The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Board agenda 050119 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 9� faro r ^ n t z x� ,n ;�arrri �as 6'l�0 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD NOTE MEETING LOCATION!! WHITTED BUILDING 300 WEST TRYON STREET, 2ND FLOOR HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Wednesday, May 1, 2019 Regular Meeting — 7:00 pm No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 3 - 4 a. Planning Calendar for May and June 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5 — 10 April 3, 2019 Regular Meeting 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 5. PUBLIC CHARGE Introduction to the Public Charge The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB)to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. Public Charge The Planning Board pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, County staff, and Board members. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. • Page(s) Item Please be kind to everyone. 6. CHAIR COMMENTS 7. 11 — 30 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT GENERAL USE REZONING - To review and make a recommendation on an owner initiated application seeking to rezone 4.08 acres of property (PIN 9758-42-4098) located in Bingham Township on the south side of Old Greensboro Road from Rural Buffer (RB) (2.65 acres) and Existing Commercial (EC-5) (1.43 acres) to Existing Commercial (EC-5) (4.08 acres). The purpose of the rezoning is to resolve a split zoning by applying one zoning district to the entire parcel on which an existing commercial use is located. Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II 8. 31 — 54 MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT-To review and take action on a preliminary plat application for a Major Subdivision called Fairway Hills. The proposal is for a 20 lot single-family Flexible Development subdivision on 41.97 acres (PINs 9884-32-3275 and 9884-31-9874) located in Eno Township on the north side of US Highway 70 across from the Occoneechee Golf Club. The Concept Plan request for this subdivision was approved by the Planning Board at its April 3, 2019 meeting. Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II 9. ADJOURNMENT IF AN EMERGENCY OCCURS, OR IF YOU ARE RUNNING LATE FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE LEAVE A VOICE MAIL FOR PERDITA HOLTZ(919-245-2578). 3 1 • Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 Notes: Planning Board Regular BOCC *Planning Board Member Attendance Required or Meeting Meeting Encouraged 7:00 pm* 7:00 pm WCOB=West Campus Office Building Whitted Bldg Whitted (131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough) Building Whitted=Richard Whitted Building (300 W.Tyron St., Hillsborough) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 BOCC Budget OUTBoard BOCC Budget Public Hearing meeting @ Public Hearing 7:00 pm 6:30 pm 7:00 pm Whitted Whitted Bldg Southern Human Services 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Regular BOCC BOCC Budget Meeting Work Session 7:00 pm 7:00 pm Southern Whitted Human Services 26 27 28 29 30 31 •' BOCC Budget Work Session • a 7:00 pm Southern Human Services 4 1 ' Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 Notes: *Planning Board Member Attendance Required or Encouraged WCOB=West Campus Office Building (131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough) Whitted=Richard Whitted Building (300 W.Tryon St., Hillsborough) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Regular BOCC Planning Board BOCC Budget Meeting Meeting Work Session 7:00 pm 7:00 pm* 7:00 pm Whitted WCOB 204 Southern Building Human Services 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BOCC Budget Work Session 7:00 pm Whitted 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Regular BOCC OUTBoard Meeting Meeting 7:00 pm 6:30 pm Southern WCOB 204 Human Services 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 5 DRAFT 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 APRIL 3,2019 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 *NOTE: Due to equipment failure there is no audio of the meeting and the minutes were prepared by staff notes and 7 recollections 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; David Blankfard (Vice- 10 Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Randy Marshall, Bingham Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno 11 Township Representative; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large Chapel 12 Hill Township, Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative; 13 14 MEMBERS ABSENT: Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township 15 Representative; Paul Guthrie,At-Large Chapel Hill Township;Vacant, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Vacant, 16 At-Large; 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: Pat Mallett, Planner II; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Phil Vilaro, Environmental 19 Health Supervisor; Tina Love,Administrative Assistant III 20 21 OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Smith, Summit Engineering; Mark O'Neal, Picket-Sprouse; Paul Noe; Craig Carter; Patricia 22 Catto; Cyrus Griswold; Marie Huskett; Linda Nathansen; 23 24 HANDOUT: Handout LID Savings Comparing to Traditional Stormwater Management (Low Impact Development) 25 submitted by Linda Nathansen to the Board 26 27 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 28 Chair Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order 29 30 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR FOR REMAINDER OF 2019 31 32 David Blankfard, Hunter Spitzer and Adam Beeman volunteered for the Vice-Chair position. A secret ballot was 33 requested. Paper was distributed to the Board and collected by Tina Love who tallied the ballots and announced that 34 Hunter Spitzer received 2 votes, Adam Beeman received 2 votes and David Blankfard received 3 votes making David 35 Blankfard the new Vice-Chair 36 37 VOTE: Blankfard—3, Hunter—2, Beeman—2 38 David Blankfard elected as Vice-Chair 39 40 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 41 a. Planning Calendar for April and May 2019 42 43 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 44 March 6, 2019 Regular Meeting 45 March 20, 2019 Special Meeting 46 47 MOTION by Adam Beeman to approve the March 6, 2019 Regular Meeting Minutes and the March 20, 2019 Special 48 Meeting Minutes with corrections. Seconded by Hunter Spitzer. 49 VOTE: Unanimous 50 51 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 6 DRAFT 52 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE 53 Chair Lydia Wegman read the Public Charge 54 55 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 56 There were none 57 58 AGENDA ITEM 8: MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW-To review and take action on a Concept Plan 59 application for a Major Subdivision called Fairway Hills. The proposal is for a 20 lot single-family Flexible 60 Development subdivision on 41.97 acres(PINs 9884-32-3275 and 9884-31-9874) located in Eno Township on the 61 north side of US Highway 70 across from Occoneechee Golf Club. 62 PRESENTER: Patrick Mallett, Planner II 63 64 Patrick Mallett reviewed the case history and changes since the original application,presented a PowerPoint 65 presentation and reviewed the abstract including attachments. 66 67 The project, originally proposed as a 27 lot Class A Special Use Permit Major Subdivision project, had been revised 68 by the applicant. Now, Fairway Hills is proposed to be a 20 lot Flexible Development Cluster Major Subdivision. As 69 a result, the review of the project would follow standards established within Section 2.15 of the UDO rather than the 70 Special Use Permit process as contained in Section 2.7. Further, the applicant was no longer required to abide by 71 standards contained in Section 5.17.6 of the Unified Development Ordinance as the project is no longer classified as 72 requiring a Special Use Permit. The applicant was still obligated, however, to demonstrate compliance with the 73 provisions of Article 7 of the UDO, which establishes the development standards for subdivision projects. 74 75 The proposal will still involve creation of individual single-family residential lots for future development,proposed to 76 be served by roadways constructed to applicable NC Department of Transportation guidelines. The proposed lots 77 range in size from 42,785 square feet(smallest)to 125,765 square feet(largest). The Gross density is one dwelling 78 unit per 2.1 acres, which is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan land use designations and the Lower Eno 79 Protected Watershed Protection Overlay district. The applicant was proposing the creation of approximately 37%of 80 open space area, which will be managed by a local homeowners association. 81 82 The applicant is proposing to serve the project with individual wells and for septic systems developed on each lot. 83 The Concept Plan denotes anticipated areas for septic sites. The applicant has also conducted more detailed well 84 and septic analysis and submitted documents as part of their application. 85 86 Overall drainage will be engineered according to applicable standards at the time of permit application for 87 construction. The property is subject to adopted erosion control and stormwater management guidelines. The 88 Concept Plan currently anticipates improving drainage using mostly Common Open Space Areas. 89 90 The Concept Plan denotes a 75 foot wide Type E natural/constructed landscape buffer along US Highway 70 East. 91 This area will be planted with additional materials and landscaped(e.g. berms/fencing) to augment preserved 92 existing vegetation. The 75 foot buffer will meet the required Type E Buffer, as outlined in Section 6.8.6(F)of the 93 UDO. The applicant has proposed a 50 foot perimeter well and septic setback and a 100 foot building setback, which 94 would limit structures, clearing and utilities along the perimeter and US Highway 70 East. 95 96 Tim Smith of Summit Engineering presented a PowerPoint presentation and provided additional project details. 97 98 Lydia Wegman asked Tim about the additional set-backs and about the wells and septic. 99 100 Tim Smith confirmed that the building set-backs on US 70 would be 125 feet and 50 feet for well and septic. He also 101 advised that they have hired a consultant for the express purpose of studying the water and septic requirements 102 needed. 7 DRAFT 103 Adam Beeman questioned the expected size of the homes. 104 105 Tim Smith related that they expect to build 4 to 5 bedroom homes depending on the individual lot soils and sizes. 106 107 Randy Marshall asked if the project would be adding stub outs for future development 108 109 Tim Smith responded that they would not be adding them because the adjacent properties were not likely to be 110 developed. 111 112 Pat Mallett indicated the County staff was not recommending creation of stub outs to serve adjacent properties. This 113 was due to a combination of factors, most notable surrounding development patterns,topography, and concerns over 114 impacting existing water features. 115 116 There was general discussion on the potential environmental impacts of roadways crossing water features. 117 118 Hunter Spitzer asked if they would consider making the internal road into a complete loop for the convenience of the 119 property owners. 120 121 Tim Smith replied that the topography and reduction to the size of the lots made it undesirable. To do a loop street 122 system would actually require more land disturbing activity and impact the existing grade potentially creating 123 stormwater control issues. 124 125 Lydia Wegman asked if the open space was going to be available to the property owners to use. 126 127 Tim Smith asserted that all the open space was available for all of the residents who would own property within 128 Fairway Hills and that for the most part it is wooded and would remain so with mulch paths etc. Mr. Smith stressed 129 any trails development within the open space would not be available for non-property owner access. 130 131 David Blankford asked if staff and Mr. Smith could provide additional details on the potential stormwater needs for the 132 project. 133 134 Pat Mallett reminded the Board the property was located within the Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection 135 Overlay district. Project disturbing more than 20,000 square feet of land area are required to submit and receive 136 approval of an erosion control plan. Projects disturbing more than 21,780 square feet of land area are required to 137 submit and receive approval of a stormwater plan. Fairway Hills will require both erosion control and stormwater 138 permit review and approval. The Concept Plan denotes the location of anticipated stormwater facilities. Mr. Mallet 139 reminded the Board erosion control and stormwater plans would be submitted prior to the commencement of land 140 disturbing activity assuming the project was, ultimately, approved. 