Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board minutes 040319Approved 5/1/19 MEETING MINUTES1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD2 APRIL 3,20193 REGULAR MEETING4 5 * NOTE: Due to equipment failure there is no audio of the meeting and the minutes were prepared by staff notes and 6 recollections 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; David Blankfard (Vice-9 Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Randy Marshall, Bingham Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno 10 Township Representative; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large Chapel 11 Hill Township, Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative; 12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township 14 Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Vacant, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Vacant, 15 At-Large; 16 17 STAFF PRESENT: Pat Mallett, Planner II; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Phil Vilaro, Environmental 18 Health Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant III19 20 OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Smith, Summit Engineering; Mark O’Neal, Picket-Sprouse; Paul Noe; Craig Carter; Patricia 21 Catto; Cyrus Griswold; Marie Huskett; Linda Nathansen; 22 23 HANDOUT:Handout LID Savings Comparing to Traditional Stormwater Management (Low Impact Development)24 submitted by Linda Nathansen to the Board25 26 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL27 Chair Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order28 29 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR FOR REMAINDER OF 201930 31 David Blankfard, Hunter Spitzer and Adam Beeman volunteered for the Vice-Chair position. A secret ballot was 32 requested. Paper was distributed to the Board and collected by Tina Love who tallied the ballots and announced that 33 Hunter Spitzer received 2 votes, Adam Beeman received 2 votes and David Blankfard received 3 votes making David 34 Blankfard the new Vice-Chair35 36 VOTE:Blankfard – 3, Hunter – 2, Beeman – 237 David Blankfard elected as Vice-Chair38 39 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS40 a. Planning Calendar for April and May 201941 42 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES43 March 6, 2019 Regular Meeting44 March 20, 2019 Special Meeting45 46 MOTION by Adam Beeman to approve the March 6, 2019 Regular Meeting Minutes and the March 20, 2019 Special 47 Meeting Minutes with corrections. Seconded by Hunter Spitzer.48 VOTE:Unanimous49 50 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 51 Approved 5/1/19 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE52 Chair Lydia Wegman read the Public Charge53 54 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS55 There were none56 57 AGENDA ITEM 8: MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW -To review and take action on a Concept Plan 58 application for a Major Subdivision called Fairway Hills. The proposal is for a 20 lot single-family Flexible 59 Development subdivision on 41.97 acres (PINs 9884-32-3275 and 9884-31-9874) located in Eno Township on the 60 north side of US Highway 70 across from Occoneechee Golf Club.61 PRESENTER:Patrick Mallett, Planner II62 63 Patrick Mallett reviewed the case history and changes since the original application, presented a PowerPoint 64 presentation and reviewed the abstract including attachments.65 66 The project, originally proposed as a 27 lot Class A Special Use Permit Major Subdivision project, had been revised 67 by the applicant. Now, Fairway Hills is proposed to be a 20 lot Flexible Development Cluster Major Subdivision. As 68 a result, the review of the project would follow standards established within Section 2.15 of the UDO rather than the 69 Special Use Permit process as contained in Section 2.7. Further, the applicant was no longer required to abide by 70 standards contained in Section 5.17.6 of the Unified Development Ordinance as the project is no longer classified as 71 requiring a Special Use Permit. The applicant was still obligated, however, to demonstrate compliance with the72 provisions of Article 7 of the UDO, which establishes the development standards for subdivision projects.73 74 The proposal will still involve creation of individual single-family residential lots for future development, proposed to 75 be served by roadways constructed to applicable NC Department of Transportation guidelines. The proposed lots 76 range in size from 42,785 square feet (smallest) to 125,765 square feet (largest). The Gross density is one dwelling 77 unit per 2.1 acres, which is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan land use designations and the Lower Eno 78 Protected Watershed Protection Overlay district. The applicant was proposing the creation of approximately 37% of 79 open space area, which will be managed by a local homeowners association. 