HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 070115ORANGE 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, July 1 , 2015
Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm
1R3DJH V $JHQGD,WHP
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.
3 - 4
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. 3ODQQLQJ&DOHQGDUIRU-XO\DQG$XJXVW
3.
5 – 9
10 - 25
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
$SULO5HJXODU0HHWLQJ
-XQH5HJXODU0HHWLQJ
4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
5. PUBLIC CHARGE
Introduction to the Public Charge
7KH%RDUGRI&RXQW\&RPPLVVLRQHUVXQGHUWKHDXWKRULW\RI1RUWK&DUROLQD*HQHUDO6WDWXWH
DSSRLQWVWKH2UDQJH&RXQW\3ODQQLQJ%RDUG 2&3% WRXSKROGWKHZULWWHQODQGGHYHORSPHQW
ODZVRIWKH&RXQW\7KHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRI2&3%LVWRJXLGHDQGDFFRPSOLVKFRRUGLQDWHGDQG
KDUPRQLRXVGHYHORSPHQW2&3%VKDOOGRVRLQDPDQQHUZKLFKFRQVLGHUVWKHSUHVHQWDQG
IXWXUHQHHGVRILWVUHVLGHQWVDQGEXVLQHVVHVWKURXJKHIILFLHQWDQGUHVSRQVLYHSURFHVVWKDW
FRQWULEXWHVWRDQGSURPRWHVWKHKHDOWKVDIHW\DQGZHOIDUHRIWKHRYHUDOO&RXQW\7KH2&3%
ZLOOPDNHHYHU\HIIRUWWRXSKROGDYLVLRQRIUHVSRQVLYHJRYHUQDQFHDQGTXDOLW\SXEOLFVHUYLFHV
GXULQJRXUGHOLEHUDWLRQVGHFLVLRQVDQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV
Public Charge
7KH3ODQQLQJ%RDUGSOHGJHVWRWKHUHVLGHQWVRI2UDQJH&RXQW\LWVUHVSHFW7KH%RDUGDVNV
LWVUHVLGHQWVWRFRQGXFWWKHPVHOYHVLQDUHVSHFWIXOFRXUWHRXVPDQQHUERWKZLWKWKH%RDUG
DQGZLWKIHOORZUHVLGHQWV$WDQ\WLPHVKRXOGDQ\PHPEHURIWKH%RDUGRUDQ\UHVLGHQWIDLO
WRREVHUYHWKLVSXEOLFFKDUJHWKH&KDLUZLOODVNWKHRIIHQGLQJPHPEHUWROHDYHWKHPHHWLQJ
XQWLOWKDWLQGLYLGXDOUHJDLQVSHUVRQDOFRQWURO6KRXOGGHFRUXPIDLOWREHUHVWRUHGWKH&KDLU
ZLOOUHFHVVWKHPHHWLQJXQWLOVXFKWLPHWKDWDJHQXLQHFRPPLWPHQWWRWKLVSXEOLFFKDUJHLV
REVHUYHG
6. CHAIR COMMENTS
1
1R3DJH V $JHQGD,WHP
7.
25 - 58 APPLICATION FOR A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT –7RPDNHD
UHFRPPHQGDWLRQWRWKH%RDUGRI&RXQW\&RPPLVVLRQHUVRQD6SHFLDO
8VH3HUPLWDSSOLFDWLRQVHHNLQJDSSURYDORIDVFKRROUHGHYHORSPHQW
PDVWHUSODQIRU(PHUVRQ:DOGRUI6FKRRO¶VH[LVWLQJIDFLOLW\ORFDWHGDW
1HZ-HULFKR5RDGZLWKLQWKH&KDSHO+LOO7RZQVKLS7KLVLWHPZDV
KHDUGDWWKH0D\TXDUWHUO\SXEOLFKHDULQJ
Presenter:0LFKDHO+DUYH\&XUUHQW3ODQQLQJ6XSHUYLVRU
8. 59 - 86 APPLICATION FOR A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT – 7RPDNHD
UHFRPPHQGDWLRQWRWKH%RDUGRI&RXQW\&RPPLVVLRQHUVRQD6SHFLDO
8VH3HUPLWDSSOLFDWLRQVHHNLQJWRGHYHORSDVRODUDUUD\SXEOLFXWLOLW\
VWDWLRQRQDSRUWLRQRIDDFUHSDUFHORISURSHUW\ORFDWHGDW
:KLWH&URVV5RDGZLWKLQWKH%LQJKDP7RZQVKLS7KLVLWHPZDVKHDUG
DWWKH0D\TXDUWHUO\SXEOLFKHDULQJ
Presenter:0LFKDHO+DUYH\&XUUHQW3ODQQLQJ6XSHUYLVRU
9. 87 - 96 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT) –7REHJLQ
UHYLHZRIDUHTXHVWWRUH]RQHDFUHVRISURSHUW\IURP5XUDO
5HVLGHQWLDO 5 8SSHU(QR3URWHFWHG:DWHUVKHG3URWHFWLRQ2YHUOD\
'LVWULFWWR0DVWHU3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQW&RQGLWLRQDO=RQLQJ 03'&=
8SSHU(QR3URWHFWHG:DWHUVKHG3URWHFWLRQ2YHUOD\'LVWULFWLQRUGHUWR
DOORZIRUWKHGHYHORSPHQWRI+DUW¶V0LOO9LOODJHZLWKLQWKH&KHHNV
7RZQVKLS7KLVLWHPZDVKHDUGDWWKH0D\TXDUWHUO\SXEOLF
KHDULQJ
Presenter:0LFKDHO+DUYH\&XUUHQW3ODQQLQJ6XSHUYLVRU
10.
COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. %RDUGRI$GMXVWPHQW
b. 2UDQJH8QLILHG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
11. ADJOURNMENT
IF AN EMERGENCY OCCURS, OR IF YOU ARE RUNNING LATE FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE LEAVE A VOICE MAIL FOR
MICHAEL HARVEY (919-245-2592).
2
-XO\
◄ June ~ July 2015 ~ August ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
ORC Meeting – 6:00
pm
Planning Board -7:00
pm
WCOB 004
2
3
HOLIDAY
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Board of Adjustment
7:30 pm WCOB 004
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Notes:
3
August 2015
◄ Jul 2015 ~ August 2015 ~ Sep 2015 ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2
3
4
5
Planning Board
7:00 pm
WCOB 004
6
7
8
9
10
BOA 7:30 pm
WCOB 004
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
OUTBoard
7:00 pm
WCOB 004
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Notes:
4
MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 APRIL 1, 2015 3
REGULAR MEETING 4
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey (Vice-Chair), Chapel 7
Hill Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 8
Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township 9
Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 10
11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove 12
Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 13
14 STAFF PRESENT: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Ashley 15
Moncado, Special Projects Planner 16
17
18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 19 20
21 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 22
a) Planning Calendar for April and May – to be discussed. Is this helpful? There is a staffing 23
change happening in the department and unless the Planning Board wants to see these 24
calendars each month, this information may stop being produced. The genesis of the 25
calendar was so special because Planning Board meeting dates could be chosen back 26
when the Comprehensive Plan and the Buckhorn Village projects were being worked on 27
because many special meetings were necessary. 28
29
Perdita Holtz: As you may be aware, Tina has moved to another department. We are evaluating all the things Tina 30
did and if they should continue. The planning calendar was something Tina put together in the package. We wanted 31
to check with you to see if you find it helpful, want to see it continue, etc. Pete has already told me that it’s something 32
he uses. 33
34
Paul Guthrie: I usually set up my calendar and have this handy. 35
36
Tony Blake: I take this and put it on my Outlook calendar. 37
38
Perdita Holtz: We will continue the planning calendar. 39
40
41 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 42 MARCH 4, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 43 44
Lydia Wegman: On page 3, line 136 should read, “Can you help me understand why the county would want to 45
change to the state provisions?” On page 4, line 170 and 172, DEAPR is misspelled. 46
47
Paul Guthrie: I don’t have a change, but I did want to make a comment on line 198 through 201. When I referred to, I 48
wasn’t as clear as I should have been, that the constitutionality limit on sex offenders I mentioned had to do with the 49
issue with the power of the state not that there were sex offenders under sentence and that could have constitutional 50
implications for some of the things we were talking about in the placement of sexually related business because it 51
has to do with basic rights of individuals that exercise certain freedom of rights. 52
53 MOTION by Bryant Warren to approve the Planning Board minutes with corrections. Seconded by Laura Nicholson. 54
5
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 55 56 57
AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 58 59
60 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 61 62 Introduction to the Public Charge 63
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 64
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 65
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 66
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 67
future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 68
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 69
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 70
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 71
72 PUBLIC CHARGE 73
The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 74
citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 75
fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 76
public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 77
regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 78
until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 79
80
81 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 82 83
Pete Hallenbeck: The process we go through is to remind everyone, when we vote, if someone votes against 84
something, there is an opportunity to provide a minority report where you can say, here is why I didn’t like it or vote 85
for it. 86 87 88 AGENDA ITEM 7: 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT 89 AMENDMENTS: To review changes that have been made to the proposed UDO text 90
amendment to establish a zoning program commonly referred to as Agricultural Support 91
Enterprises (ASE) within the Rural Buffer land use classification and to make a 92
recommendation to the BOCC on the revised text amendment. This item was heard at the 93
February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public hearing and the proposal was recommended for approval 94
by the Planning Board at the May 7, 2014 Planning Board Meeting. 95 96 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 97
98
Perdita Holtz: Reviewed the item and background. 99
100
Lydia Wegman: What is an agricultural processing facility community? 101
102
Perdita Holtz: I don’t have all the definitions so I can’t read it directly. It is the one that has five or fewer farm 103
partners that are doing an agricultural processing facility on one of their farms. 104
105
Pete Hallenbeck: Does that imply that the people involved must be farmers from that area? 106
107
Perdita Holtz: Yes. Orange County or the surrounding counties. 108
6
109
Paul Guthrie: How is processing defined? What if five farmers are growing wheat and they put a threshing machine 110
for all them on one farm for an extended period of time. Would that be a processing system? 111
112
Perdita Holtz: If the machine was outside and not in a building for a limited amount of time. Technically it may be 113
considered, but may fall under bona fide farm regulations. 114
115
Tony Blake: It is not beef processing? 116
117
Perdita Holtz: That would be under meat processing. 118
119
Lydia Wegman: But that is permitted? 120
121
Perdita Holtz: Community meat processing would be permitted, but that is not agricultural processing under the 122
definition. There is non-meat and meat. 123
124
Lydia Wegman: It says, permitted by right. 125
126
Perdita Holtz: On the table of permitted uses, a community meat processing facility would be permitted by right. 127
128
Lydia Wegman: If it is permitted by right, that means only the staff gets to address those issues, correct? So the 129
public has no input at all regarding size, noise, and smell? 130
131
Perdita Holtz: Yes. But there are standards about the size and what is permitted. In the use specific standards for a 132
community meat processing facility, the building cannot be more than 10,000 square feet, located at least 100 feet 133
from the property lines, and outdoor storage only in the rear yard, screened from view. As far as the odors, under the 134
performance standards in Section 6.4….. 135
136
Michael Harvey: In Section 6.4 there is air pollution, but not odor per say. There are statutory limitations and 137
protections granted to farmers with respect to odors, limiting them from being classified as a nuisance and limiting 138
adjoining property owners to sue under a nuisance provision under the general statute. 139
140
Lydia Wegman: Are there any restrictions on ag odors? 141
142
Michael Harvey: There are certain restrictions. Certain farm operations are provided, as defined by state statutes, 143
an exemption from being sued as a nuisance case. 144
145
Lydia Wegman: About the 100 foot setback, one of the slides talked about reducing the setback if there is an existing 146
farm building so that 100 foot could potentially be reduced so there is no guarantee of 100 feet between the 147
processing facility and the adjoining property. 148
149
Tony Blake: Would the definition of processing be extended to slaughter? 150
151
Perdita Holtz: If it’s a meat processing facility, yes. If it’s agriculture processing not including animals it is just an 152
agricultural processing facility. 153
154
Lydia Wegman: When does the Agricultural Preservation Board get involved? 155
156
Perdita Holtz: Their involvement is outlined on pages 22, 23, and 24. 157
158
Lydia Wegman: The reference in Section 2.5.4(C)(1)(b) is just definitional, it is not limited? 159
160
Perdita Holtz: Correct. 161
162
7
Lydia Wegman: There is no provision for neighborhood information meetings, is that correct? 163
164
Perdita Holtz: There is if you are doing a special use permit application or rezoning application which is a 165
requirement. It is in Section 2.7. 166
167
Lydia Wegman: On page 25, Base Zoning Districts, on the ASE-CZ, is there a definition of compatibility, and then it 168
says thus ensuring and I think that should be en and not in, is there a definition of compatibility, continued 169
conservation, building values or appropriate use of land. 170
171
Perdita Holtz: There is not but the applicability section was taken from existing language in others. It is a legislative 172
decision as to what is compatible. 173
174
Lydia Wegman: Is there any history to what the BOCC would consider? 175
176
Perdita Holtz: Not that I can speak to off the top of my head. It is a case by case. 177
178
Pete Hallenbeck: It is so hard to get everything down in English. A lot of these compatibility issues means if it is a 179
close call it is at the discretion of the BOCC. When we look at all these changes I like to look at the rules and format. 180
What are the rules and then there is the content. Is the general setup and format acceptable in terms of rules and 181
are there specific things in the table of permitted uses I don’t like and use that as a way to clarify. 182
183
Lisa Stuckey: On page 14, the towns recommended the four uses that we deleted from the rural buffer. What was 184
their thinking? 185
186
Perdita Holtz: I went to seven meetings with the Town of Carrboro for this discussion. It came down to some of them 187
wanted to vote for something and they wanted this to go forward and so they asked their colleagues what their 188
reservations were and that is what they came up with. 189
190
Pete Hallenbeck: It would be interesting to get a current inventory of any agricultural facilities within the rural buffer 191
that have buildings over 5,000 square feet which would address your setbacks. Another one would be a scatter plot 192
of lots to see how many 100 and 200 acre lots that someone could turn into a farm. 193
194
Paul Guthrie: Is there any language in what you have been working on relative to a piece of property that is 195
legitimately classed as agricultural and wants to begin processing that is now currently under tax leniency? Is there a 196
requirement that the tax be paid before the permit is issued? 197
198
Perdita Holtz: To qualify for the tax value program, if they don’t meet the requirements of the tax value program, they 199
will probably drop the tax value for that portion of the property. 200
201
Lydia Wegman: Do you know of any farmers interested in these activities? 202
203
Perdita Holtz: We have had a few inquiries. 204
205
Pete Hallenbeck: I like the fact that the APB is involved. I like the rules on the format. There will always be 206
differences of opinion. 207
208 MOTION: Made by Buddy Hartley, seconded by Tony Blake 209
VOTE: (7-1) Lydia Wegman opposed. 210
211
