Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA agenda 041618PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245 -2575 Suite 201 (919) 644 -3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LOWER LEVEL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM - WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING 131 W. Margaret Lane HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA April 16, 2018 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • June 12, 2017 • January 8, 2018 4. PUBLIC CHARGE: The Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent /vibrate. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi - judicial administrative body established in accordance with the provisions of local regulations and State law to perform specified functions essential to the County's planning program. 1 Action (s) taken by the board are based solely on competent, substantial, and material evidence presented during a previously scheduled and advertised public hearing on a specific item. As detailed within Section 2.12.2 of the UDO the Board chair reserves the right to exclude evidence and testimony that is deemed: `incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious' and therefore fails to reasonably address the issues before the Board of Adjustment. While it should be noted there is no time limit on the presentation of evidence, the Chair asks that the presentation of evidence be consistent with established policies, rules of procedure, and acceptable levels of decorum to ensure a fair and equitable hearing for all parties. 5. CASE A- 2- 18- Public Hearing to review a Class B Special Use Permit application concerning the expansion of an existing child care facility at 200 Davis Road, Hillsborough, NC 27278 (PIN 9862 -99- 7320). The property, located within the Chapel Hill Township of Orange County, is owned by the Hillsborough United Church of Christ. 6. ADJOURNMENT IF UNABLE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT (NUMBERS LISTED BELOW - PRESS 1 PLUS EXTENSION 2575 OR 2585). STAFF CAN THEN DETERMINE IF A QUORUM WILL BE PRESENT FOR THE MEETING. HILLSBOROUGH - (919) 732 -8181 ; MEBANE - (919) 227 -2031 CHAPEL HILL - (919) 967 -9251 ; DURHAM - (919) 688 -7331 VA 1 MINUTES 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 3 JUNE 12, 2017 4 REGULAR MEETING 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Barrows (Vice Chair) 7 Matt Hughes 8 Barry Katz 9 Susan Halkiotis 10 11 * MEMBERS RECUSED FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST: SAMANTHA CABE (CHAIR) 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 14 Elaina Cheek, Board Secretary 15 16 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 17 18 Karen Barrows called the meeting to order 19 20 AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 21 22 Matt Hughes: Well the only additions I just wanted two things I would like to have Michael update us on 23 which is the lawsuit that was filed and also this legislation which a county commissioner had sent to me last 24 week and I have had the opportunity to read it. But what the impact was and my understanding was it 25 would give some people a path and change some of the criteria that might more easily attainable and also 1 26 had a question about Chair and Vice Chair and when we pick those. I was never clear on the term of our 27 leadership of the board was. 28 29 Michael Harvey: If it pleases the board I can answer these 3 question very quickly. So let's answer the last 30 question first. Board Chair and Vice - Chair, We will be selecting Board Chair and Vice -Chair at the next 31 meeting it is typically is done in June and serves for a year. Given the fact that we don't have full 32 compliments it would be best if we wait until the next regular meeting. Which at this juncture, no I don't 33 know when that is going to be. My best guess is August or September and that is where you all would elect 34 to appoint a new Chair and Vice - Chair. You do have a full board at this juncture. Dr. Katz was reappointed 35 and then two alternates have been appointed. Both attorneys. 36 37 Matt Hughes: Was I ever upgraded to a full member 38 39 Michael Harvey: Yes 40 41 Matt Hughes: Okay 42 43 Michael Harvey: You now have full status. The lawsuit, there are two separate appeals. One is over the 44 November decision made by this board and one is over the March decision. The attorney for Ms. Brewer 45 decided not to combine both cases. So they are being processed independently from one another. 46 47 Matt Hughes: But the same property. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Michael Harvey: Yes. Your original November decision and then the March decision have both been appealed. There is no timeline for when that gets calendared that is up to all parties that is Ms. Brown, Mr. Petesch and of course the judge. The County Attorney's office is obviously coordinating with Ms. Brown the defense the Boards action. Matt Hughes: And because we are the ones being sued, will there be outside counsel? Michael Harvey: Appealed. Matt Hughes: Appealed, sorry. Will there be outside counsel? I can't remember how you said that would work when one of our things was appealed to superior court. Michael Harvey: I haven't been given the impression it is going to be outside counsel. Obviously, Ms. Petesch is appealing the decision for his client. Ms. Brown and the County Attorney's office are going to be defending the board's action. So it is a joint effort amongst both parties. Matt Hughes: Okay Michael Harvey: Ms. Brown, obviously has an interest in the stake of defending the decision this board and those in its favor. Matt Hughes: Both times Michael Harvey: Yes, but no there is no timeline to give you. Matt Hughes: Okay Michael Harvey: A direct answer to that. Matt Hughes: And is it proper /improper that once that is calendared, if we attend in the audience. Michael Harvey: Nothing is improper it is a public hearing. Well sorry, that is not true it is an open preceding in court. Matt Hughes: Okay Barry Katz: Will that be here in Orange County? Michael Harvey: It will in Orange County Superior Court, yes sir. We can keep you abreast of the findings. Barry Katz: Yeah, that would be nice. Michael Harvey: But it is an open preceding, meaning the public can attend. I would defer to the county attorney's advice in terms in giving you input on attendance or non - attendance. The issue I have whether, one main concern I have, which may be unfounded is that if there is a certain number of you that constitutes a quorum of the Board of Adjustment. It could be argued that is now a meeting. Matt Hughes: It would just take three of us. 4 1 Barry Katz: Even if we don't sit next to each other. 2 3 Michael Harvey: Yes. So, why don't you let me ask the county attorney his /her opinion and I will respond to 4 you in an email with that answer. As far as the legislation, which we have been discussing offline briefly, 5 there is a senate bill that passed second and third reading today that has been forwarded to the house. It is 6 the farm act of 2017 that seeks to modify one of the many provisions it does is modify the grant of power 7 section 153.A.340.B2 on what constitutes a farm. As you currently will recall from several meetings there 8 are currently 5 methodologies for proving farm status. That is enrollment present use value, that is the 9 sales tax exemption issued by the North Carolina Department of Revenue, that is a USDA farm number, 10 that is a forest management plan, and that is a schedule F on your Federal Income Tax. The proposal that 11 was reviewed by the senate eliminates the US Department of Ag. Farm number as one of the 12 methodologies to prove your farm status. It further stipulates that if you are going engage in agrotourism 13 activities, you either a) have to have a certificate issued by the North Carolina Department of Revenue 14 claiming you are exempt from sales tax or you are enrolled in the Present Use Value program one of the 15 two. Schedule F Federal Income Tax return and the Forrest Management Plan have no basis in law and if 16 this is approved in giving you ability to have an agrotourism activity. Again, assuming this is approved. 17 18 Matt Hughes: In your opinion, are those two easier or harder than the current system? 19 20 Michael Harvey: Well the current system, which we can somewhat to agree to disagree, potentially would 21 say that if you are a farm you can do agrotourism activities defined 106581.1.The current or the proposed 22 system actually requires you comply with the two provisions actually are geared towards you as a farmer 23 proving you have a certain amount of income to qualify. So present use value tracks over a several year /3 24 year period earning a specific set dollar amount and the sales tax exemption also has criteria for earnings 25 and what not. 26 27 Matt Hughes: So someone reading of that could mean that the only way you could engage in agrotourism is 28 to have functioning farm for a certain number of years. 29 30 Michael Harvey: Within a structure, correct and that it says that if you are doing agrotourism within a 31 building or structure. 32 33 Matt Hughes: You have actually get it up and running before, cart before the horse basically. Get it up and 34 running and then. 35 36 Michael Harvey: Yes. 37 38 Matt Hughes: Alright 39 40 Michael Harvey: In theory and the reason I say it that was is because the provision that is being amended 41 makes specific reference to a building or structure. And the reason I am harping on that is because there is 42 apart of me that ask the question Okay, what if I am not using a building or structure? 43 44 Matt Hughes: I believe legislator that put this forward is from Bladen County. 45 46 Michael Harvey: Well he represents Duplin County and other eastern North Carolina communities. If I am 47 not mistaken his bio for the state senate website list, I think it list him as being a farmer an agrotourism 48 business function. 49 Matt Hughes: Senator Brett I believe 2 3 Michael Harvey: Jackson 4 Matt Hughes: Jackson. Nevermind Susan Halkiotis: So I am kind of confused as to how that necessarily makes it an easier path. Michael Harvey: Well it makes it easier for me because it is definable, it is discernible. 10 11 Susan Halkiotis: For you, yes but in this other case it sounds more like what we were discussing among 12 ourselves. 13 14 Michael Harvey: It's not a discernible /definable process if you are going to claim that a structure is going to 15 be used for agrotoruism activities and it is measureable. Now whether or not a "farmer" has these two 16 components or doesn't, you are still going to have the disagreement in my mind whether or not they are 17 true farmers. And I need to leave that where that is. 18 19 Susan Halkiotis: I wish you wouldn't 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Karen Barrows: This is a public meeting Barry Katz: If these are measureable and definable traits, Does that mean there would be no more Special Use Permits? Michael Harvey: My answer to that question is, if you meet the criteria under state law then I can't compel you to get a Special Use Permit. If you do not meet the requirements of state law, then the only to do it using a structure is to get a Special Use Permit. I still maintain, and I don't want to call it a loop pole that is not necessarily fair, but I still maintain that the way it is worded if you are a farm using any of the four criteria this doesn't prohibit you from engaging in agrotourism activities as laid out in 106581 or as defined in 99E from a liability stand point because that is the liability component of it from engaging in agrotourism activity that does not involve a structure. This makes specific reference to building or structure so we will see what happens but I am of the opinion it is going to be approved. The senate passed it today unanimously so it goes to the house. I have a comment after the meeting is closed. Susan Halkiotis: We are going to hold you to that, now my interest is peeked. Karen Barrows: Shall we proceed with approval of the minutes. Susan Halkiotis: I had no corrections. Karen Barrows: I had a few things I saw, Elaina you did a fabulous job. A couple, just a few things were there is a little redundancy and I think it would make it easier. Michael Harvey: Can we do it this way, I will call out page numbers? Do you have it? Karen Barrows: I have page numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Michael Harvey: Okay, I just didn't know if anybody else had corrections we could all get it at once. Does anybody else have corrections? Okay then please Karen. Karen Barrows: Page 26, line 17 what is written there is have had had you had. I think we might want to clean that up to say what we may have had in our conversation. Leave out the other have had stuff. Michael Harvey: So we are going to strike had you had and it will read what we may have had and then I think what we need to put in parenthesis is unintelligible. Because there was obviously something said. In our conversation that evening that the language simply meant... Is that acceptable? Karen Barrows: Sure. Then on page 27, line 4 LeAnn Brown testimony that that. Delete one of the that's Michael Harvey: That is simple enough to do. Karen Barrows: Down to line 16, I'm not I'm not. Delete one of the I'm nots. And let me see, page 34 1 think. So page 34, line 23 towards the end of the line is is is. Probably delete two of those is's. Then down to line 25 bonafide it has the it has the. Delete one of the it has the. Page 35, line 44 that it is it is. Maybe we could delete one of the it is's. Michael Harvey: Okay Karen Barrows: Page 50 Matt's testimony, line 17 well based on well based on. Maybe we could delete one of those well based on's. I don't think they you probably said it twice Matt. You are more articulate than that. That was all I saw. Like I say fabulous job, this is incredible. Susan Halkiotis: Fabulous job proofreading because I sat and read through those things and it is funny how your eye. Karen Barrows: Thank you Susan. Matt Hughes: Elaina how long does it take you? I am just curious. Elaina Cheek: We actually send these off. But it does take quite a few reviews to make it to this point. Michael Harvey: Elaina spends a lot of time debugging what the transcriptionist provides to her. Elaina Cheek: It takes at least 5 sets of eyes to get this product. Matt Hughes: Because I know we do the same thing for the tourism board for Hillsborough where everything is recorded. Well minutes it is not actually a transcript of what is said. Karen Barrows: Are there any other corrections or comments? AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion made by Barry Katz to accept these minutes. Michael Harvey: As amended Barry Katz: As amended 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Seconded by Susan Halkiotis Karen Barrows: If there is no further discussion all in favor please say I Vote: Unanimous Karen Barrows: If there is nothing else of business should we adjourn. Michael Harvey: Formal motion to adjourn Karen Barrows: okay Motion made by Barry Katz to adjourn the meeting. Karen Barrows: Perfect we are adjourned AGENDA ITEM 4: PUBLIC CHARGE NOT READ- NO PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE AGENDA ITEM 5: THERE ARE NO CASES TO BE HEARD AGENDA ITEM 6: ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Barry Katz. Susan Halkiotis seconded. VOTE: Unanimous NAME OF CHAIR, CHAIR 8 1 MINUTES 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 3 JANUARY 8, 2018 4 REGULAR MEETING 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 MEMBERS PRESENT: Samantha Cabe, Chair Karen Barrows, Vice Chair MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Hughes Susan Halkiotis Randy Herman (Alternate) Holly Safi (Alternate) Barry Katz STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor Patrick Mallett, Planner II James Bryan, Staff Attorney Elaina Cheek, Board Secretary AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Samantha Cabe called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. Chairwoman Cabe called for the swearing in of the two new Board of Adjustment Members. Matt Hughes issued the oath to Randy Herman and Holly Safi. AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None There were no minutes to be approved. AGENDA ITEM 4: PUBLIC CHARGE Vice Chairwoman Karen Barrows read the public charge. The Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial administrative body established in accordance with the provisions of local regulations and State law to perform specified functions essential to the County's planning program. Action(s) taken by the board are based solely on competent, substantial, and material evidence presented during a previously scheduled and advertised public hearing on a specific item. As detailed within Section 2.12.2 of the UDO the Board chair reserves the right to exclude evidence and testimony that is deemed: 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 `incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious' and therefore fails to reasonably address the issues before the Board of Adjustment. While it should be noted there is no time limit on the presentation of evidence, the Chair asks that the presentation of evidence be consistent with established policies, rules of procedure, and acceptable levels of decorum to ensure a fair and equitable hearing for all parties. AGENDA ITEM 5: CASE A -1 -18 — Public Hearing to review a Class B Special use Permit decision concerning the development of a Camp /Retreat Center on properties off of NC Highway 54 within the Bingham Township of Orange County (PINs 9749 -10 -1791 and 9748 -19- 4003). Chairwoman Cabe: The fifth matter on our agenda is a public hearing to review a Class B Special Use Permit decision concerning the development of a camp /retreat center on properties off of N.C. Highway 54 within the Bingham Township of Orange County. I will ask the staff to begin their presentation. Also, we have one too many members here so one of the alternates needed to step aside. Ms. Sofi, you are certainly welcome and encouraged to stay especially since this is your first meeting but if you need to leave, you are welcome to do so since you will not be able to vote or participate since you are one of our alternates. The next matter is to swear in if you plan to give testimony. And, please forgive me, we have not had a meeting in several months so I am struggling to remember the order of things. So, if you plan to give testimony, I would ask you to please, the members of the public, make sure your name is on the sign -up sheet. And remind me, Mr. Harvey, do we swear everyone in at once. Michael Harvey: Yes, we swear in everyone at once. And those individuals who are sworn in, when they give their testimony to the board states their name and address and that they've been sworn in. Chairwoman Cabe: Anyone who plans to give testimony, I need you to stand where you are. You may come to the Bible or affirm where you are standing. Those who planned to speak were sworn in together. Michael Harvey: Again, when you give your testimony, you state your name, your address and that you have been duly sworn. Chairwoman Cabe: Now I will ask staff to begin their presentation. Michael Harvey: I have been duly sworn. I have a couple of housekeeping items tonight. But as you have already indicated, we are here to review a Class B Special Use Permit concerning the development of a camp /retreat center on properties on two parcels of property off of N.C. Highway 54 within the Bingham Township. Those two parcels are identified with Orange County parcel identification numbers 9749 -10- 1791 and 9748 -19 -4003. You will note we have provided you an abstract with five attachments including a full -scale copy of the site plan. It's approximately 87 pages. You also have at your place a green sheet where the applicant's attorney Ms. LeAnn Nease -Brown has suggested modifications to two conditions, specifically conditions numbered 8 and 10. They are provided to you in red strike -out delete so that you can better understand the changes being made. Mr. Mallett will be presenting this item but at this time I would like the board to entertain a motion to enter into the record the staff's abstract including all attachments, the site assessment, the application package, the NIM and Board of Adjustment notification materials, the staff comments on the Special Use Permit Findings of Fact and this green revised set of revised conditions for consideration which takes the place of Pages 87 and 88 of your packet. HE Chairwoman Cabe: I will entertain a motion but I have a question of clarification. Has staff agreed to the modifications or are these modifications that are subject to the board's approval? I know all modifications are subject to the board's approval, but does staff with these modifications? Do we need to hear from the parties on these? Michael Harvey: You will hear from the parties on these. I have no objections to these conditions as Ms. Brown and I discussed earlier today. Chairwoman Cabe: Do I hear a motion from our board to accept the materials referenced by Mr. Harvey into the record? MOTION made by Karen Barrows to accept the materials into the record Seconded by Susan Halkiotis. Chairwoman Cabe: Thank you. We'll accept the materials referenced by Mr. Harvey into the record in this matter. Michael Harvey: Madame Chair, one last item of business before we begin, I would like the board to entertain a motion to enter a copy of the current Unified Development Ordinance into the record as part of these proceedings. James Bryan: If I may, I don't see it's necessary but it might create more of a record later on. Chairwoman Cabe: We have not done that in the past, I don't think. Is there any particular reason why you are requesting the board do so? Michael Harvey: The chief reason is it establishes in perpetuity the ordinance as it existed at the time this Special Use Permit was reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Chairwoman Cabe: Alright, do I have a motion? MOTION to accept the Unified Development Ordinance as it exists today into the record made by Matt Hughes. Seconded by Randy Herman. VOTE: Unanimous Chairwoman Cabe: The ayes have it, so we will allow a copy of this into the public record on this matter. Matt Hughes: Just to be clear on everything, we didn't take a vote on the previous motion. Chairwoman Cabe: Alright, backing up to the previous motion to allow the materials referenced by Mr. Harvey into the record, all those in favor of admitting those into the record, please signify by saying aye. (unanimous) Any opposed? (0) VOTE: Unanimous Patrick Mallett: I am Patrick Mallett, Planner II with the Orange County Planning Department. "i 145 Chairwoman