80 81 The applicant is proposing to serve the project with individual wells and for septic systems developed on each lot. 82 The Concept Plan denotes anticipated areas for septic sites. The applicant has also conducted more detailed well 83 and septic analysis and submitted documents as part of their application. 84 85 Overall drainage will be engineered according to applicable standards at the time of permit application for 86 construction. The property is subject to adopted erosion control and stormwater management guidelines. The 87 Concept Plan currently anticipates improving drainage using mostly Common Open Space Areas.88 89 The Concept Plan denotes a 75 foot wide Type E natural/constructed landscape buffer along US Highway 70 East. 90 This area will be planted with additional materials and landscaped (e.g. berms/fencing) to augment preserved 91 existing vegetation. The 75 foot buffer will meet the required Type E Buffer, as outlined in Section 6.8.6(F) of the 92 UDO. The applicant has proposed a 50 foot perimeter well and septic setback and a 100 foot building setback, which 93 would limit structures, clearing and utilities along the perimeter and US Highway 70 East. 94 95 Tim Smith of Summit Engineering presented a PowerPoint presentation and provided additional project details.96 97 Lydia Wegman asked Tim about the additional set-backs and about the wells and septic.98 99 Tim Smith confirmed that the building set-backs on US 70 would be 125 feet and 50 feet for well and septic. He also100 advised that they have hired a consultant for the express purpose of studying the water and septic requirements 101 needed.102 Approved 5/1/19 Adam Beeman questioned the expected size of the homes.103 104 Tim Smith related that they expect to build 4 to 5 bedroom homes depending on the individual lot soils and sizes.105 106 Randy Marshall asked if the project would be adding stub outs for future development107 108 Tim Smith responded that they would not be adding them because the adjacent properties were not likely to be 109 developed.110 111 Pat Mallett indicated the County staff was not recommending creation of stub outs to serve adjacent properties. This 112 was due to a combination of factors, most notable surrounding development patterns, topography, and concerns over 113 impacting existing water features.114 115 There was general discussion on the potential environmental impacts of roadways crossing water features.116 117 Hunter Spitzer asked if they would consider making the internal road into a complete loop for the convenience of the 118 property owners.119 120 Tim Smith replied that the topography and reduction to the size of the lots made it undesirable. To do a loop street 121 system would actually require more land disturbing activity and impact the existing grade potentially creating 122 stormwater control issues.123 124 Lydia Wegman asked if the open space was going to be available to the property owners to use.125 126 Tim Smith asserted that all the open space was available for all of the residents who would own property within 127 Fairway Hills and that for the most part it is wooded and would remain so with mulch paths etc. Mr. Smith stressed 128 any trails development within the open space would not be available for non-property owner access.129 130 David Blankford asked if staff and Mr. Smith could provide additional details on the potential stormwater needs for the 131 project.132 133 Pat Mallett reminded the Board the property was located within the Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection 134 Overlay district. Project disturbing more than 20,000 square feet of land area are required to submit and receive 135 approval of an erosion control plan. Projects disturbing more than 21,780 square feet of land area are required to 136 submit and receive approval of a stormwater plan. Fairway Hills will require both erosion control and stormwater 137 permit review and approval. The Concept Plan denotes the location of anticipated stormwater facilities. Mr. Mallet 138 reminded the Board erosion control and stormwater plans would be submitted prior to the commencement of land 139 disturbing activity assuming the project was, ultimately, approved.140 141 Tim Smith indicated the project involved centrally located stormwater facilities. These stormwater control measures 142 would address the overall development of the project. Development on individual parcels may also require the 143 property owner to develop appropriate stormwater control measures as well.144 145 There was general discussion.146 147 Lydia Wegman asked if there were any comments or questions from the public.148 149 Linda Nathansen expressed concerns on multiple issues regarding the development and request that there be testing 150 of the wells done for the neighbors that could potentially be negatively impacted so that if in the future there is a 151 problem the property owners have proof that it was not a problem before the development. She requested that no 152 use of round-up or similar pesticides be allowed to be used