HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 0205141
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
ORANGE COUNTY WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING
131 WEST MARGARET LANE – LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM (ROOM #004)
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.
3-4
5-18
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Planning Calendar for February and March
b. Quarterly Public Hearing – 7:00 p.m. on Feb. 24 @ Dept. of
Social Services – draft legal ad attached
3.
19-24
25-28
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 8, 2014 ORC Meeting Notes
January 8, 2014 Regular Meeting
4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
5. PUBLIC CHARGE
Introduction to the Public Charge
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and
future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
Public Charge
The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The Board asks
its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board
and with fellow residents. At any time, should any member of the Board or any resident fail
to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting
until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair
will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is
observed.
6. CHAIR COMMENTS
1
2
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
7. 29-45 MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN: To review and make a decision on a
major subdivision concept plan application (Pleasant Green Woods,
Phase IV), located off of Pleasant Green Road.
Presenter: Jennifer Leaf, Planner I
8.
COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment
b. Orange Unified Transportation
9. ADJOURNMENT
IF AN EMERGENCY OCCURS, OR IF YOU ARE RUNNING LATE FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE LEAVE A VOICE MAIL FOR
MICHAEL HARVEY (919-245-2597).
2
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
February 2014
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
March 2014February 2014
Ja
n
2
6
-
F
e
b
1
Jan 26 27 28 29 30 31 Feb 1
Fe
b
2
-
8
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Department
of Social
Services)
7:00pm
*PLANNING
BOARD
MEETING
(West
Campus
Office Bldg )
Fe
b
9
-
1
5
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:30pm Board
of
Adjustment
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
7:00pm BOCC
Budget Work
Session
(Southern
Human
Services)
7:00pm BOCC
Work Session
(Link Gov't
Service)
Fe
b
1
6
-
2
2
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
7:00pm
OUTBoard
Meeting
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
Fe
b
2
3
-
M
a
r
1
23 24 25 26 27 28 Mar 1
7:00pm
*Quarterly
Public
Hearing
(Dept of
Social
Services)
7:00pm
BOCC/Town
of
Hillsborough
Joint Meeting
(Link Gov't
Service)
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
3
*Planning Board Member Attendance Required
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
March 2014
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
April 2014March 2014
Fe
b
2
3
-
M
a
r
1
Feb 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mar 1
Ma
r
2
-
8
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Department
of Social
Services)
7:00pm
*PLANNING
BOARD
MEETING
(West
Campus
Office Bldg )
7:00pm BOCC
Meeting
(Dept Social
Services)
Ma
r
9
-
1
5
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:30pm Board
of
Adjustment
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
5:30pm BOCC Work
SessionDinner
Meeting (Link*RY
W
6HUYLFH
7:00pm %2&&
:ork Session(Link
Gov't SeUYLFH
Ma
r
1
6
-
2
2
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
7:00pm
OUTBoard
Meeting
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
Ma
r
2
3
-
2
9
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
7:00pm
BOCC/Town
of Chapel Hill
Joint Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
Ma
r
3
0
-
A
p
r
5
30 31 Apr 1 2 3 4 5
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
4
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 4, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public Hearing – February 24, 2014
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Proposed Legal Advertisement
2. Location Maps
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems
Coordinator, 919-245-2578
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 919-
245- 2592
PURPOSE: To consider the legal advertisement for items to be presented at the joint Board of
County Commissioners/Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing scheduled for February 24,
2014.
BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners reviews proposals to be considered at
public hearing for consistency with general County policy and presentation format. The following
items are scheduled for the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing (see maps in
Attachment 2 for locations):
Applications:
1. Class A Special Use Permit request submitted by Strata Solar and Stout Farm LLC to
develop a 5 megawatt solar array/public utility station on two parcels of property,
totaling approximately 52 acres in area, off of Redman Road. Parcel Identification
Numbers (PIN) are 9844-06-5971 and 9844-17-2687.
2. Class A Special Use Permit request submitted by Sunlight Partners LLC, Kinetix
Engineering and Shelia Bishop, Michael Bishop, and Annie Nunn to develop a 5
megawatt solar array/public utility station on two parcels of property, totaling
approximately 50 acres in area, off of Mt. Sinai Road. Parcel Identification Numbers
(PIN) are 9881-38-8874 and 9881-49-3072.
3. Zoning Atlas Amendment request submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Don and Donna Easterlin
to rezone an approximately 12 acre parcel of property located at 5908 US 70 West:
FROM: Economic Development Eno Low Intensity (EDE-1); Economic
Development Eno High Intensity (EDE-2); and Lower Eno Protected
Watershed Protection Overlay.
5
TO: Economic Development Eno High Intensity (EDE-2) and Lower Eno
Protected Watershed Protection Overlay.
4. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment request submitted by Mr. and Mrs.
Don and Donna Easterlin to amend Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (b) Kennels (Class II) –
Standards of Evaluation to reduce required setbacks for Class II Kennels developed
within the EDE-2 zoning district. The current minimum setback is 150-feet. The text
amendment would reduce the required setback to 25-feet which is the minimum setback
for other structures developed in the EDE-2 zoning district.
County Initiated:
5. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments to establish two new zoning overlay
districts in the Efland area (see map in Attachment 2 for locations). The proposed
overlay districts are measures to implement some of the recommendations contained in
the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan. This item was heard at the November 19,
2012 quarterly public hearing but was not adopted in 2013.
6. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendments to establish the Agricultural Support Enterprises program outside of
the Rural Buffer land use classification.
7. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendments to establish the Agricultural Support Enterprises program within the
Rural Buffer land use classification.
8. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments to change the existing
public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-related
projects/amendments.
The legal advertisement in Attachment 1 provides additional information regarding these items.
The BOCC approved the Amendment Outline Form for items 5 and 8 at its October 15, 2013
meeting and approved the Amendment Outline Form for item 6 at its September 5, 2013
meeting. Item 7 is an “umbrella” item under item 6; the amendments related to the Rural Buffer
were separated from the remainder of the county after the November 21, 2013 Assembly of
Governments meeting because it was determined amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land
Use Plan & Agreement would be necessary in order to apply the Agricultural Support
Enterprises program in the Rural Buffer. Because amendments to the Joint Planning Area
documents involve more steps and the staffs and elected officials of the joint planning partners,
County staff believed it would be prudent to separate the amendments that pertain to the Rural
Buffer for both timeliness and clarity purposes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Other than advertising costs, which are included in the FY 2013-14
Budget, there are no direct financial impacts associated with the approval of this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Interim Manager recommends the Board approve the proposed
February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing legal advertisement.
6
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
A joint public hearing will be held at the Department of Social Services, Hillsborough
Commons, 113 Mayo St., Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, February 24, 2014
at 7:00 PM for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or
against the following items:
1. Class A Special Use Permit: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7
Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO), Strata Solar and Stout Farm LLC have submitted a Class A
Special Use Permit application seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station
on two parcels of property, totaling approximately 52 acres in area, off of Redman
Road between the railway and Interstate 85/40.
Strata Solar intends to lease the parcels, with Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) of
9844-06-5971 and 9844-17-2687, owned by Stout Farm LLC to develop a 5
megawatt facility involving the erection of individual solar arrays.
The properties in question are zoned Rural Residential (R-1), Upper Eno Protected
Watershed Protection and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay Districts.
The properties are located within the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node
(CITAN) land use category as denoted on the Future Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Designated Area as denoted on the Growth
Management System Map.
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the application.
2. Class A Special Use Permit: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7
Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO), Sunlight Partners LLC, Kinetix Engineering and Shelia Bishop,
Michael Bishop, and Annie Nunn have submitted a Class A Special Use Permit
application seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station on two parcels of
property, totaling approximately 50 acres in area, off of Mt. Sinai Road near
Cascade Drive.
Sunlight Partners LLC intends to lease the parcels, with Parcel Identification
Numbers (PIN) of 9881-38-8874 and 9881-49-3072, to develop a 5 megawatt facility
involving the erection of individual solar arrays.
The properties in question are zoned Rural Buffer (RB) and are located within the
Rural Buffer land use category as denoted on the Future Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Rural Designated Area as denoted on the Growth
Management System Map.
Attachment 1
7
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the application.
3. Zoning Atlas Amendment: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning
Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Orange County
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Mr. and Mrs. Don and Donna Easterlin
have submitted an application seeking to rezone an approximately 12 acre parcel of
property located at 5908 US 70 West:
FROM: Economic Development Eno Low Intensity (EDE-1); Economic
Development Eno High Intensity (EDE-2); and Lower Eno Protected
Watershed Protection Overlay.
