 feet, 1 809 believe, will the cars turning on the road be louder than a barking dog? 810 811 Noral Stewart: If you are standing close to the car, yes. If you are standing on the shoulder of 812 the road, the cars on the road will be louder than the dogs. I don't have the sound level for a 35 813 mph car. I know that at 55 mph the sound that a car makes is about the same as a large dog, in 814 terms of maximum level. If you are 100 or 400 feet from the car or 400 feet from the dog, when 815 the car goes by, the maximum level is about the same as the level of the barking. We know 816 there is about a four or five dB decrease for each 10 mph so 35 would be 10 dB lower but you 817 also have to take into consideration the distance but if you are close to the car, it will be louder 818 than the dog. 819 820 Bob Hornik: The sound of a car driving past someone on Millhouse Road right beside the road 821 would be louder than the sound of the dog in a kennel 400 or 500 feet away? 822 823 Noral Stewart: Certainly if they are close to the road. That road is only 35 mph so I can't make 824 a claim that 400 feet from that road, the car is the same as th6 dog 400 feet away because the 825 car is going slower than 55 mph. If you did have traffic of 55 mph individual cars, maximum 826 level would be about the same as a maximum level as a car. 827 828 Dawn Brezina: Any further discussion or questions? Could we label this last piece of paper 829 Exhibit 3... Mrs. Schenley's paper? 830 831 Michael Harvey: If no one has any questions, it is up to the Chair to excuse the experts. 832 833 Dawn Brezina: Does anyone else think they may have any questions? 834 835 Cornelius Kirschner: I have been sworn in.. I have prepared a short blurb and sent it to Mr. 836 Harvey and apparently he has given it to you but subsequently I received some test results back 837 on my pond, Millhouse Pond, and I would like to submit that as part of my blurb so I have these 838 here if you want to hand them out. 839 840 Michael Harvey: We will call this Exhibit 5 and Mr. Kirschner's statement Exhibit 4. 841 842 Cornelius Kirschner: Before I begin, I have to say I am impressed with all the work and 843 professionalism everyone has displayed here. It is amazing how large this project is how much 844 already has been put into it. I have lived at the Millhouse on Millhouse Road since 1972. On 845 March 11, Tammy showed me the architectural plans for the proposed kennel located on the 846 beginning slope of Blackwood Mountain above my home. My home is located directly on 847 Millhouse Pond. On March 15, 1 sent them a three page outline of my grave reservations about 848 the project. My concerns centered around the road access to the proposed kennel, traffic 849 generated by this business, immediate and long- term erosion control, water quality, both ground 850 and surface. Tammy and Drew suggested that we meet with their civil engineer, Chad Abbott, 851 on March 29 to address my written reply. Regretfully, the meeting did not leave me with any of 852 my concerns. They were unwilling to change any part of their plans to address the issues 1 853 raised. Every point I was met with the standard response, all facets of the proposed kennel 854 meet code. Furthermore, when I addressed the issue of the new road for the proposed kennel, 855 they refused to entertain the motion to use the existing private road, Bruin Way, which leads 856 directly to the proposed kennel. Tammy's father was a partner and owns the private road; 857 consequently, I am here this evening to bring these concerns directly to you. New road access; 858 the Purner's have chosen to exercise their right to build this new access road on an easement OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 16 of 41 DRAFT 859 which is on county land. Several crucial problems attach to this plan. First, the new road will 860 open directly onto my home. The corner of which is only 30 feet from the hard surface of 861 Millhouse Road. Noise from the vehicles entering and exiting while vehicle lights in the winter 862 and dust from the road with southwest winds would all cause a significant diminution of the 863 quality of my life. This traffic will be seven days a week. It is a business. Second, the surface 864 area resulting by building this new road, now mostly trees and underbrush would only increase 865 the runoff entering into this watershed. I understand the county or the state does not recognize 866 this as an official watershed but there is a tremendous amount of water. Even Mr. Abbott stated 867 that a lot of water comes through this area, a tremendous amount. Third, this runoff from the 868 road will wash over the proposed drain field for the septic tank. Up to 900 gallons a day is 869 permitted into this drain field. This road is at 500 feet if you look at the plot. The pond is about 870 482 feet; an 18 foot drop and approximately 150 feet. A significant drop in such a short 871 distance. To open up additional surface by building this road above the drain field and not 872 necessary at best, at most it is reckless. Fourth, the exit is not safe with a blind hill to the south 873 and a blind turn to the north. In ice and snow conditions, no vehicle can turn south towards 874 Chapel Hill and go up the hill from a dead stop. Bruin Way entrance could be moved 30 or 40 875 feet to the north to help with a safer exit. That is eliminating any safety issue whatsoever. 876 Given the time, expense, the serious impact on my life and property and the impact and use of 877 county land for this business, the decision to have this new road is seemingly so arbitrary when 878 one, the proposed owners has a road already made. That is indeed perplexing to me. As a 879 partner, Mr. Griffin can easily grant an easement namely, Bruin Way, to this proposal kennel 880 and also the Purner's home which they use already. Given that the proposed kennel is 881 encumbered by the owner's agreement as stipulated on the plans, then Mr. Griffin as part owner 882 could have no problem in granting this new easement to the proposed kennel. I submit that no 883 documented material has been supplied to this board to show that these concerns have been 884 met. Health, welfare and safety issues which I raise here are substantial and I find nothing in 885 the presented information to address them. The real problem here that I don't emphasize is that 886 this new road will open directly on to my house which is very close to the road and those cars 887 during the winter on exiting if they are open up to 7:00 p.m. during the winter. All the foliage will 888 be down in front of my house and the lights will scan if they are going north as they turn. That 889 will be intolerable. I never thought this would happen. Also, I think a very significant problem is 890 trying to go south on this road from a standstill going up the hill is impossible. I worked for the 891 postal service for 32 years and every time there was going to be any weather condition, and 1 892 went to work at 2:00 a.m., and I had to leave my truck at the top of the hill because I could never 893 get out of my driveway from a standstill off a gravel road onto the hard surface road to go up the 894 hill because you can't go uphill. So I had to take my vehicle to the top of the hill and park it at 895 my neighbors. Drainage, there are very significant problems with water drainage throughout 896 this whole area. Look at the land gradient on the map. To open up such a significant area to 897 surface runoff by building is indeed questionable. Now, it is mostly forestry. With the addition of 898 the proposed road and its open surface area, we are talking about a very significant area open 899 to surface runoff. How much? It does not say. Any restriction on further exposed areas to 900 drainage, it does not say. All this water will enter Millhouse Pond. There is no other exit. We 901 have here the central point is Blackwood Mountain. To the north slope of Blackwood Mountain 902 is the source for New Hope Creek. The southeast portion of Blackwood Mountain comes 903 through this whole area we are talking about. Notice the pond above the kennel, there is my 904 pond, just at Millhouse Road and there is a pond below this and all these empty into New Hope 905 Creek. There will be a significant amount of water coming through here. Several years ago, 1 906 had my pond redone after it was a pond for 80 years. The dam was compromised by animals 907 so I had a contractor come in and he did the pond at significant expense. We dug it out and did 908 the dam and while I was in Florida looking after my mother, one spring, there was so much 909 water, it washed out the dam: Now, the contractor made good on it and we did it again but 1 910 can't over emphasize enough how much water comes through here. There needs to be more 911 study and documentation submitted to this board. I find no study or documentation that neither 912 addresses the increased amount of water nor is there any documented evidence concerning the OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 17 of 41 DRAFT -18- 913 increase and speed this water will come down this watershed. What assurance do I have that 914 this increased water flow will cause no harm to my property? To cite according to code, 1 915 suggest, is not enough to property, nor the health, safety and welfare of those downstream of 916 this facility. Water quality; the pond is in good health. I re -did the pond approximately six years 917 ago. I have never had problems with algae or weeds. Never any fish kills. To ascertain a 918 better understanding of this water quality, I have retained the services of Tri Test, a certified lab 919 by the State of North Carolina. The tests include Nitrate, Nitrite, ammonia, fecal coli, nitrogen 920 and total suspended solids. I took this action myself to provide a baseline. The results of these 921 five tests are included in the packet. Nothing found in the test suggested any contamination 922 whatsoever. We use this pond which is 15 feet from my home for recreation and fishing and 923 irrigating the garden. Mr. Abbott could offer no guarantee that the system would not fail in the 924 future and so stated that disclaimer at our meeting. Please keep in mind that the drain field 925 along the proposed field is about 14 feet in height about the pond. What if it begins to fail? By 926 then it is too late. Once a year inspection, as according to code, hardly seems sufficient for the 927 amount of water going into this drain field directly, as well as all the remaining runoff water into 928 the pond. Code simply does not address this issue at all. There are no plans to test the water 929 quality of the pond that was offered. Also, there was a spring and large water collection box just 930 below the proposed drain field. The Millhouse did get its water from the spring. The water line 931 was cut when the state re -did the road and paved it in 1992. The Millhouse has had its own well 932 water since 1965. This spring and its protection are not mentioned at all in any of the literature. 933 1 can say the same for my well water. I have good well water. The county tested the well four 934 months ago so at least I have that as a baseline. But if this project goes through without further 935 safeguard to drinking water, I should be allowed to test the well myself more frequently. In light 936 of all the above, I submit to you that no documented evidence has been presented to you to 937 ensure the safety, health and welfare of me as a landowner and the county in general. Until 938 such time as all these issues are satisfactory, this project should not go forward. You talk about 939 the noise, you noticed; none of the experts mentioned the north side. There are homes to the 940 north side. The building is to the south side so the runs will be open to the north side and that is 941 where all the noise will be going to the north, not towards the south. Also, hours and weekends. 942 This is a country road and this place will be open as a business seven days a week. Weekends 943 are important because that is when people come home and people leave. We are going to 944 have a very unique situation. The school is closed on the weekends. Nothing goes on during 945 the weekend. On weekends, we are going to have a lot of traffic generated. Winter time when 946 there is traffic, there will be lights all the time. If I am trying to sell my place and I say there is a 947 kennel there and they listen to the dogs and see the traffic, there is no question; it will affect the 948 resale value given the road. Thank you for your time. I think you have to understand, this is a 949 very big watershed for this area. That is why there are three ponds and it all goes into New 950 Hope Creek and there is no other place for the water to go. This is not one home; it is a 951 tremendous area to open up to increased water. 952 953 James Carter: I listened to the presentation about the hours of operation 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 954 p.m. and the acoustic expert who testified. We also had someone who gave an appraisal. Did 955 they answer your questions? 956 957 Cornelius Kirschner: I don't buy the road. The road is very dangerous. I do know that no 958 permit has been issued and one can't be until this is passed. The existing road there now, 959 would be more than adequate to do it. The noise, the point I will make is the acoustic expert, 960 never mentioned the noise to the north where the homes are close by. He said the homes on 961 Millhouse Road are 300 or 400 feet away but the other homes to the north side are close by. 962 He never talked about the north side of the kennel. I don't buy the evaluation. I know it will 963 affect me directly to have that road there and the kennel there. And then with the water quality, 964 there is no guarantee. The one thing I would love to see in this is there is no meter on how 965 much water is going into this drain field a day. There is nothing. How do they know how much 966 water is going in there. I find that astounding that a commercial business would not be required OC Board of Adjustment — 5114/2012 Page 18 of 41 DRAFT -19- 967 to have a meter and keep a log on how much water is going in on a 24 hour period. To see that 968 it is not being overused because once it is overused, me as a result would be the direct recipient 969 of that coming right through my pond. No, they didn't answer anything. 970 971 James Carter: So you are opposed to the kennel? 972 973 Cornelius Kirschner: Until I receive satisfaction on the issues I have brought up. 974 975 Mark Micol: Your biggest concern is not the kennel per say but the amount of water? 976 977 Cornelius Kirschner: The amount of water, the increase in flow. Where the road is going to be 978 positioned and incidentally the noise won't directly affect me as much as the neighbors to the 979 north will. But certainly the traffic seven days a week. I can't see how they can compromise on 980 keeping the kennel closed on weekends. 981 982 Mark Micol: So how would you feel about the county building a park and you have traffic. Are 983 you for or against the park? 984 985 Cornelius Kirschner: I have no problem with the park. 986 987 Mark Micol: You don't think the park will generate just as much traffic as the kennel? 988 989 Cornelius Kirschner: I think it will generate more. They won't have a drive in front of my house. 990 Their parking lot is going to be way to the south. That is how they tell me will be the main 991 entrance there. Of course you will have noise and lights. Another significant problem for the 992 kennel; that park will generate noise and games, etc. and it will agitate the dogs. It just not cars 993 driving by. It will be a significant source of irritation probably for the dogs. 994 995 Larry Wright: I have a question for Mr. Harvey and this is relevant to Mr. Kirschner's point on 996 drainage from the development. Can you briefly state how housing must require to conform to 997 permeable and impermeable surface ratios relative to street, etc? 998 999 Michael Harvey: Let me say this particular parcel of property is not located in a protected or 1000 critical watershed. As a result there is no impervious surface limitation imposed like we have in 1001 other portions of the county. To provide an example; property west of Carrboro is located in a 1002 critical watershed and there is an impervious surface limit of 6% which was including the house, 1003 drive or anything that would prohibit or prevent the natural flow of water. What this project is 1004 limited to is dimensional requirements associated with the rural buffer where they are only 1005 allowed a maximum building area per the code. Obviously, part of the limitation of the building 1006 size will be the septic system, the availability of parking, compliance with applicable setbacks 1007 because you have to be 150 feet from various property lines. So while there is no impervious 1008 surface limit, there are other limitations imposed within the Unified Development Ordinance that 1009 restrict the size of the kennel operation that could be developed on this property. From an 1010 erosion control and stormwater standpoint, the site will have to be developed in compliance with 1011 the recently adopted State stormwater management and nutrient loading criteria meaning their 1012 erosion control and stormwater plan which would be reviewed and approved by Orange County 1013 Erosion Control, Mr. Terry Hackett, Mr. Ren Ivins, and Mr. Wesley Poole, proving that the runoff 1014 number one compliance with established flow parameters in terms of what can lead the site in 1015 accordance with state. law, that the nutrient loads have to be consistent with the basin in which it 1016 is located and that there will have to be annual inspections to ensure the viability of any 1017 stormwater feature on the property consistent with state law and consistent with the recently 1018 revised Unified Development Ordinance incorporating those state standards. 1019 OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 19 of 41 DRAFT .020 Larry Wright: For the education of the board and others, this is before the new state laws which .021 are very stringent for new development, etc. and that would satisfy Mr. Kirschner's concern .022 about what runoff would be coming into his pond. Am I overstepping that? .023 .024 Michael Harvey: I won't say you are overstepping it. I will say there is obviously restrictive .025 stormwater management that we have to abide by that we will hold the applicant to. Without .026 seeing the stormwater plan I would not dare say what could or could not happen because it .027 would be a little unfair for me to represent since I am not an expert in stormwater. It would be .028 even worse for me to represent there would not be a problem. I think the honest answer is, as .029 with any special use permit, class A or B, there are certain minimum requirements of standards .030 that have to be met. If you can't meet them, you can't develop the project. Certainly, if they .031 don't comply with established- stormwater standards, they will not be able to get a building .032 permit. Does that address Mr. Kirschner's concerns? I don't know. That is a question he would .033 have to answer. .034 .035 Larry Wright: I think at the last quarterly public hearing, the potassium levels, a lot of people .036 thought they were unrealistic. .037 .038 Michael Harvey: That is a fairly correct statement. .039 .040 Mark Micol: A point of comparison from a residential stand point, could someone come in .041 without a Board of Adjustment special use permit and build a large residence say with stables 042 that would generate an equal amount of runoff? .043 044 Michael Harvey: Yes. There could be a farm built on property in the rural buffer because farms 045 are technically exempt according to the general stature, 153A 34132 which could include horse 046 boarding operations based on the revised state definition of what a farm is. There are 047 numerous committed uses that by permitted use according to the LIDO means it is subject to 048 staff review and approval and if they demonstrate compliance with the dimensional standards of 049 the code, we are obligated to issue the permit so yes, you could have a development of a 050 residential nature on this site that could have many if not more of the same impacts from a 051 stormwater and drainage perspective. 052 053 Bob Hornik: Mr. Kirschner, you testified that you worked for some 30 odd years for the postal 054 service... in what capacity? 055 056 Cornelius Kirschner: Clerk. 057 058 Bob Hornik: You are not a licensed engineer? 059 060 Cornelius Kirschner: No. 061 062 Bob Hornik: Not a real estate appraiser? _ 063 064 Cornelius Kirschner: No. 065 066 Bob Hornik: Not a scientist, soil scientist, water scientist? 067 068 Cornelius Kirschner: No. 069 070 Bob Hornik: That is all I have. 071 OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 20 of 41 =112 DRAFT -21- 1072 Claudia Harris: I have been sworn in and I live across the street also. I wonder... Mrs. Schenley 1073 mentioned that there was a type of zoning that could be done for the rural buffer area and this 1074 doesn't fit in that. Is that your understanding? 1075 1076 Michael Harvey: That is an incorrect representation of the UDO. 1077 1078 Claudia Harris: Where is the water coming from used to hose out where the dogs are? 1079 1080 Chad Abbott: A well that has been approved for the site. 1081 1082 Claudia Harris: I use well water too and I don't think I use 900 gallons a day and I was 1083 wondering if that was a realistic amount of water to expect from a well. Another option would be 1084 to pipe water down from the pond. 1085 1086 Chad Abbott: If the well ran out of water then they won't use 900 gallons a day. The cisterns 1087 will be used to supplement the well. They would be used to supplement the well and there is no 1088 guarantee that 900 gallons per day will be used. How many gallons would you use, about 500 1089 gallons per day? 1090 1091 Claudia Harris: I doubt it would be that much. 1092 1093 Chad Abbott: Most residences with three to four bedrooms have 480 gallons which is what the 1094 state requires us to use for sizing adequate systems so while they may not use 400 gallons per 1095 day, they are required to have a drainage field as a safety factor that is built into all this stuff. 1096 1097 Claudia Harris: I did not get a letter announcing this meeting. I actually found out in an email 1098 from Tammy. I didn't know until tonight that you wanted to do daily breedings. I thought it was 1099 all boarding and I was really okay with the whole thing and I found it was 90 dogs which 1100 shocked me and found out that the dogs are going to be coming and going in one day changed 1101 things for me. Our neighborhood has faced a lot of hardships. We are very close to the dump 1102 and we have had to do this thing with the trucks from Chapel Hill, the freeway, the waste 1103 transfer site and we have all faced these things as a unit and this issue is different for us and 1 1104 really hate it and it is splitting us and we have always been a really good unit fighting other 1105 things. Thank you very much. 1106 1107 Robert Long: Thank you all for being here at 9:50 p.m. This is a really important issue and it is 1108 very difficult to be here in that Cecil is a dear friend. We are so glad to have him back from 1109 Japan. As Claudia said we have always been a unit that worked together. This is really tricky 1110 and I am here on behalf of the five families who make up the Manor Hill Court Homeowner's 1111 Association. Mr. Stewart and I actually dressed alike tonight. I am a consultant and I, often 1112 right alongside what he does with acoustics, I do with building planning and I am working with 1113 him. I appreciated what he said about the benign impact to the south of this building but we had 1114 one of our homeowners who... Cecil, how far is Martha from where the fence will be from the 1115 dogs? 1116 1117 Cecil Griffin: At least 400 if not 500 feet. 1118 1119 Robert Long: Probably somewhere in that range of open land right to one of our homeowners. 1120 The rest of us live gradually and are rising so the sound, no matter what, up against the north 1121 side of the building will reflect off the dog area. To have Mr. Stewart say that, they live on large 1122 tree properties, I wonder if he actually went to our house. I question that so we are very 1123 concerned that we will have dog barking impact and the question is how do you mitigate it? 1124 What if it does happen? We are being told it won't happen but if it does happen does it mean 1125 they have to build berms? What can we do to protect ourselves at this planning date? I also OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 21 of 41 DRAFT -22- 1126 want to on behalf... I think Claudia said it great and Kathy said it, we have all mustered together 1127 to protect this part of the northern Chapel Hill area from a lot of things. This is a beautiful 1128 building and I love all the green elements to it. I have to question, how much clearing there will 1129 have to be for the solar rays to get the maximum benefit facing south. There will not be a tree 1130 buffer there if the solar is going to work and we all know that is how solar works. I also want to 1.131 say the Schmidt's are very nice people I am sure and want to contribute but your dream does 1132 not necessarily match with my dream. You are bringing your dream to my neighborhood. My 1133 neighborhood is where I have lived for 15 years and want to continue living for a lot longer. This 1134 is a large building in a small area and it will have 10 employees, we understand, which hasn't 1.135 been mentioned. That is a business of sizable proportion. When we mention Spence's Farm 1136 and Emerson Waldorf School, they have both been there. Emerson Waldorf School has been 1137 there 25 years and Spence's Farm 30 years. Those are not like new intrusions into our 1138 neighborhood and I want Tammy and Drew to prosper and do what they want to do. I am just 1139 saying there are problems ahead. There are problems yet to discuss. I often run up and down 1140 Millhouse Road and I think Chad has, in all due respect, plans that don't show the topography. 1 1141 wish before you make a decision that you could come to the site and actually understand the 1142 topographical issues we are talking about. It is not as flat and benign as it looks in plans. 1143 Please give it your best thought. 1144 1145 Dawn Brezina: Any more testimony? 1146 1147 Bob Hornik: Can we address some of the neighbor's issues? 1148 1149 Dawn Brezina: Yes. 1150 1151 Bob Hornik: I think Mr. Harvey has the receipt of having the receipt of sending the letter to Ms. 1152 Harris. 1153 1.154 Robert Long: Our letter was delayed for a week and a half to two weeks and it finally got to the :155 homeowner's association on Friday. .156 .157 Michael Harvey: They were stamped by the Hillsborough Post Office on the 27th of April. .158 .159 Bob Hornik: Perhaps Chad can talk to the board a little about Bruin Way and whether that was .160 considered as a proposed access to the site. .161 .162 Chad Abbott: There were several issues brought up especially during the safety of the access. .163 1 tried to go into as much detail as possible and I even showed pictures. Bruin Trail is located .164 just around that curve so I don't see how anybody would deem that as a safe condition since .165 there is already an access at that location that isn't safe so while it might be a benefit for Mr. .166 Kirschner to not have the driveway at this location doesn't mean it is a safe location because it .167 already exists, especially if you want to increase traffic in that location. The horizontal land, you .168 can see on our site plan. You can see the curvature of the road. You can see that Bruin Trail is .169 located at the top of the page and you are on the inside of this horizontal curve. You can see .170 from the picture, you can see all the way back to the point but if you were here you would not be .171 able to see to the point you can see... .172 .173 Mark Micol: Has that been brought up to the DOT? They recommend the use of ..... .174 .175 Chad Abbott: The Department of Transportation, we sent the plans to them, they had four .176 comments. This pipe was shown here, it is not surveyed, just drawn in based on the concept 177 but the actual drainage pipe for the picture I showed is in the right of way. We will either replace 178 or maintain and extend that pipe. The other comment is that we provide the site... on the outer OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 22 of 41 DRAFT -23- 1179 boundaries of the easement which we cannot do on the county's property because we had 1180 shown from the driveway which is typical. 1181 1182 Mark Micol: Specifically about Bruin? 1183 1184 Chad Abbott: They have not asked us to use Bruin Trail. 1185 1186 Mark Micol: What about the utility of entry on the access road and exit on Bruin? 1187 1188 Chad Abbott: This easement.on Bruin Trail is an easement; it is not part of this property. It is 1189 another easement to another property so we have not even looked at it but it is not a safe 1190 condition as opposed to this easement on this property. 1191 1192 Mark Micol: In terms of safety, the visibility could be out on Bruin Trail, good to the left and not 1193 good to the right. Is that correct? 1194 1195 Chad Abbott: It is inside of a horizontal curve so if you are looking across the shoulder either 1196 way. That is not ideal. It is easier to keep your traffic out in front of you. This is the'best 1197 location without getting into the septic area ... like you said this is bigger than what it shows 1198 there. It is just the best location. 1199 1200 Bob Hornik: From a safety perspective, in designing this, the location on the south where we 1201 are showing it, is better than the Bruin Trail location? 1202 1203 Chad Abbott: Yes. You can obtain longer sight distance from the location. 1204 1205 Tammy Purner: I go in and out of Bruin Trail every day because if I go to my right people come 1206 flying around that curve and they always cut the curve to the center so I have to really watch it 1207 so I can't see if they are coming so usually I turn the radio down and try to listen to see if there 1208 is a car. If the headlights are there I can see those. If I turn left and go north then I am really 1209 taking my life in my hands because I have to get going really fast out of my driveway and turn 1210 left so neither direction is adequate but I'm used to doing it and I do it several times a day. 1 1211 would not recommend a lot of people coming in and out of that driveway, it is not safe. 1212 1213 Bob Hornik: Chad, what is the expected trip generation for this facility? 1214 1215 Chad Abbott: There is no exact kennel defined in the IGE generation map for a land use so 1 1216 took a veterinarian facility with the same number of units, so a veterinarian facility would have 1217 90 units and applied it or it might have been based on square footage but it is a comparable and 1218 it was around 80 or 90 trips per day. Again, it is not a classification for kennels but that is what 1219 tripped.... 1220 1221 Larry Wright: There was how many? 1222 1223 Chad Abbott: 80 to 90 per day. 1224 1225 Larry Wright: In DOT, it averages 16 trips per day that is in and out. 1226 1227 Chad Abbott: That is total trips. 45 in and 45 out. 1228 1229 Larry Wright: And it is 16 for a three bedroom house. 