Cabe: Have you been sworn in? 146 147 Patrick Mallett: I have. 148 149 Chairwoman Cabe: Thank you. 150 151 Patrick Mallett: I'm going to walk you through the basic description in the packet and you can ask questions 152 as I go along. So, the first part of this is the abstract, Pages 1 -10 of the packet. It has the typical format, 153 aligning the process with sections in our UDO, the applicants, owners, consultants. In this case, the 154 applicant is the contract purchaser of Mr. Ray's property. Parenthetically, they recently sold their property in 155 Chapel Hill and are looking to relocate and this is the ideal site for them for the long term. The site is 156 located off N.C. 54. It's approximately 2,300 feet from White Cross Road and N.C. 54 intersection. This 157 gives you the basic zoning information and site characteristics. And I'll get to that. The surrounding uses, 158 with the exception of Barn of Valhalla which is almost across the street, kitty corner, most of the uses are 159 single - family residents, farm fields and undeveloped property. Normally, if the American Legion were to 160 purchase this property and wanted to build a fellowship hall, that would be allowed. It's the added step of 161 wanting to do additional things and wanting additional outside uses like sponsoring a Boy Scout troop and 162 providing an athletic field for some type of athletic play, having the event hall to be used for other purposes, 163 puts it in a different category and requires the Special Use Permit. The rest of this just goes through 164 findings and where you can find different attachments. This property is 128 acres, plus or minus. It contains 165 two parcels. This one if the front parcel and this is the rear. Primarily, there are no existing structures. It's 166 been used as a farm field. There is an old cemetery contained within this wooded area here. It's on a bit of 167 a knoll. One of the conditions addresses that cemetery. The other notable features is that along 54 here, 168 there is a large culvert that goes under the highway here, this area shaded in blue is in the flood plain. And 169 there are stream buffers that come through the property. As you see on the site plan, they are avoiding all 170 of those areas. Attachment Number 2, is their complete application package that is contained in Pages 12- 171 47. This checks off all the pieces they are required to submit for a Special Use Permit. Attachment Number 172 3 is the NIM. As you are probably aware, you have to have a neighborhood information meeting as part of 173 the Special Use Permit process. The gist of that meeting was that there were representatives of the 174 American Legion, one adjacent neighbor, the owner /operator of Barn of Valhalla. The discussion centered 175 on any intrusions and noise from fireworks affecting Barn of Valhalla. It was a healthy discussion. Staff 176 comments, Pages 58 through 77. By and large, from all departments, there were no significant issues, 177 recognizing that there will be additional permits. Basically, with the Special Use Permit, this allows them to 178 apply for site plan and development permits for that property with that use. They would still have to get site 179 plan approval, a zoning compliance permit, various permits with Environmental Health, the well and septic., 180 NCDOT permits and so on and so forth. This is the beginning step of that. Number 5, we'll go into greater 181 detail later, is the Findings of Fact. This will go blow by blow through the general findings. I'm going to go 182 through the site plan very quickly. OK, cover page, basic site information. Tells you where the site is 183 located. As I indicated before, this area over here is all in the flood plain. This area in red is additional 184 streams and water features. This is the overall site plan. It denotes one entry road off N.C. 54 to be 185 reviewed by NCDOT. It has provisions for a plus or minus 16,600- square foot meeting hall with off - street 186 parking around the front of the facility. These are the septic areas that could theoretically support septic for 187 this type of facility. They envision an athletic field here, largely for daytime activities but with light fixtures for 188 dusk hours. Visions for, in Phase 2, a caretaker's facility so someone can stay on the property and maintain 189 it. Some locations for RVs, not for long -term stay, but if they are coming to the post from out of state, they 190 can park the RV. The main thing of that is they will not have connections for septic or water or to charge 191 batteries. And a pond over here both as an amenity and I think the general vision is to also use it as a 192 stormwater device to help with stormwater runoff quality and potentially as a water source for the fire 12 193 department. As I noted before, the old cemetery. We've asked that they record the cemetery and mark it 194 and create a registry and provide some sort of an access easement so if the family wants to visit the 195 graves, they can. As you can see, the only real disturbance of any environmental features is there is no 196 way to get to the site without crossing at least one stream. And there are limits of disturbance working 197 around steep slopes or major topographical features. This is a blow -up of the meeting hall facility. There is 198 a main meeting hall with a multi - purpose room and some smaller components to it. This shows, as required 199 by our ordinance, the distances from the nearest residences. You can see the nearest home is quite far 200 away. This a phasing plan. The issuance of our Type B Special Use Permit, you have to specifically call out 201 the phases if you want to phase the plan. Phase 1 would be the building and Phase 2 would be the 202 potential athletic field. This shows the basic topographic features. Basically, this is the high point, where the 203 farm field is, utilizing that and taking in things like the pond, the streams. A site analysis map showing slope 204 types. Of course, most of the steeper slopes around the streams and in the flood plain. This shows the 205 additional landscaping. I don't know if this will necessarily be the entire landscaping but they are providing 206 landscaping trees as required for the off - street parking. You come in from the entry, go through the sort of 207 circular pattern through the parking lot, this area here would contain flagpoles so they can do outdoor 208 ceremonies. These are your typical site plan details showing tree protection fencing, basic requirements. 209 These are elevations and text talking about basic design concepts for the building, scale, light plan showing 210 photo metrics showing the outdoor lighting meets our ordinance, general internal layout. With that, I'll open 211 it up to the applicant for their discussion. 212 213 Chairwoman Cabe: Thank you. Besides, Ms. Barrows, do any other members of the board have questions? 214 Ms. Barrows, ask your question and then we'll ask any other questions at this time. 215 216 Karen Barrows: On Page 8, in the first section, 2.5, it says the construction of a telecommunication facility, 217 218 Patrick Mallett: I think that's incorrect...... 219 220 Michael Harvey: It is incorrect in your abstract. It is correct in the conditions. 221 222 Chairwoman Cabe: Are there any other questions for Mr. Mallett? (There were none.) At this time, I'll call 223 on Mr. LeAnn Nease- Brown, representing the applicant? 224 225 LeAnn Nease Brown: Thank you, Madame Chair. I will be calling witnesses to present to you. As the board 226 is aware, the state bar determined several years ago determined that in these kinds of proceedings it is 227 appropriate to have counsel because there are matters that are a practice of law to which I may need to 228 refer. For the most part, the Board of Adjustment needs to hear from my experts about the project and what 229 it looks like and how it works. I am here representing and very proudly representing Post Number 6 of the 230 American Legion. We're not going to have everyone from the American Legion speak but would everybody 231 that is here from the Legion stand. We are very proud to be bringing this group from Chapel Hill into 232 Orange County. Here with me is Commander Bill Munsee. I don't know that he will need to testify but he is 233 sworn in if he does. And without further ado, let me turn to Richard Gurlitz, with Gurlitz Architectural Group, 234 who is going to tell you what you want to hear, which is about this project. 235 236 Richard Gurlitz: I'm Richard Gurlitz and I've been duly sworn. Patrick did a pretty good job of going 237 generally over what the entire program is for the project. One thing I did want to point out is there are two 238 parcels of property and all the drawings up on screen are really just the top part. There is a whole other 239 piece. This is about 60 acres and the other piece is about 60 acres. The other piece does have the 240 cemetery on it. So, we're just dealing with this upper part. There is the entry from 54 which goes through a 13 241 very heavily wooded area — maybe go back (image). The area, the light tan area is currently being farmed 242 and there isn't a tree on it. 243 244 Chairwoman Cabe: If you want to stand up and point, that's just fine. 245 246 Richard Gurlitz: This area here is all tan and is currently being farmed. It's hay farming. There is a small 247 wooded area in here, where the cemetery is. The other area (not tan) is completely wooded. This is a 248 completely wooded area. This is completely wooded. The area out to 54 is completely wooded. So, there is 249 really quite a substantial buffer, hundreds of feet of pretty dense forest. There is substantial buffer on the 54 250 side and the east property that separates the use on the site from really anything else. We can go back to 251 the site plan now. So, the building (the darker area) is located on a little knoll looking into all the wooded 252 areas. It is facing northwest. And the building's focus as an outdoor area is to the northwest. 54 is through 253 pretty much dense woods. All the effort is to try to isolate the building so that it is not affecting its neighbors, 254 in just about every way that we could ... how it is positioned, focused separated, located on the site away 255 from 54, far away. The activities taking place on the site are primarily focused in the building and we have a 256 play field that is that box over there, which will probably be a baseball diamond. The Legion are big softball 257 players. So, all of that, we wanted to keep it as close together as we could so that the lighting, noise, 258 anything created by the building would be centralized on the site and not spread out. Activities in the 259 building, if we go to that plan, that will give you a sense of what the program uses for the site would be. 260 This is a plan for the building. This area here is a big meeting room. That's a kitchen. This is a lounge, it 261 has a bar in. Exercise here. And then some big areas through here. It's kind of like a clubhouse but when 262 they do have major meetings, if everyone comes, it can accommodate 250 people. Also, the intent is it also 263 functions for the community. People in the community can rent it out if they want to use the facility, certainly 264 at the discretion of the Legion. It is not a public building. It can serve the community. That's about it in terms 265 of what goes on inside the building, how it's sited, how it's buffered from everything else and how we 266 determined those orientations. 267 268 Chairwoman Cabe: Ms. Brown, do you have questions? 269 270 Neese - Brown: It may be helpful to the board that there were acoustical studies. I don't know that they were 271 received into evidence. We would like them to be received as evidence. I don't know if you have questions 272 about them at this time or just want to receive them into evidence. 273 274 Chairwoman Cabe: I don't know that we have them in the paper packet. We were emailed copies. 275 276 Neese Brown: I have copies here. I will pass them out. There are two different copies. One of them is 277 sound measurements and one is sound level predictions. If there is an extra set, the gentleman sworn in to 278 testify from Barn at Valhalla, if he could have a set of those. We emailed them to him in advance but 279 unfortunately I think they went to his spam filter. I don't know if you have questions you want Mr. Gurlitz to 280 answer about these or if anything I think a brief overview perhaps of what the findings are. 281 282 Chairwoman Cabe: I have one question for the record. Do the acoustical findings of this report comply with 283 the LIDO noise ordinance? 284 285 Woman attorney: Yes, ma'am, they do. It specifically quotes the LIDO sections and the report is written to 286 respond what the LIDO requirements are. 287 14 288 Randy Herman: I have some questions about that. I read over this report and I heard someone say the 289 intent was to have ballgames during the day at not at night. Is that right? 290 291 Richard Gurlitz: The intent is... 292 293 Bill Munsee: I am Bill Munsee. I'm the post commander. And I am duly sworn. At this point, we don't have 294 any intent to have a ball field out that. That is Phase II, whenever we get there. The other lighting we have 295 out there is not for ball park lighting but so you can see when you are walking around at night. We're not 296 going to have towers of lights. 297 298 Randy Herman: My question is specifically about the paragraph in the report that's dated Jan. 4 that says 299 for ballgame speech noise during the "day," sound levels are below the noise ordinance. However, for 300 "evening" games, speech noise level should be controlled to maintain compliance. It also makes the 301 assumption that there would be 100 people attending the ballgame. I'm just wondering, how well do you 302 know what the intent is to do that. 303 304 Richard Gurlitz: So, we tasked the Stewart Acoustical Consultants to give us an understanding of what we 305 could expect to be the sound conditions, the acoustical conditions on site and on the borders of the site 306 given normal conditions. And sound travels differently at night than it does during the day. And the noise 307 ordinance has different requirements at night than it does during the day. So, we came up with a series of 308 understandings of how things would generally be used. The report has as its basis 100 people. If 1,000 309 people show up, we'll have a problem and we'll have an issue. The normal is there will probably be 25 310 people. 311 312 Randy Herman: It sounds to me like you are saying there will be times when there will possibly be 250 313 people on the site. 314 315 Richard Gurlitz: In the meeting room. Indoors. And there is a possibility that there will be 250 on the site. 316 But the goal of the acoustical report was to set what we consider to be the probably parameters of how it 317 would operate normally just to set up an understanding. Until you do the work, you don't know what the 318 results are. What we did is we stood out. We stood basically right here with a sound meter and did several 319 tests to determine what the ambient noise was. WE got five readings of that. We then did readings right 320 here on 54 of the same noise. Of course, the noise were the trucks barreling down 54. That's the highest 321 noise. Here you go over any Orange County noise ordinance. Those trucks are noise. It allowed us to 322 determine the attenuation of 40 decibels. We knew we were at 80 decibels here and 40 decibels there. In 323 the report, that gave us an understanding of what we were losing through the forest. It was done a week 324 before Christmas. There were no leaves on the trees. It was a worse -case scenario in terms of figuring out 325 what the background noise is along 54 and the attenuation from the site to 54. This report is figuring out 326 under normal operating systems, 100 people at a baseball game with a PA system ... the other question is if 327 we had a band, how loud can we get before we are out of ordinance. If we were at 85 decibels with the 328 band, which is normal, we would be within 5 decibels of the ordinance at the property line. 329 330 Randy Herman: I have one other question about the report. I saw on the application there are plans to do 331 fireworks, at least on some holidays. Was there any kind of evaluation of what the sound requirement 332 would be for that? 333 334 Neese - Brown: If I could point out, in the conditions to which the applicant has agreed, condition Number 3 335 in your packet is a condition that specifically requires that the site use at all times adheres to the Orange 15 336 County ordinance. And the applicant has agreed to do that. So to the extent that the noise affected a 337 neighbor, we are agreeing at all times to comply with that. So that means if there is ever a ball field and a 338 ball game, we would have to do that under the conditions. The fireworks condition that we agreed to used 339 to be 5 and is now 6 in the ordinance. Mr. Harvey had accepted the one that was submitted but I had not 340 seen it and I had not seen it before it was submitted and I tweaked it a bit. And I think, Mr. Harvey, that you 341 were comfortable with the language that we had proposed there. It's Condition 6 on the green sheet. And 342 that condition, although I had asked that we re -write it to be slightly different with language I thought was 343 more appropriate with the ordinance. I had asked that we add back Veterans Day because that had been 344 dropped inadvertently. And the language we had asked for tweaking was: 345 346 "Fireworks usage on site shall be restricted to Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day." 347 And then it would go on to say, "Proper state and local permitting shall be obtained prior to firework activity. 348 Communication with the community will be made by a website or other similar medium prior to fireworks 349 being used on site." I asked that language be substituted for what is here. (When asked by Chairwoman 350 Cabe, she re -read the language.) 351 352 Randy Herman: Presumably, because the noise condition is a separate condition from the fireworks 353 condition, even on those days they have to comply with the noise ordinance? 354 355 Neese - Brown: Or be permitted to have a special exception for fireworks which is what happens with 356 fireworks. Anywhere you have fireworks, you have sound in excess of anyone's ordinance you happen to 357 be dealing with at that time. When you go get your permit, that's your exception to the noise ordinance for 358 that one special occasion. And it's a day when people in the community expect to hear such noises — the 359 days we're restricted to are those kinds of days. 360 361 Chairwoman Cabe: Let me just make sure I have this wording correct. "Proper state and local permitting for 362 any firework usage shall be obtained prior to firework activities." I'm having trouble reading my own 363 handwriting... 364 365 Neese - Brown: It's a little different from what I said but it's an improvement, so let's keep it. 366 367 Chairwoman Cabe: OK. "Communication with the community shall be made via website or other similar 368 medium prior to fireworks being used on site." 369 370 Randy Herman: Your proposed wording would take out the 30 -day prior notice? 371 372 Neese - Brown: I did take that out and the reasoning was, that sentence may be different from what we 373 had ... my concern when I was grappling with the language submitted by someone else on behalf of the 374 applicant... My concern was that the Special Use Permit runs with the land and what happens in time may 375 be different. 50 years from now, I won't be here to care. But it may be that we won't be using websites 376 anymore. It may be that we will be doing this completely differently. I wanted the language to be broad 377 enough to cover the passage of time and a change in the way we do things and yet restrictive enough that 378 the permitting has to be in place and that appropriate communication has to go out. That was what was in 379 my head when I made those changes. 380 381 Chairwoman Cabe: Do any other board members have questions before we move on? 382 383 Karen Barrows: Page 62, Number 17, and Page 65, solid waste, 16 Susan Halkiotis: It's the same number. I don't know... Michael Harvey: Page 65 is a memo ... With any project, there's a site plan. He's required to submit a site plan demonstrating compliance with the UDO as well as other applicable standards, most notably solid waste standards. Typically, what they are looking for, they are training their sights on, xx assuring that construction materials are properly buried or burned. When they go through the site plan process, they go through the solid waste plan. Chairwoman Cabe: Do I have a motion to enter into the record the Stewart Acoustical reports dated Jan. 2 and Jan. 4? MOTION by Matt Hughes to enter the information into the record. Seconded by Randy Herman. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chairwoman Cabe: Alright, we'll add that to the record. Neese - Brown: Thank you. I don't believe Mr. Gurlitz has anything else to provide unless you have specific questions. I do have a couple more people to call. Chairwoman Cabe: You may call your next witness. Neese - Brown: Peter Bellantoni is here with Pennoni. I think our application as submitted meets the burden of proof with regard to Findings of Fact, but If you specific engineering - related questions, he's available. If there are questions, maybe that's the most specific way to deal with this testimony. Chairwoman Cabe: Does the board have any questions for the engineer at this time? What I anticipate could happen, and I'm not saying that it will happen, is when staff is going over their recommendations, if there are any negative recommendations, it may generate a question for the engineer. We can address it at that time, if that is satisfactory to everyone to do it in that manner? Randy Herman: I have a question about the pond. Peter Bellantoni: I am Peter Bellantoni. I was sworn in earlier. Randy Hemran: I heard that the pond is intended to be used for stormwater runoff and also maybe for swimming. Is that your understanding? Peter Bellantoni: Not for swimming. Possibly for fire suppression and not for swimming. It's for water quality, stormwater rate control. Randy Herman: I thought I heard it was going to be used for recreational and that was my thought. Bill Munsee: Maybe some fishing, but we're not going to swim in it. Johnny Wehmann: Johnny Wehmann. Duly sworn. 17 432 Michael Harvey: I just want to clarify for the transcriptionist that the previous speaker was Bill Munsee, who 433 had spoken previously and was duly sworn. 