Lydia Wegmen: I support some of the uses, but have concerns with a community meat processing facility and why it 212
should be included in the Rural Buffer. To me the Rural Buffer should remain rural and a place to come and relax, 213
enjoy the country. A meat processing facility does not fit into my view of the Rural Buffer. 214
215
8
Pete Hallenbeck: Just to clarify, you are saying a rural buffer, not an agricultural buffer, and it is a mistake to assume 216
the two are synonymous. 217
218
Lydia Wegman: I know the Rural Buffer definition includes agriculture and I am in support of that, but with concerns 219
over inability to raise nuisance questions over odors under state law, I am not comfortable having that in the Rural 220
Buffer. I will also note that on the community meat processing, part of my concern is that it is permitted by right. If 221
there were an SUP required with input from the neighborhood, I would be willing to support it. 222
223
Paul Guthrie: Any meat processing of any scale will require significant water and water disposal which comes under 224
a whole different thing. Getting a permit could be difficult. 225
226
227 AGENDA ITEM 8: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 228
a. Board of Adjustment 229
230
Michael Harvey: Board of Adjustment did not have a meeting. 231
232
b. Orange Unified Transportation 233
234
Paul Guthrie: Bicycle safety issues will be on the agenda for the next two meetings with a recommendation to the 235
BOCC in June. 236
237
238 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT: 239
240
MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 241 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 242
9
MINUTES 1 PLANNING BOARD 2
JUNE 3, 2015 3
REGULAR MEETING 4
5
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pete Hallenbeck, Chair 6
Lydia Wegman, 7
Lisa Stuckey, 8
Tony Blake, 9
James Lea, 10
Maxecine Mitchell, 11
Herman Staats, 12
Paul Guthrie, 13
Laura Nicholson, 14
Bryant Warren, 15
Andrea Rohrbacher, 16
Buddy Hartley 17
18
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director 19
Erica Gray, Administrative Assistant II 20
Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 21
Ashley Moncado, Planner II 22
Rachel McCook, Planning Technician 23
24
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 25
26
Craig Benedict: I would to introduce Erica Gray, Administrative Assistant II within the Planning Inspections Department. 27
She will be the new secretary to the Planning Board. She will replace Tina Love. 28
29
AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 30
a) Planning Calendar for June and July 31
32
33
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 34
a) APRIL 1, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 35
36
Pete Hallenbeck: Motion to approve the minutes. The minutes weren’t sent out electronically? Let’s shelve that. 37
38
39
AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 40
41
No changes to the agenda. 42
43
44
AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 45
46
Introduction to the Public Charge 47
10
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the Orange 1
County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of 2
OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which 3
considers the present and future needs of its residents and business through efficient and responsive process that 4
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to 5
uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decision, and 6
recommendations. 7
8
Public Charge 9
The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its residents to conduct 10
themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow residents. At any time, should any 11
member of the Board or any resident fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave 12
the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum rail to be restored, the Chair will recess the 13
meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 14
15
AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 16
17
Pete Hallenbeck: I would like to thank everyone for attending the Quarterly Public Hearing. 18
19
20
AGENDA ITEM 7: MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN: To review and make a decision on a Major Subdivision 21
Concept Plan (using the Flexible Design Option) application (Henderson Woods) seeking to 22
subdivide a 48 acre parcel of property into 19 single family residential lots with 21.2 acres 23
(44% of the site) held in common open space. The proposed subdivision is located at the 24
intersection on Erwin Road and Whitefield Road in Chapel Hill Township. 25
26
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 27
28
Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 29
30
Craig Benedict: To conceptionalize the difference between a conventional subdivision and this flexible conservation 31
cluster. The conventional would give you 19 2.5 acre lots. The flexible with give you 19 1.2 acre lots and 21 acres of 32
open space. Everyone living within the project would have a share of this common open space. This is the tendency 33
over the last 10 years for people to have a smaller lot to have the extra space for common open space. 34
35
Tom Heffner: My name is Tom Heffner and I am the developer of Henderson Woods. I have done a number of 36
subdivisions in the area, Creekwood, Northfield, etc. I felt it was more desirable to have open space rather than larger 37
lots. We came in with a plan, got comments from staff and made modifications, had the neighborhood information 38
meeting, listened to their comments and input, made revisions to the proposal based on those comments. Talked to 39
NCDOT and made their modifications. We believe this proposal captures most concerns and represents a reasonable 40
project for the area. 41
42
Pete Hallenbeck: The existing road that comes through and Michael said you can’t get rid of the right of way but it 43
would be limited to the occupants of technically the people in this subdivision couldn’t use that road to get out onto 44
Erwin. 45
46
Tom Heffner: NCDOT has been explicit in saying they didn’t want that to become a secondary entrance because that 47
road is so close to a signalized intersection. We would pave that road and put a gate on it so the folks who have a right 48
11
to use it could open the gate to use it. 1
2
Laura Rohrbacher: What about delivery trucks? 3
4
Tom Heffner: FedEx will be encouraged to use the subdivision streets rather than the private road. 5
6
Pete Hallenbeck: Is that road going to be taken off the GIS system as a road that segment there? If you don’t it would 7
show up for emergency responders as a valid route they could take. 8
9
Craig Benedict: Probably addressing off that road and emergency services has a point on Erwin Road where they 10
expect to see that road. They will have an asterisk on it because of what has happened around it but my thought 11
process is that if the address is off that road indicate the point of entry for those lots, it will remain on the GIS system. 12
13
Pete Hallenbeck: They are currently switching to a system of closely dispatch that looks for all possible roads and 14
routes and there is no mechanism to show if the road is full access or not. 15
16
Michael Harvey: You will probably see that occur if the project is approved and recorded. This will remain as an 17
easement (Mr. Harvey was pointing to a map of the identified easement area) but the road name will be removed. 18
19
Paul Guthrie: On the open space buffering outside the lot, what is going to be the legal long-term ownership and legal 20
responsibility for that property? 21
22
Tom Heffner: It would be owned by a homeowner’s association as incorporated body. Their legal documents would 23
require their ownership and their maintenance of the property and then in turn there would be homeowner’s dues paid 24
by the people living in the subdivision that would fund that work on an ongoing basis. 25
26
Michael Harvey: If this is approved with a flexible development layout, there will be provisions in the resolution of 27
approval as there are in all major subdivision based on the flexibility and design guidelines to preclude the clearing of 28
the trees within the dedicated open space except for any activity recognized by the board such as the installation of a 29
trial or recreation area. 30
31
Paul Guthrie: My question was about long term liability and things that take place on that and the ability or not of that 32
being removed from open space. 33
34
Michael Harvey: This area could not be removed from open space unless the applicant came back to the county to 35
request a modification of the major subdivision. I will state that we would probably object to it being removed because 36
that is how it was originally approved and we are not interested in seeing dedicated open space turned into developed 37
area. 38
39
James Lea: Does Lot 9 actually take up part of the pond? 40
41
Tom Heffner: Yes. The pond size will be modified. Since it is not a spring fed pond, in the summer when we have less 42
rain, it drops significantly so my goal is that we will reduce the physical area of the pond to try to have a more stable 43
water level. The line is showing the maximum size of the pond. 44
45
James Lea: What happens when you have flooding with the pond? 46
47
Tom Heffner: Earth Centric engineering is doing storm water plan we have had several meetings on how to handle 48
that. We can increase the storm water flow downstream to the properties over to the right. We are trying to utilize the 49
12
pond as a storm water retention device so in maximum flow areas, the pond will serve to retain storm water so it will be 1
release more gradually after the storm event is over. 2
3
Pete Hallenbeck: It looks like the drainage to the pond is out the center. Is that through a drain pipe? 4
5
Tom Heffner: I don’t know. 6
7
Pete Hallenbeck: If it is, you should still have a cut away for hurricane events. 8
9
Tom Heffner: That will be part of the design. 10
11
Michael Harvey: I would like to remind the board that on pages 34 and 35, we have provide the board with an email 12
exchange from David Sykes and Jason Shepard of Orange County Emergency Services as well as Mike Tapp who is 13
the deputy chief of the local volunteer fire department indicating there are two existing water sites that would support 14
fire suppression activity. The question was asked, does this pond need to be turned into a water source. Mr. Tapp has 15
indicated it does need to be there as there are existing water sources they will take advantage of. We did not require a 16
stand pipe for this pond. 17
18
Lydia Wegman: How many properties currently use Shakori Trail as an access point? 19
20
Tom Heffner: There are two properties. One property has two houses and the other has one building. 21
22
Lydia Wegman: There is no expectation of expansion? 23
24
Tom Heffner: Those people probably do have subdivision rights there. 25
26
Lydia Wegman: They would have rights? 27
28
Tom Heffner: Exactly. 29
30
Maxecine Mitchell: I take it the threshold for not having some type of recreational, are we going to be faced with 31
someone saying I want to put a pool but I don’t have enough impervious surface to do anything? 32
33
Michael Harvey: This parcel of property is not located in a protected or critical watershed overlay district so there is no 34
impervious limit. There are open space requirements on the lots but nothing that would preclude them from putting in a 35
pool. The applicant is providing walkways but they are electing to do a payment-in-lieu to the County allowing for 36
regional park development. In other words the applicant will give the county money that will go to developing parks in 37
the area. 38
39
James Lea: You said there would be walkways, does that mean sidewalks and if so, who maintains those sidewalks? 40
41
Tom Heffner: The homeowners association. I do a meandering concrete sidewalk behind the DOT street right of way. 42
I am going to do sidewalk on both sides and then another section of sidewalk will come down toward the pond. The 43
combination of sidewalks on both sides will give about a mile of walking trail. 44
45
Unidentified Female: Are these houses essentially like the ones in Creekwood? 46
47
Tom Heffner: Based on the probable lot size will be. 48
49
13
Unidentified Male: And the size of those houses will be? 1
2
Tom Heffner: I would guess will be between 4,000 to 6,000 feet. On restricted covenants, I tend to put a pretty low 3
restrictive covenant number in. The minimum square footage will be 2,500 feet. 4
5
MOTION made by Lydia Wegman to approve the flexible development concept plan. Tony Blake seconded. 6
VOTE: Unanimous 7
8
9 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS: To make a recommendation to 10
the BOCC on government-initiated amendments that would modify allowable impervious 11
surfaced area within the county’s zoning jurisdiction through the installation of infiltration based 12
storm water features. This item we heard at the May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. 13
14
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 15
16
Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 17
18
Herman Staats: You mentioned that if someone decides to use this plan that it is then the responsibility of the property 19
owner to maintain it? Is there some type of recommendation that when a person in the future chooses to but the 20
property, how will they be notified of that? 21
22
Michael Harvey: We require the recordation of an operations and maintenance agreement on the deed. That requires 23
disclosure and that is where a new property owner will be notified of their responsibilities. 24
25
Herman Staats: This issue has come up because the developer of a recent project assigned different levels of 26
impervious surface not equally across the whole project and not necessarily based on individual property acreage so is 27
there a regulation that has that developer disclose that information to the buyer? 28
29
Michael Harvey: Yes. It is memorialized on plats and declarations of restrictions we require to be recorded with a 30
subdivision project. The planning staff, as part of our continuing education efforts, produces site assessments designed 31
to identify environmental constraints and development limitations on property. This includes a breakdown of the 32
allowable impervious surfaces for a given parcel. Staff provides as much detail as possible on recorded plats, 33
declarations of restrictions, etc. 34
35
Herman Staats: Are real estate attorneys aware of this? 36
37
Michael Harvey: They ought to be. 38
39
Lisa Stuckey: By the time you get to the attorney…. 40
41
Herman Staats: If the realtor has not done their job….. 42
43
Tony Blake: I would suggest you put a color coding or make it more obvious than it is. 44
45
Craig Benedict: We find out how much impervious is allowed on the entire parcel, deduct the road and say this is how 46
much you have left. Then leave it to the developer to apportion out that impervious. 47
48
Tony Blake: I would suggest a ratio, lot size to impervious surface. 49
14
1