TO: Economic Development Eno High Intensity (EDE-2) and Lower Eno
Protected Watershed Protection Overlay.
The parcel in question is currently split zoned with a Parcel Identification Number
(PIN) of 0803-11-5662. Approximately 8.6 acres of the property is zoned EDE-2
with the remaining acreage (approximately 3.4 acres) zoned EDE-1.
The property is currently utilized to support a Class II Kennel operation and a
telecommunications tower. Kennels are a permitted use of property, subject to the
issuance of a Class B Special Use Permit, in the EDE-2 zoning district and are
prohibited within the EDE-1 zoning district. According to the application, Mr. and
Mrs. Easterlin are requesting the rezoning to eliminate the existing split zoning and
ensure the kennel operation is entirely contained within the EDE-2 general use
zoning designation.
The property subject to this petition is located within the Economic Development
Transition Activity Node land use category as denoted on the Future Land Use Map
of the Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Designated Area as denoted on the
Growth Management System Map.
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the application.
4. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment: In accordance with
the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments of the UDO, Mr. and Mrs. Don and Donna Easterlin have submitted an
application seeking to amend Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (b) Kennels (Class II) –
Standards of Evaluation to reduce required setbacks for Class II Kennels developed
within the EDE-2 zoning district.
Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO requires a Class II Kennel operation, including
outdoor runs, exercise yards, or buildings where animals are housed, to observe a
150 foot setback from property lines.
According to the application, Mr. and Mrs. Easterlin operate a Class II Kennel at
5908 US 70 West, the majority of which is zoned EDE-2. Portions of the operation,
8
permitted under an existing Special Use Permit issued on March 10, 1986, are within
the required 150 foot setback.
The proposed amendment would reduce the required setbacks for Class II Kennels,
developed within the EDE-2 zoning district, to 25 feet which is the typical setback
required for structures developed within the district.
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the application.
5. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments: In accordance with the provisions
of Section 2.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and
Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Unified Development
Ordinance, the Planning Director has initiated an amendment to the text of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance and to the Zoning
Atlas.
The purpose of these amendments is to establish two new zoning overlay districts in
the Efland area. These proposed actions are measures to implement some of the
recommendations contained in the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan. This is
virtually the same text amendment that was heard at the November 19, 2012
quarterly public hearing but the text amendment was not adopted in 2013.
In the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use and Zoning Matrix contained in
Appendix F is proposed to be amended by adding a checkmark to potentially allow a
special zoning overlay district in the following land use classifications: 20-Year
Transition, Commercial Transition Activity Node, Commercial-Industrial Transition
Activity Node, and Economic Development Transition Activity Node.
The following Sections of the UDO are proposed for amendment: 2.5.7 and 4.4.
Additionally, existing Sections 4.5 and 4.6 will be renumbered to 4.7 and 4.8,
respectively. New Sections 4.5 and 4.6 will be inserted to establish the new zoning
overlay districts. Existing Section 6.6.3 will be renumbered to be 6.6.5 and new
Sections 6.6.3 and 6.6.4 will be inserted to establish standards for the two proposed
zoning overlay districts.
The proposed renumbering will also affect references to the sections proposed for
renumbering. References will be updated in the following existing Sections: 4.5.1
(which will also be renumbered to 4.7.1), 6.8.12, and 7.13.2.
The Zoning Atlas is proposed to be amended in order to depict the geographic
extent of the two overlay districts.
The general geographic extent of the proposed “Efland Village Overlay District” is
the railroad tracks that run through Efland to slightly north of U.S. Highway 70 with
west-east boundaries of the Harding Road area and Gym Road.
9
The general geographic extent of the proposed “Efland Interstate Overlay District” is
the railroad tracks that run through Efland to Interstate 40/85 with west-east
boundaries of a line between Gaines Chapel Road and Center Street and the U.S.
70 Connector.
A map depicting the proposed overlay districts is available on the Planning
Department’s website at: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/SpecialProjects.asp
Single-family residential uses are not subject to the proposed overlay districts.
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed text and
zoning atlas amendments.
6. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendments: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3 Comprehensive
Plan Amendments and Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development
Ordinance Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning
Director has initiated an amendment to the text of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
and the Unified Development Ordinance and to the Zoning Atlas.
The purpose of these amendments is to establish a zoning program commonly
referred to as Agricultural Support Enterprises (ASE). This text amendment would
establish the ASE program outside of the Rural Buffer land use classification, as
depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This is a
program that has been in development since 2001.
In the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use and Zoning Matrix contained in
Appendix F is proposed to be amended by adding an ASE-CZ zoning district that
would potentially be allowed in the following Land Use Classifications: Commercial
Transition Activity Node, Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node, Rural
Residential, Agricultural Residential, Rural Community Activity Node, Rural
Neighborhood Activity Node, and Rural Industrial Activity Node.
The following Sections of the UDO are proposed for amendment: 2.4.3, 2.5.2, 3.8,
numerous Sections in Article 5 (including the Table of Permitted Uses), 6.2.5, 6.2.6,
6.4.10, 6.8.6, 6.9.7, and Article 10 (Definitions).
The purpose of the Agricultural Support Enterprises program is to accommodate
appropriate uses farmers outside of the Rural Buffer land use classification can
pursue in order to generate additional farm-related income and to potentially allow
farming support/related uses in rural areas while minimizing any adverse impacts on
adjoining property by applying special standards for specific uses and the
development requirements in the County’s UDO for all projects. By better enabling
farmers to stay in the business of farming, the rural, farming heritage of Orange
County will continue to be preserved.
10
Additional information about this topic is available on the Planning Department’s
website at: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/SpecialProjects.asp
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed text
amendments.
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
for this proposal
In an effort to better inform interested persons in an informal setting, a Public
Information Meeting will be held on Thursday, February 13, 2014. Interested
persons will have the opportunity to hear a presentation and ask questions
about the proposed amendments. The Public Information Meeting will be
held in the Food Lab of the Environmental and Agricultural Center located at
306 Revere Road in Hillsborough and will begin at 6:00 p.m.
7. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendments: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3 Comprehensive
Plan Amendments and Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development
Ordinance Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning
Director has initiated an amendment to the text of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
and the Unified Development Ordinance and to the Zoning Atlas.
The purpose of these amendments is to establish a zoning program commonly
referred to as Agricultural Support Enterprises (ASE). This text amendment would
establish the ASE program within the Rural Buffer land use classification, as
depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
In the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use and Zoning Matrix contained in
Appendix F is proposed to be amended by adding a checkmark to potentially allow
the ASE-CZ zoning district in the Rural Buffer land use classification.
The following Sections of the UDO are proposed for amendment: 3.8 and several
sections in Article 5, including the Table of Permitted Uses and Sections that are not
currently adopted but would be adopted as part of “ASE outside of the Rural Buffer”
(item #6 above).
The purpose of the Agricultural Support Enterprises program, as it applies to the
Rural Buffer land use classification, is to accommodate appropriate uses farmers
can pursue in order to generate additional farm-related income and to potentially
allow appropriate farming support/related uses in the Rural Buffer while minimizing
any adverse impacts on adjoining property by applying special standards for specific
uses and the development requirements in the County’s UDO for all projects.
Projects in the Rural Buffer must also conform to the Joint Planning Area Land Use
11
Plan/Agreement which is a joint planning effort between Orange County and the
Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. By better enabling farmers to stay in the
business of farming, the rural, farming heritage of Orange County will continue to be
preserved.
Additional information about this topic is available on the Planning Department’s
website at: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/SpecialProjects.asp
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed text
amendments.
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
for this proposal
In an effort to better inform interested persons in an informal setting, a Public
Information Meeting will be held on Thursday, February 13, 2014. Interested
persons will have the opportunity to hear a presentation and ask questions
about the proposed amendments. The Public Information Meeting will be
held in the Food Lab of the Environmental and Agricultural Center located at
306 Revere Road in Hillsborough and will begin at 6:00 p.m.
8. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment: In accordance with
the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has
initiated amendments to the text of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
The purpose of the amendments is to change the existing public hearing process for
Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-related items/amendments.
The following Sections are proposed for amendments: 2.1, 2.3, 2.7, 2.8, 5.10.2.
The proposed amendments would replace the existing joint Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC)/Planning Board quarterly public hearings with a minimum of
eight (8) BOCC-only public hearing dates per year. The Planning Board would make
its recommendation to the BOCC after the public hearing but a quorum of Planning
Board members would no longer be necessary to hold a public hearing.
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed
amendments.
Substantial changes in items presented at the public hearing may be made following the
receipt of comments made at the public hearing. Accommodations for individuals with
physical disabilities can be provided if the request is made to the Planning Director at
least 48 hours prior to the Public Hearing by calling the one of the phone numbers
below. The full text of the public hearing items may be obtained no later than February
14, 2014 at the County website www.co.orange.nc.us at the Meeting Agendas link.
12
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning
Department located on the second floor of the County Office Building at 131 West
Margaret Lane, Suite 201, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call (919) 245-2575 or 245-2585 and
you will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions.
PUBLISH: The Herald Sun News of Orange
February 12, 2014 February 12, 2014
February 19, 2014 February 19, 2014
13
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 01/10/2014
VICINITY MAP - STRATA SOLARCLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
US 70 W
I 85 NI 40 E
I 85 SI 40 W
RE
D
M
A
N
RD
RE
D
M
A
N
XIN
G
US 70 W
I 85 N I 40 E
I 85 SI 40 W
1 inch = 400 feet
0 500 1,000Feet·
Parcels
Township Boundary
City Limits
ETJ2010 ImagesRGB
Red: Band_1
Green: Band_2
Blue: Band_3
I
4
0
E
I
4
0
W
NC 57
I 85 S
N
C
8
6
N
NC 54 W
US 70 W
NC 49
US 1
5
5
0
1
S
SUBJECT PARCELPIN 9844-17-2687
RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING
SUBJECT PARCELPIN 9844-06-5971
RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING
R-1 ZONING
R-1 ZONING
R-1 ZONING
EDB-2 ZONING
EDB-2 ZONING
14
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 01/10/2014
VICINITY MAP - SUNLIGHT PARTNERS LLCCLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
FA
L
L
S
D
R
B
R
I
S
B
A
N
E
D
R
CAPREA CT
C
A
S
C
A
D
E
D
R
CE
D
R
O
N
E
L
L
A
R
D
CHARL
O
C
K
C
T
MT S
I
N
A
I
R
D
1 inch = 400 feet
0 500 1,000Feet·
Parcels
Township Boundary
City Limits
ETJ2010 ImagesRGB
Red: Band_1
Green: Band_2
Blue: Band_3
I
4
0
E
I
4
0
W
NC 57
I 85 S
N
C
8
6
N
NC 54 W
US 70 W
NC 49
US 1
5
5
0
1
S
SUBJECT PARCELPIN 9881-38-8874
RURAL BUFFER (RB) ZONING
SUBJECT PARCELPIN 9881-49-3072
RURAL BUFFER (RB) ZONING
15
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 01/10/2014
VICINITY MAP - EASTERLINREZONING REQUEST
US 70 E US 70 E
1 inch = 130 feet
0 500 1,000Feet·
Parcels
Township Boundary
City Limits
ETJ2010 ImagesRGB
Red: Band_1
Green: Band_2
Blue: Band_3
I
4
0
E
I
4
0
W
NC 57
I 85 S
N
C
8
6
N
NC 54 W
US 70 W
NC 49
US 1
5
5
0
1
S
SUBJECT PROPERTYPIN 0803-11-5662
EDE-2ZONING
EDE-1 ZONING
EDE-2ZONING
16
G
A
I
NES
CHAPEL
RD
US 7 0 W
BENWICH
L
N
BENJOHNSTONRD
E
F
L
A
N
D
C
E
D
A
R
G
R
O
V
E
R
D
WEST TEN RD
I 85
U
S
7
0
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
O
R
SANDERS RD
BROOKHOLLOWRD
EF
L
AND
ST
MARVINLN
GYM RD
S
O
A
K
S
T
MA
P
L
E
S
T
US 70 W
N
OAK
ST
HA
R
D
I
N
G
R
D
WE
S
T
T
E
N
R
D
S OU T H E R N D R
FULLER RD
I 85 N I 40 E
I 85 S I 40 W
M
T
W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
T
I
N
N
I
N
R
D
WATSO N R D
FORREST AVE
D
E
W
E
Y
R
D
A
S
H
W
I
C
K
D
R
CE
N
T
ER
S
T
SOUTHERN DR
THOMA
S
RUFFINDR
S
PIK
E
RD
N L LOYDSDAIRYRD
Orange County Planning and Inspections DepartmentGIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson. 1/14/2014
1 inch = 1,200 feet
0 1,000Feet·
Proposed Zoning Overlay Districts
Proposed Efland InterstateOverlay District
Proposed Efland VillageOverlay District
Efland-Cheeks Highway 70Overlay District
Pre-designatedCommercial Area
Watersheds
Major Transportation Corridor
AR
R1
R3
LC1
AS
NC2
EC5
EDB-2
OI
I1
I2
EI
PID
17
18
1
SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JANUARY 8, 2014 3
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4
5
NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6
7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township 8
Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Paul Guthrie, At-Large, Chapel Hill Township; Tony 9
Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large 10
Chapel Hill Township; 11
12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Special 14
Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Jennifer Leaf, Planner I; Tina Love, Administrative 15
Assistant II 16
17
18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 19 20
21 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING 22 PROCESS 23
To continue review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO to change the existing public 24
hearing process and to amend other provisions that need to be changed if the public hearing process is 25
amended. 26 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator 27 28 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed abstract. 29
30
Pete Hallenbeck: I think the chart on page 11 is really good, it tells you what’s going on. I also like the idea of 31
discontinuing the joint BOCC/Planning Board meetings. It seems like the role of the Planning Board during these 32
meetings tends to be just to sit there and there are other opportunities for the Planning Board to voice its concern. 33
There is nothing to keep Planning Board members from attending the public hearing and I would not object if it was 34
decided that the Planning Board Chair was required to be at the public hearing or at least somebody from the 35
Planning Board. I do think it is good and important when you have citizen input to be able to hear it in addition to 36
just reading it. I think not having the joint meeting is good but I’d like to have a mechanism where someone from 37
the Planning Board is there so they can get more than the word. There are comments from both the 38
Commissioners and the public during the hearing and it would be good to have a member present to hear them. 39
40
Paul Guthrie: Basically, I think this is a good move for a couple of reason. One is the increased number of hearing 41
opportunities which I think can expedite a lot of the procedure and maybe take a little pressure off the planning staff 42
since it gets spread out. They don’t have to dump everything into four quarters. I do have a couple of questions. 43
One is what kind of communication summarizing the public hearing will be transmitted to the Planning Board so that 44
the Planning Board can intelligently consider the topic? 45
46
Perdita Holtz: It is unlikely that official quarterly public hearing minutes would be available quick enough for 47
Planning Board meetings. We are envisioning that the Planning Board meeting would occur within two to three 48
weeks after the public hearing and generally meeting minutes take longer than that for the Clerk’s office to turn 49
around. It would probably be, if the Planning Board was not going to view the meeting on the internet in the comfort 50
of your own home, similar to what happens now where comments that were made are in the amendment outline 51
form and the abstract and we provide a staff response, as necessary, to those comments. So it would pretty much 52
be a staff report of what took place. 53
19
2
54
Pete Hallenbeck: I also like the quicker review and more meetings and less time for the public to get something 55
through. That is certainly the number one point of all of this. 56
57
Perdita Holtz: I should mention that it is probably not going to be less time from application deadline to decision but 58
there will be more opportunities for someone to submit an application. If they miss a deadline, they don’t have to 59
wait as long until the next application deadline. 60
61
Paul Guthrie: On page 19, in the new language, Planning Board shall make a recommendation based on 62
information entered into the record at the public hearing but not make the finding required in section 5.3.2A. Does 63
that mean that it is going to be the individual duty of the Planning Board member to look at all the documentation 64
put in the public record at the time of the hearing in order to justify its decision? 65
66
Perdita Holtz: No, this is for Special Use Permits. They don’t come along that often but for Class A Special Use 67
Permits there is a 15 page form of yes/no answers that staff fills out for the Planning Board on whether it meets the 68
requirements of various sections such as if they have enough landscaping, if they have enough buffer, etc. and we 69
check yes or no in staff’s opinion and then the Planning Board either concurs with that opinion or dissents from that 70
opinion. On that form there are four questions that staff does not make a recommendation on and those are things 71
that the Planning Board has to come to its own conclusion about and the BOCC has to come to its own conclusion 72
as well. Those are the section referenced here and if you were not at the hearing it would be legally murky to make 73
those findings if you weren’t in attendance so that is what this is in reference to. I should also mention that on page 74
17, the language of 2.3.10b needs to be revised a little bit before it goes to public hearing so that will be changing 75
from what you see in front of you here. 76
77
Paul Guthrie: You have similar language in 2.8.8b. Another question, have you thought about how you would 78
space the 8 mandatory hearing dates? 79
80
Perdita Holtz: It is going to be up to the BOCC to decide that but we as staff are going to recommend to them that 81
they probably do hearings in the months of February, March, April, May, September, October, November. January 82
they only have one meeting per year and it is usually very full and in December those are the last meetings before 83
the break so we don’t want to put them there plus the agenda deadlines are different due to the holidays. June is off 84
as it is very budget heavy month when they have to adopt the budget by the end of the month. That is our staff 85
recommendation but the BOCC will stagger them however they want. 86
87
Paul Guthrie: Again in 2.8.8e, which is existing language, do you think that existing language is a little too 88
restrictive given the new format of not having the joint hearings? Essentially, the first time we’ll be exposed to 89
testimony will be in the presentation at the Planning Board meeting and does that mean we cut off verbal testimony. 90
91
Perdita Holtz: The reason it was adopted was the BOCC did not want to have oral evidence at the Planning Board 92
meetings that they did not also hear. That is why this language exists. The meeting at the Planning Board is not 93
going to be an official public hearing it is just a regular Planning Board meeting and technically people will not be 94
able to come and speak if they don’t also have their comments in writing. If you think that is not desirable, you can 95