434 435 Chairwoman Cabe: Thank you. 436 437 Johnny Wehmann: I am a local real estate broker here to offer an opinion of the effect of value on adjacent 438 land. I've been a licensed real estate broker since 2005. The majority of my transactions do deal in land. 439 I'm from Chapel Hill and I grew up here and I'm enjoying my business here in the area. When we look at 440 the American Legion's current site and look and see its immediate adjacent neighbors include four very 441 dense residential subdivisions and a senior care home. And they have a baseball diamond at their current 442 location. I think they've worked in good harmony with the neighbors around them. And they were there 443 before a lot of that residential came and moved in around them. I think it's a testament to how they have 444 operated in the past and a testament to the property values surrounding it. The fact that the Town of 445 Chapel Hill is now going to purchase their 32 acres for over $7 million is a testament to how they have 446 cared for that portion of the property and the surrounding land. In terms of the site on 54, when you look at 447 being in harmony with the area and you look at that strip on 54, you are not without other types of event 448 facilities. You've got Carrboro Community Park, Rock Quarry Farm, Barn at Valhalla, Rigmor House, 449 Snipes Farm Retreat and it would be my professional opinion that these types of event centers and whatnot 450 have not had a negative effect on surrounding property values but have perhaps enhanced the value of 451 properties along that corridor. I would be remiss not to mention alternative uses for that property such as 452 you are familiar with the agro- tourism type of use. I think the neighbors would see a lot more benefit from 453 this use than from some of the alternatives. I think it's worth mentioning that this is just the front part of the 454 property and on the back half of the property, they do intend to maintain the farming element. It will 455 maintain a lot of the current use. At about $7,900 per acre for our contract price, I do think it's a premium 456 and it's going to be a benefit to adjacent and nearby landowners who go to sell their tracks of 50 and 200 457 acres. It will be a very valuable comp for them to have as a resource. We did compete for the property. 458 There was another bidder at the time that we went under contract. We did outbid them. So again, we feel 459 that there is a premium being paid on the property which will be valuable to adjacent land owners. Since 460 the Barn at Valhalla, since the Manships purchased that in 2014, according to the Triangle MLS, within two - 461 mile radius, the residential properties have seen an increase per square foot of 29 percent since 2014. And 462 within a five -mile radius, there's been an increase of about 17 percent in price per square foot. So, I think 463 that's what I have for you guys. I'm happy to answer any questions. 464 465 Neese - Brown: In your capacity as a real estate broker, do you give opinions as to the value of property? 466 467 Johnny Wehmann: I do. That is a regular part of my job, for whether it be lenders, appraisers, landowners 468 who need opinions about value. Unfortunately, not every piece of business do I get, so I'm out in the field a 469 lot giving my opinion. 470 471 Neese Brown: I would ask that the board receive Mr. Wehmann as a person who is qualified to testify on 472 whether the intended use of the property would enhance the value of the property. 473 474 Chairwoman Cabe: Do I have a motion to accept Mr. Wehmann as an expert qualified to testify on the 475 enhancement or detriment to the value of contiguous property as well as whether the proposed uses are in 476 harmony with the area where it is to be locate? 477 18 478 MOTION by Matt Hughes to accept Mr. Wehmann as an expert qualified to testify on the enhancement or 479 detriment to the value of contiguous property as well as whether the proposed uses are in harmony with the 480 area where it is to be locate. Seconded by Susan Halkiotis. 481 482 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 483 484 Chairwoman Cabe: We will accept his opinion on those questions. 485 486 Neese -Brown Thank you. Is it your opinion, Mr. Wehmann, that the uses as proposed in the application by 487 the American Legion will maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous property in this area? 488 489 Johnny Wehmann: That is correct. 490 491 Neese - Brown: And based on your knowledge of the area, is it your opinion that the location and the 492 character of the use and plans is in harmony of the area where it is located? 493 494 Johnny Wehmann: That is correct. 495 496 Chairwoman Cabe: Does anyone on the board have questions for Mr. Wehmann? Hearing none, you may 497 call your next witness. 498 499 Neese - Brown: I'm going to call Bill Munsee. He has some information he'd like to share with you. 500 501 Bill Munsee: I'm Bill Munsee. I'm the commander. First of all, I'd like to thank the planners for the great job 502 and time you've taken in helping us prepare the package. The men and women who are behind me 503 represent about 200 men and women. They are all veterans. They are all skilled people. As you can see, 504 we don't have any young whipper- snappers, except for Bob. I think he's pushing almost 50 now. This is not 505 a wild and crazy group requesting this SUP. WE've been in Orange County and Chapel Hill almost 100 506 years now. We've been in our current spot in Chapel Hill 50 years plus. And we just need a new spot. The 507 building was old and the repairs on that building... it's just an obsolete building and the repairs on it would 508 have cost as much as this whole project. My organization is a good citizen. We respect privacy. We respect 509 others. And we are land conservationists. We've had those 32 acres in Chapel Hill unblemished for an 510 awful long time. And we respect the people who live around us and we got very few complaints the whole 511 50 years that we were there. So we request a favorable ruling on our request for the SUP so we continue 512 the legacy of the American Legion for the future soldiers, sailors and marines and coast guard people who 513 will fall behind us. We know there will eventually be more actions and we'll be called to go forward and fight 514 and we need to leave a legacy to them just like the people who fought in World War 1, World War 11 and 515 Vietnam left for us. Thank you very much. I appreciate again the effort the planners have made. 516 517 Neese - Brown: I think there is a clerical error on the application. The subject property is a home address. If 518 you'd change it from Crawford Road to off of 54. 519 520 Michael Harvey: If the property is vacant, we don't typically address it... 521 522 Chairwoman Cabe: Ms. Brown, if you could read into the record a motion to amend the application to 523 reference the address for the plan as however you want to describe it on the plan. Mr. Mallett may have a 524 suggestion. 525 `Gl 526 Neese - Brown: If I could move that the application for the Class B Special Use Permit which was submitted 527 on behalf of the American Legion contains what I consider to be proper parcel identification numbers for the 528 property. The address of the subject property as listed appears to be an error. My motion is that be deleted 529 from the application and that the substitute would be to identify these numbers by their PIN numbers which 530 1 believe to be a completely adequate description of the property in light that there is not a street address 531 for it. Mr. Harvey, if there is something else you'd like me to add to it? 532 533 Michael Harvey: Just for clarification, this is Page 12 of the application package amended in the record. 534 535 Neese - Brown: With an amendment to Page 12 to reflect that change. 536 537 Seconded by Motion by Karen Barrows, seconded by Susan Halkiotis. 538 539 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 540 541 Neese - Brown: Thank you very much. The only other information we would have, except the information 542 which you've already received, is I'm happy to talk with you about the two conditions that we have asked to 543 tweak. If it's appropriate to do that now, I'm happy to do that. 544 545 Chairwoman Cabe: Did Mr. Wehmann have something to add? 546 547 Neese - Brown: He has testified before you earlier and I believe that is adequate. 548 549 Chairwoman Cabe: Alright. For the record, the board is receiving from staff a revised Attachment 5 that 550 includes the recommended revisions to the conditions. So, prior, to going through staff recommendations, 1 551 do believe it would be in order to hear from Ms. Brown the basis for her requested revisions to ...We have 552 already heard from her regarding Condition Number 6 ... but also hearing from her regarding Conditions 553 Number 8 and 10. 554 555 Neese - Brown: I'm happy to explain that to you. Let me start by saying that as we have been back and forth 556 with conditions that we agree to all the other conditions that were included in the packet. That tweak to 557 Number 5 that is now Number 6, we've read that into the record. On Condition Number 8, there is a 558 cemetery that under the statute is called an abandoned cemetery on the site. It is a private cemetery that 559 has been sold out of the family. There are thousands upon thousands of them in North Carolina on various 560 properties. There is a statutory provision on who, when and how someone can visit a cemetery that's on 561 private land. That statute contemplates that people who are relatives of the deceased and people who are 562 doing particular research with regard to old graves can approach the owner of the property and if the owner 563 gives permission for them to go out, then the people can go out on the property and check the graves. If for 564 some reason the private property owner doesn't give permission for them to do so and a person feels that 565 they have to have access, there is actually a procedure in the statute to follow a special proceeding in court 566 to give them means to go out. What happens as a practical matter, is that when someone does come out, 567 the property owner generally protects themselves from liability, and the Legion is very comfortable working 568 with people as the statute contemplates if someone wants to see the cemetery. We are not aware that 569 there has been visitation at the cemetery in a number of years. We were concerned that giving a perpetual 570 easement to the cemetery on the property was (a) requiring the Legion to do more than the statute requires 571 and (b) creating a situation where there is a perpetual easement to a gravesite that no one cares to visit. It 572 seemed from a liability perspective on their part that if we agree to a condition to follow the statute then 573 that's acceptable. And by not creating an easement that runs with the property forever, we don't create a 20 574 long -term problem. That's the logic on the cemetery piece. The logic on Number 10 is that as you noticed in 575 your packet, (it was a cut and paste on a tower project when it got in there), the language has simply been 576 tweaked to contemplate that we would get the permits required at the time that they are required. One of 577 the permits listed is actually the building /solid waste management permit. To require the solid waste permit 578 before the land disturbance could cause a problem. So, we simply asked the staff to tweak that. And I'm not 579 aware that there is any disagreement between us and the staff as to any of the conditions as they are now 580 corrected. As I read 6 and as 8 and 10 are corrected. 581 582 Susan Halkiotis: You mentioned the cemetery was sold out of the family at some point. Do we know when? 583 584 Neese - Brown: I don't know. I think we had, and I can Bill Munsee speak to it since I'm here merely as an 585 advocate and am not competent to tell you about it. I know is we've had somebody look at it. 586 587 Bill Munsee: Yeah. I did some research on the gravesite and came up with the name of the person. 588 589 Susan Halkiotis: I'm interested, particularly because some discussion might take place whether to establish 590 an easement versus follow the NCGS Section 65 -101. I'm curious how long that property has been out of 591 the family. 592 593 Bill Munsee: can you speak to that? 594 Chairwoman Cabe: IF you have not been sworn in, could you come up and be sworn in. Would anyone 595 object to that? 596 597 Unidentified Male: My wife and I visited the gravesite when the Post was looking at the property initially. 598 The enclosure, I would estimate, is a little larger than the size of this room. My wife went on the website 599 and pulled from Orange County records, I believe, that there are about 23 graves. Only about 3 of them 600 have names. They are from the 1840s and 50s. These are not recent or modern graves. There are no 601 headstones. We found a report that there were only 3 that disappeared in the 1970s after a fraternity 602 initiation ceremony. The only indication of graves are quartz rock, blockstone, that are marking the graves 603 head and foot. There are a few other depressions that you could possibly recognize as graves. Other than 604 that, that's it. It didn't look like anybody had been there for a couple of years. I don't know. There were a 605 couple of beer bottles there. I can't remember the names. But there were three and their deaths were in the 606 1840s and 50s. 607 608 Susan Halkiotis: My question is when that property was sold out of the family. 609 610 Unidentified Male: I don't know. It's in the county records. Bill (Munsee) has a copy and you (another 611 Legion person) inherited a copy. 612 613 Neese - Brown: If it would help to refresh your recollection to look at this copy, I'm happy to give this to you 614 so you can speak from it. And we can enter it into the record. 615 616 Unidentified Male: There was a survey by three individuals in October 1976. The site was visited in 2006 617 through the courtesy of the landowner. Perhaps 25 graves. 618 619 Neese - Brown: This is the report you took off the internet? 620 621 Unidentified Male: Yes. 21 622 623 Neese - Brown: And the name of the individuals or family or registery? 624 625 Unidentified Male: The three last headstones that existed were J. Luke Bivens, died 1856; Joanna Bivens, 626 1847; and William Bivens, 1845. If there's any relatives for these people still around, I'd be very surprised. 627 That's the details, at least what Orange County has on the website. 628 629 Chairwoman Cabe: Does the staff have any response to the requested revision with regard to the 630 easement? I have some concerns but I'll wait to hear your response. 631 632 Michael Harvey: It goes without saying that we have recommended language calling for perpetual 633 easement, perpetual access. Ms. Brown and I had two to three discussions about her concerns and her 634 client's concerns about how that could be construed as being inconsistent with the statutes primarily with 635 Ms. Brown's nightmare scenario that if the cemetery is ever abandoned consistent with the applicable state 636 law, by state law there would still be this perpetual access easement. And the modification to that perpetual 637 access easement technically constitutes a modification to the Special Use Permit, compelling the American 638 Legion to come back before the Orange County Board of Adjustment to modify the SUP. In that vain, while 639 1 had expressed to Ms. Brown misgivings about the elimination of the easement, I understood the concern 640 and acquiesced. As I indicated at the beginning of this meeting, these revised conditions did not cause me 641 as much heartburn as they had originally since Ms. Brown and I had discussed them. 642 643 Chairwoman Cabe: I have concerns about including a perpetual easement because I worry that if they are 644 unidentified graves, how do we identify the individuals who will have this easement. And if we make it 645 broader than the relatives of the individuals in this cemetery, is that not in essence a taking of property. 646 Would that not sort of be a condemnation action, if the county is requiring giving up property rights and it's 647 not for a specific ....we know three people in the cemetery but we do not know who the others are, so how 648 do we identify the recipients of the easement? I know that's compound. Forgive me. 649 650 James Bryan: That's ok because I do not know the answer. I don't think it would be a taking. I think it would 651 be a provision same as any other easement is a provision. 652 653 Chairwoman Cabe: But access easements are required by the UDO and /or by state law but an easement 654 to an abandoned cemetery is not required by any of our statutes. Is that correct? 655 656 James Byran: I presume that if you place a condition for an easement it's pursuant to one of the standards 657 of evaluation. You're saying to protect the public welfare, this is necessary. You might, I'm just presuming, 658 you don't want people to park on 54 and randomly walk across this parcel to find this gravesite. That might 659 cause traffic concerns. So you want an easement so people know where to enter for the gravesite. So that 660 way, there is a basis for it. If there is it not a basis for it as a standard of evaluation, then there should not 661 be a condition placed on it. 662 663 Neese - Brown: If I could speak to that. Because the UDO does not require that we have an easement plus 664 the legislature has determined the means by which anybody who owns property privately addresses a 665 cemetery on their private property, it seems to me that the requirement, the suggestion that there is a 666 reason to have a perpetual easement in excess of what we are required to statutorily is troublesome. It also 667 seems to me that unless you require everyone who has a cemetery on private property to provide a 668 perpetual easement, then you maybe have unequal treatment of applicants. The condition as it originally 669 written, it appeared to be an easement that was directed toward a particular population and it was a 22 670 population that is less inclusive than the statute would require you must consider. And yet it was a 671 population that as you've found out cannot possibly be identified so it creates confusion. I think the 672 conversation that Mr. Harvey and I had that made sense that it really grants to a larger population than the 673 statue contemplates. People that would tromp through anywhere on the property without seeking 674 permission from the Legion would be trespassers and would be of grave concern to us, pardon the pun. 675 What we are simply asking to do, we are agreeing to a condition that really requires us to do what the state 676 statue requires us to do. If it's good enough for every other cemetery, we feel like it's good enough here. As 677 a practical matter, nobody other than perhaps the people who do these surveys, would ask to come out 678 here. 679 680 Chairwoman Cabe: Did that raise any other questions from the board? And Mr. Harvey, with regard to the 681 revisions of Number 10, does staff have any objections or reservations? 682 683 Michael Harvey: Out of respect for Ms. Brown, I read this differently, but the alteration does not create an 684 inconsistency with the UDO. 685 686 Chairwoman Cabe: If Mr. Harvey would be so kind to remind this chair whether we hear from staff after we 687 close evidence, as far as recommendations? Of if we do that before? 688 689 Michael Harvey: Right now, you have an applicant who has presented their case. If the board has no 690 further questions, then staff is more than happy to go through the recommended conditions and provide the 691 documentation we believe either does or does not support the issuance of the special use permit, make our 692 final recommendation for the record, answer any questions you may have. That's when the public hearing 693 would be closed. Remember, we still have several other people signed up to speak. Before we go into what 694 1 hope will be a very quick assessment, we want to make sure those who signed up have an opportunity to 695 speak. 696 697 Chairwoman Cabe: Ms. Brown, do you have any other witnesses to call? 698 699 Neese - Brown: Not at this time. We reserve the right to rebuttal. 700 701 Chairwoman Cabe: Now, at this time, anyone wishing to speak, and I would ask you to please be mindful 702 and not repeat anything that's already been said. If you want to speak, we welcome you, but anything that's 703 already been said, I would ask you to be mindful of it being 8:30 and we have all had full days of work and 704 so on and so forth. Please come forward and state your name for the record and whether you've been 705 sworn in. 706 707 Dillon Manship: I'm Dillon Manship. I have been sworn in. So, I am a resident, adjacent property owner as 708 well as a business owner adjacent property owner. I own 1040 and 1050 Duffy's Way, which is within the 709 1,000 foot. 710 711 Chairwoman Cabe: Is that the Barn at Valhalla? 712 713 Dillon Manship: 1040 is. I just want to start off this meeting by saying that I have no problems with the 714 American Legion and I know harmony is a big thing whenever it comes to this situation. I support them. 1 715 just want to raise a couple of concerns so I don't want it to sound like I'm completely against this. I am for it. 716 1 just have some comments or concern. So, with that being said, it raises the situation that Mr. Herman 717 brought up with the athletic field and the ball field being done with the study done at 100 persons but their 23 718 capacity for indoor is for 250 persons and they plan to rent out the space. Wouldn't all 250 persons be 719 allowed at the ball park and wouldn't that completely or 2.5 times their noise study? It just goes to bring up 720 the point that the athletic field is probably going to be the most sound - producing thing at the facility. I don't 721 care what they do inside. That seems fine. But my goal here today is to figure out the noise situation for 722 American Legion Post 6 moving forward. Like Commander Munsee brought up, this isn't the only group of 723 American Legion members who are going to be using this facility. They have been at their place for 50 724 years now, so generations to come will be using this facility. Those generations will be cast broad slate 725 tonight. These will be the laws that they will have to abide by. So, if we give them a blank slate tonight 726 when it comes to noise, then they can do whatever they want to down the road. 727 728 Chairwoman Cabe: Subject to our ordinances. 729 730 Dillon Manship: Correct. But that potentially includes potentially putting up loudspeakers for their baseball 731 games and announcing the baseball games, soccer games. That includes putting up sound speakers and 732 holding outdoor concerts, including full weekend festivals. 