1230 OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 23 of 41 DRAFT -24- .231 Chad Abbott: Related to a bunch of the issues with the acreage here, the number of residential .232 units that could be placed on this property, being around 15 which is a conservative number .233 based on the zoning. .234 .235 Michael Harvey: Seven or six. .236 .237 Chad Abbott: Seven or six based on the zoning. Okay, seven or six houses at four bedrooms .238 each would be required to have a septic field or treatment for 500 gallons per house which .239 would yield a system requirement larger than what we have proposed here. If this were .240 developed as residential, you could easily surpass the impervious areas as well. We have a .241 total of 70,000 square feet if you take everything into account including that road. If you were to .242 take that road and extend it to the back of the property, you are almost doubling or tripling the .243 length of that road plus seven houses at 2 or 3,000 square feet, you could easily reach the .244 impervious limit of 15 %. .245 .246 Bob Hornik: Did you want to address the water quality? .247 .248 Chad Abbott: Back to the septic issue. Septic fields are sized using safety factors which are .249 implemented, not by me but chosen by the State, by the county health department. This septic .250 system has been appropriately sized and marked in field as deemed appropriate. I know there .251 are concerns about the pond below and the ground contamination. I have already explained the .252 treatment of the dog waste so if this were developed with residential houses, which are allowed .253 without a special use permit, if one of those house septic systems failed, they don't have a .254 meter on them so all of these issues can be compared easily to a residential development, and .255 the water washing over the drain field, the water is not per say washing over the drain field as if .256 you can look at the topography. The water is kind of concentrated coming towards our parking .257 area. It won't wash across our drain field. .258 .259 Bob Hornik: Chad, describe the topography of the land, where are the high spots and low spots .260 and the cuts where drainage goes. .261 .262 Chad Abbott: The topography slopes from the pond this way and gathers here and crosses the .263 pipe to the other side of the road. The larger drainage area coming from the park area is from .264 here. See the dashed line, it will come through here where we will have a pipe and it will .265 continue down which bypasses our septic system. It is not going across our septic system. 1 .266 know Mr. Kirschner alluded to washing across the drain field. There are no issues with water .267 flowing across the drain field. That is where all the water.-then there is a ditch along this road .268 that brings the water down through the property and comes here as well so there are many .269 places and sources that contribute to any increased levels. .270 .271 Bob Hornik: The applicants this evening have talked about building a berm generally running .272 east to west along the northern property line which will not eliminate noise moving northward. It .273 will be one more barrier or buffering device that we have proposed at this point to put along that 274 line so that will address it to some extent some of the concerns. .275 276 Larry Wright: Very early on with Mr. Harvey's opening remarks, he said that the permit would 277 be one of the applicant's, Mr. and Mrs. Griffin are to the north and should they no longer live 278 there, the whole business would cease. 279 280 Michael Harvey: There is a note on the site plan, sheet C1 that reads as follows: "The 150 foot 281 required setback for section 565.A213 is not warranted at this property line as the owners are on 282 the application. The owners and other parties on the application are aware that if the SUP is 283 tied to the property and it is binding only to the parties involved. Should the contiguous change OC Board of Adjustment - 5/14/2012 Page 24 of 41 DRAFT -25- 1284 ownership, the SUP would become null and void unless sold to another party listed on the 1285 application." 1286 1287 Larry Wright: If it was sold to his daughter and son -in -law, this operation would still be able to 1288 go on? 1289 1290 Michael Harvey: Yes, because the intent is if it is controlled as part of the kennel operation and 1291 it is maintained by the owner /operator of the kennel, then the condition is still valid but if I bought 1292 it and I wasn't part of the kennel operation, then they are no longer complying with the 1293 ordinance and have two choices, make it conform or shut it down. 1294 1295 Larry Wright: My concern is that it would turn into a grave field in the unfortunate event that 1296 something happened to the Griffin's. 1297 1298 Mark Micol: They would have to come before. the board again to get a new SUP? 1299 1300 Michael Harvey: Ms. Ayer has talked about modifying, if we get to that point, a condition. We 1301 can go over that at an appropriate venue but I think there is language that we can massage that 1302 condition and still stipulate whoever runs that kennel has to own that property but we want to 1303 provide that they hear their options in order to address the sale of that parcel if it is not to 1304 someone associated with the kennel 1305 1306 James Carter: Counsel, do you agree with that? 1307 1308 Sahana Ayer: Yes, and I discussed it with Michael so if for some reason the Griffin's no longer 1309 own the property then whoever purchases the land has to comply with the SUP. 1310 1311 Bob Hornik: As a practical matter, I haven't spoken to Sahana about this but I think the idea is 1312 that Mr. Griffin or whoever his successor might be entitled to his property would also have to be 1313 an owner /operator of the kennel so that if somewhere down the line... if Ms. Purner and her 1314 husband inherit the Griffin property, later they can sell that property and the kennel as long as 1315 they sell it together. 1316 1317 Michael Harvey: The recommended condition reads: "As denoted on the site plan, if the 1318 ownership of the northern contiguous property is sold or otherwise fallout of ownership from any 1319 individual connected with the ownership and /or operation of the kennel facility, the kennel facility 1320 shall be forced to cease and the approved SUP shall be become null and void." What Sahana 1321 had suggested is that the applicant shall have an appropriate amount of time to come back to 1322 the Board of Adjustment and revise the site plan to bring it into compliance with the 150 foot 1323 setback, so there are a couple different options. 1324 1325 Sahana Ayer: In any event, if two different people own the properties, then they would not be 1326 complying with 150 foot setback and that makes the SUP null and void. At that point, they have 1327 the option to have to come back before the Board to see if they can modify the SUP and make it 1328 into compliance. 1329 1330 Larry Wright: Or else they are connected with the ownership of the enterprise? 1331 1332 Sahana Ayer: Yes. 1333 1334 David Blankfard: Mr. Abbott, was a hydrogeology study required for this? 1335 1336 Chad Abbott: We met with Terry Hackett... 1337 OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 25 of 41 DRAFT -26- .338 David Blankfard: We have this low lying pond, would that material decaying in that pond affect .339 Mr. Kirschner's water quality? .340 .341 Chad Abbott: As it exists now, any time leaves gather there or trees fall there, they take up .342 nitrogen as they grow and turn back into soil and release nitrogen back into whatever they are .343 in. If they are in water, they will elevate the level of nitrogen in this pond. That process could .344 cause problems but the quality of the water and I know he doesn't like the fact, the quality of the .345 water coming from this site will be held to what the EPA has mandated to Orange County and 346 the state through the NPDES permit and you have to adhere to those and if you don't you get .347 fined. I can't be there to make sure everything works when it rains but if a problem occurs, the .348 same as anybody else, you get fined. You are supposed to have design controls in place. .349 Once it gathers in that low lying area that he says is part of his pond, we can't control what .350 happens when it gathers there, it sits and could turn back into whatever, I can't control that. .351 .352 Cecil Griffin: The vast majority of the water coming through there comes off county property not .353 ours. We have no control of the quality of water coming off county property. .354 .355 Bob Hornik: I don't want to belabor the point. We have been here three hours and heard all the .356 testimony. The application seeks approval of a lower density than some of the other uses, that 357 this property could be an innovated environmental proposal, solar panel, cisterns, as given in .358 the name Green View Lodge, one of the ideas was to try to be ecology environmentally 359 conscious in the way the property is used and the way the facility will be operated. You have 360 heard Mr. Abbott, Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Stewart provide their expert testimony on the various 361 design issues, noise issues, and property value issues. The evidence shows to the Board that 362 we comply with the specific standards for the proposed kennel use. We comply with the general 363 standards of the UDO for the type of development we propose for the property. We understand 364 the neighbors are not happy with some aspects of the proposal. What they have offered is 365 speculation and fears about what might occur if the property is allowed to develop as proposed 366 by my clients. I think this Board knows that speculation, fears, concerns, isn't enough to rise to 367 the level of component evidence to support denial of the application. There have been a few 368 questions about water quality, drainage issues, and stormwater issues. In order to get our 369 permits, after the SUP is approved we still have to comply with requirements of Erosion and Soil 370 Control, we have to meet all the stormwater standards for the site. There are still more review 371 and codes that have to be met before we build and operate a site. When it is all said and done, 372 1 suggest to the board that the board can and should make the findings required by the zoning 373 ordinance. Testimony for the board is the use will. maintain the value of contiguous property. 374 Testimony characterizes the use promotes the public health, safety and welfare and that the use 375 is in harmony with the area and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County and 376 for the rural buffer district. We ask the board to approve the special use permit. I know that Mr. 377 Harvey has prepared some proposed conditions attached to it. My clients are not opposed to 378 any of those conditions. We have also expressed that a condition voluntarily that we put some 379 kind of berm along the boundary line behind the dog play area to muffle some of the sound that 380 might be generated along that direction. For all those reasons, I ask the board to act tonight to 381 approve the application. 382 383 Dawn Brezina: Does this complete the testimony for tonight? 384 385 Michael Harvey: I have a few housekeeping items. As we do with every special use permit, 386 staff provides you with the necessary script. This allows staff to provide you locations and 387 evidence on standards we feel we can respond to and obviously giving you the heads up on 388 what you, as the Board, will have to do. We always recommend conditions in case you approve 389 a project. 390 391 OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 26 of 41 DRAFT -27- 1392 Michael Harvey reviewed the findings of fact. The planning staff does not offer any suggested 1393 findings or recommendations because this has to be based on the sworn testimony that has 1394 been offered this evening. We do provide you with a list of recommended conditions if you 1395 choose to issue the permit. We will stipulate that we have not received any information that 1396 would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the general standards. 1397 1398 Michael Harvey reviewed the conditions. There was some discussion about having the 1399 acoustical engineer provide documentation at the building permit level that the building would 1400 address noise issues. We didn't put that in there but that is something the board may want to 1401 consider. 1402 1403 Bob Hornik: We are willing to have Mr. Stewart provide a report that verified the acoustic issues 1404 are addressed in the building design. 1405 1406 Michael Harvey: I would like the board to add to recommendation 7 "or the application shall 1407 have 90 days to bring the property into compliance with the established 150 foot setback 1408 requirement ". 1409 1410 Larry Wright: Is 90 days realistic to bring it before the board? 1411 1412 Michael Harvey: 90 days is realistic to get the application in... a condition about building the 1413 northern berm... 1414 1415 Bob Hornik: Along the northern boundary line in the vicinity of the outdoor play area. 1416 1417 Michael Harvey: I would suggest that is something that the Board of Adjustment is interesting in 1418 adhering to that the condition reads as follows: recommendation 8, "A berm shall be erected 1419 along the northern property line consistent with county regulations with respect to the 1420 maintenance of required landscaping in the area to address potential noise issues offsite ". 1421 Chad will have to submit it as part of the landscape site plan. Once you close the public hearing 1422 Mr. Hornik cannot speak to you. No one can speak to you so if you have any questions, you 1423 need to ask them. The attorney is here representing the Board of Adjustment in this instance 1424 but obviously you can't ask me or Mr. Hornik or any other individual any questions once you 1425 start deliberation. Once the hearing is closed you cannot accept additional testimony. 1426 1427 Larry Wright: If we choose to go this way and we add a condition that on the acoustic 1428 conditions so we would ask for a report to verify that acoustic conditions are addressed in the 1429 building design in compliance or within .... I don't know how we would do this if we... 1430 1431 David Blankfard: That is the problem for me and the reasons I say that is because I am not an 1432 acoustical engineer. What I am guessing would occur is that the applicant's expert would 1433 provide a document indicating that the building design meets established acceptable practices 1434 for the abatement of extraneous noise. 1435 1436 Larry Wright: We heard this same... can I refer to another application? 1437 1438 Michael Harvey: Sure. 1439 1440 Larry Wright: We heard this same expert witness talk about building materials, etc. and how it 1441 mitigated and abated noise and I just can't figure out how he did that. It was very effective 1442 testimony. I don't know how you would word that. 1443 1444 Michael Harvey: Without telling you how to word the condition, recognizing limitations we have 1445 as a staff because we don't have an audiologist on staff. Maybe the condition is that the OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 27 of 41 DRAFT -28- 1446 acoustical engineer provides documentation signifying that the materials used in the 1447 construction of the building will muffle the sound as directed by the Board of Adjustment and 1448 provide for reduction in the sound level of the barking dogs in the internal building. 1449 1450 Sahana Ayer: In the other application, the gentleman gave testimony that there was an attic 1451 area that wasn't properly insulated or there wasn't enough padding and he suggested extra 1452 padding to muffle the noise. I think that was a condition we put in the SUP. I guess we can say 1453 if they comply with the requirements of the noise ordinance. I think that should cover 1454 everything. The materials and everything else is at their discretion, what they use, as long as 1455 the noise does not exceed the decibel level permitted. !456 1457 Dawn Brezina: Any other questions? 1458 ' _459 The public hearing portion was closed at 10:30 pm. .460 .461 Dawn Brezina: Is there further comment among the members of this committee? .462 .463 Sahana Ayers: We can just do a motion affirming staff's recommendation. .464 .465 Dawn Brezina: Everything that staff has recommended? .466 -467 OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 28 of 41 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 DRAFT -29- FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF PERTAINING TO REQUEST SUBMITTED BY SAMUEL AND CAROLYN GRIFFIN AND TAMMY AND ANDREW PURNER REQUESTING A CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A CLASS II KENNEL FOR A PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED OFF OF MILLHOUSE ROAD (PIN 9871 -61 -5733) Special Uses must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 5. Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: (1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; (2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property); and (3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners; In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following specific standards: (1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined within Section(s) 5.6.5 of the LIDO, (2) Applicable provisions of Article 3 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements) of the Ordinance. (3) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of: 1. Sewage disposal facilities, 2. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, 3. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site, and 4. Other specific standards as set forth within the LIDO. (4) Specific regulations governing the development of individual Special Uses as set forth in Article 5, specifically Section 5.6.5 Class 11 Kennels of the LIDO. Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of Adjustment in its deliberations. OC Board of Adjustment — 5/1412012 Page 29 of 41 DRAFT -30- 1526 1527 ARTICLE 2.7.3 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance) 1528 Planning Staff Recommending EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Board of Adjustment FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Findings: Ordinance Requirements 2.7.3 (A) Application submitted x Yes No A complete application on x Yes No on forms providing full and appropriate forms (Attachment accurate description of 1) has been submitted. proposed use, including location, appearance and 529 operational characteristics. 2.7.3 (B) (1) A full and accurate x Yes No A complete application x Yes No description of the proposed use narrative containing the required information (Attachment 1) has been submitted. 2.7.3 (B) (2) The name(s) and x Yes No The application , and site plan x Yes No addressed of the owners of the (Attachment 1) contain the property involved. required information 2.7.3 (B) (3) Relevant x Yes No Attachment 1 (narrative and x Yes No information needed to show site plan) contains relevant compliance with the general and information specific standards governing the special use. Attachment 3 contains staff reports denoting the approval of the proposal 2.7.3 (B) (4) - Ten (10) copies of x Yes No Ten (10) copies of the site x Yes No the site plan prepared by a plan, prepared by Summit registered land surveyor, Engineers were submitted architect, or engineer. 2.7.3 (B) (5) - preliminary _ Not Applicable The project does not involve a _ Not Applicable subdivision plat preliminary subdivision. As a result a preliminary plat is not required 2.7.3 (B) (6) — a list of all x Yes No The application package x Yes No property owners within 500 feet contains the required information 2.7.3 (B) (7) — elevations of the x Yes No The application package x Yes No proposed structure contains the required information 2.7.3 (B) (8) Ten (10) copies of _ Not applicable An EIS statement is not _ Not Applicable the Environmental Assessment required by the Orange County and /or Environmental Impact Environmental Impact Statement, if required, by the Ordinance as the proposed Orange County Environmental amount of disturbance is under Impact Ordinance. the minimum amount necessary to warrant an EIS statement OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 30 of 41 DRAFT -31- 1530 ARTICLE 2.7.3 APPLICATION COMPONENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance) 1531 Section 2.7.3 (B) (9) Method of __K __-Yes No The site plan contains a note x Yes No disposal of trees, limbs, and indicating that all land clearing material(s) will be disposed of stumps associated with the in accordance with the Orange permitted activity County Solid Waste Management Ordinance in a manner other than burning. Section 2.7.3 (B) (10) Statement _x ___Yes No the __X _Yes No (Attachment application contains package from the applicant indicating the required information anticipated development schedule for the project Section 2.7.3 (B) (11) - Not Applicable The project does not involve a — Not Applicable _ Statement from the applicant is request for the vesting of the proposed site plan. As a justification of any request for result, no statement is required vesting of the project 1532 1533 Page 31 of 41 OC Board of Adjustment - 5/14/2012 OC Board of Adjustment — 5/1412012 Page 32 of 41 DRAFT -32- [534 1535 ARTICLE 3 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance) 1536 Planning Staff Recommending EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Board of Adjustment FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Findings: Ordinance Requirements: Article 3 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building height and lot coverage, and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a Special Use Permit on property zoned Rural Buffer (RB). The standards for the AR district are set forth in Section 3.3 of the UDO and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per use x Yes No According to the application x Yes No 87,120 sq. ft. (i.e. 2 acres) and site plan (Attachment 1) the property is 15 acres (653.400 sq. ft.) in area b) Minimum lot width - 150 ft. x Yes No According to the site plan x Yes No (Attachment 1) there is approximately 567 feet of road frontage along Millhouse Road c) Required front setback - 40 ft. x Yes No According to the site plan x Yes No (Attachment 1) the kennel building is approximately 423 feet from the front property line (i.e. Millhouse Road) d) Required side and rear x Yes No According to the site plan x Yes No setbacks - 20 ft. (Attachment 1) the kennel building is approximately: Y 150 feet from the southern property line (i.e. Orange County Property) a 30 feet from the northern property line (i.e. Griffin property) and • 150 feet from the western property line (the exercise yard) e) Maximum building height - 25 x Yes No According to the site plan x Yes No ft. (Attachment 1) the kennel building complies with the height limit for the district .537 .538 OC Board of Adjustment — 5/1412012 Page 32 of 41 2 1539 RATIO STANDARDS (ARTICLE 3 CONTINUED) 1540 Planning Staff Recommending FINDINGS Findings: a) Floor Area Ratio - .088 sq. ft. x Yes _No or 60,229 sq. ft. 1541 1542 b) Maximum gross land area c) Livability Space Ratio d) Recreation Space - .028 or 19,164 sq.ft. e) Required minimum open space ratio - .84 or 574,920 sq.ft. e) Required minimum pedestrian /landscape ratio - .21 or 143,730 sq.ft. x Not applicable x Not applicable x Yes No x Yes No x Yes No DRAFT -33- EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS According to the site plan (Attachment 1) the proposed floor area for the site shall only be 10,100 sq.ft. Not applicable — This proposed project is not subject to the maximum gross land area requirement as detailed within Section 3.3 of the UDO Not applicable — This proposed project is not subject to the Livability Space Ratio as detailed within Section 3.3 of the UDO According to the site plan there is approximately 674,284 sq. ft. of property left in open space /recreation space on the property as defined within Article 10 of the UDO According to the site plan (Attachment 1) the proposed open space, as defined within Article 10 of the LIDO, for the site shall be 674,284 sq.ft. According to the site plan (Attachment 1) the proposed pedestrian /landscape ratio, as defined within Article 10 of the UDO, for the site shall be 661,519 sq.ft. Board of Adjustment Findings: x Yes No x_ Not Applicable Not Applicable x Yes No x Yes No x Yes OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 33 of 41 No 547 548 NC DOT will need to review in order to determine if a driveway permit can be issued allowing for the existing driveway to be used to support the hoarse boarding and training facility. They cannot issue final approval until there is an approved site plan. This should be a condition of approval. OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 34 of 41 DRAFT -34- 1543 1544 ARTICLE 5.3.2 (B) - SPECIFIC STANDARDS /ALL SPECIAL USES 1545 ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance) (continued) 1546 Planning Staff Recommending EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Board of Adjustment FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Findings: Section 5.3.2 (B) requires the applicant to address the following: 1) Method and adequacy of x Yes No Information contained within x Yes No provision for sewage disposal Attachment Three (3) of the facilities, solid waste and water abstract completed by staff service. indicate that the well and septic system have been approved by Orange County Health With respect to solid waste disposal, the applicant has indicated that he will contract with a private firm for the removal and disposal of waste. According to staff this is acceptable with respect to the requirements of the UDO 2) Method and adequacy of x Yes No The New Hope Rural Fire x Yes No police, fire and rescue squad Department will provide fire protection. protection. Rescue services will be provided by Orange County EMS. The Orange County Sheriffs Department shall provide police protection. As detailed within Attachment 3 all applicable public safety agencies have approved the project 3) Method and adequacy of x Yes No The site plan indicates the lot x Yes No vehicle access to the site and is accessed through an traffic conditions around the site. existing access easement onto Millhouse Road. 547 548 NC DOT will need to review in order to determine if a driveway permit can be issued allowing for the existing driveway to be used to support the hoarse boarding and training facility. They cannot issue final approval until there is an approved site plan. This should be a condition of approval. OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 34 of 41 1549 1550 ARTICLE 5.6.5 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR A CLASS II KENNEL 1551 ( "Yes" indicates compliance, indicates non - compliance) (continued) 1552 Planning Staff Recommending FINDINGS Findings: 1553 In addition to the information required by Subsection 5.3.2 of the UDO, the following shall be submitted as part of the application in order to determine compliance with the site specific development requirements for a Class II Kennel as outlined within Section 5.6.5 of the UDO: EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS DRAFT -35- Board of Adjustment Findings: Section 5.6.5 (A) (1) (a) x Yes No The submitted site plan x Yes No (Attachment 1) shows the a) Plans for all kennels, location for all buildings barns, exercise yards, riding proposed for use as part o the arenas, pens and related operation. improvements, including signage. Section 5.6.5 (A) (1) (b) x Yes No The submitted site plan x Yes No (attachment 1) provides all b) Site plan showing the essential information as improvements listed in a) above, required other structures on the same lot, and structures on adjacent property Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (a) x Yes No The submitted site plan x Yes . No (attachment 1) provides all a) The site is of adequate size essential information as to protect adjacent properties required from adverse effects of the kennel or riding stable /academy Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (b) x Yes No The submitted site plan x Yes No (attachment 1) provides all b) No part of any building, essential information as structure, runway or riding required. arena, in which animals are housed or exercised shall be As the applicant owns the closer than 150 feet from a northern property the 150 foot property line, except property setback does not apply to this occupied by the owner /operator property line. of the kennel. These minimum distances shall not apply if all The site plan contains a note portions of the facility, in which indicating that if this northern animals are housed, are wholly property is sold, or is no longer enclosed within a building owned /controlled by the operator of the kennel, then the kennel use shall be abandoned. OC Board of Adjustment — 511412012 Page 35 of 41 557 permits. A condition of approval is that the applicant be required to obtain a building permit within one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of the SUP and that the building plans have to be approved by the Director of Animal Control OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 36 of 41 DRAFT -36- 554 ARTICLE 5.6.5 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR A CLASS II KENNEL 555 ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance) (continued) 556 Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (c) x Yes No The submitted site plan x Yes No (attachment 1) provides all c) Any kennel which is not essential information as wholly enclosed within a required. building shall be enclosed by a security fence at least 6 feet in height, which shall include primary enclosures or runs Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (d) x Yes No The submitted site plan x Yes No (attachment 1) provides all d) The site plan shows parking, essential information as access areas and screening required. devices for buildings and animal boarding facilities Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (e) x Yes No As detailed within Attachment x Yes No 3, the site plan has been e) The site plan shall be tentatively reviewed and reviewed by the Orange County deemed appropriate by Animal Animal Services Department, Control. and found in conformance with the Animal Control Ordinance. The applicant will be required to apply for and obtain a permit from Orange County Animal Health in addition to the Special Use Permit. A condition of approval is that the applicant be required to obtain this permit within one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of the SUP Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (f) x Yes No The renderings. and floor plan x Yes No have been reviewed by Animal f) Building plans for all kennel Services. facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County The applicant cannot make an Animal Services Department application for final approval prior to issuance of any building until the SUP is issued. 