and expressed concerns about run off and stormwater 153 Approved 5/1/19 issues. She requested that the use of Low Impact Design (LID) stormwater management be considered and handed 154 out a paper that compared the system to traditional systems. She related that there was an underground tank on the 155 property and that there was the potential of contamination from it to the adjacent properties.156 157 Michael Harvey reminded the Board that the County has some of the most restrictive stormwater regulation in the 158 area. Developers were required to address both water quantity, specifically how much water was leaving the site, 159 and water quality, specifically the removal of nutrients from the project. This project would also have to abide what is 160 known as pre and post stormwater runoff conditions. What this means is that under current conditions if there was 161 approximately 1 inch of water running off the property in its pre-development state, there can be no more than 1 inch 162 of runoff generated by the property in its developed state. Mr. Harvey further reminded the Board they could not 163 compel or require the applicant to adhere to a specific stormwater design standard. That would be addressed during 164 the stormwater permitting stage based on applicable County and State regulations. While he appreciated Ms. 165 Nathansen’s suggestion that the project use low impact design principles, there was no guarantee the project would 166 qualify for same. 167 168 Michael Harvey reminded the Board that is surrounding wells were already experiencing issues, it would be prudent 169 for those property owners to contact Orange County Environmental Health to ascertain if the wells need to be re-170 drilled. Testing of wells to try and establish a baseline of existing issues, in the hopes of holding property owners 171 within Fairway Hills accountable for potential impacts, was not practical. The assumption that future problems will be 172 the direct impact of this project represented a false premise as development/redevelopment of surrounding lots could 173 also lead to the problems Ms. Nathansen was concerned about. 174 175 Craig Carter expressed concern on the well water table and contamination. He related that several properties had 176 contaminated wells and had to have then drilled deeper and that there had been 3 gas stations there in the past. 177 178 Mark O’Neal of Pickett-Sprouse addressed the concern and advised that the tank had been for heating oil and had 179 been removed, the soil around it was also removed and the remaining soil has been tested and cleared by an expert.180 181 There was additional, general, discussion on contamination issues.182 183 Michael Harvey reminded the Board of existing wells were contaminated, then property owners should take action to 184 work with the Health Department to address those issues. That was a separate issue from the review of this project185 however.186 187 Paul Noe addressed the Board to second the comments made by Linda Nathansen and potential impacts to area 188 wells.189 190 Randy Marshall asked if there was a precedence to require the developer to pay a bond to be used if there was a 191 negative impact on the wells in order to protect the current residents of the area.192 193 Adam Beeman expressed that if you couldn’t determine exactly which property was the straw that broke the system 194 and if a bond was required it would then become even more difficult to have any kind of development in Orange 195 County than it is now and all development would cease.196 197 Michael Harvey addressed the Board and advised that he could not legally require any type of bond to address 198 potential well impacts and that it wasn’t possible for the Board to require same. He further reminded the Board that 199 the presumption this project would be the genesis of future problems was based on flawed logic. There was no way 200 to determine what could or could not happen. From a liability standpoint it would be difficult to determine this project 201 was the sole cause of contamination.202 203 Approved 5/1/19 Randy Marshall said he understood a bond was not prudent or legally permissible, but wanted to make sure there 204 was an answer on the record of this fact.205 206 Michael Harvey indicated Mr. Phil Vilaro of Orange County Environmental Health was in the audience and would like 207 to address the Board concerning well and septic issues.208 209 Phil Vilaro spoke to Board to address concerns about well safety and water table issues. He reassured the Board 210 that it standard practice to have wells on multiple lots similar to the size proposed within this project and that it is not 211 an issue in his mind to have 20 individual wells created to serve these lots. M. Vilaro did not believe development of 212 this project would impact water pressure or the water capacity of surrounding wells. Mr. Vilaro reminded the Board 213 Orange County does not have a true aquifer/water table. This is