733 734 Chairwoman Cabe: Are you suggesting that the allowance of the Special Use Permit allows them to go 735 beyond the bounds of our noise ordinance? Because... 736 737 Dillon Manship: I am not. I am just pointing out things that could ... if they have in their Special Use Permit 738 that they are not allowed outdoor amplification, then they could not apply for a permit to have an outdoor 739 concert or apply for a permit to erect outdoor speakers or have a sound system for their ball field. And so, 740 as a business owner of the Barn at Valhalla, our Special Use Permit clearly addresses that there should be 741 no outdoor amplification. The other venue down the road that was brought up, the Barn at Chapel Hill, their 742 Special Use Permit clearly spells out no outdoor amplification. So, this is my first quasi - judicial public 743 hearing and I've not been to a court case ... I actually have jury duty tomorrow... but I don't know if this 744 board slate SUP is allowing them to do everything or if you all are going to say yes, stamp, no, stamp. If 745 there is any gray area in between, I'm just trying to point out that gray area that there should be no 746 recreation field because it produces too much noise and no outdoor amplification because it produces too 747 much noise. I know the basic dB(A) reading that you have a handout. I was emailed a separate handout 748 that was dealt to the Barn at Valhalla and other neighbors but at 85 decibels, they produced out, their 749 closest neighbor was receiving 59 decibels, which is over the allowed limit. So they said if you back down 750 the decibels to under 79, then it was under 50, which is the allowable limit. So even at the standard 751 amplification, they had to back it down to get to the levels allowed by Orange County. Obviously, amplified 752 speakers have been a problem in the past. Since this is quasi - judicial and court proceedings are based on 753 precedent and this has already been done at the Barn at Valhalla several years ago and has already been 754 done with the Barn at Chapel Hill earlier this year and both hearings and all neighbors around the area said 755 no outdoor amplification, even though this is the American Legion, they are still an event center being 756 rented out as an event center and they should fall under the same categories of all the other event centers 757 in the area, which is no outdoor amplification. 758 759 Chairwoman Cabe: The permit for the Barn at Valhalla was approved before I was on the board. Were they 760 seeking to add ball fields? 761 762 Dillon Manship: No. 763 764 Chairwoman Cabe: Are there any other neighbors here? You are the only neighboring property owner 765 asking us to consider restricting outdoor amplification for this particular spot. 24 Dillon Manship: Correct. And the reason is I do own a wedding venue and we have gone through this process and have seven stipulations in our Special Use Permit, one of them being no outdoor amplification. I don't have a map and I don't think one was provided but a lot of our outdoor weddings are held directly across the street from the proposed American Legion Post 6. And so, when our brides and grooms are going to be having their ceremony at 5 o'clock on a Saturday and they hear, "He's coming around second base and sliding into home!" it's going to be a bad experience. It's my livelihood. It's my small business. I'm trying to look out for the clients I have booked and whenever they are distracted by Bluegrass concert or a baseball game or a cheering crowd of 250 plus, then that's what I'm concerned about. Neese - Brown: I have a question. As you know, I'm the special council for the American Legion. Do you have a copy of the Special Use Permit for the Barn at Valhalla with you? Dillon Manship: Yes. Neese - Brown: Were you involved in the process of obtaining the Special Use Permit that was granted for the Barn at Valhalla? Dillon Manship: No, I was not. And that brings me to a point. It is transferred by ownership and so, like I said, these gentlemen aren't going to be the only ones to have this Special Use Permit. It will apply to everyone who owns the American Legion Post 6. Neese - Brown: If you would stick with me and answer the questions I ask you, I think it would be helpful because I think we are all aware that the Special Use Permit runs with the land. The question I have for you is do you have any idea, do you have any personal knowledge of how you came to have that condition in this particular SUP which is addressing a particular piece of property. Do you have any idea why that condition was there? Was there any concern that you were aware of? Dillon Manship: I met with Mr. Harvey and Mr. Mallett and they have informed me ... 1:40:27 Neese - Brown: If they have informed you of something, then you cannot give testimony about it, if you don't mind, because that's hearsay. You just testified about a Special Use Permit granted to the Barn at Chapel Hill and I'm just curious, do you have a copy of that? Dillon Manship: (Handed over paper) Neese - Brown: In fact, are you aware that there is no Special Use Permit for the Barn at Chapel Hill? Dillon Manship: No. Neese - Brown: Do you have any knowledge or could you refute the statement that there is no Special Use Permit for the Barn at Chapel Hill? Dillon Manship: I don't understand. Could you repeat? Neese - Brown: What you handed me was an Orange County application for a Special Use Permit. But in fact, there is no Special Use Permit that was ever granted for the Barn at Chapel Hill. Is that correct? Do you know? 25 Dillon Manship: I don't know. Neese - Brown: So any testimony you gave about a Special Use Permit granted to the Barn at Chapel Hill is not based on your personal knowledge and as such as not permissible as evidence. Dillon Manship: Correct. Neese - Brown: Do you have any particular expertise in acoustics? Dillon Manship: I do not. Neese - Brown: Do you have any reason to refute the statement in the acoustical report that regarding the Barn at Valhalla, which is your business, that states that on Page One that for ballgame noise using a PA raised voice speech spectrum, a sound level at the back of the Barn of Valhalla property puts ballgames noise levels at 35 dBA and under 40 dBA at the Barn of Valhalla's closest point to the ball field with worse case assumptions? Dillon Manship: Wouldn't worse case assumption be LA peak, which is 61? Neese - Brown: If you look at the first page... Dillon Manship: I apologize. I'm just seeing this tonight because the email went to my spam folder. And I only have this one (Jan. 2). Neese - Brown: Here, let me give you this one. This is the one dated Jan. 4 and it addresses the current conditions. It speaks to two properties. It speaks to your property and a neighbor's property. Look at it and tell me you disagree. Only the one neighboring property raised an issue if there was no control. Chairwoman Cabe: Please restate that question because I didn't hear it. Neese - Brown: The question was whether he would refute that the statement in the acoustical report. The conversation regarding ballgame noise... Dillon Manship: "at the back of the Barn of Valhalla property. Primarily due to booming bass, peak DJ music noise levels could reach 54 dBA." Which over 50, which is over the Orange County noise ordinance. Chairwoman Cabe: Where are you reading? Dillon Manship: Between Page 2 and Page 3. Neese - Brown: And so the Orange County ordinance during the day is what? 60? Dillon Manship: Depends on the day. Neese - Brown: Maximum decibel level during the day, Sunday through Thursday, is 60. And then 50. Correct? 26 862 Dillon Manship: Correct, depending on the day. 863 864 Neese - Brown: Are you aware that the American Legion has agreed to a condition that at all times it will 865 comply with all ordinances? 866 867 Dillon Manship: Correct, but doesn't this say that amplified music could reach 54 at my property and 59 at 868 another property, so then wouldn't amplified music refute that statement? 869 870 Neese - Brown: Wouldn't a condition that they turn it down so that it meets the ordinance solve the concern. 871 872 Dillon Manship: Yes. 873 874 Neese - Brown: I have no further questions. 875 876 Chairwoman Cabe: I believe you had additional concerns you wanted to bring up. You said you had more 877 than one and we kind of got on a tangent with the acoustical concern. Did you have other concerns that you 878 wanted to bring up to the board? 879 880 Dillon Manship: Ultimately, that Commander Munsee and the American Legion in all of our previous 881 meetings have used the words probably and potentially and maybe a lot. They said they would probably 882 have a baseball field and on here it's drawn as a soccer field and so I don't think they know their intentions. 883 All I'm trying to do is not let them cast a big net so that they fill it up with whatever they want. I want them to 884 be specific so that, as in the past, at the Barn at Chapel Hill has been done. Neighbors in the past have 885 raised the concern about noise so I think cancel outdoor amplification and everything would be fine. 886 887 Chairwoman Cabe: Does the board have any questions for this witness? Is that all you want us to address? 888 889 Dillon Manship: Sure. 890 891 Chairwoman Cabe: Ms. Brown, you had mentioned when Mr. Manship testified about or began to testify 892 about the county's position on outdoor amplification at the Barn at Valhalla, you said that staff could testify 893 to that. Did you want to call them to testify to that further. No, I guess only if the board has questions about 894 how that condition came to be. I don't know about the Barn at Chapel Hill except that I know the Barn at 895 Chapel Hill doesn't have a special use permit. If the board is interested in how that condition came to be, 896 then I'm certainly happy to have a discussion ..... 897 898 Chairwoman Cabe: Mr. Harvey, if you could tell us how the condition on the Barn of Valhalla regarding 899 outdoor amplification came to be. 900 901 Michael Harvey: My recollection of the public hearing and the application is that Mr. Gilligan, who was the 902 developer, had established retreat center activities without obtaining first a Special Use Permit. He went 903 through the process to bring the property into compliance with Unified Development Ordinance. At the time, 904 there were neighbors within 500 feet of the property lines who were concerned that they would be able to 905 hear any outdoor amplified music. To which, one person on staff and the property owner, Mr. Gilligan, 906 suggested the condition limiting outdoor amplified music to address that concern. Because there are 907 residences closer to the Barn at Valhalla than there are to the American Legion property. I'll also remind 908 this board that the Barn at Valhalla Special Use Permit was originally denied by the Board of Adjustment. It 909 was appealed in Orange County Superior Court. That denial was reversed and when it came back, it was 27 910 approved and issues and is operating in accordance with the imposed conditions and all the applicable 911 areas of the Unified Development Ordinance as it stands today. 912 913 Chairwoman Cabe: Does the board have any further questions for Mr. Harvey? Are there any other 914 individuals that would like to speak either in support of the application or in opposition to the application or, 915 as Mr. Manship did, address any gray areas? Does the Board have any questions for staff, the attorneys, or 916 the applicant before we close the public hearing? 917 918 Karen Barrows: I have a question..... is Dillon's concern something we need to address? Page 3 of the 919 January 4 ... very last sentence ... the noise regulations .. is this a UDO requirement? 920 921 Michael Harvey: The noise ordinance is not in the UDO. It is in the County code of ordinances, chapter 16. 922 The noise ordinance establishes maximum decibel levels for various land uses, hours of operation, etc. 923 with the emphasis of ensuring during late night hours the decibel levels are reduced appropriately to ensure 924 there is no disturbance to adjacent property owners. The problem I have is that when I read the summary 925 there is no specific detail on the hours of operation, the setback distance from where measurements were 926 taken from, there is no specifity as to what Stewart Acoustical was testing to namely what decibel limit at 927 what distance from what point .... 928 929 Neese - Brown: If I can speak to Ms. Barrows question, the issue is that Stewart Acoustical was testing from 930 the source of noise and moving out from there. The report indicates that once you get to the measurement 931 point established by County regulations the level of noise will be in full compliance with applicable 932 standards. Sound traveling from DJ's or sound generated on the property will not be any louder that street 933 traffic and will not impede activities at the Barn of Chapel Hill. 934 935 Unintelligible conversation (s). 936 937 Randy Herman: Is it the applicant's positon that a limit on outdoor performances is unacceptable? 938 939 Neese - Brown: It is the applicant's position is that this site is different from other sites and there is no need 940 to impose a similar noise condition as was imposed on the Barn of Chapel Hill. In this instance the Board 941 saw fit to impose a noise standard to address neighbor's concerns, who are in closer proximity to the 942 property and structure to address concerns over the promotion of the public's health, welfare, and safety. 943 In this specific case the applicant has submitted documentation demonstrating the project will comply with 944 applicable County noise standards and will protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of 945 surrounding property owners. This means no additional condition above and beyond simple compliance 946 with existing regulations if warranted. The applicant can work within the confines of existing regulations. 947 948 Dillon Manship: Can I make another statement? 949 950 Chairwoman Cabe: What is it would you like to say? We welcome you to speak but if it is something we 951 have already heard I believe we already have it in the record and am not sure if it needs to be repeated. 952 953 Dillon Manship: I want this permit to be approved, I want them as neighbors. I just think they should be 954 held to the same standards as other retreat centers. 955 956 Chairwoman Cabe: Thank you. Now I would ask staff to review the staff recommendation on this permit 957 request. 28 958 959 Michael Harvey: At this point I would like to review the information contained within Attachment 5, the 960 recommended findings of fact. Please note this document was modified earlier this evening to address 961 comments received by the applicant's attorney, Ms. LeAnn Brown. 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 8975 939 Chairwoman Cabe: Should we enter that revised Attachment 5 into the record? Michael Harvey: I would suggest same. Chairwoman Cabe: Do I have a motion to enter the revised Attachment 5 into the record? A motion was made by Matt Hughes, Seconded by Randy Herman, to enter the revised Attachment 5 into the record. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Harvey began reviewing the staff recommendation as contained in the revised Attachment 5 reading as follows: Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 — Application Components: REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff BOA APPLICATION COMPONENTS Proper forms 2.2 Application (Attachment 2) Yes Fees paid 2.2.4(D) Application (Attachment 2) Yes Full description of use ❑ Location ❑ Appearance ❑ Operational characteristics 2.7.3(B)(1) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes Owner Information 2.7.3(B)(2) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes Information needed for Use Standards 2.7.3(B)(3) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes Site Plans (10 copies for Class B; 26 for Class A) 2.7.3(B)(4) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes Preliminary Subdivision Plat (if necessary) 2.7.3(B)(5) [No subdivision proposed.] N/A List of parcels within 1,000 feet 2.7.3(B)(6) Application (Attachments 2 and 3) Yes Elevations of all structures 2.7.3(B)(7) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes 29 Environmental Assessment (or EIS) 2.7.3(B)(8) EIS Not Required Yes Yes ❑ Topography • Date EA provided in Application (Attachment ❑ Drainage issues • Time 2) ❑ Natural or Cultural resources • Place ❑ Mining Published in Newspaper 2.7.6(b) Staff Testimony Yes ❑ Hazardous Wastes • Two successive weeks The legal ad was published in the News ❑ Wastewater treatment • First notice at least ten days prior but of Orange and the Chapel Hill Herald on ❑ Water usage no more than twenty -five days prior February 28 and again on March 7, Method of Debris Disposal 2.7.3(B)(9) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes Development Schedule 2.7.3(B)(10) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes Yes Extended Vesting Request 2.7.3(B)(11) Not requested N/A Michael Harvey: Staff as determined the applicant has met their obligations under the UDO and have recommended an affirmative finding on the application components. Section 2.7 — Notification Requirements: NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Public Notice 2.7.6(a) Application (Attachment 3) Yes • Date • Time • Place Published in Newspaper 2.7.6(b) Staff Testimony Yes • Two successive weeks The legal ad was published in the News • First notice at least ten days prior but of Orange and the Chapel Hill Herald on no more than twenty -five days prior February 28 and again on March 7, 2018 Sign Posting on Property (at least 10 2.7.6(c) Staff Testimony Yes days prior) posted sign on March 2, 2018 Mailed Notice 2.7.6(4) NIM and BOA Materials (Attachment 3) Yes • Certified mail All adjacent property owners (within 1,000 feet) • Not less than fifteen days prior Michael Harvey: Staff has determined the applicant has met their obligations under the UDO and have recommended an affirmative finding on the advertising and notification conditions. Section 5.3.2 Specific Standards — Special Use Permits: 30 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff BOA SPECIFIC STANDARDS Waste Disposal 5.3.2(B)(1) Staff's Abstract and Staff Comments Yes Yes Method and adequacy of provision for A site plan prepared in accordance (Attachment 4) sewage disposal facilities, solid waste with Section 2.5, also showing the Both Environmental Health and Solid and water service. following (existing or proposed): Waste have indicated they have no (i) Buildings, concerns. Safety 5.3.2(B)(2) Staff's Abstract and Staff Comments Yes Method and adequacy of police, fire (iii) Storage areas, (Attachment 4) and rescue squad protection. (iv) Fencing and gates, Fire Marshall and Sherriff's office have (v) Outdoor recreation areas indicated that they have no concerns. Vehicle Access 5.3.2(B)(3) The submitted site plan shows access Yes Method and adequacy of vehicle well as on site roads, with an points. access to the site and traffic conditions indication of type of proposed surface. around the site. NCDOT District Office has indicated that they have no concerns (Attachment 4). 990 991 Michael Harvey: Staff has determined there is sufficient evidence in the record indicating the requirements 992 of Section 5.3.2 (B) of the UDO have been adhered to and have recommended an affirmative finding. 993 994 Section 5.7.5 Development Standards — Camp /Retreat Centers: 995 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff BOA STANDARDS for Cam /Retreat Center 5.7.4 Site Plan 5.7.5(A)(1)(a) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes A site plan prepared in accordance with Section 2.5, also showing the following (existing or proposed): (i) Buildings, (ii) Campsites, (iii) Storage areas, (iv) Fencing and gates, (v) Outdoor recreation areas (vi) Access road(s) to the site, as well as on site roads, with an indication of type of proposed surface. 31 A description of the type of facility 5.7.5(A)(1)(b) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes planned, the size, capacity, and use of proposed buildings; a signed statement from the owners or operators that there shall be no activity allowed that will have adverse effects on adjacent property. The statement shall also include a complete list of all recreational activities that will take place on the site. A phasing plan, when necessary, 5.7.5(A)(1)(c) Site Plan (proposing 2 phases) Yes indicating the area to be developed in each phase with time periods for construction of each phase. This may be indicated on the site plan. Standards of va uation 5.7.5(A)(2)(a) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes Unless public sewer is proposed to be extended, the adequacy for the method of sewage disposal will be determined by the lot size and soil suitability. Appropriate letters from the Orange County Environmental Health Department, local jurisdictions and /or the State Division of Environmental Management shall be submitted to indicate preliminary approval. The landscape plan shall show how the 5.7.5(A)(2)(c) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) es facilities will be screened from the adjacent properties. A minimum 30 foot Type B buffer, as indicated in Section 6.8 shall be observed around th perimeter of the property. If private recreational facilities are 5.7.5(A)(2)(d) pp ication (Attachment (Site plan) es proposed, the improvements must As applicable, the development will meet the site improvement also meet requirements of 7.11 at the requirements in Section 7.11 of this time of Site Plan submittal. Ordinance. The site plan for recreational facilities shall be reviewed by the Orange County Recreation and Parks Director. 32 996 997 Off street parking requirements shall 5.7.5(A)(2)(e) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes BOA be provided in accordance with In accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), the Board of Adjustment shall also consider the following general conditions before the application for a Special Use can be approved. Section 6.9 of this Ordinance. Yes The use (will 1 will not) maintain or Section 5.3.2 (A) 998 Michael Harvey: Staff has determined the applicant has complied with applicable submittal requirements 999 and has demonstrated compliance with applicable review standards as detailed in Section 5.7.5 of the UDO 1000 and have recommended an affirmative finding. 