557 permits. A condition of approval is that the applicant be required to obtain a building permit within one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of the SUP and that the building plans have to be approved by the Director of Animal Control OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 36 of 41 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 DRAFT -37- ARTICLE 5.6.5 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR A CLASS II KENNEL ( "Yes" indicates compliance "No" indicates non - compliance) (continued) Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (g) g) A sign clearly visible from the ground shall be posted at the main entrance to the facility and shall contain the names, addresses, and telephone numbers where persons responsible for the facility may be contacted at any hour of the day or night. The sign shall comply with dimensional requirements as set forth in the UDO Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (h) h) A Class II Kennel Permit shall be obtained from Orange County Animal Services within the first 30 days of occupancy. Failure to obtain and maintain a valid Class II Kennel Permit or other related permits which may be required by the USDA or Wildlife Resources Commission will result in revocation of the Special Use Permit. x Yes No The applicant has indicated on the site plan (Attachment 1) that there will be a sign on the property adhering to this condition A recommended condition of approval is that the applicant be required to submit a sign rendering for review and approval by the Planning Department within one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of the SUP and that the approved sign shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy allowing for kennel operations to commence. x Yes No The applicant has indicated that the plan will be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Department of Animal Control. This should be a condition of approval _x -_Yes No __A --Yes No MOTION made by Larry Wright to agree to staff's recommendations on the application beginning on page 88 through page 96 Seconded by Mark Micol. VOTE: Unanimous OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 37 of 41 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1 576 1577 1 578 1 579 1580 1581 1582 ''.583 -584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 SECTION 5.3.2 (A)(2) - APPLICATION COMPONENTS L"Will" indicates compliance; "Will Not" indicates non - compliance) FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements In accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), the Board of Adjustment shall also consider the following general conditions before the application for a Special Use can be approved: Planning Staff Recommending EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS DRAFT -38- Board of Adjustment Findings: 1. The use will maintain or To be determined by Board x Will Will Not promote the public health, after receiving evidence to be safety and general welfare, if submitted or heard at public located where proposed and hearing. developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. Dawn Brezina: In accordance with the Section 5.3.2 we shall consider the following general conditions for this special use to be approved. I know we have a list of special conditions. It might be easiest to put them into one. MOTION made by Mark Micol to find in the affirmative on Article 5.3.2 (A) (2) Section 1 that the use will maintain or promote the health, safety and general welfare if located as proposed based on this project providing the community with a state of the art green facility that can be used by surrounding rural residents without forcing them to travel long distances, that the project incorporates best management practices for storm water control, energy conservation, and sustainable use of non - depleting renewable energy sources. Seconded by David Blankfard. VOTE: Unanimous 2. The use will maintain or To be determined by Board x Will _Will Not enhance the value of contiguous after receiving evidence to be property (unless the use is a submitted or heard at public public necessity, in which case hearing. the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property). MOTION made by Larry Wright to vote in the affirmative on ordinance requirement Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), Section 2 concerning the value of property and contiguous property relative to the applications parcel based on Mr. Michael Wheeler's Impact Analysis on pages 20 -60 of the packet and his written summary and the seal of his expertise. Seconded by Mark Micol. VOTE: Unanimous OC Board of Adjustment— 5/14/2012 Page 38 of 41 [N% 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 3. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. To be determined by Board after receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. DRAFT -39- X Is _, Is Not MOTION made by Larry Wright to vote in the affirmative on ordinance requirement Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), Section 3 on page 97 of the application that the conformance is in harmony with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and according to staff's early opening statements on page 5 and 6. Staff outlines that it does meet the Unified Development Ordinance compliant with that and the Unified Development Ordinance and that conforms to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. In Exhibit 1 talking about the rural buffer and the land use categories and these are objectives that come right from the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by David Blankfard. VOTE: Unanimous OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 39 of 41 DRAFT -40- RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff has not received any information that would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the general standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County. The Planning Staff has reviewed the application, the revised site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant does comply with the specific standards and required regulations. In the event that the Board of Adjustment makes the determination that the permit can be issued, Planning Staff recommends the attachment of the following conditions: (1) That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County Inspections Department requesting authorization to commence construction of the proposed kennel facility. The application, including all applicable fees, shall be submitted within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of the Special Use Permit. Further, the building permit application shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Animal Services for compliance with any and all applicable animal control regulations in accordance with the UDO, (2) That the Orange County Fire Marshal's office shall review and approve the building plans, as part of the normal building permit review process, and that any and all modifications to the structure be made . to address fire code issues prior to the issuance of the permit authorizing the commencement of construction activities, (3) That the applicant complete, submit, and receive approval for a Class II Kennel application from the Orange County Animal Control Department within one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of the SUP, (4) That the applicant be required to submit a sign rendering for review and approval by the Planning Department within one. hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of the SUP and that the approved sign shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy allowing for kennel operations to commence. (5) That the applicant shall submit the approved site plan to NC DOT for review and comment. In the event it is determined that the applicant is required to apply for, and receive a, driveway permit from NC DOT to allow for the project to be developed, the applicant shall submit all necessary applications as required by NC DOT within one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of the SUP and provide planning staff with a copy of the issued permit, (6) That prior to the commencement of land disturbing activity the applicant shall submit all necessary stormwater and erosion control applications to the Orange County Erosion Control Department. These applications shall be submitted within one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of the SUP. (7) As denoted on the approved site plan, if the ownership of the northern contiguous property be sold or otherwise fall out of ownership from any individual connected with the ownership and /or operation of the kennel facility, the kennel facility shall be forced to cease and the approved SUP shall become null and void. 603 604 MOTION made by David Blankfard to accept staff's recommended conditions numbers 1 through 605 7 with the edits as follows. Condition number 1, "that an acoustic report will be submitted with 606 the building construction building permit. That the building is constructed with mitigating noise 607 materials that will meet the county ordinances." Added to the end of condition 7, "or the 608 applicant or subsequent owner shall have 90 days to submit an application to bring compliance 609 within the 150 foot setback should the property be sold ". Add item 8, "A berm shall be 610 constructed on the northern boundary line of the proposed project to mitigate any potential noise OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 40 of 41 DRAFT _qy_ 1611 issue and adhere to the Orange County Ordinances referencing the Landscape Construction 1612 Ordinance." Seconded by James Carter. 1613 VOTE: Unanimous 1614 1615 MOTION made by David Blankfard to approve the Special Use Permit with the recommended 1616 conditions. Seconded by James Carter. 1617 VOTE: Unanimous 1618 1619 1620 AGENDA ITEM 6: ADJOURNMENT 1621 The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:45 pm. 1622 1623 1624 1625 Tina Owen, Minutes Preparer OC Board of Adjustment — 5/1412012 Page 41 of 41 -42— ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director F.untP a! er Current Planning 131 West Margaret Lane (919) 245 -2575 tz 5 5z P ® Box 8181 (919) 644 -3002 (FAX) �� Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us °'tb Cato North Carolina, 27278 RECORD BEFORE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ALL OTHER PERTINENT DOCUMENTS DETERMINED BY STAFF TO COMPLETE RECORD FOR DENOTED CASE TO: Orange County Board of Adjustment FROM: Michael D. Hai vey, AICP, CZO, CZO Planner III Current Planning Supei visor DATE: November 2, 2012 RE: CASE NUMBER A -02 -012 REVIEW of an APPEAL of a decision made by the Orange County Planning Department related to the approval of a site plan for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Clifford Leath Preserve Rural Orange (PRO) 6600 Maynard Farm Road PO Box 1314 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Carrboro, NC 27510 (PIN 9738 -03 -4870) ISSUE: In accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the applicant has appealed a decision of the Planning Director as detailed within a letter, dated November 16, 2012, related to permitting requirements for a UNC operated research facility located at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (PIN 9728- 93- 1820). Please refer to the attached vicinity map contained within Attachment A for additional detail. -43- In a letter, dated April 9, 2010, Orange County Planning staff informed UNC representatives a Class A Special Use Permit would be required to allow for a proposed expansion of the existing research facility due to the size of the septic system. Staff made this initial determination based on langue contained within Section 6.20 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (now Section 3.3 Residential Districts — Agricultural Residential Base Zoning District — Specific Development Standards of the UDO) prohibiting the location of `ground absorption systems with a design capacity of 3, 000 gallons per day or more and package treatment plans for sanitary sewage disposal' without the submittal, review, and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit or the approval of a Planned Development (PD) rezoning request. The research facility is supported by a septic system that has a design capacity to treat over 3,000 gallons of wastewater per day. This determination was later reversed as detailed in a letter dated November 16, 2010 where staff made a finding the Special Use Permit was not required. The applicant is appealing the determination that the aforementioned Special Use Permit is not required as it relates to the formal approval of a site plan by the County Planning Department in February of 2012. REQUEST: The application requests that the Board of Adjustment overturn the decision of the Planning Director to approve the site plan and require the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit as' detailed within staff's April 9, 2010 letter. Please find attached copies of the following: 1. Vicinity and property map (Attachment A) 2. Appeal application (Attachment B) 3. All other pertinent documents determined by staff to complete record (Attachment C): a. March 18, 2010 Orange County Planning Letter to UNC detailing new site plan approval for an expansion of the existing research facility. b. April 9, 2010 Orange County Planning Letter. to UNC outlining Special Use Permit requirement. c. May 28, 2010 UNC Letter to Craig Benedict (Planning Director) concerning site plan review. d. October 28, 2010 UNC Letter to Craig Benedict concerning Special Use Permit requirement. -44- e. November 16, 2010 Orange County Planning Letter to UNC revising finding concerning Special Use Permit requirement. f. July 18, 2011 Orange County Planning Letter to UNC providing comments related to a courtesy review of a draft site plan. g. December 2011 — Final site plan package submitted by UNC related to the research facility site. h. February 1, 2012 Orange County Planning Letter to UNC approving submitted site plan package. i. Copy of North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 153A -347. 4. Statement from UNC related to the appeal (Attachment D) 5. Approved site plan — February 2012 (Attachment E) _45_ USGS Water Feature O Parcels 0 Zoning �• Soils Survey Water Feature 11 °3 Township 1* City Limits M OC Updated Water Feature 7 ',P School System Boundary O ETJ Conservation Easements 0 Buildings M Held by Others =Water and Sewer Boundary 0 100 YR Floodplain (Effective 02/02107) A Floodway (Effective 02102/07) ® 500 YR Floodplain (Effective 02/02107) O Water Body Contours 0 River Basins ® County Boundary ®Watershed Soils Orange County Conservation Easements sln;, 1 inch = 455.298 feet 0 180 380 720 Feet _47_ _q,g_ ATTACHMENT B — APPEAL APPLICATION STAFF NOTE: Walt Lobots1V is listed on the application and the `applicant' initiating the complaint. Clifford Leath, another adjacent property owner, was willing to pay the application fee for the appeal but did not want to be the primary applicant as he was unsure of his availability to attend the appeal hearing when the application was submitted. Mr. Lobotsky has now requested his name be removed from the application as he is no longer the owner of property adjacent to the UNC facility. As Mr. Leath paid the application fee, and is an adjacent property owner `impacted' by the decision, he is now going to assume the responsibility for acting as the applicant for this request. Please refer to Attachment A for additional clarification as to the location of the UNC, Leath, and former Lobotsky properties. _q.g_ G,dntr or o Orange County Planning a.Atl Inspections Department �p " - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT — a ' GENERAL APPLICATION FORM ��rb erce�~�' "NOTE —This form shall accompany all specific application packages as denoted herein ** REQUEST (Check the b ox denoting the purpose of your application to the Board of Adjustment) APPEAL: Fv--1 VARIANCE: ❑ INTERPRETATION: ❑ GENERAL INFORMATION: Date: March 1, 2012�Li'�Ji jZ Property Address: 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 1 l Applicant: Walt Lobotsky Owner: State of North Carolina 1 l� Address: 6703 Maynard Farm Road Address: UNC- Chapel Dill, 302 -A South Building, CB 91000 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 -1000 Phone Number: 919- 883 -4678 Phone Number: 919- 962 -3795 Cell Phone: Cell Phone: Co- signatory: Laura Streitfeld, Board Chair, Preserve Rural Orange, P.O. Box 1314, Carrboro, NC 27510 919 - 593 -5411 Represented by: Johu D. Runkle, Attorney 2121 Damascus Church Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 919- 942 -0600 PROPERTY INFORMATION (IF APPLICABLE): Watershed: Haw River Unprotected Zoning: Agricultural Residential Lot Area: 56.65 acres PIN Number: 9728 -93 -1820 Township: Bingham Subdivision: Deed Book/PageNumber: 229/379 Legal Relationship of Applicant to property owner: Adjacent property owner Preserve Rural Orange is representing neighbors who live adjacent to or in proximity to the site. SUBMITTAL INFORMATION: 1) Small Scale Map showing the exact location of property with respect to existing streets, street numbers and size of lots, nature of adjacent property uses, and other important features within and contiguous to the property, 2) A completed, signed, Variance or Appeal/Interpretation Form, and 3) A Tax Map of the property OFFICIAL USE ONLY: Date Application Properly Filed: > Accepted By: Fee Collected: Receipt Number: Staff Assigned to Review: Date scheduled for PUBLIC HEARING: Date of Sign Posted (if applicable): Notification Letters Required: (Yes) (No) Date Sent: By: Legal Ad Approved by: Dates Published: ABSTRACT Due Date: Completed by: ABSTRACT reviewed by: Approved: (Yes) (No) Date: Date 13OA Packet Sent Out: By: �ounlY °� Or d t c �Or�4 �.aYS�ia Orange County Planning and Inspections Department BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: APPLICATION FOR AN APPEAL / INTERPRETATION The Orange County Board of Adjustment with a four-fifths (415) vote, may overturn or mods an interpretation of an Administrative Official for the Orange County Planning Department concerning the enforcement and /or the interpretation. of a specific provision of the Unified Development Ordinance (WO). Under the State - enabling act, the review of an interpretation by the Board of Adjustment is not intended to vary the U_DO but to interpret and apply what the governing body has written and holy it is being implemented in a particular circumstance. The decision of the Board of Adjustment shall be in accord with what.the members believe to be the actual meaning and intent of the UDO. RELIEF REQUESTED, Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation attached. APPEAL: ❑ INTERPRETATION: ❑ I, Walt Lobotsky and Preserve Rural Orange hereby appeal to the Board of Adjustment from the following adverse decision of an Administrative Official of the Planning and Development Department of the County of Orange, North Carolina made on the 1st day of February, 2012. The decision ordered. that: _On February 1 2012 the University of North Carolina's site plan application submitted 12/9/11 for the I C Animal Research Facility in Bingham Township was approved and a Zonm Compliance Permit was This adverse decision was made with respect to _property described in the attached General Application form. I, hereby request an interpretation of: ❑ The Zoning Map ❑ The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Section insofar as it relates to the use of the property described in the attached General Application form. ** NOTE: If the owner of the property subject to this application is not the same as the appellant, a notarized letter from the owner signifying his /her approval authorizing the submittal of the application shall be required ** -51- In the space provided below, or on an attached letter, present your interpretation of the ordinance provision in question and state what reasons you have for believing that your interpretation is the correct one: On February 1, 2012 the Orange County Planning Department approved a site plan application. submitted on December 9, 2011 for the University of North Carolina's Animal Research Facility in Bingham Township. UNC's site plan includes a replacing and. modifying a failed wastewater system with anew wastewater treatment and spray irrigation system with a design capacity of 3,55.6 gallons per day. Due to the size of the proposed UNC wastewater system (3,000 gallons per day or more), the University is required by county ordinance to apply for a Special Use Permit. Without an approved Special Use Permit, UNC's 3,000+ gallon per day wastewater system is prohibited in the Agricultural Residential district (UDO Section 3.3.). In April 2010, Planning Department staff determined that UNC was required to apply for a Class A Special Use Permit for the facility. Planning staff later reversed the determination in November 2010. Preserve Rural Orange believes that Planning Department staff's first determination was correct in requiring UNC to apply for a Special Use Permit. In its letter of October.28, 2010 to Mr. Benedict, UNC states that G.S..153 -347 (presumably citing to G.S. 153A -347) precludes the County from regulating the wastewater system and that State water quality rules pre -empt the County's ability to regulatethe system. Both interpretations unreasonably and unlawfully restrictthe County's authority to regulate wastewater systems with a capacity greater than 3,000 gallons per day. There are multiple areas of concern regarding UNC's site plan forthe animal research facility, including public health; safety, , security, impacts on the. watershed and water supply, and storage, transport and disposal of animal. waste. The Special UsePermit application and review process provides the Board of County Commissioners with the ability to fulfill "its responsibility to protect the public health safety and.general welfare" (UDO 5.1.3) and allows county citizens to share concerns. In 2009 and 2010 the UNC facility's wastewater system was found in violation of county, state and federal regulations. County Planning Department staff issued a notice to UNC that a the UNC facility's 3,000+ gallon per day wastewater system was installed and operating without the required Special Use Permit. In 2010, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality issued three notices of violation, a revocation of a deemed permit and civil penalties on UNC facility's wastewater systems in four months following a series of wastewater equipment failures, chemical contamination of the septic system, incursions into previously undisclosed wetlands, and illegal discharges, including an illegal discharge from a leaking waste lagoon into a tributary of Collins Creek that went unreported for 52 days. The Army Corps of Engineers issued a notification of unauthorized activity/permit noncompliance to UNC for failing to submit a Nationwide Permit Pre-construction Notification when constructing wastewater spray irrigation fields and a new access road in wetlands, in violation of the federal Clean Water Act. The 2006 Environmental Assessment submitted for the project in 2006 states that there will be no significant impacts and that there are no wetlands on the UNC property. On April 9, 2010 Planning Department staff sent a letter to UNC requiring the University to apply for a Class A Special Use Permit, citing the following determination: fn answering the University's question relating to the necessary process to review proposed modifications to the previously approved site plan(s), and based on available information, staff has determined thatthe University will be required to submit and seek approval of a Class A Special Use Permit Application allowing for the development of a facility requiring a ground absorption system with a design capacity over three thousand (3,000) gallons per day. The April 9`' Planning Department letter cited the following Orange County ordinance: _5g_ Section 6.20 of the Ordinance prohibits the location of `ground absorption systems ivith.a design capacity of-3, 000 gallons per day or mote and package h eahnentplmis for sanitary sewage disposal' without the submittal, review and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Article Eight (8).... Planning Department staff reversed this determination requiring-a Class A Special Use Permit in a November 11, 2010 letter to the University: While staff continues to maintain that we are not seeking to regulate the proposed septic system through a zoning approval process, and we reserve the right to continue monitoring the use of the existing facility in order to evaluate its compliance with existing development regulations, through this letter we hereby modify our original determination and find that a SUP is not required to allow for the installation /modification of the septic system on the property as currently proposed by the University. According to AR District Specific Development Standards, UNC's wastewater facility requires a Special Use Permit. UDO (Section 13): 6. With the exception of Orange County government development projects, wastewater treatment facilities with a design capacity of 3,000 gallons per day or more and package treatment plants for sanitary sewage disposal are prohibited in the AR zoning district unless approved through the Special Use Permit (SUP) process or as a Conditional Use (CU) District. The UDO offers the following definition of Wastewater Treatment Facility (UDO Section 10:1): Wastewater Treatment Facility A system of wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal in single or multiple components, including ground absorption systems, non - discharge systems, and systems that discharge effluent to the surface waters, and any other system as may be permitted by the Orange County Health Department or the State of North Carolina. (ref. NCGS Article 11, Chapter 130A) The UDO specifies that replacements and modifications of land uses in existence prior to adoption of zoning regulations require Special Use Permit app(ication-submittal, review andapproval (UDO Section 8.6): SPECIAL PERMIT USES Any land use that: (A) Was in existence prior to adoption of zoning regulations and would require the issuance of a Special Use Permit under terms of this Ordinance, or (B) Is made non- conforming due to an amendment of this Ordinance changing the review and approval criteria of said land use from permitted to .either a Class A or B Special Use. Shall be deemed a conforming use of property within the confines of this Ordinance, subject to the following limitation: Any enlargement, replacement or modification of such a use shall require submittal, review, and approval of a Special Use Permit application as though it were a new use. Preser � 2 In conclusion, E tkRural Orange urges the Board of Adjustment to find that the first interpretation of the County Ordinances by Mr. Harvey in his letter of April 9, 2010 to UNC was correct and that the construction activities associated with the development of the UNC operated research facility require a special use permit. PRO hereby requests a hearing on this matter at the Board's convenience. Applicants respectfully request that the county waive the $540 staff review fee and $800 advertising fee for the appeal. -53- STATEMENT BY APPELLANT: I certify that the information presented by me in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and b lie . Signature of applicant: Date NOTARY: STATE OF LR14 �9tiIJ . COUNTY OF ( On this day of GPI , 20 i 7-,aa, �A�� IV&nLe4l d- Liwt personally appeared before me and is known to me to be the person who signed the foregoing instrument and he /she acknowledged that he /she signed the same and being duly sworn by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing instrument are true. Signature of Notary Public My Commission expires: / `�- `--1. `-� — / b MG,CASTRO NOTAAYRWG Sea �MECOUNN WMARMISSIONEXPIAES 12.1416 F 3 3 "FY 2p 6� Y �I� it fil [ 6 �pp gg al 0 I e gg g a ay a Ad ;iIjg gg g Ain-, gg � I I I I •9 uy g y�1� a 9 �3 d 9� �1�y � � 4yd 9 p� g� i � � �i� ��I t�q Is Pig I j �gg @ �ba gFge �yRi 5� >e ia4 �� $d9? F�gyB Cie p� °pJY exp agy �WRs gy a [g� @ gp° tl 0 E 8 tl tl 1gj w R u � � �2; iRCI ii5 9 9�i �9 G3 � E � II ER�j��� iYY• — _ -- - --- z �I I I III �kYj IIIji ° sgq IIIj`i ,�. III , I tae "I III I �r L r all 4 I � III ° I I a 5 rF• `�J� I lm � I I ieY� 1 3ae� I �^ G <g" e€ 1 gU l n LL � o � N _ m�a eU a to 000, L z w p a w v a xzzU F o v a ��y}.�� ,b �F Aa:= f -54- q2q g b i Ix gig �� oPI H HIM 000a <ogaoilii'i�i � _� � . �I I a r r -- I I it — � I 'I li o FI �II � I � yp9�A �5 kq 5y 5 36C ba _ a N i ! U i 3 YAti�i fz �o, w �4x w a z z I- 0 a px xzv F o q $gam _55— � gEs g N i ! U i 3 YAti�i fz �o, w �4x w a z z I- 0 a px xzv F o q $gam _55— -56- NC Animal Research Facility ! ( -57- if Grange County, NC GIS UNC Animal Research Facility 1 inch = 2000 feet Created on 311/2012. Orange County, North Carolina R _5g_ DETERhONRID BY STAFF 70 %TOM March 18, 2010 Orange County Planning Letter to UNC detailing new site plan approval for an expansion of the existing research facility. .�F ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning (919) 245 -2575 (919) 644 -3002 (FAX) www.co.orange.nc.us 131 West Margaret Lane P ® Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 March 18, 2010 Eugene Bobber Planning Office The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 425 Macnider Hall CB## 7000 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 RE: REVIEW of development activities at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (TMBL 6.33..12 / PIN 9728 -93 -1820) Dear Mr. Bobber: Thank you for your recent efforts to allow for a site visit by Planning staff to inspect recent construction activities associated with the development of a University operated research facility, in accordance with an approved site plan(s), at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (hereafter `the Property'). The property is approximately fifty -six (56) acres in area and is currently zoned Agricultural Residential (AR). The property is also located within the Agricultural Residential Land Use Category as defined within the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The property is heavily wooded with numerous streams flowing throughout. In reviewing our records, staff has determined the following: 1. Sometime in 2003 a discussion began amongst Planning staff and University officials over the possibility of developing a research facility on the property that included housing and breeding facilities for mice, dogs, and hogs that are utilized to support various research projects. 2. In November of 2003 a letter was issued by the Planning Department informing the University that the property could be utilized to develop a `Universities, Colleges, and Institutes' land use in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `the Ordinance') as such uses were considered a permitted use of property within the AR zoning district per Section 4.3 Table of Per initted Uses subject to .1 site plan approval in accordance with Article Fourteen - (14) Site Plan Approval Procedures of the Ordinance. 3. On October 8, 2004 a site plan application proposing the development of a University research facility on the property was submitted. 