Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Board - 010621
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 a�6� ' ICey �� frro 4 I z ra ;�Qrrri �as 6'l�0 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, January 6, 2021 Regular Meeting — 7:00 pm Due to current public health concerns, the meeting will be virtual. Members of the Planning Board and staff will be participating in the meeting remotely. Interested members of the public can view and participate in the meeting by following the instructions at the end of the agenda. (Please note that pre-registration no later than 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting is required to speak at the meeting). No. Page(s) Aggnda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2021 2. 4 a. Term Expiration Dates and Reappointment Eligibility, by Member INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 3. 5 - 6 a. Planning Calendar for January and February b. Buckhorn Small Area Plan Study— at the February 3, 2021 Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board is expected to receive an overview of the Plan, update on Mebane's planning process, and provide input to the Orange County BOCC for its consideration on any subsequent County implementation actions. 4. 7 — 22 APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes 5. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 6. 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 • Page(s) Item 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. Please be kind to everyone. 7. CHAIR COMMENTS 8. 23 — 102 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (REDA-CZ-1 — ROUGEMONT SELF STORAGE) - To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant- initiated zoning atlas amendment to expand an existing conditional zoning district called REDA-CZ-1 (NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area Conditional Zoning). The proposed expansion is located at 8927 Mile Branch Road in Little River Township on a 21.54 acre parcel of land. The parcel is currently zoned REDA-CZ- 1 and Agricultural Residential. The applicant is seeking to rezone the Agricultural Residential acreage so that the entire parcel is in the REDA- CZ-1 district, allowing for an expansion of the existing self-storage operation. This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on February 2, 2021. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 9. 103 — 110 PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN: To discuss the annual input form which informs the BOCC of the past year's activities of advisory boards/commissions and assists in overall County work planning. Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director 10. ADJOURNMENT Public Comments / Participation There are two methods for public comment: • Written submittals by email or drop-off • Speaking during the virtual meeting Written Public Comments Members of the public are encouraged to provide written public comments by emailing comments to plan ningboard(aorangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting. Please include in the Subject line of the email the title of the agenda item your comment pertains to. Emails sent to this address are viewable on Google Groups: https:Hgroups.google.com/q/ocplanningboard Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department's offices at 131 W. Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). If a staff member is not available, please leave your comments in the drop-off box near the front counter. Written comments will be scanned and sent by staff to the email address indicated above. Verbal Public Comments Members of the public must contact Planning Department staff via email at ocpbpubliccomment(a--)orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting and indicate they wish to speak during the meeting. When submitting the request to speak, please include the following: • The date of the meeting • The title of the agenda item you wish to speak on • Your name, address, email and phone number o The phone number must be the number you will call in from if participating by phone During the meeting, speakers will be called upon in the order in which requests to speak were received. Each speaker may speak once per agenda item and has 3 minutes to address the board. Ceding time to another speaker is not permitted. In the event a meeting is continued to a future date due to the length of public comments, the date for the continued meeting will be announced before the meeting adjourns. No additional requests to speak will be taken for the continued meeting, only the speakers who signed up to speak at the original meeting and were not called upon will be able to speak at the continued meeting. Written comments continue to be encouraged and can be sent to the email address indicated in the "Written Public Comments" instructions above. Zoom Meeting Registration Both members of the public who wish to speak at the meeting and those who wish to only view the meeting must register to receive a link to the meeting. Persons wishing to speak must register with the same name provided in the email that notified staff you wish to speak. The link to sign up for the meeting is: https://orangecountync.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN ItfDhTJFTwWTTZVKtOHpuw If you do not have internet access, you may participate in the meeting via phone. Please call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours to receive information on the number to call-in to, the meeting ID, and a password. Review Process The Planning Board is an appointed volunteer advisory board which makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (the elected officials). The Board of County Commissioners holds a formal public hearing and makes decisions. Section 2.8 of the County's Unified Development Ordinance contains a flowchart depicting the entire review process for rezoning and text amendment applications. 4 Orange County Planning Board Membership and Term Information Name Term End Date Eligible for Date First (March 31) Reappointment? Appointed Carrie Fletcher 2021 Y 3/8/18 Patricia Roberts 2021 N 11/5/15 Melissa Poole 2021 Y 4/16/19 Vacant 2021 Giovanna Mollinedo 2022 Y 9/17/19 Adam Beeman 2022 Y 12/12/17 Vacant 2022 Kim Piracci 2022 N 3/22/16 Randy Marshall 2023 N 3/7/17 Susan Hunter 2023 Y 4/16/19 Alexandra Allman 2023 Y 3/10/20 David Blankfard 2023 N 3/7/17 5 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 • 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BOCC Planning Board Continued 7:00 pm* Public Hearing for Efland Virtual Meeting Station-7 p.m. Virtual Meeting 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Board of BOCC Adjustment Continued 7 p.m. Public Hearing for Efland Station-7 p.m. Virtual Meeting 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 • BOCC OUTBoard/TAS =• = • Business Meeting • Meeting 6:30 p.m. 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting Virtual Meeting 24 25 26 27 28 31 • Notes: Planning Board Member Attendance Required 6 • 1 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 BOCC Planning Board Business 7:00 pm* Meeting 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting Virtual Meeting 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BOCC OUTBoard Business Meeting Meeting 6:30 p.m. 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting Virtual Meeting 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notes: *Planning Board Member Attendance Required Virtual Meeting 7 DRAFT 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 NOVEMBER 4,2020 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 (Due to current public health concerns,this meeting was held virtually. 6 Members of the Planning Board, staff and public participated remotely) 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Blankfard (Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Adam Beeman (Vice-Chair), Cedar 9 Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township 10 Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large Representative; Hunter 11 Spitzer, At-Large Representative; Alexandra Allman, At-Large Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township 12 Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative; Gio Mollinedo,At-Large Representative; 13 14 MEMBERS ABSENT:Vacant,At-Large Representative;Vacant,At-Large Representative; 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current 17 Planning Supervisor;Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Brian Carson, GIS Tech III, Christopher Sandt, Staff 18 Engineer; Molly Boyle: Planner; Tina Love,Administrative Support; Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, 19 Amanda Garner,Assistant Economic Development Director; 20 21 APPLICANT AND ASSOCIATES PRESENT: Stan Beard, Buc-ee's Ltd., Director of Real Estate; Beth Trahos, Nelson Mullins, 22 Partner; Earl Lewellyn, Kimley-Horn, Engineer; Kelsey Westwood, Kimley-Horn, Engineer; 23 24 PROPERTY OWNER/PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATIVES: Ben Lloyd, Robbin Taylor-Hall 25 26 OTHERS PRESENT:John Bannon, Jeff Bruett, Erica Cartmill, Matt Cartmill,Jared Cates, Evelyn Cecil, Cathy Chapman,Jane 27 Cheshire-Allen, Bobby Cobb, Mary Cooter, Valerie Curry,Will Drummond, Laura Easterling, Rosemary Edwards, Donald 28 Efland, Knox Efland, Donald Efland, Marsha Efland, Paul Efland, Carroll Enterkin, Sherry Eshelman, Kathy Evans, 29 Alexandra Farrell, Caroline Foster, Jacob Foster, Chrisean Fuller, Matt Gandy, Sam Gharbo, Robert Golan,Alexandra 30 Griffin, Brian Harry, Jimmy Holcomb,Joseph Howard,Julie Laws, Jamie Lawson, Chad Lloyd, Jon Lorusso, Kristen 31 Marbais, Catherine Matthews, Diana Montgomery, Patricia O'Connor, Helen Pak-Harvey, Larmar Proctor, Steve Ramarge, 32 Noah Ranells, Michelle Rash, Linda Richardson,Andrea Riley, Loren Roberts, Eric Russell,Anne Shortlife, Chris Smith, 33 Heather Smith, Shontea Smith, Tim Spruill,Jeanne Tate,Aimee Tattersall, Del Ward, Richard Ward, Frances Wheeler, Rex 34 Williams, Laurie Wolfe, Elaine Wright, Janine Zanin; Kaye Brown 35 36 Perdita Holtz reviewed the technical processes and rules for the virtual meeting 37 38 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 39 Chair David Blankfard called the meeting to order. 40 41 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 42 a. Planning Calendar for November and December 43 44 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 45 October 7, 2020 46 47 Adam Beeman: I have a correction on line 115, it should say that aren't. 48 49 MOTION by Adam Beeman to approved the October 7, 2020 Planning Board Meeting Minutes with correction. Seconded 50 by Carrie Fletcher. 51 52 ROLLCALL VOTE: 53 Susan Hunter: Yes 54 Adam Beeman: Yes 55 Patricia Roberts: Yes 56 Melissa Poole: Yes 8 DRAFT 57 Alexandra Allman Yes 58 Carrie Fletcher Yes 59 Kim Piracci: Yes 60 Gio Mollinedo Yes 61 David Blankfard: Yes 62 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 63 64 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. 65 66 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 67 68 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 69 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the 70 Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development law of the County. The 71 general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB 72 shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and businesses 73 through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare 74 of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and 75 quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 76 77 PUBLIC CHARGE 78 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to 79 conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At 80 any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will 81 ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should 82 decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment 83 to this public charge is observed. 84 85 Randy Marshall Arrived 86 87 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 88 89 David Blankfard: There are 18 speakers with 3 minutes each to speak so what does the Board think about how late to run 90 this meeting? 91 92 Planning Board Member consensus was to try to end the meeting by 10:00 p.m. and possibly reconvene at a later date. 93 94 AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT(MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION—EFLAND STATION) —To review 95 and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a developer-initiated application for and MPD-CZ(Master 96 Plan Development Conditional Zoning). The proposed project encompasses approximately 104 acres 97 located north of Interstate 85/40,west of Mt.Willing Road,within Cheeks Township. The two parcels 98 comprising the proposed project are currently zoned Office/Research and Manufacturing (0/RM)with 99 three different overlay districts(overlay districts are to remain unchanged). This item is scheduled for 100 BOCC public hearing on December 15, 2020. 101 Presenter: Michael Harvey,Current Planning Supervisor 102 103 Michael Harvey presented a PowerPoint Presentation 104 The Applicant's Representatives Stan Beard and Beth Trahos Presented a Project PowerPoint Presentation 105 106 Gio Mollinedo left the meeting at approximately 7:45 p.m. 107 108 The Applicant's Representatives Earl Lewellyn Presented a PowerPoint Transportation Presentation for the Project. 109 110 David Blankfard: I had a question for Earl,you said you based the traffic impact on a 10% increase from actual data from 111 Buc-ee's, if you took the actual data from Buc-ee's would that change your recommendations for the exit 160 for removing 112 it? 9 DRAFT 113 114 Earl Lewellyn: If we dropped back the traffic generation intensity by that 10%would we still be recommending removal of 115 160,yes we would indeed. It was an issue brought up even before we instituted that addition. 116 117 David Blankfard: Would that exit have to be removed on day one? 118 119 Earl Lewellyn: My personal recommendation is yes,you would absolutely want to have it operational at day one and 1 120 believe that is the opinion of NCDOT too. 121 122 Melissa Poole: There is a hotel in phase 2 do you already have that or it's just a proposal and you don't know what it will 123 be? 124 125 Beth Trahos: There is not a specific hotel user today. 126 127 Stan Beard: If I can address some of the phase 2 questions,we only call it phase 2 because it will be subsequent to Buc- 128 ee's operating and breaking in as we get the kinks out of our operating,traffic. We watch that very intently for the first half a 129 year and then once we get comfortable with where we are and everyone else around us,we will start fielding inquiries from 130 other users, hotels, retail shops, sit-down restaurants who like think we are a good fit for them. A hotel, and please keep in 131 mind that we will continue to own this entire development for the foreseeable future. We're going to be very stringent who 132 the hotel is, it's going to be in the higher up major chain type of offerings. The same thing with sit down restaurants. 133 134 Melissa Poole: My question is around a lot of public comments that I've seen have been around potential crime and I know 135 that is a concern. It always is any time you've got any industrialized space, particularly when you are going to have a hotel. 136 So, can you commit to an internal entry to rooms hotel versus an external. 137 138 Stan Beard: This will be a hallway hotel,there will not be a motel situation at all. 139 140 Melissa Poole: On pages 114-115 from the memo from Department of Environment,Ag and Parks and Rec(DEAPR) 141 regarding the Seven Mile Creek watershed, and it references;the staff recognizes the site plan submitted shows the 142 developers effort to preserve the watershed (I'm summarizing that)as the easement grantee, the County would be 143 responsible for monitoring the site. It looks like a recommendation, I'm just curious as to with this recommendation,what's 144 going on with that? 145 146 Michael Harvey: You're talking about Christian Hirni's memo(shared screen). Obviously, as Ms. Trahos has indicated, 147 there are several open spaces areas (Mr. Harvey identified the areas on the map denoting open space)and the darker 148 areas are stream buffers around identified wetland areas and streams. In discussions with DEAPR staff there was a 149 question on whether or not there would have to be conservation easements put around these areas to preserve and protect 150 the water features. The applicant has already indicated that they are going to comply with Section 6-13, the stream buffer 151 standards, of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). As a result,the natural area in and around these streams would 152 have to be protected with either a 65 or 85 foot buffer. In certain instances,there will actually be more land are preserved, 153 though designed open space, in a natural state increasing established County buffers. I believe what Mr. Hirni was 154 referring to is that we (the County)would have to monitor development activities to ensure that the buffer is protected 155 consistent with existing land use regulations. One of the concerns Mr. Hirni has also talked about is the potential for 156 environmental degradation of the Seven Mile Creek preserve which is the area south of the Project(shown on GIS). This is 157 the area (Mr. Harvey identified an area of property at the southeastern portion of the project)that does flow, at least is 158 anticipated to flow, across the interstate approximately 1,000 feet south to property owned by Orange County and others 159 within the Seven Mile Creek Preserve area. What the County is also obligated to do is hold this applicant to existing 160 stormwater control measures as detailed within the UDO, including nutrient(nitrogen and prosperous) removal as part of 161 our stormwater rules. When you look at the totality of the development and you look at DEAPR's memo and staff 162 conditions,we believe that we have addressed DEAPR's concern and that a conservation easement is not going to be 163 necessarily warranted due to existing compliance with County regulatory standards. There are going to be multiple moving 164 parts to that issue but it needs to be remembered what regulations we have in place and how they will be enforced on this 165 project if approved. 166 167 Craig Benedict: To restate the summary, if approved,the master plan development rezoning is a document that gets 168 recorded and stays with the land. These uses and various regulations they have to adhere to are ongoing commitments by 10 DRAFT 169 the property owner and monitored by the County because it is a rezoning and we have to ensure that what was in that 170 master plan document continues in the future. 171 172 Adam Beeman: The traffic analysis, has that taken into account all the residents that get off that exit every day to go home. 173 I'm one of those residents and I'm not feeling the shutdown of exit 160. You offer me no alternatives to get home other 174 than running through traffic lights that I don't have to do now. Why can't those driveways come out to the intersection 175 where you want to put lights? If you were to put a light at the intersection,why can't your driveways come out there and not 176 be on that ramp? I understand NCDOT's long-term plan but there's no way to address any of the residents that live north of 177 Hwy. 70, I'm of those thousands of residents that get off that exit every day and I know you've estimated 185 seconds but 1 178 don't believe that, if I get caught at that light, I'm going to go up and over and get caught at another light so that adding at 179 least 3 or 4 minutes to my commute just to get off the ramp. I don't know why we have to have the right in/right out and lose 180 the 160 exit. Right now,a lot of us depend on getting off that exit and getting home, it's the only way for us to get home. 181 182 Earl Lewellyn: The first and biggest concern is that with the additional increase in traffic,whether it from this project or 183 another,that the weaving area between the ramps combined with the speed of exiting traffic onto the service road whether 184 there's another ramp there or not, is in fact a problem from a capacity standpoint and a safety standpoint. It may not be 185 dramatic today but with increases in traffic,whether the accesses occur onto the service road or not,that traffic if it is going 186 westbound still has to use that facility to get east and west. That is the biggest criteria. We have struggled with trying to 187 find options as well that would satisfy DOT's criteria, maintaining access for the public through the existing path. The 188 reason we did the comparison is because we always hear people say they had to wait at a traffic signal. In these 189 operations,traffic signals probably along Mt.Willing Road, cycle lengths are going to be somewhere in the nature of 60 to 190 70 seconds. Cycle lengths along the US 70 connector and the interchange ramps along the US 70 connector are probably 191 going to be in the order of 90 seconds just given the volumes and the number of phases that have to be there. That is what 192 is driving the travel time that we mentioned. It's basically the delay at the signals and it depends on when you hit the signal 193 and that's why there is variation in those times from the simulations and simply just traveling along the street. We feel that 194 is very accurate and calibrated with current conditions. 195 196 Adam Beeman: You are inserting two light into the equation that right now we don't have to contend with at all the biggest 197 contention is coming off the ramp and hitting the stop sign on Mt. Willing and hanging a right and going out into the country. 198 We will have to come of 161, hit a light,come back up over that ramp, hit another light and then continue on our route. If 199 there was the 70/85 connector that didn't force us into Hillsborough and you could make a left onto 70 then I would say 200 have at it and do what you have to do but that interjection of those two lights is going to make a huge difference on a lot of 201 people's lives in northern Orange County. There is no other way for us to get there. If we take the 85 connector it forces us 202 down 70 and you have to ride up 86 or you have to come back up. There is no good way. I think a lot of people aren't 203 going to be happy. I don't know the answer to it but I'm not happy about the lights. I understand the timing and the queues 204 and add Buc-ee's traffic now the commuters have to contend with all the traffic in and out of your store. It's going to be a 205 real turn off for the residents north of the County. I,for one, I want the development but I'm not a fan of how you are going 206 to get this traffic flow. It is going to have a huge impact on a lot of people out in Northern Orange County. A lot of people 207 come from Virginia down Efland-Cedar Grove. I don't know why there are so many driveways. If you could stay away from 208 Mt.Willing at all costs,then it might negate some of the impact but there are a lot of people who travel out to the country to 209 go home and come to the highway to go to work every day. 210 211 Earl Lewellyn: I respect what you are saying. I actually live not too far away and travel through this area myself. Most 212 often on the weekends, occasionally during the week. I certainly don't want this to be a problem area either.That is why we 213 did the comparison to quantify how much additional time will be spent just traveling whether it's that signal or traveling 214 through there. The other thing to keep in mind is these right in and out assess points,traffic on the service road will 215 continue moving through and there will be two lanes all the way through so we have to keep that in mind. The real reason 216 we're doing this is primarily safety and capacity that is related to the existing exit 160 configuration. 217 218 Stan Beard: There is no getting around the aggravation that all the Efland folks feel about this situation. If I were part of 219 that, I would have that same aggravation.What we have strived to do all along,from the first day we met with the local DOT 220 engineer and moving through the various planning stages with those guys to figure out a way to make this work for 221 everybody. They were adamant that our development or any development at this tract, this 100 acres on 40/85, if any 222 development came along, it would trigger some fairly massive traffic changes. As we all know, no one likes to say it and no 223 one wants to hear it,with growth comes some shifts in traffic patterns and habits. Where we are here is that most 224 intersections east of here and plenty of intersections west of here are all lit. When you get down to the bottom of the ramp, 11 DRAFT 225 you are looking at a signal. What you guys have managed to do is to stay out of that issue for a while and what we are 226 seeing now is what we believe to be a great site for Buc-ee's. We really like being here; this is a cool site for us. Given the 227 fact that we are who we are,we have the ability to work with the County and work with you guys figuring out all sorts of 228 ways to as least impactful as we can. The traffic issues are unavoidable if we or anyone else is to go there, NCDOT is 229 going to stick to their guns and say we don't like the braided ramp, never have,we're getting rid of them and whoever 230 comes in is going to get rid of them. What we've done is our traffic studies are based on our traffic. The last thing,the very 231 last thing that Buc-ee's needs is a traffic problem and that means the traffic problem throughout that whole intersection. 232 What we hope we have done and we have experience in doing this and we have feedback from NCDOT and our engineers 233 all along the way, that we are creating a more efficient, safe intersection. It's going to cost you a couple of minutes or more 234 and I apologize for that being a guy who has great respect for my own exit ramp when I come home. We are hoping you 235 guys in Efland, that this can become a real development for Efland that isn't 2 million square feet of distribution center. 236 That is only'/z million square feet of cool stuff. Buc-ee's and a nice hotel, nice sit down restaurants where it becomes part 237 of Efland and part of your commute.We have looked at every other way.To get DOT's permission to construct a project on 238 that 100 acres is going to take answering their concerns and their big concern is that eventually that is a failing system and 239 it will fail and they'll have accidents and they'll have to spend 12 million to fix it where we're here and we will spend the 240 dollars to make this work for us and for the neighborhood. 241 242 Michael Harvey: I want to remind the Board in order for any reconfiguration of these exits to occur,there has to be NCDOT 243 and Federal Highway Administration action through various processes independent of this Zoning Atlas Amendment. If 244 elimination of(westbound) Exit 160 is approved, the project moves forward consistent with this master plan. If it's not 245 approved,then the applicant will have to work with NCDOT and the County Planning staff to develop and incorporate 246 another solution. Keep in mind there is an external process that will have to occur in order for this to become reality. Staff 247 has made recommendations on conditions associated with traffic management and impacts. 