Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 06-06-2023; 5-b - Zoning Atlas Amendment MA22-0004 – Parcel Located off Lawrence Road and US 70A, in Eno Township
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 6, 2023 Action Agenda Item No. 5-b SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment MA22-0004 — Parcel Located off Lawrence Road and US 70A, in Eno Township DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Application, Including Site Plan and Taylor Perschau, Current Planning & Zoning Supplemental Materials Supervisor, (919) 245-2597 2. Staff Report Cy Stober, Director, (919) 245-2592 3. Notification Materials and Certification 4. Notes from Neighborhood Information Meeting 5. Project Correspondence and Development Advisory Committee Comments 6. Excerpts of Approved April 5, 2023 and Draft April 19 and May 3, 2023 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7. Statement of Consistency 8. State of Inconsistency 9. Draft Ordinance PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing, receive the Planning Board/staff recommendations and public comment, close the public hearing, and consider action on an applicant-initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone +/- 84.90 acres (PIN: 9883-19-4355) located off Lawrence Road and US 70A, within the Eno Township of Orange County. The proposed rezoning is: From: R-1 Rural Residential To: MPD-CD Master Plan Development Conditional District BACKGROUND: On December 2, 2022 a Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment application was received proposing to rezone +/- 84.90 acres of property at PIN: 9883-19-4355 within Eno Township. Full application materials, including the complete traffic impact analysis, can be found here: https://centralpermits.orangecountync.gov/EnerGov Prod/SelfService#/plan/b6f9e633- e5e8-471 d-8d81-4c10e0a2739e?tab=attachments. The Staff Report in Attachment 2 contains additional information, maps, and analysis. 2 Basic Review Process: A MPD-CD rezoning application requires submission of a master plan consistent with the provisions of Section 6.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The typical cadence for review is as follows: • First Action — Applicant holds a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Staff Comment — DONE. This meeting was held on March 1, 2023. Notes from this meeting are in Attachment 4. • Second Action — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. Staff Comment — The Planning Board reviewed the application at its regular meeting on April 5, 2023 and continued deliberations at a Special Meeting on April 19, 2023, with a formal recommendation on this item occurring at its May 3, 2023 regular meeting. • Third Action — The BOCC receives the Planning Board and staff recommendations at an advertised public hearing and makes a decision on the application. Staff Comment — The public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, June 6, 2023. Per Section 2.9.1 (F) (3) of the UDO, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part this process only if they address: a. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, and b. Proposed support facilities (i.e., access points, parking areas and driveways, pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, the timing of development, right-of-way improvements, storm water drainage, the provision of open space, etc.) The BOCC may not base a rezoning decision on the impacts to the transportation network, though this often is a developer responsibility for conditional zoning applications. Per North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 160D-701, imposed conditions and site-specific standards are limited to those that address conformance of the development and use of the site to local government ordinances and adopted plans or the impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development or use of the site. However, pursuant to NCGS 160D-701, "...as a basis for denying a zoning or rezoning request from a school, the level of service of a road facility or facilities abutting the school or proximately located to the school [may not be considered]". This responsibility is instead assigned to the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) via NCGS 136-18(29a), the Municipal School Transportation Assistance statute, which specifies traffic generation calculations for schools and review parameters for NCDOT to estimate impacts to the local transportation network ("highway system"). It also requires the NCDOT to reimburse the school for any transportation improvements to the highway system required by the State. The NCDOT District 7 is requiring the construction of left turn lanes with 150' of full storage at both site driveways (US 70A and Lawrence Road). NCDOT will reimburse the school for the construction, per NCGS 135-18(29A). The NCDOT District 7 memorandum regarding the analysis and required improvements to the transportation network is found in Attachment 5. As a condition of approval, the applicant is volunteering to construct southbound and northbound left- turn lanes on Lawrence Road at the intersection of Lawrence Road and US 70. This offer to construct would be accompanied by the posting of a performance bond with NCDOT to guarantee the construction of the aforementioned turn lanes. Should such construction not be acceptable due to lack of available right-of-way or disapproval by any necessary regulatory 3 authority, the applicant offers to instead pay $400,000 to Orange County. Either one of these commitments is offered to be realized prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the school. Approval of a master plan is part of the MPD-CD rezoning process. Development, including permitted land uses, would be in accordance with the approved master plan and conditions imposed as part of the MPD-CD rezoning process. A site plan has been provided to comply with the Schools: Preparatory standards required by Section 5.8.4 of the LIDO and Recreational Facilities standards required by Section 5.7.2 of the UDO. The site plan will be binding, should the application be approved. The applicant has not requested conditions to deviate from the general development standards established in Article 6 of the UDO. Staff has recommended the imposition of conditions, as included in the Ordinance in Attachment 9. Staff review and comments are limited to the following conditions requested by the applicant: 1. Application: Project shall be completed as presented in approved site plan/application packet. Applications to rezone property to the MPD-CD Conditional District shall be processed in accordance with the procedures in UDO Section 2.9 and 6.7; 2. To construct left turn lanes with 150' of full storage at both site driveways (US 70A and Lawrence Road); and 3. To construct southbound and northbound left-turn lanes on Lawrence Road at the intersection of Lawrence Road and US 70 as described previously, with, preferably, accompaniment of a performance bond with NCDOT, or, alternatively, payment of $400,000 to Orange County for the purpose of local transportation improvements. Either one of these commitments must be secured prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the charter school. A motion to approve with specified conditions at the April 19, 2023 Planning Board Special Meeting resulted in a 5-5 vote and the motion did not carry. The seven (7) conditions detailed in the motion remain as part of the applicant's offered conditions and are as follows (minutes detailed in Attachment 6): 1. Installation of a Type C buffer along Lawrence Road prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance for the school; 2. Lighting for the tennis courts shall be the minimum necessary to meet UDO requirements; 3. The property owner shall conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) five (5) years after the opening of the school and submit the TIA to Orange County Planning and Inspections Department; 4. All handicapped parking spaces shall be installed with striped hashmarks to provide additional separation between vehicles; 5. Subject to approval by the NCDOT, the property owner shall install a concrete median along with additional striping on Lawrence Road at the intersection with Old NC 10 Highway prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance for the school; 6. Subject to approval by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the property owner shall install school zone/35 m.p.h. speed limit signage on Lawrence Road and US 70A in the vicinity of the school; 7. Subject to approval by the Town of Hillsborough and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, in the event water service is provided to the school, the property owner shall install fire hydrants at required intervals along US 70A prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance for the school. 4 Following the Planning Board's formal recommendation of denial for this application at the May 3, 2023 regular meeting, the applicant amended the list of offered conditions to include the following two (2) conditions: 1. There will be no cafeteria facilities if the site is served by an on-site septic system; and 2. For a minimum of six months after approval of this zoning atlas amendment, the applicant shall not submit any site plan application for approximately 12 acres designated for a school use within PIN 9883-19-4355, and during those six months the applicant shall grant the Orange County School District an exclusive right to negotiate the purchase or lease of approximately 12 acres for use as a K-8 school. Development of the property shall be permitted only through the review and approval of a future site plan application(s) in accordance with Section 2.5, 2.18, and 2.19, respectively, 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 LIDO. The applicant is proposing to serve the schools with water and sewer service from the Town of Hillsborough, as the Town is required to reserve capacity for an approved school by NCGS 115C-521(j). One school has an approved charter. However, as shown in two documents in Attachment 1, the "Reconnaissance Soil and Site Evaluation" and the letter from Wood Soil Consultants, the onsite septic drain fields have been evaluated to accommodate the needs of a total daily wastewater use of 12,000 gallons per day, reflecting a population of 1,200 students and presuming no cafeteria will be a part of school operations. Public Notifications: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the LIDO, notices of the Public Hearing were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel. These notices were mailed on May 22, 2023, 15 days before the hearing. Staff also posted the subject parcel with a sign [or signs] on May 22, 2023, 15 days before the hearing. See Attachment 3 for the notification materials. Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the zoning atlas amendment at its April 5, 2023 regular meeting with deliberations of this item continuing at a Special Meeting on April 19, 2023 and a formal recommendation occurring at its May 3, 2023 regular meeting. At the April 19 meeting, the Board voted 5-5 on a motion to recommend approval of the application with the seven (7) additional conditions, which are detailed above. The Board was not able to achieve a majority vote to make a recommendation to the BOCC at its April 19 meeting. At the May 3 meeting, the Board voted 7-3 to recommend denial of the Statement of Consistency and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 6). The rationale of the recommendation for denial was due to stated inconsistencies with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Objectives 1 .1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.2, and 6.2; and inconsistency with the Mixed Residential Neighborhood description on the Central Orange Coordinated Area joint land use agreement with the Town of Hillsborough because it does not provide walkability on the public road network; and the project does not match the residential character of the local neighborhood. Staff has included several of these rationale for vote to recommend denial in the Statement of Inconsistency provided in Attachment 8. Excerpts of the draft minutes from the May 3, 2023 meeting are included in Attachment 6. Agenda materials from the meeting can be viewed at: https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26. 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 parcels as contained in Attachment 9. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments which have determined that the approval of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising, including meeting and public hearing notice and mailings, are covered by the application fee. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to this item: • GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal impact associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Conduct the public hearing and receive the Planning Board and staff recommendations and public comments; 2. Close the public hearing; and 3. Vote to Approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) and Zoning Atlas Amendments (Attachment 9). OR Vote to Deny the Zoning Atlas Amendments along with the Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment 8) and/or a finding that the application is neither reasonable nor in the public interest. 6 �- Orant4e County Planning and Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY APPLICATION FOR NORTH CAROLINA ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT CONDITIONAL DISTRICT (CD) APPLICANT INFORMATION: Date: 12/02/2022 Applicant: James Parker, Lawrence Road Partners, LLC Phone: 919.732.3883 Address: 320 Executive Court Cell Phone: Hillsborough, NC 27278 E-mail: james.parker@summitde.com PROPERTY SUBJECT TO REQUEST: Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 9883194355 Address of property: T.B.D. Owner of property: Lawrence Road Properties, LLC Future Land Use Designation for Property: Lawrence Road Properties, LLC Current Zoning Designation: R1 Requested Zoning Designation: Master Plan Development - Conditional District ** If Applicant/Owner are different people, include a signed, notarized, statement indicating that the owner has authorized the applicant to submit the request. In cases where there are multiple property owners, please attach an additional document containing their signatures authorizing the submission of the application or other legal documentation establishing the applicants right to file on their behalf. SUBMITTAL INFORMATION - Section 2.9.2 (C) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) 1)A site plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.5 of the UDO. Applications for a Master Plan Development (MPD) CD shall abide by the site plan preparation requirements outlined in Section 6.7 of the UDO. 2)All CD applications, regardless of type, shall include a detailed landscape plan showing the location of on-site significant trees; proposed screening, buffers, and landscaping; and any proposed treatment of any existing natural features; 3)A detailed description of the proposed use of property including an outline of the proposed development. This will include a detailed summary of proposed utility services. Applications for a 7 Home Park (HP) CD, the utility service plan shall specify if the proposed services are temporary or permanent connections; 4)A detailed traffic survey, regardless of estimated daily trips, prepared in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) requirements and Section 6.17 of the UDO; 5) The appropriate environmental document(s) prepared in accordance with Section 6.16 of the UDO; 6) A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal. 7) Other information identified during the pre-application conference deemed essential to demonstrate the project's compliance with these regulations. 8) The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule in affect as of the date of the application. I (we), the undersigned, have been made aware of the process for the review and action associated with a UDO Zoning Atlas Amendment application and understand only completed applications, containing all information required by the Orange County UDO shall be reviewed and acted upon by the County. Further I (we) understand that any assistance I (we) may receive from County staff in preparing this application in no way guarantees a favorable recommendation by staff on the merits of this proposal nor does it guarantee an approval of the proposed atlas amendment by the County. Applic t Date: Applicant Date: 8 USUMMIT DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES November 3, 2022 RE: Zoning Atlas Amendment Application for Lawrence Road Development, PIN 9883194355 Narrative Statement 2.8.3 (C) The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text that would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development text and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the alleged error. The project proposes to change the Zoning Designation of the subject parcel. Currently, the parcel is zoned R-1, and this application proposes to change the Designation to Master Plan Development Conditional District(MPD-CD) to allow for the proposed non-residential land uses. 2.8.3 (D) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which makes the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text amendment reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety and general welfare; According to Census.gov, Orange County's population has grown by more than 11% since 2010. The Town of Hillsborough itself has grown by more than 59% in that same time period. According to the Census 2020 summary available on the Orange County website, there are more than 29,000 children under the age of 18 in Orange County. Per the National Center for Education Statistics, the Orange County School District has fewer than 7,100 students enrolled. Based on these trends and the proximity of this site to the quickly growing Town of Hillsborough, this project proposes to provide much needed educational facilities as well as recreational facilities for the health and welfare of the growing general population. 2.8.3 (E) The manner in which the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof; an The proposed Zoning Atlas amendment would allow a change in use of the parcel, from Rural Residential(R-1) which allows rural, non-farm residential development to Master Plan Development Conditional District(MPD-CD) which allows for School: Preparatory uses as well as Recreational Facilities (Recreational Facilities are subject to use standards). The proposed Zoning Atlas amendment is aligned with the Future Land Use designations due to the `20 Year Transition' delineation of the parcel. MPD-CD districts are limited to Transition Land Use Categories, such as the `20 Year Transition', as defined in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Headquarters Office 320 Executive Court, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919.732.3883 // www.summitde.com 9 2.8.3 (G) All other circumstances, factors and reasons that the applicant offers in support of the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text amendment. Please see the other sections of the Narrative Statement. 2.9.1 (C)(1)(b) A detailed description of the proposed use of property including an outline of the proposed development. The proposed use of the property includes school facilities and recreational facilities. Parcels A& C accommodate land uses for Recreational Facilities, and Parcel B will serve land uses for School: Preparatory m 2 10 Sheet List Table MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT — Sheet Numbx Sheet T.. C-1 COVER SHEET CONDITIONAL ZONING C-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C-3 SITE PLAN .*R o C-4 SANITARY SEWER ROUTING LAWRENCE ROAD C-5 WATER MAIN CONNECTION z C-6 UTILITY MASTER PLAN C-7 UTILITY MASTER PLAN(CONT) DEVELOPMENT C-8 UTILITY MASTER PLAN(CONT) C-9 I LANDSCAPE&TREE PROTECTION PLAN s LAWRENCE ROAD �=�==1mEoZN`=ry "FEooEw HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 E�. Al o SUBMITTAL#1 NOVEMBER 4,2022 y e } i °�` eb 4• ;e•g� GEwPwA _ rwwEExar,wmao PwT,PGGwRwGmPGGnGGePM wR SUBMITTAL#2 DECEMBER 2,2022 GnGwry Gw meG,Eeaw�,eerGa "„PPS,w,. xPaovloEGFDR TowmGPw,�xc� PwGwr orvwmmPwsEGPPAwAUETGwe-w.r uwP�AG 8[cs r s 7, T a s" P vnusrwasarniswuuri�sawswav aaw anr>E xw,mmeaa nrsv xm„rvoau�sxr Dave e�ro rv�wFsrasrmcscrvoaisu,owu o°r romc CURRENT OWNER DEVELOPEWFUTURE OWNER ENGINEER CONTACTo E .,_=H_ rm,IGx scxaas,,PANE...T ,UTL.I ARGw ALTL meNi�rscxo HLE.l,ewar.xo PaRwlw meP�wxG,nTT.m.o Txar mesexa1 'u ewrrornewecr eENB c"°30� GORouGx wc� xs uz xeerew ®b S re wnoNEE. .o T ..E—GT.—Nx me aree,N=<rvaxmoeeacx—.1 SITE LOCATION MAP ?3 5r - TrxArP e-�w,n w�ery� °rmEs"s,P-1---rvesarawr NTM G�GIwG.me T.x.G,eerv—E�GPeGasre NG wGNG—E GGEN.I.wlm xoR�seG.meNerGR oeaR m,,TFIG PARCELS vowuss Tas l,uuren sr aw A,P.vwPOPm. PUBLIC SERVICE CONTACTS: PIN:9883194355 NOT POR exrsmeErveax No meNeearee,n is amciPn mararveva D 5509 PG B 448 Ponnow of NP PsacxouR miPs ss�owwou,n ovsnve wrtNmswuceursmesr Peix xauR. ."•1. AreN. s Pwwar se uGp PIaE°ssnar,.Erv, PROPOSED ZONING MPD-CD wPEwwv,wlm rsPxoxluarnv,so wswrvlPsouawsmePVPPaxxaua GPxsaaxoa ^^Iwou,nuxur G__=_M_ wusswouGx,xc IINE-1EF 84.9 ACRES _Y♦�T'R}7tls`Ys� '.NecPrnnowu Ylmswlujxorecur. seevreeuNuuR swwN . eweN. 's,relzx.w„ P „ SITE INFORMATION smrewowrvnr1 rvuervT wea mussGRouGx,xc Is,s,sa+nm "."c z,+m !G'lAM0.�.o• s„izx�, ,o,ru,Tens,uc CONSTRUCTTON exGweeRs. Remuw1.THEIN TUN.crane rxvereawseuereoesixccorr„ece euro .eePENunTeomrecw,noNArveecanrv,r.rveoewre.xomecGNes or rawwn eN. cn.Te Pre u.R s xier uGxI PIRE OPsnR,MPwr xiuseoxouo URI ER,xc nz ze Dawson PENT,<oNArvGeoouwrr N-Al"l—PPw,c:x.,,11 11 roo„owAT:wvAuxoocAPE.wcxlTar ,PNw�oemePer�rAraE uxoGc.Pe ,w _ N SN- XM PraeN.caR _ mucmNPwasre Gx.uw ow.rax Nwwou, s,wsco-nse Am,xcnrwsFrew oaoass. N rsrxrvcu<ouaiu 1 1 vRovme N—ENT —Nem N IN-—E AN. naxs. w",evoukm1=1 cowmoT omweT,wPGwwoem , �,or ouc,,,ncxms zaxwG. A S= �`,�eA����:�P�wGGwP�„nG°w`G� GP�Guwn�ooQaR�'�,�_��E� G�wRxGo~srRGTGwGwAwwGGF P GPG�GARr � u� s<nGGes�ePaNaroNr �n���� UNT" ,NANeMnx®s�rv.GG� -0� „n, e reG III ,Pe roaG, NGGA " BVxArere�G ...e„P z %j Fl o Ge H rf oe h IN REI h GPe G,IGw= IwGo w©eGG n mGP W s u wI w rvww T.T. GaR� °,,,P,. aG,e„tiGP 1ND�a Q arve-E.1 mR. eN ,.—111LLG,GN—N �A Gre AIw ,,a, T , o a W ENr G GGry GrvTn�G ww° z W T i GwTG w” wo w m > xd� O g w a5� U 1 w Ro 2 2-0 214� P4 -N- F cn �-02o14_C51.tlwg Kno what's bBIOW. Re C-'� 11 o 1 x 4 1 1 m Asod l g�R� go i I / i 3 i wrm�a L ` _ F sz, l.t v1 dry I 3 - e f .lam \ 4 L EXISTING WOODS LINE r J " 3 p' DISTURBED WETLAND W1 (PER l ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT) CULVERT 1�� ss NOT FOR m IXISTING STREAM(Si) U° 1 PER ENVIRONMENTAL W a REPORT(INTERMITTENT) >' 4 a _ EXISTING STREAM(S3) L PER ENVIRONMENTAL � I 988.3194355( REPORT(PERENNIAL) - I - CONSTRUCTION 84.5 ACRES UNDISTURBED WETLAND,W2 i C MEADOWMONTFARMS II (PER PER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT) FOS DB 5509,PG 448 1 (( ) LOWER ENO PROTECTED& FIELD UNPROTECTED I ZONED RI a I ' ( WOODED J J AREA IL �w 1A a sirn sxN' Gtr]i Z W IGSTREAM 2) xw1PERENVIRONMENTAL REPORT(INTERMITTENT) Z� 7 \ f urtn FW�+o v'tYo,an .�I_ I eallo �M,y��Z O as _ ar rvotyN E araousE.er ovsE ua[. usc.sr —— —_ W�y --A 11 esteuw seaareatse seeafe,�re [o xz muco ae ewe m �.. / { - x ury -ssxrvcxxa KN \ _ s u ousrcx Wr7 g3 W , oRaPMcscALo "22N0214 zzazta_xc:awe Kno wn rsbelow. w �.'da11--y—dig. 12 PARCEL A 18.48 ACRES PROPOSED ZONING:MPD-CD WITH MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT OF 60' PARCELC LAND USE:RECREATIONAL FACILITY \ U`SH 38.18 ACRES PROPOSED ZONING:MPD-CD WITH MAX ALLOWABLE o BUILDING HEIGHT OF 60' wq5 II _ / / / / / LAND USE:RECREATIONAL p TON°^ I l -�/ FACILITY J r ; W PICKLE BALL FACILITY 1 moi, LLQ / INDOOR RECREATION cy / 4¢/ `AF�RE (1fy7 R R,ETERVED FO if j ovmn � � � s'r°sa`"•�Hm° hsnoae».wwce � / � / ' / � � �a`3? �3 oo —n SKATE - sfR�Meu�E s , \ i NOT FOR p0= /a/ House" crc°p An 4 ie PARK q/ RESERVED OR tm,u,sz / Pam SEPTIC FIELD H. L HIGH FOR ALL PROPOS ED8STPOND / PARCELS 1 CHOOL W a I ATHLETIC FIELD a l °� Q$ / / • LOWER �INI-I�{'-I�{I-I�III(� SEFOR ALLLD v I CONSTRUCTION / I O SCHOOL / / LJ PARCELS s g EPTICFIELD FDR FILE°vPp FIELD / �/ ALL PARCELS II' / I / ATHLETIC I I l I FIELD en _ o o I woo v l h// / o BASEBALL e O BASEBALL FIELDS Q FIELDS ` v o e. z> w z PARCEL B �� L L_ -__ � � W 26.45 ACRES —————————— z p z PROPOSED ZONING:MPD-CD W'o a rc WITH MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT OF 60' LAND USE:SCHOOLS-PREPARATORY /_g �- .aaM�na 8 &E o0 'R JAY CIRCLE 22-0214 a,� o \ oFw � �\ ,,,�aiF a rsR,ess,rmeoauc wAn F cxAvxc aI.E 11114 no _S.- Kwwhal'sbelow. Cell before you dig. \ c,,,�qp L "C- 13 T. ao s sw — rk, 20 osawy':. r' t��X330 Ir _ g J� • .; J � NOT 'IN ---- -- — . � K •.• � .: -0 }i_ � � �' � �_ I�Y I ® ® � � it } �!/�I�W,o`�� -=��:' % ,_ — • � � - P," �, - h I I�V i coNsra�crfoN WASHINGTON DR d z 0 c� W Z �w Z) op 0 Q w ' w � g w r � 3 ¢Ull ol } i Z W-� w$ aC3 a fn X22 0214 GRaPNICSe 22-0214_PP ROAO.dwg imowwnee:below. ® Call before you dig. `n�'r�. C 4 14 —F——A JITINI'V� z? "ZI ono use sFr IE........... IIIIVIIIIIrr --INI V \ �Hu u e SM / ' T r, FOR 4 is z r II'I � I i� Op o I Z d z 0 WU z W 22-0214 IN111Z I G—C SCALF 22-0214 UtffityP.d, K—A.t's below. Call before you dig. C-5 15 - --ts --- — ry �,s-ate ——— ---- I� I ---- ---- - - --- .-. .......... _ 3' 1 ■ tl II 1 I� g N x moo;. � W x x 4 LL e W rn^In Ing p � W �2� o4W oK`i' 2 O x mph I � I 00 WJ aptii M LL 2 ��� ��ti O �W`u a'N2NSW N� 2J 1 N2 OO optil ro' p ) IE - HN2 oZj owl op LLi v2� v2J aN2 I wN 5 5 �°vz° �N° moo �N x X02 ^x 3 1 SI --�-- - -_-- 5 5 mNa --�-- S ropQ I VOT POR s —-- -- 40'pEVELOPMENi PERIMETER BUFFER --�.� --� a —- II n yam. III — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — JI I z I � FL0 cc a F r, ' — - ---- - - --- zQ a Is —--—_I-- i, - - ------ w� P w w U) 1 —EXISTING STREAM(SF wo V�i o Q j UNDISTURBED WETLAND.W2 REPORT,I.JTE—ITTENTI PER FWVIRONMENTAL v k til IZ O�j -----_------ --- -_-_ 40'S_T EET SIDE SETBACK (PER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORn ------o --------------- --------—------------------------------- - - - .... .. .. o . -. - .. - - - _ - - - RROA.D -- -- - --- - e( � wp COLLECTOR ROAD- j II` I 22-0214 t — FM FM-_---- �♦b 40'STREET SIDE SETBACK 22-0216 UtilitYP.dwg .. .. 1 - 2s o Izs is so srtsFrxo. 16 S HWY 70A --_----- (60'PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY) - E.mxo � m - I I z B II 1 O W 2 V es�ce4 ? Q ro 2� w r7 � ��e.g�.•� 1 O1 NN e N W] m vi W °dg•g�e£$a I' w � z No N I m Wj 2 N a I UNDISTURBED WETLAND,W2 NO Wa y w K u I I I (PER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT) o� I N a F s e �" I' I VO I I 1—4O'DEVEL_OPMENT PERIMETER BUFFER -•�.,. I I —_ __________ (_=_ / I ___ II I EXISTING STREAM(51) I I PER ENVIRONMENTAL .I REPORT(INTERMITTENT) \n y IND s ✓ y / \ EXISTING STREAM PSI A PER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT(PERENNIAL) 1 I. �m a z roa I�___— ✓� / 1 m W O > ( AREA / W W O I PROPOSED OND O W TP BASEBALL \ ` 1 m Q � �I I / ✓ � FIELDS y,\ ` � 'W.o b 1 • ,�Q$ � � wNS= � a 4 Q O _ ' zR o wE Mal wuwixcxu�E BASEBALL 22-0216—Uti11tYP.d.g Knowwhat's below. FIELDS 0811 before you dig. C-7 17 �r COLLECTOR ROAD (60 RIDHr aF wnvl 0 0 a s a sII FORCE MAIN —rte o 4'FORCE MAIN t t,�.. } 6 (PRIVATE) _ __ (PRIVATE) -------- -- — - -- -- 40'STREETSIDE; r -- dO STREET SIDE SETBACK .� �._ �p 1 All I � I 1 II t I m 1 I SEPTIC FIELD FOR 8�Ec5 1 m$. � ALL PARCELS Io'R"A<3 i,R'oa ATHLETIC ®"a r `[°� Se"' FIELD HIGH _o H.mx3d€9,a5y 1 SCHOOL LOWER FIELD i3If _ 1 ,3 x SCHOOL I I I W �sw��gm§e� I w i I – 1 1 o I a>vvO IPRvr / G 7 AE v O O NOT FOR 1 I _ dada aaa s sartewcert7 I " t " o. BASEBALL y_"„</AMR�,�" 1 I t ”' FIELDS 1 ISI 1 II II 'co N N II I 1 I ` AREARESERVED FOR G 1 I t t PROPOSED WET P.No I �' ATHLETID tPOSSIBLE USE FOR `' 3 I I FIELD IRRIGATION AND FIRE $g SUPPRESSION SUPPLY =d9 1 I II II 1 b t 0++40 Y�gd I II 11 II I I I a++0 J 11 mart . / F^ III 11 � rtN,..EHn I 11 I �ELrt� I I ,Z w O i 1 i III z W z 1 \ Q a z pA rtl,rtE _ J — a'a LU �w n zW M _ I __—— 40'DEVELOPMENT PERIETER BUFFER � 9883180534 LAND U 98ao0bo6t)4 988308850 ZONED R4 rtws�rta 220214 Know whaes below. L zz-ozia_ullatyP.awa Cell before you dig. wAreRTARK AND PUMPISA"""LE I�e�sou M•rRo. E DETERMINED AT TAE CONS -TION PLAN PRASE. a 18 / PLANTING SCHEDULE ((� �YLEGGEyND���)NAME DESCRIPTION 'V.✓ N m / TREE PROTECTION AREA EXISTING/ TREES,REGARDLESS OE SIZE,SHALL NOT BE CUT OR OTHERWISE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.LOCATED IN FRONT,SIDE,AND o REAR YARD SETBACK AREAS,STREAM BUFFERS AND LAND USE BUFFERS / WHERE EXISTING TREES ARE PRESENT. / + BUFFER TYPE C-MIXED LOCATED AROUND DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER WHERE EXISTING TREES y- ARE NOT PRESENT.PER EVERY 100 LINEAR FEET.3 CANOPY TREE,1 EVERGREEN TREE,2 DECIDUOUS UNDERSTORY TREES,5 EVERGREEN UNDERSTORY TREES,40 SHRUBS LOCATED ALONG PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREET FRONTAGE.PER EVERY q O+ STREET TREES 65 FEET:1 CANOPY TREE,1 UNDERSTORY TREE(DECIDUOUS OR 'p EVERGREEN).CLUSTERING IS ENCOURAGED;MUST BE AT LEAST 1 TREE FOR EVERY 100 LINEAR FEET = waw spgw / + d y� Eg A,s•t/ sJ y ,"� "ry \ VEHICLE USELANDSCAPING MUSTBALL AT SPACESLEAST 30 WITHIN N OFCANOPY ITHA TERMINAL CANOPY INTERIOR LANDSCAPING MUST BEATLL AST SHRUBS T D GROUN ED WITH A MIN OF I CANOPY 5 TREE AS WELL AS SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER. g VEHICLE USE AREA 10'MIN WIDTH.IN ADDITION TO TREES,A HEDGE OF AT LEAST THREE e n n PERIMETER BUFFER FEET IN HEIGHT AT MATURITY SHALL BE INSTALLED n / I z / / 33 s ¢y "/ ®FOUNDATION PLANTINGS BU VEGETATION METER.NG6MIN HEIWIDTH.TO RE PLANTED WITH VEGETATION OF VARYING HEIGHTS AND TEXTURES. OLANDSCAPE FP L ELEMENTS II BION WILL FOLLOW STANDARDS ASDETAILED BY THE HILLSBOROUGH UDO? ONS ALo£ $a§gga4.�dr€ g„3ek WILLADJBE IRED TO ST HE TRESITE DESIGN DATION PI-ANTSSSS.TRE AND OTHER RVATION AREAS ELEMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED AS THE SITE DESIGN PROGRESSES.TREE PRESERVATION AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE,AND WILL ADJUST WITH FINAL GRADING AND SITE LAYOUT. E - Easl uE�R�ESEaA� \_ • a _ rE.E�sEaEE. ,` _ _ SrvEiimEis a� �Y m� r w DD a/ e o a I a O 1 � 1 z � O F I I ` � ° d ❑ p I w w o a w 4u W o a d w� ------------- ams 3 I > "N” � � � �Arvauvts anetnC scal.c �-0214 LS.dwg Know what's below. \ � / s .N s M cL xEEr No_ Call before you dig JAY CIRCLE �NoN.`"` rn ,00n G9 ,a.R.11 X,soTeuc R,cNroc wa>; Traffic Impact Analysis Lawrence Road Development Orange County, NC Prepared for: Hubrich Contracting Inc. Kimley>)) Horn © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.2023 20 Traffic Impact Analysis for Lawrence Road Development Orange County, North Carolina Prepared for: Hubrich Contracting Inc. Durham, North Carolina Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. NC License #F-0102 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27601 (919) 677-2000 ,�r►�`j��CARQ�r + DocuSigned by: D A687BM F66140F... .c ;. r r0 � 5NGPNk 1/26/2023 January 2023 014251006 21 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 22 KImiey>>) orn Lawrence Road Development— Orange County, NC Executive Summary Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has performed a Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Lawrence Road Development located in the southeastern quadrant of the intersection of US 70 Alt. and Lawrence Road in Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina. The development is proposed to consist of an 800-student K-8 charter school, a 600-student 9-12 charter school, and a multi-use recreational area. The site is proposed to be accessed by two new full-movement driveways along Lawrence Road and US 70 Alt. The development is proposed to be built-out by the year 2025. This report presents trip generation, distribution, traffic and queueing analyses, and recommendations for transportation improvements required to meet anticipated traffic demands in conjunction with the development. The following traffic conditions were studied: • Existing Traffic (2022) • Projected Background Traffic (2025) • Projected Build-out Traffic (2025) Analyses were performed for the AM peak hour (7-9 AM), school PM peak hour (2-4 PM), and recreational PM peak hour (4-6 PM) at the following intersections: ■ US 70 Alt. at Lawrence Road ■ US 70 Alt. at NC 86 ■ US 70 at Lawrence Road ■ US 70 Alt. at US 70 ■ Lawrence Road at Site Driveway 1 ■ US 70 Alt. at Site Driveway 2 The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Municipal School Transportation Assistance (MSTA) "School Traffic Calculator" was used to determine the trip generation potential of the charter schools. The schedules for the lower school (grades K-8) and upper school (grades 9-12) will be staggered by at least 45 minutes. Therefore, no overlap in pick-up and drop-off operations between the two schools was assumed, and the trip generation was calculated using the lower school population as it results in a higher trip generation than that of the high school. As shown in Table ES-1, the lower school has the potential to generate approximately 1,724 daily trips, 995 AM peak hour trips, and 728 school PM peak hour trips. The school is not expected to generate traffic in the recreational PM peak hour. ES-1 23 Kimley>>>Horn Lawrence Road Development— Orange County, NC Table ES-1 Charter School Traffic Generation (Vehicles) Land School PM Use Land Intensity Daily AM Peak Hour peak Hour Code Use In Out In Out In Out Urban MSTA Charter 800 stud. 862 862 548 448 314 414 School K-8 Trips for the multi-use recreational area were generated assuming a 12-court tennis club (ITE LUC 491) and 43.1 additional acres of park area, which was generated using data published in the Pleasant Park Traffic Study (VHB, 8/10/16). This study surveyed local recreational areas to derive a trip generation rate based on utilized acres. As shown in Table ES-2, the recreational area has the potential to generate approximately 848 daily trips and 150 PM peak hour trips. The recreational area is not expected to generate a significant amount of traffic in the AM or school PM peak hours. Table ES-2 Recreational Area Traffic Generation (Vehicles) Land Daily PM Peak Use Land Use Intensity Hour Code In Out In Out 491 Tennis Club 12 courts 166 166 30 16 N/A Recreational Area 43.1 acres 258 258 46 58 Total Net New External Trips 424 424 76 74 According to the MSTA calculations for an Urban Charter school with 800 students in grades K-8, in the projected (2025) build-out traffic condition the school should provide enough storage to accommodate an average queue length of 3,395 feet and a high demand queue length of 4,414 feet. The proposed school plans are providing enough storage space to accommodate 4,414 feet via multiple circulation lanes around the site that merge prior to the loading and drop-off area. These lanes will also be utilized to contain the upper school high demand queue length of 2,751 feet. SimTraffic simulations of both proposed school operations show that the queueing can be contained on site. Capacity analyses were performed using Synchro Version 11 software. For the existing and background scenarios, existing PHFs were used at all intersections. For the build scenarios, a weighted PHF was used that calculated a new PHF by movement based on all school site traffic having a PHF of 0.50. Table ES-3 summarizes the operation of the study intersections for the AM and school PM peak hour traffic conditions. ES-2 24 Table ES-3-Level of Service Summary Intersection and Approach/Movement Traffic Control Existing(2022)Traffic Background(2025)Traffic Build-out(2025)Traffic Build-out(2025)Traffic-Improved School AM School PM Recreational PM School AM School PM Recreational PM School AM School PM Recreational PM School AM School PM Recreational PM US 70 Alt.at Lawrence Road F(50.8) C(21.5) D(31.1) F(67.6) D(25.7) E(42.8) F(344.7) F(208.4) F(55.5) D(39.4) C(33.5) B(16.4) Eastbound Unsignalized/ F(55.9) D(25.4) E(37.6) F(72.0) D(31.9) F(53.8) F(423.1) F(264.8) F(73.5) D(37.4) D(48.1) 8119.91 Westbound E(35.0) C(20.2) C(15.8) E(42.7) C(23.5) C(17.7) F(271.2) F(233.8) C(20.7) C(26.2) C(26.2) A(9.5) Northbound Signalized E(42.8) C(2L2) E(38.0) F(54.3) C(24.9) F(53.7) F(265.0) F(197.6) F(70.0) D(36.5) B(18.9) B(17.6) Southbound F 63.8 C 17.3 C 15.7 F 92,1 C 19.7 C 17.6 F 387.6 F 107.6 C 20.5 D 54.8 D 40.6 8(13.21 US 70 Alt.at NC 86 B(11.8) B(15.1) B(17.7) B(11.5) B(16.8) 8(17.9) 8(17.2) B(19.7) 8(18.4) B(17.2) B(19.7) 8(18.4) Eastbound A(6.9) A(7.9) A(8.3) A(4.5) A(5.6) A(5.7) A(5.9) A(6.8) A(5.7) A(5.9) A(6.8) A(5.7) Westbound Signalized B(13.1) B(16.7) B(18.3) B(10.9) B(14.5) B(16.5) B(18.2) C(21.9) B(17.2) B(18.2) C(21.9) B(17.2) Northbound B(15.0) C(20.4) C(23.0) B(18.1) C(29.4) C(28.3) C(26.5) C(29.9) C(29.1) C(26.5) C(29.9) C(29.1) Southbound C 22.7 C 20.9 C 29.2 B 18.7 a 18.0 C 20.9 C 34.5 C 23.6 C 21.0 C 34.5 C 23.6 C 21.0 US 70 at Lawrence Road D 54.1 D 37.8 D 50.6) D 52.6 C 34.1 D 44,1 F 122.3 E 61.1 D 47.5 D 49.3 C 30.4 C 27.2 Eastbound D(44.0) C(29.3) C(24.1) D(50.6) C(22.11 C(22.7) F(114.1) D(36.4) C(22.7) D(54.9) C(22.1) B(14.5) Westbound Signalized C(20.4) D(38.2) D(39.5) B(17.0) C(34.5) D(45.2) C(34.6) E(59.7) D(45.6) B(17.6) D(36.1) C(29.5) Northbound E(60.7) D(46.7) F(91.5) F(98.2) D(43.1) D(52.7) F(155.3) E(75.4) E(57.8) D(49.8) C(30.1) C(33.1) Southbound F 105.2 D 40.8 D 46.6 E 71.3 D 47.4 E 66.8 F 166.2 E 77.2 F 80.4 E 60.4 C 33.2 C 32.1 US 70 at US 70 Alt. -- -W -- -- -H -- Eastbound E(45.5) D(34.9) E(38.1) F(50.6) E(38.2) E(42.6) F(319.5) F(77.6) E(46.9) F(319.5) F(77.6) E(46.9) Westbound Unsignalized F(50.9) D 31.0) E(38.1) F(59.8 D 34.6 E(44.1 F 672.4 F(75.6 E(48.8 F 672.4 F 75.6 E 48.8) Northbound Left 6(10.2) A(8.5) B(10.4) A(8.5) A(8.6) B(14.3) A(9.2) A(8.6) B(14.3) A(9.2) A(8.6) Southbound Left A 8.4 A 9.2 A 8.9 A 8.4 A 9.3 A 9.0 A 8.4 A 9.3 A 9.0 A 8.4 A 9.3 A 9.0 Lawrence Road at Site Driveway 1 -- -- -- -- -0 -- Westbound Unsignalized N/A N/A F(168.1) D(29.2) B(14.0) F(126.1) D(27.1) B(14.0) Southbound Left A 9.7 A 8.7 A 8.5 A 9.7 A 8.7 A 8.5 US 70 Alt.at Site Drivewa 2 Northbound Unsignalized N/A N/A FI 59.0) F(80.8) B(11.4) F(267.6) E(49.1) B(112) Westbound Left B 1o.3 A 8.6 A 7.9 B 10.3 A 8.6 A 7.9 25 KImiey>>) orn Lawrence Road Development— Orange County, NC Recommended Improvements: Charter School Improvements The following improvements are recommended for the projected (2025) build-out traffic condition based on the capacity analysis presented herein. These improvements are required solely to accommodate traffic generated by the charter schools: US 70 Alt. at Lawrence Road • Install a traffic signal • Construct an exclusive northbound left-turn lane with a minimum of 200 feet of storage plus taper • Construct an exclusive southbound right-turn lane with a minimum of 100 feet of storage plus taper • Construct an exclusive southbound left-turn lane with a minimum of 50 feet of storage plus taper US 70 at Lawrence Road: • Construct an exclusive northbound left-turn lane with a minimum of 100 feet of storage plus taper • Construct an exclusive southbound left-turn lane with a minimum of 200 feet of storage plus taper • Adjust signal phasing and timing Lawrence Road at Site Driveway 1: • Construct the full movement Site Driveway 1 with one ingress and two egress lanes • Construct an exclusive southbound left-turn lane with a minimum of 150 feet of storage plus taper US 70 Alt. at Site Driveway 2: • Construct the full movement Site Driveway 2 with one ingress and two egress lanes • Construct an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane with a minimum of 75 feet of storage plus taper • Construct an exclusive westbound left-turn lane with a minimum of 150 feet of storage plus taper Recreational Improvements To accommodate the recreational traffic, which is mainly concentrated in the evenings after the school traffic has largely dissipated, the internal street system is proposed with the same laneage. Both Site Driveways 1 and 2 would be built with one ingress and two egress lanes. It is anticipated that the internal street system would ultimately become ES-4 26 Kimley>>>Horn Lawrence Road Development— Orange County, NC public streets. However, volumes generated by the recreational uses are not high enough to warrant turn lane improvements on the main roadways, Lawrence Road and US 70 Alt. These turn lanes are only required with the school uses. The all-way stop at US 70 Alt and Lawrence Road is projected to operate at LOS E/F in the 2025 Background condition without any site traffic added. The recreational traffic has minimal impact to this intersection. This location could benefit from signalization regardless of the proposed development. Through signalization alone with no turn lane improvements, as noted above, the intersection would greatly improve to LOS B. Conclusions The analyses indicate that with the recommended improvements in place, the study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels-of-service in all peak hours with the exception of the minor street approaches of the unsignalized intersections. However, It should be noted that long delays are not uncommon at unsignalized minor street approaches at mainlines with heavy through movement volumes and no queueing issues were noticed in SimTraffic simulations. The recommended roadway Ianeage for the projected (2025) build-out traffic condition is shown on Figure ES-1. ES-5 27 45s � w c� o aid N Z NOT TO SCALE a 30 r iso' US 70 c� 55 o.soa } 0.100 6 250 55 Ld U (D ix 0 125'J w o� o g w� m 7.000 N O � J Q a0 03 W O_ 0 0] o � p ri Z o i Lc� � oa OU wN Wo WZ� O^ o Na ~150 US 70 • ° v� l' PALMERS GROVE f� 7,100 6,350' 0 3,900 1,500' 3,500' 40 ALT. .1 f O �� .1 CHURCH ROAD ox E 25 f 75 t� o 550' 0o 6 N o Wa 5,300 � zs 9,700 13,400 o Z J Q �c s W Z a J W Q io v 0 rcs LEGEND o o ¢ o QU C_ � E EXISTING LANE 00 N � 0 �� Wz3EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL z Z za: EXISTING STOP SIGN 45 (n 0 O �� RECOMMENDED LANE FOR SCHOOL USES 3 g � RECOMMENDED LANE FOR SCHOOL OR RECREATIONAL USES O� SITE SITE z.oo r ° },, p °o RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR SCHOOL OR RECREATIONAL USES DWY. 1 8 O RECOMMENDED STOP SIGN FOR SCHOOL OR RECREATIONAL USES o L J o 3 XX POSTED SPEED LIMIT W = 3 U R. xxxx PROJECTED 2025 BUILD-OUT AADT z LLJI Q >` g& XXX' STORAGE LENGTH c 5 XXX' APPROXIMATE NODE TO NODE DISTANCE J S� x �o 28 MORN I GSTAR Patrick Byker, Partner 700 W. Main Street I Second Floor LAW GROUP Durham, NC 27701 919-590-0384 pbyker@morningstarlawgroup.com www.morningstarlawgroup.com March 28, 2023 VIA EMAIL (cstober(a),orangecountync.gov) AND OVERNIGHT MAIL Mr. Cy Stober Planning& Inspections Director Orange County 131 W Margaret Lane, Suite 201 Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Applicant proffer relating to Zoning Atlas Amendment Rezoning Application Conditional District - MA22-0004 (Lawrence Road Properties, LLC) Dear Director Stober: We represent Lawrence Road Partners, LLC and Hubrich Contracting, Inc. in regard to the above-referenced Zoning Atlas Amendment that is scheduled for a public hearing before the Orange County Planning Board on April 5, 2023 (the"MA22-0004 PB Hearing"). In advance of the MA22-0004 PB Hearing, we respectfully request that your department add the proffer below to your staff report for this agenda item. In accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-703(b) and Section 2.9.1(17)(3)(c) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, the owner/applicant makes the following proffer to be adopted in connection with MA22-0004: "Within twenty-four(24) months after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the charter school that is a component of MA22-0004, and subject to the availability of adequate right of way, and subject to approval by the N.C. Department of Transportation(NCDOT) and any other necessary regulatory authorities, the applicant will construct southbound and northbound left-turn lanes, with appropriate storage and tapers, on Lawrence Road at the intersection of Lawrence Road and U.S. 70 (collectively,the"Lawrence Road-U.S. 70 Turn Lanes"), and prior to issuance of the aforementioned certificate of occupancy, the applicant will post a performance bond with NCDOT(the"NCDOT Bond")pursuant to applicable NCDOT bonding requirements, and shall include Orange County in a rider to the NCDOT Bond as well, to guarantee the construction the Lawrence Road-U.S. 70 Turn Lanes; OR 29 Mr. Cy Stober Planning&Inspections Director Orange County March 28,2023 Page 2 in the event adequate right of way is not available at the intersection of Lawrence Road and U.S. 70, or due to disapproval of the Lawrence Road-U.S. 70 Turn Lanes by any necessary regulatory authority, the applicant shall pay to Orange County the amount of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND and 00/100 Dollars($400,000.00), as the applicant's projected cost at this time to construct the Lawrence Road-U.S. 70 Turn Lanes. The aforementioned payment of$400,000.00 shall occur prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the charter school proposed as a component of MA22-0004." If you need any more information from our team, please let me know. Sincerely, Patrick Byker cc: John Roberts, Esq., County Attorney Jim Parker, P.E., P.L.S., Lawrence Road Partners, LLC 30 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or plan ningapps orangecountync.gov Environmental Assessment Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information is contained in Section 2.25 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink. An Environmental Assessment(EA)shall be required for each individual parcel proposed for development consistent with applicable criterial as detailed within the UDO. Date: 11/29/2022 Contact Information Property Owner(s): Meadowmont Farms II, LLC Mailing Address: PO Box 20461 Greensboro, NC 27420 Phone: Email: Applicant (if different than property owner): Lawrence Road Partners, LLC Mailing Address: 320 Executive Court, Suite 300, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone: 919-732-3883 Email: james.parker@summitde.com I. Property Information Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9883194355 Address: Lawrence Road Acreage: 85.75 Township: Eno Zoning District: R1 - Rural Residential Watershed Overlay: Lower Eno Protected (northern half) and Unprotected (southern half) Other Overlay: Major Transportation Corridor Overlay District II. General Site Information W MRL- A. Adjacent Property Zoning North: R1 South: R4 East: R1 West: R2 Land Use North: Residential South: Residential East: Residential West: Residential B. Topography ■ Highest Elevation: 672 ■ Lowest Elevation: 618 • General direction of slope: ESE & WNW Page 1 of 5 31 ■ Estimated % of property with: 0 — 5% slope: 30-50 5 — 15% slope: 50-70 15 — 25% slope: More than 25% slope: C. Water Features and Drainage The following water features are located on the property: 8 Streams 8 Wetlands ❑ Ponds ❑ Drainage Easements ❑ Special Flood Hazard Area Describe Three potential streams and two potential wetlands are present on the property. Stream S1 (Intermittent, 1 ,312 linear feet) Stream S2 (Perennial, 345 linear feet) Stream S3 (Intermittent, 248 linear feet) Wetland W1 (Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh, 0.09 acre) Wetland W2 (Floodplain Pool, 0.02 acre) (attach additional sheets if needed) D. Does the property contain any of the following Inventory of Natural or Cultural Resources? As identified in the "Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historical, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" or the "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina". 1. Cemeteries ❑ Yes ❑✓ No 2. Archaeological sites ❑ Yes ❑✓ No 3. Historic sites ❑ Yes ❑✓ No 4. Areas of geological significance ❑ Yes ❑7 No 5. Designated natural areas ❑ Yes ❑✓ No 6. Designated habitat ❑ Yes ❑✓ No For each yes answer above, please indicate the location on the site plan and complete Attachment A. III. Project Description A. Describe proposed use of property: The subject property is proposed to be developed into a high school (3 total structures), soccer fields (2), baseball fields (8), tennis courts (12), basketball courts (2),a skate park, an open field, and parking lots (6 lots, totaling 615 parking spaces). B. Number of lots: Subdivided into two or three parcels C. Number of structures: 3 Page 2 of 5 32 D. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for development of attached residential units (excluding roads, but including parking areas) N/A E. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for non-residential use (excluding roads) 2,478,564 sq. ft (56.9 acres) F. Estimated area to be graded for roads 497,200 sq. ft (11.4 acres) • Road type: 8 Public ❑ Private ❑ Class A ❑ Class B ■ Total road length: 2,400 linear feet IIII. State Permits Required A. Does the project involve the mining of earth products? ❑ Yes 8 No ■ If yes, how many cubic feet of material are expected to be excavated? ■ Has an application for a Mining Permit been submitted to NCDRCD? ❑ Yes 8 No Please attach map indicating expected extent of proposed activity. B. Does the project involve generation or storage of hazardous or toxic wastes, as identified by the Environmental Protection Agency? ❑ Yes 8 No ■ Describe the wastes to be generated: ■ How much material is expected to be generated per month? ■ Will any material be treated onsite? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, indicate volume: Will any material be stored onsite? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, indicate volume: ■ Where will disposal of the material take place? ■ How will materials be transported to the disposal site? ■ What measures are proposed to protect water quality and air quality in case of spills? Page 3of5 33 C. Will the project involve a land application system for treatment of wastewater? ■ ❑ Yes 8 No - If yes, describe ■ Has an application for a non-discharge permit been submitted to the NC Department of Environmental Management or Orange County Department of Environmental Health? ❑ Yes ❑ No D. Is a septic tank system proposed which has a design capacity of more than 3,000 gallons per day? ❑ Yes 8 No - If yes, describe TBD following updated design information E. Does the activity involve sludge disposal? ❑ Yes 8 No ■ If yes, where is the source of the sludge? ■ Describe where and how the sludge is being disposed ■ Has a NPDES permit from the NC Division of Environmental Quality been issued? ❑ Yes ❑ No F. Water Usage ■ Estimated number of employees: x 25 gallons per day (gpd) = gpd ■ Estimated water use for climate control = gpd ■ Process Water % Consumed • Discharged to septic system • Discharged to surface (including storm sewers) - Describe: % Evaporated % Reclaimed/reused % Other = 100% ■ Water used for cooling, heating, etc., in association with production or manufacturing % Reused % Consumed % Discharged - Describe: = 100% See below gpd Total Water Usage ■ Describe source of water: Municipal water and sewer are expected for school buildings. Specific water usage calculations are not possible at this stage of preliminary designs. Page 4 of 5 34 Attachment A To be completed only if inventory sites are identified in I.D. (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1.a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development N/A 1.b. Proposed Mitigation N/A 2.a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development N/A 2.b. Proposed Mitigation N/A Certification and Signatures Statement by Applicant - I certify that the information presented by me in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Applicant Date Page 5 of 5 35 Lawrence Road Development-Long Term Schedule September 21,2022 N O i N Sept. Oct \u\ the Ian Feb Mar Apr Mai June July IAug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug SUBMISSIONS NEXT MILESTONE: I I I II Pre-App Conference(6/10/22) DOT Scoping Meeting Preliminary Submittal(9/2/22) ' z Scoping for TIA Full Submittal for I I I Interim Submittal ,_ "Change of Use" "Full"Submittal(Nov.4) Only .' Potential REVIEWS&PRESENTATIONS I Dates for Dev.Advisory Comm.Mtg.(DAC) I Zoning Approval Neighborhood Information Meeting a I Planning Board Meeting �ArO, V County Commissioner's Meeting m cess Full Zoning Approval(March 2023) rD or2j �� SITE DESIGN Site Layout for DOT Scoping Preliminary Site Design Site Design-8 weeks Site Submittal Site Building Permit-6 weeks? Site Construction(Start May 2023) ' I I ARCHITECTURAL Vi I Building Partial Pre-Design Documents:SD-CD's-12-16 Wks. Building Permit Submittal ' V I Building Permit-6 weeks? Limited Site and Arch.Design in order to Bldg.Constr.