HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 0903141
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, September 3, 2014
Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.
3-4
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Planning Calendar for September and October
a. Quarterly Public Hearing on Sep. 8th
b. Next regular meeting on Oct. 8th (2nd Wednesday this
month)
3.
5-6
7-10
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 2, 2014 ORC Meeting Notes
July 2, 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. 11-52 MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT: To review and make a decision
on a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application, Pleasant Green
Woods Phase IV, located off of Pleasant Green Road. The Plan is
consistent with the Concept Plan Flexible Design Option reviewed and
approved by the Planning Board in February 2014. The Plan calls for
16 single-family residential lots on a 46.34 acre tract. 16.53 acres
(35.6%) of the site is reserved for primary and secondary open space.
Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II
8. 53-94 MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT: To review and make a decision
on a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application, Stroud’s Creek,
located southwest of the intersection of NC Highway 57 and Strouds
Creek Road. The Plan is consistent with the Concept Plan Flexible
Design Option reviewed and approved by the Planning Board in June
2014. The Preliminary Plat calls for 14 single-family residential lots on a
25.33 acre tract. 17.21 acres (67.96%) of the site is reserved for
primary and secondary open space.
Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II
9. 95-126 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE PRIVATE ROAD AND ACCESS
STANDARDS: To receive information about a current multi-
department/advisory board project involving the review of private road
and access standards and to receive the Board’s comments.
Presenter: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation and Land Use Planner
10.
COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment
11. 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
*Planning Board Member Attendance Required
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
September 2014
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
October 2014September 2014
Au
g
3
1
-
S
e
p
6
Aug 31 Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6
HOLIDAY 7:00pm
*PLANNING
BOARD
MEETING
(West
Campus
Office Bldg )
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Whitted
Meeting
Facility)
Se
p
7
-
1
3
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
7:00pm
*QUARTERLY
PUBLIC
HEARING
(Whitted
Meeting
Facility)
7:30pm Board
of
Adjustment
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
7:00pm BOCC
Work Session
(Southern
Human
Services)
Se
p
1
4
-
2
0
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
7:00pm
OUTBoard
Meeting
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
5:30pm
BOCC/City of
Mebane Joint
Meeting
(Mebane
Council
Chambers)
Se
p
2
1
-
2
7
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Se
p
2
8
-
O
c
t
4
28 29 30 Oct 1 2 3 4
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
3
*Planning Board Member Attendance Required
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
October 2014
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
November 2014October 2014
Se
p
2
8
-
O
c
t
4
Sep 28 29 30 Oct 1 2 3 4
7:00pm Fire
Department
Work Session
(Whitted
Building)
Oc
t
5
-
1
1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Whitted
Meeting
Facility)
7:00pm
*PLANNING
BOARD
MEETING
(note change
of date)
(West
Campus
Office Bldg )
Oc
t
1
2
-
1
8
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
7:30pm Board
of
Adjustment
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
7:00pm BOCC
Work Session
(Whitted
Building)
7:00pm
OUTBoard
Meeting
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
7:00pm
BOCC/Town
of Carrboro
Joint Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
Oc
t
1
9
-
2
5
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
Oc
t
2
6
-
N
o
v
1
26 27 28 29 30 31 Nov 1
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
4
D R A F T
1
SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JULY 2, 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; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township 8
Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large, Chapel Hill Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Laura 9
Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; 10
11 12 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning 13
Systems Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 14
15
16 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 17 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 20
FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS 21
To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO to require that a neighborhood 22
information meeting be held at least 30 days prior to the public hearing for a Class A or Class B Special 23
Use Permit. 24 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 25 26 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 27
28
Paul Guthrie: Based on the fact that the Commissioners asked you to do this, do you have any inherent questions 29
about whether or not this is a problem? 30
31
Michael Harvey: It’s going to increase the timeline for the process. 32
33
Paul Guthrie: And aside from that, is it going to increase costs? 34
35
Michael Harvey: The applicant will bear the cost. We’ll have to build it into the process. 36
37
Tony Blake: This is specific to telecommunication towers? 38
39
Paul Guthrie: Based on the fact that the Commissioners asked you to do this, do you have any inherent questions 40
about whether or not this is a problem? 41
42
Michael Harvey: It’s all Special Use Permits Class A or Class B. Remember the County has two processes; Class 43
B is reviewed by the Board of Adjustment and Class A is reviewed by the elected officials. 44
45
Paul Guthrie: Who would chair that meeting? 46
47
Michael Harvey: Staff chairs the neighborhood meeting. We present the rough overview of the project, we explain 48
the process. 49
50
Paul Guthrie: The chair/staff would have the responsibility to essentially say the information is not sufficient that it 51
needs to be, what you just said. 52
5
D R A F T
2
53
Michael Harvey: The neighborhood meeting is just to present that here is the process, here’s the procedure. You 54
as an adjacent property owner could meet with the applicant and discuss your concerns. 55
56
Paul Guthrie: What I am getting at is that are you just going to listen to the comments or at some point will the chair 57
say, now thank you very much but in this proceeding there needs to be documentation that is sufficient to be 58
entered into the record. 59
60
Craig Benedict: We will not be ruling on what they are talking about, we won’t be making any ruling there. We’re 61
just going to say, here’s an example of evidence and here’s an example of what evidence is not. 62
63
Michael Harvey: We’re going to be providing what represents competent materials and substantial evidence but 64
we’re not going to be telling people... 65
66
Paul Guthrie: What I’m thinking is maybe that ought to be the introduction for a statement in the call of the meeting 67
something to this effect so that people have, so you don’t end up having to be the bad guy sometime down the 68
road. 69
70
Lisa Stuckey: It’s an informational meeting, right and the County Commissioner are the judges ultimately? 71
72
Michael Harvey: Yes, the neighborhood meeting is just informational. It is just for us to explain process and the 73
applicant to outline the project. 74
75
Pete Hallenbeck: My read on this is there are a number of things going on. One is getting people familiar with 76
process and terminology so we aren’t discovering it at the quarterly public hearing. One is certainly meeting some 77
of the players and another one, hopefully, that everyone can sit down. 78
79
Michael Harvey: Just as a reminder, we currently hold neighborhood information meetings for all major 80
subdivisions at the concept plan stage before the Planning Board sees it. We hold neighborhood meetings now for 81
any government project. It has to be held typically by the applicant with coordination with staff before an application 82
is acted upon by staff. This is just adding that same process and procedure to this particular permitting. 83
84
Lisa Stuckey: This will add 30 days, how often do you think it is helpful to have a neighborhood meeting and how 85
often does it happen that nobody shows up and it just is going to add 30 days? 86
87
Michael Harvey: I think there are projects where we will get raked over the coals and projects that are no-brainers. 88
It is 50/50. It probably benefits the Board of Adjustment more than the elected officials but 50% of the time it would 89
probably save the Board of Adjustment several hours. It is going to add time, it depends on what happens at the 90
neighborhood meetings. Our goal is to try to incorporate the meeting within the existing timeframe and a lot of it is 91
not going to be reasonable or realistic. It adds another layer of complexity to the process. 92
93
94 AGENDA ITEM 3: ADJOURNMENT 95
96
Meeting was adjourned 97
98
99
6
D R A F T
1
MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JULY 2, 2014 3
REGULAR MEETING 4 5
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill 6
Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township 7
Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township 8
Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Vacant-At-Large; 9
10 MEMBERS ABSENT: James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove 11
Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 12
13 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Tina Love, 14
Administrative Assistant II 15
16 OTHERS PRESENT: Marabeth Carr, DEAPR; Ardra Webster, DEAPR 17
18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 19
20
AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 21
a) Planning Calendar for July and August 22
23 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 24
JUNE 4, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 25
26 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the June 4, 2014 Planning Board minutes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 28 29
AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 30
31 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 32 33 Introduction to the Public Charge 34
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 35
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 36
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 37
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 38
future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 39
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 40
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 41
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 42
43 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 44 45
Pete Hallenbeck: Part of being on the Planning Board is coming to the Quarterly Public Hearing. 46 AGENDA ITEM 7: PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN: To review and comment on Orange County’s draft Parks 47
& Recreation Master Plan. At the June 3, 2014 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the 48
BOCC referred the draft plan to several advisory boards for review and comment. Comments 49
are due no later than August 31, 2014. 50
51 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator and Department of Environment, 52
Agricultural, and Parks & Recreation (DEAPR) staff. 53
54
7
D R A F T
2
Perdita Holtz introduced DEAPR staff members and gave a brief overview of the purpose of tonight’s item. 55
56
Marabeth Carr: We didn’t hire a consultant to do this report; it was done by DEAPR staff and other Orange County 57
agencies. We had $30,000 and we have money left for printing. Reviewed plan differences. 58
59
Paul Guthrie: You should be congratulated for doing this yourself and not hiring a consultant. You may need to talk 60
a little more about trails and acquisition and the question is have you got a working concept of how you would go 61
about acquisition of trails. One problem is you are doing a large trail from a good distance and one land owner won’t 62
play then you don’t have a trail. The second is how you maintain what you have and keep the quality up. Have you 63
got the budget base in place of how you will do that? 64
65
Marabeth Carr: This coming year, we have a new budget line item for maintenance. In developing what I call 66
Chapter 3, park facilities, we took that chapter and in the appendix we are outlining all the maintenance needs for the 67
next five years and put numbers with them. We are trying to have a chunk of money in this budget line item to 68
address these items at each park. 69
70
Paul Guthrie: I would strongly encourage you to talk to your general county budget people so they are aware there is 71
a strategy involved. A couple of things; one is coordination with school facilities. 72
73
Marabeth Carr: Just recently, we introduced a resolution which is called the Community Use of School Facilities for 74
Recreation. I am in charge of the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group which is a group that meets quarterly, all the 75
recreation directors, and we have other representatives. We address different issues and make sure we don’t 76
overlap with other counties. We wrote this resolution for using school facilities. It been adopted by all the 77
jurisdictions, school boards, etc. but has not been adopted by our BOCC yet. 78
79
Paul Guthrie: A subset of the school coordination is year round use and the school systems are offered a seven to 80
eight month use and when schools are not in session, there is more of a need for their outdoor facilities. Another 81
thing is the integration with the municipal and state facilities similar to the school focusing on how you get a long term 82
relationship with municipalities that have separate recreation departments. Another point is the Mountains to the Sea 83
Trail needs a lot of emphasis but that gives you something physical in place you can use to spring off side trails. 84
That interest the state has in that trail may help. 85
86
Marabeth Carr: The reasons those connections show up is because of the IP Work Group. The municipalities 87
wanted to make sure they were connected to it. 88
89
Bryant Warren: There was lot of discussions at the meetings about whichever route the Mountain to the Sea Trail did 90
take that all those municipalities had access to it. 91
92
Paul Guthrie: How much discussion was on what the uses on the trail would be permitted? 93
94
Marabeth Carr: Since it is a state trail, they will go by their guidelines. 95
96
Paul Guthrie: How far have you gone in organizing your thoughts identifying the options for the trail and beginning to 97