4. The aforementioned site plan was approved by staff on November 22, 2004, as detailed within a letter authored by Ms. Cara Thames, allowing for the development of the following on the property: a. 11,000 square foot rodent retention facility, b. 8,850 square foot bio -lab, c. 5,000 square foot dog kennel, d. 1,500 square foot office, e. 1,000 square foot storage facility, f. 15,000 square foot kennel and lab are to support a new `Blood Lab', g. 5 pig enclosures, and h. Parking facilities for employees The site plan.denoted the location of several `future' buildings on the property as well. 5. In 2006 staff and University officials were discussing the need for a revised site plan showing: a. The final location for all proposed, and existing, structures on the property, b. The location of the spray irrigation field areas and other septic field and repair locations, if any, c. All well locations, d. The location of all streams and flood plains on the property, e. The provision of a driveway encroachment agreement from NC DOT for the improvements to the entrance of the property, and f. The location of sediment basins and stormwater detention ponds, The revised site plan was deemed necessary as University staff had indicated that modifications were necessary to previously approved structures. In May of 2006 a site plan was submitted incorporating these items as requested by staff. According to our records the University was authorized in July of 2006 to move forward with development plans as approved by staff. During a recent inspection of the property staff observed on -going construction work on various structures consistent with the approved 2004 and 2006 . site plan(s). At this time, staff was informed that University staff was in the process of re- evaluating the location of all proposed structures, as well as their ovorall size and use, and that further modifications to the approved site plan(s) would be necessary to accommodate the University's needs on the property. ki t. 1 Planning staff understands that as programs are changed or modified there is an impact on the needs for space and their proximity to existing development on a given parcel of property. That being said any proposed modification to the location and/or size of structures on the property will require a site plan modification processed through the Orange County Planning Department in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. Staff recommends that the University complete a new site plan application form (please see attached) and submit a revised site plan, for review and approval by staff, showing the revised building locations and their size. Once this revised site plan is reviewed and approved the University can begin development activities consistent with the requirements of the Ordinance. Please note that staff will require certification that existing septic systems can support the proposed new facilities prior to. any approval issued by this Department. It should be noted that Section 6.20 of the Ordinance prohibits the location of `ground absorption systems with a design capacity of 3, 000 .gallons per day or more and package treatment plants for sanitary sewage disposal' without the submittal, review, and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Article Eight (8) or a the submittal, review, and issuance of a Planned Development (PD) rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with Article Seven (7) of the Ordinance. As of the writing of this letter, staff has not been provided any documentation from the University relating to the design capacity of the current sanitary disposal system operating on the property. With the submittal of the revised site plan, as discussed herein, we will be requiring more detail on the existing sanitary sewage disposal system currently permitted to operate on the property, specifically focusing on its design capacity. If the system exceeds established limitations, as referenced herein, fiuther permit review will be required before additional land disturbing activities are authorized. Further, while we realize that the septic facility on the property is reviewed, permitted, and inspected by the State, as are all of the buildings constructed on site, we request that our local Health Department and Building Inspections -division, if necessary, be involved to the greatest extent possible with the review, permitting, and inspection of development proposals for the property in an effort to provide comment on proposed development activities as well as to offer guidance on addressing various developmental issues. In terms of coordinating future zoning inspections to ensure compliance with approved site plan(s), the Department requests that University staff provide notice when development activities are initiated so necessary zoning compliance inspections can be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. As the facility is gated and access restricted, staff will need your assistance to ensure that we are able to verify the conforming status of all development projects consistent with all approved site plans. _62_ Staff looks forward to working with you on this matter and looks forward to reviewing the revised site plan application. You may reach staff at (919) 245 -2575 for additional assistance. Sincerel Michael D. Harvey Z Current Planning Supervisor Orange County ATTACHMENTS: Site Plan Application CC: Orange County Commissioners Frank Clifton, County Manager Craig Benedict, Planning Director Susan Mellott, Building Inspections Tom Konsler, Environmental Health John Roberts, County Attorney File rd -63- April 9, 2010 Orange County Planning Letter to UNC outlining Special Use Permit requirement. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Gurrent Planning (919) 246 -2576 (919) 644 -3002 (FAX) www,co.orange.noms DEPARTMENT 181 West Margaret Lane P 0 Box 8181 xr S� Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 . April 9, 201.0 Bob Lowman Dwayne Pinkney Associate Vice Chancellor for Research - UNC 3 Assistant to �� Chancellor UNC 31.2 South Building Campus Box 4000 Campus Box 1000. Chapel Hill, NC 27599 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 Eugene Bobber Planning Office -UNC 425 Macnider hall Campus Box 7000 Chapel Dill, NC 27599 RE: REVIEW of development activities at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (TMBL 6.33.,12 / PIN 9728 -93 -1820) To Whom It May Concern: Recently, Mr. Eugene Bobber was bind enough to permit a site inspection by Planning staff to inspect recent construction 1907 activities Chapel Clover Garde Road (hereafter `ihe Propexty') operated research facility g The purpose of the inspection was to verify that construction activity was being carried out in accordance with a Zoning Compliance Permit issued by this office based on ail approved of a site plan, originally approved in November of 2004 and modified by the University in 2006, The property is approximately fifty -size (56) acres in area and is currently zoned Agricultural Residential (AR). ed also located within the County Comprehensive Plan, The Land Use Category as defined property is heavily wooded with numerous streams flowing throughout. —64— During the aforementioned inspection, Mr. Bobber indicated that the site was being re- evaluated with respect to the location of all proposed structures, as well as their overall size and use, and that further modifications to approved site plan(s) would be necessary to accommodate the University's needs on the property. Staff was asked to provide guidance on the necessary review and approval process to accommodate these anticipated revisions. In reviewing this request, staff has determined the following: -65— 1. Sometime in 2003 a discussion began. amongst Planning staff and University officials over the possibility of developing a research facility on the property that included . housing and breeding facilities for mice, dogs, and hogs that are utilized to support various research projects 2. In November of 2003 a letter was issued 'by the Planning Department informing the University that the property could be utilized to develop a `Universities, Colleges, and Institutes' land use in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `the Ordinance'). Such uses were considered a permitted use of property within the .AR zoning district per Section 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses after the property owner /applicant demonstrates compliance with applicable provisions of the Ordinance including, but not limited to, site plan approval as detailed within Article Fourteen (14) Site Plan Approval Procedures. 3. On October 8, 2004 a site plan application proposing the development of a University research facility on the property was submitted. 4. The site plan (`Phase l') was approved by staff on November 22, 2004 allowing for the development of the following on the property: a. 1,500 square foot research office, b. 8,850 square foot research bio -lab, c. Parking facilities for employees, d. 11,000 square foot rodent reteption facility, P,, 5,000 square foot dog fennel, f. 1,000 square foot storage facility, g. 15,000 square foot kennel and-lab are to support a new `Blood Lab', and h. 5 pig enclosures The site plaza. denoted the location of several buildings on the property, above and beyond what was asked by the University for the County to approve at that time. It should be noted that there was no reference on the approved site plan denoting the overall size or capacity needs of the septic system necessary for the project nor was there any reference to the number of employees that would be working from the property. N The aforementioned letter only approved identified therein. It did not grant `blanket? plan, the construction of the various buildings approval for all buildings shown on the site INC There was an apparent understanding that as new building(s) were proposed for construction, additi6nal site plan submittal, review, and approval would be necessary. This1neludes the payment of applicable Department review fees. 5. in 2006 Planning staff and University officials were discussing the need for a revised site plan showing: a. The final location :for all proposed, and existing, structures on the property, b. The location of the spray irrigation field areas and other septic field and repair locations, if any, c. All well locations, d. The location of all streams and flood plains on the property, e. The provision of a driveway encroachment agreement from NC DOT for the improvements to the entrance of the property, and f. The location of sediment basins and stormwater detention ponds, The revised site plan (`Phase 2') was deemed necessary as University officials had indicated that modifications were necessary to previously approved structures. In May of 2006 a site plan was submitted to the County incorporating these items as requested. According to our records the University was authorized in July of 2006 to move forward with the revised development plans. As with the 2004 site plan, there was no reference to the overall size• or design capacity of the septic system on the revised site plan. 6. Planning staff has discovered that the existing wastewater disposal system on the property has a design. capacity over three thousand (3,000) gallons based on permit records on file with the Orange County Health Department, regarding the existing State permitted system. Thin may have been in response to support the anticipated development of future buildings on the property. 7. Section 6.20 of the Ordinance prohibits the location of `ground absorption systems with a design capacity of 3,000 gallons per day or more and package treatment plants for sanitary sewage disposal' without the submittal, review, and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Aitiele Eight (8) or a the submittal, review, and 'issuance of a Planned Development (PD) rezoning in accordance with Article Seven (7) of the Ordinance. 8. During the zoning site inspection, carried out on December 17, 2009, staff noticed inconsistencies with the `Phase 2'-site plan approved in 2006. In answering the University's question relating to the necessary process to review proposed modifications to the previously approved site plan(s), and based on available 3 information, staff has determined that the University will be required to submit and seek approval of a Class-A Special Use Permit Application allowing for the development of a facility requiring a ground absorption. system with a design capacity over three thousand (3,000) gallons per day. Staff is including the necessary Class A Special Use Permit application packet as well as fhe applicable provisions of the Ordinance relating to the review and approval of the project. Class A Special Use Pen-nits are reviewed by the County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board at one (1) of four (4) previously scheduled quarterly public hearings. Staff has attached a copy of the submittal deadlines associated with each of the quarterly public hearing dates. The application fee for the processing of the Special Use Permit shall be $1,560.00 in accordance with the current Orange County fee schedule. The site plan review, in order to allow staff to issue the Zoning Compliance Permit once the Special Use Permit is approved, shall be $1,000,00 plus $20.00 per one thousand (1,000) square feet of building area. Planning staff strongly recommends that University officials schedule a pre- application meeting to review the necessary submittal and review process associated with the processing of a Class A Special Use Permit application. Staff looks forward to `working with you on this matter and will be more than happy to assist with the processing of the site plan modification as well as the Class A Special Use Permit application. package. You may reach staff at (919) 245 -2575 for additional assistance. Sincere y, o MSc ac LckO Current Planning Supervisor Orange County ATTACHMENTS: (1) Class A Special Use Permit Application (2) Article Eight (8) Special Uses of the Ordinance CC: Orange County Commissioners Frank Clifton, County Manager Craig Benedict, Planning Director John Roberts, County Attorney Susan Mellott, Building 1•nspeetions Tong Konsler, Environmental Health File M _g7_ Q• (PLEASE TYPE OIL PRINT - INK ONLY) 8/88 APPLICATION FOR CLASS, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORANGE COUNTY 130A.RD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE:/ /- &PPLICATION NUMBER: PD- _ - I (We) request a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for in. Article of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance for The following information is provided in support of this request: A. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Street Address or Location: . 'lo'ck Orange County Tax Map _ -- Lot(s) Township Zoning District(s): Lot /Parcel Size: acres or square feet Number of Existing Buildings: Gross Floor Area; square feet feet Number of Proposed Buildings: _ Gross Floor Area: s. care Water Supply: public (Specify) . Community individual Wastewater Disposal: Public (Specify) Community — Individual School District: Fire District: General Land Uses in Area: Critical Areas: Stream /Drainageway Flood Prone Area Watershed (Specify) Historic Site Other (Explain) B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: Twenty -six (26) copies of a Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina surveyor or engineer, are provided as required by Article 8.8. and which, contain the following information: North point, scale, and date. Extent of area to.be developed, Locations and widths of all easements and rights -of -way within or adjacent to the site. Location of all existing and proposed structures on the site. Location of all areas on. the.site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown on flood maps or soils maps. Location of all Water courses on the site, including direction of flow. Existing topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet based oa mean sea level datum. Existing and proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking, service, and storage areas. Access to site, including sight distances on all roads used for access. (PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE) 191--oz C. OTHER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION: Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development. . Two (2) full -size copies of the applicable Orange County Tax Map, one (1) with the property in question clearly marked. The names and addresses of the property owner(s) and /ox applicant(s), and names and addresses are all persons owning property within, five hundred (500) feet of the property in question. Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Traffic-impact study as required by. Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additional information regarding the proposed Special Use as requited by Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Narrative (or letters from. appropriate agencies) indicating: 1. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the suitability of the existing and /or proposed wastewater treatment system for the property. 2. Method and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection. 3. Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. copy the I (We), the applicant(s), hereby certify that the foregoing application.-and supporting documentation is complete and accurate. I understand that it shall be my (our) responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimony, exhibits, docuraeuts, models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the Class A Special Use Kermit. APPLICANT SIGNATURE(S) I I, DATE NOT& If title to the above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant(s), please include a letter from the owner(s) signifying approval of the request. FEES: Amount $ _ Date Paid: _/ / Receipt #� -70— ARTICLE 8 - SPECIAL USES It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners to create, and from time to time amend, a list of Special Uses within Article 4 Permitted Use Table which, because of their inherent nature, extent and external effects, require special care in the control of their location and methods of operation. The Board of County Commissioners is aware of its responsibility to protect the public health, Safety and general welfare and believe that certain uses which now or in the future may be included on this list are appropriately handled as Special Uses, subject to review in relation to general and specific. requirements, rather than as uses permitted by right. In addition to the listing of such uses, the Board of County Commissioners intends that the general standards, established in Section 8.2.1, and the more specific requirements in 5.22, established below, shall be used by the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners, as appropriate, to direct deliberations upon application or the approval of Special Uses. It is the express Intent of the Board of County Commissioners to delineate the areas of concern connected with each Special Use and to provide standards by which applications for such Special Use shall be evaluated. 8.2.1 Before any application for a Special Use shall be approved: a) The applicant shall have the burden of establishing, by competent material and substantial evidence, the existence of the facts and conditions which this ordinance requires for approval; and b) The Board shall make written findings certifying compliance with the specific rules governing such Individual Special Use and that the use, which is listed as a Special Use in the district in which it is proposed to be located, complies with ail required regulations and standards including the following general conditions: Amended 1 /al90 (1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; (2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property); 8_1 _71 Amended 8/3195 (3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners; and including all applicable provisions of Articles 4, 5, 0, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of this Ordinance, unless. greater or different regulations are contained in the Individual standards for the specific Special Use. The applicant shall have the burden of establishing by competent material and substantial evidence in the form of tbstimony, exhibits, documents, models, plans and the like that the application meets the requirements for approval of a Special Use. Amended a/s/95 Where the Hoard finds compliance with-the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards the application must be approved unless the Board shall also find, in some specific manner, that, Amended 1/8190, 8/3195 The use will not maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; Those opposing approval of the application on the grounds that the use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare shall have the burden of establishing, by competent material and substantial evidence, the burden specific manner in which the proposed use does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application for a Special Use. Amended 613196 The Special Use Permit shall include a statement that if any condition of a Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then the permit itself shall be void and of no effect. In addition to the general standards stated in 8.2 the following specific standards shall be addressed by the applicant before the issuance of a Special Use Permit: a) Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste, and water. b) Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection. c) Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. d) Other use specific standards are set forth in Section 8.8. 8 -2 _72_ 8.2.6 Amended shall be stated in the Special Use permit that the Permit shall automatically 613196 It months of the date of approval'if the use has not expire within twelve ('12) proceeded unless a commenced or construction has not commenced or p roved by the Board of timely application for extension provided this time n limit oftfihe grange County Zoning . County Commissioners asp av Iordinance• fa'shmenf of Glasses of S ecial Uses' puthari To A rove or bl ' Disapprove There is hereby, established two classes of Special Uses which shall be [' approved or disapproved as shown: Glass A - Approved or disapproved by Board of Commissioners Class B - Approved or disapproved by Board of Adjustment Ilcations For s.4 I" Procedure ar tr� Subissiork and Consideration of .A A raval of S ` ecial Uses 8.4.'1 Pro -A li'caflon Gonference Amended B14186 rescrlbed in Article 8.4.2, 12I1o1o2 application being received asp with the 514108 a) Prior to the app ,,,_application meeting the applicant must request a pre�app Orange County Planning Department, t� of the developme� illustrating ot the location, size and major design elements days prior to the Pre site must be submitted dive (b) request that app lication meeting. The Planning Dees be present at he pre representatives of other public ag application meeting. These' gen,ies may include, but not be ty. Planning Board, the Orahge Coun limited to, the Orange County Department, artmenfi the grange County Health - Recreation Dep , el Hill, Carrboro, HiNsborough, and the municipalities of Chap portation, and artpnt of Trans Durham, the North Carolina Dep m ()range Water and Sewpr Authority. ' ATPM). In b) Annual Telecommunications projection s a shall ho Meeting of all carriers January of each year the County shalt hold ati ns the previous year and tower companies who have filed app an application to or anyone who has expressed an inter�e0 derlto develop plan for construct a facility within the County p c 't de loyment. within the County that provides sidents, while fa it ty p ,average based on the needs of the County an and the minimizing the number and intrusiveness shall notify of party of most efficlent facility site use, The County . the date, time and place of the meeting adlater ss of thirty Y (nd days prior to the meeting at the last known 8-•3 _73_ attendance shall be expected from all parties desiring to locate wireless telecommunication facilities within the County during the year. Attendance at the ATPM is mandatory. 1) Prior to the acceptance of any applications for Telecommunications Wireless Support Structures, a plan indicating proposed search rings shall be submitted to the Zoning Officer on or before- December 31St of each year. The purpose of the ATPM is to allow for a complete review of collocation opportunities and address doverage issues. After all site plans or search area plans are received, the Planning Department Staff shall schedule an ATPM during the month of January with the providers. New applications for Class A Special Use Permits for telecommunications wireless support structures will be reviewed twice,per year at the County Commissioners' May and November Public Hearings. New applications for Class B Special Use Permits for telecommunications wireless support structures will be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with the published Board of Adjustment meeting schedule. No application will be considered unless the proposed site was identified on either the site plan or the search ring plan shown at the ATPM. 2) Formal applications for the May and November. Public Hearings by the County Commissioners, and meetings of the Board of Adjustment, shall be submitted in aocordance with the published yearly calendar of meetings schedule. 3) Exceptions to the ATPM requirement as it applies to a particular site may be allowed in the case of unforeseen events as defined in Section 6.18 provided the applicant shall submit documentation for review by the Orange County Development Advisory Committee (DAC) that such a waiver is necessary. The DAC shall make a determination on the Waiver request and notify the applicant within a reasonable time period. 4) As of the effective date of this Ordinance amendment, any pending applications that have not received a zoning compliance permit or a special use permit shall meet all requirements of this Ordinance, including, but ,not limited to submission - deadlines, application standards and processing, excluding the ATPM requirement. 8.4.2 .Application Submitted to Zoning Officer Application for approval of Special Uses shall be filed with the Zoning Officer, who shall, before accepting any application, ensure that it contains all required information, as specified elsewhere in this Article. 8•-4 -74— Applications which are not complete, or otherwise do not comply with the provisions of this Article, shall not be accepted by the Zoning Officer, but shall be returned forthwith to the.applicant, with a notation by the Zoning Officer of the deficiencies in the application. 5.4.3 zoning Officer Prepares Analysis and Pacornmendaflgn Amended 8/4/86 3/14/00 The Zoning officer shall cause an analysis to be made of the application by qualified representatives of the County and such other agencies or officials as appear appropriate in tho Comprehensive Flan, zoning, subdivision, soil erosion and sedimentation, and health regulations, and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by, in the case of Class A Special Uses, the planning Board and Board of County Commissioners and, in the case of Class B Special Uses, the Board of Adjustment. 5.4,4 Recommendafion Subrnitled To Planning Board or Board o A.diustment Amended 8 /4 /80 3/14/00 The Zoning Officer shall submit the analysis and recommendation to the Planning Board, in the case of Class A Special Uses, or the Board of Adjustment, in the case of Class B Special Uses. 8.4.5 Public Hearing Required; Nlotice Specified Amended 1/3/84 Prior to consideration of the application for approval of a Special Use, a public hearing thereon shall bye held by either the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Adjustment, as appropriate for the classification of the Special Use involved. The Zoning Officer shall give public notice of the date, time and place of the public hearing to be held to receive comments, testimony and exhibits pertaining to the application for approval of a Special Use. Such notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Orange County once a week for two successive weeks, with the first notice to be published not less than ten (1 g) days nor more than twenty -five (25) days prior to the date of the hearing. in computing the notice period, the day of publication is not to be included, but the day of the hearing is to be included, The Zoning Office shall post on the applicant's affected property a notice of the public hearing at least ten days prior to the date of said hearing. Written notice shall be sent by certified mail to all adjacent property owners not less than fifteen days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose property lies within five hundred feet of the affected property and whose names and addresses are currently listed in the Orange County tax records. s -6 i ( —?5r- $,q,0 Planning Board &G lon On Class A Special Uses Amended 8/4186 3/14/00 The Planning Board shall prepare and submit for the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of the application. The Board of County Commissioners may direct the Planning Board to provide a recommendation by a date certain. If the Board of County Commissioners does not so direct, the Planning Board shall make its recommendation within three regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings. if the Planning Board fails to make a recommendation as directed by the Board of County Commissioners or within three regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings, whichever is applicable, the application shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners without a Planning Board recommendation. 8.4.7 Action 'On The Application. Amended 613196. After completion of the public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Adjustment, as appropriate, shall take action upon the application. This action shall be one of the following: a) Approval; b) Approval with conditions attached; c) Denial. 8.4;8 imposed Conditlons - The Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Adjustment, as appropriate; may imposo such reasonable conditions upon approval of a Special Ilse as will afford protection of the public health, safety and general welfare, ensure that substantial justice is done and equitable treatment provided. Such conditions shall run with the land and use, and shall be binding on the original applicant(s) as well as all successors, assigns and heirs. g,4,g Withdrawal of Application Amended 1014/82- An applicant may withdraw their application at any time by written notice to the County Manager. However, any withdrawal of an application after the printing of the first notice as required in 8.4.4 shall have the same effect as a denial of the petition. 8.4.10 r=ffeat 6f Deniall on Subseguent Petitions Amended 10/4/82 When the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Adjustment, as appropriate, shall have denied an application, tha Board of County Commissioners or Board. of Adjustment shall not receive another application for the same or similar petition affecting the same property or .a portion thereof until the expiration of a one year period, extending from the date of denial, :. -76— 8.4.11 Time Lirnifs on Special Uses Amended 1or11sl Construction of Special Uses must start and proceed within twelve (12) months of the approval of the Special Use Permit. if no oonstructlon has started. within the stated time frame, the Special Use Permit becomes null and of no effect. If a request is received before the permit expires, the Board of County Commissioners, for good cause shown, may extend the expiration deadline six (6) months upon the favorable recommendation of the Planning Board. No changes shall be made to the conditions of approval. Only one such approval of the time extension is permitted, and it shall be based on evidence presented by the applicant showing that permits have been pursued in a timely manner, and that delays have resulted from factors beyond the control of the developer. For developments which require approval of a Special Use Permit, the applicant may request that the Special Use Permit bo vested as a Site Specific Developmdht Plan for a period of not less'than two (2) nor more than five (5) years. For vesting purposes, Site Plans and Preliminary Plats may also be approved as a Special Use Permit at the request of the applicant. Additional application information is required, as specified in Article 8.8..27. 8,5 Action Subsecluanf to the Board Action Amended 3/14100 The Zoning Officer shall cause notice of the disposition of the application to be sent by certified mail to the applicant and a copy of the decision to be filed in the office of the Zoning Officer. The Zoning Officer, in the casee of approval or approval with conditions, shall issue the necessary permit in accord with the Board's action. The Orange County Manager shall certify that the Special Use Permit with any imposed conditions is as approved by the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Adjustment, as appropriate. 