Lydia Wegman: I would support doing something like Craig. I was at the BOCC where this was considered, Dr. Sexton 2
spoke and it’s clear that she was hurt by the way the developer divided the impervious surface. I wanted to flag that the 3
Commission of the Environment has not yet offered its view. I’m on the Commission for the Environment. We are very 4
concerned about this change and will be putting in a formal statement in before the BOCC hearing. The impudence 5
seems to be the consequence of the developer’s not fairly dividing impervious surface and there doesn’t seem to be, 6
from an environmental statement, any benefit to making this change. We discussed if this were to go forward, trying to 7
make sure there are hooks to ensure that the BMP is properly maintained and potentially asking for a bond or some 8
kind of certification on a yearly or bi-yearly basis that in fact it is being properly maintained and having provisions for 9
inspection. 10
11
Michael Harvey: There will have to be an operations and maintenance agreement recorded with this modification 12
process that will spell out how the stormwater feature will have to be maintained, yearly certification requirements, bi-13
annual inspections completed by the staff. If they fail to abide by these standards, we either compel the property owner 14
to remove not only the feature but also the additional impervious surface area or install a whole new BMP and go 15
through the process again. 16
17
Paul Guthrie: Are existing properties grandfathered in as they are or are they vulnerable when they come in for any 18
modification on that property to these standards? 19
20
Michael Harvey: If you have platted lot and you either have an impervious surface allotment that was assigned as part 21
of the subdivision process or, if it wasn’t, you have an impervious surface allotment based on the provisions of Article 4 22
of the UDO. 23
24
Paul Guthrie: I was thinking about my own lot we bought in 2004 which was platted in the early 1980s and I read those 25
documents pretty closely and I don’t remember in any of the transfer documents any discussion about impervious 26
surface. 27
28
Michael Harvey: When a property owner has to get building permits or zoning permits that is when they typically find 29
out what their impervious surface allowances area. Orange County adopted its first impervious surface limitation 30
standards in 1989 in the University Lake area and we have moved on since then with the most recent revision being 31
done within the Upper Eno Critical area and that was 2010 so there has been tweaking of impervious regulations since 32
the original adoption in 1989. 33
34
Paul Guthrie: In subdivisions like this and the one I live in, the homeowners owns the roadways. It is not state road but 35
a private road with sidewalks, etc. Is that use of an impervious surface allocated to each of the property owners or 36
each of the owners of the street? 37
38
Michael Harvey: We require developers to identify what is the cumulative amount of allowable impervious surface for 39
the property and then to identify the amount of roadway infrastructure to be installed. This area, specifically the 40
impervious surface area intended for the proposed roadways, is subtracted from the cumulative allotment of the parcel. 41
Remaining impervious surface area is then divided up between the rest of the proposed individual lots so that no one lot 42
is not encumbered by the impervious surface area in a roadway. The flip side is instead of getting 6%, 12%, 24% on 43
individual lots you are getting a reduction because the developer has already backed out the roadway serving individual 44
lots from the total allowable impervious surface area for a given parcel. 45
46
Lisa Stuckey: If there are 20 lots, and the roads are part of the impervious surface, does each lot carry the weight of 47
1/20th of the road? 48
49
15
Michael Harvey: Theoretically but that is technically up to the developer as there is no existing County regulation 1
mandating same. From my standpoint what happened at Triple Crown was an abomination and did not represent the 2
standard operating procedure we currently recognize within the Department in addressing this issue. Because the 3
developer wanted to allow and allot additional impervious area to support a huge roadway and an overdesigned traffic 4
circle then also give additional impervious to some of the smaller lots to make them more marketable for his specific 5
development proposal we have the problem we now have. From my standpoint most of the issues in Triple Crown were 6
created to address marketability and profit margin concerns of the developer. 7
8
Lisa Stuckey: Would that happen today? 9
10
Michael Harvey: No not from my standpoint. The staff is looking at the viability of requiring lots within a given 11
subdivision to have a set percentage of impervious but that will be difficult in all cases. 12
13
Lisa Stuckey: Going forward what is the rule? 14
15
Michael Harvey: There is no mandatory requirement in the UDO. 16
17
Craig Benedict: This is a negotiation staff is having with a developer. That occurs at the developer review. 18
19
Lisa Stuckey: I’m so skeptical that after I put down my pervious driveway and let it become impervious I am very 20
skeptical the county will dig up my swimming pool. 21
22
Craig Benedict: There is a balance. Some people have no restrictions of impervious in the county and some people 23
have 6% which is very low. Should people have the right to have normal accessory structures on their property for 24
personal enjoyment if there is no degradation to a standard that is accepted by the state? In this case, we are allowing 25
some leeway and allowing them to enjoy their land without degradation to some very strict requirements we had. 26
27
Pete Hallenbeck: You are saying as a member of the planning board that you support the concept of the performance 28
bond. 29
30
Lisa Stuckey: Yes I am. Is the state developing other BMPs besides the impervious surface? 31
32
Michael Harvey: One of the reasons we changed the language to the proposed ordinance is to make it an infiltration 33
based storm water feature was an attempt to allow so something other than just permeable concrete. Having said that 34
the proposed feature required to take advantage of this allowance has to be a infiltration based stormwater feature. 35
The simple act of digging of a pond does not create a proper feature in my mind as all the pond does is capture runoff. 36
It is not necessarily treated before it is introduced into either a second conveyance system or it absorbs into the ground. 37
Requiring an engineered designed stormwater feature that is based on an infiltration model, our hope is that the state 38
would recognize the system as being reasonable as it captures and allows the water to treated prior to its infiltration. 39
The state is revising the entire BMP manual but it is based on the notion that an engineer can design an innovate 40
infiltration based system that as long as it complies with state minimum standards it can still qualify for additional 41
allotment of impervious. I didn’t want to allow any storm water feature which I don’t think is supported by the state’s 42
BMP manual. 43
44
Lydia Wegman: It seems to me the county needs to protect its most resources and the problem is the developer who 45
mistreated the people who were buying the lot from the standpoint of impervious surface allotment and that we are 46
revising a rule that has been in place for some time. I don’t see that as a good reason to revise this rule which has 47
worked very effectively in the county. It seems if the problem is with the developer then revising the UDO to put in 48
16
place a rule that makes it clear what a developer establishing what a developer can and cannot do would be a better 1
solution than potentially allowing more run off into the most protected areas of the county. 2
3
Tony Blake: I completely agree. The developer did not disclose what the ramifications are and it would have affected 4
his lot prices. I tend to think to put the onus back on the developer to disclose this impervious surface ratio or what have 5
you to the homeowner… 6
7
Michael Harvey: Respectfully you don’t know that what you are suggesting didn’t occur. This is a project platted almost 8
10 years ago and none of us, including staff, was involved in any discussion between the developer and potential 9
property owners. 10
11
Tony Blake: I am focusing on the loop hole that this project took advantage of. If it is a matter of record, in the closing, 12
that this is disclosed, problem solved in my mind. 13
14
Herman Staats: I agree. I would be in favor or proper and effective disclosure and communication but if, for these 15
impervious surface exceptions, if they are engineering correctly, why would they be a determent to the environment. 16
17
Lisa Stuckey: I am concerned about what the state will call a BMP. I don’t have enormous confidence in our state’s 18
ability to protect the environment. I haven’t heard of other instances with the rules as they are currently and I don’t 19
know why that should be a basis of changing the rules. 20
21
Paul Guthrie: Let me tell you why I stirred it up. If you read the teacher tenure reading ruling in the state’s courts, they 22
are taking notice of issues of contract. It seems to be that someone that didn’t receive notice of limitation that they 23
eventually wanted to change could not go into court against the whole rule as a taking without due process so I think we 24
need to be very careful how the administration and the language that is used as setup this system on limits on property 25
knowing that down the road, it may or may not be transferred in a way the next buyer understands what the limits on 26
the property are. We need to be as clear as we can. Is our system providing due process? 27
28
Herman Staats: In this example of what we are not supposed to be focusing on but we are, the owner was the 29
developer and he did so he knew what he was doing so it wasn’t something taken away from him, he is the one who did 30
it, he was the owner. 31
32
Lisa Stuckey: What is being recommending is giving not a taking. 33
34
Paul Guthrie: In the specific case you are talking about is that offended buyer could go after both the owner and the 35
legal authority that is running it. I was concerned how we can document that people can, with due diligence, what the 36
property is limited too or not limited to. 37
38
Craig Benedict: The County has a recorded document that lists the development restrictions in that lot in writing. The 39
plat has it and the declaration of restrictions has it as well. 40
41
Pete Hallenbeck: We have all these exceptions, etc. and for a normal person buying a house, they will not wrap their 42
head around those details unless they have been bitten in the past. 43
44
Lisa Stuckey: How big a problem is it? 45
46
Pete Hallenbeck: It is unlikely this is the first person who has run into this. 47
48
17
Craig Benedict: We don’t know how many people get to planning. We have a very strict limit in Orange County. We 1
are suggesting minor flexibility that 6% may be difficult. Our standards are very tight. We are still 25% below what the 2
state allows us to do. 3
4
Maxecine Mitchell: When you talk about purchasing a home and being a realtor myself, I guarantee you that lady didn’t 5
say, at some point I am going to add a swimming pool. If you do that a realtor may be able to direct you. The staff did 6
inform Commissioner Barry Jacobs was concerned about the critical watershed. Is this place falling into that area? 7
8
Michael Harvey: Yes ma’am, we did not amend the proposal to exclude this option. 9
10
Buddy Hartley: I do like what staff has done with this giving flexibility and still has guidelines that will have to be 11
enforced with this. They are consistent with the UDO and I like the package they have put together. 12
13
Herman Staats: I agree with that and following Craig’s comment that Orange County does have strict definitions on 14
these things. 15
16
Pete Hallenbeck: It’s easy to look at that and say if you approve this, all you have to do is put down this spongy 17
concrete and you are good to go but to exceed the limits you have to have an engineered solution that is a BMP. 18
19
Michael Harvey: Obviously, there is the hope for some people who have talked to staff about this, you have to show us 20
this will not result in a negligible increase in runoff or basically water quality issues. That was a selling point to OWASA. 21
22
Pete Hallenbeck: It is an engineered solution. It is an option available. 23
24
Lisa Stuckey: People let stuff go. 25
26
Tony Blake: I agree with that. I wonder if this is a problem in search of a solution. When people see what this is really 27
going to cost them, do we really want to add an artificial complexation in reaction to this one instance? I wouldn’t vote 28
against this but I think there is an easier solution elsewhere. 29
30
Pete Hallenbeck: I think its clear people want to see a performance bond, inspections, I want everyone to understand 31
that it is an engineered solution you don’t just put things down. We have a statement of consistency. There is a 32
document called the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO and the two are often in conflict that we shouldn’t be changing 33
structure and detail unless in aligns with the general Comprehensive Plan. The statement of consistency is that it is 34
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed amendment package. 35
36
MOTION made by Buddy Hartley that this is consistent with the Compressive Plan. Seconded by Bryant Warren. 37
38
Lisa Stuckey: I would be much more comfortable with this if putting up a bond were required? 39
40
Michael Harvey: You will be adding that in a motion to approve, you will be including that. 41
42
VOTE: 11 to 1 no (Lydia Wegman) 43
44
Lydia Wegman: I don’t think it is environmentally responsible to make this change. I think the staff has done an 45
excellent job. This is a broad solution to solve a very limited problem and there should be limited solution to that limited 46
problem. 47
48
MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve with amendments on page 60. Seconded by Laura Rohrbacher. 49
18
VOTE: 10 to 2 no (Lydia Wegman/Paul Gutherie) 1
2
Lydia Wegman: The same as before but I will note if this does move forward and the BOCC does want to approve this I 3
support the amendment that is offered on a performance bond and I think that would be a significant improvement to 4
the proposed change. 5
6
Paul Guthrie: I would echo that. I am not satisfied we have gone to the depth we should have gone to on both of these 7
issues because they go a lot further than this committee. How do you measure impervious surface? 8
9
Michael Harvey: We are going out as staff with a measuring wheel and tape measure or a surveyor does it and we are 10
making the surveyors notes are accurate. 11
12
Paul Guthrie: How do you know the surface you are measuring is impervious? 13
14
Michael Harvey: If it is gravel, covered by building a roof, if it is structure it is impervious. Impervious surface area is 15