start the dialogue about possible options because sooner or later, you will generate both generate people who think 98
is a good idea and those who think it’s a bad idea? 99
100
Marabeth Carr: Rich Shaw is directing that effort. 101
102
Paul Guthrie: You have a lot of terrific data but in terms of your public report you may have too much. 103
104
Tony Blake: A lot of the comments I have had is the county has taken a lot of land off the tax rolls and there is a 105
great deal of consternation there from my people. I am personally not that opposed. It would seem that some of 106
these places are natural venues. One thing missing is the ability to organize community events (i.e. Southern Village 107
Outdoor Theater). 108
8
D R A F T
3
109
Marabeth Carr: We do offer movie in the park. It is popular. 110
111
Tony Blake: A place where a small group in the community could organize something like that and possibly do 112
fundraising. 113
114
Paul Guthrie: Let me give you an example, what you don’t want national parks services that says you can only do 115
what we tell you in our park. You have a community park and community interest that can go beyond the community 116
but at the same time there are port to that locality. 117
118
Tony Blake: A lot of people have expressed interest in a park, something that is already existing, and I thought that 119
Cane Creek was attractive to people because it is already there. The problem is access. 120
121
Marabeth Carr: It is hard for OWASA to provide recreation. 122
123
Maxecine Mitchell: I am in the Bingham Township area, I feel like we don’t have any park and recreation so we take 124
advantage of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro parks. I see you have a future Rogers Road community center. Will that also 125
be in connection with the St. Paul’s Church and what they are doing? 126
127
Marabeth Carr: I am not involved in that project so I don’t know. 128
129
Maxecine Mitchell: We had the parks and recreation center on Homestead Road and now the Hargrave Center is 130
covering that part of the area, are you getting away from that? 131
132
Marabeth Carr: That is one of the hanging questions is community centers. It is a huge issue because it involves so 133
many other aspects. 134
135
Andrea Rohrbacher: Chapel Hill has been moving to get the community more available time in the community 136
centers they do have. 137
138
Marabeth Carr: Northern Human Services Center tried to do a community center and it did not get the numbers. 139
Some of the centers are in rural areas; it is hard to get people to them. Efland Cheeks is coming along and is heavily 140
used on odd hours. 141
142
Maxecine Mitchell: You also have the White Cross area, is that the future Bingham District Park? 143
144
Marabeth Carr: The Bingham District never secured a property. 145
146
Maxecine Mitchell: Is that still on the table? 147
148
Marabeth Carr: It is still in the plan. 149
150
Craig Benedict: I have a follow up to what Marabeth was saying about the progression of activity in Orange County 151
and how it interfaces with the Unified Development Ordinance. We collect parks and recreation fees for projects. 152
They can dedicate land (one fifty seventh of an acre for every lot) or flood plain (one twentieth of an acre). When we 153
examined the 1988 plan in year 2000 about how much was collected per lot and if that does pay for the parks and 154
recreation for that park, we found we needed more of a track record of building parks over the last 10 years. On 155
page 125 through 127 it says areas for further study and that is one of them. We need to reexamine what our future 156
park inventory will be with what type of activity. We still have work ahead. There is no master trail plan. 157
158
Paul Guthrie: I also work on a transportation committee; you mentioned one place the transportation issue. I think it 159
would be helpful to accelerate the communications with the evolving transportation organizing in Orange County for 160
the long haul (15 year period) so the transportation managing organization, planning, parks and recreations can have 161
a common dialogue because transportation will be a growing problem. 162
9
D R A F T
4
163
Craig Benedict: We are trying to get our emergency service units out in the community. We are trying to use those 164
community nodes as possible park and ride lots. 165
166
Marabeth Carr: We have our future Northeast District Park that has been set aside for a fire and EMS station. 167
168
Pete Hallenbeck: The trails are a very popular item. When the Mountain to the Sea Trail came along, there was talk 169
about trying to get connections on McGowan Creek. Some of the issues will have to be waited on until some of 170
these people go away. If you look at other parts of the country, if you have a property that is close to a trail, its value 171
goes up. This was something that I could not convince people that this was the case. There is a huge difference in 172
the attitude of rural versus urban and most of my observations are in the rural land. If you have a local group running 173
something it just does better. 174
175
Pete Hallenbeck: If you live in rural areas, you have to have a car to get there. Part of this rural versus urban, if you 176
were to tell someone from Chapel Hill that we are going to make this great park with 700 or 1,000 parking spaces, 177
people would say, “what”. 178
179
Tony Blake: I noticed a mention in this plan about some Duke land toward Bingham Township. 180
181
Marabeth Carr: We work with Duke and we have first refusal on anything they are willing to sell. We are in the 182
process of developing the Hollow Rock access area. We have just received at $250,000 grant to build a park area. 183
Duke Forest was involved in the planning but they didn’t want us to tie directly to them because officially they are not 184
in the trail business. 185
186
Paul Guthrie: On page 69, your survey results strongly agree, strongly disagree, and don’t know, I think you should 187
pay a lot of attention to the “don’t know” column. They may point a location where there is a lack of knowledge in the 188
community. 189
190
Maxecine Mitchell: I can see people saying that I don’t know what a county facility is. 191
192
Bryant Warren: There is one community center I have talked to is the one in Mebane. I ask them how they got it. 193
They have a lot of support from the businesses. The Efland Ruritan Club is doing a great job. 194
195
Marabeth Carr: Riverwalk was able to get part of grant money. Part recreation/trust fund money that the state gives 196
out has gone to facilities promoting the Mountains to Sea Trail. 197
198
Marabeth Carr: Please email us if you have any additional comments. 199
200 AGENDA ITEM 8: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 201
a. Board of Adjustment 202
203 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT: 204 205 MOTION by Bryant Warren to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 206 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 207
208
10
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 3, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application – Pleasant Green Woods Phase IV
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Application Package (Preliminary Plat
Under Separate Cover)
2. Property and Vicinity Map
Patrick Mallett, Planner II (919) 245-2577
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2585
3. Staff Generated Correspondence
4. Excerpt of Approved Minutes from
February 5, 2014 Planning Board
meeting
Under Separate Cover:
Preliminary Plat and Color rendering
PURPOSE: To review and take action on a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat 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
C/o Mr. 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
C/o Mr. Terry Boylan
504 Meadowland Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Location: Pleasant Green Road- Please refer to Attachment 2 for a vicinity map of
the parcel.
Parcel Information: a. PIN: 9893-87-9972
b. Size of parcel: 46.34 acres
11
Staff Note: The acreage is based on Orange County Tax/Map
data as well as notes contained on Preliminary Plat (Sheet C-1).
Zoning of parcels: Rural Residential (R-1) and Lower Eno
Protected Watershed Overlay (L-ENO-PW).
c. Township: Eno.
d. School District: Orange County Schools.
e. Future Land Use Map Designation: Rural Residential.
f. Growth Management System Designation: Rural.
g. Joint Land Use Plan Designation: N/A.
h. Existing Conditions/Physical Features: Varying topography
with heavy vegetation, primarily mixed hardwoods, throughout.
There are streams running through the northern and southern
portions of property with varying slopes. Stream buffer widths
vary from 65 to 80 feet according to the type of slope.
There is no floodplain on the property.
i. Roads: Vehicular access to the parcel is proposed through
Paper Birch Lane, a 100 ft. wide public right-of-way. The road
has been constructed but not yet been accepted by NCDOT for
addition to the State maintained system.
There are no issues, in staff’s opinion, reviewing the proposal as
submitted in advance of NC DOT taking action on the roadway
as the right-of-way was already dedicated and accepted as part
of a separate subdivision project.
j. 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 and undeveloped
property zoned R-1 approximately 10 acres in size
b. SOUTH: Single-family residence; undeveloped property
zoned R-1 with lots ranging from 1 to 10 acres.
Willet Drive, a 60 ft. public right-of-way, is also
located to the south of this project
c. EAST : Single-family residences zoned R-1
(Pleasant Green Phase III) with lots ranging from 1
to 3 acre sin area.
d. WEST: Pleasant Green Road, Single-family residences
zoned AR ranging in size from 2 to 5 acres.
12
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.
• Second Action – The Planning Board reviews and takes action on the Concept
Plan application approving either the ‘conventional’ or ‘flexible development’ layout.
Staff Comment – DONE. The Planning Board met on February 5, 2014 and
approved the Concept Plan Flexible Design Option. Agenda materials for this
meeting can be viewed at:
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/2.5.14PBPacket.pdf
Minutes from this meeting are contained in Attachment 4.
• 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.
Staff Comment –The Planning Board will review the Preliminary Plat at its
September 3, 2014 regular meeting.
• 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 Preliminary Plat application package,
consistent with the approved Concept Plan, proposing to develop a Conservation Cluster Flexible
Development Subdivision with 16 single-family residential lots at a gross density of 1 dwelling unit
per every 2.89 acres of land area with approximately 15.3 acres of dedicated Primary and Secondary
open space.
Proposed lots range in size from 1.24 acres (54,151 sq. ft.) to 1.87 acres (81,661 sq. ft.).
The following modification(s) have been made to the Preliminary Plat application in an effort to
address staff, Planning Board, and adjacent property owner comments associated with the approved
Concept Plan:
1. A proposed stormwater management area, originally shown behind Lot(s) 7 and 8 as
depicted on the Concept Plan, has been formally defined as required by Orange County
Erosion Control.
The basin is now 18,131 sq. ft. in area within a defined stormwater ‘lot’ that is 36,769 sq. ft. in
area.
2. The lot lines along Laurel Oak Lane have been revised to clearly delineate the edge of the
right-of-way as well as to account for proper roadway alignments in accordance with NC
Department of Transportation (NC DOT) guidelines.
This move was also necessitated to ensure adequate soils were present on each lot is
support active and repair areas for septic systems as required by the Health Department.
13
3. Secondary open space adjacent to Lot 2 was further defined to include a fire pond
approximately 12,377 sq. ft. in surface area with 81,048 cubic feet of water storage as
required by Orange County Emergency Services.
4. The Pedestrian Open Space Access (POSA) area was formally designated within the
Secondary 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
Flexible Development
Plan
16 62,578 sq. ft. /
1.43 acres
16.53 acres in open
space
(35.66 %) in
open space
STAFF COMMENT – UDO REQUIREMENTS: 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.
Roads: The proposal involves the creation of a 26’ wide paved road (Laurel Oak Lane) within a 60’
wide public right-of-way that would terminate in a cul-de-sac. The road meets NC Department of
Transportation dimensional standards for residential public road without curb and gutter. The
applicant is also proposing a 20 ft. wide emergency vehicle access onto Willet Drive.
STAFF COMMENT - ROADS: The proposed Staff has determined that the proposed
roadway construction and layout is consistent with the requirements of the UDO and
the approved Concept Plan for Pleasant Green Woods Phase IV.
Note: As the Board will recall there was extensive discussion at the February 5, 2014
Planning Board meeting related to the proposed cul-de-sac vs. requiring connectivity to
Willet Drive. Staff recommended, and the Planning Board approved, the Concept Plan
without requiring connectivity based on the following mitigating factors:
a. Limited sight distances along the project’s Willet Road frontage;
b. Significant grade changes from Willet Drive to property;
c. Emergency access is provided via a 20’ wide access easement to Willet Drive;
d. Fire truck turn around requirements are met via 20’ wide Type “Y” aprons;
e. The proposed stormwater BMP along Willet Drive utilizes the site’s existing
topography and drainage patterns in a manner that avoid excessive grading
along environmentally sensitive areas; and
f. The cul-de-sac allows for a 50’ wide contiguous Secondary Open Space strip
along Willet Drive.
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 has approved
the Preliminary Plat layout identifying septic and well locations for each proposed lot.
Please refer to Attachment 3 for additional information.
14
Stormwater and 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.
STAFF COMMENT – STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE: Orange County Erosion
Control has indicated the applicant will need to submit a detailed stormwater
management plan for the project for review and approval prior to the commencement of
land disturbing activities. The project will also require an Erosion Control permit.
Please refer to Attachment 3 for additional information.
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 16.53 acres (35.66 % of site). Open Space is 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. 6.82 acres (14.72%) of the project contains 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.
9.71 acres (20.94%) 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 hard wood and evergreen 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.