1001 1002 Section 5.3.2 (A) General Standards — Special Use Permits: 1003 REQUIREMENT I UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff BOA SPECIFIC STANDARDS In accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), the Board of Adjustment shall also consider the following general conditions before the application for a Special Use can be approved. Application package as contained Yes The use (will 1 will not) maintain or Section 5.3.2 (A) in Attachment 2 inclusive including, promote the public health, safety and (2) (a) but not limited to: general welfare, if located where [Barrative proposed and developed and operated ®nvironmental Assessment (EA) according to the plan as submitted. Application ®ite Plan Site Assessment (Attachment 1) Staff review comments (Attachment 4) Proposed Finding: Based on all above findings, Applicant's Narrative, and Staff's report, 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. The use (will 1 will not) maintain or Section 5.3.2 (A) No direct evidence was provided as Yes enhance the value of contiguous (2) (b) part of the application process, property (unless the use is a public specifically in the form of a property necessity, in which case the use need impact analysis. 33 not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property). Application narrative (Attachment 2) does indicate similar facilities, including the Barn of Vahalla north of the site, have not impacted adjacent property values. Applicant has indicated expert testimony will be offered at the public demonstrating compliance. Proposed Finding: As of the writing of this abstract, there is no competent /material evidence available suggesting the project will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. The location and character of the Section 5.3.2 Application package as contained Yes use, if developed according to the (A) (2) (c) in Attachment 2 inclusive including, but plan submitted, (will I will not) be in not limited to: harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in ❑ Narrative compliance with the plan for the ❑ Environmental Assessmei(EA) physical development of the County Application as embodied in these regulations or ❑ Site Plan in the Comprehensive Plan, or Site Assessment (Attachment 1) Staff portion thereof, adopted by the Board review comments (Attachment of County Commissioners. 4) Proposed Finding: Based on the above findings, Applicant's Narrative, and Staff's report, the location and nature 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 and in the Comprehensive Plan. 1004 1005 Michael Harvey: Staff has determined the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the various 1006 standards detailed in Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO and that there is a lack of competent, material, evidence 1007 in the record justifying a negative finding. Staff has recommended the Board find in the affirmative. Staff 1008 will remind you that, if approved, the special use permit authorizes the land use only. The applicant will 34 1009 have to go through a formal site plan review process in order to for staff to determine compliance with the 1010 applicable provisions of the UDO as well as the approved Special Use Permit. 1011 1012 Chairwoman Cabe: And just to clarify on the top of page 82, just to make sure we have the proper 1013 reference here, the Attachment makes reference to Section 5.7.4 of the UDO as establishing submittal 1014 requirements and evaluation criteria. 1015 1016 Michael Harvey: Yes man, the correct reference to the Camp /retreat center standards is Section 5.7.5 of 1017 the UDO versus Section 5.7.4. 1018 1019 Chairwoman Cabe: Thank you for the clarification. 1020 1021 Michael Harvey: As indicated on the top of page 86, no evidence was submitted to staff indicating the 1022 project does not comply with the UDO. If the motion to approve the permit is made, staff recommends the 1023 imposition of 12 conditions, some of which have been modified this evening. 1024 1025 Chairwoman Cabe: Just for the record does the staff has an objection to the revised wording of Condition 1026 6, which I will read into the record? 1027 1028 Michael Harvey: Staff has no objections to revised Condition 6 1029 1030 MOTION by to close the public hearing. Karen Barrows Seconded by Susan Halkiotis. 1031 1032 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1033 1034 Chairwoman Cabe: Are there any comment(s) on staff's testimony, recommendations, or other matters 1035 before we begin voting on the recommended findings? 1036 1037 No comment. 1038 1039 MOTION made by Susan Halkiotis to adopt the staff recommended findings as contained within the 1040 amended Attachment 5, pages 79 -80, of the application package. Seconded by Randy Herman. 1041 1042 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1043 1044 MOTION made by Susan Halkiotis to adopt the staff recommended findings as contained within the 1045 amended Attachment 5, page 81, of the application package relating to the applicant's compliance with the 1046 provisions of Section 5.3.2 (B) 1 through 3 inclusive. Seconded by Karen Barrows. 1047 1048 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1049 1050 MOTION made by Randy Herman to approve the staff recommended findings as contained within the 1051 amended Attachment 5, pages 82 -83, of the application package relating to the applicant's compliance with 1052 the submittal and evaluation criteria detailed in Section 5.7.5 of the UDO for camp /retreat centers. 1053 Seconded by Susan Halkiotis. 1054 1055 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1056 35 1057 MOTION made by Randy Herman finding in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) the proposed use the 1058 use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and 1059 developed and operated according to the plan as submitted based on the competent material evidence and 1060 sworn testimony within the record of the proceeding. Seconded by Karen Barrows. 1061 1062 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1063 1064 MOTION made by Karen Barrows finding in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) the proposed use the 1065 use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property based on the competent material evidence 1066 and sworn testimony, including the testimony of Mr. Johnny Wehmann who was accepted as an expert on 1067 property values, within the record of the proceeding. Seconded by Randy Herman. 1068 1069 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1070 1071 MOTION made by Randy Herman finding in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) the location and 1072 character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in 1073 which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the 1074 County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the 1075 Board of County Commissioners based on the competent material evidence and sworn testimony within the 1076 record of the proceeding. Seconded by Susan Halkiotis. 1077 1078 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1079 1080 Chairwoman Cabe: Moving on to the recommended conditions, I would like to take Condition 6 first. So do 1081 we have a motion to approve Condition 6 as modified here this evening reading as follows: 1082 1083 To promote the public health, safety and general welfare as required in Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), to 1084 ensure adjacent property values are maintained or enhanced as required in Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) 1085 (b), and to ensure the proposed use is in harmony with the general area as required in Section 1086 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO, fireworks usage on site shall be restricted to Veterans Day, Memorial 1087 Day, the Fourth of July, and Labor Day. Proper state and local permitting for any firework usage 1088 shall be obtained prior to firework activities. Communication with the community shall be made via 1089 website or other similar medium detailing the date, time, and hours of the firework activities prior to 1090 fireworks being used on site. 1091 1092 MOTION made by Randy Herman to approve the revised Condition 6 as read by Chairwoman Cabe. 1093 Seconded by Susan Halkiotis. 1094 1095 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1096 1097 Chairwoman Cabe: Thank you. Do I have a motion to approve the remaining conditions as recommended 1098 by staff contained with revised Attachment 5 including all revisions denoted in red? 1099 1100 MOTION made by Karen Barrows to approve all remaining conditions as contained within the revised 1101 Attachment 5. Seconded by Randy Herman. 1102 1103 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1104 1105 36 1106 Chairwoman Cabe: Thank you. The Board of Adjustment has approved the special use permit to include 1107 all conditions contained within the revised Attachment 5 including Condition 6, which was voted on 1108 separately. 1109 1110 1111 AGENDA ITEM 5: ADJOURNMENT 1112 1113 MOTION by Matt Hughes to adjourn. Seconded by Susan Halkiotis 1114 1115 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1116 1117 Chairwoman Cabe: Thank you the meeting is adjourned at 10:43 p.m. 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 SAMANTHA CABE, CHAIR 37 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT CASE A -1 -18 Meeting Date: March 12, 2018 Agenda Item No. A -2 -18 SUBJECT: CASE A -2 -18: Class B Special Use Permit Proposing Expansion of an existing Child Care Facility at 200 Davis Road. DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Assessment; 2. Application Package; 3. NIM and BOA Notification Materials; 4. Staff Comments; and 5. Special Use Permit Findings of Fact; 6. Existing Special Use Permit. UNDER SEPARATE COVER A. Site Plan and Building Details INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick R. Mallett, Planner II (919) 245 -2577 Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245 -2597 Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245 -2575 PURPOSE: To hold a quasi - judicial public hearing, receive sworn testimony and evidence, and take action on a Class B Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') application proposing the development of a Child Care facility in accordance with the provisions of: • 2.7 Special Uses, • 5.2.2 Table of Permitted Uses, • 5.3.2 Application of Use Standards — Special Uses, and • 5.8.2 Child Care Facilities of the Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter 'U DO'). BACKGROUND: The basic facts concerning the current application are as follows: Applicant /Operator: Sounds and Colors, LLC C/O Mr. Dan Rockaway 190 Davis Road, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Owners: Hillsborough United Church of Christ (HUCC) C/O Pastor Jay Kennett 200 Davis Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Consultants(s): TLW Architects 38 C/O Tim Watson, Architect 112 Baldwin Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Location: Southwest corner of Old NC 86 Highway and Davis. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a map and site assessment of the subject parcel. Parcel Information: a. PIN: 9862 -99 -7320 b. Size of parcel: +/ -15.65 acres c. Zoning of parcel: Rural Residential (R -1) 4.9 acres; Rural Buffer (RB) 10.75 acres d. Township: Chapel Hill e. Future Land Use Map Designation: Rural Residential and Rural Buffer f. Growth Management System Designation: Rural Designated. g. Existing Conditions /Physical Features: Undeveloped portions of the property are mostly wooded with a mix of native hardwood and evergreen trees. The property has gradual topography that gradually slopes toward the intersection. The lowest elevations are located in the western and edges of the property. The highest elevations are at the intersection. There are no steep slopes on the property. h. Roads: Public access for proposed expansion would be via the existing church and daycare entrances along Davis Road. Water and Sewer Service: The property is not located within a primary utility service area. Any development on the property would be served via existing private septic and well systems. Note, the applicant has submitted and update to the NC Environmental Health septic permit to ensure that the expansion (and gallons per day) will be supported by the existing system. Surrounding Land Uses: a. NORTH: Single- family residences and undeveloped properties zoned R -1. b. SOUTH: Single- family residences and undeveloped properties zoned RB and R -1. c. EAST: Single- family residences and undeveloped properties zoned RB and R -1. d. WEST: Single- family residences and undeveloped properties zoned R -1. Proposal: As detailed within Attachment 2, the applicant proposes to expand an existing Child Care Facility called Sounds and Colors. This existing facility currently operated under a previously approved Class B Special Use Permit issued by the Board of Adjustment on July 11, 2005. A copy of this permit is contained within Attachment 6. 39 The expansion would occur solely on the existing 15.65 acre parcel owned by Hillsborough United Church of Christ (HUCC) with a physical street address of 200 Davis Road. The expansion seeks to add approximately 1,200 sq. ft. to the existing 3,000 sq. ft. church classroom building that was developed in 1995. The request also seeks to expand the program's capacity from 58 to 80 children. This expansion is also being documented with the operator's state child care license. Other than the 1,200 sq. ft. addition and 2,000 sq. ft. play yard no other site development is planned. Existing off - street parking drive and other church facilities will meet the Child Care Facility's needs and requirements. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: A "Child Care Facility" is defined within Article 10 Definitions of the UDO as a facility that: "Includes child care centers, and any other child care arrangement not excluded by General Statute 110 - 86(2), that provides child care, regardless of the time of day, wherever operated, and whether or not operated for profit. a) A child care center is an arrangement where, at any one time, there are three or more pre- school children or nine or more school -aged children receiving child care. b) A family child care home is a child care arrangement located in a residence where, at any one time, more than two children, but fewer than nine children, receive child care. " "Child Care" is defined within Article 10 Definitions of the UDO as a facility that: "A program or arrangement where three or more children less than 13 years old, who do not reside where the care is provided, receive care on a regular basis of at least once per week for more than four hours per day from persons other than their guardians or full - time custodians, or from persons not related to them by birth, marriage, or adoption. Child care does not include the following: a) Arrangements operated in the home of any child receiving care if all the children in care are related to each other or no more than two additional children are in care; b) Recreational programs operated for less than four consecutive months in a year, c) Specialized activities or instruction such as athletics, dance, art, music lessons, horseback riding, gymnastics, or organized clubs for children, such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 4 -H groups, or boys and girls clubs; d) Drop -in or short -term care provided while parents participate in activities that are not employment related and where the parents are on the premises or otherwise easily accessible, such as drop- in or short -term care provided in health spas, bowling alleys, shopping malls, resort hotels, or churches; e) Public schools; 0 Non - public schools described in Part 2 of Article 39 of Chapter 115C of the North Carolina Statutes that are accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and that operate a child care facility as defined under Child Care Facility for less than six and one -half hours per day either on or off the school site; g) Bible schools conducted during vacation periods; 40 h) Care provided by facilities licensed under Chapter 110, Article 7 of the North Carolina General Statutes; i) Cooperative arrangements among parents to provide care for their children as a convenience rather than for employment; and j) Any child care program or arrangement consisting of two or more separate components, each of which operates for four hours or less per day with different children attending each component." Section 5.1.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO identifies Child Care Facilities as a permitted use of property within the AR and RB general use zoning districts subject to the issuance of a SUP. Standards governing the development of a camp /retreat, as detailed in Section 5.8.2 of the UDO, are as follows: Standards for Class B Special Use Permit: (1) Submittal Requirements In addition to the information required by Section 2.7of the UDO, the following shall be submitted as part of the application: (a) A site plan prepared in accordance with Sections 2.5.3 5.8.2 of the LIDO, also showing the following (existing or proposed): (i) Buildings; (ii) Outdoor play areas; (iv) Fencing and gates; (v) Off - street parking; and (vi) Access road(s) to the site, as well as on site roads, with an indication of type of proposed surface. STAFF COMMENT: A site plan has been submitted providing required details. Please note this is the required site plan denoting compliance with the UDO as it relates to the issuance of the SUP. A final site plan shall be required for submittal for review and approval by the County prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activities as required in Section 2.5 of the UDO. The applicant has also included a detailed narrative within Attachment 2 providing additional information on the nature of the operations and activities envisioned for the property. (b) A description of the type of facility planned, the size, capacity, and use of proposed buildings; a signed statement from the owners or operators that there shall be no activity allowed that will have adverse effects on adjacent property. STAFF COMMENT: Provided within Attachment 2 as well as on the submitted site plan. (c) A phasing plan, when necessary, indicating the area to be developed in each phase with time periods for construction of each phase. This may be indicated on the site plan. E111 STAFF COMMENT: The applicant proposes only phase for the development. Required information is provided on the site plan with additional detail contained within Attachment 2. (2) Standards of Evaluation (a) Unless public sewer is proposed to be extended, the adequacy for the method of sewage disposal will be determined by the lot size and soil suitability. Appropriate letters from the Orange County Environmental Health Department, local jurisdictions and /or the State Division of Environmental Management shall be submitted to indicate preliminary approval. STAFF COMMENT: Required information provided within Attachment 2. See also NC Environmental Health letter regarding adequacy of existing system to support expansion. (c) The landscape plan shall show how the facilities will be screened from the adjacent properties. STAFF COMMENT: Existing buffers and landscaping shall remain to meet the landscape requirements as shown on the site plan. (e) Off street parking requirements shall be provided in accordance with Section 6.9 of this Ordinance. STAFF COMMENT: The site plan contains required information. Note, the facility will utilize some of the 80+ existing parking spaces for the church. This facility operates during the weekdays and does not conflict with church hours /days of operation. Also note that 7 spaces and only ADA accessible space will be reconfigured adjacent to the main entry. As part of the submittal, the applicant has also voluntarily offered the imposition of the following conditions on the SUP, specifically: 1. Lighting: No additional free standing outdoor lighting shall be provided with this expansion. STAFF COMMENT: The current facility meets the requirements of Section 6.11: "Outdoor Lighting" of the UDO. 2. Vehicular Access: The information and plans illustrating the existing vehicular access points and driveway permits for the site will be reviewed by NCDOT to ensure the expanded vehicular trips and turning movements do not warrant changes to the existing driveways and /or driveway permits for the site. STAFF COMMENT: For public safety as required in Section 5.3.2(8)(2), to ensure viable vehicular access as required in Section 5.3.2 (8) (3), and in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.5 of the UDO the applicant shall apply for and obtain a driveway permit from the NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT) denoting the approved location of access drives and other required improvements prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity. Staff recommends that this review occur at the time of Site Plan submittal. 42 3. Landscaping: The removal of any landscape materials (i.e. trees and shrubs) required to meet Section 6.8 "Landscaping, Buffers and Tree Protection" of the UDO shall be replaced with equivalent materials prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. STAFF COMMENT. Staff will review this removal (if any) on -site at the required predevelopment meeting that occurs prior to land disturbing activity. Per Section 2.5 of the UDO the applicant shall obtain all necessary development permits from the County prior to the initiation of and land disturbing activity associated with the construction of the telecommunication facilities including, but not limited to: a. Building Permit; b. Environmental Health Permit (including State issued permits); c. Erosion Control Management Permit (if applicable); d. Stormwater Permit (if applicable); e. Solid Waste Management Plan and Permit; and f. Zoning Compliance Permit. STAFF COMMENT(S): 1. The applicant has offered conditions of approval for this request. These conditions address potential impact (namely light and landscaping) and on adjacent properties. 2. Attachment 4 contains staff's evaluation of the proposals compliance with the various standards detailed within these sections. While no major concerns have been expressed, staff is recommending the imposition specific conditions of approval offered by the applicant to ensure the project's compliance with the provisions of the UDO in the event the Board determines the application can be approved. 3. As detailed within Attachment 5 staff has determined the application is consistent with established submittal requirements and there is sufficient documentation demonstrating compliance with established development standards. Note, Staff does not make a formal recommendation on the approval of the application or on the applicant's compliance with the general standards detailed within Section 5.3.2 (a) (2), specifically: (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; 43 4. There are several goals /policies detailed within the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan addressing the development of Child Care Facilities in the County including: a. Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life. b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on -site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. 5. Local residents were notified of the required Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) and the public hearing consistent with the requirements of the UDO. No residents came to the NIM or have inquired about the request in person; or via phone, letter or e-mail. Please refer to Attachment 3. 6. Review of SUP applications are carried out in a quasi-judicial format meaning that decisions relating to the approval or denial of an application are based solely on the sworn testimony of all parties involved with the case, both those for and against an application, as well as the review of the competent material and substantial evidence submitted into evidence during the public hearing. 7. The applicant has the burden of establishing, by the submission of competent material and substantial evidence, the existence of facts and conditions that demonstrate the projects compliance with the various requirements and standards detailed within the UDO. Those opposing approval of the application shall have the burden of establishing, also through the submission of competent material and substantial evidence, the specific manner in which the proposal does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application. 8. As previously indicated the Board of Adjustment shall render a decision only on the sworn testimony of all parties and on the competent material and substantial evidence submitted during the hearing relating to the approval or denial of the application. 9. Per Section 2.25.4 of the UDO, every decision of the Board of Adjustment shall be subject to review at the request of any aggrieved party by the Superior Court by proceedings in the nature of certiorari. Appeals have to be submitted with the Superior Court within 30 -days of the availability of notice of decision as detailed within 2.12.5 of the UDO. 10. If approved, Staff is recommending the imposition of several conditions as detailed within Attachment 5_ 11. Please note if this project is approved by the Board, this approval does not exempt the applicant from securing all applicable permits authorizing land disturbing activities to commence including, but not limited to: • Erosion Control /Stormwater permits; • North Carolina and /or Orange County Health Department approving a proposed expanded use of the existing septic system /well for the project; 44 • A Building permit including review and approval of the plans by the County Fire Marshal; • A Solid Waste Management Plan and Permit; • A Zoning Compliance Permit; and /or • NCDOT Driveway permit(s). All the approval of the SUP established is that the proposed land use is permitted to be developed as proposed. If the applicant cannot secure required permits authorizing the physical development of the project, as detailed herein, the SUP may expire. 45 Attachment 1 Site Assessment for PIN: 9862997320 BFC_ with Freeboards _ Flood depth at structure: Site Data: Zoning: R1 4.9acres /RB 10.75 acres Land Disturbance Thresholds: Acreage: 15.65 1) Erosion Control Application /Permit required if disturbing more than Overlay Districts: Jordan Lake unprotected watershed & Lower Eno 20,000 sq. ft. unprotected watershed/ NA Major Transportation Corridor 2) Stormwater Management Application /Permit required if disturbing more than 43,560 sq. ft. (1/2 an acre) for residential structures. Plat/Legal Description: TR A HILLSBOROUGH UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST P55/74 * ** Call OC Erosion Control at (919) 245 -2586 for more information. Zoning Requirements: Max. Density: 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres in RB/ 1 dwelling unit per 40,000 sq. ft. in R1 Min. Lot Size: 2 acres in RB/ 40,000 sq. ft. in R1 Min. lot width: 130 ft. in RB/ 150 ft. in R1 Maximum height: 25 ft. (article 6.2.2) Building Setbacks: Front (and Comer lots) = 40 ft. Side Setbacks = 20 ft. Rear Yard Setback = 20 ft. Max. Impervious Surface: NA Environmental Features: Streams /Water Bodies: NA SFHA(Floodplain): NA Wetlands: Buffers: SFHA Stream_ Flood Info: Panel #:9862J/9872J PIN #: 9862997320 CHRIST HILLSBOROUGH UNITED CHURCH OF 200 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 Notes: 1) Private Road Justifications, Recorded Declarations, Restrictive Covenants, Bona Fide Farm status, use and building type (e.g. duplex units) will change subdivision and development requirements. 2) Wetlands data is taken from Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and does not constitute a formal delineation (i.e. survey) of the property. All wetland areas are approximate. 3) Flood boundaries are subject to change based on periodic amendments to flood maps. Determination is based on current, best available, data. 4) This does not constitute a formal land survey. (Date Site Assessment Completed: 01110/2018 by tsliger) Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County GIs and is for reference only. Exact locations and boundaries should be verified. Map prepared by Orange County Planning & Inspections. 01/10/2018 - tsliger ®® Stream Buffer 80ft — 2' Contours (NCDOT) ('FIRM Major Transportation p Parcels ®Watershed Corridor Overlay Streets 1 inch = 160 feet USGS Stream OZoning 46 APPLICANT INFORMATION, Date: /p-/5-i7 Attachment 2 Orame County Planning and Inspections Department APPLICATION FOR CLASS 8 SPECIAL USE PERMIT Applicant. /a, 9s �omw S � Uaded C-Au.,A al� (Ar,Af Phone: q/ 3 Z - V/8 3 Address: Lclo 04va & >40 Coll Phone: 14, C n E -mail: gCC, ©%C# Agent: SCss..enJ 0,J L oV- . LtC 1444 /20444 — phone: Address: 2. a AIVU Rc LO Cell Phone: E-mail: d w.roc- l+Cooa 4 42so eAJs cruel cci/QeJ ..)eF Address of subject property: Zoc> 440d 19640 9,I S� cc, L, R � /4J(- 171"4 - Parcel Identification Number (PIN): ?,9&A?-?320 Lot Size: ly,6- ,+crc. Zoning Designation: 1 �►r4 f /? s,cj�f�t f //'.•nl� gu �r s- Watershed Overlay: �VoniC Other Overlay Zoning Districts: SM,vt rt ----> Ill 7-C- bequest (include detailed description of proposed land use):. SC ,C A- doe. J� r'+'W A 47 APPLICATION FOR CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Hillsborough United Church of Christ AGENT: Sounds and Colors LLC. PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PIN): 9862997320 Revised: 12 -7 -17 Request: The purpose of this SPECIAL USE PERMIT is to: Bequest approval for construction (addition) of 1,200 sq. ft. classroom and administration space to current education building Request approval to increase use of space from 58 children to 80 children The applicant would like to add on new construction to the existing education building. The 1,200 - square foot addition would include a new classroom, and extend the current hallway adding on an administrative office, storage closet, ADA bathroom, and washer and dryer room. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Hillsborough United Church of Christ ( "IIUCC ") leases its educational building and two rooms in its church to Sounds and Colors, LLC ( "Sounds and Colors "). Sounds and Colors is a 5 -star child care center that operates Monday through Friday, 7:30 am until 6:00 pm, and serves local families and their children from the age of six weeks through 5 years of age. We are a Reggio - inspired, Spanish immersion, project based center. We offer part -time, but full -day care, and parents drop off children between 7:30 am until 9:30 am, and pick up children between 3:30 pm and 6:00 pm. PARKING AND TRAFFIC Sounds and Colors parents have access to HUCC's parking lot (excess of 80 parking spaces). Roughly 20% of our families have more than one child at our center — meaning fewer cars at drop off and pick up. And 25% of our teachers have their children at our center — again, fewer cars traveling to and from our center. We expect this expansion to generate 20 additional cars at drop off and pick up, between the hours of 7:30 am and 9:30 am, and 3:30 pm and 6:00 pm, respectfully. 48 APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Project Name . /is ofrac,� U,4,J C4" "4 a f �rrJ� J�7ti+ rf a n� � �n�' I, -�-� Applicants rov 4 C 4 G 8F Ckr+i-f` I-LC Phone 2 ( �- Owner LADeo(,A4 tc� L•�1ur� i © G �J Address Phone (F/ 5 ( 21 0 1 Z _ Location of Property So Au, f oed (; lOJ c ' Acreage /5., 6 Tax Map Reference Date received Township Lh:Ve.Z // c� PIN(s) f r7 & 2 FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Date accepted /rejected Summary Comments: Reviewed by 49 D. Does the property contain any of the following Inventory of Natural or Cultural Resources? (As identified in the "Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historical, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" or the "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina ".) For each "yes" answer above, please indicate the Location on site plan and complete the following, with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Planner. Also complete Attachment A. (1) Type of resource Inventory reference no. or page Description of Resource (2) Type of resource Inventory reference no. or page Description of Resource (Attach additional sheets if needed) 50 Yes No a. cemeteries "f b. archaeological sites C. historic sites d. areas of geological significance _V e. designated natural areas f. designated habitat �^ g. other For each "yes" answer above, please indicate the Location on site plan and complete the following, with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Planner. Also complete Attachment A. (1) Type of resource Inventory reference no. or page Description of Resource (2) Type of resource Inventory reference no. or page Description of Resource (Attach additional sheets if needed) 50 B. STATE PERMITS REQUIRED 1. Does the project involve the mining of earth products? rJ° ff so, how many cubic feet of material are expected to be excavated? /' M Has an application for a Mining Permit been submitted to NCDRCD? 1i /A- Please attach map indicating expected extent of proposed activity. 2. Does the project involve generation or storage of hazardous or toxic wastes, as identified by the Environmental Protection Agency? (A listing of all hazardous materials is available from the Planning Department) /"'b Describe the wastes to be generated, /111191- How much material is expected to be generated per month? AIM- Will any material be treated onsde? /it) Volume? Will any material be stored onside? 4/6 Volume? Where will disposal of the material take place? /i �F9" -- How will materials be transported to the disposal site? What measures are proposed to protect water quality and air quality in case of spills? 1-114_ 51 I d. Water used for cooling, heating, etc., in association with production or manufacturing % reused % consumed r % discharged {describe: 100% gpd Total Water Usage e. Describe source of water 52 State of North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Division of Child. Development and Early Education Rims _ Ch id ar L ci;an e Ai SOUNDS AND COLORS 200 DAVIS ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, PAC 27278 In each area rated, this facility earned: Staff Education: 6 out of 7 points Program Standards: 6 out of 7 paints Quality. Point: I out of I points Education Option Met: ❑ Programmatic Option Met: Total: 13 out of 15 pc ntI s - ID Number: 68000478 Type of Facility: Center Issued to: SOUNDS AMD COLORS LLC Age Range: a - 6 years Capacity: 1st shift: 58;' 2nd shift: 0; 3rd shift: 0 Effective Date: January 7, 2016 - Restrictions: Daytime care only Meets enhanced ratios Meets enhanced space No use of deadboits daring operating hour's In accordance with Article 7, Chapter 110 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the above named child care facility is issued a rated license, licenses vary from an overall rating of one through five stars, based upon their cumulative points in the three categories above. This license must be displayed in a prominent place so it may be available and shown to each child's parent or guardian when the child is enrolled. This license cannot be bought, sold or transferred. It is valid only for the Iocationladdrass noted above. This license is the property of the State of North Carolina and must be returned to the Division of Child Development and Early Education in the event of termination or revocation. Aldona Wos, Secretary, .Department of Health and Human Services Robert W. ttindsvatter, Director, Division of Child Development and Early Education Ln w — u COMMERCIAL REALTORS' To: To Whom It May Concern, From: Rase Finley, Commercial Real Estate Broker Date: November 20, 2017 RG; 244 Davis 1Zoad, Hillsborough, NC 27278 I have been asked to give my professional opinion regarding the above referenced property. It is of my opinion that adding another classroom to the existing center, in this area, would create an increased value for this property and surrounding properties. Please feel free to call me if you need any further assistance. P. 0. BOX 97215 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27624 919. 848.5600 -.. 54 Hillsborough United Church Of Christ Progressive, Inclusive, Creative, Caring And Kid friendly, too April 10, 2017 Dear Neighbor, We hope this letter finds you weIII We would like to take this opportunity and share with you some good news. As you may or may not be aware, we currently have a child care center, Sounds and Colors, on our property in our educational building. They are in fact, the third child care center who has used our space to offer quality child care to our community going back to the early 1990's. As with our previous child care providers Sounds and Colors has discovered the need for quality care has exceeded capacity of our building. In order to address this need, we are asking Orange County for a Special Use Permit allowing us to add one more room to our educational building. Our first step however, is to invite you into the process and help you know Crow this will benefit the community and address in concerns you may have. In the near future, you will receive notice indicating our request to the county for the Special Use Permit and additional information regarding a public hearing. Before we get to that step, Hillsborough United Church of Christ would like to invite you to meet the owners of Sounds and Colors, to review the architect plan of the new room, and to give you the opportunity to ask questions. We will be holding these meetings on Sunday, May 7 at 12:30 pm and Sunday, May 21 at 12;39 pm at our church, Hillsborough United Church of Christ at 200 Davis Road, Please stop by and join us! PEACE, The Reverend J. Jay Kennett, pastor Jeff McQueen, Church Moderator 200 Davis Road, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919.732.9183 www.hucc.org 55 Buffer: 1000 Feet on Search Results (1) Name Buffer 1 uurrer seiecuun irr ral LtIS t I dLJ OWNER TYPE IOFLAG OWNERI_LAST PIN PINSTATUS 9863805324 ACTIVE null DAVIS 9862896092 ACTIVE null BARRICK 9862884731 ACTIVE null YES UMSCHEID 9862888200 ACTIVE null IMCMULLEN 9862990443 ACTIVE null ISCOTT 9862999596 ACTIVE null CLARK 9862891480 ACTIVE null 1BUCHANAN 9862889603 ACTIVE null IHALLFORD 9872080373 ACTIVE null CONNERY 9862884415 ACTIVE null YES VOGEL 9862893609 ACTIVE null DAVIS 9862882812 ACTIVE null 1CRAWFORD 9862898435 ACTIVE null AUSTIN 9862988192 ACTIVE null CONNERY 9862992837 ACTIVE null IBARLOW 9862998894 ACTIVE null JCLARR 9862878979 ACTIVE null YES jHUANG 9862973902 ACTIVE null YES HUANG 9862980146 ACTIVE null ALTIERI 9862889492 ACTIVE null RIZZO 9863802371 ACTIVE null BARNETT 9862885389 ACTIVE Hulk RICE 9862894553 ACTIVE null HILTON 9872191961 ACTIVE null YES DUKE 9872193459 ACTIVE null BRYANT 9873008345 ACTIVE null SHORE 9862991849 ACTIVE null YES JGWIN 9872095945 ACTIVE null LEE 9862896438 ACTIVE null HILTON 56 OWNERI_FIRST OWNER2_LAST OWNER2_FIRST ADDRESSI DIANNE H null null 319 DAVIS RD JAMES W 211 OAKRIDGE DR LOUISE M HERSBERGER RICHARD A 123 OLD HERITAGE CT KEVIN T MCMULLEN JANE L 118 OLD HERITAGE CT ROY VERNON SCOTT MARY G 302 DAVIS RD MATTHEW ETAL 4503 BUMPHUS RD JAMES G JR BUCHANAN RONDA F 313 OAK RIDGE DR CHARLES R HALLFORD ALICE W 200 OAK RIDGE RD MARC ANDREW CONNERY SHARON K 3820 OLD NC 86 DENNIS R SULLIVAN SUSAN R 129 OLD HERITAGE CT DIANNE H null null 319 DAVIS RD ROBERT W JR CRAWFORD MELANIE M 300 OAK RIDGE DR WILLIAM NEALJR AUSTIN SHIRLEY B 2803 LITTLE RIVER DRIVE MARC ANDREW CONNERY SHARON K 3820 OLD NC 86 DAVID M BARLOW RHONDA M 223 DAVIS RD CAROLYN null null 1412 ALBERT DR ENG SHANG TRUSTEE HUONG SHU MEI TRUSTEE 103 BUCKNER LN ENG SHANG TRUSTEE HUONG SHU MEI TRUSTEE 103 BUCKNER LN THOMAS N ALTIERI KATHERINE A 112 OLD HERITAGE CT RAY RIZZO KAREN 115 OLD HERITAGE CT ANGELA DENISE DAVIS null null 549 DIXON RD WILLIAM A RICE ANGELA M 126 OLD HERITAGE CT MISTY C null null 320 DAVIS RD JEANINE L POULOS JAMES N 4606 FACES FERRY DR THEODORE L BRYANT BEVERLY N 9016 ALBATROSS CT JOSEPH 5 SHORE SARAH C 3501 OLD NC 86 SUMMERS MYRA E SUMMERS (H) RICHARD W 103 GRAPEVINE LN LARRY B 3503 OLD NC 86 MISTY C null inull 1320 DAVIS RD 57 ADDRESS2 CITY ISTATE ZIPCODE TOWNSHIP SIZE UOM CALC ACRES SUBCODE null HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 7 8.01 A 8.01 null NC HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787318 7 1284 A 3.35 2466 272781 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 7 1 A 0,97 2293 7 1 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 7 0.981A NC 0.981 2293 0.65 A HILLSBOROUGH INC 27278 7 21A 1 2.2 null 58 CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 7 0.25 A 1 0.22 null HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787395 7 3.5382 A 3.2 2466 null Hillshorough NC 27278 7 2,2176 A 2.28 2466 HILLSBOROUGH INC 272781 7 4.72 A 4.77 null HILLSBOROUGH INC 27278 7 1 1.04 A 1.03 2293 null HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 7 0.65 A 0.48 null null Hillsborough NC 27278 7 3.5598 A 3.53 2466 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789720 7 2.33 A 2.35 null HILLSBOROUGH NC 1 27278 7 3.87 iA 3.66 null HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787317 7 2 A 1.89 null null MITCHELLVILLE MD 20716 7 13.433 A 12.35 null null CHAPEL HILL NC 27517 7 6.71 A 6,99 null null CHAPEL HILL. NC 27517 7 1.81 A 1.79 null HILLSBOROUGH NC 1 27278 7 0.97 A 0,99 2293 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 7 1.23 A 1.27 2293 null WILLOW SPRING NC 27592 71 10.01 A 9.86 null HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 7 1 A 1 2293 null HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 7 1.01 A 1.07 null nuU DURHAM NC 27712 7 1,22 A 1.18 null null RALEIGH NC 27613 7 10.09 A 10.23 3016 null HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 7 2.84 A 2.71 null null HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 7 2.64 A 2.64 null HILLSBOROUGH NC 272781 7 2 A 1.65 null null HILLSBOROUGH NC 272781 71 2 A 1.95 null 58 LEGAL_DESC RATECODE SCHOOL SYSTEM LANDVALUE N/O SR 1129 0 Orange County Schools 94200 #3 WHITE OAK P60/73 10 Orange County Schools 1.19700 #7 OLD HERITAGE POINTE P75/70 10 Orange County Schools 65000 #3 OLD HERITAGE POINTE P75/70 10 Orange County Schools 65000 DAVIS O C 1129 10 Orange County Schools 83900 TR B HILLSBOROUGH UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST P55/74 10 Orange County Schools 13100 #1 WHITE OAK P60/73 10 Orange County Schools 104700 5 WHITE OAK P60/73 10 Orange County Schools 70100 ##1 MARC A & SHARON CONNERY P43/186 0 Orange County Schools 76600 6 OLD HERITAGE POINTE P75/70 10 Orange County Schools 65000 D ISABETH W DAVIS P94/98 0 Orange County Schools 19000 7 WHITE OAK P60/73 10 Orange County Schools 122500 S/S DAVIS RD P81/104 10 Orange County Schools 93200 #2 MARC A & SHARON CONNERY P43/186 0 Orange County Schools 10100 #2A HARVEY CLARK HRS P491149 N/S SR 1129 0 Orange County Schools 85900 2 HARVEY CLARK HEIRS 0 Orange County Schools 223700 W/S 1009 10 Orange County Schools 152000 W/S 1009 10 Orange County Schools 76900 #2 OLD HERITAGE POINTE P75/70 10 Orange County Schools 65000 #8 OLD HERITAGE POINTE P75/70 10 Orange CountySchools 65000 ##C ISABETH W DAVIS P94/98 0 Orange County Schools 107700 4 OLD HERITAGE POINTE P75/70 10 Orange County Schools 65000 S/S SR 11.921 NANCY DUNNAGAN 10 Orange County Schools 47000 ##1 NANCY JUSTICE ETA P58/16 0 Orange County Schools 33600 #1 SETTLERS RIDGE P94/38 0 Orange County Schools 104700 1 LARRY CARROLL JR P48/3 0 Orange County Schools 50900 A REV GWIN- SUMMERS P103/172 0 Orange County Schools 99900 #213 HARVEY CLARK HRS CLETUS CLARK SUBDiV NW /S SR 1009 0 Orange County Schools 87900 2 NANCY DUNNAGAN P44/67 10 Orange County Schools 85900 59 BLDGVALUE IBLDGCNT VALUATION TAHSTATUS IFARMUSE USEVALUE IDEEDREF ILIEGALREF 60 0 null 94200 Al null 0 null 10 -E -3 317000 3020001 3935001 73200 11 1 1 1 4367001A 367000 458500 157100 A A A null null null null 0 null 0 1769/472 04211/264 1 0469/45 02 -E -346 null null null 0 null 13100 E mull 0318/263 null 3877001 209600 1 1 492400A 279700 Al null null 0 1891/123 null 015716/425 null 173800 1 250400 A null 0541/264 null 341700 1 406700 A null 04724/530 null 0 null 19000 Al null o null 10 -E -3 651200 2 773700 Al null 0 5721/167 null 69000 1 162200 A null 01783/400 null 0 null 10100 A Inull 0541/264 null 158700 1 244600 A null 0987/342 null 0 null 223700 A null 0451/157 null 0 null 152000-A null 0'6012/255 null 0 null 76900 A null 0 6012/255 null 323100 1 388100 A null 1 0 2940/235 null 378800 1 4438001 A inull 01806/155 null 0 null 107700 A null 03548/480 null 3217001 1 386700 A null 04960/70 null 800 null 47800 Al null 05952/119 null 122900 1 156500 A null 02603/69 null 0 null 104700A null 03377/342 null 169900 1 220800 Al null 06165/29 null 70700 1 170600 A null 0 2588/86 null 397700 1 485600 A Inull 011910/361 Inull 130200 1 21,61.00 Al Inull 015952/119 null 60 CSI DATESOLD TAXSTAMPS STAMPVALUE SUBDIVISION NAME TOWNSHIP NAME 12/03/20090 :00 NaN NaN null CHAPEL HILL 07/14/2002 0:00 0 0 WHITE OAK CHAPEL HILL 07/29/1998 0 :00 520 260000 OLD HERITAGE POINTE CHAPEL HILL 02/01/2007 0 :00 670 335000 OLD HERITAGE POINTE CHAPEL HILL 06/08/1984 0:00 34 34000 null CHAPEL HILL 06/28/1990 0 :00 0 0 null CHAPEL HILL 03/16/1999 0 :00 149 74500 WHITE OAK{ CHAPEL HILL 11/06/2013 0:00 466 233000 WHITE OAK CHAPEL HILL 02/24/1986 0 :00 0 0 null CHAPEL HILL 04/30/2009 0 :60 823 411500 OLD HERITAGE POINTE CHAPEL HILL 12/03/2009 0:00 NaN NaN null CHAPEL HILL 11/20/2013 0:00 1550 775000 WHITE OAK CHAPEL HILL 01/28/2002 0:00 0 0 null CHAPEL HILL 02/24/1986 0 :00 01 0 null CHAPEL HILL 04/30/1992 0 :00 0 0 null CHAPEL HILL 02/20/2015 0:00 NaN NaN nuli CHAPEL HILL 09/08/'2015 0:00 NaN NaN null CHAPEL HILL 09/08/2015 0 :00 NaN