(Schools)-50 weeks clearly establish scope and confirm site u Occupancy-July 2024 layout,bldg.location&footprint,etc. 36 I i , 00 1 ~ Ai I fI - � FJ AW Exterior Rendering of Comparable School Interior Rendering of Comparable School Building Building 1� - Aerial Rendering of Comparable School Building mSUMMIT Architectural Comps November 4, 2022 DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Lawrence Road Development 37 USUMMIT 320 Executive Court, Hillsborough, NC 27278 DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Phone // 919.732.3883 Web // www.summitde.net Lawrence Road Development Rezoning MPD-CD President March 28, 2023 Subject: Building and Sign Materials for the Lawrence Road Development Dear Cy, Please see list of building materials for the proposed buildings and all ground mounted signage shown of the plan. All Buildings: High tensile Fabric for covered tennis courts if applicable to the design Block or wood frame internal walls Masonry, Metal or Fiber cement Panels external Tilt-up Concrete panels Glass panels and aluminum frame windows Shingles or faux pitched roofs with TPO internal wells TPO (roof pitch not yet determined) Steel or masonry columns. Hardiplank siding Cultured Stone Building signage no lighting. Painted steel or aluminum. Vinyl is excluded and not allowed. Monument Signage: Brick, Block, Cultured Stone and stone slabs horizontal elements Wooden or precast sign Back lit or ground mounted lighting. No internal lit signage, not allowed As request JimTeT�E, PLS `Manager `,, 'Lawrence Rnad Partners, LLC 38 RECONNAISSANCE SOIL & SITE EVALUATION Meadowmont Farms II Tract Lawrence Rd Orange County,NC Job Number: 8621 Prepared For: Lawrence Road Partners LLC James.parker@summitde.net 320 Executive Court Hillsborough,NC 27278 Prepared By: Michael G. Wood 620 Lee Fox Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 732-7299 November 21, 202 T) SOIL Lam. ;, , 1219 Michael G. Wood, LSS 39 INTRODUCTION & SITE DESCRIPTION A Reconnaissance Soil & Site Evaluation was performed on the 85.75-acre Meadowmont Farms tract located off Lawrence Road, Hillsborough, Orange County, NC (PIN:9883194355). Michael Wood, LSS was retained to evaluate the soil and site conditions and identify suitable areas for placement of on-site subsurface wastewater systems for a day school. The property was evaluated in accordance with the "Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems", amended December 6, 2018. The area is a mix of open fields and woods. There are a few drainage ways that run through the tract marked in red as unsuitable topography on Figure 1. INVESITGATION METHODOLOGY The field survey was conducted on multiple dates in November 2021 by Michael G. Wood, LSS and Ethan T. Wood. Soil borings were advanced with hand-augers and soil color determined using a Munsell Soil Color Chart. Observations of the landscape as well as soil properties (depth, texture, structure, soil wetness, restrictive horizons, etc.) were recorded. Soil borings were described per the USDA-NRCS,Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, Version 3.0. Soil borings and site features are noted in Figure 1. FINDINGS Fifty-Four(54) soil borings were advanced, and their locations noted on Figure 1. Provisionally Suitable for Conventional Type Systems. Borings Provisionally Suitable for Conventional Systems include Gravel, Accepted,Alternative, Shallow-Placed systems. The surface horizon ranged from sandy loam to clay loam with friable, granular to subangular blocky structure. Subsoil was generally clay textured,with a firm subangular to angular blocky structure that extended from 26 to 40+ inches below the ground surface. This soil appeared adequate to support a long-term acceptance rate (LTAR) of 0.275-0.30 GPD/sq-ft. Provisionally Suitable for Low-profile Chamber Systems. Borings were rated as Provisionally Suitable for Low-Profile Chamber Systems had a sandy loam surface horizon with friable, granular to subangular blocky structure. Subsoil was silty clay textured, with a firm subangular to angular blocky structure that extended from 21 to 25 inches below the ground surface. This soil appeared LTAR of 0.225 to 0.275 GPD/sq-ft. Provisionally Suitable for Subsurface Drip Systems. Soil borings rated as Provisionally Suitable for Subsurface Drip Systems had a range of surface and subsurface textures with subangular to angular blocky structures that ranged in depth from 13 to 19 inches below the ground surface. This soil appeared adequate to support a LTAR of 0.10 to 0.125 GPD/sq-ft. Unsuitable. Borings were rated as Unsuitable due to a restrictive horizon occurring within 12 inches of the ground surface. Meadowmont Farms II Tract November 21, 2021 Job 8621 40 DISCUSSION In general, the open fields are well suited to Conventional Type septic systems with both soil depth and gentle, consistent sloping topography and as such should be targeted for the septic drainfield for the school. When determining the area needed for the drainfield, the following equation is used to first determine the amount of drainline: Drainline=# students x student GPD /LTAR/3' trench width x 0.75 accepted system 15,6001f= 1,200 x 13 /0.25 x 3 x .75 This drainline calculation is based upon the following assumptions: • 13 GPD/student is based upon the interpretation of state rule .1949(b) of a day school with showers, no cafeteria • The 0.25 LTAR is a considered a conservative estimate. This rate may change pending additional soil testing, in particular hydraulic conductivity tests, and with input from state and/or county regulators Once the amount of drainline is determined, the area needed for the drainfield is calculated as follows: Area= drainline/ 100 ft. long drainlines x 9-foot center spacing x buffer x repair system 336,960 ft2 = 15,600 / 100 x 9 x 1.2 x repair system The area calculation is based on the following assumptions: • 100 ft drainlines, this is general starting point, can be increased or decreased • 20%buffer is factored in to allot for diverging drainline and other site factors • Repair system is using the same drainfield type as the initial system As such, 336,960 ft2 or approximately 7.75 acres will be required for the initial and repair systems. The initial and repair systems do not have to be contiguous. Further, the 168,480 ft2 required for just the initial system can be broken into separate drainfields and/or smaller systems to suit the site design. It should also be noted that the repair area(s) could be placed elsewhere on the property and could be a different system type(i.e. Drip). Additional soil testing would be required to determine the viability of this option. CONCLUSIONS The findings presented herein represent our professional opinion based on our Preliminary Soil and Site Evaluation and knowledge of the current laws and rules governing on-site wastewater systems in Orange County and North Carolina. There appears to be ample soil to accommodate the drainfield needs for a 1,200 student day school. However, once a preliminary site design is completed, additional site and soil investigations should be conducted to determine the septic system particulars. Meadowmont Farms II Tract November 21, 2021 Job 8621 41 Soils naturally change across a landscape and contain many inclusions. As such, attempts to quantify them are not always precise and exact. Due to this inherent variability of soils and the subjectivity when determining limiting factors, there is no guarantee that a regulating authority will agree with the findings of this report. Any concurrence with the findings of this report will be made by Orange County at the time of Improvement Permit application. Meadowmont Farms II Tract November 21, 2021 Job 8621 42 Figure 1 . Meadowmont Farms II Tract a "� ' 4 n f� ;... ; �,.ii g;ail•.. ^"4 �,4M �yY, � � .!� ,i' � .�� acv �,.IS��'i >- 14.r'9R -� l5 k �L i � ��1� �P,1• �y9 �N � Y ''.7 i 4 -::�' . a •. *TL` a, .�wr v �xc : `� G't wFg .5 . riR � ,•�� 5 �' ''[�'k 4 � � �p.:.'i f�4{� k' ��A+ V, yy � � � � ,�, y�. r+- -,, f.��+. �1 {�` + �i by - j4lye tka. '`ya^ _ }M Conventional Type y K 7 O Low-Profile Chamber 0 Drip ! - i i Unsuitable f - al Soil Evaluation Form 43 Michael G.Wood,1SS Sheet O# 620 Lee Fox Lane Job- .1 fel l ! $ Hillsborough,NC 27278 County: ! 919.732.7299 Date: ' Sail Borings r Landscape Position Slope Horizon I Depth Texture Consistence �.. .�r f o, , , �-► Structure Clay Mineralogy .s p Horizon 2 Depth Texture �. Consistence r Structure � «� Clay Mineralogy Horizon 3 Depth Texture Consistence Structure Clay Mineralogy �+ Horizon 4 Depth Texture Consistence Structure Clay Mineralogy Horizon 5 Depth Texture Consistence Structure Clay Mineralogy Soil Wetness Restrictive Worizon Saprolite I t7 Other CLASSIFICATION LTAR(gpd/ft2) 5 0 t 3' Comments: Evaluated by:M ' o •.,.VV 0o Soil Evaluation Form 44 Michael G.Wood,LSS Sheet _of 620 Lee Fox Lane Job-96;t M F-31 TIA a, Hillsborough, NC 27278 County:C; q� 9 .9.732.7299 Date: I 1 Soil Borings I 1If 5 1 Landscape Position Slope 1600 Horizon I Depth - -7 , 0{- 0 Texture <Par i.° � Consistence 1`/ r ,F,/" A Structure - ' ' a ., h , Clay Mineralogy S S < Horizon 2 Depth , .i J. ; Texture L Consistence Structure A �a Clay Mineralogy Horizon 3 Depth Texture Consistence Structure Clay Mineralogy + Horizon 4 Depth Texture Consistence Structure Clay Mineralogy Horizon 5 Depth Texture Consistence Structure Clay Mineralogy Soil Wetness Restrictive Horizon Saprolite Other > 310 > 36 3% >36 cIASSIFICATIOIv P5 I r5 k Y5 P 5 S LTAR(gpd/ft ) 5 c2 Q 0 .3 0' 3 Comments: Evaluated by: i Soil Evaluation Form 45 Michael G.Wood,LSS Sheet-3--of-L- 620 Lee Fox Lane Job: 3631 OAF.f _f Hillsborough, NC 27278 County: aw 919.732.7298 Date: j � Soil Borings Landscape Position L< 14L Horizon I Depth Ci-� - � ! —`J f m —�� Texture b 6 L 4 1, Consistence Structure t T Clay Mineralogy < Horizon 2 Depth ! --Lr Texture Consistence Structure _ , . Clay Mineralogy Horizon 3 Depth Texture Consistence M4A Structure AA Clay Mineralogy + Horizon 4 Depth Texture Consistence Structure Clay Mineralogy Horizon 5 Depth Texture Consistence Structure Clay Mineralogy Soil Wetness Restrictive Horizon Saprolite Other ? 36 a 6 ? t3 CLASSIFICATION R.� f5 #DS U 1J LTAR(gpd/ft2) 0,-3 a Comments: Evaluated by Soil Evaluation Form 46 Michael G.Wood,LSS Sheet_4_0f� 620 Lee Fox Lane Job:962-1 (n F It -TkA(7' Hillsborough, NC 27278 County:0PAVw 919.732.7299 Date: 1 I -ZI Soil Borings Landscape Position T- Slope N Yjr,; (4 0 -, 'g�vel Horizon 1 Depth 16 Texture Consistence r e- M VEr� _ Structure Clay Mineralogy Horizon 2 Depth L4 — —Texture Consistence Structure A k L Clay Mineralogy Horizon 3 Depth Texture Consistence Structure —f7, —Clay Mineralogy Horizon 4 Depth Texture Consistence Structure Clay Mineralogy Horizon 5 Depth Texture Consistence Structure —Clay Mineralogy Soil Wetness L= LA Restrictive Horizon Saprolite Other CLASSIFICATION VELP I L1,12 DP-,tr- I U ��(p V I rPC PRIP LTAR(gpd/ft2) Comments: Evaluated by: Soil Evaluation Form 47 Michael G.Wood,LSS Sheet ,L of 620 Lee Fox Lane .lob: �I W,5- { �� Hillsborough, NC 27278 County: QA tA)6 919.732.7299 Date: Soil Borings S '46 4 Landscape Position C.5 L S LS Slope f%) ",j -2- Horizon 2`Horizon 1 Depth b- 13 0 b- b - b -4 l _ Texture I- e,jE, �g 5iL- CL <' iL 5 <t.. �' Consistence r-2 f-(L 114 Uf(_ V Vpq Structure �, ` y;( 6 A A:. Clay Mineralogy t) ri IV Horizon 2 Depth L) - ! • Texture1 CL, t t. Cr ° Consistence �-9- PrI Structure A ; P, it k,b �U ALI( �-, Clay Mineralogy @ .5 Horizon 3 Depth '2-2.571 2 1 '27 q 10-13 2 -50 Texture i G ,. f. S± Consistence + i"- . ®- Structure AA Clay Mineralogy Ir + Horizon 4 Depth [ _ j! S34 Texture e+tom ; + Consistence �(x Structure Clay Mineralogy Horizon S Depth Texture Consistence Structure Clay Mineralogy Soil Wetness J3 � Restrictive Horizon j 9 f �3 ev Saprolite Z Other CLASSIRCATIOl11 -�1 L1PC f L fC `... LTAR(gpd/ft2) fliM 0127!;- � ��' 0, Z�T- Jp 5- ��f�� fl.2��` 0:2� Comments: Evaluated by: VJOI D Soil Evaluation Form 48 Michael G.Wood,LSS Sheet t of 620 Lee Fox Lane Job: 8&2f W lt-7 0(r Hillsborough, NC 27275 County: QkAO66 919.732.7299 Date: AjbV -7oZ I Soil Borings Landscape Position Slope Horizon 1 Depth Texture Consistence -•r- r t Structure -, C r GL V- Clay Mineralogy A/ lie` Horizon 2 Depth I Texture Consistence _rrr'' Jr Structure Clay Mineralogy Horizon 3 Depth Texture Consistence Structure Clay Mineralogy + Horizon 4 Depth Texture Consistence Structure Clay Mineralogy Horizon 5 Depth Texture Consistence Structure Clay Mineralogy Soil Wetness Restrictive Horizon Saprolite Other CLASSIFICATION NA � LTAR(gpd/ftz) Comments: Wj Evaluated by c�3 Ev 49 WSC WOOD SOIL 620 Lee Fox Lane Hillsborough NC 27278 CONSULTANTS (919)417-8027 March 28, 2023 Jim Parker Summit 320 Executive Court Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Lawrence Road Development Dear Jim: As you are aware, we performed a Reconnaissance Soil & Site Evaluation of the Subject property and presented our findings in a report dated November 21, 2021. Based upon the findings in that report, we considered the site's ability to accommodate an on-site subsurface wastewater system for a day school with a daily wastewater requirement of 12,000 gallons per day (GPD). Assuming the septic drainfield would be placed in an area that had soils that were classed as Provisionally Suitable for Conventional Type systems and assigned a long-term acceptance rate (LTAR) of 0.25 GPD/ft2, we note the following: When determining the area needed for the drainfield, the following equation is used to first determine the amount of drainline: Drainline = School GPD/ LTAR/3' trench width 16,000 If= 12,000/0.25/3 Once the amount of drainline is determined, the area needed for the drainfield is calculated as follows: Area = drainline x 9-foot center spacing x buffer x repair system 345,600 ft2 = 16,000 x 9 x 1.2 x repair system The area calculation is based on the following assumptions: • 20% buffer is factored in to allot for diverging drainline and other site factors • Repair system is using the same drainfield type and parameters as the initial system As such, 345,600 ft2 or approximately 8.00 acres will be required for the initial and repair systems. Based on the provided layout of the site, there appears to be a minimum of 8.00 acres that are available for the drainfield within the area noted to have predominantly soil Provisionally Suitable for Conventional Type systems. Sincerely, W 6- , Michael G. Wood, LSS 50 MEADOWMONT FARMS BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY REPORT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA rd ,M j Prepared for: Lawrence Road Partners, LLC 320 Executive Court, Suite 300 Hillsborough,NC 27278 919-732-3883 5 \NEERj,y�,� W� 7' Prepared by: Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. 324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200 Durham, North Carolina 27701 919-732-1300 51 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Lawrence Road Partners, LLC proposes the development of a K-12 school campus on Parcel PIN No. 9883194355 in Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2). The Project Study Area (PSA) is approximately 85.8 acres and is located east of Lawrence Road, west of Piney Grove Church Road, south of US-70A, and north of I-85. As part of the Orange County Planning Department's review process, an Environmental Assessment (EA) application, Biological Inventory Report (BIR), and mitigation plan (dependent upon jurisdictional waters impacts) were requested. The following BIR has been prepared to meet the County's request. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Three Oaks Engineering Inc. (Three Oaks) staff members Michael Wood (LSS, PWS, M.S.), Nathan Howell (M.S., PWS), and Tom Dickinson (M.S.) completed field work within the PSA on November 28 and December 8,2022. Water resources identified within the PSA have not yet been verified by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). It is expected that these resources will be covered by USACE under a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) Package. A list of the principal personnel contributing to the field work and document are provided in the Appendix. 3.0 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES Three terrestrial communities were identified within the PSA. Figure 4 shows the location and extent of these terrestrial communities. Terrestrial community data are presented in the context of total coverage of each type within the PSA (Table 1). Table 1. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the PSA Community Dominant Species (Scientific Name[Common Coverage Namel) (ac.) Zea mays (corn) Maintained/Disturbed Rubus pensilvanicus (eastern blackberry) 43.7 Lonicera 'a onica (Japanese honeysuckle) Quercus alba (white oak) Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Liriodendron tulipifera var. tulipifera (yellow- 31 .6 Forest (Piedmont Subtype) poplar) Pol stichum acrostichoides Christmas fern Dry Oak-Hickory Forest Quercus alba (white oak) (Piedmont Subtype) Carya glabra (pignut hickory) 10.5 Kalmia lati olia mountain laurel Total 85.8 1 January 2023 52 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. Maintained/Disturbed The Maintained/Disturbed community type is comprised entirely of anthropogenically altered habitats (e.g., actively maintained agricultural fields, lawns, roadside and utility rights-of-way, logging roads). Within the PSA, this community type is comprised of an actively maintained agricultural field, roadside utility rights-of-way, and lawns. These areas have been altered from their natural state and exhibit some form of repetitive disturbance. As a result, this community type possesses an early-successional structural composition that is dominated by low-growing herbs, grasses, and shrubs. Due to higher levels of mechanical disturbance and sunlight availability, non-native invasive species are more prevalent within this community type. Vascular plant species occurring within this community type include, but are not limited to, the following: • Native Flora o Andropogon virginicus var. virginicus (broomsedge bluestem) o Rubus pensilvanicus (eastern blackberry) o Smilax rotundifolia (common greenbriar) o Salix nigra (black willow) o Liquidambar styraciflua (sweetgum) o Acer rubrum var. rubrum (eastern red maple) • Non-native Agricultural or Exotic Flora o Zea mays (corn) o Lonicera japonica (Japanese honeysuckle) o Rosa multiflora (multiflora rose) o Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet) o Pyrus calleryana (Bradford pear) The high amounts of "edge" habitat, mechanical disturbance, and sunlight availability within this community type tend to promote increased abundance and recruitment of non- native exotic flora. It also yields higher floral and faunal species richness, as well as more diverse vertical and horizontal structural heterogeneity. As a result, this community type receives higher than average animal use, compared to the two closed-canopy hardwood community types within the PSA. Animal species that show increased use of this community type include,but are not limited to, the following: • Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) • Emberizidae (seed-eating species of songbirds [e.g., sparrows]) • Charadrius vociferus (killdeer) • Urocyon cinereoargenteus (gray fox) • Didelphis virginiana (Virginia opossum) • Procyon lotor(racoon) • Canis latrans (coyote) • Sylvilagus floridanus (eastern cottontail) • Meleagris gallopavo (wild turkey) 2 January 2023 53 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. Dry-Mesic and Dry Oak-Hickory Forests (Piedmont Subtype) These two community types are comprised entirely of closed-canopy hardwood forests. Due to varying soil types and textures, as well as slope aspects, these communities possess mesic and dry adapted floras. Areas possessing compact, fine soil textures (i.e., heavy clays) and north to east-facing slopes yield mesic floras. Species indicative of these areas include, but are not limited to, the following: • Liriodendron tulipifera var. tulipifera (yellow poplar) • Acer rubrum var. rubrum (red maple) • Acer floridanum (southern sugar maple) • Quercus rubra (northern red oak) • Liquidambar styraciflua (sweetgum) Areas possessing coarser, loamier soils and south to west-facing slopes yield drier floras. Species indicative of these areas include, but are not limited to, the following: • Quercus alba (white oak) • Pinus echinata (shortleaf pine) • Quercus coccinea (scarlet oak) • Kalmia latifolia (mountain laurel) • Vaccinium arboreum (farkleberry) Unlike the maintained/disturbed community type, these two community types do not possess a high percentage of"edge"habitats or transitions, and sunlight availability to the forest floor is limited. As a result, these communities generally do not possess a good juxtaposition of structural cover, or a diverse groundcover stratum. Herbs and grasses are mostly limited to canopy gaps or outside edge transitions. While these community types are generally less diverse and possess poorer quality cover for wildlife, they do support a handful of wildlife species which are adapted to persisting in forest-interior habitats. Animal species that show increased use of these community types include, but are not limited to, the following: • Picidae (woodpeckers [e.g., downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, red-bellied woodpecker,yellow-bellied sapsucker,pileated woodpecker,and northern flicker]) • Sittidae (nuthatches [e.g., white-breasted nuthatch and brown-headed nuthatch]) • Baeolophus bicolor(tufted titmouse) • Poecile carolinensis (Carolina chickadee) • Sciurus carolinensis (gray squirrel) • Strix varia (barred owl) • Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) • Meleagris gallopavo (wild turkey) • Didelphis virginiana (Virginia opossum) • Procyon lotor(racoon) • Canis latrans (coyote) 3 January 2023 54 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. The oak-hickory forest communities within the PSA do not possess unusually large or otherwise noteworthy specimen trees. The forests appear to be even-aged, naturally regenerated hardwood stands. Generally, trees that are located along property boundaries, or on property corners, will show the highest degree of character and age; however, trees possessing such characteristics were not observed during the field investigations. 4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES 4.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists the following federally protected species within the PSA,under the Endangered Species Act(ESA) (Table 2). For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is included below along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the PSA. Table 2. ESA federally protected species listed within the PSAI Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological Status2 Present Conclusion' Perimyotis subflavus Tricolored bat PE Yes MANLAA Necturus lewisi Neuse River T No No Effect waterdog Noturus furiosus Carolina madtom E No No Effect Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T No No Effect Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedgemussel E No No Effect 1 USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation(IPaQ data checked on December 7,2022 z E—Endangered;PE—Proposed Endangered; T—Threatened s MANLAA—May Affect,Not Likely to Adversely Affect Tricolored bat USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May 15 —August 15 (Structure Checks) Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Tricolored bats are generally associated with forested landscapes. In summer, they will roost in tree foliage, or sometimes in buildings. They are also known to roost in bridges and culverts. Suitable foraging habitat includes forested areas and along creeks. Suitable roosting and foraging habitat for tricolored bat is present within the PSA. Man-made structures, such as bridges or culverts, are not present within the PSA. Therefore, structure surveys are not necessary for this site. Tricolored bat was proposed for listing on September 13, 2022. Generally, species become listed roughly a year following their proposal for listing. When listed, it is anticipated that this species will be listed statewide. If tree-clearing activities occur prior to 4 January 2023 55 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. the species official listing, then no restrictions on tree clearing will be required. After listing, tree clearing being conducted within the PSA will likely require seasonal restrictions, such as only being performed between October 16 — March 31 (i.e., dormant season or winter months)to best avoid potential take of tricolored bat. Final conservation measure recommendations will be provided by USFWS once the species is officially listed. A review of the Fall 2022 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) dataset indicates no known tricolored bat Element Occurrence's (EO) within 1.0 mile of the PSA. The closest EO is located 3.5 miles northeast of the PSA, in Eno River State Park, near the confluence of Buckwater Creek and the Eno River. This EO (EO No. 112) is considered current and was last observed in 2001. Neuse River waterdog (NRWD) USFWS Optimal Survey Window: Winter months (for trapping) Biological Conclusion: No Effect Three Oaks aquatic biologist Tom Dickinson (Permit No. 22-ES00343) and Environmental Scientist Nathan Howell (M.S., PWS) completed a habitat assessment within the PSA on December 8, 2022. Suitable habitat for NRWD is not present within the PSA, or within 400 meters downstream of the PSA. Streams within the PSA are too small and do not possess the necessary habitat elements or watershed size needed by this species. As a result, surveys for this species are not warranted. Additionally, review of the Fall 2022 NCNHP dataset indicates no known NRWD EO's within 1.0 mile of the PSA. Carolina madtom USFWS Optimal Survey Window: Year-round Biological Conclusion: No Effect Three Oaks aquatic biologist Tom Dickinson (Permit No. 22-ES00343) and Environmental Scientist Nathan Howell (M.S., PWS) completed a habitat assessment within the PSA on December 8, 2022. Suitable habitat for Carolina madtom is not present within the PSA, or within 400 meters downstream of the PSA. Streams within the PSA are too small and do not possess the necessary habitat elements or watershed size needed by this species. As a result, surveys for this species are not warranted. Additionally, review of the Fall 2022 NCNHP dataset indicates no known Carolina madtom EO's within 1.0 mile of the PSA. Atlantic pigtoe USFWS Optimal Survey Window: March 1 —November 1 (Optimal) Biological Conclusion: No Effect Three Oaks aquatic biologist Tom Dickinson (Permit No. 22-ES00343) and Environmental Scientist Nathan Howell (M.S., PWS) completed a habitat assessment within the PSA on December 8, 2022. Suitable habitat for Atlantic 5 January 2023 56 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. pigtoe is not present within the PSA, or within 400 meters downstream of the PSA. Streams within the PSA are too small and do not possess the necessary habitat elements required by this species. Cursory surveys revealed no freshwater mollusks, snails,or other species indicative of perennial streams. Two small pools just upstream from the Occoneechee Golf Club property boundary supported low numbers of eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrookii) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Amphipods and aquatic worms were also observed through the stream reach between the PSA and Occoneechee Golf Club. As a result, surveys for this species are not warranted. Additionally, review of the Fall 2022 NCNHP dataset indicates no known Atlantic pigtoe EO's within 1.0 mile of the PSA. Dwarf wedgemussel USFWS Optimal Survey Window: March 1 —November 1 (Optimal) Biological Conclusion: No Effect Three Oaks aquatic biologist Tom Dickinson (Permit No. 22-ES00343) and Environmental Scientist Nathan Howell (M.S., PWS) completed a habitat assessment within the PSA on December 8, 2022. Suitable habitat for dwarf wedgemussel is not present within the PSA, or within 400 meters downstream of the PSA. Streams within the PSA are too small and do not possess the necessary habitat elements required by this species. Cursory surveys revealed no freshwater mollusks, snails,or other species indicative of perennial streams. Two small pools just upstream from the Occoneechee Golf Club property boundary supported low numbers of eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrookii) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Amphipods and aquatic worms were also observed through the stream reach between the PSA and Occoneechee Golf Club. As a result, surveys for this species are not warranted. Additionally, review of the Fall 2022 NCNHP dataset indicates no known dwarf wedgemussel EO's within 1.0 mile of the PSA. In addition to these federally protected species, which were identified via an IPaC search, three other federally protected species are also known from Orange County (Table 3). These species were likely not identified by IPaC due to their historical ranking within the county. As an added precaution, these species were also assessed in this effort and the results are presented below. 6 January 2023 57 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. Table 3. Historical federally protected species known from Orange County, NC Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological Status2 Present Conclusion Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower E Yes No Effect Lindera melissifolia Pondberry E No No Effect Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E Yes No Effect Smooth coneflower USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late May—October Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower is present within the PSA in the form of roadside/utility rights-of-way and field edges. Three Oaks biologist Nathan Howell completed a survey for this species on November 28, 2022. Although this survey took place in the dormant season, well after first frost, the habitats capable of supporting this species contained a "weedy" associate floristic composition not typically associated with the presence of smooth coneflower. Additionally, no naked coneflower stems supporting the characteristic coneflower "heads" were identified in this effort. It is the surveyor's opinion that smooth coneflower is not present within the PSA. If for some reason surveys are requested during the appropriate survey window,Three Oaks can complete those at that time and update the survey results. A review of the Fall 2022 NCNHP dataset indicates no known smooth coneflower EO's within the PSA, or within 1.0 mile of the PSA. Pondberry USFWS Optimal Survey Window: February—March; September—October Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat for pondberry, in the form of wetland depressions or bogs, is not present within the PSA. Three Oaks biologist Nathan Howell completed a habitat assessment for this species on November 28, 2022. A review of the Fall 2022 NCNHP dataset indicates no known pondberry EO's within the PSA, or within 1.0 mile of the PSA. Michaux's sumac USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May—October Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present within the PSA in the form of roadside/utility rights-of-way and field edges. Three Oaks biologist Nathan Howell completed a survey for this species on November 28, 2022. Although this survey 7 January 2023 58 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. took place in the dormant season, well after first frost, the habitats capable of supporting this species contained a "weedy" associate floristic composition not typically associated with the presence of Michaux's sumac. Additionally, no bare/naked Michaux's sumac stems were identified in this effort. It is the surveyor's opinion that Michaux's sumac is not present within the PSA. If for some reason surveys are requested during the appropriate survey window, Three Oaks can complete those at that time and update the survey results. A review of the Fall 2022 NCNHP dataset indicates no known Michaux's sumac EO's within the PSA, or within 1.0 mile of the PSA. 4.2 NCNHP State-Listed Species The NCNHP tracks state listed species that are not currently protected by the USFWS under the Federal ESA but are tracked by the State due to their rarity in North Carolina. These species are compiled in the NCNHP 2020 Rare Animal and Plant Lists. The NCNHP Rare Plant List includes North Carolina legal status information from the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program (NCPCP), a unit of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the agency responsible for the listing and protection of North Carolina's endangered and threatened plants, under provisions of the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act (North Carolina General Statutes - Chapter 106, Article 1913). The NCNHP Rare Animal List contains species listed by the NCWRC. NCWRC is responsible for the listing and protection of the state's nongame species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, mollusks, and crustaceans,under North Carolina General Statutes - Chapter 113, Article 25. On the State level, statuses that apply to species listed for Orange County include the following: • Endangered- Any native or once-native species of wild animal whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's fauna is determined to be in jeopardy or any species of wild animal determined to be an Endangered species pursuant to the Federal ESA(General Statute 113-25). • Threatened- Any native or once-native species of wild animal which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a Threatened species pursuant to the Federal ESA(General Statute 113-25). • Special Concern - Any species of wild animal native or once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the NCWRC to require monitoring, but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the provisions of the Article (General Statute 113-25). • Special Concern — Vulnerable - Any species or higher taxon of plant which is likely to become a threatened species within the foreseeable future (North Carolina Administrative Code 02 NCAC 48F .0401). 8 January 2023 59 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. • Special Concern—Historical-Any species or higher taxon of plant that occurred in North Carolina at one time, but for which all known populations are currently considered to be either historical or extirpated(NCAC 02 NCAC 48F .0401). • Significantly - Any species which has not been listed as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state (or recently occurred in the state) in small numbers (generally fewer than 100 statewide populations) and has been determined by the NCNHP to need monitoring. Significantly Rare species include species of historical occurrence with some likelihood of rediscovery in the state and species substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation, or disease (NCNHP designation). • Significantly Rare — Other - The range of the species is sporadic or cannot be described by the other Significantly Rare categories. • Significantly Rare — Peripheral — The species is at the periphery of its range in North Carolina. These species are generally more common somewhere else in their ranges,occurring in North Carolina peripherally to their main ranges,mostly in habitats which are unusual in North Carolina. • Significantly Rare—Throughout-The species is rare throughout its range(fewer than 100 populations total). NCNHP is not a regulatory agency; however, NCPCP, NCWRC, and other state agencies may include state-listed species when considering project commitments and/or conservation measures or may require permits if a species is to be collected, moved, or impacted. Surveys are typically not required (unless a project is on United States Forest Service [USFS] land, which this project is not); however, an assessment of habitat will allow for determination of what species have potential to be present,thus providing a more complete biological assessment of the PSA. Furthermore, a review of existing NCNHP data within the PSA and within 1.0 mile of the PSA identifies known occurrences of species that may be impacted by the project. Tables 4 and 5 list the animal and plant species currently tracked by NCNHP and identify whether habitat is present within the PSA. A review of the Fall 2022 NCNHP dataset was completed for these species; species with known occurrences within proximity of the project are identified in the tables. Table 4. NCNHP state-listed animal species listed for Orange County Taxonomic Scientific Name Common Name NC Status' Federal County Status2 Habitat Group Status Present Amphibian Ambystoma talpoideum mole salamander SC None Current No Amphibian Hemidactylium four-toed SC None Current No scutatum salamander Bird Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned SR None Historical Yes hawk Ammodramus henslowii Bird (syn. Centronyx Henslow's sparrow E None Historical No henslowii 9 January 2023 60 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. Table 4. NCNHP state-listed animal species listed for Orange County (continued) Taxonomic Scientific Name Common Name NC Status' Federal County StatuS2 Habitat Group Status Present Bird Peucaea aestivalis Baschman's SC None Historical No sparrow Bird Vireo gilvus warbling vireo SR None Current No Butterfly Erynnis martialis mottled duskywing SR None Historical Yes Butterfly Heraclides cresphontes eastern giant SR None Historical No swallowtail Butterfly Hesperia metea cobweb skipper SR None Historical No Butterfly Satyrium Favonius northern oak SR None Current Yes ontario hairstreak Butterfly Telegonus cellus golden banded SR None Historical Yes skipper Crustacean Cambarus davidi Carolina ladle SR None Current Yes crayfish Diacyclops jeanneli Carolina well Crustacean SC None Historical No putei diacyclops Dragonfly Gomphurus lineatifrons splendid clubtail SR None Current No Dragonfly Gomphurus septima Septima's clubtail SR None Historical No Damselfly Lestes forcipatus sweetflag SR None Historical No spreadwing Dragonfly Somatochlora coppery emeral& SR None Historical No georgiana Freshwater Alasmidonta undulata triangle floater I T None Current No Bivalve Freshwater Alasmidonta varicosa brook floater E None Current No Bivalve Freshwater Lampsilis cariosa yellow E None Current No Bivalve lampmussel Lampsilis radiata (syn. Freshwater Lampsilis radiata eastern Bivalve radiata, Lampsilis lampmussel T None Current No fullerkati, Lampsilis radiata conspicua) Freshwater Lampsilis sp. 2 chameleon SR None Current No Bivalve lampmussel Freshwater Lasmigona subviridis green floater E None Current No Bivalve Freshwater Strophitus undulatus creeper T None Current No Bivalve Freshwater Toxolasma pullus Savannah lilliput E None Current No Bivalve Freshwater Villosa constricta notched rainbow T None Current No Bivalve 10 January 2023 61 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. Table 4. NCNHP state-listed animal species listed for Orange County (continued) Taxonomic Scientific Name Common Name NC Status' Federal County Status2 Habitat Group Status Present Freshwater Villosa delumbis eastern creekshell SC None Current No Bivalve Freshwater Villosa vaughaniana Carolina E None Current No Bivalve creekshell Fish Ambloplites cavifrons Roanoke bass SR None Current No Fish Etheostoma collis Carolina darter SC None Current No Fish Moxostoma robustum robust redhorse E C Historical No Freshwater Notropis volucellus mimic shiner T None Historical No Fish Moth Lytrosis permagnaria A geometrid moth SR None Current Yes Bee Bombus a arusty-patched f�nis bumble bee SR E Historical Yes 1 E—Endangered;T-Threatened; SC—Special Concern; SR—Significantly Rare;C—Candidate z—Current-The species has been identified recently within the County(NCNHP does not define"recently"in their documentation). Historical-Of historical occurrence,with some expectation that it may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20 years.An element is not automatically assigned a historical status if it has not been verified in the past 20 years; some effort must have been made to locate or relocate occurrences.A Historical status does not impact the State Status of a species. 'One known occurrence of this species was identified within 1.0 mile of the PSA;however,this occurrence is a county-wide occurrence and is considered historical. 4NCWRC does not currently list this species as protected by the State, as it is currently believed that there are no extant records in North Carolina.However,the species is listed as Endangered on the Federal level throughout its range,which includes North Carolina. Table 5. NCNHP state-listed plant species listed for Orange County Taxonomic Scientific Name Common Name NCFederal County Status2 Habitat Group Status' Status Present Vascular Agastache nepetoides yellow giant- SR-P None Current Yes Plant hyssop Vascular Anemone berlandieri southern anemone E None Current No Plant Vascular Asplenium bradleyi Bradley's SR-P None Current No Plant spleenwort Vascular prairie wild blue None Plant Baptisia aberrans indigo E Historical No Vascular Buchnera americana American E None Historical No Plant bluehearts Vascular Cardamine douglassii Douglass's SR-P None Historical No Plant bittercress Vascular Carex bushii Bush's sedge SR-P None Current No Plant Vascular Dichanthelium ringed witch grass E None Historical No Plant annulum Vascular Corallorhiza spring coral root SR-0 None Historical No Plant wisteriana 11 January 2023 62 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. Table 5. NCNHP state-listed plant species listed for Orange County (continued) Taxonomic Scientific Name Common Name NCFederal County Status2 Habitat Group Status' Status Present Vascular Crataegus succulenta fleshy hawthorn SR-P None Historical No Plant Vascular Cuscuta cephalanthi buttonbush dodder SR-T None Historical Yes Plant Vascular Desmodium creamy tick-trefoil SC-H None Historical No Plant ochroleucum Vascular Dichanthelium ringed witch grass E None Historical No Plant annulum Vascular Enemion biternatum eastern isopyrum SC-V None Historical No Plant Vascular Fothergilla major large witch-alder SR-T None Current No Plant Vascular Hexalectris spicata crested coralroot SR-P None Current No Plant Vascular Liatris squarrulosa Earle's blazing star SR-P None Historical No Plant Vascular Monotropsis odorata sweet pinesap SR-0 None Current Yes Plant Vascular Orbexilum Sampson's E None Current No Plant pedunculatum snakeroot Vascular Panicum flexile wiry panic grass T None Historical No Plant Vascular Parthenium glade wild quinine SR-T None Current No Plant auriculatum Vascular phacelia covillei buttercup phacelia I SR-T None Current No Plant Vascular Platanthera purple fringeless Plant peramoena orchid T None Current No Vascular Polygala senega seneca snakeroot SC-V None Historical No Plant Vascular primula meadia shooting-star I SC-V None Historical No Plant Vascular Pseudognaphalium Heller's rabbit- E None Historical No Plant heli eri tobacco Vascular pycnanthemum torreyi Torrey 9s SR-T None Current No Plant mountain-mint Vascular Ranunculus anbigens water-plantain SC-H None Historical No Plant spearwort Vascular Ranunculus rock buttercup SR-P None Current No Plant micranthus Vascular Pursh's wild Plant Ruellia purshiana petunia SC-V None Current No 12 January 2023 63 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. Table 5. NCNHP state-listed plant species listed for Orange County (continued) Taxonomic Scientific Name Common Name NCFederal County Status2 Habitat Group Status' Status Present Vascular Scutellaria australis southern skullcap E None Historical No Plant Vascular shale-barren Plant Scutellaria leonardii skullcap E None Historical No Vascular Steironema tonsum Appalachian SR-P None Historical No Plant loosestrife Vascular Swida racemosa gray dogwood SC-V None Current No Plant Vascular Symphyotrichum narrow-leaved E None Historical No Plant concinnum smooth aster Vascular Symphyotrichum laeve smooth blue aster SR-P None Historical Yes Plant Vascular Thermopsis mollis Appalachian SR-T None Current No Plant golden-banner Vascular Tradescantia Virginia SR-0 None Current No Plant virginiana spiderwort Vascular Trichostema glade bluecurls E None Historical No Plant brachiatum Vascular Tridens chapmanii Chapman's redtop T None HistoricalPlant No 1 E—Endangered;T-Threatened; SC-V—Special Concern(Vulnerable); SC-H—Special Concern(Historical); SR— Significantly Rare; SR-O—Significantly Rare(Other); SR-P—Significantly Rare(Peripheral); SR-T—Significantly Rare (Throughout) z—Current—The species has been identified recently within the County(NCNHP does not define"recently"in their documentation) Historical—Of historical occurrence,with some expectation that it may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20 years. An element is not automatically assigned a historical status if it has not been verified in the past 20 years; some effort must have been made to locate or relocate occurrences.A Historical status does not impact the State Status of a species. 'One known occurrence of this species was identified within 1.0 mile of the PSA;however,none were located within the PSA itself. Nearly every protected vascular plant species listed in Tables 3 and 5 requires a circumneutral soil pH. The floristic composition within the natural communities on this site suggests an acidic pH, which is typical for much of the North Carolina Piedmont ecoregion. 4.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is enforced by the USFWS. Golden eagles do not nest in North Carolina. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water. A desktop-GIS assessment of the PSA, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius of the project limits, was performed on November 23, 2022, using the most recent color aerials. Water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources 13 January 2023 64 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. were identified. Since foraging habitat is present within the review area, a survey of the PSA and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was conducted on November 28, 2022. No eagles or eagle nests were identified during this survey effort. A review of the Fall 2022 NCNHP dataset revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the PSA. Due to the lack of eagle sightings,nests,known occurrences, and the minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species. 5.0 WATER RESOURCES Water resources within the PSA are located within the Neuse River Basin (United States Geological Survey [USGS] Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 03020201). Three streams were identified within the PSA(Table 3). The location of these streams is shown on Figure 3. Table 3. Streams in the PSA Stream Name Map ID NCDWR Index Best Usage Bank Bankfull Depth Number Classification Height (ft.) width (ft.) (in.) Unnamed Tributary(UT) S1 27-2-(10) WNSW 0.5-2 3-6 0-6 to Eno River UT to Stony S2 27-2-13-(1) WS-V; NSW 0.5-2 2-3 0-6 Creek UT to Eno WS-IV; B; River S3 27-2-(LO) NSW 3-6 6-10 0-6 There are no designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High-Quality Waters (HQW), or Water Supply I or II Watersheds (WS-I or WS-II)within the PSA or within 1.0 mile downstream of the PSA. The North Carolina 2022 Final 303(d)list of impaired waters identifies no waters within the PSA or within 1.0 mile downstream of the PSA as impaired. No open waters or non-stream surface waters (e.g., tributaries) were identified within the PSA. 6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. Three streams were identified within the PSA (Table 4). The location of these streams is shown on Figure 3. All streams within the PSA have been designated as warm water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation. Table 4. Status of streams in the PSA Length Compensatory River Basin Map ID (ft.) Classification Mitigation Required Buffer S1 1,312 Intermittent Undetermined Subject 14 January 2023 65 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. Table 4. Status of streams in the PSA (continued) Map ID Length Classification Compensatory River Basin (ft.) Mitigation Required Buffer S2 345 Intermittent I Undetermined Subject S3 248 I Perennial I Yes Subject Total 1,905 Two wetlands were identified within the PSA (Table 5). The location of these wetlands is shown on Figure 3. All wetlands within the PSA are located within the Neuse River Basin (USGS HUC 03020201). USACE wetland determination forms and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) forms are included in a separate PJD Package. Table 5. Characteristics of wetlands in the PSA Area Map NCWAM Hydrologic 404/401 (ac.) in ID NCWAM Classification Forested Rating' Classification or 401 Study Area W1 I Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh No I Low I Riparian 404/401 0.09 W2 I Floodplain Pool Yes I * I Riparian 404/401 0.02 Total 0.11 ' —NCWAM forms were not completed for wetlands possessing qualities conducive to them receiving moderate or higher mitigation ratios and/or functional rating values. These features are represented by an asterisk(*). 6.2 Construction Moratoria No moratoria are anticipated for this project at this time. 6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules Streamside riparian zones within the PSA are protected under provisions of the Neuse River riparian buffer rules, administered by NCDWR. Per the Neuse River riparian buffer rules, streams depicted on the most recent published manuscript of the Orange County Soil Survey (prepared by the Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS], of the United States Department of Agriculture [USDA]), or the United States Geologic Survey's (USGS)National Map shall require a total of 50 perpendicular feet of riparian buffer from the stream top-of-bank. This 50' riparian buffer has two zones. Zone 1 consists of the first 30 undisturbed perpendicular feet from the stream top-of-bank. Zone 2 consists of the outer 20 perpendicular feet, starting from the outer edge of Zone 1. Limited disturbance is allowed in Zone 2. Specific disturbance activities and uses which are allowed in Zone 2 can be found in Items (9) and(11) of the Neuse Buffer Rules. In addition to the 50' buffer requirements of the Neuse River riparian buffer rules, the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance(UDO)requires additional buffers,which are determined by slope severity within 250 perpendicular feet from the stream top-of- bank. Section 6.13 of the UDO explains how to calculate the width of stream buffers. Slope values within the PSA are less than 7.5%. As a result, an additional 15' of buffer 15 January 2023 66 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. shall be applied to Zone 2 of the pre-existing 50' Neuse River buffers. If wetlands,ponds, lakes, or other surface waters partially occur within the 65' buffer of streams within the PSA, the buffer shall extend around the perimeters of those water features, thereby protecting them as well. 6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters No streams within the PSA have been designated by the USACE as a Navigable Water under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 16 January 2023 67 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. 7.0 REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Environmental Laboratory. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual, memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams. Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region, Version 2.0. Vicksburg, Mississippi. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality - Division of Water Resources. 2022. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List, Final 2022 North Carolina 303(d) List. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water- planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-data-assessment/inte grated-report- files. North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2010. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their Origins,Version 4.11.North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh,NC. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2022. Natural Heritage Data Explorer,October 2022 Quarterly Dataset [Web Application]. NCDNCR, Raleigh, NC. htlp://ncnhde.natureserve.org. North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method(NCWAM)User Manual [Version 5]. 2016. PDF Document. Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). Raleigh, North Carolina. 208 pp. Unites States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. United States Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of Orange County,North Carolina. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and Consultation(IPaC). https:Hipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/. United States Geological Survey. 1997. Hillsborough, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangles (7.5-minute series). 17 January 2023 68 Meadowmont Farms Biological Inventory Report Orange County, N.C. Weakley, Alan S. (Working Draft). Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. University of North Carolina Herbarium(NCU),North Carolina Botanical Garden. Chapel Hill,NC. 2,022 pp 18 January 2023 69 Appendix 70 Qualifications of Contributors Principal Investigator: Nathan Howell Education: M.S. Plant and Microbial Biology,North Carolina State University, 2015 B.S. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology,North Carolina State University, 2013 Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, 2015 —Present Responsibilities: Stream and Wetland Delineations; Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Assessments and Surveys; Natural Community Identification and Delineation; Document Preparation& Review, GIS Mapping Investigator Byron Levan Education: B.S. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology; North Carolina State University, 2011 M.FW. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, North Carolina State University, 2019 Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, 2021-Present Junior Environmental Scientist,NV5 Global Inc. 2019-2021 Responsibilities: Document Review Investigator James Mason Education: M.S. Biology/Ecology,UNC-Charlotte, 2004 B.A. Biology, Colby College, 2000 Experience: Senior Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, April 2018-Present Environmental Program Consultant,NCDOT, 2006-2018 Responsibilities: Document Review Investigator Tom Dickinson Education: B.S. Forestry/Natural Resources, Sewanee: The University of the South, 2001 Experience: Environmental Supervisor/Aquatic Biologist, Three Oaks Engineering, June 2015-present Environmental Scientist, The Catena Group, June 2003-June 2015 Responsibilities: Aquatic Species Habitat Assessments 71 Investigator Michael Wood Education: M.S. Soil Science, University of Rhode Island, 1994 B.S. Recreation Management, University of Vermont, 1986 Experience: Natural Resources Unit Head, Three Oaks Engineering, June 2015- present President, The Catena Group, September 1998-June 2015 Responsibilities: Document Review 72 Figures 73 +V AN IWI �r, a �� �,•+�' >� Prepared For: 6+irlingron ti ham - r 4 Sources Sari,HERE,-armim, : { } INCREMENT P,NRC.a`n,Esris�r -pyl'- y�'T :{ , Proposed Japan,Merl,esri cnma • ` -; - - +`�A. . Meadowmont Farms K-12 School Study Area „� �w,? w�> ,,, �.roff Development�, r. rz�•t n w Streets z - '�• i 2` f ,� 1 �. Moe�woepS Project I'i�' •- 3 � t _ ,. - s 4t2 " COMMUhYOA jE Vicinity a ✓FFF�RsoryoR '?+ ',= - 't,i1 } coMMUNoMF Hillsborough Orange County North Craolina 'r Y Date: November 2022 Scale: 0 150 300 Ft Job No.: ``� • !t i[, �,• rf' JAYCIR 22-669 8SS Drawn By: Checked By: *�. el �+yNDH 1 s Figure 671 „�” � '., `A� �f,--\jn _,� e ap, - er •gr p is InF• ti•n n n I -•a tl 74 DN �� i,1 Study Area D 1 Streets ` + Prepared For: WgSNINr'rONDR. WANOW d� r KENNEDY .CIR ✓ 1 Proposed Meadowmont Farms K-12 School �Co 00- Development Q ��] C7 G]�g • S(To o w - NiG-NwO • w COM� eNOME Topographic MU 17,, Map _ HIGNW Moelt"JeFFER , ' V CDMMUN, °R Ty Hillsborough Orange County North Craolina Date: December 2022 Scale: 0 150 300 Ft •L Job No.: ILI& JAYCIR 22-669 BSN BSS Drawn By: Checked By: ° NDH ism 0 Pyelm= R Figure Zm A� • t Copynght:©2073 ati anal Geographi Society,-,cubed 75 rPoten Study Area ' SNON Streets2ft Contours ; ptial Wetland WOUS + &- _ r - + Prepared For: _ ` t Disturbed ''� � ., ' ,, -,r•, z ,.. Undisturbed rte, lh I' pq ., - Potential Non-wetland WOUS(Streams) , 3a rIT Culvert Intermittent _ - '� +�r �� d°• s-; ' Perennial .