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:
15
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 Preliminary Plat application,
2. Deliberate on the proposal, and
3. Recommend approval of the proposal.
16
17
18
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
19
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
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Approved 3/5/14
1
1 2 3
MINUTES 4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 5
FEBRUARY 5, 2014 6 REGULAR MEETING 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill 9
Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 10
Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; 11
Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine 12
Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; 13 14 15 MEMBERS ABSENT: James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Vacant- Eno Township Representative; 16
Vacant- Hillsborough Township Representative; 17
18
19 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Jennifer Leaf, 20
Planner I; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; Michael Kelly, Planning Technician; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 21
22
23 OTHERS PRESENT: Terry Boylan, David Lazzo, Judith Timyau, David Delgado, Cole King, David & Lisa O’Hara, 24
Charles Porter, Gary Paschall, Terry Rishar, Chris Jones, Scott & Susan Tilley, Susan Heckman 25
26
27 Agenda Item 7: Major Subdivision Concept Plan – To review and make a decision on a major subdivision 28
concept plan application (Pleasant Green Woods, Phase IV), located off Pleasant Green Rd. 29
Presenter: Jennifer Leaf, Planner I 30
31
Michael Harvey reviewed the major subdivision approval process and steps 32
Jennifer Leaf reviewed the application 33 34
Pete Hallenbeck: We will now give the members time to ask questions. 35
36
Andrea Rohrbacher: What is the intent on clearing the site and preserving the site? 37
38
Terry Boylon: The site is heavily wooded and the intent is to only clear the right of way for the proposed road. The 39
rest would remain wooded and the individual lots would be cleared as necessary. 40
41
Michael Harvey: In our ordinance, we have tree preservation guidelines and standards that do allow clearing of lots 42
for house sites and septic and repair fields. There are still requirements that a percentage of trees be preserved on 43
site. There will not be mass clearing. The presence of trees on the site will also help with storm water and nutrient 44
reduction loads. 45
46
Terry Boylon: Yes, that is the case. 47
48
Pete Hallenbeck: Are there covenants on the deeds on these properties that would have additional limits or 49
restrictions on the percentage of trees that will be cleared. 50
51
David Lazzo: We have not established covenants but they are very likely to be almost identical to what is in 52
Pleasant Green Woods now. It is in our best interest as the homebuilder to preserve the trees. 53
54
Attachment 4 – Excerpt of
February 5, 2014 Approved
Planning Board Minutes
47
Approved 3/5/14
2
Pete Hallenbeck: At this point, since this is the concept plan, which is reasonable. As we move forward, those 55
covenants will be available. 56
57
David Lazzo: Yes sir, I am not sure what the rules are. 58
59
Michael Harvey: The preliminary plan application will require the applicant to file a preliminary set of covenants and 60
deed restrictions for our review and comment. That is one of the conditions that this Board will be looking for. 61
62
Paul Guthrie: This storm water lot, have you envisioned what the gallon capacity will be? 63
64
David Lazzo: For fire protection? No not yet, that could be smaller or larger, it is a placeholder at this point as to 65
where a good location is for that lot. 66
67
Paul Guthrie: Water and sewer, are you thinking about individual septic fields or a series of septic field that cover 68
more than one property. 69
70
David Lazzo: At this point, we are looking at individual septic fields. 71
72
Paul Guthrie: Are you thinking of individual wells or some form of joint well production. 73
74
David Lazzo: On individual lots. 75
76
Paul Guthrie: On each lot, you will have a well and septic field? 77
78
David Lazzo: Yes. 79
80
Paul Guthrie: This is something you may want to pay attention to depending on the types of soils there are. 81
82
Pete Hallenbeck: I assumed there were preliminary perk tests done? 83
84
David Lazzo: That happens in the next stage. There are preliminary soil profiles available that lead us to make 85
assumptions about the availability of septic soils. An actual survey by the health department will be done. 86
87
Michael Harvey: This project is based on 16 lots but there may be only 15 or 14 lots if there are no soils or there 88
may an alternation of the existing layout to accommodation additional soil areas. 89
90
Paul Guthrie: Do you have any information as to what depth you have to go and what flows you can get? 91
92
David Lazzo: Not at this time. 93
94
Herman Staats: Reviewed location. 95
96
Johnny Randall: It looks like the forest is about 30 years old. Has any type of natural area inventory been done on 97
this site? 98
99
Michael Harvey: Preliminary assessments have not indicated any natural or heritage sites. Obviously there will be 100
a more in depth investigation. 101
102
Tony Blake: The streams empty into the Eno? 103
104
Michael Harvey: I would say yes. 105
106
Tony Blake: It appears there is source stream on one side, is that a stream? 107
108
48
Approved 3/5/14
3
Terry Bolan: On the east side, that is spring fed. 109
110
Tony Blake: That would probably not be the one that fed the fire pond. The proximity of the road to this lot that is 111
sort of insert, does that meet all the setbacks? So that is okay. 112
113
Pete Hallenbeck: The diameter of the cul-de-sac was 96 feet which was nice to see. 114
115
Jennifer Leaf: Actually it is not 96 feet, there was a comment by the fire marshal that he would like for it to be. 116
They have what makes it looks like a Y here. That has been acceptable with the fire marshal. 117
118
Michael Harvey: On page 40 and 41 are the emails from the fire marshal. 119
120
Jennifer Leaf: There will be further engineering done at the preliminary plan stage. 121
122
Pete Hallenbeck: We have a request from the fire marshal for 96 foot radius and a proposal there is some cutouts 123
to allow a three point turn. That sounds good. 124
125
Lisa Stuckey: What happens with these cutouts, you can’t put anything on them? 126
127
Michael Harvey: It is in the right of way. 128
129
Terry Boylan: It would actually be a concrete surface. 130
131
Tony Blake: Is there any proposed square footage of the houses? 132
133
David Lazzo: The minimum in Pleasant Green Woods, Phase III was around 2,800. Everything we plan is 2,800 134
feet or larger. 135
136
Pete Hallenbeck: Another fire related comment with regard to the 20 foot stretch that comes to the pond is to 137
continue it on through. There have been problems in the past with that. The distance from Pleasant Green Road to 138
the closest a house could get is almost 200 feet. 139
140
Terry Boylan: The shaded buffer is 65 feet; it is probably 200 feet between150 to 200. 141
142
Michael Harvey: There will be a 100 foot building set back. 143
144
Paul Guthrie: What would be the likely timeline from now until the first occupied house? 145
146
David Delgado: This whole process to get out preliminary plat approval is going to likely take until September. 147
Maybe early Spring 2015. 148
149
Pete Hallenbeck: Are there comments from the public? You can make a comment tonight and also a written 150
presentation that will go into the minutes. 151
152
Charles Porter: I am the president of the Pleasant Green Woods Homeowners Association. I want to ask about the 153
covenants and the homeowners association, are you planning on joining or not? How do you plan to work with us? 154
155
David Lazzo: There has been no plan to be part of the homeowners just yet. Our covenants will closely mirror the 156
covenants in place for Pleasant Greens Woods, Phase III. We are calling it Pleasant Green Woods, Phase IV out 157
of convenience. 158
159
Charles Porter: If you don’t join the homeowners association, would you plan on doing your own homeowners 160
association? 161
162
49
Approved 3/5/14
4
David Lazzo: If we are not part of the existing homeowners, we would set up our own. 163
164
Susan Huffman: When you say the runoff will go into the Eno River, it has to go through the pond that is bordered 165
by Rapids Lane homes on the west side in Pleasant Green. I have heard from the homeowners in the past that 166
drainage area at the end of the pond going into the river hasn’t been kept open and it backs up into their crawl 167
spaces. If you decrease impervious by having more impervious and having more runoff going into the streams 168
leading into the Eno, you have to work on keeping that channel open or it will back up. 169
170
Pete Hallenbeck: The problem is that the water way that runs and feeds that pond is not cleared enough and the 171
pond backs up. 172
173
Susan Huffman: I think it is at the end where the pond dumps into the river. 174
175
Lisa Stuckey: Whose responsibility is that? 176
177
Pete Hallenbeck: At this point, we can take that comment and have the planning department be aware and look at 178
what they can do. 179
180
David Lazzo: The ponds are designed for the flow that runs off the property to be exactly as it is today. 181
182
Terry Boylan: This is a requirement by state law. 183
184
Susan Tilley: In addition to being concerned about Paper Birch as people who live on that road, we are very 185
concerned about sight lines for people coming around that curve. Has there been any thought to changing the 186
entrance to that neighborhood onto Pleasant Green which as opposed to Paper Birch? 187
188
Pete Hallenbeck: For my edification Paper Birch is not DOT maintained? But the plan is that it will be DOT 189
maintained? 190
191
Terry Boylan: It is in the process of DOT accepting that. 192
193
Maxecine Mitchell: Is Paper Birch Road a cul-de-sac? 194
195
Terry Boylan: Yes. As far as access onto Paper Birch that is the best location site distance wise. It would not have 196
been feasible to access the neighborhood from Pleasant Green Road. We would have to cross 130 foot buffer. 197
198
Pete Hallenbeck: You already have a crossing over that stream on Paper Birch and if you come in off Paper Birch 199
you would be using that. If you went to Pleasant Green, there would be a second crossing across that waterway. 200
201
Terry Boylan: Right. 202
203
Maxecine Mitchell: Is Willett a regular size road, private road? 204
205
Michael Harvey: State maintained. 206
207 MOTION by Maxecine Mitchell to approve Planning Director’s recommendation. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 208 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 209
210 AGENDA ITEM : ADJOURNMENT 211 212 MOTION: made by Lisa Stuckey to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 213 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 214
50
51
52
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 3, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 8
SUBJECT: Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application – Stroud’s Creek
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Application Package
2. Project Vicinity Map
3. Staff Generated Correspondence
Patrick Mallett, Planner II (919) 245-2577
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575
4. Excerpt of Approved Minutes from June
4, 2014 Planning Board
Under Separate Cover:
Preliminary Plat (Including Color Rendering)
PURPOSE: To review and take action on a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application
proposing a 14 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): Stephens Road Partners
C/o Mr. Glenn Futrell
1050 Towerview Court
Cary NC, 27513
Owner: Waterford Sterling LLC
214 South Kings Street
Leesburg VA, 20175
Agent(s): Summit Engineers
C/o Mr. Terry Boylan and Mr. Chad Abbott
504 Meadowland Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Location: Stroud’s Creek Road - Please refer to Attachment 2 for a vicinity map of
the parcel.
Parcel Information: a. PIN: 9875-08-0900.
b. Size of Parcel: 25.3 acres in area.
c. Zoning of Parcel: Agricultural Residential (AR) and Special
Flood Hazard Area Overlay District (SFHA).
53
The property is not located within a Watershed Protection
Overlay District.
d. Township: Hillsborough.
e. School District: Orange County.
f. Future Land Use Map Designation: Agricultural Residential
and Rural Industrial Activity Node. Please refer to Attachment 2
for additional detail.
g. Growth Management System Designation: Rural.
It needs to be remembered the Growth Management System
Map was developed in an attempt to differentiate the impacts of
a rural versus urban subdivision (i.e. utility service, density,
traffic impacts, etc.) and identify an appropriate development
review process for a given project at specific densities.
This map is not the tool utilized to determine whether or not a
project should be allowed to utilize existing public services. The
tools is known as the Water and Sewer Management Planning
Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) and map.
And, as articulated herein, this property is located within a
primary utility service area where water/sewer is available to
allow development.
h. Existing Conditions/Physical Features: Varying topography
with heavy vegetation, primarily mixed hardwoods, throughout.
There are streams running through the property with varying
slopes. Portions of the property are also encumbered by
floodplain and wetlands.
i. Roads: Vehicular access to the subdivision is proposed via
Stroud’s Creek Road, a NCDOT publicly maintained roadway.
The subdivision proposes to build a public road (27’ wide curb
and gutter pavement within a 40’ public right-of-way) that
terminates in a cul-de-sac. The site is bordered by streams,
floodplain and the Pathways Elementary School. Therefore, no
additional public or private vehicular access to adjacent
properties is proposed or required.
The public road is designed to meet or exceed NCDOT and/or
Town of Hillsborough residential street design standards. The
cul-de-sac portion of the road is also designed to meet Orange
County Fire and Emergency Services design preferences.
j. Water and Sewer Service: The property is located within a
primary public utility service area according to the Water and
Sewer Management Planning Boundary Agreement
(WASMPBA). The proposed residential lots will be served with
public water (via a 4” domestic and 8-12” fire lines), and public
sewer (via an 8” sanitary sewer line) by the Town of
Hillsborough.
54
Surrounding Land Uses: a. NORTH: Stroud’s Creek Road; an undeveloped single-family
residential subdivision comprised of 40 lots all ten acres
or more in size.
b. SOUTH: Property is within the corporate limits of the Town of
Hillsborough. The property is slated for development as
an office / industrial park. There is also an undeveloped
78 acre parcel within the County’s Planning jurisdiction
that is zoned AR.
c. EAST : Church on property zoned AR; NC Highway 57.
d. WEST: Pathways Elementary School 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).
Staff Comment – DONE. This meeting was held on May 14, 2014.
• Second Action – The Planning Board reviews and takes action on the Concept
Plan application approving either the ‘conventional’ or ‘flexible development’ layout.
Staff Comment – DONE. The Planning Board reviewed the Concept Plan at its
June 4, 2014 regular meeting and approved the Flexible Design Option. Agenda
materials from this meeting can be viewed at:
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/6.4.14PBPacket.pdf
Minutes from this meeting are contained in Attachment 4.
• 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.
Staff Comment – Pending. The Planning Board is scheduled to begin review of
the Preliminary Plat at its September 3, 2014 regular meeting.
• Fourth Action – The BOCC reviews and take action on the Preliminary Plat
application at its scheduled October 21, 2014 meeting.
• 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 Preliminary Plat application proposing to
develop a 14 single-family residential subdivision with an overall proposed density for the project of 1
dwelling unit per every 1.8 acres of land area with approximately 17.21 acres (67.96% of the site) of
dedicated open space.
The following modification(s) have been made to the Preliminary Plat application in an effort to
address staff, Planning Board, and adjacent property owner comments associated with the approved
Concept Plan:
55
1. Proposed lot lines were adjusted to comply with NC Department of Transportation (NC
DOT) requirements on the development of the roadway, to accommodate infrastructure
needs (i.e. utility lines, stormwater, etc.), and to reduce potential impacts to existing
environmentally sensitive areas.