8:6 Gontents of Application for Approval of a Special Use Amended 716/82 The application for approval of a Special Use shall be submitted on forms } provided by the Zoning Officer. Such forms shall be prepared so that when completed a full and accurate description of the proposed.use, including Its location, appearance, and operational characteristics shall be disclosed. Additionally, the forms shall, when completed by the applicant, disclose the name(s) and address(es) of the owner(s) of the property involved, and all relevant information needed to show compliance with the general and specific standards governing the Special Use'which is the subject of the application. (See Section 8.2) ` RM _77 1 8.7 Minor Ghancles To Be Approved By Zoninci Officer; Modifications; Require Action By Approving Board The Zoning Officer is authorized to approve minor changes in 'the approved plans of Special Uses, as long as-they are in harmony with action of the approving Board, but shall not have the power to approve changes that constitute a modification of the approval, A modification shall require approval of the Board having jurisdiction. Criteria To Be Used in Determination *Amended 7/03 a) Any change in a condition imposed during the approval of a special use permit shall constitute a modification. 1 b) Any change in use or enlargement of existing use shall constitute a f modification. c} Any increase in intensity of use shall constitute a modification. An increase in intensity of use shall be considered to be an increase in usable floor area, an increase in the number of dwelling or lodging units. d) Structural alterations which,significantiy affects the basic size, form, style, ornamentation, and /or character of the building as shown on the approved site plan or described in the applicants narrative shall be considered a modification. e) Substantial change in the amount and /or location of open space, recreation facilities or landscape screening shall 'constitute a a modification. . f) Any increase in the size or number'of approved signs shall constitute a modification. g) Any change in parking areas resulting in an increase or reduction of five percent or more id the number of spaces approved shall constitute a modification. h) Substantial changes in pedestrian and/or vehicular access or j ` circulation shall constitute a modification. 1) Any change in a setback required by the provisions of this Ordinance or imposed as a condition of approval shall constitute a modification. j) Any change in the location or extent of street and utility improvements or rights -of -way, including water, sewer and storm drainage facilities, which would provide a different level of service shall constitute a modification: $_9 IIII ft 7. IL *8.7.2 Review of Record Required *Amended 715/83 The Zoning Officer shall, before making a determination as to whether a proposed action is a minor change or a modification, review the record of the proceedings on the original application for approval of the Special Use. The determination shall be based upon the request of the applicant, the review of the record of the approval of the original request and the Zoning Officers findings under the criteria of Section 8.7.1. *8.7.3 Aotiort Rdguired on }proposed Minor Changes or Modifications Amended 7/5183 The Zoning Officer shall, if it is determined that the proposed action is a minor change, state the findings 1h writing to the applicant. The applicant shall file with the Zoning Officer an amended site plan, or written statement, outlining in detail the minor change(s) proposed. The Zoning Officer shall file the amended site plan or written statement with the approved site plan. If it is determined that the proposed action is a modification, the Zoning Officer shall reggire the applicant to•submit a request for modification of the approved special use permit. The applicant shall provide an amended site plan and written narrative outlining the specific changes requested. The Zoning Officer shall submit the request to the Board which approved the original application. The Board shall set a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the modification request. Any public hearing called pursuant to a modification of an approved special use permit shall be held in conformity with the requirements of Section 8.4.4. The Board may approve, approve with conditions or disapproved the application for a modification.. The Zoning Officer shall file the Board's action in his off=ice as an amendment request to the original application. ::. W -M _79_ *Ow8 Regulations governing Individual Special Uses *Amended 1'1/21/$9 10/7191 9/16103 The regulations for each Class A and Class B Special Use, are divided generally into two sections: the first consists of additional and specific components of the application beyond those necessary to comply with Section 8.6, while the•second consists of the specific standards- which are supplementary to the general standards in Section 8.2 and to the required conditions in Subsection 0.4.7. The following .additional information is required for all Special Use Applications: a) For Class A Special Uses twenty "six (26) copies of the Site Plan, and for Class B Special Uses ten (10) copies of the Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina land surveyor, landscape architect, architect, or engineer, which shall contain the information listed in Article 14.2.2. Where the application involves a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, twenty -six (26) copies of the Plat prepared in accordance with Section V of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations shall be provided. b) Elevations of all proposed structures to be used in the development. c) For Class A Special Uses twenty-six (26) copies and for Class B Special Uses ten (10) copies of the Environmental Assessment and /or Environmental Impact Statement, if required by the Orange County Environmental impact ordinance. •d) A fee, as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. e) Method of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris associated with the permitted activity, which shall be by some method other than open burning. ' *8.8J Extraction of Earth Products (Class A Special_ Ilse) 'Amended 4/1/85 Additional Information ; *Amended 7/61$3 in addition to the information required by Subsection 8.2, the following shall be submitted as part of the application. a) Twenty -six copies of the site plan, prepared by a North Carolina registered land surveyor or engineer, which shall contain the following: 1) Extent of area to be, excavated or mined,- 2) Aerial photograph of site and all areas,within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of the property flown within two (2) months of the application for a Special Use Permit. 8.9 :1 For purposes of this ordinance, steady -state vibrations are v.'brations which are continuous, or vibrations in discrete-impulses more frequent than sixty (60) per minute. Discrete impulses which do not exceed sixty (60) per minute, shall: be Considered impact vibrations. b) The Rehabilitation Plan shall be referred to the orange county soil and Water Con6ervation District for review and recommendation, in particular regarding the landscape material specified, the planting and maintenance proposed. to .dasure ao'nt•S:riwou•s ,.anal. -the acceptability of the proposals for the handling of lakes, ponds, etc. c) The permanent roads, defined as those to be used in excess of one year, within the fill site shall be surfaced with a dust free material, such as soil cement, bituminous concrete or Portland Cement concrete. d) Roads other than permanent roads shall be treated with dust inhibitors, to be,specified in the operations Plan, which will reduce to a minimum the generation of dust from the road surfaces as a result of wind or vehicular action. Properly operated water wagons.are an acceptable means of dust inhibition. e) Where the proposad fill shall take place within 300 feet of.,a ,dwelling, school, church, hospital, commercial or industrial building, public building, or public land, a- security fence at least six feet high shall be installed. f) The Operations Plan and the Rehabilitation Flan shall be coordinated so that the amount of disturbed land is kept to the absolute minimum consonant with good practices and so that rehabilitation proceeds in concert with filling. *8.8.3 Public Utility Stations and Substations,, including electric substations., metering, and switching stations receiving more *Amended than 1.00 kilovolts kkv) -of electricity, Water Treat'rnent, 1--- 3--•89 Sewage Treatment Planter Telephone Exchanges Class A Special Use). 8.8.3.1 Additional information r la addition to the information required by Subsections 8.2 and 8.8, the following shall be' submitted as part of the applications a) A Site Ulan showing all existing or proposed buildings, storage areas, parking and access areas, topography at a contour interval of five feet, any officially designated floodplains or alluvial soils. b) Plans and elevations for all proposed structures and descriptions of the color and nature of all exterior materials. c) Landscape Plan, at the same scale as the site plan showing existing and proposed trees, shrubs, ground cover and other landscape material.. 8.8.3.2 Standards of Evaluation The following standards shall be used in deciding upon an application for approval of these Special Uses: IRM a) Where a building is involved and it is *proposed to -be located . in a residentially zoned district, it shall have the appearance $Ultabl,e.fox a residential district, or it shall be screened from adjacent residential land. b) Where buildings are set back from road rights -of -way or-from private property lines by a distance of 200' screening will not be'required. c) All outside storage areas are fenced and screened from adjacent residentially developed areas. d) The site•is of adequate size for the sewage disposal system proposed and for the proposed use. In addition to the information required by Subsection 8.2 ,and S.s the following shall be submitted as part of the application: a) A description of-the type of persons to be cared for and- the nature of the cart to.be provided. b) If structural alterations to existing structures or new construction. is required, a complete- description of the nature and extent of these alterations or new construction. 8.8.4.2 Standards o�E Evaluation r The following standards shall be used in deciding an ` application for approval of this use: a) The proposed use is not within 500 feet of another existing Family Cara Facility or Group Care Facility. b) Structural alterations shall be of such.a nature as to preserve the residential character of the building. c) Tf a state License or permit is required to operate such a facility, the standards necessary to qualify for such a. permit have been met. 8 --1.3' Grouts Care Facility Class B Special Use 8.8.4.1 Addi "tional Information In addition to the information required by Subsection 8.2 ,and S.s the following shall be submitted as part of the application: a) A description of-the type of persons to be cared for and- the nature of the cart to.be provided. b) If structural alterations to existing structures or new construction. is required, a complete- description of the nature and extent of these alterations or new construction. 8.8.4.2 Standards o�E Evaluation r The following standards shall be used in deciding an ` application for approval of this use: a) The proposed use is not within 500 feet of another existing Family Cara Facility or Group Care Facility. b) Structural alterations shall be of such.a nature as to preserve the residential character of the building. c) Tf a state License or permit is required to operate such a facility, the standards necessary to qualify for such a. permit have been met. 8 --1.3' May 28, 2010 UNC Letter to Craig Benedict (Planning Director) concerning site plan review. li ;L THE UNLVERSIT"Y of NORT14 CAROLINA at 01-IAP13L HILL VICE CHANCELLOR POR RESEARCH AND ECONOAIIC DEVELOPMENT OPPICE OP THE ASSOCIATE VICE CHANCELLOR POIl RESEARCH 301 BYNUM HALL T 919 - 962 -0656 CAMPUS BOX 4100 P 919- 962 -6769 CHAPEL HILL, NC 27599 -4100 May 28, 2010 Mr. Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 131 West Margaret Lane P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 28278 Re: The University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill Bingham Facility 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (TMBL 6.33.12/PIN 9728 -93 -1820 Dear Mr. Benedict: On behalf of the University, I want to thank you and Michael Harvey for meeting with UNC staff members Bruce Runberg, Anna Wu and Wendy Hillis on April 29, 2010, to discuss our expansion plans for the Bingham Facility.. We especially appreciate the time and effort that went into the Orange County Planning Department's guidance for navigating the site plan approval process that was provided in the April 9, 2010, letter from Mr. Harvey. Part of that letter was a review of past events related to prior approvals for the Bingham Facility. While for the most part the letter was accurate in its history, we offer the following clarifications for the record. 1. In the approval received from the Orange County Planning Department on November 22, 2004, for expansion to the UNC Research Resources Facility, Mr. Harvey's letter noted that (5) pig enclosures were included but did not mention the square footage for those enclosures. The approval was for 4,800 square feet for each of these enclosures, for a total of 24,000 square feet. 2. While Mr. Harvey's letter states that there was no reference on the 2004 approved site plan to the number of employees that would be working from the property, we would like to note that -the Site Data provided with the University's application stated that there would be 30 employees on site at build -out. 3. Mr. Harvey's letter also states that there was no reference on either the 2004 approved site plan or the revised site plan approved by the county July 21, 2006, "denoting the overall size or capacity needs" of the wastewater treatment system necessary for the site. After reviewing the documents, we would clarify that application materials for the 2004 approved site plan show the existing wastewater alam Us c� treatment system and spray fields on Sheet L600. The revised site plan also shows the proposed wastewater treatment system and spray fields and was approved by the county in 2006 without any questions being raised by Orange County staff at the time regarding its overall size or design capacity. We acknowledge that the permit requirements for the wastewater treatment facility remain to be resolved. As previously discussed, we will contact your office to review these requirements when we have confirmed our plans for the new facility. My team and I are in the midst of a thorough re- examination of the Bingham Facility that will result in the design and construction of an even stronger, more sustainable project than originally envisioned. The University has hired McKim & Creed, a nationally recognized engineering and design farm that specializes in sustainable design, to develop a reliable, total water management strategy for the site that is both sustainable and environmentally sound. This system will be designed to treat wastewater to the level of reclaimed water, thus alleviating any concerns about possible contamination of the site, groundwater and nearby creels. This new wastewater treatment system is a key component of a much- needed expansion of the facility that is being partially funded by a $14.5 million grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This investment is an impressive endorsement of the quality of the University's genetic research on hemophilia, muscular dystrophy and cardiovascular disease. The expansion supports the University's research mission by allowing us to consolidate two remote and crowded facilities in one new and more spacious location designed especially for large animal research. We look forward to working with your department on this project. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Robert P. Lowman, Ph.D. Associate Vice Chancellor for Research University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill October 28, 2010 UNC Letter to Craig Benedict concerning Special Use Permit requirement. October 28, 2010 UNIVERSITY ARCHITECT AND DIRECTOR FACILITIES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 103 AIRPORT DRIVE CAMPUS BOX 1090 CHAPEL HILL, NC 275991090 Mr. Craig Benedict, AICP, Director Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 131 West Margaret Lane P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 28278 Dear Mr, Benedict: TEL: 919 - 966.1571 FAX 919- 962.9103 www.fpc.unc.edu annaw8facxmedu I am writing to follow -up on our meeting of October 8, 2010 concerning future plans for the Bingham Facility. As you know, the University has declined the NIH award that would have provided funds for expansion of the_facility. Our current plan, as we discussed with you, is to repair and renovate the older buildings and some of the infrastructure, but we will not be constructing any new facilities or expanding any of the existing ones. As we noted in our meeting, the wastewater system will not support any expansion of the existing facilities. As soon as it is available, we will provide to the Orange County Planning Department an updated and corrected site plan for administrative review and approval. A letter dated April 9, 2010 suggested that the University should seek to obtain a Class A Special Use Permit (SUP) for the wastewater system serving the Bingham Facility. We believe the University is exempt from that requirement for the following reasons: a. The Bingham Facility has been in continuous existence since 1971, before the effective date of the County's Zoning Ordinance and before the requirement to obtain an SUP for a wastewater system treating more than 3000 gallons per day. Therefore by default, this use is already permitted. b. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has statutory authority to regulate this type of wastewater treatment system and is requiring the University to upgrade the system to meet DENR regulations found in Title 15A, subchapter 2T of the North Carolina Administrative Code. The statutory authority and the accompanying state regulations pre -empt the County's ability to regulate this use. c. North Carolina General Statute section 153 -347 subjects state buildings to regulation by a• county's zoning ordinance. A wastewater system consisting of underground piping is not a building and thus cannot be regulated by the County. For these reasons the University does not believe it must seek an SUP for the wastewater system. We will of course provide you with copies of our plans for the system as well as our application to DENR. We appreciate the courtesy you have extended to us and your willingness to work with us. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, 4 t4 A V/ Anna A. Wu, FAIA c: Robert P. Lowman Masaya Konishi Bruce Runberg _gq,_ _g5_ November 16, 2010 Orange County Planning Letter to UNC revising finding concerning Special Use Permit requirement. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNINT& INSPECTIONS Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning (919) 245 -2575 (919) 644 -3002 (FAX) www.co.orange,ne.us DEPARTMENT 131 Vilest Margaret Lane P O Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 M :is�r November 16, 2010 Bob Lowman. Associate Vice Chancellor for Research , UNC Dwayne Pinlcney Assistant to the Chancellor - UNC 312 South Building . 303 South Building Campus Box 4000 Campus Box 1000 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 Eugene Bobber Anna Wu Planning Office UNC Facilities Planning Department 425 Macnider Hall 103 Airport Drive Campus Box 7000 Campus Box 1090 Chapel bill, NC 27599 Chapel Hill, NC 275991090 RE: CONTINUED review of development activities at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (TMBL 6.31.12 / PIN 9728 -93-1820) 1. Special Use Permit Issues II, Site Plan Modification To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for your recent submittal of a formal response to our April 9, 2010 letter concerning permitting requirements associated with the continued operation of a University research facility located at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (hereafter `the property'). The property is approximately fifty -six (56) acres in area and is currently zoned Agricultural Residential (AR), The property is also located within the Agricultural Residential Land Use Category as defined within the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The property is wooded in areas with some open fields including a few streams. W:1C I. SPECIAL USE PERMIT ISSUES: Your letter addresses staff s determination, as referenced within our aforementioned letter, that the existing facility would require a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') to allow for the approval and installation of a proposed septic system for the facility. We understand that the presently installed system, now taken out of service from a ground absorption standpoint, is over 3,000 gallons per day. As you may recall the County has a provision within the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `the Ordinance') mandating that development projects requiring a septic system with a design /processing capacity of over 3,000 gallons a day of ground absorption are required to obtain a SUP. Staff had determined that the existing and proposed septic system exceeded the established `threshold' requirements and, as a result, a SUP was required to allow for the facility to operate with the revised system. In rendering our decision, based on the information we had on hand at the time, staff further determined -that the property should have gone through the SUP review and approval process back in early 2000 with the review and approval of the last site plan modification request. However in reviewing your response, dated October 28, 2010, planning staff, the Planning Director, and the`County'Attbrney's office has determined the following with respect to your contention that a SUP is not required to allow for the continued operations- of the existing facility: 1. NCGS 153A.- 347..limits the applicability of the imposition of zoning regulation(s) by counties to the: `erection, construction, and use of buildings' owned by the State. 2. The prroposed wastewater project does not involve the `erection, construction, and use of buildings' on the property. It involves the installation, and upgrading, of a septic system in accordance with-the requirements associated with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. For our records, please accept this letter as a formal request for a copy and all relevant information associated with this State permit. 3. Existing. case law. does not support the conclusion that a wastewater treatment facility is a `building' and as such is not regulated by the County's zoning ordinances. While staff continues to maintain that we are not seeking to regulate the proposed septic system through a zoning dj)prdval process, and We reserve the right to continue monitoring the L= of the existing facility in order to evaluate its compliance with existing development regulations, through this letter we hereby modify our original determination and fnld that a SUP is not required to allow for the installation/modification of the septic system on the property as currently proposed by the University. . Please note that all required State and local permits and inspections will be required to allow for the septic system to be modified. We encourage you to remain in contact and coordinate efforts with the Orange County Health Department and Building Inspections Department to ensure that applicable permitting and inspection requirements are adhered to. For more information, please contact the Health Department at (919) 245 -2360 and the Building Inspections Department at (919) 245.2600. II. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION: Further, through this letter. staff is informing you-that the University. will be required to submit a revised site plan proposing a site plan modification in accordance with the provisions of Article Fourteen (14). The submittal of this site plan is considered to be an administrative review and will be handled by members of the Department. This site plan modificatiofi will need to show the location of all existing, and proposed, structures for the property as well as the location of the aforementioned septic system. The University will also be required to pay the required site plan review fee of $1,000.00 as denoted on our current adopted fee schedule for the review and approval of the site plan modification request. Please find attached to this document a "copy of the site plan application that will need to be completed as part of this submittal. Staff looks forward to working with you on this matter and will assist with the processing of the site plan modification application package. You may reach staff at (919) 245 -2575 for additional assistance.— Sincerely, Micha 1 D. Harve FM, CZO Current Plant -.ng Supervisor Planner III Orange County A'T'TACHMENTS: 1. UNC Response to County April 9, 2010 letter 2. Site Plan Application CC: Orange County Commissioners Frank Clifton; County Manager Craig Benedict, Planning Director John Roberts, County Attorney Sahana Ayer, Staff Attorney Susan Mellott, Building Inspections Tom Konsler,*Environm6nial Health File m UNIVERSITY PLANNING T AND D PENT OR t f F5 S F d E, 111 YJ, 103 AI RPOR1' ARI VE TEL-919-9664571 EAXI 919.962.9103 � CANIPU5 BOX 1090 CHAPEL HILL, NC 71599 -7090 w.fpc.unc,edu anna w@fac.une,edu October 28, 2010 Mr. Craig Benedict, AICP, Director. Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 131 West Margaret Lane P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 28278 Dear Mr. Benedict: I am writing to follow -up on our meeting of October 8, 2010 concerning future plans for the Bingham Facility. As you know, the University has declined the NIH award that would have provided funds for expansion of the facility. Our - current plan, as we discussed with you, is to repair and renovate the older buildings and some of the infrastructure, but we will not be constructing any new facilities or expanding any of the existing ones. As we noted in our meeting, the wastewater system will not support any expansion of the existing facilities. As soon as it is available, we will provide to the Orange County Planning Department an updated and corrected site plan for administrative review and approval. A letter dated April 9, 2010 suggested that the University should seek to obtain a Class A Special Use Permit (SUP) for the wastewater system serving the Bingham Facitity. We believe the University is exempt from that requirement for the following reasons: a. The Bingham Facility lhas beewin'confinuous existence since 1971, before the effective date of the County's Zoning Ordinance and before the requirement to obtain an SUP for a wastewater system treating more than 3000 gallons per day. Therefore by default, this use is already permitted. b. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has statutory authority'to regulate this type of wastewater treatment system and is requiring the University to upgrade the system to meet DENR regulations found in Title 15A, subchapter 2T of the North Carolina Administrative Code. The statutory authority and the accompanying state regulations pre -empt the County's ability to regulate this use. c. North Carolina General Statute section 153 -317 subjects state buildings to regulation by a county's zoning ordinance. A wastewater system consisting of underground piping is not a building and thus cannot be regulated by the County. For these reasons the University does not believe it must seek an SUP for the wastewater system. We will of course provide you with copies of our plans for the system as well as our application to DENR. We appreciate the courtesy you have extended to us and your willingness to work with us. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, 1 4 A Anna A. Wu, FAIA c: Robert P, Lowman Masaya IConishi Bruce Runberg f%j: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROJECT NAME: DATE: LOCATION.' OWNER/ DEVELOPER: ADDRESS: PHONE: AGENT /CONTACT: ----------------------- - - - - -- -- PHONE: A. SUMMARY INFORMATION Orange County Tax Map -- - - - - -- Block -- - - - - -- Lot(s) --- - - - - -- Twp. --------------,......-------------- Zoning District(s): On site --------------------- - - - - -- and Adjacent -------------------------------- Total Acreage: ------------------------ --------------- - - --- Phases ------------------------------- Number /Type of Structures: ( existing) ------------------------------------------- -- ------- ---- - - - - -- (proposed) ------- — ------------ -- ---------------- ._._.........--- --------------- Water Supply: ---------- - - - - -- Public ----------- - - - - -- Community ------------------ Individual FireDistrict ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AdjacentLand Uses --- ------------------ -- ------------------------------------------ — ------------- Critical Areas: ----------- _... -------------------------------------------- - - - Streams /drainageways: -----------=---- ---------------- - - - - -- - flood prone areas: ------------------------ --------- slopes: - - - - - -- ------ ----------------- - - - - -- watershed , ------------------- -------------------- historic sites, - ----------------------------- - - - - -- natural areas, other ---------- ---- --- ._ ._... ----------------------- B. All site plans must.be prepared by a registered engineer, landscape architect, or land surveyor (see "Approval Procedures" for exception). Drawings shall be at a scale adequate to show required detail (generally not more than 1 " =50') and shall contain the following information: check co m /eted items, Shaded areas are for office use only. a. The boundary of the lot(s) to be developed with bearings, and distances; b, The name, address, and phone number of the applicant and the property owner; c. Name of project, vicinity map, north arrow, scale, tax map reference number, date of plan preparation, and subsequent revision dates; d. Zoning of the property to be developed and all adjacent zoning and existing adjacent land uses; _92_ numbers; I proposed floor area, minimum and proposed open space, and ea (Refer to Article 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance); required stream buffers in PW 1€ and WQCA (Article 6.23 and elopment in trips per day (if it exceeds 800 trips per day, submit a 3). d by Article 5 and 6 of the Zoning Ordinance; panying easements and storm drainage facilities/ easements; fields, wells, fire hydrants, Irrigation, and security lights,) )sed'streets and access drives, off street parking and loading to and entry/exit points of adjacent parcels; panying easements and storm drainage facilities /easements; fields, wells, fire hydrants, Irrigation, and security lights.) cordance with Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance; th Article 1 Z.3 of the Zoning Ord €nance; ontours (solid) at 5 -foot intervals with to -foot contours bold, may be required. f the grading plan; odway and floodplain' boundaries; and to be phased. an e. Adjacent right -of way widths with road names a f. Total gross land area of the parcel, maximum an minimum and proposed pedestrian/ landscape ar g, maximum and proposed impervious surface and 6,24); h. Estimated traffic generated by the proposed dev traffic. €mpact study in accordance with Article 1 i. Front, side and rear building setbacks as require j. Overhead and underground utilities with accom (including septic tanks and wastewater disposal k. Vehicular use areas including existing and prop comply with Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, I. Overhead and underground utilities with accom (including septic tanks and wastewater disposal m. Solid waste disposal facilities; n. All free- standing and wall- mounted signs in ac o. A landscape plan demonstrating compliance w€ p. Existing contour lines (dashed) and proposed c Where site conditions warrant, 2 -foot contours q, Retaining walls, tree wells, or rip rap as part o r. Streams, ponds, drainage ditches, swamps, flo s. Phase lines and numbers if the development is _92_ numbers; I proposed floor area, minimum and proposed open space, and ea (Refer to Article 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance); required stream buffers in PW 1€ and WQCA (Article 6.23 and elopment in trips per day (if it exceeds 800 trips per day, submit a 3). d by Article 5 and 6 of the Zoning Ordinance; panying easements and storm drainage facilities/ easements; fields, wells, fire hydrants, Irrigation, and security lights,) )sed'streets and access drives, off street parking and loading to and entry/exit points of adjacent parcels; panying easements and storm drainage facilities /easements; fields, wells, fire hydrants, Irrigation, and security lights.) cordance with Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance; th Article 1 Z.3 of the Zoning Ord €nance; ontours (solid) at 5 -foot intervals with to -foot contours bold, may be required. f the grading plan; odway and floodplain' boundaries; and to be phased. _gg_ Additional information may be required based on site location and type of development proposed. C. ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. A minimum of three (3) copies of the site plan. Additional copies may be required based on the nature and location of development. 2. One full size copy of an Orange County tax map with subject parcel(s) identified. 3. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, which assure completion and /or maintenance of improvements required by Orange County. Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, association documents, articles of Incorporated, and restrictive covenants. If necessary, these documents may be required as evidence that ordinance requirements are being met. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. Applicant's Signature (Date) Owner's Signature (Date) -94— *Amended ARTICLE XIV. SITE PLAN APPROVAL 11/21!89 14.1 INTENT To establish a set of standards for site plan applications. AP LIGABILITY As required by Article 21.4 of this Ordinance, a zoning compliance permit must be issued before any new site development, building, structure, or vehicular use area may be erected, constructed or used. Site plan approval is required for a zoning compliance permit with the following exceptions: (a) Single - family detached dwellings and duplexes, and accessory structures to those residential *Amended 4 -2- uses; provided, however, when such uses are located in the University Lake Watershed 90 (ULW) District, site plan approval shall be required. (b) Temporary uses which do not exceed thirty (30) days in duration; and (c) Interior renovation or repair of an existing structure, provided the use of the lot and /or structure has not changed. 14.2 APPLICATION RE=QUIREMENTS *14,2,1 PROFESSIONAL DESIGN ANE) CERTIPIGA'IION *Amended Each site plan shall be prepared by a registered engineer, landscape architect, architect, or land in cases, design and certification of the plan may not be B-6-91 surveyor; however, some professional required. These exceptions include, but are not limited to the following: a. hs additions existing at residential structures Of the floor area isnot increased more than the structure and lot has not hngedand twenty -five percent (25 %); and b. �aretnottmore than o vehicular to use areas not extended and changes existing grade foot in elevation. C. Single - family detached dwellings and duplexes, and accessory structures to such uses *Amended when located in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) 4 -2 -90 d. Large day care homes, as defined in Article 22, Definitions. *Amended Rural Guest Establishments with three (3) guestrooms or less -Bed &Breakfasts. $_5_91 e. *Amended Any and all projects proposing the development of property located within the Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District shall be required, regardless of the proposed land use, to submit a site plan 11119/01 prepared by a registered engineer, landscape architect, or land surveyor in accordance with the provisions herein. *14.2.2 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS *Amended The applicant shall submit to the Planning and Inspections Department: 9 -4 -90 E'= (a) Three (3) copies of the site plan prepared according to Article 14.2.1 and 14,2.3 (additional copies may be required depending on the nature and location of the proposed development); (b) The site plan application form; (c) A copy of the Orange County tax map with the subject property identified; and (d) Legal documentation establishing entities responsible for control over common areas and facilities to be approved by the County Attorney. (e) Three (3) copies of the Environmental Assessment and /or Environmental Impact Statement, if required by the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance. *Amended (f) Method of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris associated with the 9 -16 -03 permitted activity, which shall be by some method other than open burning. Other items which should be submitted simultaneously, but are not required as part of the site plan application are: (a) Erosion control and grading plans as necessary to be approved by the Erosion Control Supervisor for a grading permit, and (b) Building construction plans to be approved by the Code Enforcement Supervisor prior to issuance of a building permit. 14.2.3 SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLAN PREPARATION Amended Each site plan shalt be drawn at a scale adequate to show required detail and shall contain the 4/2190 following information. The Planning Staff will determine which items are applicable for sufficiency. 12/10/02 9/16/03 a. The boundary of the lot(s) to be developed labeled with bearings and distances; b. The name, address, and phone number of the applicant and the property owner; C. Name of project, vicinity map, north arrow, scale, tax map reference number, date of plan preparation, and subsequent revision dates; d. Zoning of the property to be developed and all adjacent zoning and existing adjacent land uses; e. Adjacent right -of -way widths with road names and numbers; f. Total gross land area of the parcel, maximum and proposed floor area, minimum and proposed open space, and minimum and proposed pedestrian/ landscape area (Refer to Article 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance); g. Maximum and proposed impervious surface and required stream buffers in PW -11, WQCA, and ULW districts (see Articles 6.23, 6,24, and 6.26, respectively). h. Estimated traffic generated by the proposed development in trips per day (if it exceeds 800 trips per day, submit a traffic impact study in accordance with Article 13). 1. Front, side, and rear building setbacks as required by Articles 5 and 6 of the zoning Ordinance; J. Location of all proposed buildings and structures labeled according to floor area, building height and function, and proposed finished floor elevation; .a k. Vehicular use areas including existing and proposed streets and access drives, off street parking and loading to comply with Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, and entry /exit points of adjacent parcels; I. Overhead and underground utilities with accompanying easements and storm drainage facilitiesleasements; (including septic tanks and wastewater disposal fields, wells, fire hydrants, irrigation, and security lights.) m. Solid waste disposal facilities; n. All free - standing and wall- mounted signs in accordance with Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Q. A landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Article 12.3 of the Zoning ordinance. p. Existing contour lines (dashed) and proposed contours (solid) at 5 -foot intervals with 10 -font contours bold. Where site conditions warrant, 2 -foot contours may be required; q. Detaining walls, tree wells, or rip rap as part of the grading plan; r. Streams, ponds, drainage ditches, swamps, floodway and floodplain boundaries; and S. Phase lines and numbers if the development is to be phased. t. The names of all property owners adjacent to, and across the street from, the proposed project shall be shown on the site plan. U. Methods of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris associated with the permitted activity, which shall be by some method other than open burning. Additional information may be required based on the site location and the type of development proposed. *14.3 SITE PLAN REVIEW *Amended 9/4190 14.3.1 Upon submission, the Planning and Inspection Department will review the site plan application for completeness in form and content according to Article 14.2. If an application is incomplete, it will be returned to the applicant within five (5) working days. When a complete application has been accepted, the plan, or set of plans, will be distributed to applicable agencies or other departments for review and comment. At the same time, the Planning Staff will review the plan(s) based on, but not limited to, the following general criteria: (a) Compliance with all applicable County ordinances; (b) ' Extent and intensity of impacts to the surrounding area; (c) Respect for existing site conditions, including slope, vegetation, drainage patterns, etc.; (d) Efficient use of the land to minimize disturbance and grading and to conserve energy; (e) Safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation; and (f) Logical placement of structures and other site functions. C%YM Amended (g) No open burning of trees limbs, stumps and construction debris associated with the permitted 9/16/03 activity, 14.3.2 Where an application is found to be inconsistent with the above criteria, Staff may recommend changes to the site plan. Amended 10/7/91 Following review of the site plan, except as provided by Article 14.3.3 of this Ordinance, the 8/4/93 Planning and inspections Department will take final action on the application within 21 days of acceptance. Such action will be one of the following: a. Approval, b, Approval subject to conditions, or c. Denial. Failure to meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3, and /or to address agency comments solicited during plan review, will result in dental of the application. If a plan is approved subject to conditions, no zoning permit or subsequent building permit shall be issued until all conditions of approval have been met to the satisfaction of Orange County. Site plan approval and the issuance of a zoning compliance permit does not establish a vested right to develop the property should zoning regulations change subsequent to plan approval. At the option of the Applicant, a Site Plan may be vested for a period of not less than two (2) nor more than five (6) years. To become vested, a Site Plan must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners as a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Article 8 of this Ordinance. An approved Site Specific Development Plan shall contain the following statement: "Approval of this plan establishes a zoning vested right under G.S. 163A- 344.1. Unless terminated at an earlier date, the zoning right shall be valid until 14.3.3 The Site Plan for a project which requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance may not be approved by the Planning Department until the EIS has been made available for public review, and has been presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners in accordance with Section 3.2 of the Environmental Impact Ordinance. 14.4 APPEAL. PROCEDURES Any decision of the Planning and Inspections Department regarding a site plan application may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment according to the provisions set forth in Article 2.3.7 of this Ordinance. 14.6 IMPROVEMENTS As a guarantee of improvements required as a condition of site plan approval, the developer shall provide Orange County with a security bond, escrow agreement, or irrevocable letter of credit by an approved institution. The guarantee shall be effective for twelve (12) months and shall include the cost of the improvements plus ten percent (10 %). It shall also be approved by the County Attorney. If a guarantee is not submitted, the developer must Install all required improvements to the satisfaction of the County prior to issuance of the zoning compliance and building permits. •= July 18, 2011 Orange County Planning Letter to UNC providing .continents related to a 4ING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT courtesy review of a draft site plan. 3nedict, AICP, Director ®to�4p A 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245 -2575 5z P. O. Box 8181 (919) 644 -3002 (FAX) Hillsborough, NC 27278 www.co.orange.nc.us °rah Cato,°° July 18, 2011 Wendy Hillis Campus Historic Preservation Officer The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CB# 1090, Giles F. Homey Building 103 Airport Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27599 -1090 RE: COURTESY REVIEW of UNC Bingham Facility 2011 Site Plan Update located at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (PIN 9728 -93 -1820) - Dear Ms. Hillis, Thank you for your recent submittal of a draft application for Site Plan Approval for the UNC Bingham Facility, previously known as the UNC Research Resource Facility, located at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (hereafter `the property'). The property is approximately fifty -six (56) acres in area and is currently zoned Agricultural Residential (AR). The property is also located within the Agricultural Residential land Use Category as defined within the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The property is heavily wooded and has at least three (3) identified streams flowing through it subject to local stream buffer regulations. There appear to be nine (9) structures located on the property, three (3) research buildings and six (6) storage type structures. Additionally there are at least three detention/wastewater ponds on the property. Staff understands that UNC is submitting this site plan for review in order to: 1. Memorialize existing conditions on the property due to discrepancies between actual site conditions and the previously approved 2006 site plan(s), 2. Seek approval for a new building consti acted on the property that was not shown in its current configuration on the previous aforementioned site plan(s), and 3. To address anticipated changes and modifications to the location and scale of the septic /wastewater systems on the property. .• In previous correspondence with UNC officials, this facility has been designated as a University, Colleges and Institutes land use, which is a permitted use of property within. the AR zoning district. So long as the use of property remains consistent with current operations, as approved and memorialized within previous site plan submittals, this interpretation will continue to be considered valid. Bear in mind, however, that deviation(s) from previously approved operational characteristics or the additional of new uses on the property shall cause this opinion to be re- evaluated and additional requirements, including heightened approval processes, may be required if the use is allowed to continue. For the purposes of this letter, staff has determined that the project is still a permitted use of property (i.e. University, Colleges and Institutes land use) subject to staff site plan approval in accordance with the provisions of 2.5 Site Plan Review of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter `UDO'). Staff has completed a thorough review of the draft site plan and has identified the following items that will have to be submitted with the formal site ' plan application for our review in processing your request: a. A site plan review fee of $1,000.00, b. The submittal of three (3) copies of the revised and final site plan in accordance with the submittal requirements of Section 2.5 Site Plan Review of the UDO including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: i. The site plan notes section will need to be modified to group the following information, including any and all applicable legal description of the aforementioned lot, to include: 1. Property owner and owner address, 2. Address of property. 3. PIN number for the property, 4. Planning jurisdiction, 5. Provide a note that the property is or is not encumbered by identified floodplains and is not subject to the provisions of the Special Flood Hazard Overlay District. If it is, please provide sufficient detail in the notes section indicating that the project is either compliant with the requirements of the Overlay District or are not specifically located within any previously identified sensitive areas, 6. Current zoning designation as well as the zoning of adjacent properties. 7. Proposed use (i.e. nature of the project) of the property. Staff will require a detailed narrative on the site plan outlining the operational parameters of the facility as well as a description of the type and number of animal test subjects that will be houses on the property, -100- 8. A description detailing the disposal of euthanized animals, if any, resulting from activities on the property, and 9. A general note indicating that the property is required to comply with established stream buffer requirements as denoted within Section 6.13 of the UDO. ii. Documentation detailing who prepared the site plan the dates on which work was done, and contact information. This is to include revision dates and other pertinent information, iii. As required under Section 2.5.3 (J) of the UDO, please include the floor areas, building heights, function, and proposed finished floor elevation(s) for all existing and proposed structures on the property, iv. As required under Section 2.5.3 (F) of the UDO, documentation shall be placed on the site plan detailing compliance with dimensional requirements associated with the development of this property, specifically: 1. Per Section 3.3 Base Zoning Districts — Agricultural Residential (AR) of the UDO you are required to adhere to the following setback requirements: a. Front Yard: 40 feet b. Side Yard: 20 feet c. Read Yard: 20 feet Staff is well aware that the property currently exceeds the minimum setback requirements. Please provide the minimum standards, as articulated herein, as well as the current setback observed from all property lines for structures and septic fields /systems. 2. Per Section 3.3 Base Zoning Districts — Agricultural Residential (AR) of the UDO you are required to adhere to the following dimensional and ratio standards: a. Maximum Allowable Floor Area Ratio - .088. b. Required Minimum Pedestrian and Landscape Ratio - .21 c. Required Minimum Open Space Ratio -.84 Based on staffs assessment, the following limits apply to this project: o Maximum Allowable Floor Area Ratio — 214,663 sq. ft. • Required Minimum Pedestrian and Landscape Ratio — 512,265 sq. ft. • Required Minimum Open Space Ratio — 2,049,062 sq. ft. Within the notes section provide sufficient documentation denoting compliance with these requirements. -�01- 3. As- required under Section 2.5.3 (F) of the UDO, documentation shall be placed on the site plan detailing compliance with development standards as articulated within Article 6 of the UDO associated with the development and /or use of this property, specifically: a. Section 6.8 Landscaping, Buffers, and Tree Protection: i. Provide a general note that all development requirements associated with Section 6.8 shall be complied with, ii. Provide a note indicating that existing foliage will be protected in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.8, including the following specific references: 1. 6.8.4 (A) (1) the site plan shall be modified to include a note indicating that all existing trees are located within the Primary Tree Protection Area as defined within the UDO, 2. Section 6.8.4 (B) (1) add a note reading as follows: Existing trees, regardless of size, shall not be cut or otherwise damaged or destroyed within a primary tree protection area except as shown on an approved Landscape and Tree. Preservation Plan, plot plan, or site plan 3. Section 6.8.4 (B) (3) add a note reading as follows: During construction activities, adequate protective measures shall be provided to minimize damage to existing trees and other vegetation. 4. Section 6.8.4 (B) (7) add a note reading as follows: Signs shall be posted identifying the tree protection areas and shall state the area is not to be disturbed Such protective devices shall effectively protect the critical root zones, trunks, and tops of trees to be retained and shall be maintained until all work has been completed. -102- 5. Add a note indicating that the site shall maintain a Type B thirty (30) foot landscape buffer along all property lines. 6. Please provide a detail on the types of trees to be planted within the revamped parking area as well as the following note: Native, non - invasive, and drought tolerant species shall be used where additional landscape areas are proposed. b. Section 6.9 Parking and Loading: 1. Provide a note indicating that per Section 6.9.7 the project is required to provide: a. One (1) parking space per staff member, b. One (1) space per four (4) students, 2. Provide a note detailing the total number of employees that will be onsite, 3. Provide a note detailing the total number of students being taught onsite, if any, 4. Provide a note detailing the total number of visitor parking spaces that will be located onsite, 5. Provide a note indicating that the proposed parking lot shall comply with the dimensional requirements contained within Section 6.9. 10 of the UD0, 6. Provide a typical parking space graphic denoting the design of a space, 7. Provide a typical parking space graphic for a handicapped parking space (if proposed), g. Denote locations on the site plan indicating the placement of directional signs informing motorists that the parking lot is for one -way traffic with specific entrance and exit points, 9. Include a note indicating that access road design layout shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Marshal as part of the formal site plan review process. -103- c. Section 6.11 Outdoor Lighting: Provide a note indicating that no outdoor lighting fixtures, other than building mounted security lights, shall be installed on the property. d. Stormwater Management and Erosion Control: Provide a note on the site plan denoting that the developer will apply for all applicable stormwater management and erosion control plans as required by the UDO and the State of North Carolina. e. Solid Waste Management: There will need to be a note on the site plan indicating that the disposal of all waste material generated from the site shall be disposed of in accordance with the Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance. Further, you will need to add a note that all construction debris and land clearing materials shall be disposed of in accordance with County regulations and shall not be burned or buried on -site as requited by Section 2.5.3 (T) of the UDO. v. As required under Section 2.5.3 (R) of the UDO, the site plan shall denote the location of all `streams, ponds, drainage ditches, swamps, fi'oodway and flobdplain boundaries'. Please beam m'rriind that 611 streams and connected water bodies are subject to stream .buffer requirements detailed within Section 6.13 of the I The draft site plan denotes that the streams are required to observe a 65 -foot buffer on both sides of the stream bank. Please make sure that the notes section properly reflects this requirement and that the streams denoted on the site plan reflect the 65 -foot required buffer. vi. As required under Section 2.5.3 (H) of the UDO, please provide documentation estimating the traffic generated by the development (i.e. staff, deliveries, visitors, students, etc.). vii. As required under Section 2.5.3 (L) of the UDO, please provide the location of any `overhead and underground utilities with accompanying easements and storm drainage facilities /easements' on the site plan. viii. If there is to be any signage erected on the property you will need to submit a detailed sign rendering in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.12 of the UDO. As required by Section 2.5.3 (1) of the UDO, please provide a note detailing all signage proposed for the property (i.e. freestanding, wall, directional, etc.). The site plan will need to denote the location of any anticipated freestanding signs. Staff would like to make the following general comments and requests for clarification on the site plan submittal as well: 1. On the application for site plan review it is unclear if there will be any new proposed buildings. It appears that there are nine (9) existing structures on the property. You list on the application under proposed structures that there will be an additional three (3) research and six (6) storage buildings. On the draft site plan submitted it appears that there are three 100 -ton package chillers proposed to be placed outside the Bingham 3 building. Structures similar to these and any new buildings will need to be identified on the formal application submittal. Please clarify on your application and submitted site plan the number of existing proposed structures subject to review and approval by the County. 2.' You state on your draft application submittal that an estimate of traffic generation is not applicable, however for an application to be complete under current regulations this information is required. It appears that the number of employees has changed since 2006 from thirty -five (35) employees, as listed on the approved site plan, to ten (10) employees as denoted on the 2011 draft site plan submittal. All employees, deliveries, student, researcher use of the facility will generate traffic. Please include a note on the site plan indicating the number of employees so that Staff can determine the parking requirements. For your reference the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance was adopted on April 5, 2011, and can be found on the Planning and Inspections website: http: / /www co orange nc us /planning /Ordinances.asp Staff looks forward to receiving your complete site plan application for review and processing. Should you have any questions regarding use of the UDO or general site plan submittal questions, please call me at (919) 245 -2575. Sincerely, Mich el D. Harve , CF ; CZO Current Planning Supervisor Orange County CC: Craig Benedict, Planning Director John Roberts, County Attorney Sahana Ayer, Staff Attorney File -104— December 2011 - Final site plan package submitted by UNC related to the research �A facility site. II �I . APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROJECTNAME _UNG$INITf{,RMP/rGiLI - 2aII_�itr- -FLM_ DATE:��2f_� t (#'ievi"LlY IZVWNA -r, T1IE� VN6, tzX�A-tz-a}1 Tzp5Pt)gzl =i rA- rAI'lTT) LOCATION: - - -� OWNER/ DEVELOPER:_ -V"-V1 _ oN 1vr-,R rA W i or- _wKv- a izvo i4A Ar _e5i+ApiF,,� -W o- --------- Ia3 AiV-A Y " Pv-10,, A- 1010 ADDRESS:._ r!!t 1�cP�_ 1f t1�L, NG•- 2 -35°11__----- - - -_-_ PHONE: AGENT /CONTACT: , b Rr �y -, ` r-A-ri ii ti � - -PL� �-! t j& _ PHONE: -C g l Jki-1 NA W +� �► A. SUMMARY INFORMATION Orange County Tax Map _°1-r1 aS Block _ 3 Lot(s) A0 0- Twp. - - ----- - - - - -- Zoning District(s): On site ----------- A-V- ----------- and Adjacent ....... AV ' ------------ Total Acreage: ------ __ __- _____ -__ Phases ____ - -- _ -'_ ----- ______ ----- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- Number /Type of Structures: (existing) _ig�i- nr�'? ----------------------- (proposed) -15 - -- V-V' Ff- 5`rU1 Pr6 E� - - - -- --------------- Water Supply: ________________ Public ___ ______________ Community _______________ Individual Fire District -__ VJH_'il- GiZOSs Adjacent Land Uses 6G12i&Vt,rVrAv P -fit pf✓Ni-i�------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- _ -- - - - -- ----- - -- -- - - - -- Critical Areas: _GD6VIHS K. _ -! P u'!- `C______________________ Streams /d rain ageways: flood prone areas: VNp�pTUT_watershed, natural areas, other slopes: historic sites, B. All site plans must be prepared by a registered engineer, landscape architect, or land surveyor (see "Approval Procedures" for exception). Drawings shall be at d scale adequate to show required detail (generally not more than 1 " =50') and shall contain the following information: Check completed items. Shaded areas are for office use only. ✓ a. The boundary of the lot(s) to be developed with bearings, and distances; ✓ b. The name, address, and phone number of the applicant and the property owner; c. Name of project, vicinity map, north arrow, scale, tax map reference number, date of plan preparation, and subsequent revision dates; a. d. Zoning of the property to be developed and all adjacent zoning and existing adjacent land uses; Jr;; e. Adjacent right -of-way widths with road names and numbers ri f. Total gross land area of the parcel, maximum and proposed floor area, minimum and proposed open space, and minimum and proposed pedestrian /landscape area Refer to Article 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance); Maximum and proposed Impervious surface and required stream buffers in PW 11 and WQCA (Article 6.23 & 6.24); -106- h. Estimated traffic generated.by the proposed development in trips per day (if it exceeds 800 trips per day, submit a r; o. A landsca a lan demonstratin com (lance with Article 12.3 of the Zonin Or mance; ✓ _ p. Existing contour lines (dashed) and proposed contours (solid) at 5 -foot intervals with 10 -foot contours bol . i! whPrP site conditions warrant, 2 -foot contours ma be re uired, J or ri d floodplain Phase lines and numbers If the development is to be phased Additional information may be required based on site location and type of development proposed. r• C.. ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: __✓ 1. an. Additional copies may be required based on the A minimum of three (3) copies of the site pl nature and location of development. _ 2. One full size copy of an Orange County tax map with subject parcels) identified. 3. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, which assure completion and /or maintenance of improvements required by Orange County. Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, association documents, articles of incorporated, and restrictive covenants. If necessary, these documents may be required as evidence that ordinance requirements are being met. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. -- ------------------- Appli ant's S ature Owner's Signature ______ (Date) 2 8� (Date) g__ _ - - -! - -- - - -- -- �a---- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- Front side and rear building setbacks as required by Article 5 and 6 of the Zoning orcunance; jk S;iF v;i %. Overhead and underground utilities with accompanying easements and storm drainage facilities /easements; V v4 .- 4Y�rR -.�, , J. (including se tic tanks and wastewater dis osal fields, wells fire hydrants, Irrigation, and security i ts, Ait..; , 7 including existing and proposed streets and access drives, off street parking and loading to ►� ±- s: +' °} ,?i? sr k. Vehicular use areas com I with Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, and entry/exit of adjacent arcels; rsa; I. overhead and underground'u tilities with accompanying easements and storm drainage facilities /easements; 15 11 (includin se tic tanks and wastewater dis osal flelds, wells, fire h drants, irri ation, and securi li hts.) R. 'J 111EN -_MV Solid waste dis osal facilities' N • V 6 nr� G n. All free- standin and wall- mounted si ns in accordance with Article 9 of the Zonin Ordinance; r; o. A landsca a lan demonstratin com (lance with Article 12.3 of the Zonin Or mance; ✓ _ p. Existing contour lines (dashed) and proposed contours (solid) at 5 -foot intervals with 10 -foot contours bol . i! whPrP site conditions warrant, 2 -foot contours ma be re uired, J or ri d floodplain Phase lines and numbers If the development is to be phased Additional information may be required based on site location and type of development proposed. r• C.. ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: __✓ 1. an. Additional copies may be required based on the A minimum of three (3) copies of the site pl nature and location of development. _ 2. One full size copy of an Orange County tax map with subject parcels) identified. 3. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, which assure completion and /or maintenance of improvements required by Orange County. Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, association documents, articles of incorporated, and restrictive covenants. If necessary, these documents may be required as evidence that ordinance requirements are being met. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. -- ------------------- Appli ant's S ature Owner's Signature ______ (Date) 2 8� (Date) g__ _ - - -! - -- - - -- -- �a---- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- To: Michael Harvey/Rebecca Samy Orange County Planning and Inspections c: File Date December 9, 2011 1 M nrber orpages inchtding cover sheet I FR 0111'.- Wendy Hillis, AIA UNC CH Facilities Planning 202 Giles Horney Building CB# 1090 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill NC 27599 Phone 843 -3238 Fox Aone 962 -9103. E -mail wendy.hillis(@,,fac.zmc.edit -107- _108— Rebecca Samy From: Hillis, Wendy (Facilities Planning) < Wendy .Hillis @facilities.unc.edu> Sent: Friday, December 09, 201111:48 AM To: Rebecca Samy Cc: Michael Harvey Subject: RE: Bingham Facility Site Plan Attachments: Buildings.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Michael and Rebecca, I will deliver copies of the corrected drawings and fact sheet to your office this afternoon. Please see my responses to your comments below in red. Wendy Hillis, AIA, LEED" AP Campus Historic Preservation officer The University of North Carolina at Chapel 1 -1111 CB# -1090, Giles F. Haney Building 103 Airport Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27599 -1090 office: (9'19) 843 -3238 Fax: (919) 962 -9103 From: Rebecca Samy fmailto•rsamyCa)co oranae.nc.usl Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 20119:29 AM To: Hillis, Wendy (Facilities Planning) Cc: Michael Harvey Subject: Bingham Facility Site Plan Hello Wendy, I am sending this on behalf of Michael Harvey. When you respond please cc me on the email for our records and review. Staff has completed its initial review of the UNC Bingham Facility site plan. There are, however, a few items that need to be addressed and /or corrected in order to ensure that the submitted plan complies with the provisions of the UDO and is deemed complete. 1. On the application for site plan approval you list that there are 19 existing research and storage buildings. However this number and the number of buildings listed on Sheet CO1 and CO4 do not match. Please provide staff with an accounting of how you arrived at 19 structures or, if the 19 structures contained on the application package is wrong, please correct the application by listing the actual number of structures. We also would request that Sheets CO1 and CO4 be-amended to include a note or some other method of listing the correct number of structures (either highlight them like the other structures or number them and include a note). Per the attached spreadsheet, there are 15 existing research and storage buildings. This has been revised on all documents. Plan sheets now show all 15 structures shaded in gray. -109- 2. Please revise note 11 on all data sheets to state: "No new outdoor lighting fixtures, other than building mounted security lights, shall be installed on the property." The current wording of the note is confusing and inconsistent with our original letter. Revised. 3. The floor area ratios provided at 35,050 sq. ft., on Sheet CO2 under Dimensional and Ratio Standards do not match the total of floor areas provided on Sheet C04. Staff added the floor areas provided on Sheet C04 and arrived at 35,260 sq. ft. Please provide an explanation of how you arrived at 35,050 sq. ft. for the total floor area ratio or correct the note to indicate that there is 35,260 sq. ft. of building area. Per the attached spreadsheet, the total SF area is 35,745. This has been coordinated on all sheets. Sheet C04 now has photos /info on all 15 buildings. 4. . Please revise Sheet C04 to include the building heights for all structures. This was specifically requested in the \ letter sent to you on July 18, 2011 page 3, section b(iii). Additionally staff would like to request copies of building `� permits for the structures listed for our files. Building heights have been added for all structures. As a State entity, UNC is not required to obtain building permits per NC statute 143 -135. The citation is available online at http• / /www ncga state nc us /EnactedLegislation /Statutes /HTML /BySection /Chapter 143/GS 143- 135.1.html As a courtesy, staff would like to inform you that Preserve Rural Orange Citizen Group has contacted the Planning .Office requesting copies of all submitted application information. Staff will provide this information to Preserve Rural Orange once we have - received the corrected information listed above and once we can issue the Zoning Compliance Permit indicating that the property is now operating under formal approval under the revised site plan. Sincerely, 1Zd eCCw Rebecca Samy Planning Technician Orange County Planning & Inspections (919) 245 -2598 rsamy cD,,co.orange. nc. us e1 UNC Bingham Animal Facility Building Summary 12/9/11 Name Area Height Bingham 1 9411 11' -0° Bingham 2 5363 17' -7" Bingham 3 10,847 16' -5" Old House 1242 21' -0" Wood Shed 100 121-0" Storage Building 342 8' -7" Trailer 1030 12' -9" Metal Building 3200 18' -0" Pole Barn 3515 19' -5" Pump House @ north spray field 76 9' -0" Filter and well house 265 14' -3" Pump House - Building 1 76- 9' -0" storage building at seeded basin 90 9' -10" shed at seeded basin 68 12' -10" storage building at bingham 1 120 9' -7" TO ALI 35745 -110— UT ?C Bingham Animal Facility i, sa 4 Orange County, NC GTS UNC Bingham Animal Facility 1 inch = 400 feet Page 1 of 2-11 1— http:// server2 .co.orange.ne.us /OrangeNCGIS /default.aspx 11/16/2011 LINO Bingham Animal Facility Search Results (1) shape PIN PINSTATUS OWNER TYPE IOFLAG OWNERI_LAST S OWNERi_FIRST C O W N E R2_LAST ESRI.ArcGIS.ADF. Web. Geometry. Polygon 9728931820 ACTIVE OWNER2_FIRST TATE OF NORTH AROLINA ADDRESSI UNKNOWN ADDRESS ADDRESS2 CITY STATE ZIPCODE TOWNSHIP 6 SIZE 56.65 UOM A CALC_ACRES 56.31 SUBCODE 0 LEGAL DESC E/S SR 1956 BING TP RATECODE 01 LANDVALUE 0 BLDGVALUE 0 BLDGCNT VALUATION 0 TAXSTATUS E FARMUSE USEVALUE 0 DEEDREF 229/379 LEGALREF DATESOLD 5/6/1971 12:00:00 AM TAXSTAMPS NaN STAMPVALUE NaN YEARBUILT SQFT NaN SUBDIVISION_NAME SCHOOL_SYSTEM Orange County Schools TOWNSHIP_NAME BINGHAM SHAPE.fld 43061 shape.area 2452816.39175028 Created on 11116/2011, Orange County, North Carolina. http://server2.co.orange.iic,us/OrangeNCCsIS/default.aspx Page 2 of 2 -112- 11/16/2011 $ i 28A 1 • �qy 73U� � l n � _ 10.01A ut ' A - - P87182- _ 10.56A - '- $Q' EASEMENT70,15 I P87I82 i 'o Yv 1 � �9p1 d STATE OF i i NORTH CAROLINA _ 200 - • 5r3.85A 1 I 133.12 - 1 6.33. ,12 9728931826 i•. w a r _ 29273 y ,t ma ;t — °. - --•— . — °. rr Pr" N Z55A l �� 4.20A oA 4,14A 292.73 _ 10° 14 w 15 16 r-- 1, 1 w w ; I ` r gA w 2.07A v< 4.18A F 33.29 I 8.68 - - This map containc parcels prepared for the Inventory of real propety YMn N pr Hsadds Orange County, and is compkd from rewrdod deed, plate, and o"W public 9ackgoune,• records and data, Users of thin map are hereby notified that the aforementioned �County public primary information sourcas should be conaultad for verificatfon at the 1 ;36.00 information toaTwm+hlpT�a �.,'7va+Nh4n contained on this map. •The county and Its mapping campanles assume no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map, T Orange Count GIS -114— ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING and INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 131 West Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 (919) 245 -2600 (919) 6443347 Fax Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director �000ty of RECEIPT RECEIPT NUMBER:R11- 003291 TO: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT #: SPR11 -0003 TYPE: Site Plan Review SITE ADDRESS: 1907 ORANGE CHAPEL CLOVER GARDEN OCPL PARCEL: 9728931820 TRANSACTION DATE: 11/21/201 1TOTAL PAYMENT: 1,000.00 TOTAL PAID FROM CURRENCY: 1., 0 0 0.0 0 TRANSACTION LIST: Type Method Description Amount ---- - - - - -- ------ - - ---- - - - -- ------------ - - - - -- ------- --- - -- Payment Check 03470914 1,000.00 XXXX - XXXX -XXXX- TOTAL: 1,000.00 ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: FEE DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT CODE CALCULATED FEES -115— ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING and INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 131 West Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 (919) 245 -2600 (919) 644 -3347 Fax Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director u va �y 3 ��99 J Rw� WIC RECEIPT - - - - - -- --------------- SITE PLAN REVIEW 10620003 -430 1,000.00 Total: 1, 000. 00 Balance Due: $0.00 RECEIPT ISSUED BY:RSAMY 1NITIALS: RAS ENTERED DATE:11 / 21 / 2 011 TIME: 03:04 PM Please retain this receipt for your records. APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROJECT NAME UNG $I NG fi M 2011- �1-- ----�I - - PA4--P— DATE: ------ 11� ------------- G viovti�if I�Nowly m VNli V-A-t?-Uzr- H 1*OL)zc� FACAI-ITY) ° G V - - - aAP LOCATI ON: - - - G - -V - A_ _ ----- - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- OWNER /DEVELOPER:-7 _UNIV 1 ?1TK_ D __IJ_op fii__ G?k} oLiNP• _ Ac1 __GH, I' -------------------- 1U3 AilzpoV-4" J 6)1�,A- 10 1 ADDRESS: __ �! N c{_'_r� --- 1 H VV, - -HC' -- 2"j5 °I �i ----- --------- - - - - -- PHONE: -(-q111 `-- - _-) 1_ °_�'_ AGENT /CONTACT: L1Nilt- PHONE:* HONE: -1 902 I -NA NV , - -- - - — — - - -- -�— -- A. SUMMARY INFORMATION Orange County Tax Map -`�� ag Block _ 3 __, Lot(s) -X020 Twp. __ -- --- ? ---- -- ------- - - - - -- Zoning District(s): On site _- __- ____— ------------ and Adjacent ...... _!a`#-'______________ Total Acreage: ______ _ ____ ______ 5 ---------- - - - - -- Phases -- - - - -�- ----------------- - - - - -- ________ Number /Type of Structures: (existing) _ l�1__1_l!�i�r- ----------------------- (proposed) _ �°_I - -- z.I�4%_ -A �v*U1?A -& � - -- --------------- Water Supply: _ ______ ___ _ _____ Public ----------------- Community ------------ Individual Fire District - - Ft111 _e,IZ ASS---- - - - - -- --------------------------- — ---------------------------- Adjacent Land Uses __cGl? i G U t, fillA V 1?-? D�»fil �rV ---------------------------------------- Critical Areas: _GDl^l•1HS F3Qt:, I Y--------------- - - - - -- y _Streams /drainagewa : s flood prone areas: jr/ i�1v1z y UNpJzOiUl _ watershed, natural- Areas, other slopes: historic sites, n. All site plans must be prepared by a registered engineer, landscape architect, or land surveyor (see "Approval Procedures" for exception). Drawings shall be at a scale adequate to show required detail (generally not more than 1 " =50') and shall contain the following information: Che ueu d,Cd-� alms lu, ull — The bounda of the lot(s) to be developed with bearings, and distances; b. The name, address, and phone number of the applicant and the property owner; -: vicinity map, north arrow, scale, tax map reference number, date of plan preparation, and c. Name of project, subse uent revision dates; ✓ r ^y -1 ` `i - _ d. Zoning of the propeay to be developed and all adjacent zoning and existing adjacent land uses; Adjacent right-of-way widths with road names and numbers; f. Total gross land area of the parcel, maximum and proposed floor area, minimum and proposed open space, and minimum and proposed edestrian /]andsca e area (Refer to Article 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance); s,- g. Maximum and proposed impervious surface and required stream buffers in PW 11 and WQCA (Article 6.23 & 6.24); -117- Additional information may be required based on site location and type of development proposed. C. ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: __ ✓__ 1. A minimum of three (3) copies of the site plan. Additional copies may be required based on the nature and location of development. 2. one full size copy of an orange County tax map with subject parcel(s) identified. _f 3. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, which assure completion and /or maintenance of improvements required by Orange County. Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, association documents, articles of incorporated, and restrictive covenants. If necessary, these documents may be required as evidence that ordinance requirements are being met. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. 4 1. - --------------------- 4wil. Owner's Signature --------------- - - - - -- ' )�.v I t - - - - -- -- - -- (Date) -------- - ------------------ 11 - - -- -- - - -- - - -I' -1 Vp. '- -! 1 - - - - -- (Date) h. Estimated traffic generated by the proposed development in trips per day (if it exceeds 800 trips per day, submit a V =_ traffic impact study in accordance with Article 13), - - A 1. Front, side and rear building setbacks as required by Article 5 and 6 of the Zoning Ordinance; J. Overhead and underground utilities with accompanying easements and storm drainage facilities /easements; _- (including septic tanks and wastewater disposal fields, wells, fire hydrants, irrigation, and security lights.) ✓ k. Vehicular use areas Including existing and proposed streets and access drives, off street parking and loading to com ly with Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, and entry/exit points of adjacent parcels; I. Overhead and underground utilities with accompanying easements and storm drainage facilities /easements; (including septic tanks and wastewater disposal fields, wells, fire hydrants, irrigation, and security lights.) f m. Solid waste disposal facilities; YidVW n. All free- standiri and wall- mounted signs in accordance with Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance; o. A landscape plan de onstrating com liance with Article 12.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; p. Existing contour lines (dashed) and proposed contours (solid) at 5 -foot intervals with 10 -foot contours bold. Where site conditions warrant, 2 -foot contours ma be required. -; g. Retaining walls, tree wells, or rip rap as part of the grading plan; r. Streams, ponds, drainage ditches, swamps, floodway and flood lain boundaries; and s. Phase lines and numbers if the development is to be phased. Additional information may be required based on site location and type of development proposed. C. ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: __ ✓__ 1. A minimum of three (3) copies of the site plan. Additional copies may be required based on the nature and location of development. 2. one full size copy of an orange County tax map with subject parcel(s) identified. _f 3. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, which assure completion and /or maintenance of improvements required by Orange County. Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, association documents, articles of incorporated, and restrictive covenants. If necessary, these documents may be required as evidence that ordinance requirements are being met. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. 4 1. - --------------------- 4wil. Owner's Signature --------------- - - - - -- ' )�.v I t - - - - -- -- - -- (Date) -------- - ------------------ 11 - - -- -- - - -- - - -I' -1 Vp. '- -! 1 - - - - -- (Date) -118— 11AFT APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL U N U i?:,) N G- ii A M FA-z:A LA t—( 2v1 I Stfir "*1 trPI - JPpgfVli7USt,T Je140 JVVAS 1W, � �_104011r, ;FDATE: 2 3 •�N►�2� Zb� PROJECT NAME--------------------------------------------------- -------------_-- --- - -- LOCATION: I �I -0 ,_�YGIi�]Q,�,G Gt'i1Gl - 6-OI/v 6 q'- �-Gl�i _ -� _ ---- - - - - -- ---------- ----------- --- - - -- -- ----- _- - - - - -- OWNER /DEVELOPER: i V_ rn - -v -i v ny�--4-!! )- ------ —,-- --------- ------ , -, r I() iii D)� - -- �_ �2_i� Gib_ _GI4�d.! G- PHONE: C_q --------------- ( 10�' ADDRESS: _-- - - - - -- � - - -- -- Z7�1 `f AGENT /CONTACT: ,G -- -_ ( q I °I D 9& 2• cl J Q `f piVt°C 'DY_o_fjE !c; liHcS Gt►7rriN �1 PHONE: ------------------- - - - - -- i--------- - - - - -- J A. SUMMARY INFORMATIONN1 Orange County Tax Map A iZ? Block --- �-� _ Lot(s) Twp --- - - - - -- --------------------- Zoning District(s): On site ________- -_ and Adjacent ______'_`t'- =-------------- - - - - -- .�� -- _ - - - -- = � 5b �5-------------------- Phases _ - - - - -` ---------------------- Total Acreage: _..__.._____.._-___-_- Nu m ber /Typ S��'4�r- ----------------- e of Structures: (existing) ��2'- `- t---- -- - - - - -- (proposed) G�a__i C6� _St�Fe, ------------ Water Supply: _ __ _ -___ ___- Public - Community - __- ______- ._ - -- Individual 11'�tt __ _ --------------- - -- Fire District - -- — _ SS --- - - - - -- --------------------- - - - - -- ----- --------------------- Adjacent Land Uses _ -_= A— - -- � � }- -- --- -- - - -- -- Streams /drainageways: Critical Areas: - -- -� �1 5 - 2�` - � f - - - - -- ------------------ flood prone areas:----- --- -- ------- ----------- - - - - -- slopes; atershed --------------------------- ------- - - - - -- historic sites, natural areas other______________ ____ _______________ _____ ______ a. All site plans must be prepared by a registered engineer, landscape architect, or land surveyor (see "Approval Procedures" for exception). Drawings shall be at a scale adequate to show required detail (generally not more than 1 " =50') and shall contain the following information: Check corn leted items. Shaded areas are for oirrcr US6 ofil • _ ca The boundary of the lot(s) to be developed with bearings, and distances' a. b. The name, address and hone number of the applicant and the ro ert owner; z r: c. Name of protect, vicinity map, north arrow, scale, tax map reference number, date of plan preparation, and subse uent revision dates; d. Zonin of the ro ert to be develo ed and all ad scent zonin and existin ad scent land uses' e. Adjacent rl ht -of -wa widths with road names and numbers; f. Total land area of the parcel, maximum and proposed floor area, minimum and proposed open space, and gross minimum and proposed pedestrian /landscape area Refer to Article 5.1.2 of the Zonin Ordinance)' g. Maximum and proposed impervious surface and required stream buffers In PW 11 and WQCA (Article 6.23 & 6.24); , Shy V/ l h. Estimated traffic generated by the proposed development in trips per day (if it exceeds 800 trips per day, submit a traffic impact study in accordance with Article 13). i. Front side and rear building setbacks as required by Article 5 and 6 of the Zoning Ordinance; j. Overhead and underground utilities with accompanying easements and storm drainage facilities /easements: (including septic tanks and wastewater disposal fields, wells, fire hydrants, irrigation, and security lights.) k. Vehicular use areas including existing and proposed streets and access drives, off street parking and loading to comply with Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, and entry/exit points of adjacent parcels; I. Overhead and underground utilities with accompanying easements and storm drainage facilitfes /easements; (Including septic tanks and wastewater disposal fields wells fire hydrants, Irrigation, and security lights.) m. Solid waste disposal facilities; /q n. All free-standing and wall- mounted signs in accordance with Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance; o, A landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Article 12.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; p. Existing contour lines (dashed) and proposed contours (solid) at 5 -foot intervals with 10 -foot contours bold. Where site conditions warrant, 2 -foot contours maybe required. q. Retalning walls tree wells or rip rap as part of the grading plan; r. Streams, ponds, drainage ditches swamps, floodway and flood lain boundaries; and �r / S. Phase lines and numbers if the development is to be phased. Additional information may be required based on site location and type of development proposed. C. ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. A min !mum of three (3) copies of the site plan. Additional copies may be required based on the nature and location of development. 2. One full size.copyof an Orange Countytax map with subject parcel(s) identified. 3. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, which assure completion and /or maintenance of improvements required by Orange County. Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, association documents, articles of incorporated, and restrictive covenants, If necessary, these documents may be required as evidence that ordinance requirements are being met. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature - - - -- - - - -- (Date) --------------------------------------- - - - - -- (Date) -119- IMIZ T lm � C O m i z O c� O �. O `er m Ott, �z z� E seo z G) > M > oe � Z o Nu+ca F� o S y �Z> m w � � �-n �® c m M 0 (� O C) 1c)a — q I m P v e7 I z t� ro W z i v O y J 2s9 UNC RESEARCH RESOURCE FACILITY -SITE PLAN UPDATE 2011 01408-0032 11 \y$2 I Qti ' \ YhaEa b / � /1y561i aI � a I A\o= I 6, � b I i i II 'I 1 jup I i 3 Rya III � �i o # PEp I EF e+nx � x w O M M z r >?d O H H k n� $ PI �0 RRo t CGSY l z 01 SI X O ?�z — z §= n fit ; Fa r -C Y T =b A a Z DO Y gg Iro pg R ' Q 3 -Rum a a=x vs� "Isp A 4 0� IRKN G a 1 L� I o I � tiz \3ob I e�Ro , *R�a �I �odY - -IT II egg 11 1 1 i i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 chi Jim Eli £ -121— / 1 —122 — � !' � �✓ ^ 9581 i .'�'� � _ \ , . ' '! �'I' � 'G•i �-'' -- ail � I: �� �`, l,. ` "- -`- -_ { \ '\ \ / / /� -/. I �:— t^ ^```\`__ `_ _,\_ f �i � i J , i � I 1" r/i i i Ji i /i i /� 'r-I I IL•An °� . --�- ` -------- -- — ♦ \ III r r / \ _. r r� , i i // / , / 1•G M .. �� "a I I %rte � _.� \ / / / /i I f / � I / 1 I I I I I ,� ,_ r r � 'i 11 `!r' �/✓ ��i 11 I ,• 1 / // 1 I \ I ir p J I iii i ` //i I , \ � \` ,` ♦,/ � _ _- -= - ___ -_' J, r / / iiUq,�J�JJr.' J / / / I , . I i eyw I 1 /ii P ` y.,y _ / (J /l 1 \ A l /_- -.__'9 / / _ 1 % //i i %lam /�� -�/_1 I• qY' -.1D -' � � %/ /! /i •�: ' i i / 'J/J J';r' ' -'" \�� 9 MR 1\ \1i f1ii1 ` \\ - --_Q ": ��a 5rr � J J ��/ /J / /i /; -�• -•, ❑a: � [ � \ \I\ \ 1 l 1 I / =��..' ,. 1111 ' /` i i /rii :�. rrr,. ri' R'F a= I I 111 /it ' m 1 1 - ,il 1 >: //iii' - % / ~. / i ' r r�l• `�/ /� I I \ / I , t t\ F ' \ i ,p ; %/ 1 r -' ' 7 :' / /'r.� /i; /� -r�11� � I t I{•• irJ Il t1 111 vole \_ �6� � �l�' . /J . 1j elm, \- -yt� %� /':'�;' _ '' ' �/ fl /7//� /r/i i i r' .Z �_ ` i lit�� '•_ •-- -- ;r::: / �,: > ,�- / i � / / / / /ii / /ii / / / JJ 1 � " -- _�= =- - � moo° v_ �' \\\ .`•:> Vi is "'' - -- f//// // /// t\11\,` _ �.J ' /�1 't 1 111 IYI // lr \ 'r , -_- - -�� , `I ` 111 111111 I 1 \ �\ '' / /' /// ' JI 11 11 lfl I \ \ H �5° I _' __ - :/ u11j1\\\ _ i illlrr /11l\ \ \d\ — eri `` `.I *`.e. l `\I i�� _�i, �� r., 1111 I 1 \ \ , i x 0 trl Lng�'\ \. Z.1!,�I�n��: - ��iiiliii��`:\ \:;` \````� `�t 'S�a l: \`\" I —I l_ z0Z�o - - -- -- - - -__ _1 qm Zg�= a��� ;i1 vv0 C: a LI m 1 >45;� I I > di i ii o ®o ao00 °. 5F m N E -123- -124— February 1, 2012 Orange County Planning Letter to UNC approving submitted site plan 4NING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT package. 3onedict, AICP, Director ®ip"ge = lair� 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245 -2575 „ 9 P. O. Box 8181 (919) 644 -3002 (FAX) Hillsborough, NC 27278 www.co.orange.nc.us '�'tfi February 1, 2012 Wendy Hillis Campus Historic Preservation Officer The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CB# 1090, Giles F. Horny Building 103 Airport Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27599 -1090 RE: SITE PLAN REVIEW SPRI1 -0003 - UNC Bingham Facility 2011 Site Plan Update located at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (PIN: 9728 -93 -1820) Dear Ms. Hillis, Thank you for the revised submittal of the UNC Bingham Facility site plan. Staff received the revised copy of the site plans on December 9, 2011 and has completed their review. The UNC Bingham Facility is located at 1907 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (hereafter the `property'). The property is approximately fifty -six (56) acres in area and is currently zoned Agricultural Residential (AR). The property is also located within the Agricultural Residential Land Use Category as defined within the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has submitted this site plan for review in order to: 1. Memorialize existing conditions on the property due to discrepancies between actual site conditions and the previously approved 2006 site plan(s). 2. Seek site plan approval for a new building constructed on the property that was not shown in its current configuration on the previous aforementioned site plan(s), and 3. To address anticipated changes and modifications with respect to the location and scale of the septic /wastewater systems on the property. As you are already aware, it was recently determined by the County that underground, non- building, development -125— activities associated with wastewater systems for government Land uses are not subject to zoning review. The current site plan application package indicates there are currently fifteen (15) building(s) or structure(s) located on the property with the following dimensional attributes: Name Area (square feet) Height (feet) Bingham 1 9411 11' -0" Bingham 2 5363 17' -7" Bingham 3 10,847 16' -5" Old House' 1242 21` -0" Wood Shed 100 121-0" Storage Building 342 81-711 Trailer 1030 121-9" Metal Building 3200 181-0" Pole Barn 3515 19' -5" Pump House north spray field 76 9' -0" Filter and well house 265 14'-3" Pump House - Building 1 76 91-011 Storage building at seeded basin 90 9' -10" Shed at seeded basin 68 12' -10" Storage building at Bingham 1 120 9' -7" TOTAL 35,745 sq. ft. of building area As part of the current site plan submittal no new buildings or structures are proposed for development at this time. Staff has reviewed the site plan and found it to be in compliance with Section 2.5 Site Plan Review, Article 3 Base Zoning Districts, and Article 6 Development Standards (i.e. parking, landscaping, lighting, signage, etc.) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Therefore in accordance with Section 2.5.4 Procedures and Timeframes of the UDO this letter shall serve as formal notice that the site plan application package has been approved by this office, including the square footages for each building denoted on the site plan as detailed herein, and that a Zoning Compliance Permit is hereby issued for this project consistent with this approved plan. Bear in mind this letter only provides approval of the project from a land development/land use standpoint and should not be construed as providing blanket approval for the commencement of land disturbing activities. UNC is obligated to secure all required local, State, and Federal permits necessary prior to the commencement of land disturbing activities. Any "alteration of the property and/or the change /development of new structures will require the submittal of a new site plan application package for review and approval by this office per the provisions of the UDO. Further, and as you are aware from previous correspondence with UNC official(s), this facility has been designated, in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.3 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO as a University, Colleges and Institutions land use, which is a permitted use of the property within the AR zoning district. So long as the use of the property remains consistent with current operations, as approved and memorialized through the various submitted site plans, this interpretation will continue to be considered valid. Deviation(s) from previously approved operational characteristics or the addition of new uses on the property shall cause this opinion to be re- evaluated and additional requirements, including heightened approval processes, may be required if the use is allowed to continue. The Planning staff -has enjoyed working with you on this project and looks forward to continuing work with you in the future. Should you have any questions regarding this letter or review process please contact me at (919) 245 -2575. Current Planning Orange County CC: Craig Benedict, Planning Director John Roberts, County Attorney Sahana Ayer, Staff Attorney File ,CZO -126- Copy of North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 153A -347. _127— § 153A -347. Part applicable to buildings constructed by the State and its subdivisions; exception. Each provision of this Part is applicable to the erection, construction, and use of buildings by the State of North Carolina and its political subdivisions. Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or local law or ordinance, no land owned by the State of North Carolina may be included within an overlay district or a special use or conditional use district without approval of the Council of State. (1959, c. 1006, s. 1; 1973, c. 822, s. 1; 1985, c. 607, s. 4.) G.S. 153a -347 Page 1 Statement from UNC related to the appeal THE UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA in, 10- � at CHAPEL HILL November 2, 2012 VIA U.S. MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL Craig N. Benedict Orange County Planning Director P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Michael D. Harvey Current Planning Supervisor P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: UNC Bingham Facility 2011 Site Plan Dear Craig and Michael, -128- ATTACHMENT D OFFICE OF UNIVERSITY COUNSEL 170 BYNUM HALL .T 919.962.1219 CAMPUS BOX 9105 F 919 - 843.1617 z2z EAST CAMERON AVENUE CHAPEL HILL, NC 27599-9105 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (University) supports the interpretation of the applicability of North Carolina General 'Statute section 153A -347 to the University's proposed repairs to its wastewater system at the Bingham Facility. North Carolina General Statute section 153A -347 sets forth a county's zoning authority over State buildings. The University is a state agency and this statute applies to its development. The scope of that authority is as follows: The scope of the County's zoning authority over the University only extends to the regulation of buildings. The Planning Department has determined on two separate occasions that a wastewater system is not a building. Please see the letters dated November 16, 2010 and February 1, 2012. We request that this letter be made part of the record of the November 12, 2012 Board of Adjustment hearing. Sincerely, Paincla Crawford 7 Associate Vice Chancellor and Deputy General Counsel CC: Robert P. Lowman Stephen Keadey Associate General ounsel -129- ,_ 2 0 Q ,47%4CR1V1Vr' SITE PLAN UPDATE 2011 UNC BINGHAM FACILITY (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS UNC RESEARCH RESOURCE FACILITY) FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL ORANGE COUNTY, NC JUNE 2011 REVISED: SEPTEMBER 2011 1► ITE VICINITY MAP N.T.S.) DRAWING INDEX COVERSHEET............................................................ ...... .................................................. GO1 PROPOSED OVERALL SITE PLAN - ABOVE GROUND FEATURES .......... ............................COI PROPOSED OVERALL SITE PLAN - BELOW GROUND FEATURES .......... ............................0O2 PROPOSED OVERALL GRADING AND DRAINAGE P LAN .......................... ............................0O3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN V.1TH EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOS .................... ............................004 SITEDETAILS ......................................................................................... ............................005 Q� THE UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA LIZ at CHAPEL HILL I N (') CD O co Go 7' CD CD N W Q 0 z Q J d w } F- J U Q LL Q 2 U Z 00 U Z °/06 ;,_... �ARo....., O Q�oFE5510 /r9� (� MC M &CREED Y' g 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 500 Pl FcirE" >s Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Phone: (919)233 -8091, Fax: (919)233 -8031 1Z_,r,l F -1222 DRAWING INDEX COVERSHEET............................................................ ...... .................................................. GO1 PROPOSED OVERALL SITE PLAN - ABOVE GROUND FEATURES .......... ............................COI PROPOSED OVERALL SITE PLAN - BELOW GROUND FEATURES .......... ............................0O2 PROPOSED OVERALL GRADING AND DRAINAGE P LAN .......................... ............................0O3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN V.1TH EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOS .................... ............................004 SITEDETAILS ......................................................................................... ............................005 Q� THE UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA LIZ at CHAPEL HILL I N (') CD O co Go 7' CD CD N W Q 0 z Q J d w } F- J U Q LL Q 2 U Z 00 U Z °/06 i `j(., - EXISTING SANITARY FORCE MAIN _ _ I *NFkTHj1' EwS TIINC POTABLE WATER \Ycl"I. — IROP05ED SANITARY FORCE MAIN I EXISTING MONITORING WELL — PROPOSED STORM DRAIN WARREN RAY, 11 \SD --- O EXISTING PIEZOMETER R081N PICKARD MILLER DB 1265 Pc 8 I . — ETasTWC stREAM JOSEPH AND ROSIE MATSKO . D8 2199 PG 38 _ PB 71 - 160 _ _FASTING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER — - -- - FUST So So FT JORDAN —Y PIN 9728 -95 -3649 P8 49 PG 115 LAKE STREAM BUFFER DB 2199 PG 362 RECONSTRUCTED WtT PIN $ 9728 -94 -2701 p(ISRNG LIGHT POLE PB 72 87 PC - WEATHER STORAGE BASIN i<el•F PlN c 9728- 84 -4B42 (SEE GRADING SHEET CO3) � � — 1 I1 I m - EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL - EXISTING 65 FT ORANGE -:g= _ i COUNTY STREAM BUFFER — — — , _'eon_ - EXISTING CABLE V HANG HOE - — —_ _EXISTING PROPERTY LINE i I ® - E%ISnNG CABLE TV BOX _ BUILDING SETBACK LINE - FASTING POTABLE WATER METER w 11 V9>� - EXISTING BUSHES ACCESS I z' EXISTING FENCE _ EXISTING WOODSUNE PROPOSED FERCE - PROPOSED N'DODSUNE EXISTING DITCH REN A ' � 1 E-- S - FASTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE - FASTING RIP RAP AREA SPRAY IRRIGATION - EXISTING LANDSCAPED A R EA PUMP STATION =SS - FASTING SANITARY SEWER LINE _ PAS71NG YETWID AREA INST -PROPOSED SANITARY SE,ER LINE _PROPOSED LANDSCAPED ARE A NEW CE INSTALL NEW FENCE �� 65 FT ORANGE COUNTY STREAM BUFFER (TYP) / I I NOTES: I II 1 e e TREE REMOVAL AREA // / I 1 1 50 FT JORDAN LAKE / 1) PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE HAW RIVER WATERSHED W THE CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN. STREAM BUFFER (TYP) ' 1 I i `\ y y / 2) PROJECT IS HOT LOCATED IN A V DI REGULATED FLOODPWN AND NOT SUBJECT 70 PROVISIONS OF THE 1 / I SPECIAL FL000 HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT. '���, a• \`` • Y %/ MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS BARED ON THE NCDEN:R DIVISION OF WATER OUADTY LOW DENSITY 0 RVFAAi L�i°w DQ 9iYP�TONRUWnT is RO CT IS CURRENTLY IN PROCESS OF SUBMITTAL TO NCOENft FOR 1 PROPERTY I5 REIRED TO COMPLY WISTREW STRE BUFFER IIEOUIREMFNTS OF SECTION 6.13 O' THE ORANGE j OV S I I 4) COUNTY LIDO. M/ I ( I I �-'q�� \ ��•�`` I I I 5) FALL OUL -11-- MENT REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ORANGE COUNTY UDO SECTION 6.8 SHALL BE 1 1 Z II ( - -_ -_ - AL. NOT BE W Oft OTHERWISE DAMAGED E DESTROYED WITHIN - „ 6) EXISTNG TREES, REGARDLESS OF SIZE, SH C E i0p OYID 1 1 PPESERVATION PLAN, PLOT PLAN. OR SITE PWi, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, ADEOUATE PROTECTIVE MEASURES SHALL BE PRONDEO TO MINIMIZE 1 I 7) DURING C FAS y \ \\{ 1 I I I DDAMAGE TO O EXISTING TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION. SIGNS 91ALL BE POSTED IDENTIFYING THE TIME PROIECnON AREAS AND SHALL STATE THE AREA IS NOT N ElE DISTURBED. SUCH PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHALL EFFECTI\£LY PROTECT THE CRITIC �OOAAS . 7 , OHE , _ �� �`\ I I T UNKSZED D TOPS CF TREES To BE RETAINED 'I'D SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNDL ALL rmtx r • . ` \ \ +� THE PROJECT SITE SHALL MAINTAIN A TYPE B THIRTY (30) FT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG ALL PROPERTY 1 1 ° TREE REMOVAL AREA / y \ r 1 1 �I 1 1 I � LINES, \ \ ..\ \ ` I 10) ACCESS ROAD LAYOUT SHALL BE REVIEWID AND APPROVED BY THE ORANGE CWIITY FlRE MARSHAL I NEW GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD \� l +`r `�. eaa ` NEW 18,000 GAL \\ { ��� 1 11) IN NEW OUTDOOR PROPERTY. FlXNRES, OTHER THAN BUILDING MOUNTED SECURITY DGIL15, SHALL BE —� INSTALL NRV FENCE PROPANE TANKS \ ----�j '` . I. I I iHSTALLm ON THE PROPFnTM• 1 . /.. 12) DEVELOPER SHALL PPPLY FOR ALL APPLICABLE STORMWATFR MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PERMITS It 1 _ AS REWIRED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY U00 P741 NCDENR. 1 �1 1 I ll M HC PARim:G AREA \ ♦ 11 I / _ I I 13) DISPOSAL OF ALL WASTE MATERIAL GENERATED FROM THE SITE SHALL BE W ACCORDANCE WITH THE �•• _ I ORANGE COUNTY SOUD WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. ' ' ' 14) DISPOSAL OF ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND LAND CLFMWC MATERIALS SHALL BE IH ACCORDANCE W1TH )j X11 1 c A \; {`♦ 1`j .` l / ..•�...•... I ORANGE COUNTY REGULATIONS AND SHALL NOT 6E BURNED OR BURIED ON SIZE 1 yD 1 \ I 9 Q PAB%ING AREA \V p INTERMITTENT STREAM / - I I 15) PROPOSED PARXING LOT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED WITHIN SECTION 6.9.10 OF 1HE ORANGE COUNTY UOO. ANDREW MOONE ` (1 1 \ / 1 { 16j ALL FASTING 7RED5 ORE LOCATED WITHIN THE PRIMARY TREE PftOTr.CTIOY AREA AS DETV4E0 WI TM THE / 1 0B 718 PG 193 \.- ---���� ..I. ORANGE COUNTY UFO. 1 PIN 9728 -73 -8626 �1 1 , �- NEW 100 PERENNIAL STREAM P8 49 PC 154 —TON I O PACKAGE CHILLER 1 + sme y0 1 \ / 65 FT ORANGE COUNTY I I OWNER: THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA A7 CHAPEL HILL ,I 300 SOUTH BUILDING 1 �, y a0'\ 6q4 ®„ `\� ' / i STREAM BUFFER (TYP) CAMPUS Box 1000 1 FUTURE 100-•70- I CHAPEL HILL, H 27599 \ / CONTACT: RICHARD L MPNN, VICE CHANCELLOR FOR FINANCE AND I ^ .- PACKAGE CHILLER \ I ADMINISTRATION \ INSTALL J #:. NEW FENCE / 50 FT JORDAN LAKE PHONE: (919) 962 -3795 I I IQ STREAM BUFFER (TYP) PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONTACT: -I I { I MASAYA KONISHI UNIC CHAB%HI9 FACILITIES PLANNING lo 01 1p c/`��. R •• tea°°` \\ j I CHAPEL SEEDED HILL, NO 27599 FILLED `iL ) i (SEE GRAD WG'SHE CO3) I PHONE (919) B43 -5102 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1907 ORANGE CHAPEL CLOVER GARDEN ROAD CHAPEL HILL, NO 27516 1 1 �� I / \ �� � O il• � /, I I PIN: 9728 -93 -1020 \ 1 l TOTAL PROPERTY AREA: 56.65 ACRES WENDY AND JAMES CUR77S 1 Aw P� h �� I \ 1 ``� ! I ;:� I - { -_' PLANNING JURISDICTION: ORANGE COUNTY DB 2008 PC 178 1 -_ _ REFURBISHED EFFLUENT STORAGE ZONING - PROJECT SITE A -R (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL) PB 49 PG 132 ` �r / - _ '} - • . _ BASIN (SEE GRADING SHEET CO3) I JAMES HEUSER PIN p' 9728 -73 -6262 1 - D8 1610 PG 596 ZONING - ADJ. PROPERTIES: A -R (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL) PB 75 PC 155 PROPOSED PROPERTY USE MEDICAL RESEARCH PIN 9738 -02 -7893 OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL FALL PLANS _ •j TO USE THE BWGHAM ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITY TO HOUSE All BRL7D P171MAL5, PRIMARILY RODENTS AND DOGS, THAT ME USED FOR CURRENT RESEARCH DOGES. COMBINATION OF RODENTS AND DOGS IS `\\ BASED ON CURRENT RESEARCH NEEDS. ANY POSSIBLE. IF THE FACILITY IYAS 70 HOUSE RODENTS ONLY, THE MAXIMUM AS TO HON WOULD BE 6,000 CAGES (APPROXIMATELY 1WOUL MICE). IF THE FACILITY WAS TO HOUSE CANINES U`1LY. 1HE MAXIMUM POPULATION WOULD BE 200 DOGS. REFURBISHED DOMESTIC —\ — — — �•- - . WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYS \ 1 I I A WIDE VARIETY OF HUSBANDRY ANO VETERINPRY CARE PROCEDURES WILL BE CONDUCTED ON SITE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED, TO AUTOMATED CAGE WASHING, MINOR SURGERY LOGO AND TISSUE SAMPLING. BEHAVIOR MOYITORING, TREATMENTS AND / , ^L_ _ _ _ \— ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ - •� EN CARE. AND ANESTHESIA B - .._ —.. -.. _.. _ _ _ _ •�- �.- Yr D TAL 1 MICHAEL AND JUDY MORROW i. ANIMAL TEST SUBJECTS: AT ANY GIVEN TIME BASED ON RESEARCH NEEDS, THERE CWLO HIAWATHA AND KAREN DEMBY� LVALTER L080TSKY DB 1580 PC 14s \ 1 BE A VARIETY OF SPECIES, SUCH AS CHICKENS, FERRETS. RABBITS AND OTHERS, PB 78 PG 49 IT IS PNTICIPATED THAT THE PRESENCE OF THESE OTHER SPECIES W1LL BE LIMITED. THE DB 1600 PG 158 TOTAL ANIMAL POPULATION WILL BE OETI3a.I1NED BY THE WATER AND WASTE WATER PB 78 PG 49 DB 7582 PG 123 I INTERMITTENT STREAIA pIN // 8728 -9Z -4951 1 PIN P 9728PC 49 20 ` PB 78 PC 49 CAPABLDnES OF THE SITE. PIN ' 9728 -82 -9564 IADY`IAIIA /`/- /AIIncPC DISPOSAL OF EUTHANIZED ANIMALS: ANIMALS EUTHAM2ED ARE REMOVED FROM THE FACILITY AND INCINERATED BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR. YAC TIE NAriA pp7E; APRIL 2017 SCALE UNC BINGHAM FACILITY CE PRO f 14BB -0032 HORIZONTAL: r L (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS UNC RErSEARCH RESOURCE FACiUTY) DRAWN wn I• - 60• CO 1 „BAR° ��'1`1�v� t.1V -5C� THE U N ME RS Z Y z SITE PLAN UPDATE 2011 CHECKED EK E -- N �ERRDA �1 PROD. MGR- 1730 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 500 of NORTH CAROLYNI� ROIeIgh. North Carolina 27606( ) at CH1 PEa. 11ILL PROPOSED OVERALL SITE PLA STANS G. r�r�Dx ce.xz Nn "m r.ucsz wAarrs c.vn xnA n, ��' E Ee a Phone: (919)233 -8091, Fax: 919 233 -6031 License: F -1222 ABOVE GROUND FEATURES 2011 SITE PLAN UPDA . sa� ,�rr,•�Y,M��,�•�m�r,�nH,.�.�n. Fyao � mis GArc I�ui�3 " =11 www.mckimcreed.com o� I G) I ( ) 1 1 I I - I 1 ( I 11 NEW DOMESTIC WASTEWATER ` SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM e \ a 1 1 1 11 � EXISTING PROPANE TANKS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING FUEL OIL o 41 / BUILDING TO BE 0 / -O�` DEMOLISHED -S rsh 1 ABANDONED WELL M• �{ ` EXISTING AC CHILLERS AND 11 ELECTRIC TO BE REMOVED ( 1 D 1 I INN \ NMI/ o / SPRAY IRRII PUMP SEAT LEGEND \ _:_ _ � SB9'3412'E 141.65' - {61 \� T Q �- SID - EXISTING POTABLE WATER HELL - PROPOSED STORM DRAIN - EXISTING STREAM /yw MIN. OPEN SPACE RATIO: —1V 0 - EXISTING MONITORING WELL 50 FT JORDAN FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AT BUILDOUT 10 � � �SISIIY II D -- - - - - -- - EXISTING PIEZOMEIER - EXISTING LAKE STREAM BUFFER c w,..� mm � wun,n wnn A1r ,a ro,M nEVra _ EXISTING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER --- - - - - -- - EXISTING 65 FT ORANGE COUNTY STREAM BUFFER - I I I - EXISTING LIGHT POLE - - - -_- - EXISTING PROPERTY LINE - -- - 2RXi.35 I 1 I --- EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL - BUILDING SETBACK ONE EXISTING TELEPHONE HAND HOLE - EXISTING BUSHES 1 - EXISTING CABLE N BOX [705TING VFDODSLINE \ NMI/ o / SPRAY IRRII PUMP SEAT 514 FT \ _:_ _ � I 65 FT ORANGE COUNTY STREAM BUFFER (TIP) 50 FT JORDAN LAKE STREAM BUFFER (TYP) \ NMI/ o I Fro I / 514 FT DIMENSIONAL AND RATIO STANDARDS: PROVIDED E(214,633 O.O�B SF) 3545 -• i /yw MIN. OPEN SPACE RATIO: .a�oo --THERE ARE 15 BUILDINGS ON SITE SEE SHEET C04 FOR MORE INFORMATION. PARKING SPACES: 1 PER LO 3 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AT BUILDOUT 10 � � �SISIIY TRAFFIC GENERATION: +/- 60 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY 1MA� c w,..� mm � wun,n wnn A1r ,a ro,M nEVra nxm m, ec,•v a cu +a cnnrr mr w.v orsavrcns oAtt _ _ EXIST NG 1 \ABANDONED WZl. � TREATMENT S ABANDONED 01 / 1 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ -- _ _ _ _ -- �� 1 _ _ —j9] 70' _ _ — _99 — — — — NB9'1932 YA 1606.981 EXISTING POTABLE WATER METE31 - �vv��w. - PROPOSED V.IDMSONE EXISTING FENCE / - EXISTING RIP RAP AREA I -- - PROPOSED FIIiCE — _ EXISTING LANDSCAPED AREA i/ / I I _ — -• ciLAND AREA DITCH ..�- - STING W - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER ONE - PROPOSED 1JJiO5CAPEO ARi _SS_ - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER UNE - EXISTING SANITARY FORCE MAIN M NORTH I I �FlM - PROPOSED SANITARY FORCE MAIN I / 514 FT DIMENSIONAL AND RATIO STANDARDS: PROVIDED E(214,633 O.O�B SF) 3545 -• MAX. FLOOR AREA RATIO: MIN. PEDESTRIAN & LANDSCAPE RATIO: I/ MIN. OPEN SPACE RATIO: --THERE ARE 15 BUILDINGS ON SITE SEE SHEET C04 FOR MORE INFORMATION. PARKING SPACES: 1 PER LO 11 (e OA @IpLOYEE, 1 YSITOR) FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AT BUILDOUT 10 STUDENTS TAUGHT ON SITE: 0 TRAFFIC GENERATION: +/- 60 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY 1MA� c w,..� mm � wun,n wnn A1r ,a ro,M nEVra nxm m, ec,•v a cu +a cnnrr mr w.v orsavrcns oAtt _ _ EXISTING POTABLE WATER METE31 - �vv��w. - PROPOSED V.IDMSONE EXISTING FENCE / - EXISTING RIP RAP AREA I -- - PROPOSED FIIiCE — _ EXISTING LANDSCAPED AREA i/ / I I _ — -• ciLAND AREA DITCH ..�- - STING W - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER ONE - PROPOSED 1JJiO5CAPEO ARi _SS_ - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER UNE - EXISTING SANITARY FORCE MAIN M NORTH I I �FlM - PROPOSED SANITARY FORCE MAIN ®13z NOTES: 1) PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE HAW RIVER WAIUSHED IN THE CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN. 2) PROECT IS NOT LOCATED W A FFJAA REGULATED FLOODPWN AND NOT SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL FLOW HAZARD OYERUY DISTRICT. 3) MAXIMUOIDJOP 2%SMPERNWSSIifI PROJECTTI Ids tCURR1ENLLY IN PROCESS OF SUBMITTAL TO NWENR FOR RFACE OVERALL LOW DENSITY STWMWATER PERMIT. 4) ROPER LIDO. REWIRED TO COMPLY VMTH STREAM BUFFER REOUIREMEl1S OF SECTION P 6.13 OF THE ORANGE liY LIDO SECTION 6.8 SHALL 5) ALL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED Y41H ORANGE CWt BE FOLLOWED. _ _ _ _ 6 EXISTING TREES. REGARDLESS OF SIZE, SHALL NOT eE WT OR OTHET3N76E �NIAGm OR DESIROYEDIFITHIN LION SYS•J^ : I I ) MARY LIFE PROTECTION AREA E%CFPT A6 SNOWY OI AN PPPROVED LANDSCAPE AND TREE- D 1 I I 7) It I 1 � 6 1 •i I 1 ` INTERMITTENT STREAM \ ;'I PERENNIAL STREAM I I 65 FT ORANGE COUNTY I I ` STREAM BUFFER (TYP) 50 FT JORDAN LAKE - -- - -, ( 1F STREAM DUFFER (TYP) I . 7 I J,...:.. REFURBISHED DOMESTIC \ 1 I WASTEWATER TREAl1.lENT SYSTEM c _ IINTERMITTENT STREAM �Q' QOFESg04'p/ �yc �/ 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 51X1 "'UTJ C6 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Phone: (919)233 -8091, Fax: (919)233 -8031 F -1222 •FS �.� �j I 'JJ www.mckimereed.cam A PRI PRESERVATION PLAN• PLOT PLAN. OR 611E PLAN DRAG 'I MmGNC TREESHPND OTHER VEGETATQ CTI� MEASURES SHALL BE PROVIDED TO NINIIA LE SI BE SHALL BED.GSUCH OTECTIVE DEMCES SHALL GFP}1:CTVELY PROTECT THE CRITITHE RK HAS ZONES- SIGNS TRUNKS, AND TOPS OF TREES TO BE RETAINED AtN SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL ALL PORK NAS BEEN COVPIEiED. THE PROJECT SITE SHALL MAINTAN A TYPE B THIRTY (30) FT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALO1G ALL PROPERTY LINES. 0) ACCESS ROAD LAYOUT SHALL BE REVIEWEO AND APPROVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL 1) INSTAUID ORiDOR PROPERTY. LIGHTING FIXTURES. OTHER THAN BUILDING MOUNTED SECURITY LIGHTS, SHALL BE NO NEW OUTO 2) DEVELOPER SNAIL APPLY FOR ALL APP CAME STORMWAIER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PERMITS AS REWIRED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY UDO AND NWEREU 3) DISPOSAL OF ALL WASTE MATERIAL GENERATE) FROM THE SITE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE PITH THE ORANGE COUNN SCUD WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDWANCE 14) DISPOSAL DRPNCE COUNTY REOUUTIONS AtMO SHALL NOT BE BURNED OR BURIED ON BITE. BE 9l ACCORDANCE NSTN 15) PROPOSED PARKING LOT SHALL COMPLY PITH THE DIMENSIONAL REOUREMENIS CONTAINED YW7HIN SECTION 6.9.10 OF THE ORANGE COUNTY LIDO. 16) pUµDOSCWNnp p, E LOCATED NITHIN THE PRIMARY TREE PROTECTION AREA AS DEFINED V'LTF9N 1HE SITE DATA (__...J �D FROM 5HE T C01) MINIMUM REWIRED OPEN SPACE (PER ZONING SCHEDULE 5.1.2): 48.35 ACRES (852) PROPOSED OPEN SPACE = 54.01 ACRES (957) MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE = 13.60 ACRES (247) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE - 3.55 ACRES (6.37) SETBACKS `- FRONT: I / 514 FT DIMENSIONAL AND RATIO STANDARDS: PROVIDED E(214,633 O.O�B SF) 3545 -• MAX. FLOOR AREA RATIO: MIN. PEDESTRIAN & LANDSCAPE RATIO: I/ MIN. OPEN SPACE RATIO: --THERE ARE 15 BUILDINGS ON SITE SEE SHEET C04 FOR MORE INFORMATION. PARKING SPACES: 1 PER LO 11 (e OA @IpLOYEE, 1 YSITOR) FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AT BUILDOUT 10 STUDENTS TAUGHT ON SITE: 0 TRAFFIC GENERATION: +/- 60 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY L I 1 I ! I I ®13z NOTES: 1) PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE HAW RIVER WAIUSHED IN THE CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN. 2) PROECT IS NOT LOCATED W A FFJAA REGULATED FLOODPWN AND NOT SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL FLOW HAZARD OYERUY DISTRICT. 3) MAXIMUOIDJOP 2%SMPERNWSSIifI PROJECTTI Ids tCURR1ENLLY IN PROCESS OF SUBMITTAL TO NWENR FOR RFACE OVERALL LOW DENSITY STWMWATER PERMIT. 4) ROPER LIDO. REWIRED TO COMPLY VMTH STREAM BUFFER REOUIREMEl1S OF SECTION P 6.13 OF THE ORANGE liY LIDO SECTION 6.8 SHALL 5) ALL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED Y41H ORANGE CWt BE FOLLOWED. _ _ _ _ 6 EXISTING TREES. REGARDLESS OF SIZE, SHALL NOT eE WT OR OTHET3N76E �NIAGm OR DESIROYEDIFITHIN LION SYS•J^ : I I ) MARY LIFE PROTECTION AREA E%CFPT A6 SNOWY OI AN PPPROVED LANDSCAPE AND TREE- D 1 I I 7) It I 1 � 6 1 •i I 1 ` INTERMITTENT STREAM \ ;'I PERENNIAL STREAM I I 65 FT ORANGE COUNTY I I ` STREAM BUFFER (TYP) 50 FT JORDAN LAKE - -- - -, ( 1F STREAM DUFFER (TYP) I . 7 I J,...:.. REFURBISHED DOMESTIC \ 1 I WASTEWATER TREAl1.lENT SYSTEM c _ IINTERMITTENT STREAM �Q' QOFESg04'p/ �yc �/ 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 51X1 "'UTJ C6 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Phone: (919)233 -8091, Fax: (919)233 -8031 F -1222 •FS �.� �j I 'JJ www.mckimereed.cam A PRI PRESERVATION PLAN• PLOT PLAN. OR 611E PLAN DRAG 'I MmGNC TREESHPND OTHER VEGETATQ CTI� MEASURES SHALL BE PROVIDED TO NINIIA LE SI BE SHALL BED.GSUCH OTECTIVE DEMCES SHALL GFP}1:CTVELY PROTECT THE CRITITHE RK HAS ZONES- SIGNS TRUNKS, AND TOPS OF TREES TO BE RETAINED AtN SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL ALL PORK NAS BEEN COVPIEiED. THE PROJECT SITE SHALL MAINTAN A TYPE B THIRTY (30) FT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALO1G ALL PROPERTY LINES. 0) ACCESS ROAD LAYOUT SHALL BE REVIEWEO AND APPROVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL 1) INSTAUID ORiDOR PROPERTY. LIGHTING FIXTURES. OTHER THAN BUILDING MOUNTED SECURITY LIGHTS, SHALL BE NO NEW OUTO 2) DEVELOPER SNAIL APPLY FOR ALL APP CAME STORMWAIER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PERMITS AS REWIRED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY UDO AND NWEREU 3) DISPOSAL OF ALL WASTE MATERIAL GENERATE) FROM THE SITE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE PITH THE ORANGE COUNN SCUD WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDWANCE 14) DISPOSAL DRPNCE COUNTY REOUUTIONS AtMO SHALL NOT BE BURNED OR BURIED ON BITE. BE 9l ACCORDANCE NSTN 15) PROPOSED PARKING LOT SHALL COMPLY PITH THE DIMENSIONAL REOUREMENIS CONTAINED YW7HIN SECTION 6.9.10 OF THE ORANGE COUNTY LIDO. 16) pUµDOSCWNnp p, E LOCATED NITHIN THE PRIMARY TREE PROTECTION AREA AS DEFINED V'LTF9N 1HE SITE DATA (__...J �D FROM 5HE T C01) MINIMUM REWIRED OPEN SPACE (PER ZONING SCHEDULE 5.1.2): 48.35 ACRES (852) PROPOSED OPEN SPACE = 54.01 ACRES (957) MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE = 13.60 ACRES (247) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE - 3.55 ACRES (6.37) SETBACKS `- FRONT: 150 FT 152 FT SIDE 20 FT REAR: 20 FT 514 FT DIMENSIONAL AND RATIO STANDARDS: PROVIDED E(214,633 O.O�B SF) 3545 -• MAX. FLOOR AREA RATIO: MIN. PEDESTRIAN & LANDSCAPE RATIO: 084 (2,G49,062 12,265 SF) 521,413 SF SF) 2,352,650 SF MIN. OPEN SPACE RATIO: --THERE ARE 15 BUILDINGS ON SITE SEE SHEET C04 FOR MORE INFORMATION. PARKING SPACES: 1 PER LO 11 (e OA @IpLOYEE, 1 YSITOR) FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AT BUILDOUT 10 STUDENTS TAUGHT ON SITE: 0 TRAFFIC GENERATION: +/- 60 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY sac ruE Nuts DAAPRIL 2011 SCALE UNC BINGHAM FACILITY •KOROJ A 1488 -0072 HORIZONTAL: wwtnw 60 (PRECO2 VIOUSLY KNOWN A$ UNC R�$EARCH RESOURCE FACW UFS GNED SITE PLAN UPDATE 2011 --- � F°NA THE YJNYVE RSFTZ' CHEDXE� PRPI. M� NA of NORTH CAROLINA STATUS: C at CHAP Ei HILL PRgELOWDGROUNDL FEATURES A 201 SITE PLAN UPDATE '1.33- — I RECONS7RUCTFD \ \ JI WEATHER STORAGE ! / 7 j1jj1111 / /1 Y , • f �'� `, ` �•J; /, , , ,!� 1/, / 1 I o ♦ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, \\�\\ ' \\ \ \VA \\ \\ II t \` \\\\ \\ 11 \1�\ \ \ \ \ \\ \`�``\ r' Y ♦```\ice \\ till. 1 t\- \ 1 ` -` \ \ \\ \ / \\ `l 1,\ \,Q�\ \� _�\\\�\\��. \`�\ \, `\ v\ \ \�\� �� `� �\\\\ \\ ♦\ \his \ \� \\ \ \ I1 /� ♦�_> \\ I \� \ \ \� \`\` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \� ♦\ \\�, \ \R�I 1 1 1 / ' I I � \ \ \� * \ `\ `� \ \ \� \ \ \ \\ii j 111�1111j111 \ \� \\ \ \ \\a � `�` �*•Q� �` �i1���� `� / � � � � � i t \t\ \Ill i i 11111 � 111 � / \ / 1 � o T Il t , 1 � } I 1 L I 11 i 1111j1111111111\ \\ ♦ \�� \ 1 >g�` `` \\ ,\ ,1 \ \l \\`� \�_` I / / , I 1 \ I I l l li Ill 11 rl l //� `l \`_\� �\ It � l I I 1 I 1 I I l;lllljl / %I % /11\� \ ♦ \\ \ '� \��\ 1� < °\ \� \ \\ \a \�\` \ \�`��� _- I l l / J% 1 /JJ! {1 Ijjft ��� � '=- 'i /i / /J, / /� / / / / /i /(!!J� / /! %� _ , ! ! J..: �. \ \. \ _ -/ / j i /j 1 I t 1 L `� \ \ \ \ \ \l ♦� `..rtiy` = / l l i 1 1111 /� \ . / / l l / ! 1 I !. i \ �\\ ♦ \(! / , \ \ \� � `; ham`\ � �� l/ �// l/ /�! 1 J I /. t , v 1 1 1 1:> I f ^_ -`�� =� \ \__ •+e4, � J 1 � � �' %%! \\\\\\ \1 h `� `�`-___ / I /, j I a It \111 INTERM11TI1iT STREAM it I ... vfil`� \�`` ' 1 1 A ! I 1 1 1 I 1 \L��✓ r� ` ♦ \\\ ��J •x� ! \ `C 1 1 I jl\ .I.� 1 `11��`\ x�� l ••i Z1 , tii:: 1 � t 1 11!11 /! /` -\ \\ ` l ® / _� v�L\ \ / ..'*^•.a:`�`\ ' ` \1 \�!, \ �\f- !�l!!r`•� \ \��� \��� ,� \ \ \, \ \ \�i i � _ -! � A, , � � �/ !� J/% � / � � � r`�; � \ I -; ,eid_� F{•� :`�i�i ��I 1 ^!! //` � -^ \� I \7 \ \ 1 I l`\ 1 l \> � 1 � - � 1 0+ II L \ \ \ I\ \ \ \ f r I - - -\\\ - �1` = -� l � � __�' `�-,a\ \� - % ' 1 l 'rts�1:... `:....,..:�•r:..;:•: / T^ i j, it f \ \ \ \ \ I \ I 1 \ \\ \ \ I\ \\ 1 1 I ; \ \ \ - �� � ftil !1 /i'`� � \ ',Jj = _�_ /._� �` T` \ � / �7� i} III YL - •.•�.I a \��. \� �� \\�\ i t _ -�'��` `_ -� 1 �:•. -- �;! // _ 111.5: \. �� 1 1 \* \`\`` fir ` \_� _ . r_��_� _\�� �`L �� / 1!II I -„j • _ \ \i I 1 11 INTERMITTENT STREAM L/Y I Oil NORTH I 1 • f ,- f I - / , I / / I d - / ' I If f I I r ; I I , II I I 11 j I I r i I I a. " r I � PERENNIAL STREAM I I 65 FT ORANGE COUNTY I I STREAM BUFFER (TYP) I I 50 FT JORDAN LAKE I I STREAM BUFFER (TYP) I , I I 1 FlLLED -IN & SEEDED BASIN I I r I I REFURBISHED EFFLUENT I I� STORAGE BASIN I I � I \ II --- k- �-.a -� - PROPOSED FENCE -- - - - - -- - EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR --- ._ - - -- - EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR - PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR • - PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR _ . — . — - - - EXISTING DITCH , _.._.. _.._.. _.. - EXISTING STREAM - - - - - -- - EXISTING 50 FT JORDAN LAKE STREAM BUFFER -- - - - - -- - EXISTING 65 FT ORANGE COUNTY STREAM BUFFER - - - - - -- - EXISTING PROPERTY LINE - — — -- - - BUILDING SETBACK LINE SO - PROPOSED STORM PIPE - EXISTING WOODSUNE - EXISTING RIP RAP AREA - EXISTING LANDSCAPED AREA - EXISTING WETLAND AREA - PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREA UNC BINGHAM FACILITY ° ">E APRIL 20il JICAE SELL sal YCE PFiDJ 1iBB -0032 °" CAR v.1��= IQMMF�CREED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS UNC RESEARCH RESOURCE FACILITY) pRgNN sNx H'01"o.0C /msTI'!E 1UNIVE RSI TY SITE PLAN UPDATE 2011 DESIG4ED CDB W=ED CMB 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 500 Of NORTH CAROL = NA PROJ. MGR. CDR Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 ms na aus.�owrr n.++nc mnrxs wxn ur,a:m, �p 1P FryCRyFEQ• Phone: (919)233 -8091. Fax: (919)233 -8031 at L'+AT'�. -^�`u ][�[�'`,�, PROPOSED OVERALL STANS: m .Dk "FSO Rl��s?` License: F -1222 GRADING AND DRAINAGE KLAN 2011 SITE PLAN UPDATE C RF/N0. 06WalXHS DALE R. iR1NS i I www.mckimcreed.com -. LEGEND p - - EXISTING POTABLE WATER WELL p - - EXISTING MONITORING WELL o - - EXISTING PIEZOMETER - EXISTING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER {x - - EXISTING LIGHT POLE DT - - EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL ® - - EXISTING TELEPHONE HAND HOLE p - - EXISTING CABLE TV BOX ® - - EXISTING POTABLE WATER METER ® - - PROPOSED STORM DROP INLET —x —,— - - EXISTING FENCE UNC BINGHAM FACILITY ° ">E APRIL 20il JICAE SELL sal YCE PFiDJ 1iBB -0032 °" CAR v.1��= IQMMF�CREED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS UNC RESEARCH RESOURCE FACILITY) pRgNN sNx H'01"o.0C /msTI'!E 1UNIVE RSI TY SITE PLAN UPDATE 2011 DESIG4ED CDB W=ED CMB 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 500 Of NORTH CAROL = NA PROJ. MGR. CDR Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 ms na aus.�owrr n.++nc mnrxs wxn ur,a:m, �p 1P FryCRyFEQ• Phone: (919)233 -8091. Fax: (919)233 -8031 at L'+AT'�. -^�`u ][�[�'`,�, PROPOSED OVERALL STANS: m .Dk "FSO Rl��s?` License: F -1222 GRADING AND DRAINAGE KLAN 2011 SITE PLAN UPDATE C RF/N0. 06WalXHS DALE R. iR1NS i I www.mckimcreed.com -. CONSTRUCTED: UNKNOWN FLOOR AREA: 342 SF, HEIGHT: 8' -7' FUNCTION: STORAGE STORAGE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED: UNKNOWN FLOOR AREA: 120 SF, HEIGHT: 9' -7' FUNCTION: STORAGE CONSTRUCTED: 2010 FLOOR AREA: 10,847 SF, HEIGHT: 16' -5' FUNCTION: ANIMAL HOLDING CONSTRUCTED: 1973 mmlom \ \ k FLOOR AREA: 9,411 SF, HEIGHT: 11' -0' ong" -1 Will \\� FUNCTION: ANIMAL HOLDING AND OFFICES 16 Nhl I gm NORTH I .in�srl uA CONSTRUCTED: 2007 FLOOR AREA: 5,363 SF, HEIGHT: 17' -7' FUNCTION: ANIMAL HOLDING i PUMP HOUSE (NO PHOTO) CONSTRUCTED: UNKNOWN FLOOR AREA: 76 SF, HEIGHT: 9' -0' /I® acsrr a „um .n/rx �NARRE]!F r, r I — . i - \U_ KRUxu exewsms 11 1 1 mii�>s�x 1 1 wncrtn tnwrsm rwnw ir --~ 1 vs ^„sr„w � y�.+¢Aw ro�uavxor WY PUMP HOUSE " novae CONSTRUCTED: UNKNOWN CONSTRUCTED: 19TH CENTURY FLOOR AREA: 76 SF, HEIGHT: 9' -O' FLOOR AREA: 1,242 SF, HEIGHT: 21' -0' FUNCTION: STORAGE 1 2ilJE igl^SW RAY �4dJ__. • �� 1,01 BRAY. 5!t [[[���1/ -���1 1 z z -1` w /vl�,fisn �.2d 1�G1,Sl`! LS CONSTRUCTED; FLOOR AREA. 0• SF, HEIGHT: USED I If SHED CONSTRUCTED: UNKNOWN FLOOR AREA: 68 SF. HEIGHT. 12'-10' FUNCTION: STORAGE e trl •t1 P 13,1�_ .,- ,: .7,; ti.•:' }yam =k 7S .: =: � - a— •.v. - -,. - . : 90 S F ' HEIG HT* H T: 9-1 0' CONSTRUCTE: UNKNOWN FLOOR AR EA FU NCTI ON: STORAGE STORAGE BUILDING FILTER AND WELL HOUSE 6 �.. � - .... - - •9:. �• � . - .• CONSTRUCTED: UNKNOWN TRAILER at - - METAL BUILDING - POLE BARN FLOOR AREA: 265 SF, HEIGHT: 14' -3' CONSTRUCTED: 1971 CONSTRUCTED: 2003 CONSTRUCTED: 2003 FLOOR AREA: 1,030 SF, HEIGHT. 12' -9' FLOOR AREA: 3,200 SF, HEIGHT: 18' -0' FLOOR AREA: 3,515 SF, HEIGHT: 19' -5' FUNCTION: STORAGE FUNCTION: STORAGE FUNCTION: STORAGE UNC BINGHAM FACILITY °ATE APPoL =011 SCALE rm�was CgR�4 MRE" a Flee -0032 `v% � i+��— ,nT,•�� (PREVIOUSLY KNOW AS UNC RESEARgi RESOURCE FAgLlll� DRAM" sHK "°`°z«'i"L= ^„'•+�„�„ COQ- QQpFESSby,/,� C� L„j�,r+, THE UNIVERSITY SITE PLAN UPDATE 2011 CHE�e � VER11CAl: E DESIGNS CIIR C04 1730 Vorsity Drive, Suite 500 of NORTH CAROLINA FROJ. MGR. co R NA Roleigh, Nwth Corolino 27606 s onww+rtm..na a�sur�ami^�4��, FNGIREEa�.l �r Phone: (919)233 -8091, Fax: (919)233 -8031 ``l at CHAPEL HILL PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH STAtUS: R w arm mtv eru<lw s++n¢avnr sewn sAmn /MAT °w. mp•:: (l��e License: F -1222 �, aE EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOS t 2011 SITE PLAN UPDATE C 12 �7-11 www.mckimcreed.com mmlom \ \ k ong" -1 Will \\� gm i - \U_ KRUxu exewsms 11 1 1 mii�>s�x 1 1 wncrtn tnwrsm rwnw ir --~ 1 vs ^„sr„w � y�.+¢Aw ro�uavxor WY PUMP HOUSE " novae CONSTRUCTED: UNKNOWN CONSTRUCTED: 19TH CENTURY FLOOR AREA: 76 SF, HEIGHT: 9' -O' FLOOR AREA: 1,242 SF, HEIGHT: 21' -0' FUNCTION: STORAGE 1 2ilJE igl^SW RAY �4dJ__. • �� 1,01 BRAY. 5!t [[[���1/ -���1 1 z z -1` w /vl�,fisn �.2d 1�G1,Sl`! LS CONSTRUCTED; FLOOR AREA. 0• SF, HEIGHT: USED I If SHED CONSTRUCTED: UNKNOWN FLOOR AREA: 68 SF. HEIGHT. 12'-10' FUNCTION: STORAGE e trl •t1 P 13,1�_ .,- ,: .7,; ti.•:' }yam =k 7S .: =: � - a— •.v. - -,. - . : 90 S F ' HEIG HT* H T: 9-1 0' CONSTRUCTE: UNKNOWN FLOOR AR EA FU NCTI ON: STORAGE STORAGE BUILDING FILTER AND WELL HOUSE 6 �.. � - .... - - •9:. �• � . - .• CONSTRUCTED: UNKNOWN TRAILER at - - METAL BUILDING - POLE BARN FLOOR AREA: 265 SF, HEIGHT: 14' -3' CONSTRUCTED: 1971 CONSTRUCTED: 2003 CONSTRUCTED: 2003 FLOOR AREA: 1,030 SF, HEIGHT. 12' -9' FLOOR AREA: 3,200 SF, HEIGHT: 18' -0' FLOOR AREA: 3,515 SF, HEIGHT: 19' -5' FUNCTION: STORAGE FUNCTION: STORAGE FUNCTION: STORAGE UNC BINGHAM FACILITY °ATE APPoL =011 SCALE rm�was CgR�4 MRE" a Flee -0032 `v% � i+��— ,nT,•�� (PREVIOUSLY KNOW AS UNC RESEARgi RESOURCE FAgLlll� DRAM" sHK "°`°z«'i"L= ^„'•+�„�„ COQ- QQpFESSby,/,� C� L„j�,r+, THE UNIVERSITY SITE PLAN UPDATE 2011 CHE�e � VER11CAl: E DESIGNS CIIR C04 1730 Vorsity Drive, Suite 500 of NORTH CAROLINA FROJ. MGR. co R NA Roleigh, Nwth Corolino 27606 s onww+rtm..na a�sur�ami^�4��, FNGIREEa�.l �r Phone: (919)233 -8091, Fax: (919)233 -8031 ``l at CHAPEL HILL PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH STAtUS: R w arm mtv eru<lw s++n¢avnr sewn sAmn /MAT °w. mp•:: (l��e License: F -1222 �, aE EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOS t 2011 SITE PLAN UPDATE C 12 �7-11 www.mckimcreed.com 3, -0" 2' -0" WIDTH VARIES 3 3 F- 't � 1/4" PER. FT. IpFR. R 3 6" COMPACTED ABC LINE w/ JUTE NETTING 1V" STRAVI GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD NTS 3.1 M I 1/4" PER. FT. 6:1 1 1� B" COMPACTED ABC LINE w/ JUTE NETTING 1VfiH STRAW GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD — PROPANE TANKS NTS PARKING NOTE: 1. IF ANON-VAN PARKING SPACE SHARES AN ACCESS AISLE WITH A VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE. THEN THE ACCESS AISLE SHALL BE 96' WIDE. 2. NEW SPACES SHALL NOT USE GROUND - PAINTED SYMBOLS. 3. ACCESSIBLE SPACES ARE REQUIRED TO BE STRIPED OFF ONLY; STRIPING IS WHITE ON DARK PAVEMENT, BLACK ON LIGHT PAVEMENT. (N.C.D.O.T.) 0 N NOTE: 1, PARKING SPACES TO BE GRAVEL UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. PARKING STALL DETAIL NTS 12- PARKING PENALTY VAN ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE AT RIGHT HAND DISCHARGE, HANDICAPPED PARKING SIGN 'R7 -8E' AS REQUIRED BY NORTH CAROLINA ACCESSIBILITY CODE. ATTACH SIGN TO POLE W/ GALV. MOUNTING BOLTS. 8,-0" X 1 112- DIAMETER GALVANIZED POLE HANDICAP PARKING SIGN DETAIL NTS 6' -0 PVMT //_ ETL ELEVATION RODS2' -6 -LONG BOTH ENDS 1 -1/2' 6" 1 -1/2" €v 244 (MIN.) a - END VIEW CONCRETE WHEELSTOP DETAIL NTS UNC BINGHAM FACILITY DATE- APRL 2011 SCALE . wrw SEAL SFK . MCE PROJ 4 1490 -0032 HDRI20NTAL: w�w,c M� ,BAR " THE U N T V E RS I : Y (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS UNC RESEARCH RESOURCE FACWTY) DRAM SHK NA V�I��KIQMCREED SITE PLAN UPDATE 2011 �1 �Q�4455:Oq� R - OESIG4m CDR `.IOC CHECKED CUB VII211CPL J ' 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 500 O NORTH CAROLINA � PRGJ. MGR. CDR NA Raleigh, North Carolina 27506 mff rw w�.v�mvn wuwz ro"curs o.lm iti. �a vn sAgM f EP Phone: (919)233 -8091, Fax: (919)233 -8031 CHAPE',L HILL SITE DETAILS rr_ rro�*rn N. w..m vrt w.r s.�mw 6 /np ,��.s NGIh4 � License: F- 1222 6'- 57A1us a m ®mu�nsrwcrareur.FmvnsrtnA.smm ,,,,A, ' ",gyp. R1,,,,. 2011 SITE PLAN UPDATE D Rcvxo .5 °8� (2= ��I www.mckimcreed.com