248 249 Carrie Fletcher: For Mr. Beard,first of all why do you think having a giant travel oriented business right there in Efland,we 250 have several large refueling stations, not in the very far distance from where you want to build, an exit or two over. Do we 251 really have a need for such a large refueling station? What justifies the use of this land for such a large project? Two, how 252 do we keep Orange County's vision of a rural community and I bought into Orange County ten years ago because it was a 253 rural community. Many people still have that vision. I understand the need for development, I understand the zoning, 1 254 understand the whole reason behind why we are reaching out for people to come and do projects like this but what will 255 keep people thinking Orange County is a rural community. Have we changes our mind on how we want to envision 256 ourselves. The third is the property you're going to build this on,who owns this right and how do you get access to it? I'm 257 unclear on that. Maybe I am blurry on that but I would like clarification on that. 258 259 Stan Beard: The first answer is our business is to be the best pit stop off of any road trip you've been on. The clean 260 restroom and plentiful foods available all of that,the friendly atmosphere is a Buc-ee's experience. We've been doing this a 261 long time,we have a bunch of stores in Texas and we are in Alabama and about to open in Georgia. Building in Florida 262 and South Carolina so what we want to do and the reason we are here at this site is that we want to be in the middle of 263 somebody's trip road trip either going East, West, North, South that needs to stop for a clean restroom, reasonable gas and 264 cool stuff to buy.That brings us to a freeway system that has two merged interstates for a stretch that carries a 125,000 265 cars per day on that stretch. It travels East/West through Orange County and it is in the middle of a well-traveled length of 266 folks going from Virginia all the way over towards this way. Where we are now, is it's on a 100 acre tract next to the 267 freeway bounded by the railway and the 70/85 connector and so I respect the fact that Orange County is a rural place and 1 268 agree I think it is and I think the Efland area in particular is beautiful and very rural feeling. I do not think that this tract is a 269 rural tract. I think it is an undeveloped 100 acres that could very easily be a truck stop which we are not. We are would 270 rather not be compared to the truck stops. We have the ability here to fit into a spot where a distribution center might go or 271 a warehousing farm. We're in a position where we can give back a lot of good things, benefits, less intensive development, 272 more green space. You've heard it all but it's true,we are not covering up 2 million square feet of this 100 acres with 273 buildings. We are one quarter of that. That is why we are there,we are there because it is a good opportunity for us and it 274 fits within our strategy of reaching a wide range of folks.There are going to be local folks who shop there but 70%of them 275 are traveling from all over the place and they are going to get to stop in Efland, Orange County for 45 minutes and you 276 never know they might stay. I hope I answered the rural part. I will say that we, I don't get too detailed, but I'm fairly certain 277 that we follow along with all of the comprehensive use plans,the nodes. 278 12 DRAFT 279 Beth Trahos: I was going to add briefly that is another attractive element of this site. It is one of your Commercial Industrial 280 Activity nodes so this is among the uses that are recommended by your Future Land Use map for this property. I think that 281 is another reason that it's attractive for this use. 282 283 Stan Beard: As to who owns it, some of the Efland family owns it and then the smaller parcel is owned by Ben Lloyd. Local 284 folks who have been around awhile and I think you will hear from Ben later that he wasn't even going to talk to us until he 285 came and saw it. He saw an operating Buc-ee's and it changed his mind. I hope I answered your questions. 286 287 Carrie Fletcher: I think you did a fine job and I appreciate the time to do all that. Those are my main concerns. I think the 288 project actually looks quite well thought out. I always have concerns about major building in Orange County because I 289 enjoy the rural life style and I'm sure a lot of people that are going to have comments tonight are also going to be 290 concerned about that aspect of your building. We protect our Orange County quite adamantly and vigorously it's very 291 personal for many of us so I hope you appreciate my questions and thank you for your time. 292 293 Stan Beard: We think our positioning in that area is very appropriate for what we are and we do think that if you go to 294 Highway 70 just a mile north and drive that whole stretch,you would never know we were there. 295 296 Carrie Fletcher: I'm not sure about that giant sign though. 297 298 Adam Beeman: I know you can't tell us about current tenants for the Efland Station but maybe you could fill us in on the 299 type of tenants you have at other ones as far as major restaurants. What type of restaurants or brands tend to follow Buc- 300 ee's. 301 302 Stan Beard: Again,we are very particular about who our neighbors are and so who we allow to be our neighbors and who 303 usually want to be our neighbors are fairly well established regional or national sit down type restaurants, Chili's, Olive 304 Garden, Lone Star Steakhouse, it will not be fast food or drive thru. We restrict drive thru. We have pick up windows like 305 Panera or a Qdoba or those types that are in smaller shopping center regional, neighborhood type stuff,you'll see in our 306 other developments. We are extremely protective of our brand and our operating. We are all about creating the safest 307 place on the freeway for you,your family, your wife,your daughters to stop in the middle of the night, alone and go to the 308 restroom and hear a cheery voice and get a nice sandwich. 309 310 Chair Blankfard asked if Planning Board members had additional questions at this time. Hearing none, he suggested 311 opening up the meeting to public comments. Members of the public were required to sign up with staff in advance and 312 were called upon in the order they contacted staff. Perdita Holtz and Brian Carson facilitated the technical aspects of the 313 public comment time. 314 315 Kaye Brown: I'm Kaye Brown and just 49 days ago I heard the Buc-ee's Travel Center was coming to the site 4,000 feet 316 from a small horse farm I've owned since 1988 and less than one week ago today, I learned that Buc-ee's plans for the 317 efficient grab and go needs of the tens of thousands of daily customers will mean that I can no longer travel Ben Johnson 318 Road to either the interstates or US 70 and I have for three decades just to get to my farm. Why this rush to push this 319 negative project through in 49 days? A time when we've had COVID panic and election panic and now we have a Buc-ee's 320 in Efland panic. Why hasn't a project of this size and impact been through the typical developer/community dialogues with 321 advisory panels and focus groups? Well as a licensed general contractor,with a degree in real estate design and 322 development, I think I know why. Efland Station doesn't need focus groups because it doesn't have anything at all to do 323 with Efland. Efland is merely being asked to house the Buc-ee's. How do I know this? Because you just heard Stan Beard 324 speaking for Buc-ee's and he has been asked numerous time why did you choose Efland for this project and he 325 consistently replies, 125,000 cars pass this site every day that's why,this site was made for Buc-ee's. Well, I frankly 326 applaud his straight up honest answer. The company's business model, quite simply to the largest number of these 327 travelers to the stores quickly and efficiently for a pleasant but brief visit. So why are Buc-ee's so big? Well their founder 328 Beaver Aplin said in the Texas monthly interview last year,we like to be spacious,we like to give everybody their own 329 space,their own shopping experience. It's one of the reasons it gets so big because if you try to enhance the place 330 everywhere it grows and grows and the next thing you know,well it might all seem a touch overkill, he said. Yes, it does, 331 overkill, here we are one week after the final road plans were posted in a week filled with many panics and I ask has 332 anybody has time to look at these plans, much less collect their thoughts in time to express them to you. Buc-ee's has built 333 this exact rural prototype elsewhere which is very lucky because it give you a chance to learn from the experiences of many 334 others. It's quite easy to compare the pre-imposed occupancy,travel estimates for a project of this size. Planning 13 DRAFT 335 departments have these projects on file. DOTs know current traffic counts, do the two match? Or, are we, in Orange 336 County going to be like Robertsdale,Alabama or Benton or Madisonville,Texas all places that suffered hugely from the 337 costly underestimates of Buc-ee's traffic and as everybody admits Buc-ee's is a heavy traffic generator. They choose their 338 own estimates so I ask you, please get those numbers so you can make the right choice. 339 340 Matt Cartmill: This is a big proposal and will have a big impact on Orange County. (bad connection—audio garbled)we 341 have no say in how this property gets developed. New zoning will give Buc-ee's and the Planning Department mutually 342 agreeable negotiating conditions which neither you nor the community will ever get to review again. Otherwise, Mr. Beard 343 the director of real estate said in a meeting on Thursday, quote:zoning gives the community a say in future development 344 that isn't true as Mr. Beard ought to know. He said,this rezoning is more restrictive than what's there at the moment. But 345 MPD-CZ zoning is carte blanc zoning. Promises about future development which would (bad connection—audio garbled) 346 Whatever Buc-ee's thinks is good for its bottom-line when the time comes. Mr. Beard admitted on Thursday that it was at 347 least 6 to 8 years and whatever then if anything will have to serve Buc-ee's needs. Local needs aren't their concern. 348 They're focused on the thousands of cars moving through their huge parking lot. The surrounding community is a nuisance 349 that Buc-ee's has to barricade the site with a fence on the north boundary. Their proposed roadway change isn't designed 350 for(bad connection—audio garbled)traffic in and out of their acres of grab and go merchandising with little real concern for 351 their effect on Mr. Beeman and other local folks. Buc-ee's spokesman tell all their plans have local needs in mind and that 352 Buc-ee's will anchor wonderful future development, hotels and elegant shops, restaurants that will somehow want to come 353 and locate next to a gas station. This is imaginary(bad connection—audio garbled)a real trap.Tell us that zoning places 354 severe restriction on future development. It'won't. They asked their 120 nozzles each with it's own pump somehow add 355 up to only 60 pumps. They hope that all this misdirect will pay off for them in the short run and they hope to keep that as 356 short as possible by pushing this proposal through on the fastest track they can. Efland and Orange County don't need the 357 world's largest gas station. We need sensible development on a local scale meets local needs and what we need first off is 358 more time for deliberation. I ask to table this proposal. Give more time that way all the results for good and for ill Buc-ee's 359 would bring this town and this county. 360 361 Tim Spruill: My wife and I moved from Chapel Hill 21 years ago to Efland in order to get away from an urban environment. 362 Exit 160 was then and is now the perfect place of Efland. A small peaceful rural town that still has trees,cows and nature. 363 This was exactly what we wanted until now not much has changed. Buc-ee's will change all of that. Most of the current 364 land that Buc-ee's will be located on will be covered in concrete and buildings, about approximately 60 acres. The entire 365 pasture and old field eco system will be destroyed and with it all of the animals and plants that make Efland rural and 366 pleasant and a draw for probably most of the people who live there. The remaining opposed 40 acres of open space will be 367 a lawn, a monoculture with minimal eco system function,very unlike the native soil and trees and vegetation that currently 368 limit carbon releases to the atmosphere at a time when global warming is a primary concern for humanity decreasing 369 carbon sync is not in line with sustainability principles. Buc-ee's will be providing what is already available, lots of gas 370 stations to fuel more carbon emissions and lots of concrete. In addition, it will draw thousands of cars and the associated 371 pollution and present potential contamination of soil, air and water. I strongly oppose this proposed development as it is not 372 in line with the existing zoning designation which should not be changed and in addition it is hardly consistent with 373 maintaining the existing rural character of Efland. The County needs to be serious about supporting sustainable 374 community, maintaining the existing O/RM designation will be the evidence of that. 375 376 Jared Cates: Hello, I live 1000 feet from the proposed site and I am not anti-development but I feel that Buc-ee's will 377 negatively impact our community's quality of life and has the potential to stifle future economic growth in the area due to 378 overwhelming traffic. When we moved to Efland,we researched the development plans for the area and heard rumors of a 379 Target being developed in a portion of this same proposed site. We knew that development was coming and still made a 380 decision to purchase our home because of existing area plans and the O/RM zoning of the nearby site was seemingly 381 designated with significant community input. Also, I can buy more things at a Target than Chinese-made beaver trinkets. 382 However,we would not have moved to Efland had we known that one of the largest gas stations in the country, a 24/7 383 monstrosity that provides no goods or services that our community actually needs,will be moving in within 1000 feet of our 384 home. What is the point of community planning if residents cannot actually plan their lives and investments appropriately 385 around what the community has planned for? Orange County has proven it can be innovative with economic development 386 and land use planning at critical urban/rural nodes and that it listens to its citizens when making long-term plans, however, 387 this proposal is the opposite of innovative. It does not fit with what this area has planned for in short-and long-term growth 388 particularly when it comes to traffic impacts on surrounding roads. Buc-ee's claims that one of the largest gas stations in 389 the world makes sense to be situated in Efland, a critical transportation node for western and northern Orange County. 390 Even with the proposed road infrastructure improvements that node cannot handle a 25,000 plus daily trips this 14 DRAFT 391 development would bring to the immediate area. The at grade rail crossing at Mt.Willing Road is already a debacle for 392 future growth in the area and is quite concerning as not included in the developer's TIA or road improvement plans. It's also 393 quite concerning to me that NCDOT has seemingly changed their stance on exit 160 after telling me in September that they 394 were not concerned that background traffic growth trends or quote/unquote any development would necessitate the closure 395 of Exit 160 Westbound, quite interesting. We already have several locally owned gas stations in Efland,we do not need 396 more. While Buc-ee's may help Orange County's coffers in the short term, it would create long-term infrastructure 397 challenges that will not be paid for by Buc-ee's. The developers have stated that phase 2 may not even be considered for 398 development for 6 to 8 years. The travel center anchor would not serve Efland or Orange County residents or even 399 guarantee infrastructure for the establishment of needed services with its concept plan. We've been told that either Buc- 400 ee's or something similar to RTLP which honestly just feels like a threat. I think it's a threat I'm willing to gamble with. 1 401 believe a warehouse would create less issues for the surrounding community and commuters related to traffic congestion, 402 light and noise pollution and criminal activity than the largest 24/7 gas station in the country has the potential to create. 403 Please read the much more detailed concerns and information that our group of western Orange neighbors have pulled 404 together and our website voices4efland.com and please read the reasons that 975 voices for Efland and Orange petition 405 signers share our same concerns on change.org. I ask you to please vote against this rezoning petition that is not aligned 406 with the years of work done by this county to prepare this site for development with our community's input. 407 408 Jeff Bruett: I have a lot of concerns here, I've just recently found out about this project in early October and I've been doing 409 a little bit of reading and listening to the plans. There is nothing that has to be done to exit 160. Buc-ee's does not have to 410 attach to that road at all. That's not necessary, Buc-ee's can connect to Mt.Willing Road and the 85/70 connector. You're 411 going to start Phase 1 and Phase 1 involves deleting exit 160 completely. Nobody is going to be able to get off at exit 160 412 and get home,thousands of people go up through this way and it connects all the way up to Highway 86 up in Northern 413 Orange County and you are going to completely cut everybody off from that. There is no reason Buc-ee's has to be 414 connected to this road and because it's being connected, now it's being altered and now it has to meet all the latest 415 NCDOT plans when in actuality, south of the interstate you've got the same exact traffic plan as you've got on the north 416 side of the interstate. All Buc-ee's has to do is connect to Mt.Willing Road and the 85/70 connector and then the roads 417 need to be modified on Highway 70 because you cannot go west when you come off 161 onto Highway 70. This whole 418 thing does not take into consideration any accidents that happen on the interstate which happen very often. Now people 419 have no way of getting off of the interstate and getting onto 70. And I don't know how long this thing is going to take to 420 build but this exit is going to be closed the whole entire time. These things need to be done, the interstate/Highway 70 421 needs to be redesigned so people can go west on it and people that are driving east on Highway 70 to avoid Buc-ee's that 422 want to go to work and get on the interstate on exit 161,they need a way to turn south off of 70 onto the connector road. 423 That would be a simple solution to make this problem so people that live in this community and don't need to go to Buc-ee's 424 don't have to drive by Buc-ee's every time we have to go home. You're channeling us all through Buc-ee's and we don't 425 like it,we don't care for it and rezoning this place and then snub our noses in all this has got the whole community upset 426 and we're not happy about it and it needs to be reconsidered. 427 428 Heather Smith: During college, I was forced to move from campus housing because the school decided to bulldoze it for a 429 parking lot,after college my husband and I moved into a Hillsborough rental for$600 a month, an investor flipped it and 430 listed it as a rental for$1900 a month this year. We moved to another rental in 2013 until the landlord gave up 30 days to 431 move out so he could sell it for$375,000 which was above what we could afford as young first time home buyers but we 432 decided it was time to find a home. We were outbid on properties in Orange County until we eventually found our home in 433 Efland. One of the few affordable places remaining in the County. We felt satisfaction and relief knowing we had 434 ownership. For the past 5 years we have diligently tended our acre, planted fruit trees, pollinator plants and bees that 435 forage in nearby fields. I have driven daily down that braided ramp dreading the day that heritage trees and golden rod 436 would be replaced by development. However, I would have never imagined that this would be the development slated for 437 this space or that once again I would feel so utterly powerless against development after having invested in ownership. 438 You see that's the peril of private land. What happens on the land around me and impacts my quality of life that's why we 439 have regulations and government to protect air,water, light, noise, property values and a community that residents have 440 invested in over many years. From negative impacts and predatory developments that are a peril to us all. Preferably, the 441 threats of you could get a warehouse instead, a warehouse that could be built on the current O/RM zoning would not have 442 impacts as lasting or severe as those from a corporation built on the pillars of rampant consumption and fossil fuels. A 443 model that requires drawing people who visit so they can marvel at the sheer spectacle of it. There's a dangling carrot of 444 Phase 2 that would bring additional businesses like banks and dining establishments that people in our community might 445 use but let's not forget that Phase 2 is not promised or that the developer stated it would be at least 6 to 8 years before they 446 consider adding those pieces to the puzzle. There are many unknown, uncalculated costs that we're not considering as the 15 DRAFT 447 conversation is centered on logistics. We could easily take Durham as a cautionary tale. More than half the land in 448 Durham is owned by people who do not live there. In fact,they do not even live in the state. That means residents do not 449 have ownership of their community and corporations with no connection other than deep pockets dictate the community's 450 future. I have weighed the potential for tax revenue and jobs, I have pondered alternative developments, based on other 451 Buc-ee's, I continue to conclude that this development will bring a cascade of impacts that will alter my life as a homeowner 452 in Efland for the next 40 years. If my neighborhood even remains residential for that long. Since there is no gas station of 453 this size in North Carolina,we unfortunately don't have a way to place a dollar sign on the negatives but once we degrade 454 the environment,we don't get it back. There is no way to know if my property value will be hurt by the diminished night sky, 455 noise and traffic or if this change will create a wave of land grabs that will gentrify the area causing our property taxes to go 456 up, not down, as some residents seem to think this would do. Both of those outcomes make me feel like my investment in 457 Orange County is being sacrificed. One thing I do know for certain is I did not sign up for this when I bought my home here 458 and I'm opposed to zoning for Efland Station. 459 460 Chris Smith: Hi folks, I am among the residents of Efland who received a letter informing me of the proposal to build Efland 461 Station since I live within 1000 feet of the parcels, it was required. The list of mixed uses sounded attractive though but 462 never having heard of a Buc-ee's, I started my research and it didn't take very long to get past their marketing language 463 and photos to begin reading assessments of their business and to realize the impact they will have on the Efland 464 community. I read how Denton, Texas eagerly accepted their Buc-ee's with incentives and open arms. Denton was locked 465 up in a legal battle over a tax valuation that Buc-ee's declared too high even after they promised many millions and more 466 before construction. I read about the town of Corinth where the local officials challenged Buc-ee's traffic assessments and 467 discovered that the totals to be greatly under-counted. Corinth's mayor wrote that a mixed-use development of similar size 468 made more tax revenue than a single Buc-ee's location. The promises Buc-ee's offered did not hold to scrutiny for the 469 Town of Corinth and they rejected the development. Buc-ee's promises quality jobs and touts their hourly wages and 470 benefits for entry-level workers and it is typical to argue with quarantine for more an hour. Again, it didn't take long to find 471 hundreds of job reviews across multiple platforms detailing why$14 an hour from Buc-ee's isn't worth it. I wondered what 472 the environmental impacts are living close to a gas station built for the informal Texas credo of bigger is better, I read peer 473 review research about the many trade-offs associated with our carbon bound habits. Gasoline and cancer causing 474 benzene in the air and ground water escaping through methods by which corporate environmental engineers are unaware 475 or overlooked. What does Efland get for playing host to 25,000 daily vehicle movements? All of the so called 476 improvements make the travel center work but don't solve any problems or concerns for Efland. We get to endure a host of 477 traffic headaches created so that all roads will lead to Buc-ee's. We'll be the ones looking up every night at a cartoon 478 beaver that's at least 20 feet taller than regulations because it's good for business. Me in my home and on my own 479 property will breathe the stale air of hot gas pumps and car fumes in the summer and listen to the constant drone of 480 engines through their fence called a wall at the last meeting and 30 feet short of regulation buffer in the winter. For these 481 reasons and more detailed at Voices4Efland.com I oppose the request for the Master Plan Conditional Zoning and the 482 effective removal of the Efland community from a decade's long planning process. Development begets development until 483 Efland residents new and old will find themselves run out or bought out. Buc-ee's promises to make good money,traveler's 484 stopping by are sure to marvel at the stuffed beaver toys and clean bathrooms but if they less than a thousand away from 485 the oasis of consumption and disregard for the future they'll find me living less well than I did before Buc-ee's came to 486 Efland, assuming that the future of economic development around me won't impact my ability to live here. 487 488 Patricia O'Connor: Hi, I live in Mebane off West Ten Road approximately 3 miles from the proposed Buc-ee's development. 489 First, I will offer that I am not opposed to development. It's necessary for a community to survive and thrive and I'm not 490 naive enough to think that things will stay the same because I want them to but development should be thoughtful. 491 Something that will enhance and add real value to the lives of the citizens in the community where it resides. Point one, 492 while Buc-ee's could provide about 175 jobs, I believe the overall impact of the project would be negative. From that 175 493 subtract the number of people in the community who might lose their jobs and livelihoods because they can't compete with 494 the giant. The small businesses who could be put out of business. It's hard to predict right now who those will be but there 495 are sure to be causalities. Number 2,the environmental impact will be enormous,you can't add that much impervious 496 surface to an area that borders a watershed without creating conditions for potential contamination. A single gallon of 497 gasoline could contaminate 750 thousand gallons of water. The dribs and drabs dropping onto the concrete surface from 498 refueling or spillage during filling the underground tanks is enough. Never mind the catastrophic breach of one of those 499 tanks. How much would it cost to provide another water source for Hillsborough if the water was contaminated and who 500 would foot the bill. You can bet it won't be Buc-ee's. Other than the 10 EV charging stations mandated by current MPD-CZ 501 standards, there is nothing green about the project. No mention of green building materials or use of solar panels. Does 502 Buc-ee's have a written working environmental policy in place? Does the policy strive to make important improvements in 16 DRAFT 503 manufacturing, reducing and reusing first and then recycling? Do they comply with the industry's voluntary testing or is 504 there environmental concern combined to the petroleum storage and possible leakage? Point 4, the 24-hour noise and 505 light pollution would impact the nearby neighbors in a negative way. It's a known fact that constant and incessant noise can 506 lead to increased stress and anxiety which of you would want to live next to Buc-ee's? Are you really ok with telling the 507 concerns homeowners to just suck it up? Additionally, light pollution can wreak havoc across a broad range of animal 508 species often affecting hormone levels, breeding cycles, activity paths and vulnerability to predators. The human need to 509 have beef jerky or a Barbeque sandwich at 2 a.m.shouldn't be more important than caring for our environment. Point 5, 510 the amount of traffic that Buc-ee's hopes to draw will be disruptive to Efland, Hillsborough and perhaps even Mebane. 511 Maintenance of the surrounding roads will be left to our state and offset some of the tax revenue generated. Number 6, the 512 feel of the rural community will be forever lost. Buc-ee's is already insisting on heightened signs and reduced buffers as if 513 their sheer size isn't enough to let everybody know where they are. They are already dictating how business is to be done 514 in our neighborhood which doesn't sound like the cooperative business partner interested in enhancing the community it 515 want so inhabit. I oppose Buc-ee's for all these reasons. 