2. The Stormwater basin was revised to comply with Orange County Erosion Control
standards and to avoid placing said infrastructure within identified environmentally
sensitive areas.
A summary of the proposal is as follows:
Subdivision Type Number of
Lots
Average Lot
Size
Area in Open Space Open Space
Percentage
Conservation Cluster
Flexible Development
Plan
14 20,914 sq. ft.
(Ranging from
16,012 sq. ft. to
39,794 sq. ft.)
17.21 acres 67.96% in
common
open space
(33% required
by the UDO)
STAFF COMMENT – UDO REQUIREMENTS: The proposal is in accordance with the
anticipated densities for properties located within the Agricultural Residential land use
category as defined within the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and Rural designated areas as
denoted on the Growth Management Systems Map. The size of the parcels is consistent for
projects served by public water and sewer.
It should be noted that in absence of such services, reduction of minimum lot sizes below one
acre would be prohibited.
Roads: The proposal involves the creation of a single public road to service the project, constructed
to applicable NC Department of Transportation (DOT) and Town of Hillsborough roadway standards.
The applicant intends to turn this road over for maintenance to the appropriate entity once the
development is completed.
Specifically, the plan calls for:
• A roadway, approximately 660 linear feet in length, terminating in a cul-de-sac.
• The construction of the proposed roadway will not involve any stream crossings.
There are no opportunities for connectivity associated with this project. To do so would require the
crossing of a major stream and floodplain. Also the southern property, which is in the Town of
Hillsborough’s corporate limits, is being developed as a commercial/industrial park with no street stub
connections.
STAFF COMMENT - ROADS: Staff has determined that the proposed roadway
construction and layout is consistent with the requirements of the UDO. It also avoids
impacting environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands and streams).
In reviewing the matter with Mr. D’Angelo Jones of NC DOT and Ms. Margaret Hauth of
the Town of Hillsborough, staff indicated they have no concerns over the proposed
roadway development, or its proposed public street access to Stroud’s Creek Road.
56
If desired by the Orange County School System and NCDOT, the developer has
proposed the construction of a 5’ wide sidewalk along the right-of-way of Stroud’s Creek
Road. The sidewalk would be located within or alongside the right-of-way of the new
residential street connection to the second access drive for Pathways Elementary School.
Utilities: The applicant is proposing to serve the project with public water and sewer provided by
the Town of Hillsborough. The applicant has indicated that, where allowed and feasible,
electrical utility services for the residential homes will be located below ground.
STAFF COMMENT - UTILITIES: The Town of Hillsborough has already approved (and
provided a utility agreement) to serve the property with public water (4” domestic line and
8-12” fire line) and a 8” sanitary sewer line. Please refer to an e-mail from Mr. Kenny
Keel, Town of Hillsborough, contained within Attachment 3 for additional information.
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.
STAFF COMMENT – STORMWATER DRAINAGE: Orange County Erosion Control
has indicated the applicant will need to submit a detailed stormwater management plan
for the project for review and approval prior to the commencement of land disturbing
activities. The project will also require an Erosion Control permit. Please refer to
Attachment 3 for additional information.
Open Space: The flexible development plan denotes the maintenance of a 30’ wide natural buffer
along Stroud’s Creek Road and a 100-foot building setback along the perimeter of the project.
Primary and Secondary Open Space is identified in and around the existing streams and off of the
denoted floodplain areas. The total area preserved as primary and secondary open space is
approximately 749,847 square feet (17.21 acres). The proposed open space is comprised of
existing, mature, vegetation and trees with an approximate height of between 30 to 50 feet. The
area is also heavily encumbered with identified floodplains and delineated wetlands.
STAFF COMMENT – OPEN SPACE: Staff has determined the proposed open space
and land use buffers meet the requirements of the UDO.
The developer has also proposed a 50’ wide Pedestrian Open Space Area (POSA)
connection at the residential street (between lots 13 and 14) that would continue along
the rear of lots 9-13 to connect to the sanitary sewer easement along the southern
portion of the property. If desired by the Town of Hillsborough, the developer has also
offered to provide a pedestrian access easement in conjunction with the sanitary sewer
easement along the southern portion of the property. These provisions would provide the
opportunity to have publically accessible open space on all sides of the development.
Land Use Buffers: The site plan indicates there will be a 30-foot buffer along Stroud’s Creek 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
57
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.
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:
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 Preliminary Plan with the flexible development option
as proposed by the applicant.
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 Preliminary Plat application,
2. Deliberate on the proposal, and
3. Recommend approval of the proposal.
58
59
60
HI
AR
STROUDS CREEK RD
NC
5
7
TUMBLIN
G
BROOK
L
N
604
584
578
581
579
586
582
5
8
9
59
5
602
5
9
7
59
6
5
8
8
593
591
600
597
598
Lower EnoUnprotectedWatershed
Falls LakeNitrogen - 2.2 lbs/ac/yrPhosphorous - 0.33 lbs/ac/yr
USGS Water Feature
Soils Survey Water Feature
OC Updated Water Feature
Water Body
River Basins
Watershed
Parcels
Township
School System Boundary
Contours
County Boundary
Soils
Zoning
City Limits
ETJ
Conservation EasementsHeld by Others
Orange CountyConservation Easements
100 YR Floodplain (Effective 02/02/07)
Floodway (Effective 02/02/07)
500 YR Floodplain (Effective 02/02/07)
Buildings
Water and Sewer Boundary
·
0 230 460115Feet
1 inch = 300 feet
Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange CountyGIS and is for reference only.Exact locations and boundaries should be verified.Map prepared by Orange County Planning & Inspections.
PIN#: 9875080900LLC WATERFORD STERLING 214 S KING STLEESBURG, VA 20175
Pathways Elementary School
Subject Parcel
Variable width stream buffer
Variable width stream buffer
Town of Hillsborough
Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map
61
PIN: 9875080900
N
C
8
6
N
NC
5
7
Future Land Use Map
Subject Parcel
Streams
Parcels
Water Supply Watersheds
Resource Protection Areas
10 Year Transition
Agricultural Residential
City Limits
Rural Industrial ·Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (5/29/2014)
0 100 200Feet
1 in = 400 feet
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Approved 7/2/14
1
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JUNE 4, 2014 REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill
Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove
Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative;
Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Laura
Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Vacant-At-Large;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Patrick Mallett,
Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Terry Boylan, Glenn Futrell
AGENDA ITEM 7: MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN: To review and make a decision on an major subdivision
concept plan application seeking to sub-divide a 25.33 acre parcel of property into 14 single-
family residential lots with 16.29 acres of common open space near the intersection of
Stroud’s Creek Road and NC Highway 57 in Hillsborough Township. Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II
Patrick Mallett: Presented a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed abstract.
James Carter: Where is that fence and will it remain there?
Patrick Mallett: That was installed by the school.
Michael Harvey: As covered in our abstract, one of the reasons you are seeing lots of this size is because water and
sewer service is being provided. That is the only way this project was allowed to get these smaller lots, which is in
accordance with the provisions of Article 7. The other comment is that you will recall previous major subdivisions,
applications are typically required to submit a conventional and flexible development options.
Pete Hallenbeck: There is a power line easement and it goes and disappears. Is there a power line in that easement
now?
Pat Mallett: There is a power line that goes through here and extends north.
Pete Hallenbeck: Currently the power line does not go through.
Terry Boylan: It does not go through. That is a tree line from when it did before.
Pete Hallenbeck: What about the dual water line fees?
Attachment 4 – Excerpt of
Approved June 4, 2014 Planning
Board Minutes
90
Approved 7/2/14
2
Pat Mallett: They are proposing a fire service line with two hydrants.
Terry Boylan: There are two different lines.
Tony Blake: Craig, wouldn’t this be part of Hillsborough’s ETJ?
Craig Benedict: Just outside of that.
Tony Blake: By state law they could petitioned to be annexed?
Craig Benedict: Yes. Most likely as part of the water/sewer agreement.
Pat Mallett: They are interested in selling water and sewer and not annexation.
Tony Blake: How large are the houses?
Terry Boylan: The setbacks will allow 3,600 square foot.
Pete Hallenbeck: What could the residences do with the light green space?
Pat Mallett: You have building setbacks on the roadside, 35 foot buffer. There was originally a concept plan that had
two lots there.
Terry Boylan: We have a 100 foot or setback off this property line and that gives us this set back here for lot 14.
Pat Mallett: I think it is not so much what can be built there but what is held in common.
Pete Hallenbeck: It seems like a setup for a wonderful neighbor war.
Herman Staats: Why was the open space left open and not part of Lot 14?
Terry Boylan: It could conceivably be part of Lot 14.
Pete Hallenbeck: That is an issue for you as the developer.
Pat Mallett: Typically you want to see like to like.
Terry Boylan: That is one reason it is not so much larger than the other lots.
Glenn Futrell: We, my wetland consultant, we had all the wetlands reevaluated and we received that report last
week. We comply with all the setback requirements and we are not changing anything previously to what was done
six or seven years ago.
MOTION by Maxecine Mitchell to recommend approval to the BOCC. Seconded by James Lea. VOTE: UNANIMOUS
AGENDA ITEM 12: ADJOURNMENT:
91
92
93
94
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 3, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 9
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Private Road and Access Standards
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) N
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Amendment Outline Form
UDO / Zoning-2014-11
2. Section 7.8 Access and Roadways,
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
3. Emergency Access to Trail Systems at
Orange County Parks – Draft Goal and
Objectives
4. Fire Chief Council Comments
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use
Planner, 245-2567
Michael Harvey, Current Planning
Supervisor, 245-2597
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor, 245-2579
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245-2592
PURPOSE: To receive information about a current multi-department/advisory board project
involving the review of private road and access standards and to provide comments.
BACKGROUND:
In the accepted 2014 Work Plans for the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) and
the Planning Board, both have activities identified pertaining to the review of private road and
access standards in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) authorized the Planning staff to proceed with this multi-
department/advisory board review of UDO private road, access and trail system standards with
respect to Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives, and development amendments for
consideration. The OUTBoard reviewed this item on April 16 and August 20, 2014; and
Planning staff reviewed this issue with DEAPR staff on June 16, 2014, and with Emergency
Services staff and the Fire Chief Council on July 9, 2014. Details regarding the review and
analysis to date are is provided in Attachment 1, the Amendment Outline form for UDO/Zoning-
2014-11.
Current UDO Regulations
The impetus for this work plan task stems primarily from issues relating to the County’s private
road regulations found in Sections 7.8.4 and 7.8.5 of the UDO (Attachment 2). Currently the
UDO regulates private roads as follows:
1. The standards and specifications for private roads apply to subdivision in the County
depending on whether it is a Class A or B road:
95
TABLE 7.8.5.D BASIC STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR PRIVATE ROADS
CLASS A CLASS B
Max. Number of Lots 12 2 3 5
Right-of-Way Width 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.
Travel-Way Width 18 ft. No Standard 12 ft. 12 ft.
Road Maintenance
Agreement Required Yes Yes Yes Yes
Maintenance
Responsibility Property Owners Property
Owners Property Owners Property
Owners
Notes:
a. Class B private roads serve 1 to 5 lots or dwelling units; however,
subdivisions with two lots or dwelling units may be served by a shared driveway.
b. Class A private roads serve 6 to 12 lots or dwelling units.
c. Both Class A and Class B private roads may be graveled.
2. Public (state maintained) roads are required by the County for all subdivisions having 13
or more lots. For reference, NCDOT’s Minimum Construction Standards for Subdivision
Roads may be found at the following link:
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/SubdivisionManualJanuary2010.pdf
The County’s two-tiered approach to regulating private roads was originally intended to allow an
affordable development option for small subdivisions of no more than 5 lots. However,
problems have been reported by the County’s Emergency Services Department and the
Volunteer Fire Departments regarding the 12-foot travel-way width permitted by the Class B
private road. The narrow width of the Class B road has presented public safety issues because
it does not provide adequate access for emergency services vehicles, and thus impacts
response times.
Additionally, North Carolina General Statutes exempt certain types of subdivisions from the
County’s subdivision review process:
1. The combination or recombination of portions of previously subdivided and recorded lots
if the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are equal to or exceed
the standards of the County, including private road justification standards, as detailed
within the UDO.
2. The division of land into parcels greater than 10 acres if no street right-of-way dedication
is involved.