NaN null CHAPEL HILL 03/26/2003 0:00 470 235000 OLD HERITAGE POINTE CHAPEL HILL 10/02/1998 0:00 80 40000 OLD HERITAGE POINTE CHAPEL HILL 09/04/20050:00 01 0 null CHAPEL HILL 06/15/20100:00 770 385000 OLD HERITAGE POINTE CHAPEL HILL 05/18/20150:00 NaN NaN null CHAPEL HILL 05/30/2002 C :00 56 28000 null ICHAPEL HILL 04/26/2004 0:00 O 0 SETTLER'S RIDGE - CH - P94/38 CHAPEL HILL 07/29/2016 0 :00 464 232000 null CHAPEL HILL 05/09/2008 0 :00 0 0 null CHAPEL HILL 04/22/1999 0:001 0 0 null ICHAPEL HILL 05/18/2015 0:001 NaN NaN Inull CHAPEL HILL CSI PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245 -2575 Suite 201 (919) 544 -3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING - BOA PUBLIC HEARING SOUNDS AND COLORS, LL.0 CHILD CARE FACILITY CLASS B SUP (PIN 9892 -99- 7320) ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA f, Patrick Mallett, Planner II with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) I have mailed, or caused to be mailed, via certified mail a Board of Adjustment Public Hearing Notice. This notice informed those property owners within 1,000 of the subject property of the proposed Class B SUP proposing to expand the existing Child Care Facility. The owners were identified according to the Tax Records and as required by the UDO. The mailed notice specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing and provided information on the Special Use Permit review process. WITNESS my hand, this 2nd clay of March, 2018. Patrick Mallett Planner II 62 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245 -2575 Suite 201 (919) 644 -3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 March 2, 2018 NOTICE OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (A -2 -18) PROPOSING AN EXPANDED CHILD CARE CENTER CALLED "SOUNDS AND COLORS" WITHIN THE HILLSBOROUGH UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST (HUCC) FACILITY 1"o Whom It May Concern: You are receiving this letter because you are listed as an owner of property within 1,000 feet of a 15.65 acre parcel of land at Davis Drive and NC Highway 86 South. The property is further identified by Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9862 -99 -7320. The property is zoned Rural Buffer (RB) and Rural Residential (R -1), within unprotected portions of the Lower Eno and Jordan Lake Watersheds, and located in the Chapel Hill Township of Orange County. The Hillsborough United Church of Christ (the current property owners) and the Sounds and Colors LLC (the current child care operators) are proposing to expand the leased child care facilities on this parcel. The expansion will include a 1,200 sq. ft. addition to an existing building for additional classroom, administration, and education space. It will also include site improvements to increase the child care capacity from 58 to 80 children. The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses classifies the proposed use as "Child Care Facilities," which may be permitted in the RB and R -1 zoning districts so long as they are subject to the review, approval, and issuance of a Class B Special Use Permit (SUP) by the Orange County Board of Adjustment (BOA). UDO Section 2.7 requires that the BOA hold a public hearing in a quasi - judicial format, and that notices be sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. The BOA will hold a public hearing to decide the Class B SUP request on March 12, 2018. The review of all SUP applications are carried out in a quasi- judicial format, meaning that decisions relating to the approval or denial of an application are based solely on the sworn testimony of all parties involved with the case, both those for and against an application, as well as the review of competent, material, and substantial evidence submitted during the public hearing. Quasi-judicial hearings and decisions require a `fair trial standard' including accepting only competent, material, and substantial evidence. Public comments in the form of sworn testimony meeting evidentiary standards can be accepted. Personal, anecdotal, or hearsay comments, however, shall not be accepted as they do not represent `competent, material, and substantial evidence.' 63 Further, the applicant has the burden of establishing, by the submission of competent material and substantial evidence, the existence of facts and conditions that demonstrate the project's compliance with the various requirements and standards detailed within the UDO. Those opposing approval of the application shall have the burden of establishing, also through the submission of competent, material, and substantial evidence, the specific manner in which the proposal does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application. While County regulations and State law do not require that parties be represented by an attorney, it may be in your best interests to secure legal counsel to represent your interests at the Public Hearing, Staff has included a SUP Fact Sheet to provide additional understanding of the process. Planning staff will provide additional information on the review of SUP applications at the public hearing. The Public Hearing has been scheduled as follows: Gate: Monday, March 12, 2018 Time; 7:00p.m. Location: Lower Level — Conference Room Number 004 Vilest Campus Office Building (W.C,O.B.) 181 West Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 If you have questions, or require additional assistance, please contact a Current Planning staff member at (919) 245 -2878. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Patr%&- rz. MRU tt Patrick R. Mallett Planner II CC: File; Michael D. Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Craig Benedict, Planning Director Enclosures:: Vicinity Map for Public Hearing Showing Building /Parking; Site Assessment of the Subject Property; Overall Development Site Plan and Proposal; and Special Use Permit Fact Sheet. 64 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245 -2575 Suite 201 (919) 644 -3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. 0. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING - NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING SOUNDS AND COLORS, LLC CHILD CARE FACILITY CLASS B SUP (PIN 9862 -99 -7320) ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Patrick Mallett, Planner II with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) I have mailed, or caused to be mailed, via certified mail a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) notice. This notice informed those property owners within 1,000 of the subject property of the proposed expansion of the existing Child Care Facility. The owners were identified according to the Tax Records and as required by the UDO. The mailed notice specified the date, time, place and subject of the Neighborhood Information Meeting and provided information on the Special Use Permit review process. WITNESS my hand, this 12th day of January, 2018. Patrick Mallett Planner II 65 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 644 -3802 FAX ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27273 January 12, 2018 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION' MEETING (NIM) TO REVIEW A CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PROPOSING AN EXPANDED CHILD CARE CENTER CALLED "SOUNDS AND COLORS" WITHIN THE HILLSBOROUGH UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST FACILITY To Whom It May Concern: You are receiving this letter because you are listed as an owner of property within 1,000 feet of a 15.65 acre parcel of land at Davis Drive and NC Highway 86 South. The property is further identified by Orange County Parcel Identification. Number (PIN) 0862 -99 -7320. The property is zoned Rural Buffer (RB) and Rural Residential (R -1), within unprotected portions of the Lower Eno and Jordan Lake Watersheds, and located in the Chapel Hill Township of Orange County. The Hillsborough United Church of Christ (the current property owners) and the Sounds and Colors LLC (the current child care operators) are proposing to expand the leased child care facilities on this parcel. The expansion will include a 1,200 sq. ft. addition to an existing building for additional classroom, administration, and education space. It will also include site improvements to increase the child care capacity from 58 to 80 children. The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses classifies the proposed use as "Child Care Facilities," which may be permitted in the RB and R -1 zoning districts so long as they are subject to the review, approval, and issuance of a Class B Special Use Permit (SUP) by the Orange County Board of Adjustment (BOA). UDO Section 2.7 also requires that a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) be held prior to the Board of Adjustment meeting and that notices be sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. This NIM meeting is intended to allow property owners and applicants an opportunity to review and discuss the proposal with the area's residents. It is also designed to give participants an understanding of the SUP requirements and the review process. The NIM for this case will be held on Tuesday, January 23, 2018. See below for the location and additional details. The Board of Adjustment will hold a Public Hearing to decide the Class B SUP request on March 12, 2018. Additional notices shall be sent to you confirming the datellocation /time of that Public Hearing. The review of all SUP applications are carried out in a quasi-judicial format, meaning that decisions relating to the approval or denial of an application are based solely on the sworn 66 testimony of all parties involved with the case, both those for and against an application, as well as the review of competent material and substantial evidence submitted during the public hearing. Quasi-judicial hearings and decisions require a 'fair trial standard' including accepting only competent, material, and substantial evidence. Public comments in the form of sworn testimony meeting evidentiary standards can be accepted. Personal, anecdotal, or hearsay comments, however, shall not be accepted as they do not represent ' competent, material, and substantial evidence.' Further, the applicant has the burden of establishing, by the submission of competent material and substantial evidence, the existence of facts and conditions that demonstrate the project's compliance with the various requirements and standards detailed within the UDO. Those opposing approval of the application shall have the burden of establishing, also through the submission of competent, material, and substantial evidence, the specific manner in which the proposal does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application. While County regulations and State law do not require that parties be represented by an attorney, it may be in your best interests to secure legal counsel to represent your interests at the Public Hearing. Staff has included a Special Use Permit Fact Sheet to provide additional understanding of the process. Planning staff will provide additional information on the review of SUP applications at the NIM meeting. The NIM has been scheduled as follows: Date: Tuesday January 23, 2018 Time: 7:00 -8:00 p.m. Location: Lower Level — Conference Room Number 004 West Campus Office Building (W.C.O.B.) 131 West Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 If you have questions, or require additional assistance, please contact a Current Planning staff member at (919) 245 -2575. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Patr%bz R. MaUett Patrick R. Mallett Planner II CC: File; Michael D. Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Craig Benedict, Planning Director Enclosures: Vicinity Map for NIM showing build inglparking; Site Assessment; Overall Development Site Plan and Proposal; and Special Use Permit Fact Sheet. 67 OWNERI LAST OWNERI FIRST ADDRESSI CITY STATE ZIPCODE ALTIERI THOMAS AND KATHERINE 112 OLD HERITAGE CT HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 AUSTIN WILLIAM AND SHIRLEY 2803 LITTLE RIVER DRIVE HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789720 JOHN CLAYTON CHRISTY BAILEY AND 7510 COUNTRY LANE ROUGEMONT NC 27572 BARLOW DAVID AND RHONDA 223 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 1272787317 BARLOW, JR. RANT 3315 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 BARNETT ANGELA 549 DIXON RD WILLOW SPRING NC 27592 BARRICK JAMES W 211 OAKRIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787318 SHANNON MARTIN JOHN BOXTER, JR. AND 3423 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 BRYANT THEODORE AND BEVERLY 9016 ALBATROSS CT RALEIGH NC 27613 BRYANT THEODORE AND BEVERLY 2000 WOODVIEW DR DURHAM NC 27704 BUCHANAN JAMES AND RONDA 313 OAK RIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 1272787395 CLARK CAROLYN 1412 ALBERT DR MITCHELLVILLE MD 20716 CLARK HEIRS CLETUS 1412 ALBERT DR MITCHELLVILLE MD 20716 CLARK, ETAL. MATTHEW 4503 BUMPHUS RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 COLE CHRISTOPHER AND AMY 101 OLD HERITAGE CT HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 CONNERY MARC AND SHARON 3820 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 CRAWFORD ROBERT AND MELANIE 300 OAK RIDGE DR Hillsborough NC 27278 DAVIS DIANNE H 319 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 JAMES POULOS JEAN INE DUKE AND 4606 PACES FERRY DR DURHAM NC 27712 FREELAND THEODORE AND SHARON 100 OLD HERITAGE CT HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 SUMMERS RICHARD AND MYRA 103 GRAPEVINE LN HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 HALLFORD CHARLES AND ALICE 200 OAK RIDGE RD Hillsborough NC 27278 HAM LETT CHARLENE W 3333 CHAPEL HILL BLVD, STE C DURHAM NC 27707 HILLSBOROUGH UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST 200 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 HILTON MISTY C 320 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 SHU MEI HUONG TRUSTEE ENG SHANG HUANG AND 103 BUCKNER LN CHAPEL HILL NC 27517 SHU MEI HUONG TRUSTEE ENG SHANG HUANG AND 1519 JONES FERRY RD CHAPEL HILL NC 275169348 KRALIC JASON AND ALEXIS 130 OLD HERITAGE CT HILLSBOROUGH INC 1 27278 LEE LARRY B 3503 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH INC 1 27278 MAYER ICHALRES AND 'ELLEN 7029 WOODMORE TERRACE LAKEWOOD RANCH JFL 1 34202 MCMULLEN KEVIN AND JANE 118 OLD HERITAGE CT HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 MELCHIONE CHERI 1818 MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 NIEVES CHRISTOPHER AND ANDREA 104 OAK RIDGE HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278; REED, ETAL. ALBERT P O BOX 1531 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 REICHERT WILLIAM AND KAREN 214 OAK RIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 RICE WILLIAM AND ANGELA 126 OLD HERITAGE CT HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 RIZZO RAY AND KAREN 115 OLD HERITAGE CT HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 SCOTT ROY AND MARY 302 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 SHORE JOSEPH AND SARAH 3501 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 SUDYK MICHAEL AND GEORGE 3412 COUNTRY CLUB DR GASTONIA NC 28056 SUDYK MICHAEL WILLIAM 418 DARBY CREEK LANE MORRISVILLE NC 27560 RICHARD HERSBERGER iLOUISE UMSCHEID AND 123 OLD HERITAGE CT HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 WALKER ROWDY B 11877 FLYING W TRL Hillsborough INC 27278 SUSAN SULLIVAN DENNIS VOGEL AND 1129 OLD HERITAGE CT jHiLLSBOROUGH INC 1 27278 Attachment 4 Patrick R. Mallett From: James Baxter Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 12:25 PM To: Patrick R. Mallett Subject: Sounds and Colors Day Care [Davis Road Pat Mallett, The OC Building Inspections Division has no objections to the Sounds and Colors Daycare obtaining a Special Use Permit to expand their operation from 58 to 80 children. That is based on the approval of their State Lagoon Discharge Sewage System and complying with the NC Building and Technical Codes, OC planning and Zoning and the OC Fire Marshal's Office. James Baxter OC Building Inspections ibaxterC@oraneecountvnc.eov 919- 245 -2606 o 919 -717 -1056 m 70 OFFICE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF Sheriff Charles S. Blackwood ,� ;' ` _; lir 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, worth Carolina 27278 919 -245 -2900 March 2, 2018 Patrick R. Mallett Orange County Planning & Inspections 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Sounds and Colors, Class B SUP PIN 9862 -99 -7320 Dear Mr. Mallett: This letter confirms that the Orange County Sheriff's Office does not foresee any issues with the Special Use Permit for the Sounds and Colors. Given its location in the unincorporated portion of Hillsborough, my Office is responsible for providing law enforcement services to this area. I am not aware of any safety issues related to this location If you have any questions, please contact me via email at csblackwood (korangecountync.gov or by phone at (919) 612.0003. Sincerely, Sheriff Charles S. Blackwood Orange County Sheriffs Office 71 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Engineering 1 Erosion 131 W. Margaret Lane Control 1 Stormwater (919) 245 -2575 Suite 201 (919} 644 -3502 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. 0. Box 8181 (919) 6 4-3002 (FAX) .gaur NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Patrick Mallett FROM: Howard W. Fleming, Jr., PE, Engineering /Stormwater Supervisor DATE: 02112118 OWNER: Hillsborough United Church of Christ PROJECT: Sounds and Colors, LL,C PIN: 9862997320 SUBJECT: Class B SUP - DAC Review, January 24, 2016 EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL 1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMMENTS: Having reviewed the subject project, Erosion & Sedimentation Control 1 Stormwater staff members understand this project must proceed through certain discretionary actions in order to determine functional and economic viability, prior to the developers investing in more detailed design and subsequent jurisdictional submittals for compliance reviews and permits. Although the parcel is split by two sub - watersheds, the proposed development is located in the Jordan Lake Unprotected Watershed. Therefore, this development must satisfy the provisions contained in the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), if disturbance exceeds the following thresholds: ■ Erosion & Sedimentation Control — 20,000 SF * Stormwater (Commercial) - 21,780 SF According to the application documentation and revised site development plan, the proposed disturbance falls below these disturbance thresholds. The Engineering /Stormwater Division has no objection to the issuance of a Class B SUP. S.X%Erosion Control and Waler Q ualirylComsryondenccUiWF1PAMatinds+ ColorsClassB- SUP(Reviscd)IHWROC -E &SC_ PAC- Memo(Sound s+CoW&CtrszaT3- SUI')021218.doc 72 Patrick R. Mallett From: Chuck Edwards Contact Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:18 PM To: Molly Boyle; DAC Subject: RE: [External] Next DAC Meeting: Thursday, January 18th Molly, I have reviewed the submittals and offer the following comments: Lovitt Plat: No NCDOT action or approval needed Atwater Plat: No NCDOT action or approval needed Crawford Plat: No NCDOT action or approval needed Sounds and Colors, LLC Daycare Expansion: Based on the information provided, the proposed expansion would result in a gross floor square footage for daycare use of approximately 3200 SF. A daycare facility of this size would be expected to generate approximately 250 daily trips with approximately 20 ingress and 20 egress trips in each of the AM and PM peak periods. The existing accesses and road network are expected to adequately accommodate these volumes. Since property use and site configuration are not substantially modified and no new accesses are proposed, issuance of a new NCDOT driveway permit is not required. No additional NCDOT action or approval is needed at this time. Charles N. Edwards Jr., PE (Chuck) District Engineer N. C. Department of Transportation Division of Highways Division 7, District 1 336 570 6833 cnedwards ncdot. ov 115 East Crescent Square Drive P. 0. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 73 Patrick R. Mallett From: Phil Vilaro Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 2:16 PM To: Patrick R. Mallett Subject: RE: Comments on Sounds and Colors, LLC? Dear Pat So long as we have documented DWR for the expansion of flow, we do not have jurisdiction over the septic system. However, we will need an application for an Existing System Authorization (XS), and will need to make a site visit in order to verify setbacks of the new construction from any existing well(s). Thanks PRV Please tell us how we are doing by taking this very quick survey. We appreciate your comments. https:// www. surveymonkey.com /r /EHSURVEY2017 -2018 Philip R. Vilaro, PhD, REHS Environmental Health Services Division Interim Co- Director Environmental Health Supervisor Onsite Well and Wastewater Section Environmental Health Division Orange County Health Department 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 100 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone — 919 - 245 -2362 Fax — 919 - 644 -3006 http: / /www.co .orange.nc.us /envhlth /index.asp HEALTH DEP&RTMENT Imprawrng hEal h. Inspiring changE. you CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: All email messages, including any attachments, generated from or received by this site are the property of Orange County Government and as such are considered public domain and are subject to the North Carolina Public Record Law. The Orange County Health Department does not transmit client /patient medical information vial email. Certain other confidential information may be transmitted, however, and any unauthorized review, use disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you believe there has been an inappropriate disclosure, please contact Carla Julian at ciulian @co.orange.nc.us, the health Department Privacy Officer. From: Patrick R. Mallett Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 1:42 PM To: David Ward; Phil Vilaro 74 Cc: Molly Boyle Subject: RE: Comments on Sounds and Colors, LLC? This one has a state permit and has been updated with GPD that would support the additional kids .... See letter in folder under attachment 2. All I need is an e-mail stating that EH has no objections to the issuance of the Class B SUP ... you can a qualifier like assuming that all the appropriate permits are finalized.... From: Molly Boyle Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 1:23 PM To: David Ward; Phil Vilaro Cc: Patrick R. Mallett Subject: Comments on Sounds and Colors, LLC? Hi David and Phil! I hope you're doing well. Patrick needs any comments you may have on a Class B Special Use Permit application for Sounds and Colors, LLC. Pat said he thinks this project has a State system, but he wanted to defer to you to be sure. You can access the site plan for Sounds and Colors, a Child Care Facility, using the following pathway: T: \Planning \Sounds and Colors Child Care Facility Class B SUP If you have any concerns over the project, please let him know. Even if you have no comment, please send him an email saying so —that way he can add it to the file. You can reach Patrick at 919 - 245 -2577 or pmallett @orangecountync.gov. Thank you! Molly Boyle, MPA Planner I Orange County Planning & Inspections (919) 245 -2599 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 13Z correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties. 75 Patrick R. Mallett From: Elizabeth Farnan Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 1:15 PM To: Patrick R. Mallett Cc: Jason Shepherd Subject: Sounds and Colors Patrick, I have no comments at this time about the Sounds and Colors addition. Once I see the actual plans I will make official comments. Thank you! .