defined within the UDO as a surface composed of any material that impedes/prevents the natural infiltration of water 16
into the soil. Such surfaces include concrete, asphalt and gravel surfaces. These include but are not limited to streets 17
and parking areas, sidewalks, patios and structures that cover the land. It does not by state definition include the deck 18
or the water in the swimming pool. 19
20
Paul Guthrie: It doesn’t’ include natural features. 21
22
Michael Harvey: Right. 23
24
25 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT\ AMENDMENTS: To make a recommendation to 26
the BOCC on government-initiated amendments regarding the review and permitting of 27
temporary health care structures. This item was heard at the May 26, 2015 quarterly public 28
hearing. 29
30
Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 31
32
Ashley Moncado: Reviewed abstract. 33
34
Herman Staats: The building and efficiency or some other addition to a structure. I could do that anyway as long as my 35
lot size allows me so nothing in what we discussed about this temporary health care structure prevented someone from 36
using those if they wanted to? 37
38
Ashley Moncado: Correct. There are other options provided in the UDO. 39
40
Herman Staats: I didn’t understand why it’s so restrictive. 41
42
Craig Benedict: When you bring it back to the BOCC, we will explain that more. 43
44
Lisa Stuckey: If I go to page 73, 5-48 under 5.9 (a) 1, if I wanted to do one of these things and hire this company that 45
would put one up, at that point, does it have to be a first or second degree relative? 46
47
Ashley Moncado: Yes. All those options, a relationship by marriage or a legal guardian. 48
49
19
Lisa Stuckey: If I want to use one of these things, then I am restructured. 1
2
Pete Hallenbeck: This is a state issue. 3
4
Michael Harvey: We are doing this amendment because the state recognizes this specific unit. Previously, our 5
ordinance allowed for a mobile home to be on a property every year. We had to recognize it because the state said we 6
had to allow this and it was a compromise to what was really and unreasonable process to allow for a temporary 7
custodial mobile home that imposes an additional cost. 8
9
Ashley Moncado: We have had previous staff discussion about aging in place, having an accessory dwelling unit to live 10
together in a dwelling unit, etc. 11
12
Pete Hallenbeck: You are putting this in because there is a person with healthcare issues that you want to take care of 13
on your property. 14
15
Lisa Stuckey: Could we recommend losing that limitation? 16
17
Ashley Moncado: I would feel that if you are not more restrictive statute we could recommend it tonight and present it 18
to the BOCC. 19
20
Laura Rohrbacher: I have an issue regarding aging in place and if you have two aging parents, the temporary health 21
care structure does not address that. 22
23
Pete Hallenbeck: If we are going to get rid of the relationship thing. I would like to put something in there that says you 24
care for the people without charging them. 25
26
Tony Blake: How does this differ from a trailer? This sounds like a high end solution for people. This sounds to be a 27
specific company to corner the market on a high end solution and exclude everything else. 28
29
Pete Hallenbeck: The state’s going to do it. Did you want to take the funny thing being rammed down our throat or 30
take the rest of the UDO and try to solve the problem? If we are getting rid of the family thing, put something in there 31
that says don’t charge. 32
33
Ashley Moncado: Reconstructed NC State building codes, a manufactured or mobile home would not qualify as a 34
temporary health care structure. 35
36
Tony Blake: So there’s a different building code for a temporary health care structure? 37
38
Ashley Moncado: Temporary health care structures are to be built to NC State building code as the same as a modular 39
unit so there are standards that are similar to a modular unit. 40
41
Tony Blake: Trying to prevent people from putting mobile in? 42
43
Ashley: Possibly, but we still have the option of that. You can go through the option of having a temporary mobile home 44
brought on a piece of property. 45
46
Tony Blake: this seems to be almost legislation for a specific company to try and corner the market on a high end 47
solution and exclude everything else. That’s what worries me and I think that’s what worries commissioner Dorosin as 48
well. 49
20
1
Pete Hallenbeck: All that’s true, the states going to do it, they’ve been quietly whacking away at everything. The only 2
think I would say on amending this is do you want to take this one funny thing being rammed down our throats and try 3
and solve a problem or do you want to take the rest of the UDO and really really solve a problem. I don’t have a strong 4
feeling about it, the only thing I would say is if you’re taking out the family thing don’t charge them. 5
6
James Lea: Does this amendment require a special use permit? 7
8
Michael Harvey: No, because state law says you have to allow it. 9
10
James Lea: You have to allow this? 11
12
Michael Harvey: Yes. 13
14
Paul Guthrie: That’s why it’s really touchy if we take this and say oh here’s this problem and get rid of something and 15
now’s there’s this thing that we have to allow and what’s that going to bring to it. 16
17
Tony Blake: General standards aids submittal requirements 1 a & b are really there to do what you are talking about 18
which is say it’s harder to judge a family than someone else. 19
20
Pete Hallenbeck: That’s a good point it’s harder and charge is also nebulous right 21
22
Tony Blake: Right. 23
24
Pete Hallenbeck: Grandma you can live here I got this little thing you need to sign in regards to your estate first. 25
26
Paul Guthrie: If the state requires this to why do we have to put it in the UDO? 27
28
Tony Blake: Because the state has to come in and inspect them and do all of that right 29
30
Paul: The 2nd thing is if it is possible to basically do this under existing UDO provisions why get us into this business of 31
degree of relationship? 32
33
Ashley: Currently this type of use has no way to permit it under the UDO because it is specific to new use. There’s 34
nothing that qualifies for it to be permitted to the UDO and we are going through this process to be consistent with state 35
regulations to identify new UDO. Now that you’re looking at doing all these types of amendments if we weren’t going 36
through this process then it would be permitted as state statue. Currently it is allowed to be permitted and we are 37
trumping the state statue if you’re removing this regulation regarding the relationship. If someone came in without this in 38
the UDO we would have to require that relationship. 39
40
Paul Guthrie: The state doesn’t require a facility to be built but does the state specify who can use it? 41
42
Ashley Moncado: Yes 43
44
Paul Guthrie: Anybody? 45
46
Ashley Moncado: Well do they specify it has to be a physically or mentally impaired individual NC resident. 47
48
Lydia Wegman: And a relative 49
21
1
Ashley Moncado: Yes 2
3
Paul Guthrie: And a NC resident on top of that? 4
5
Pete Hallenbeck: That’s where your submittal requirements came from the state law? 6
7
Ashley Moncado: Yes, all of this is the state law. We cannot change it if it’s not identical it’s very similar. 8
9
Paul Guthrie: The owner of the property has to be a NC resident and the recipient of the housing has to be a NC 10
resident. 11
12
Ashley Moncado: Yes 13
14
Paul Guthrie: The lawyers are going to have a field day with this one. 15
16
Pete Hallenbeck: And it’s going to cost you about $100,000. 17
18
Craig Benedict: Whey you get a mandate from the state and you start trying to tweak it it’s a slippery slope. So we can 19
resolve some of the options about having people not related by blood living in these accessory structures. I would 20
suggest let’s get this statue, preemption of a lot of our other rules, put in and address the other issues about being more 21
flexible and not having the relationship stuff addressed by other portions of the code. Right now how many people do 22
we allow unrelated by blood in the house? 23
24
Ashley Moncado: 3 25
26
Craig Benedict: Some places allow more than that so I mean there could be a case where you want to go up to 4 or 5 27
so we would be suggesting other amendments to the code to allow housing opportunities that’s the new trend. I think 28
we could make an amendment to this and the state says are you adhering to us and we say yes and made it even 29
better and they are like Orange County did something again to our minimums. That’s just an idea I think we can 30
address other sections of the code and since the state is asking for this almost verbatim it would be better to let this fly. 31
32
Pete Hallenbeck: I don’t want to take a bad idea and say we combed it’s hair and put lipstick on it and now it’s good. 33
34
Lydia Wegman: Craig, when you say address it in the code you would have to develop new amendments to the code 35
36
Craig Benedict: Yes 37
38
Lydia Wegman: Added to the long list already 39
40
Lisa Stuckey: You could do a completely identical parallel amendment to the code and just change the things we like. 41
We could have 2 of them sitting there. 42
43
Pete Hallenbeck: I’ll remind everybody that we have this dinner with the commissioners every year and that’s an 44
opportunity to say here are areas that we think would be interesting to look at this might be a very good thing to look at 45
and now you’re going to go through the right process instead of tweaking it and if this goes away, we could still have 46
our solution. 47
48
22
Laura Nicholson: I withdraw my amendment request however this is a solution without a problem. It’s a unaffordable 1
ridiculous thing but I am all for complying with state regulations. 2
3
Tony: 1 question for Mike, this temporary structure does this count against your impervious surface? 4
5
Michael Harvey: Everything counts against your impervious surface if it meets the definition. 6
7
Paul Guthrie: Between the septic laws and the impervious surface, I think there can be lots of decisions made on the 8
process. 9
10
Lydia Wegman: Craig & Michael you mentioned co-housing and it sounds like some discussion is going on, is that 11
something this could incude addressing this problem that we’re talking about? 12
13
Craig Benedict: Yes. I think this could go true we have new initiatives about affordable housing about small housing but 14
we’ve been trying to describe these new housing opportunities out there. Are they mobile homes, are they RVs, are 15
they micro houses, we will be presenting to the commissioners probably in September of this year. These other type of 16
housing options would address bringing the parents back in the house. We’re into that process, we would expect 17
getting a green light to address some of those issues in September or October and bringing forward later this year. 18
19
Lydia Wegman: And would that kind of thing come to the planning board fi the commissioners said go? 20
21
Craig Benedict: Yes, definitely. 22
23
Lydia Wegman: Thank you. 24
25
Pete Hallenbeck: We have a statement of consistency to vote on and it says this isn’t against what’s in the 26
comprehensive plan. It addresses a .25% improvement on that plan. We’ll need a motion to vote on that and then vote 27
on the specific amendment items here. We’ll make a recommendation to the BOCC on the statement of consistency 28
that yes we think it is consistent. 29
30
MOTION made by: Buddy Hartley. Seconded by: Bryant Warren 31
32
Lydia Wegman: Housing goal #2 – Housing that is useable by as many people as possible regardless of age, ability or 33
circumstances but this is only useable by one person 34
35
Tony Blake: 1 income 36
37
Laura Nicholson: it also says affordable housing earlier in that. 38
39
Lydia Wegman: I don’t think it’s consistent so ia m going to vote No. 40
41
Pete Hallenbeck: The comprehensive plan and the UDO are often in conflict with each other. 42
43
Lydia Wegman: I know that. 44
45
Pete Hallenbeck: We want affordable housing and we want sidewalks. 46
47
23
Lydia Wegman: I realize that I will just note this requirement to vote on consistency is an empty requirement because 1
as you say Pete, there’s always a lot of inconsistent things in the comprehensive plan and you could find something to 2
support almost any position in the plan. 3
4
Paul Guthrie: Are you going to call the vote. 5
6
Vote 10 to 2 (Paul Guthrie/ ) 7
8
Paul Guthrie: I didn’t like it. 9
10
Pete Hallenbeck: Motion to approve the amendment as in the packet UDO amendments. 11
12
James Lea: What page is that on? 13
14
Pete Hallenbeck: 73 attachement 3. 15
16
Motion by Buddy Hartley. Seconded by Bryant Warren. 17
18
Pete Hallenbeck: This is the section in red we discussed where it says the submittal requirements and so forth. This 19
document is very much driven by the state law. 20
21
Ashley Moncado: Yes 22
23
Pete Hallenbeck: 24
25
Vote: 9 to 3 (Lydia Wegman, Lisa Stuckey and Paul Guthrie) 26
27
Pete Hallenbeck: Paul would you like to say anything. 28
29
Paul Guthrie: Bad law, we can deal with the issue without it. 30
31
Lisa Stuckey: I’m voting no simply because I don’t think we have all the facts. This is something worth asking the 32
attorney whether it could be made less restrictive to include nonrelatives to be in compliance with other areas of our 33
UDO to allow husband and wife to be in there together so I just feel like I would rather let the attorney guide us, 34
something for county commissioners to ask the attorney. 35
36
Lydia Wegman: I agree with Lisa. I’m concerned about approving just this piece without having the other pieces. We’ve 37
talked about going forward with it so it’s clear that we are presenting a whole package of options to people who are 38
facing this situation. We may need to follow up on Lisa’s suggestion and we many need to approve this but I would like 39
to see if there is a way at the same time to approve something that is broader and meets the needs of many more 40
people in the county. 41
42
AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT 43
44
Pete Hallenbeck: Ok. Very good. That was the last item on our agenda. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. 45
46
Motion to adjourn made by Bryant Warren. Seconded by Laura Nicholson 47
24
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: July 1, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit (SUP) – Schools (Public and Private); Elementary,
Middle and Secondary in Chapel Hill Township
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Additional Correspondence/Evidence
Submitted since May 26, 2015 Public
Hearing
Patrick Mallett, Planner II (919) 245-2577
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2592
3. Special Use Permit Findings of Fact
PURPOSE: To complete review of, and make a recommendation on, a Class A Special Use
Permit (hereafter ‘SUP’) application proposing the expansion/modification of an existing private
school in accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits of the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO).