3. The public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for widening or opening streets.
4. The division of a tract in single ownership of the entire area of which is no greater than
two acres into not more than three lots, if no street right-of-way dedication is involved and
if the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the County as detailed within
the UDO.
These exempt subdivisions are still required to meet all applicable requirements for the granting
of zoning compliance permits and issuance of building permits. However, the UDO does not
have a requirement that all newly created lots have access to a complying road, including those
in statutorily exempt subdivisions (lots > 10 acres). Because of the exempt nature of these
subdivisions, County staff cannot guarantee viable access to created lots. Like the situation with
Class B private roads, the creation of land-locked properties (e.g., those with access easements
96
rather than roadway access) presents public safety access issues for emergency services
vehicles.
Emergency Access to Recreational Trail Systems: There are currently no standards for
emergency access for trail systems in the UDO. Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks
and Recreation (DEAPR) staff recommends that issues related to accommodating emergency
service personnel needing to access people using trails at Orange County parks and nature
preserves administered by DEAPR are best addressed through the addition of the staff
recommended goal and objectives to the Draft Parks & Recreation Master Plan (Attachment 3).
This approach would be a more flexible approach that would be responsive to the site-specific
environmental issues of individual park sites.
.
Staff Recommended Options for Revisions to the Private Road and Access Standards of the
UDO: To provide an appropriate level of service for emergency services vehicles and ensure
the provision of adequate public safety protection standards for development, Planning staff
believes the following options should be discussed:
1. Do away with the Class B private roads and allow only the Class A private roads, which
requires a minimum 18-foot travel-way.
2. Develop a requirement that all newly created lots have access to a complying road
(either private or public).
To continue to allow a reasonable and affordable development option for small subdivisions,
staff suggests consideration of the following UDO revision:
3. Allow subdivisions with up to three lots or dwelling units to be served by a shared
driveway, subject to provision of a minimum driveway width, maximum driveway length,
and a turnaround area that can accommodate Emergency Services vehicles. (The UDO
currently allows two lots or dwelling units to be served by a shared driveway.)
Staff Recommended Options for Revisions
to the Private Road and Access Standards of the UDO
Class A Private Roads
Minimum Number of Lots 4
Maximum Number of Lots 12
Right-of-way Width 50 ft.
Travel-way Width 18 ft.
Road Maintenance Agreement Required Yes
Maintenance Responsibility Property Owner
Notes:
1. Subdivisions with up to 3 lots or dwelling units may be served by a shared driveway.
2. Class A private roads may be graveled.
97
Fire Council comments that can be addressed in the UDO: Upon reviewing the comments
within Attachment 4, Planning staff believes the following can be address in the UDO:
3. Cul-de-sac: Require a minimum clearing width for all proposed cul-de-sacs of 50 feet to
accommodate emergency vehicle access/staging within Section 7.8.5 (D) (10) of the
UDO. There is currently no ‘minimum clearing width’ separate from the development of
the actual, improved, travel area. This is something staff would verify before the
subdivision is recorded.
4. Drainage pipes under driveways: Section 7.8.5 (D) (9) could be amended to establish a
minimum width for all drain pipes of 16 feet. This would address the concern of trucks
being ‘hung up’ when attempting to access/leave a property.
5. Gates/Walls: With respect to required widths and setbacks for gates/privacy walls
regulations could be adopted to require minimum travel widths and stacking areas to
accommodate the Fire Council’s concerns. Staff would need to determine where such
regulations would best fit within the UDO.
6. Pull-over Areas: Private road standards could be amended to include emergency pull off
areas as suggested by the Fire Council. Staff will have to take into consideration the
impact such a requirement would have on current impervious surface policies, as such a
standard would increase the impervious surface area on a site and could possibly impact
overall developability.
7. Private Bridges: There are currently no existing standards governing the development of
a ‘bridge’/stream crossing. Such crossings are permitted in accordance with Section
6.13.6 (C) (4) of the UDO. Staff is still reviewing this request.
8. Tree Clearance on Driveways: While the County may need a reference to a tree clearing
requirement for subdivision projects to ensure emergency vehicular access, and
reference such requirements in recorded road maintenance agreements for all
subdivisions, the UDO may not be the most appropriate location for a County standard.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact in reviewing the private road and access
standards of the UDO and providing comments.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning Staff recommends the Planning Board:
1. Review the selected private road and access standards of the UDO;
2. Review and discuss the described issues and staff recommended options for revisions to
the UDO; and
3. Provide feedback on this issue.
98
1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning-2014-11
Private road standards, access standards, and trail system standards
of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
Future Land Use Map:
From:
To:
Zoning Map:
From
To
Other:
Text Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Text:
Section(s):
UDO Text:
UDO General Text Changes (Pending further BOCC authorization)
UDO Development Standards (Pending further BOCC authorization)
UDO Development Approval Processes
Section(s): To include (but may not be limited to):
1. Section 7.8 Access and Roadways, and
2. Section 6.2 Lot Standards
Other:
ATTACHMENT 1 99
2
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose/Mission
Multi-department/advisory board review of UDO private road, access and trail system
standards with respect to Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives, and develop
amendments for consideration.
2. Analysis
In its accepted 2014 Work Plan, the following activity was identified for the
OUTBoard:
• Begin examination of UDO Section 7.8 Access and Roadways (Attachment 2)
with respect to the goals and objectives of the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan to determine consistency, and seek BOCC authorization
to develop recommendations of applicable amendments to the UDO to take to
the Planning Board.
Likewise, in its accepted 2014 Work Plan, the Planning Board identified the following
activity as a concern/emerging issue:
• Emergency Access: Work with appropriate staff/departments to better ensure
properties can be reached by emergency personnel (e.g., driveway width and
clearance, bridge weight limit signage and sufficiency to allow a fire truck to
pass, gate width, and curve radii sufficient for emergency vehicles).
Multi-Department/Advisory Board Review
On April 16, 2014 the OUTBoard reviewed and discussed issues relating to selected
private road and access standards of the UDO. The Board recommended that the
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) direct Planning staff to review these
standards, and also trail system standards, and develop amendments to the UDO for
consideration. On May 20, 2014 the BOCC authorized staff to move forward with the
OUTBoard’s recommendation to proceed as proposed, including coordinating with
other County departments, and return to the Board in the Fall with an update and
request for further authorization to proceed.
Planning staff met with Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and
Recreation (DEAPR) staff on June 16, 2014 to discuss emergency access to trail
systems. As a result, draft goal and objectives were developed for accommodating
emergency service personnel needing to access people using trails at Orange
County parks and nature preserves administered by the Orange County Department
of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) (Attachment 3). On
August 20, 2014 DEAPR staff presented the Draft Parks & Recreation Master Plan to
the OUTBoard, and as part of its comments the Board recommended that the
emergency access goal and objectives be included in the Plan.
On July 9, 2014 staff met with the Fire Chief Council to discuss private road and
access standards and receive comments. The Council’s comments are provided in
Attachment 4.
100
3
NCDOT Public Road Construction Standards
Long-term maintenance costs of private roads have led to many requests for NCDOT
to accept these roads into the State-maintained system. The construction standards
for NCDOT acceptance are higher than the County’s Class B private road standards,
and are typically prohibitively expensive to overcome. Subdivision roads with a right-
of-way dedicated, recorded, or with preliminary approval from a county planning
board dated after September 30, 1975 will not be added to the State system unless
the road is built to the minimum construction standards of the Division of Highways.
The minimum State construction standard is 18 feet of pavement within a 50-foot
right-of-way. Additional information regarding NCDOT construction standards can be
found at:
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/SubdivisionManualJanuary2010.pdf
Staff Recommended Options for Revisions to the Private Road and Access
Standards of the UDO: To provide an appropriate level of service for emergency
services vehicles and ensure the provision of adequate public safety protection
standards for development, staff believes the following options should be discussed:
1. Do away with the Class B private roads and allow only the Class A private
roads, which requires a minimum 18-foot travel-way.
2. Develop a requirement that all newly created lots have access to a complying
road (either private or public).
To continue to allow a reasonable and affordable development option for small
subdivisions, staff suggests consideration of the following UDO revision:
3. Allow subdivisions with up to three lots or dwelling units to be served by a
shared driveway, subject to provision of a minimum driveway width, maximum
driveway length, and a turnaround area that can accommodate Emergency
Services vehicles. (The UDO currently allows two lots or dwelling units to be
served by a shared driveway.)
Fire Council comments that can be addressed in the UDO: Upon reviewing the
comments within Attachment 3, Planning staff believes the following can be
addressed in the UDO:
4. Cul-de-sac: Require a minimum clearing width for all proposed cul-de-sacs of
50 feet to accommodate emergency vehicle access/staging within Section
7.8.5 (D) (10) of the UDO. There is currently no ‘minimum clearing width’
separate from the development of the actual, improved, travel area. This is
something staff would verify before the subdivision is recorded.
5. Drainage pipes under driveways: Section 7.8.5 (D) (9) could be amended to
establish a minimum width for all drain pipes of 16 feet, to address the concern
of trucks being ‘hung up’ when attempting to access/leave a property.
6. Gates/Walls: With respect to required widths and setbacks for gates/privacy
walls regulations could be adopted to require minimum travel widths and
stacking areas to accommodate the Fire Council’s concerns. Staff would need
to determine where such regulations would best fit within the UDO.
101
4
7. Pull-over Areas: Private road standards could be amended to include
emergency pull off areas as suggested by the Fire Council. Staff will have to
take into consideration the impact such a requirement would have on current
impervious surface policies, as such a standard would increase the impervious
surface area on a site and could possibly impact overall developability.
8. Private Bridges: There are currently no existing standards governing the
development of a ‘bridge’/stream crossing. Such crossings are permitted in
accordance with Section 6.13.6 (C) (4) of the UDO. Staff is still reviewing this
request.
9. Tree Clearance on Driveways: While the County may need a reference to a
tree clearing requirement for subdivision projects to ensure emergency
vehicular access, and reference such requirements in recorded road
maintenance agreements for all subdivisions, the UDO may not be the most
appropriate location for a County standard.
Staff Recommended Options for Addressing Fire Council Comments Outside of the
UDO: Several comments do not appear to have either a land use component or do
not necessarily lend themselves to a land use enforcement proceeding. As a result
Planning staff would recommend the following:
10. Locked gates: There is no land use issue related to a property owner
choosing to secure his/her property. There is, however, a public safety
concern. Staff recommends the establishment of a separate policy/ordinance
within Chapter 14 Emergency Services of the Orange County Code of
Ordinances to address this issue. The benefit of this option is that we could
require more immediate enforcement remedies than currently possible with a
land use violation (i.e. we typically provide a 30 day compliance window for
land use violations).
11. Tree Clearance on Driveways: As with locked gates, there is no clear land
use issue associated with this matter. Staff recommends a separate
policy/ordinance as indicated in #9 above to address this issue.
12. Road Identification: There is already a road naming policy enforced by the
Land Records division of the Tax Administration office that could address this
matter.
13. District Issues with Road Conditions: This issue is beyond the scope of any
one department or agency. From staff’s perspective there needs to be a
County policy for addressing access and maintenance in those circumstances
where there is an older development that does not comply with County and/or
NC DOT regulations.
The biggest concern Planning staff hears, with respect to this issue, is from
residents of older subdivisions, with no home owners association, trying to
address road maintenance issues and/or lack of financial participation
amongst neighbors.
102
5
Staff Options for Addressing Comments Regarding Emergency Access for Trail
Systems:
14. Trail Systems: There are currently no standards for emergency access for trail
systems in the UDO. Issues related to accommodating emergency service
personnel needing to access people using trails at Orange County parks and
nature preserves administered by DEAPR are best addressed through the
addition of the DEAPR staff recommended goal and objectives to the Draft
Parks & Recreation Master Plan. This approach would be a more flexible
approach that would be responsive to the site-specific environmental issues of
individual park sites.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
a. Transportation Goal 2, Objective T-2.3: Increase countywide access for
emergency vehicles, including ways to improve response times, both for
existing and new developments.
b. Services and Community Facilities Goal 7, Objective PS-T-3: Establish and
maintain an appropriate level of service for law enforcement and emergency
services and ensure the provision of adequate public safety protection
standards for residential, commercial, and industrial development throughout
the County.