516 517 Aimee Tattersall: Buc-ee's plans for Efland Station include 60 pumps stations and 120 nozzles for pumping gasoline. 1 518 come before you today to make the case that like it or not,gasoline will start being phased out over the next two decades in 519 favor of electricity which can be produced by several renewable resources such as solar,wind and biomass. If approved, it 520 will be two years into this decade before Buc-ee's is opens, at least. On October 23, 2020,the BBC aired this interview 521 entitled, Why BP is Betting Against Oil. BP's chief economist, Spencer Dale,warns that fossil fuel industry against 522 complacency about the speed of the coming transition to renewable energy. I implore you to listen to this 17 minute 523 interview before making any decisions about the wisdom of approving 120 gasoline nozzles in Efland. The link is in my 524 written report. The CEO of BP, Bernard Looney, said in the introduction of the interview that BP's goal is to become net 525 zero by 2050 or sooner and to help the world get to net zero. The carbon budget is finite and time is running out. Quoting 526 from the interview,the fossil fuel industry being too complacent about the speed of which renewable energy will disrupt their 527 business in next three decades, that's the contention of Spence Dale chief economist for BP and the extended interview 528 with BBC, Spencer Dale explains the thinking behind his company's plan to cut its own oil and gas production by 40% 529 before the end of this decade and it's not just about heading off the threat of catastrophic climate change, even in their 530 business as usual scenario,they expect to unprecedentedly fast shift towards solar,wind and biomass energy. Renewable 531 energy will penetrate the energy system more quickly than any fuel ever seen in history. 120 gasoline nozzles have a short 532 future in Efland but have the potential of long-term damage. Thank you listening. 533 534 Andrea Riley: I currently live on Brookhollow Road in Efland and I am definitely opposed to this change of the zoning. 1 535 cannot imagine a worse proposal for the Efland area. The first point I want to make is that under the MPD-CZ the site plan 536 is conceptual only for Buc-ee's. They have not committed to the second phase, it is all conceptual and at this point, there 537 will be no more consultation on future development with the Efland community or with elected officials if this is passed. 538 This will only allow for the change of the zoning and the zoning is conceptual only. There is no consequential proposal to 539 build anything except the 120 pump gas station so if you go ahead and ok this rezoning,you will not have any more input. 540 We will not have any more input and even the County Commissioners will not have any more input into what happens if 541 there is a Phase 2. It's very obvious that the sales people from Buc-ee's, Mr. Beard and the lawyer, Ms. Trahos, are 542 interested in promoting the interest of Buc-ee's.They are here to sell us a bill of goods basically. Do we trust this company 543 to give us straight information. This company has been involved in tax evaluation battles in Texas,their home state. 544 They've been involved in potentially illegal price fixing business practices with Alabama and this increase traffic 545 infrastructure cost due to the unforeseen traffic congestion has affected various communities. Please listen to the people 546 who came before me, do your research, go online, look at Voice4Efland and see all of the this information that is there for 547 you to read. They are not telling the truth about the impact that this development will have on this community. I am glad to 548 see I'm upsetting Mr. Beard because you're upsetting me. I don't want this proposal to go through and I hope that you 549 people vote against it. If it does go forward,there will be a lot of people going to the Orange County Commissioners trying 550 to stop this because this is not something this community wants or needs. One of the most important aspects of this is the 551 discharge that unqualified the underlying aquafer is going to be affected because of the extent of impervious surfaces. This 552 is all going to affect the underground water. It's going to affect the Seven Mile Creek and the Eno and the water that goes 553 to Hillsborough if there is any contamination that occurs, cleanup of the aquifer would be practically impossible and this is in 554 a region that has been required by the state to emulate critically unhealthy air quality resulting mainly from vehicle 555 emissions. We do not need gas stations. 556 557 Erica Cartmill: Hi everyone,when I was a child, I was completely obsessed with horses, animals and nature. In our home 558 in suburban Durham, I read books like Misty of Chincoteague and All Creature Great and Small about the deep relationship 17 DRAFT 559 between man and nature. I dreamed of exploring the woods and finding animal friends of my own. When I was very 560 young, my dream was to be grown up, in my mind that meant 8 and live on a farm.When I reached 8 and there was no 561 farm in sight, my dream changed to being 12 with a farm. By the time I was 12, 1 was actually living that dream. My 562 parents had bought a small parcel of land off Ben Johnson Road right down the road from the planned development, and 563 set about building a farm. I remember visiting that land for the first time driving down the rugged dirt road to reach a wild 564 meadow of grasses and brambles at age 9. 1 couldn't quite visualize my mother's description of horse pastures and 565 building placement but I knew it was already a magical place. As the farm took shape,so did my childhood. I spent 566 countless hours climbing trees, catching lizards, building forts and pretending to live off the land. I got to know our 567 neighbors and learned to collect eggs, grow tomatoes and stand my ground when geese charged during my frequent visits 568 to their farm. I learned to drive on our ride on mower. I learned how to make a fishhook, spot poison ivy and get red clay 569 out of jeans. It was a beautiful childhood,one full of nature, neighbors and adventure. As an adult, I've been fortunate to 570 pursue my love of animals professionally. I study animal behavior as a professor at UCLA. I love getting the spark of 571 enthusiasm about animals in my students, many of whom grew up in Los Angeles and have never been for a simple walk in 572 the woods. However, I desperately miss the friendly small energy and the magical wilderness of my childhood. Much of 573 Los Angeles resembles a Buc-ee's station, cars crawl the concrete world and busy people wait at stop lights with eyes 574 glued to their phones on their way to shop for quote unquote cool stuff. Few people make eye contact, no one says good 575 morning.The city is always crowded and yet it is always with people passing by, hurrying somewhere else. It's hard to 576 make a real home for yourself, it's hard to belong when so many are just passing through. I come back to visit our farm in 577 North Carolina several times each year. Every year I record the spring peepers croaking in a puddle right where Ben 578 Johnson Road meets 70. 1 carry those recordings with me every day in L.A. and listen when I want to be carried back 579 home. If this development goes through those frogs will be silenced forever. My hope is to move back to North Carolina 580 one day so that my children can have a childhood where they know their neighbors and where the dirt on their clothes is 581 red clay and not soot from smog. I'm not opposed to development or progress, I know that small towns can't stay small 582 forever and that people need economic development to thrive but a project like Buc-ee's does not have the best interest of 583 our community at heart. It's shortsighted at a time when transportation practices are changing rapidly. It will bring tens of 584 thousands of cars into the small community each day. None of these cars will bring friendly faces of new neighbors just like 585 Los Angeles the cars will be filled with busy people passing through on their way to somewhere else. Buc-ee's isn't 586 investing in this community, it's draining it. Development will pollute the water and air, increase traffic congestion to such a 587 degree that sustainable development projects will be deterred from investing in the area and will fundamentally change the 588 character of a beautiful corner of North Carolina. 589 590 Bobby Cobb: Good Evening, I'm a property owner and business owner in Efland. I'm happy to have land development 591 conversations transpire regarding Efland. We all knew it was coming. Northern Orange is the last growth frontier for this 592 county. Chapel Hill is going straight up, Hillsborough proper has limited room to grow but Efland and Cheeks is truly the 593 promised land. I do mean the word land literally. Efland is the final frontier in our county for land development growth. 1 594 support the Efland Crossing/Efland Station project. However,what concerns me is what the landscape will look like for 595 Phase 2. What type of retailer will come to Efland? What type of dining facilities will come to Efland? What types of 596 businesses will come to Efland? We need a bank in Efland. We need a natural foods grocery store in Efland. I believe 597 that in fact, Phase 2 will be what will sustain Efland over the long haul, not a 60 station 120 handle convenience center. In 598 50 years will we still even have cars that run off gasoline? That's why I challenge the Planning Board to think responsibly 599 and mindfully about the Buc-ee's business model that would initiated for Phase 2. Middle class housing is a huge need in 600 Efland, low-income housing is a huge need in Efland. We will always need good food resources to survive. We will always 601 need good doctor choices and resources. We will always want a nice sit down restaurant to take our families out to eat. 1 602 simply challenge the Planning Board to be mindful about what you recommend to the County Commissioners. Think about 603 what Efland will look like 20, 30, 50 years from now and think about what you're kids and grandkids would be proud of. 604 Let's make Efland a good choice and your suggestions and recommendations should really be thought out. 605 606 Del Ward: I have lived on Ben Johnson Road for most of my life. One of my favorite things about where I live is that there 607 is nature nearly everywhere I turn. Though I may hear the sound of semi-trucks blasting down the highway. I do have the 608 Eno River passing by me where I see many fish and turtles, coyotes and other wildlife live happily. On the other side of the 609 road from me is the beautiful Duke Forest with a rich and fruitful ecosystem. Another thing I quite like about where I live is 610 that there isn't an eyesore of a Texas owned gas station that has 120 gas handles built on a protected watershed. Efland 611 has absolutely no need for a development like this. As of 2018, Efland had a population of roughly 810 people so Stan tell 612 me why we need 120 gas handles. As of today, between exits 150 and 165 there are 20 separate gas stations with over 613 200 gas handles. There are also 104 diesel gas handles so why would we need to add 120 more to that equation in a town 614 that has only a little over 800 people living in it? Besides that,the fact that there is an abundance of gas stations in the 18 DRAFT 615 area, I've seen absolutely no evidence of any environmental research done. You're talking about building a 24-hour 616 convenience center on a protected watershed for the Eno River. A river which spans over 40 miles through two separate 617 counties. If there is water pollution which there most certainly will be, it will not only affect the local ecosystem but will have 618 long lasting and damaging effects on the ecosystems in and around the Eno River. I have seen no evidence of research on 619 how light pollution will affect the bird population here or any other local species for that matter. The only research that has 620 been provided is traffic research done by the developers themselves which states that 32 new trips will be added to the 621 traffic pattern per minute. We do not have the infrastructure for this. I have a neighbor on Ben Johnson Road that in the 622 past 15 years has had 10 cars fly off the road into his front yard. Building Buc-ee's will only make my road a more 623 dangerous road than it already is. Now Beth Trahos says that Efland is quote barely rural, I don't need a lawyer from 624 Raleigh to tell me about the area I live in. We most certainly do live in a rural area. She also says that in Phase 1 there will 625 be 175 quote good jobs. Well Beth if you look online you can see that the average Buc-ee's employee rating is lower that 626 Walmart,Amazon, and all the managerial positions will be outside hires. Efland and Hillsborough are gorgeous,fairly 627 untouched gems in this region and they should stay that way. Stan considers his project to be growth, I agree with him it is 628 a growth just like cancer is. My hometown isn't a pit stop Stan Beard. It's where I and tons of other good hard working 629 folks live. People's first impression of Efland or Hillsborough should not be a Texas owned gas station built on protected 630 land with a dumbass beaver for a mascot. 631 632 Jacob Foster: I grew up in the Shenandoah Valley in a rural community like Efland near a small town like Hillsborough. 633 Over the years, I watched as the character of my hometown from fields and forest to friendly neighbors was disfigured and 634 destroyed by ill-considered development. I have seen giant gas stations like this one carelessly planted in a formerly quiet 635 spot which quickly grows into a noisy ruin. I came to North Carolina to attend Duke University where I met my future wife. 636 For the past 20 years, I have been visiting her family farm in Efland. We shared one of our first kisses on a lonely stretch of 637 country road less than a mile from the proposed Buc-ee's site. That farm and this area have taken me back to the 638 landscape of my childhood we have built many wonderful memories there wandering the fields with our human,canine and 639 equine family. Our careers have taken us far away from North Carolina to the concrete desert of Los Angeles yet our 640 families remain and our regular visits to Efland have been a balm to the city sick soul.We have always cherished the hope 641 of settling in Orange County and giving our children the same experience we had growing up of nature, the quiet 642 countryside and small town living where you can spend summer days wandering with friends over fields and down gravel 643 roads. Buc-ee's threatens that future. It threatens your community. Peace, quiet and a clean environment are your most 644 precious assets whether from the perspective of lifelong residents or of those seeking a better life away from urban sprawl 645 like Carrie Fletcher and like me. Those assets will be destroyed. Planning and mitigation cannot restore peace when 646 thousands of cars and strangers pass through your community every day. They cannot block the diesel, the fumes, the 647 light pollution and the noise that Buc-ee's will bring to your quiet home. As an independent environmental assessment 648 would no doubt reveal,they cannot stop runoff and leakage from contaminating the local water, harming wildlife from the 649 humble spring peepers to the endangered residents of the Eno River. I am not an opponent of progress, change happens, 650 it must, but where is the Orange County renowned for its sensible progressive approach to local development? Where is 651 the spirit of care for the environment,the concern for sustainability? Look into your hearts my friends,what is most 652 precious about your community?What is your greatest asset? What will make Orange County a place that you and your 653 children and my future children are proud to call home? Is it the world's largest gas station? Or is it taking a stand for the 654 environment,the planet and for rural America. If you allow this plan to move forward, remember, sooner or later, the day 655 comes when you can't hide from the things that you've done anymore. I fear that when your car is parked amid a hundred 656 others at Buc-ee's,you'll look back on this day and wish you had chosen to a stand for your community. I hope you will 657 take that stand today. 658 659 Caroline Foster: I am a current resident of nearby Durham. My ties to the Efland area are familial. I have spent time with 660 relatives on their farmland and have taken various trips with community friends as well to explore the wildlife in the area and 661 it is substantially meaningful to me and also to my children. One of the things that we love most about the region that we 662 live currently, is that we are not far off from places like Efland and where you can just explore nature. You can come and 663 take a walk,just view wildlife,and you're not constantly bombarded by massive developments such as what is being 664 proposed with this Buc-ee's development. It's been extremely critical to me as a parent to raise my children in an area 665 where they have some access to wild land where they have access to experience nature and respect it and have the 666 opportunity to live in communities that not only recognize and respect the undeveloped land that they have amongst them 667 but actually think about how to, if that land needs to be developed as others have mentioned here before me, I am also not 668 an opponent to progress. However, I think that progress should, if developments need to be built, that the considerations of 669 what the individuals living nearby actually need are taken into account and that we are also looking on down the road and 670 thinking about what our children need and what our needs in the moment are as well. What is being proposed here is not 19 DRAFT 671 something that anybody in Efland needs. It's far more massive and far beyond the scope of what any resident of Efland 672 could use and it's clearly a development that is designed to bring in an enormous amount of traffic that will be extremely 673 detrimental both in terms of the environmental impacts as well as the impacted traffic. Back to the idea of really thinking 674 sustainably about what is a development that has the community's best interest at heart on down the road. I don't think a 675 massive fossil fuel structure is in line with that and furthermore,where it's being built,we are going to put a whole bunch of 676 petroleum tanks into the ground on a protected aquifer just doesn't make any sense. 677 678 Ben Lloyd: In the spring of 2019, 1 was contacted and visited by a representative of an organization called Buc-ee's high- 679 end convenience mart and gasoline station. He told me that he was in negotiation with the Efland family on the property 680 that is being considered and known as the Sim Efland property. He proposed and continued to tell me that what they would 681 put here would create 200 jobs and put 2 million dollars a year into the County tax bucket. My concerns were that number 682 one, I own a farm that has been in operation for 98 years. There has never been acre sold as of today. I have lived here 683 myself for 90 of those 98 years. Soon after his visit, I began thinking about what should happen to Efland and what we 684 needed. After the 98 years, there has never been a sale as thus said and I wrote the County Manager a letter telling her 685 that I'd had numerous opportunities to sell property but had always refused to do so. I told her that I would make a 686 commitment that until something came along that was worthwhile and to the benefit of Orange County, I never had any 687 intention of selling any. Then I started thinking with what had been explained to me about Buc-ee's would this be the 688 development that we would need. In relation to that and my concerns, I flew to Houston,Texas to visit a Buc-ee's.The 689 owner and several of his staff met me and gave me a complete tour of the Buc-ee's organization there and I was amazed 690 how immaculate of a facility that I was visiting. I was so impressed that when I returned home, I called this Buc-ee's 691 representative and told him that I would make my property available which was to be utilized as the westbound entrance for 692 the Buc-ee's organization. I have sit here tonight and listened,we have people talking doom and gloom and I question the 693 validity of their opinion on that. As a matter of fact, several of the people that I have listened to tonight, don't live here. 694 Some as far away as California. I spent three years in California in the military. I am highly concerned about the objections 695 that people have. I think Buc-ee's work with DOT and continue everything that will be to the benefit to Orange County. The 696 property will be, in my opinion, it will be a tremendous asset to Orange County. I support them being here. 697 698 Jimmy Holcomb: It's heartbreaking to come after Mr. Lloyd. I know how emotionally difficult this decision probably was for 699 him and his family to sell land that he has cherished and also for the Efland family. About 20 years ago, my husband and 1 700 bought a 60 acre heritage farm about 9 minutes from the proposed Buc-ee's, northwest of the center of Efland. We came 701 here because of the natural environment,the rural environment,the dark night sky,all the reasons that one would move to 702 the country. The bright stars and the quiet. Some level of commercial development is to be expected everywhere, of 703 course, and we've been interested and sort of fascinated that Efland has grown so slowly compared to other places which 704 for us has been a good thing. We don't disagree with development on principle,we understand that it happens. We 705 expected it to happen in Efland much sooner that it has happened. We understand the revenue pressures in the County to 706 some extent but this project does seem to push the limits of common sense and attention to long-term community interests. 707 Without getting into those details, the project just appears to hitch our progressive modern county to a dinosaur technology 708 while the world is scrambling for Teslas and plug in super chargers. Today, on the Testa website, I can reserve an all- 709 electric semi-tractor trailer truck, if I could afford it. Gasoline and oil cannot possibly be what Orange County wants to be 710 known for. My husband and I view this super-scaled gas station as sad and empty and soulless but we do know that these 711 are subjective and emotional responses that County officials can't really put into a spreadsheet. If the County decides to 712 approve this kind of showcase to dead-end fossil fuels,we only urge you,the advisory commission and the full board to 713 give maximum attention to our soil, water and quality of lives. Very important to me and my husband are those dark night 714 skies and the stars so I'm just going to concentrate on that one aspect. For years our place has been known as the place 715 to put down a blanket and watch the meteor showers. Over the last 10 years, we've watched the stars in the southwest sky 716 disappear in the growing glow of Mebane as it rakes in tax revenue. Please make this project model not of enormous 717 leaking underground gas tanks but of sustainable development. I urge you to look up the international dark sky association 718 which has extremely complete data on light pollution and is willing to send consultants. 719 720 Catherine Matthew: I'm an Efland resident and I speak on behalf of the non-human residents in the proposed development 721 area of exit 160. 1 speak specifically tonight for reptiles and amphibians many species of which live on the 104 acres which 722 are currently destined to be destroyed if the land is rezoned and sold to Buc-ee's, a Texas travel center. I am an Eastern 723 Box Turtle,your state reptile; my back wound is modified before my shell on which I will stay forever as long as I am alive. 724 My life span is long, as long as 100 years, longer than most of you will live. I am slow to mature and don't usually lay eggs 725 until I am 20 years old. You've probably seen me or my relatives crossing roads in Orange County. That is one of the most 726 dangerous things a box turtle can do but it is sometime necessary to do so to find food or look for a mate. Many box turtles 20 DRAFT 727 are killed by automobiles and crossing an interstate is nearly impossible without some help from humans. Wildlife 728 underpasses work but there are none in Orange County. You may think that box turtles in Orange County are doing fine 729 but we are not. While there are adult turtles around and it is possible to see us crossing county roads, many of us have 730 been killed and our population is in decline. Where will I go if you pave over my home. I am a North Carolina species of 731 concern. I am a Marble Salamander, North Carolina's state salamander one of two state amphibians. I am a member of 732 the Mole Salamander family and our family is called mole because all of the mole salamanders spend most of our lives 733 underground. As fall begins and I move towards what will become a body of water when the fall rains fall, I find a mate and 734 then I lay as many as 100 eggs that are about the size of BBs. I wrap my body and my tail around the eggs as we lay 735 quietly under a log or rock and I stay with my eggs until the rains arrive. I do not live as long as the box turtle but then 736 neither do you. Unless you drive country road carefully and fall rains at night then you may never have seen me but I am 737 there. I am there and other mole salamanders like the spotted salamanders are there too. The spotted salamanders are 738 spring breeders and they spend one month above ground in temporary bodies of water, shallow pools without fish. In just 739 the last few months, scientist realized that we glow in the dark. My brilliant black and silver colors change to orange and 740 green with a blue light and a yellow filter you can see the miracle too. There are so many more things that humans don't 741 know yet about us and may not have a chance to uncover. Where will you go if you pave over our landscape. I speak for 742 the reptiles and amphibians. 743 744 David Blankfard: Does the applicant want to add any response to what the citizens have said? 745 746 Stan Beard: We appreciate the passion and we respect everyone's stance. We get it. I want to make some things clear. 1 747 will say that we've never been compared to BP nor the City of Los Angeles so those are a couple of first for us. I want to 748 reiterate what we are and what we are not. Folks saying they are not opposed to responsible growth. We offer to this 100- 749 acre tract that is alongside Interstate 40/85 an opportunity for the area to experience the Phase 2 which I need to clarify that 750 my answer the other night was that the completion of Phase 2 would take 5 to 8 years. We absolutely will have the uses, 751 the hotels, the sit down restaurants, the banks, the neighborhood retail that we have said we would bring. You can look at 752 other areas where we have developed and you will see those same people. We have done this before. I would implore the 753 folks to actually read the articles that are referred to on the Voices of Efland website. I would argue that that every single 754 one of those articles is actually a pretty good representation of who we are. There is some very misguided ideas out there. 755 1 would also implore you to read the planning documents. There is a traffic study, there is a traffic letter from NCDOT, 756 Chuck Edwards, the man that Mr. Cates spoke to. He wrote the letter, please read that. The environmental report is in 757 there. We are not in a protected watershed we have absolutely every reason in the world to protect everything around us. 758 We do not want to be BP in that arena so we understand the community and we want to be part of it. We have a history of 759 being part of communities and so I just want to thank everybody for showing up. 760 761 David Blankfard: Does anybody have anything to add? I have one in that I would like to add that the hotel would have 762 interior hallways and that the guest rooms don't open to the outside. 763 764 Stan Beard: Agreed. 765 766 Kim Piracci: Have you thought about putting solar panels on the top of your building? 767 768 David Blankfard: It's in the write-up. 769 770 Beth Trahos: We are allowed to do that as a part of our document, also,water reuse is mentioned in the document as well. 771 772 Stan Beard: Actually, Buc-ee's is going to be building its first rainwater reclamation system for our aeration system here. 773 We encourage solar panels,we run into on our buildings because they are pretty highly structurally odd and we don't want 774 to put an extra burden on top of them but we encourage solar panel and solar arrays throughout the rest of the 775 development. 776 777 David Blankfard: Have you looked into whether the building is LEED or well certified? 778 779 Stan Beard: It is in our best interest to have the most efficient building possible. LEED really doesn't work for us in a sense, 780 we incorporate many LEED certified systems within our buildings but we will not be a LEED certified building. 781 21 DRAFT 782 Michael Harvey: I want to remind the Board, one of the conditions the applicant has asked for on page 188 is that 783 consideration of LEED certified practices for components of the project where feasible will be incorporated. We've also got 784 standards governing placement of solar, encouraging the placement of solar. 785 786 Adam Beeman: Typically,when big projects like this come in they tend to hire contractors from outside the state. Is there 787 any way we can get a commitment from you guys to hire local contractors? 788 789 Stan Beard: Typically,we have 2 or 3 fairly major general contractors who build our buildings.They've built them for years 790 and they know how to do them. But what they do is they come to every single locale and figure out who their local subs are 791 going to be. I've given data before, I just don't have it at my fingertips, local construction dollars are a big part of our project. 792 A lot of local sizable subcontractor will have opportunity to be part of this project. 793 794 Michael Harvey: I have some additional review of conditions and discussion on stormwater, signage, and traffic 795 management issues. 796 797 Michael Reviewed the Draft Conditions Contained in Attachment 9 from Pg. 166 to Pg. 188 including potential stormwater 798 conditions to address concerns over impacts to the Seven Mile Creek Preserve area south of the Interstate, signage height, 799 and access management for the project. Michael also read into the minutes an email from Steve Ramarge on the closure of 800 westbound Exit 160 and possible modifications to the proposed traffic access management plan for the Project that could 801 preserve the exit as currently configured. 802 803 David Blankfard: Can I get a motion to add the requirement discussed that the hotel have interior hallways. 804 805 MOTION by Melissa Poole to adopt the condition that any hotel is interior accessed. Seconded by Randy Marshall. 806 807 ROLLCALL VOTE: 808 Randy Marshall: Yes 809 Kim Piracci: Yes 810 Adam Beeman: Yes 811 Susan Hunter: Yes 812 Patricia Roberts: Yes 813 Alexandra Allman Yes 814 Melissa Poole: Yes 815 David Blankfard: Yes 816 Carrie Fletcher Yes 817 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 818 819 Adam Beeman: I would like the applicant to commit to a minimum of 30 spaces for a commuter park and ride so people 820 can park their cars there and hitch a ride with someone else to work and there is no worry about being stuck in a lot getting 821 towed away. 822 823 Beth Trahos: There is an area identified on the master plan to be utilized by the County in some in form or fashion to 824 support transit. If that was the route the County chose to take it could certainly be accommodated given the designation 825 and commitments made as a part of the master plan. 826 827 Adam Beeman: I don't know if their future plan is the bus stop or it's a train station. I know a lot of people travel through 828 there and it would be nice for people to drop their car and catch a ride. It would be nice to have that designation. 829 830 Stan Beard: We have reserved development area 6 for a public transit facility to be determined by all of us. When we hear 831 park and ride we get a little jumpy and so we would definitely work with you on what that looks like as far as security, 832 lighting and rules, etc. In some conversations park and rides weren't that great but that maybe an actual bus stop/drop off 833 would be more in line with what Orange County wanted. If you guys want to figure out a way to manage that development 834 area 6 we're all for it. We would be respectfully careful about what that was but yes we will work with you. 835 Michael Harvey: Would it be sufficient if the Planning Board took the position in its recommendation that the County 836 Commissioners consider as part of development area 6, a park and ride amenity as part of the regional transportation 837 efforts would that address your concern? 22 DRAFT 838 839 Adam Beeman: That's fine as long as there is somewhere we have the potential spot. 840 841 Craig Benedict:We are presently working on the Orange County Transportation Plan due to the change of not having light 842 rail so we are looking for other places to augment our bus system and we'll keep this in mind that we now have some 843 property where it could be considered. 844 845 Carrie Fletcher: I'd like to agree with that too. I'd like to have that option. 846 847 David Blankfard: Do we need to add anything to this proposal for that? 848 849 Craig Benedict: I think it's covered by having area 6 be designated, as suggested already,within the document. 850 851 MOTION by Randy Marshall to move the Statement of Consistency of a proposed Unified Development Ordinance Map 852 Amendment with the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board finds the requirements of 853 Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete and Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 854 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes,the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that 855 the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is reasonable and in the public 856 interest because it expands economic development prospects within the County,while continuing to provide adjacent and 857 nearby land uses,consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as adopted Small Area Plans for the area. Seconded by 858 Melissa Poole. 859 860 ROLLCALL VOTE: 861 Randy Marshall: Yes 862 Kim Piracci: Yes 863 Adam Beeman: Yes 864 Susan Hunter: Yes 865 Patricia Roberts: Yes 866 Alexandra Allman Yes 867 Melissa Poole: Yes 868 Carrie Fletcher Yes 869 David Blankfard: Yes 870 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 871 872 MOTION by Randy Marshall to move the adoption of an ordinance amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas shown in 873 Attachment 9 on page 166 and the conditions what the Planning Board has reviewed and agreed upon previously. 874 Seconded by Adam Beeman. 875 876 ROLLCALL VOTE: 877 Randy Marshall: Yes 878 Kim Piracci: Yes 879 Adam Beeman: Yes 880 Susan Hunter: Yes 881 Patricia Roberts: Yes 882 Alexandra Allman Yes 883 Melissa Poole: Yes 884 Carrie Fletcher Yes 885 David Blankfard: Yes 886 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 887 888 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT 889 Meeting was adjourned by consensus 10:20 p.m. 890 891 892 David Blankfard, Chair 23 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 6, 2021 Action Agenda Item No. 8 SUBJECT: Review of Zoning Atlas Amendment: NC Highway 57 Speedway Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) — Rougemont Self Storage DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Application Package (Site Plan Under Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 Separate Cover) Molly Boyle, Planner II (919) 245-2599 2. Vicinity and Current Zoning Map Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2592 3. Orange County Future Land Use Map 4. Staff Review Comments 5. Meeting Notices and Materials 6. 2012 Ordinance to Amend Zoning Atlas and Imposed Conditions 7. Statement of Consistency 8. Draft Conditions of Approval PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on an applicant-initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment petition. Specifically, Darrell Chandler of Rougemont Storage Center, LLC, is seeking to rezone approximately 7.37 acres of a parcel at 8927 Mile Branch Road in the Little River Township to NC Highway 57 Speedway Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1). Approval of the zoning atlas amendment will allow for the expansion of the existing self-storage business. A copy of the application is contained in Attachment 1. BACKGROUND: Staff has processed a zoning atlas amendment application proposing to rezone a 7.37 acre portion of a 21.54 acre parcel, further identified using Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 0910-23-7159 (hereafter `the Property'): FROM: Agricultural Residential (AR); NC Highway 57 Speedway Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1); Flat River Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District; and Little River Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District TO: NC Highway 57 Speedway Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ- 1); Flat River Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District; and Little River Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District The County approved the rezoning of the property/development of a self-storage facility in 2012, with the public hearing occurring on August 27, 2012 and BOCC approval of the request on 24 November 20, 2012. Agenda materials and minutes for these meeting(s) can be accessed at: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=42108&row=1&cr=1. As a general reminder, development of the property will be limited to applicable conditions imposed by the County as agreed to by the applicant. This includes continued compliance with existing, and any additional, imposed conditions. If the request is approved, the Zoning Atlas will indicate the property has been rezoned REDA-CZ-1, but development will only be permitted consistent with the approved site plan and conditions imposed specifically for the subject parcel. The basic facts concerning this application are as follows: Applicant: Darrell Chandler Rougemont Storage Center LLC 8927 Mile Branch Road Rougemont, NC 27572 A ent s : Chad Abbott C3 Design & Engineering 2537 E. Lyon Station Road Suite 102 Creedmoor, NC 27522 Parcel Information: A. Parcels and Size: PIN 0970-23-7159: An approximately 21.54 acre split zoned property with approximately: • 7.37 acres zoned AR; and • 14.17 acres zoned NC Highway 57 Speedway Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1). If the request is approved, the entire 21.54 acre parcel would be zoned REDA-CZ-1. A map denoting the vicinity and current zoning of the Property is contained in Attachment 2. The portion of the Property within the Little River Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District is limited to 12% impervious surface (5,227 sq. ft. per acre) for non-residential uses. The proposed development activity is contained within the Little River portion of the Property. B. Township: Little River. C. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: The parcel is located within the Agricultural Residential designation. Please refer to the maps contained in Attachment 3 for more information. D. Growth Management System Designation: Rural Designated. E. Existing Conditions/Physical Features: Varying topography with wooded areas and water features (i.e. ponds and streams). Portions of the Property have been developed in support of a self-storage business. F. Roads: 25 1. North: Mile Branch Road, which serves as the access drive for the Property; 2. South: Bacon Road; 3. West: NC Highway 57; 4. East: The eastern property line does not have frontage or abut on a roadway. G. Water and Sewer: Development of the property will rely on individual well and septic systems. The Property is not in an area served by public water/sewer. Surrounding Land Uses: North: 80 acre parcel with a go-kart race track zoned AR; South: Bacon Road and AR zoned property ranging in size from 1.8 to 18 acres in area. There is a 2 acre parcel with an existing single-family residence; West: NC Highway 57, an 8 acre parcel with a single-family residence split zoned AR and Existing Commercial (EC-5), the Orange County Speedway on a 118 acre parcel also zoned AR; and East: A 7.6 acre parcel with an existing concrete processing operation zoned AR, Mile Branch Road, and the Orange/Durham County line. Conditional Zoning (CZ) Process: This process involves approval of a rezoning petition and a professionally prepared site plan allowing for the development of a specific land use. Applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e., does not require sworn testimony or evidence) and decisions are based on the BOCC's determination that the project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The typical cadence for review is as follows: • First Action — Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Staff Comment — DONE. This meeting was held in an on-line format on December 17, 2020. No members of the public attended. Please refer to Attachment 5 for more detail. • Second Action — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. Staff Comment. The Planning Board begins its review on January 6, 2021. • Third Action — The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and makes a decision at a previously advertised public hearing. Staff Comment — Earliest public hearing date is February 2, 2021. If the public hearing is held remotely, there is a 24-hour waiting period required before a decision can be effective, as per State legislation regarding virtual/remote meetings. The purpose of the 24-hour waiting period is to allow for submission of written comments. Per Section 2.9.2 (F) (3) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part this process only if they address: 26 1. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, 2. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking areas and driveways, pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.), and/or 3. All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose. If approved, the Zoning Atlas will be amended and the zoning designation of the subject 7.37 acre portion of the Property shall be changed to REDA-CZ-1. Development, including permitted land uses, would be in accordance with the approved development proposal and conditions imposed as part of the atlas amendment process. Development of the Property shall only be permitted through the review and approval of site plan application(s) in accordance within Section 2.5 of the UDO. This is so staff can verify all imposed conditions are adhered to and allow for final review by members of the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) as detailed within Section 1.9 of the UDO. Proposal: The applicant currently operates a self-storage facility on the property called Rougemont Storage. As previously indicated herein, the self-storage operation is on a portion of property zoned REDA-CZ-1 while the southern portion of the parcel remains zoned Agricultural Residential. The applicant is seeking to rezone the entire 21.54 acre parcel to REDA-CZ-1 to allow for the expansion of the existing self-storage facility, including: • 3 new storage buildings representing an 11,400 sq. ft. increase in impervious surface area; • Development of new internal access road/drive-aisles representing an additional 11,280 sq. ft. of new impervious area; • Development/installation of a new on-site spray septic system; and • Preservation of existing foliage, the erection of a new fence, and the planting of additional landscaping material to screen the project from adjacent properties. STAFF COMMENT: The property was included in the NC Highway 57 Small Area Plan study area and a self-storage facility was envisioned as an allowable use for the area. The small area plan was adopted by the BOCC on August 21, 2007 and can be accessed using the following link: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/4184/NC-57-Speedway-Small- Area-Plan-NC-57-SASAP-Task-Force-Currently-Inactive-PDF. Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO indicates a self-storage facility is a permitted use of property within the REDA-CZ-1 zoning district. The proposed expansion is consistent with the provisions of the UDO, is consistent with the small area plan study, and is consistent with the County's original approval of the Conditional Zoning district in 2012. Access: The existing self-storage facility obtains vehicular ingress/egress from a driveway off of Mile Branch Road (State Road 1532). Access to the proposed new self-storage facilities will be through this existing driveway (i.e. no additional external driveway access proposed). STAFF COMMENT: Staff has received comments from NC Department of Transportation Staff (NC DOT) indicating they have no concerns over the increase in traffic. According to the applicant, the additional 11,400 sq. ft. of mini- warehouse/storage unit space is expected to generate approximately 30 additional daily traffic trips to the site. 27 Staff has determined the proposed expansion will not impact existing condition(s) imposed on the project as part of the original 2012 approval. As with all such projects, the site plan will be reviewed prior to the commencement of development activity by all County planning partners (i.e. NC DOT, County Fire Marshal, County Solid Waste, Environmental Health, Building Inspections, Erosion Control/Stormwater, etc.), presuming the atlas amendment is approved by the BOCC. Utilities: The project will be served by an on-site well and a spray septic system. STAFF COMMENT: A condition on the 2012 approval required on-site waste disposal facilities to be approved by Environmental Health and Building Inspections prior to the authorization of earth disturbing activities. Orange County Environmental Health will be involved in the review of the proposed installation of the new septic system, which is being permitted by the State consistent with applicable regulations. Erosion Control/Stormwater Regulations: The applicant has indicated the project will abide by existing stormwater and erosion control regulations in Sections 6.14 and 6.15 of the UDO respectively. STAFF COMMENT: The submitted site plan denotes the location of a new stormwater control measure (SCM) that will be required for compliance with the provisions of the UDO. The proposed expansion does not impact any existing conditions associated with the 2012 approval as it relates to stormwater management. Solid Waste: The applicant has indicated development within the project shall abide by the Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance. STAFF COMMENT: OC Solid Waste staff has indicated they have no concerns over the proposed expansion. Land Use Buffers: The applicant is proposing a 20' Type A land use buffer along NC 57 and Bacon Road. The applicant is also proposing a 10' land use buffer along the eastern property line adjoining the Argos Ready Mix cement mixing operation. For greater detail, please refer to the Landscape Plan (sheet C-1.5) in the Site Plan Under Separate Cover. STAFF COMMENT: The proposed buffers are consistent with the original Conditional Zoning District approval from 2012. The applicant will be required to maintain these buffers consistent with Section 6.8 Landscaping, Buffers & Tree Protection. Environmental Assessment (EA): Per Section 6.16.2 (A) of the UDO, the application was exempt from the Environmental Assessment (EA) requirement because the development area for the project is less than two acres. Analysis: As required under Section 2.9.2 (E) of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of the application' and pass that analysis on to the reviewing body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: 1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO; 2. The proposal appears consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: 28 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. d. Objective LU-3.1: Discourage urban sprawl, encourage a separation of urban and rural land uses, and direct new development into areas where necessary community facilities and services exist through periodic updates to the Land Use Plan. 3. The proposed development is consistent with existing/anticipated development within the area and the various land uses associated with the project are compatible with various goals/policies as detailed herein; 4. The project is consistent with the findings and recommendations contained within the NC Highway 57 Small Area Plan with respect to development in the area; 5. The proposed land use buffers are consistent with the 2012 approval and will adequately screen the land use from NC 57, Bacon Road, and the cement mixing operation to the east. Neighborhood Information Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting for the project was held on December 17, 2020 in accordance with Section 2.9.2 (D) of the UDO. The meeting was held in an on-line format due to current public health concerns. No members of the public attended the meeting. Public Notifications: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject parcels providing the date/time of the Planning Board meeting when the proposal is to be reviewed. These notices were mailed on December 17, 2020, 20 days before the Planning Board meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcel with a sign indicating the date/time of the Planning Board's review of the rezoning request on December 21, 2020, 16 days before the Planning Board meeting. For more information, please refer to Attachment 5. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the: 1. Statement of Consistency indicating the zoning atlas amendment(s) are reasonable and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 7. 2. Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas as well as imposing development conditions for the identified parcel as contained in Attachment 8. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising, 29 including the public hearing notice and mailings, were paid by the applicant in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Deliberate on the proposal, 2. Consider the Planning Director's recommendation, 3. Vote on the imposition of conditions, as detailed herein, and 4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) and the proposed ordinance (Attachment 8) in time for the February 2, 2021 BOCC meeting. 30 ®range = �o4h� 31 Orange County Planning and Inspections Department iz sz APPLICATION FOR ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT CONDITIONAL ZONING REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION: Date: 10/01/2020 Applicant:Darrell W Chandler e r Phone: 919-698-9748 Address: 9925 NC Hwy 57 f-)V5 flPSS Cell Phone: 33�� 3 G LJL 20 76 Rougemont,NC 27572 E-mail:darreliwchandler@gmail.com PROPERTY SUBJECT TO REQUEST: Parcel identification Number(PIN): 0910237159 Address of property: NC 57&Bacon Rd, Rougemont,NC 27572 Owner of property: Darrell W Chandler Current Zoning Designation: AR Requested Zoning Designation: REDA-CZ-1 ** If Applicant/Owner are different people, include a signed, notarized, statement indicating that the owner has authorized 'the ^aYpilcalu w Juluwia IL-he rcyuc3a. In CuscS ii'ijcrc uacjc are �uuu��sac }►rvNcr�.y owners, please aataw► an additional document containing their signatures authorizing the submission of the application or other legal uucwueuiaduil esiabiisiw►g die appiicatiis righi iu Buie oil ilieir behalf. SUBMITTAL INFORMATION - Section 2.8.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) l) 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 500 feet of the subject property. I 4) A detailed narrative denoting the following: I A. I IL U LG e11G� lC1aLG 7vll« 11 liy .0 Jill 1 vy ajje proposed 1v�V Jeu_e qucSL.l ) lul lucorrected b. The changed,or changing,conditions(if any)that makes the proposed amendment reasonable necessary to Ipromote the public health, safety,and general welfare. I c. How the proposed amendment is consistent with, or carries out the intent and purpose oi;the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, I IIn addition to these general requirements, Section 2.9.2 of the UDO requires all Conditional Zoning to submit the Ifuiluwing additiunai infurn►aholl: 11 A site nlan nrenared in accordance with the nrovisions of Section 2.5 of the I JDO includino the following information- a. A detailed description of the proposed use of property including an outline of the proposed operational characteristics of the proposed development. y I u. A d�talicd iidfuG S--JGy, - gardless of t1ie cstin-'Led number of iijJS pi;d day,P1repared in accordance wiih ail applicable North Carolina Department of Transportation requirements or standards as well as Section 6.17 of the I UDO. c, The annrnnri-it,-env/ronmPrtal document jnrelnsr�/t in ar�nrrlan�a a/ltli CP�tinn F I h of the T iTl(1 I 32 I and any proposed treatment of any existing natural feature d. A landscape plan showing the location of on-site significant trees;proposed screening, buffers, and landscaping; e. A summary of u6iAy services I I f_ A_ srheduh-, for con.ctnirtion/de.velnnment of the nronerty_ I Ig. Other required information identified by staff as part of the pre-application conference, and 2) The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule in affect as of the date of the application. I I ** NOTE: Please see attached documentation for submittal and process information associated with a Conditional 'Zoning request ** I I (we), the undersigned, have been made aware of the process for the review and action associated with a nn��itinnal T leP 5inpliratinn and understand on!y complete appliratinne, rnntaininv all information renuirarj 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: AppEcant 33 2537 E.LYON STAT/ON RD,STE 102 CSOESIGN & PO BOX361 ENGINEERING, RLLC CREEDMOOR,NC27522 CLIENT-FOCUSED• COMPREHENSIVE• COST-EFFECTIVE 919-230-0996 PROJECT NARRATIVE - ROUGEMONT SELF STORAGE PHASE 3 8927 Mile Branch Rd, Rougemont NC 27572 REV 3-13-2020 REV 10-23-2020 On behalf of Darrell W. Chandler, the owner of Rougemont Storage, we hereby request the rezoning of the parcel previously known as PIN 0910226989 (+/-8.74 acres) to REDA- CZ. The property has previously been recombined with the existing Rougemont Self Storage Facility at the address listed above. Therefore, the property is currently split zoned and would respectfully request the granting of the zoning map amendment to make the property in its entirety the same zoning district. Furthermore, as part of the Conditional Zoning requirement for this property, we are submitting and requesting approval to expand the current Self Storage facility onto this property as shown on the corresponding plans. The development of this property will be consistent with the existing Self Storage Development with respect to the type and quality of construction, and end product. This property will be served by a conventional well located on the existing property/development and will also provide for a conventional septic spray field on the subject property(expansion area) that will serve both properties from a sewage standpoint. The existing well is used for a single bathroom in the office of the existing facility and is expected to require no more than 100 GPD. Being an extension of the existing development, it is proposed that all traffic enter/exit through the existing gated access off Mile Branch Road. Using the ITE Trip Generation, its expected that +/-30 trips per day would result from the proposed 11,400 sf of mini-warehouse (storage unit) space. NCDOT has reviewed our proposal and concurs that the existing driveway is sufficient from a traffic standpoint and no additional information or studies are required. All proposed buildings and drives will be secured by a new fence that will tie to the existing fence and surround the proposed improvements. Stormwater will be captured and flow along the existing drainage patterns to a new Stormwater Control Measure (SCM) and will be treated per current falls lake standards. Preliminary calculations are on the Grading and Drainage Plan. It should be noted that the development on the subject property is quite limited due to a mis-mapping of the Little River ad Flat River Watersheds which restricts the development to 12% on the respective portions of the property. Ground topography does not support the current mapping of this line and until fixed, the property's J:\DD-PROJECTS\2018\18-079\CIVIL-18-079\Design\Planning\2020-10-27 Project Narrative REV.docx 1 34 2537 E.L YON STATION RD,STE 102 CSOESIGN & PO BOX361 ENGINEERING, PLLC CREEDMOOR,NC27522 CLIENT-FOCUSED• COMPREHENSIVE• COST-EFFECTIVE 919-230-0996 development is limited. The anticipated overall proposed disturbance is less than 40,000 sf, and therefore the EA/EIS are not applicable to this site. The previous development was required to comply with several conditions at the time of approval, all which have been adhered to and are listed on the plans. It is understood and acceptable to the applicant that the current proposal also adhere to these same standards as applicable. J:\DD-PROJECTS\2018\18-079\CIVIL-18-079\Design\Planning\2020-10-27 Project Narrative REV.docx 2 35 VICINITY MAP d' Courrtr ui,c lid X!, 0 1531 8ee�n Rd c6 y a LL � 0 F 0 ai r a' Rougemont Stcrage p SITE c N Q ¢ a Orange County A ,y 1 Rd Speedway T 0 N M T tg74 c3 v ai of n 0 N D) C 0 t'J C N Hanson Aggregates , a471 J_ co U N W 0 O K d t 0 0 Map data':2fl19 Ulliten STate? Terms Sendfeedback 1DOO ft- a m U 36 NORTH CAROLINA `OCX 384 WE 39t COMMISSIONER'S DEED ORANGE COUNTY THIS DEED, made and entered into this the � day of March, 1982, by and between EVERETT KENNEDY, CLAYTON HAITHCOCK and LUCIUS M. CHESHIRE, JR., acting as Commissioners as hereinafter stated, Parties of the First Part; and NELLIE C. NICHOLS and husband, LACY 27704 k NICHOLS, of 3811 Duke Homestead Road, Durham, North Carolina, Parties of the Second Part; WIT NESSETH: i THAT WHEREAS, in a certain special proceeding entitled "Julia C. i Mangum, et al, Petitioners, vs. Ila C. Woodlief, et al, Respondents" brought 1 11 and pending before the Clerk of Superior Court of Orange County, North Carolina, an order was made by said court appointing said Parties of the First Part as Commissioners to divide the lands described in the Petition in this matter; AND WHEREAS, the Court has approved a settlement of this matter by that Consent Judgment dated the 13th day of February, 1982 signed by all 1 parties hereto; AND WHEREAS, by said Consent Judgment, the Parties of the First Part as Commissioners were authorized and directed to make, execute and deliver to said Parties of the Second Part a good and sufficient deed for that portion of the subject lands allocated to the Parties of the Second Part by said Consent Judgment; NOW, THEREFORE, said Parties of the First Part, acting as i k Commissioners as aforesaid, under authority of said order of Court do hereby convey unto said Parties of the Second Part and their heirs, successors and assigns, the following described tract of land: i Being that tract of land lying and being in Little River Township, Orange County, North Carolina, and more particularly described as follows: BEING Tract No. 2 containing 8.74 acres as shown on plat and survey of Commissioner's Report, subdivision of Tract A of May Anna Clayton Estate, by Alois Callemyn, Registered Land Surveyor, dated January 29, 1981, � L recorded at Plat Book 33, page 72, Orange County Registry. i C0dMAN, ERNHOLZ. DICKEILSC N,BsRrIHOLZ.] TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said lands and premises together with all GLMHML I ATTORNEYSAT�LAW privileges and :appurtenances thereunto belonging to them the said Parties of CHAPEL HILL. N.C. HILLSBOROL'GH, N.C. E 7/s ?a_ ^& 1 I i 37 1 ou 384 PAGE 2 the Second Part and their heirs, successors and assigns in as fall and ample a manner as said Parties of the First Part as Commissioners as aforesaid are authorized and empowered to convey the same. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, said Parties of the First Part, acting as Commissioners as aforesaid, have hereunto set their hands and seals, this the day and year first above written. (SEAL) EVERETT KENN DY, Co X �-- SEAL) CLA7 HAITMOCK , Comr `%IJ / '. {SEAL} LUCIUS M. CH RE, JR. Comr. NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I, a Notary Public of said State and County do hereby certify atEVERETT KENNEDY, Party of the First Part, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing Commissioner's Deed. as Commissioner. WITNESS my hand and notarial seal, this the .�t'L1 day of 1982. Notary blic My commission expir o NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY 1, a�ae ! kr_rUevr� a Notary Public of said State and County do hereby certify that LEA ' ' N HAITHCOCK, Party of the First Part, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing Commissioner's Deed. as Commissioner WITNESS my hand and notarial seal, this the of 1982. � day COLE'.,AN, BERNHOLZ, 1 DICKERSON,BERNHOLZ. II GLWHtLL 5t HARGRAVE Lary Public i ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHAPEL HILL, N.C. lj HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 0. ' f ., 9 f h � 1 J i 38 I I I My commission expires: a13CY `.184 PACE 393 %NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY E 1, � Pr- , a Notary Public of said State and County do hereby c rtify t�#tLUCI S M. CHESHIRE, JR., Party of the First Part, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing Commissioner's Deed. as Commissioner WITNESS my hand and notarial seal, this the day of 1982. 1 ' y Publi My commission expires: NORTH CAROLINA — ORANGE COUNTY The foregoing certificates) of Donna Marie Snyder (Lloyd) A Notary �WVVQV" Public of the designated Governmental unitsXX (are) certified to be correct. Filed for registra- tion March 82 9: 1j AM Lion this the day of , 19 , at o'clock , in Record l3 ok 384 Page 391 Betty June Hayes, gister of eds Return: By: Assistant/D,epanr Register of Deeds I I iII I COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ. DICKBR.SON.BsRNHOLZ. GLEDHILL &HARGRAVE i ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHAPEL HILL. N.C. HILLSBOROUGH. N.C. i i i i 39 Property Owners within 500' of Subject Property: 1.) Name: Rougemont Storage Center LLC (Property none combined with proposed property) Address: 8927 Mile Branch Rd, Rougemont, NC 27572 2.) Name: We 3 Investments LLC Address: 9900 NC 57, Rougemont, NC 27572 3.) Name: Michael R Ammons Address: 9806 NC 57, Rougemont, NC 27572 4.) Name: Kenneth F & Nancy W Wallace Address: 9761 NC 57, Rougemont, NC 27572 5.) Name: Leonard H Mangum Address: N/A (PIN: 0910223106) 6.) Name: Michael N & Lucinda I Davis Address: N/A (PIN: 0910228451) 7.) Name: Hanson Aggregates Southeast Inc Address: N/A (PIN: 0910321178) 8.) Name: Argos Ready Mix LLC Address: 9017 Mile Branch Rd, Rougemont, NC 27572 9.) Name: Darrell Ray Harris Address: N/A (PIN:0910328408) 10.) Name: Orange County Speedway Real Estate LLC Address: 9740 NC 57, Rougemont, NC 27572 11.) Name: Darrell W Chandler Address: 9925 NC 57, Rougemont, NC 27572 40 ROY COOPER Govemor MICHAEL S.REGAN f. Secretary LINDA CULPEPPER NORTH CAROLINA Director Environmental Quality November 18,2019 DARRELL W.CHANDLER—GENERAL MANAGER ROUGEMONT STORAGE CENTER,L.L.C. 8927 MILE BRANCH ROAD ROUGEMONT,NORTH CAROLINA 27572 Subject: Permit No. WQ0041050 Rougemont Storage Center WWTF Wastewater Irrigation System Orange County Dear Mr. Chandler: In accordance with your permit application request received July 25, 2019, and subsequent additional information received October 23, 2019, we are forwarding herewith Permit No. WQ0041050 dated November 18, 2019,to Rougemont Storage Center,.L.L.C. for the construction and operation of the subject wastewater treatment and irrigation facilities. This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance through January 31, 2026, and shall be subject to the conditions and limitations therein. The Permittee shall submit a renewal application no later than August 4,2025. Please pay attention to the monitoring requirements listed Attachments A and B. Failure to establish an adequate system for collecting and maintaining the required operational information shall result in future compliance problems. If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, the Permittee has the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within 30 days following receipt of this permit. This request shall be in the form of a written petition,conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings at 6714 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,NC 27699-6714. Otherwise,this permit shall be final and binding. One set of approved plans and specifications is being forwarded to you. If you need additional information concerning this permit, please contact Ranveer Katyal at (919) 707-3661 or ranveer.katyal(a)ncdenr.€!ov. Sincerely, w da Culpepper,Director Division of Water Resources cc: Orange County Health Department(Electronic Copy) Raleigh Regional Office,Water Quality Regional Operations Section(Electronic Copy) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources 5,E Q� 512 North Salisbury Street 11617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617 NORTH CAROU a 919.707.9000 Mr.Darrell W.Chandler 41 November 18,2019 Page 2 of 2 Kevin D. Davidson,PE—Agri-Waste Technology,Inc.(Electronic Copy) Beth Buffington—Protection and Enforcement Branch(Electronic Copy) Laserfiche File(Electronic Copy) Digital Permit Archive(Electronic Copy) Central Files 42 NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY RALEIGH WASTEWATER IRRIGATION SYSTEM PERMIT In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143,General Statutes of North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws,Rules, and Regulations PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO Rougemont Storage Center, L.L.C. Orange County FOR THE construction and operation of a 100 gallon per day (GPD) wastewater treatment and irrigation facility consisting of: a 1,500 gallon septic/re-circulation tank with an effluent filter and a 25 gallon per minute (GPM) re- circulation pump; an AdvanTex AX-20 treatment unit; a 3,000 gallon pump tank with an 11.2 GPM field- dosing pump and audio/visual high-water alarms;an ultraviolet(ITV)disinfection unit;a rain sensor;a 0.20 acre spray irrigation area with three spray heads; and all associated piping, valves, controls, and appurtenances to serve the Rougemont Storage Center WWTF,with no discharge of wastes to surface waters,pursuant to the application received July 25, 2019, subsequent additional information received October 23, 2019, and in conformity with the Division-approved plans and specifications considered a part of this permit. Please note that the Alternative Design Criteria has been approved for this facility pursuant to 15A NCAC 02T .0105(n). The following administrative code has been approved for the alternative design criteria: ➢ 15A NCAC 02T.0505(k)—Multiple pumps should be provided wherever pumps are used. The system tank has more than 24 hours of emergency storage, and in the event of a pump failure an alternative pump can be delivered and installed within 24 hours,thus exempting the need for multiple pumps. This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance through January 31, 2026, and shall be subject to the following conditions and limitations: WQ0041050 Version 1.0 Shell Version 181105 Page 1 of 11 43 I. SCHEDULES 1. Upon completion of construction and prior to operation of this permitted facility, the Permittee shall submit an engineering certification from a North Carolina licensed Professional Engineer certifying that the permitted facility has been constructed in accordance with G.S. 143-215.1, Administrative Code Title 15A Subchapter 02T,this permit, and the Division-approved plans and specifications. For phased and partially certified facilities, the Permittee shall retain the responsibility to track further construction a roved under thispermit-and shall provide a final engineering certification upon progect completion. Mail the Engineering Certification to the Division of Water Resources, Non-Discharge Branch, 1617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,NC 27699-1617, or Non-Discharge.Reports iiwncdenr.gov. [15A NCAC 02T .0116(a)] 2. The Permittee shall notify the Raleigh Regional Office,telephone number(919)791-4200,at least two business days in advance of initial operation of the constructed facilities so that the Division can conduct a startup inspection. [15A NCAC 02T .0108(b)(1)(B)] 3. Prior to operation of the newly installed facilities, a Final Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be submitted for review. The plan shall be sent to the Division of Water Resources, Non-Discharge Branch, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,NC 27699-1617 or Non-Disc harge.Reports(@ncdenr. ov. [15A NCAC 02T.0108(b)(1)(B), 02T.0507(a)] 4. Upon completion of construction and prior to irrigation, a soil evaluation shall be completed for all areas where fill material is placed within the permitted irrigation areas. The report shall certify that areas utilizing fill material are capable of accepting the designed loading rate. This report shall specifically address,but not be limited to,soil features such as soil compaction and saturated hydraulic conductivity of the least permeable layer, soil fertility report and any amendments added, verification of fill suitability and depth of fill material(and to the seasonal high water table)across the field,as well as any other properties that might impact the soil's ability to accept irrigation water. The soil scientist evaluation shall be mailed to the Division of Water Resources, Non-Discharge Branch, 1617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,NC 27699-1617 or Non-Discharge.Reportsancdenr.gov. Irrigation shall not occur until the Raleigh Regional Office approves the soils evaluation. [15A NCAC 02T .0108(b)(1)(A)] 5. The Permittee shall request renewal of this permit on Division-approved forms no later than August 4, 2025. [15A NCAC 02T .0105(b), 02T .0109] H. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 1. The Permittee shall maintain and operate the subject non-discharge facilities so there is no discharge to surface waters, nor any contravention of groundwater or surface water standards. In the event the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of nuisance conditions due to improper operation and maintenance, or failure of the irrigation areas to assimilate the effluent, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective actions, including Division required actions, such as the construction of additional or replacement wastewater treatment or disposal facilities. [15A NCAC 02T .0108(b)(1)(A)] 2. This permit shall not relieve the Permittee of their responsibility for damages to groundwater or surface water resulting from the operation of this facility. [15A NCAC 02T .0108(b)(1)(A)] 3. Effluent quality shall not exceed the limitations specified in Attachment A. [15A NCAC 02T.0505(b)] 4. Application rates, whether hydraulic, nutrient, or other pollutant, shall not exceed those specified in Attachment B. [15A NCAC 02T .0505(c), 02T .0505(n)] 5. The Permittee shall connect the irrigation system to a rain or moisture sensor designed to prevent irrigation during precipitation events or wet conditions. [15A NCAC 02T.0505(x)] WQ0041050 Version 1.0 Shell Version 181105 Page 2 of 11 44 6. Wastewater irrigation fields permitted on or after December 30, 1983 have a compliance boundary that is either 250 feet from the wastewater irrigation area, or 50 feet within the property boundary, whichever is closest to the wastewater irrigation area. Any exceedance of groundwater standards at or beyond the compliance boundary shall require corrective action. Division-approved relocation of the compliance boundary shall be noted in Attachment B. Multiple contiguous properties under common ownership and permitted for use as a disposal system shall be treated as a single property with regard to determination of a compliance boundary. [15A NCAC 02L.0106(d)(2),02L.0107(b),02T.0105(h), G.S. 143-215.1(i), G.S. 143-215.1(k)] 7. The Permittee shall apply for a permit modification to establish a new compliance boundary prior to any sale or transfer of property affecting a compliance boundary(i.e.,parcel subdivision). [15A NCAC 02L .0107(c)] 8. No wells, excluding Division-approved monitoring wells, shall be constructed within the compliance boundary except as provided for in 15A NCAC 02L .0107(g). [15A NCAC 02L .0107] 9. Except as provided for in 15A NCAC 02L .0107(g), the Permittee shall ensure any landowner who is not the Permittee and owns land within the compliance boundary shall execute and file with the Orange County Register of Deeds an easement running with the land containing the following items: a. A notice of the permit and number or other description as allowed in 15A NCAC 02L .0107(f)(1); b. Prohibits construction and operation of water supply wells within the compliance boundary;and c. Reserves the right of the Permittee or the State to enter the property within the compliance boundary for purposes related to the permit. The Director may terminate the easement when its purpose has been fulfilled or is no longer needed. [15A NCAC 02L .0107(f)] WQ0041050 Version 1.0 Shell Version 181105 Page 3 of 11 45 10. The facilities herein were permitted per the following setbacks: a. The irrigation sites were originally permitted November 18,2019. The setbacks for spray irrigation sites originally permitted or modified on or after September 1,2018 are as follows(all distances in feet): i. Each habitable residence or place of assembly under separate ownership: 4001 ii. Each habitable residence or place of assembly owned by the Permittee: 2002 iii. Each private or public water supply source: 100 iv. Surface waters: 100 v. Groundwater lowering ditches: 100 vi. Surface water diversions: 25 vii. Each well with exception of monitoring wells: 100 viii.Each property line: 150 3 ix. Top of slope of embankments or cuts of two feet or more in vertical height: 15 x. Each water line: 10 xi. Subsurface groundwater lowering drainage systems: 100 xii. Public right of way: 50 xiii.Nitrification field: 20 xiv.Each building foundation or basement: 15 1 Habitable residences or places of assembly under separate ownership constructed after the facilities herein were originally permitted or subsequently modified are exempt from this setback. 2 Per a setback waiver recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds,reduced setbacks from the wetted area to any habitable residence or place of assembly owned by the Permittee are as follows: Parcel No. Deed Book/Page Setback Easement 0910333879 6630/ 1373 100 feet 100 feet 3 Setbacks to property lines are not applicable when the Permittee, or the entity from which the Permittee is leasing,owns both parcels separated by the property line. [15A NCAC 02T.0506(a), 02T .0506(d), 02T .0506(e), 02T.0506(f)] WQ0041050 Version 1.0 Shell Version 181105 Page 4 of 11 46 b. The storage and treatment units were originally permitted November 18, 2019. The setbacks for storage and treatment units originally permitted or modified on or after September 1, 2018 are as follows(all distances in feet): i. Each habitable residence or place of assembly under separate ownership: 1001 ii. Each private or public water supply source: 100 iii. Surface waters: 50 iv. Each well with exception of monitoring wells: 100 v. Each property line: 50 2,3 1 Habitable residences or places of assembly under separate ownership constructed after the facilities herein were originally permitted or subsequently modified are exempt from this setback. 2 Setbacks to property lines are not applicable when the Permittee, or the entity from which the Permittee is leasing, owns both parcels separated by the property line. 3 Per a setback waiver recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds,reduced setbacks from the storage and treatment units to any property line are as follows: Parcel No. Deed Book/Page Setback Easement 0910322905 6612/ 1824 25 feet 25 feet [15A NCAC 02T .0506(b), 02T .0506(d), 02T.0506(e), 02T.0506(f)] III. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. The Permittee shall operate and maintain the subject facilities as a non-discharge system. [15A NCAC 02T .0500] 2. The Permittee shall maintain an Operation and Maintenance Plan, which shall include operational functions, maintenance schedules, safety measures, and a spill response plan. [15A NCAC 02T .0507(a)] 3. Upon the Water Pollution Control System Operators Certification Commission's (WPCSOCC) classification of the subject non-discharge facilities,the Permittee shall designate and employ a certified operator in responsible charge(ORC),and one or more certified operators as back-up ORCs. The ORC or their back-up shall operate and visit the facilities as required by the WPCSOCC. [15A NCAC 02T .0117] 4. The Permittee shall maintain vegetative cover on the irrigation sites, such that crop health is optimal, allows even effluent distribution, and allows inspection of the irrigation system. [15A NCAC 02T .0507(b)] 5. The Permittee shall take measures to prevent effluent ponding in or runoff from the irrigation sites listed in Attachment B. [15A NCAC 02T.0507(c)] 6. The Permittee shall not irrigate treated effluent during inclement weather, or when the soil is in a condition that will cause ponding or runoff. [15A NCAC 02T .0505(x)] 7. Irrigation equipment shall be tested and calibrated once per permit cycle. [15A NCAC 02T.0507(d)] 8. Only treated effluent from the Rougemont Storage Center WWTF shall be irrigated on the sites listed in Attachment B. [15A NCAC 02T .0501] 9. The Permittee shall not allow vehicles or heavy machinery on the irrigation area, except during equipment installation or maintenance activities. [15A NCAC 02T .0507(e)] WQ0041050 Version 1.0 Shell Version 181105 Page 5 of 11 47 10. The Permittee shall prohibit public access to the wastewater treatment,storage,and irrigation facilities. [15A NCAC 02T.0505(q)] 11. The Permittee shall dispose or utilize generated residuals in a Division-approved manner. [15A NCAC 02T .0508, 02T .1100]. 12. The Permittee shall not divert or bypass untreated or partially treated wastewater from the subject facilities. [15A NCAC 02T .05050)] 13. A protective vegetative cover shall be established and maintained on all berms, pipe runs, erosion control areas, surface water diversions, and earthen embankments(i.e., outside toe of embankment to maximum allowable temporary storage elevation on the inside of the embankment). Trees,shrubs,and other woody vegetation shall not be allowed to grow on the earthen dikes or embankments. Earthen embankments shall be kept mowed or otherwise controlled and accessible. [15A NCAC 02T.0507(g)] 14. Metering equipment shall be tested and calibrated annually. [15A NCAC 02T.0507(d)] IV. MONITORING AND REPORTING REOUIREMENTS 1. The Permittee shall conduct and report any Division required monitoring necessary to evaluate this facility's impact on groundwater and surface water. [15A NCAC 02T .0108(c)] 2. A Division-certified laboratory shall conduct all analyses for the required effluent, groundwater, and surface water parameters. [15A NCAC 02H.0800] 3. Flow through the treatment facility shall be continuously monitored, and daily flow values shall be reported on Form NDMR. Facilities with a permitted flow less than 10,000 GPD may estimate their flow from water usage records provided the water source is metered. [15A NCAC 02T .0105(k), 02T .0108(c)] 4. The Permittee shall monitor the treated effluent at the frequencies and locations for the parameters specified in Attachment A. [15A NCAC 02T .0108(c)] 5. The Permittee shall maintain records tracking the amount of effluent irrigated. These records shall include the following information for each irrigation site listed in Attachment B: a. Date of irrigation; b. Volume of effluent irrigated; c. Site irrigated; d. Length of time site is irrigated; e. Continuous weekly,monthly, and year-to-date hydraulic(inches/acre)loadings; f. Continuous monthly and year-to-date loadings for any non-hydraulic parameter specifically limited in Attachment B; g. Weather conditions; and h. Maintenance of cover crops. [15A NCAC 02T .0108(c)] WQ0041050 Version 1.0 Shell Version 181105 Page 6 of 11 48 6. Three copies of all monitoring data(as specified in Conditions IV.3. and IVA.) on Form NDMR for each PPI and three copies of all operation and disposal records (as specified in Conditions IV.5. on Form NDAR-1 for every site in Attachment B shall be submitted on or before the last day of the following month. If no activities occurred during the monitoring month, monitoring reports are still required documenting the absence of the activity. All information shall be submitted to the following address: Division of Water Resources Information Processing Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617 [15A NCAC 02T.0105(1)] 7. The Permittee shall maintain a record of all residuals removed from this facility. This record shall be maintained for five years, and shall be made available to the Division upon request. This record shall include: a. Name of the residuals hauler; b. Non-Discharge permit number authorizing the residuals disposal,or a letter from a municipality agreeing to accept the residuals; c. Date the residuals were hauled; and d. Volume of residuals removed. [15A NCAC 02T .0508(b)] 8. A maintenance log shall be kept at this facility. This log shall be maintained for five years, and shall be made available to the Division upon request. This log shall include: a. Date of flow measurement device calibration; b. Date of irrigation equipment calibration; c. Visual observations of the plant and plant site; and d. Record of preventative maintenance(e.g.,changing of equipment,adjustments,testing,inspections and cleanings, etc.). [15A NCAC 02T.0507(h)] 9. An annual representative soils analysis (i.e., Standard Soil Fertility Analysis) shall be conducted on each irrigation site listed in Attachment B. These results shall be maintained at the facility for five years,and shall be made available to the Division upon request. Each Standard Soil Fertility Analysis shall include the following parameters: Acidity Exchangeable Sodium Percentage Phosphorus Base Saturation(by calculation) Magnesium Potassium Calcium Manganese Sodium Cation Exchange Capacity Percent Humic Matter Zinc Copper pH [15A NCAC 02T .0I08(c)] WQ0041050 Version 1.0 Shell Version 181105 Page 7 of 11 49 10. Noncompliance Notification: The Permittee shall report to the Raleigh Regional Office, telephone number (919) 791-4200, within 24 hours of first knowledge of the following: a. Treatment of wastes abnormal in quantity or characteristic, including the known passage of a hazardous substance. b. Any process unit failure (e.g., mechanical, electrical, etc.) rendering the facility incapable of adequate wastewater treatment. c. Any facility failure resulting in a discharge to surface waters. d. Any time self-monitoring indicates the facility has gone out of compliance with its permit limitations. e. Ponding in or runoff from the irrigation sites. Emergencies requiring reporting outside normal business hours shall call the Division's Emergency Response personnel at telephone number (800) 662-7956, (800) 858-0368, or (919) 733-3300. All noncompliance notifications shall file a written report to the Raleigh Regional Office within five days of first knowledge of the occurrence,and this report shall outline the actions proposed or taken to ensure the problem does not recur. [15A NCAC 02T .0108(b)(1)(A)] V. INSPECTIONS 1. The Permittee shall perform inspections and maintenance to ensure proper operation of the wastewater treatment and irrigation facilities. [15A NCAC 02T .0507(i)] 2. The Permittee shall inspect the wastewater treatment and irrigation facilities to prevent malfunctions, facility deterioration, and operator errors that may result in discharges of wastes to the environment, threats to human health, or public nuisances. The Permittee shall maintain an inspection log that includes the date and time of inspection, observations made, and maintenance, repairs, or corrective actions taken. The Permittee shall maintain this inspection log for a period of five years from the date of the inspection, and this log shall be made available to the Division upon request. [15A NCAC 02T .0507(h), 02T .0507(i)] 3. Division authorized representatives may, upon presentation of credentials, enter and inspect any property,premises,or place related to the wastewater treatment and irrigation facilities permitted herein at any reasonable time for determining compliance with this permit. Division authorized representatives may inspect or copy records maintained under the terms and conditions of this permit, and may collect groundwater, surface water, or leachate samples. [G.S. 143-215.3(a)(2)] WQ0041050 Version 1.0 Shell Version 181105 Page 8 of 11 50 VI. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Failure to comply with the conditions and limitations contained herein may subject the Permittee to a Division enforcement action. [G.S. 143-215.6A, 143-215.6B, 143-215.6C] 2. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of wastes described in the permit application, and Division-approved plans and specifications. [G.S. 143-215.1(d)] 3. Unless specifically requested and approved in this permit,there are no variances to administrative codes or general statutes governing the construction or operation of the facilities permitted herein. [15A NCAC 02T .0105(n)] 4. The issuance of this permit does not exempt the Permittee from complying with all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances that other jurisdictional government agencies(e.g., local, state, and federal) may require. [15A NCAC 02T .0105(c)(6)] 5. If the permitted facilities change ownership, or the Permittee changes their name, the Permittee shall submit a permit modification request on Division-approved forms. The Permittee shall comply with all terms and conditions of this permit until the permit is transferred to the successor-owner. [G.S. 143- 215.1(d3)] 6. The Permittee shall retain a set of Division-approved plans and specifications for the life of the facilities permitted herein. [15A NCAC 02T .0105(o)] 7. The Permittee shall maintain this permit until the proper closure of all facilities permitted herein, or until the facilities permitted herein are permitted by another authority. [15A NCAC 02T .01050)] 8. This permit is subject to revocation or modification upon 60-day notice from the Division Director, in whole or part for: a. violation of any terms or conditions of this permit or Administrative Code Title 15A Subchapter 02T; b. obtaining a permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose all relevant facts; c. the Permittee's refusal to allow authorized Department employees upon presentation of credentials: i. to enter the Permittee's premises where a system is located or where any records are required to be kept; ii. to have access to any permit required documents and records; iii. to inspect any monitoring equipment or method as required in this permit;or iv. to sample any pollutants; d. the Permittee's failure to pay the annual fee for administering and compliance monitoring; or e. a Division determination that the conditions of this permit are in conflict with North Carolina Administrative Code or General Statutes. [15A NCAC 02T .0110] WQ0041050 Version 1.0 Shell Version 181105 Page 9 of 11 51 9. Unless the Division Director grants a variance, expansion of the facilities permitted herein shall not occur if any of the following apply: a. The Permittee or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the Permittee has been convicted of environmental crimes under G.S. 143-215.6B, or under Federal law that would otherwise be prosecuted under G.S. 143-215.613, and all appeals of this conviction have been abandoned or exhausted. b. The Permittee or any parent,subsidiary,or other affiliate of the Permittee has previously abandoned a wastewater treatment facility without properly closing the facility. c. The Permittee or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the Permittee has not paid a civil penalty,and all appeals of this penalty have been abandoned or exhausted. d. The Permittee or any parent,subsidiary,or other affiliate of the Permittee is currently not compliant with any compliance schedule in a permit, settlement agreement, or order. e. The Permittee or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the Permittee has not paid an annual fee. [15A NCAC 02T .0120(b), 02T .0120(d)] 10. This permit shall not be renewed if the Permittee or any affiliation has not paid the required annual fee. [15A NCAC 02T .0120(c)] Permit issued this the 18'day of November 2019 NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION 0 .1� nda Culpepper,Director Division of Water Resources By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission Permit Number WQ0041050 WQ0041050 Version 1.0 Shell Version 181105 Page 10 of 11 52 Permit No. WQ0041050 Wastewater Irrigation System Rougemont Storage Center, L.L.C. November 18,2019 Rougemont Storage Center WWTF Orange County ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION ❑ Partial ❑Final as a duly licensed North Carolina Professional Engineer,having❑periodically/❑ fully observed the construction of the permitted facilities,do hereby state to the best of my abilities that the facility was constructed in compliance with G.S. 143-215.1, Administrative Code Title 15A Subchapter 02T, this permit, and the Division-approved plans and specifications. Documentation of any variation to this permit,and the Division-approved plans and specifications,is in the attached as-built drawings. Description of variations: Professional Engineer's Name Firm Name Firm No. Address City State Zip Code Telephone Email Seal, Signature,and Date THE COMPLETED ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION,INCLUDING ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, SHALL BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES NON-DISCHARGE BRANCH By U.S. Postal Service By Courier/Special Deliver, 1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 512 N. SALISBURY ST. RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617 RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27604 WQ0041050 Version 1.0 Shell Version 181105 Page 11 of 11 53 THIS PAGE BLANK 54 ATTACHMENT A—LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Permit Number:WQ0041050 Version: 1.0 PPI 001—WWTF effluent EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS EFFLUENT LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS PCs Parameter Description Units of Monthly Monthly Daily Minimum Daily Maximum Measurement Sample Code Measure Average Geometric Mean Frequency Type 00310 BOD,5-Day(20°C) mg/L 30 Annual Grab 31616 Coliform,Fecal MF,M-FC Broth,44.5°C #/100 mL 200 Annual' Grab 50050 Flow,in Conduit or thru Treatment Plant GPD 100 Monthly Estimate 00610 Nitrogen,Ammonia Total(as N) mg/L 15 Annual' Grab 00625 Nitrogen,Kjeldahl,Total(as N) mg/L Annual' Grab 00620 Nitrogen,Nitrate Total(as N) mg/L Annual' Grab 00600 Nitrogen,Total(as N) mg/L Annual' Grab 00400 pH su 2 x Year 2 Grab 00665 Phosphorus,Total(as P) mg/L Annual' Grab 00530 Solids,Total Suspended mg/L 30 Annual' Grab 1. Annual sampling shall be conducted in June. 2. 2 x Year sampling shall be conducted in June and December. WQ0041050 Version 1.0 Attachment A Page 1 of 1 55 THIS PAGE BLANK 56 ATTACHMENT B—APPROVED LAND APPLICATION SITES AND LIMITATIONS Permit Number: WQ0041050 Version: 1.0 Rougemont Storage Center,L.L.C.—Rougemont Storage Center WWTF IRRIGATION AREA INFORMATION APPLICATION LIMITATIONS Field Owner CountyLongitude Latitude Lon Net Dominant Hourly Yearly g Acreage Soil Series Parameter Rate Max Units 1 Rougemont Storage Center,L.L.0 Orange 36.230919° -78.957123' 0.20 ApB 01284—Non-Discharge Application Rate 0.15 6.56 inches Totals 0.20 WQ0041050 Version 1.0 Attachment B Page 1 of 1 • 1 • • • • • Legend Proposed spray area i� V Proposed Treatment f�" R mont start Ste age '� • .• setback I r Setback Waiver reatrn'e*t syste Y,* I� De d BR E16-'2KPG,.1824QD ; •'Ff. h`r i - r Waiver recorded not registered with county o' er. Ak GooUrr_7marth N 58 Molly Boyle From: Darrell Chandler <darrellwchandler@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,January 08, 2020 4:32 PM To: Chad Abbott Subject: Fwd:WQ0041050 Here is the map I requested today from the DWQ. It shows that the 200' setback has been waived down to a 100' setback. Disregard the not recorded with the county, it has been recorded Work#336-364-7070 Owner's Darrell's Cell#919-698-9748 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Katyal, Ranveer<Ranveer.Katyal @ ncdenr.gov> Date: Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 2:31 PM Subject: WQ0041050 To: Darrell Chandler<darrellwchandler@ gmail.com> Good afternoon Mr. Chandler, This is a follow up to our discussion. I have attached the map and as per the setback waiver recorded, reduced setbacks from the wetted area to any habitable residence or place of assembly owned by the Permittee are as Parcel No. Deed Book l Page Setback 0910333879 6630 / 1373 100 feet 1 The spray head has a diameter of- 33 feet radius as per the submitted designs hence 133 feet from the spray head. i j r } f r l� lk f Waiver recorded mat registered with now NNW won w w w 60 Sincerely, Ranveer Katyal Environmental Engineer Non-Discharge Branch Department of Environmental Quality 919 707 3661 office ranveer.katyal@ncdenr.gov 512 N. Salisbury St. 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties 3 61 Molly Boyle From: Patrick R. Mallett Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 4:45 PM To: Molly Boyle Subject: FW: [External] 18-079 Rougemont Self Storage From: Edwards, Charles N [mailto:cnedwards@ncdot.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:21 PM To: Chad Abbott; Jones, DeAngelo J Cc: Allison Averette; Patrick R. Mallett Subject: RE: [External] 18-079 Rougemont Self Storage Based on our previous discussions,the proposed site expansion will not result in additional traffic impacts that would require mitigation. No NCDOT action or approval is required. If you need further,feel free to coordinate directly with DeAngelo Jones as the primary point of contact for this project. C. N. Edwards Jr., PE (Chuck) District Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways Division 7, District 1 336 570 6833 cnedwards(o)-ncdot.gov 115 East Crescent Square Drive P. O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 AJ From: Chad Abbott<chad@c3designeng.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 13, 2020 12:47 PM To: Edwards, Charles N <cnedwards@ncdot.gov>;Jones, DeAngelo J <djjonesl@ncdot.gov> Cc:Allison Averette<allison@c3designeng.com>; Patrick R. Mallett (pmallett@orangecountync.gov) <pmallett@orangecountync.gov> Subject: [External] 18-079 Rougemont Self Storage a"mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Good Afternoon Gentlemen, I hope you are doing well. I think you may have already talked with Pat regarding this, but we are expanding the current self-storage facility to add+/-11,400 sf of new storage units.This is only a small percentage increase and I had run some 1 62 trip generation numbers for it a while back and they are listed in the attached narrative.The county ordinance ask for a "traffic study"for such conditional zoning districts. I don't think that this increase would breech any thresholds of TIAs with you folks, and there for a "study"would be moot.So, if this is the case (as I think Pat has indicated from preliminary discussions with you) can you provide a memo or response letter stating for the record and use during our rezoning that the existing driveway has proven suitable and that the additional trips will not warrant additional improvements to the NCDOT street network? We would need to call this memo "RE:Traffic Study for Rougemont Self Storage". Let me know if you have any questions, comments, or what I could do to help. Regards, Chad E.Abbott, PE Principal Engineer [DESIGN F=NGlNEEf NS. PLLZ 2537 E. Lyon Station Rd.—Ste 102 (Physical) P.O. Box 361 (Mailing) Creedmoor, NC 27522 919.230.0996 x101 (Office) 919.625.7368 (Mobile) Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C.Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. 2 REDA-CZ-1 (Rougernont Storage) Vicinity and Zoning Mbp EC5 i i / i i Flat River Protected Watershed 1 �'♦ AR ED . -CZ- i i i i tic 0 EC5 BACON RD i Little River / Protected Watershed 1 I I PIN#:0910237159 ROUGEMONT STORAGE CENTER LLC i Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County GIs and is for reference only. Exact locations and boundaries should be verified. 8927 MIKE BRANCH RD Map prepared by Orange County Planning&Inspections. Rougemont, NC 27572 12/20/2020-mboyle F-1 AR --Soils Survey Stream Streets N M EC5 OC Updated Stream Zoning 77 REDA-CZ-1 EO NWI Wetlands Water Body 1 inch=300feet USGS Stream 0 Parcels Watershed 0 75 150 Feet s w y� 7 � 65 Rougemont Storage - Future Land Use Map 2 1 1 \ j , . i 1 % ♦ i ♦ i �♦ i �♦ i \ i i 1 �Ay tic i i i i BPCON RD I I % � 1 \ 1 1 i i I i PIN#:0910237159 ROUGEMONT STORAGE CENTER LLC Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County GIS and is for reference only. Exact locations and boundaries should be verified. 8927 MIKE BRANCH RD I Map prepared by Orange County Planning&Inspections. Rougemont, NC 27572 V I 12/21/2020-mboyle I — County Boundary OC Updated Stream F-1 Water Body Agricultural Residential NWI Wetlands —USGSStream pParcels f inch=400feet —•Soils Survey Stream Streets 0 100 200 Feet 66 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 dh MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Harvey, Planner III, Current Planning Supervisor COPY TO: File FROM: Patrick Mallett, Erosion Control and Stormwater Supervisor DATE: 21 DEC2020 PROJECT: Rougemont Self Storage Phase III (Case #: MA20-0001) SUBJECT: Erosion Control and Stormwater Review of REDA-CZ-1 Application Staff has reviewed the submitted application materials for Phase III of the Rougemont Self Storage Facility and further referenced below. Zoning: Current Zoning: Agricultural Residential (AR) and NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area Conditional Zoning (REDA-CZ-1) Proposed Zoning: NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area Conditional Zoning (REDA-CZ-1) Site Information: Property ID Number (PIN): 0910-23-7159 Property Size: 19.55 acres (7.37 acres in Phase III area) Location: NC Highway 57, Bacon Road, Mile Branch Road Watersheds: Little River Protected / Flat River Protected Major Plan Elements: • Access via existing Rougemont Storage Facility (Phases All ) using existing entrance; • Proposing 3 new in-door storage buildings totaling 11,400 sq. ft. (2 building @ 3,600 sq. ft. each and 1 building @) 4,200 sq. ft.); • 50,000 sq. ft. of anticipated new land disturbance; and • 22,680 sq. ft. of additional impervious area. As currently proposed, Erosion Control And Stormwater has no objections to the approval of this rezoning request. Please note, however, that the level of proposed land disturbance will require additional Erosion Control and Stormwater permits. These permits will need to be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any on-site development activity. 67 Michael Harvey From: Molly Boyle Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 8:34 AM To: Michael Harvey Subject: FW: [External] 18-079 Rougemont Self Storage From: Patrick R. Mallett Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 4:45 PM To: Molly Boyle<mboyle@orangecountync.gov> Subject: FW: [External] 18-079 Rougemont Self Storage ITE trips are also in the plan and the narrative... From: Edwards, Charles N [mailto:cnedwards@ncdot.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:21 PM To: Chad Abbott; Jones, DeAngelo J Cc: Allison Averette; Patrick R. Mallett Subject: RE: [External] 18-079 Rougemont Self Storage Based on our previous discussions, the proposed site expansion will not result in additional traffic impacts that would require mitigation. No NCDOT action or approval is required. If you need further, feel free to coordinate directly with DeAngelo Jones as the primary point of contact for this project. C. N. Edwards Jr., PE (Chuck) District Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways Division 7, District 1 336 570 6833 cnedwards(a-)_ncdot.gov 115 East Crescent Square Drive P. O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 - 'm F From: Chad Abbott<chad@c3designeng.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 13, 2020 12:47 PM To: Edwards, Charles N <cnedwards@ncdot.gov>;Jones, DeAngelo J <diiones1@ncdot.gov> Cc:Allison Averette<allison@c3designeng.com>; Patrick R. Mallett (pmallett@orangecountync.gov) <pmallett@orangecountync.gov> Subject: [External] 18-079 Rougemont Self Storage 1 68 Wm ternal email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Inc. . Good Afternoon Gentlemen, I hope you are doing well. I think you may have already talked with Pat regarding this, but we are expanding the current self-storage facility to add +/-11,400 sf of new storage units.This is only a small percentage increase and I had run some trip generation numbers for it a while back and they are listed in the attached narrative.The county ordinance ask for a "traffic study"for such conditional zoning districts. I don't think that this increase would breech any thresholds of TIAs with you folks, and there for a "study" would be moot. So, if this is the case (as I think Pat has indicated from preliminary discussions with you) can you provide a memo or response letter stating for the record and use during our rezoning that the existing driveway has proven suitable and that the additional trips will not warrant additional improvements to the NCDOT street network? We would need to call this memo "RE:Traffic Study for Rougemont Self Storage". Let me know if you have any questions, comments, or what I could do to help. Regards, Chad E.Abbott, PE Principal Engineer ❑ ESON (=_NGINEEPdi G, PLLC 2537 E. Lyon Station Rd.—Ste 102 (Physical) P.O. Box 361 (Mailing) Creedmoor, NC 27522 919.230.0996 x101 (Office) 919.625.7368 (Mobile) Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C.Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. 2 69 Michael Harvey From: Jeff Scouten Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 8:48 AM To: Michael Harvey Subject: RE: Staff comment(s) on Daryl Chandler REDA rezoning - expansion of existing self storage facility Michael, I don't have any objection to the approval of the subject rezoning application. I'm pretty sure I already approved it in E'gov but maybe not. Let me know if you need anything else. Jeff Scouten Environmental Enforcement Supervisor Orange County Solid Waste Management 12.07 Eubanks Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516-7177 91e-e68-2788 (Office) Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties. DUE TO COVID 19, REPLIES AND FOLLOW-UP TO EMAILS MAY BE DELAYED From: Michael Harvey<mharvey@orangecountync.gov> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 8:17 AM To: Phil Vilaro<pvilaro@orangecountync.gov>;Jason Shepherd <jshepherd@orangecountync.gov>; Elizabeth Farnan <efarnan@orangecountync.gov>;Jeff Scouten <jscouten@orangecountync.gov>; Patrick R. Mallett <pmallett@orangecountync.gov>; Christian Hirni <chirni@orangecountync.gov> Cc: Molly Boyle<mboyle@orangecountync.gov>; David Ward <dward@orangecountync.gov> Subject: Staff comment(s) on Daryl Chandler REDA rezoning-expansion of existing self storage facility I am in need of assistance. As parties are aware, we have reviewed on a few occasions a site plan proposing an expansion of an existing self-storage facility off of Mile Branch Road in the Little River Township of Orange County. The expansion is part of a Conditional Zoning atlas amendment we are preparing (relevant documents attached to aid in recollection). This has been discussed at DAC a few times, and all parties have offered comments within EnerGOV. What I am in need of are responses (emails, memos, etc.) of your'approval' of the project or any conditions that need to be imposed. 1 70 Michael Harvey From: Jason Shepherd Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 9:42 AM To: Michael Harvey; Phil Vilaro; Elizabeth Farnan;Jeff Scouten; Patrick R. Mallett; Christian Hirni Cc: Molly Boyle; David Ward Subject: RE: Staff comment(s) on Daryl Chandler REDA rezoning - expansion of existing self storage facility Approved. Jason Permit and Inspection Information is now available online! Click here to access our portal Jason B. Shepherd Fire Marshal Orange County Emergency Services 510 Meadowlands Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-245-6151 Office 919-257-8316 Cellular From: Michael Harvey<mharvey@orangecountync.gov> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 8:17 AM To: Phil Vilaro<pvilaro@orangecountync.gov>;Jason Shepherd <jshepherd@orangecountync.gov>; Elizabeth Farnan <efarnan@orangecountync.gov>;Jeff Scouten <jscouten@orangecountync.gov>; Patrick R. Mallett <pmallett@orangecountync.gov>; Christian Hirni <chirni@orangecountync.gov> Cc: Molly Boyle<mboyle@orangecountync.gov>; David Ward <dward@orangecountync.gov> Subject: Staff comment(s) on Daryl Chandler REDA rezoning-expansion of existing self storage facility I am in need of assistance. As parties are aware, we have reviewed on a few occasions a site plan proposing an expansion of an existing self-storage facility off of Mile Branch Road in the Little River Township of Orange County. The expansion is part of a Conditional Zoning atlas amendment we are preparing (relevant documents attached to aid in recollection). This has been discussed at DAC a few times, and all parties have offered comments within EnerGOV. What I am in need of are responses (emails, memos, etc.) of your'approval' of the project or any conditions that need to be imposed. I would be appreciative if this information could be provided by 10 a.m.Tuesday December 28, 2020 if at all possible. i 71 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 December 2, 2020 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) Conditional Zoning District Application for Rougemont Storage To Whom It May Concern: Orange County Planning staff has received an application proposing to rezone property at 8927 Mile Branch Road to a Conditional Zoning District. Per Section 2.9.2 Conditional Zoning District of the Unified Development Ordinance, you are receiving this letter because property you own is within 1,000 ft. of the project site. The site is further described below: Site Information Parcel ID Number(PIN) 0910-23-7159 Owner Rougemont Storage Center, LLC Location 8927 Mile Branch Road at NC 57 and Mile Branch Road Acreage • Total=21.54 acres • Proposed for rezoning= 7.37 acres Proposed Land Use Expansion of existing self-storage facility, Rougemont Storage Current Zoning • NC Highway 57 Speedway Area—Rural Economic Development Area Conditional Zoning (REDA-CZ-1) • Agricultural Residential (AR) • Little River Protected Watershed Overlay District • Flat River Protected Watershed Overlay District Proposed Zoning • NC Highway 57 Speedway Area—Rural Economic Development Area Conditional Zoning (REDA-CZ-1) • Little River Protected Watershed Overlay District • Flat River Protected Watershed Overlay District What is being proposed? The applicant operates a self-storage facility on the property called Rougemont Storage. The storage operation is on the portion of the property in a conditional zoning district(REDA-CZ-1). The rest of the property is zoned for residential use. The applicant is seeking to rezone the residential acreage so that the entire property is in the conditional zoning district. 72 If approved, this rezoning will allow the applicant to expand the existing self-storage facility. The proposed expansion includes: ■ 22,680 sq. ft. of new impervious area, including 3 new storage buildings (11,400 sq. ft.); ■ A new on-site spray septic system; and ■ Screening from adjacent properties, including new fencing and plantings, as well as preserved vegetation. What is this meeting for? This Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM)will allow you and other nearby property owners to meet with the applicant and discuss the proposed project. It also gives Planning staff the opportunity to answer any questions regarding the rezoning process. We will conduct the meeting online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Here are the details for the Rougemont Storage Neighborhood Information Meeting: Meeting Information Date Thursday, December 17, 2020 Time 6:30 p.m. Meeting Link https:// lg obal.gotomeeting com/join/491246165 To dial in via phone: (571) 317-3112 Access Code 491-246-165 One-touch: tel:+15713173112„491246165# After the NIM, this project will go on to the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners for review. You will receive letters notifying you of those meetings once they are scheduled. I have enclosed some documents to help you better understand the proposal. If you have any questions,please contact Current Planning staff at 919-245-2575 or email mharvey&oran eg count. nic.gov. We will be happy to assist. Best Regards, Cw GCV& Molly Boyle, MPA, CZO Planner I Orange County Planning and Inspections Enclosures: Site Plan Applicant Narrative 73 VICINITY MAP o SITE INFORMATION " f S 1 \ ;} '� I� u� W d m _� ILJ .�t� �' �� NOT FOR OW �w.. ..�o�.w=,�,u,ovaa�,�=x.a J�}_t• t� n O��' — coNsiiiucTioN SF s..�o"21N.7 YrpLEGEND&NOMENCLATUREN. o,"m, o z Oho � g _ Z { (6�1'PUBI_ Knowwnarsbelow. CSPROJe » Call before you dig. 3 18 079 / C1111 gr.cp„ U I '� �"q i � reMA20 0001 74 2537 E.L YON STATION RD,STE fO2 DESIGN & PO Box36f ENGINEERING, PLLr- CREEDMOOR,NC27522 CLIENT-FOCUSED•COMPREHENSIVE•COST-EFFECTIVE 9f9-230-0996 PROJECT NARRATIVE - ROUGEMONT SELF STORAGE PHASE 3 8927 Mile Branch Rd, Rougemont NC 27572 REV 3-13-2020 REV 10-23-2020 On behalf of Darrell W. Chandler, the owner of Rougemont Storage, we hereby request the rezoning of the parcel previously known as PIN 0910226989 (+/-8.74 acres) to REDA- CZ. The property has previously been recombined with the existing Rougemont Self Storage Facility at the address listed above. Therefore, the property is currently split zoned and would respectfully request the granting of the zoning map amendment to make the property in its entirety the same zoning district. Furthermore, as part of the Conditional Zoning requirement for this property, we are submitting and requesting approval to expand the current Self Storage facility onto this property as shown on the corresponding plans. The development of this property will be consistent with the existing Self Storage Development with respect to the type and quality of construction, and end product. This property will be served by a conventional well located on the existing property/development and will also provide for a conventional septic spray field on the subject property(expansion area) that will serve both properties from a sewage standpoint. The existing well is used for a single bathroom in the office of the existing facility and is expected to require no more than 100 GPD. Being an extension of the existing development, it is proposed that all traffic enter/exit through the existing gated access off Mile Branch Road. Using the ITE Trip Generation, its expected that +/-30 trips per day would result from the proposed 11,400 sf of mini-warehouse (storage unit) space. NCDOT has reviewed our proposal and concurs that the existing driveway is sufficient from a traffic standpoint and no additional information or studies are required. All proposed buildings and drives will be secured by a new fence that will tie to the existing fence and surround the proposed improvements. Stormwater will be captured and flow along the existing drainage patterns to a new Stormwater Control Measure (SCM) and will be treated per current falls lake standards. Preliminary calculations are on the Grading and Drainage Plan. It should be noted that the development on the subject property is quite limited due to a mis-mapping of the Little River ad Flat River Watersheds which restricts the development to 12% on the respective portions of the property. Ground topography does not support the current mapping of this line and until fixed, the property's J:\DD-PROJECTS\2018\18-079\CIVIL-18-079\Design\Planning\2020-10-27 Project Narrative REV.docx 1 75 2537 E.L YON STATION RD,STE fO2 CSOESIGN & PD Box 36f ENGINEERING, PLLC CREEDMOOR,NC27522 CLIENT-FOCUSED•COMPREHENSIVE•COST-EFFECTIVE 9f9-230-0996 development is limited. The anticipated overall proposed disturbance is less than 40,000 sf, and therefore the EA/EIS are not applicable to this site. The previous development was required to comply with several conditions at the time of approval, all which have been adhered to and are listed on the plans. It is understood and acceptable to the applicant that the current proposal also adhere to these same standards as applicable. J:\DD-PROJECTS\2018\18-079\CIVIL-18-079\Design\Planning\2020-10-27 Project Narrative REV.docx 76 NIM Meeting Notes MA20-0001: Rougemont Storage, LLC Thursday, December 17, 2020 6:30 pm In attendance:Molly Boyle and Tyler Sliger(OC Planning); Pat Mallett (Erosion Control/Stormwater Supervisor); Chad Abbott, C3 Design and Engineering No members of the public came to the virtual meeting. Staff kept the meeting link live until 7:00 pm and then ended the meeting. 