why you have such a disparity in well depth, water 214 quality, and generated gallons per minute from property to property in any given area. In discussing surface water 215 contamination he expressed the rarity of that happening in Orange County because of the standards required by the 216 County for every new well drilled. Mr. Vilaro said County requirements, with respect to the drilling and installation of 217 wells, were amongst the strictest in the State. Mr. Vilaro agreed older wells, installed prior to the adoption of local 218 comprehensive regulations in the mid 1980’s, were indeed subject to potential impacts from runoff given how they 219 were constructed (i.e. depth, casing, etc.). Such wells need to be replaced as they are not suited to address such 220 contaminant issues. 221 222 Craig Carter thanked Mr. Vilaro for his explanation and provided some history on the well his grandparents installed 223 on their property to provide additional context on his concerns with respect to well impacts and contamination issues.224 The well was constantly providing ‘muddy’ water and there were issues with contaminants at times.225 226 Phil Vilaro indicated he believed Mr. Carter and suggested part of the problem was the well was not installed deep 227 enough to avoid subsurface silt runoff and contamination. Current practice requires wells to be dug deep to address 228 this issue and to be properly incased/grouted to protect the integrity of the well. Mr. Vilaro reminded the Board 229 approximately 80% of the County was intended to be served by private wells and septic systems as there were no 230 plans by the County to extend/develop public utility systems.231 232 There was lengthy discussion amongst the Board and Mr. Vilaro on septic and well permitting.233 234 An unknown individual asked if there was an opportunity for this project to tie into public water from the Town of 235 Hillsborough. Pat Mallet indicated the property was not in a designated public utility service area, which meant there 236 was no opportunity for the project to be served by public utilities.237 238 Patricia Catto indicated she had the same concerns about stormwater runoff and well contamination as previous 239 speakers and further expressed disappointment in the notification process for this project. Ms. Catto indicated 240 property owners need to be kept notified whenever a development is proposed in the Town of Hillsborough so they 241 can have a voice in the process.242 243 Michael Harvey indicated the County had the most rigorous notification requirements in the region, well exceeding 244 State requirements. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board a neighborhood information meeting was held for this project, 245 with property owners within 1,000 feet of the parcel being notified of the date and time of the meeting via letters sent 246 first class mail. Staff posted signs on the property advertising the neighborhood meeting 10 days prior to the event.247 248 Michael Harvey said the agenda for this meeting was advertised in 2 local newspapers and additional notice was 249 sent to adjacent property owners of the meeting date and time via first class mail. Information on the project was 250 also posted on the County website with a detailed explanation of what the project entailed. Staff also posted signs on 251 the property advertising the date and time of this meeting where the Concept Plan was to be reviewed. Mr. Harvey 252 said he could not address Ms. Catto’s concerns about other projects in the Town of Hillsborough as the County did 253 not manage the Town’s planning program and suggested she make contact with the Town to address her issues.254 Approved 5/1/19 Michael Harvey asked Ms. Catto where she lived. Ms. Catto responded she lived approximately 5 miles away from 255 the proposed subdivision. Mr. Harvey reiterated the notification requirements as contained within the UDO and 256 indicated Ms. Catto was not notified of meetings via first class mail due to the location of her residence but that the 257 County takes additional steps with the posting of signs, advertisement of meetings in 2 newspapers, and posting 258 project updates on the County website for the interested to obtain proper notice of projects and meeting dates.259 260 There was additional discussion on meeting notification and on County standards well exceeding State minimum 261 requirements.262 263 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approved the Flexible Development option Concept Plan and allow the applicant to 264 proceed with the development and submittal of a Preliminary Plan and application utilizing this layout. Seconded by 265 Adam Beeman.266 VOTE:Unanimous267 268 Pat Mallett advised the Board Members that this and residents regarding the next steps for the case and how to 269 obtain information270 271 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT272 The meeting was adjourned by consensus273 274 275 276 Lydia N. Wegman, Chair277