4. New Statutes and Rules
N/A
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
May 20, 2014
b. Quarterly Public Hearing
TBD
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
Fall of 2014 - BOCC Update and request for authorization to proceed with text
amendment(s)
d. Other
N/A
103
6
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope: To review existing private road, access standards, and trail system
standards with respect to providing an appropriate level of service for emergency
services vehicles and ensuring the provision of adequate public safety protection
standards for development, and within this framework providing a reasonable and
affordable development option for small subdivisions.
a. Planning Board Review:
September 3, 2014
b. Advisory Boards:
OUTBoard – April 16, 2014
& August 20, 2014
c. Local Government Review:
DEAPR staff – June 16, 2014. Emergency Services staff; and the
Fire Chief Council – July 9, 2014
d. Notice Requirements
At this time, only notice for advisory board meetings as required.
e. Outreach:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Other than staff time, there is no financial impact associated with receiving,
considering and authorizing the staff to proceed with adoption steps for reviewing the
County’s private road standards, access and trail systems standards.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
N/A
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
N/A
General Public: N/A
Small Area Plan Workgroup: N/A
Other: N/A
Primary Staff Contact:
Abigaile Pittman, AICP
Planning Department
919-245-2567
abipittman@orangecountync.gov
104
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
(2) The proposed easement contains an existing road or driveway which is to be
used for access to new lots; OR the proposed easement if located along a
property line will have an irregular shape; and
(3) The minimum lot area requirement can be met on one side of the road easement
but not both sides.
(G) Those lots with land area divided by a public road right-of-way prior to October 3, 1988
shall not be further subdivided in a manner which creates any additional lots with divided
area.
SECTION 7.8: ACCESS AND ROADWAYS
7.8.1 Streets – General Standards
(A) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
(1) The provision of street rights-of-way shall conform to and meet the requirements
of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Reservation for or dedication of street rights-of-way for future transportation
facilities proposed in the adopted Comprehensive Plan shall be required where
appropriate.
(3) A subdivider shall not be required to provide or dedicate right-of-way for a
proposed street to which access would be prohibited by any governmental
agency.
(B) Compliance with Approved Access Management Plans and Studies
(1) Subdivision of land abutting a roadway for which the Board of County
Commissioners has approved recommendations from a plan or corridor study is
subject to provisions of the approved corridor plan or study.
(a) In such cases, the subdivider shall provide any improvements or other
means to ensure construction recommended in such plan or corridor
study. Such improvements may include facilities for bicycles, sidewalks,
and public transportation.
(b) The subdivider, in cases where the recommendations address access
management, shall use design elements recommended in the plan or
corridor study to reduce conflict points.
(2) Policies prescribed in Phase V of the Access Management Awareness Project
and Report, or other adopted studies of strategies, shall be considered during
subdivision and site plan review to assess access management and other
corridor design considerations.
(C) Coordinated Street System
(1) All subdivisions shall have a coordinated street system with public or private
streets that access a public municipal street or a public State maintained street in
accordance with the following:
(a) Public street rights-of-way shall abut adjacent properties as necessary to
provide connectivity to the countywide transportation network; and
(b) Lot access to streets serving the subdivision shall be limited in the case
of streets that provide a link between two or more roads designated in
the Comprehensive Plan as arterials or collectors.
(c) All subdivisions shall have at least one street that intersects with or joins
a public municipal street, or a public State maintained street.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-12
Attachment 2 105
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
7.8.2 Public Streets – Where Required
Public streets are generally required in all subdivisions and shall be required where it is found
that:
(A) The subdivision streets would be accepted by the State for maintenance if:
(1) They are built in a manner which satisfies the minimum State design and
construction criteria for subdivision streets; and
(2) They would satisfy other requirements for addition to the State maintenance
system, including, but not limited to, the general density standard of at least two
occupied residences for each one-tenth of a mile of subdivision street.
If, upon review of a subdivision plat, it is determined that the general density standard is
met, but a design standard is not, a re-design will be required where possible. For
example, if the number of lots proposed along a subdivision street would clearly satisfy
the density standard, but the street design was such that the centerline radius did not
meet the minimum standard of 230 feet for level land, a new street design would be
required. Another example is a situation where a landscaped island or entrance median
prevents acceptance of the street for maintenance.
The State’s criteria and standards are identified in the following publications: Subdivision
Roads - Minimum Construction Standards and Traditional Neighborhood Development
(TND) Guidelines, prepared by and available from the N.C. Department of
Transportation; or
(B) The subdivision streets extend existing streets which are public; or
(C) The subdivision streets are part of a development which is located in an area designated
as Urban or Transition by the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or
(D) A proposed street is designated as an arterial or collector on an approved Thoroughfare
Plan for a municipality or in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or
(E) The subdivision streets are part of a non-residential development consisting of office,
retail, industrial, and similar businesses, each located on a separate lot. This provision
shall only apply to that portion of a subdivision being developed for non residential
purposes.
7.8.3 Public Streets - Construction Standards
Public dedicated streets must meet the minimum construction standards as adopted by the N.C.
Department of Transportation for acceptance of streets as additions to the State Highway
System.
7.8.4 Private Roads – When Permitted
(A) A private road shall be deemed justified for a minor residential subdivision resulting in no
more than three lots provided:
(1) No new lots have been created from the parent tract, through subdivision or other
manner exempted from subdivision regulations, since the more recent:
(a) Date of adoption of this provision (September 18, 2001); or
(b) Ten years from the date of recordation of the parent tract if the lot being
subdivided was created using the three-lot private road justification
provision.
The parent tract, for the purpose of this provision, is the lot or tract of land that is
being subdivided.
(2) All resulting lots meet the minimum lot area per dwelling unit and maximum
density requirements for the zoning district, including any overlay district, in
which the subdivision is located.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-13
106
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
(B) A minor residential subdivision of three or fewer lots shall be encouraged to provide a
private access easement for one adjacent lot to access the private road in order to
reduce the number of access points on a public road.
(C) For all other subdivisions the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners (in
the case of major subdivisions) and Planning staff (in the case of minor subdivisions)
shall consider the design features in this subsection (8.8.4) when determining whether to
permit private roads.
(D) There is no right to a private road in any subdivision containing more than three lots.
(E) At a minimum, a private road may be justified if the subdivision meets standards of (1)
below and at least two other design features (2 through 7) listed below.
(1) The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves the
rural character of the County through:
(a) The provision of lot sizes and building setbacks significantly greater than
those required by the zoning district in which the proposed subdivision is
located, including any overlay district requirements, in accordance with
the following standards:
(i) Lot Sizes – Conventional Subdivision
a.All lots in the subdivision must be at least 80,000 square
feet if the minimum lot size or area per dwelling unit of
the zoning district is 40,000 square feet or less.
b.All lots must be at least 120,000 square feet (2.75 acres)
if the minimum lot size or area per dwelling unit of the
zoning district is 80,000 square feet.
c.All lots must be at least 130,680 square feet (three
acres) if the minimum lot size or area per dwelling unit of
the zoning district is 87,120 square feet (two acres).
d.All lots must be at least five acres for all other cases.
e.Minimum building setbacks for lots located on a private
road shall be twice those required.
(ii) Lot Sizes – Cluster Subdivision or Flexible Development without
Density Bonus
a.In zoning districts having a minimum lot size of 40,000
square feet:
i.All lots must be at least 80,000 square feet in
subdivisions providing 40% or less open space;
ii.All lots must be at least 70,000 square feet in
subdivisions providing 41% - 49% open space;
iii.All lots must be at least 60,000 square feet in
subdivisions providing 50% or greater open
space.
b.In zoning districts having a minimum lot size or area per
dwelling unit of 80,000 square feet or two acres (87,120
square feet):
i.All lots must be at least 130,680 square feet (3
acres) in subdivisions providing 40% or less
open space;
ii.All lots must be at least 90,000 square feet (2.07
acres) in subdivisions providing 41% - 49% open
space;
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-14
107
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
iii.iAll lots must be at least 60,000 square feet
(1.38 acres) in subdivisions providing 50% or
greater open space.
c.Minimum building setbacks for lots located on a private
road shall be twice those required.
(b) The retention and/or provision of landscaping and use of clustering of
dwelling units to:
(i) Screen the view of the subdivision from public roads,
(ii) Maintain a wooded or forested character,
(iii) Maintain scenic views, or
(iv) Preserve wildlife, botanical, historic, archaeological and/or
recreation sites; and/or
(c) The preservation of site features which directly enhance the special or
unique cultural, historical, archaeological or biological characteristics of
the immediate area as referenced in:
(i) “An Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational,
Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated
Portions of Orange County” or,
(ii) For historic sites, if the site is deemed eligible by the State
Historic Preservation Office for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places.
(2) The number, location and/or size of lots to be located in the subdivision are such
that, even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not be accepted by
the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirements.
(3) At least 50% of the site is to be dedicated and preserved through restrictive
covenants and contains recreation and/or open space areas of significant
botanical, wildlife, historic and/or archaeological sites as referenced in “An
Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological
Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County.”
(4) In subdivisions proposed to be located in a Watershed Protection Overlay
District, as designated in Section 4.2 of this Ordinance, stream buffers are
increased by at least 25% above those required by Section 6.13 of this
Ordinance and the impervious surface allowed is decreased by at least 15% to
allow greater infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water
supply reservoirs.
(5) The site contains topographic and environmental features, such as streams,
steep slopes, or watersheds that would be adversely affected by the use of roads
constructed to State standards because of factors such as significant amounts of
earthwork (cut and fill) that would contribute to increased run off of stormwater
and siltation.
(6) The site is already developed to 100% of the capacity which could be achieved
after approval of the subdivision and some or all of the non-conforming aspects
of existing development on the site will be made more conforming as a result of
the proposed subdivision, and all conforming aspects of the development will
remain conforming.
(7) There is only one subdivision road proposed and:
(a) Its length does not exceed 350 feet,
(b) It serves no more than five lots,
(c) Its grade does not exceed 9%, and
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-15
108
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
(d) The land being subdivided is not connected to, or part of, another
subdivision required to be served by public roads.
(F) The Declaration of Development Restrictions, prepared by the Planning Department and
recorded concurrently with the Final Plat, shall include a statement that further
subdivision of any of the lots may require that the road be upgraded to a higher private
road classification, or to public standards, and that the cost of the upgrade will be the
responsibility of the subdivider.
(G) Where a parcel being subdivided was created by a previous subdivision approved after
July 5, 1983, then the previous subdivision as well as the proposed subdivision will be
considered in determining whether a private road is still justified.
(H) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant for subdivision approval to supply a written
statement justifying the reasons for private roads in the proposed subdivision.
(I) Compliance with one or more of the standards in this subsection (8.8.4) does not insure
approval of either a public or private road within a proposed subdivision.
(J) A private road shall be required to meet standards set by Orange County as described in
Section 7.8.5. Satisfactory proof that the standards are met will be required by the
County Manager or his/her appointed agents.
(K) If a subdivision is to contain private roads, the subdivider shall have the County's
Standard Road Maintenance Agreement entitled, "DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
AND PROVISIONS FOR PRIVATE ROAD MAINTENANCE" prepared and processed in
accordance with Section 2.14 for minor subdivisions or Section 2.15 for major
subdivisions and shall conform to the requirements of Section 7.14.3(6)(b)(ii).
(L) The land within a private road easement shall be included within the lot boundaries of the
lot or lots which border the easement. The road maintenance agreement shall include a
provision that if the road is dedicated for public use at a later date, then the lot
boundaries will be revised to extend only to the edge of the right-of-way, in accordance
with NCDOT standards.
7.8.5 Private Road Standards
(A) Purpose and Intent
(1) In Orange County, the preference is to serve subdivisions with State-maintained
(NCDOT) public streets or municipal streets. The County recognizes, however,
that private roads may be beneficial in some cases where the developer provides
significantly larger lots, and where a private road graded to a narrower cross-
section saves valuable vistas, trees, or natural resources, and reduces cut-and-
fill and overall land disturbance. Where the developer clearly provides benefits
such as enhancing entrances or streetscapes off an adjoining public road, saving
trees, providing large lots, reducing disturbance, and "fitting" lots better into their
natural surroundings, the Planning Department, Planning Board, and Board of
County Commissioners may permit the use of private roads.
(2) The County is concerned about the logical and safe extension of public roads
throughout the County and notes that private roads cannot be served by school
buses and sometimes not by rescue squads and fire trucks. Private roads are
generally unpaved and property owners who use the road are solely responsible
for maintenance of the road.
(3) The County will approve only private roads where the "benefits" outweigh the
negative aspects.
(4) Private roads shall never be approved simply to save money.
(5) Private roads are a privilege, and not a right, and must be justified by the
particular lot arrangement and benefits provided by each development.
(B) General Requirements
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-16
109
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
(1) Private Roads serve lots within subdivisions that do not have access to state-
maintained roads.