1 ��.�- jai s# ♦���A��� � �sr � tea,... '�' SPECIAL 40 3141,17 � -� �L -:�F�_p. t� ��yi M+'� �.#_'. j1 ``�� �� Q�l�.�\Q[ � A ➢P �� .1 :: ,!e�"y`M tiw aR� :, �� +�t:tE ��,,'�� ��•`�.�b ry.. _,���1_.-�k� �r�''/- .�i, \`�' .�- :i�. .74' z w \�i `� 78 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 ® haft ► JIM December 21, 2020 NOTICE OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING Review of Zoning Atlas Amendment for a Conditional Zoning District for Rougemont Storage To Whom It May Concern: Orange County Planning staff has received an application proposing to rezone property at 8927 Mile Branch Road to a Conditional Zoning District. Per Section 2.9.2 Conditional Zoning District of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), you are receiving this letter because property you own is within 1,000 ft. of the project site. The site is further described below: Site Information Parcel ID Number(PIN) 0910-23-7159 Owner Rougemont Storage Center, LLC Location 8927 Mile Branch Road at NC 57 and Mile Branch Road Acreage • Total=21.54 acres • Proposed for rezoning= 7.37 acres Proposed Land Use Expansion of existing self-storage facility, Rougemont Storage Current Zoning • NC Highway 57 Speedway Area—Rural Economic Development Area Conditional Zoning (REDA-CZ-1) • Agricultural Residential (AR) • Little River Protected Watershed Overlay District • Flat River Protected Watershed Overlay District Proposed Zoning • NC Highway 57 Speedway Area—Rural Economic Development Area Conditional Zoning (REDA-CZ-1) • Little River Protected Watershed Overlay District • Flat River Protected Watershed Overlay District What is being proposed? The applicant operates a self-storage facility on the property called Rougemont Storage. The storage operation is on the portion of the property in a conditional zoning district, specifically the Rural Economic Development Area Conditional Zoning District(REDA-CZ-1). The rest of the 79 property is zoned for residential use. The applicant is seeking to rezone the residential acreage so that the entire property is in the conditional zoning district. If approved,this rezoning will allow the applicant to expand the existing self-storage facility. The proposed expansion includes: ■ 22,680 sq. ft. of new impervious area, including 3 new storage buildings (11,400 sq. ft.); ■ A new on-site spray septic system; and ■ Screening from adjacent properties, including new fencing and plantings, as well as preserved vegetation. Please refer to the attached vicinity map and site plan for additional detail(s). Why you are receiving this letter: As previously indicated, you are receiving this letter as your property is located within 1,000 ft. of the 2 parcels subject to a rezoning petition. Per Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, staff is required to send written notice,via first class mail,to property owners within 1,000 ft. informing them of the date/time of the Planning Board meeting where the application is to be reviewed. This notice is required to be mailed 15 days before the date of this meeting. The County Planning Board will consider making a recommendation on the Zoning Atlas amendment at its November regular meeting, scheduled for: Wednesday,January 6,2021 at 7:00 pm As a reminder,the Planning Board is an appointed volunteer advisory board that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (the elected officials). The Board of County Commissioners then holds a formal public hearing and makes decisions. Section 2.8 of the County's Unified Development Ordinance contains a flowchart depicting the entire review process for rezoning and text amendment applications. Consistent with COVID-19 protocols, and to ensure the health and safety of all participants,the Planning Board meeting will be virtual. How you can participate in the Planning Board meeting or make comments: There are two methods for the public to comment on this proposal, namely: 1. Written submittals by email or drop-off at the Planning office, and/or 2. Speaking during the virtual Planning Board meeting 1. Written Comments: Members of the public are encouraged to provide written public comments by emailing comments to planningboard@orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting. Please include the title of the agenda item in the subject line of your email. Emails sent to this address are viewable on Google Groups: https:Hgroups.google.com/g/ocplanningboard. Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department's office at 131 W. Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough,NC during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). If a staff member is not available, please leave your comments in the drop-off box near the front counter. Written comments will be scanned and sent by staff to the email address indicated above. 80 2. Virtual Planning Board Meeting: Detailed instructions for signing up to view/participate in the Planning Board meeting will be available on or shortly after December 30, 2020 as part of the agenda posted for the January 6, 2021 Planning Board meeting. The agenda can be accessed utilizing the following link: https://www.orangecountync og_v_/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26 Once you are on the agenda center page, simply click on the January 6, 2021 agenda package link. If you do not have internet access, you may participate in the meeting via phone. Please call (919)245-2575 during regular business hours after December 30th for information on the number to call-in to,the meeting ID, and a password. If you have any questions, please contact Current Planning staff at 919-245-2575 or email mharveynoran ecg ountync. og_v. We will be happy to assist. Best Regards, Molly Boyle, MPA, CZO Planner II Orange County Planning and Inspections Enclosures: Site Plan Vicinity Map Conditional Zoning Fact Sheet 81 VICI,=MAP - t 0 SITE INFORMATION41 �a..b8A NOT FOR b mA un�r mo RR� °`r °F• ' p b' 'J_ +umew.�mu..ca '; siasu }yi�y'�•� }� / O CONMU`C70N .¢ww rremaN wurmm w.n.wwu®a•rnai �' /O - �����. 1.-.. i I mn ' \ wn. LEGEND&&NOMENCLATURE P. F OXE N He H OXE V]-� O O O E OHE O , 7 V P is C) i Knowwhar:below. o0.aiER„, Call before you dig. 10.E 8--079 MA20-0001 1 R Image reduced 82 VICINITY MAP Coucv I.,"Rd Ccwr:ry R.mr,Ad _o v 7S3t Narm c,�n 0 n o_ 0 m Rougemont Storage Q SITE a L Orange County t-3Y Rd Speedway t47Y t474 0 of UI W r R q C _ Cam' 0 c Hanson Aggregales a 47Y J_ W r` 4 w U N w O o . Go gle 0 a Iwlap data 1'.2019 !lnM1eG States Firms Send+zzdbac+ ii a 83 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS ORANGE COUNTY CONDITIOAL ZONING DISTRICTS NOR141 CAR0I_INA FACT SHEET This fact sheet explains the submittal and review process for a rezoning to a Conditional Zoning District. It also covers how a decision on a request is made and how you can participate. 1. What is a Conditional Zoning District? A Conditional Zoning District (CZD) is a tool to address impacts from certain land uses. These land uses have particular impacts on the immediate area or community which cannot be predetermined by general use district standards. The property owner proposes development standards to address these impacts. These standards could be things like minimum lot size, setbacks, parking, landscaping, open space management, allowable building area, preservation of natural areas, or similar matters. If approved, the use of the property would be subject to conditions created during the process. 2. What are the benefits of the CZD process? Conditional Zoning allows for more flexibility than other zoning tools. Rules in a General Zoning district would be applicable to all uses without any special considerations. Rules for a Special Use Permit require all the individualized considerations to be written in the ordinances beforehand. By allowing for special considerations to be determined at the time of application, Conditional Zoning is thought to be a more prudent use of time, money, effort, and other resources. 3. Is a CZD the same as a Special Use Permit(SUP)? No. With a SUP the County has determined potential development impacts of a given land use require special consideration of site-specific conditions against a set of established standards. An SUP is said to be a `quasi-judicial' decision because how facts are applied to these established standards. A CZD is said to be a `legislative' decision because the standards are both established and applied at the time of the decision. 4. Are CZDs and SUPs reviewed in a similar manner? No. CZDs are reviewed through the `legislative' review process while an SUP is reviewed under the `quasi-judicial' review process, further broken down as follows: • LEGISLATIVE: Decisions are made based on multiple factors including the proposal's consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, recommendations made by the Planning Board and staff, comments received from the public (both for and against a project), as well as the elected officials' experiences, 84 opinions and judgment. This is the most common review process employed by the County and is used to review multiple development proposals (i.e. zoning atlas amendments, amendments to the UDO, review/action on subdivision proposals, etc.). • QUASI-JUDICIAL: Typically used to review land use development applications, commonly called a Special Use. In this process, the board responsible for rendering a decision acts much like a panel of judges, hearing factual evidence and sworn testimony. Decisions on whether a permit request must be issued or not are based on the competent, substantial, and material evidence presented by all sworn parties with standing. 5. How are CZD applications reviewed? Review of a CZD application occurs in multiple steps as outlined in the UDO summarized as follows: • An application for a zoning atlas amendment is submitted; • The proposal is reviewed by the County's Development Advisory Committee (DAC), which is essentially a staff review across multiple Departments (i.e. Building Inspections, Environmental Health, Emergency Services, Erosion Control/Stormwater, Solid Waste, etc.) and includes many technical advisors from external agencies such as the NC Department of Transportation; • The next step is the scheduling and holding of a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), which is an opportunity for the developer to discuss their proposal with the local community and for County staff to review/discuss the review process; • The proposal is then reviewed by the Planning Board, which is an advisory group of County residents. The Board reviews the proposal, hears comments from the staff/applicant/general public, and makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for or against any proposal. • The final step is with a public hearing before the BOCC. The public hearing allows the public to voice their opinions to the Commissioners. After the public hearing is closed, the BOCC then makes their decision. This flow chart from the UDO helps illustrate: 85 Toning A"as and Applic ofion UD© A►mendrrtlonft Submittal r Zoning Atlas: Zoning Ailas:��� i�Text Amendments Conditional General Use Districts Zoning Disfricts- Post Sign + Mail Notice for Neighborhood Info. Meeting (NIM) and Planning Board Meeting Post Sign ./ Mail Notice Neighborhood for Planning Board Information Meeting Meeting Development Advisory Committee Meeting Staff Recommendation to Planning Board Planning Board Reviewr '� nd Recommendation ) Aflas Amendments: Text Publish legal Ad Amendments: Post Sign Publish legal Ad Mail Notice 7Staff and PB R.ecommendation�'., to BOCC e' Public Hearing BOCC Decision L _ Note- This chart is meant as a grophicol representation of the UDO text-the tent shop take priority in any conflict or orin;triguity- 86 6. Are applicants required to submit site specific development plans for a CZD? Either a site specific development plan or a concept plan will be required depending on the type of request. Site specific development plans are meant to demonstrate how the project would comply with various requirements such as setbacks, impervious surface limits, parking lot design, landscaping, building area, and others. These types of plans are required for the following CZDs: • Agricultural Support Enterprises (ASE-CZ); • Home Park (HP-CZ); and • NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1). Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) applications are not required to submit a site specific development plan. They are required to submit a concept plan. 7. Why are MPD-CZ applications not required to submit a site specific development plan? Per Section 3.8 Conditional Districts — Master Plan Development (MPD-CZ) of the UDO, the purpose of the MPD-CZ District is to provide for: `..... unified large scale subdivisions, non-residential, and mixed- use developments that promote economical and efficient land use, improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety, creative design, and a better environment through the approval of a general concept Master Plan the permits defined flexibility to accommodate land use adjustments in response to evolving market trends. To that end, MPD-CZ projects are intended to allow for flexibility in dimensional/development standards with the overall goal of ensuring compatibility with planning objectives, anticipated development patterns, existing infrastructure planning, and surrounding properties. The master planning process allows applicants to either demonstrate compliance with applicable standards (i.e. setbacks, impervious surface limits, parking lot design, landscaping, building area, etc.) or provide `design alternatives' that meet the intent and spirit of existing regulations. Approval of an MPD-CZ, essentially, creates a new zoning district establishing mandatory development standards/criteria governing actual development activities. Through this process, the County has the opportunity to impose conditions on development activities to address potential impacts. 87 8. What else is required to be submitted as part of a CZD application? CZD requests are required to submit the following information: a. Completed application; b. A detailed description of the proposed use of property; c. A detailed traffic survey; d. Environmental Document(s); e. Landscape plan; f. A summary of utility services, including processing of wastewater; g. A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal; h. Other information identified during the pre-application conference deemed essential to demonstrate the project's compliance with applicable regulations. 9. Can the County impose conditions on a CZD? Yes. The County has the ability to impose conditions, however, these conditions must be mutually agreed upon by the County and applicant. Further, conditions are limited to those addressing conformance of the development to applicable regulations and/or the adopted Comprehensive Plan/other relevant plans addressing: a. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property; b. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.); and/or c. Other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose, but limited to items within the County's regulatory authority. 10. How is development within an MPD-CZ district acted upon? Development within an MPD-CZ is permitted only through the review and approval of site plan application(s) in accordance within Section 2.5 of the UDO. This is so staff can verify all imposed conditions are adhered to. 11. Will this site plan be reviewed/commented on by the Planning Board or elected officials? No. The site plan shall be reviewed and acted upon by staff administratively consistent with the provisions of the UDO. 88 12. What are the benefits of the MPD-CZ process? The chief, primary, benefit is staff are able to review/process development of a parcel and/or multiple parcels under a uniform set of development criteria where there are shared opportunities for infrastructure development (i.e. parking areas, preservation of existing landscaping, outdoor lighting, signage, access management, stormwater management, etc.). Under general zoning standards, parcels are typically developed independently with little to no opportunity for the County to compel coordination of development activities. Each parcel would have to have its own parking area, stormwater feature, landscape buffers, allowable building area (i.e. floor area ratio), individual outdoor lighting fixtures, etc. From staffs standpoint this translates to more development activity, more impervious surface area, and increased opportunities for internal/external impacts. 13. Who may speak or offer comment during the review of a CZD? Everyone. Applicants and those individuals supporting, or opposed to, the application are encouraged to attend meetings where a CZD is discussed and offer comment(s). The best time to speak directly to the applicant is at the NIM. The NIM is also a good opportunity to ask questions of staff related to the process for the review of the application. The Planning Board is a good opportunity to learn more about the comments and recommendations from the advisory board and staff. The public can offer their opinions and comments in written form to the BOCC at any time, but the public hearing is the best time to speak publicly in person. 14. When would I learn about an application being submitted? There are various notification requirements associated with the review of a CZD application at various points along the process. There is a listing of current projects at the Planning page of the County website. The complete application package is made available to the public on the County website once it has been formally accepted for review by staff. Before the NIM, there will be notice posted at the site and mailed to those within 1,000 ft. of the property advertising the meeting. This is the same for the Planning Board and BOCC meetings where the application will be reviewed. BOCC meetings are also advertised in local newspapers. Planning Board and BOCC meeting agendas are posted on-line so the general public can review materials associated with the review of a CZD. You can be put on a list to receive notices about all BOCC meetings through a request to the BOCC Clerk's office. 89 Planning Board and BOCC are public meetings, which are open to public attendance. Only the BOCC public hearing includes a right to participate and that is limited (such as with the 3 minute time limit). 15. What is the most effective way of engaging with the process? Planning staff are available to answer questions on a development proposal and/or to explain process requirements. Attend the NIM to learn about the applicant's proposal and have an opportunity to ask questions and offer comments. Attend the Planning Board meeting to learn about staff and Board recommendation(s). Write to the BOCC or speak at the public hearing. At the public hearing you will be limited to 3 minutes, but there is no limit to emailed comments. If you share the opinion of others, try to join together and co-sign a single message. Try to be specific with particular proposals, recommendations or conditions. 16. Who do 1 contact with questions? • Questions about the application, procedural questions, or Planning Board meeting(s) should be directed to the Planning Department — (919) 245-2575; • To receive email notices of BOCC agendas/meetings, go to the following webpage: http://www.orangecountync.gov/1561/Electronic-Newsletters And select the link following "Board of County Commissioners (Sunshine)". Type in your email address and select Sign In. Next, click on the envelope icon in front of Board of County Commissioners (Sunshine) to receive email notifications. • Questions on Planning Board agendas can also be addressed by the staff of the Planning Department. Planning Board agenda packets, as well as meeting minutes, are posted on the County website and can be accessed here: https://www.orangecountync.gov/1194/Orange-County-Planning- Board-PB 17.What are the roles of staff, the Planning Board, and the elected officials in the review of a CZD? • STAFF: ➢ Determine if the application is complete with applicable submittal requirements (Section(s) 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the UDO); 90 ➢ Determine consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; ➢ Review and make a determination if the proposal is consistent with applicable development standards or if proposed 'design alternatives' are consistent with the spirit/intent of the UDO; ➢ Recommend imposition of conditions to address potential impacts; ➢ Recommend approval/denial of the project based on the provisions of the UDO and the project's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. • PLANNING BOARD: ➢ Review the development proposal and ask questions of the applicant and staff; ➢ Review/discuss staffs analysis; ➢ Although not required, the PB often will Receive public comment on the proposal; ➢ Make a recommendation on the approval or denial of the request to the BOCC. • BOCC: ➢ Schedule and hold a public hearing to receive the application; ➢ Hear from the applicant and staff; ➢ Receive public comment on the proposal; ➢ Review/discuss the staff and Planning Board's analysis and recommendation(s); ➢ Discuss imposition of conditions; ➢ Approve or deny the request. 18. How are decisions to approve or deny a CZD made? The BOCC approves or denies a CZD request based on: a. The proposals consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; b. Consistency/compliance with other applicable plans (i.e. small areas plans, water/sewer infrastructure plans, transportation improvement plans, etc.); C. Suitability of proposed development with surrounding properties as well as the recognized/anticipated development patterns in the area where the project is located; d. Compliance with applicable development standards as embodied within the UDO and/or the appropriateness of proposed 'design alternatives'; e. Public comments; and 91 f. Staff and Planning Board recommendation(s). 19. Can 1 discuss the project with staff, members of the Planning Board, and the BOCC? Yes, you can have discussions with various parties outside of scheduled meetings/hearings concerning a CZD application. This would not be the case with an SUP or other quasi-judicial hearings, where the board members are precluded from deliberations outside the hearing. 20. Is there a record of the proceedings? Yes. Minutes from Planning Board and BOCC meetings where a CZD application is reviewed/discussed/acted upon are maintained by the County. The Planning Department maintains the application components and become a part of the file on that case. 21. What is the effect of a CZD approval? Per Section 2.9.2 (G) of the UDO, approval of a CZD is binding on the property. Development and use of the subject parcel(s) is governed by the submitted/revised application package, the actual ordinance adopted by the BOCC approving the rezoning request, all conditions imposed as part of the CZD review process, and the applicable provisions of the UDO. 22. Are decisions on CZD applications subject to further review? Yes. Decisions are subject to review by the Superior Court. Per Section 2.26.5 of the UDO, an appeal to Superior Court must be filled within 60 days from the date of adoption of the ordinance approving the zoning atlas amendment. 92 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 �-'� -� Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING AND SIGN POSTING— NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING ROUGEMONT STORAGE (PIN 0910-23-7159) ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Michael Harvey, Planner III/Current Planning Supervisor with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 (D) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), I mailed, or caused to be mailed, via first class mail a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) notice on December 3, 2020. This notice informed those property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property that the applicant is seeking a Zoning Atlas Amendment for a Conditional Zoning District. The property owners within 1,000 feet were identified according to the Orange County Tax Records as required by the UDO. The mailed notice included the date, time, place, and subject of the meeting and provided information on the Conditional Zoning District review process. A sign was also posted on the subject property in accordance with UDO Section 2.9.2 (D). The posted sign informed passersby of the date, time, place, and subject of the hearing. WITNESS my hand, this 21st day of December 2020. l� �, Mi hael a t , CFM, CZO Planner III/Curr nt Planning Supervisor 93 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration .... 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING AND SIGN POSTING- PLANNING BOARD MEETING ROUGEMONT STORAGE (PIN 0910-23-7159) ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Michael Harvey, Planner III/Current Planning Supervisor with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Sections 2.8.7 and 2.9.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), I mailed, or caused to be mailed, via first class mail a Planning Board Meeting Notice on December 17, 2020. This notice informed those property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property that the applicant is seeking a Zoning Atlas Amendment for a Conditional Zoning District. A notice was also sent to the affected property owner via certified mail on the same date stated above. The property owners within 1,000 feet were identified according to the Orange County Tax Records as required by the UDO. The mailed notice included the date, time, place, and subject of the meeting and provided information on the Conditional Zoning District review process. A sign was also posted on the subject property on December 21, 2020 in accordance with UDO Sections 2.8.7 and 2.9.2. The posted sign informed passersby of the date, time, place, and subject of the hearing. WITNESS my hand, this 21st day of December 2020. (G Mich el Harvey, FM, CZO Planner III/Current Planning Supervisor Ordinance 4:_ C. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, This petition seeks to rezone 12 acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-34-5040) to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ- 1) Conditional Zoning for the purpose of developing a self-storage facility. WHEREAS, This petition has been submitted in concert with a formal site plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO, and WHEREAS, the portions of property to be rezoned are identified further as follows.- PIN 0910-34-5040. Darrell W. Chandler. Deed Book 5329, page 496, Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98, Orange County Registry. Description by William H. McCarthy, Jr., Professional Land Surveyor, License Number L-3248, Summit Design and Engineering Services , 504 Meadowland Drive, Hillsborough, NC 27278-8551. The following description is based on Plat Book 96, page 98 and does not represent an actual field survey. Summit project 12-0191. Physicaf descriptions of corners shown in parenthesis are for information only and are taken from Plat Book 96, page 98 and have not been recovered or verified. Location of right of way and centerline of Mile Branch Road taken from site plan "Affordable Rougemont Self-Storage-Site Plans" Sheet No. C-2, Summit Design and Engineering Services Project 12-0191, and does not represent an actual survey or location of Mile Branch Road. BEGINNING at a point ("Control Corner", "Pipe") at the southwest corner of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above in the southeast right of way of NC, Highway 57; thence along and with the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57 N. 41' 00' 38" E. 711.84' to a mathematical point in the west right of way of Mile Branch Road; thence continuing along the southeast right of way of NC Highway with the north right of way line of Mile Branch Road along two (2) courses as follows: (1) N. 41' 00' 38" E. 69.34' to a point ("Pipe") and (2) N. 41' 00' 35" E. 4.72' to a mathematical point in the east right of way of Mile Branch Road-, thence leaving the right of way of Mile Branch Road and continuing along and with the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57 N. 41' 00' 35" E. 526.17' to a mathematical point; thence leaving the right of way of NC Highway 57 along five (5) new zoning lines with Darrell W. Chandler as follows: (1) S. 14' 16' 38" E. 1025.32' to a mathematical point, (2) N. 86' 24' 18" W. 165.61' to a mathematical point, (3) N. 87* 21' 13" W. 252.13' to a mathematical point in the east right of way of Mile Branch Road, (4) N. 87' 21' 13" W. 35.68to a mathematical point in the centerline of Mile Branch Road and (5) with the centerline of Mile Branch 95 Road along a curve to the left having a radius of 1022.33' an arc length of 60.55' (chord bearing S. 31° 17' 04" E., chord distance 60.54') to a mathematical point in the south line of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above; thence with the south line of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 along five (5) courses as follows: (1) N. 87° 29' 47" W. 3.59' to a point ("PK"), (2) N. 87' 11' 02" W. 33.13' to a mathematical point in the west right of way of Mile Branch Road, (3) leaving the right of way of Mile Branch Road N. 87° 11' 02" W. 9.13' to a point ("Pipe"), (4) N. 87' 23' 21" W. 280.09' to a point ("Pipe") and (5) N. 87° 24' 05" W. 367.27 to a point ("Control Corner", "Pipe") at the southwest corner of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above in the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57, the place and POINT OF BEGINNING and being all of an area to be re-zoned from Orange County Zone AR to Orange County Zone REDA-CZ-1 containing 12.80 Acres. and, WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the UDO have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the 12 acre portion of the aforementioned parcel to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional Zoning district. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT in accordance with Section 2.9.2 (F) of the UDO the approval of this Conditional Zoning applicant is subject to the following mutually agreed to conditions: 1. The property shall be utilized only as a self-storage facility developed consistent with the submitted site plan. 2. Staff shall prepare a 'Declaration of Development Restrictions and Requirements' outlining all conditions and development limitations associated with this project that the applicant shall record within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds office within 90 days of approval. This document shall include an explanation of the allotment of impervious surface limits supporting the development of the proposed self-storage facility as well as the applicant's remaining property. 3. The proposal calls for the development of the project is 2 phases. Prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity for Phase 2 of the project, the applicant shall apply for and install a well in accordance with applicable Orange County Health Department requirements. 4. Retail sales from the proposed rental office shall be limited to packing supplies (i.e. boxes, table, packing materials, etc.) and shall not involve the sale of general retail items such as food, drinks, or other similar items not consistent with the use of the property as a self-storage facility. 96 5. The applicant shall be required to obtain final approval for the proposed dumpster pad location from Orange County Solid Waste prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity. 6. The applicant shall be required to obtain stormwater and erosion control permits from Orange County Erosion Control prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity. 7. The applicant shall be required to obtain a driveway permit from the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity. The applicant shall provide the Orange County Planning Department with a copy of this permit. 8. The applicant shall be required to obtain building permits from the Orange County Inspections Department prior to the commencement of construction activity. 9. The applicant shall be required to obtain sign permits from the Planning Department in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. 10.The applicant shall be required to maintain all required land use buffers in perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.8 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. 11.No ancillary commercial or residential use of individual storage facilities shall be permitted. This includes the use of storage facilities for automotive repair or retail sales. The applicant shall include this prohibition within storage unit lease documents informing clients of the prohibition. 12.No hazardous materials shall be stored on the property. The applicant shall include this prohibition within storage unit lease documents informing clients of the prohibition. 13.All required landscaping, as denoted on the site plan, shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy allowing for the units to be rented/occupied. 14.The applicant shall contract with a private solid waste contractor to remove trash from the site consistent with the submitted site plan and in accordance with the Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance. 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 Commissioners kAt- the foregoing ordinance was adopted this a day of , 2012. 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 97 Board at a meeting held on —4 , 2012 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 J day of 2012. to Cat, d'6� t� ® Clerk Y the oar of Commissioners t 52 1T 44' COO% orth Attachment 7 98 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An applicant-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Identification Township Owner of Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Number Record (PIN) • NC Highway 57 Speedway Area — Rural Economic NC Highway 57 Development Area Speedway Area — Conditional Zoning Rural Economic (REDA-CZ-1) Development Area Conditional Zoning Rougemont • Agricultural (REDA-CZ-1) 0910-23- Residential (AR) 7159 Little River Storage Center, LLC Little River Protected • Little River Watershed Overlay Protected District Watershed Overlay District Flat River Protected Watershed Overlay • Flat River Protected District Watershed Overlay District The Planning Board finds: 1. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and, 2. 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. a. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: i. 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. ii. 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. iii. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural 99 character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. iv. Objective LU-3.1: Discourage urban sprawl, encourage a separation of urban and rural land uses, and direct new development into areas where necessary community facilities and services exist through periodic updates to the Land Use Plan. The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein and recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment. David Blankfard, Chair Date Attachment 8 100 Ordinance#: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, this petition seeks to rezone a 7.37 acre portion of a 21.54 acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-23-7159) to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional Zoning for the purpose of expanding an existing self-storage facility. WHEREAS, this petition has been submitted in concert with a formal site plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO, and WHEREAS, the portion of property to be rezoned is further identified as follows: Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 0910-23-7159 Owner: Rougemont Storage Center, LLC Deed Reference: Deed Book 6620, Page 1210 Being that tract of land lying in Little River Township, Orange County, North Carolina, and more particularly described as follows: Being Tract No. 2 containing 8.74 acres as shown on plat (Plat Book 120, Page 115) and survey of Commissioner's Report, subdivision of Tract A of May Anna Clayton Estate by Alois Callemyn, Registered Land Surveyor, dated January 29, 1981, recorded in Plat Book 33, Page 72 Orange County Registry. The description above is based on the information in Deed Book 6620, Page 1210 and does not represent an actual field survey. and, WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the UDO have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the 7.37 acre portion of the aforementioned parcel to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional Zoning district. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT in accordance with Section 2.9.2 (F) of the UDO, the approval of this Conditional Zoning application is subject to the following mutually agreed to conditions: 1 101 1. Nothing associated with the approval of this request shall invalidate, alter, or otherwise be construed as alleviating compliance with conditions imposed by Orange County consistent with ORDINANCE 2012-0055 as approved on November 20, 2012; 2. The property shall be utilized only as a self-storage facility developed consistent with the submitted site plan as acted upon by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on February 2, 2021; 3. Orange County Planning Staff shall prepare a `Declaration of Development Restrictions and Requirements' outlining all conditions and development limitations associated with this project that the applicant shall record within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds office within 12 months of approval. This document shall include an explanation of the allotment of impervious surface limits supporting the development; 4. This proposal is for Rougemont Storage Phase 3. Prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activities for Phase 3, the applicant shall apply for and install a well in accordance with applicable Orange County Health Department requirements; 5. Retail sales from the proposed rental office shall be limited to packing supplies (i.e. boxes, table, packing materials, etc.) and shall not involve the sale of general retail items such as food, drinks, or other similar items not consistent with the use of the property as a self-storage facility; 6. The applicant shall be required to obtain final approval for any dumpster pad locations from Orange County Solid Waste prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity; 7. The applicant shall be required to obtain stormwater and erosion control permits from Orange County Erosion Control prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity; 8. The applicant shall be required to obtain building permits from the Orange County Inspections Department prior to the commencement of construction activity; 9. The applicant shall be required to obtain any and all permits from the Orange County Fire Marshal prior to the commencement of construction activity; 10.The applicant shall be required to obtain sign permits from the Planning Department in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO); 11.The applicant shall be required to maintain all required land use buffers in perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.8 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. 12.No ancillary commercial or residential use of individual storage facilities shall be permitted. This includes the use of storage facilities for automotive repair or retail sales. The applicant shall include this prohibition within storage unit lease documents informing clients of the prohibition; 13.No hazardous materials shall be stored on the property. 102 The applicant shall include this prohibition within storage unit lease documents informing clients of the prohibition; 14.All required landscaping, as denoted on the site plan, shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance allowing for the units to be rented/occupied; 15.The applicant shall contract with a private solid waste contractor to remove trash from the site consistent with the submitted site plan and in accordance with the Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance. 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 , 2021. I, 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 , 2021 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 2021. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 103 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 6, 2021 Action Agenda Item No. 9 SUBJECT: Planning Board Annual Report/Work Plan DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: (919) Annual Report / Work Plan Form Craig Benedict, 245-2592 Perdita Holtz, 245-2578 PURPOSE: To provide an annual report and work plan input to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). BACKGROUND: Each year the County Clerk's Office collects information from each of the County's advisory boards to prepare a report for an early spring BOCC work session. The annual report informs the BOCC of the past year's activities of advisory boards/commissions, as well as proposed activities for the upcoming year. Staff and advisory boards are asked to collaborate to complete the form that has been provided by the Clerk's Office and return by January 25. Proposed activities are to be consistent with the goals of the BOCC. The attached Annual Report / Work Plan form has been completed by staff for Planning Board review and comment. Some topics of prime interest include: 1. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Review and Report, Including Presentation of 2020 Census Data (to be released in early 2021) and County snapshots 2. Buckhorn Area Growth Strategy Study 3. Several identified amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) 4. Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement Map Amendments / Reconciliation of Future Land Use Map (FLUM)/Zoning Lines 5. Continue Training Sessions for Planning Board Members These topics are accented on the final three pages of the attachment. The Planning Board is involved with approximately 40 - 60% of the work Planning Department staff is responsible for (the percentage varies by year, depending on specific work being completed in a given year). For the upcoming year, Planning staff will be working and collaborating on some items for which other advisory boards have primary responsibility. Examples of these tasks are transportation planning and economic development issues (not related to the UDO) in partnership with the Economic Development Department. We hope that 104 we could jointly create somewhat of an advisory board joint meeting to discuss how our roles help contribute to the comprehensive nature of county wide principles and goals as identified in the multiple elements of our Comprehensive Plan. Some work items the Planning staff is responsible for do not go to an advisory board for a recommendation (for example, water and sewer engineering and the annual report related to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities ordinance [SAPFO]). RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Staff recommends the Planning Board: 1. Review the attached document prior to the meeting. 2. Discuss members' ideas about any additional activities to be worked on in 2021. 3. Either: a. Approve the attached Annual Report and Work Plan Form, or b. Ask staff to incorporate the results of any discussion into the Annual Report / Work Plan form and submit the form to the Clerk's office, or c. Ask staff to incorporate the results of any discussion into the Annual Report / Work Plan form bring the final form back to a special meeting (to be scheduled tonight) in order to meet the January 25 due date. 105 NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Planning Board Report Period: 2020 calendar year for annual report; 2021 calendar year for work plan ORANGE COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ANNUAL REPORT/ WORK PLAN FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The Board of Commissioners appreciates the dedication of all the volunteers on their boards and commissions and welcomes input from various advisory boards and commissions throughout the year. Please complete the following information, limited to the front and back of this form. Other background materials may be provided as a supplement to, but not as a substitute for, this form. Board/Commission Name: Planning Board Person to address the BOCC at work session- if applicable- and contact information: David Blankfard, Chair, (919) 259-9671, blankfard(a_hotmail.com Primary County Staff Contact: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; secondary contact: Perdita Holtz, Planner III (Planning Systems Coordinator) How many times per month does this board/commission meet, including any special meetings and sub-committee meetings? Generally once per month for a regular meeting + optional Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) or training session (ORC or training sessions occur prior to the regular meeting several times a year). In 2020, there was a lapse of meetings from March through July due to COVID. The Planning Board began meeting on- line via Zoom in August. There was one special meeting in August to continue review of the RTLP MPD-CZ application. Brief Statement of Board/Commission's Assigned Charge and Responsibilities. Under the authority of NC General Statute, the BOCC created the Planning Board to embark upon a continuing planning program, including but not limited to the preparation and maintenance of a Comprehensive Plan for Orange County, in protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents and businesses, landowners and visitors. The duties of the Planning Board are listed in Section 1.6.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance. What are your Board/Commission's most important accomplishments? Within last 2 years: • Reviewed and made recommendations on: o A UDO text amendment regarding the updated Table of Permitted Uses o Fairway Hills major subdivision 1 106 o A rezoning on Old Greensboro Highway (Lawton) o A rezoning on West Ten Road (Doby) More recently: • Reviewed and made recommendations on: o Amendments to the Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) and County Comprehensive Plan Future land Use Map (FLUM) to expand the Hillsborough EDD south of Interstate 40 o The Research Triangle Logistical Park (RTLP) MPD-CZ rezoning application o Rezoning of 8 parcels east of Old Highway 86 that were part of the former "Settlers Point" MPD-CZ o The Efland Station MPD-CZ rezoning application o A UDO Text Amendment regarding setbacks from the West Fork on the Eno Reservoir • Completed training sessions offered by Planning staff, including training regarding on-line meetings List of Specific Tasks, Events, or Functions Performed or Sponsored Annually. • Monthly Planning Board meetings • Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meetings and special meetings as required • Review applications for ordinance amendments, major subdivisions, and Class A special use permits and provide recommendations to the BOCC • Develop and recommend policies, ordinances, administrative procedures and other means for carrying out plans • Coordinate with staff on ongoing planning updates, changes, and new techniques Describe this board/commission's activities/accomplishments in carrying out BOCC goal(s)/priorities, if applicable. The Planning Board is involved in the ongoing implementation of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and any potential regulatory revisions resulting from updates to BOCC priorities. Describe the collaboration relationship(s) this particular board has with other advisory boards and commissions? In 2020, there was not direct collaboration with other advisory boards (e.g., joint meetings). However, after the 2020 U.S. Census data is released in early 2021, there will need to be an evaluation of the data and perhaps an appraisal report of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2008. This work would involve multiple departments and advisory boards. If your board/commission played the role of an Element Lead Advisory Board involved in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan preparation process, please indicate 2 107 your board's activities/accomplishments as they may relate to the Comprehensive Plan's goals or objectives. (The Element Lead Advisory Boards include: Planning Board, EDC, OUTBoard, Commission for the Environment, Historic Preservation Commission, Agriculture Preservation Board, Affordable Housing Board, Recreation and Parks Advisory Council) 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. Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. Objective LU-1.2: Evaluate and report on whether existing and approved locations for future residential and non-residential developments are coordinated with the location of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer services, high- speed internet access, streets and sidewalks). 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. Objective LU-3.1: Discourage urban sprawl, encourage a separation of urban and rural land uses, and direct new development into areas where necessary community facilities and services exist through periodic updates to the Land Use Plan. Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. Economic Development Overarching Goal: Viable and sustainable economic development that contributes to both property and sales tax 3 108 revenues, and enhances high quality employment opportunities for County residents. Objective ED-1.5: Identify barriers to development of desirable businesses and local businesses, and mitigate these barriers. Transportation Goal 3: Integrated land use planning and transportation planning that serves existing development supports future development, and is consistent with the County's land use plans which include provisions for preserving the natural environment and community character. Identify any activities this board/commission expects to carry out in 2021 as they relate to established BOCC goals and priorities. If applicable, is there a fiscal impact (i.e., funding, staff time, other resources) associated with these proposed activities (please list). The Board will continue its work in partnership with staff to further BOCC priorities, some of which may emerge at the January 2021 BOCC retreat: 1. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Review and Report, Including Presentation of 2020 Census data and County snapshots: After the 2020 US Census data is released in early 2021, staff anticipates reviewing and presenting the information to help inform staff recommendations or options for the scope and any budget implications of a potential Comprehensive Plan Update. 2. UDO Amendments Required by State Statute Section 160D: Staff is currently completing UDO amendments required by statute changes. Amendments are required to be adopted by July 1, 2021. 3. Zoning Atlas Amendment — Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District: Zoning Atlas amendments are necessary to address the City of Durham's relocation of a public water intake. The amendments are anticipated in the first half of 2021. 4. Analysis of and Revisions to the Economic Development Zoning Districts and Regulations: In support of economic development efforts, staff is currently working on an analysis on how to best revise the existing economic development zoning districts to streamline the numerous districts into fewer districts that would apply to all three economic development districts (EDDs). Staff anticipates bringing forward amendments after the amendments related to "160D" are adopted because of the extensive revisions included in the "160D" amendments. 5. Buckhorn Area Growth Strategy Study: Collaborative planning with the City of Mebane to add clarity to Mebane's potential growth areas and relationship to the County's plans and agreements is expected in 2021. 6. UDO Amendments Related to Stormwater: Staff has identified necessary amendments to the UDO regarding stormwater issues and plans to bring 4 109 forward amendments in 2021. 7. UDO Amendments Related to Signage: As a result of recent court decisions, Staff has determined amendments are necessary to the UDO regarding signage and plans to bring forward amendments in 2021. 8. UDO Amendments Related to Private Roads: Staff has identified amendments to the UDO to update out-of-date development requirements for private roads and plans to bring forward amendments in 2021. 9. UDO Text Amendment to create a Rural Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District: Work on a Rural MPD-CZ began a couple of years ago but was sidelined by other priorities. Staff intends to revitalize the past work and bring forward text amendments to create a new zoning district in 2021. 10.UDO Amendments Related to Flood Damage Prevention Regulations: Changes to the federal model flood ordinance are expected in the Spring of 2021. It is expected that local governments will have to update regulations as a result of the changes. 11.Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement Map Amendments / Reconciliation of Future Land Use Map (FLUM)/Zoning Lines: Work with WASMPBA partners to bring forward amendments to reconcile discrepancies in the WASMPBA "Primary Service Area," County Future Land Use Map (FLUM)/Zoning lines, and any discrepancies on similar municipal maps. 12.Affordable and Senior Housing, including Co-Housing: On-going need for affordable housing opportunities, including senior housing, in the county. Continue to work with the Housing and Community Development Department on the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan and develop any necessary regulatory amendments that will further the plan. 13.Continue Training for Planning Board Members: Planning staff will continue to offer training to Planning Board members on an as-needed basis. Suggestions on additional topics for training are welcome. 14.Legislative Changes: Amend regulations as necessary in response to legislative changes at the State level. Amend the UDO to provide BOCC- identified uses as potential permitted uses. 15.2021 BOCC Retreat: Any priorities that emerge at the January 2021 BOCC retreat. What are the concerns or emerging issues your board has identified for the upcoming year that it plans to address, or wishes to bring to the Commissioners' attention? 1. Wireless and Broadband Access: The County (IT Department) completed a study regarding wireless and broadband access in rural areas and is in the 5 110 beginning stages of partnering with providers to implement a program, which will begin in the northern portion of the county. Coordinate with EMS for comingled use of towers for public safety, private use (with revenue), and public wireless augmentation. 2. Climate Change: Encourage builders to take into account long-term changes; for example: encourage building locations well beyond the 100-year floodplain to account for possible increases in flooded areas. Encourage better building standards to withstand stronger storms. 3. Energy: Continue to allow solar arrays in appropriate areas, perhaps performing a reanalysis of locational criteria. Revisit energy information in the County's Comprehensive Plan to expand information on the variety of energy types (DEAPR is the lead Department on this Element of the Comprehensive Plan). 4. Watershed Review and Implications of County vs. State Watershed Delineations: Review the County and State watershed delineation lines and the implications of current differences. Modify rules if determined. Include as adjunct regulations, storm water standards. 5. Rural Enterprises: Determine need to address innovative water & sewage disposal issues in the Rural Activity Nodes to encourage development in these nodes. Evaluate non-residential acreage thresholds and determine if changes are necessary. 6. Transportation Issues: Evaluate the need for better public transit in rural areas, including senior citizen mobility, transit dependent and commuter populations. Determine if rural "transit oriented development" could be hubs of transit located in the rural community nodes. Accent focus on transit dependent populations and their connection to other transit infrastructure. 7. Nuisance Ordinance: Consider a nuisance ordinance addressing junked cars and unkempt property (old tires, etc.) for Economic Development, Commercial, and Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Nodes and areas adjacent to these land use classifications to "protect" these areas slated for economic development projects. In addition, consider these "city-like" rules in "urban" transition land use classifications of the county to protect existing community value. 8. Long-Term Planning for Potable Water and Waste Disposal: Planning for potable water and waste (wastewater and solid waste) should continue to be a topic for study (i.e., supportive infrastructure analysis) and discussion as growth in Orange County continues. 6