As a reminder the review of this item is carried out in a quasi-judicial format. Decisions relating
to the approval or denial of SUP applications are based solely on the sworn testimony of all
parties involved with the case, both those for and against, as well as the review of competent
material and substantial evidence submitted during the public hearing. Hearsay, or
unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony.
CADENCE OF REVIEW: The review of a SUP is as follows:
• STEP ONE – NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: In accordance with Section
27.2. of the UDO, a Neighborhood meeting was held on April 10, 2015.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicants, their consultants Orange county staff and one
adjacent property owner attended the meeting. The property owner attended to
learn more about the request and determine if the Master Plan included any
development along his common property line. Note, the request does not propose
any development along this portion of the school’s property.
• STEP TWO – PUBLIC HEARING: The first step in the review of an SUP application is
the holding of a public hearing to allow the applicant and other interested parties to
provide sworn testimony related to the proposal.
STAFF COMMENT: The required public hearing was held at the May 26, 2015
Quarterly Public Hearing where the following testimony/evidence was entered into
the record:
25
i. Staff abstract and attachments, including the actual SUP application,
Master Plan site plan, staff comments on the project, and copies of the
UDO and Comprehensive Plan;
ii. Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various
provisions of the UDO;
iii. Applicant’s sworn testimony, including a submitted financial impact
assessment completed by Mr. Everett V. Knight, providing additional
information on the project’s compliance with the UDO; and
iv. Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public.
• STEP THREE – PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviews the request
and makes a recommendation on the project’s compliance with specific development
standards (Section 5.8.4) and the general standards (Section 5.3.2 Special Uses) of the
UDO. Staff prepares a script to aid the Board in making required findings and denoting
the ‘evidence’ utilized in rendering a decision as contained in Attachment 3.
STAFF COMMENT: This Planning Board review will begin at the July 1, 2015
regular meeting where the Board will be asked to make a recommendation.
• STEP FOUR – DECISION: The BOCC will receive the Planning Board’s
recommendation as well as any other written evidence, deliberate, certify the record,
close the public hearing, and then render a final decision.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing where
staff indicated the school began operations in 1984 offering educational opportunities, based on
the State curriculum guidelines, for kindergarten through 12th grade students. Through this
proposal the applicant is requesting to modify and expand the existing campus with the
construction and location of new buildings and support facilities over the next 15-years. The
plans are envisioned to support an increase in student population to approximately 350 students
by 2030, which represents an overall increase in 91 students from current enrolment.
Agenda materials from the Quarterly Public Hearing can be viewed at:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/150526QPHKC.pdf.
During the hearing, the following comments/questions were posed concerning the application:
• A BOCC member asked if the applicant would be required to secure building and zoning
permits prior to the commencement of construction:
RESPONSE: The applicant will still be required to obtain all the necessary
additional development permits (e.g. erosion control, stormwater, site plan(s),
building, environmental health) prior to the commencement of land disturbing
activities. The granting of this SUP will allow the required permit review process to
move forward under the guidance of an approved SUP Master Plan.
• A BOCC member asked what happens if the school does not get approval to expand the
existing septic system.
RESPONSE: If the existing septic system cannot be expanded then development
would be curtailed to only those uses and impacts that could be supported with the
existing septic system. The applicant understands and accepts the risk.
26
Note: Initial staff review of the system, soils and potential upgrades indicates that
an expansion of the state permitted system would not likely pose any significant
issues.
• There was general consensus from BOCC and Planning Board members the applicant’s plan
for student drop off and pick up was reasonable as denoted on the submitted site plan and
that all efforts needed to be taken to ensure there was no congestion on New Jericho Road
during peak demand.
• A BOCC member expressed concern over students walking along New Jericho Road.
RESPONSE: Both staff and the applicant indicated students do not typically walk
along New Jericho Road. There is an existing crosswalk in Millhouse Road
allowing students to cross the street to access the existing athletic field. Students
access individual school buildings through existing internal (off road) pedestrian
paths.
• A Planning Board member asked when the required stormwater system would have to be
installed.
RESPONSE: Staff indicated the stormwater system would have to be installed
with the proposed reconfiguration of the parking areas along New Jericho Road.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.7.4 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
‘cause an analysis to be made of the application’ and pass that analysis on to the reviewing
body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following:
a. Application submittal requirements detailed within Section 2.7 of the UDO have been
satisfied.
b. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with respect to landscaping and buffering
requirements as detailed within Section 6.8 of the UDO.
c. The applicant submitted an Environmental Impact Statement, Biological Inventory and
Natural Resource Protection Plan as required in Section 2.25 of the UDO.
d. The applicant has complied with specific development standards associated with the
development of a school as detailed within Section 5.8.4 of the UDO.
e. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal, DEAPR,
Orange County Health) indicate there are no concerns associated with the request.
f. Staff has filed the request with the North Carolina State Administrative Clearinghouse
and to the Town of Chapel Hill for review and comment. The applicant’s proposal does
not pose any issues from these agencies and/or jurisdictions.
Comments from the Clearinghouse are contained within Attachment 2.
g. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis and Internal Circulation Plan to the
District Engineer and NCDOT Municipal School Transportation Assistance (MSTA)
offices. The plans and proposed improvements meet all their initial concerns.
Planning Director’s Recommendation: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.4 of the
UDO, the Planning Director recommends approval of the application subject to:
• Approval of the recommended Findings of Fact as detailed within Attachment 3,
• The imposition of the recommended conditions detailed within Attachment 3, and
27
• The Planning Board’s and BOCC’s ability to make an affirmative finding on the general
standards outlined within Section 5.3.2 of the UDO.
Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) of the UDO, the
BOCC has requested that the Planning Board recommendation be made available in time for
the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. As a procedural note, additional comments on
the application must be submitted in writing to the Planning Board in order to become part of the
official record of these proceedings.
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. Deliberate as necessary,
2. Review the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval as contained in Attachment 3,
3. If deemed necessary, suggest additional conditions or modifications to the site plan, and
4. Make an affirmative recommendation regarding the Findings of Fact and Conditions of
Approval as detailed within Attachment 3 in time for the BOCC’s September 1, 2015
regular meeting.
28
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 05/14/2015
Emerson WaldorfPIN 9871-64-739122 acres
Emerson WaldorfPIN 9871-72-193517 acres
Emerson WaldorfPIN 9871-74-30985.6 acres(septic lot)
Emerson WaldorfPIN 9871-64-56322.6 acres
Emerson WaldorfPIN 9871-54-86351.75 acres
I
4
0
W
I
4
0
E
BLACKWOOD MOUNTAIN RD
MIL
L
H
O
U
S
E
R
D
PATHWAY
C
T
STEINER
WAY
MANOR DR
NE
W
J
E
R
I
C
H
O
R
D
M
A
N
O
R
D
R
MA
N
O
R
HIL
L
C
T
HE
A
R
T
W
O
O
D
D
R
GALILEAN TRL
I
4
0
W
I
4
0
E
1 inch = 417 feet
0 500 1,000Feet·
I
4
0
E
I
4
0
W
NC 57
I 85 S
N
C
8
6
N
NC 54 W
US 70 W
NC 49
US 1
5
5
0
1
S
Emerson Waldorf Property(multiple parcels)
6211 New Jericho RoadChapel Hill Township
Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map 29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
THE EMERSON WALDORF SCHOOL
REQUESTING CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL
FOR THE EXPANSION OF ITS CAMPUS AT 6211 NEW JERICHO ROAD (SR 1899)
(PINS: 9871- 64-7391; 9871-64-5632; 9871-65-8140; 9871-74-3098; and 9871-72-1935)
As required under Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO), a Class A Special Use Permit is required for the development/expansion of a school.
Such permits shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 and 5.8.4
of the UDO.
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following:
(1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located
where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted;
(2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a
public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of
contiguous property); and
(3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will
be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with
the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or
in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners;
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following
specific standards:
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO,
(2) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a. Sewage disposal facilities,
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site
(3) Specific regulations governing the development of school as set forth in Section 5.8.4 of
the UDO,
(4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange Planning staff regarding the application in question. The
findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board in its
deliberations.
Attachment 3
48
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
APPLICATION COMPONENTS
Proper forms 2.2 Application (Attachment 1 of May
26, 2015 quarterly public hearing
packet)
Yes
Fees paid 2.2.4(D) Staff Testimony/Application
Yes
Full description of use
• Location
• Appearance
• Operational characteristics
2.7.3(B)(1) Application
Yes
Owner Information 2.7.3(B)(2) Application
Yes
Information needed for Use
Standards
2.7.3(B)(3) Application and site plan
Yes
Site Plans
(26 for Class A)
2.7.3(B)(4) Application/Staff Testimony (Site
plan)
Yes
Preliminary Subdivision Plat (if
necessary)
2.7.3(B)(5) [No subdivision proposed.] N/A
List of parcels within 500 feet
2.7.3(B)(6) Application Yes
Elevations of all structures 2.7.3(B)(7) Application and site plan; staff
testimony and pictures as part of
power point presentation
Yes
Environmental Assessment (or
EIS)
• Topography
• Drainage issues
• Natural or Cultural
resources
• Mining
• Hazardous Wastes
• Wastewater treatment
• Water usage
2.7.3(B)(8) Application package including:
• Biological Inventory
completed by The Catena
Group;
• Forest Stewardship Plan
completed by Kelly
Douglass;
• Impact Analysis completed
by Everett ‘Vic’ Knight
• State Clearing House
comments (Attachment 2
July 1, 2015 Planning
Board packet)
Yes
Method of Debris Disposal
2.7.3(B)(9) Application and site plan Yes
Development Schedule
2.7.3(B)(10) Application and site plan Yes
Extended Vesting Request
2.7.3(B)(11) Not requested N/A
49
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Public Notice
• Date
• Time
• Place
2.7.5(a) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing Abstract (Attachment 4)
and staff testimony
Yes
Published in Newspaper
• Two successive weeks
• First notice at least ten days
prior but no more than twenty-
five days prior
2.7.5(b) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing Abstract (Attachment 4)
and staff testimony
Yes
Sign Posting on Property (at least
10 days prior)
2.7.5(c) Staff Testimony
posted sign on May 14, 2015
Yes
Mailed Notice
• Certified mail
• All adjacent property
owners (within 500 ft.)
• Not less than fifteen days
prior
2.7.5(d) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing Abstract (Attachment 4)
and staff testimony
Yes
50
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
SPECIFIC STANDARDS
Waste Disposal
Method and adequacy of provision
for sewage disposal facilities, solid
waste and water service.
5.3.2(B)(1) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing Abstract (Attachment 3)
and staff testimony.
Both Environmental Health and
Solid Waste have indicated they
have no concerns.
Conditions are recommended to
require Solid Waste Permit as
part of development process.
Yes
Safety
Method and adequacy of police,
fire and rescue squad protection.
5.3.2(B)(2) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing Abstract (Attachment 3)
and staff testimony.
Orange County Emergency
Service staff and the Sheriff’s
office have indicated the project
can be served.
Yes
Vehicle Access
Method and adequacy of vehicle
access to the site and traffic
conditions around the site.
5.3.2(B)(3) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing Abstract (Attachment
3), Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) completed by
SEPI Engineering, and staff
testimony.
There will not be an appreciable
traffic increase in the area
associated with the expansion of
the school.
Yes
51
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
STANDARDS for Schools (Elementary, Middle and Secondary)
Site Plan
A site plan prepared in accordance
with Section 2.5 of and 5.8.4 of
UDO
5.8.4 (A) (1) Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony, and Site plan
Yes
Standards of Evaluation
Project meets applicable design
standards of UDO
5.8.4 (A) (3)
(a)
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony, and Site plan
Yes
Project meets service provision
criteria:
i. Identifies primary and
secondary police (public
service), rescue services, and
fire responders ,
ii. Identifies sources of water for
use by fire fighters,
iii. Identifies water source and
wastewater treatment method
iv. Identifies process for removal
of solid waste
5.8.4 (A) (3)
(b)
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony (Attachment 3 of
quarterly public hearing packet),
and Site plan
Yes
Completion of biological inventory
(identification of habitats)
5.8.4 (A) (3)
(c)
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony and
• Biological Inventory
completed by The Catena
Group;
• Forest Stewardship Plan
completed by Kelly
Douglass;
• State Clearing House
comments (Attachment 2
July 1, 2015 Planning
Board packet)
Yes
52
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
STANDARDS for Schools (Elementary, Middle and Secondary) – continued
Landscaping and buffers
(protection of existing vegetation,
tree protection measures, etc.)
5.8.4 (A) (3)
(d)
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony and
• Biological Inventory
completed by The Catena
Group;
• Forest Stewardship Plan
completed by Kelly
Douglass;
• State Clearing House
comments (Attachment 2
July 1, 2015 Planning
Board packet)
Yes
Stormwater management and
drainage plan
5.8.4 (A) (3)
(e) and (f)
inclusive
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony (Attachment 3 of
quarterly public hearing packet),
and Site plan
A recommended condition of
approval is that as new
development is approved for the
site the applicant will have to
submit the formal stormwater
management plan for approval by
Orange County.