+ xnul -etl rVrrmaw �saistant Fire Ma,, r,,f 1rcm 'ye ,aunt ?Hari ency Jervices rirc M""raf Av"'iorr Office: 919 -245 -6153 Ge %l -c! "fr orx e: 919-537-2149 919 -732 -8130 nail eefrrnmr@Oran2er nc.. o1r Wear. Lot : % /vrangecounirtne- �oy r edJ' rant me tlfie aere"ity to accvt tlr"eo��le �eunnot clianI to couraje to c%r"je tree one Ycan, a7wd tA wiadwn to jiroW it 8 me. ^'a��ist%rvr us�►frx�osvyr 1 76 Patrick R. Mallett From: Jeff Scouten Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 1 :14 PM To: Patrick R. Mallett Subject: Sounds and Colors Daycare Expansion SUP Review Comments Attachments: Sounds and Colors Daycare Expansion SUP Review Comments Dated 01 -24 -18 JS.pdf Importance: High Pat: Please find my comments on the subject application attached herewith. Let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss further. Jeff Scouten Environmental Enfotrcevwent Supewisoir Orange CouKty Solid Waste Managew►eint P.O. 130x 1-7177 1207 Eubanks Roam Chapel Hill, NC 2751-6-7177 1?1q --q68 -2788 (Office) Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties. 1 77 MEMORANDUM TO: PAT MALLE TT, PLANNER I1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING: & INSPECTIONS FROM: JEFF SCOU HN, ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBJECT: SOUNDS AND COLORS SUP - EXISTING DAYCARE EXPANSION (PIN. 9862 -99 -7320) DATE; JANUARY 24, 2018 I made as site inspection of the subject property today and the property appears to be adequately served by solid waste and cardboard collection (Waste Industries) and mixed recycling (Change County). Currently there are 3 mixed recycling containers, 2 solid waste containers, and I cardboard container serving the facility however if the proposed daycare expansion strains that capacity, then the applicant/owner may be required to add more containers at such time as it is warranted. Other than drat, I have no other issues or concerns and as such I would not object to the approval of the SUP application as currently proposed. Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment on these plans and please let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. 78 Patrick R. Mallett From: Tam Altieri Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:27 PM To: Patrick R. Mallett Subject: Sounds and Colors, LLC - Environmental Health approval Hi Pat, I recently received notice of Sounds and Colors expansion as a property owner within 1000'. The materials reference an attachment, Environmental Health approval, that was not enclosed. This is my only are of concern and interest. Can you send or direct me? Thanks, Tom 79 Attachment 5 FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY SOUNDS AND COLORS LLC AND HILLSBOROUGH UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST PROPOSING EXPANSION OF A CHILD CARE FACILITY ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY OFF OF OLD NC 86 AND DAVIS ROAD (PINS 9862 -99 -7320) As required under Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), a Class B Special Use Permit is required for the development /operation of a camp /retreat center, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 of the UDO. Such permits shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 and 5.8.2 of the UDO. Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the LIDO 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 LIDO, (2) Specific regulations governing the development of a Child Care Facility as set forth in Section 5.8.2 of the LIDO, (3) 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. (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 Board of Adjustment in its deliberations. 80 REQUIREMENT LIDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff BOA APPLICATION COMPONENTS Proper forms 2.2 Application (Attachment 2) Yes Fees paid 2.2.4(D) Application (Attachment 2) Yes Full description of use 2.7.3(8)(1) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes • Location • Appearance • Operational characteristics Owner Information 2.7.3(B)(2) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes Information needed for Use Standards 2.7.3(B)(3) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes Site Plans 2.7.3(B)(4) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes (10 copies for Class B; 26 for Class A) Preliminary Subdivision Plat (if 2.7.3(B)(5) [No subdivision proposed.] N/A N/A necessary) List of parcels within 1,000 feet 2.7.3(B)(6) Application (Attachments 2 and 3) Yes Elevations of all structures 2.7.3(B)(7) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes Environmental Assessment (or EIS) 2.7.3(B)(8) EIS Not Required Yes • Topography EA provided in Application (Attachment • Drainage issues 2) • Natural or Cultural resources • Mining • Hazardous Wastes • Wastewater treatment • Water usage Method of Debris Disposal 2.7.3(B)(9) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes Development Schedule 2.7.3(B)(10) Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes Extended Vesting Request 2.7.3(B)(11) Not requested N/A N/A NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Public Notice 2.7.6(a) Application (Attachment 3) Yes • Date • Time • Place Published in Newspaper 2.7.6(b) Staff Testimony Yes • Two successive weeks The legal ad was published in the News • First notice at least ten days of Orange and the Chapel Hill Herald on prior but no more than twenty- February 28 and again on March 7, five days prior 2018 Sign Posting on Property (at least 10 2.7.6(c) Staff Testimony Yes days prior) posted sign on March 2, 2018 01 Mailed Notice 2.7.6(d) NIM and BOA Materials (Attachment 3) Yes • Certified mail • All adjacent property owners (within 1,000 feet) • Not less than fifteen days prior 82 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff BOA SPECIFIC STANDARDS Waste Disposal 5.3.2(8)(1) Staff's Abstract and Staff Comments Yes Method and adequacy of provision for (Attachment 4) sewage disposal facilities, solid waste Both Environmental Health and Solid and water service. Waste have indicated they have no concerns. Safety 5.3.2(B)(2) Staff's Abstract and Staff Comments Yes Method and adequacy of police, fire (Attachment 4) and rescue squad protection. Fire Marshall and Sherriff's office have indicated that they have no concerns. Vehicle Access 5.3.2(B)(3) The submitted site plan shows access Yes Method and adequacy of vehicle points. access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. NCDOT District Office has indicated that they have no concerns (Attachment 4). 83 REQUIREMENT I UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff BOA STANDARDS FOR A CHILD CARE FACILITY 5.8.2 Site Plan 2.5; and Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes A site plan prepared in accordance 5.8.2(B)(1)(a) with Section 2.5 and Standards for Child Care Facilities. A floor plan of the proposed child care 5.8.2(13)(1)(b) Site Plan Yes facility, showing the use and dimensions of each room and the location of entrances and exits. Standards of Evaluation 5.8.2 Application (Attachment 2) (Site plan) Yes A description of the type of facility, (B)(2)(a -j) the size, child capacity, and use of proposed buildings; fencing, gates, outdoor and indoor play areas, landscaping, parking and pick -up /drop off areas, access . 84 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff I BOA SPECIFIC STANDARDS In accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), the Board of Adjustment shall also consider the following general conditions before the application for a Special Use can be approved. Application package as contained Yes The use (will / will not) maintain or Section 5.3.2 in Attachment 2 inclusive including, promote the public health, safety and (A) (2) (a) but not limited to: general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and Narrative operated according to the plan as Environmental Assessment submitted. (EA) Application • Site Plan Site Assessment (Attachment 1) Staff review comments (Attachment 4) Based on all above findings, Applicant's Narrative, and Staff's report, the Board finds 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. The use (will / will not) maintain or Section 5.3.2 Application package as contained Yes enhance the value of contiguous (A) (2) (b) in Attachment 2 inclusive including, property (unless the use is a public but not limited to: necessity, in which case the use - Narrative; need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property). - Staff abstract, - Review comments (Attachment 4); and - Letter from Mrs. Rose Finely, Commercial Realtor (Attachment 4). Based on all above findings, and a lack of competent /material evidence in the record refuting the testimony, the Board finds the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. 85 The location and character of the Section 5.3.2 Application package as contained Yes use, if developed according to the (A) (2) (c) in Attachment 2 inclusive including, plan submitted, (will / will not) be in but not limited to: harmony with the area in which it is - Narrative; to be located and the use is in - Environmental Assessment compliance with the plan for the (EA) Application; and physical development of the County - Site Plan. as embodied in these regulations or - Site Assessment in the Comprehensive Plan, or (Attachment 1) portion thereof, adopted by the Board - Staff review comments of County Commissioners. (Attachment 4) Based on the above findings, Applicant's Narrative, and Staff's report, the Board finds the location and nature 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 and in the Comprehensive Plan. 86 RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant complies with the application requirements, notice requirements, submittal requirements for camp /retreat centers, specific standards of evaluation for camp /retreat centers, and required regulations as outlined within the UDO Staff has not received any evidence indicating the project does not comply with the UDO, including the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) inclusive, establishing the grounds for making a negative finding on the general standards as detailed herein. 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. The Board could make an affirmative finding on this application provided the Board of Adjustment finds in the affirmative on the specific standards of evaluation 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 telecommunication facility, or b. Fails to comply with the general standards detailed within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO. In the event that the Board makes an affirmative finding, and issues the permit, staff recommends the attachment of the following conditions: The Board voted unanimously to issue the requested Special Use Permit with the imposition of the following condition(s): 1. In accordance with the provision(s) of Section(s) 5.2.1 Table of Permitted Uses and 5.8.2 Child Care facility of the UDO, activities allowed to occur on the property shall be in accordance with the submitted application package and narrative as approved by the Orange County Board of Adjustment on March 12, 2018. 2. In accordance with the provision(s) Section 5.8.2 Child Care Facility, and consistent with the submitted application package, site plan, and narrative as approved by the Orange County Board of Adjustment on March 12, 2018, all existing and required buffers per Section 6.8 shall be maintained and /or enhanced. Any landscape materials removed shall be replaced with comparable materials. Existing vegetation shall be preserved within this buffer in perpetuity except for the removal of vegetation necessary to allow for the installation of driveways, public and /or private utilities, ponds, erosion control and stormwater measures and /or devices. 3. For general welfare as required in 5.3.2 (B) (2) and to ensure the proposed use is in harmony with the general area as required in Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO, no additional freestanding lighting shall be permitted for the Child Care Facility. 4. For public safety as required in 5.3.2 (B) (2) of the UDO, the Orange County Fire Marshal shall review and approve the final site plan, including construction of any and all required fire suppression ponds /facilities, prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activities. 5. Per Section 2.5 of the UDO the applicant shall obtain all necessary and applicable permits from the County associated with the development of the property consistent with the approved Special Use Permit, including but not limited to: a. Building/ Solid Waste Management Permit, 87 b. Environmental Health Permit, c. Erosion Control Management Permit, d. Stormwater Permit, and e. Zoning Compliance Permit. 6. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.12 (C) of the UDO, 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. 7. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.12 (D) of the UDO, 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. W Attachment 6 NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY DRAFTED BY: Edward B. Kirk, Orange County Planning Department COUNTY OF ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA SPECIAL USE PERMIT KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Christa Niven and Martha Lee, 200 Davis Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278, having applied to Orange County for a Special Use Permit for the use and development of the property hereinafter described, the same was granted by Orange County on July 11, 2005, the terms of which are as follows: NAME OF PROJECT: The Little School and Family Transitional Learning Classroom, for the purpose of operating two Day Care facilities. TYPE OF SPECIAL USE: Class B Special Use Permit NAME OF PROPERTY OWNERS: NAME OF DEVELOPERS: Hillsborough United Church of Christ Christa Niven and Martha Lee DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES LOCATION: At the southwest intersection of Davis Road (SR 1129) and Old NC 86 TAX MAP REFERENCE: Chapel Hill Township, Tax Map 2, Lot 29U. 89 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: All of the 15.65 acre lot at the southwest intersection of Davis Road (SR 1129) and Old NC 86 shown on the plat and survey by Steve F. Yuhasz, Registered Land Surveyor, entitled Property Surveyed for Hillsborough United Church of Christ and recorded on Plat Bonk 55, Page 74 of the Orange County Registry, hereinafter referred to as "the property". P.I.N. # 9862 -99- 7320. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS The Board of Adjustment of Orange County approved granting a CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT on July 11, 2005 applicable to the property. The project subject to this SPECIAL USE PERMIT is described above and shown on the Site Plan by John C. Williams, Registered Architect dated October 1, 1997. Christa Niven and Martha Lee will each operate a day care facility on the property. The terms herein contained are binding on the present owners and lessees and their successors in title and in interest until the expiration of this permit and any extension of its expiration date, until such time as this permit is otherwise changed by government action. The existing facility, and all other site improvements shall be operated in accordance with the site Plan dated October 1, 1997 and all impact and safety commitments shall be as contained in the narrative statement of the project all of which are incorporated herein and made a part of this Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and supporting documentation are on file in the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Except as detailed on the Site Plan, the property will remain and be maintained in its natural condition. The conditions of approval are as follows: Existing vegetation shall be maintained as indicated on the site plan. 2. 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. 3. 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 County Commissioners as provided in 8.4.11 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 4. Within 90 days from the beginning of operation of The Little School clay care facility all requirements to obtain a State of North Carolina day care license roust be met. 5. Fencing and/or screening shall be provided and maintained which assures the protection of the children receiving day care, protects adjacent residentially developed properties from. trespass, effectively screens the view of any outdoor playing area, and reduces noise associated with the operation of the cay care facility. 6. Adequate access to and from the site as well as adequate space off the road right -of -way shall be provided and maintained for the safe pick -up and discharge of children and shall be provided in such a manner that traffic generated by the day care facility is not disruptive to adjacent residentially developed properties. 90 V4 Attachment A Site Plan and Building Details �Y ---� ^ —..�._ ansRamCxr+- •rrar3� •••rr •� � / - �. _ - °__•� _{ �^ app. ] � -� -� j �r. � j� 1]�' # ! 1 _'�°C` ,C, •L•b\ � , -.•� J - .•d • '+ " y?ZR >l� � r 1F •�� i I. •. .`ti+��r,..Y w..Y`i �- •�'" -•'r ^Tr. � >>° f � � Y 4 �'r.�.`� •rte `�� s t r + • \y4 � ` � .Y f f e t index of Drawings _ C4 Preliminary site plan i 1 . D -1 Preliminary Existing Floor Plan Demolition and Sitework Notes \� F -1 Preliminary Fanndation and Floor Framing Plan `- A -X Preliminary Floor Plan A-2 Prelfminary South and East Elevations A -3 Preliminary North and West Elevations Sul Wing Gross section A -4 Preliminary Root Plan {ram rc ..a.sq ftr+0 • i ( - `� •J /,r �rf r •r f . ��_�st��1� �+• �r f �ra; -sac "I-,� a ate° a rum i' f F L� I,.GLA'"��FZoGS -1 Fly: 'HA- CG-i-T- 1ZKW AAFAA6 'M- -qGT`-- M' ..1_�'! � �5�i�7fl.fC� i�,a`�;»° �rJif••.t�lklC -a. 'l� .�JC -HEGL� GlF.Gilf.rS7i'jp3� - S]Tr PLAN' - HILLS$GROUt4i - 'UNITED C•'HCIRCH 0. CHRIST cam ,KU'rW- QWA='= Ma W raMa a�mr,r :ravr _ � � rrr ,r•� ��s� Jam-^ -• -'�._: 4rLFd 5"L7 /• iaFt HAS I,t;-EZra xavd ->w.�> W �51-ze 15 J J �� °�.,�1<GY : = :�L11,�TJ�•• y G:�t�z °:� . ;� s�",�' � fti�1 i i � X1.4 M 1 1i f 4�5u1>ri�� �t�� �F f:r�r�ilf~rdT yy�t IL /F Q &� rfMe,T qp c4K ft�Pixf+J� � N `7 C;A ' f i w,-k-- ;M PAP Ar kaik ! AND 00�— HG 45.rdT' RARICIN G DATA: Required staff parking; 15 / 9' x 20' standard spaces Required customer parking: 20/ 9' x 20' standard spaces HC stall: 1/ 15'x 20' concrete pad Upgraded existing parking adjacent to main. entryway: 7 spaces + 1 HC Alf remaining parking to be accommodated at existing graveled parking on north side of church buifdfng. Ll�--ihl L- 5171& M-AW } is v t F .X � r .9' will � 0 16. I 1 r PIrAi4 OZ41 -T1-i 9cr• o AGt✓ �.� � U�j1` ' ' f • - lug �o.aa' c� -F! : ri:5K l- r A iC L'ias IWrormA -n FJ 'W-G� 51 -ra MAd Od - HffF'T G- i 0 C � m ail a L O n fV V Z 07 0 �a v n 12 a a � 3 m U cns q � e M+y O w ¢z H C1 7D wa• I�S1� �'�129lCa C I —M-A EM5-r, KAL-LWAf vwu qc, r4A-1r:5-.- Lj CD WALL jalp;j� T A. � CIF1 L- up �F—L-j 1-11 OAK-Y' M-,t [-J 5T, bFr E)F/ CHILLY + At li :E 0. es VS M., =-r :w A-1 kiLl CL-111V�".C-, r,. 6 A -r 4-F L im F -1 � It- "Or FF (Fo r urr -fmi I t [ -![.E) a , 2 wi SJ 0 0 m LTV az Li kiLl CL-111V�".C-, r,. 6 A -r 4-F L im F -1 � It- "Or FF (Fo r urr -fmi I t [ -![.E) a , 2 wi SJ 0 0 m LTV az r 1 6 ( Ftlu.. Ty1 l r UO T 69<014W) C15i}I�r �,'LJLDjl 6 FU14 tr ax��« c . AS�aJ!rl� :� °c�r�= .v�L..�� t�t•1E.9,IpY �T - Z; E'ittN Z'1 ' "GH1L GR�p,�rF f l rJ< -,�_ — ° w DEMOLITION NOTES ' — — •— •- �• 3 Refer to number keyed marks on plan for location of demolition Items. E m �'�� t. Remove existing 5'x W {nom.} woad deck and related framing AGE= SS�fr.Frp 2. Remove exterior wall siding where connecting corridor is to be NiAl/ I constructed. P EW -TICr _ B. Remove exterior siding at southeast of existing structure where 1 I new additlon at laundry is located. _ 4. Remove existing roof overhangs at locations identified above. 2 GENERAL SITEWORK NOTES a cc • - � � - -• a Temporarily remove existing 4 foot high chain link fencing at � I`l Q north playground situated within 24 feet of proposed structure. v Establish temporary fencing at south portion of playground 1, d owner Instructions.. per ' a Remove all existing trees and understory plants within 10 feet ;C w f of addlt €on outside perimeter t€ne. o , • �� �' 1�5� ` ` a Remove designated trees located within future playground area. Reestablish building e . - - -- - a working grades wtthln the addition perimeter per foundation requirements .n w' S PC MHOI M �� � �R A s a Transport 20 -40 cubic yards of sacrifice material being generated at retaininc wall area to a designated affsLte location. 4 a q k r� PPY�oJl10 r 1 6 ( Ftlu.. Ty1 l r UO T 69<014W) C15i}I�r �,'LJLDjl 6 FU14 tr ax��« MAO I'D rn i I =1 TV- �k t• I Qp f= �e d, v L3 I API + X11 a fit/ � Gu } I +GMd '"Ill01LLrIa u_ aad tea MA i P CAI l JGi: N t e ArF [ 2 HI I Pl P-5 o axles a� GM11(�rt'f3 t` ,a 11 � ' #I•���'I FIB , a' P id 11Ca}iO17 12,Y. Z°Y, lot+ 6 ` lqiVI -TIC 'E.� tl ICW6 - AT f4dTH � u lr1�f] n �u 4r, �'SL p,J•I ro ro� 0 't1 c 0 c E m U n C o r= � x sn e z. w Q 5 a ty r%wa W15-rAl OfilLow, 5SPRIPI-+ P—:m 12 Fm E 0 7; 0 ry du M A �l JV 2,51 g I 7LW 00 K• I`7 J. ;�.,x, 6d'iP s i �_ _ �• I/v = II -col F�I�I�PCS E;+11P_ft1� AT I- IALL -WAY Ve ` = I l.QTl o a G na uw a zq E ix um 0 ro m G m w 0 `a c an � a � :tl q�a d oiG�f EEO -- -- -- I p YrtVFi a EI�EY i"r l til -009TH r 6r.5 r' Pt. �Xo PIl4 00 K• I`7 J. ;�.,x, 6d'iP s i �_ _ �• I/v = II -col F�I�I�PCS E;+11P_ft1� AT I- IALL -WAY Ve ` = I l.QTl o a G na uw a zq E ix um 0 ro m G m w 0 `a c an � a � :tl q�a d oiG�f f� F �IlL1Y �S^+1�i 21 wam. kAu it 1,tITkICa �_� A ap k # _ O& ia 4 u} N k I 'rLi VlJ �rj., t�r���ll�}Qr cx C Il rl���.�- A13n��r�osJ r E K�121c�tc WAU— w j1 + j WAY. �� � AFL � Pi'C41{ES -7c r1A`TCI� E~�L1F1T1 � � rtNIR,� `� w