�T - ,T�_ 1�r,�yfvi,Ic• ,p d .. _ryi�{y 'il' Proposed Meadowmont Farms s1� . W1 K-12 School x � µ 0 zo92, Development u W2 S3 Lu Moe�wooDS Jurisdictional IM U � � " , 3 - I 2-•'"�,. _ °0M/y�NOMf Features Map-Aerial FFF . Moa cF oo°s i'. " ' Hrry Hillsborough S Orange County North Craolina s2 oml Date: r, r•, a. f November 2022 r :y Scale: 0 150 300 Ft I i I i' Job No.: 22-669 JAY CIR 11 a"•+r. BSN BSS �1 Drawn By: Checked By: NDH JSM sy �► °R Figure t, r -9/ro •e y�� '� �e � 2.Y ! ,�} - ap, - e 4 i• nd nal -oard 76 4 Study Area Streets Potential Non-wetland WOUS(Streams) Culvert Intermittent r Prepared For: Perennial Potential Wetland WOUS Disturbed _ - ' LCL Undisturbed - " M ®wWvcn.�mc.ms1u-.I.T:Fv Natural Communities - Dry Oak-Hickory Forest(Piedmont Subtype) 1 s Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest(Piedmont Subtype) "T, Maintained/Disturbed Proposed a` r Meadowmont Farms s1 '� J K-12 School •Wj .- ui� E Development �mz o W2 W S3 H/GHW Terrestrial F^�Fp'!4 w' ' ~R w coMM�NOME Communities Map HIGH �' ✓EPEE oBl<F ho 7 * => RSONOR MMUNl7jM,F Hillsborough Orange County s S2 North Craolina a ; Date: • December 2022 Scale: 0 175 350 Ft JAY CIR 85N /857 o Job No.: 22-669 O Drawn By: Checked By: Ry NDH JSM tiFRo �NNiFOR Figure • � �ti� Z OLD Oe ` �y OAK pC HAYES DR G ��� }'. � �4�rR 1 CO eM p, - tee o ••r phis lnf•rm ti•n nd nalys 1 oard. 77 USUMMIT 320 Executive Court, Hillsborough, NC 27278 DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Phone // 919.732.3883 Web // www.summitde.net PRELIMINARY STORMWATER I M PACT ANALYSIS Lawrence Road Development Lawrence Road Orange County, NC 27278 SUMMIT PROJECT #22-0214.010 PIN: 9883-19-4355 ORANGE COUNTY REVIEW: December 2, 2022 ENGINEER: Summit Design and Engineering William Wirt, PE William.Wirt@summitde.com 78 Table of Contents SIANarrative................................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................3 Stormwater Management Analysis...........................................................................................................3 Appendix A—Preliminary Calculations .....................................................................................................A1 PreliminaryWet Pond Sizing...................................................................................................................A2 SNAPTool Analysis..................................................................................................................................AS 79 Introduction The proposed project includes subdividing the current parcel into three "pods" as shown in the proposed Master Plan Development—Conditional Zoning Site Plan included with this submittal. The proposed uses include two schools, a tennis club and baseball and softball fields each developed on dedicated parcels. These facilities will be served by their own dedicated SCM for stormwater treatment and attenuation. Stormwater Management Analysis For the purposes of this preliminary analysis, rough calculations for wet pond sizing and treatment are provided. Cover conditions in each proposed parcel were analyzed for the post development conditions and are provided in the table below. Schools COVER CONDITION HSG SF AC CN CONCRETE, ASPHALT NA 264,200 6.07 98 ROOF NA 70,400 1.62 98 FALLOW, CROP RESIDUE B 0.00 83 OPEN SPACE, GOOD B 810,554 18.61 61 TOTAL 1,145,154 26.29 72 Tennis COVER CONDITION HSG SF AC CN CONCRETE, ASPHALT NA 222,464 5.11 98 ROOF NA 48,678 1.12 98 FALLOW, CROP RESIDUE B 0.00 83 OPEN SPACE, GOOD B 535,667 12.30 61 TOTAL 806,808 18.52 73 Baseball COVER CONDITION HSG SF AC CN IMPERVIOUS NA 113,226 2.60 98 FALLOW, CROP RESIDUE NA 0 0.00 83 WOOD, GOOD B 0.00 55 OPEN SPACE, GOOD B 1,544,546 35.46 61 TOTAL 1,657,772 38.06 64 Main Road COVER CONDITION HSG SF AC CN IMPERVIOUS NA 83,649 1.92 98 These values were then used to determine the minimum treatment area and volume required in each SCM using the calculation guidance provided in the NCDEQ Minimum Design Criteria (MDC) Manual. Due to their large volumetric capacity, wet ponds were chosen as the primary SCM for 80 treatment and attenuation. The wet pond sizing calculations are summarized in the tables provided in Appendix A. Some elements of the wet ponds, like average depth, were assumed as the minimum acceptable dimensions as the final dimensions are not currently known. Note that one SCM will be dedicated to both the baseball field parcel and the public road. Preliminary treatment was also analyzed using the SNAP Tool per the guidance in the Orange County UDO Article 6 in reference to the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy. For conservative analysis, the total parcel area was assumed to be the disturbed area at this time since the extent of the site disturbance is not known. Note that in the SNAP Tool SCM Characteristics Section, the SCM dedicated to the school is tabulated as Catchment 1, tennis facility Catchment 2 and the baseball fields and public road as Catchment 3. To increase treatment capacity,floating wetlands were added to the wet ponds SCM type. Summit has proposed this method before for nearby projects including the Chrysler Dealership currently under construction off NC 86. As noted in the Project Summary section of the SNAP Tool,the proposed SCMs will achieve the treatment targets of the Falls Lake watershed with total Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loading Rates to be 1.83 Ib/ac/yr and 0.25 Ib/ac/yr respectively for the Post Project SCM Treated Areas. See Appendix A for the full SNAP Tool Analysis. As shown on the Site Plan, the areas currently reserved for SCMs are significantly larger than those required for treatment.Since these SCMs will also be the primary attenuators for each parcel, a larger footprint is assumed. Pre and post development runoff rates and routing have not been provided as part of this submission, as the analysis is more in depth then the purposes of this submittal. Likewise, a more thorough analysis of the treatment capacities may need to be completed once a more definite version of the site plan can be provided for each parcel. This analysis will be provided in more detail at the time of construction drawings. APPENDIX A - Preliminary Calculations $1 82 USUMMIT DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Project: LRD Date: 12.2.2022 Revision: Project No: 22-0214 By: WRW DetentionWet • • . Calculations (Schools) Drainage Area 1 Input values in red Drainage Area Pervious Surface Area Total Drainage Area sf 11145,154 Mana ed Pervious Area sf 0 On-site Drainage Area (sf) 1,145,154 Unmanged Pervious Area (pasture) (sf) 0 Off-site Drainage Area (sf) 0 Forest(sf) 0 Total Pervious Area (sf) 0 Impervious Surface Area On-site Buildings/Lots (sf) 70,400 On-site Streets (sf) 264,200 On-site Parking (sf) On-site Sidewalks (sf) Other On-site (sf) Future (sf) 0 Off-site (sf) 0 Existing BUA* (sf) 0 *=Report only amount of existing BUA that will remain after development. Do not report Total Impervious Area (sf) 334,600 any existing BUA that is to be removed and which will be replaced by new BUA Required Surface Area Required Storage for 1st inch of runoff Total Drainage Area = 26.29 ac Simple Method Total Impervious Area = 7.68 ac Percent Impervious = 29.22% Rv = 0.05 + 0.009(I) Design Rainfall Depth = 1 in I = % impervious = 29% Average Perm. Pool Depth = 3.37 ft Max. Perm. Pool Depth = 3.5 ft SA/DA Ratio = 1.02 Rv = 0.31 in Surface Area Required = 11647 sf Volume = 29866 cf 0.27 ac Calculation Methods are taken from NCDEQ Stormwater Minimum Design Criteria,Latest Version Surface Area Required at Normal Pool 11,647 sf Temporary Storage Volume Required 29,866 cf Ai Pagel of 4 83 USUMMIT DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Project: LRD Date: 12.2.2022 Revision: Project No: 22-0214 By: WRW Wet Detention Pond . Calculations Drainage Area 1 Input values in red Drainage Area Pervious Surface Area Total Drainage Area sf 806,808 Mana ed Pervious Area sf 0 On-site Drainage Area (sf) 806,808 Unmanged Pervious Area (pasture) (sf) 0 Off-site Drainage Area (sf) 0 Forest(sf) 0 Total Pervious Area (sf) 0 Impervious Surface Area On-site Buildings/Lots (sf) 48,678 On-site Streets (sf) 222,464 On-site Parking (sf) On-site Sidewalks (sf) Other On-site (sf) Future (sf) 0 Off-site (sf) 0 Existing BUA* (sf) 0 *=Report only amount of existing BUA that will remain after development. Do not report Total Impervious Area (sf) 271,142 any existing BUA that is to be removed and which will be replaced by new BUA Required Surface Area Required Storage for 1st inch of runoff Total Drainage Area = 18.52 ac Simple Method Total Impervious Area = 6.22 ac Percent Impervious = 33.61% Rv = 0.05 + 0.009(I) Design Rainfall Depth = 1 in I = % impervious = 34% Average Perm. Pool Depth = 3.37 ft Max. Perm. Pool Depth = 3.5 ft SA/DA Ratio = 1.17 Rv = 0.35 in Surface Area Required = 9430 sf Volume = 23697 cf 0.22 ac Calculation Methods are taken from NCDEQ Stormwater Minimum Design Criteria,Latest Version Surface Area -• -• at NormalPool 9,430 sf Temporary Storage Volume Required 23,697 cf zf Pagel of 4 84 USUMMIT DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Project: LRD Date: 12.2.2022 Revision: Project No: 22-0214 By: WRW Drainage Area 1 Input values in red W Drainage Area Pervious Surface Area Total Drainage Area (sf) 1,741,421 Manage Pervious Area sf 0 On-site Drainage Area (sf) 1,741,421 Unmanged Pervious Area (pasture) (sf) 0 Off-site Drainage Area (sf) 0 Forest(sf) 0 Total Pervious Area (sf) 0 Impervious Surface Area On-site Buildings/Lots (sf) 113,226 On-site Streets (sf) 83,649 On-site Parking (sf) On-site Sidewalks (sf) Other On-site (sf) Future (sf) 0 Off-site (sf) 0 Existing BUA* (sf) 0 *=Report only amount of existing BUA that will remain after development. Do not report Total Impervious Area (sf) 196,875 any existing BUA that is to be removed and which will be replaced by new BUA Required Surface Area Required Storage for 1st inch of runoff Total Drainage Area = 39.98 ac Simple Method Total Impervious Area = 4.52 ac Percent Impervious = 11.31% Rv = 0.05 + 0.009(I) Design Rainfall Depth = 1 in I = % impervious = 11% Average Perm. Pool Depth = 3.37 ft Max. Perm. Pool Depth = 3.5 ft SA/DA Ratio = 0.52 Rv = 0.15 in Surface Area Required = 9057 sf Volume = 22022 cf 0.21 ac Calculation Methods are taken from NCDEQ Stormwater Minimum Design Criteria,Latest Version Surface Area -• -• at NormalPool 9,057 sf Temporary • .•- Volume Required 22,022 Page 1 of 4 85 Proiect Information Project Name: Lawerence Road Development Submission Date: Project Area (ft): 3,680,820 ft 2 Disturbed Area (ft): 3,680,820 ft 2 Development Land Use Type: Mixed-Use Development Activity Type: Development - New Designated Downtown Area? no Project Location/Address: County: Local Jurisdiction: Orange County Project Latitude Coordinates: N Project Longitude Coordinates: W Precipitation Station: Chapel Hill Physiographic Region: Nutrient Management Watershed: Falls Lake Subwatershed: Falls - Upper Phosphorus Delivery Zone: Falls - Upper Nitrogen Delivery Zone: Falls - Upper Project Designer and Contact Phone Number/ Email: Part of Common Development Plan? no Project Owner Type: Private Project Description: 86 Project Area Land Cover Characteristics TN TP Pre- Post- PROJECT AREA LAND COVERS EMC EMC Project Project (mg/L) (mg/L) Area (ft) Area (ft) Roof 1.18 0.11 119,078 Roadway 1.64 0.34 83,649 Parking/Driveway/Sidewalk 1.42 0.18 399,890 Protected Forest 0.97 0.03 Other Pervious/Landscaping 2.48 1.07 3,680,820 2,949,662 CUSTOM LAND COVER 1 CUSTOM LAND COVER 2 CUSTOM LAND COVER 3 LAND TAKEN UP BY SCM 1 1.18 0.11 128,541 LAND COVER AREA CHECK Net Change of Land Covers(ft): 731,158 Total Project Area Entered (ft): 3,680,820 Total Pre-Project Calculated Area (ft 2): 3,680,820 Total Post-Project Calculated Area (ft): 3,680,820 Equations Used and Project Area Calculations SIMPLE METHOD Stormwater Runoff Volume Generated, V Runoff Coefficient,R v V= Pj*Rv*(P/12)*A R„= 0.05+(0.009*1) where A= drainage area(ft) where I= percent impervious(%) P = fraction of rain events with runoff Average Annual Pollutant Load,L P= average annual rainfall depth(in) L= (Pi*R„*(P/12))*(C*A*2.72) where C= event mean concentration(mg/L) Pre-Project: Post-Project: A= 84.5000 ac A= 84.5000 ac P = 47.31 in. P = 47.31 in. V= 653023 ft, V= 3010726 ft, 1 = 0% I = 20% R„= 0.05 Rv= 0.23 Pi = 0.9 Pi = 0.9 CTN = 2.48 mg/L CTN = 1.56 mg/L CTP = 1.07 mg/L CTP= 0.33 mg/L LTN = 101.13 Ib/yr LTN = 292.62 Ib/yr LTP = 43.63 Ib/yr LTP= 61.99 Ib/yr 3. SCM Characteristics 87 SCM Characteristics Catchment ID 1 1 1 SCM ID 101 102 103 Type of SCM Wet Pond with Floating Wetlands Predominant hydrologic soil B group at SCM location SCM Description Design Storm Size (inches/24hrs) 1.00 Percent of Full Size 100% Hydrologic Value- Percent 68/ Annual Effluent Hydrologic Value- Percent 16% Annual Overflow Hydrologic Value- Percent 17% Annual ET/Infiltrated SCM Effluent TP EMC(mg/L) 0.09 SCM Effluent TN EMC(mg/L) 0.85 SCM Land Cover TP EMC(mg/L) 0.11 SCM Land Cover TN EMC(mg/L) 1.18 Drains to SCM ID 0 3. SCM Characteristics 88 Catchment Routing Catchments Draining to Catchments Draining to Catchments Draining to (Source Catchment) SCM 101 SCM 102 SCM 103 Catchment 1 Catchment 2 Catchment 3 Catchment 4 Catchment 5 Catchment 6 SCM ID: 101 102 103 Area Draining Directly to Area Draining Directly to Area Draining Directly to SCM Drainage Area Land Covers SCM 101 (ft2) SCM 102 (ft2) SCM 103(ft2) Roof 70,400 Roadway Parking/Driveway/Sidewalk 264,200 Protected Forest Other Pervious/Landscaping 810,554 CUSTOM LAND COVER 1 CUSTOM LAND COVER 2 CUSTOM LAND COVER 3 LAND TAKEN UP BY SCM 37,083 TOTAL AREA DRAINING TO SCM (ft): 1,182,237 0 0 ICATCHMENT AREA(ft'): 1,182,237 3. SCM Characteristics 89 SCM Characteristics Catchment ID 2 2 2 SCM ID 201 202 203 Type of SCM Wet Pond with Floating Wetlands Predominant hydrologic soil B group at SCM location SCM Description Design Storm Size (inches/24hrs) 1.00 Percent of Full Size 100% Hydrologic Value- Percent 68/0 Annual Effluent Hydrologic Value- Percent 16% Annual Overflow Hydrologic Value- Percent 17% Annual ET/Infiltrated SCM Effluent TP EMC(mg/L) 0.09 SCM Effluent TN EMC(mg/L) 0.85 SCM Land Cover TP EMC(mg/L) 0.11 SCM Land Cover TN EMC(mg/L) 1.18 Drains to SCM ID 0 3. SCM Characteristics 90 Catchment Routing Catchments Draining to Catchments Draining to Catchments Draining to (Source Catchment) SCM 201 SCM 202 SCM 203 Catchment 1 Catchment 2 Catchment 3 Catchment 4 Catchment 5 Catchment 6 SCM ID: 201 202 203 Area Draining Directly to Area Draining Directly to Area Draining Directly to [SCM Drainage Area Land Covers SCM 201 (ft2) SCM 202 (ft2) SCM 203 (ft2) Roof 48,678 Roadway Parking/Driveway/Sidewalk 22,464 Protected Forest Other Pervious/Landscaping 535,667 CUSTOM LAND COVER 1 CUSTOM LAND COVER 2 CUSTOM LAND COVER 3 LAND TAKEN UP BY SCM 29,484 TOTAL AREA DRAINING TO SCM (ft): 636,293 0 0 _ ICATCHMENT AREA(ft): 636,293 3. SCM Characteristics 91 SCM Characteristics Catchment ID 3 3 3 SCM ID 301 302 303 Type of SCM Wet Pond with Floating Wetlands Predominant hydrologic soil B group at SCM location SCM Description Design Storm Size (inches/24hrs) 1.00 Percent of Full Size 100% Hydrologic Value- Percent 68/0 Annual Effluent Hydrologic Value- Percent 16% Annual Overflow Hydrologic Value- Percent 17% Annual ET/Infiltrated SCM Effluent TP EMC(mg/L) 0.09 SCM Effluent TN EMC(mg/L) 0.85 SCM Land Cover TP EMC(mg/L) 0.11 SCM Land Cover TN EMC(mg/L) 1.18 Drains to SCM ID 0 3. SCM Characteristics 92 Catchment Routing Catchments Draining to Catchments Draining to Catchments Draining to (Source Catchment) SCM 301 SCM 302 SCM 303 Catchment 1 Catchment 2 Catchment 3 Catchment 4 Catchment 5 Catchment 6 SCM ID: 301 302 303 Area Draining Directly to Area Draining Directly to Area Draining Directly to SCM Drainage Area Land Covers SCM 301 (ft2) SCM 302 (ft2) SCM 303 (ft2) [Roof Roadway 83,649 Parking/Driveway/Sidewalk 113,226 Protected Forest Other Pervious/Landscaping 1,544,546 CUSTOM LAND COVER 1 CUSTOM LAND COVER 2 CUSTOM LAND COVER 3 LAND TAKEN UP BY SCM 61,974 TOTAL AREA DRAINING TO SCM 1,803,395 0 0 (ft): ICATCHMENT AREA(ft): 1,803,395 3. SCM Characteristics 93 SCM Characteristics Catchment ID SCM ID Type of SCM Predominant hydrologic soil group at SCM location SCM Description Design Storm Size (inches/24hrs) Percent of Full Size Hydrologic Value- Percent Annual Effluent Hydrologic Value- Percent Annual Overflow Hydrologic Value- Percent Annual ET/Infiltrated SCM Effluent TP EMC(mg/L) SCM Effluent TN EMC(mg/L) SCM Land Cover TP EMC(mg/L) SCM Land Cover TN EMC(mg/L) Drains to SCM ID 3. SCM Characteristics 94 Catchment Routing (Source Catchment) Catchment 1 Catchment 2 Catchment 3 Catchment 4 Catchment 5 Catchment 6 SCM ID: Total Land Use Area Allowable Total Land Use Post-Project Untreated SCM Drainage Area Land Covers 2 Area to be Treated Based Z Treated By All SCMs(ft ) on Post-Proiect Areas (ft) Land Area (ft ) [Roof 119,078 119,078 0 Roadway 83,649 83,649 0 Parking/Driveway/Sidewalk 399,890 399,890 0 Protected Forest 0 0 0 Other Pervious/Landscaping 2,890,767 2,949,662 58,895 CUSTOM LAND COVER 1 0 0 0 CUSTOM LAND COVER 2 0 0 0 CUSTOM LAND COVER 3 0 0 0 LAND TAKEN UP BY SCM 128,541 128,541 0 TOTAL AREA DRAINING TO SCM (ft): 3,621,925 3,680,820 58,895 ICATCHMENT AREA(ft): 95 Project Summary Project Name: Lawerence Road Development Project Area (ft): 3,680,820 ft84.5000 acres Submission Date: Disturbed Area(ft): 3,680,820 ft2 84.5000 acres County: Local Jurisdiction: Orange County Development Land Use Type: Mixed-Use Owner Type: Private Development Activity Type: Development- New Designated Downtown Area? no Nutrient Management Watershed: Falls Lake Subwatershed: Falls- Upper Phosphorus Delivery Zone:1 Falls- Upper Nitrogen Delivery Zone: Falls- Upper Phosphorus Delivery Factor(%): 100% Nitrogen Delivery Factor(%): 100% Phosphorus Loading Rate Target(Ib/ac/yr): 0.33 Nitrogen Loading Rate Target(Ib/ac/yr): 2.20 Phosphorus Load Target at Site(Ib/yr): 27.89 Nitrogen Load Target at Site(Ib/yr): 185.90 Phosphorus Load Leaving Site w/SCMs(Ib/yr): 21.59 Nitrogen Load Leaving Site w/SCMs(Ib/yr): 154.15 P Offsite Buy-Down Threshold Loading Rate(Ib/ac/yr): 0.53 N Offsite Buy-Down Threshold Loading Rate 2.83 Total P Load Reduction Needed(Ib/yr): 34.11 Total N Load Reduction Needed (Ib/yr): 106.72 P Load Treatment Balance at Site(Ib/yr): -6.30 N Load Treatment Balance at Site(Ib/yr): -31.75 P Load Treatment Balance at Lake(Ib/yr): -6.30 N Load Treatment Balance at Lake(Ib/yr): -31.75 Pre-Project Post-Project Post-Project Post-Project Nutrient Export Summa Post-Project p �"�( Whole Site Whole Site Whole Site with SCM-Treated Untreated Area Conditions without SCMs SCMs Area Percent Impervious(for runoff calculation) (%) 0.0% 19.9% 19.9% 20.2% 0.0% Percent Built-Upon Area (BUA) (%) 0.0% 16.4% 16.4% 16.6% 0.0% Annual Runoff Volume ft3/ r 653,023 3,010,726 2,504,160 2,493,711 10,449 Annual Runoff%Change(relative to pre-D) 0% 361% 283% Total Nitrogen EMC(mg/L) 2.48 1.56 0.99 0.99 2.48 Total Nitrogen Load Leaving Site(Ib/yr) 101.13 292.62 154.15 152.53 1.62 Total Nitrogen Loading Rate(Ib/ac/yr) 1.20 3.46 1.82 1.83 1.20 Total Nitrogen%Change(relative to pre-D) 0% 189% 52% Total Phosphorus EMC(mg/L) 1.07 0.33 0.14 0.14 1.07 Total Phosphorus Load Leaving Site(Ib/yr) 43.63 61.99 21.59 20.89 0.70 Total Phosphorus Loading Rate(Ib/ac/yr) 0.52 0.73 0.26 0.25 0.52 Total Phosphorus%Change(relative to pre-D) 0% 42% -51% 96 SCM/Catchment Summary SCM ID and Type Volume TN Out(mg/L) TP Out(mg/L) TN Out TP Out TN Reduction TP Reduction (%) Reduction (%) (Ibs/ac/yr) (Ibs/ac/yr) N Catchment 1 16.88% 0.97 0.12 2.58 0.32 45.36% 60.46% 101:Wet Pond with Floating Wetlands 16.88% 0.97 0.12 2.58 0.32 45.36% 60.46% 102:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 103:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% Catchment 2 16.88% 0.97 0.13 1.51 0.21 46.33% 66.05% 201:Wet Pond with Floating Wetlands 16.88% 0.97 0.13 1.51 0.21 46.33% 66.05% 202:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 203:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% Catchment 3 16.88% 1.01 0.15 1.46 0.22 50.33% 69.88% 301:Wet Pond with Floating Wetlands 16.88% 1.01 0.15 1.46 0.22 50.33% 69.88% 302:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 303:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% Catchment 4 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 401:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 402:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 403:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% Catchment 5 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 501:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 502:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 503:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% Catchment 6 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 601:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 602:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 603:NA 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% SCM rows in red have a data entry error for the SCM that makes an error in the calculation. 97 THE G.Nicholas Herman herman@broughllawfirm.com BDRobert E. Hornik,Jr. hornik@broughlawfirm.com U T.C.Morphis,Jr. morphis@broughlawfirm.com LIA LAW FIRM, P L LC Albert M. Benshoff benshoff@broughlawfirm.com S. Ellis Hankins hankins@broughlawfirm.com Kevin R. Hornik khornik@broughlawfirm.com Brady N.Herman bherman@broughlawfirm.com January 4, 2023 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL TO pbyker@,morningstarlawgroup.com & 1st CLASS U.S. MAIL Patrick Byker, Esq. Morningstar Law Group 700 West Main St. Durham,North Carolina 27701 Re: Town of Hillsborough Reservation of Water and Sewer Capacity/ Triangle Schools of NC/Orange County PIN 9883-19-4355 Dear Patrick: In response to your letter dated November 22,2022 and the letter from Alex Quigley in his capacity as Chair of the Board of Directors for Triangle Schools NC, a North Carolina non-profit corporation, and as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. l I5C-521(i),the Town of Hillsborough will reserve Six Thousand (6,000) gallons per day of water and sewer capacity for the proposed West Triangle High School under consideration for the parcel identified above located on U.S. Highway 70A, on the east side of Lawrence Road,for a period of 24 months, beginning on November 22, 2022 (the date of your original inquiry), and expiring on November 21, 2024. The reservation of capacity is limited to that property, only, and for the charter school use now being proposed for that property, only. This reservation of capacity, compelled by recent statutory changes, is also subject to the Town's regulations and fees for extensions of water and sewer service to out-of-town properties which are or may be in effect at the time that the site developer requests actual connection to the Town's system. Moreover, the owner/developer of the property may be required to pay the costs to extend the necessary infrastructure to the site,and to pay for or contribute to the cost incurred by the Town for any improvements to the Town's systems that may be necessary in order to accommodate the property at that time. This letter does not constitute any type of approval by the Town of Hillsborough of any development of the site, or of any plans or specifications for any water/sewer infrastructure to serve the site. The Brough Law Firm, PLLC 1 1526 E. Franklin Street I Suite 200 1 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1 broughlawfirm.com CHAPEL HILL(919) 929-3905 1 CONCORD(980) 622-6440 1 RALEIGH (919) 349-8988 98 Patrick Byker,Fsq. January 4,2023 Page 2 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Zert 4E. nik, H LAW FIRM,PLLC Jr. REHjr:las cc: Eric Peterson, Town Manager Marie Strandwitz,Utilities Director The Brough Law Firm, PLLC 1 1526 E. Franklin Street I Suite 200 I Chapel Hill, NC 27514 I broughlaw firm.com CHAPEL HILL(919)929-3905 1 CONCORD (980)622-6440 1 RALEIGH (919) 349-8988 THF G.Nicholas Herman herman@broughlaw9lirm.com BOUGH Robert E.Hornik,Jr. hornik@broughlawfirm.com T.C. Morphis,Jr. morphis@broughlawfirm.com La LAW FIRM, P L LC Albert M. Benshoff benshoff@broughlawfirm.com S. Ellis Hankins hankins@broughlawfirm.com Kevin R.Hornik khornik@broughlawfirm.com Brady N.Herman bherman@broughlawfirm.com March 25, 2022 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL TO pbykergmorningstarlawgroup.com & V CLASS U.S.MAIL Patrick Byker, Esq. Morningstar Law Group 112 West Main St., 2nd Floor Durham,North Carolina 27701 Re: Town of Hillsborough Reservation of Water and Sewer Capacity/ The Expedition School Dear Patrick: In response to your letters dated February 3,2022 and March 2,2022,and as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. 115C-521(1),the Town of Hillsborough will reserve 7,200 gallons per day of water and sewer capacity for the proposed Expedition School site located on U.S. Highway 70A on the east side of Lawrence Road for a period of 24 months, beginning on February 3, 2022 (the date of your original inquiry), and expiring on February 3,2024.The reservation of capacity is limited to that properly,only,and for the charter school use now being proposed for that property, only. This reservation of capacity, compelled by recent statutory changes, is also subject to the Town's regulations and fees for extensions of water and sewer service to out of town properties which are or may be in effect at the time that the site developer requests actual connection to the Town's system. Moreover, the owner/developer of the property may be required to pay for or contribute to the cost incurred by the Town for any improvements to the Town's systems that may be necessary in order to accommodate the property at that time. This letter does not constitute any type of approval by the Town of Hillsborough of any development of the site, or of any plans or specifications for any water/sewer infrastructure to serve the site. The Brough Law Firm, PLLC ' 1526 E. Franklin Street I Suite 200 1 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1 broughlawfirm.com CHAPEL HILL(919) 929-3905 1 CONCORD (980) 622-6440 1 RALEIGH (919) 349-8988 100 Patrick Byker,Esq. March 25,2022 Page 2 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, THE ERO H L cW FIRM,PLLC Robert E. Hornik, Jr. REHjr:las cc: Eric Peterson, Town Manager Marie Strandwitz, Utilities Director The Brough Law Firm, PLLC 11526 E. Franklin Street I Suite 200 1 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1 broughlawfirm.com CHAPEL HILL(919) 929-3905 1 CONCORD (980) 622-6440 1 RALEIGH (919) 349-8988 Habitat We build strength, stability, self-reliance and shelter. �� for Humanity' Orange County,NC March 22, 2023 To Whom it May Concern, I am writing on behalf of Habitat for Humanity of Orange County to express our cooperation with WTHS Public Charter School and Lawrence Road Partners, LLC in regards to the connection of Water and Sewer Services through our properties at 1317 US70A comprising the approved East Village Neighborhood. Habitat has been in conversations with members of the Lawrence Road Properties, LLC for a year and a half. Throughout that time, Habitat has been willing to allow the extension of the water and sewer mains in East Village to be used as a connection of the charter school to the utility infrastructure of the Town of Hillsborough. Habitat will continue to cooperate on any such connection and will work with the Town and the County to design a system that works for everyone in the area. Sincerely, Richard Turlington VP of Construction Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, NC Habitat for Humanity of Orange County 188 Vilcom Center Drive,Suite L110,Chapel Hill,NC 27514 tel(919)932-7077 info@orangehabitat.org orangehabitat.org 102 February 20, 2023 Brian Collie Orange County Planning&Inspections Department 131 W Margaret Lane Hillsborough,NC 27278 Resource Management Plan Lawrence Road Development-Meadowmont Farms The purpose of this plan is to protect and maintain the environmental and biological assets on the property of the proposed development and to coordinate and control the potential impacts of the future use of the property. 1. Protection of natural resources: a Biological Inventory(BI) and an Environmental Assessment(EA)has been conducted by Three Oaks Engineering, INC and is included in the application package for review. Figures 3 and 4 of the Biological Inventory Report show the classification of streams and wetland areas on the site. The streams and wetlands are listed under water features and drainage in the Environmental Assessment Application. All streams and associated buffers shall be delineated on the plan sheets as per the guidance provided by the Orange County UDO. These buffers will be noted on the construction drawings and final plat as undisturbed areas in perpetuity. They will be protected from impact during construction using tree protection fence and silt fence to delineate limits of disturbance. After construction of the site, buffers and streams shall remain in their natural state. Any proposed crossings of these buffers shall be permitted through Orange County, NCDENR and the USACE. 2. Ownership and maintenance of open spaces: Ownership on parcels containing the school sites and the recreation fields shall be by non-profit entities. The parcel that depicts the indoor facility may be either non- profit or for-profit owned(TBD). Common open spaces will consist of areas around and including stormwater control ponds that serve the entire development. There will be common septic fields that will serve the non-school parcels. All other areas such as vegetative buffers, landscaped areas, grassed areas and fields shall be maintained by the parcel owners. An existing or planted landscape buffer as required by Orange County's UDO shall be provided around the entire parcel. Existing vegetative buffers shall be protected from clearing and grading operations with tree protection fence and proposed landscaped areas shall provide the vegetative landscape density per the Orange County UDO as shown on the landscape plan included with this submittal. 3. Provision of Services: All facilities in this development shall provide waste disposal locations for recyclable and non-recyclable waste. These locations and container sizes shall comply with Orange County UDO and Orange County Solid Waste. During site construction all earth work will be managed on site, maintaining topsoil areas for respread and future vegetative growth. Stormwater management during construction and post-construction will be provided on site. Stormwater runoff during construction shall be directed to adequately sized erosion control devices to be specified in an erosion control plan approved by Orange County. Post construction run-off shall be conveyed to Stormwater Control Measures approved by Headquarters Office 320 Executive Court, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919.732.3883 1! www.summitde.com 103 Orange County for proper nutrient removal and retention in accordance with County and State regulations. No irrigation is proposed for any of the three parcels at this time. 4. The handling of land clearing debris: All clearing debris shall be removed from the site and transported to a permitted landfill.No burning of clearing debris will be allowed. During construction, waste shall be collated in proper receptacles and disposed of as dictated by material classification. ® 2 104 w w °a o IEUE.ofa a.oUSEAE�af.wr (s"t OA 9�sp i r ' gzt. � 1. a °za"ry "In 11 °° wi a aino"ncpe—or so w 8 a.. U USE as°,o n,n PELI a w� s Y ka �3 a°rec,xw�aFw�rsl s� i �j Imp i aN,°w.a.a J z a ti �i l W / q z D WjwP z // e Z p W i � < Know what'sbelow. m Uo= w 1 allberore you dig. z z Of /se w°o _ ___ LLJ 1 : wm w :auoIEI "INI—In11E ° __ o. —w, —————————— 5� 0 USE /aV 22-0214 N/8S o,12 a aN _214_RMP n RID z w°aTMa aaLL,a°°°a �a° JAY CIRCLM ° WR \ \ o a,a33 s way) RMP1 105 -.54 M RI I GST R SUtlloltllT LAW G Ri O U P - - RESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director FROM: Jim Parker, P.E., P.L.S., Lawrence Road Properties, LLC & Patrick Byker, Morningstar Law Group DATE: May 30, 2023 RE: Agreed to conditions relating to Zoning Atlas Amendment Rezoning Application Conditional District - MA22-0004 (Lawrence Road Properties, LLC) We thought it would be beneficial to state in writing the conditions that Lawrence Road Properties has agreed to for the benefit of the Orange County Board of Commissioners in advance of the June 6, 2023 meeting. In addition to our agreement to the condition requiring either the construction or funding of northbound and southbound left turn lanes on Lawrence Road at US 70 reflected on pages 241- 242 of the staff report for MA22-0004, Lawrence Road Properties also agrees to the following nine (9) conditions: 1. Installation of a Type C buffer along Lawrence Road prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance for the school. 2. Lighting for the tennis courts shall be the minimum necessary to meet UDO requirements. 3. The property owner shall conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) five (5) years after the opening of the school and submit the TIA to Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. 4. All handicapped parking spaces shall be installed with striped hashmarks to provide additional separation between vehicles. 106 Memorandum Planning and Inspections Dir. Stober May 30,2023 Page 2 5. Subject to approval by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the property owner shall install a concrete median along with additional striping on Lawrence Road at the intersection with Old NC 10 Highway prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance for the school. 6. Subject to approval by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the property owner shall install school zone/35 m.p.h. speed limit signage on Lawrence Road and US 70A in the vicinity of the school. 7. Subject to approval by the Town of Hillsborough and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, in the event water service is provided to the school, the property owner shall install fire hydrants at required intervals along US 70A prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance for the school. 8. There will be no cafeteria facilities if the site is served by an on-site septic system. 9. For a minimum of six months after approval of this zoning atlas amendment, the applicant shall not submit any site plan application for approximately 12 acres designated for a school use within PIN 9883-19-4355, and during those six months the applicant shall grant the Orange County School District an exclusive right to negotiate the purchase or lease of approximately 12 acres for use as a K-8 school. Our team is ready, willing and able to consider other conditions for MA22-0004 that members of the Board of County Commissioners may suggest at the June 6, 2023 meeting. cc: John Roberts, Esq., County Attorney 10 Attachment 2 Staff Report ORANGE Zoning Atlas Amendment — Conditional District C�ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Basic Information Vicinity Map for Rezoning Application PIN 9883194355 Parcel Identification 9883-19-4355 <, Number (PIN) ,w preeec,eo- ` Case Number MA22-0004 'sW—gh To.wnshp lower Eno r `y~N, Lawrence Road Partners, E�se #7 Applicant Name LLC and Address 320 Executive Court ` �" Hillsborough, NC 27278 Property Owner Lawrence Road Partners, Name and Address LLC (if different from 320 Executive Court, 4 I f Applicant) Hillsborough, NC 27278 t — —tx Agent(s), if � f > applicable N/A Parcel Size +/-84.90 acres Adopted Future Land Use Map with Parcel 9883194355 Depicted Future Land Use Map (FLUM) 20-Year Transition Area Designation FLUM Overlay(s) Resource Protection Area s Growth Management Lower Eno P I to tetl Urban System Designation L Definition of FLUM Land designated in the T ► Designation Comprehensive Plan as being 9aa3,943�� located in areas that are in the F r °20-Year Transition" process of changing from rural to urban, that are suitable for urban- Lg4ver Cno type densities and should be provided with public utilities and o a1P15 - B.reains = services within the second 10-year ,Each o phase of the Comprehensive Plan. jj- F�u �ndseeregoes —'10 Yesr T�nsiton zn vP.rx.,no �� �Ir irus nc-..I—, g y ai ry nn mon ! 1 Attachment 2 Interlocal Agreement Applicable Yes Town of Hlflsbarvugh(Orange County Centra]Orange Coordinated (Y/N) Area Land use Plan Applicable ILA Central Orange Coordinated Area ,,M::, (COCA) Land Use Plan Future Land Use Mixed Residential �1 Classification Neighborhood Description ..integrate a variety of supportive commercial, publicsmk. [� and semi-public uses and open .E,.« or public space. Smalla 9883194355 developments that provide only : supportive non-residential land uses in an infill arrangement serving more than 50 dwelling units in a walkable manner may also be considered. o Heti ,W55 -- Vfe9er�die9 3vmune ' Q UEen°JbivaaBauMrtiY _ Hisshstuugh Furors Land Ills __ i�Llp[InOusViel - 2 10 Attachment 2 Rezoning Application to MPD-CD for PIN 9883194355 Current Zoning District R-1 (Rural Residential) Requested Zoning MPD-CD (Master Plan District Development Conditional District) I I Requested Zoning q g District Consistent 1'�—_ with Appendix F of I IIT I Low'r Protected Yes eER 2030 L-- Comprehensive 9883194355 I I/1=� Plan Lower Eno Protected Existing Zoning Watershed, Lower Eno � Unprotected Watershed, Major Overlay Districts Transportation Corridor Lower Eno Overlay :0 yc,�Reas�� —P—� Zoningl -�R, Amendments -®Hill—r-gh City Limi:e =�EC5 Proposed for -- No NCz Overlay Districts 3 11 Attachment 2 Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Ae€i.il it a with Parcelg883�94355 Outlinedr +R North Rural Residential (R-1) residential homes; •, Existing Commercial (EC-5) commercial - vc fencing company. x+ µ South R-1 residential homes; Medium Intensity Residential (R-4) residential homes. East R-1 residential homes; R-4 residential homes. West Low Intensity Residential (R-2) residential . homes and a church. a�31 Existing Roads North US Highway 70A South Lannie Drive East None West Lawrence Road p VIN-968E1WM E Existing Conditions/Physical Features The parcel has approximately 37.9 acres of cleared, active farmland, with the remaining 47 acres being wooded. Public Water and Sewer There are no public water or sewer utilities immediately available at this site. The school buildings are proposed to be served by Town of Hillsborough water and sewer utilities, as enabled by NC General Statutes 115C-521(1). The details of these utility extensions, to be paid for by the developers, are included in the Attachment 1 Master Site Plan. The recreational facilities will require Orange County Environmental Health approval of proposed well and septic systems. The memorandum provided by Environmental Health as part of their Development Advisory Committee review (Attachment 5) indicated no concerns with proposed septic and well locations. Suitability of the site to provide these services will need to be confirmed through appropriate permitting. Any significant changes from the water and wastewater plans provided will require amendment to an approved MPD-CD per section 2.9 of the UDO. 4 11- Attachment 2 Proposed Project Proposed Development The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Table of Permitted Uses (Article 5, Section 2) allows for"Schools: Preparatory" and "Recreational Facilities" to be permitted in the Master Plan Development-Conditional District (MPD-CD) zoning district, subject to use standards and specific conditions, including a site-specific plan, required by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The property owner and applicant, Lawrence Road Partners, LLC, are requesting a rezoning of the +/-84.9 acres property to MPD-CD. The applicants have provided a site-specific plan featuring two preparatory schools, and a recreational park featuring athletic fields and tennis courts and a clubhouse. The site-specific plan features landscaping, interior roads, parking, water and sewer utilities, and stormwater control measures that conform to the Orange County UDO development standards. The schools are proposed to be served by Town of Hillsborough water and sewer utilities, as enabled by NC General Statutes 115C- 521(i). The recreational facilities will require Orange County Environmental Health approval of proposed well and septic systems. A Master Plan and formal site plan are required to be submitted as part of an MPD-CD rezoning application and for school sites, respectively, and have been submitted. Approval of the Master Plan is part of the MPD-CD rezoning process. Section 5.8.4 of the UDO outlines the submittal requirements and use standards for a Schools: Preparatory site plan. Section 5.7.2 of the UDO outlines the standards for Recreational Facilities. A site plan addressing these requirements is included in the packet. No conditions are proposed to deviate from the use-specific standards for Preparatory Schools (UDO Section 5.8.4), Recreational Facilities (UDO Section 5.7.2), nor the general development standards (UDO Article 6). The memoranda in the agenda packet provide staff opinions regarding these matters; no objections to the project, as presented, were identified. Any agreed-upon conditions are binding to the development footprint permitted for the zoning district. Staff has recommended the imposition of conditions, as featured in the Ordinance. 5 112 Attachment 2 Master Plan PARCEL A 18.48 ACRES f PROPOSED ZONING:MPO-CD _ f - 'y WITH MAX ALLOWABLEBUILDING (ff HEIGHT OF 60' _ PARCEL LAND USE:RECREATIONAL FACILITY 38.18 ACRES x aq� ggggg y PROPOSEDZONING:MPD CD " ,. WITH MAX ALLOWABLE f 6 NG 60' LAND USE:RFCRFATIO NAL Fn +Yiryc ypN Dq r t: '111 1 prN p-^„ t l4'� J !Y FACILITY s•p3x91f £i Pe 16k :�, �� �, J'`�J fl�LEA'+ �7 1 rr ? �r I � �s R ���pi€'FF• VMS f lilt 1 �. serr+n�J :Y�ui� r!°�AILpPdII.ELS� � mrturvvw. � �� l 1 I� \411 o PARCELB 'J _ —_---_--- i I an' 28.45 ACRES; 1 A J \ PROPOSEDZGNING:MPO-Cb ""�•�c, -. -~M��—` "=—' WITH MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHTOF 68' LAND USE SCHOOLS-PREPARATORY i R � v�N 9 JAYCI:RC(E :2 214 Calle kr.rrrdie. C-3 6 11 Attachment 2 Proposed Access and Transportation Network Improvements The Project is proposing access from Lawrence Road and US 70 Business. Impacts to the surrounding transportation network may not be considered as a basis for approving or denying this application, per NCGS 160D-701: "The regulations may not include, as a basis for denying a zoning or rezoning request from a school, the level of service of a road facility or facilities abutting the school or proximately located to the school." Rather, transportation improvements must be required by the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and consistent with the Municipal School Transportation Assistance ("MSTA") legislation NCGS 136- 18(29a), which specifies school traffic generation calculations and parameters for reviewing impacts to the local transportation network ("highway system"). It also requires the NCDOT to reimburse the school for any transportation improvements to the highway system. The following access improvements were recommended in the submitted Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA): o US 70 Alt. at Lawrence Road • Install a traffic signal • Construct an exclusive northbound left-turn lane with a minimum of 200 feet of storage plus taper • Construct an exclusive southbound right-turn lane with a minimum of 100 feet of storage plus taper • Construct an exclusive southbound left-turn lane with a minimum of 50 feet of storage plus taper o US 70 at Lawrence Road: • Construct an exclusive northbound left-turn lane with a minimum of 100 feet of storage plus taper • Construct an exclusive southbound left-turn lane with a minimum of 200 feet of storage plus taper • Adjust signal phasing and timing o Lawrence Road at Site Driveway 1: • Construct the full movement Site Driveway 1 with one ingress and two egress lanes • Construct an exclusive southbound left-turn lane with a minimum of 150 feet of storage plus taper o US 70 Alt. at Site Driveway 2: • Construct the full movement Site Driveway 2 with one ingress and two egress lanes • Construct an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane with a minimum of 75 feet of storage plus taper • Construct an exclusive westbound left-turn lane with a minimum of 150 feet of storage plus taper NCDOT's analysis, as found in Attachment 5, and pursuant to the MSTA law, requires the construction of left turn lanes with 150' of full storage at both site driveways (US 70A and Lawrence Road). The applicant is voluntartily offering the condition to construct road improvements based off their TIA, the full details of which can be found in Attachment 1. In summary: the applicant will commit to construct 7 114 Attachment 2 southbound and northbound left-turn lanes on Lawrence Road at the intersection of Lawrence Road and US 70. This offer to construct would be accompanied by the posting of a performance bond with NCDOT to guarantee the construction of the aforementioned turn lanes. Should such construction not be acceptable due to lack of available right-of-way or disapproval by any necessary regulatory authority, the applicant offers to instead pay $400,000 to Orange County. Either one of these commitments is offered to be realized prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the charter school. 8 11 Attachment 2 Summary of Transportation Information Existing Roadway Characteristics Affected Roadway Lawrence Road US 70 Alternate Type of Roadway Minor Collector— 2 lane Major Collector— 2 lane undivided undivided Current Roadway 10,000 9,000 Capacity Latest Traffic Volume 4,100 (2021 AADT) 2,600 (2021 AADT) Levels of Service (see D/E C/D below for descriptions) Traffic Generation Number of Trips Expected to be Generated by 1,286 Total Daily Proposed Project 548 (in) and 448 (out) Total AM Peak 390 (in) and 488 (out) Total PM Peak LOS (Level of Service) Descriptions (source: North Carolina Department of Transportatr_ ) LOS A: Describes free-flow operations. Free Flow Speed (FFS) prevails and vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. The effects of incidents or point breakdowns are easily absorbed. LOS B: Represents reasonably free-flow operations, and Free Flow Speed (FFS) is maintained. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and the general level of physical and psychological comfort provided to drivers is still high. The effects of minor incidents and point breakdowns are still easily absorbed. LOS C: Provides for flow with speeds near the FFS. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted, and lane changes require more care and vigilance on the part of the driver. Minor incidents may still be absorbed, but the local deterioration in service quality will be significant. Queues may be expected to form behind any significant blockages. LOS D: The level at which speeds begin to decline with increasing flows, with density increasing more quickly. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is seriously limited and drivers experience reduced physical and psychological comfort levels. Even minor incidents can be expected to create queuing, because the traffic stream has little space to absorb disruptions. LOS E: Describes operation at capacity. Operations at this level are highly volatile because there are virtually no usable gaps within the traffic stream, leaving little room to maneuver within the traffic stream. 9 11 Attachment 2 Proposed Utilities The schools are proposed to be served by Town of Hillsborough water and sewer utilities, as enabled by NCGS 115C-521(1). The recreational facilities will require Orange County Environmental Health approval of proposed well and septic systems. The memorandum provided by Environmental Health as part of their Development Advisory Committee review (Attachment 5) indicated no concerns with proposed septic and well locations. Suitability of the site to provide these services will need to be confirmed through appropriate permitting. Any significant changes from the water and wastewater plans provided will require amendment to an approved MPD-CD per section 2.9 of the UDO. Erosion Control/Stormwater Regulations The applicant has indicated the project will conform to existing stormwater management (Section 6.14) and erosion and sedimentation control (Section 6.15) regulations of the UDO. See Attachment 5. (Subject: Summary of Findings Regarding Conformance with Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for Erosion and Sedimentation Control and Stormwater Management). Land Use Buffers/Setbacks Tree Protection Area Existing trees, regardless of size, shall not be cut or otherwise damaged or destroyed. Located in front, side, and rear yard setback areas, stream buffers and land use buffers where existing trees are present. Buffer Type C - Mixed Located around development perimeter where existing trees are not present. Per every 100 linear foot: 3 canopy trees, 1 evergreen tree, 2 deciduous understory trees, 5 evergreen understory trees, 40 shrubs. Street Trees Located along public and private street frontage per every 65 feet: 1 canopy tree, 1 understory tree (deciduous or evergreen). Clustering is encouraged. Must be at least 1 tree for every 100 linear feet. Vehicle Use Area — 10' minimum width. In addition to trees, a hedge at least 3 feet in height at Perimeter Buffer maturity shall be installed. Foundation Plantings Building perimeter. 5' minimum width, to be planted with vegetation of varying heights and textures. Environmental Assessment (EA) The applicant has provided an Environmental Assessment (EA) application and supporting materials as required in Section 6.16 of the UDO with their submittal. These materials have been shared with various State agencies via the NC Department of Administration's State Clearinghouse. Planning and DEAPR Staff have jointly reviewed the materials and agree with a determination of"Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)" as required in Section 2.25.1 (B) (5) of the UDO (Attachment 5). This determination eliminates a requirement from the applicant to provide a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process as outlined in Sections 2.25.2 and 6.16.4 of the UDO. 10 11 Attachment 2 Solid Waste The applicant has indicated development within the project will conform to the Orange County Solidp7w Waste Management Ordinance as required by Orange County UDO Section 5.8.4(A)(3)(h) (Attachment 5). Proposed Conditions Per NCGS 160D-701, imposed conditions and site-specific standards are limited to those that address conformance of the development and use of the site to local government ordinances and adopted plans or the impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development or use of the site. However, pursuant to NCGS 160D-701, "...as a basis for denying a zoning or rezoning request from a school, the level of service of a road facility or facilities abutting the school or proximately located to the school [may not be considered]. Per Section 2.9.1 (F) (3) of the UDO, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part this process only if they address: 1. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, and/or 2. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.) The following voluntary conditions are being offered by the applicant, based on both staff and Planning Board comments: 1. Application: Project shall be completed as presented in approved site plan/application packet. Applications to rezone property to the MPD-CD Conditional District shall be processed in accordance with the procedures in UDO Section 2.9 and 6.7; 2. To construct left turn lanes with 150' of full storage at both site driveways (US 70A and Lawrence Road); 3. To construct southbound and northbound left-turn lanes on Lawrence Road at the intersection of Lawrence Road and US 70. This offer to construct would be accompanied by the posting of a performance bond with NCDOT to guarantee the construction of the aforementioned turn lanes. Should such construction not be acceptable due to lack of available right-of-way or disapproval by any necessary regulatory authority, the applicant offers to instead pay $400,000 to Orange County. Either one of these commitments is offered to be realized prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the charter school. Further details are available in Attachment 1; 4. Installation of a Type C buffer along Lawrence Road prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance for the school 5. Lighting for the tennis courts shall be the minimum necessary to meet UDO requirements; 6. The property owner shall conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)five (5) years after the opening of the school and submit the TIA to Orange County Planning and Inspections Department; 7. All handicapped parking spaces shall be installed with striped hashmarks to provide additional separation between vehicles; 8. Subject to approval by the NCDOT, the property owner shall install a concrete median along with additional striping on Lawrence Road at the intersection with Old NC 10 Highway prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance for the school; 9. Subject to approval by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the property owner shall install school zone/35 m.p.h. speed limit signage on Lawrence Road and US 70A in the vicinity of the school; 11 Attachment 2 10. Subject to approval by the Town of Hillsborough and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, in the event water service is provided to the school, the property owner shall install fire hydrants at required intervals along US 70A prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance for the school; 11. There will be no cafeteria facilities if the site is served by an on-site septic system; and 12. For a minimum of six months after approval of this zoning atlas amendment, the applicant shall not submit any site plan application for approximately 12 acres designated for a school use within PIN 9883-19-4355, and during those six months the applicant shall grant the Orange County School District an exclusive right to negotiate the purchase or lease of approximately 12 acres for use as a K-8 school. Review Milestones Application Submittal Date December 2, 2022 Development Advisory Committee February 2, 2023 (DAC) Review Neighborhood Information Meeting March 1, 2023 (NIM) Planning Board Meeting April 5, April 19, & May 3, 2023 Recommendation to Deny application due to inconsistencies with 2030 Comprehensive Plan objectives 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.2, and 6.1; as well as inconsistency with the COCA land use description due to the project's lack of walkability. Note: the DAC is a staff/agency committee, established in Section 1.