Yes
Grading and erosion control
5.8.4 (A) (3)
(g)
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony (Attachment 3 of
quarterly public hearing packet),
and Site plan
A recommended condition of
approval is that as new
development is approved for the
site the applicant will have to
submit formal erosion control
plans for approval by Orange
County.
Yes
53
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
STANDARDS for Schools (Elementary, Middle and Secondary) – continued
Solid Waste Management
5.8.4 (A) (3)
(h)
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony (Attachment 3 of
quarterly public hearing packet),
and Site plan
A recommended condition of
approval is as new site plans are
submitted the applicant will submit
the formal solid waste
management plan for approval by
Orange County Solid Waste.
Yes
Irrigation
5.8.4 (A) (3)
(i)
Application and site plan Yes
Habitat Maintenance
5.8.4 (A) (3)
(j)
Application and site plan Yes
Public Road Access
5.8.4 (A) (3)
(k)
Application and site plan;
Transportation Impact Analysis
(TIA) completed by SEPI
Engineering
Yes
Maintenance of Improvements
5.8.4 (A) (3)
(l)
Application and site plan Yes
Additional Standards
i. Minimum lot size consistent
with adopted County school
construction standards.
ii. Lot size shall be adequate to
accommodate all activities.
iii. Negative visual impacts shall
be minimized along major
roadways.
iv. Required transportation
improvements are installed.
v. Site designed for multiple
shared use opportunities.
vi. Site access
5.8.4 (A) (3)
(m)
Application package including:
• Biological Inventory
completed by The Catena
Group;
• Forest Stewardship Plan
completed by Kelly
Douglass;
• Impact Analysis completed
by Everett ‘Vic’ Knight
• Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) completed
by SEPI Engineering
• State Clearing House
comments (Attachment 2
July 1, 2015 Planning
Board packet)
Applicant and staff testimony.
Yes
54
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
SPECIFIC STANDARDS
In accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), the Planning Board shall also consider the following general
conditions before the application for a Special Use can be approved.
NOTE: Planning Staff does not provide a recommendation on these items as the Board is expected to provide
a recommendation based on the sworn testimony provided at the hearing. Staff is providing a brief synopsis of
the information contained within the submittal the applicant argues demonstrates compliance for reference
purposes only.
The use (will / will not) maintain or
promote the public health, safety and
general welfare, if located where
proposed and developed and
operated according to the plan as
submitted.
Section 5.3.2
(A) (2) (a)
Application package and
testimony including:
• Biological Inventory
completed by The Catena
Group;
• Forest Stewardship Plan
completed by Kelly
Douglass;
• Impact Analysis completed
by Everett ‘Vic’ Knight
• Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) completed by
SEPI Engineering
• State Clearing House
comments (Attachment 2
July 1, 2015 Planning Board
packet)
Staff testimony and abstract
package from May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing.
The use (will / will not) maintain or
enhance the value of contiguous
property (unless the use is a public
necessity, in which case the use
need not maintain or enhance the
value of contiguous property).
Section 5.3.2
(A) (2) (b)
Application package and
testimony including:
• Impact Analysis completed
by Everett ‘Vic’ Knight
Staff testimony and abstract
package from May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing.
55
The location and character of the
use, if developed according to the
plan submitted, (will / will not) be in
harmony with the area in which it is
to be located and the use is in
compliance with the plan for the
physical development of the County
as embodied in these regulations or
in the Comprehensive Plan, or
portion thereof, adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners.
Section 5.3.2
(A) (2) (c)
Application package and
testimony including:
• Biological Inventory
completed by The Catena
Group;
• Forest Stewardship Plan
completed by Kelly
Douglass;
• Impact Analysis completed
by Everett ‘Vic’ Knight
• Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) completed by
SEPI Engineering
• State Clearing House
comments (Attachment 2
July 1, 2015 Planning Board
packet)
Staff testimony and abstract
package from May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing.
56
1. That the school be limited to serving 350 students as proposed by the applicant within
the Special Use Permit application.
2. The granting of this Special Use Permit does not confer onto the applicant authorization
to commence construction/land disturbance activities. No land disturbance activity shall
commence until all applicable approvals, as detailed within the Unified Development
Ordinance, have been obtained.
3. The submittal of a Solid Waste Permit application shall be required for every individual
development project associated with this project.
4. Existing vegetation shall be preserved and remain in an undisturbed state in general
conformance with Sheet(s) C4, C5, and C6 of the approved site plan, as appropriately
adjusted pursuant to Site Plan review for individual construction phases.
5. That the Fire Marshal and representatives of the New Hope Volunteer Fire Department
shall review and approve the floor plan of proposed new buildings prior to the issuance of
any Building and/or Zoning Compliance Permit(s) approving construction verifying that
the structures comply with all applicable NC Fire Protection Code standards.
6. The applicant shall install required wastewater treatment system improvements
necessary to support approved expansion projects prior to the commencement of earth
disturbing activities. Further, the school is required to supply Planning and
Environmental Health staff will any and all permits issued by the State of North Carolina
allowing for the operation/modification of the system.
7. That an annual inspection of the wastewater treatment facility shall be conducted by the
Orange County Health Department, consistent with established Departmental policy, in
order to ensure that the system is functioning within established parameters. The
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has not received any comments from local residents and property owners indicating they do not believe the
proposed facility complies with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) inclusive. These standards include
maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of
contiguous property, the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located, and the use being in
compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County.
Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the
applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO with respect
to the submittal of required information for the project.
Provided the Planning Board finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards as detailed herein, and
no evidence is entered into the record demonstrating the applicant has either:
a. Failed to meet their burden of proof that the project complies with the specific development standards for a
school, or
b. Fails to comply with the general standards detailed within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2)
of the UDO, the Board could make an affirmative recommendation on this application to the BOCC.
In the event that the Board makes an affirmative finding, staff recommends the attachment of the following
conditions:
57
applicant shall bear the burden of paying all fees associated with this inspection of the
wastewater treatment facility as imposed by the Health Department.
8. That the applicant secure any necessary Soil Erosion and Grading, Stormwater, or other
similar permit(s) from the Orange County Erosion Control Division, prior to any land
disturbing activity occurring as part of the approved site plan.
9. That the applicant adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by North Carolina
Department of Transportation in accordance with the driveway permit for this project.
10. That the provision of outdoor sports field lighting shall be deemed a SUP modification
requiring the applicant to apply for a new Class A Special Use Permit as detailed within
the UDO.
11. Development proposals shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Fish and
Wildlife for review comment as part of the site plan review process of the County to
ensure no endangered species are impacted.
12. The Special Use Permit will automatically expire in 12 months from the date of approval
if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless
a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of
Adjustment.
13. If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special
Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect.
58
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: July 1, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 8
SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit – Solar Array off White Cross Road in Bingham
Township
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Additional Correspondence/Evidence
Submitted since May 26, 2015 Public
Hearing
Patrick Mallett, Planner II (919) 245-2577
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2592
3. Special Use Permit Findings of Fact
Under Separate Cover – Full Scale Copy of
Revised Site Plan
PURPOSE: To complete review of, and make a recommendation on, a Class A Special Use
Permit (hereafter ‘SUP’) application proposing the development of a solar array in accordance
with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array-Public Utility of the
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
As a reminder the review of this item is carried out in a quasi-judicial format. Decisions relating
to the approval or denial of SUP applications are based solely on the sworn testimony of all
parties involved with the case, both those for and against, as well as the review of competent
material and substantial evidence submitted during the public hearing. Hearsay or
unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony.
CADENCE OF REVIEW: The review of a SUP is as follows:
• STEP ONE – NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The first step in the
review of an SUP application is a holding of a NIM to allow the applicant to meet with
local property owners to review the project.
STAFF COMMENT: The required NIM was held on April 9, 2015 from 5:30 p.m. to
7:30 p.m. in accordance with the UDO. The applicant held a second
neighborhood meeting on Thursday May 7, 2015 at the White Cross Recreation
Center.
• STEP TWO – PUBLIC HEARING: The next step in the review of an SUP application is
the holding of a public hearing to allow the applicant and other interested parties to
provide sworn testimony related to the proposal.
59
STAFF COMMENT: The required public hearing was held at the May 26, 2015
Quarterly Public Hearing where the following testimony/evidence was entered into
the record:
i. Staff abstract and attachments, including the actual SUP application,
Master Plan site plan, staff comments on the project, and copies of the
UDO and Comprehensive Plan.
ii. Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various
provisions of the UDO.
iii. Applicant sworn testimony from Mrs. Beth Trahos, Mr. George Retschle,
Mr. Thomas Hester, Mr. Richard Kirkland, Mr. Richard Moretz, and Mr.
Thomas Cleveland, on how the project complied with the UDO.
The applicant entered copies of affidavits and a real estate report,
completed by Mr. Hester, into the record providing additional information
on the project’s compliance with applicable standards.
The applicant further testified they had been working to address an
adjacent property owner’s questions and concerns as they relate to the
preservation of existing vegetation along a common property line.
During the hearing the applicant testified a private agreement had been
made with the adjacent property owner to the north for an additional buffer
width of 15’ and the provision for an undisturbed area along the common
property line.
It should be noted this will become a requirement if the SUP is approved.
iv. Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public.
• STEP THREE – PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviews the request
and makes a recommendation on the project’s compliance with specific development
standards (Section 5.9.6) and the general standards (Section 5.3.2 Special Uses) of the
UDO. Staff prepares a script to aid the Board in making required findings and denoting
the ‘evidence’ utilized in rendering a decision as contained in Attachment 3.
STAFF COMMENT: This review will begin at the July 1, 2015 regular meeting
where the Board will be asked to make a recommendation.
• STEP FOUR – DECISION: The BOCC will receive the Planning Board recommendation
as well as any other written evidence, deliberate, certify the record, close the public
hearing, and then render a final decision.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing where
staff indicated the applicant is proposing to develop a solar facility on a 20 acre portion of the subject
property with the remaining 15 acres being retained by the current property owner.
Proposed individual arrays shall be approximately 7 to 9 feet in height, with approximately 2 to 3 feet
of ground clearance, and 47 feet in length. Approximately 20 acres of the site will be initially
disturbed with 11.5 acres containing the actual solar facility. A 6 foot high chain link security
fence, topped with 3 strand barbed wire, shall enclose the perimeter of the array to prevent access
and the array shall be surrounded by a Type D 50 foot wide landscaped buffer.
60
There shall be no business or other occupied office located on the property and vehicular access is
off of White Cross Road and shall be restricted via a 24 foot access gate.
Agenda materials from the Quarterly Public Hearing can be viewed at:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/150526QPHKC.pdf
During the hearing, the following comments/questions were posed concerning the application:
• Several BOCC members requested clarification on the proposed land use buffer
modifications:
RESPONSE: The applicant indicated there would be an additional 15 feet of buffer
width along the northern property line. This would include the preservation of
approximately 20 ft. of the exterior of the proposed land use buffer.
• A Planning Board member asked the applicant to clarify testimony related to the fiscal
impact analysis. Specifically to review the methodology used in determining how the
project would ‘maintain or enhance’ the value of contiguous property.
RESPONSE: Mr. Thomas Hester outlined the methodology and indicated his
report even provided an assessment of existing property values near a previously
constructed solar facility within Orange County.
Mr. Hester indicated it was his professional opinion there was no evidence
indicating the development of this facility would impact adjacent property value.
• There were general comments from the BOCC and Planning Board members over the
construction of solar facilities in Orange County.
It should be noted no one from the public spoke at the hearing.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.7.4 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
‘cause an analysis to be made of the application’ and pass that analysis on to the reviewing
body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following:
a. Application submittal requirements detailed within Section 2.7 of the UDO have been
satisfied.
b. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with respect to landscaping and buffering
requirements as detailed within Section 6.8 of the UDO.
c. Staff has made the determination that a formal Environmental Impact Statement would
not be required per Section 6.16 of the UDO.
d. The applicant has complied with specific development standards associated with the
development of a solar facility as detailed within Section 5.9.6 (C) of the UDO.
e. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal, DEAPR,
Orange County Health) indicate there are no concerns associated with the request.
Please refer to Attachment 3 of the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing packet for
additional information.
f. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the various goals outlined within the
Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including:
61
a. Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 1: Energy conservation, sustainable use of
non-polluting renewable energy resources, efficient use of non-renewable energy
resources and clean air.
b. Objective AE-15: Foster participation in green energy programs such as
installation incentives for solar hot water/solar generation/solar tempering in
residential or commercial construction. The County should develop programs that
will link citizens and businesses with options for alternative and sustainable energy
sources.
c. Objective AG-8: Encourage the use and production of natural fuel alternatives to
petroleum based products and pursue new types of energy sources.
Planning Director’s Recommendation: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.4 of the
UDO, the Planning Director recommends approval of the application subject to:
• Approval of the recommended Findings of Fact as detailed within Attachment 3,
• The imposition of the recommended conditions detailed within Attachment 3, and
• The Planning Board’s and BOCC’s ability to make an affirmative finding on the general
standards outlined within Section 5.3.2 of the UDO.
Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) of the UDO, the
BOCC has requested that the Planning Board recommendation be made available in time for
the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. As a procedural note, additional comments on
the application must be submitted in writing to the Planning Board in order to become part of the
official record of these proceedings.
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. Deliberate as necessary,
2. Review the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval as contained in Attachment 3,
3. If deemed necessary, suggest additional conditions or modifications to the site plan, and
4. Make an affirmative recommendation to the BOCC regarding the Findings of Fact and
Conditions of Approval as detailed within Attachment 3 in time for the BOCC’s September
1, 2015 regular meeting.
62
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 05/11/2015
TR
I
P
P
R
D
WHIT
E
C
R
O
S
S
R
D
HE
E
L
S
D
R
OLD GREENSBORO RD
1 inch = 294 feet
0 500 1,000Feet·
Parcels
Township Boundary
City Limits
ETJ2010 ImagesRGB
Red: Band_1
Green: Band_2
Blue: Band_3
I
4
0
E
I
4
0
W
NC 57
I 85 S
N
C
8
6
N
NC 54 W
US 70 W
NC 49
US 1
5
5
0
1
S
PIN#: 9748320786CAROL B BYRONWILLIAM J BYRON1606 WHITE CROSS RDCHAPEL HILL, NC 27516
Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map
Subject PropertyPIN 9748-32-0786
Approximate location of array(illustrative purposes only)
White Cross Recreation center
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
WHITE CROSS SOLAR LLC AND MR. WILLIAM AND CAROL BYRON
REQUESTING A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT A SOLAR ARRAY-PUBLIC UTILITY
ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY OFF OF WHITE CROSS ROAD AND OLD GREENSBORO ROAD
FURTHER IDENTIFIED UTILIZING ORANGE COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PIN)
9748-32-0786.
As required under Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO), a Class A Special Use Permit is required for the development of a solar facility. Such
permits shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 and 5.9.6 of the
UDO.
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following:
(1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located
where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted;
(2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a
public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of
contiguous property); and
(3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will
be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with
the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or
in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners;
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following
specific standards:
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO,
(2) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a. Sewage disposal facilities,
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site
(3) Specific regulations governing the development of school as set forth in Section 5.9.6 of
the UDO,
(4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange Planning staff regarding the application in question. The
findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board in its
deliberations.
Attachment 3
77
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
APPLICATION COMPONENTS
Proper forms 2.2 Application (Attachment 1 of May
26, 2015 quarterly public hearing
packet), Staff testimony
Yes
Fees paid 2.2.4(D) Staff Testimony/Application
Yes
Full description of use
• Location
• Appearance
• Operational characteristics
2.7.3(B)(1) Application
Yes
Owner Information 2.7.3(B)(2) Application
Yes
Information needed for Use
Standards
2.7.3(B)(3) Application and site plan
Yes
Site Plans
(26 for Class A)
2.7.3(B)(4) Application/Staff Testimony (Site
plan)
Yes
Preliminary Subdivision Plat (if
necessary)
2.7.3(B)(5) [No subdivision proposed.] N/A
List of parcels within 500 feet
2.7.3(B)(6) Application Yes
Elevations of all structures 2.7.3(B)(7) Application and site plan provide
elevation of proposed arrays; staff
testimony and pictures as part of
power point presentation. No
structures (i.e. buildings) are
being proposed.
Yes
Environmental Assessment (or
EIS)
• Topography
• Drainage issues
• Natural or Cultural
resources
• Mining
• Hazardous Wastes
• Wastewater treatment
• Water usage
2.7.3(B)(8) Application and site plan,
applicant testimony, staff
testimony, State Clearing House
comments (Attachment 2 July 1,
2015 Planning Board packet)
Yes
Method of Debris Disposal
2.7.3(B)(9) Application and site plan Yes
Development Schedule
2.7.3(B)(10) Application and site plan Yes
Extended Vesting Request
2.7.3(B)(11) Not requested N/A
78
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Public Notice
• Date
• Time
• Place
2.7.5(a) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing Abstract (Attachment 5)
and staff testimony
Yes
Published in Newspaper
• Two successive weeks
• First notice at least ten days
prior but no more than twenty-
five days prior
2.7.5(b) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing Abstract (Attachment 5)
and staff testimony
Yes
Sign Posting on Property (at least
10 days prior)
2.7.5(c) Staff Testimony
posted sign on May 14, 2015
Yes
Mailed Notice
• Certified mail
• All adjacent property owners
(within 500 ft.)
• Not less than fifteen days prior
2.7.5(d) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing Abstract (Attachment 5)
and staff testimony
Yes
79
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
SPECIFIC STANDARDS
Waste Disposal
Method and adequacy of provision
for sewage disposal facilities, solid
waste and water service.
5.3.2(B)(1) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing Abstract (Attachment 3)
and staff testimony.
Both Environmental Health and
Solid Waste have indicated they
have no concerns. As there are
no structures (i.e. office) there
will be no septic system on the
property.
Conditions are recommended to
require Solid Waste Permit as
part of development process.
Yes
Safety
Method and adequacy of police,
fire and rescue squad protection.
5.3.2(B)(2) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing Abstract (Attachment 3)
and staff testimony.
Orange County Emergency
Service staff and the Sheriff’s
office have indicated the project
can be served.
Fire protection will be provided
by the White Cross volunteer
fire department and rescue
services by Orange County.
Yes
Vehicle Access
Method and adequacy of vehicle
access to the site and traffic
conditions around the site.
5.3.2(B)(3) May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing Abstract (Attachment
3), applicant testimony, and staff
testimony.
There will not be an appreciable
traffic increase in the area
associated with the development
of the solar array.
The applicant shall be required
to obtain a driveway permit
through NC DOT.
Yes
80
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
STANDARDS for Solar Array – Public Utility
Site Plan
A site plan prepared in accordance
with Section 2.5 of and 5.9.6 (C) (1)
inclusive of UDO
5.9.6 (C) (1)
(a) through
(d)
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony, and Site plan.
Site plan provides elevations for
proposed arrays, detailed
landscape plans (Sheet(s) C1001
and 1002). The application
contains required soils report
(Attachment 1 of May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing package).
Yes
Standards of Evaluation
On-site utility and transmission
lines placed underground when
feasible
5.9.6 (C) (2)
(a)
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony, and Site plan
(Sheet C1001 – Note 19)
Yes
Height of array shall not exceed 40
ft.
5.9.6 (C) (2)
(b)
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony, and Site plan
(Sheet C1001)
Yes
Individual arrays shall be designed
and located to prevent reflective
glare toward inhabited buildings on
adjacent property and rights-of-
way.
5.9.6 (C) (2)
(c)
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony, and Site plan
(Sheet C1001 – Note 20)
Yes
Warning signs concerning voltage. 5.9.6 (C) (2)
(d)
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony, and Site plan
(Sheet C1001 – Note 15)
Yes
Mechanical equipment and arrays
shall be enclosed by a minimum 8
ft. high fence and screening per
Section 6.8 of UDO.
5.9.6 (C) (2)
(e)
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony, and Site plan
(Sheets C1001 and 1002)
Yes
Proof of liability insurance –
minimum of $500,000.00 per
occurrence.
5.9.6 (C) (2)
(f)
Application and Applicant
Testimony
Yes
Type D land use buffer around
perimeter of project
5.9.6 (C) (2)
(g)
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony, and Site plan
(Sheets C1001 and 1002)
Yes
81
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
STANDARDS for Solar Array – Public Utility (continued)
Decommissioning of solar facility 5.9.6 (C) (3)
(a) through
(f) inclusive
Application, Applicant Testimony,
Staff Testimony, and Site plan
(Sheet C1001 – Note 21).
Applicant acknowledges
requirement and agreed to the
condition in the event the use of
the site as a solar array – public
utility is ceased.
Yes
82
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
SPECIFIC STANDARDS
In accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), the Planning Board shall also consider the following general
conditions before the application for a Special Use can be approved.
NOTE: Planning Staff does not provide a recommendation on these items as the Board is expected to provide
a recommendation based on the sworn testimony provided at the hearing. Staff is providing a brief synopsis of
the information contained within the submittal the applicant argues demonstrates compliance for reference
purposes only.
The use (will / will not) maintain or
promote the public health, safety and
general welfare, if located where
proposed and developed and
operated according to the plan as
submitted.
Section 5.3.2
(A) (2) (a)
Application package and
testimony including:
• Mr. George Retschle a
licensed professional
engineer,
• Mr. Thomas Hester a
licensed real estate
appraiser,
• Mr. Richard Kirkland a
licensed real estate
appraiser,
• Mr. Richard Moretz a site
developer with Cypress
Creek Renewables LLC and
its subsidiary White Cross
Solar LLC, and Mr.
• Thomas Cleveland a
licensed professional
engineer,
on how the project complied
with the UDO.
Staff testimony and abstract
package from May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing.
83
REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning
Board
The use (will / will not) maintain or
enhance the value of contiguous
property (unless the use is a public
necessity, in which case the use
need not maintain or enhance the
value of contiguous property).
Section 5.3.2
(A) (2) (b)
Application package and
testimony including:
• Mr. Thomas Hester a
licensed real estate
appraiser,
• Mr. Richard Kirkland a
licensed real estate
appraiser,
Staff testimony and abstract
package from May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing.
The location and character of the
use, if developed according to the
plan submitted, (will / will not) be in
harmony with the area in which it is
to be located and the use is in
compliance with the plan for the
physical development of the County
as embodied in these regulations or
in the Comprehensive Plan, or
portion thereof, adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners.
Section 5.3.2
(A) (2) (c)
Application package and
testimony including:
• Mr. George Retschle a
licensed professional
engineer,
• Mr. Thomas Hester a
licensed real estate
appraiser,
• Mr. Richard Kirkland a
licensed real estate
appraiser,
• Mr. Richard Moretz a site
developer with Cypress
Creek Renewables LLC and
its subsidiary White Cross
Solar LLC, and Mr.
• Thomas Cleveland a
licensed professional
engineer,
on how the project complied
with the UDO as well as the
submitted site plan.
Staff testimony and abstract
package from May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing.
84
1. The applicant shall cause a formal and detailed landscape and tree preservation plan to
be submitted and approved by the Orange County Planning Department within 180 days
from the approval of the Special Use Permit. This plan shall incorporate the additional
15 ft. land use buffer along the northern property line as testified to during the public
hearing.
2. A revised site plan shall be submitted denoting the required development ratios, required
under Section 3.3 of the UDO, as part of the staff review and final approval of the site
plan in accordance with Section 2.5 of the UDO.
This revised sheet shall be submitted within 180 days from the approval of the Special
Use Permit.
3. The applicant shall cause a subdivision plat shall be submitted creating the individual lots
as testified to during the public hearing prior to the issuance of a building permit
authorizing land disturbing activities.
4. That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County
Inspections Department requesting authorization to commence construction of the
proposed solar array. The application, including all applicable fees, shall be submitted
within 180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
5. That the Orange County Fire Marshal’s office shall review and approve the final site plan,
as part of the normal building permit review process, and that any and all modifications
be made to address fire code issues and access prior to the issuance of the permit
authorizing the commencement of land disturbing activities.
6. The applicant shall provide a detailed, scaled, map to the Orange County Fire Marshal’s
office and the White Cross Volunteer Fire Department denoting the location of all storage
areas for batteries, master cut-off switches, and other similar devices to ensure the
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has not received any comments from local residents and property owners indicating they do not believe the
proposed facility complies with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) inclusive. These standards include
maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of
contiguous property, the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located, and the use being in
compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County.
Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the
applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO with respect
to the submittal of required information for the project.
Provided the Planning Board finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards as detailed herein, and
no evidence is entered into the record demonstrating the applicant has either:
a. Failed to meet their burden of proof that the project complies with the specific development standards for a
school, or
b. Fails to comply with the general standards detailed within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2)
of the UDO, the Board could make an affirmative recommendation on this application to the BOCC.
In the event that the Board makes an affirmative finding, staff recommends the attachment of the following
conditions:
85
protection of emergency responders in the event of a catastrophic incident on the
property. This map shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
by the County allowing for operation of the facility to commence.
7. The applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management application for the project within
180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit.
8. That prior to the commencement of land disturbing activity the applicant shall submit all
necessary stormwater, grading plans, and erosion control applications to the Orange
County Erosion Control Department for review and processing. These applications shall
be submitted within 180 days from the issuance of the SUP.
9. That the applicant shall submit the approved site plan to NC DOT for review and
comment. In the event it is determined that the applicant is required to apply for, and
receive a, driveway permit from NC DOT to allow for the project to be developed, the
applicant shall submit all necessary applications as required by NC DOT within 180 days
from the issuance of the SUP and provide planning staff with a copy of the issued permit.
10. The Special Use Permit will automatically expire within 12 months from the date of
approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or
proceeded unless a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the
Board of Adjustment.
11. If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special
Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect.
86
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: July 1, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 9
SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment: Conditional Zoning –Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) Hart’s Mill
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Property and Vicinity Map
2. Draft Statement of Consistency
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575
3. Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning with
Development Conditions
PURPOSE: To begin review of a request to rezone a 112 acre parcel of property to Master
Plan Development – Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district in accordance with the provisions of
Section 2.9.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter ‘UDO’).