(2) Private Roads insure that all lots have documented legal right-of-way and provide
adequate access for residents and emergency vehicles.
(3) Private Roads may be allowed in a subdivision where, in the judgment of the
Planning Board and with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, it
is found that the nature and location of the subdivision are such that a private
road is justified.
(a) In determining whether to permit Private Roads in subdivisions, the
design features contained in subsection (F)(5) of this Section shall be
considered.
(b) It is the responsibility of the subdivider to supply a written statement
justifying the reasons for Private Roads in the proposed subdivision.
(4) After approval of and initial construction of the Private Road, maintenance must
be provided by the property owners of lots located along the road. A Road
Maintenance Agreement or Declaration between the lot owners is required to
insure that the needed repairs are made (see subsection (F)(10)(i)).
(5) Since Private Roads are not constructed to North Carolina Department of
Transportation standards, they will not be added to the Secondary Road System
and will not be maintained by the State or Orange County.
(C) Classifications
(1) The standards and specifications for Private Roads apply to subdivisions in
Orange County and the class of road required depends on the number of lots
served by the road.
(a) A Class B road serves 1 to 5 lots or dwelling units.
(b) A Class A road serves 6 to 12 lots or dwelling units.
(2) All Private Roads in a major subdivision require the approval of the Board of
County Commissioners.
(3) Before the final plat of the subdivision can be recorded, the Private Road must be
built and approved, or the applicant must post a security instrument with the
County in an amount that would cover the cost of constructing the road.
(4) Class B Private Roads intended to serve two lots or dwelling units are not
required to be constructed to Orange County Standards or to be inspected before
recordation of the final plat.
(a) Orange County recommends that such Class B roads be built to these
standards in order to provide adequate access, especially for emergency
vehicles which require the clearances and turn areas shown on the
specifications.
(D) Construction Standards for Private Roads
The standards described herein are the minimum set forth by the County. Orange
County has not determined, and is not responsible for determining, that these standards
are adequate or appropriate for all uses by landowners. The standards also may not
meet NCDOT criteria. No road will be accepted for maintenance by NCDOT unless or
until NCDOT standards are met.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-17
110
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
TABLE 7.8.5.D BASIC STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR PRIVATE ROADS
CLASS A CLASS B
Max. Number of Lots 12 2 3 5
Right-of-Way Width 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.
Travel-Way Width 18 ft. No Standard 12 ft. 12 ft.
Road Maintenance
Agreement Required Yes Yes Yes Yes
Maintenance
Responsibility Property Owners Property
Owners Property Owners Property
Owners
(1) Certificate of Construction
(a) A registered land surveyor must certify in writing to the Planning
Department that the travelway of the Private Road, either existing,
upgraded or newly constructed, is within the platted right-of-way.
(b) A professional engineer must certify in writing to the Planning
Department that a Private Road, either existing, upgraded, or newly
constructed, meets the standards of the required class for the
subdivision, provided however, there is no requirement for written
certification by a professional engineer for a private road serving three or
fewer lots.
(c) The following must be inspected and certified:
(i) The proper material has been used in the travelway and it is built
to the required width and thickness;
(ii) The shoulders are the correct width and the typical cross section
is in place;
(iii) The road is on the proper grade;
(iv) Ditches are in place where necessary to provide adequate
drainage, in accordance with sound engineering practice;
(v) Necessary storm pipes of proper size, materials and construction
are in place and energy dissipaters installed, in accordance with
sound engineering practice;
(vi) All disturbed areas are properly stabilized;
(vii) The required road sign is in place;
(viii) An adequate turn-around is in place at the end of the road;
(ix) Required vertical and horizontal clearance is provided; and
(x) Sight distance and construction at the intersection with a public
road has been approved by NCDOT.
(2) Travelway
(a) The travelway must be surfaced and compacted with a material
acceptable to Orange County to the required width of the particular class
of road.
(b) A crown should be built into the travelway so that water will drain from
the road surface into the side ditch.
(c) The crown should not be so great as to cause vehicles to slide off the
travelway when ice or snow is on the road.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-18
111
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
(d) Generally the road and shoulder should be crowned as shown in the
drawing below so that runoff will drain to the ditches on both sides of the
road.
Figure 7.8.5.D.2: Crowning of Roadway, NCDOT Typical Shoulder/Cross Section
(e) In some situations it may be desirable not to crown the road but to have
the travelway sloped to a single ditch as shown below. This is applicable
in four situations:
(i) Where it is necessary to cut down on the length of a ditch in
order to reduce the erosion potential by decreasing the volume
of runoff,
(ii) Where it is difficult to construct ditches due to rock,
(iii) To provide for super-elevation, or
(iv) In curves.
(f) The single slope described in (e) should always drain toward the inside
of a curve. The crown slope of the road and shoulder should be
approximately 1/2 to 1 inch per foot.
Figure 7.8.5.D.2.e/f: Crowning of Roadway, NCDOT Typical Shoulder/Cross Section Single Slope
(3) Surface Materials
(a) Acceptable material for surfacing the travelway is Aggregate Base
Course (commonly called "crusher run").
(b) Soil type base materials (commonly called "Chapel Hill Gravel" or
"Chapel Hill Grit") will be accepted under the following conditions:
(i) The material originates from a quarry approved by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation.
(ii) The grade of the road is less than 8%.
(iii) Where the grade is greater than 8% a layer of crusher run stone
will be placed over the Chapel Hill Gravel before compaction.
(iv) Sources of surface material shall be verified with the certifying
professional before placement.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-19
112
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
(4) Fill Material
(a) Where filling is necessary to raise the roadbed, cross watercourses or fill
stump holes, it shall be done with suitable material that is free of roots or
other organic matter.
(b) The fill should be firmly compacted to reduce settlement that will cause
ruts or holes in the finished road.
(5) Traffic Flow
(a) Private Roads shall provide for two-way traffic in order to prevent conflict
of vehicles meeting head-on.
(b) Two-way traffic for Class B roads can be accomplished by widening the
travelway at prescribed locations to at least 16 feet to allow vehicles to
pass or to pull over and stop while another vehicle passes.
(c) Plans showing road and right-of-way location, ditches and culverts,
extent of clearing, and existing and finish contour lines shall be approved
by the Erosion Control Officer.
(6) Medians
(a) Medians may be permitted between travel lanes when it is demonstrated
that such design is desirable for the preservation of natural resources, or
that excessive cut and fill would be required to construct a roadway to
the standard width.
(b) Medians may be permitted only in accordance with the following:
(i) Each lane shall contain a minimum of 14 feet of vertical and
horizontal clearance.
(ii) Each lane shall contain a minimum travelway of eight feet, or 1/2
of the required width for the applicable road class, whichever is
greater.
(iii) No lots shall access directly onto any divided portion of the road
unless there is adequate cross-access provided through the
median, or some other acceptable means of access and
turnaround for emergency vehicles.
(iv) Both lanes shall be contained within a single easement.
(v) A standard travelway of required width for the road class shall be
constructed where the private road intersects with another
private or public road.
(vi) Signs indicating "One Way" and/or a split roadway shall be
provided where the lanes diverge.
(7) Grade
(a) The grade of the road should not exceed 12% because of the difficulty of
operating vehicles on such a steep road and the high potential for
erosion of the travelway and ditches.
(b) Where possible, the road should be constructed along the contour of the
land to avoid steep grades.
(c) In exceptional circumstances a variance may be granted for a grade
greater than 12%, as may be approved by the Board of Adjustment prior
to construction (see Section 2.10 for variance procedures).
Circumstances where a variance will be considered are:
(i) There is no other reasonable access or location of the road,
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-20
113
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
(ii) Relocating the road would create other, more serious problems
with drainage, stabilization, or environmental impact, and/or
(iii) The length of the segment with grade greater than 12% is no
longer than 100 feet.
(8) Intersection with Public Road
(a) The intersection of the Private Road with the existing public road shall
permit a safe entrance and exit.
(b) Adequate sight distances along the public road shall be provided by
choosing a good location for the right-of-way and clearing sight triangles
when building the road.
(c) The intersection of a Private Road with a public road must provide an
adequate place for cars to stop before entering the public road. See the
diagram below.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-21
114
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
Figure 7.8.5.D.8: Intersection with Public Road
(d) The Private Road must flare at the public road in order to permit a
vehicle to enter the Private Road when another vehicle is waiting to exit
on the Private Road. The dimensions of the required flare are 20-feet for
both a Class A and Class B Private Road, as shown in Figure 7.8.5.D.8.
(9) Drainage
(a) Ditches shall be constructed to provide drainage from the road and
adjacent areas.
(b) The ditches shall be built with sufficient depth and width to carry the
expected volume of water.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-22
115
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
(c) The side slopes shall be graded so that they can be stabilized and to
prevent vehicles from becoming stuck if they slide into the ditch.
(d) Where the road crosses streams or minor watercourses, culverts shall be
installed to prevent ponding and washouts of the road for the design five-
year storm.
(e) On streams where it is not economical to install a large culvert of the
required size, the Erosion Control Officer may allow the installation of a
smaller culvert if engineering equivalent provisions are made to protect
the road surface and fill slopes from erosion when runoff tops the road.
(10) Turn-Arounds
(a) Vehicle turn-around areas shall be provided at the end of all dead end
roads. This can be accomplished by ending the road in a cul-de-sac or a
"T".
(b) The "T" type turn-around is preferred.
(c) Culs-de-sac shall have a minimum diameter of 70 feet.
(d) A "T" turn-around must conform to the dimensions in the diagram below.
Figure 7.8.5.D.10: “T” Type Turn-Arounds
(e) The location of the turn-around will depend on the arrangement of the
lots in the subdivision.
(f) If the Private Road serves only one lot the turn-around should be located
near the building site.
(g) In a subdivision with several lots the turn-around should be at the end of
the road and the necessary right-of-way provided.
(11) Road Name and Sign
(a) The road name shall be verified with the Orange County Planning
Department to insure that the proposed name does not duplicate an
existing name.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-23
116
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
(b) The road sign shall have one double-sided blade showing the name of
the Private Road and another showing the name of the existing State
maintained road.
(c) Class B roads of any length are required to be named and to have a road
sign posted.
(12) Right-of-Way
(a) The right-of-way shall be 50-feet wide and indicated on the final plat.
(b) Requests for rights-of-way less than 50-feet in width must be approved
by the Board of County Commissioners. In no case shall a right-of-way
less than 25-feet in width be approved.
(c) Bends in the right-of-way must be at angles that will permit construction
of curves with a 125-foot minimum centerline radius (see subsection (17)
below).
(13) Vegetation
(a) All areas disturbed by the construction of the road, including the
shoulders, ditch banks, cut and fill slopes and any borrow areas, shall be
seeded in permanent vegetation to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion.
(b) Seeding should be done immediately after grading is completed and
before the final inspection by the Planning Department.
(c) The disturbed area shall be smoothed and lightly harrowed to break up
the soil and prepare a good seedbed. The following materials are
recommended per 1,000 square feet:
(i) 1.4 lbs. Fescue grass seed
(ii) 0.4 lbs. German or Browntop millet (to provide temporary cover
until the grass becomes established)
(iii) 90 lbs. lime
(iv) 23 lbs. 10-10-10 Fertilizer
(v) Two 40 lb. Bales of straw for mulch (enough to cover 75% of the
ground surface)
(d) Other types of permanent vegetation may be substituted as long as they
provide adequate cover to prevent erosion.
(14) Maintenance
(a) Maintenance of the Private Road must be provided by the lot owners that
are served by the road.
(b) The required Road Maintenance Agreement between the lot owners is
required to insure that the cost is shared equally and a mechanism for
maintenance is set up.
(c) The responsibility for maintenance is the property owners and neither the
State nor Orange County will maintain the road.
(d) Regular attention shall be given to the following items in order to assure
that the road will remain in good condition:
(i) The vegetation shall be mowed, limed and fertilized as needed.
Areas that erode or where seeding is unsuccessful should be
reseeded.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-24
117
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
(ii) Culverts shall be kept clear of trash and other obstructions that
could prevent or reduce the culverts function. If culverts are not
kept clear it will cause runoff to flow over the road and may
cause flooding upstream. Ditch banks and bottoms shall be
protected from erosion by maintaining good vegetation.
(iii) The travelway shall be maintained by grading the surface
material to fill any potholes that develop and to evenly spread the
surface material where the soil has been uncovered because of
erosion.
(iv) The road name sign shall be kept visible and legible so that
visitors and emergency personnel can easily locate the road.