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Courtesy Review Jurisdiction Date Sent Comments Received (Y/N) Town of Hillsborough January 13, 2023 Yes, on January 28, 2023 State Clearing House January 25, 2023 Yes, on February 20, 2023 IL 12 11 Attachment 2 Analysis Staff Analysis As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director shall cause an analysis to be made of the application. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: 1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.9.1 (C) of the UDO; 2. The proposal is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, furthering the following goals: 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. The application features a Recreational Use and two Care & Educational Facility Uses — recreational facilities and two charter schools— in a predominantly residential area of Orange County. The Future Land Use Map identifies the property as within the "20 Year Transition Area", acknowledging more intensive development. The proposed uses will provide public amenities and resources to the surrounding residential community and greater region, which currently does not have ready access to either of the uses. The existing baseball and tennis facilities within reasonable proximity of the property will soon be extinguished by the redevelopment of those properties by the Collins Ridge subdivision in Hillsborough. Rather than adding further homes to the property and exacerbating sprawl, the proposed development will create a destination to serve community needs and relieve the recreational needs of the local and regional community. The development standards (e.g. landscaping) ensure conformance with the surrounding community character, and NCDOT's evaluation has ensured that the required transportation improvements will be "efficient and balanced". b. 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. The site of the proposed development will allow for recreational and educational uses in an area that currently does not have ready access to these amenities and facilities. The proposed uses will create an active recreation and educational destination for residents in the local and regional areas rather than residential development currently allowed by-right that would exacerbate sprawl. Its location in the 20 Year Transition Area highlights that this area was anticipated to be developed by 2028 and the proposed development will introduce a non-residential amenity use to serve residents' needs rather than further residential development. c. Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. The Orange County staff has noticed the public regarding this application, as required by Sections 2.8.7, 2.9.1(D), and 2.9.2 of the UDO, and including a required Neighborhood Information Meeting, mailings to neighboring property owners, posting of the property, and advertisement in the local newspapers. Additionally, staff have provided all application documents on the Active Development Projects webpage, responded to public inquiries, posted social media notices on the project, featured it in the weekly newsletter, communicated and made both the BOCC and Planning Board available for public emails concerning the application. 13 1128 Attachment 2 d. The requested zoning district, MPD-CD (Master Plan Development- Conditional District), is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F, Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts; and the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan. e. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix G, Land Use Classification and Overlay Locational Criteria, identifies 20-Year Transition Areas as land designated in the Comprehensive Plan as being located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban, that are suitable for urban-type densities and should be provided with public utilities and services within the second 10-year phase of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed uses will introduce a more intensive land use that will serve public needs and purposes on a currently undeveloped property. Both the recreation facilities and schools will be open to the public, though managed by a non-profit organization and a charter school board(s), respectively. The schools are proposed to be served with Town water and sewer, as regulated by NCGS 115C-521(1). The site will have a private street internal to the property and all improvements to NCDOT roads are subject to NCDOT approval and regulation. NCDOT has prohibited the construction of sidewalks on its public road network due to the lack of an existing nearby or adjacent sidewalk network and the lack of a maintenance entity. 3. The Town of Hillsborough/Orange County COCA Land Use Plan identifies Mixed Residential Neighborhood areas as "[d]evelopments [that]... may integrate a variety of supportive commercial, public and semi-public uses and open or public space. Small developments that provide only supportive non-residential land uses in an infill arrangement serving more than 50 dwelling units in a walkable manner may also be considered." The Recreational use will be public, though proposed for management by a non-profit organization that will prioritize use for its members; and the Care & Educational uses will be public charter schools, complying with State laws regarding their operation and student acceptance. The property is current a mixture of agriculture and vacant land that will be developed as a "supportive non- residential land use" in this area that is otherwise a built-out residential area. The uses are anticipated to serve hundreds of homes and is as walkable as allowed by the regulatory agencies — a sidewalk will align the private street, as required by Orange County; NCDOT will not allow sidewalk construction along their roads in the unincorporated area on the property perimeters. 4. The applicant has provided a basic environmental assessment as part of this submittal. Staff has reviewed and made a Finding of No Significant environmental Impact is expected from this project based on existing conditions. The proposed development is consistent with existing/anticipated development within the area and the land use associated with the project is compatible with various 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Central Orange Coordinated Area goals detailed above. 14 121 Attachment 3 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov I 131W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245.2575 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Taylor Perschau, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance I have mailed, or have caused to be mailed, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held regarding a rezoning application proposing to rezone a parcel of property located off Lawrence Road and US 70A (PIN 9883-19-4355) on May 22, 2023. The owners were identified according to the Tax Records, as required by Section 2.8.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. The mailed notices specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing. WITNESS my hand, this 22nd day of May 2023. J Taylor Perschau Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor 122 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director 1 cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 272781919.245.2575 May 22, 2023 NOTICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Dear Property Owner: This notice is to inform you of the June 6, 2023, Board of County Commissioners meeting, at which an application to rezone a+/- 84.90 acre parcel (PIN: 9883-19-4355) located off of Lawrence Rd. and US 70A within the Eno Township will be reviewed. This notification is occurring in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). You are receiving this notice because you own property located within 1,000-feet of parcel requested for rezoning. YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT PROPOSED FOR REZONING. Property Information Parcel ID Number(PIN) 9883-19-4355 Owner Lawrence Road Partners, LLC Applicant Lawrence Road Partners, LLC Location Located off of Lawrence Rd. &US 70A Acreage +/-84.90 acres parcel Current Zoning Rural Residential (R-1) Proposed Zoning Master Plan Development—Conditional District(MPD-CD) Watershed Designation Lower Eno Protected Watershed and Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed What is being proposed? The applicant, Lawrence Road Partners, LLC, is requesting a rezoning of the +/-84.90 acres property to MPD-CD. The applicant has provided a site-specific plan featuring two preparatory schools, and a recreational park featuring athletic fields and tennis courts. The site-specific plan features landscaping, interior roads,parking,water and sewer utilities, and stormwater control measures that conform to the Orange County UDO. The schools are proposed to be served by Town of Hillsborough water and sewer utilities; the recreational facilities will require Orange County Environmental Health approval of proposed well and septic systems. As defined and detailed by the Orange County UDO, should the application be approved, these conditions will 123 be binding for the property, with any significant change, including principal use, requiring subsequent zoning map amendment. What is this meeting for? The Orange County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning. Interested persons are invited to address the County Commissioners with their comments regarding the rezoning application. The Orange County Planning Board, an advisory board comprised of appointed volunteers, reviewed this application at its May 3, 2023 regular meeting and voted not to recommend approval of the rezoning request. Board of County Commissioners Meeting Information Date June 6,2023 Time 7:00 p.m. Place Whitted Meeting Facility Address 300 West Tryon Street,Hillsborough,NC Taylor Perschau,Current Planning&Zoning Supervisor Assigned Planner Email: tperschaukoran eg count.i�gov Phone: 919 245-2597 If you cannot attend the Public Hearing and the website does not answer your questions about the requested rezoning, you may call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you. You may also submit written comments via email to ocbocc@orangecountync.gov (emails sent to this address are considered public records and are subject to public disclosure). Sincerely, Cy Stober Planning& Inspections Director Additional information is available on the Orange County Planning Department's website: https://www.oran eg countync.gov/3038/Active-Development-Projects or scan below: @ 0 ■ .I I N L ;M • 7 1.�1•_ • 124 PIN OWNERI_LAST OWNERI_FIRST OWNER2_LAST OWNER2_FIRST ADDRESSI CITY STATE ZIPCODE 9873888610 RICH RICKI M RICH VICKY S 2100 RHINE RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 272788513 9873899184 ANGUTANO SIMON SALAZAR CORONADO RODRIGUEZ LAURAAURORA 2001 JEFFERSON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873978752 WOERDEMAN GLEN WOERDEMAN LUTHERA 2305 OLD OAK DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787340 9873978879 MCDERMOTT MATTHEW E MCDERMOTT PATRICE M 2301 OLD OAK PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787340 9873980429 MCKEE TODD DEWITT MCKEE BRENDA E 2104 RHINE RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873981318 SCHLAUFMAN LOUIS C TRUSTEE 2108 RHINE RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873982340 GRIFFIN MATTHEW TERRELL WOODELL VICTORIA 2112 RHINE RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873983248 LEE KEVIN A LEE TIFFANEY 2120 RHINE RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873983947 GOMEZ ALFREDO GOMEZ ISIDRA 2017 JEFFERSON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873984943 MARCUZ APRIL M WORTHINGTON WILLIAM E JR 2021 JEFFERSON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873985122 CORTES JOSE LUIS VACA TOLEDO MARIA GUADALUPE E 1575 MARTIN LUTHER KING CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 9873985887 WESTROM CAROL) 2027 JEFFERSON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789515 9873987812 BRADY BRAD J BRADY CANDACE G 2033 JEFFERSON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873988715 BRADY BRAD J BRADY CANDACE G 2033 JEFFERSON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873989143 MURRAY PATRICIA R 2300 OLD OAK PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873990170 PEREZ JOSE LUIS FRAGA PEREZ MARIA PILAR 2005 JEFFERSON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789515 9873990393 NELSON BRUCE D NELSON JUDITH T 1919 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873991067 SOTO JOSE N 2030 JEFFERSON DR Hillsborough NC 27278 9873991436 COOK LINDA L COOK ALBERT W II 1920 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873991575 RAMARGE STEVEN MICHAEL P O BOX 155 EFLAND NC 27243 9873992051 TILLEY PATSY M 2013 JEFFERSON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873992237 NELSON BRUCE D NELSON JUDITH T 1919 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873992368 DEMPSEY JOSHUA B 1915 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789552 9873992604 LEON MARIA ELENA MENDOZA LEON JOSE L CARRILLO 1912 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789318 9873992732 RAMARGE STEVEN M PO BOX 155 EFLAND NC 27243 9873992860 TATRO WILLIAM 1904 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789318 9873993554 PECOR SEAN BOWEN ELIZABETH 1909 ADAMS PLACE HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873993695 SWANSON CARLA ANGELICA 1903 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789552 9873993900 DICKERSON CHEATHAM 1900 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873994167 GODWIN VIRGINIA 1918 ADAMS PLACE HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789552 9873994724 RUSSELL CLANCY QUINN 1823 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873994863 YANEZ FELIPE SANTOS HENDANDEZ PINEDA MANUELA 1819 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873994992 ANGUS ARMANDO 1815 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873995217 GODWIN AMANDA L 1914 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789552 9873995356 HOPPER FAMILY VENT PO BOX 607 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873995495 BOYD CLIFTON THOMAS BOYD ANN T 1906 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789552 9873996124KIDD BETHANY LYNN 2026 JEFFERSON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873996534 SHILE PAULA ANNE 1902 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873996673 ELLIS MICHAEL C 1822 ADAMS PLACE HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789513 9873997110 SOTO JOSE N 2030 JEFFERSON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789515 9873997713 NICHOLSON LAURA JO CIFALDI NICHOLSON BILLY C III 1818 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873997852 ANGEL CATHERINE E 1814 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873997981 BERRY RICKY G TRUSTEE BERRY VICKIE R TRUSTEE 1810 ADAMS PLACE HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789513 9873998025 CATES DOROTHY CATES MARGARET 1919 LAWRENCE RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873999550 LAWRENCE ROAD BAF INC PO BOX 249 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873999754 GONZALEZ ELSA E 1815 LAWRENCE RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9873999896 FOSTER RANDY GREG 1809 LAWRENCE RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 125 9874901146 PONCE ERNESTO VIRAMONTES REFUGIO M 1845 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874901371 BARTEE CHARLES A BARTEE MELANIE K 1841 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874902401 HOLDER PAUL EDWARD HOLDER JANICE LORRAIN 1835 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789338 9874902561 HOLDER PAUL E HOLDER JANICE 2506 HOPKINS RD BAHAMA NC 27503 9874903042 BRANEX PROPERTIES 1 608 OURSO DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874903591 HARRIS JAMES KEITH 1833 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874904211 BRITT JOHN C BRITT BONNIE L 1832 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874904372 CLAPP EDWARD G CLAPP DONNA 1809 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874904495 GASPAR BENJAMIN REBICH KATHERINE 1831 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874904726 BAYLESS TONY B BAYLESS DELORES H 1415 US 70A EAST HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874905031 MALLORY HOWARD V MALLORY AMANDA 1811 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874905170 SWANSON CARLA ANGELICA 1903 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789552 9874905492 SUNDIN EDWARD 1827 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874906109 HOWARD CHERYL A 1803 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789513 9874906460 SUNDIN EDWARD 1827 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874906702 COLLINS SOHILA N 1423 US 70A EAST HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874907319 AUSTIN ARVEL L 1817 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789338 9874907387 AUSTIN ARVEL L 1817 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789338 9874908031 HARPER HILLERINA BECKFORD HARPER BRIAN K 1806 ADAMS PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874908161 RIECKENBERG JERRY L RIECKENBERG CAROLYN JANE 1802 ADAMS PLACE HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874908374 LOVETT JANET L 1813 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874908607 JARVIS JOHN F III 1507 US HWY 70A E HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789573 9874909642 SULLIVAN SKYE ANDERSON SCOTT MICHAEL 1513 US 70 A HWY HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874917192 OWENS WILLIAM B II 1500 US 70A EAST HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9874927312 RAY MARY H 412 SHADOWDALE LN ROLESVILLE NC 27571 9883071640 BELL NATHANIEL BELL HEIDI 2311 OLD OAK DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787340 9883073867 FIELDS TIMOTHY D FIELDS DEBRA S 2312 OLD OAK PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787340 9883075826 BYRD NORMAN C JR BYRD DONNA G 2324 OLD OAK DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787340 9883077708 SCOTT STEVE G SCOTT EMILY 2400 OLD OAK PLACE HILLSBOROUGH NC 272788509 9883078793 YORK HIROKO JUDY HRS 2406 OLD OAK PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883080780 RAMARGE STEVEN M PO BOX 155 EFLAND NC 27243 9883081092 TUSKEY GEORGE T TUSKEY CAROL J 2304 OLD OAK PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787340 9883081687 RAMARGE STEVEN M PO BOX 155 Efland NC 27243 9883082674 GOURLEY BRYAN GOURLEY CHRISTINA 2212 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883083672 BLANTON PATRICK G FREEMAN RITA C 4409 ELLO DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883084579 BROWN ROY WAYNE 2220 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883085566 BROWN THOMAS G BROWN SANDRA C 2300 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883086604 BROWN THOMAS G BROWN SANDRA C 2300 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883087551 RAMARGE STEVEN M PO BOX 155 EFLAND NC 27243 9883087650 RAMARGE STEVEN M PO BOX 155 EFLAND NC 27243 9883088434 BULLOCK GERALD RAY BULLOCK FRIEDA 2312 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789555 9883088559 RAMARGE STEVEN M PO BOX 155 EFLAND NC 27243 9883089329 RAMARGE STEVEN M PO BOX 155 EFLAND NC 27243 9883171613 VANVLEET LEE M H CANDANCE B 2414 OLD OAK PL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883172583 AKINS CRYSTAL D 5511 WESTERBORNE DR GREENSBORO NC 27407 9883177293 REESE WILLIE E III REESE WANDA M PO BOX 11833 DURHAM NC 27703 9883179801 NARVAEZ ANN MARIE 2503 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883180304 RAMARGE STEVEN M P 0 BOX 155 EFLAND NC 272430155 126 9883180493 LOPEZ MARIA L 2007 LORI DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883180534 WALKER GEOFFREY 2003 LORI DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883181225 GORDON RUTHIE GLASGOW 1517 LITTLE RIVER CH RD HURDLE MILLS NC 27541 9883181324 LOPEZ MARIA L 2007 LORI DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883183216 LOMAN LINDA S 2402 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883183424 LOMAN LINDA S 2402 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883183522 LOMAN LINDA S 2402 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883184049 LOMAN LINDA S 2402 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789556 9883184254 RUBIO ARTEMIO RAMIREZ PANTLATELE DELIA LINARES 2406 JAY CIR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883184344 BURKLIN BLAKE BURKLIN JESSIE 2410 JAY CIR Hillsborough NC 27278 9883184467 RAMIREZ HERIBERTO 2412 JAY CIR Hillsborough NC 27278 9883185499 RAMARGE STEVEN M P 0 BOX 155 EFLAND NC 272430155 9883186052 BRYANT DAVID W 5813 GEOFFRY RD DURHAM NC 27712 9883186150 BRYANT GEORGIE H 2403 JAY CIRCLE HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883186159 RAMARGE STEVE P 0 BOX 155 EFLAND NC 27243 9883186229 RAMARGE STEVEN M P 0 BOX 155 EFLAND NC 272430155 9883186498 FIGUEROA JULIETA M 2418 JAY CIR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883187021 BAYES MEGAN 2420 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789556 9883187175 SUAREZ JUAN CLARA SARA G 2427 JAY CIR Hillsborough NC 27278 9883187218 BRYANT STEPHEN GARY JR 2421 JAY CR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883187478 HOPPER JAMES E SR P O BOX 607 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272780607 9883188001 WISEMAN CAROL A 2922 UNIVERSITY STATION RC DURHAM NC 27705 9883188209 SUAREZ JUAN CLARA SARA G 2427 JAY CIR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883188499 BRINKLEY ALBERT W BRINKLEY BETSY 2907 MT MORIAH RD DURHAM NC 27707 9883189081 DERR DENNIS LEE DERR ELLEN BOSHER 2504 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883189186 SUAREZ JUAN SUAREZ 2427 JAY CIR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883189289 BEEKER JAN THOMAS JR 2430 JAY CIRCLE HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883189482 FREELAND ZACHARY R PO BOX 896 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883194355 MEADOWMONT FARP PO BOX 20461 GREENSBORO NC 27420 9883270757 SAUSTEGUI NORMA N NARVAEZ EDUARDO 2509 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883271734 HUDDLESTON ROBERT M SR CORTES DORA P 2513 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883271913 TAPIA KAREN M 2508 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883272609 COLONIAL PK WATER ASSOC 2811 HAYES DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883272695 COLONIAL PK WATER ASSOC 2811 HAYES RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883272901 WISEMAN PHILLIP L WISEMAN ASHLEY M 2512 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883273683 QUINN ETHOMAS JR 2525LANNIE DR Hillsborough NC 27278 9883273873 GATES ANDREW L 2309 MORGAN RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883274660 DAVIS KIONA MIA 4719 WHEELS HILL RD DURHAM NC 27705 9883274840 RAMARGE STEVEN M P O BOX 155 EFLAND NC 272430155 9883274931 ADCOCK BILLY RAY ADCOCK PAMELA R PO BOX 595 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883275545 HOPPER JAMES E SR PO BOX 607 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272780607 9883276522 CHERRY DONALD LEE 2609 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883276712 CRUZ ARQUENIS VENTURA DE OCA INGRID J RODRIGUES 12602 LANNIE DR Hillsborough NC 27278 9883277408 RAMARGE STEVEN M PO BOX 155 EFLAND NC 27243 9883277494 HOPPER JAMES E SR P 0 BOX 607 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272780607 9883277687 JONES KAY BROWN SHELTON AKA KAY P 0 BOX 503 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883277713 RIGSBEE CLABORN D RIGSBEE DEBORAH P 2608 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789558 9883278674 RAMARGE STEVEN MICHAEL PO BOX 155 EFLAND NC 272430155 127 9883278786 NIPPER LINDA B ETAL CANNADA JAMES L 238 SPRING ST SW CONCORD NC 28025 9883279559 RAMARGE STEVEN M P 0 BOX 155 EFLAND NC 27243 9883279685 NIPPER LINDA B ETAL CANNADA JAMES L 238 SPRING ST SW CONCORD NC 28025 9883280161 SPENGLER PATSY TUCK JIMMY R HRS 2502 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789557 9883283039 MARES MARTA 272 JONES LAKE RD REIDSVILLE NC 27320 9883283379 DERR DENNIS L DERR ELLEN B 2504 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883285085 MCGHEE JAMES WILLIAM 2536 LANNIE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789557 9883285240 BARBER ANGELA 2530 LANNIE DRIVE HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789557 9883292917 YOUNG ROBERT T 1907 US HWY 70A E HILLSBOROUGH NC 272788514 9883294889 RUIZ MITZY JACKLYN RODRIGUEZ 201 SHAWNEE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883296875 SHERMAN PROPERTIE P 0 BOX 98174 RALEIGH NC 276248174 9883298543 WILLIAMS LUBIE E HRS P 0 BOX 592 PORTER TX 77365 9883298709 BULLOCK RANDY P 2007 US 70AE HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789576 9883370732 CANNADA MELINDA 2704 HAYES DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883371459 RAMARGE STEVEN M P 0 BOX 155 EFLAND NC 27243 9883371566 GALEANA ISIDRO NAJERA NAJERA ROSA 2716 HAYES DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883371744 SWANSON REBECCA KRISTINE 1903 ADAMS P HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789552 9883372724 SWANSON REBECCA KRISTINE 1903 ADAMS PL Hillsborough NC 27278 9883372998 HOYT PETER A 1921 PINEY GROVE CHURCH R HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883373713 RUIZ ROSA M 2716 HAYES DR Hillsborough NC 27278 9883374704 LEATHERS ANNIE W P 0 BOX 492 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883380730 ARMSTRONG VIRGINIA F 1825 PINEY GROVE CH RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883381390 MICOL JOHN S 4723 COLE MILL RD DURHAM NC 27705 9883381896 ARMSTRONG VIRGINIA F 1825 PINEY GROVE CHURCH R HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789505 9883384586 MALONE ROUSE FULINDA 1833 PINEY GROVE CHURCH R Hillsborough NC 27278 9883390741 GIBSON ANDREW T WHETSELL ELIZABETH L 2017 HWY 70A E HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883392395 MCM NC HIGHWOOD 10455 RIVERSIDE DR PALM BEACH GAR FL 33410 9883393739 TROGDON E DANIEL II 2101 US HWY 70A E HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883395188 NORTHRUP JAMES G 2123 US HWY 70-A EAST HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9883395536 ANUMUDU CHUKWUMA B ANUMUDU SAMAYAJ 6814 CRIMSON GROVE DR SPRING TX 77389 9883396553 ANUMUDU CHUKWUMA B ANUMUDU SAMAYAJ 6814 CRIMSON GROVE DR SPRING TX 77389 9883396943 BLUE DAMSELFLY INV 911 KESTREL KEEP LN CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 9883398944 WADE INVESTMENT L 119 WOODBRIDGE LN CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 9884000055 VENABLE LORI E 1801 LAWRENCE RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884000292 WEST JAMES A JR WEST MELISSA S 1801 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789338 9884000549 PITTI LINDA 1517 HWY 70A EAST HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884001043 JACKLE CHRISTINE E TRUSTEE 1805 LAWRENCE RD Hillsborough NC 27278 9884001096 CONWAY SHELTON L ETAL CONWAY JERRY W 1801 LAWRENCE RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884001321 ARMSTRONG MORGAN WILSON LAURA 1809 WASHINGTON DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884001547 MILTONBERGER LINDA T 1521 US 70A E HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884002560 CUMMINGS FRANCIS R JR 1711 LAWRENCE RD Hillsborough NC 27278 9884002993 UTLEY SCOTT THOMAS II 5633 PRESTON LOOP MEBANE NC 27302 9884004520 RICHARDSON WANDA KAY 1808 DIMMOCKS MILL RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884005495 TUBIOLO STEVEN R 3517 GIBBS LN HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884007819 KESTER MARILYN P 1610 US HWY 70A EAST HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884008339 SAY HENRY 1621 US HWY 70A HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884008427 VASQUEZ HEIDY C UMANA HUGO S 1617 US HWY 70A HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884009326 CARTER JAMES L CARTER BERTHA L 2818 US 70 E HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 128 9884009803 HAMMERSLEY JACQUELINE G 1618 HWY 70 A EAST HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884010055 RICHARDSON JOHN W RICHARDSON DANA 1512 HWY 70A HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884012412 PICKENS CHAD R PICKENS AUBREE 1615 LAWRENCE RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884013130 HUNLEY GARY CLYDE HUNLEY PEGGY 1625 LAWRENCE RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884100372 CLAYTON CURTIS W CLAYTON DOROTHY 1707 US 70AE HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884101646 PRESTIGE HOME SOLL 500 CARDINAL DR RALEIGH NC 27604 9884101800 CAGLE ROY LEE JR TRUSTEE 209 LATTA RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884102228 RHODES FAYE D 1717 HWY 70-A E HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884102743 RAY JAMES P RAY DONNA PO BOX 759 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884103215 RHODES FAYE L 1717 US 70A EAST HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884104036 ROBINSON CAROLYN 1801 US HIGHWAY 70A E HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789575 9884104258 ROBINSON CAROLYN 1801 US HIGHWAY 70A E HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789575 9884104686 TUNSTALL NELLIE HINES 1718 US 70A EAST HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884105195 LEON NOE ANATOLIO 1805 US 70-A E HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884107508 ROJAS MANUEL S AGUAHEDIONDA LEOPOLDA 1804 US 70A HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884108510 ROJAS MANUELS AGUAHEDIONDA LEOPOLDA 1804 US 70A HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884109074 AGUILAR EULALIO WOODRING BRIDGETTE LYNN 1821 US 70A E HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884109563 3333 INVESTMENT PR PO BOX 925 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884201475 BANKHEAD PROPERTI PO BOX 759 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884204318 RAY SCOTT P RAY LESLIE M P 0 BOX 925 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884206302 RAY JAMES P RAY DONNA A P O BOX 759 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884209257 MICOL PROPERTIES LL 4926 HILLSBOROUGH RD DURHAM NC 27705 9884209564 MICOL MARK SHARP MICOL LYNN HESTER 4926 HILLSBOROUGH RD DURHAM NC 27705 9884214669 OCCONEECHEE LAND P 0 BOX 759 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884303286 RAY JAMES P RAY DONNA A PO BOX 759 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9884308233 CHEEK CAROLYN T 3001 US 70 E HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 129 Attachment 4 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING NOTES MA22-0004 Meeting Date: March 1, 2023 Time: 5:30 - 6:30 p.m. Location: Orange County Public Library Main Meeting Room 137 West Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Attendance: 43 Residents on sign-up sheet 1. Wanda Richardson 21. Raymond Gregg 2. Margaret Cates 22. Shiela Morales Fergueroa 3. Sandra Brown 23. Christine Jackle 4. Thomas Brown 24. V. Hill 5. Laura Coronado 25. Jessica King 6. Jane Gaede 26. Carolyn Robinson 7. Brian Harper 27. Donna Clapp 8. Jerry Ric'ckewbeug 28. Earl Tye 9. Jim West 29. Bruce Nelson 10.Matt McDermott 30. Judy Nelson 11.Patti McDermott 31. Jim Northrup 12.Michael Celauro 32. Robert Young 13.William Wirt 33. Lori Venable 14.Mark Micol 34. Broderick Bragg 15.James Russell 35. Hugo Seaquera 16.Clancy Russell 36. Heidy Reqes 17.Cheryl Howard 37. Magaret Toe 18.Carla Swanson 38. Jesse Kaufmann 19.Aaron Kessler0 39. Maria Perez 20.Linda Maitland County Employees: Cy Stober, Pat Mallett, Taylor Perschau, & Brian Collie 130 Brian Collie, Planner II, opened the meeting with a presentation providing an overview of the rezoning process and details about the rezoning application for the Lawrence Rd. schools/recreational facility project. Mr. Collie then turned the meeting over to the applicant. The applicant went over their project in further detail and responded to numerous questions from the public. Discussion Summary: The majority of resident comments, questions, and concerns about the proposed rezoning revolved around the potential traffic impact of the surrounding area, stormwater runoff from the proposed development, and the need for another school in the area. Topics of Discussion: - Applicant stated the K-8 school would have approximately 400 students and the high school would have around 600. - Applicant answered that the schools would be public charter schools. - Applicant answered a question confirming that the schools would provide transportation to students. - Impacts on other surrounding public schools. - Traffic at the surrounding intersections (Lawrence Rd. & Hwy 70A),(Lawrence Rd. & Hwy 70),(Hwy 70A & Hwy 70) - Trip generation numbers - Were recent accidents in the area taken into consideration during the traffic study. - Applicant confirmed that they would be adding turn lanes including a left hand turn lane on Lawrence Rd. and a right hand turn lane on Hwy 70 A into the development. - Applicant detailed the involvement from NCDOT and how their review of the project would require intersection improvements to accommodate the proposed development. - How stormwater runoff and flooding of surrounding properties would be handled and prevented. - How much property would be taken from the surrounding property owners to construct road improvements. - What the application process would be like for students attending the schools. - Water and sewer needs and availability to the schools and the recreational facilities. - Will the property ever be annexed into the town limits of Hillsborough. - If rezoned could it be any other use other than what is proposed. Planning staff answered that only the site specific plan that was presented could be developed if property is rezoned. 131 - The opposition from Hillsborough due to their current water and sewer capacity. - How Hillsborough's water and sewer would be affected if the proposed schools are served. _ 132 ttachment 5 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1 131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1 919.245.2575 March 22, 2023 Lawrence Road Properties Rezoning Application Case #: MA22-0004 PIN: 9883194355 Parcel located off Lawrence Road and US 70A, within Eno Township Re: Development Advisory Committee Report (UDO, Article 1, Section 1.9.5) On March 2, 2023, the Orange County Development Advisory Committee met for a final review and discussion of the conditional rezoning application from Lawrence Road Properties, LLC for PIN 9883194355 (Case#: MA22-0004). The Orange County Development Advisory Committee has no objections to the approval of the zoning atlas amendment so long as the items in the attached departmental memos are addressed. The application package features an abstract and staff report that provide the foundations for my recommendation regarding this application and request. Sincerely, Cy Stober Planning & Inspections Director Orange County Government I www.orangecountync.gov 1 919.732.8181 133 ORANGE COUNTY A. - V Department of Environment, Agriculture,Parks&Recreation MEMORANDUM To: Tyler Sliger,Planner II, Planning and Inspections Department From: Christian Himi,DEAPR Land Conservation Manager Date: February 24, 2023 Re: Lawrence Road School-Conditional District Rezoning Application Thank you the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Lawrence Road School -Conditional District Rezoning Application. The development would be a combination of two school buildings, and a complex of athletic fields on approximately 85 acres located east of Lawrence Road and south of US 70A (with 72 acres within the Lower Eno Unprotected watershed and 13 acres in the Lower Eno Protected Watershed). The subject property is compiled of one parcel (PIN 9883-19-4355). The property contains three unnamed tributaries,two in the northeast portion of the tract which come to a confluence just off property, and one in the southwestern portion. The southern tributary forms a headwaters for Stony Creek just over 0.4 miles downstream to the south at a private pond. The northern stream does eventually drain directly in to the Eno River, albeit approximately three miles downstream. DEAPR comments on subdivisions are generally intended to a)address any concerns with respect to potential impacts on important natural or cultural resources, and b)identify any areas that might be desirable for possible dedication to the County for public recreation/open space pursuant to Section 7.11.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Natural Resources Review Comments: The plan calls for setting aside areas of Open Space,primarily including areas around riparian buffers that help protect the three unnamed tributaries on the property, and most of the wetlands as delineated within the site plan. The proposed Open Space appears to protect the stream corridors and all of the jurisdictional wetlands, less the proposed access road that enters the northern portion of the property. Several sections of riparian areas and stream buffers on the property,—are recognized in the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as"Resource Protection Areas". These areas were determined to be of conservation value considering several factors, including but not limited to the existence of floodplains,wetlands,bottomland hardwood forests, and soils of statewide importance. Cross referencing the State Natural Heritage Program dataset of the Biodiversity and Wildlife Corridor Assessment confirms the area to be of Moderate to High conservation value (Ranked 7/10). It would be highly recommended that these areas be protected open space, as indicated on the site plan, and that the current existing native tree cover be retained as much as possible. This will allow the best protection of the stream buffer,reduction of the effects of storm water and erosion, and promote the continued use by local wildlife. Recommendations for retaining the most tree canopy coverage possible is recognized, amongst the many facets of the Green Growth Toolbox,in the letter of review submitted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission as part of the development proposal package. 134 Overall,the plan appears to reflect the County's desire to minimize adverse environmental impacts with respect to the protection of floodplains,wetlands,natural areas and wildlife habitat. There are no additional natural resource areas of high significance (e.g.,natural heritage sites,proposed wildlife corridors,threatened or endangered species) located on this property that would warrant further potential DEAPR recommendations for open space. Cultural Resources Review Comments: There are no previously identified historic properties or resources located on the subject parcel. As with any development,care should be taken to locate, identify and protect any potential human burial sites or cemeteries. The current Cemetery Census does not show any identified burials on this parcel. Anyone who encounters what appears to be a burial or grave should immediately contact the Orange County Cultural Resources Coordinator at 919-245-2517. If you have questions please contact Christian at 245-2514 or Peter at 245-2517. 135 ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Improving health. Inspiring change. MEMORANDUM TO: Cy Stober, AICP — Director, Planning & Inspections Department FROM: Victoria Hudson — Orange County Environmental Health Division CC: Patrick Mallett— Deputy Director Development Services DATE: February 16, 2023 CASE: MA22-0004 PIN: 9883194355 WATERSHED: Lower Eno Protected (WS-IV, NSW) and Lower Eno Unprotected (Neuse River Basin) PROJECT: Lawrence Road Development— Meadowmont Farms LLC Non-Residential Conditional District (NR-CD) Zoning Atlas Amendment SUBJECT: Summary of Plan Review by Orange County Environmental Health Division This memo summarizes the findings of an Orange County Environmental Health plan review of the application for a NR-CD Conditional District, submitted as the "Lawrence Road Development (LRD) Meadowmont" project (hereafter, the "project"). The project is located within 84.9 acres of property along Lawrence Road and US 70. The request proposes mixed-use development consisting of: ■ Two public charter schools (K-12); ■ Private tennis club; and ■ Public or private recreational facilities with ball fields. The Staff comments contained herein are based upon a required Master Plan Development plan set dated December 2, 2022. Soil and site evaluations have not 919 245 2360 > 131 West Margaret Lane, Suite 100 > Hillsborough, NC 27278 > orangecountync.gov 136 been conducted by the Orange County Health Department, Environmental Health Division. The Health Department's role in the Amendment is one involving preliminary conditions and requirements for onsite wastewater and water supply. Environmental Health Conditions X At this time, no applications have been received. Application(s) and fees required. NCGS 130A-335 X Improvement Permit(s) shall only be issued upon presentation of the exact structure to be constructed. NCGS 130A-336 X Permit(s) must be issued by the Orange County Health Department prior to any alteration of the lot(s). NCGS 130A-336 X Permit conditions may apply. Existing EH records are attached. Existing well and/or septic systems will be impacted. Contact Public Water Supply for onsite water supply. Other: Conclusion: Environmental Health has no objections to the approval of the zoning request so long as a the above list is addressed to the Orange County Health Department for processing and issuance of Permits. This designation is not an Improvement Permit or Well Permit and not approval for a septic system or on-site water supply. Additional field observations and/or permitting by other partner agencies may apply and affect site suitability beyond the proposed development as shown with this request. Please direct any questions or requests for Laws, Rules, and policy to ehapplications(c orangecountync.gov. Z 4 W, y February 16, 2023 Victoria Hudson, MPA, REHS Date Or designee 137 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director l cstober@orangecountync.gov I 131W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245.2575 MEMORANDUM TO: Cy Stober, AICP — Director, Planning & Inspections Department FROM: Christopher Sandt, PE — County Engineer; and Steve Kaltenbach — Erosion Control and Stormwater Supervisor CC: Patrick Mallett— Deputy Director Development Services DATE: February 9, 2023 CASE: MA22-0004 PIN: 9883-19-4355 WATERSHED: Lower Eno Protected (WS-IV, NSW) and Lower Eno Unprotected (Neuse River Basin) PROJECT: Lawrence Road Development— Meadowmont Farms LLC Non-Residential Conditional District (NR-CD) Zoning Atlas Amendment SUBJECT: Summary of Findings Regarding Conformance with Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)for Erosion and Sedimentation Control and Stormwater Management This memo summarizes the findings of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control and Stormwater Management assessment by the Orange County Development Services Division (hereafter, the "Division") of the submitted application for a NR-CD Conditional District, submitted as the "Lawrence Road Development (LRD) Meadowmont" project (hereafter, the "project"). The project is located within 84.9 acres of property along Lawrence Road and US 70. The request proposes mixed-use development consisting of: ■ Two public charter schools (K-12); ■ Private tennis club; and ■ Public or private recreational facilities with ball fields. The Staff comments contained herein are based upon a required Master Plan Development plan set and a Preliminary Stormwater Impact Analysis (SIA) report, both dated December 2, 2022. These findings should not be interpreted as the Division's final analysis/approval of the proposed development. Upon zoning approval, the proposed development would then be required to submit a Land Disturbing Permit (LDP) which Page 1 of 2 138 would formally review and approve any development activity that is consistent with these conceptual plans and calculations. Erosion and Sedimentation Control: According to current Orange County GIS imagery of the project parcel, there are three (3) previously mapped stream features within the project parcel boundaries. Orange County enforces stream buffers along streams, rivers, water bodies, and other water features (e.g. wetlands) as outlined in Section 6.13 of the Orange County UDO. Based on the submitted materials for the proposed development, the project could meet the basic E&SC requirements as outlined in Section 6.15 of the Orange County UDO and could be developed as generally proposed. The project also demonstrates an intent toward development outside of environmentally sensitive areas such as stream buffers. Stormwater Management: The project parcel is located in the Lower Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District, and is therefore subject to compliance with the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy and the associated nutrient attenuation requirements. There are no known Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) located on the project parcel. Based on the submitted materials for the proposed development, the project could meet the basic Stormwater Management requirements as outlined in Section 6.14 of the Orange County UDO. The project proposes the installation of three (3) permanent primary Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) to meet water quantity requirements (i.e. post-development stormwater runoff attenuation) and water quality requirements (i.e. post-development nutrient attenuation). The three primary SCMs are identified as Wet Ponds, with each Wet Pond inclusive of Floating Treatment Wetlands as integrated secondary SCMs. The SIA, while only preliminary at this stage of Orange County review, meets applicable Stormwater Management requirements as outlined in Section 6.14 of the Orange County UDO and is in general conformance with the North Carolina Stormwater Design Manual (i.e. Minimum Design Criteria). If the project is annexed by the Town of Hillsborough, any subsequent Stormwater Management review and approval of the project would fall under the jurisdiction of the Town of Hillsborough. Conclusion: The Division has No Objections to the approval of the rezoning request so long as a complete LDP application and supporting plans and calculations are submitted to Orange County for review, processing, and approval prior to commencement of on-site Land- Disturbing Activity. As the project progresses with engineering design, additional field observations, and/or permitting by others (e.g. US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Department of Environmental Quality, Town of Hillsborough, NC Department of Transportation, etc.), additional buffers, setbacks, and/or additional Orange County review and permitting may apply beyond the proposed development as shown with this rezoning request. 0Z(o9 /Z023 Christopher Sandt, PE Date Steve Kaltenbach Date Page 2 of 2 139 Hillsborough/Orange County Courtesy Review Comments 1/27/2023 � r C N Planning(Tom King 919-296-9475 tom.king@hillsboroughnc.gov) There are concerns with how the proposal affects the Town-approved East Village at Meadowlands project; approved as a special use district rezoning in late 2020. Sheet C-5 of the attached plan set is what I refer to.These concerns are as follows: 1. Has the East Village at Meadowlands property owner, Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, been consulted regarding the sewer extension proposed on their property(i.e.,the point from the sewer manhole in the parking lot in front of Lots 44&45 heading southeast—east-south)?The utility proposal will affect their project(as noted below). 2. The southeast-oriented segment of the sewer extension south of Lot 45 will conflict with a required parking lot shade tree& parking lot screening. 3. The proposed sewer line running south along a portion of the east property line is located within required open space for the project.The UDO under which the project was approved prohibited utilities running coincident with required open space for a distance of more than 50 feet.The permit-issuing authority could approve a greater distance. In this case,the Town's Board of Adjustment would now have to approve a modification to the issued Special Use Permit for project to allow the sewer proposed in the southeast corner of the tract. 4. It appears a portion of the proposed sewer easement in the southeast corner of the tract will overlap a proposed Stormwater Control Measure access& maintenance easement (or vice-versa). 5. The roads proposed through the site are labeled as public ROW, however annexation of the project is not proposed or supported by the Town Board,the Town would therefore not accept these roads for maintenance. Applicant should verify with NCDOT that they will accept and maintain these roads or change the labels to 'Private Road'. Utilities(Bryant Green 919-296-9630 bryant.green@hillsboroughnc.gov) The Town of Hillsborough reviewed the proposed rezoning application for the above referenced project in Orange County, below, please find our comments and concerns for inclusion in the courtesy review process. 1. Inadequate fire flow is available at the subject site to support the proposed use.The water distribution system in this area is adequate for domestic, residential water demand but is not sized for commercial or institutional fire flows or sprinkler demand. Significant offsite improvements will likely be needed to provide fire flow to the site in the volumes and pressures needed while maintaining adequate service to existing customers. 2. The proposed water distribution connections are not feasible.The existing waterline in US 70A is in the Town's Central Zone, while the waterlines in Lawrence Road and Lannie Drive are in the Town's South Zone. Connecting these two zones through the subject site will adversely impact water system 101 E.Orange St.,PO Box 429,Hillsborough,NC 27278 919-296-9477 1 shannan.campbell@hillsboroughnc.gov www.hillsboroughnc.gov I @HillsboroughGov www.visithillsboroughnc.com I @HillsboroughNC Pre-development Agenda 1 1 of 1 140 performance in the surrounding area, and significantly impact the Town's ability to fill and drain tanks in these zones. 3. The offsite sewer extension requires installing sewer mains in a currently unserved area.The sewer outfall from the subject parcel is proposed through a portion of the adjacent neighborhood in existing DOT roads west of Lawrence Road. Existing residential homes in this neighborhood do not currently have sewer service, the proposed sewer extension provides frontage to only a portion of these homes.The net effect of the proposed extension is not equitable for the remaining homes in the community that did not receive frontage as part of this project.The Town does not have plans to extend sewer to the rest of this community. 4. The project proposes a hybrid approach to sewer service on the subject site,with both septic drain fields and public sewer extensions.The proposed mix of community septic service and public sewer service is inconsistent with current guidance from Orange County on where septic systems are considered appropriate. 5. There are two schools shown on the site plan. At this time,the Town of Hillsborough has only been asked to reserve capacity for one school-West Triangle Highschool.The town will also not serve a tennis club or ballfields/irrigation restrooms or concessions. Stormwater(Heather Fisher 919-296-9622 heather.fisher@hillsboroughnc.gov) 1. Any conflicts that arise between SCMs and utilities or other components potentially could be addressed by distributing smaller stormwater control measures throughout the site. Please consider integrating bioretention into the parking lot landscaping areas and/or the use of rainwater harvesting as SCMs for the buildings. 2. The project should analyze the downstream impact on stormwater infrastructure. Is the NCDOT pipe under Hwy 70 to the north and 1-85 to the south sized adequately to accept the increased flow from this site should it be developed? Predevelopment Meeting Agenda 12 of 2 141 North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M.Bartos,Administrator Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History Secretary D.Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary,Darin J.Waters,Ph.D. February 20, 2023 Brian Collie bcolliegoran eg cync.gov Orange County Planning & Inspections Department 131 W Margaret Lane Hillsborough,NC 27278 Re: Construct charter school, Lawrence Road, Hillsborough, Orange County, ER 23-0340 Dear Mr. Collie: Thank you for your letter of January 26, 2023, regarding the above-referenced undertaking. We have reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments. We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all fixture communication concerning this project,please cite the above referenced tracking number. Sincerely, Ramona Bartos, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Location:109 East Jones Street,Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address:4617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax:(919)814-6570/814-6898 �c STATE oF� 142 � n *�5C QUAM NOEw ROY COOPER NORTH CAROLINA Governor Environmental Quality ELIZABETH S.BISER Secretary To: Crystal Best State Clearinghouse NC Department of Administration From: Lyn Hardison Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service Washington Regional Office Re: 23-0109 Environmental Assessment- Proposed project is for the construction of a public charter school, baseball and soccer fields,tennis and basketball courts, a skate park, an open field and parking lots. Orange County Date: January 10, 2023 The Department of Environment Quality has reviewed the proposal for the referenced project. Based on the information provided, several of our agencies have identified permits that may be required and offered some valuable guidance to help minimize impacts to aquatic,terrestrial wildlife, and natural resources.The comments are attached for the applicant's review.The comments are attached for the applicant's review. The Department will continue to be available to assist the applicant with any questions or concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Attachments D E Q� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 217 West Jones Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1601 NORTH CAROLINA oepammammEnvi—.,Q.aifty 919.707.8600 143 4=• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission f Cameron Ingram, Executive Director MEMORANDUM TO: Lyn Hardison,Environmental Assistance and SEPA Coordinator NCDENR Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Services FROM: Olivia Munzer,Western Piedmont Coordinator Habitat Conservation DATE: 05 January 2023 SUBJECT: Request for Review of Orange County Public Charter School Environmental Assessment in Eno, Orange County,North Carolina. DEQ Project No. 23-0109. Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed project description. Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the United States (U.S.) National Environmental Policy Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.). Lawrence Road Partners, LLC is proposing to construct a charter high school with soccer fields,baseball fields,tennis courts,basketball courts, skate park, open field,and parking lots. The site is on 85.75 acres located northeast of the intersection of Lannie Drive and Lawrence Road in the Township of Eno, Orange County,North Carolina. The site is currently agricultural land and woodland. Unnamed tributaries to the Eno River and two potential wetlands occur on the site. The Eno River in the Neuse River Basin is classified as a Water Supply V stream and Nutrient Sensitive Water by the North Carolina Department of Water Resources(NCDWR). We do not have records for state or federally-listed rare,threatened, or endangered species at the site. The lack of records from the site does not imply or confirm the absence of federal or state-listed species. An on-site survey is the only definitive means to determine if the proposed project would impact state or federally listed rare,threatened, or endangered species. We offer the following preliminary recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources. 1. Avoid impacting streams and wetlands. Maintain a minimum 100-foot undisturbed,native, forested buffer along perennial streams, and a minimum 50-foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands. Maintaining undisturbed, forested buffers along these areas will minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources,water quality, and aquatic habitat both within and downstream of the project area. Also,wide riparian buffers are helpful in maintaining stability of stream banks and for treatment of pollutants associated with urban stormwater. 2. Use non-invasive native species and Low Impact Development(LID)technology in landscaping. Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh,NC 27699-1721 Telephone: (919) 707-0220 • Fax: (919) 707-0028 144 05 January 2023 Page 2 Orange County Charter School DEQ Project No.23-0109 Using LID technology in landscaping will not only help maintain the predevelopment hydrologic regime,but also enhance the aesthetic and habitat value of the site. LID techniques include permeable pavement,narrower roads, and bioretention areas (ex. rain gardens)that can collect stormwater from driveways and parking areas. Additional information on LID can be found at the NC State University LID guide: https://www.uni-groupusa.org/PDF/NC LID Guidebook.pdf. Also,NCWRC's Green Growth Toolbox provides information on nature-friendly planning (http://www.ncwildlife.org/Conservin /g Programs/GreenGrowthToolbox.aspx). 3. Re-seed disturbed areas with seed mixtures or native plants that are beneficial to wildlife. Avoid using invasive,non-native plants(i.e.,tall fescue, lespedeza,and Bermudagrass)in seed mixtures or landscaping plants(http://www.ncwildflower.org/plant galleries/invasives list). In open areas, consider planting native,wildflower seed mixes that will create pollinator habitat within the project boundary. The pollinator habitat and any LID techniques, if used, could serve as an educational tool for the students. 4. We recommend clustering the buildings and areas with impermeable surfaces(i.e., courts, parking)and locating the open fields(i.e., soccer fields and open fields)closest to the undisturbed native vegetation and/or streams. Minimize clearing of the site to retain the maximum amount of native vegetation. 5. We recommend using green construction techniques to improve water,waste, and energy efficiency. 6. The use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly recommended. Silt fencing,fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose-weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it impedes the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. These measures should be routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species. The NCWRC encourages the applicant to consider additional measures to protect wildlife species in developing landscapes. More detailed information on each of these measures and supporting literature can be found in NCWRC's Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality(August 2002; http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/O/Conserviniz/documents/2002 GuidanceMemorandumforSecondaryan dCumulativelmpacts.pdf). At this time,the information provided is not sufficient for our staff to make definitive recommendations or conclusions concerning this project. Please contact me at(336)290-0056 or olivia.munzer(c�r�,ncwildlife.org if there are any questions about these comments or for free technical guidance. 145 RECOMMENDED NATIVE ALTERNATIVES FOR NON-NATIVE GRASSES IN NORTH CAROLINA* (Species are appropriate for all geographic regions unless otherwise indicated) NON-NATIVE SPECIES NATIVE SPECIES Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans Crownvetch Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Centipede Beaked panicgrass Panicum anceps Bermuda Purpletop Tridens flavus Roundheaded bushclover Lespedeza capitata Deer tongue Dicanthelium clandestinum Sensitive partridge pea Chamaecrista nictitans Partridge pea Chamaecrista asciculata Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Kentucky bluegrass Beaked panicgrass Panicum anceps Tall fescue Purpletop Tridens flavus Sudangrass Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus Deer tongue Dicanthelium clandestinum Canadian wildrye Elymus canadensis Virginia wildrye Elymus virginicus Sensitive partridge pea Chamaecrista nictitans Partridge pea Chamaecrista asciculata Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Splitbeard bluestem Andropogon ternarius Sericea lespedeza Beggarlice Desmodium spp. Kobe lespedeza Deer tongue Dicanthelium clandestinum Sensitive partridge pea Chamaecrista nictitans Partridge pea Chamaecrista asciculata SANDHILLS Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Purple lovegrass Eragrostis spectabilis Weeping lovegrass Muhly Grass Muhlenbergia capillaris Bermuda Wiregrass Aristida stricta Buttonweed Prairie threeawn Aristida oligantha Sensitive partridge pea Chamaecrista nictitans Partridge pea Chamaecrista asciculata 146 NC Native Plant Recommendations **A recommended revegetation/stabilization mix would ideally include a combination of the species listed in this table. In addition, please note that additional consideration may be needed in areas that are (highly) erodible and/or have sloped terrain. The following species could be included in all regions for additional stabilization and wildlife benefit: Black-eyed susan: Rudbeckia hirta Plains coreopsis: Coreopsis tinctoria Lance-leaved coreopsis: Coreopsis lanceolata Narrow-leaved sunflower: Helianthus angustifolius Created October 2018 Fac STATE 147 h "rT ROY COOPER Governor 2 ELIZABETH S.BISER Secretary * `Q"MN°E"* MICHAEL SCOTT NORTH CAROLINA Director Environmental Quality DATE: January 5, 2023 TO: Michael Scott, Division Director through Sharon Brinkley FROM: Deb Aja, Western District Supervisor-Solid Waste Section Field Operations Branch RE: SEPA Project 23-0109, Orange County, NC Orange County Planning& Inspections, Charter School Construction The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the application of Orange County Planning& Inspections for the proposed construction of a public charter school, baseball and soccer fields,tennis and basketball courts, a skate park, an open field and parking lots located on Lawrence Rd (Parcel Identification Number 9883194355), Eno Township, Orange County, North Carolina. The review has been completed and has found no adverse impact on the surrounding community and likewise knows of no situations in the community, which would affect this project from a solid waste perspective. During the project, every feasible effort should be made to minimize the generation of waste, to recycle materials for which viable markets exist, and to use recycled products and materials in the development of this project where suitable. Any waste generated by this project that cannot be beneficially reused or recycled must be disposed of at a solid waste management facility approved to manage the respective waste type. The Section strongly recommends that any contractors are required to provide proof of proper disposal for all waste generated as part of the project. A list of permitted solid waste management facilities is available on the Solid Waste Section portal site at: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/solid-waste-section/solid-waste-permitted- facility-information-and-guidance/solid-waste-facility-lists Please contact Chuck Kirchner, Environmental Senior Specialist,for any questions regarding solid waste management for this project. Mr. Kirchner can be reached at (336) 776-9633 or by email at chuck.kirchner@ncdenr.gov. Ec: Jason Watkins, Field Operations Branch Head Chuck Kirchner, Environmental Senior Specialist D E Q�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Waste Management Asheville Regional Office 1 2090 U.S.Highway 70 1 Swannanoa,North Carolina 28778 o P mmemmEn�mema if /`� 828.296.4500 State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 148 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 23-0109 Due Date:1/9/2023 County: Orange After review of this project,it has been determined that the DEQ permit(s)and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.All applications,information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office. Normal Process PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Time (Statutory time limit) Permit to construct&operate wastewater Application 90 days before begins construction or award of treatment facilities,non-standard sewer system❑ 30 days extensions&sewer systems that do not construction contracts.On-site inspection may be required.Post- (90 days) discharge into state surface waters. application technical conference usual. Permit to construct&operate,sewer extensions involving gravity sewers,pump Fast-Track Permitting program consists of the submittal of an 30 days ❑ stations and force mains discharging into a application and an engineer's certification that the project meets all (N/A) sewer collection applicable State rules and Division Minimum Design Criteria. system NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water Application 180 days before begins activity.On-site inspection.Pre- and/or permit to operate and construct application conference usual.Additionally,obtain permit to construct 90-120 days wastewater facilities discharging into state wastewater treatment facility granted after NPDES.Reply time,30 days (N/A) surface waters. after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later. El Water days Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary. (N/A) Complete application must be received,and permit issued prior to the ❑ installation of a groundwater monitoring well located on property not 7 days Well Construction Permit owned by the applicant,and for a large capacity(>100,000 gallons per (15 days) ) day)water supply well. Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property ❑ owner.On-site inspection.Pre-application conference usual.Filling may 55 days Dredge and Fill Permit require Easement to Fill from N.C.Department of Administration and (90 days) Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. Permit to construct&operate Air Pollution Application must be submitted,and permit received prior to ❑ construction and operation of the source. If a permit is required Abatement facilities and/or Emission Sources as in an area without local zoning,then there are additional 90 days per 15 A NCAC(2Q.0100 thru 2Q.0300) requirements and timelines(2Q.0113). Any open burning associated with subject ® proposal must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC N/A 60 days (90 days) 2D.1900 Demolition or renovations of structures Please Note-The Health Hazards Control Unit(HHCU)of the N.C. containing asbestos material must be in Department of Health and Human Services,must be notified of plans to ® compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1110(a)(1) demolish a building,including residences for commercial or industrial 60 days which requires notification and removal prior to expansion,even if no asbestos is present in the building. (90 days) demolition.Contact Asbestos Control Group 919-707-5950 The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity.An erosion& sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres are to be disturbed.Plan must be filed with and approved 20 days ® by applicable Regional Office(Land Quality Section)at least 30 days before beginning activity. A NPDES Construction Stormwater permit(NCG010000)is also usually issued should design features meet minimum requirements. A fee of (30 days) $100 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional fees. Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOT's approved program. Particular (30 days) ❑ attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable Stormwater conveyances and outlets. Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with Local Government's approved program. Based on Local ❑ Particular attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable Stormwater conveyances and outlets. Program ❑ Compliance with 15A NCAC 04B.0125—Buffers Zones for Trout Waters shall have an undisturbed buffer zone 25 feet wide or of sufficient width to confine visible siltation within the twenty-five percent(25%)of the buffer zone nearest the land-disturbing activity,whichever is greater. ❑ Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.0126-NPDES Stormwater Program which regulates three types of activities:Industrial, 30-60 days Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System&Construction activities that disturb>_1 acre. (90 days) Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000-State Stormwater Permitting Programs regulate site development and post- 45 days ❑ construction stormwater runoff control. Areas subject to these permit programs include all 20 coastal counties,and (90 days) various other counties and watersheds throughout the state. DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 1 of 3 April 4,2022/lbh State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 149 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 23-0109 Due Date: 1/9/2023 County: Orange Normal Process PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Time (Statutory time limit) On-site inspection usual.Surety bond filed with DEQ Bond amount ❑ varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land.Affected 30 days Mining Permit area greater than one acre must be permitted.The appropriate bond (60 days) must be received before the permit can be issued. If permit required,application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant must hire N.C.qualified engineer to prepare plans,inspect construction,and certify construction is according to DEQ approved ❑ Dam Safety Permit plans.May also require a permit under mosquito control program.And 30 days a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.An inspection of site is necessary (60 days) to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of$200.00 must accompany the application.An additional processing fee based on a percentage,or the total project cost will be required upon completion. ❑ Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days (N/A) File surety bond of$5,000 with DEQ running to State of NC conditional 10 days ❑ Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well that any well opened by drill operator shall,upon abandonment,be N/A plugged according to DEQ rules and regulations. ❑ Application filed with DEQ at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. 10 days Geophysical Exploration Permit Application by letter.No standard application forms. N/A Application fee based on structure size is charged.Must include 15-20 days ❑ State Lakes Construction Permit descriptions&drawings of structure&proof of ownership of riparian N/A property Compliance with the T15A 02H.0500 Certifications are required 60 days ® 401 Water Quality Certification whenever construction or operation of facilities will result in a (130 days) discharge into navigable water as described in 33 CFR part 323. Compliance with Catawba,Goose Creek,Jordan Lake,Randleman,Tar Pamlico or Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules is required.Buffer requirements: ® http:/Ideg.nc.gov/`about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/401-wetlands-buffer-permits/401-riparian- buffer-protection-program Nutrient Offset:Loading requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins,and in the Jordan and Falls Lake ❑ watersheds,as part of the nutrient-management strategies in these areas. DWR nutrient offset information: http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/nonpoint-source-management/nutrient-offset-information ❑ CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00-$475.00 fee must accompany application 75 days (150 days) ❑ CAMA Permit for MINOR development $100.00 fee must accompany application 22 days(25 days) ❑ Abandonment of any wells,if required must be in accordance with Title 15A.Subchapter 2C.0100. ® Notification of the proper regional office is requested if"orphan"underground storage tanks(USTS)are discovered during any excavation operation. Plans and specifications for the construction,expansion,or alteration of a public water system must be approved by the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction ® as per 15A NCAC 18C.0300 et.seq.,Plans and specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh, 30 days North Carolina 27699-1634. All public water supply systems must comply with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements.For more information,contact the Public Water Supply Section,(919)707-9100. If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction,plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to ® the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699- 30 days 1634.For more information,contact the Public Water Supply Section,(919)707-9100. Plans and specifications for the construction,expansion,or alteration of the water system must be approved through the delegated ❑ plan approval authority. Please contact them at for further information. DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 2 of 3 April 4,2022/lbh State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 150 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 23-0109 Due Date: 1 9 2023 County: Orange Other Comments(attach additional pages as necessary,being certain to comment authority) Division Initials No Comments Date comment Review DAQ SH ❑ See checked boxes above. 12/20/2022 DWR-WQROS ❑ It is recommended to schedule a site visit with 401 Water quality staff to (Aquifer&Surface) & discuss the proposal and to ensure compliance will be maintained per 401 surface Water requirements,surface water standards and buffer rules. If wetland,riparian buffers or stream impacts are proposed,this project will need to comply with/secure a 404 permit from the USACE,obtain a 401 Water Quality Certification authorization and a riparian buffer authorization.& DWR-PWS SG ❑ See checked boxes above. 12/29/2022 DEM LR(LQ&SW) ISB ❑ See checked box 1/9/2023 DWM—UST MRP ❑ See checked boxes above. 1/4/2023 Other Comments ❑ / / REGIONAL OFFICES Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below. ❑ Asheville Regional Office ❑ Fayetteville Regional Office ❑ Mooresville Regional Office 2090 U.S.70 Highway 225 Green Street,Suite 714, 610 East Center Avenue,Suite 301, Swannanoa,NC 28778-8211 Fayetteville,NC 28301-5043 Mooresville,NC 28115 Phone:828-296-4500 Phone:910-433-3300 Phone:704-663-1699 Fax:828-299-7043 Fax:910-486-0707 Fax:704-663-6040 ❑ Raleigh Regional Office ❑ Washington Regional Office ❑ Wilmington Regional Office 3800 Barrett Drive, 943 Washington Square Mall, 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Raleigh,NC 27609 Washington,NC 27889 Wilmington,NC 28405 Phone:919-791-4200 Phone:252-946-6481 Phone:910-796-721S Fax:919-571-4718 Fax:252-975-3716 Fax:910-350-2004 ❑ Winston-Salem Regional Office 450 Hanes Mill Road,Suite 300, Winston-Salem,NC 27105 Phone:336-776-9800 Fax:336-776-9797 DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 3 of 3 April 4,2022/lbh . � 151 ROY COOPER Governor ELIZABETH S.BISERd Secretary MICHAEL SCOTT NORTH CAROLINA Director Environmental Quality Date: December 16, 2022 To: Michael Scott, Director Division of Waste Management Through: Janet Macdonald Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch From: Katie C Tatum Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch Subject: SEPA Project# 23-0109 Orange County Planning & Inspections, Orange County North Carolina The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of sites under its jurisdiction to the Orange County Planning& Inspections project. Proposed project is for the construction of a public charter school, baseball and soccer fields, tennis and basketball courts, a skate park, an open field and parking lots. Three (3) Superfund Section sites were identified within one mile of the project as shown on the attached report. The Superfund Section recommends that site files be reviewed to ensure that appropriate precautions are incorporated into any construction activities that encounter potentially contaminated soil or groundwater. Superfund Section files can be viewed at: http://deg.nc.gov/waste-management-laserfiche. Please contact Janet Macdonald at 919.707.8349 if you have any questions concerning the Superfund Section review portion of this SEPA/NEPA inquiry. EQ� �� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Waste Management 217 West Jones Street 1 1646 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1646 `oaFricnaoi.FNn i 919.707.8200 152 PaP., Superfund & Brownfield Sites SEPA/NEPA Review Report Area of Interest (AOI) Information Orange County SEPA project 23-0109 Area : 3,087.57 acres Dec 16 2022 14:57:55 Eastern Standard Time ?eQ_= - [.i.s�:.. Plney Gra .:■ Erc 1:56,'1 12 • Inactiv Hazard—S{tzs r' a3s ces rs mi r NC Brownfields Location_Vicw c afi t 2 km Q Recorded Esn,NA54,NGa,USGS F—,saw or Ngrm c—in.GGT,— 9 HERE,Gaimin,SefeGiePh,c—T--yes,I.,Mi7MSA, Inactive Eligible .—,—N.us census a—u,— 153 Superfund and Brownfield Sites Orange CountySEPA project 23-0109 Summary Name Count Area(acres) Length(mi) Certified DSCA Sites 0 N/A N/A Federal Remediation Branch Sites 0 N/A N/A Inactive Hazardous Sites 2 N/A N/A Pre-Regulatory Landfill Sites 0 N/A N/A Brownfields Program Sites 1 N/A N/A Inactive Hazardous Sites # EPAID SITENAME Count 1 NONCD0002203 ALLEN LANE CONTAMINATED WELLS 1 2 NONCD0003095 NC HWY 86 METALS CONTAMINATION 1 Brownfields Program Sites # BF ID BF Name Count 1 L2308:4:1:9068 Schrifts Mart 1 154 Department of Environmental Quality Project Review Form Project Number: 23-0109 County: Orange Date Received: 12-13-2022 Due Date: 1-9-2023 Project Description: Environmental Assessment- Proposed project is for the construction of a public charter school, baseball and soccer fields, tennis and basketball courts, a skate park, an open field and parking lots. This Project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville V Air Air Quality Coastal Management Fayetteville V DWR Parks&Recreation Marine Fisheries Mooresville V DWR-Public Water V Waste Mgmt Military Affairs V Raleigh V DEMLR(LQ&SW) Water Resources Mgmt DMF-Shellfish Sanitation Washington V DWM (Public Water,Planning&Water Wilmington Quality Program) V Wildlife Olivia Winston-Salem DWR-Transportation Unit Wildlife/DOT Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: 12/20/22 Melodi Deaver,Hazardous Waste Section Response(check all applicable) No objection to project as proposed. X No Comment Insufficient information to complete review Other(specify or attach comments) If you have any questions,please contact: Lyn Hardison at lyn.hardison(dncdenngov or(252)948-3842 943 Washington Square Mall Washington NC 27889 Courier No. 16-04-01 155 North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M.Bartos,Administrator Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History Secretary D.Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary,Darin J.Waters,Ph.D. February 20, 2023 Brian Collie bcolliegoran eg cync.gov Orange County Planning & Inspections Department 131 W Margaret Lane Hillsborough,NC 27278 Re: Construct charter school, Lawrence Road, Hillsborough, Orange County, ER 23-0340 Dear Mr. Collie: Thank you for your letter of January 26, 2023, regarding the above-referenced undertaking. We have reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments. We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all fixture communication concerning this project,please cite the above referenced tracking number. Sincerely, Ramona Bartos, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Location:109 East Jones Street,Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address:4617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax:(919)814-6570/814-6898 156 ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT '�0� TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT NTY�sOX11L+G+4ROUNA 01'811geCOlO T MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Edwards, NCDOT Lyle Overcash, Kimley-Horn CC: Cy Stober, Planning Director Taylor Perschau, Current Planning Supervisor FROM: Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Director DATE: January 31, 2023 SUBJECT: Lawrence Road Development - TIA Review The following memo summarizes Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS) comments on the Lawrence Road Development — Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report. OCTS staff requests the following be addressed: Recommendations: US 70 Alternate at Lawrence Road • No additional improvements recommended US 70 Alternate at NC 86 • No additional improvements recommended US 70 at Lawrence Road • Recommendations may not improve level of service (LOS) effectively o Request considering an exclusive southbound right turn lane with 75 or 100 feet of storage plus taper, or slip lane to support the recommended and perhaps improve LOS US 70 at US 70 Alternate • TIA Report documents "notable crash history with injury" o Orange County has a Vision Zero policy and requests additional safety improvements (e.g. signs, speed reduction, etc.) be provided. • Recommendations may not improve level of service (LOS) effectively o Build-out intersection is significant impacted by the development, level of service failures for east and west bound are am peak x11 and pm peak x2 respective o Request intersection be converted to two lane roundabout ■ Low traffic volume along the side street (Palmers Grove Church Road) may not warrant a traffic signal. ■ RCUT — Superstreet — may help improve LOS at the intersection but reduce it along the road segments, possibly resulting in mobility and safety problems along US 70 and US 70 alt. 157 Lawrence at Site Driveway 1 • Northbound traffic not addressed, request adding exclusive right turn lane with 50 or 75 feet storage. US 70 Alternate at Site Driveway 2 • No additional improvements recommended Thank you very much for the opportunity to review and provide comments. Please forward any questions, comments or concerns to Orange County Transportation Director Nishith Trivedi at ntrivedi(corangecountync.gov. 158 MEMORANDUM TO: DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: MATT TAYLOR,ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON MA22-0004 DATE: 3/2/23 MA22-0004: Waste enclosures that are shown on roads near High School and Lower School are facing wrong direction based on the flow of traffic indicated by the traffic arrows shown. Please ensure that collection trucks can enter the enclosure areas efficiently in the direction that traffic is flowing. The "Indoor Facility" should also have a waste enclosure for solid waste/recycling and cardboard collection. 159 L�igy,yx.noc°`` STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROY COOPER J.ERIC BOYETTE GOVERNOR SECRETARY March 27, 2023 ORANGE COUNTY Mr. Lyle Overcash, PE Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 421 Fayetteville St. Suite 600 Raleigh,NC 27601 Subject: Proposed Lawrence Road Development Located on U.S. 70 A and SR 1709, Lawrence Road Review of Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Dear Mr. Overcash, Pursuant to NCGS 136-18(29a) and 19A NCAC 02C.0116, District and Municipal School and Transportation Assistance Unit(MSTA) staff have completed review of the TIA and preliminary site plan for the above subject. Based on the information provided, I offer the following comments. General: The proposed site consists of an 800-student grades K-8 charter school, a 600-student grades 9-12 charter high school and a recreational area. The site is proposed to be accessed by one full-movement access on Lawrence Road and one full-movement access on U.S. 70 A. The development is proposed to be fully built out by the year 2025. Anticipated trip generation for the schools was calculated using the MSTA"School Traffic Calculator" and anticipated trip generation for the recreational areas was calculated using ITE trip generation data and local data collected by the consultant for similar facilities located within the region. The K-8 charter school is expected to generate approximately 1723 daily trips with average and high- demand internal queues of 3395' and 4414' respectively at design student capacity. The 9-12 charter high school is expected to generate approximately 1334 daily trips with average and high demand internal queues of 2116' and 2751' respectively at design student capacity. The recreational area is expected to generate approximately 828 daily trips at full build out. The TIA states that bell schedules for the two schools will be staggered by at least 45 Mailing Address: Telephone:(336)570-6833 Location: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax:(336)570-6873 115 EAST CRESCENT SQUARE DRIVE DIVISION 7,DISTRICT 1 Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 GRAHAM,NC 27253 PO BOX 766 GRAHAM,NC 27253-0766 Website:www.ncdot.gov 160 minutes, therefore no overlap of peak periods between the two schools was assumed and that the recreational area was not expected to generate significant trips during the school peak periods. The TIA accounted for these conditions in the analysis scenarios. If the school is projected to accommodate a higher number of students or other changed conditions such as altered bell schedules, then further review will be required. It is the responsibility of the school to maintain their school generated traffic on their campus. Required Improvements by the Applicant: Pursuant to NCGS 136-18(29a) and 19A NCAC 02C.0116, and as a condition of the pending NCDOT Driveway Permit, the Applicant will need to construct the following internal and external improvements determined by NCDOT as necessary and required to adequately mitigate the traffic impacts and ensure acceptable traffic operation at the site accesses attributable to the new school. External to Site: U.S. 70A and Proposed Site Access • Construct an exclusive westbound left turn lane on U.S. 70A with a minimum of 150' of full storage and appropriate transitions per NCDOT requirements. Lawrence Road and Proposed Site Access • Construct an exclusive southbound left turn lane on Lawrence Road with a minimum of 150' of full storage and appropriate transitions per NCDOT requirements Eligible costs for engineering, design, right of way, utilities, and construction of these external improvements incurred by the school are reimbursable by NCDOT. It will be necessary for the school system to consult with the District Engineer on necessary administrative procedures as established by 19A NCAC 02C.0116. Internal to Site: • Construct access at Lawrence Road with stop control and one ingress lane and two egress lanes consisting of an exclusive left turn lane with a minimum of 250' of full storage and an exclusive right turn lane with a minimum of 200' of full storage. Provide a minimum 250' internal protected stem along the access. • Construct access at U.S. 70A with stop control and one ingress lane and two egress lanes consisting of an exclusive left turn lane with a minimum of 525' of full storage and an exclusive right turn lane with a minimum of 350' of full storage. Provide a minimum 525' internal protected stem along the access. • Configure the site to accommodate anticipated high demand internal queues of 4414' for the K-8 school and 2751' for the 9-12 high school. 161 • Implement the On-Site Traffic Management Plan as provided in the TIA with appropriate adjustments as needed based on field conditions to ensure efficient operation and on-site accommodation of queues. These internal site improvements are the responsibility of the school system and are not reimbursable by NCDOT. Additional Recommendations: The TIA identified three additional study intersections where operational issues were noted during the existing and future analysis scenarios. The TIA indicated that the intersections of U.S. 70A and Lawrence Road and U.S. 70 and Lawrence Road are currently experiencing delay and are expected to experience additional delay during the AM and PM peak periods with the addition of school traffic. The study recommended capacity improvements at these intersections. It should be noted that anticipated delays are expected to be short-lived and limited to the AM and PM peak periods. Operation is expected to be significantly better during the remainder of the day. The existing all-way-stop and traffic signal controls at these intersections are expected to continue to provide for safe operation. The study indicated that the intersection of U.S 70 and U.S. 70A is experiencing a "notable crash history" and significant side-street delay in the existing and future analysis scenarios. The study did not recommend specific operational improvements at this intersection to mitigate anticipated development impacts. This intersection is currently identified in the North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program(HSIP). Improvements at these intersections are currently not programmed or funded. NCDOT may consider these intersections for delivery of future improvements via other Department programs such as Spot Mobility, Spot Safety, and the Transportation Improvement Program(STIP) subject to available funding, environmental and cultural impacts, and availability of right way. General Requirements: It is necessary to obtain an approved driveway permit and/or encroachment agreement(s) prior to performing work on the NCDOT right of way. As a condition of the permit, the permitee shall be responsible for design and construction of the above stipulated improvements in accordance with NCDOT requirements. An approved permit will be issued upon receipt of approved site plan, roadway and plans, inspection fee, and any necessary performance and indemnity bonds. The applicant shall dedicate any additional right of way necessary to accommodate the required road improvements or future improvements as stipulated. Intersection radii and geometry shall be designed to accommodate turning movements of the largest anticipated vehicle. 162 All pavement markings shall be long life thermoplastic. Pavement markers shall be installed if they previously existed on the roadway. The permitee shall be responsible for the installation and relocation of any additional highway signs that may be necessary due to these improvements and shall comply with the requirements of the MUTCD. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, DocuSigned by: C. N. V- work 9r• , pt C60BB6060F8A458... C. N. Edwards Jr., PE District Engineer Cc: W.R. Archer, III, PE, Division Engineer Tammy Germiller,NCDOT MSTA Brian Thomas, PE, Regional Traffic Engineer Dawn McPherson, Division Traffic Engineer Orange County 163 Grange County 9° ,7 Emergency Services A Prepared,Coordinated,and Integrated Emergency Services System v� E9;1.1 E-911 I Fire Marshal I EMS I Emergency Management Fire & Life Safety Division TO: Cy Stober, AICP — Director, Planning & Inspections FROM: Elizabeth Farnan — Fire Marshal, Emergency Services CC: Brian Collie - Planner II, Planning & Inspections Date: March 31, 2023 CASE: MA22-0004 PIN: 9883-19-4355 PROJECT: Conditional Rezoning (Lawrence Road (R-1) to Master Plan Development Conditional District (MPD-CD) SUBJECT: Site Plan Review Regarding Conformance with Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for Emergency Apparatus Access, Addressing, and Water Availability for Required Fire Flow This memo is to show that the Fire Marshal Division has NO OBJECTIONS to the approval of the rezoning request. All requirements have been met for emergency apparatus access to the site, addressing, and water flow requirements. March 31, 2023 Elizabeth Farnan, FM Date 510 Meadowlands Drive I Hillsborough, NC 27278 1 (919) 245-6100 Main Office www.orangecountync.gov/oces Excerpts of Planning Board Minutes AttaiWnt 6 Approved 5-3-2023 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 APRIL,2023 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBER PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), Cheeks 7 Township Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; Beth Bronson, At-Large Representative; 8 Charity Kirk, At-Large Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Delores Bailey, At-Large 9 Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; Chris Johnston, Hillsborough Township 10 Representative; Liz Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative; 11 12 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor; 13 Tyler Sliger, Planner II; Lauren Coffey, Planning Technician; Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Services Director 14 15 OTHERS PRESENT: Dan Jewell,Applicant; Keith Brown,Applicant; James Parker,Applicant; Lyle Overcash, Nick 16 Kirkland, Joey Webb, Patrick Byker, Eric Silinish, Will Wirt, Patrick Cummings, Susan Wells, John Cates, Ben Morgan, 17 Beth Muirhead, John Dempsey, Margo Lakin, Clancy Russell, Jenn Weaver, Kathleen Ferguson, Susan Swafford, Alex 18 Quigley, Drake Edwards, Gary Rodgers,Amber Bickford, Raul Herrera, John Cox, Earl Tye, Mary Parkinson, Jennifer 19 Bailey, John Hughes, Margo Lakin, John Dempsey, Margaret Cates, Sandra Brown, Thomas Brown, Emilee Collins, 20 Jessica King, Carolyn Robinson, Jamie Burgess-Flowers, Carolyn Cadamski, Rhonda Zack, Wanda Richardson, Edwin 21 Cox, Mei Huang, Maryalice Nocera, Charlie Clouse, Reynald Chatelain, Debra Fields, Jenni Edwards, Meg Kelly, Drake 22 Edwards, Dan Bivins, Steve Kirby, Alison Sommerstad, Robert James, William Brodeur, Sally Brodeur,Aaron Kirk, Vicki 23 Hill, Amber Bickford, Aaron Kessler, Karen Sexton, Cheryl Howard, Alyson Miller, Linda Nathanson, Kathleen Harper, 24 Eric Lindblom, Nick Schumacher, Kathy Bivins, Kiersten Fitzgerald, Jeff Powell, Allan Green, Matt McDermott, Meaghun 25 Darab, Neal Fisher, Melissa Fisher, Bonnie Alexander, Linda Johnson, Tracy Schumacher, Jack Niklas, Rachael Price, 26 Ross Goldbaun, Brandon Welch, Hugo Sequeira, Amy Carabetta, Robert Minton, Ashley Snipes, Daniel Snipes, Scott 27 Comer, Susan Walser, Mark Micol, Jim Hopper, Jay Hopper, Tony Bayless, Delores Bayless, Scott Czechlewski, Hollis 28 Chatelain,Alex Stanford, Rhonda Zack, Crawford Horne, Felicia Horne, Bill Aucoin, Mark Zack, Rachel Hawkins,Allison 29 Nichols, Hank Clapper, Jim West, Donna Clapp, Tiffany Alrefae, Janet Wright-Simpson, Faye Rhode, Kimberly Leary, 30 Marian Adamson, Bethany Kidd, Ashley Anston, H. Nad Worny, Curtis Kelly, Jason Zoladz,Jeff Reilich, Christine Jackle, 31 Virginia Rhodes, Ryan Rigabar 32 33 34 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 35 Chair Adam Beeman called the meeting to order. 36 37 38 **************************************************** 39 40 41 AGENDA ITEM 9:ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT(CONDITIONAL DISTRICT)-To review and make a recommendation to the 42 BOCC on an applicant-initiated zoning atlas amendment to rezone an 84.9-acre parcel from R-1 (Rural Residential)to 43 MPD-CD (Master Plan Development Conditional District). 44 45 The parcel is located near the intersection of Lawrence Road and US Hwy 70A in the Eno Township (PIN 9883-19- 46 4355); it does not have an assigned address. This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on May 16, 2023. 47 48 Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director, gave a brief description and background of the item as well as an 49 explanation of the rezoning process. 50 51 Cy Stober- 160D.605 does make it clear that traffic impacts and level of service impacts to the surrounding transportation 52 network, cannot be a consideration for a zoning determination. I want to make that very clear right now. 53 54 Beth Bronson-We cannot discuss traffic ... 165 Approved 5-3-2023 55 56 Cy Stober-You can discuss it, but per state law, you can't deny or approve it based on traffic. It cannot be the basis of a 57 zoning decision. 58 59 Beth Bronson-Thank you for making that clarification. 60 61 Chris Johnston-Can we just get clarification again that that is a state law and is not something that Orange County has 62 done, right?Those guidelines are provided to us by the state... 63 64 Cy Stober-Yes, it is in Article 7 of the NC General Statute 160D. 65 66 Lamar Proctor-To clarify,what is before us is the entire rezoning plan as presented by the applicant which includes two 67 schools as well as the ball fields and the other facilities. So, it is a site-specific plan, and we have to approve the 68 conditions or deny based on that site specific plan? 69 70 Cy Stober-That is correct,with the three primary uses tied together,yes. 71 72 Statler Gilfillen-So, we have the jurisdiction for recreational facilities and the traffic it might impact, versus we have no 73 jurisdiction to consider the impact of traffic from the schools themselves?They are separate issues... 74 75 Cy Stober-That is correct. I will defer to the applicants and the traffic consultant's analysis and executive summary that 76 is provided in your packet, distinguishing the two uses. 77 78 Statler Gilfillen- It is my understanding also that considerations of a school are not under the jurisdiction of this board 79 either... 80 81 Cy Stober-A school, yes,the type of school, no. In your packet there are links to permissible and impermissible 82 considerations.The tenant of the building cannot be the basis of a determination, the use can but not the user. 83 84 Statler Gilfillen-Let me make sure that I understand as a board member here.We have the right to rule on a school 85 whether it is appropriate as a use.We do not have the right, on a school to look at the traffic implications of it though? 86 87 Cy Stober-That is correct, by state law. 88 89 Taylor Perschau,Zoning and Planning Supervisor, reviewed the proposed amendment. 90 91 James Parker, applicant with Lawrence Road Partners LLC, gave a presentation. 92 93 Patrick Byker,attorney with Morningstar Law Group, gave a presentation. 94 95 Eric Silinish, Design Lead with Summit Design and Engineering gave a presentation. 96 97 Lyle Overcash, Project Manager/Traffic Engineer with Kimley Horn gave a presentation. 98 99 Statler Gilfillen-Just to clarify, looking at the southwest corner of 70 and Lawrence, is that where the historic structure is? 100 101 Lyle Overcash-yes. 102 103 Statler Gilfillen-How much would that conflict on that corner with the historic building? 104 105 Lyle Overcash-There is 60 foot of right of way but understand,we have not surveyed this area, but we understand there 106 is 60 foot of land in this area and so that would be our challenge is to keep the improvements within the right of way. 107 166 Approved 5-3-2023 108 Taylor Perschau- I want to clarify, I think there is some confusion here with US 70 and US 70-A. US 70-A, is closer to 109 the school property. 110 111 Will Wirt, Civil Designer with Summit Design and Engineering, gave a presentation. 112 113 Nick Kirkland, Certified General Appraiser with Kirkland Appraisals, gave a presentation. 114 115 Melissa Poole-What is the elementary school? 116 117 Joey Webb-We don't know yet. 118 119 Melissa Poole- In the paperwork, it says the Expedition School and just for disclosure, my children attended Expedition 120 School, so I wanted to be transparent. 121 122 Joey Webb-Your question though, is about.... 123 124 Melissa Poole-Was that the school, so that I can be transparent.We are not allowed to recuse ourselves, so I want to 125 be transparent. 126 127 Joey Webb-Got it.There is not a specifically assigned school for the K-8 space yet. I'll let the team discuss that further if 128 they want to expound. 129 130 Statler Gilfillen- I am very confused by your answer.You say there isn't a K-12 school, I don't understand.... 131 132 Joey Webb-There is a 9-12, I'm representing West Triangle High School,the high school that would be situated on one 133 of the parcels. 134 135 Statler Gilfillen-You are representing the 9-12, not speaking about the K-8. 136 137 Joey Webb-Correct. There will be some things I say that will be applicable to both but I will make that clear. 138 139 Discussion about taking a break ensued. 140 141 Melissa Poole- I think we need to make aware that several years ago,we voted on a process to have a 10 o'clock cut off 142 time in which we will set the date to reconvene and pick this meeting back up if we hit 10 o'clock. 143 144 Discussion ensued about continuing the meeting at a later date. 145 146 A five-minute break was taken. 147 148 Adam Beeman made a motion to close the meeting at 10 pm and have a special session back on the 191h of this month 149 and pick up where we left off. 150 151 Joey Webb, Education Consultant, gave a presentation. 152 153 Adam Beeman- I wanted to make it clear to the public that if you did sign up on the sheet to speak, and you choose to 154 come back on the 19th you will be able to speak. You do not have to sign up again but there will be no new sign ups. 155 156 Patrick Cummings-Hillsborough Youth Athletic Association representative gave a presentation. 157 158 Mayor Jenn Weaver of Hillsborough read a letter that was written by her and endorsed by the Hillsborough Town 159 Commissioners. She was joined at the podium by Town Commissioner, Kathleen Ferguson. 160 161 MOTION BY Melissa Poole to adjourn the meeting and reconvene on April 19th at 7 pm. 167 Approved 5-3-2023 162 Seconded by Lamar Proctor. 163 164 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 165 166 **************************************************** 168 DRAFT 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 APRIL 19,2023 4 CONTINUATION OF THE APRIL 5,2023 MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT:Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), Cheeks 7 Township Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; Beth Bronson,At-Large Representative; 8 Charity Kirk,At-Large Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative;Whitney Watson,At-Large 9 Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; Chris Johnston, Hillsborough Township 10 Representative; Elizabeth Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative; 11 12 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning& Inspections Director; Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director—Development Services; 13 Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor; Nish Trivedi, Transportation Services Director; Lauren 14 Coffey, Planning Technician 15 16 OTHERS PRESENT:James Parker,Applicant; Lyle Overcash, Nick Kirkland,Joey Webb, Patrick Byker, Eric Silinish,Will 17 Wirt, Patrick Cummings, Susan Wells, John Cates, John Dempsey, Margo Lakin, Clancy Russell,Jenn Weaver, Susan 18 Swafford, Drake Edwards, Gary Rodgers,Amber Bickford, Raul Herrera,John Cox, Earl Tye, Mary Parkinson,Jennifer 19 Bailey,John Hughes, Margo Lakin,John Dempsey, Margaret Cates, Sandra Brown,Thomas Brown, Emilee Collins, 20 Jessica King, Carolyn Robinson, Jamie Burgess-Flowers, Carolyn Cadamski, Rhonda Zack,Wanda Richardson, Edwin 21 Cox, Mei Huang, Maryalice Nocera, Charlie Clouse, Reynald Chatelain, Debra Fields, Jenni Edwards, Meg Kelly, Drake 22 Edwards, Dan Bivins, Steve Kirby,Alison Sommerstad, Robert James, William Brodeur, Sally Brodeur,Aaron Kirk,Vicki 23 Hill,Amber Bickford,Aaron Kessler, Karen Sexton, Cheryl Howard,Alyson Miller, Linda Nathanson, Kathleen Harper, 24 Eric Lindblom, Nick Schumacher, Kathy Bivins, Kiersten Fitzgerald,Jeff Powell,Allan Green, Matt McDermott, Meaghun 25 Darab, Neal Fisher, Melissa Fisher, Bonnie Alexander, Linda Johnson, Tracy Schumacher,Jack Niklas, Rachael Price, 26 Ross Goldbaun, Brandon Welch, Hugo Sequeira,Amy Carabetta, Robert Minton,Ashley Snipes, Daniel Snipes, Scott 27 Comer, Susan Walser, Mark Micol, Jim Hopper, Jay Hopper, Tony Bayless, Delores Bayless, Scott Czechlewski, Hollis 28 Chatelain,Alex Stanford, Rhonda Zack, Crawford Horne, Felicia Horne, Bill Aucoin, Mark Zack, Rachel Hawkins,Allison 29 Nichols, Hank Clapper,Jim West, Donna Clapp, Tiffany Alrefae, Janet Wright-Simpson, Faye Rhode, Kimberly Leary, 30 Marian Adamson, Bethany Kidd,Ashley Anston, H. Nad Worny, Curtis Kelly, Jason Zoladz,Jeff Reilich, Christine Jackle, 31 Virginia Rhodes, Ryan Rigabar, 32 33 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 34 Chair Adam Beeman called the meeting to order. 35 36 **************************************************** 37 38 Agenda Item 3: Zoning Atlas Amendment(Conditional District)—To continue review of and make a 39 recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant-initiated zoning atlas amendment to rezone an 84.9 40 acre parcel from R-1 (Rural Residential)to MPD-CD(Master Plan Development Conditional 41 District). 42 43 Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director, gave a short recap about the item then turned the meeting over to the 44 applicant to continue their presentation from Jim Parker. 45 46 Patrick Byker,attorney for the applicant, re-introduced members of the applicant team who will speak about the project. 47 48 John Pelphrey, Orange Tennis Club, spoke about the need for more tennis and pickleball courts in Orange County. 49 50 Patrick Byker submitted to the Planning Board, a petition with approximately 200 signatures gathered by Mr. Pelphrey. 51 52 Patrick Byker spoke about the project and asked the Planning Board to recommend approval. 53 54 Statler Gilfillen: I have a question about something you just said...you said they will put turn lanes in within two years. 55 During that period, if the schools cause a great deal of congestion or traffic,we have a problem. 169 DRAFT 56 57 Adam Beeman:We need to wait until the end to ask questions. 58 59 Patrick Byker: I can answer that at the end but either way, it will be fixed. 60 61 62 **************************************************** 63 64 Public Comment 65 66 Mark Zack: Lives in the Lawrence Road community. I have lived here for over 30 years and have seen Lawrence Road 67 become the de facto north/south thoroughfare on that side of Hillsborough.Although you've done a traffic study and 68 developers have proposed funding some improvements, I don't think that they adequately address the impact on the 69 intersection of Old NC 10 and Lawrence Rd. I ask that after approval, the developer make improvements to that 70 intersection, namely installing a concrete median on Lawrence Rd. to control people making a left turn from Old NC 10 71 onto Lawrence Rd. This is a dangerous movement,those of us who head that way to Lawrence Rd. know that we often 72 have to avoid collisions with people making that turn onto that less than 90-degree intersection and cutting across our 73 lane of traffic. I ask for you to consider this one simple consideration we have before you give any approval for this 74 project.Thank you for your attention. 75 76 Rachel Hawkins: Lifelong resident of Orange County said that just this week,the superintendent of Orange County 77 Schools called me to say she wants to lock the tennis courts. There are 8 courts at the high school and if they are 78 locked,that would leave only 3 in the area for play. I am a tennis advocate for the community. Orange Tennis Club is 79 great, it has people playing tennis who have never thought about playing tennis. These courts are really nice and haven't 80 been taken advantage of by people riding skateboards and bicycles,which the superintendent is concerned about. We 81 are at a crossroads, if they lock the courts,we don't know where we will play on Sundays and after work.We know we 82 can't play during the day because people at Orange use those courts.We are county taxpayers, and we should be able 83 to play.We hope to be able to play through Orange Tennis Club which will be on Lawrence Road. 84 85 Jim West: I live off 1801 Washington Drive. I've lived at my property since June of 1996, 1 bought the place when I was 86 25 years old. It's the most beautiful place in Orange County if you ask me,just a wonderful community.Whenever 87 something happens to my community I want to make sure I know all the rest associated with the type of development 88 and also any type of safeguards that are applied that we may not be aware of. Whenever I hear about tennis courts, 89 baseball fields.... I love baseball, I used to grow up watching my third cousin play for the Yankees. I think we need more 90 baseball fields and tennis courts. However, I do have concerns about the noise and I also have concerns about the 91 lights. I just want to make sure that if they are going to have baseball fields and tennis courts that they are going to have 92 proper safeguards, something to deflect the noise,whether it is trees or whatever. I just want to make sure that we are 93 aware that there is a community that is very peaceful and we get along very well together. It is a very diverse community 94 and we want to make sure that anyone that wants to join our community,fits in.Thank you so much. 95 96 Marian Adamson: My family was drawn to Hillsborough by the lovely people and the great programs. We've bounced 97 around from various programs and now I have a son who does baseball at HYAA and my husband is an assistant coach. 