Conditional Zoning District (CZD) Process: The process involves the approval of a rezoning
petition and site plan allowing for the development of specific land use(s) on a parcel of
property. Applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e. does not require sworn
testimony or evidence) and decisions are based on the BOCC’s determination that the project is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The typical cadence for the
review of a CZD application is:
• First Action – Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM).
Staff Comment – DONE. This meeting was held on April 8, 2015.
• Second Action – The BOCC and Planning Board review the application at 1 of 4
joint Quarterly Public Hearings.
Staff Comment – DONE. The public hearing was held on May 26, 2015.
• Third Action – The Planning Board makes a recommendation on the proposal.
Staff Comment – The Planning Board is scheduled to review this item at its July
1, 2015 regular meeting.
• Fourth Action – The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and
makes a decision.
Staff Comment – The BOCC is scheduled to receive the Planning Board
recommendation at its September 1, 2015 regular meeting. This date will,
undoubtedly, have to be changed.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. Agenda
materials from this meeting can be viewed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/150526QPHKC.pdf.
87
As articulated at the public hearing, the proposed project is a village style development with
approximately 34 dwelling units and involves the preservation of the majority of the property as
vegetative open space and farm area (i.e. pasture and crop production). The residential portion
of the project would occupy approximately 22 acres of the parcel with another 5 to 8 acres being
used to support the proposed septic system. The remaining acreage would be preserved as
farmland and dedicated open space.
During the public hearing the following comments were made:
1. There was general support for the project.
2. A BOCC member requested additional information on the ownership mechanism
proposed by the applicant, expressing concern(s) over how residents will own their
individual housing units and surrounding property.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff and the applicant indicated the information would be
provided.
3. A BOCC member asked for clarification on the imposition of conditions.
STAFF COMMENT: As detailed in the public hearing abstract, mutually agreed
upon conditions can be imposed as part this process only if they address:
i. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property,
ii. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking,
pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas,
etc.) and/or
iii. All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may
propose.
4. A BOCC member asked staff to clarify proposed and allowable density.
STAFF COMMENT: The property is located within the Rural Residential (R-1)
general use zoning district and the Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection
Overlay District allowing for a density of 1 dwelling unit for every 40,000 sq. ft.
(0.92 acres) of property.
This could result in a total of 112 dwelling units being developed on the property
based purely on the size of the parcel and not taking other factors into
consideration (i.e. adequate soils for septic, road access, permitting process,
presence of stream and other environmental features, etc.).
If approved the project would only allow for 1 dwelling unit for approximately every
3.2 acres of property.
5. A Planning Board member asked if additional dwelling units could be added in the future.
STAFF COMMENT: The plan could be modified through the submittal and
processing of a new Conditional Zoning petition. This would mean the holding of a
new neighborhood information meeting and a public hearing to review the
proposal.
6. A BOCC member asked if the applicant was being asked to extend road access to
adjacent parcels.
STAFF COMMENT: It is not practical to extend the proposed roadway to the east
due to the presence of streams and floodplain. There is no perceived benefit in
88
requiring connection with adjoining subdivisions as this could create traffic
concerns for adjacent neighborhoods.
7. A BOCC member asked the applicant to provide additional detail on the proposed 6 inch
water line serving the project and if the line would be adequate to support water for both
consumption and firefighting capabilities.
8. Several BOCC members asked for clarification on the proposed septic system for the
project.
9. Planning staff indicated the applicant was asked to provide additional detail on proposed
landscaping in and around individual residential structures.
As of this date we are awaiting a response from the applicant on the various questions posed at
the public hearing.
Planning Director’s Analysis: The Planning Director has reviewed the proposal and is
supportive of the project. We are awaiting answers to these aforementioned questions,
however, before we make a formal recommendation. Staff has provided draft Statement of
Consistency in Attachment 2 and an ordinance approving the rezoning request, and establishing
development conditions/criteria, in Attachment 3 to aid Board members in their review.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who
have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for
additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising,
including the public hearing notice and mailings, were paid by the applicant in accordance with
the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule.
Costs associated with permitting development of the project shall be paid by the applicant in
accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule (i.e. erosion control, stormwater
management, building, zoning, etc.).
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board continue review the
project and request any additional information deemed necessary to aid them in being able to
make a recommendation to the BOCC.
89
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 03/27/2015
ANTH
O
N
Y
CT
NEWSALOU D
R
FR
A
Z
I
E
R
R
D
BENJONESDRIVE
F
A
Y
E
S
T
RED
G
A
T
E
R
D
1 inch = 582 feet
0 500 1,000Feet·
Parcels
Township Boundary
City Limits
ETJ2010 ImagesRGB
Red: Band_1
Green: Band_2
Blue: Band_3
I
4
0
E
I
4
0
W
NC 57
I 85 S
N
C
8
6
N
NC 54 W
US 70 W
NC 49
US 1
5
5
0
1
S
PIN#: 9835748573ALANA M ENNIS 4209 PIN OAK DRDURHAM, NC 27707
Harts Mill ProjectPIN 9835-74-8573
112 acresZoned Rural Residential (R-1)
90
DRAFT - STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS WITH THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND/OR OTHER ADOPTED COUNTY PLANS
Hart’s Mill LLC and Ms. Alana Ennis, owners of a 112 acre parcel of property within Orange
County, have initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in
Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to rezone property:
From: Rural Residential (R-1), Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District.
To: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ), Upper Eno Protected
Watershed Protection Overlay District, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay
District.
allowing for the development of a village style residential community. The parcel, further identified
utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9835-74-8573, is located along Frazier
Road (SR 1310) approximately 2,900 feet south of the intersection of Frazier and Lebanon Road
(SR 1306) hereafter referred to as ‘the property’.
The Planning Board finds:
• The requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been
deemed complete, and
• Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North
Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds documentation within the record denoting that
the rezoning is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan and/or other
adopted County plans.
The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it:
• Supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives including:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density
residential and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of
public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate
supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed internet access,
streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural
resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and
creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are
available.
91
4. Objective LU-3.5: Recognize the right to farm and discourage the location of
new non-farm development, particularly more intensive residential development,
within farming areas to minimum the incidence of complaints and nuisance suits
against farm operations.
5. Objective LU-3.9: Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of
commercial and residential uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more
pedestrian friendly development pattern. New districts should be applied in
areas where public services exist or are planned for in the future, in areas that
promote higher intensity and high density uses on the Future Land Use map.
The amendments are reasonable and in the public interest because:
a. The amendment allows the development of a project achieving a reasonable balance
of protecting existing natural area and land uses (i.e. farming operations) while
allowing for an appropriate level of residential development at a density of 1 unit for
every 3 acres.
The current zoning designation allows development at a potential density of 1 unit for
every 40,000 sq. ft. of land area with no guarantee existing farmland or mature forest
would be preserved.
b. The amendment allows for the development of a pedestrian friendly community with
different housing options for residents.
The project requires vehicles to be parked in designated areas prohibiting access to
individual residential structures, which shall be access via a proposed pedestrian trail
system.
c. The project will not result in traffic impacts deemed to be detrimental to existing
roadways due to the proposed density.
d. The proposed amendments promote public health, safety, and general welfare by
furthering the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Board hereby recommends that the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Zoning Atlas amendments.
______________________ ________________________
Pete Hallenbeck, Chair Date
92
DRAFT - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition submitted by Hart’s
Mill LLC and Ms. Alana Ennis seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as
established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and
WHEREAS, This petition seeks to rezone a 112 acre parcel of property, further identified
utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9835-74-8573, to Master Plan
Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZD) for the purpose of developing the Hart’s Mill
Hart’s Mill Village, a 34 unit residential farm community.
WHEREAS, This petition has been submitted in concert with a formal site plan in
accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO, and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the UDO have been deemed
complete, and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be
reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange
County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the 112 acre portion of the aforementioned
parcel to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) and allow development of
the Hart’s Mill Village as detailed on the submitted site plan.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT in accordance with Section 2.9.2 (F) of the UDO
the approval of this Conditional Zoning applicant is subject to the following mutually agreed to
conditions:
1. The property shall be utilized only as a village oriented residential/farming
community as denoted on the submitted site plan.
2. County staff shall prepare a ‘Declaration of Development Restrictions and
Requirements’ outlining all conditions and development limitations associated
with this project that the applicant shall record within the Orange County
Registrar of Deeds office within 180 days of approval.
3. In accordance with the submitted application and site plan, development of the
project shall be limited as follows:
a. Permitted residential density for project shall be limited to 1 dwelling unit
for every 3 acres of property with an overall limit of 34 dwelling units
constructed on the property.
b. Allowable Land Uses for the project shall include:
i. Farm operations (i.e. animal husbandry, crop production,
processing, etc.)
Attachment 3 93
ii. Accessory farm structures including, but not limited to:
a. 2 farm houses/barns
b. Maximum of 2 garages for farm equipment/vehicle storage
c. Woodworking shop
d. Produce processing center (washing/packing area)
e. Pottery studio with kiln
iii. Single-family and two-family (i.e. duplex) residential units.
iv. Community House, limited to a total square footage of 3,000 sq. ft.,
with common facilities including, but not limited to: laundry facilities,
mail room, activity room, and community kitchen
v. Administrative office including meeting facilities for local residents.
vi. Accessory uses to residential uses including:
a. Maximum of 2 art/hobby studios for use by local residents
not to exceed a total square footage of 1,000 sq. ft. per
building.
b. Minor home occupations shall be allowed for each
residential dwelling unit. Such uses shall be reviewed and
acted upon in accordance with the UDO.
c. Parking area/garages.
d. Electric car/golf cart charging stations.
vii. Solar Array – Large Facility to be reviewed and acted upon in
accordance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.7 and 5.9.6 of the
UDO.
c. Setbacks:
i. No residential structure shall be located within 100 ft. of the
perimeter of the property line.
ii. No farm structure housing animals shall be within 40 ft. of the
perimeter property line.
iii. All residential structures shall observe the following setbacks from
identified residential spaces:
a. Front Yard: 10 ft.
b. Side Yard: 10 ft.
c. Rear Yard: 10 ft.
d. All structures shall comply with minimum spacing
requirements established within NC State Building Code for
separation between structures.
d. Ratio standards:
a. Minimum Percentage of Open Space for project: 80% or 89
acres. Farm/pasture operations, roadways and parking
areas, as well as off-site septic areas shall be allowed within
this open space area.
94
b. Maximum Allowable Floor Area Ratio (i.e. the cumulative
amount of floor area for the project): 0.10
c. Required Recreation Space Ratio, minimum: 0.031
e. Landscaping shall be installed on every individual residential space in
accordance with the provisions of Section 6.8.7 of the UDO.
f. Provision of waste disposal services: Wastewater shall be disposed of via
a shared septic area as denoted on the approved site plan and shall be
approved by the Orange County Health Department and the State of North
Carolina.
g. Water service to individual buildings shall be through a water system
served by Orange Alamance Water System. Individual wells shall be
limited to use in support of agricultural operations.
In the event water service cannot be provided individual wells or a
community well shall be permitted if approved by the appropriate agency.
h. Access: access to the project shall be through a single access point on
Frazier Road. No additional vehicular access points shall be developed.
i. Parking: all vehicles shall be parked in designated areas as identified on
the site plan. A total of 90 parking spaces shall be provided for residents
and their guests.
4. The applicant shall be required to obtain final approval for the proposed
dumpster pad location from Orange County Solid Waste prior to the
commencement of earth disturbing activity.
5. The applicant shall be required to obtain stormwater and erosion control permits
from Orange County Erosion Control prior to the commencement of earth
disturbing activity.
6. The applicant shall be required to obtain a driveway permit from the North
Carolina Department of Transportation prior to the commencement of earth
disturbing activity.
The applicant shall provide the Orange County Planning Department with a copy
of this permit.
7. The applicant shall be required to obtain building permits from the Orange
County Inspections Department prior to the commencement of construction
activity.
8. The applicant shall be required to obtain sign permits from the Planning
Department in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance.
9. The Orange County Fire Marshal shall review and give final approval to road
layout and construction methodology prior to the initiation of land disturbing
activities. The Fire Marshal shall also review and approve the final location of the
emergency fire access roadway and location of the proposed stand-pipe prior to
installation.
10. The applicant shall be required to maintain all required land use buffers in
perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.8 of the Orange
County Unified Development Ordinance.
95
11. All required landscaping, as denoted on the site plan, shall be installed prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each individual residential
structure or the proposed common house.
12. The applicant shall coordinate with Orange Alamance Water System, Orange
County Emergency Services, and the Efland Volunteer Fire Department holding
a fire-flow test for the proposed fire hydrants. The test shall be certified by the
various parties as complying with applicable State Fire Code standards with
respect to necessary water flow.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner ________________________, seconded by
Commissioner ________________________, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
________ day of ___________________, 2015.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on ________________________, 2015 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this ______ day of ______________,
2015.
SEAL __________________________________
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
96