make a recommendation to look at that or change the language. 96
97
Paul Guthrie: I would encourage you to think about it because, and I’m wondering if that may even need to be 98
elaborated on a little bit, because if somebody wants to come the Planning Board meeting or only knows about it 99
through the Planning Board then we are advising County Commissioners who have already had a hearing. It 100
bothers me a little bit. 101
102
20
3
Pete Hallenbeck: I think that could be mentioned to the Commissioners but it is definitely their call. I see their 103
concern that the Planning Board meeting would not be a public hearing. If people show to speak all of a sudden it is 104
a public hearing but the Planning Board is a mechanism for receiving input. 105
106
Paul Guthrie: Does that mean inversely if someone wants to speak on the subject on our agenda, they cannot 107
speak. 108
109
Pete Hallenbeck: The way I read it is if they have something written down they are allowed to come and give it to 110
the Board. I think the Planning Board could interact with them if they had questions or clarifications. The only thing 111
I would worry about with someone giving just oral evidence at the Planning Board meeting is that has to be carefully 112
documented as we certainly don’t a scenario where someone says they said something at a meeting and there is 113
no documentation of it. The public hearing is better equipped for that. Finally, the Commissioners may, for the 114
same reason that I was, want to have Planning Board member present at the public hearings. I think the 115
Commissioners get a lot from hearing people talk and how they speak and how passionate they are and that might 116
be another reason they want to make sure that if somebody’s just doing an oral presentation, they hear it. If staff 117
wanted to bounce that off the Commissioners and verify, yes we want oral presentations only at the County 118
Commissioners’ meetings and anything presented at Planning Board should be written, they can verify that. I am a 119
little nervous about the Planning Board taking oral presentations we have to be careful of the interactions and 120
cannot promise anything like they can. The vote we have is not binding and the Commissioners are not at Planning 121
Board meetings to get all those nuances that come with an oral presentation. 122
123
Paul Guthrie: I have some concerns in the bigger picture than this topic. Putting that kind of restrictions on 124
communications to a citizen advisory board. I think it’s a road we have to be very careful about how we define 125
because it could have major implications on the ability of this Board to function in what I perceive is what it’s 126
capacity is. That goes beyond this. 127
128
Pete Hallenbeck: I do believe it does have to be carefully spelled out. You could have problems if you said all you 129
can do is come and give us written paper and I think you would have a problem if anyone could just walk in and 130
start talking and interacting and how would convey that to the Commissioners. 131
132
Paul Guthrie: I’m done. 133
134
135 AGENDA ITEM 3: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – CREATE NEW ZONING DISTRICT 136
To review and comment upon the creation of a new general use zoning district, entitled Research 137
Development and Applied Manufacturing District (RDAM), which will allow for the location of 138
office/research facilities and incidental light manufacturing on the same parcel of property. The district 139
is intended to be allowed within the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Nodes as denoted on the 140
Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. 141 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 142
143 Craig Benedict introduced with background information. 144
145
Michael Harvey reviewed abstract. 146
147
Craig Benedict: One last note, we have begun preliminary discussions with Mebane so that the ease of a 148
development proposal coming in doesn’t have an O/I designation with the County and then upon annexation they 149
have to go through another rezoning process. Craig continued review. 150
151
Paul Guthrie: I think this is a good beginning. On page 30, where you describe some of the standards that might 152
apply to this theoretical district and you get to the question in 5 on the discharge of waste in the ground, can you be 153
that specific on square footage when you are adding to this district, the type of uses? The definition that you are 154
21
4
using there for the square footage for protection of the groundwater, have you checked that given the broadening 155
nature of what the discharges might be? 156
157
Michael Harvey: That is, quite candidly, language contained within every zoning district that we have. It is in here 158
because we enforce that standard in every zoning district. The ultimate size of property is based on compliance, not 159
only with all of our standards, but having sufficient and adequate area on a given property to support septic and 160
repair area if the property is going to be served by an on-site septic system. These are minimums that we have 161
worked out with the health department. You may not get a large facility on a parcel of property that has a lot of 162
wastewater generation just on septic alone regardless of the minimum lot size. 163
164
Paul Guthrie: I guess what I’m suggesting is as you refine what this district looks like, you might want to revisit. 165
166
Craig Benedict: A lot of the area that would be for this zoning district would have public water and sewer. 167
168
Paul Guthrie: Second issue in this district is what energy sources are available? The question is if you’re going to 169
have to build a huge transmission line or pipeline to the site disrupting the surrounding area, is that taken into 170
consideration of whether or not it’s the type of facility going into this..... 171
172
Michael Harvey: Provision of utilities is always a consideration for any land use regardless of what zoning district 173
it’s in. The applicant ultimately bears the burden for being able to say yes, services are available and are sufficient 174
to support the proposed operations, and has the obligation and the burden to get it there in accordance with the 175
UDO. I would say it is already required as part of site plan submittal. It’s handled on a case by case basis 176
regardless of the district. 177
178
Paul Guthrie: Part of that question is triggered by the story in the paper this morning, the gas pipeline in the eastern 179
part of the County that has some disruption to the right-of-way. I think that as you start changing uses and making 180
certain areas more available for different uses that’s one of the things you’ll need to pay some attention to. 181
182
Michael Harvey: I think one of the ways to address your concern is that as this district is currently envisioned it 183
would only be allowed in the Commercial/Industrial Transition Activity Node where there is existing infrastructure to 184
support large scale non-residential land uses. We have separate zoning districts that only allow certain uses based 185
on the ability for local land uses to be supported by conventional septic or well. 186
187
Craig Benedict: The infrastructure this Board’s been mentioning is just not water/sewer/gas/electric it’s getting 188
telecommunications in the ground and we’re finding along West Ten Road that we’re having difficulty within 60 to 80 189
feet all of these uses so we may go on the south side of the road or we may get additional easements paralleling 190
the right-of-way. Due to the potential intensity to these districts, and having right turn lanes, left turn lanes, etc. we 191
better take a look at what our right-of-way needs are adjacent to these districts. 192
193
Herman Staats: I like the idea of it. Do we have any examples where the lack of this type of zoning has created 194
problems or prevented somebody from coming in? 195
196
Craig Benedict: I can’t mention the companies but I’d say every few weeks we meet with somebody through the 197
economic development circle and sometimes we look at existing land with existing building and bring Michael into it. 198
Typically, there is an issue so I would say yes we have found people who would be looking for categories that 199
would allow more activities. 200
201
Herman Staats: So this is primarily to allow manufacturing on that site or allow an increased level of manufacturing 202
on that site that also allows research; where does biotechnology research type of zoning fit in Orange County? 203
204
22
5
Craig Benedict: There is a separate category, when a company comes in we try to categorize it. The unique thing 205
with research and development is there may be 20% operations in research and development and then the back 206
office is about how to put that stuff together. There are a lot of interpretations that can get us in trouble. This would 207
give us a little more latitude. 208
209
Michael Harvey: If you go to page 27 of the abstract, we have listed out those various general use zoning districts 210
where research facilities are allowed as permitted uses. We also have the conditional use zoning process where 211
individuals could come in with a proposal to put it anywhere if they wanted to go through that process. I think the 212
concern here is trying to take existing zoning or a new district and address a concern about marketing for land uses 213
that have a diverse component to them that involve a myriad of different activities each one of which could be 214
classified as its own principal use on the same site. 215
216
Buddy Hartley: I like the concept. Say you’ve got a bank coming in, a hotel, a vocational school, fire 217
department/rescue and all that but then the question I would have is that lot of people will be needing to eat. It 218
would be a good spot for a restaurant. Could the hotel have an onsite restaurant? 219
220
Michael Harvey: Yes it could. 221
222
Buddy Hartley: I’m taking about an area where a lot of people are staying in that area. 223
224
Craig Benedict: If it were on a separate parcel, they could go through a Special Use process. That is the type of 225
office park we would like to see. 226
227
Buddy Hartley: That’s what I’m thinking we’re trying to do. 228
229
Tony Blake: Has any thought been given to defining the percentage of any particular activity and marrying that to 230
the land use? For example, you have 200 acres here and we only want about 50 acres in that manufacturing 231
maximum in that spot, I don’t know but it seems to me over time things morph. 232
233
Michael Harvey: The problem with percentages is statistics can be used to say anything you want. You can have a 234
permitted use that all of a sudden becomes nonconforming because it is at 51% because you have established a 235
percentage base to it. It would be more appropriate to come up with a list of categories and uses that are permitted 236
in association with that use which is what this district is a start towards and a comprehensive reassessment of other 237
districts to see if we need to provide that same level of flexibility. 238
239
Tony Blake: The problem that occurs to me is that company A comes in here and company B and company C and 240
company A grows faster than B and C and creates more pressure on the infrastructure in that area than B and C. 241
Then B and C want to grow but they can’t and conflict can arise. 242
243
Craig Benedict: When Orange County worked with the Town of Hillsborough for the Hillsborough area economic 244
development zones, we had those percentage concerns. We developed somewhat of a Small Area Plan that was 245
part of a land use document. I think that maybe as a backdrop document, which would be more in the land 246
use/Small Area Plan size if we explain what we are trying to do so it’s not all peak morning and afternoon traffic and 247
that’s what we tried to do in Hillsborough. Maybe we could provide a background document. 248
249
Tony Blake: So we don’t plan ourselves into a corner. That was my only concern, otherwise I think it’s a great idea. 250
It has a lot of merit, especially the idea of melding it with the partners on either side of the County, allowing that 251
transition to become smoother and more predictable. 252
253
Pete Hallenbeck: It is interesting these days, the idea of and R & D group going into Class A office space. I think 254
this is a great idea. I am currently involved in a software project but I may have to make a little bit of hardware. 255
23
6
This is something that would be nice that doesn’t exist. The ability to have an R&D group that was doing software 256
but had to make some hardware on the side and contract out pieces and bring it together and assemble it is great. 257
I also think in a lot of startups you see when you start out, the R & D would be very heavy. If it works, that 258
percentage of the company gets less and less and you start manufacturing there to see if it’s going to work and it 259
just grows. I like it from that point of view. Another reason I think this is really important is I am seeing some 260
people I work with, the old days of R & D are going away and the tendency now is to have a lot less separation 261
between R & D and engineering and production and you want all those people to get together working with each 262
other. This makes a ton of sense. Finally, I moved a company I started to Durham because there were problems 263
with some of the Orange County rules. Another group I got in with talked about bringing something into the County, 264
and we didn’t because we didn’t have time for all that was involved. From all levels, I like this a lot. 265
266
267 AGENDA ITEM 4: ADJOURNMENT 268
269
Meeting was adjourned 270
24
D R A F T
1
MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JANUARY 8, 2014 3
REGULAR MEETING 4 5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large 7
Bingham Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove 8
Township; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony 9
Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 10 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill 13
Township; Vacant- Hillsborough Township Representative; Vacant – Eno Township Representative 14
15
16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, 17
Special Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 18
19
20
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 21 22
Pete Hallenbeck called the meeting to order. 23
24
AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2014 25
26
Buddy Hartley: I think Pete has done an excellent job. 27
28 MOTION by Buddy Hartley to elect Pete Hallenbeck as Planning Board Chair. Seconded by Tony Blake. 29
MOTION by Buddy Hartley to elect Lisa Stuckey as Planning Board Vice-Chair. Seconded by Tony Blake. 30
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 31
32
33 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 34
a) Planning Calendar for January and February. 35
36
37 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 38 DECEMBER 4, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 39 40 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the December 4, 2013 Planning Board and ORC notes with correction. Seconded 41
by Buddy Hartley. 42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 43 44 45 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 46 47
48 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE 49 50 Introduction to the Public Charge 51
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 52
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 53
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 54
25
D R A F T
2
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 55
future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 56
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 57
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 58
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 59
60
61 PUBLIC CHARGE 62
The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 63
citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 64
fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 65
public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 66
regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 67
until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 68
69
70 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 71
72
Pete Hallenbeck: I have one comment, one thing I would like to work on is to get the discussion in the record by 73
going around the table and a little less of just general discussion. I am trying to get it more focused for the 74
Commissioners. 75
76
77 Agenda Item 8: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment – Home Occupations: To 78
make a recommendation to the BOCC on Planning Board – and Planning Director – initiated 79
amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to change the existing standards 80
for home occupations, modify and clarify existing regulations and definitions associated with 81
home occupations, and allow for the exemption of special events organized or affiliated with 82
a government or non-profit agency. This item was heard at the December 4, 2013 Planning 83
Board meeting. 84
Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 85
86
Ashley Moncado reviewed abstract. 87
88
Paul Guthrie: First the disclaimer that I give every time that we in our household have an interest in small business. 89
I have had a lot of questions with this and I have one particular thing that I want to raise which is not new but I want 90
to raise it again. That is for minor home occupations, no matter whether you have one customer per year or 500, 91
you have to pay $90 to the planning department for the privilege of having a license. I have real problems with that 92
with certain occupations those defined as minor home occupations. I have a little bit of problem with the 93
requirement of a plot plan if it has to be done professionally. I had suggested earlier that it should be sufficient in a 94
residential home to use what is on the GIS system as a sketch of the property and indicate on that whether or not 95
that would be viable. I would hope there could be some accommodation especially for extremely small line of 96
business so that it doesn’t become a big paperwork jungle in order to file. 97
98
Pete Hallenbeck: Well, Mr. Harvey do you have a comment on that? 99
100
Michael Harvey: As I’ve indicated before, a plot plan is a simple drawing that you can use the GIS map system, it’s 101
actually listed that way in the Unified Development Ordinance. It’s not a professionally prepared site plan. The $90 102
dollar fee is a one-time application fee. There are application fees for everything you have to do and this is a one-103
time fee that you have to pay. I don’t believe it is burdensome and I don’t believe it is unnecessary and I believe we 104
are within our right to charge the fee. 105
106
Paul Guthrie: I’m not going to follow with the natural comment other than to say, I believe that to be a burden on 107
people trying to start a small business in a residence and I think as a matter of public policy, given the nature of the 108
26
D R A F T
3
changing of the economics in this society, that we ought to be very careful about how we do this. That was one set 109
of comments. My personal opinion, and I think everybody has heard me before on the record, my personal opinion 110
is you will have massive ignoring of this. What will come will be selective enforcement. I’m not comfortable with 111
selective enforcement. I think when you have enforcement, you enforce those who are not in compliance but the 112
enforcement actions and the litigation etc. that will follow will take precious time from the planning department and 113
the legal hypothesis of the County on this and I question that in the area of minor home occupation. I think with that 114
I’ll let others comment. 115
116
Herman Staats: I have no comments, I thought it was nicely done and it has been discussed here many times so I 117
have no other comments. 118
119
James Lea: No comments at this time. 120
121
Buddy Hartley: I don’t have any problems with the standards set. 122
123
Maxecine Mitchell: I agree with them. 124
125
Tony Blake: I reread it and I don’t have any issues with it. I think it is well put together. 126
127
Johnny Randall: I read it and I couldn’t find anything of concern. However, what Paul just brought up, so in terms of 128
people not conforming to these regulations, how is it going to be enforced? Is it going to just create contempt for 129
the law for people who don’t think they can be caught? 130
131
Pete Hallenbeck: Let me throw my two cents in on that and then see what Michael says. I think what you said is 132
very true. You have all these ordinances and there are always people who are going to fly under the radar and do 133
what they want but I think part of the goal here is that if somebody is doing that and it is bothering their neighbors 134
there is a recourse. I don’t know how you get people to follow the rules, it is very difficult, but I do like the fact that 135
at least they are there. It is very difficult to call out a neighbor, it’s a catch 22, we all want to be able to do what we 136
can but we like to be able to stop someone else if it is bothersome to us. 137
138
Pete Hallenbeck: Michael, does that pretty much jive with what...... 139
140
Michael Harvey: I’m not going to add anything. Thank you though. 141
142
Pete Hallenbeck: I have two things, one is a question about 5.4.3 special events where it talks about arts and 143
cultural special events in particular it calls out the Orange County Open Studio Tour. The other thing that I am 144
familiar with is the farm tour. 145
146
Ashley Moncado: That is exempt, that would be considered part of a bona fide farm and considered agricultural 147
and covered under a different set of rules. 148
149
Tony Blake: But that just an example. 150
151
Ashley Moncado: Yes, it is being used as an example. That was specifically called out as an example but also to 152
highlight it as well. 153
154
Pete Hallenbeck: That’s fine but by throwing it in there seemed odd to have an ordinance call out a specific event 155
instead of making it in general so I wanted to make sure it was an example. 156
157
Ashley Moncado: We could add “for example”. 158
159
Paul Guthrie: That’s about a 100, anywhere from 90 to 120 artists, who once a year open up their studios in their 160
residences by in large for the tour over two days for two weeks. Every one of those artists will have to pay $90. 161
162
27
D R A F T
4
Pete Hallenbeck: So does this get back to your $90 concern then? 163
164
Paul Guthrie: That’s one of them but it’s much more delicate than that. 165
166
Pete Hallenbeck: My second comment on this is on the minor home occupation, the 750 sq. ft. limit is interesting, it 167
takes me out of the game for the sq. footage I have in my house. It takes room to have a machine shop and test 168
benches and rooms for parts and electronics and I don’t think how much of your home you use is something that 169
impacts your neighbors. However, I’ll also point out that as an ordinance it is pretty nice because if that really 170
bothered me I could apply for a major home occupation and there is a mechanism to do that. That brings me to my 171
last comments and I can’t remember an ordinance that had so many lines in the sand that were being discussed. 172
We talked about sq. footage, number of trips, setbacks, what activity you can do, number of visits, size of vehicles, 173
and it is quite extraordinary for this Board to deliberate something that has so many different thresholds and lines in 174
the sand. I think it makes it a very difficult thing to discuss. Those are all my comments. Doesn’t anybody have 175
anything thing else to add? 176
177
178 MOTION by Tony Blake to recommend to the County Commissioners to accept this recommendation with comments. 179
Seconded by James Lea. 180 VOTE: PASSED 7-1 (Guthrie opposed) 181
182
Paul Guthrie: I believe that with this ordinance we are moving into an area that we are not prepared to deal with and 183
I think that while the intention is good, if you read the language carefully, especially when you start picking up the 184
UDO and reading the references, that it exposes the County to some great difficulty, that’s point one. Point two, due 185
to the current economic situation, the more and more independent, small businesses erupting whether they start in 186
the garage in California and become a billion dollar corporation or whether they start in a garage in Orange County 187
and become a fifty thousand dollar organization, this can and may, if not administered in a very careful way, be an 188
inhibition to economic development and to small business. I would much prefer to see the County develop a small 189
business license system using some of these definitions than to smuggle it through under a regulation of the use of 190
an individual residential property. With my own experience, two different enterprises in our family, one which falls 191
under this and one which does not, I would vote no. 192
193
194 AGENDA ITEM 9: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 195
196
a) Board of Adjustment 197
b) Orange Unified Transportation 198
199
200 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT 201 202
Planning Board meeting was adjourned by consensus. 203
28
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 5, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Major Subdivision Concept Plan Application – Pleasant Green Woods Phase IV
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Application Package (site plan under
separate cover) - Click Here
2. Property and Vicinity Map
Jennifer Leaf, Planner I 245-2577
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III 245-2597
3. Staff Generated Correspondence Craig Benedict, Director 245-2575
4. Notes from Neighborhood Information
Meeting
PURPOSE: To review and take action on a Major Subdivision Concept Plan application proposing
a 16 lot single-family residential subdivision in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.15 and
Article 7 Subdivisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
BACKGROUND: The basic facts concerning the current application are as follows:
Applicant(s): Drees Homes
David Lazzo
7701 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
Owner: King Family Partnership
4507 Pleasant Green Road
Durham, NC 27705
Agent(s): Summit Design and Engineering Services
504 Meadowland Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Location: Plesant Green Road- Please refer to Attachment 2 f or a vicinity map of
the parcel.
Parcel Information: a. PIN: 9893-87-9972
b. Size of parcel: 46.34 acres
Staff Note: The acreage is based on Orange County Tax/Map
data as well as notes contained on the Concept Plan, specifically
Sheet C-1. The Concept Plan Application leaves this line blank.
29
c. Zoning of parcels: Rural Residential (R-1) and Lower Eno
Protected Watershed Overlay (L-ENO-PW).
d. Township: Eno
e. School District: Orange County Schools.
f. Future Land Use Map Designation: Rural Residential
g. Growth Management System Designation: Rural
h. Joint Land Use Plan Designation: N/A
i. Existing Conditions/Physical Features: Varying topography
with heavy vegetation, primarily mixed hardwoods, throughout.
There are streams running through the property with varying
slopes. Stream buffer width varies from 65 to 80 feet.
There is no floodplain on the property.
j. Roads: Vehicular access to the parcel is through Paper Birch
Lane, a public road that has not been accepted by NCDOT for
addition to the State maintained system.
k. Water and Sewer Service: The property is not located within a
primary public utility service area according to the Water and
Sewer Management Planning Boundary Agreement
(WASMPBA).
Proposed lots are to be served by individual well and septic
systems.
Surrounding Land Uses: a. NORTH: Single family residences zoned R-1
b. SOUTH: Single-family residences zoned R-1
c. EAST : Single-family residences zoned R-1
d. WEST: Single-family residence zoned AR
Development Process, Schedule, and Action: The typical cadence for the review of a major
subdivision is as follows:
• First Action – Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM)
and invites property owners within 500 feet of the project to attend the meeting in
order to review the project with the applicant.
Staff Comment – DONE. This meeting was held on January 14, 2014. Please
refer to Attachment 4 for a synopsis of meeting comments.
• Second Action – The Planning Board reviews and takes action on the Concept
Plan application approving either the ‘conventional’ or ‘flexible development’ layout.
The Planning Board review begins on February 5, 2014. As a reminder the Concept
Plan review is intended to allow Board members and the applicant to discuss the
nature of the project and identify possible solutions to concerns identified by staff or
surrounding property owners.
30
If approved the Concept Plan serves as a ‘roadmap’ for the developer with respect
to the acceptable lot and road layout as well as location of proposed/required open
space and recreation areas.
• Third Action – Once a concept plan is approved, the Planning Board reviews and
makes a recommendation on the approval of the Preliminary Plat for the project.
• Fourth Action – The BOCC reviews and take action on the Preliminary Plat
application.
• Fifth Action – Once all construction activities have been completed, or appropriate
bonds have been approved, staff will sign off and allow the recordation of a Final
Plat allowing for the individual lots to be created.
Proposal: The petitioner has submitted a Major Subdivision Concept Plan application proposing to
develop a maximum of 16 single-family residential lots with an overall gross density for the project of
1 dwelling unit per every 2.9 acres of land area with approximately 15 acres of dedicated open
space. Proposed lots range in size from 1.18 acres (smallest) to 2.18 acres (largest).
It should be noted the original application called for the creation of 17 lots. After comments received
at the NIM, as well as a reassessment of access management issues and stormwater requirements,
the applicant voluntarily chose to eliminate 1 proposed lot towards the intersection of Paper Birch
Lane and Pleasant Green Road. This area is denoted on Sheet C-2 as being ‘Reserve Space’. The
applicant has determined what the final use/disposition of this area will be. Please note required
open space area is met without inclusion of this aforementioned area.
UDO Requirements: Per Section 2.15.2 (C) (2) (b) of the UDO, major subdivision concept plan
applications are required to submit both a conventional and flexible development option.
The flexible development option involves the preservation of a minimum 33% of the total tract’s land
area as protected open space. Development of individual lots is then allowed consistent with three
‘flexible development’ subdivision classifications detailed within Article 7 Subdivisions of the UDO,
namely:
• Estate Lot Option: Characterized by lots having a minimum area of 4 acres where the
building envelope does not exceed 50% of the total lot area.
• Conservation Cluster Option: Characterized by lots clustered together with a potential
minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet. Allowable lot yield is based on compliance with
density limits denoted within Section 4.2.4 of the UDO and as found in Section 6, Joint
Planning Land Use Plan.
• Village Option: Allows for mixed-use development including various residential options (i.e.
single-family, multi-family, townhome, etc.) as well as public/civic areas and non-residential
development. This option is expressly prohibited within the RB zoning district as detailed
within Section 7.13.2 (C) of the UDO.
As previously indicated, the applicant has decided to submit a conservation cluster flexible
development layout with proposed lots adhering to the 40,000 square foot lot size, consistent with
the R-1 general use zoning district guidelines, and proposing approximately 15.3 acres of open
space. A summary of the proposal is as follows:
Subdivision Type Number of
Lots
Average Lot
Size
Area in Open Space
(Proposed)
Open Space
Percentage
31
Flexible Development
Plan
16 1.5 acres 15.3 acres in open
space
33% in open
space
STAFF COMMENT – SUBDIVISION TYPES: The proposal is in accordance with the anticipated
densities for properties located within the Rural Residential land use category as defined within the
adopted Comprehensive Plan and Rural Designated area as denoted on the Growth Management
Systems Map.
The applicant has indicated he wishes to pursue the flexible development option and has not
submitted a conventional option, which has the support of staff.
Roads: The proposal involves the creation of one cul-de-sac public road to service the project,
constructed to NC Department of Transportation (DOT) standards.
STAFF COMMENT - ROADS: Staff has determined that the proposed roadway construction
and layout is consistent with the requirements of the UDO.
In consultation with the Director, staff is going to recommend the Concept Plan be altered in the
following manner:
a. The proposed 20 foot wide Fire Department access easement, off of the cul-de-sac
and in between lot(s) 6 and 7, be extended through to Willet Lane.
This is to facilitate emergency vehicle access through the project to Willet Lane as
well as provide a secondary egress point for local property owners in the case of an
emergency.
Staff is not recommending this become an extension of the proposed public road
allowing for direct connectivity to Willet Lane or that the easement be constructed to
public road standards.
b. The proposed 20 foot wide access easement denoted off of Willet Lane allowing
access to the stormwater area lot be eliminated as it is now redundant.
Utilities – Water and Sewer: The applicant is proposing to serve the project with individual wells
and septic systems developed on each lot. Sheet 2 of the major subdivision concept plan maps
denotes anticipated soil locations on each lot.
STAFF COMMENT - UTILITIES: Orange County Environmental Health indicated during the
September 19, 2013 DAC meeting they did not see any potential problems with the proposed
layout with respect to finding suitable soils to support septic tank development.
As of the writing of this abstract, the Health Department has not submitted any additional,
written, comments. Final approval of proposed lot layouts typically occurs at the Preliminary Plat
application review stage of the subdivision process.
Stormwater Drainage: Drainage will be engineered according to Best Management Practices
(BMP) at the time of permit application for construction. The property is subject to recently
adopted stormwater management guidelines limiting total nitrogen runoff of 2.2 pounds per
acre annually and 0.33 pounds per acres annually for total phosphorus.
32
STAFF COMMENT - STORMWATER: Orange County Erosion Control has commented that
the plan looks feasible but didn’t have formal comments at this time as there is no stormwater
management plan required as part of the concept plan submittal.
The applicant will be required to submit additional detail, with respect to the anticipated
stormwater management plan, as part of the Preliminary Plat application package for review and
comment.
Open Space: The flexible development plan denotes the maintenance of a 30-foot natural buffer
along Pleasant Green Road and a 100-foot building setback along the perimeter of the project. Open
space is identified in and around the existing streams. The total area reserved as open space is
approximately 15.3 acres broken down as follows:
• Primary Open Space: Typically includes riparian buffer areas (i.e. stream buffers),
floodplains, property with slopes greater than 25%, wetland areas, natural areas and/or
wildlife habitats, and historic sites: 6.83 acres for the project composed of riparian buffer
areas.
• Secondary Open Space: Typically includes woodlands, farmland, property with a slope
between 15% to 25%, recreation areas, scenic views, pedestrian access open space areas
(POSA), roadside buffers, and green belt linkages: 8.47 acres for the project composed of
roadside buffers (i.e. Pleasant Green Road and Willet Drive), POSA’s, and wooded
areas
Proposed open space is composed of existing, mature, vegetation and trees with an approximate
height of between 50 to 70 feet.
STAFF COMMENT – OPEN SPACE: Staff has determined the proposed open space and land
use buffers meet the requirements of the UDO.
Land Use Buffer: The site plan indicates there will be a 30-foot buffer along Pleasant Green Road
comprised of existing, dense, vegetation composed of existing, mature, shrubs and trees with an
approximate height of between 50 to 70 feet.
STAFF COMMENT – LAND USE BUFFER: Section 6.8.6 (D) of the UDO requires that this
project maintain a thirty (30) foot land use buffer separating the project from adjacent roadways.
Staff has determined the proposed open space and land use buffers meet the requirements of
the UDO.
Staff Generated Correspondence: Attachment 3 contains the various comments for this project
as of the date of abstract preparation.
Public Notification: Section 2.15.2 (D) of the UDO requires that each property owner within
500 feet be notified by regular mail of the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Staff
mailed out letters to the 48 properties within 500 feet of the property concerning the January
14, 2014 NIM.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.15.2 (E) of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
‘prepare and submit a recommendation’ on the concept plan to the Planning Board for
consideration. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following:
33
1. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of
Section 2.2 and 2.15.2 of the UDO.
2. Staff has determined that the property is of sufficient size to support the proposed
subdivision.
3. The proposal appears consistent with the various goals outlined within the
Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including:
a. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and
designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities
sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County’s population and economy
consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives.
b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and
community character.
c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program
and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes
land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system.
4. Staff supports the approval of the flexible development option as denoted on Sheet 2 of
the site plan package.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has determined the project would not require augmentation of
County budgetary outlays to support services and that anticipated revenues from property taxes
should supplement increases in cost.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Concept Plan application for the Pleasant Green Woods Phase IV
Subdivision, and
2. Approve the Flexible Development option, denoted on Sheet 2 of the submitted major
subdivision concept plan site plan, and allow the applicant to proceed with the
development of a preliminary plat utilizing this layout.
34
35
36
R1
PID
PID
EDE-2
EC5
ARR1
R E N F R E W D R
U
S
7
0
E
G R E E N G L E N D R
PLE
A
S
A
N
T
G
R
E
E
N
R
D
WILLET T R D
MOTA
D
R
D
U
N
K
E
L
D
W
A
Y
D
U
N
K
E
L
D
W
A
Y
PLEASANT
GREENRD
RAPIDS
L
N
PLE
A
S
A
N
T
GRE
E
N
R
D
PLEASANT
GREENRD
BRIGADOON DR
M T H E R M O N
C H U R C H R D
U
S
7
0
E
D E N W O O D L N
US
70
E
U
S
7
0
E
W IL L ETT RD
RIV
E
R
BE ND
DR
LAURELRIDGERD
US70E
SH ADYLN
WILLETT RD
PAPERBIRCHLN
JRK DR
P L E A S A N T
G R E E N R D
Lower EnoProtectedWatershed
·
0 710 1,420Feet
1 inch = 700 feet
Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map
37
R1
PID
PID
AR
DE N W O O D L N
RAPIDSLN
PLE
A
S
A
N
T
G
R
E
E
N
R
D
WILLETT R D
PLE
A
S
A
N
T
GRE
E
N
R
D
M
O
T
A
D
R W I L L E T T R D
P L E A S A NT
G R E E N R D
PLEASANT
GREENRD
R I V E RBENDDR
PLE
A
S
A
N
T
G
R
E
E
N
R
D
SH AD Y LN
PAPERBIRCHLN
WILLETT R D
Lower EnoProtectedWatershed
·
0 410 820Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map
38
1
Michael Kelly
From:Wesley Poole
Sent:Friday, January 10, 2014 5:58 PM
To:Michael Kelly; Steve J Kaltenbach
Cc:Michael Harvey
Subject:RE: Pleasant Green Woods, Phase IV Major Subdivision
Sorry for the delay in comments, but below are my 2 cents:
The concept plan for Pleasant Green Woods, Phase IV appears feasible in regards to erosion control / stormwater design
potential, but please note that this portion of the development will be subject to the new stormwater regulations unlike
previous phases that only had peak flow requirements. We prefer to avoid individual lot stormwater controls and
instead account for a full build-out scenario and design a master stormwater structure/s with loading rate restrictions of
2.2 lbs/ac/yr for nitrogen and 0.33 lbs/ac/yr for phosphorus in the Lower Eno Protected Watershed.
Thanks,
Wesley Poole
Orange County Planning & Inspections Dept.
Erosion Control Division
(919) 245-2587
From: Michael Kelly
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 2:45 PM
To: Wesley Poole; Steve J Kaltenbach
Subject: Pleasant Green Woods, Phase IV Major Subdivision
Importance: High
Dear Wes and Steve:
Current Planning received an application for a major subdivision in the County, Pleasant Green Woods, Phase IV. We
would like very much for Erosion Control to review both the Flexible Development and Site Analysis Plans attached.
Thank you,
Michael Kelly, Planning Technician
Orange County Planning & Inspections Department
131 W. Margaret Ln., Ste. 201 (Physical Location)
P.O. Box 8181 (Mail)
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245-2598 - phone
(919) 644-3022 – fax
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a
public record and may be disclosed to third parties.
39
1
Michael Kelly
From:Jason Shepherd
Sent:Thursday, January 02, 2014 2:59 PM
To:Michael Harvey; Michael Kelly; Jennifer Leaf
Subject:Pleasant Green Subdivision
Importance:High
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Planning Department,
Upon further review of the proposed subdivision, Fire apparatus access roads greater than 500’ are required to have a
width of 26’. In addition to that, I would need the architect to provide to me with the diameter of the proposed cul-de-
sac. There are requirements of the cul-de-sac as well and I would need to know what the current design is.
As it pertains to water supply, I am meeting with the local fire chief to discuss current locations of water supply for the
development and explore if there are additional requirements that we would need. I will get back with you regarding
this next week.
Jason B. Shepherd
Orange County Fire Marshal
Orange County Emergency Services
Fire Marshal Division
510 Meadowlands Drive, Hillsborough NC 27278
P.O. Box 8181, Hillsborough NC 27278
Office (919) 245-6151
Cellular (919) 257-8316
Fax (919) 732-8137
jshepherd@orangecountync.gov
40
1
Michael Kelly
From:Jason Shepherd
Sent:Wednesday, January 08, 2014 2:35 PM
To:Michael Kelly; Michael Harvey
Subject:Pleasant Green Woods
Importance:High
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
I have reviewed the proposed major development and have the following comments.
1. I would need the diameter of the cul-de-sac to be 96’ giving a radius of 48’.
2. Need placement of a static water supply for fire protection if a pressurized system cannot be installed in the
development.
Jason B. Shepherd
Orange County Fire Marshal
Orange County Emergency Services
Fire Marshal Division
510 Meadowlands Drive, Hillsborough NC 27278
P.O. Box 8181, Hillsborough NC 27278
Office (919) 245-6151
Cellular (919) 257-8316
Fax (919) 732-8137
jshepherd@orangecountync.gov
41
Neighborhood Information Meeting
Pleasant Green Phase IV
Intersection of Pleasant Green Road and Paper Birch Lane (PIN 9893-87-9972)
West Campus Office Building - 131 West Margaret Lane
January 14, 2014 – 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
There were 16 people in attendance in addition to the applicant’s agent (Terry Boyland and
Chad Abbott from Summit Engineering) and planning staff.
Staff reviewed the Major Subdivision Concept Plan application review process, including
the need to submit a Conventional and Flexible Development subdivision layout for review,
and reviewed the physical composition of the subject property.
Staff informed those in attendance the applicant, Drees Homes, had voluntarily chosen to
submit just a flexible development layout as allowed by the UDO.
Staff informed those in attendance of the meeting scheduled by the Planning Board to
begin the review of the proposed subdivision on February 5, 2014.
Once the Concept Plan is approved the applicant shall have 2 years to submit a
Preliminary Plat application package for action by the County. Staff reviewed the process
associated with the review of a Preliminary Plat application.
The applicant’s agent, Mr. Terry Boylan, reviewed the basic elements of the proposal as
follows:
• Development of a 16 to 17 lot single-family residential subdivision, each lot
approximately 1 ½ to 2 acres in area, on an approximately 46 acre parcel of property
located off Pleasant Green Road.
• The lots are intended to be served by individual well and septic systems,
• Access to the project will be from paper Birch Lane, an existing roadway about to be
accepted for maintenance purposes by the State.
• Internal roadways serving the project are proposed to be constructed to applicable
public road standards, with the eventual goal that they will be turned over to the North
Carolina Department of Transportation for perpetual maintenance upon completion,
• The overall density of the proposed subdivision is 1 dwelling unit for every 2.8 acres of
property.
• The project will involve the preservation of 15 acres of land area as open space.
(STAFF COMMENT: The development proposal reviewed at this meeting included 17
individual lots. Based on comments from this meeting, and review of access management
and stormwater concerns, the applicant has voluntarily chosen to eliminate 1 lot and
proposal the ultimate development of 16 lots for this project).
Attachment 4
42
Comment(s): Questions were asked about the sight distance for the new subdivision
roadway from Pleasant Green Road. Those in attendance expressed concern over local
motorists being able to see traffic both into, and from, the proposed neighborhood.
Answer: (Terry Boylan) Specific setback distances from the intersection of Paper Birch
Lane and Pleasant Green Road, to address site distance issues, would be addressed with
NC DOT. Unfortunately given the existing topography of the area there are limited, viable
locations for an entrance way. NC DOT may require the elimination of trees to ensure
visibility. The proposed roadway serving the project is approximately 500 feet from the
intersection. The project will have to comply with applicable NC DOT guidelines to ensure
proper site visibility.
There was additional discussion on this issue.
Question: Where will Lot 17, a corner lot with frontage on Paper Birch and Pleasant
Green Roads, get access from?
Answer: (Terry Boylan) That had not been determined yet.
Question: Will Lot 17 would be required to have land use buffers.
Answer: (Staff) Staff outlined the buffer requirements for the project including a 30 foot
Type B Buffer along Pleasant Green Road, the 100 foot building setback from project
boundary lines, and required stream buffers throughout the project.
Question: W ill be sidewalks and or bike paths along Pleasant Green Road for the
project?
Answer: (Terry Boylan and Staff) Drees will have to look into the matter to ascertain if
such development is possible. One major issue is Pleasant Green is a State maintained
road and, as of recently, NC DOT has not been supportive of locating sidewalks within
their right-of-way. The other concern is that it would be a sidewalk or bike path to nowhere
as there were no existing amenities anywhere near the project.
There were general comments made about traffic issues along the roadway.
Question: Does open space meant the removal of trees?
Answer: (Terry Boylan) No. There may be some removal of trees for trails or stormwater
features but there will not be wholesale grading or clearing of designated open space
areas.
Question: Is there an opportunity to reduce the speed limit on Pleasant Green Road or
Paper Birch Lane?
Answer: (Chad Abbott) That is a NC DOT decision and the developer can do nothing
about the speeding issue along a State maintained roadway.
Question: What determines if the proposed lots are buildable? Specific concern was
made over the development of Lot 17.
43
Answer: (Chad Abbott) The lots will meet the minimum lot area requirements mandated by
the County. So the lot can be developable from a planning standpoint. The next step
would be to complete a comprehensive soils assessment through Orange County
Environmental Health to determine final septic locations for the proposed lots. If a lot does
not perk, and suitable soil cannot be found, then the lot cannot be developed.
Question: How much open space is required?
Answer: (Staff) 33% of the tract must be preserved as open space. This translates to
approximately 15 acres.
Question: Why is there a 100 foot building setback denoted on the plan?
Answer: (Staff) The Ordinance requires a 100 foot building setback along the perimeter of
the property. This means no structure (i.e. house, shed, etc.) can be located in this area.
Question: Can the open space requirement be met without Lot 17 being a part of the
subdivision?
Answer: (Terry Boylan) Yes. Open space is met with or without Lot 17. If Lot 17 cannot
be developed it will more than likely become part of the open space area or be included in
adjacent lot areas making these lots larger than currently proposed.
Question: Who will maintain or control the open space?
Answer: (Terry Boylan) A local homeowners association.
Question: Will this project be required to adhere to existing covenants already in place for
Phase III of the Pleasant Green subdivision?
Answer: (Drees) There has been no final decision on the status of this project, if it will be
part of the existing development project or a standalone development.
Comment: Enforcement of local covenants and integration of various development
phases has been extremely difficult for local homeowners and the established associations
to address.
Question: What is the anticipated house size and cost?
Answer: (Drees) Similar to existing development, approximately 3,000 to 4,000 square
feet in size with a cost of about $400,000 to $600,000. This is comparable to existing
development in the area.
Question: Have local HOA’s (homeowners associations) been approached about this
project being included within existing local covenants yet?
Answer: (Drees) No. It would be premature to do so until the Concept Plan is approved.
Comment: Several attendees indicated they were concerned over the displacement of
wildlife that will be created by this project.
44
Question: Who will maintain the proposed roadway?
Answer: (Chad Abbott) The developer intends to turn over the roads to NC DOT for
maintenance once the project is complete and there is sufficient development to allow the
roadway to be turned over for maintenance purposes.
Question: Is the number of lots set?
Answer: (Chad Abbott) It cannot increase without a new Concept Plan application process
being initiated by the developer.
45