98 1 have another son who does tennis with the Orange Tennis Club. He told me today that the good thing about tennis is 99 that it is a great sport for people who are not tall. It is really happy for me that he has finally found a sport that he is really 100 happy with but we've been working with one of their private coaches and it's been a struggle to get tennis court time. I 101 took my entire family Monday evening really late because it was the only time we could find available. I know that HYAA 102 is losing some of their fields and we really love that baseball program. On top of that, I have 4 children at the Expedition 103 School, a charter school in Hillsborough that will feed into Triangle West High School if it is able to have a location and 104 we have loved our charter school.The commitment of the people there to our students,the great teaching staff, my kids 105 have really flourished at this charter school.We need options for people of all locations and backgrounds to have places 106 to go to school, places that work really well for their children as this charter school has for me. I just wanted to say that 107 our family would be a huge proponent of this. It would mean that my children would be in the same area instead of 108 having to go to all different locations and driving all over,we would be in one place and that is a beautiful thing to add to 109 the community. I am so glad they are putting in these beautiful neighborhoods in Hillsborough and Orange County but 170 DRAFT 110 we really do need the schools and the support system and the recreational activities to support these wonderful 111 developments going in. Thank you very much. 112 113 Henry Nadworny: Lawrence Road neighborhood resident since 1998. 1 am very happy with it. The growth is not 114 something I'm happy with the planning and positioning of where these projects lie and I think it is stopping the properties 115 more than they accommodate. I think there is plenty of other choices that could be made more wisely. I have not 116 researched available properties, but I believe in the area,there are larger potential positioning ....requirements for the 117 project, I am not that familiar with whether they need the water or whether it needs the sewer or not. I've heard different 118 things change as this went on. From the meeting last week to this week, I hear now they are going to pay for the turning 119 lanes.What those turning lanes accommodate, I still don't agree with,that that is not going to stop the flow of things 120 because you have so much going into this, not just at school times but weekends and at night and they are going to 121 stagger the drop off...I just don't see that flowing.With other projects like the 76 townhomes on the other side of me 122 going in, and the studies that were done through Covid to say,we saw this many cars, I don't think those figures are 123 correct. I don't have the knowledge to tell you that you are wrong with thinking that a turn lane will take care of it. I do see 124 historical homes being attacked that people have purchased in this area knowing the zone is residential and now all of a 125 sudden,we can just try and change that by saying it's not residential anymore,we are going to put a business in there. 126 What give you the right to say that that's okay for me and not you and you've changed things that have been in place for 127 years. I see not having water pressure anymore, I see runoff issues, I see water collection flowing into the drinking water 128 , so now we are going to have tennis court runoff,all the runoff on this...I heard walking trails, I don't see walking trails in 129 there, I just see them taking all the trees out. It was a walking trail and park facility and made for everybody to have fun 130 and go play tennis and all,that would be great, but you are stuffing a school on top of it and you are into the watershed 131 and killing the area around it.What about the two historical sites that I don't see anybody addressing that they are going 132 to need to lose road frontage. I don't know if you are voting on this tonight....I don't agree,thank you. 133 134 Amber Bickford: I am a STEM professional, a mother of a 12-year-old, and a resident of Orange County.As a STEM 135 research professional,with 25 years'experience in biotechnology, I can assure you that our 21 It Century needs STEM 136 education at the high school level. We need critical thinkers, creative thinkers, problem solvers, and people that work 137 collaboratively. These are skills that are needed to address the many critical challenges of the 21 st century, including 138 climate change, and sustainability, something that is very important to this community, as you well know.Why not here in 139 Orange County where the Lawrence Road project directly addresses the UDO and aligns with the greater community's 140 ideas?On April 51h, you heard Joey Webb, West Triangle High School Leader, explain to you the innovative academic 141 programming that he has led at multiple schools.You learned that West Triangle High is committed to the social and 142 emotional well being of the student body and the willingness to collaborate with the broader education community.This 143 is the benefit of charter schools in your community. Steps from here where we sit tonight as a charter school here in 144 Hillsborough that is actually been recognized by DPI for its academic growth most importantly the greatest academic 145 growth for socio-economically disadvantaged children and will be working with DPI in the Fall to provide this 146 programming which will be a benchmark and cornerstone for all public schools in the state.This is a real example of 147 equity in education and how charter schools' partner with public schools in the community despite what you may have 148 been told.As I stand here tonight, this is the 16th anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre and between April 5 and 149 tonight, you have a room full of parents that want social, emotional programming, access to athletic programming, 150 organizations,fields, because our kids are at risk. I am an alumni of Virginia Tech, I had 3 family members on the 151 campus that day and quite frankly the violence in our schools and threat to our schools every day has not improved, it's 152 gotten untenable and uncontrollable.Just since April 51h,two schools in our area, have either been in lockdown because 153 there's a weapon on site or the threat of one. Parents in this community want better, and Orange County can do better. 154 Our kids are hurting, they need a sense of belonging and programs that support their well-being and social and 155 emotional well-being for our community. If you rezone Lawrence Road,this will be available to our community. The 156 fundamental change is not coming from the federal government or the state, its coming from decisions that you have to 157 make tonight, at a local level. 158 Ms. Bickford presented the Board Chair with a petition supporting the project. 159 160 Kathleen Harper: I've lived in Hillsborough since 2008 and my husband and I have 2 children in Orange County schools. 161 1 respectfully request that the planning board vote no on the Lawrence Road rezoning.The proposed development does 162 not align with the county's comprehensive plan in which land use should be coordinated with other plans including utility 163 and infrastructure and limited water resources should be managed wisely.The town of Hillsborough leadership has told 164 the developer during several meetings during the last year and a half,that it would be difficult to meet the water and 171 DRAFT 165 sewer requirements for one or more schools at this site. If the rezoning is approved,the Town of Hillsborough, by law, 166 and the NCDA to provide water and sewer to the schools, even if that means denying other water and sewer to other 167 town priorities. If the developer decides to provide the schools with wells and septic, which was mentioned as a 168 possibility earlier this month,will the septic fields take the place of the ball fields? I do support recreational fields. I want 169 fields for HYAA and more courts for tennis and pickleball players but not this way. Not by forcing the town of Hillsborough 170 to provide water and sewer to schools on the opposite side of the county from where the most growth is predicted, or by 171 sacrificing the ball fields to build a large septic field in Durham's Teer Quarry protected water shed.At the end of the day, 172 given these infrastructure concerns,this site is not a good site for schools.Also concerning,the applicant team 173 suggested on April 51h that West Triangle High School would be well situated to absorb some of the anticipated growth of 174 Orange County Schools.According to their charter application however, West Triangle intends to establish matriculation 175 agreements with the Expedition school and several charters in Durham. If finalized, these agreements would grant 176 priority enrollment to students from these charters.With approximately 40 students matriculating from the Expedition 177 school and the possibility of more than 100 students from Durham charters,few seats may remain for students not 178 already enrolled in a charter. Please ask the applicant to provide an explanation of their current pending and planned 179 articulation agreements as it relates to the school's ability to absorb growth in Orange County Schools.The majority of 180 anticipated growth in Orange County Schools is predicted to take place in the Western half of the county, near Mebane. 181 The Lawrence Road parcel is situated between Hillsborough and Durham. This proposal does not benefit the Orange 182 County school district and it does not benefit Orange County at large. Please vote no on the rezoning and please keep 183 this area rural residential. 184 185 Rachael Price: My husband and I own the Rock House which is a historic property at the corner of Business 70 and 186 Lawrence. Tonight, I would love to bring 3 concerns of ours to the board and the developer. First,when my husband and 187 I moved into our home,we both commented on how dark it is at night and how nice it is to clearly stargaze while being 188 so close to downtown Hillsborough. I believe that this project with all its required lighting, including all those with the 189 athletic fields,will create a tremendous amount of light pollution for the residents in the surrounding neighborhood. In 190 addition,the light pollution will also disrupt migrating birds as this area is on a major migration route. I propose that the 191 board take this into consideration in deciding if this is the right location for this particular project. If you decide to allow 192 the rezoning,then an evening curfew be put on all lighting and after-hours activities. Second, my husband and I both 193 work in Durham and drive Business 70 almost every day to and from work.What I appreciate about Business 70 is that 194 you clearly leave Durham, there is space between the two towns and that you clearly arrive into Hillsborough. I believe 195 that Hillsborough has done an impeccable job maintaining and cultivating its historic charm and this sets it aside from our 196 neighboring cities. I worry that this project will begin the urban sprawl of business that will take away from Hillsborough's 197 uniqueness. I would hate for Business 70 to become another 15/501, a corridor of business that runs Durham right into 198 Chapel Hill. I believe that this project is not only about the rezoning of this particular parcel of land but represents the 199 direction and future that you,the Planning Board, see for Hillsborough. Finally,while the idea of walking our 6-year-old 200 across the street to a STEM based high school, sounds idyllic,the reality is that a lottery-based enrollment that serves 201 the entire Triangle makes that unlikely.While I highly advocate for more STEM based education, I would rather see a 202 school in Hillsborough that prioritizes the children in our community, as opposed to the Triangle at large. I ask the board 203 if this particular school proposal is the fit for our community. If there is a need for further educational opportunity in 204 Hillsborough, perhaps you should consider a school that first prioritizes the admittance of Orange County students, then 205 once that need is met, opens enrollment to students from around the Triangle. .....have this meeting about how people 206 would address the traffic situation that would be created not just by the school but also by the athletic fields. They are 207 going to be extremely busy after hours and evenings because they are so popular and bring so much of a need to the 208 area. I don't think we can accommodate that with the improvements on the roads.... 209 210 Jennifer Bailey: I've been part of the Hillsborough community since 2005. I am speaking in support of the project. Tennis 211 has been a part of my life since I was 8 years old. My parents thought it would be fun for us to learn how to play tennis 212 so we could not only have family support but so that we could meet other people in our community. My family moved 213 every few years and with each new home,one of the first things we would do was seek out the local tennis community. 214 Many years ago, I moved to Hillsborough with my family which included three young children and as usual, I sought out 215 the tennis community for us.What I found was unique among the fourteen places I have called home.There was a 216 tennis community but there were no courts. Being a part of this vibrant tennis community and hearing the vision for 217 creating a club, I embarked on a journey to help make the Orange Tennis Club a reality. Over the years we have played 218 at private courts,school courts and now we have just three public courts. This community deserves better.We deserve a 219 dedicated facility that supports the local community of new players,young players,older players,and families. Orange 172 DRAFT 220 Tennis Club is a non-profit that offers affordable high quality tennis instruction but it also offers our community something 221 else. It gives us a place to build relationships with other local people of all ages and backgrounds that may have never 222 otherwise crossed paths. So please give Orange Tennis a home. 223 224 John Hughes: I have been in Orange County since 1972, lived in Cedar Grove since 1974. 1 empathize with people who 225 are looking at traffic issues and water issues, however I do love to play tennis. I am a founding member of Orange 226 Tennis Club.We started planning in 2006 and became a reality in 2009.We are a 501 c3 organization. Our original 227 mission was to provide tennis to anyone in Northern Orange County who wanted to play tennis regardless of their ability 228 to pay.We have a sliding scale fee, and we offer scholarships to anyone who wants to play. Of the 200 members that 229 John mentioned, 100 of those are children under the age of 18, ages 4-18. We have clinics 5 days a week for all ages 230 and abilities,we have summer camps. Prior to Covid,we had 2 community events every year that invited folks from all 231 over, particularly the Fairview community,we provided 300-400 rackets, 200 cans of tennis balls to people so they could 232 start playing tennis.We have experienced a lot of growth during Covid.The CDC said that tennis was a safe sport to 233 play so our membership jumped.We are at capacity. Hillsborough Youth Athletic Association is faced with a cap that we 234 will have to impose pretty soon because we can not accept anymore people because there is just no space. So 1 235 encourage you to support this project for the tennis facilities. I am 74, 1 figure I have got 15 more good years of tennis 236 and if this one doesn't happen, then I hope that you put putting tennis courts in Northern Orange County on your agenda 237 as some part of your planning opportunities. 238 239 Raul Herrera: I am a resident of this beautiful town. I am speaking as a member of the business community and the 240 Hispanic community. Our community lacks recreation facilities, our community needs amenities such as baseball, and 241 tennis courts and recreational facilities. When youth are part of athletics and part of a team,they understand how to be 242 productive citizens as they become adults.Accessible and affordable, athletics keep our youths out of trouble.The 243 proposed facility includes schools that are aimed at providing access to quality education and quality sport centers that 244 we so desperately need. The area of concern by neighbors has been addressed by the developer. I believe this project 245 will create more equity for our youth and their families who do not have access in close proximity to these services.We 246 live on the corner of Victoria Drive and Orange High School Road,that is less than a mile from Orange High School and 247 Orange Middle School. In the 17 years that I have lived there, I can hardly feel the traffic.Thank you for voting yes to this 248 rezoning. 249 250 Rhonda Zack: Has lived in the Wyngate neighborhood off of Lawrence Road for more than 20 years. I wanted to support 251 this project because I have been on the side of the developers, I've sat in your seats and had Kimley Horne do traffic 252 impact analysis for me before, so I wanted to support it. I looked through the information carefully and I have read the 253 traffic impact analysis with great interest. I was really disappointed because I was stunned that the intersection of Old NC 254 10 and Lawrence Road was completely ignored in that analysis. It's a very dangerous intersection currently and they are 255 looking at adding 15,000 cars in this general vicinity and are saying that hardly any of them will be coming from the south 256 and that is ridiculous.That says that all the people here who are supporting tennis and the baseball fields, and the STEM 257 schools are not going to be coming from Beckett's Ridge and Waterstone or Joppa Oaks. None of them are going to be 258 coming up Old NC 10 and going up Lawrence Road to the site,that's ludicrous. It's a direct route to get there from the 259 south of the site. I don't understand how that could be so neglected in the traffic impact analysis and I am really 260 concerned about that intersection. My husband,who spoke earlier,who only has one arm, he lost his arm on Old NC 10. 261 This is not a conceptual danger for us.This is reality. It's a dangerous road now and you are going to add a lot of traffic 262 to it. I am here to say, I support baseball fields, I support tennis, I support STEM schools but not on this site, not on this 263 road. It is the wrong place for it. I ask for you to vote no on this. 264 265 Scott Czecklewski: I am CEO of the Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce and I am speaking tonight on behalf of our 266 Board of Directors. The Chamber's mission is to promote both economic development and quality of life, so we carefully 267 consider all sides of an issue before we take a position.The applicant created the plans for this site based on needs 268 expressed by the public and for the Hillsborough Youth Athletic Association and the Orange Tennis Club. Even more 269 importantly,the applicant studied the established ....development ordinance and created a project that fits within the 270 scope of the development deemed appropriate for this site. The applicant then determined and carried out everything 271 required to have the school approved according to state and municipal regulations.This zoning change and proposed 272 uses are consistent with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The plan identifies this parcel in a twenty-year 273 transition area which means that the county intended for it to evolve in this manner on this land.As the Chamber Board 274 studied this proposal, it was easy to identify the need for the infrastructure that this rezoning will open the door to build. 173 DRAFT 275 There is a significant lack of baseball, softball fields and tennis and pickleball courts in the area as you have heard from 276 many people tonight.That's why this project has such strong support from the Hillsborough Youth Athletic Association 277 and the Orange Tennis Club.Youth participating in HYAA play at 3 fields, one, Collin's Field,will no longer be available 278 once the development of that site begins. Local tennis and pickleball players have expressed concerns about the courts 279 in the area.They are limited to just three courts. Tennis players must travel to Durham and Chapel Hill when they play, 280 supporting businesses elsewhere.While there will always be traffic fears with any new development, the developers plan 281 improvements in the intersections and with the construction of turn lanes at both entrances to the school and the 282 school's bussing plan will help alleviate those concerns. Something Mayor Weaver said at the last meeting struck me, 283 she noted that many proposals for this property had been made over the past 15 years, and all had been denied. Our 284 area youth will be served in many positive, life-changing ways for decades to come by these proposed charter schools 285 and athletic fields. It's time that a project that meets the guidelines of the LIDO and the comprehensive plan is approved. 286 The Chamber Board of Directors hopes the plan will be approved. 287 288 Steve Kirby: I am the boy's and girl's high school tennis coach at Eno River Academy and a parent of kids who like to 289 play tennis. I am speaking in favor of the proposed rezoning request because the kids need more accessible tennis 290 courts,as we've heard. Our tennis teams are young having just started playing in the fall if 2021 but interest in them has 291 been growing.We don't have enough places to play tennis.We have difficulty renting a space to have practices and to 292 play our matches. The only ones in the area are rented by a middle school in Durham because they lack courts as well. 293 Our athletic director has been able to rent courts at Moreene Road Park but we are only able to do so before school gets 294 out. It is interesting to note that when we have home tennis matches, the kids miss their entire last class,which makes it 295 difficult for us to get parental approval and the kids end up leaving school earlier for home matches than they do for 296 away matches. Matches regularly go for two and a half to three hours so we bump up against the 6 o'clock deadline, 297 even with the three o'clock start. Three weeks ago,when we had a tennis match it bumped right up against it and we 298 had to beg the tennis leagues to let us finish playing our high school tennis matches. They kicked us off and we had to 299 beg them to let us play a match point.The earlier afternoon matches aren't accessible to us. Some schools such as 300 Orange High, Cedar Ridge and Graham,won't play us at our courts because it means their kids get out of school too 301 early,so we have to play at their courts. The problem with that is the distance of travel. It's a tough call for parents to 302 make to say twenty minutes each direction is what we will have to travel to practices every day and for matches.With 303 other sports, it's right there at school. It also impacts our ability to have a thriving middle school program because they 304 involve courts too. So,we are facing competition not just from other Durham schools but from our own middle schools 305 and we can't get middle schools to have tennis programs because they don't have a place to put them. Tennis is a great 306 sport;we love it and we want a place to play and that is why you should vote for this proposal. 307 308 Hollis Chatelain: I support schools, I support athletic fields, I support all of these different sports, but I don't support them 309 being built here. One of the things that nobody has really mentioned is that the surrounding houses, all around this 310 enormous field, are still on the older wells. On Lawrence Road,there are still people who are still on the older, sixty-foot 311 wells.When we don't get a whole lot of water,those well have a risk of drying up.This field could take a lot of the water 312 from all of these houses that are on these older wells.A lot of these people are lower income people,who is going to pay 313 for new wells. Nobody seems to be considering that. This is really a big problem. I am just really surprised that nobody 314 has said anything about that. One of the things that they said and the next thing I would like to mention is the traffic. One 315 of the things that they have said is that there were 4,500 cars that went on Lawrence Rd. in February of 2021. This was 316 during lockdown. I live on Lawrence Rd.there are so many more cars when we were not in Covid and now. I do not think 317 it is realistic for one of the only roads that go North/South through Hillsborough. If there were some sort of emergency at 318 the school or somewhere else around there,they could not get emergency vehicles in there. They could not get them to 319 the hospital which is south of there. I am against a facility like this in this spot and I ask that you vote no. 320 321 John Dempsey:The owner has already brought a request for rezoning for this parcel to the town of Hillsborough where it 322 was denied. It was found by the Mayor and the Town Board in keeping with Hillsborough's future land use plans and 323 would not be in the long-term interest of Hillsborough's businesses and residents.Their decision was informed by a 324 variety of Hillsborough's town agencies. Being turned down by Hillsborough,the developer has come to Orange County 325 asking for conditional district rezoning for the same plan.You should be aware that if Orange County permits this 326 rezoning, then it will be triggering a recent North Carolina State Law that requires municipalities to provide water and 327 sewer services to charter schools if they have the capacity to do so. The Town of Hillsborough has been formally put on 328 notice by the developer to reserve water and sewer capacity for this development. If you rezone this parcel,then make 329 no doubt about it, at that point, neither Orange County nor the Town of Hillsborough, will have any say in the distribution 174 DRAFT 330 of Hillsborough's water and sewer resources to this non-contiguous parcel.They will be forced to do so by state law.As 331 one town board member put it,"this will rip Hillsborough's Comprehensive Sustainability Plan to shreds." It should also 332 be noted that if Orange County decides to permit this rezoning request, that it will be breaking the WASMPBA planning 333 and boundary agreement signed by Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County.That agreement 334 ....signatories to growth management....resolve and preclude conflicts about future service areas and also provide 335 predictable planning and financing. Rezoning will also result in tax and service fee hikes for Hillsborough businesses and 336 residences over time.Without bringing any new tax revenue to the town regardless of who pays for the initial extension 337 of services, it is alarming to me that these costs to Hillsborough are not mentioned or addressed by the applicant or by 338 the Orange County Planning Department.At the last planning board meeting on April 5, Hillsborough's mayor and a town 339 board representative, signed up for 3 minutes to address this board on these and other concerning issues with this 340 proposal. Three minutes,for the jurisdiction that would be held responsible for servicing this project, paying for the 341 consequences,and the jurisdiction that should be making these decisions. Please, listen to our town representatives and 342 vote unanimously to not recommend this rezoning proposal to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. 343 344 Margo Lakin: I'm for schools and ball fields and tennis courts and pickleball and skateboards and walking,what I'm 345 against is this spot zoning that will disenfranchise Hillsborough voters and compromise our water and sewer capacity. 346 We have been told that rezoning decisions are based on land use, not on traffic patterns, not on who will occupy the 347 development. This rezoning doesn't promote Hillsborough's future land use plan. It will rip the town's comprehensive 348 sustainability plan to shreds. It doesn't even support Orange County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan that serves as a 349 guide to county growth and development through 2030.The rezoning will not efficiently use existing capacity, it will 350 create light, noise, and air pollution. I haven't heard one mention of...ratings for buildings. It will destroy federally 351 recognized habitat for five protected species, it will threaten two watersheds, and compound the stress on the town's 352 finite water and sewer capacity.There are eight planning principals in the 2030 plan that have been the foundation for 353 development, this proposal meets none of them.We heard that conditional zoning only allows for this project and no 354 variations but according to the planning department presentation, at the April 4 Board of County Commissioners 355 meeting,where another conditional rezoning proposal was voted on,we were told that conditional zoning does allow for 356 negotiation between applicant and staff or appointed board,or the elected body of Orange County. If rezoned,this 357 proposal could change and Hillsborough would not be part of those closed door decisions.We haven't heard from the K- 358 8 charter school proposal because it doesn't exist.At the neighborhood information meeting,the developer failed to 359 mention that he is also the landowner. He told the room that the sports fields were place holder ideas only. Two weeks 360 ago,we heard for the first time in a public forum ,that well and septic can now support this project and Hillsborough 361 Water and Sewer isn't needed. So why was there an annexation request to Hillsborough in the first place? If rezoning is 362 approved, are we to believe that the new state law forcing towns to provide water and sewer to charter schools won't be 363 invoked by the developer? Hillsborough government officials elected as a legislative body in establishing town policy in 364 law, denied the original annexation. That should have been the end of it but here we are. I ask you to listen and honor 365 the decisions of those who we voted for to decide what is best for our town. Please deny this rezoning application. 366 367 Susan Swafford: I'm a board member for West Triangle High School, as well as a local parent. I have lived here since 368 1994. 1 have concerns with this planning process. In the last meeting, Mr. Stokes specifically discussed state statutes 369 that prevent considering traffic, utilities and school type in deciding on a zoning application.This makes allowing the 370 mayor to read her letter aloud concerning water and sewage, problematic.The content of the letter regarding utilities, is 371 also questionable.Two things to consider:our school is asking for 6,000 gallons of water daily or.15%of current city 372 water usage.WTHS will pay to hook up the utilities costing and estimated one million dollars during construction, and 373 pay around $30,000 annually for water service. How is it that the city can not handle that minute amount of water?The 374 mayor is trying to attach a$42 million price tag to hooking up sewer for the school?What I found most concerning was 375 the mayor's use of the word"equity." I believe the mayor is presenting a red herring fallacy. She wants us to pay 376 attention to a sewer problem, however where is the data supporting her claim? I believe the mayor and others actually 377 oppose charter schools.Tonight I present a real matter of equity driven by actual data.These numbers come from the 378 state board of education recording system used for all public schools across the state. For black students in Orange 379 County last year,there is a 43%/33%/40%achievement gap in Math, English and Reading, respectively. Meaning that 380 the average test scores for black students is 43/33/40% below the average score for white students. Just 5%of black 381 students in the county attempted an AP class. For Hispanic students, there is a 34/37/23%achievement gap across 382 Math, English and Reading. In Orange County, in high poverty schools, 20%of teachers are new to teaching. This 383 compares to only 3% of new teachers in low poverty schools. Our school leader, Joey Webb, has a track record of 384 closing large achievement gaps. Our board chair,Alex Quigley, works tirelessly, with success to close the achievement 175 DRAFT 385 gap each year in the Triangle.They are both committed to this work. It is not lip service about equity as a political guise, 386 it is grit and determination,with innovative and nimble thinking. Please don't fall for the red herring trick.The LIDO 387 suggests you approve this rezoning. I urge you to see what the county will be getting from it; much needed recreational 388 capacity for our kids and families, and a new school that will soften enrollment and budget challenges and will actually 389 stand for equity by bringing a fresh model to closing the achievement gap. 390 391 Gary Rodgers: I am a board member at West Triangle High School and a board member at Research Triangle High 392 School. That is the replicating public charter school that West Triangle is being based on. I've been part of the non-profit 393 Research Triangle school for a number of years so I know first hand what it means to the students in the region.The one 394 thing that Research Triangle has that does not reflect their innovation skills is the facilities.Ten years ago we opened up 395 in an old abandoned shopping center that we had to retrofit to put classrooms in.Today we are in a center that has been 396 converted into a school.There are things it doesn't have, important things, it doesn't have a gym, doesn't have sports 397 fields, it has awkward eating spaces,doesn't have an auditorium for big meetings.We haven't heard enough tonight 398 about why this land is important to West Triangle High School and their families.We have the opportunity to build a real 399 school from the ground up to impact Orange County, Hillsborough,with a gym,fields, large cafeteria, auditorium, all the 400 common amenities that most public traditional schools have. Denying it puts the school in a predicament of making 401 significant facility sacrifices to our students who are out there...any activities we are offering. I want you to think about 402 that,we have the opportunity to bring four baseball fields or softball fields,tennis courts,two soccer fields, parks, ponds, 403 and a school with a gym, a true community center. It needs to be noted that the Orange County taxpayers will not be 404 paying for any building through any bonds or local funds.The school will pay for the building through a private loan like a 405 mortgage like we have done at Research Triangle High School very successfully.When you consider the state of the 406 facilities here in the district and the need to renovate all of them,this is an opportunity to save the district a huge amount 407 of money with a new facility and not costing them a penny. So our students who attend there don't need to sacrifice the 408 opportunity to play sports or eat in traditional cafeterias.Thank you for considering a very important point that has been 409 overlooked tonight and please know that you will hear from our other board members that we will make sure that we are 410 great stewards of this space and that we make sure that this is a successful school for the community. Please 411 recommend approval of this zoning application. 412 413 Earl Tye: I'm here tonight to ask for your recommendation for approval of the zoning request that is before you. I believe 414 everything in this proposed plan is a much needed and community enhancing asset. I want to speak specifically about 415 the ball fields tonight. I had the privilege of serving as a coach and as a member of the HYAA board for about ten years 416 in the early 2000's. I learned a lot in that experience and much of what I enjoyed about it then is very much true today. 417 HYAA is a long-standing institution, it is community built. I rolled off the board in 2009 and I still see people all over this 418 community that I met through our mutual association through HYAA. It is a 100%volunteer run organization. People 419 volunteer to do things they enjoy doing and, in this case,they volunteer because they want to serve and mentor kids. 420 Through that, these kids learn some valuable life lessons; sportsmanship,teamwork, how to handle winning and losing, 421 you can't put a price on those kinds of things. HYAAers are also a valuable asset in this community just because of the 422 number of kids it serves year-round, Spring, Summer, Fall, boys and girls, a wide range of ages. I think it is relevant to 423 ask the question what would it cost the county or the town to try to provide that kind of recreational experience for that 424 number of kids,year in and year out? I certainly don't know the answer, but I can guess that it's a pretty big number.As 425 a member of the board 20 years ago, I had conversations from time to time with officials of the town and county 426 government,we knew at that point that Collins field days were numbered and that is so true today. I understand that 427 there are design engineering plans underway at that site right now. When we had that conversation 20 years ago, it is a 428 lot like it is today.We would say to the town and the county,We are not asking you to pay for it, not asking you to build it, 429 we are saying that we have got great support in this community from the business community,from parents, and from 430 developers and time to time as the opportunity arises for us to secure a long-term location for our fields,we just need 431 you to work with us.That's the request here tonight. I won't dismiss some of the concerns that have been raised tonight, 432 1 don't necessarily agree with them, but I do believe that wise and reasonable people are coming from a place of good 433 faith in addressing these concerns and this could be a win-win for this community. 434 435 Mary Parker: I have been a resident of Orange County since 1981, 1 was a public-school teacher for 35 years and I have 436 seen the importance of athletics for all people. I am an avid tennis player and unfortunately when I want to play tennis, 1 437 have to drive all the way to Durham to do so because we can not have the amount of fields that are needed to have 438 USTA tennis and that is something that I thoroughly enjoy. I also love to go out to Orange Tennis and see all the young 439 people who are taking the sport up.There are not many sports that you can still play and have a good time at my age. 176 DRAFT 440 Tennis is one of those as well as pickleball.This is a great opportunity for us to have some good change and change 441 does come. This is a great opportunity to advance everyone's lives by having athletic endeavors to get together as a 442 community and offer ways that are good health incentives. I hope that you will consider this and accept this as a great 443 way to improve Orange County. 444 445 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to allow anyone who signed up to speak on April 5t", and their name was not called, be 446 allowed to speak if their name is on the list. Seconded by Statler Gilfillen 447 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 448 449 Matt McDermott:The home in which my wife and I have lived in for 24 years, borders Lawrence Road and is within 450 1,000 feet of the proposed development. My comments tonight go to the subject of equity, specifically with respect to the 451 well water demands necessary to support all facets of the proposed development. In other words, all recreational spaces 452 but not the charter schools which as the applicant has proposed, will be serviced by public water and sewer. I have not 453 seen, nor am I aware of any daily well water consumption projections.Why is this important you may ask? Because the 454 daily lives of those of us neighboring the proposed development site, depends dearly on our wells remaining viable in 455 terms of providing ongoing potable water. Further, no hydrogeological study has been conducted in an attempt to 456 determine if there are any present or foreseeable concerns with respect to supporting the well water demands, not only 457 at the proposed development site but our neighboring ones as well. My strong suspicion is that none of this has been 458 investigated as any state statutes, ordinances or otherwise do not demand this of any conditional rezoning applicant. 459 Here is where the equity issue makes itself abundantly apparent,we have no safety net.We currently have no access to 460 publicly provided water unlike the applicant who ultimately will, and God forbid if any of our wells run dry as a result of a 461 significant increase in well water demands, should this proposed development be accrued. Some of the older wells, 462 those which are shallow in nature, in the neighboring area are already encountering periodic flow and water quality 463 problems/perc challenges.Arguably,we are being asked to simply accept the increased probability of a well failure as a 464 part of this proposed development. For many in this area,who simply do not have the means,the cost of addressing a 465 failed well would be financially catastrophic.That ask of us, patently, is unfair. It speaks to my initial equity comment.We 466 have an online petition against the rezoning, can I provide that to you? 467 468 Beth Bronson:We have an online public email address that you can send it to. 469 470 Drake Edwards: I have lived here for 10 years, I am a physician at Duke. I have a 2-year-old son, my wife and I drive on 471 70A and stop at that 4 way stop at Lawrence Road. I wanted to talk about a story from 8 years ago. I was visiting my 472 brother and sister-in-law up in DC, my sister-in-law is an Army doctor and was stationed at Walter Reed at the time. My 473 brother-in-law, like most brother in laws when you go visit them, had a project for me,which was to go into an empty 474 building and paint every wall in the place and move way too much furniture for an entire weekend. Full disclosure, my 475 brother-in-law is Joey Webb, he is going to be the director of West....Charter School. I saw him take that empty building 476 and turn it into a place that gave opportunities to kids that just didn't have opportunities to learn and enrich their lives and 477 1 saw him to get kids to take the AP exams that they would have never had access to. He sent this young girl to a 478 Harvard computer science course and put her on a pathway to a life that she would have never had without that school. 1 479 saw him work with his community to have a symbiotic relationship where both the neighborhood and school could thrive 480 together. I think that this community having Joey Webb in it and starting this school is like winning the lottery. I spend a 481 lot of my time dedicating my life to serving this community, my sister-in-law has put her life in danger to serve our military 482 and worked so hard and I know that Joey Webb shares that same passion for his community. Thank you for coming here 483 a second night in a row and you have missed two bedtimes to be here,and I know a lot of parents have been in the 484 same situation and I don't get a lot of bedtimes with my son, so thank you for taking the time. 485 486 Rob Minton: I live off of Lawrence Road in the Wyngate community and one thing I would like to add is that we had over 487 700 petitions against this project. In addition to that, the neighborhood I live in and have enjoyed all these years, is quiet. 488 This will be completely ripped apart with this project.They are talking about numbers anywhere from 800-1200 students. 489 The traffic congestion will be inconceivable, I don't think you can really plan these things. The comments made about the 490 stress on wells is well taken. Unfortunately, as mentioned previously, I don't hear any hydrogeologic study that has been 491 done at all. I also hear a lot of athletic enthusiasts and I am one. I love tennis and baseball as well. I just think it doesn't 492 need to be in this area. Better sites would encompass at least 4 lanes, that would be more reasonable. This,with 2 493 lanes,just doesn't make sense. With that, I appreciate the time that you have given me to say my piece but it is a big fat 494 no for me. 177 DRAFT 495 496 Linda Johnson:This is a personal issue for me, I live on Lawrence Road. I have lived here since 2008. 1 moved to this 497 community because I loved my house in Durham, but I could hear the highway cars. I jumped at an opportunity to buy a 498 house here when I found one.To be in a rural,quiet.....I am kind of a city girl but I loved it out here. Lawrence Road has 499 already gotten way busier.Two of my neighbors have both been hit on Lawrence Road pulling into their own driveway. 500 We have asked the police to park on Lawrence Road because in the mornings they could catch them speeding easily. It 501 is a safety concern for me. I feel like I can't come up against lawyers and studies and this and that. I am a preschool 502 teacher so when I heard someone speaking the other night about the charter school and I heard all the things that he 503 said, I understand social,emotional and STEM, It's what I do, it is what I do every single day. I agree and I love all that. 1 504 was so excited, and I thought"I would love to work for him, I want to give him my number! He wants to do all the things 505 that I do."What I don't understand is why is it this parcel of land?They are trying to make it all rosy and fit an elephant 506 into a show box,when Orange County is huge. It seems like you would want to maintain the small-town city.We have a 507 Sportsplex probably not even a mile down the road from what they are proposing.They are talking about walking paths 508 and tennis and baseball and softball and pickleball and K-8 and High School in this little,tiny area. I would think you 509 would want somewhere further out. One of my concerns is that all of this seems too fast for me, too much of a sense of 510 urgency and I want to know why,why the sense of urgency? I just saw the signs go up less than a month ago on my 511 road. That was when I found out about all this. I don't have time to read through all these studies to figure out if they are 512 correct or not. I am busy teaching my kids here in the community. 513 514 Jessica King: Lives on US 70A East. I can see the field from my back porch. In the mornings I go out and drink my coffee 515 and I can hear the birds in the trees and see the deer walk through. That is not going to be any longer. My concern is 516 that as I look at the map, my house is right at the parking lot. I don't know of many parking lots that do not have lights. 1 517 know we need baseball fields, I know we need tennis courts, I am not doubting that. But in this area, it is really small. 518 With us being on a well,we are worried that our wells are going to go dry.With the parking lot, it is a hard surface,when 519 it rains,where is that rain going to go? Is it going to be a problem for me now and will we have issues that we have never 520 had before? Our neighborhood is quiet and that is the way we would like to keep it. 521 522 Charlie Clouse- I have been a resident of Hillsborough for 22 years. I have been involved in a lot of situations helping out 523 community members that are in this room. I've volunteered for organizations and I understand what the developer is 524 trying to do but I think he is trying to back door us here. He said in the meeting on April 5, 1 believe,that we are good for 525 well water and septic and we know that is not the case. The state clearly brings it to order that if he gets approved, the 526 Town of Hillsborough will have to give them water and sewage. Mayor Weaver made a good case and it has been voted 527 down many times and I just want you to take that into consideration. I think her words were heartfelt from the community. 528 1 think you all need to take a look at yourself and see if this is really something that we need in our area. I understand 529 that there are a lot of athletic people. I played football at West Virginia University and I understand the meaning of a 530 team but I don't think this site is fit for us to develop what we are looking for here.The traffic is a concern for us and a lot 531 of us are on well water. I know the schools are going to get city water because the state requires that. The ball fields and 532 the other athletic courts that will be put in place, it is going to be well water for us. If we have well water then that means 533 they are going to drill down deeper into the wells.They are going to go hundreds of feet deeper than anyone else. I am 534 in the vegetation industry and we know that if the wells go down deeper,that means the ones that have lesser are going 535 to get the muddy and unclear water at the top. Please take that into consideration when you vote on this proposal. 536 537 Margaret Cates: I live on Lawrence Road and have been there since the 1960's so I have probably been there longer 538 than most of these people have. There are also people who have been in the community longer than I have,they just 539 can't make it out this late at night.Where I'm at is where the tennis courts are going.That is going to mean a lot of light 540 and I like my dark time at night. It is just as dark as it can be,you can see the stars,you can see the space lab when it 541 goes across. I am like the other woman and like to sit out there and have my morning coffee and hear the birds, squirrels 542 and all that.Also, the traffic on Lawrence Road is terrible, if you try to come out on Laney Drive which parallels 85, you 543 can not see because of the bridge so if you want to go left,you have to pull out almost into traffic to see across that 544 ridge.Also at the end of Orange Road and Old NC 10,there have been in the last year, at least 3 cars that ran across 545 Old NC 10 into my sister's property. To me, it is not a good place. Myself, would miss that pretty green field. Sometimes 546 it is deer corn or whatever, but right now it is a pretty green field with yellow wildflowers blooming and it is a beautiful 547 place. 548 549 Adam Beeman:That concludes the public comment section. 178 DRAFT 550 551 Cy Stober shared procedural slides, a tentative schedule and four available actions with the Board. 552 553 Statler Gilfillen: I think you answered one of my questions,that it agrees with the comprehensive plan for Orange 554 County? 555 556 Cy Stober: That is our staff analysis that can be found in the staff report in your packet, yes. 557 558 Statler Gilfillen: I would like to ask the counterpart,the Mayor of Hillsborough, if this is in agreement with the 559 comprehensive plan for Hillsborough. 560 561 Charity Kirk: Can we address the Mayor of Hillsborough at this time? 562 563 Cy Stober:As a member of the public it would be unorthodox.... 564 565 Statler Gilfillen: Okay, if I am not allowed to ask the question then I withdraw it. She was a speaker last week... 566 567 Cy Stober: We did consult the town's current adopted comprehensive plan,they have a drafted comprehensive 568 sustainability plan that is not yet adopted. The existing comprehensive plan that the town has is reflected in COCA and 569 that is what staff consulted in its analysis and recommendation to the board. 570 571 Statler Gilfillen: So your findings of your board are that this proposal would be consistent with both the County and 572 Hillsborough's comprehensive plans? 573 574 Charity Kirk: Current, but one of the points that the mayor made was that they have a draft comprehensive plan that is 575 not public..... 576 577 Cy Stober: It is set for public hearing tomorrow evening and public comment on Friday. 578 We can only consider adopted plans. 579 580 Statler Gilfillen: I will assume that the answer to my question is that as the current law stands,this proposal meets the 581 comprehensive plans? 582 583 Cy Stober: That is my analysis, yes. 584 585 Statler Gilfillen:The question I have next would be the one that I inappropriately started to ask earlier of the lawyer,you 586 mentioned that within 2 years they would correct a traffic issue, if in the first 3 months you build a development on this 587 property that causes severe traffic problems because you have not finished what you planned in 2 years,what plans do 588 you have? 589 590 Patrick Byker: I would have to take issue with that characterization.The point is that the first year's student enrollment 591 would be 150 students, that is fairly minor increase in traffic.The timing is important because we need to survey, design, 592 go through NCDOT review, and obtain approval before we can even let a contractor build those turn lanes.That is a time 593 consuming and expensive undertaking and that is why it is not really possible to have done on day one in conjunction 594 with the school being built. However, if we discover going through this process that there is a driveway constraint or 595 another constraint that does not allow the development team to build the turn lane themselves, we will just write a check 596 to Orange County NCDOT for them to build a turn lane since they have ....authority and we would write that check 597 before the school opens. 598 599 Statler Gilfillen: I am the Eno River Township representative. I am probably the closest person to this site. I use 600 Lawrence Road on a ongoing basis. I have a number of specific questions.You or Jim Parker may be able to answer 601 these.A question was raised tonight about specific plans on the corner of NC10 and Lawrence Road. I am not sure what 602 plans you have but I am aware that that is already a difficult intersection . I believe there is a historic house with a marble 603 stone wall around it at the intersection that may get impacted historically. Do you have any plans or comments regarding 604 that intersection? 179 DRAFT 605 606 Patrick Byker: I would like to bring up our team just so that we make sure we answer your question as thoroughly as we 607 can. I will say on the record,that since this a conditional use zoning atlas amendment, pursuant to NC GS 160D 73B, 608 you are allowed to offer conditions. I will say on the record tonight,subject to NCDOT approval,we will install a median 609 on Lawrence Road at the Old NC 10 intersection. Now to answer your questions as to how we got to that point, Lyle,will 610 you give a background on the study area please?This is Lyle Overcash our traffic engineer who specializes in school 611 traffic. 