141 142 Tim Smith indicated the project involved centrally located stormwater facilities. These stormwater control measures 143 would address the overall development of the project. Development on individual parcels may also require the 144 property owner to develop appropriate stormwater control measures as well. 145 146 There was general discussion. 147 148 Lydia Wegman asked if there were any comments or questions from the public. 149 150 Linda Nathansen expressed concerns on multiple issues regarding the development and request that there be testing 151 of the wells done for the neighbors that could potentially be negatively impacted so that if in the future there is a 152 problem the property owners have proof that it was not a problem before the development. She requested that no 153 use of round-up or similar pesticides be allowed to be used and expressed concerns about run off and stormwater 8 DRAFT 154 issues. She requested that the use of Low Impact Design (LID)stormwater management be considered and handed 155 out a paper that compared the system to traditional systems. She related that there was an underground tank on the 156 property and that there was the potential of contamination from it to the adjacent properties. 157 158 Michael Harvey reminded the Board that the County has some of the most restrictive stormwater regulation in the 159 area. Developers were required to address both water quantity, specifically how much water was leaving the site, 160 and water quality, specifically the removal of nutrients from the project. This project would also have to abide what is 161 known as pre and post stormwater runoff conditions. What this means is that under current conditions if there was 162 approximately 1 inch of water running off the property in its pre-development state,there can be no more than 1 inch 163 of runoff generated by the property in its developed state. Mr. Harvey further reminded the Board they could not 164 compel or require the applicant to adhere to a specific stormwater design standard. That would be addressed during 165 the stormwater permitting stage based on applicable County and State regulations. While he appreciated Ms. 166 Nathansen's suggestion that the project use low impact design principles, there was no guarantee the project would 167 qualify for same. 168 169 Michael Harvey reminded the Board that is surrounding wells were already experiencing issues, it would be prudent 170 for those property owners to contact Orange County Environmental Health to ascertain if the wells need to be re- 171 drilled. Testing of wells to try and establish a baseline of existing issues, in the hopes of holding property owners 172 within Fairway Hills accountable for potential impacts,was not practical. The assumption that future problems will be 173 the direct impact of this project represented a false premise as developmentlredevelopment of surrounding lots could 174 also lead to the problems Ms. Nathansen was concerned about. 175 176 Craig Carter expressed concern on the well water table and contamination. He related that several properties had 177 contaminated wells and had to have then drilled deeper and that there had been 3 gas stations there in the past. 178 179 Mark O'Neal of Pickett-Sprouse addressed the concern and advised that the tank had been for heating oil and had 180 been removed,the soil around it was also removed and the remaining soil has been tested and cleared by an expert. 181 182 There was additional, general,discussion on contamination issues. 183 184 Michael Harvey reminded the Board of existing wells were contaminated,then property owners should take action to 185 work with the Health Department to address those issues. That was a separate issue from the review of this project 186 however. 187 188 Paul Noe addressed the Board to second the comments made by Linda Nathansen and potential impacts to area 189 wells. 190 191 Randy Marshall asked if there was a precedence to require the developer to pay a bond to be used if there was a 192 negative impact on the wells in order to protect the current residents of the area. 193 194 Adam Beeman expressed that if you couldn't determine exactly which property was the straw that broke the system 195 and if a bond was required it would then become even more difficult to have any kind of development in Orange 196 County than it is now and all development would cease. 197 198 Michael Harvey addressed the Board and advised that he could not legally require any type of bond to address 199 potential well impacts and that it wasn't possible for the Board to require same. He further reminded the Board that 200 the presumption this project would be the genesis of future problems was based on flawed logic. There was no way 201 to determine what could or could not happen. From a liability standpoint it would be difficult to determine this project 202 was the sole cause of contamination. 203 9 DRAFT 204 Randy Marshall said he understood a bond was not prudent or legally permissible, but wanted to make sure there 205 was an answer on the record of this fact. 206 207 Michael Harvey indicated Mr. Phil Vilaro of Orange County Environmental Health was in the audience and would like 208 to address the Board concerning well and septic issues. 209 210 Phil Vilaro spoke to Board to address concerns about well safety and water table issues. He reassured the Board 211 that it standard practice to have wells on multiple lots similar to the size proposed within this project and that it is not 212 an issue in his mind to have 20 individual wells created to serve these lots. M.Vilaro did not believe development of 213 this project would impact water pressure or the water capacity of surrounding wells. Mr.Vilaro reminded the Board 214 Orange County does not have a true aquifer/water table. This is why you have such a disparity in well depth,water 215 quality, and generated gallons per minute from property to property in any given area. In discussing surface water 216 contamination he expressed the rarity of that happening in Orange County because of the standards required by the 217 County for every new well drilled. Mr.Vilaro said County requirements,with respect to the drilling and installation of 218 wells,were amongst the strictest in the State. Mr.Vilaro agreed older wells, installed prior to the adoption of local 219 comprehensive regulations in the mid 1980's,were indeed subject to potential impacts from runoff given how they 220 were constructed (i.e.depth, casing, etc.). Such wells need to be replaced as they are not suited to address such 221 contaminant issues. 222 223 Craig Carter thanked Mr.Vilaro for his explanation and provided some history on the well his grandparents installed 224 on their property to provide additional context on his concerns with respect to well impacts and contamination issues. 225 The well was constantly providing `muddy'water and there were issues with contaminants at times. 226 227 Phil Vilaro indicated he believed Mr. Carter and suggested part of the problem was the well was not installed deep 228 enough to avoid subsurface silt runoff and contamination. Current practice requires wells to be dug deep to address 229 this issue and to be properly incased/grouted to protect the integrity of the well. Mr.Vilaro reminded the Board 230 approximately 80% of the County was intended to be served by private wells and septic systems as there were no 231 plans by the County to extend/develop public utility systems. 232 233 There was lengthy discussion amongst the Board and Mr.Vilaro on septic and well permitting. 234 235 An unknown individual asked if there was an opportunity for this project to tie into public water from the Town of 236 Hillsborough. Pat Mallet indicated the property was not in a designated public utility service area,which meant there 237 was no opportunity for the project to be served by public utilities. 238 239 Patricia Catto indicated she had the same concerns about stormwater runoff and well contamination as previous 240 speakers and further expressed disappointment in the notification process for this project. Ms. Catto indicated 241 property owners need to be kept notified whenever a development is proposed in the Town of Hillsborough so they 242 can have a voice in the process. 243 244 Michael Harvey indicated the County had the most rigorous notification requirements in the region,well exceeding 245 State requirements. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board a neighborhood information meeting was held for this project, 246 with property owners within 1,000 feet of the parcel being notified of the date and time of the meeting via letters sent 247 first class mail. Staff posted signs on the property advertising the neighborhood meeting 10 days prior to the event. 248 249 Michael Harvey said the agenda for this meeting was advertised in 2 local newspapers and additional notice was 250 sent to adjacent property owners of the meeting date and time via first class mail. Information on the project was 251 also posted on the County website with a detailed explanation of what the project entailed. Staff also posted signs on 252 the property advertising the date and time of this meeting where the Concept Plan was to be reviewed. Mr. Harvey 253 said he could not address Ms. Catto's concerns about other projects in the Town of Hillsborough as the County did 254 not manage the Town's planning program and suggested she make contact with the Town to address her issues. 10 DRAFT 255 Michael Harvey asked Ms. Catto where she lived. Ms. Catto responded she lived approximately 5 miles away from 256 the proposed subdivision. Mr. Harvey reiterated the notification requirements as contained within the UDO and 257 indicated Ms. Catto was not notified of meetings via first class mail due to the location of her residence but that the 258 County takes additional steps with the posting of signs, advertisement of meetings in 2 newspapers, and posting 259 project updates on the County website for the interested to obtain proper notice of projects and meeting dates. 260 261 There was additional discussion on meeting notification and on County standards well exceeding State minimum 262 requirements. 263 264 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approved the Flexible Development option Concept Plan and allow the applicant to 265 proceed with the development and submittal of a Preliminary Plan and application utilizing this layout. Seconded by 266 Adam Beeman. 267 VOTE: Unanimous 268 269 Pat Mallett advised the Board Members that this and residents regarding the next steps for the case and how to 270 obtain information 271 272 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT 273 The meeting was adjourned by consensus 274 275 276 277 Lydia N. Wegman, Chair 11 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 1, 2019 Action Agenda Item No. 7 SUBJECT: Modification of the Existing Zoning Boundaries for Non-Residentially Zoned Property (further identified as PIN 9758-42-4098) and Located at 2616 Old Greensboro Road in Bingham Township. Property is approximately 500 feet east of the Orange County Ferguson Road Solid Waste recycling facility. DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Application with Supporting Documents Patrick Mallett, Planner II (919) 245-2577 2. Map of Subject Parcel Michael Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 3. Exhibit "A" with Existing Conditions Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2585 4. Statement of Consistency 5. Ordinance Amending Zoning Atlas PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on a property owner initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas for a parcel of property within the Bingham Township. BACKGROUND: In 2016, staff initiated a review of several properties throughout the County that were split zoned (i.e. residential and non-residential zoning designations), zoned non- residential where there was no corresponding non-residential land use, and where existing zoning boundaries did not allow for the logical use of property. As reported at that time, there were many instances where previous staff had drawn zoning district boundaries in a manner that encompassed only the actual land use (i.e. building) while excluding other areas, most notably parking, septic fields and/or required land use buffers. Staff worked with several property owners, including the current applicant, in an attempt to address these problems by updating the zoning designations on various parcels. This parcel, further identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9758- 42-4098, is an approximately 4 acre parcel split zoned Rural Buffer (RB) and Existing Commercial (EC-5). EC-5 is a zoning designation specifically crafted to capture "grandfathered" non-residential uses that existed prior to zoning coming into effect in many parts of the county. In this case, Bingham Township (including this property) was originally zoned in 1981. The property is used as a self-storage facility, wood working shop, and residence. These land uses have been in existence since approximately 1977. Current zoning designations split the existing self-storage facility (i.e. portions of the operation are located within the EC-5 and RB general use zoning designations). For more information on current conditions, please refer to maps contained within Attachment(s) 2 and 3. 12 At the owner's request in 2016, this property was not considered for modification to allow for additional review of potential impacts. The owner has since submitted the required zoning atlas application seeking to proceed with a rezoning eliminating the existing split zoning of the property zoning the entire parcel EC-5. This is consistent with what staff originally proposed in 2016. It is unclear why the original zoning effort undertaken in the Bingham Township, which occurred in 1981, failed to capture the various non-residential land uses that were in existence on the property. This request, however, will address this matter by rezoning the property entirely to EC-5. Site specific information on the property, and request, is as follows: Township: PIN: Owner: Existing Zoning: Request: Bingham 9758-42-4098 Thomas Lawton Rural Buffer (RB) (2.65 Expand the existing EC-5 2616 Old Greensboro acres) zoning designation to the Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Existing Commercial entire parcel (4.08 acres) (EC-5) (1.43 acres) ensuring all structures associated with operation University Lake are located within the Protected Watershed appropriate district. Protection Overlay District For more information please refer to Attachment 1. As previously indicated, maps and survey denoting the subject property are contained within Attachments 2 and 3. Public Notifications: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, letter notices of the rezoning and the time location and nature upcoming Planning Board meeting were mailed to residents with 1,000 feet of the subject parcel. A sign indicating the rezoning request and Planning Board meeting was also posted on the property. JPA Review: This request is located within the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district and within the Joint Planning Area (JPA) with Carrboro. In accordance with the provisions of the JPA, the Town of Carrboro was notified of this request on April 11, 2019. As of April 23, 2019, no comments have been received from the town. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 4 and the proposed zoning atlas amendment ordinance contained in Attachment 5. The proposed atlas amendment addresses non-conformities associated with the existing land uses on property by extending the EC-5 zoning designation over the entire parcel. Further development/redevelopment of the property will need to abide by applicable development standards including required land use buffers and impervious surface limits. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement and mailings 13 were paid by the applicant. Existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required to process the amendment. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Planning Board: 1. Review the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment, 2. Deliberate on the petition as desired, 3. Consider the Planning Director's recommendation, and 4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 4) and proposed ordinance (Attachment 5) for the atlas amendment in time for the June 4, 2019 BOCC Public Hearing. Attachment 1 �tose ' Ev",f� 14 Orange County Planning and Inspections De alrtment " 52 ,APPLICATION FOR ' ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT lcp1 4 Cato' GENERAL USE REZONING REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION: . Dater Applicant: Phone: Phone: Address: / CeIl Phone: • ° ! E-mail: f PROPERT SUBJECT TO REQUEST: Parcel Identification Number(PIN).- Address of property: SO v l w O , t,. 4L,:> Owner of property: V D m AS S. LA o ID,-�-J Current Zoning Designation: E Cr- Requested Zoning Designation: 5C�: S Z **If Applicant/Owner are different people,include a signed,notarized,statement indicating that the owner has authorized the applicant to submit the request. In cases where there are multiple property owners, please attach an additional document containing their signatures authorizing the submission of the application or other Iegal documentation establishing the applicants right to file on their behalf** SUBMITTAL INFORMATION»Section 2:$.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance(UDO) 1) A Map,at a legible scale,showing the property(s)subject to the request. A map may be procured at the Planning Department for a fee in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule 2) A legal description of the property(s)proposed for rezoning 3) A list showing the names and addresses of all adjacent property owners within 504'feet of the subject property. 4) A detailed narrative denoting the following: a. The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas(if any)that will be corrected by the proposed request. b. The changed,or changing,conditions(if any)that makes the proposed amendment reasonable necessary to promote the public health,safety,and general welfare. c. How the proposed amendment is consistent with,or carries out the intent and purpose of,the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, 5) In cases involving amendments to the Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District,applicants shall supply the following-additional information in accordance with Section 2.8.3(G)of the LIDO: a. An elevation certificate with either an MT-1,MT-2,or MT-EZ(forms available through FEMA)or b. A`No-impact'analysis for a letter of map revision 5)The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule in affect as of the date of the application. i (we), the undersigned, have been made aware of the process for the review and action associated with a UDO Zoning Atlas Amendment application and understand only completed applications, containing all information required by the Orange County UDO shall be reviewed and acted upon by the County. Further I (we) understand that any assistance I (we) may receive from. County staff in preparing this application in no way guarantees a favorable recommendation by staff on the merits of this proposal nor does it guarantee an approval of the proposed atlas amendment by the County. Applicant Date: Applicant Date: 15 Hi my name is Stan Lawton I own 4.08 acres on Old Greensboro Highway in Bingham Township, Orange County, of which 1.43 acres is zoned EC5. I would like to explore the possibility of converting the entire 4.08 acres to EC5 zoning as well as the possibility of erecting an additional storage building on the property. The storage business is a good one and the occupancy rate is consistently 95% but I receive many calls for storage I must turn away for lack of enough units. That is why I would like to construct an additional climate-controlled storage building which would require a changeover to EC5 zoning. I bought the land in 1977 as a place to operate my business. The existing building was a rough pole barn (80x100 feet) with aircraft hanger doors on either end and a dirt floor. The building was just a shell with a dirt floor and little protection from heat or cold. A small office sat next to it on the east side. The trucks would drive in one end and load trusses and wall sections and drive out the other end. They stacked trusses in fiont of the building on a rack for advertising. There were no trees and the land surrounding the buildings was entirely scraped of topsoil in order to level the area for trucks to come and go. The rest of the property was covered in wild blackberries. At that time Old Greensboro Highway was entirely rural with very little traffic. Over the years, I improved the building adding 16 a floor and constructing walls and insulating. In the early 1990s I began to convert the building into a self-storage facility. By 2002 the self-storage facility was fully occupied. In 1988 I began landscaping the property beginning with having a pond dug in the boggy area on the southeast corner of the lot. The pond is 12 feet deep with with a 6"drain installed that runs into the woods behind it. Now almost all the rain water from the property goes into this pond. We used the excavated soil from the pond to build up the scraped-over land in the front of the building that had been leveled for the previous construction business. We minimized the amount of impervious surface by creating a built-up circle of topsoil in the center and adding topsoil and planting trees thirty feet apart on both sides of the driveway. In other words, when I bought the property almost one-quarter of it had been scraped at least one foot below the surrounding land. Today it has been fully restored and the trees are nearly full grown. I have continued to improve the overall integrity and attractiveness of this property. In 2008 I began construction of a series of water garden features on the west side of the property that extend from the road to my house over 300 feet. I bought a tractor and backhoe and hired a professional landscape designer to help me with the planning and construction of it. I have invested between $200,000- $300,000 an landscaping my water garden and the property behind my house including the pond. Today it is a beautiful addition to the property and a local attraction. 17 In summary, I am trying to make this a long-term self sustaining locally owned business that insures profits remain in Orange County. Constructing an additional climate-controlled storage building, if possible as close behind the original building as is feasible, would keep the rural character of this area by preserving the large trees along the driveway and the northwest field along Old Greensboro Road as a rural buffer. The storage business is a low impact non- polluting business which can also be attractive if the buildings are set back from the road as I have suggested. I have been working closely with Alois Callemyn and look forward to his arranged meeting with the Orange County Planning Director to discuss my request for a zoning modification. I will be happy to provide photographs if you wish. .� , f, ��. ,;,� t h r_ �i. .�l .�. ,p f,,•,.�. ' f' - 'r .�.[[ � � - .� �f t R � .. •� �� Y� � *- ./,�_ RO r 'Y' a 20 a y= I :.a � - s� i r.._ r_��F�'trr � �`Fa'µ��. •fix+�l�'�< ~ y c "'':a.,. _ .:. 4Y�.,.� .,s: l�;.�:.�{;�i�� M`k�' t.s ��,i�$'� b��"+'•:'fin t_.y�yyr •C, •.;:�,�,,k,a f r �l�',�ex� •'' 1 �.11 { 'F•�:f yr*:',S. �ZF �' AeP[y .i f i^"rfit�l•��:. ".L� j, ,i^S•� ..y y 1a .,! �n r� L.`�. . aF fi� � �•`�n t !.r r•{;°`� k..r�rk�Cft s �h'u 'FJ�'� ��1y,{�'�,�f�yr�� gy��/,,,,1 7 g��5a�w� �4 �/ �n•5 s. .° lfi�„' " `'t" •> it`I,k' ` +5• mod, _ , ,f` �•;{.T-•:��%1,�' '•.;,:��iF.� �C'7 ' �r' 3r 4�'�T,� � Yr[ �l •1.+ ^h , '__,�1::`.•�.}�'."., .' iFi�' �3:•'.4-!•k "saNE' 21 A .-'j.'... �•y'. 9��%� ..'� ..Y!'.i"; - Tf�� ice... `I[=} - F - •., �.- 'ice `` v'y^--''I"\�3ty ,�I�+�\..\ � ` 1 y�F w� t�. �� ." .-. ,"'(,.�' �;-,,t,'�7��.q��Y��a�"''i��,�� .`'tea_ �Fy•��,� <+Ai F. Ak. ;�' PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 22 Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning : 131 W. Margaret Lane (919)245- ORANGE COUNTY Suite 1 (919)644-3002 3002 P.O. Box 818181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 BILLING CONTACT LAWTON THOMAS S 2616 Old Greensboro Rd Chapel Hill, Nc 27516-9025 INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE INVOICE DUE DATE INVOICE STATUS INVOICE DESCRIPTION INV-00000159 02/20/2019 02/20/2019 Paid In Full NONE REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME TOTAL MA19-0001 CP Legal advertising fee $1,000.00 CP Mailing Fee $82.00 CP Sign Posting(F) $30.00 CP Staff Review Fee Non-Resid. (Single Tract) $1,888.00 SUB TOTAL $3,000.00 REMITTANCE INFORMATION Orange County Planning&Inspections 131 W. Margaret Lane P.O.Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 If mailing in your payment, please be sure to include the reference number( MA19-0001 ) on your check. Please make checks payable to "Orange County" rpt_ALL_OC_ALL_InvoiceData 2019.3 Report created:3/4/2019 3:07:48PM aaK oZ�] PAGe `� 23 NOTE: suRYEYED FROM DEED BOOK PAGE 248 991 264 1196 273 GG9 PLAT BY WILLIAM L. GOLDEN R-L.S.1176 .6 ok-iO O sp. j�A a i S.R. 1005 OLD GREENSBr'.r.mn R•1aa6.62 L.366-TA Iran found cons-almor n Y D r rn4.08AC. 1°. c i + r v � � f M o 9 N r R 0 dl 469v1' 169-OU 6SGOf g a3.12 Iron found FINAL PLAT WILBERT ATWATER LANDS PROPERTY OF 'O""°F —^---p ••a THOMAS S. LAWTON w"'+u'++raa.r'�..w�y......or Plartnlnff J3oard f1pp—cl Not N—. — . e_ BINGHAM TWP. ORANGE CO, �t NORTN CAROLINA mnn"awrwr"'.......r.wr�s.w.w.rr ^.'d"+•"^ °° ed••• ��srlK.n�r JVLY 10,1978 SCALE: 1"•106 200 RCTVRN TO: XAULKNER SURVEYING OWNER: .0 AF CHAPEL HILL.KC. RT. 5 B X 216, `.-�- DALE D. FAULKNER R.L.S. L-217G �Ylll Rl*flI II rRRRTrfTITt17r1TT*frrirrmll}I1mTTITTRTmTtTL7FI ITRnrm I it Iv I,ITPTTI iITITTrr i � 171117�10I D4951 197B0721000049510 29114 24 81G 2415 181^ 3003 1860 c moo � fly Mu �08 ?G 10 LR l�p.L' a16 IL31 3G1;3000 30L2 2618 f° may �� 1Le'• 1mi 101. e 1517 =3ap7 p. R oil Mangum �v 25 OWNERI_l OWNERI_f OWNER2_l OWNER2_f ADDRESSI CITY STATE ZIPCODE PATIL VISHWANA CARDOZA VINITHA J 1001 ELLEP MORRISVIL NC 27560 FERGUSON BEN P 1119 HATC CHAPEL HII NC 27516 ALSTON NORMA A 1517 FERG CHAPEL HII NC 27514 LLOYD CARL BRAC LLOYD LAURA E 1600 HOLL'CHAPEL HII NC 27514 BURTON DEBBIE A 1605 FERG CHAPEL HII NC 27514 JACOBSON CHARLES JACOBSON ALLISON R 1800 IVEY I CHAPEL HII NC 27516 FUCHS JEFFREY W FUCHS KAREN R 1816 IVEY I CHAPEL HII NC 27516 MILLER JENKINS RC 1819 IVEY I CHAPEL HII NC 27516 IVEY TRUST 1900 CARL CHAPEL HII NC 27516 HEARON CHARLES 0 1915 IVEY I CHAPEL HII NC 27516 HERMANS JACQUELIN 213 DACIAI DURHAM NC 27701 DEVINE VIRGINIA A 2401 OLD (CHAPEL HII NC 27516 BALMER JACQUELYr 2415 OLD (CHAPEL HII NC 27516 GOINS LISA ET AL ALSTON NORMA 2426 OLD (CHAPEL HII NC 27516 POINEAU JUNE CALLAHAN WILLIAM J 2600 OLD (CHAPEL HII NC 27516 LAWTON THOMAS S 2616 OLD (CHAPEL HII NC 27516 ALSTON VANESSA 2618 OLD (CHAPEL HII NC 27516 BACHMAN EDWARD B 2620 OLD (CHAPEL HII NC 27516 GOINS SHAWN W GOINS LISA A 2626 OLD (CHAPEL HII NC 27516 GOINS LISA ET AL ALSTON NORMA 2626 OLD (CHAPEL HII NC 27516 CLARK DOUGLAS f CLARK SCHANA D 2707 DOU(CHAPEL HII NC 27516 ATWATER CYNTHIA A 4528 MINE GRAHAM NC 27253 ORANGE COUNTY PO BOX 81 HILLSBORC NC 27278 Book 288 Page 033 26 PREPARED BY, GUNN & MESSICK, Attorneys at Law, Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312 eocu 288 33 I�r NORTH CAROLINA.�tHATThIRT COUNTY y.N. THIS DEED.MADE AND ENTERED INTO THIS THE 11 DAY O/ July .t/78 ,Sr AND METWE[N >, JOB D. TITSWORTH and wife, HELEN C. TITSWORTH r! `,::: PARTY OF INS FIRST PART AND pt', THOMAS S. LAWTON, Route 5, Box 296, Chapel. Bill, a.. -C.• 27514 PARTY OF TM(SECOND PART. WITNESORTHi n THAT INC*AID PARTY OF INC FIRST PART. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SUM OF TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD. VALUABLE AND SUF►I- .;{' > CIENT CONSIDERATIONS.PAID BY THE SAID PARTY OF THE SECOND PART. THE RECEIFT OF WHICH 18 HERESY ACKNOWLEDGED.HAS■ARGAIN90 AND SOLD AND BY THESE PRESENTS DOES BARGAIN.SELL AND CONVEY UNTO THE SAID PARTY OF THE SECOND PART AND HIS HEIRS AND Orange R '•f ASSIOHN ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND IN Bingham TOWNSHIP btATCOUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA.AMD MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, i BEGINNING at an iron stake in the southern margin of the right- of-way of N.C.S.R. 1005, corner with Charles Bogle, running j thence westerly with the southern margin of the right-of-way T fi:YpS of said road along a curve with a radius of 1,886.62 feet, a s. distance of 386.74 feet to an iron control corner, corner with i Wilbert Atwater, thence along and with Wilbert Atwater's line 4{ -Srt South 5 degrees 17 minutes 48 seconds West 387.04 feet, thence , 1' South 83 degrees 12 minutes 27 seconds East 469.01 feet to corner "} with Charles Bogle, thence along and with his line North 5 degrees, ' ? 30 minutes West 464.82 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING, i:z containing 4.08 acres, more or less, according to survey of �' "Property of Thomas S. Lawton" prepared by Dale D. Faulkner, R.L.S, , prepared July 10, 1978 and recorded in Plat Book Pages of the Orange County Registry. S ETATC CF ^ Rea;Fstate DO Pnid.11— �" N Ga eu�trTe 4 0. 0 0 i(.IGi09 -` 0•r tM[A/OI[/[/CFI/[B PROPYTY WAS[OMYETRB Tp*RAW**BF/[S/RRCORbfB IN SSOr W1011 ►A/L 2.6A IitgV�L�L TO HAVE AND TO HOLD INK AFORESAID TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND AND ALL PRIVILEGES AND APPURTENANCES TMRR[UHTO B(LONSING t'1 TO THE SAID PARTY OF THE SECOND PART AND HIS IIEIRG AND ASSIGNS IN PER SIMPLE FOREVER,EXCEPT AS SCT FORTH ABOVE. rN!• AND THE SA10 PARTY OF INC FIRST PART UOES COVENANT THAT ME IS SCIEED OF SAID PREMISES IN FEE SIMPLE AND HAS INC RIGHT TO CONVEY THE BAN[IN FCC SIMPLEI THAT THE SAME ARE FR[(FROM ENCUMBRANCES EXCEPT AS GET FORT"ABOV[I AND THAT HE WILL WARRANT AND r., DEFEND THE SAID TITLE TO TN[SAME AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF ALL PERSONS WHOMSOEVER. 1j4{ Sr i SWMCRXV MALL OEft URRO R AMLICASIRI .CINK SINGULAR NUMBER AS INK CONTEXT MAY SMALL D IN HE PLURAL.THE PLURAL TN(SINGULAR.AND THE USE OF ANY OENO[R IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF 71419 SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART NAS MXR SKY NIB NAND AND S[AL THE DAY AND YEAR FIRST A9OV2 1 'Lr WRITTEN. 2 ALI 7 0 D.• IT WO TH yts 46t11L> HELEN C. TITSWORTH ATE O NORTH CAR A COUNTY O► a`E•yY T, j/ram` �yF� .A NOTARY PUBLIC OF SAID COUNTY.00 NERKOT CERTIFY THAT p;nTARY JOE D. TITSWORTH and wife, HELEN C. TITSWORTH v PLrI{ RANT411.PERSONALLY APPtAR[D S[►OR[M(THIS DAY AN OWL[OG[D TNt DU[tX[CUTtON OF TMt F011t001HG WITNESS M [Y HAND AND NOTARIAL GAL.THIS 7M / DAY OI c;.J �,�•• IRGTART` NSRSI MY COMMISSION RXPIR[S, ,C-/-79 Lt �. J I •� STATL OF COUNTY 0/ •xh 1. .A NOTARY PUBLIC OF SAID COUNTY.DO M[R(BY CERTIFY THAT CY. GRANTOR.PERSONALLY APPEARED B[►ORE ME THIS DAY AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE OUR EXILCUTION OF TNt FOREGOING I?`0: DEED. WITNCSG MY HAND AND NOTARIAL DEAL.TRIG THE DAY OF t/ •}� MY COMMISSION[IIFIRtBs tGEALt ,ROTARY e"L R/11p NOTARY PWDLIC STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA--CWMTr or OBo0pp0OL UrBn$e THE FOREGOING C[RT/n Q cATEt or Rebecca L. M1 shell A NOTARY WXXfWX0M PUBLIC OF INC DESIGNATED GOVERNMENT Y ITS to XIS/C[RTIII[D 70 B[CORRECT. I }" FILED FOR R[UIBTRATION ON THE 21st DAr of u1 . 19 78 . AT 2:42 O'CLOCK PAL. AND DULY RECORDED IN TM[OF/IC[OF TN[REstsT[R or DEEDS I CO IT IN BOOK OrAmcwlmo. 288 PAG( 33 r Betty June Hayes REGISTER OF Dt[DG Br4 AtRJMPYw_ �. RETURN 70, Grantee Attachment 2 FPr 27 9758426771 9758337836 F�•� f if if Alf At 40 Yellow Highlighted w � _+ area being OLD GREENSBORO RD' ],, �._ ; _r` 1 .� 1 recommended for rezoning to EC-5 to incorporate all 975842 281 existing non- _ }` - Area zoned Rural Buffer residential land �- use(s) and land use , (RB) buffers. f �f• • �` '"+1�� -�t _ 9758424098 "t �ni�ersity Calk, w. Protected ! Watershed , 9758424098 4- �i�•• 1,^< .47 9 - f *` _ <� ems. �•R� ♦ Y PIN 9758-42-4098 Thomas Lawton t 3 2616 Old Greensboro Rd ... Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County IL. R w GIs and is for reference only. A& C .�:' Exact locations and boundaries should be verified. .Amy Map prepared by Orange County Planning&Inspections. ZJ 08/09/2016-mharvey m 0 Parcels N Ozoning ®Watershed 1 inch=76.021 feet 0 10 20 Feet Attachment 3 mniryae me suemHaen or�e em.n me eeanoee nmean aetemem.am�C.wPim.he a .w-m,i mks„ n Wof � R/W AREA any cm-mlmfkn na7an omw mm.nof b mrtmee rn mk cert xoNm. RD 0.26 AC 11,528 SF �CFr' PO REENSBOR� — Ap;90„;,— & (ZONED ECS) ap .SITE �amaBa aawma a _ OLD 80 R/K e08215/ fib.98' E 834,]82BB $ ___ EO MAP ---151• ------ 1-286.7g,14'E HFICBY CFRIIFYMAi I nafueafeo new emeetm p�py,, CHORO�NBT' 1/ G P f�1fe�)el} 4surwY 4 0�F ON1NB 581YY5TW RARL'2 6 9B "' NEW EC-5 AREA mqe anoe ea{afp9 afreeL 1 5Q01'nE N�fiPE I N 1]J,812 SF -ANO- g J Np5 CALLEVYµ PLS N0.1544,IYRnFY Mai nab / � a�wa5 ORawx F—ax AONH—V— AS / ORIGINAL EC5- r SUMHN�R,M nlE pEED pESCR,in�B� �PLaT(J) 1.93 AC/82.388 SF NOT SU411�£Y£0 D Cf£ YARL 1E0 AS OASHEO 1 I n �pAOB� 1NA) AXN FROM MFOR.NA NS1ED UNOEN'FEiFR£1Va/LE8'. tl' OiEA '�ixAAT 1MIs.N�aP°� N 4.08 AC I� ;-rWavp.H;'--- ]°MA42s age 177, 12 SF /a c �i s MExBED. 5 SEAL 2 BB% Ig SaAT/RE REds1RAnCN _ ;L-2546 i PB 29/is ZONED EC5 / .- 11 nva y 4.0E AC 177,912 SF z/ �� \ '"�,} PRGFEmoNAL uNB suRtrvaR aERo:MaB A.I. tz — — L I Io MALT aBN 0 � IMpl- 1� BAEEo I / aRAH� I GRA n\ RE RBWBB�RaNW EB � YiN6T TAT AFPR�R,a,E�,a„r a yre. � Rye TS C7 / B Fl E J "- a-Y aN µn BWNOa/ iA xL� A.Facrs iuo�i arc NME / Xfll V 5 2 �/5) MEnAr�m`�J1RLdcIw�uLM r�sME.wS 6Ry SAS Roms KY Gu EO RESlmcnays LN 0[uitwucNT NAr ec xpRREO. J, O sa+SA oBo N�a,NN6 NL6B Nor w�snwnn LOMO 6R JUKE 83I% T./ Y N01E5 9158-42-BI04 A'-Y rBRE NOi OB 149S 88 AS XWAZ ARE LOcauuO 1Fm RMS a8888SW.ALL cWMwA1F5 6NBNN N69 'JJ•W lBR0"TOT h•f 388.88' 102 JS a6T5 mm cOFPEn LOaiEOW Ra AS SET ARE vANE55A A— �]58-41-6824 a "Zoning Exhibit A." E;� -'"B , " IS. PB JO/182 Y , SCALE i'�40' 40 o 4o So PROPERTY SURVEYED FOR ALOIS CALLEMYN STAN LAWTON p` m""m�""�"" 'ebw a m.R.�am...® .m.N, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR —O— I W19W.ALOISCALLEMTNPLSCOM —o— N GINGHAM TWP., ORANGE CO., NORTH CAROLINA —o— EwWNc.wavu` r SET FIELD WORK PERFORMED JULY, 2017 PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 288 PAGE 33 3500 JUSTAMERE FARM ROAD —p— uAnrauanca vaer STANDING IN THE NAME OF srµu wroxEss NILLSBOROUON,NC 27278 THOMAS S. LAWTON 2616 a0 OREENSBORO R0. 919-730-57401919-732-3354 CxwEL HILL.NC 2T516 EMAIL: ALOISOCALLEMTN.COM 29 Attachment 4 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An owner initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone 4.08 acres consisting of Rural Buffer (RB) and Existing Commercial (EC-5) to all Existing Commercial (EC-5). The following parcel is affected by this proposal: Parcel Township Owner on Record Current Proposed Zoning Identification Zoning District Number (PIN) District 9758-42-4098 Bingham Thomas Lawton RB Rezone entire 4.08 (2.65 acres) acre parcel to EC-5 and EC-5 (1.43 acres) Note: No modifications are being proposed to the boundaries of the University Lake Protected Watershed Overlay District, which will continue to apply to the property. The Planning Board finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and, b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: Objective ED-1.5: Identify barriers to development of desirable businesses and local businesses, and mitigate these barriers. 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. Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques and/or incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals. c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it: 1. Modifies existing non-residential zoning boundaries in an attempt to make existing operations more conforming to local land use regulations. The Planning Board of Orange County hereby recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Zoning Atlas amendments. Lydia N. Wegman, Chair Date Attachment 5 30 Ordinance#: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning consists of the following: Parcel Township Owner on Record Current Proposed Zoning Identification Zoning District Number PIN District 9758-42-4098 Bingham Thomas Lawton RB Rezone entire 4.08 (2.65 acres) acre parcel to EC-5 and EC-5 (1.43 acres) WHEREAS, the proposal has been found to be consistent with the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the areas described above and depicted on the attached maps. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of 12019. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2019 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2019. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 1 31 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 1, 2019 Action Agenda Item No. 8 SUBJECT: Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application — Fairway Hills DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections 0 ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Application Package Patrick Mallett, Planner II (919) 245-2577 2. Vicinity Map and Site Assessment Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 3. Staff Generated Correspondence Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 4. Excerpt April 3, 2019 Planning Board Minutes (not yet approved) Under Separate Cover — Full Size Copy of Preliminary Plat PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application proposing a 20 lot single-family residential subdivision within the Eno Township of the County in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.15 and Article 7 Subdivisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). BACKGROUND: The Planning Board reviewed a Concept Plan for the project, located along US Highway 70 East, at its April 3, 2019 regular meeting. Agenda materials for this meeting can be viewed utilizing the following link: http://www.orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board- . Minutes from the meeting are contained within Attachment 4. Development Process, Schedule, and Action: The typical cadence for the review of a major subdivision is as follows: • FIRST ACTION — Submission of a Concept Plan application containing a proposed layout for the project based on the "Flexible Development" option as outlined in Section 7.12 of the UDO. STAFF COMMENT: Previously, the applicant had submitted a Class A Special Use Permit Major Subdivision application proposing the creation of 27 individual lots. The proposal was revised and the number of lots was reduced to 20. A revised Concept Plan was received on or about March 25, 2019. • SECOND ACTION — Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) to invite property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property to review the proposal. STAFF COMMENT: Staff held the required meeting on February 13, 2019 to review the original 27 lot layout. The reduction in the number of parcels and more open space of the subdivision does not require the scheduling/holding of a new NIM. 32 • THIRD ACTION — The Planning Board shall review and make a recommendation on the Concept Plan Application making a decision on whether the proposed development should proceed. STAFF COMMENT. At its April 3, 2019, regular meeting the Board voted unanimously to approve the Flexible Development option for Fairway Hills. Per Section 2.15.2 (G) (3) of the UDO the applicant has two years, from the date of Concept Plan approval, to prepare and file an application for Preliminary Plat approval. • FOURTH ACTION — Once a Concept Plan option is approved, the Planning Board reviews and makes a recommendation on the approval of the Preliminary Plat for the project. STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Board will begin review the Preliminary Plat application at its May 1, 2019 regular meeting. • FIFTH ACTION — The BOCC reviews and takes action on the Preliminary Plat application. • SIXTH ACTION — If approved, and once all construction activities have been completed or appropriate financial assurances have been approved, staff will sign off on a Final Plat, which will be recorded in the Orange County Registrar of Deeds Office. Proposal: The petitioner has submitted a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application proposing to develop a 20 single-family residential lots at a density of approximately 1 dwelling units per 2.1 acres of gross land area and approximately 15.54 acres of the Common Open Space to be held/controlled by a local homeowners association. The proposed single-family lots range in size from 42,785 square feet (smallest)to 125,765 square feet (largest). Parcel Information: PINs: 9884-32-3275; and 9884-31-9874. Size of Parcel: 41.97 acres in area total. Zoning of Parcels: Rural Residential (R-1) / Lower Eno Protected Watershed . Township: Eno. School District: Orange County Schools. Future Land Use Map Designation: Rural Residential. Growth Management System Designation: Rural Designated. Proposal Information: Subdivision Type Number Average Lot Area in Open Space of Lots Size Open Space Percentage Major Subdivision 20 56,594 sq. ft. 15.54 acres provided 37% with Flexible (1.3 acres) (33% required) Development Plan (13.51 acres in HOA 40,000 sq. ft. Common Areas plus (min. lot size) 2.03 acres held by HOA in easements) (13.85 acres required) 33 Staff has determined the Preliminary Plat application is consistent with the Concept Plan approved by the Planning Board at its April 3, 2019 regular meeting. Please refer to Attachment 4 for the minutes from this meeting. STAFF COMMENT.- The proposal is in accordance with the anticipated densities and minimum lots sizes for parcels located within: • The Rural Residential land use category as defined within the adopted Comprehensive Plan, • Rural Designated areas of the County as denoted on the Growth Management Systems Map, and • Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District. Roads: The proposal involves the creation of two new public roads to service the project, each would be constructed to NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT) standards, specifically: • The reservation of 5-feet of additional right-of-way along the frontage of US Highway 70 East to accommodate future roadway expansion; • Construction of a single access road called "Birdie Lane" affording vehicular ingress/egress from US Highway 70 East located within 50-foot right-of-way, 20-foot improved travel ways and required ditch sections. Development of the roadway will include construction of right (westbound) and left (eastbound) turn lanes within the existing 100-foot right-of-way for US Highway 70 East at the development's entrance; and • Construction of a roadway called "Bogey Court" within 50-foot right-of-way, 20-foot improved travel ways, ditch sections, and two terminating in two culs-de-sac with 40-foot radii. STAFF COMMENT. As indicated during the April 3, 2019 Planning Board meeting, the applicant has coordinated with the NC DOT District engineer regarding the location and design of these road improvements. Staff has determined that the proposed roadway construction and layout is consistent with the requirements of the UDO. County and DOT staff have determined proposed access onto US Highway 70 East is sufficient for ingress/egress and the provision of County services including emergency vehicle access. Utilities — Water and Sewer: The applicant is proposing to serve the project with individual wells and septic systems developed on each lot. The Preliminary Plat Sheet C-3 denotes suitable soil locations for septic sites for the lots. STAFF COMMENT. Orange County Environmental Health has indicated that they do not foresee problems with the proposed layout with respect to finding suitable soils to support development of septic tanks and individual well sites. For more information please refer to Attachment 3. Individual well and septic permits will be required for each lot as it is developed. Stormwater Drainage: Drainage will be engineered according to applicable County regulations, as embodied within the UDO, governing the development of Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) at the time of permit application/commencement of land disturbing activities. Stormwater review is required within the Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay district when land disturbance activities exceed 21,780 sq. ft. (one half acre). 34 Sheet C-4 of the submittal indicates approximately 8.02 acres of initial land disturbance is proposed for the project. Staff has already determined this project will disturb sufficient land area to require stormwater review and permitting. Review and permitting of SCMs shall be administered by the County's Engineering and Erosion Control division. As indicated on the submitted Preliminary Plat, drainage will be handled through a system of ditches located within proposed road rights-of-way and Common Open Space. The type of SCM required shall be determined at the stormwater permitting stage of the project after the Preliminary Plat has been approved. STAFF COMMENT.- The applicant has submitted a preliminary stormwater analysis for staff review and comment. Open Space: Open space for the project is broken down on Sheet C-3 of the submittal as follows: • Primary Open Space (i.e. wetlands, streams, floodplains, slopes greater than 25%, natural areas/wildlife corridors, etc.)—6.43 acres (280,082 sq. ft.); • Secondary Open Space (i.e. Open space access, woodlands, slopes between 15% and 25%, scenic views, etc.)—7.08 acres (308,354 sq. ft.); and • Type "E" Buffer and access areas to Common Open Space (i.e. 75-foot wide buffer along US Highway 70 East and 20-foot Access Easements along perimeter) — 2.03 acres (88,444 sq. ft.). The total area reserved as Common Open Space is approximately 15.54 acres (37% of the site). These areas are composed of lawn, fields and forested areas with existing, mature, vegetation and trees with an approximate height of between 50 to 80 feet. All 20 lots are adjacent and/or have access to, primary and/or secondary open space areas. STAFF COMMENT. Staff has determined the proposed open space meets the requirements of the UDO. Land Use Buffer: The Preliminary Plat indicates there will be a 75-foot Type "E" land use buffer along US Highway 70 East. The buffers are comprised of existing, dense, vegetation composed of existing, mature, shrubs and trees with an approximate height of between 20 to 80 feet. Sheets C-3 and C-9 9indicate that the buffer will be augmented along the buffer when preserved vegetation is not sufficient to meet the Type "E" landscape requirements (i.e. 7-8 canopy trees, 4-13 understory trees and 58-77 shrubs per 100 linear feet of buffer). Additional emphasis will be given to utilizing the appropriate evergreen trees and shrubs to maximize the opacity of the buffer. STAFF COMMENT. Section 6.8.6 (D) of the UDO requires that this project maintain a 75-foot land use buffer separating the project from adjacent Arterial Roadways (US Highway 70 East). Staff has determined the proposed open space and land use buffers meet the requirements of the UDO. Note, a portion of the buffer allows for individual well and septic areas. If utilized, however, the pro-rated amount of plantings would be required elsewhere within the buffer. Additional Comments: Attachment 3 contains additional staff comments for this project. Courtesy Review: This project is not within a required Courtesy Review area with the Town of Hillsborough. However, Staff has submitted copies of the Preliminary Plan to Town Staff. To 35 date, Staff has not received any comments from the Town. Town Staff did indicate that the site is in their long-term interest area, as shown on the Water Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASAMB), and that no municipal water or sewer services are nearby or planned in the future. Analysis: As required under Section 2.15.3 (C) of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: `Determine if the plat and application conform with applicable regulations' and `submit a recommendation' on the Preliminary Plat to the Planning Board for consideration. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: 1. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2 and 2.15.3 of the UDO. 2. Copies of the materials have been reviewed commented on by parties indicated in Section 2.15.3 (C) (3) of the UDO. 3. Staff has determined that the property is of sufficient size and design to support the proposed subdivision. 4. The proposal appears consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: a. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. 5. Staff has determined that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the provisions and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has determined the project would not require augmentation of County budgetary outlays to support services and that anticipated revenues from property taxes should supplement increases in cost. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Receive the Preliminary Plat application for the Fairway Hills Subdivision, 2. Discuss the proposal as desired, and 3. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat. Attachment 1 APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL 36 MAJOR SUBDIVISION ORANGE COUNTY 5105 PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT(INK ONLY) DATE; 4/17/19 SUBDIVISION NAME: Fairway Hills LOCATION: 2715 US 70 E, Hillsborough, NC 27278 OWNERIDEVELOPER: Old NC 86 Partners, LLC c/o Jim Parker ADDRESS: 504 Meadowlands Drive TELEPHONE NO.: 919-732-3883 Hillsborou h, NC 27278 AGENTICONTACT: Jim Parker ADDRESS: 504 Meadowlands Drive TELEPHONE NO.: 919-732-3883 Hillsborough, NC 27278 A SUMMARY INFORMATION 9884323275 & 9884319874 Orange County Tax Map Block Lot(s) Township Zoning District(s): R-1 Total Number of Acres: 41.97 acres Total Number of Lots: 20 Average Lot Size: 1.3 acres Minimum Lot Size: 40,000 SF NumberlType of Structures: (existing) 1 single family residence (proposed) 20 single family residences Linear Feet in Streets: 2,300 If Acres in Open Space: 14.89 acres Water Supply: Public(specify) Community Wells Individual Wastewater Disposal: Public(specify) Community Septic Individual School District: Orange County Fire District: Eno General Land Uses in Area: Residential &Golf Course Critical Areas: Two stream features streamldrainageways None flood prone areas Lower Eno Protected watershed(specify) None historic sites other(explain) Is the property to be subdivided currently under"farm use value taxation"?Yes No X . If"yes,"please contact the Orange County Tax Office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under "farm use value taxation." S All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two-hundred feet(1"=200') and no larger than one inch equals twenty feet(11"=20')and must contain the following information: X subdivision name X zoning of tract and adjacent properties X name&address of owner(s) X building setback lines by notation or typical lot layout X name&address of subdivider X location and width of existing and (if other than owner) proposed easements(drainage, utilities,roads,etc.) X name of surveyor,engineer,landscape X Existing,proposed and adjoining architect or architect,address, rights-of-way including dimensions registration#&seal and street names and State Road X (title)Preliminary Plan numbers. Linear feet of road X scale,north arrow centerlines and approximate acreage X date of plan preparation and revisions of new street rights-of-way X township,tax map-block-lot references X existing and proposed utilities, X Parent Parcel Identification# including type,sizes, hydrants, deed book and page#of property to be valves,manholes subdivided X boundary described with bearings and X existing and proposed curbs, gutters distances and culverts,including sixes and grades X total acreage of the tract and acreage of X location and width of alleys, 37 lots, Including and excluding area within sidewalks,bike lanes,transit rights-of-way systems,and bus stops X control corner X typical street cross-sections and Intersection details Including design and width of travelway and shoulders X proposed lot lines with dimensions X horizontal alignment,centerline X lot if,block numbers radius,and general curve data on all N/A phasing line(s) proposed streets X topography at ten(10)foot intervals N/A permanent features such as X water bodies,streams,floodways and buildings,cemeteries,historic floodplains landmarks X stream buffers X adjoining lot layout names of X location and size of parcels dedicated for adjoining property owners. If public use,recreational use or reserved subdivided,subdivision plat name, In common,with purpose noted plat book& page number,and perimeter lot numbers. X Impervious surface data(if located In N/A location and size of lots of restricted water supply watershed) development potential and notation on plat regarding same X vicinity map showing general location of X stormwater detention and/or subdivision with streets and roads retention sites and undisturbed identified by State Road number and areas for infiltration purposes(if name located in water supply watershed) X landscaping and buffer requirements N/A township,corporate and extraterritorial X identified natural areas and wildlife planning jurisdiction lines which cross corridors the property C OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. Twenty-five(25)copies of the Preliminary Plat. 2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tax Map(with tax parcels involved clearly marked). 3. Where municipal or OWASA sower is not available,a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health Department approvalldenial for each lot show thereon. 4. Where a private road is proposed,a written statement by the applicant or his/her authorized representative which sets for the justification for a private road(sae Section IV-B-3-d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations). 5. Auxiliary documents,in draft form, prepared In accordance with Section V1 of this Ordinance which assure completion and/or maintenance of Improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may include, but not be limited to,a private road maintenance agreement and articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to a homeowners association. These documents may be required as necessary as evidence that the ordinance requirements are being met. 6. Fee-$500 plus$5.00 per lot(one fee for Preliminary and Final Plat). 7. If the subdivision contains 10 tots or more,the following information shall be submitted with the application: a. Number of years to buildout. b. Number of houses to be built during each year until buildout. c. Average price of houses Including lots for each year to buildout. I certify that to the best of my knowledge the information contained above,and in the supporting documents,is a factual representation of the proposed development. I acknowledge that by signing this application,the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department is authorized,pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat.Section 153a-360,to make as many inspections of the subject property as may be necessary to verify that the proposed work outlined herein is consistent with the provisions of all applicable State and local laws,ordinances and regulations. By signing this application, I acknowledge and agree that inspectors, zoning officers, erosion control officers, and other staff of the Orange County Planning & Inspections Department have a right, upon presentation of proper credentials, to enter the subject property at any r asonabl hour for the purposes of inspection or other enforcement action. AP LICANT'S 51GNATURE BATE 1 A RE FEES: Amount Date Paid Receipt X Attachment 2 Site Data: Flood depth at structure:N/A PINS: 9884-32-3275;and 9884-31-9874 Land Disturbance Thresholds: 38 Zoning;Rural Residential(R-1) 1)Erosion Control Application/Permit required if disturbing more than Acreage:31.6 acres(9884-32-3275);&10.65 acres(9884-31-9874) 20,000 sq.ft.; 41.97 acres total 2)Stormwater Management Application/Permit required if disturbing Overlay Districts:Lower Eno Protected Watershed more than 21,780 sq.ft.for residential structures. Legal Reference: B ROGER L MARSHALL P71/24 Plat:PB71 PG24 **Call OC Erosion Control a t(919)245-2586 for more information** Zoning Requirements: Min.Lot Size:43,560 sq.ft.(Traditional Development);or Notes: 10,000 sq.ft.(Flexible Development) 1)Private Road Justifications,Recorded Declarations,Restrictive Max.Density:One residential dwelling unit per acre Covenants,Bona Fide Farm status,use and building type(e.g.duplex. Min.lot width:150' units)will change subdivision and development requirements. Building Setbacks: 2)Wetlands data is taken from Classification of Wetlands and Front(from right-of-way):40'(30'with Flexible Development) Deepwater Habitats of the United States.U.S.Department of the Side and Rear Property lines:20'(15'with Flexible Development) Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service and does not constitute a forma I Subdivision Perimeter Setback:100' delineation(i.e.survey)of the property.All wetland areas are approximate. Max.Impervious:36%(658,156.75 sq.ft.based on 41.97 acres) 3)Flood boundaries are subject to change based on periodic Environmental Features: amendments to flood maps.Determination is based on current,best Streams/Water Bodies:Yes,80'buffers available,data;and SFHA(Floodplain in):No. 4)This does not constitute a formal land survey. Wetlands:None mapped. Flood Info: Scale V=300.' Panel#:9884 Base Flood Elevation(BFE):N/A Date Site Assessment Completed:December 7,2018 by PRIM BFE with 2'County Freeboard:N/A 0� Soil:GeB 110 ��4 WIQ . R1 612 tS- o�A �Os °c;lL co fo * 9884243189 . m N ! 9 8443 FIN MCNEELY DUB 84335032 MICHAEL tuj � �_ SAN MCLEO LYNN DU QS€,• Soil:GeC 0 MICHAEL MCLEOD C MCLEOD SUSAN MCLE 98844 001 n6,o �^co N w 6g8 6y '• E. s 6O G so a A ? Lower Eno q,. . Soil:TaE ro �, Watershed SS? li14 9884427733"` �'� 8Q VICTORIA 6j 6 H KELLY 6j 8 s64 t VICTORIA . 676 H I ELLY j g6 98845214�9.`, JUDY O 0 672 <o VEGCIA 98 521331 9884323275 JONATHA SON' BETH M ETAL PORTER JENNIFE RANDERSON h` mac? THOMA5IN M BRADFORD 654 x fir➢ Soil:G 2 12 ,p - a JOH NYE 9884 1 BAI EY BETH M ET 644 THOMASIN ' Flood 0 Panel: 6p8 9884) 6�6 � g � Soil:TaD 6�� R' - •T 6y8 624 42228 0F Soil:Lg ,/`r sus s?8 HFR ER' 66a o _.�• 638 0 � � • 1 rSQ 2!� Soil:HwB •�� € 652 988431 998+ S JAME>•DAVID ET AMES L C'AR R _4AME8 R RAY=-- 0 Q y! 110qNAARAY� 98 410 66 �I E ND$ F2 tv. soil! HEE Soil:GeBHA -p6 - / 84 21 4 5 ro roh •p AftZ LE C E 88 sue, r o' DONNAARbV gT ObG r rO�6 PAULR' 1 •p 440098 . 6,�C 98 I4LOI�1N- 2805 E4RT BER 2 1 BERT0A JAMESLCA TE I HAELJ �� 30 2 ACA TER FREEMAN .� � ? .. F.i7GI.. IN O ES 988 40 88 r D A t 2? ,r' L C R rho _ 440�T24_1B- ERTHA ti � ALLE - PORTER BETH M ETA L Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County Gat and is for reference only. BRADFORD THOMASIN M Exact locations and boundaries should be verified. Map prepared by Orange County Planning&Inspections. 12/07/2018-pmallett Attachment 3 39 Patrick R. Mallett From: Jeff Scouten Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 9:39 AM To: Patrick R. Mallett Cc: Tim Smith Subject: Fairway Hills Subdivision Preliminary Plans Review Comments - Plans Dated 4/16/19 Importance: High Pat, As a follow up to our telephone conversation of this morning and as a point of clarification,please be advised that the 40'radius (to EP)for the cul-de-sacs that 1 approved in the previous submission is the minimum acceptable radius. Ideally and preferably,we ask for the 44' radius since the outside turning radius of our standard recycling collection truck is 43' 6". If the applicant's design won't allow for a larger radius,40' (as show on the current plan) will be acceptable. Let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. Jeff Scouten Environmental Enforcement Supervisor Orange County Solid Waste Management P.O. Box 17177 1207 Eubanks Road Chapel Hill, NC 2 7516-71 7 7 919—96s—278 s (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 40 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Engineering / Erosion Control / Stormwater -�- 131 W. Margaret Lane Suite 201 (919) 245-2575 ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 www.orangecountync.gov law' . AM. 01*j MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Harvey COPY TO: Patrick Mallett and Wesley Poole FROM: Howard W. Fleming, Jr., PE, Engineering/Stormwater Supervisor DATE: 04/18/19 PROJECT: Fairway Hills Major Subdivision, SUB19-0005 PIN's: 9884323275 and 9884319874 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Review, plans dated 04/16/19 EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL / STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMMENTS: These comments are relative to a major subdivision preliminary plat submitted for the Fairway Hills Subdivision, Hillsborough, NC by Summit Design and Engineering Services. (Summit). Erosion & Sedimentation Control / 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. This Division takes no exception to an approval of this Preliminary Plat application, as long as the following is taken into account. Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Management Plan Required: Both parcels proposed for this development are located in the Lower Eno Protected Watershed. Therefore, this development must satisfy the provisions contained in Sections 6.14 and 6.15 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), if land disturbance exceeds the following thresholds: • Erosion & Sedimentation Control — 20,000 SF • Stormwater — 21 ,780 SF (Cumulative Disturbance) Stormwater Management Concerns with the Proposed Plan There are two (2) structural stormwater control measures (SCM's) proposed in the current site plan. 1 . Northern Watershed — An SCM is proposed between proposed lot 3 and the proposed open-space lot between lot 3 and 4. 2. Southern Watershed — An SCM is proposed between proposed lots 16 & 17. S:\5_Erosion Control and Water Quality\Correspondence\HWF\DAC\Fai-ayHillsSub\20190418_HWF-OC-E&SC_DAC-Memo(FaimayHillsSUB19-0005).docx 41 04/18/19 Page 2 of 2 Preliminary Plat DAC Comments — Fairway Hills Subdivision, SUB19-0005 Our primary stormwater management concerns for this common plan of development are as follows: 1 . Ensuring that sufficient areas are reserved for stormwater control measures (SCM's). The SCM's need to be large enough to accommodate stormwater treatment for all proposed development. It appears the proposed lots may be developed individually over time. Therefore, we encourage Summit to assume some conservative percentage of development on each lot (following consultation with Orange County Current Planning and Environmental Health) and perform preliminary calculations to size the SCM's to treat all proposed development (build-out condition), accommodate associated grading, secondary SCM's (if necessary), and outlet velocity attenuation measures. 2. Being assured that those areas that do not appear to be easily routed to the two proposed SCM's, specifically lots 1-3, 17-20, and perhaps others, will be properly managed for stormwater, as required by Section 6.14 of UDO. CONCLUSION We find the project to be suitable with the following condition- 1 . Based upon the information received to date, we cannot state with any certainty that the proposed development will be able to comply with Section 6.14 of the UDO. We believe the challenges can be overcome but, if time allows, we recommend more detailed study before seeking discretionary approvals. Should the developer choose to proceed with the current preliminary plat, all need to be aware that complying with UDO Section 6.14 may have significant effects on the proposed subdivision plans. In addition to potential geometric effects, the developer should be prepared to accept that some of the proposed lots may require individual SCM's to meet the requirements of the UDO. I understand that the engineer of work has already been in touch with Wesley Poole, Erosion Control Officer II [(919) 245-2587]. I encourage continued consultation for guidance as this project moves forward into the construction document phase. S:\5_Erosion Control and Water Quality\Correspondence\HW F\DAC\FaimayHillsSub\20190418_H W F-OC-E&SC_DAG-Memo(FairwayHillsSUB19-0005).docx 42 Patrick R. Mallett To: Peter Sandbeck Cc: Kim Livingston Subject: Fairway Hills From: Peter Sandbeck Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 9:00 AM To: Patrick R. Mallett Cc: Kim Livingston Subject: RE: Fairway Hills Patrick, We here at DEAPR NCR have no comments or issues with this request. Thanks, Peter Peter Sandbeck, Cultural Resources Coordinator Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation 306A Revere Rd/PO Box 8181/Hillsborough NC 27278/919-245-2517/htti)://www.co.orange.nc.us 1 43 Patrick R. Mallett To: Gail Hughes; Peter Sandbeck Cc: Kim Livingston Subject: RE: Fairway Hills From: Gail Hughes Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 9:13 AM To: Patrick R. Mallett; Peter Sandbeck Cc: Kim Livingston Subject: RE: Fairway Hills Patrick, Sorry for the delay. I was very surprised when I saw the email, since soil and water has not gotten any subdivision reviews in years. do not have any concerns about the project; and no comments or issues with this request. On a personal note: traffic is going to be a nightmare in and around town even more so. O but how many times have you heard that. Gail M. Hughes Resource Conservation Coordinator Orange Soil and Water Conservation District Department of Environment,Agriculture,Parks and Recreation 306 Revere Rd.,Hillsborough,NC 27278 Phone:919-245-2753 1 44 Patrick R. Mallett To: Edwards, Charles N; DAC; patricia.coleman@orange.kl2.nc.us; Gail Hughes Cc: Molly Boyle;Jones, DeAngelo J Subject: RE: [External] RE: Fairway Hills From: Edwards, Charles N [mailto:cnedwards@ncdot.gov] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 9:15 AM To: Patrick R. Mallett; DAC; patricia.coleman(aborange.kl2.nc.us; Gail Hughes Cc: Molly Boyle; Jones, DeAngelo J Subject: RE: [External] RE: Fairway Hills Pat, I have reviewed the preliminary plan dated 04/16/19. Based on the information provided, the subdivision streets, proposed access and road improvements to US 70 can be approved and permitted subject to submittal of final plans meeting all NCDOT design requirements. Engineering review comments are forthcoming and will be shared with DAC and the Applicant. It is not anticipated that any needed design corrections will result in substantial changes to the configuration of the subdivision streets or lots. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. C. N. Edwards Jr., PE (Chuck) District Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways Division 7, District 1 336 570 6833 cnedwards(cbncdot.aov 115 East Crescent Square Drive P. O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 r 1r' 1 45 Patrick R. Mallett From: Edwards, Charles N <cnedwards@ncdot.gov> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 10:09 AM To: Patrick R. Mallett Cc: Molly Boyle; Tim Smith, PE, PLS;Jones, DeAngelo J Subject: Proposed Fairway Hills Subdivision I have reviewed the preliminary plan dated 04/16/19. Based on the information provided, the subdivision streets, proposed access and road improvements to US 70 can be approved and permitted subject to submittal of final plans meeting all NCDOT design requirements. While the plans are understandably incomplete at this time, I am providing the following comments to DAC and the Applicant. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment: • Some centerline radii and vertical K values do not meet NCDOT requirements. Please refer to NCDOT Subdivision Road Minimum Construction Standards Mail Kiosk: • Locate mail kiosk outside of NCDOT R/W. Provide internal accommodation for backout of parking stall. Provide driveway connection to proposed subdivision street meeting NCDOT minimum design requirements. Refer to NCDOT CBU policy and guidelines for other requirements and acceptable alternate designs. Consult with local Postmaster for any additional requirements and acceptability for service. https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Teppl/TEPPL%20AI1%20Documents%20LibrarV/M01 CBU.pdf Drainage: • Provide drainage design per NCDOT requirements US 70 Improvements: • Is proposed widening to be asymmetrical or near-side?There is conflicting information on the plan • Refer to NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways ( pg. 78 and 79)for minimum geometric requirements for turn lanes and associated transitions. Adjust design accordingly • Provide pavement marking plan per requirements of NCDOT Roadway Standards Drawings. Install snowplowable markers if existing. • Retain existing width for lanes, and paved and unpaved shoulders • Minimum pavement design in widening to be 5" B25.00, 4" 119.00 and 1.5" S9.5C with additional 1.5" S9.5C full width overly within construction limits. C. N. Edwards Jr., PE (Chuck) District Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways Division 7, District 1 336 570 6833 cnedwards(cDncdot.gov 115 East Crescent Square Drive P. O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 1 46 Patrick R. Mallett To: Phil Vilaro Cc: David Ward Subject: RE: Fairway Hills From: Phil Vilaro Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 12:04 PM To: Patrick R. Mallett Cc: David Ward Subject: RE: Fairway Hills Dear Patrick: Dear Patrick: EH has no prima facie objection to this subdivision proposal. Feasibility of proposed home sites, septic system/repair areas, and well locations will be evaluated for individual lots, commencing with the Improvement Permit site/soil evaluation process. Thanks, Phil Please tell us how we are doing by taking this very quick survey. We appreciate your comments. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/EHSURVEY2018-2019 Philip R. Vilaro, PhD, REHS Environmental Health Supervisor Onsite Water Protection Section Environmental Health Services 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/envhIth/index.asp HEALTH DEPARTMENT Improving hEalth. Inspiring change. © 4 i 47 Patrick R. Mallett To: James Baxter Subject: RE: Fairway Hills From: James Baxter Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 11:24 AM To: Patrick R. Mallett Subject: RE: Fairway Hills Pat Mallett, Fairway Hills No comments or issues with the request from a building standpoint. James Baxter OC Building Imspections 1 48 Orange County,NC School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance(SAPFO) Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) chooi District:Orange County Schools CAPS Certificate Number: 0C19-11-19 velnptnent/Subdivision : Fairway Hills gal Descriptiou : IN 9884323275;9884319 ' j Review of a Preliminary Plat proposing a 20-lot subdivision on US 70 E Projected Student Growth Phase 1 Units Elementary Middle High SF Detached 0-3 Bedrooms 0 0 0 0 SF Detached 4 Bedrooms 20 5.6 2.8 3 SF Detached 5+Bedrooms 0 0 0 0 SF Attached 0-2 Bedrooms 0 0 0 0 SF Attached 3+Bedrooms 0 0 0 0 Multifamily 0-2 Bedrooms 0 0 0 0 Multifamily 3+Bedrooms 0 0 0 0 Manufactured Homes 0-2 Bedrooms 0 0 0 0 Manufactured Homes 3+Bedrooms 0 0 0 0 arming I 'sdicti Orange County Date of Submital: 04/18/2019 Date of Approval : ii g na t ' -Age. 0 -This document certifies that the above school district has(or anticipates future)capacity to accommodate the projected number of students to be created from the above development/subdivision in the years as noted. -This certificate is required after final government approval but before final plat recordation can be performed or as deemed by the specific local ordinance. -Any residential structure on a lot in the above development/subdivision may not receive a certificate of occupancy until or after the date of effect and/or the phasing proposed as shown in the table, unless modified by local government action. -This CAPS expires pursuant to the timing specified in the local government for the validity period of the respective development permit. 49 Date of Issue : Date of Effect(School Year) : 2018-2019 Signature,Developer Date Signature,Developer Date Signature,School Board OfficiAV Seal Date Note:The original is forwarded to the local government,one copy is forwarded to Orange County, one copy is retained by the school district,and one copy is retained by the developer. 50 Attachment 4 EXCERPT OF PLAN BOARD MEETING MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD APRIL 3,2019 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair),At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; David Blankfard (Vice- Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Randy Marshall, Bingham Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township Representative;Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Hunter Spitzer,At-Large Chapel Hill Township, Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative; MEMBERS ABSENT: Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Paul Guthrie,At-Large Chapel Hill Township;Vacant, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Vacant, At-Large; STAFF PRESENT: Pat Mallett, Planner II; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Phil Vilaro, Environmental Health Supervisor; Tina Love,Administrative Assistant III OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Smith, Summit Engineering; Mark O'Neal, Picket-Sprouse; Paul Noe; Craig Carter; Patricia Catto; Cyrus Griswold; Marie Huskett; Linda Nathansen; HANDOUT: Handout LID Savings Comparing to Traditional Stormwater Management (Low Impact Development) submitted by Linda Nathansen to the Board *NOTE: Due to equipment failure there is no audio of the meeting and the minutes were prepared by staff notes and recollections AGENDA ITEM 8: MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW -To review and take action on a Concept Plan application for a Major Subdivision called Fairway Hills. The proposal is for a 20 lot single-family Flexible Development subdivision on 41.97 acres (PINs 9884-32-3275 and 9884-31-9874) located in Eno Township on the north side of US Highway 70 across from Occoneechee Golf Club. PRESENTER: Patrick Mallett, Planner II Patrick Mallett reviewed the case history and changes since the original application, presented a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the abstract including attachments. The project, originally proposed as a 27 lot Class A Special Use Permit Major Subdivision project, had been revised by the applicant. Now, Fairway Hills is proposed to be a 20 lot Flexible Development Cluster Major Subdivision. As a result, the review of the project would follow standards established within Section 2.15 of the UDO rather than the Special Use Permit process as contained in Section 2.7. Further, the applicant was no longer required to abide by standards contained in Section 5.17.6 of the Unified Development Ordinance as the project is no longer classified as requiring a Special Use Permit. The applicant was still obligated, however, to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Article 7 of the UDO,which establishes the development standards for subdivision projects. The proposal will still involve creation of individual single-family residential lots for future development, proposed to be served by roadways constructed to applicable NC Department of Transportation guidelines. The proposed lots range in size from 42,785 square feet(smallest) to 125,765 square feet(largest). The Gross density is one dwelling unit per 2.1 acres, which is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan land use designations and the Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay district. The applicant was proposing the creation of approximately 37% of open space area,which will be managed by a local homeowners association. 