(15) Vertical Clearance
A minimum 14-foot vertical clearance shall be provided above the travelway to
permit the passage of large vehicles under power lines and tree limbs.
(16) N.C. Department of Transportation Driveway Permit
The property owner is responsible for obtaining the required permit for access to
the state maintained road. This permit can be obtained from the DOT in
Hillsborough. Permits are normally granted on request.
(17) Minimum Curve Radius
(a) New curves shall be constructed with a minimum centerline radius of
125-feet (see graphic).
Figure 7.8.5.D.17.a: Minimum Curve Radius
(b) The right-of-way shall be designed with bends that will provide sufficient
width to construct the road to the minimum radius. For example, a 90
degree bend in a 50-foot right-of-way will not provide enough area to
construct a road 18-feet wide.
(c) The right-of-way must include sufficient width for the travelway and the
necessary shoulders, ditches and slopes.
(d) A curve radius of less than 125-feet may be approved if all of the
following conditions are met:
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-25
118
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
(i) The road existed prior to the adoption of subdivision regulations
or was approved as part of an earlier subdivision;
(ii) Reconstruction of the existing road to meet a 125-foot curve
radius is not feasible due to the extent of earthwork which would
be required and/or the inability to reconfigure the existing right-
of-way location due to ownership or the location of existing
structures, wells or septic systems;
(iii) Standards pertaining to road width and grade will be met;
(iv) The subdivision can be approved with a Class B private road;
(v) Documentation is received from the Staff Engineer that the
proposed curve radius would provide for adequate vehicular
access and circulation; and
(vi) Documentation is received from the Department of Emergency
Services stating that the proposed curve radius would provide
access for the largest emergency vehicle expected to use the
road.
(18) Typical Cross-Section
The drawings below illustrate the typical cross sections for Class A and Class B
Private Roads.
Figure 7.8.5.D.18: Typical Cross Sections
(E) Compliance with Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations Required
Private road construction shall conform to the erosion and sedimentation control
provisions of this Ordinance (see Section 6.15).
(F) Inspections and Certifications
(1) Private road construction must be inspected and the construction certified in
writing to the Orange County Planning Department by a North Carolina
Professional Engineer.
(2) The location of the travelway within the right-of-way must be certified to be within
the platted private road right-of-way by a North Carolina Registered Land
Surveyor.
(3) The road must be inspected during construction so that any changes or
improvements necessary to insure approval can be made before the stone is
placed and the shoulders and ditches are seeded and mulched.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-26
119
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.9: Reservation of Space for Utilities
(4) The subdivider or his/her representative must inform the professional making the
certification prior to the start of construction and at intervals during construction
when inspections are needed so that they can be scheduled.
TABLE 7.8.5.F: CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
FOR SUBDIVISION PRIVATE ROADS
Maximum Number of Lots in Subdivision 3 or Fewer 4-12
Professional Engineer Road Construction Certification
Required No Yes
Surveyor Certification Roadway in Platted Right-of-
Way Yes Yes
(5) Inspections by the Planning Department are made only to insure the following:
(a) That the road is built to the required dimensions;
(b) That the stone travelway is provided to the required width;
(c) That adequate drainage is provided;
(d) That any disturbed areas are seeded and mulched to establish
permanent vegetation; and
(e) To verify that the required road sign is in place.
(6) The subdivider is responsible for supervising construction and for quality control
inspections for clearing and grubbing of the right-of-way, compaction of fill,
construction materials, and so forth.
(7) The subdivider or representative should employ a qualified grading contractor
(and supervisor if necessary) to insure that the road is in the correct location and
that acceptable methods and materials are used.
(8) Bonds or letters of credit cannot be released or reduced until completion of the
road is certified. Arrangements for payment between the subdivider and
contractor are not the responsibility of Orange County.
7.8.6 Alleys
(A) Alleys shall be required for lots used for commercial and industrial purposes except that
this requirement may be waived where other definite and assured provision is made for
service access.
(B) Alleys shall not be provided in residential subdivisions unless necessitated by unusual
circumstances.
(C) The width of an alley shall be adequate for the purpose which it serves.
(D) Dead end alleys shall be avoided where possible, but if unavoidable, shall be provided
with adequate turn around facilities at the dead end as may be recommended by the
Planning Board and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
SECTION 7.9: RESERVATION OF SPACE FOR UTILITIES
7.9.1 Easements Required
(A) Where several utilities are available or can be anticipated to serve a subdivision
according to utility extension plans, utility easements, setbacks or other methods of
providing services may be required for service in that subdivision.
(B) Except where utilities may be located in approved alleys, easements, setbacks, or other
methods, not less than six feet in width may be required on each side of rear and side lot
lines.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-27
120
Attachment 3
Draft #2 – 7/24/14
Emergency Access to Trail Systems at Orange County Parks
Draft Goal and Objectives
The following are draft goals and objectives for accommodating emergency service
personnel gaining access to people using trails at Orange County parks and nature
preserves administered by the Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture,
Parks and Recreation (DEAPR).
Orange County parks that currently have trails are Efland-Cheeks Park, Cedar Grove
Park, Fairview Park, River Park, and Little River Regional Park and Natural Area. The
Jones Creek Greenway connects Lake Hogan Farms with Morris Grove Elementary
School. Future trails are being designed for the future Blackwood Farm Park, Hollow
Rock Access Area, and at the Seven Mile Creek Preserve.
These draft standards are intended for review and comment by the Parks and
Recreation Council, the Emergency Services Department, and the Orange Unified
Transportation Board.
Overarching Goal: Trail systems will be designed and constructed to accommodate
the maximum enjoyment of trail users, however, in doing so, there will be considerations
for topography, sedimentation and erosion control, the avoidance of sensitive natural
and cultural resources, public safety, and the provision of staging areas for vehicles to
access trail users in times of emergency.
Objective #1 – Trails will be constructed and maintained with a minimum
clearance width of six feet (even if width of the trail tread is narrower) and a
minimum clearance height of eight feet. [Single-track bike trails at Little River
Park may have sections less than six feet of clearance.]
Objective #2 – Trail networks greater than one mile in total length will be marked
with periodic signs that specify distances from trailheads and with GPS reference
points for users to identify their location along the trail.
Objective #3 – Trails will be shown on maps displayed on kiosks located at
trailheads, and maps will be available from the park office (for parks that have an
office) and from the DEAPR Central Recreation Center in Hillsborough.
Objective #4 – Emergency Service vehicles will have access to trails in such a
way that larger vehicles can reach staging areas identified within the park (and
on maps) and smaller all-terrain vehicles (e.g., Gator) can access most sections
of the trail. Staging areas will be located where feasible within close proximity
(approximately ¼ mile) to any point along the trails. Keys to any gates/ bollards
121
Attachment 3
Draft #2 – 7/24/14
will be provided to the appropriate Emergency Services provider(s) and will be
available from the park office (for parks that have an office).
Objective #5 – Each park containing a trail network will develop an Emergency
Action Plan, including protocol and procedures for trail-related emergencies.
122
Attachment 4
Fire Chief Council Comments on Private Road and Access Standards
(Comments that were received from Fire Chief Council members
have been moderately organized and edited by staff.)
1. Cul-de-sac Diameters - Some of the larger apparatus that responds to rural
areas can be as long as 35 feet. With private roads, cul-de-sacs tend to slowly
loose diameter as vegetation grows in. When bringing water in for a house fire,
often the only means for turning tankers around is to continue down to the end of
a private road and use the cul-de-sac. A minimum cleared diameter of 50 feet for
new developments would insure that the fire service would operate at peak
efficiency.
2. Drain Pipes Under Driveways – Drain pipe are typically located 5 to 6 feet from
the road edge. Drain pipes should be 16 foot wide so that trucks can pull into
driveways without getting “hung up” with a wheel in a ditch. Note that in addition
to avoiding a catastrophic problem with the entranced to a residence blocked,
this change also improves response time by a few seconds and avoids having
the responding to get way over into the opposing lane going very slowly in order
to ensure it can cross the drain pipe.
3. Gates and Walls – Gates and walls are typically located 12 to 15 feet from the
road edge.
a. Gate Width – Gate widths at driveways should be a minimum of 12 feet
wide so that emergency response vehicles can pull into driveways. Twelve
(12) feet in width allows some room for overshooting.
b. Width of Wall Openings - Walls are some type of masonry or concrete and
you cannot overshoot them due to the corridor created by the wall
construction. Wall widths at driveways should be a minimum of 14 feet
wide so that emergency response vehicles can safety drive through them.
c. Locked Gates - Many people have either locked gates or electronically
controlled gates at their driveways. This slows down emergency services
personnel because they have to dis-assemble the gate when they arrive at
the house. There is always a dilemma faced by responders as to how
much force should be used. If a house is visibly on fire, then an
aggressive approach is not questioned. But for medical or fire alarms, if
the emergency was not sufficiently life threatening or if the property in
jeopardy was not of sufficient value the gate is carefully disassembled or
responders wait for someone to come and open the gate. An ordinance
addressing this issue would require that there be some means whereby
responders can have access to a code, lock-box, or some other
mechanism that allows them to open the gate, and would establish liability
for gate damage if responders damage a gate. The benefit to the
123
Attachment 4
responders is no more conversations about who is going to replace and
damaged bolts on gates. The benefit to the public is increased response
time.
Drawing provided by Pete Hallenbeck
4. Pull-over Areas on One-lane Private Roads - When a house is on fire, water
often has to be brought in with tankers. These tankers go back and forth from a
water point to the house. If there is a long one lane road, tankers have to wait at
the end of the road until it is clear of all other vehicles. An ordinance requiring a
50-foot long pull-over area of at least 22 feet every 500 feet would insure that fire
suppression operations could occur with best efficiency. Note also that such a
pull-over area would be of benefit to the residents of the private road.
5. Private Bridges and Stream Crossings - Bridges for driveways and private roads
should be rated at 40,000 pounds. If they are not, then there must be a sign with
the rating of the bridge. An ordinance/regulation requiring this would also state
that if a bridge is not certified for 40,000 pounds, the fire departments are allowed
to use their discretion as to what apparatus can cross the bridge. Fire
Departments should also be able to write letters to insurance companies stating
that they cannot adequately protect a house.
124
Attachment 4
6. Tree Clearance on Driveways - Heights for some emergency apparatus can be
as much as 12 feet tall. Tree branches can droop when wet or when they have
snow on them. An ordinance requiring a 14-foot wide by 14-foot tall clearance
for driveways would insure that apparatus could negotiate the driveway with
modest turns in it. If the ordinance would include something along the lines of
“...and must be able to pass a vehicle 35-foot in length” that would be good too.
Note that this would also be beneficial for the residents for both UPS delivery
trucks and other vehicles such as gravel trucks or grading equipment trucks. In
California, there are rules that require an area sufficient to turn a fire truck around
for each house. Cul-de-sac, pull-over requirements and this recommended tree
clearance for driveways is sufficient for rural Orange County (we are not prone to
the wildfire situations that California has).
The fire department had a medical call recently and it was difficult for them to
navigate in a standard cab, Ford, long bed. The fire apparatus could not make
the driveway turns because of the trees.
7. Private Road/Drive Widths – An ordinance should address accessibility due to
insufficient driveway width for emergency vehicles to navigate. If this cannot be
addressed through an ordinance we (Emergency Services) should send a letter
to property owners and explain to them the difficulties we face and how we may
not be able to access the property in the event of an emergency due to the lack
of accessibility.
8. Road Identification – Standards for road
identification need to be reviewed and
perhaps revised or better enforced. Poor road
identification can and has caused delays in
emergency response time. The photo to the
right is an example of poor road identification.
125
Attachment 4
9. District Issues Regarding Road Conditions – There are district issues that border
central Orange County. According to a comment received, Chief Brooks
indicated that there was a complaint from the Friends Community off Moorefields
Road. If the County, Efland or some citizen group wants Orange Rural Fire
protection extended into Friends Community, they are going to need to do some
road work. The roads into Friends Community are nearly impassible for fire
trucks and efforts in the past to improve the situation were met with resistance
from the residents. Obviously the ORFD Board has the final say over what the
fire departments cover but we should not take on Friends Community if the roads
are still over grown and too small for our trucks.
The County has no recourse for road maintenance and access on already
existing developments. If the property owners in Friends Community want
improved insurance ratings, they should ensure that whatever fire department
responds will have the ability to access their homes and properties. It is possible
that the response expectation could be put on Orange Rural, so it is important to
understand these concerns. We do not want more access problems and the
increased liabilities associated with them.
126