612 613 Lyle Overcash:A lot of good comments from the neighbors, Old NC10 and Lawrence Road was brought up early in the 614 scoping process,the county asked for that intersection to be included in the study area.The development overall was 615 about 4,000 vehicles a day. NCDOT felt like with such a minor volume it was highly unlikely that they would make any 616 kind of improvements there.The intersection is on the HSIE list so it has an accident history.A gentleman earlier in the 617 meeting made a good suggestion about putting a median on NC10,to prevent folks from cutting the corner. We haven't 618 studied that. Someone else had mentioned that folks are running through the intersection, maybe not stopping. It sounds 619 like if you added a median on Lawrence Road,just looking at a street view while the meeting was going on, I don't see a 620 lot of striping that is noticeable, so I think through adding some additional striping, a stop bar, possibly adding that 621 median, and what that median would do is allow you to put up another stop sign. So that would give you two stop signs 622 as you approach that intersection so maybe that would help prevent some people from running through the intersection. 623 Again,we didn't study that intersection in the TIA,those are just some suggestions that came to us. 624 625 Statler Gilfillen: Have you done any studies comparing accident rates with traffic on NC10/Lawrence Rd compared to 626 comparable areas? 627 628 Lyle Overcash: No,we didn't study NC10. 629 630 Statler Gilfillen: One of the people here in the audience has raised that point that several accidents have happened on 631 Lawrence Road. Being someone that uses it, I am concerned about that. 632 633 Lyle Overcash: The posted speed limit on Lawrence Rd. is 45 mph....when we would build this development,we would 634 petition the DOT to make that area a school zone through that area so we would try to reduce the speed limit during 635 school hours to 35 mph so that would give it at least a window particularly during the AM peak hour to try to reduce the 636 speeds through that area. 637 638 Statler Gilfillen:At River Park Elementary at about 8 o'clock in the morning, going in and out of that school,there could 639 be a 15 minute delay and there have actually been people who have been hit.A custodian was once hit by a car.What 640 precautions for entering and leaving this school are you taking, not to slow traffic? People coming are not expecting that 641 delay and they are going to be very upset... 642 643 Lyle Overcash:As we discussed at the last meeting,the most important thing is to make sure that the stacking, the cars 644 are stacking on the campus and not backed out onto Lawrence Rd. or US70.That is the number one thing.Again,we 645 have about a mile of stacking distance on the campus itself and Joey is committed to making the management plan work 646 and keep that stacking on campus, that is the number one issue. The second biggest safety concern would be the left 647 turn lanes that are going to be provided at the school driveways at Lawrence Rd. and US70.There's no left turn lanes on 648 NC10 and I'm sure there are some accidents associated with that. The center left turn lane is the most critical thing when 649 it comes to safety. 650 651 Beth Bronson:You spoke about 15% of school traffic coming from Nc10 to Lawrence Rd.then 15% coming from NC86, 652 15% coming from the west side of Hillsborough....having the lottery system you will have a lot of students coming from 653 neighboring counties, I know that there are plans for a bus, how much traffic might end up getting routed to NC10 654 because there is so much congestion in the Hillsborough city limits. I think that is something to consider and I do 655 understand the neighbor's concern about the traffic and the commuters'concerns about the traffic.Also that this is not a 656 24 hour business or a 1600 student school facility. Did the TIA incorporate the recreational....? 657 658 Lyle Overcash: It did. 659 180 DRAFT 660 Beth Bronson: I fully support the public nature of it, I just don't know, is that based on how many members,semi-public 661 members there will be at the recreational fields through HYAA specifically? 662 663 Jim Parker: It was based on the acreage of the recreational space and the tennis facility was calculated separately 664 based on other data. Going back to your original question, it is difficult to ascertain where all the different students will be 665 coming from but the good thing about this site and how it is designed, students can come from all different directions. It's 666 not all just coming in on one road at one time.There are multiple ways to get into the site, so when you take the 4,000 667 trips per day that we estimated,that didn't take into consideration traffic.We are going to have 30-50% bussing, then 668 those volumes are conservative and so when you take 4,000 and divide by 4 it is 1,000 in each direction so those loads 669 are not that severe. I understand the neighbor's concerns and we are trying to do the best we can with the site. 670 671 Beth Bronson:At the same time I don't understand how conditionally we could make you, as the applicant responsible 672 for something that already needed to be, in the public's view, already needed to be addressed but I do believe that the 673 safety of adding school children into the mix and creating that type of traffic is paramount. 674 675 Lyle Overcash: We appreciate that point,that is why we wanted to step forward with the turn lanes at US70 and 676 Lawrence Rd.That was based on conversation with DOT and it's near the ... at the back end of your staff package page 677 377 or 378. Highlights that intersection as a recommended. 678 679 Beth Bronson:Would you be interested in. Not would you be interested in. The condition of revisiting this traffic impact 680 given the recreational field as well as the school matriculation of the school being full capacity in three years I believe? 681 682 Patrick Byker: No at least four. 683 684 Beth Bronson: Four years. Okay, so at five years you would be considered to be at full capacity for just the high school, 685 or the high school and the lower school? 686 687 Patrick Byker: I'm not sure ... of the lower school is, that's to be determined. 688 689 Beth Bronson: So,the lower school is not considered in any of this. 690 691 Patrick Byker:Yes, it's factored in the traffic. 692 693 Beth Bronson: OK so something in like five revisiting this issue, revisiting with the traffic impact analysis might be 694 something that might be proven for preparing opening a lower school?As it..to the planning director, if there's a 695 mechanism that you can do that, I am not aware of...As the conditional district, yeah? 696 697 Patrick Byker: I'd have to talk about that with the planning director.Though I think we're certainly willing to evaluate 698 where things are, say if the property moved along, keep it lined up as is stated.We may have increased buses by that 699 time as well, above and beyond is how its projected. Thank you. 700 701 Statler Gilfillen: Could you mitigate how the individuals through the audience erase the question about the wells?Yes, 702 the developer,we've been talking about if Hillsborough will or will not be providing service. Under state law, I believe, its 703 recommended, you can't get a boating permit, you can't reach the environmental districts.You can't start to build, so 704 whatever you architect designs won't matter. However, if you put in wells on this site, and three years goes by and all the 705 sudden, half of those ... neighbors and all the wells dry up,what protections do they have? 706 707 Patrick Byker: That's a good question to have. It is hypotheticals, but here's the point, there are certainly time honor case 708 to do so,where if there is something that happens where your use of your property detrimentally affects another one, 709 they have a cause of action in Orange County court.As I said that, I think it's important to recognize that we are talking 710 about a 90-acre, so my understanding is there would not be,correct me if I'm wrong, 90-acre lots single family homes 711 there without having to pursue this reclaiming order and if those are all with wells that would consume just using 712 presidential averages 35,000 gallons a day from the----zone.That's there without any public hearing. Our usage would 713 be a fraction of that, somewhere between a quarter and a third at most.And so, if you look at these as the concerns, 181 DRAFT 714 look at what the—would allotted,far greater usage of well water and the gallons per day would be astronomically higher 715 than the proposal that proposed today. 716 717 Statler Gilfillen: I want to thank you because I've been sitting here trying to listen to what both sides have been saying, 718 and this is a question I ..from the audience asking, it's a hard question but I believe that it deserves a fair answer-that's 719 why I ask it. 720 721 Patrick Byker: I already answered it, and it's a time honor principal of real property. 722 723 Cy Stober: Just to confirm the existing zone it is our one role,as a ... a one acre lot development as an estimate, it is 724 safe to assume under Orange County subdivision criteria and by the needs of public road dedication roughly a third of 725 the property would be dedicated for open space and right away as a recreation area so that would leave approximately 726 between 50 and 60 acres, about 54 acres,for homes and 1 acre lots. 727 728 Statler Gilfillen:Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. It still would be a tough greater usage if it were a development 729 simply, right?Those two questions kind of interrelate, several people have raised questions and if I were an adjacent 730 neighbor to the sight, and you come in with tasteful diamonds and all the night lighting,that could be a serious service at 731 10 o'clock at night or 11 o'clock at night,with lights.Teenagers going on and I would happen to like that if I happened to 732 live next to it. Cedar ridge road is not enough. Now,there is also a case that people that have talked about the adverse 733 effect to the neighbors but also the wildlife. Somebody this evening raised a question that this may affect endangered 734 animal. Is there any review of the endangered species adjunct? Does this have any affect? 735 736 Jim Parker: It's in your staff report, but there is no impact. So that was addressed in the staff report and my 737 understanding is the baseball and softball is not lit, is that correct?Yes,there is no lighting for baseball and softball, on 738 the plan before this evening. 739 740 Statler Gilfillen: Okay so what provisions for the neighbors for the town square are you taking?All lighting would be 741 controlled by the VBO, comprehensive plan. 742 743 Patrick Byker:There are standards that obviously this project would follow but I do want to state for the record that a 744 large area of the baseball and softball field will not have any lights. 745 746 Statler Gilfillen: One other question and please correct me if I am not permitted here to ask this question,this is 747 neighborhood you're talking about building a high school right there because it's a charter school and it requires a certain 748 lottery, can exemption be made for the neighbors who within a certain walking distance-their children, somebody who 749 has a job who wants to go to this school, they'll have a first priority? 750 751 Patrick Byker: I believe that would conflict with state law, that's not my area of expertise.To my knowledge it's a blind 752 lottery.That's my understanding. 753 754 Statler Gilfillen:A lot of persons that could be something that could be very favorable to many of the neighbors, and 755 might be positive I just don't know either. 756 757 Melissa Poole:As a parent with children in charter school, I mean lotteries are done with deputy sheriffs, it is blind it is 758 anonymous and it is a draw. 759 760 Patrick Byker:That's from Murphy to Manteo. 761 762 Statler Gilfillen:That would affect anybody on our team that their children would want to go to their school,would have to 763 go to the same lottery? 764 765 Patrick Byker:Yes, absolutely,that's right. 766 182 DRAFT 767 Beth Bronson:You mentioned that there was going to be 150 students in the first year. Now that we have figured out it 768 would only be the high school,the lower school is pending. However the conditional, master plan development includes 769 a lower school. So the construction would move forward on that school regardless? 770 771 Patrick Byker: No,that would be somewhere down the road. 772 773 Beth Bronson: Okay, but you would have to leave, I'm just wanting to make sure I understand the master plan.You will 774 not be coming back to advisory board or permission of any change? 775 776 Patrick Byker: Unless we change what was shown on the plan today,that is correct. 777 778 Beth Bronson: But not if you don't build it? 779 780 Patrick Byker: Correct. 781 782 Beth Bronson:And then, last presentation you said that the schools would take up one baseball field and one soccer 783 field,was there any allocation of the schools to the recreational field? 784 785 Patrick Byker: I don't believe so, I'm sorry Joey couldn't be here tonight. 786 787 Beth Bronson: Okay,thank you for that clarification.Are you representing HYAA as well as the? 788 789 Patrick Byker: I do not represent HYAA, that is the presidential development team.They brought forward the proposal 790 that incorporates the utility to HYAA. 791 792 Beth Bronson: If you're not representing the school then that question does not matter.And then,there is no body from 793 the school here today? 794 795 Patrick Byker:We have board members. 796 797 Beth Bronson: I wanted to know from the board members if you can speak to it-were there any other sites reviewed for 798 this high school that you know of?What was that process like?And how did you end up here on this one? 799 800 Charter School Board Member: There were a few that were looked at this is such an ideal site for this because of the 801 adjacent fields as well as the parks and recs, this was definitely the main focus. 802 803 Beth Bronson: How about how long did the search go on for? 804 805 Board Member: It was about a year from when we got the charter from the state. 806 807 Beth Bronson: Okay and then do you guys have a representation, like a lawyer. 808 809 Board Member:We do, not here tonight. 810 811 Beth Bronson: I think those are all the questions I have for you tonight. 812 813 Chris Johnston:At the April 5 meeting, Jim Parker mentioned, "We do not need Hillsborough's water"and I just want to 814 understand what that means. Correct me if I'm wrong,they can't deny Hillsborough water if they have a school on site, or 815 is that an option? I just wanted to make sure I understand state law on that particular item. 816 817 Patrick Byker: State law as I understand it, requires an allocation to be made for the school based on what is projected. 818 That's what the Town of Hillsborough's attorney....this is in the staff report as well...reservation of an allocation does not, 819 if I recall, according to the letter, is not a commitment to serve. 820 183 DRAFT 821 Chris Johnston: Just so I understand,you said that you don't need Hillsborough water or sewer, because that seems to 822 be the main contention from the Town of Hillsborough, is that they are required to provide water and sewer, so if you are 823 saying that that is not a requirement, is that actually accurate or is that..... 824 825 Patrick Byker: Let me back up just a bit... the water and wastewater are really zoning issues, those are issues that we 826 deal with as part of the engineering of the site and what we would evaluate, if we are fortunate enough for this to be 827 approved by the Board of County Commissioners,there is a .... map in your staff report that evaluates exactly how it 828 should be done with well and septic. 829 830 Charity Kirk: I'm curious about a direct answer to the question. I don't feel like you are being direct. 831 832 Chris Johnston:What I am hearing you say is that the site doesn't require water or sewer from Hillsborough given the 833 needs that you mentioned, by right,the area could support up to 35,000.... 834 835 Jim Parker:The site has sufficient septic soils to support beyond 12,000 gallons a day, so the school does not need 836 public water/sewer but, it is a long term maintenance issue with septic and community wells. So, it is a primary desire to 837 have public water/sewer because it is not a long-term maintenance issue for the school. If we proceed with the rezoning, 838 it is important to know that it is not necessary to have water/sewer from the Town of Hillsborough although we would 839 seek it and proceed with that.... 840 841 Chris Johnston:You say seek it but really, it's required by law in the State of North Carolina to provide it... 842 843 Jim Parker: It is, if we ask for it and desire it to go that direction.The purpose of the statement is in the decision. I don't 844 want the fact that you think or the mayor says that we need water/sewer they are not going to allow it. I don't want that to 845 change your decision. The point is,the schools can be supported by the soils that are on site, and by the water that 846 would be provided by wells as well as the ball fields and the tennis court. The recreational component may be 1,000 847 gallons a day.The school would be 12,000 gallons a day. 848 849 Chris Johnston:This comes back to the point of contention that I understand which is the providing of water and sewer. 1 850 don't know 160D very well as far as requiring the Town to provide the water and sewer, my question is, is that a 851 stipulation where you are saying your site can provide water and sewer without needing the town's? 852 853 Jim Parker:Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. 854 855 Chris Johnston: Do you have the ability to waive that then in regards to if you were requesting? 856 857 Patrick Byker: I have worked with this team for 10 or 15 years and we have done these charter schools on well and 858 septic in rural communities across central North Carolina so this is not new to us. We can pursue well and septic or if 859 Hillsborough refuses to serve it.... 860 861 Chris Johnston: Is that even an option? 862 863 Jim Parker:We will either do it with well and septic or we will do it with public water/sewer. It's not really a zoning 864 question. 865 866 Charity Kirk: Cy, can we specify that this property cannot use City of Hillsborough Water? 867 868 Cy Stober: You cannot. This is a land use matter and in addition to considering land,there is this additional limitation on 869 your considerations with regard to related traffic ....usually that would be something you could consider.You can 870 consider the land use and its impacts to the surrounding area. I would add,when it comes to well and septic,should it be 871 pursued, any septic drain fields that would then be significantly added on to or removed,would require a public hearing. 872 873 Charity Kirk: But we can't make an amendment... 874 875 Cy Stober: No, you cannot. 184 DRAFT 876 877 Charity Kirk: So it's a moot point. 878 879 Cy Stober: Correct. 880 881 Steve Kaufmann: If you were to use septic on that site,would it infringe on any of the ballfields in terms of needing that 882 property for septic? 883 884 Jim Parker:You have your package of soil analysis of the whole site and I think there is 8 acres that has been stipulated 885 that the school could be supported by. The ballfields on the school property, could be used as a septic innovative system 886 to absorb that. On each parcel if you note there are areas indicated for ....septic fields, so each parcel could have a 887 shared septic field from the entire development.There is more than enough acreage there for that. 888 889 Charity Kirk:Again,we can't make any judgement on the septic system, right?Or say that we want something in that 890 regard.... 891 892 Cy Stober: Hillsborough Utilities cannot be the basis for a vote. 893 894 Charity Kirk: I understand that it can't be the basis for a vote but can we stipulate that they.... 895 896 Cy Stober: No... 897 898 Charity Kirk: Okay, so we can't do anything to say they have to use septic or they don't have to use septic. We can't say 899 that they need to have stormwater retention ponds or improved water... 900 901 Cy Stober: So we have evaluated all that and they have met our standards, if there are additional reasonable 902 considerations related to the land use,that could be something to negotiate a condition on but my point was simply that 903 the health standards of the county reviews have been reviewed as provided by the applicant and they have been 904 reviewed on site plans as well as ....the materials that are in your packet, so that potential shared system was evaluated 905 by staff and the health department. 906 907 Charity Kirk: But if the school wants city water,the school gets city water? 908 909 Cy Stober: That would be a determination between the Town and the school. 910 911 Overlapping conversations 912 913 Cy Stober: We have a statute that we have acknowledged in your packet, the school buildings would be required to have 914 waste disposal and water, to get a certificate of compliance.They have a state law that requires an allocation of water 915 and sewer service for schools but the county would not be directly involved in the permitting or regulation.We would not 916 issue a CNC for the buildings,and we could not sign off on the zoning approval for the building construction until we 917 were sure that the water disposal could be served by those buildings. 918 919 Charity Kirk: We work with the Town of Hillsborough... 920 921 Beth Bronson: I would want to address the Town of Hillsborough to at least understand them better. 922 923 Cy Stober: We are not a regulatory body when it comes to water or sewer for the Town of Hillsborough.We are when it 924 comes to well and septic. 925 926 Steve Kaufmann: So this evening I heard a lot of concern from the neighbors about congestion, lights,well water for 927 themselves, but also a lot of enthusiasm from people who want to play tennis and softball,this is great and I'm hearing a 928 lot of"this is going to be a win-win situation"but it didn't feel like a win-win situation tonight. It felt like us against them all 929 night. How can we make this a win-win situation is my question to you?The reason I am asking is that I have heard that 930 phrase in tennis a number of times, "this is a win-win situation"so I like those situations so go ahead. 185 DRAFT 931 932 Patrick Byker: I think you have to look at what can be done on this property as a right without this board reviewing it and 933 what is on the table today that has been proposed by our team. So we could build several dozen homes and it would be 934 X number of homes that would consume far more well water than the proposal that is on the table tonight and we could 935 actually do zero for traffic improvements.The proposals on the table today are to build the turn lanes at US70 and 936 Lawrence Rd.or write a check for$400,000 so that NCDOT can build the turn lanes which are needed today and they 937 have probably been needed for a long time.We've already committed on the record tonight to do safety improvements 938 subject to NCDOT approval at NC10 and Lawrence Rd.We need to get back to what the community needs.....put that 939 together with Collins Field and it is not a question of if but of when those baseball fields will no longer be available for 940 children to play baseball.Where are they going to go? If not here,where? I am not aware of any other options. Is there a 941 win-win out there? I'm afraid there probably is not.You have to stack up what can be built on the 90 acres that is before 942 you tonight with no public hearings no traffic improvements,far more well water being consumed,versus these 943 improvements that are significant improvements both in terms of recreation and traffic flow.That's how I look at it. You 944 have to weigh which proposal is in the best interests of the people of Orange County. 945 946 Whitney Watson: I want to follow up on a couple of water questions, I noted in one of the reports that there was a 947 concern about water supply for fire safety,sprinklers, standpipes, hydrants. Could you talk about how that would be met? 948 If you had to use wells? 949 950 Jim Parker:You use wells you have onsite, a storage tank much like a ground tank. It would be a storage tank that would 951 hold fire suppressant water. It would be filled by well, it would be serviced by a pump that would provide the pressure 952 and the flow capacity to flood the sprinkler system in the school and that would be the fire suppressant for the high 953 school and the same thing for the lower school. 954 955 Whitney Watson: So would there be two separate tanks? 956 957 Jim Parker:Yes, they are on your plan. 958 959 Whitney Watson: So if the developer should pursue sewer and water from the Town of Hillsborough would there be any 960 possibility of installing hydrants along that route? 961 962 Jim Parker:That line would be extended along Jefferson from the southwest corner of the subdivision. It will be a 12 inch 963 line and yes there could be fire hydrants along that line. It has the capacity and the volume to do that. 964 965 Whitney Watson: Cy, if there are not hydrants currently, in those neighborhoods, can that be a condition that we could 966 attach to this, the installation of hydrants... 967 968 Jim Parker: It is a condition that we would accept if the Town of Hillsborough would allow it. 969 970 Cy Stober: I think that condition is acceptable, recommend that hydrants be provided along water lines that meet town 971 standards with town approval, I think it is an acceptable condition. 972 973 Whitney Watson: If public utilities are extended from Hillsborough, could you talk about the disruption the neighborhoods 974 would incur as trenching and installation work occurs? 975 976 Jim Parker: It is typical construction,a water line might take 2-3 weeks barring weather, it is a 12-inch water line,4 foot 977 deep, and it would proceed rather quickly. The sewer line on 70 Business would take longer it would run up the South 978 side of the highway, it would stay within the right of way, negotiating some driveways, mailboxes and things like that. It is 979 a deeper line, it would require a little longer time, it might be a month and a half-2 months, barring weather.There is a 980 lot of traffic on 70 so it would take longer to install it. 981 982 Whitney Watson: I have a question about the timeline for construction of the athletic fields. I see that there is a 4-5 year 983 timeline for construction of the schools,a similar timeline is in the packet for the athletic fields, is that correct. 984 186 DRAFT 985 Jim Parker: I don't recall any timelines for the fields themselves.We are rezoning these properties.They will become 3 986 or 4 properties. It is one property now, it will become 3 or 4 parcels. One for each school, one for the ball fields,tennis 987 courts,we are ....access to these parcels and we are getting them rezoned which is step one in being able to develop 988 those parcels as you have seen on your conceptual layout.The supporters for HYAA and the tennis supporters, it will be 989 up to them to invest and make this happen.We are laying this out for them in order to further their dream. It will require 990 fundraising, it will require working,them getting their plan together to make this a reality. They can't raise money, make 991 investment,without a piece of land that everybody knows where they are going. I hope that answered your question. 992 993 Whitney Watson: It sort of does. Those fields could potentially lay fallow for as much as 10 years while the entities are 994 seeking to raise money. 995 996 Jim Parker:They could stay wooded for years, that is correct. 997 998 Patrick Byker: But the use can't change. 999 1000 Whitney Watson: So the school owned athletic fields, 2 soccer fields, they are multi use and could be for lacrosse or 1001 similar sports?Those would be built at the same pace with the school? 1002 1003 Jim Parker:Yes, that is the high school property. 1004 1005 Whitney Watson: So,the soccer fields,would those be lit for after dark use since they are not the public areas? 1006 1007 Jim Parker: Those are not intended to be lit.The only thing that could possibly be lit could be the tennis courts because 1008 typically there is a lot of tennis played in the evenings. Of course we would have to comply with the comprehensive plan, 1009 the UDO, and your guidelines for lighting, staying on site and there has to be sufficient lighting in the parking lot.All 1010 those things can be controlled with shielding and angles and not over lighting. 1011 1012 Whitney Watson:What about parking lots, I know that was mumbled in the background.The parking lots around the 1013 athletic facilities and the schools,would they have lighting at night? 1014 1015 Patrick Byker: It's a LIDO requirement. 1016 1017 Whitney Watson:And that would fall under the same requirements as control? 1018 1019 Patrick Byker:Yes sir. 1020 1021 Whitney Watson: I heard and saw some references to the historic asset on the corner of business 70 and Lawrence 1022 Road. But I was surprised to see in the packet that it is not listed as a historic asset that needed to be considered for 1023 development. Did I misread that letter? 1024 1025 Cy Stober:Yes Mr.Watson, it's on a property across Lawrence Road, so it's not on the property itself. It was considered 1026 as part of the traffic impact analysis, but it's not included in the site. 1027 1028 Statler Gilfillen: Is that something that comes under the purview of the historic review board? 1029 1030 Cy Stober: Yes it does. 1031 1032 Statler Gilfillen: Did Peter Sandbeck make any comments about it? 1033 1034 Cy Stober: He did, and felt that our landscaping requirements would offer buffering requirements... 1035 1036 Whitney Watson: So in the consideration of the staff analysis, one of the things we are asked to consider is whether the 1037 COCAs next residential neighborhood definition supports this use,so I'd like to hear some more about if that really is a 1038 walkablelbikeable from the surrounding residential areas to the sites particularly the athletic sites.And, does that mean 1039 there will be sidewalks put in place if there are not existing bike lanes as well? 187 DRAFT 1040 1041 Cy Stober: So probably no, not on the public roads,there is a sidewalk provided on the private road network, internal to 1042 the site, but no because these are DOT maintained roads and not connected to a public road network.The DOT made 1043 the determination that the complete streets policy is inapplicable because they would not connect to a larger network. 1044 We did require that the internal site may be walkable, and we had a discussion with DOT about the need for offsite 1045 walkability and safety, and they stuck to their current interpretation of their streets policy. 1046 1047 Whitney Watson: I guess technically it meets the definition of being walkable for residential units, dwelling units... 1048 1049 Cy Stober: It's arguable that the existing development is not walkable, the proposed development was walkable, as the 1050 regulatory agencies would allow, the county requested sidewalks negotiated with the applicant they were provided and 1051 DOT disallowed them. 1052 1053 Whitney Watson: One final question; I noticed in the packet the page about superfund sites.There are three inactive 1054 ones within a mile of this location,what's the plan to continue to monitor those and to see if there is any impact and see 1055 if the site has to draw well water for schools as well as recreation? 1056 1057 Cy Stober: Superfund sites are regulated and monitored by the state and not by the county. I do not have that 1058 information at this time, I would have to get back to you. 1059 1060 Lamar Proctor: So, there is an indoor facility proposed, is that correct? 1061 1062 Patrick Byker: For? 1063 1064 Lamar Proctor: Tennis, I believe. 1065 1066 Patrick Byker: In the long run,yes. 1067 1068 Lamar Proctor: So the parcel would be subdivided into three parcels, is that correct? 1069 1070 Jim Parker: Four if you count both schools would have their own parcel. 1071 1072 Lamar Proctor: Two schools: baseball and tennis. So the school's, baseball, tennis,what is the fourth? 1073 1074 Jim Parker: Each school has a parcel. 1075 1076 Lamar Proctor: In the packet,there is reference to Tryon 3 Arden Circle. Do you know what that's about? Page 225. 1077 What's the relationship between C4 and the site plan? 1078 1079 Jim Parker: This was the initial routing of the public sewer that the town of Hillsborough wanted to see the proposed 1080 routing of the public sewer and we had two alternatives to the routing. The initial one was through Habitat for Humanity's 1081 project, and it would piggyback off that sewer system that they would install and it would punch through to Colonial 1082 Heights. Then,we submitted the one I described earlier, about going up US 70. So,you've got two options,we prefer the 1083 US 70 route, at this point, and that's the primary one that is submitted in this packet. 1084 1085 Lamar Proctor: That's fine.What about water? 1086 1087 Jim Parker: Water would come down Jefferson, there is a water line that crosses 185 at the southwest corner of the 1088 Colonial Heights subdivision the town put in several years ago. It's already there at the roadway at Jefferson and it would 1089 be extended up Jefferson and cross Lawrence Road to the site and that is a 12-inch line. 1090 1091 Lamar Proctor: So the indoor facility would not be on the school property? 1092 1093 Jim Parker: Correct. That indoor facility could be tennis courts, it could be basketball, it could be volleyball courts, it's all 1094 in that building.That's why it's called the recreational building. 188 DRAFT 1095 1096 Lamar Proctor: The separate parcels are going to be contingent upon the nonprofits, raising the money and building 1097 them? 1098 1099 Jim Parker: Correct, or anyone who wants to build them. 1100 1101 Lamar Proctor: So the developer is not building those. 1102 1103 Jim Parker: Correct. 1104 1105 Lamar Proctor: I know that land was cleared and the vicinity of Bushy Cook and West Ten Road,well over 40 acres that 1106 were cleared for HYAA ballfields. Do either of you know the status of that? 1107 1108 Jim Parker: My understanding is that's no longer an option. 1109 1110 Lamar Proctor: So the conditional zoning that is before us is two schools, 1400 students, is that correct? 1111 1112 Jim Parker:That's correct. 1113 1114 Lamar Proctor: I assume, and one of the board members talked about this, that there would be a cafeteria, a gym, 1115 showers... 1116 1117 Jim Parker: No showers, and cafeteria is a misnomer,they do not have a kitchen, they do not cook food, but the 1118 cafeteria is where they all eat.They have supplemental lunches that are brought in,they have lunch programs, and they 1119 bring their own lunches from home. 1120 1121 Lamar Proctor: On page 246,you should be able to put in here how much water and sewer will be consumed, since you 1122 know there will be 1400 students. 1123 1124 Jim Parker:The reason it is written that way is because we don't have the full charter,which would only be accepted by 1125 the town. If the charter existed and was asked by the charter, right now the charter ask is 6 thousand gallons and that is 1126 what's been reserved. It's going to change if another charter comes along for the k-8,and then that request will go to the 1127 town as well. So, it could be 6 thousand gallons—which is the high school—or it could be up to 12 thousand, if both are 1128 combined. It's about 10 gallons per student, and that's based on state regulations and historical data for charter schools. 1129 1130 Lamar Proctor: So, at full build out, it will release at least 14 thousand gallons a day. 1131 1132 Jim Parker:That is all together;teachers, staff, students. 1133 1134 Lamar Proctor: So the town said they could only give you 6 thousand. 1135 1136 Patrick Byker:There must be an improved charter. We're not entitled to ask until there is a charter approved for the k-8. 1137 1138 Lamar Proctor: But,what we are approving is two schools. We have to assume that you are going to get the charters 1139 and that they are going to be fully built out and that you are going to have 1400 students. 1140 1141 Patrick Byker: It could be a private school,for instance. Correct me if I'm wrong director, in the LIDO there is no 1142 distinction between private schools and charter schools or public schools 1143 1144 Cy Stober: So, similar to our discussion about the retail store at White Cross last month, you cannot make a decision 1145 based upon the tenants. So yes,there is no distinction between schools, it's a school. 1146 1147 Lamar Proctor: For our purposes, a school is a school is a school. I did also want to clarify in the packet, page 267, it 1148 mentions an endangered species, a proposed endangered species,the tri-colored bat.Your packet said it anticipates it 1149 will go on the endangered species list, prior to construction. So, you'll have to deal with that issue,that's correct, right? 189 DRAFT 1150 1151 Patrick Byker:Absolutely.As of today,what happens in the future is to be determined. 1152 1153 Lamar Proctor: I just wanted to clarify, because it seems like it's going to happen. 1154 1155 Patrick Byker:This is something that our team has had to deal with on numerous sites across the Piedmont area of 1156 North Carolina. 1157 1158 Lamar Proctor: It's a minor point, I just wanted to clarify that. I think Mr.Watson asked about the town's concern with 1159 insufficient flow. There was also concern about a mixed sewer/septic system. 1160 1161 Jim Parker:The insufficient flow will be fixed with the addition of water tanks if necessary. I don't really know what the 1162 concern about mixed sewer/septic means.You have many lots across the street that have a combination of public water 1163 and conventional septic systems on their lots so, it is not uncommon to have water service and septic system. I don't 1164 know what that comment really means. 1165 1166 Lamar Proctor: Hillsborough would be legally obligated to provide water and sewer and then you would pursue that 1167 because that is your right under North Carolina law. 1168 1169 Jim Parker: I want to make sure that it is understood by the board, if Hillsborough provides water and sewer,the cost of 1170 providing that and all of the water and sewer lines would not be borne by the town. 1171 1172 Charity Kirk: I am concerned about Hillsborough not wanting this project. Have you addressed any of their concerns 1173 since they unanimously said no to the project and since we last met 2 weeks ago? 1174 1175 Patrick Byker:We evaluated how to build the project with well and septic in order to move forward without needing town 1176 utilities which I assume would address their concerns. 1177 1178 Charity Kirk: But you are not telling them that you don't want their water if you are going to use the state law to get their 1179 water it sounds like. So that doesn't sound like you have addressed their concerns... 1180 1181 Patrick Byker: I don't mean to speak for the Town of Hillsborough's attorney but there is a letter in the packet that 1182 states....so we are operating today on the premise that as of 10:01 April 19,we may well have to proceed using well and 1183 septic... 1184 1185 Charity Kirk: But that is only if Hillsborough doesn't have the water. 1186 1187 Patrick Byker:Well,they have the water....it's just if they will make it available to us. 1188 1189 Charity Kirk: I am confused by that but I am going to let it go. 1190 1191 Jim Parker: Can I make a comment? 1192 1193 Charity Kirk: Yes, please. 1194 1195 Jim Parker:You made a comment about the unanimous vote, it was not unanimous, it was 3-2 vote to not annex and the 1196 request was to be annexed and go through the town's process or to allow out of town connection and pay out of town 1197 rates which are about twice the rates that are paid by in town residents and the vote was 3-2. 1198 1199 Charity Kirk: Okay,thank you for that clarification. So the recreational facilities,when this is parceled out,who is going to 1200 own the properties with the recreational facilities on them? 1201 1202 Patrick Byker:We will wait until HYAA or Orange Tennis says they are ready to close, so it's up to the nonprofits to 1203 decide. 1204 190 DRAFT 1205 Charity Kirk: Then they are going to be responsible for maintaining it? 1206 1207 Patrick Byker:Absolutely. 1208 1209 Overlapping conversation 1210 1211 Cy Stober: Our LIDO requires for all regulated subdivisions, property owners associations, maintenance and stormwater 1212 facilities, landscaping ....so we would require that to be recorded with likely the platted road as a non-exempt activity on 1213 land and for that to be recorded we would need that POA or property owner's association and their maintenance 1214 responsibility for the entire property recorded and on file so we would have an entity to process enforcement actions for 1215 any violations of our ordinance. 1216 1217 Charity Kirk: So if the fields become derelict after they are built and not maintained 20 years down the line it would be... 1218 1219 Cy Stober: So if it fails to meet our ...standards, I would suggest landscaping, road maintenance, stormwater 1220 maintenance, buffers, etc. Lighting would also be within our purview to enforce. 1221 1222 Charity Kirk: It sounds like a lot of the recreational facilities in Hillsborough are becoming private and blocked off. Is the 1223 plan for these recreational facilities to be public or are they going to be locked too? 1224 1225 Patrick Byker:They are open to folks that want to use them.There are no fences. 1226 1227 Charity Kirk: Do we know if there is going to be a fence or not? 1228 1229 Patrick Byker:There is no gates or fencing shown on the plan. That would be a significant change.We would have to 1230 come back to this board if we said time out,we want to fence everything off.We would have to come back for your 1231 recommendation or the county commissioner's approval to put up fences and gates. 1232 1233 Charity Kirk: Can we address sustainability issues and water saving measures and green building concepts? 1234 1235 Cy Stober: No. They are not in our ordinance,for what it's worth,we are in coordination with the climate ...specialist with 1236 the asset management team of the county as well as with the ...team to better incentivize those types of architecture... 1237 1238 Charity Kirk: But we can't stipulate grey water usage... 1239 1240 Cy Stober:At this time it is not in our ordinance and if it is not in the ordinance in the comprehensive plan, that is our 1241 purview to regulate. 1242 1243 Charity Kirk: This is zoned mixed residential, and you've highlighted small developments that provide only supportive 1244 nonresidential land uses in an info arrangement serving more than 50 dwelling units and a walkable manner may also be 1245 considered. What are the 50 dwelling units that are walkable? 1246 1247 Cy Stober:Again, as I mentioned before,we have addressed more than 50 units in a 1,000-foot radius for notification so 1248 that addresses that requirement.We requested that sidewalks be placed upon the public road network and the DOT said 1249 no. So,we've gone to the limit that we have to try to realize this as a walkable community and the regulatory agency at 1250 the DOT will not allow it to become a walkable community. 1251 1252 Chris Johnston: Is the failure of that in our consideration or is that based on the site plan... 1253 1254 Cy Stober: Staff analysis is that the application is consistent with the COCA as described on the slide. If you disagree, 1255 you respectfully disagree. My analysis,staff analysis, is that the allocation is consistent with this description and the 1256 central Orange coordinator for a mixed residential neighborhood. 1257 1258 Charity Kirk: Did you have any discussion with Hillsborough before bringing this to us, to address their concerns?Or 1259 because it's already in the COCA and that was the law,we can't address their ...for their plans and desires. 191 DRAFT 1260 1261 Cy Stober: I think that there is correspondence from staff, Tom King, Brian Green, and their stormwater manager in your 1262 packet.We are required to provide a courtesy review by COCA and we did that.The plans were revised through the plan 1263 review element.There are some outstanding comments with regard to water and sewer but the stormwater comments 1264 and many of the planning comments were addressed through that process and that can be found in your packet. So 1265 these were provided to the Town of Hillsborough.With regard to their comprehensive plan of consistency, staff did not 1266 mention any consistency concerns. 1267 1268 Charity Kirk: What is the likelihood that this will be annexed into Hillsborough? 1269 1270 Cy Stober:Annexation in North Carolina now is almost exclusively voluntary. So, it would have to be voluntary from the 1271 property owners.The town would have to consent to that annexation request. 1272 1273 Lamar Proctor: So it will become a non-contiguous part of Hillsborough if they hook up to the water and sewer? 1274 1275 Cy Stober: They would be out of town,they would not be a satellite incorporated area, no it would not be in the town 1276 limits. It would stay in Orange County and pay out of town rates for water and sewer pending utility expansion. 1277 1278 Lamar Proctor: I'm just confused because I know that there is voluntary annexation agreements, so my experience is 1279 with noncontiguous parcels and that became part of Mebane and it was voluntary.... 1280 1281 Cy Stober: Hillsborough historically has not had the policy that the city of Mebane has that they require a petition for 1282 annexation with a utility connection request. Mebane does require that by policy. I believe Hillsborough either just 1283 recently adopted a similar policy or is in the process of incorporating that into their standards. But they have not had that 1284 requirement. 1285 1286 Melissa Poole: Is HYAA represented here?Or tennis? Understanding the resident's concerns regarding lighting and 1287 such and the fact that there are not going to be fences. Generally speaking, how long do you anticipate nightly for the 1288 lights to be on? 1289 1290 Tennis representative: I don't have an answer to that. I don't know what the UDO statute is, I know that we would be 1291 compliant with that.Typically tennis court lights in other cities and towns go off at either 9 or 10 pm and I anticipate ours 1292 to be at a similar time because night time is night time.The intention is to have directional lighting that points down on 1293 the courts. There are LED lights and if you've ever seen the public courts in Mebane,those lights point directly down on 1294 the court and they do a really good job of not spreading.They are not pointed out straight ahead so they aren't going to 1295 be in someone's window,they will be pointed straight down onto the courts directionally.That is something that tennis 1296 players prefer too by the way. 1297 1298 HYAA representative: Without lights,you end when the sun goes down. In the fall it's about 7:15 and in the spring it's 1299 around 8 o'clock. Our games all start at 6 o'clock. 1300 1301 Adam Beeman: I am just going to go ahead and assume that you guys will both agree that you are not going to ask 1302 Hillsborough for water and sewer.And I am going to go ahead and talk about water and sewer. I read this septic report 1303 from your soil scientist and he's shown where it is suitable and not suitable. Then I take your drawing and overlay it and 1304 your buildings and pavements sit on top of all your good sites.Anything that you leave with the exception of the tennis 1305 courts,they are in the bad to not so great septic areas.The last sentence if the soil scientist report was"There appears 1306 to be ample soils and drain field needs for 1,200 students a day school, however once a preliminary site design is 1307 completed, additional site and soil investigation should be conducted to determine the system particulars." Like I said, if 1308 you lay your site plan on top of this,your buildings cover the majority of your good, suitable septic spaces. I just don't 1309 understand. 1310 1311 Jim Parker: Those sites are conventional septic so there would be innovative septic systems that would be absorptions in 1312 fields, or sprayed or there's a lot of ways that are done beyond the conventional septic soils. 1313 192 DRAFT 1314 Adam Beeman: If you put in 55 houses,the health department would determine half of them have septic issues and they 1315 probably wouldn't be put there anyway or there would be restrictions on bedroom size and that's that. I just want to be 1316 clear because I see septic issues. I don't know why you didn't go back to the soil scientist after you got a design and go 1317 back through your site plan and what he did and say yes, everything is still acceptable and suitable or no,we need to 1318 shift some things around because to me it looks like you are sitting on all your good space with pavement and buildings. 1319 1320 Jim Parker:The soccer fields could become the septic areas for the school.That is true, and I said that earlier through 1321 the innovative design. 1322 1323 Adam Beeman: Nobody on your team has approached the environmental health department for a consultation? I am just 1324 curious to know if you have actually consulted with environmental health. 1325 1326 Jim Parker: Other than what Cy indicated as far as them reviewing the soils and everything else associated with that. 1327 1328 Adam Beeman: The scientist said "Even though I find suitable places, the regulating authority may find ....Regardless of 1329 what happens between you guys and Hillsborough, if we are going down the septic and well path, I just want to know 1330 that you are going to have suitable space for your schools but I see nothing saying here's the space for your fields and 1331 here is the space for the tennis courts. 1332 1333 Jim Parker:You're right,the school is the biggest user. 1334 1335 Adam Beeman: I was just trying to ascertain if it would be good to go forward and ask the soil scientist to look at the site 1336 plans and say you're good or hey you guys need to shift some things around, this is not going to work. If we move 1337 forward tonight and approve your plan,your next steps through the development process is going to the health 1338 department and getting your permits and all that. If we let you go forward and you spend more money making allocations 1339 and the health department says"eh you don't qualify"... 1340 1341 Jim Parker: That's our risk. 1342 1343 Adam Beeman: I am simply asking in my mind why wouldn't you step back and have them give you a 1344 preliminary....come out and say"yep,you're right,we agree with the soil scientist report. Everything looks like it should 1345 be moving forward." I'm just trying to prevent you from....it would assuage me to say that someone has looked at the 1346 septic to say"yes,this is going to be acceptable" I have 11 acres and I only perked for 3 bedrooms. It's difficult, I get it 1347 and .... 1348 1349 Jim Parker: I've done a lot of subdivisions with septics and this has got extremely good soil for our town, like you are 1350 saying,the primary goal here is water/sewer from the Town of Hillsborough. That is our primary desire.We know we 1351 could do this with an innovative system like we have other schools... 1352 1353 Adam Beeman:What's the plan for irrigation?You're going to have fields and plantings... 1354 1355 Jim Parker: Drip irrigation on the fields and in the plantings. 1356 1357 Adam Beeman:You are just not watering the baseball fields? 1358 1359 Jim Parker: correct. Ms. Kirk made some comments about environmental considerations.There are some stormwater 1360 ponds there that are good sources of irrigation water and good sources for fire protection if we go down the septic route. 1361 1362 Adam Beeman:Why the 60-foot-tall building for the athletic building? 1363 1364 Jim Parker:You've got to have height for the tennis. 1365 1366 Adam Beeman:A lot of the industrial buildings top off at 45, I'm just curious. 1367 1368 Jim Parker: If the 60 foot is a concern,we can discuss that. 193 DRAFT 1369 1370 Adam Beeman: I am looking at your handicap parking. I don't know what the minimum standards are but your drawing 1371 shows 6 spots and one hash mark and the rest of them are all stacked up next to each other. Being a disabled person, 1 1372 find that wholly inadequate. I would like to see hash marks between them or you could do two spaces and hash marks 1373 on either side. 1374 1375 Jim Parker:You are exactly right but understand that these are all the standards that are in the UDO. 1376 1377 Adam Beeman: If you are meeting the minimum we can see if we can agree on the additions of hash lines...that to me, 1378 being disabled it is difficult to get out of a normal sized space. It didn't seem like they were very user friendly for the 1379 disabled folks. Can we agree that you will put hash marks? 1380 1381 Jim Parker:We can agree to that, yes. 1382 1383 Statler Gilfillen:As an architect with a background in preservation, these plans are very schematic and preliminary.When 1384 you get down to submitting the final architectural plans,there are very detailed sets of laws that you have to follow or you 1385 can't get a building permit. 1386 1387 Adam Beeman: If that's the minimum and they've met the minimum and we've approved it then what's to say they have 1388 to put hash marks later? 1389 1390 Statler Gilfillen: It might be on the state law... 1391 1392 Adam Beeman: I don't know the state law, I am simply ensuring that we are on the same page and both agree that we 1393 need hash marks regardless of.... There is no athletic programs at the school, so there is no after school programs 1394 where they are playing soccer or ...they just go to classes themselves? 1395 1396 Jim Parker: I don't think we can speak to the exact programming, but I would say they would have some after school 1397 programming. 1398 1399 Adam Beeman:We have calculated that the school is done at let out time but if they are still filtering in after school time 1400 for athletic programs that needs to be added into the drip calculation... 1401 1402 Jim Parker:Yes, you are right,there are after school programs but it's not the full peak. 1403 1404 Adam Beeman: I understand but in combination with the other fields, as the HYAA representative said, they start at 6, 1405 those folks are going to start rolling in for baseball, it sounds like tennis is going to be happening all day long, I am just 1406 trying to figure out the extra folks after school once school has been let out. 1407 1408 Lyle Overstreet: The trip calculations for the school are based on state wide averages of other, similar schools so it is 1409 baked into the numbers. 