51 The applicant is proposing to serve the project with individual wells and for septic systems developed on each lot. The Concept Plan denotes anticipated areas for septic sites. The applicant has also conducted more detailed well and septic analysis and submitted documents as part of their application. Overall drainage will be engineered according to applicable standards at the time of permit application for construction. The property is subject to adopted erosion control and stormwater management guidelines. The Concept Plan currently anticipates improving drainage using mostly Common Open Space Areas. The Concept Plan denotes a 75 foot wide Type E natural/constructed landscape buffer along US Highway 70 East. This area will be planted with additional materials and landscaped (e.g. berms/fencing) to augment preserved existing vegetation. The 75 foot buffer will meet the required Type E Buffer, as outlined in Section 6.8.6(F) of the UDO. The applicant has proposed a 50 foot perimeter well and septic setback and a 100 foot building setback,which would limit structures, clearing and utilities along the perimeter and US Highway 70 East. Tim Smith of Summit Engineering presented a PowerPoint presentation and provided additional project details. Lydia Wegman asked Tim about the additional set-backs and about the wells and septic. Tim Smith confirmed that the building set-backs on US 70 would be 125 feet and 50 feet for well and septic. He also advised that they have hired a consultant for the express purpose of studying the water and septic requirements needed. Adam Beeman questioned the expected size of the homes. Tim Smith related that they expect to build 4 to 5 bedroom homes depending on the individual lot soils and sizes. Randy Marshall asked if the project would be adding stub outs for future development Tim Smith responded that they would not be adding them because the adjacent properties were not likely to be developed. Pat Mallett indicated the County staff was not recommending creation of stub outs to serve adjacent properties. This was due to a combination of factors, most notable surrounding development patterns,topography, and concerns over impacting existing water features. There was general discussion on the potential environmental impacts of roadways crossing water features. Hunter Spitzer asked if they would consider making the internal road into a complete loop for the convenience of the property owners. Tim Smith replied that the topography and reduction to the size of the lots made it undesirable. To do a loop street system would actually require more land disturbing activity and impact the existing grade potentially creating stormwater control issues. Lydia Wegman asked if the open space was going to be available to the property owners to use. Tim Smith asserted that all the open space was available for all of the residents who would own property within Fairway Hills and that for the most part it is wooded and would remain so with mulch paths etc. Mr. Smith stressed any trails development within the open space would not be available for non-property owner access. 52 David Blankford asked if staff and Mr. Smith could provide additional details on the potential stormwater needs for the project. Pat Mallett reminded the Board the property was located within the Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay district. Project disturbing more than 20,000 square feet of land area are required to submit and receive approval of an erosion control plan. Projects disturbing more than 21,780 square feet of land area are required to submit and receive approval of a stormwater plan. Fairway Hills will require both erosion control and stormwater permit review and approval. The Concept Plan denotes the location of anticipated stormwater facilities. Mr. Mallet reminded the Board erosion control and stormwater plans would be submitted prior to the commencement of land disturbing activity assuming the project was, ultimately, approved. Tim Smith indicated the project involved centrally located stormwater facilities. These stormwater control measures would address the overall development of the project. Development on individual parcels may also require the property owner to develop appropriate stormwater control measures as well. There was general discussion. Lydia Wegman asked if there were any comments or questions from the public. Linda Nathansen expressed concerns on multiple issues regarding the development and request that there be testing of the wells done for the neighbors that could potentially be negatively impacted so that if in the future there is a problem the property owners have proof that it was not a problem before the development. She requested that no use of round-up or similar pesticides be allowed to be used and expressed concerns about run off and stormwater issues. She requested that the use of Low Impact Design (LID)stormwater management be considered and handed out a paper that compared the system to traditional systems. She related that there was an underground tank on the property and that there was the potential of contamination from it to the adjacent properties. Michael Harvey reminded the Board that the County has some of the most restrictive stormwater regulation in the area. Developers were required to address both water quantity, specifically how much water was leaving the site, and water quality, specifically the removal of nutrients from the project. This project would also have to abide what is known as pre and post stormwater runoff conditions. What this means is that under current conditions if there was approximately 1 inch of water running off the property in its pre-development state, there can be no more than 1 inch of runoff generated by the property in its developed state. Mr. Harvey further reminded the Board they could not compel or require the applicant to adhere to a specific stormwater design standard. That would be addressed during the stormwater permitting stage based on applicable County and State regulations. While he appreciated Ms. Nathansen's suggestion that the project use low impact design principles, there was no guarantee the project would qualify for same. Michael Harvey reminded the Board that is surrounding wells were already experiencing issues, it would be prudent for those property owners to contact Orange County Environmental Health to ascertain if the wells need to be re- drilled. Testing of wells to try and establish a baseline of existing issues, in the hopes of holding property owners within Fairway Hills accountable for potential impacts,was not practical. The assumption that future problems will be the direct impact of this project represented a false premise as development/redevelopment of surrounding lots could also lead to the problems Ms. Nathansen was concerned about. Craig Carter expressed concern on the well water table and contamination. He related that several properties had contaminated wells and had to have then drilled deeper and that there had been 3 gas stations there in the past. Mark O'Neal of Pickett-Sprouse addressed the concern and advised that the tank had been for heating oil and had been removed,the soil around it was also removed and the remaining soil has been tested and cleared by an expert. 53 There was additional,general,discussion on contamination issues. Michael Harvey reminded the Board of existing wells were contaminated, then property owners should take action to work with the Health Department to address those issues. That was a separate issue from the review of this project however. Paul Noe addressed the Board to second the comments made by Linda Nathansen and potential impacts to area wells. Randy Marshall asked if there was a precedence to require the developer to pay a bond to be used if there was a negative impact on the wells in order to protect the current residents of the area. Adam Beeman expressed that if you couldn't determine exactly which property was the straw that broke the system and if a bond was required it would then become even more difficult to have any kind of development in Orange County than it is now and all development would cease. Michael Harvey addressed the Board and advised that he could not legally require any type of bond to address potential well impacts and that it wasn't possible for the Board to require same. He further reminded the Board that the presumption this project would be the genesis of future problems was based on flawed logic. There was no way to determine what could or could not happen. From a liability standpoint it would be difficult to determine this project was the sole cause of contamination. Randy Marshall said he understood a bond was not prudent or legally permissible, but wanted to make sure there was an answer on the record of this fact. Michael Harvey indicated Mr. Phil Vilaro of Orange County Environmental Health was in the audience and would like to address the Board concerning well and septic issues. Phil Vilaro spoke to Board to address concerns about well safety and water table issues. He reassured the Board that it standard practice to have wells on multiple lots similar to the size proposed within this project and that it is not an issue in his mind to have 20 individual wells created to serve these lots. M. Vilaro did not believe development of this project would impact water pressure or the water capacity of surrounding wells. Mr. Vilaro reminded the Board Orange County does not have a true aquifer/water table. This is why you have such a disparity in well depth, water quality, and generated gallons per minute from property to property in any given area. In discussing surface water contamination he expressed the rarity of that happening in Orange County because of the standards required by the County for every new well drilled. Mr. Vilaro said County requirements, with respect to the drilling and installation of wells, were amongst the strictest in the State. Mr. Vilaro agreed older wells, installed prior to the adoption of local comprehensive regulations in the mid 1980's, were indeed subject to potential impacts from runoff given how they were constructed (i.e. depth, casing, etc.). Such wells need to be replaced as they are not suited to address such contaminant issues. Craig Carter thanked Mr. Vilaro for his explanation and provided some history on the well his grandparents installed on their property to provide additional context on his concerns with respect to well impacts and contamination issues. The well was constantly providing `muddy'water and there were issues with contaminants at times. Phil Vilaro indicated he believed Mr. Carter and suggested part of the problem was the well was not installed deep enough to avoid subsurface silt runoff and contamination. Current practice requires wells to be dug deep to address this issue and to be properly incased/grouted to protect the integrity of the well. Mr. Vilaro reminded the Board approximately 80% of the County was intended to be served by private wells and septic systems as there were no plans by the County to extend/develop public utility systems. 54 There was lengthy discussion amongst the Board and Mr.Vilaro on septic and well permitting. An unknown individual asked if there was an opportunity for this project to tie into public water from the Town of Hillsborough. Pat Mallet indicated the property was not in a designated public utility service area, which meant there was no opportunity for the project to be served by public utilities. Patricia Catto indicated she had the same concerns about stormwater runoff and well contamination as previous speakers and further expressed disappointment in the notification process for this project. Ms. Catto indicated property owners need to be kept notified whenever a development is proposed in the Town of Hillsborough so they can have a voice in the process. Michael Harvey indicated the County had the most rigorous notification requirements in the region, well exceeding State requirements. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board a neighborhood information meeting was held for this project, with property owners within 1,000 feet of the parcel being notified of the date and time of the meeting via letters sent first class mail. Staff posted signs on the property advertising the neighborhood meeting 10 days prior to the event. Michael Harvey said the agenda for this meeting was advertised in 2 local newspapers and additional notice was sent to adjacent property owners of the meeting date and time via first class mail. Information on the project was also posted on the County website with a detailed explanation of what the project entailed. Staff also posted signs on the property advertising the date and time of this meeting where the Concept Plan was to be reviewed. Mr. Harvey said he could not address Ms. Catto's concerns about other projects in the Town of Hillsborough as the County did not manage the Town's planning program and suggested she make contact with the Town to address her issues. Michael Harvey asked Ms. Catto where she lived. Ms. Catto responded she lived approximately 5 miles away from the proposed subdivision. Mr. Harvey reiterated the notification requirements as contained within the UDO and indicated Ms. Catto was not notified of meetings via first class mail due to the location of her residence but that the County takes additional steps with the posting of signs, advertisement of meetings in 2 newspapers, and posting project updates on the County website for the interested to obtain proper notice of projects and meeting dates. There was additional discussion on meeting notification and on County standards well exceeding State minimum requirements. VOTE: Unanimous