1410 1411 Adam Beeman: Okay, I had not heard anything about athletic programs for the school, and I was just curious to know if 1412 they were having athletic programs. 1413 1414 Beth Bronson:Would those parking lots for the upper and lower schools be open to the public after 5?Or would they 1415 remain a private parking lot given that they are on a separate parcel. 1416 1417 Jim Parker:They are going to co-exist together, I'm sure that if the capacity of the parking for the fields is not enough 1418 that sharing parking is a great option but that would be up to the school if they chose to do that. If we can get this 1419 rezoned,then those conversations could happen with those potential owners. 1420 1421 Beth Bronson-My point being that there are 192 spaces by the baseball fields and I didn't see what the count was for by 1422 the tennis court, I assume it's similar.... 1423 194 DRAFT 1424 Jim Parker:A condition that we could set and take with us is that there would be consideration for shared parking.... 1425 1426 Adam Beeman: I had a question about the articulation agreement... 1427 1428 Melissa Poole: I know what this is...there are currently two charter schools in Hillsborough.There is the Expedition 1429 school and there is Eno River Academy. My children went to TEF and once they reached the 8th grade, there is an 1430 articulation agreement for the high school.You can have articulation agreements for charter schools. 1431 1432 Overlapping conversations about seats available for transfer at various schools and articulation agreements. 1433 1434 A letter from Joey Webb was read by a representative from the charter school. 1435 1436 Statler Gilfillen:What are we actually approving tonight?This is about a piece of property with a school on it. It could be 1437 any kind of school on this site. If it is a private school then the developer has rights about who is allowed to go into that 1438 school, right? 1439 1440 Patrick Byker: If for some reason this became a site for Durham Academy,then that private school admission process by 1441 law prohibits discrimination. 1442 1443 Statler Gilfillen: If this were a private school, unlike a charter school then all of the neighbors and immediate property 1444 owners around this property,that school could offer special compensation to them if they had children who wanted to 1445 come there and could walk there. That could be hypothetically possible, right? 1446 1447 Patrick Byker:The down side is they would have to pay. 1448 1449 Statler Gilfillen:Yes but they could also offer a discount to the immediate property owners. 1450 1451 Overlapping conversations 1452 1453 Chris Johnston:We can't consider that it is a charter school,we can't consider that it is a public school, all we can 1454 consider is that it is a school, but does that matter for capacity? If the argument is that we are serving capacity for the 1455 local school system and this is a school that potentially pulls from outside the county, is that anything that we can 1456 consider or is that considering a charter school? 1457 1458 Patrick Byker: My understanding is no. 1459 1460 Beth Bronson:There was no hydraulic survey done,just the wells...correct?Taking all of this in and taking the public 1461 comments, I have a couple of conditions that I would propose to the board. 1462 1463 Melissa Poole: Don't forget the conditions outlined. 1464 1465 1. Adding fire hydrants along Hwy 70A where the water line comes in 1466 2. Include applying for school zone designation 1467 3. Adding a median on Lawrence Rd.to prevent corner cutting on OLD NC10 (where Lawrence Rd. starts) 1468 4. Increase hash mark spaces between handicap parking spaces 1469 5. Perform updated traffic impact analysis in 5 years or at the completion of enrollment at the Upper School, 1470 whichever occurs first. 1471 6. Extend buffer zone from 70A to meet at the main entrance off of Lawrence Rd. 1472 7. Limit the height of the tennis lights to 35 feet, using the minimum amount of light necessary. 1473 1474 MOTION BY Beth Bronson to recommend approval with the 7 added conditions. Seconded by Whitney Watson. 1475 1476 Adam Beeman:Yes 1477 1478 Lamar Proctor: No 195 DRAFT 1479 1480 Beth Bronson:Yes 1481 1482 Statler Gilfillen:Yes 1483 1484 Melissa Poole: Yes 1485 1486 Whitney Watson:Yes 1487 1488 Charity Kirk: No 1489 1490 Steve Kaufmann: No 1491 1492 Elizabeth Kalies: No 1493 1494 Chris Johnston: No 1495 1496 MOTION TIE VOTE 5-5 1497 1498 Cy Stober: The adopted rules of procedure for the County Advisory Boards require that a majority vote be used in 1499 deciding recommendations to the elected body, so you will need to come up with a majority vote. 1500 1501 Lamar Proctor: I would like to say that I am really torn on this because I really want ball fields, I really want these 1502 services for the county, I know we are in need of them. I specifically asked about a site that had been cleared for HYAA 1503 ball fields but was told that is no longer viable.There needs to be a solution to that.At the same time, under our 1504 comprehensive land use plan,there are certain objectives that we are supposed to consider in making land use planning 1505 decisions. Read Land use objectives 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 6.2,wastewater goal#5, 1 am just articulating my reasons for voting 1506 against this.As one of the members of the public stated, it kind of feels like we are trying to stuff an elephant into a box 1507 in this spot. I have concerns by the public,the elected mayor of Hillsborough that this proposed zoning change under this 1508 conditional use with 1,400 students squeezed into Lawrence Rd. and 70 with water and sewer being provided by the 1509 town. I don't see how that is going to happen without alternative plans on how to get at least sewer to this site and state 1510 law requires the municipality to provide water. Thinking about a 1,400 student school in this spot with the water and 1511 sewer needs of the school that is my concern.This particular site, as much as I want these things is consistent with our 1512 comprehensive plan. 1513 1514 Melissa Poole: You referenced the relationship with a municipality and under the current municipality plan, it is aligned. Is 1515 that correct? 1516 1517 Cy Stober: That is correct. We didn't include it in our consistency statement but we did consult with WASMPBA but we 1518 can provide that in the future. 1519 1520 Lamar Proctor: So it is within the WASMPBA boundary to provide sewer and water? 1521 1522 Cy Stober: The primary service area,yes. 1523 1524 Lamar Proctor:Thank you for that clarification. 1525 1526 Steve Kaufmann: Still,the neighborhood will not be able to get water and sewer, even though it is in that region? 1527 1528 Cy Stober: They would have to voluntarily have to apply for connection and I believe annexation to the Town of 1529 Hillsborough, pay the connection fees as well as any associated annexation fees. 1530 1531 Adam Beeman:They wouldn't be forced to hop on if the pipe goes by your house,you don't have to get on the water, 1532 you could maintain your septic and well? 1533 196 DRAFT 1534 Cy Stober: I have been doing planning since 2007 and the state law changed in 2008 regarding voluntary annexation. 1535 Formerly that would have been an option,the town could have just annexed everyone but no, today you must voluntarily 1536 petition for annexation as an individual property owner or a group of property owners.The town cannot force you to be 1537 annexed to the town of Hillsborough. 1538 1539 Adam Beeman: Even if the pipe runs right by your front door,you have to ask for the annexation? I don't want to see 1540 anyone be forced... 1541 1542 Cy Stober: Only in the event of well or septic failure which is a state environmental health regulation. 1543 1544 Beth Bronson:What is important though is that if the well fails and the septic fails and there happens to be a pipe by their 1545 house,they are required... 1546 1547 Adam Beeman:The old law was that if the pipe came by their house,they were forced to abandon their well. I want to 1548 make sure no one is forced to abandon what they already have. 1549 1550 Patrick Byker:That is not the case anymore and state law precludes it. 1551 1552 Lamar Proctor: Who is paying to hook up well and septic to the school?The town? 1553 1554 Patrick Byker: No, no, that is all paid for by the private development team.The school pays for every inch of pipe and 1555 everything that is associated with that. 1556 1557 Jim Parker:The cost of the water and sewer from any existing pipe that the town has is paid for by the school. 1558 1559 Patrick Byker:The pipe,the manholes the water line... 1560 1561 Applicant:The fees, permits, testing all of it is paid by the school,the town does not pay anything.They collect double 1562 the water rates for the usage. If you go on the town's website and look at the amount of water that is treated by the town 1563 and their treatment plan, is on average about 1.2 million gallons per day and they are permitted for 3 million gallons a 1564 day on both plants.You can look at those reports for yourself online, it's very clear. 1.2 million gallons a day is processed 1565 through the town's treatment.This is .015 million gallons a day if both schools are there. It is extremely negligible. So 1566 capacity is not an issue. 1567 1568 Whitney Watson: I think a lot of folks on the board are conflicted about this proposal and one of their reasons is that 1569 under land use goal 3 is preserving the community and rural character and land use goal 5.6 is provide the county's 1570 population and economy with future uses, recreation and schools. So those two items seem to be in conflict with each 1571 other.We really as a board have not talked very much about if this will preserve the community and rural character of 1572 this parcel or this neighborhood. We have heard a lot about desirable schools, desirable recreation activities, perhaps as 1573 a board we need to spend some time talking about preserving community and rural character. 1574 1575 Melissa Poole: One of the options is to give extended time to consider.... 1576 1577 Adam Beeman: What do you want to achieve with the extended time? 1578 1579 Charity Kirk:We obviously need to discuss more or throw up another vote...is anyone changing their vote? 1580 1581 Statler Gilfillen: I am very close as the Eno River representative to changing my vote as these people are my neighbors 1582 and live around me. I live on the old Jackson Farm site and if someone were to come in on the 40-50 acres with this 1583 development right next to my house,the old farmhouse on St. Mary's, I would be very concerned. I am hearing a lot of 1584 serious issues from these people. I also have a great deal of respect for Jim Parker and what he has done and is trying 1585 to do. So I have mixed feelings about it and I have been right on that edge. Up until tonight when I couldn't think of a 1586 reason not to.What you just commented about the rural atmosphere, it affects all of us. What is the nature of our 1587 community,you are putting a large block of property and are completely surrounded by neighbors. That was part of why 1 1588 was asking Mr. Parker earlier about the question of if you put a school in, is there some sort of compensation. Long term, 197 DRAFT 1589 that type of solution may increase their property values but that is a hypothetical, so I have mixed feelings. I am not sure 1590 that I should be voting tonight. 1591 1592 MOTION BY Beth Bronson to take additional time to review this matter concerning the proposed rezoning Atlas Map 1593 amendment parcel number PIN 9883-19-4355. Seconded by Charity Kirk 1594 1595 Adam Beeman: No 1596 1597 Chris Johnston: No 1598 1599 Lamar Proctor:Yes 1600 1601 Beth Bronson:Yes 1602 1603 Statler Gilfillen:Yes 1604 1605 Melissa Poole: Yes 1606 1607 Whitney Watson:Yes 1608 1609 Charity Kirk:Yes 1610 1611 Steve Kaufmann:Yes 1612 1613 Elizabeth Kalies:Yes 1614 1615 MOTION PASSED 8-2 1616 1617 The next scheduled meeting is May 3, 2023 7:00 pm 1618 1619 ******************************************* 1620 198 DRAFT 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 MAY 3,2023 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBER PRESENT:Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), Cheeks 7 Township Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large 8 Representative; Charity Kirk,At-Large Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative;Whitney Watson, 9 At-Large Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; Chris Johnston, Hillsborough Township 10 Representative; Elizabeth Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative 11 12 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning& Inspections Director; Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director—Development Services; 13 Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director—Long Range Planning 14 &Administrative Division;Tom Altieri, Senior Planner—Long Range Planning &Administrative Division; Lauren Coffey, 15 Planning Technician 16 17 OTHERS PRESENT:James Parker,Applicant; Patrick Byker, Kathy Bivins, Daniel Bivins, Clancy Russell, James Russell, 18 Brian Hill, Bethany Kidd, Jack Niklas,Jessica King, Carolyn Robinson, Curtis Kelly, John Dempsey J. Wright-Simpson, 19 Hollis Chatelain, Robb Minton, Matt McDermott, Debra Fields, Kyle Simpson,Jim West,Wanda Richardson, Rachael 20 Price, Nick Schumacher, Scott Czechlewski, Emilee Collins, Kathleen Harper, Brandon Welch, Gregory J. Singer, Maria 21 Perez, Margaret Cates, Sandra Brown, Thomas Brown,Amber Bickford, Rachel Hawkins,Jaine Parker, Scott Ray, 22 Peggy McCracken, Jerry Vinski, Cathy Vinski, Faye Rhodes, June Minton, Linda Johnson 23 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 26 Chair Adam Beeman called the meeting to order. 27 28 29 **************************************************** 30 31 32 AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT(CONDITIONAL DISTRICT)—To continue review of and make a 33 recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant-initiated zoning atlas amendment to rezone an 34 84.9 acre parcel from R-1 (Rural Residential)to MPD-CD(Master Plan Development Conditional 35 District). 36 37 PRESENTER: Cy Stober, Orange County Planning and Inspections Director 38 39 Cy Stober gave a brief update on the item to remind the board of their options and where they are in the process. 40 41 Adam Beeman: I have a question for the applicant about the skate park.We glazed over that part last time and no one 42 really talked about it,so if you could give me a little background on what the intention is for the skate park and how you 43 plan to plan that and build it? 44 45 James Parker: For a long time,we've known that Hillsborough has wanted a skate park in the vicinity,we thought it was 46 a good add to the plan even though it's a small....it's on the tennis facility property. It would be a condition of that 47 developer to do that,and it would be a non-profit. 48 49 Adam Beeman: I was going to ask if you could invite the community and ask what they would like to see and not just a 50 generic skate park. There is plenty of appetite out there for it. 51 52 James Parker:We would love someone to step up and take ownership of design and vision. 53 54 Statler Gilfillen: It is my understanding right now;you have certain things you plan if this is approved that would start 55 construction very soon. There are other things like the baseball diamonds that are going to rely upon public funding to 199 DRAFT 56 create them. I'm a little bit unclear about the distinction like what you just mentioned about the skating...what is or is not 57 included with the first build through? 58 59 James Parker: Currently we have a buyer that wants the school site, and they will be responsible for building the school 60 site. 61 62 Statler Gilfillen: Do you have any idea what physical athletic facilities that they will be building with that school? 63 64 James Parker:What's on the plan for the school site, is what they will be building.That's the high school that we have a 65 current buyer. 66 67 Melissa Poole: Just to clarify because I do think this was mentioned in the last meeting with regards to if the proposed 68 plan, particularly for the public charter school,were to use municipal sewer and water, then the lines to run that to the 69 school will be paid by whom? 70 71 James Parker: By the school, by the private sector. 72 73 Chris Johnston: I have a follow up question about the tennis facility. I understood from the documents that it was going to 74 be a pro-shop or clubhouse, but I also saw recently in one of the narratives that it was going to be indoor tennis courts so 75 could you be clear what that structure is going to be? 76 77 James Parker:The structure is sized like it is on the plan to allow different uses internally that could be accommodated 78 there. Basketball courts, indoor tennis courts, volleyball courts, anything indoor recreation that could be in there and 79 certainly a pro-shop could be in there as well. It is a building that could house all or some of those items. 80 81 Melissa Poole: I don't have a question but I would like to address the board. I've been on the planning board for 5 years 82 now. I've heard presentations, everyone imaginable, UDO updates, commercial development, residential development, 83 never in my memory has a project come before us that benefitted across the entire county.The majority of projects 84 brought before us during my time, have been residential developments. Most of the time,those residences have been 85 classified as single-family homes, usually anticipating buyers with children. Families buying homes in Orange County are 86 going to look for extracurricular activities for their kids and with this project, there are a number of options clustered 87 together in one space.With regards to HYAA,they are likely to lose 4 fields due to the town's train station project.The 88 contract with the town only gives them a 60-day notice when they are going to lose their fields. For the district 1 89 represent, I don't know many people who have not or do not have children involved in HYAA and they have been for 90 years. Some of whom are still involved even though their kids have aged out. Since 2020 they have provided $12,000 in 91 scholarships to children.There are currently hundreds of children signed up and there are waiting lists. I think it is 92 reasonable to infer that with additional residential development in Orange County,the numbers for HYAA and waiting 93 lists due to lack of space will only increase going forward. I apologize to the tennis club; I am admittedly more familiar 94 with HYAA than I am with tennis. I would imagine that their struggles are going to be the same. HYAA has players from 95 Orange, Person, Chatham,and Alamance Counties. That is 3 other counties coming to Orange County and likely 96 spending money in Orange County. I think that investment in the space for them,giving them the zoning to build their 97 fields, is an investment for our county. They have almost 1,000 players per year coming through.The project meets the 98 mission, particularly the ball fields, providing space that reduces the town financial impact of purchasing and 99 maintenance of athletic and park space.The wells versus water/sewer, I know we have discussed that ad nauseum, but 100 I've never sat up here and had a project where they had multiple options. Usually,we only hear county proposals and 101 that is strictly well and septic.The state does have a mandate for provision of water and sewer to public schools. If our 102 ultimate concern is the resident's wells, then I would encourage the developer to pursue the state mandated provision of 103 water and sewer.The other discussion has been around what was presented in our first meeting being the letter that 104 was presented and entered into the record.This still bothers me as what is referenced is their proposed plan,their draft 105 plan,which we cannot consider because it is not legislation. It has not passed, therefore shouldn't bear on any decision 106 made by us. Regarding traffic,As a parent, I've made clear that I have children in charter schools, our charter school has 107 one entrance, in and out, onto Hwy. 57 and we don't block traffic.There are no busses at our school.This charter school 108 is proposing busses. That is going to reduce traffic compared to what some of the other charter schools in the county 109 have. I would urge that we pass this on and advance it to the BOCC. 110 200 DRAFT 111 Chris Johnston: I'm new to this board,this is my first foray into this, so I appreciate everyone bearing with me on this. 1 112 think,and I am only speaking for myself here, that if this were a presentation for athletics fields and only for athletics 113 fields,that we would have been done on April 3rd. I don't think anyone here disagrees that we need additional athletics 114 fields and that we need them badly. It is outrageous that we have to go other counties for that sort of thing,tennis 115 players, pickleball players,whatever you may be. I think the question that we are all wrestling with up here is dealing with 116 our mandate of following the planning board thing of considering all the things that we can't consider...right?We can't 117 consider the water considerations;we can only consider the plans as they are.We have to consider the WASAMPBA 118 participation as it currently is,we can't consider the traffic,we can't consider a number of things. Charter school versus 119 public school versus private school, it's a school. But at the same time,we do have other considerations as well.We are 120 neighbors with the folks of Hillsborough and the folks of Hillsborough have elected representatives and those 121 representatives have submitted that letter that said they were against this particular development for whatever reasons 122 they have. So, I am struggling a lot with this one just because of all the things we can't consider. I think we really need 123 the athletic fields, I think those are really important, I don't know,we had a.....Cy,are you here? In regard to the school 124 and the need that was mentioned, in regards to needs for schooling in this area, in terms of attendance and what our 125 future growth is and that sort of thing... 126 127 Cy Stober: The school's adequate facilities public ordinance annual report has a 10-year forecast using 5 different 128 models for both the municipal school district and the Orange County School District, none of those models forecast a 129 capacity concern for the public school system. 130 131 Chris Johnston:Again, I have a lot of things that I'm considering on my first Orange County Planning Board, and I don't 132 quite know what to think. 133 134 Melissa Poole: With regards to the capacity issue,while the report does show that there is no 10-year forecast capacity 135 issue,there is a February 8th article in the Daily Tarheel,where the Deputy Superintendent of Orange County Schools is 136 quoted as saying "Overcrowding is a concern for the school district as new growth in the area is leading to class sizes 137 that are exceeding capacity.The district is bringing in mobile units to help with the problem."The title of the article is 138 "Orange County Schools Employees Bring Concerns of Overcrowding to Board of Education"so it seems as if there is 139 some disconnect between the report and what the superintendent and county employees are saying. 140 141 Chris Johnston:To confirm though,the article was an employee saying something and then the report is what we are 142 supposed to consider.That's been one of the major things that we keep talking about, is we have to consider what the 143 actual report says, not what we hear. 144 145 Cy Stober: If I may,there are a couple of relevant things to consider.What the 10-year forecast does not consider is the 146 condition of the schools or the facilities. It also identifies over capacity of individual schools that could be resolved 147 through redistricting which the school districts are engaged in at this time. It shows system-wide at the high school, 148 middle school, and elementary school levels that through redistricting the capacity concerns could be potentially resolved 149 because it is just looking at the total amount of capacity for the total number of students enrolled.That is not to say that 150 there are not individual schools that are beyond capacity at this time. 151 152 Melissa Poole: Should we consider capacity at all when a charter school is not districted anyway? 153 154 Cy Stober: I would encourage you to consider whether a school being sited at this location is an appropriate land use as 155 discussed in our adopted plans and in consideration of the land use in the area. 156 157 Charity Kirk: I like the proposal. I don't think it's on the right piece of property. We are talking about the mixed residential 158 zoning which states that if it is going to be non-residential, it will be an infill arrangement serving more than 50 dwelling 159 units in a walkable manner. This property is not going to be serving people in a walkable manner. It is a car-oriented 160 property, especially since the Department of Transportation is not going to be doing sidewalks in the area. It is also going 161 to be attracting people from around the county...the tennis and the softball...people are going to be driving there. 1 162 believe that Orange County needs it. I would like to see this in a more urban environment. I don't think this is the right 163 property for it. Now, is there a right property for it? I don't know. I just feel like the interpretation of what mixed residential 164 is, doesn't match with what is planned for the property. 165 201 DRAFT 166 Lamar Proctor: I've thought a lot about this, I spoke with the chair of the school board,they are not in favor of another 167 school.They have many repairs that need to be done on the schools. The SAPFO shows that there is capacity for 168 schools in Orange County over 10 years. I agree with Chris, if this was just the ballfields, it would be a no-brainer and it 169 would be done. It's the school. Orange County does not need another school,we need to focus on the schools we have 170 and making those as good as we can make them. Looking at our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, it encourages us also 171 to do work with the municipalities in a fair and equitable way.They oppose this, Hillsborough opposes it, they indicated 172 that it would put an undue burden on their wastewater system.They considered this and opposed and voted against it. 173 Orange County has to be a good neighbor to its municipalities,the one that is directly affected by this project opposes it, 174 we do not need another school in Orange County, and that's pretty much it for me. In our land use plan,we are trying to 175 encourage expanded use and non-auto modes of travel. I want those ball fields somewhere, as I asked HYAA, there 176 were over 40 acres cleared in my district in Cheeks that was supposed to be these ball fields and somehow that fell 177 through.That 40 plus acres was within 2 miles of two 1-40 exits and was across the street from the soccer fields next to 178 Gravelly Hill.That would be an ideal place for these ball fields as opposed to jammed into a tight residential area with 179 creating traffic concerns. I am not talking about traffic concerns from the school because we are not considering those 180 but traffic concerns for HYAA tournaments, traffic concerns for tennis tournaments,traffic concerns for skate park 181 tournaments and ongoing leagues.That is another issue in this tight area.As one of the members of the public said, 182 "They are trying to pack an elephant into a closet here."Those are the reasons why I am opposing this. 183 184 Elizabeth Kalies: I am also new to the board and not even sure if I am supposed to say something here about how I feel 185 about this, but I am happy to. I have been very torn the whole time as well and agree that there are some good things 186 about this plan. It could be the wrong spot. Every time someone speaks, they nearly change my mind again but what 1 187 keep going back to is that the town of Hillsborough,the mayor, and the planning board were all of the same opinion that 188 they do not approve the plan,so I am going to trust local judgment on this. 189 190 Delores Bailey: Good evening,great notes from last time,thank you for sending those to me. I listened and read all of 191 what we went through last time. I thought it was a very thorough discussion of this project. I am going to not agree. I do 192 not like the project. My main cause is the Hillsborough board coming to us and explaining to us that it did not fit into what 193 they were planning.That troubles me.The piece about the water still bothers me. Where are you going to get the water 194 from?You don't need the water; it can be wells...that concerns me. One of the comments from the notes that I read that 195 there were plans on here for a lower school but that's not what we are voting on. We are voting on the high school and 196 the lower school is going to get rolled into whatever happens. I believe there was a question about whether we get to talk 197 about the lower school and the answer was"no,we don't get to talk about the lower school." For those reasons,that's 198 unclear to me, and I don't think that's a correct way to present this. I'd like to know that we could discuss the lower 199 school and what's going to happen after the high school gets put there. My vote at this time would be no. 200 201 Whitney Watson: I sort of started this off last time we met, asking us to consider the community and rural character of 202 that area.That is one of the land use goals, it's number 3. We are supposed to consider whether this preserves that 203 character or not,whether it minimizes land use conflicts and is supported by an efficient and balanced transportation 204 system. I think what we've heard is that, yes, it would become a destination, but it becomes a destination for 205 automobiles.There's not a transportation system that the average member of the county could avail themselves of to get 206 to this site. There's no bus route or bus stops there. I think the important part is the community and rural character of that 207 area. I did take the time to drive around through that. It is fields, rural. Yes, it's dense, there are a lot of homes in that 208 area. If this property were to be developed into more residential areas as I think Cy sort of proposed last week,that it 209 might be somewhere around 50-60 residences that could be placed on this property,once you took out for roads, 210 utilities, and easements and so on,that still would not change the character of that community. I think that's an important 211 consideration as we go forward. The other way I looked at that is, had the community developed up against an existing 212 site with the kinds of recreational activities and school opportunities,we would probably not be concerned at all about it 213 closing in on this site. The fact that we are now talking about the other way of inserting an area of activity of a kind of 214 development, into an area that already has its existing character I think is the wrong way to go about it. 215 216 Steve Kaufmann: It's been a very difficult choice for me also because I have been a public school teacher for many 217 years, and I actually worked at a charter school too. I work in the PE department at Duke now, so I am very athletic. 1 218 love the idea of ballfields; I love the idea of tennis but that's not what is in question here. It's the neighborhood,and 1 219 drove around it several times last week and it's like what most people on this board have said already, "why here?" It's a 220 great plan, it looks great on paper. If I were living in a major city and they proposed this plan, it would look wonderful, but 202 DRAFT 221 we have many more opportunities in this county to do something like this and I hope it gets done.As many of you have 222 said, this isn't quite the right place for this project. So, I will be voting against it. 223 224 Statler Gilfillen: I have spent a tremendous amount of time since the last meeting trying to reach out to both sides. I met 225 with Jim; he made a comment that surprised me. He said that nobody has bothered to contact him directly. I spent 226 several hours with someone who could not be today but was very outspoken against this development. I am your Eno 227 representative. I take this personally and it is difficult for me. I believe that Jim, as a developer, has done everything 228 possible to try to reach out and work with both sides.That meeting that I tried to arrange this week, never happened, I'm 229 sorry for that. I am still very mixed in many ways. When I look at the state regulations of what our jurisdiction covers, and 230 what this requires,the Town of Hillsborough's disagreement is not based upon the current laws that they have 231 presented. That's part of the problem I have. If they were objecting under the new reformed laws that are proposed,that 232 would be one thing, but they are not. If you were a judge sitting on the bench, you are bound by the laws as they are. I'm 233 not happy with this but I can't see a physical reason to say no to this proposal. I can raise that there are many issues if 1 234 were homeowners and I think that Mr. Parker is open at least from discussions with him,to deal with that. One of them 235 that concerned me that was raised at the last meeting; if the town does not provide water and he puts a well in,and that 236 well lowers the level of water in the immediate area,there are people who could end up without water. That is a pretty 237 disastrous situation.The lawyer raised the point at the meeting that yes, under state law the developer has to cover it, 238 etc. but by the time you get through the law and you go to the courts,that's a legal answer,yes but that doesn't solve the 239 immediate problem of somebody without water, living in a house.When I raised that issue to Jim Parker, he indicated 240 that if you are talking about 5 or 6 wells in there that start to go dry, perhaps because they are drained,then people need 241 to be taken care of because it has happened because the water table lowered. If like 15 years ago,we had a drought, 242 that could happen. If they are just old wells that the equipment needs to be replaced, that's not what we are talking 243 about,we are talking about a water table.That I think could be verified as an architect.The environmental issues, unless 244 1 read it wrong as an architect,you can talk about 65 houses in this unit but if you can not properly support them with the 245 septic system for 65 units and the wells for 65 units, you can't build that many units on that site either. So,that's 246 academic,the environmental issues over rural. I'm looking at, in the end, on this board whether I would accept or not 247 accept the idea of the school. From what the county has told me, correct me if I'm wrong Cy,that is not under our 248 jurisdiction. 249 250 Cy Stober: Whether or not the site is appropriate for the land use of a preparatory school as described in our ordinance 251 is well within your purview. 252 253 Statler Gilfillen: In other words, any type of school but not a specific school? 254 255 Cy Stober: That's correct.And the school size is relevant,so 400 students is relevant versus 200 students. That's 256 relevant because it has to do with the building footprint and associated activities. 257 258 Statler Gilfillen: Remember your department's review,this is an acceptable use at this site,of a school. 259 260 Cy Stober: I believe our staff analysis and our recommendation reflects that. 261 262 Statler Gilfillen:That makes it very difficult to vote against when the professionals that are administering the law have 263 made a decision to advise us accordingly. 264 265 Lamar Proctor: Every proposal that you submit to us,you find consistent, is that not true? 266 267 Melissa Poole: Not historically. 268 269 Lamar Proctor In my time on the board,everything that you've presented.... 270 271 Overlapping conversation 272 273 Cy Stober: In the 9 months I've been here,we have recommended all the applications that have come before this board. 274 275 Chris Johnston: To confirm, it wouldn't make it to us if it wasn't recommended? 203 DRAFT 276 277 Cy Stober: They have a right to be heard. 278 279 Melissa Poole: We have heard proposals that were not recommended by the Planning Department of Orange County. 280 281 Cy Stober: That's a legal right,that every property owner and every applicant has in the State of North Carolina, 282 regardless of the staff analysis and recommendation. They have a right before the Planning Board and a right to a public 283 hearing. 284 285 Statler Gilfillen:Thank you, I have spent a tremendous amount of time trying to reach out and listen to both sides and 286 this is a very difficult issue before this board for us to vote upon. I hope my neighbors understand, regardless of how 1 287 vote. It is based on what I believe will be the best in the end. I just hope that if it goes in Mr. Parker's favor,that many of 288 you that have objections will finally sit down and try to talk to him about those things that could individually impact you. 289 That might make a difference. I think he's open. For a couple of years of construction, as a developer, I would want to be 290 open to the people that are surrounding me. 291 292 Lamar Proctor: For the record, I spoke with Mr. Parker too.You said no one else spoke with Mr. Parker. 293 294 Statler Gilfillen: He had informed me that none of the opposition had reached out to him. 295 296 MOTION BY Charity Kirk to recommend denial because the proposed amendment does not match the residential 297 character of this neighborhood, it will not meet the walkability standards that we believe describes a mixed residential 298 development, it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, specifically land use objectives 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 299 3.2 and land use goal 6.2. Seconded by Lamar Proctor. 300 Motion Passed 7-3 (Poole, Beeman, Gilfillen) 301 302 303 **************************************************** Attachment 7 204 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER APPLICABLE ADOPTED PLANS An applicant-initiated amendment (MA22-0004) to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Owner of Identification Township Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Number (PIN) • R-1 (Rural • MPD-CD (Master Plan Development Residential); — Conditional • Lower Eno Lawrence Protected and District); Lower Eno Road Lower Eno 9883-19-4355 Eno Protected, Lower Partners, Unprotected LLC Watershed Overlay Eno Unprotected Districts, Major Watershed Overlay Transportation Districts, Major Corridor Overlay. Transportation Corridor Overlay. The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO have been deemed complete; and, b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 Statement of Intent - Amendments, and 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans of the UDO and to Section 160D-604(d) Planning Board review and comment — Plan Consistency and 160D-605(a) Governing Board Statement — Plan Consistency 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. c.The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following: • Land Use Goal 3 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan —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. The application features a Recreational Use and two Care & Educational Facility Uses — recreational facilities and two charter schools — in a predominantly residential area of Orange County. The Future Land Use Map identifies the property as within the "20 Year Transition Area", acknowledging more intensive development. The proposed uses will provide public amenities and resources to the surrounding residential community and greater region, which currently does not have ready access to either of the uses. The existing recreation facilities within reasonable proximity of the property will soon be extinguished by the redevelopment of those properties by the Collins Ridge subdivision in Hillsborough. 205 Rather than adding further homes to the property and exacerbating sprawl, the proposed development will create a destination to serve community needs and relieve the recreational needs of the local and regional community. The development standards (e.g. landscaping) ensure conformance and compatibility with the surrounding community character, and NCDOT's evaluation has ensured that the required transportation improvements will be "efficient and balanced". The requested zoning district, MPD-CD (Master Plan Development - Conditional District), is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F, Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts • Land Use Goal 5.6 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan - 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. The site of the proposed development will allow for recreational and educational uses in an area that currently does not have ready access to these amenities and facilities. The proposed uses will create an active recreation and educational destination for residents in the local and regional areas rather than residential development currently allowed by-right that would exacerbate sprawl. Its location in the 20 Year Transition Area highlights that this area was anticipated to be developed by 2028 and the proposed development will introduce a non-residential amenity use to serve residents' needs rather than further residential development, and do so with standards to ensure conformance and compatibility with the surrounding area. • Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. The Orange County staff has noticed the public regarding this application, as required by Sections 2.8.7, 2.9.1(D), and 2.9.2 of the UDO, and including a required Neighborhood Information Meeting, mailings to neighboring property owners, posting of the property, and advertisement in the local newspapers. Additionally, staff have provided all application documents on the Active Development Projects webpage, responded to public inquiries, posted social media notices on the project, featured it in the weekly newsletter, communicated and made both the BOCC and Planning Board available for public emails concerning the application. • Appendix G, Land Use Classification and Overlay Locational Criteria: 20-Year Transition Areas are land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban, that are suitable for urban-type densities and should be provided with public utilities and services within the second 10-year phase of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed uses will introduce a more intensive land use that will serve public needs and purposes on a currently undeveloped property. Both the recreation facilities and schools will be open to the public, though managed by a non-profit organization and a charter school board(s), respectively. The schools are proposed to be served with Town water and sewer, as regulated by NCGS 115C-521(1). The site will have a private street internal to the property and all improvements to NCDOT roads are subject to NCDOT approval and regulation. NCDOT has prohibited the construction of sidewalks on its public road network due to the lack 206 of an existing nearby or adjacent sidewalk network and the lack of a maintenance entity. • Meets the Future Land Use Classification of "Mixed Residential" Neighborhood, as defined in the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan: Developments [that]... may integrate a variety of supportive commercial, public and semi-public uses and open or public space. Small developments that provide only supportive non-residential land uses in an infill arrangement serving more than 50 dwelling units in a walkable manner may also be considered. The Recreational use will be public, though proposed for management by a non- profit organization that will prioritize use for its members; and the Care & Educational uses will be public charter schools, complying with State laws regarding their operation and student acceptance. The property is current a mixture of agriculture and undeveloped land that will be developed as a "supportive non- residential land use" in this area that is otherwise a built-out residential area. The uses are anticipated to serve hundreds of homes and is as walkable as allowed by the regulatory agencies — a sidewalk will align the private street, as required by Orange County; NCDOT will not allow sidewalk construction along its roads in the unincorporated area on the property perimeters. The amendment is consistent with these goals because the proposed development is consistent with existing/anticipated development within the area and the land use associated with the project is compatible with various 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals detailed above. d. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because 1) It furthers the goals of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and is located in an area designated on the Future Land Use Map as a "20 Year Transition Area" by providing a Recreational Use and two Care & Educational Facility Uses — recreational facilities and two charter schools— in a predominantly residential area of Orange County. Such Areas have been identified as land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban in form and density. The proposed uses will provide public amenities and resources to the surrounding residential community and greater region, which currently does not have ready access to either of the uses. The existing baseball and tennis facilities within reasonable proximity of the property will soon be extinguished by the redevelopment of those properties by the Collins Ridge subdivision in Hillsborough. (reference pages 5-15 and F-1 of the Comprehensive Plan, and page 10-62 of the UDO); and 2) It furthers the goal of the Town of Hillsborough-Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan to "...to determine the consistency of any proposed rezoning request with the Town and County future land use visions," and is consistent with the "Mixed Residential (Neighborhood)" Future Land Use Classification description provided therein. The Recreational use will be public and serve stated needs, particularly with recreational fields in the Town of Hillsborough being extinguished due to an unrelated residential development on those existing recreationally-used properties. The Care & Educational uses will be public charter schools, complying with State laws regarding their operation and student acceptance and serving established State interests in providing public charter schools as an educational option. The property is currently a mixture of agriculture and undeveloped land that will be developed as a 207 "supportive non-residential land use" in this area that is otherwise a built-out residential area. The proposed uses are anticipated to serve hundreds of homes and is as walkable as allowed by the regulatory agencies; NCDOT will not allow sidewalk construction along its roads in the unincorporated area on the property perimeters. The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein. Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Date Attachment 8 208 STATEMENT OF INCONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER APPLICABLE ADOPTED PLANS An applicant-initiated amendment (MA22-0004) to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Owner of Identification Township Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Number (PIN) • R-1 (Rural • MPD-CD (Master Plan Development Residential); — Conditional • Lower Eno Lawrence Protected and District); Lower Eno Road Lower Eno 9883-19-4355 Eno Protected, Lower Partners, Unprotected LLC Watershed Overlay Eno Unprotected Districts, Major Watershed Overlay Transportation Districts, Major Corridor Overlay. Transportation Corridor Overlay. The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO have been deemed complete; and, b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 Statement of Intent - Amendments, and 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans of the UDO and to Section 160D-604(d) Planning Board review and comment — Plan Consistency and 160D-605(a) Governing Board Statement — Plan Consistency of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the amendment is inconsistent with the following Land Use Objectives of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan: 1) 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 property is zoned Rural Residential and upzoning would introduce an intensive non-residential use to a residential area that does not have supporting public infrastructure. 2) 3.2: Coordinate land use patterns to facilitate the expanded use of nonauto modes of travel, the increased occupancy of automobiles, and the development and use of an energy-efficient transportation system. The proposed use will introduce additional vehicles to the surrounding road network that, by the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis, is forecast to decline in service; and, 209 3) 6.2: Maintain a cooperative joint planning process among the County municipalities and those organizations responsible for the provision of water and sewer services to guide the extension of service in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan, and the policies of the municipalities. Though the adopted plans of the Town of Hillsborough identify this area as one for utility service, the Town Commission voted to deny annexation of the property for a similar proposed development, and the mayor has publicly opposed the project. c. The amendment is neither reasonable nor in the public interest based upon the information provided at the public hearing, and because it does not match the residential character of the local neighborhood, and will not meet the walkability needs for a mixed residential development, as described land use description of the Central Orange Coordinated Area joint land use agreement with the Town of Hillsborough. The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this Statement of Inconsistency. Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Date Attachment 9 210 Ordinance#:—ORD-2023-026 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition submitted by Lawrence Road Partners, LLC (hereafter `the Applicant') 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 84.90 acre parcel of property (PIN 9883-19-4355) from R-1 (Rural Residential) to MPD — CD (Master Plan Development - Conditional District) for the purposes of preparatory schools and recreational facilities, hereafter `the Property'; and WHEREAS, The Applicant has voluntarily chosen to establish development and land use limitations on the Project to address potential conflicts with surrounding properties; and WHEREAS, The petition has been submitted with a site plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.1 (C) of the UDO; and WHEREAS, The requirements of Section 2.8, 2.9, 5.8.4, and 6.7 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; and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan and reasonable and in the public interest. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the aforementioned 84.90 acre parcel to MPD — CD (Master Plan Development - Conditional District), as detailed within the submitted application. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT in accordance with Section 2.9.1 (F) of the UDO the approval of this Conditional Zoning application is subject to the following mutually agreed to conditions: A. Application: Project shall be completed as presented in approved site plan/application packet. Applications to rezone property to a Conditional District shall be processed in accordance with the procedures in UDO Section 2.9 and 6.7; B. To construct left turn lanes with 150' of full storage at both site driveways (US 70A and Lawrence Road); C. To construct southbound and northbound left-turn lanes on Lawrence Road at the intersection of Lawrence Road and US 70. This offer to construct would be accompanied by the posting of a performance bond with NCDOT to guarantee the construction of the aforementioned turn lanes. Should such construction not be acceptable due to lack of available right-of-way or disapproval by any necessary regulatory authority, the applicant offers to instead pay $400,000 to Orange County. Either one of these commitments is offered to be realized prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the charter school; D. Installation of a Type C buffer along Lawrence Road prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance for the school; 1 211 E. Lighting for the tennis courts shall be the minimum necessary to meet UDO requirements; F. The property owner shall conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) five (5) years after the opening of the school and submit the TIA to Orange County Planning and Inspections Department; G. All handicapped parking spaces shall be installed with striped hashmarks to provide additional separation between vehicles; H. Subject to approval by the NCDOT, the property owner shall install a concrete median along with additional striping on Lawrence Road at the intersection with Old NC 10 Highway prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance for the school; I. Subject to approval by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the property owner shall install school zone/35 m.p.h. speed limit signage on Lawrence Road and US 70A in the vicinity of the school; J. Subject to approval by the Town of Hillsborough and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, in the event water service is provided to the school, the property owner shall install fire hydrants at required intervals along US 70A prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance for the school; K. There will be no cafeteria facilities if the site is served by an on-site septic system; and L. For a minimum of six months after approval of this zoning atlas amendment, the applicant shall not submit any site plan application for approximately 12 acres designated for a school use within PIN 9883-19-4355, and during those six months the applicant shall grant the Orange County School District an exclusive right to negotiate the purchase or lease of approximately 12 acres for use as a K-8 school. 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 , 2023. I, Laura Jensen, 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 , 2023 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 , 2023. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners