HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-3-24 PB Agenda PacketORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
WHITTED MEETING FACILITY
300 WEST TRYON STREET, SECOND FLOOR
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, January 3, 2024
Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.
4 ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2024
a. Term Expiration Dates and Reappointment Eligibility, by
Member
3.
5 - 6
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Planning Calendar for January and February
4.
7 - 10
11
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 6, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2023 Training Session Notes
5. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
6. PUBLIC CHARGE
Introduction to the Public Charge
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and
future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
Public Charge
The Planning Board pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this
meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, County
staff, and Board members. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to
observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it
become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the
meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
1
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
The Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and
computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate.
Please be kind to everyone.
7. CHAIR COMMENTS
8.12 -ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (CONDITIONAL DISTRICT) - To review and
make a recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant-initiated zoning
atlas amendment to rezone a 10.01 +/- acres parcel from RB (Rural
Buffer) to ASE-CD (Agricultural Support Enterprises Conditional
District).
The parcel’s address is 6915-UT Millhouse Road, Chapel Hill, within the
Chapel Hill Township (PIN 9871-50-3254). This item is scheduled for
BOCC public hearing on March 7, 2024.
Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Planner III
9. ADJOURNMENT
Written Comments
Interested persons who cannot attend the meeting in-person are invited to submit written
comments on agenda items to the Planning Board via email at
planningboard@orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting.
Please include in the Subject line of the email the title of the agenda item your comment pertains
to. Emails sent to this address are viewable on Google Groups:
https://groups.google.com/g/ocplanningboard
Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department’s offices at 131 W.
Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday). Written comments will be scanned and sent by staff to the email address
indicated above.
Review Process
The Planning Board is an appointed volunteer advisory board which makes recommendations to
the Board of County Commissioners (the elected officials). The Board of County Commissioners
holds a formal public hearing and makes decisions. Section 2.8 of the County’s Unified
Development Ordinance contains a flowchart depicting the review process for rezoning and text
amendment applications.
Sign up to receive a notification when Planning Board agendas are posted
Interested persons can sign up at https://www.orangecountync.gov/list.aspx to receive a
notification when agendas are posted. (Scroll down to the “Agenda Center” category and choose
Planning Board).
Monthly Planning & Inspections Newsletter
Sign up at https://www.orangecountync.gov/list.aspx?ListID=408 to receive the monthly
communication on happenings in the Planning & Inspections Department.
2
156
Planning Board Member Potential Conflict of Interest
It is the duty of every Board member to avoid both conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict.
Board members having any conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict with respect to matters
before the Board should identify the conflict or appearance of conflict and refrain from undue
participation in the matter involved.
As a reminder, NC General Statute § 160D-109 establishes the following standard: Members of
appointed boards shall not vote on any advisory or legislative decision regarding a development
regulation where the outcome of the matter being considered is reasonably likely to have a direct,
substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on the member. An appointed board member
shall not vote on any zoning amendment if the landowner of the property subject to a rezoning
petition or the applicant for a text amendment is a person with whom the member has a close
familial, business, or other associational relationship.
If any Planning Board member has any concern about a possible conflict related to an agenda
item, please notify Planning staff and get in touch directly with a member of the County Attorney’s
staff before the meeting time to determine whether a conflict exists – and if so, how best to handle
the potential conflict.
3
Orange County Planning Board
Membership and Term Information
Name Term End Date
(March 31)
Eligible for
Reappointment?
Date First
Appointed
Steven Kaufmann 2024 Y 5/24/22
Lamar Proctor 2024 Y 4/1/21
Melissa Poole 2024 Y 4/16/19
Charity Kirk 2024 Y 2/16/21
Adam Beeman 2025 N 12/12/17
Whitney Watson 2025 Y 2/16/21
Statler Gilfillen 2025 Y 5/18/21
Beth Bronson 2025 Y 4/5/22
Delores Bailey 2026 Y 2/17/22
Liz Kalies 2026 Y 3/21/23
Chris Johnston 2026 Y 3/21/23
Marilyn Carter 2026 Y 6/20/23
4
January 2024
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6
HOLIDAY
Planning Board
Meeting
7:00 pm*
Whitted Bldg.
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Board of
Adjustment
7:00 pm
Whitted Bldg.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
HOLIDAY
BOCC
Business
Meeting
7:00 pm
Whitted Bldg.
BOCC Retreat
9:00 am –
4:00 pm
Southern
Human
Services Ctr.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Assembly of
Governments
7:00 pm
Whitted Bldg.
28 29 30 31
Notes:
* Planning Board Member Attendance Required
Planning Board meetings are held in room 230 on
the second floor of the Whitted Building located at
300 W. Tryon St., Hillsborough, NC 27278
5
February 2024
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3
Notes:
* Planning Board Member Attendance Required
Planning Board meetings are held in room 230 on the second floor of
the Whitted Building located at 300 W. Tryon St., Hillsborough, NC
27278
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
BOCC
Business
Meeting
7:00 pm
Whitted Bldg.
Planning Board
Meeting
7:00 pm*
Whitted Bldg.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Board of
Adjustment
(Tentative)
7:00 pm
Whitted Bldg.
BOCC Work
Session
7:00 pm
Southern
Human Serv
Ctr
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
BOCC
Business
Meeting
7:00 pm
Southern
Human Serv
Ctr
25 26 27 28 29
6
MEETING MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2
DECEMBER 7, 2023 3
REGULAR MEETING 4
5
MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor 6
(Vice-Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; 7
Marilyn Carter, At-Large Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Beth Bronson, 8
At-Large Representative; Chris Johnston, Hillsborough Township Representative; Charity Kirk, At-Large 9
Representative; Whitney Watson, At-Large Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township 10
Representative; Delores Bailey, At-Large Representative (arrived at 7:35 PM). 11
12
MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative. 13
14
STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director – Long Range 15
Planning & Administration; Lauren Coffey, Planning Technician. 16
17 OTHERS PRESENT: None. 18
19
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 20
The meeting began at 7:00 PM. 21
22
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 23
November 11, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes. 24
25 MOTION BY Beth Bronson to approve the Meeting Minutes with amendment to line 264 to specify “that our 26
listening events need to take place within those communities whose members we don't always hear from.” 27
Seconded by Melissa Poole. 28
29
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 30
31
PUBLIC CHARGE: Not read. 32
33 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 34
Perdita Holtz discussed the Planning Calendar for December and January. Ms. Holtz informed the Board of 35
future Orange County Land Use Plan meetings and the current engagement opportunities. The February 36
Planning Board meeting will include an update by the consultant. 37
38
AGENDA ITEM 3: PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 39
40
Cy Stober provided an overview of the work the Planning Board has done in 2023, including four different 41
zoning cases and revision to the rules of procedure. 42
43
Mr. Stober updated the Board that with changes to State law, there will be Ordinance revisions to be reviewed 44
by the Board in the coming months. 45
46
7
Mr. Stober emphasized that the Orange County Comprehensive Plan will guide future objectives of the 47
Board. 48
49
The Board was provided with an overview of updates to previous Board objectives. 50
51
Board members discussed the Lumos Project as it relates to current rollout of infrastructure and areas of 52
coverage. Melissa Poole discussed lowering the rank of the objective of wireless and broadband expansion, 53
since the project is moving along successfully. Ms. Holtz clarified that the work plan objectives were not 54
ranked. 55
56
Chair Beeman brought up Objective 4, asking what the innovative water and sewage disposal method would 57
be moving forward. Mr. Stober explained there have been conceptual ideas of decentralized wastewater 58
systems, though they pose challenges. Beth Bronson noted that it should be a focus of the County to see 59
how to go about the process and to monitor case studies. 60
61
Marilyn Carter: There's an item about describing the collaboration relationships with other advisory 62
boards and commissions and knowing that the Climate Action Plan was just approved, and I'm thinking “plan” 63
here refers to some potential collaboration areas or issues where there would be collaboration. Are we at the 64
moment now when we would have a sense of what those boards might be that we would be collaborating with 65
on the Land Use Plan in 2024? 66
67
Cy Stober: No, not at a staff level. I mean so the problem is that we feel disconnected from that 68
because we have a staff working group so we're working with 12 other department heads on the 69
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. What their board, the questions their boards are asking them about that, I 70
don't know. I do know there has been some general interest from the Ag Preservation Board, so that's why 71
the Comp Plan is going to be the plenary session at the Ag Summit in February. So, that will be the 72
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Clarion will be presenting at that Summit. Otherwise, I'm not aware at this 73
time. That's a good question just to ask the other departments as a homework item. If there are boards that 74
need to be briefed on this or brought into the mix, who those are and when. 75
76
Marilyn Carter: Thank you and just a quick follow up. The Climate Action Plan comes to mind and all of 77
the resiliency. It seems like it would be a logical area but there's likely other areas. Because the Climate 78
Action Plan is so robust. There's so much in it that that might be an area where we might have boards or 79
advisory boards that we would work with. And it looks like we're going be hearing from them pretty soon, I 80
imagine. 81
82
Cy Stober: We can. There is no board that is designated to manage the Climate Action Plan. The 83
Commission for the Environment, I think, reviewed it, but Amy Eckberg is the coordinator. She has one 84
part-time staff member and that is the climate action staff for the County at this time. She also works closely 85
with the manager. She’s working in partnership with the executive office of the County. So, it is a 86
commissioner priority and we’d be happy to have a briefing or a presentation on the Climate Action Plan, if 87
that's of interest. 88
89
The Board discussed transportation projects in the County, including the Hillsborough train station, which 90
staff were not able to comment on, and the South Churton Street widening, which NCDOT is currently 91
receiving public input for. 92
93
8
Statler Gilfillen requested clarification on how the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County interact with each 94
other on planning-related matters. Beth Bronson asked about the connection between Orange County as a 95
landowner within the Hillsborough town limits. Mr. Stober clarified that the County as a landowner would not 96
be involved with the planning of the Town of Hillsborough. 97
98
Cy Stober: We do have in our local agreement with the Town of Hillsborough, the Central Orange 99
Coordinated Area, this came up during the Lawrence Road conditional zoning case about whether that 100
application was consistent with the COCA, as it's called and the interlocal agreement. But beyond that, we 101
very respectfully stay out of Hillsborough's way unless it's within one of those joint coordinated areas. We 102
certainly talk to them. We've got good communication with them. We are joint partners on Lake Orange and 103
which does, they're a downstream water user of the headwaters that drain from Lake Orange and we 104
coordinate on erosion control because we do all the inspections for the Town of Hillsborough, including fire 105
inspections, and we perform all the erosion control regulation as well. We’re very well acquainted with their 106
planning staff in a regulatory capacity, but it's very much functional or administrative. 107
108
Charity Kirk: I think is all fine, but you mention the UDO and for several years now, every once in a 109
while, there's a desire among board members to review notifications for the various projects going on. So, I 110
would make a request that sometime this year we kind of have a meeting where we review notification 111
ordinances and we consider the distances that we want, because that's come up multiple times. I request 112
staff come with a summary of what it is and then we can have a board discussion and maybe give some input 113
as we do. 114
115
Cy Stober: Part of that problem is that DOT controls a lot of that stuff. So, we're stuck dealing with 116
their rules and regulations for signs alongside the street. That's something that we've come up against a 117
couple of times and we've discussed signs, sizes, and all that other stuff. Not to say we can't discuss it. I'm 118
just saying that's one of the challenges and the DOT does not answer to us, so we have to take what they say. 119
So just bear that in mind, that you might not get the answer you're looking for. 120
121
Charity Kirk: I'm not interested in an answer per se. I'm just interested in having a discussion since it's 122
come up with mailing with a certain amount of radius and time ahead of mailings. Just kind of having a review 123
since it has come up multiple times in the past and also part of it would be summarizing what is allowable by 124
the DOT providing that if staff could provide that to us. 125
126
Cy Stober: Happy to provide a summary report. Just a reminder that should you all wish to initiate 127
an amendment, that does have to be approved by the Commissioners before staff can take any action to do 128
further research. 129
130
Adam Beeman asked if there are any changes coming from the State. Mr. Stober explained that the session 131
is over, but there were some significant changes to the Building Code and the Environmental Health Code, 132
with minimal changes in terms of zoning. 133
134
The Board discussed Item 3, relating to stormwater and water quality, and the proposed amendment to the 135
Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA). Beth Bronson asked for 136
information on local water providers. Ms. Bronson and Mr. Stober discussed OWASA’s involvement in utility 137
provision. Perdita Holtz clarified that the term “long-term interest area” in WASMPBA does not mean there 138
are plans to extend service there, but rather it refers to the first responder in a public health emergency. 139
140
9
Mr. Stober updated the Board that a rezoning to an Agricultural Support Enterprise – Conditional District for 141
an arborist and tree processing in the Rural Buffer will likely be coming in January and materials can be found 142
on the Active Development Page of the Orange County Planning and Inspections website. 143
144
MOTION BY Melissa Poole to approve the Work Plan to be presented back to the Board of County 145
Commissioners with no comments. Seconded by Charity Kirk. 146
147
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 148
149 MOTION BY Melissa Poole to adjourn meeting. Seconded by Beth Bronson. 150
151
The meeting adjourned at 7:58 PM. 152
10
SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2
DECEMBER 6, 2023 3
TRAINING SESSION 4
5
NOTE: A quorum is not required for Planning Board Training Sessions. 6
7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Marilyn Carter, At-Large; Chris Johnston, Hillsborough Township; Statler Gilfillen, Eno 8
Township 9
10 STAFF PRESENT: Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director – Long-Range Planning & Administration; Cy Stober, Planning & 11
Inspections Director; Lauren Coffey, Planning Technician 12
13
14
AGENDA ITEM 1: PLANNING BOARD TRAINING SESSION – Staff will lead training designed for recently appointed 15
Planning Board members on basic aspects of land use regulation in Orange County. 16
17
PRESENTER: Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director – Long-Range Planning & Administration 18
19
Perdita Holtz conducted a training session on communication topics and basic site planning. 20
11
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 3, 2024
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment – 6915-UT Millhouse Road, Chapel
Hill in Chapel Hill Township
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Application, including Site Plan and
Supplemental Materials
2. Staff Report
3. Notification Materials and Certification
4. Neighborhood Information Meeting
Report Form
5. Development Advisory Committee and
Courtesy Review Comments
6. Statement of Consistency and
7. Statement of Inconsistency
8. Draft Ordinance, Including Proposed
Conditions
9. Class B Special Use Permit for Existing
Telecommunication Tower
Ashley Moncado, Planner III 919-245-2589
Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and
Zoning Supervisor, 919-245-2597
Cy Stober, Planning Director, 919-245-2592
PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) on an applicant-initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone a 10.01 +/- acres (PIN:
9871-50-3254) located at 6915-UT Millhouse Road, Chapel Hill, within the Chapel Hill Township
of Orange County. The proposed rezoning is:
FROM: RB (Rural Buffer)
TO: ASE-CD (Agricultural Support Enterprises Conditional District)
BACKGROUND: A Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment application (Attachment 1) was
received proposing to rezone approximately 10.01 acres of property at 6915-UT Millhouse
Road, Chapel Hill, in Chapel Hill Township. The Staff Report in Attachment 2 contains
additional information, maps, and analysis, including in regard to the application’s consistency
with County-adopted plans. Approval of a site-specific plan is part of the conditional district
rezoning process, and the site plan and any agreed-upon conditions are binding to the
development permitted for the zoning district.
Basic Review Process: A conditional district rezoning application requires submission of a site
plan and other documents, in accordance with Section 2.9.1(C) of the UDO. Sections 2.8 and
2.9 of the Orange County UDO require the following review:
• FIRST ACTION – Application is sent for courtesy review.
12
STAFF COMMENT: This property is located within the Joint Courtesy Review
Area as defined by the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Land
Use Plan. UDO Section 2.8.4 requires that applications of zoning amendments
for properties located within the Joint Courtesy Review Area be processed in
accordance with the specified joint courtesy review procedures. County staff
provided application materials to Town of Carrboro and Town of Chapel Hill
planning staff on September 15, 2023 and review comments received from this
courtesy review are available in Attachment 5.
UDO Section 2.8.5 requires that applications for agricultural support enterprises
located within the Rural Buffer be forwarded to the County’s Agricultural
Preservation Board (APB). The APB reviewed the application at its September
20, 2023 meeting and review comments are available in Attachment 5.
• SECOND ACTION – Applicant holds a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM).
STAFF COMMENT: The NIM was held on November 17, 2023 at 4:00 p.m. at
the Orange County Public Library.
• THIRD ACTION – The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting
and makes a recommendation to the BOCC.
STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Board will review this application at its regular
meeting on January 3, 2024.
• FOURTH 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 anticipated to be held on March 7,
2024.
Per Section 2.9.1 (F) (3) of the UDO, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part
of this process if they address:
a. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property,
b. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways, and access points, screening and buffer areas,
the timing of development, etc.), and/or
c. All other matters the County may find reasonable and appropriate or the petitioner may
propose.
A formal site plan is required as part of a conditional rezoning application and has been
submitted (Attachment 1). The applicant is proposing an agricultural services use to locate a
tree care and consulting company on this site. This use would include two office buildings, a
residential building for a property caretaker, and service equipment staging area.
The application and site plan were presented to the Agricultural Preservation Board, as required
by Sections 2.5.4(C)(1) and 2.8.5(B) of the UDO, but no substantive comments were provided
(Attachment 5). Orange County Development Advisory Committee staff has recommended the
imposition of conditions, as included in the Ordinance in Attachment 8.
Per Section 2.9.1 (F) (3) of the UDO, the following conditions are being proposed:
1. Project shall be completed as presented in approved site plan/application packet.
2. Allow for a reduction of the 100’ setback from the southern property line for outdoor
storage of wood chips, stumps and logs, branches and similar wood by-products resulting
13
from tree cutting operations. Outdoor storage shall not be less than 40 feet from the
southern property line.
3. Allow for Planning Director to review and approve minor changes to the approved plan,
per Section 2.9.1(I) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, specific to the
location and arrangement of development within the limits of disturbance and the
proposed “activity area”. The “activity area” shall be defined as the edge of gravel as
shown on the provided conditional zoning plan set.
4. Allow for Planning Director to review and approve minor changes to the approved plan,
per Section 2.9.1(I) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, specific to
outdoor pole lights. Pole lights shall not exceed 14 feet and shall not be located outside
the proposed “activity area” The “activity area” shall be defined as the edge of gravel as
shown on the provided conditional zoning plan set.
5. Shall maintain a viable option for alternative site access near the southeast corner of the
site in the approximate location shown on the proposed conditional zoning plans. The
need for such alternate access may arise if, at some future date, Orange County
determines that moving the current access easement is necessary for the recreational-
use needs of the adjacent County owned parcels.
A Class B Special Use Permit was approved by the Orange County Board of Adjustment in
1994 for the existing 180 ft. telecommunication tower and 312 sq. ft. equipment building. The
presence of a SUP on the property does not prohibit the use of the property for other purposes,
provided both uses are addressed in the conditional zoning application. The approved SUP is
contained in Attachment 9.
A Grant of Easement and Assignment of Lease for the existing access easement was recorded
in 2008 between the property owner at that time and Crown Castle, the tower owner, that grants
Crown Castle privileged rights, including first right of refusal, for the sale and use of that private
access easement. Crown Castle has not commented upon this zoning application. Attachment 5
includes a letter detailing the applicant’s legal right to the access easement, which cannot be
confirmed by staff at this time. The Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture,
Parks & Recreation (DEAPR) requested a condition of a new future access road construction
through the Orange County-owned property from the applicant and the applicant has not agreed
to the request. Both the County request and the applicant’s response are contained in
Attachment 5.
Public Notification: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices of the Planning Board
meeting were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject parcel.
These notices were mailed on December 14, 2023, 20 days before the meeting. Staff also
posted the subject parcel with a sign on December 14, 2023, 20 days before the meeting. See
Attachment 3 for the notification materials.
14
Planning Director’s Recommendation:
The Planning Director recommends that the Planning Board:
1) Consider the matter for action;
2) Acknowledge that legally-sufficient public notice was given for the application and this
meeting, in accordance with State and Orange County laws;
3) Review the staff report (Attachment 2), featuring analyses of compliance with the
UDO, impact to the surrounding area, safety and efficiency of land use, and
consistency with the county’s adopted plans;
4) Allow for the applicant’s request by presentation of materials;
5) Allow for public comments; and
6) Prepare for the BOCC both
a. a Statement describing whether the application is Consistent (Attachment 6)
or Inconsistent (Attachment 7) with all applicable plans, including the adopted
2030 Comprehensive Plan; and
b. a recommendation on the application for the proposed zoning atlas
amendment ordinance (Attachment 8).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who
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 the
public hearing notice and mailings, are covered by the application fee.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Receive the rezoning application,
2. Deliberate on the proposal as desired,
3. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation, and
4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on either the Statement of Consistency
(Attachment 6) or Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment 7) and the proposed ordinance
(Attachment 8) in time for the March 7, 2024 BOCC meeting.
15
Page 1 of 2
Orange County Planning & Inspections Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-245-2575 or planningapps@orangecountync.gov
Zoning Atlas Amendment – Rezoning Application
Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information and submittal
requirements are contained in Sections 2.8 and 2.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink.
Date: ____________________ Rezoning Request: Conventional District Conditional District
Contact Information
Property Owner(s):
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
Applicant (if different than property owner):
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
Property Information
Parcel ID Number (PIN): Total Acreage:
Address:
Future Land Use Map Classification:
Current Zoning Designation:
Requested Zoning Designation:
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.
Other Submittal Requirements
Conventional District Rezoning Application
Based on Section 2.8.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO):
A map, at a legible scale, showing the property(s) subject to the request. A map may be
procured at the Planning Department for a fee in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee
Schedule.
A legal description of the property(s) proposed for rezoning.
A list showing the names and addresses of all adjacent property owners within 1000-feet of the
subject property.
A detailed narrative denoting the following:
i. The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas (if any) that will be corrected by the proposed request.
16
Page 2 of 2
ii. The changed, or changing, conditions (if any) that makes the proposed amendment
reasonable necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
iii. How the proposed amendment is consistent with, or carries out the intent and purpose of
the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan, or part thereof.
The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule.
Conditional District Rezoning Application
Based on Section 2.9.2 (C) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO):
A site plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.5 of the UDO. Applications
for a Master Plan Development (MPD) Conditional District (CD) shall adhere to the site plan
preparation requirements outlined in Section 6.7 of the UDO.
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.
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. The utility service
plan for applications for a Home Park (HP) CD shall specify if the proposed services are temporary
or permanent connections.
A detailed traffic survey, regardless of estimated daily trips, prepared in accordance with North
Carolina Department of Transportation requirements and Section 6.17 of the UDO.
The appropriate environmental document(s) prepared in accordance with Section 6.16 of the
UDO.
A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal.
Other information identified during the pre-application conference deemed essential to
demonstrate the project’s compliance with these regulations.
The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule.
Certification and Signatures
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.
___________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Owner Signature(s) Applicant Signature (if different from owner)
___________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Date Date
17
Detailed Narrative
How the proposed amendment is consistent with, or carries out the intent and
purpose of the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan , or part thereof
Well over half of Orange County’s population is clustered within the Towns of Chapel Hill and
Carrboro.1 It is within these towns where we find the County’s most significant tree-related
challenges and needs. These include
●the increasingly disruptive noise pollution created by industrial tree processing
equipment,
●the countless tons of wasted natural resources from tree maintenance and tree removal
services,
●the rising costs of tree ownership compromising the goals of flourishing and equitable
canopy coverage,
●the challenge of attracting, training, and providing local jobs to highly skilled arborists,
●the need to increase tree and tree-care literacy among local property owners, and
●the challenge of providing responsive emergency tree services to south Orange County
population centers.
We, at the Treeist, are uniquely positioned to help meet these needs, but we have outgrown
our current headquarters at the outskirts of Carrboro. We have therefore purchased an ideally
located 10-acre parcel off Millhouse Road, bordering the county landfill. Although located
within the Rural Buffer, the requisite rezoning of this parcel is congruent with the neighboring
parcels and with the County’s development directives. Observing how the Treeist’s track record
and future aspirations align with the County’s own mandated goals and objectives, we argue
that fidelity to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan favors our rezoning needs.
1. Noise Pollution
The Orange County Comprehensive Plan aims to preserve and promote the tranquility of our
neighborhoods by restricting operations that create noise and dust, such as the wood
processing operations of sawmills and mulch grinders. While well-intentioned, these inflexible
zoning restrictions actually have the effect of bringing the noise of wood processing directly into
our neighborhoods.
1 Comprehensive Plan, p. 5-21: The “population is not evenly distributed throughout the County. Density is
focused in the southern section of the County with fifty-seven percent of the population residing within the
Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.”
1
18
The intent of zoning restrictions on wood processing operations is to ensure that tree workers
haul away woody waste to distant, zoning-compliant locations for the noisy work of sawing,
chipping, and grinding, but what actually happens is the opposite. With zoning-compliant
locations for processing trees so far away, tree services find it more expedient to haul large tree
processing machinery into the residential neighborhoods processing the wood and debris
onsite. Today’s standard practice is for tree crews to bring in high-capacity chippers (typically a
10,000 pound machine capable of chipping entire trees and logs over a foot and a half in
diameter) and parking them on residential streets or in the homeowner’s driveway. Whole trees
are processed within steps of the living rooms and home offices of unprepared neighbors. While
electric versions of vehicles, leaf blowers, lawn mowers, trimmers and chainsaws are making all
other forms of yard work quieter, there will never be a quiet way to turn trees into wood chips.
Wood chippers have in fact become significantly louder in the last decade as emissions
standards favor higher-pitched gas-powered chippers over their diesel counterparts.
In short, rigid zoning ordinances bring the noise and disruption of tree processing into the
communities the same ordinances seek to protect, and the standard practices of residential tree
work are thereby increasingly at odds with the reasonable expectations of the neighborhoods
serviced.
2. Natural Resource Waste
Processing trees within residential neighborhoods is not just loud, it is also highly wasteful of
natural resources. With log yards and sawmills so far away from the communities in which the
tree work is done, it is rarely feasible for tree services to haul the logs to these destinations. The
logs are instead run through high capacity wood chippers or cut into short lengths worthless to
a mill and are, as a result, discarded. Without a local site where logs and woody material can be
collected and staged for their highest use (as lumber, veneer, biofuel, and pulpwood, e.g.)
nearly everything ends up as waste material or, at best, as firewood or coarse wood-chip mulch.
The negative environmental impact of such practices deserves attention. An average chip truck
holds 10,000 pounds of wood chips. One tree crew will fill that truck daily. Our company
currently sends out four crews every weekday, and we will likely need to double or triple that
number to keep up with the local demand for tree maintenance needs. Whether spread out in
the landscape or left in a pile, wood-chip mulch decomposes rapidly, with most of their stored
carbon released back into the atmosphere. Since wood chips are by weight approximately 40%
water, and what remains is 50% by weight carbon,
2 a truckload of wood chips contains 3,000
2 https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Forest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf
2
19
pounds of carbon. Decomposed and converted back into carbon dioxide, this becomes 11,000
pounds of C02.3 This is the greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to burning 5,589 pounds of
coal, 561 gallons of gasoline, or 229 cylinders of those propane cylinders used for backyard
barbecues.4 Every day, therefore, tree services like ours facilitate the rapid and wasteful release
of many tons of greenhouse gasses due to their inability to repurpose logs and woody material
as biofuel or wood products. Running four crews, I imagine our company as wastefully burning
off two thousand gallons of gasoline daily simply because we are stuck with the status quo.
While we also seek to have a positive environmental impact through tree planting and
arboriculture education, nothing matches our opportunity to effectively reduce wood wastage.
Again, using the EPA’s greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator, we would have to grow over
eighty tree seedlings for ten years to sequester the carbon equivalent of just one truckload of
wood chips.
The present situation of tree logs is also alarmingly wasteful. This has recently come to
attention in North Carolina House Bill 295. This bill, which offers assistance to NC sawmills, is
supported by the NC House of Representatives and the NC Senate Agriculture Committee.
Randall Williams, a coauthor of this bill and sawmill operator in Orange County,explains:
Like most states, North Carolina’s lumber market is international, not local. Most of the
lumber that people get at big box stores is shipped across the continent from clearcuts
in the Pacific Northwest and Canada. Sometimes it comes from as far away as Romania,
Sweden, and Germany. Meanwhile, local logs often get dumped in the landfill. Why?
Most big lumber companies have contracts with international log suppliers; they rarely
source from local loggers, landowners, farmers, and arborists. For those N.C.
wood-based businesses, the prices they get for their logs is so low that they rarely make
a profit hauling them. Sometimes, local log haulers get as little as $25/ton for their
loads. As the Wall Street Journal has pointed out, most small landowners and loggers are
getting 1990s prices for timber.
Due to the low price per ton mentioned above, North Carolina has lost almost half of its
sawmills since 2001.
5 This dearth of available processing facilities, along with the low price for
logs, decreases the feasibility of getting logs harvested from residential trees to suitable
sawmills. The result is that trees harvest by local tree services almost always end up in the
waste stream, to the disadvantage of the environment, the waste reduction goals of Orange
5 The North Carolina Sawmill Industry: A Closer Look. NC State Extension Publications
4 https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
3 Since C02 is only 27% by weight carbon, multiplying the pounds of carbon by 3.7 yields the amount of
C02 produced. As wood chips decompose most of the carbon is released as C02 (exposed to air and
moisture, precious little carbon remains stable as humus).
3
20
County, the small local sawmill operators, the local woodworkers and builders, and even to the
homeowners who would like the wood from their trees to go to a better use.
The Millhouse Road parcel addresses these problems of waste and noise pollution. The 10-acre
plot is centrally located for ease of servicing tree care operations in southern Orange County,
but also ideally situated such that disturbances to neighbors would be minimal to nonexistent.
The parcel borders the County landfill to its south and is surrounded on all sides by
County-owned land and Duke Forest. The nearest residential structure is about a quarter of a
mile away.
This location would serve as our company headquarters where we would stage the woody
materials brought back in mixed loads by our local tree crews. This location would alleviate
pressure to tow large tree-processing machinery into residential neighborhoods. By having this
staging area we foresee being able to replace high capacity towable wood chippers with grapple
trucks that can load and haul away logs and brushy material without the need for on-site
processing. Such grapple trucks would be similar to those already in use by many municipalities
for local curbside debris pick up, except that they would be built and rated for log pickup. From
the 10-acre parcel the staged and organized material could then be efficiently transported to log
mills, green-waste processing centers, and biofuel plants.
These grapple trucks and the location for log staging would also enable us to collaborate with
other local tree services for similarly managing their wood waste. We would offer to local tree
services the option of hiring us to haul away their logs from residential locations, thereby
multiplying our impact on noise pollution and natural resource waste.
In helping to resolve the noise pollution problem, we would be helping Orange County achieve
the following Goals and Objectives of its 2030 Comprehensive Plan:
●ED Goal 4: Partnerships that ensure the County remains a great place in which to live
and work.
●Objective H-3.1: Achieve residential neighborhoods that are attractive and well
maintained.
●Goal LU-1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth,consistent with
the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life. (italics added)
In enabling us to direct locally produced wood chips to energy production and logs to lumber
we would be helping the county with one of the “key issues” identified in its 2030 plan, namely
4
21
“Promoting the sustainable use of the County’s natural resources” (Comprehensive Plan, p.
5-11). In particular, we would be facilitating the following Goals and Objectives.
●Objective ED-1.1: Focus public education efforts on sustainability issues, looking at the
social, economic and environmental contributions of local businesses.
●LU Goal 1:Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with
the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life. (italics added)
●LU Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and
features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community
character. (italics added)
●Objective AE-2: Adopt a carbon reduction plan to reduce County greenhouse gas
emissions by a target to be determined by the ongoing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study
by the year 2020.
●Objective AE-13: Develop an inventory of funding opportunities, programs, credits, etc.,
that can be used to improve energy efficiency and to generate sustainable power.
Identify ways for the County to facilitate the use of these options by County businesses,
institutions, and residents.
●Objective AE-15: Foster participation in green energy programs…
●Objective AE-16: Develop the use of alternative fuels and waste-derived fuels that will
convert landfill, water treatment, agricultural, and wood wastes into heat and electricity.
●Objective AG-8: Encourage the use and production of natural fuel alternatives to
petroleum-based products and pursue new types energy sources. (sic)
●Objective T-1.2: Facilitate the overall development and use of a transportation system
that is more energy-efficient, reduces carbon emissions, and reduces the use of fossil
fuels while promoting the use of local renewable and sustainable fuels.
●Objective SW-2: Encourage the recycling of solid waste….
In redirecting the woody waste away from local solid waste services, we would be helping the
County achieve its waste reduction targets. In measuring its waste reduction goals the County
specifically includes “all tons managed by Orange County, including waste deposited into
landfills, recyclables collected that year,mulched brush,and other operations, such as appliance
recycling, that recycle or dispose of materials in ways other than placing in a landfill”
(Comprehensive Plan, p. 8-25). In terms of the Comprehensive Plan:
●Services and Community Facilities Goal 6: Less solid waste per capita with cost effective
and environmentally responsible disposal and management.
●Objective SW-1: Continue to affirm, support, and work towards achieving a 61% waste
reduction goal adopted by the County in 1997.
5
22
In allowing us space to sort and stage saw logs from locally removed trees, the County would
also be enabling us to work with and support local sawmills. These sawmills, and the wood
salvaged from the trees that we selectively remove locally, are a part of our local agriculture.
They are aptly described by this observation in the County’s Comprehensive Plan:
Another key trend has been a set of changes in the agricultural industry: first with the
emergence of agri-business making it increasingly difficult for local farms to compete in
national markets; and second, a growing interest in Orange County in consuming locally
grown products that can offer strategic opportunities for local agriculture. p. 3-16
We would be helping the County achieve the following.
●Objective ED 4.4: Enhance rural and agricultural community character by supporting
local agriculture markets, supporting complementary conservation and management
tools, and considering tools to make farming more profitable.
●Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 2: Economic viability of agriculture, forestry, and
horticulture and their respective lands.
●Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 3: Infrastructure and support systems for local and
regional agriculture.
●Objective AG-2: Pursue new measures (some of which may require special legislation) to
make farming more profitable, such as additional programs for tax assistance.
●Objective AG-3: Develop programs and associated infrastructure facilities to make local
farms more economically viable, including local farm product processing, development
of a distribution center, and marketing initiatives.
3. Lowering Costs of Tree Ownership
“Tree equity” refers to the idea that lower-income neighborhoods should receive the same
benefits of trees and canopy coverage as their higher-income counterparts. The rule, however,
is often tree inequity.
6 Since the cost of caring for and accommodating mature, large trees is
often prohibitive for lower-income neighborhoods, canopy coverage becomes an impractical
luxury. Dead limbs appear even in healthy trees, creating hazards over houses, patios, and cars.
Mitigating even these routine tree hazards often requires the costly services of a specialist. Tree
costs become exceedingly high and unpredictable if a large tree should suddenly die or begin to
fail. Thus, several researchers have concluded that “[d]ue to the costs incurred it would not be
6 New York Times, 2021.“Since When Have Trees Existed Only for Rich Americans?”; Scientific
American, 2021.“Trees Are Missing in Low-Income Neighborhoods”; Pew Charitable Trusts, 2021.
“Trees: The Critical Infrastructure Low-Income Neighbors Lack”; Nature Conservancy, 2021.“Mapping
Tree Inequality: Why Many People Don’t Benefit from Tree Cover”.
6
23
affordable for low-income households to plant and maintain trees in their backyards.”
7 The
reality is that “[t]rees grow on money,”
8 and instead of investing in the long-term goal of canopy
coverage, marginalized neighborhoods turn to lawns and shrubbery. For, when money is short,
it is better to suffer tall grass than dangers from a tall tree.
If, as our population grows, the goal is to maintain and increase healthy tree canopy coverage
throughout Orange County, then the costs of tree care must be taken seriously. Other measures
open to the County and its municipalities, such as tree protection ordinances and community
tree planting initiatives, need to be combined with a direct addressing of this root cause of why
many homeowners, especially in lower-income neighborhoods, are averse to increased canopy
coverage and large-growing trees: trees are too expensive. In order to increase our tree canopy,
we have to reduce the cost of tree care.
To that end, we have made it an integrated part of our operations to provide pro bono tree work
for our neighbors in the Rangewood Community of Chapel Hill.
9 As of July of this year, we have
completed over $18,000 worth of needed tree work. We are committed to continuing this work
and, more generally, to make premium tree care within the reach of more residents of Orange
County. We can do this by lowering our operating costs through elimination of inefficiencies and
waste in managing woody materials.
The proposed zoning amendment will directly lower our operating costs, thereby allowing us to
make premium tree care services accessible to more Orange County residents, facilitating the
following:
●ED Goal 2: Infrastructure that supports desired development.
●Objective H-3.1: Achieve residential neighborhoods that are attractive and well
maintained.
●Objective H-3.3: Expand assistance in the retrofitting, repair, and maintenance of
existing homes owned by financially challenged households, particularly those that are
senior citizens.
9 Every Wednesday, as well as on some Saturdays, David Ricks, the co-owner of the Treeist, leads a
crew in pro-bono work for the Rangewood Community. Contact us for a list of services we have
provided. We can also provide references upon request.
8 Schwarz K, Fragkias M, Boone CG, Zhou W, McHale M, Grove JM, et al. (2015) Trees Grow on Money:
Urban Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Justice. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0122051.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122051
7 Seo, Y. Varying Effects of Urban Tree Canopies on Residential Property Values across Neighborhoods.
Sustainability 2020,12, 4331.https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104331
7
24
4. Employment and Job Training
In 2015 the Treeist was a sole proprietorship with only a couple of employees. Each year we
have grown, largely in an effort to keep up with the growth in the demand for our services, a
growth almost entirely fueled by current clients through word-of-mouth referrals, as well as
through our online reputation. We have been able to double our number of employees since
2020, and currently employ 26 people, 23 of which are full time. We anticipate the opportunity,
and the need, to double in size again within three years.
Our employees are paid well above the $16.60 per hour living wage recognized for Orange
County in 2023-24, with our tree workers earning an average of $28 per hour and our clerical
workers and consultants averaging $26 per hour. Through our reputation for safety, employee
training, pathways for career advancement, and opportunities for working alongside other top
arborists and climbers, we have attracted top talent to our company, including from far out of
state. Continuing to build on this strength will ensure that Orange County has first-class
arboriculture training opportunities, along with first class arborists. We believe this is one of the
best things that can be done for our trees, for Orange County residents who care about trees,
and for residents who would like a path into arboriculture as a career.
Our site plans for the new property include an extensive area of preserved mature trees for
climbing training, as well as ample classroom space to allow us to build an apprenticeship
program, which we see as needed in our industry.
10 This facility will expand our ability to offer
training to affiliated organizations, such as municipal Parks and Recreational employees,
university and arboretum staff, and climbers from other tree care companies.
11
11 At our current location we have provided tree pruning training to the Parks and Recreation staff of
Carrboro, climbing training to staff at the NC Botanical Garden and the Coker Arboretum, climbing and
aerial rescue training to the arborist team at NC State University and many tree climbers from other
companies, both local and not-so-local. Much of this training was provided by the Treeist at no cost to
these individuals and organizations.
10 A core part of our mission is to train and employ people who want to work with trees, especially in
aerial tree work. Aerial tree work tends to be both dangerous to the worker and deleterious to the trees if
there isn’t a lot of training, knowledge, and experience. Where does one find this training, knowledge,
and experience? It is not found in any formal degree or certificate program, and it is highly difficult to
come by it privately. Prospective employers typically require several years of tree climbing experience for
their climbing positions. For most, the path into professional residential arboriculture requires a extremely
dangerous (starting to climb hazard trees with chainsaws without proper training) or dissuasive time
consuming (requiring several years of menial physical work of dragging brush before a coworker or
employer lets you try to climb a tree under supervision). Consequently, talented people who might
otherwise love to work with trees tend to avoid residential arboriculture. Our pitch for bringing talenting
people back towards arboriculture is posted at our webpage “Why Not be an Arborist?”
8
25
By allowing us to use our Millhouse Rd property for an expanded headquarters, Orange County
aligns itself with its Guiding Principle “to provide employment opportunities close to the areas
where people live in Orange County” (Comprehensive Plan, p 3-16), facilitating the following:
●ED Goal 3: Effective systems to train and support residents and those who work in
Orange County.
●Objective ED-3.1: Develop and nurture partnerships that support workers and their
families at all stages of their lives and provide opportunities for lifelong learning and
retraining in response to changing economic conditions.
●Objective ED-3.2: Promote access to living wage jobs that offer benefits and career
advancement potential.
●Objective ED-3.3: Form partnerships with Durham Technical Community College,
UNC-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools, Orange County Schools,and others to
provide adequate training and education to enable workers in Orange County to obtain
high quality jobs. (Italics added)
5. Public Education about Trees and Tree Care
Most homeowners in our area will eventually have a concern about trees that calls for
professional attention. When this happens they will often call an arborist. We receive
approximately 75 requests every week from concerned local homeowners requesting an
in-person property visit from one of our consulting arborists, and we fulfill these property visits
requests typically within the subsequent week. Over 85% of those visits are provided by us at no
cost to the property owner, and many of these requests are primarily requests for our advice.
These advice requests run the gamut and are incredible opportunities to educate and inform
the public about their trees. Many of our clients cannot distinguish a birch from a beech. They
may have called us because they fear a large white oak that is leaning slightly towards a child’s
bedroom, or because of a dead black gum in their backyard, or because their slippery elm
appears to be dying. As often as not, we are able to assuage their tree fears, directing the
homeowner towards more valuable and ecologically sound investments in their property. For
the white oak, we might discuss the many virtues of Quercus alba and why its lean doesn’t of
itself constitute a high risk of tree failure. We might provide them with risk mitigation options
that will save the tree and be less costly than whole tree removal. If their dead back gum is
suitably located, we’ll point out that leaving it in place is a reasonable option, even beneficial
for its wildlife habitat value and ecological function. If their apparently dying elm is merely
defoliated by elm leaf beetle, a common native insect in our area, we will inform them that,
despite appearances, the tree will prove itself to be entirely healthy the following spring. Next
9
26
to the elm, however, we might point out an ash which, although seemingly healthy now, will
soon become problematic and increasingly difficult to remove as it dies from the invasive
emerald ash borer. Each of the 75 properties our consultants visit in a week offers opportunities
like these to educate and inform.
Our consulting arborists are selected for their genuine interest in trees and ecology, and we
maintain and attract these arborists by guaranteeing their pay independent of the sales that
they make. We tell our consultants that their mandate, first and foremost, is to give good
advice. To understand what this means, we have our consultants imagine being asked, towards
the end of a consultation, “What would you advise about my trees if I were your own dear
mother?” Their answer should be: “The same advice that I have given.”
We invest in this kind of detailed and property-specific advice, and the education of our clients,
as a value-driven alternative to advertising. That it is effective and valued by our clients is shown
by the ever-increasing demand for our services as our clients recommend us to their friends and
neighbors. It is effective in part because of how distinctive our consultations are from many
other tree services. When clients receive multiple bids from multiple tree services many of
these will, whether intentionally or not, profit at the expense of trees and the community,
selling unnecessary tree work through the already-present fears and naivety of the public. We
are motivated by the idea that every next property we can visit is a property we can benefit
through the education and options that we provide in contrast to those who simply intend to
profit from tree cutting.
While Orange County does have publicly supported institutes such as local arboretums and the
NC Botanical Garden that offer excellent and ecologically sound information to residents, these
institutions tend to preach to the choir, speaking largely to those who already have a healthy
interest in trees. We get invited into the backyards of all those same people along with
everyone else, offering the kind of advice one might hear at the NC Botanical Garden, but in
direct reference and application to the homeowner’s specific trees and landscape. It is an
incredibly direct, individualized, and rapid avenue for connecting the resident to their property.
We therefore see the growth of our company as both reflecting and expanding the valuable
service we provide to our community. Our staff currently includes the following certifications of
the International Society of Arboriculture: eight Certified Arborists, four arborists qualified in
Tree Risk Assessment, and one Board Certified Master Arborist. A larger and expanded facility
would allow us to more than double our capacity and impact.
10
27
By permitting our rezoning request, Orange County would thereby be facilitating our work in
educating and providing ecologically sound options to local homeowners. This advances the
County’s interest in the following.
●Objective ED-1.1: Focus public education efforts on sustainability issues, looking at the
social, economic and environmental contributions of local businesses.
●Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 7: A balanced and healthy diversity of native plant
and animal populations.
●LU Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and
features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community
character.
Beyond what we do for private homeowners, the Treeist has in the past also been able to
further these environmental and educational goals by offering guest presentations at local
garden clubs and the Chapel Hill Public Library, as well as offer discounted tree services to the
ecologically-minded non-profits such as the NC Botanical Garden, the Coker Arboretum, and the
Ellerbe Creek Watershed Association, and the Triangle Land Conservancy. We hope to be able to
expand these offerings and services.
6. The Provision of Emergency Services
Orange County receives a wide variety of storms and weather events including flooding rains,
ice storms, tornados, tropical storms, hurricanes, straight line winds, and lightning strikes. In all
of these weather events, trees break and fail. It is damages from trees that comprise most of
the problems we associate with storm events of every kind.
To help prepare itself for emergencies, Orange County participates in a regional hazard
mitigation plan. On page 50 the plan lists the FEMA Major Disaster Declarations of our region
11
28
since March 2019:
Looking at each of the Incident Types and Event Titles, we can see that each of these major
disasters intimately involved trees. Orange County residents remember Hurricane Fran or the
2002 ice storm primarily because of all of the trees that fell or broke around them. Tropical
Storm Michael might have been forgotten except for the remnants of all of the large uprooted
hardwoods still visible in its long aftermath.
While Orange County and its towns may have publicly funded resources for fire, EMT, and police
responses, individuals and institutions generally must find private tree companies to deal with
the fallen trees on their houses, buildings, vehicles, driveways, and yards. From its webpage on
Disaster / Emergency Preparedness, consider Orange County’s own directives to its residents:
If you hope for help from public emergency services, then hope that your tree emergency
involves a roadway. Since, however, most of the trees that fall or break do not do so on a public
roadway, most emergency responses for fallen or broken trees depend on the services of
private tree companies such as the Treeist.
Realizing that our clients and community rely on us to respond to emergencies, we are available
to respond every day of every week without exception or holiday. Monitoring weather
12
29
forecasts, we prepare emergency response teams ahead of storms, ensuring that trucks are
ready and staff are on standby during weekends or whenever rains interrupt our routine
scheduling.
In addition to availability, ameliorating emergency situations for residents also requires
accessibility - how quickly can the tree service come to the property owner’s aid? A tree service
will tend to prioritize its near neighbors, and in major storm events tree services headquartered
further away may be unable to respond when their routes into town are impassable due to ice,
flooding, or other obstructions. As of 2005 nearly sixty percent of the County’s population is
clustered within the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro (Comprehensive Plan, p. 5-21). It is in
these towns, and particularly in the older subdivisions, where we find the homes and buildings
surrounded by large and aging trees. Allowing us to locate our headquarters near this majority
of Orange County’s residents and residential tree service needs helps to ensure that property
owners have access to timely emergency services.
It is not just for the rapid response and availability that vehicles and equipment needed for
emergencies should be located close to town. When a major natural disaster such as a
hurricane is forecasted well in advance, tree services from neighboring and distant states show
up in droves. Their lack of connection to the community, however, often results in unscrupulous
practices and subpar services. Clients sometimes tell us painful stories about past
entanglements with malpracticing tree services. These stories typically feature some
out-of-town tree cutting crew without any strong stake in the local community. In emergency
situations, however, residents often do not have the luxury of selectivity or of due diligence
research. With close proximity and an adequate location for waste disposal, the Treeist hopes to
offer nimble and responsive tree emergency services, giving Orange County residents the option
of working with a local company in their times of need.
Besides responding to emergencies, we proactively do what we can to reduce these tree
emergencies from happening in the first place. We do this by helping property owners identify
and to mitigate tree risks throughout the year, and all of our consultants are specifically trained
in evaluating tree risks.
Permitting us to rezone our 10 acres will allow us to expand our capacity for emergency tree
services for Orange County, helping Orange County to fulfill its several related obligations.
●LU Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with
the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life.
●LU Goal 5: Life, health, and property safe from hazards.
13
30
●Objective LU-5-2: Continue to implement the Orange County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
●Objective LU-5-3: Develop and coordinate an emergency disaster plan and community
education program to increase awareness of the dangers of natural and human-made
emergency events and understand how best to prepare.
●Services and Community Facilities Goal 7: Efficient and effective public safety, including
police, fire, telecommunications, emergency services, and animal services.
●Objective PS-T-3: Establish and maintain an appropriate level of service for law
enforcement and emergency services and ensure the provision of adequate public safety
protection standards for residential, commercial, and industrial development
throughout the County.
●Objective PS-T-4: Maintain high levels of cooperation and sharing of equipment among
all departments and agencies involved in law enforcement, public safety, crime
prevention, fire protection, and emergency services to assure a high level of service in a
cost effective manner.
●Objective T-2.3: Increase countywide access for emergency vehicles, including ways to
improve response times, both for existing and new developments.
7. Congruence with the Adjacent Parcels
Our plans for the 10-acre parcel are congruous with the nearby properties. A brief geographical
overview:
●To our south:the Orange County Landfill at 1514 Eubanks Rd. Adjacent to our property is
the artificial hill created by the old “preregulatory” unlined landfill no longer in use.
Beyond that is the county’s mulching operation and waste and recycling center.
Altogether this 120 acre parcel creates an approximately half mile buffer between our
property and Eubanks Rd.
●To our west: Duke Forest’s research forest area, which is closed to the public, creating a
1.15 mile buffer between our property and NC Highway 86.
●To our north and east: 78 acres of largely undeveloped land owned by Orange County. To
our north this creates a 1000 foot buffer between our nearest neighbors (Green Beagle
Lodge, and Green Beagle Lodge owners Andrew and Tammy Purner). To our east this
creates a 1,350 foot buffer to the 2-acre along Millhouse Rd owned by the Town of
Chapel Hill.
●Within our parcel is a 195 foot tall telecommunication tower within a 0.2 acre plot for
which the owner of the tower has a perpetual lease.
14
31
The long, shared southern border with the old landfill limits the viable uses for our parcel and
the neighboring parcels owned by Orange County. There is a long history of controversy
between the county landfill on Eubanks Rd and its neighbors.
12 The most publicized of these
issues concerns the newer portion of the landfill south of Eubanks Rd near the Rogers Road
community. In a 2011 article supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism, Rebekah Cowel
reported on that community.
Last year, the Orange County Health Department tested the community’s drinking water
wells and reported that nine of the 11 wells were contaminated and did not meet
federal drinking water standards. Contaminants found include the carcinogen vinyl
chloride, which was detected at levels 1,066 times higher than DENR’s acceptable level.
Long-term exposure to vinyl chloride can lead to “rare cancer of the liver,” according to
the Environmental Protection Agency. Benzene was detected at six times higher than
acceptable levels. Long-term exposure can lead to anemia, a decrease in blood platelets
and increased risk of cancer. Other contaminants included tetrachlorethylene and
dichlorethene.
Significantly, the portion of the landfill near the Rogers Road community is the newer, more
tightly regulated and properly-lined portion of the landfill. Our parcel, and those nearby, share a
border with the portion of a landfill built before 1983. According to the same article, such older
landfills are “‘preregulatory,” essentially unlined dumps whose contents often leak into the soil
and groundwater.”
13 According to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan “[m]ethane from the
closed municipal solid waste landfill is passively vented” and the closed area still “generates a
biogas that is vented to the atmosphere” (p. 8-21).
While problematic for many types of community and uses, our intended proposal for the
property isn’t affected by these issues or operations. Based on email correspondence with
Robert Williams and Bruce Woody, Orange County’s Director and Assistant Director of Solid
Waste, we expect no conflicts with our neighbors to the south.
To our west is the 1,000+ acre Blackwood Division of Duke Forest. The portion of Duke Forest
adjacent to our 10-acre parcel is used for research and is intentionally off limits to the public.
According to Duke Forest Supervisor Tom Craven, their primary concern has been the
13 https://indyweek.com/news/northcarolina/digging-deeper/
12 https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/fighting-environmental-racism-in-north-carolina;
https://www.renacommunitycenter.com/the-landfill;
https://mediahub.unc.edu/rogers-road-neighborhoods-fight-environmental-justice/;
https://hpdp.unc.edu/2011/07/landfill-air-pollution-may-be-as-unhealthy-as-it-is-unpleasant-study-finds;
https://stonewalls.substack.com/p/greenetract
15
32
trespassers entering the Blackwood Division on foot or on bicycle from unauthorized trails
through the adjacent county parcels and our undeveloped ten acres. Trespassers are a
particular threat to the expensive equipment and monitoring instruments throughout these
forests. Duke Forestry also has an ongoing problem with people dumping garbage in their
Blackwood Division, especially on Wednesdays when the County’s solid waste and recycling
center on Eubanks Road is closed. The staff at Duke Forestry foresee these problems getting
worse if and when Orange County develops the Millhouse Road Park for recreation, which will
include a public parking lot. Our plans would therefore benefit Duke Forest when, for our own
purposes, we add security to our 10-acre private-land buffer between the recreational fields
and Duke Forest.
Close to our 10-acre parcel, Duke Forest allows seasonal deer hunting and utilizes regular,
prescribed burnings to maintain their “Piedmont Prairies” such as Blackwood Field. Knowing the
ecological benefits of these practices, neither Duke Forestry nor the county will receive
complaints from us about smoke or hunting. Likewise, knowing that ongoing research in the
Blackwood Division may be sensitive to light pollution, we are happy to follow dark sky
guidelines for avoiding any conflict. Our interests and ethos regarding trees, forests, and
teaching are well aligned.
To our north and west are County-owned parcels, largely undeveloped, that together
compromise 78 acres. In 2004 and 2007, Orange County purchased these parcels with the idea
of using them for future recreational facilities, including lighted fields and potentially an indoor
recreational center, under the name Millhouse Road Park.
14 In 2018 the Board of County
Commissioners looked into the possibility of using its adjacent parcels for a 34-unit
manufactured home park. This resulted in a 240 page property evaluation. Since all of this land
is in the Rural Buffer, these sites would have depended on septic systems, ground water from
wells, and rezoning to HP-CZD. The major obstacles appear to have been the inadequate soils,
wetlands, and likely inadequate or cost-prohibitive well and waste-water options for the
envisioned park.
15 Aspirations for the manufactured home park appear to have been
abandoned.
Our 10-acre parcel is situated towards the back corner of the 78-acre Millhouse Road Park site.
Our plans for our parcel are compatible with the County’s plans for rezoning and development
of the Millhouse Road Park site for recreational use. As a headquarters for our company, our
10-acres would also extend the recreational options for the community. In 2018 we began
offering free-to-the public, in-depth weekly tree climbing courses. At our current location, which
15 see pp. 32f from the June 5th, BOCC meeting minutes
14 2014 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, section 3-22
16
33
we are outgrowing, we offer classes to the public multiple days of the week. These include tree
climbing instruction,crafting workshops, and weekly outdoor workout events. We also host
bi-weekly open house days that bring together local arborists and tree enthusiasts in the
community, including both residents of Orange County and visitors from out of town. In the past
we have offered tree identification events, pruning training to the Carrboro Parks and
Recreation staff, aerial rescue courses for state employees, and tree climbing competitions for
local arborists. For our current offerings click here. During the first half of 2023 we provided
approximately $30,000 worth of no-cost training for the community via classes advertised on
our website. We would hold these events and classes at the 10-acre property, expanding our
offerings with the larger facility and space.
16
Given our dedication to community building and tree-related training and education, our
development plans for the property include the goal of preserving trees and creating inviting
spaces for tree-related recreation, both indoors and outdoors. I believe this will augment the
attractiveness of Millhouse Road Park, offsetting any drawbacks of our use of the property for
our business purposes.
Beyond the County-owned parcels to our east are the 2-acre parcels owned by the Town of
Chapel Hill along Millhouse Rd. From recent email correspondence with Katie Bowden, the
Economic Development Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill, we are told that Chapel Hill does
“not foresee any potential conflicts with the proposed rezoning at 6915-UT Millhouse Rd.” For
their most adjacent properties along Millhouse Rd, there has been some discussion of using
them for a storage facility, with the lack of water and sewer utilities limiting the usefulness of
these lots.
17
To our north, beyond the County-owned acreage, are the 19 acres of the dog boarding house
Green Beagle Lodge and the private residence of Lodge’s owners Tammy and Andrew Purner.
According to recent personal conversation with the Purners, neither they nor the Lodge have
objections to our plans for our ten acres. The next nearest residential location is 6806 Millhouse
Rd to our northeast. The house on this parcel is over 1,500 feet from the nearest corner of our
17 According to Chapel Hill’s Commercial Development Plan, available at their Economic Development
webpage, their properties in the Millhouse Road are considered for light-industrial/research companies.
In 2017, ~12 acres of 7001 and 7000 Millhouse Rd were rezoned to Light Industrial Conditional Zoning.
16 Treeist Community Actions (outside of paid tree services) since 2018: 2018 to 2020: 6+ hours of
donated training time to community members every Saturday for two years straight. 2020 to present: at
minimum 4+ hours each of the two Saturdays per month of donated training time to community
members, ~$30,000 worth of no cost training for the community in the first half of 2023 alone (via
classes advertised on the website). $18,000 worth of donated services to Rangewood to date (as of
7/28/23; this last number increases by $1000 each week).
17
34
ten acres. Through recent personal communications, Josh Kirshner, the owner of this address,
has no objection to our rezoning plans and foresees no conflicts.
Our 10-acre lot also includes within it a 195 foot tall telecommunication tower, surrounded by
its auxiliary utilities and chain link fencing for which the telecom tower owner must have
perpetual access. While this permanent feature of the parcel limits its viability for other uses,
18
it is not a problem for our purposes. Our added security, as well as our improvements to and
our maintenance of the access road, will only benefit the tower owners and maintenance
teams.
Permitting the rezoning of our ten-acre parcel not only avoids creating conflicts with adjacent
properties and property owners, but it is also a step towards preventing future conflicts. Our
parcel is currently zoned RB, and looking down the Table of Permitted Uses it is difficult to find a
use for the ten acres which is less likely to lead to some future conflict with one or more of the
adjacent properties or property owners. In so allowing our plans to move forward, the County
thereby makes progress on the following goals and objectives:
●LU 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.
●LU Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and
features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community
character.
The Comprehensive Plan mentions the viability of agriculture and forestry and their respective
lands (Natural & Cultural Systems Goal 2). In permitting us to pursue our plans, the County
thereby protects Duke Forest from alternative uses of this ten-acre parcel which, although
possibly permitted in the RB, could lead to “incompatible adjacent land uses or activities that
will adversely affect the long term…investments” of Duke Forest (see Objective AG-1). Likewise,
in precluding alternative uses of our ten-acre parcel, the county would thereby “minimize the
incidence of complaints and nuisance suits” against Duke Forest (consider their prescribed
burns), Orange County’s landfill (recall all the complaints of the Rogers Road community), and
potentially even the County’s future recreational facilities (see Objective LU-3.4).
18 We have learned from Duke Forest Supervisor Tom Craven that Duke Forest passed on an opportunity
to purchase this parcel from the prior owner because of the restrictive details of the lease with the
telecom tower owner. Clearly it wasn’t for the price tag that Duke Forest found this ten acres
undesirable. Around the same time Duke Forest purchased the nearby 27.5 acre Meadow Flats parcel for
$2.5 million, well over four times the assessed tax value of that land. In 2019 the previous owner of our
ten acre parcel attempted, apparently without success, to donate the entire lot to Orange County.
18
35
As a location that allows us to offer our own recreational and educational opportunities to the
public, we facilitate the following Goals and Objectives.
●Objective ED-4.2: Provide lifelong learning opportunities, from early childhood through
senior citizens.
●Objective LU-4.3: Determine how private developments can best accommodate or
provide public and private commercial recreational facilities to serve Orange County’s
residents.
●Parks and Recreation Goal 3: Recreational facilities available for the public use in a
manner that is multi-generational and accessible to all County citizens at both the
countywide and community level.
●Parks and Recreation Goal 4: Healthy lifestyles, quality of life and community building
through the provision of a variety of affordable recreational facilities and choice of
leisure activities, while responding to the changing needs and interests of County
residents.
●Objective PR-4.2: Investigate the potential for public and/or private commercial
partnerships and recreational facilities needed to serve Orange County’s residents.
●Objective PR-4.3: Work to keep recreational facilities and services affordable and
sustainable to the general public.
8. Congruence with the County’s Broader Plan for Development
Just as our plans for our parcel are congruent with the adjacent and surrounding parcels, our
plans are also congruent with the County’s broader development designs.
The Treeist is a small company and, although we are growing, we will remain a small company
for the foreseeable future. While it is true that by permitting our project the County would
signal its interest in “public-private sector partnerships that create a stronger business climate”
(ED Goal 1) and provide a small step towards “a more balanced tax base that includes a diversity
of businesses and services” (Comprehensive Plan, p. 5-30),
19 the County’s greater achievement
may be this: by allowing us to fulfill our needs as a company on this relatively low-value parcel -
a parcel for which is difficult to imagine other productive uses - it prevents us from having to
19 “While the economic climate in Orange County is good, there is concern regarding the need to diversify
the County’s tax base from one primarily composed of residential property (86.4% in 2005) to a more
balanced tax base that includes a diversity of businesses and services. Making that change will require a
countywide economic development strategy that recruits desired businesses to the area.” Comprehensive
Plan, p. 5-30
19
36
occupy a more valuable piece of commercial real estate that is more fittingly and profitably
used for a commercial enterprise for which such spaces are more specifically designed.
While the County has taken pains to designate Economic Development Districts within Orange
County, such districts comprise less than one percent of Orange County,
20 a vanishingly small
fraction of those designated acres are available for purchase, and any acres that are available
are likely to have far better uses than as a location for a tree service.
In choosing which lands to designate for commercial purposes, consider how the selection was
made:
These sites were selected because of their adjacency to the interstates, their proximity
to rail facilities for the movement of goods and potential for future transit service,
access to public water and sewer service, and the potential to divide large tracts in these
districts into a range of building site sizes. Orange County’s location, midway between
the Piedmont Triad and Research Triangle metropolitan areas, makes these sites highly
marketable. Comprehensive Plan, p. 3-4
While these criteria fit the needs and desires of many commercial enterprises, they are not
attractive to a residential tree service servicing south Orange County. As a local tree service, we
have no need for easy access to interstates or to rails to send out and receive goods or
materials. Since nearly all of our employees spend the majority of their work days off site
(working on properties throughout town), we do not rely on access to public water and sewer
services at our headquarters. Since we offer no onsite services or sales, we do not need, or even
want, a location that has high visibility or accessibility to the public. Proximity to lines of public
transportation is superfluous. All that we need, essentially, is a place that is close to the
population centers of south Orange County where we can park vehicles and equipment, stage
woody material, and train our employees without bothering neighbors.
In these respects, our land use needs are most similar to a portion of Chapel Hill’s Town
Operation Center. How the Town met its needs is telling. With its lease on UNC’s Horace
Williams’ Tract expiring in 2006, Chapel Hill needed a new location for parking its trucks and
equipment, for parking staff vehicles, and for storing and loading mulch, sand, gravel, asphalt,
and related materials. We may assume that the Town had substantial freedom of choice in
where to locate this equipment and materials storage and parking facility. The Town, after all,
had a planning staff with knowledge of the area, extensive land assets, and deep financial
20 Comprehensive Plan, p. 3-4. The size of Orange County: 272,546 acres. The combined size of the
designated Economic Development Districts: 2,379 acres. These numbers are taken from the County’s
EDD maps summary (scroll to the bottom).
20
37
resources (it spent $52 million on its Operations Center). We may also assume that the Town
would have chosen its location in a responsible way. What entity, after all, has a greater interest
in the responsible use and management of the land surrounding Chapel Hill? So, out of all the
districts and zoning the Town might have chosen, it selected a portion of land in the Rural Buffer
also on Millhouse Road. Aerial imagery shows that in 2004-2005 the Town cleared
approximately 3.5 acres of Rural Buffer for uses very similar to those that we are proposing for
our land, though on a significantly larger scale. The Town continues to use this Rural Buffer
location for trucks and machinery parking, materials staging and loading, and parking spaces for
associated staff vehicles.
It also makes sense for us to locate our more modest operation off Millhouse Rd where we are
even less likely to disturb neighbors.
21 It would be a waste for the Treeist to use any of the
scarce commercially zoned properties. To keep these scarcer commercial zoning open for higher
uses means that Orange County is more likely to achieve the vision it has for these development
districts, including “compact and higher density development” (Objective ED-2.1; LU-3.9), and
“a clustered, walkable development pattern” and avoiding “strip development” in
non-residential nodes (Objective LU-3.7). A business that profits from the unique features of the
commercial districts will also be in a better position to pay a premium for such amenities,
thereby keeping these locations available and attractive to “major corporate users” who will
more significantly “build and expand upon the County’s economic base” (Objective ED-2.6;
ED-1.8).
9. An Appropriate Compromise in the Rural Buffer
Our plans for rezoning the 10-acre property are favored by a wide range of the Comprehensive
Plan’s directives for Orange County. In particular, progress would be made on 14 separate goals
and 34 separate objectives.
This alignment between our company’s plans and the directives of Orange County is not
accidental. We are a locally owned and managed company, servicing local clientele, and we
stand or fall by our local reputation. At a most general level, our basic function as a company is
to offer and improve services that are valued by Orange County residents and that strengthen
our rapport within this community. When we succeed in making necessary improvements in
21 If anything, the land that the Town of Chapel Hill selected to park its equipment and stage its materials
is less suitable than the land we are proposing to use. The Town’s Rural Buffer land is much closer to
residential properties, of which 6704 Millhouse Rd is the closest at approximately 200 feet from the
clearing created by the Town’s facility. Aerial imagery suggests that, within 360 feet of the house on this
property, the Town regularly uses heavy machinery to move and load gravel and associated materials.
For comparison, our loading and staging area is about 1,725 feet from the nearest residential house (at
1550 Bruin Trail).
21
38
tree care, emergencies services, wood waste management, and employment conditions to
attract the talent we need, the County succeeds in its corresponding environmental, services,
solid-waste-related, and economic goals and objectives.
While this alignment is strong, the directives within the County’s Comprehensive Plan are not
themselves entirely harmonious. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that tradeoffs will need to
be made among its own goals and objectives.
The County has many choices to make in the future. It will need to balance future
development with the need to protect rural character, preserve important natural areas
and water resources, provide a range of housing opportunities, and provide an efficient
level of public services. (Comprehensive Plan 5-9)
The potential conflict at issue for our proposal concerns the Rural Buffer (RB), the approximately
35,000 acres of rural land that surrounds Chapel Hill and Carrboro where over half of Orange
County residents (our clients) reside.
22 Our 10-acre parcel is situated at the near edge of the RB.
These are the specific directives of the Comprehensive Plan about the RB that relate to our
proposal:
1. “Maintain the rural, low-density land surrounding Chapel Hill and Carrboro Transition
Areas as Rural Buffer land” (LU-2.1).
2. “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” (LU-3.1).
3. “Discourage new intensive non-residential land uses, or the expansion of existing
intensive uses, in the area designated Rural Buffer” (LU-3.3).
The first thing to notice is, even if we were to take these objectives as inviolable laws, not one of
them would be violated, strictly speaking, by permitting our rezoning plans.
23
Second, if the Comprehensive Plan intended to prohibit plans such as ours within the RB, it
easily could have made that clear. A change of wording to LU-3.3 would have done the trick:
“Prohibit all new intensive non-residential uses in the RB, where ‘intensive’ is defined as....”
23 That is, the existing obstacles to rezoning and development in the RB will continue to serve as
discouragement (the costs in both time and treasure of the rezoning application, together with the
uncertainty of outcome, is itself a significant discouragement to development); rural, low-density land
surrounding Chapel Hill and Carrboro is maintained no matter what decision is made about our proposal.
22 “Density is focused in the southern section of the County with fifty-seven percent of the population
residing within the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.” Comprehensive Plan 5-21
22
39
Third, if our proposed use of our land is in tension with the above Land Use objectives, then
several permitted uses of land within the RB must also be in tension. (Conversely, if the
permitted uses are not in tension with these LU objectives, then neither is our proposal.)
Consider:
●Mindful of the objective to “discourage new intensive non-residential land uses,“ why
should a “Large Facility Solar Array” be permitted in the RB but a place to stage saw logs
and wood chips for their environmentally responsible usage not be allowed? Or, why
should Non-Farm Use of Farm Equipment be allowed but not the parking of tree
equipment and vehicles necessary for managing and harvesting of local trees and
timber?
●Mindful of the objective to “encourage a separation of urban and rural land uses,” why
should it be permissible to build Government Facilities and Office Buildings in the RB but
it not be permissible for us to build office space to accommodate our clerical staff?
●Mindful of the objective to “maintain the rural, low density land as Rural Buffer” why
should it be permissible to build Kennels, Care Facilities, Recreational Facilities, Group
Homes, Family Care Facilities, and Sewer Pumping Stations in the RB, but it not be
permissible for us to create indoor and outdoor facilities to train future tree workers?
The upshot here is that none of the Comprehensive Plan’s goals or objectives regarding the
Rural Buffer prohibit our proposed plan. Such a prohibition must instead find justification in the
particulars of our land and of our proposed usage. That justification, moreover, must override
the combined weight of the many and diverse considerations in favor of our proposed usage,
themselves rooted in the Comprehensive Plan.
The particulars of our 10-acre parcel (situated just where it is), as well as the particulars of our
local tree care business (both its needs and the distinctive services it offers) are what align so
well with the County’s own goals and objectives as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. We
cannot make similarly strong arguments for the sorts of developments that readily spring to
mind as “urban sprawl.” None of the considerations we have raised in favor of our proposal
would give, for example, any support for building a discount retail franchise at Carrboro’s
bucolic border. The point is this: should the County find our particular case for rezoning
compelling, the Rural Buffer remains safe. No worrisome precedent is set to which subsequent
applicants could generically appeal. Rather, the County will decide subsequent cases just as the
Comprehensive Plan instructs, balancing its many goals and objectives with which every
particular rezoning case uniquely interacts.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, protecting the Rural Buffer’s open spaces is about
striking the “appropriate balance between the rights of private property owners and the
23
40
protection of the environment for the common good” (p. 5-12). While we are happy to let the
County add our private property rights into the balance, our argument makes no such appeal.
Our argument is that rezoning our 10 acres makes sense in terms of the County’s own goals and
objectives - including those concerned with protecting the environment and advancing the
common good. We implore the County’s appointed stewards to weigh our arguments and
conscientiously engage with them with due recognition of what is at stake for our clients and
our community, for our employees and their families, for our trees and our environment, and
for our dreams of what we can accomplish in Orange County. In the realization of Land Use Goal
6, we ask that you be “transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive.”
24
41
Detailed description of the proposed use of property including an outline of the
proposed operational characteristics of the proposed development
The property will be used to house the Treeist tree care and consulting company, the principal
function of which is urban forestry for the surrounding area, and southern Orange County in
particular.
The property will be home to two proposed office and workshop spaces, a residential unit for a
property caretaker, with supporting tree service equipment nestled within a perimeter of
wooded areas and buffers on the 10 acre property.
Daily operations on the site include the workforce arriving at the site, gathering tools,
equipment, and outfitting themselves for the day's work. Crews assemble at their designated
areas, prepare their equipment consisting of service trucks, trailers, and tree care equipment.
The crews and consultants are dispatched from the site for the day's work where they serve
nearby communities providing urban forestry services. These include consulting, tree
management planning, and the assorted activities of tree and woodland management. These
activities include tree risk assessment and mitigation, emergency tree work, pest and disease
diagnosis and treatment, tree pruning, selective tree removal, stump grinding, the installation
and maintenance of tree support systems, root care, the protection of trees during construction
and site changes, invasive plant control, and tree planting.
Crews typically return to the site after the day's work, preparing their equipment and gathering
supplies for the following work day. Clerical staff stays onsite during the day, scheduling and
coordinating services.
Employee and apprentice teaching and training takes place onsite. Regular and semi-regular
tree-related educational events are held for the interested public and tree workers outside of
the company.
The site will also include an area to sort and to stage woody materials brought back in mixed
loads by the tree crews; once sorted and staged, these materials can be transported to
destinations for further processing.
The site will operate year-round during the daylight hours, and on extended hours depending on
tree-related emergencies such as those caused by hurricanes, ice storms, or heavy
thunderstorms. The Treeist provides quick and professional services for downed and hazard
tree removal when required by the surrounding communities.
For a discussion of how our principal use fits ASE-CD zoning, see document 5, “ASE-CD
Suitability,” also included in this application folder.
1
42
The Suitability of ASE-CD Zoning
The principal function of the Treeist is to provide urban forestry services to our community.
Since urban forestry is a subfield of forestry, which itself is a subfield of agriculture, the principal
function of the Treeist is a specialized form of agricultural services. More particularly, we engage
in agricultural services when we create management plans for the trees of local landowners and
when we prune, treat, or remove trees in privately-owned wooded yards and parcels. When we
haul away logs and wood chips and stage them at our property for further transport, we are
handling agricultural products (NC General Statutes,20-88(b)(2)), many of which will be used
for farming or other agricultural purposes.
1 Our other intended uses for our property properly
count as “accessory uses” that are “incidental or insubstantial” and are “ancillary to the
established principal use” of our urban forestry services (UDO definitions p.10-1). These
accessory uses include training our employees, servicing our machinery, parking for employees
and work trucks, accommodating our clerical staff, housing a property caretaker, and hosting a
variety of tree-related educational events and activities for the community.
The purpose of ASE-CD zoning is “to provide for agriculturally-related activities that are not
considered bonafide farming activities within the County’s planning jurisdiction.” Agricultural
services, our principal intended use for this property, is a permitted Use Type in ASE-CD (UDO,
p.5-3).
1 As discussed in our Detailed Narrative (section 2, pp. 3-6), the salvaging of sawlog supports local
sawmills, enhancing local markets for lumber products on a smaller scale conducive to Orange County
properties. Our wood chips themselves are often delivered to local farms for use as mulch and organic
matter.
1
43
Urban Forestry is a subfield of Forestry; We do Urban Forestry
“Urban forestry” was first defined in 1970 as a “specialized branch of forestry” that has as its
objective “tree management in the entire area influenced by and utilized by the urban
population.”2 The Society of American Foresters has accepted urban forestry as a specialized
branch within forestry. To signal our specialization within forestry, and our ability to address
specific trees within a landscape, we at the Treeist often refer to what we do as “arboriculture”
and to ourselves as “arborists.” As the Cooperative Forestry Act of 1978 makes clear, however,
urban forestry encompasses arboriculture so understood: “Urban Forestry means the planning,
establishment, protection and management of trees and associated plants, individually, in small
groups, or under forest conditions within cities, their suburbs, and towns.”
3 It is widely
understood that urban forestry deals with trees in not only densely populated cities, but also
areas around cities, “urban-interface areas,” and places like our own Rural Buffer.
4
Forestry is a subfield of Agriculture
4 Miller et. al. 2015. pp. 4-11.
3 Miller, Robert W, Hauer, Richard J., and Werner, Les P. 2015.Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing
Urban Greenspaces, 3rd Edition. Wave Press, Inc. Long Grove, Il. p. 17.
2 Jorgenson, E. 1970. “Urban Forestry in Canada.” In Proceedings, 46th International Shade Tree
Conference (pp. 3a-51a). International Society of Arboriculture, Urbana, Illinois.
2
44
In the NC General Statutes, “Agriculture” is defined broadly. Included in its definition is “the
planting and production of trees and timber” (Section 106-157.1). Section 20-88(b)(2)defines
“farm products” to include logs, bark, pulpwood, tannic acid wood and other forest products.”
To qualify as a bonafide farm in North Carolina it suffices to simply have a forest/woodland
management plan (Section 160D-903).5 These definitions are not idiosyncratic to North
Carolina. The US Forest Service is a branch within the US Department of Agriculture.
Orange County’s definition of Agricultural Services is expansive
This conception of “agriculture” is further expanded by Orange County’s definition of
“Agricultural Services,” which specifically includes “landscaping and horticultural services”
(UDO, p. 10-3). This suggests that “agriculture” is understood to extend to small-scale
operations and the types of outdoor services routinely applied to residential yards (i.e.,
landscaping).
Why not call what we are doing bona fide farming activities?
Although the state’s General Statutes provide a counterintuitively broad definition of “bona fide
farm,” we follow Orange County’s implied judgment that “agriculturally-related activities” and
“agricultural services” encompass more than “bona fide farming activities”: the stated purpose
of ASE-CD zoning is to accommodate agriculturally-related activities that are not bona fide
farming activities (UDO, p. 3-62). We therefore apply for ASE-CD zoning under the cautious
assumption that, while our principal activities are “agriculturally-related” and are “agricultural
services,” they may not comprise the activities of a bona fide farm as such.
Applicability of ASE-CD
The rezoning to ASE-CD is compatible with the existing development of the surrounding parcels.
This compatibility is discussed at length in sections 7-9 of the Detailed Narrative included in our
application folder.
5 Also known as a “woodland plan,” a forestry management plan encompasses a variety of forestry
activities that meet the landowners objectives. “Any landowner may theoretically commission a plan…or
write one on their own.” See the NC Forests Service’s “Benefits of a Woodland Plan” leaflet, its FAQs
webpage on Woodland Plan Preparation Fees, and NC State Extension’s discussion of Bonafide Farm
zoning.
3
45
Schedule for Construction/Development
The project is proposed to begin construction upon proper permitting. The development of the
property will consist of the clearing of trees within the work area and disturbance limits,
followed by minimal grading, the installation of the property well, the construction of the
necessary structures including the office, shed, caretakers quarters and supporting facilities.
Upon completion of this phase, the on-site wastewater system will be constructed followed by
the placement of the necessary gravel and driveway access will be completed.
46
Page 1 of 5
Orange County Planning & Inspections Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-245-2575 or planningapps@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: ____________________
Contact Information
Property Owner(s):
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
Applicant (if different than property owner):
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
I. Property Information
Parcel ID Number (PIN):
Address:
Acreage: Township:
Zoning District:
Watershed Overlay:
Other Overlay:
II. General Site Information
A. Adjacent Property
Zoning North: South:
East: West:
Land Use North: South:
East: West:
B. Topography
Highest Elevation:
Lowest Elevation:
General direction of slope:
47
Page 2 of 5
Estimated % of property with:
0 – 5% slope:
5 – 15% slope:
15 – 25% slope:
More than 25% slope:
C. Water Features and Drainage
The following water features are located on the property:
Streams Wetlands Ponds Drainage Easements Special Flood Hazard Area
Describe
(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 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:
B. Number of lots:
C. Number of structures:
48
Page 3 of 5
D. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for development of attached residential units
(excluding roads, but including parking areas)
E. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for non-residential use (excluding roads)
F. Estimated area to be graded for roads
Road type: Public Private
Class A
Class B
Total road length:
IIII. State Permits Required
A. Does the project involve the mining of earth products? Yes 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 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 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?
49
Page 4 of 5
C. Will the project involve a land application system for treatment of wastewater?
Yes 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 No - If yes, describe
E. Does the activity involve sludge disposal? Yes 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%
gpd Total Water Usage
Describe source of water:
50
Page 5 of 5
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
1.b. Proposed Mitigation
2.a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development
2.b. Proposed Mitigation
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
51
52
53
Notification Map and Mailing List
1. PIN: 9871406283
a. Owner: DUKE UNIVERSITY
b. Mailing Address: 324 BLACKWELL ST STE 850 DUKE UNIV CORP TAX -
WASHINGTON BLDG DURHAM NC 27701;
c. Addresses at this location: NONE
2. PIN: 9871519160
a. Owner: ORANGE COUNTY
b. Mailing Address: PO BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278
1
54
c. Addresses at this location: 6823 Millhouse Rd; 6827-UT Millhouse Rd
3. PIN: 9870680737
a. Owner: ORANGE COUNTY
b. Mailing Address: PO BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278
c. Addresses at this location: 1506, 1514, 1518, 1520, 1522, 1526, 1530, 1540, and
1544 Eubanks Rd.
4. PIN: 9870199380
a. Owner: DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF FORESTRY
b. Mailing Address: 324 BLACKWELL ST WASHINGTON BLDG STE 850 DUKE UNIV
CORP TAX DEPT DURHAM NC 27701
c. Addresses at this location: 600, 602, and 604 Eubanks Rd
5. PIN: 9871402300
a. Owner: DUKE UNIVERSITY
b. Mailing Address: 324 BLACKWELL ST STE 850 DUKE UNIV CORP TAX -
WASHINGTON BLDG DURHAM NC 27701
c. Addresses at this location: NONE
6. PIN: 9870395740
a. Owner: DUKE UNIVERSITY
b. Mailing Address: 324 BLACKWELL ST STE 850 DUKE UNIV CORP TAX -
WASHINGTON BLDG DURHAM NC 27701
c. Addresses at this location: NONE
7. PIN: 9871607301
a. Owner: ORANGE COUNTY
b. Mailing Address: PO BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278
c. Addresses at this location: NONE
8. PIN: 9871615733
a. Owner: GBL PROPERTY LLC
b. Mailing Address: 6805 MILLHOUSE RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516
c. Address at this location: 6805 MILLHOUSE RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516
2
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Summary of Proposed Utility Services
Utility services will be provided by area power (Piedmont Electric) and telecom providers.
Water and sewer services are self-contained within the property. An on-site water supply and
wastewater system consisting of well and septic facilities will be installed after proper
permitting with the Orange County Environmental Health Department.
64
65
The Treeist
12-4-2023
Conditional Zoning – Proffered Conditions
1) Reduction of the 100’ setback from property lines for outdoor storage of wood chips, stumps
and logs, branches and similar wood by-products resulting from tree cutting operations.
2) Provision for staff to review and approve technical changes to the plan specific to location and
arrangement within the limits of disturbance and the “activity area” defined as the edge of
gravel as shown on the provided conditional zoning plan set.
3) Provision for staff to review and approve technical changes to the proposed conditional zoning
plan specific to outdoor pole lights not to exceed 14’ and not be located outside the proposed
“activity area” as previously defined in proffered condition #2.
4) Commitment to keeping a viable option of alternative site access near the south east corner of
the site in the approximate location shown on the proposed conditional zoning plans. The need
for such alternate access may arise if, at some future date, the County determines that moving
the current access easement is necessary for the recreational-use needs of the adjacent County
parcels.
66
Staff Report
Zoning Atlas Amendment – Conditional District
Basic Information
Parcel Identification
Number (PIN) 9871-50-3254
Applicant Name
and Address
Craig Nishimoto
(Acer LLC)
1200 Hatch Road, Chapel
Hill, NC 27156
Property Owner
Name and Address
(if different from
Applicant)
N/A
Agent(s), if
applicable N/A
Attachment 2
67
Parcel Size +/-10.01 acres
Future Land Use
Map (FLUM)
Designation
Rural Buffer
FLUM Overlay(s) N/A
Growth Management
System Designation Rural Designated
Definition of FLUM
Designation
(from Article 10 of
UDO)
Designated lands in the
Comprehensive Plan that are
adjacent to an urban or transition
area that is rural in character and
which should remain rural and not
require urban services.
Interlocal Agreement
Applicable
(Y/N)
Yes
Applicable ILA Joint Planning Area (JPA)
Future Land Use
Classification Rural Buffer
Description
Only very low density residential,
agricultural uses exempt from
zoning regulations, and low-
intensity agricultural support uses
are appropriate in the Rural Buffer.
The applied zoning district is RB
(Rural Buffer).
68
Current Zoning
District RB (Rural Buffer)
Requested Zoning
District
ASE-CD (Agricultural Support
Enterprises Conditional
District)
Requested Zoning
District Consistent
with Appendix F of
2030
Comprehensive
Plan
Yes
Existing Zoning
Overlay Districts
Jordan Lake Unprotected
Watershed
Amendments
Proposed for
Overlay Districts
(Y/N)
No
69
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
North RB (Rural Buffer), undeveloped
South RB (Rural Buffer), undeveloped
East RB (Rural Buffer), undeveloped
West RB (Rural Buffer), undeveloped
Existing Roads
North Existing access easement connecting to
Millhouse Road to the east
South None
East None
West None
Existing Conditions/Physical Features
The site includes an existing 180 ft. telecommunication tower and 312 sq. ft. equipment building.
Public Water and Sewer
Private well and septic are proposed for the site.
Proposed Project
Proposed Development
The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Table of Permitted Uses (Article 5, Section 2)
allows for “Agricultural Services Uses” to be permitted in the Agricultural Support Enterprises-Conditional
District (ASE-CD) zoning district, subject to specific conditions, including a site-specific plan, required by the
Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC).
The applicant and property owner Craig Nishimoto, Acer LLC is requesting a rezoning of the +/-10.01 acres
property to ASE-CD. The applicants have provided a site-specific plan featuring two office buildings, one
residential structure, outdoor storage, and equipment staging. 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 proposed well and septic system will require Orange County Environmental
Health approval.
A formal site plan is required to be submitted as part of an ASE-CD rezoning application. Approval of the
site plan is part of the ASE-CD rezoning process. 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.
70
Site Plan
71
Proposed Access and Transportation Network Improvements
The Project is proposing access via the existing access easement to Millhouse Road. Based on the
application and total number of trips to be generated, a TIA was not required per Section 6.18.2 of the
UDO.
A Grant of Easement and Assignment of Lease for the existing access easement within the property was
recorded in 2008 between the property owner at that time and Crown Castle. Attachment 5 includes a
letter detailing the applicant’s legal right to the access easement, which cannot be confirmed by staff at this
time. However, the county conducted deed and title research on this property in 2008, when it was a
potential purchaser of the property. The county determined that Crown Castle retains a perpetual
easement on the property for access to their tower that grants them explicit rights to construct and
maintain their tower and first rights of refusal if all or a portion of the easement area is sold. Crown Castle
has not provided comment on this application despite requests from both the applicant and County
Planning staff.
The existing offsite access easement is located on property owned by Orange County. Due to the
aforementioned access concerns, and in response to the proposed use of the existing easement as a
commercial driveway to serve the applicant’s use, the County, specifically the Department of Environment,
Agriculture, Parks & Recreation (DEAPR), requested a condition of future access road construction
through its property from the applicant and the applicant has not agreed to the request. The applicant’s
response to DEAPR’s request is contained in Attachment 5.
As found in correspondence from DEAPR (Attachment 5), the request outlines the following:
If this proposed rezoning were approved, the County as landowner of the future park site that
contains the access easement would request that the applicant be required to work with the County
and the tower owner to reroute the access easement / new commercial driveway, to minimize the
isolation of sections of the future park and the resultant safety issues that would exist if the current
location were kept.
Given the fact that the construction of the facility is planned to be less than five years away, we
would not be inclined to pursue the interim solution you offered using the current access location.
We believe that all would be best served by addressing the needed relocation of the access sooner
rather than later.
Summary of Transportation Information
Existing Roadway Characteristics
Affected Roadway Millhouse Road
Type of Roadway Local – 2 lane undivided
Current Roadway Capacity 10,000
Latest Traffic Volume Estimated 2,500
Traffic Generation
Number of Trips Expected to be Generated by
Proposed Project
308 Total Daily
107 Total AM Peak
107 Total PM Peak
Proposed Utilities
Water and wastewater services will be provided via a private well and septic system that meet Orange
County Environmental Health standards.
72
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
North 40 feet building setbacks, Type D 50’ Land Use Buffer
South 20 feet building setback, Type D 50’ Land Use Buffer
East 20 feet building setback, Type D 50’ Land Use Buffer
West 20 feet building setback, Type D 50’ Land Use Buffer
Per Section 6.8.6 of the UDO, Type D Land Use Buffers are required along all parcel lines. The proposed
site plan identifies access and outdoor storage areas encroaching in the required buffer area which is not
in compliance with the UDO.
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.
Proposed Conditions
Per NCGS 160D-703, 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. Per Section
2.9.1 (F) (3) of the UDO, the following conditions are being proposed:
1. Project shall be completed as presented in approved site plan/application packet.
2. Allow for a reduction of the 100’ setback from the southern property line for outdoor storage of
wood chips, stumps and logs, branches and similar wood by-products resulting from tree cutting
operations. Outdoor storage shall not be less than 40 feet from the southern property line.
3. Allow for Planning Director to review and approve minor changes to the approved plan, per
Section 2.9.1(I) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, specific to the location
and arrangement of development within the limits of disturbance and the proposed “activity area”.
The “activity area” shall be defined as the edge of gravel as shown on the provided conditional
zoning plan set.
Solid Waste
The applicant has indicated development within the project will conform to the Orange County Solid
Waste Management Ordinance (Attachment 5).
73
4. Allow for Planning Director to review and approve minor changes to the approved plan, per
Section 2.9.1(I) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, specific to outdoor pole
lights. Pole lights shall not exceed 14 feet and shall not be located outside the proposed “activity
area” The “activity area” shall be defined as the edge of gravel as shown on the provided
conditional zoning plan set.
5. Shall maintain a viable option for alternative site access near the southeast corner of the site in
the approximate location shown on the proposed conditional zoning plans. The need for such
alternate access may arise if, at some future date, Orange County determines that moving the
current access easement is necessary for the recreational-use needs of the adjacent County
owned parcels.
Review Milestones
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 the UDO. Staff review
determined that the application is complete and all submitted materials are in compliance with the
following applicable sections of the UDO:
Section 2.8, Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments
Section 2.9, Conditional Districts
In accordance with Section 2.9.1(F), Approval and Conditions, the applicant has submitted
conditions which are to be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners for a determination
as to whether such conditions will afford protection of the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
Application Submittal Date August 7, 2023
Development Advisory Committee
(DAC) Review
September 21, 2023
October 19, 2023
December 21, 2023
Neighborhood Information Meeting
(NIM) November 17, 2023
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 Carrboro September 15, 2023 No
Town of Chapel Hill September 15, 2023 Yes
State Clearing House September 6, 2023 Yes
Orange County Agricultural
Preservation Board September 20, 2023 Yes
74
“Agricultural Services Uses” are defined as Use #3 in the Table of Permitted Uses and within
Article 10, Definitions of the UDO as:
“Commercial activities offering goods and services which support production of
agricultural products or processing of those products to make them marketable.
Examples include, but are not limited to, soil preparation, animal and farm management,
landscaping and horticultural services, specialized commercial horticulture, specialized
animal husbandry, biocide services, retail sales of farm/garden products, supplies and
equipment, equipment rental and repair service, tack shop, farrier, blacksmith, welding
shops, facilities for animal shows, animal sales and auctions, agriculture-based
clubs/meeting halls, storage of agricultural supplies and products, and processing plants
for agricultural products including wineries and canneries”
Section 5.2, Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO identifies Agricultural Services Uses as a
permitted use within the ASE-CD zoning district. There are no additional use standards related
to Agricultural Services Uses contained in the UDO.
Staff Comment: The application is complete in accordance with Section 2.8 and Section 2.9 of
the UDO. The applicant provided a Description of Proposed Use, Project Narrative, and
Suitability of ASE-CD Zoning statement detailing future land use part of the application package
(Attachment 1). In addition, the applicant provided a site plan which addresses access, parking,
outdoor storage, lighting, and landscaping.
2. As currently presented, the Outdoor Storage feature on the site plan (Attachment 1) and detailed as
“wood pile(s)” does not meet the required minimum 100’ distance from residentially zoned property.
The applicant has submitted a condition to reflect this variance from the ordinance standard
established in UDO Section 6.4.10.
3. Staff review of the application included considerations for how the request relates to the Orange
County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The following analysis outlines elements of the Plan which staff
identified as application and relevant to the consideration of this request.
Chapter 2 – Planning Principles
1. Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and Services: Orange
County’s public facilities and services should be delivered in a manner that efficiently uses
existing capacity. Expansions of facilities and services should be made only after careful
consideration of the costs and benefits of expansion.
Staff Comment: Not applicable
2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development within the county should
occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable over the long-term.
Staff Comment: The proposed ASE-CD zoning district for an arborist and tree-
processing center is consistent with the Rural Buffer Rural Land Use Classification
(Appendix F Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts). The
activity and impact of this use will be limited to the property, generating low volumes of
traffic and not negatively impacting surrounding properties by its use. It is immediately
outside the Town of Chapel Hill’s ETJ, emphasizing its proximity to both municipal and
county residents that can utilize this commercial service while not generating large
vehicle miles traveled. Its proximity to municipal centers while being separated from the
residential and commercial uses of those areas serves the mutual needs of the region
without negatively affecting the surrounding properties. The proposed Agricultural
Services Uses is permitted in the ASE-CD zoning district, complies with the UDO
75
standards except as noted, and meets the standards of evaluations as reviewed by the
Board of County Commissioners.
3.A. Encouragement of Energy Efficiency, Lower Energy Consumption and Use of Nonpolluting
Renewable Energy Resources
3.B. Promotion of Both Air Quality Protection and the Development of an Effective
Transportation System: Decreasing the use of non-renewable resources and lowering energy
consumption are encouraged in both public and private activities. The county’s transportation
system should be enhanced to promote more energy efficient modes of travel and improve air
quality.
Staff Comment: The applicant will introduce a wood processing and reuse facility within
close proximity to municipal centers where arborist needs and tree processing are most
needed. The other options are to otherwise rely upon vendors who travel farther
distances, redistribute by-products to non-local markets, and extract these resources
from Orange County while only contributing immediate services and a higher carbon
footprint. The proposed use supports a local enterprise that can immediately contribute
to the reuse of the related materials and reduce traveled miles to support the business.
4. Natural Area Resource Preservation: Protection of the County’s natural areas, including
forests, wildlife habitat, and other important open spaces should be a priority. The County
should work with regional and local organizations, the towns, and private landowners to
promote and achieve preservation of the County’s important natural resources.
Staff Comment: The applicant provided an Environmental Assessment as part of the
application package. Staff has reviewed and determined no significant environmental
impact is expected from this project based on existing conditions. The project site plan
protects the existing stream on site with provided stream buffering and strives to
maintain existing trees as part of the landscape buffer (Attachment 1).
5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern: The County’s rural areas are a cherished
component of the County’s character. Future development should preserve and enhance the
county’s rural landscape.
Staff Comment: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix G, Land Use Classification
and Overlay Locational Criteria, identifies Rural Buffer as land designated in the
Comprehensive Plan as land adjacent to an urban or transition area which is rural in
character and which should remain rural, contain very low-density residential uses, and
not require urban services during the plan period. The resource-related activities with
the use are consistent with the rural nature of the area and, as presented, will not
disrupt that character, being on the perimeter of the Town of Chapel Hill’s ETJ,
surrounded by managed forests and County-owned lands that will not serve residential
or commercial purposes.
6. Water Resources Preservation: The County has finite water resources to provide to future
populations. The protection and management of the County’s water resources should be a high
priority.
Staff Comment: The proposed project will utilize groundwater to service the future land
use, as permitted by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health (Attachment
5). In addition, the site plan provides for an 65-foot stream buffer to protect water quality
downstream (Attachment 1).
76
7. Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity: Development of a diversity of new
businesses and expansion of existing businesses should occur in Orange County.
Staff Comment: The applicant will provide an underserved market with needed service,
particularly for the nearby municipalities. The applicant is proposing to relocate an
existing tree care and consulting company currently operating in Carrboro to this site.
Relocation of this business to a rural setting will more appropriately allow for it to
operate while continuing to serve the nearby municipal market than it can from its
current placement in a municipality. The applicant estimates that approval could create
10 – 20 new jobs.
8. Preservation of Community Character: Future growth and development should occur in a
manner that preserves and enhances the existing character of the County, its townships, and
rural crossroads communities.
Staff Comment: This agricultural support enterprise will be appropriately placed within the
Rural Buffer designated by both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Orange County-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement Land Use Plan. It shall be situated such
that it is surrounded by an actively-managed forest, a former landfill, and a proposed
recreation facility. There will be no disruption to residential quality of life, and the approval
will introduce a new business to the area and to the county’s business community.
Placement of this business is in harmony with the immediately surrounding area on the
edge of the Town of Chapel Hill’s ETJ, and in the public interest so as to conveniently
place an arborist near municipal centers while separating it from the residential and
commercial activities of those areas for a more rural location surrounded by similar uses.
Chapter 5 – Land Use Element, Section 5.6 Goals
The proposal is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, furthering the following goals:
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.
Staff Comment: The application proposes an Agricultural Support Enterprise for an
arborist and wood-processing center within an area surrounded by public or quasi-public
uses, including the actively-managed Duke Forest. The tree-related operations are
consistent with both the rural character of this immediate area as well as the more
intensive use to the south of the former county landfill, which is in the Town of Chapel Hill’s
ETJ. While, by the applicant’s admission, the operations will generate noise pollution and
some odors related to tree processing into wood byproducts, the use is consistent with the
“low-intensity agricultural support” uses allowed in the Rural Buffer by the Orange County-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) Land Use Plan. The site plan and
conditions committed to by the applicant will separate this use from the properties owned
Orange County and proposed for a recreational facility featuring multiple soccer fields. The
combination of the required screening and setbacks with the natural environmental
features of this property and the adjacent ones will adequately minimize impacts to
surrounding properties.
Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and
features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character.
77
Staff Comment: The proposed use meets all UDO standards for buffering and screening,
as well as the applicable erosion control and stormwater regulations. It will utilize and
improve an existing access road, creating no new stream crossings, and, in fact, improving
the existing one to minimize runoff into the stream. The arborist will process natural wood
products that can be reused locally for multiple purposes, reducing the need for area
residents to rely upon imported products. The restrictions that exist on the uses of most of
the surrounding properties should ensure that low-intensity agricultural production of the
site will have minimal negative impacts upon natural resources or residents.
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.
Staff Comment: The proposed arborist and tree processing facility will be placed within
the Rural Buffer, away from residentially-used properties, and within the rural areas of the
county. The neighboring Duke Forest property is, in fact, a site that may be actively
timbered at its owners’ discretion; and the southern, county-owned property is a former
landfill that is limited in its redevelopment potential. These surrounding conditions will allow
the use to be inherently buffered from neighbors and prevent negative impacts to them that
might otherwise occur in a more densely-developed area. The use is consistent with the
future land use classification allowed by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F; and is
consistent with the land use allowances for the Rural Buffer in the JPA. The site will
generate some new traffic, but the cumulative daily employee and business-related trips
are under the County’s threshold for further analysis or offsite improvement.
Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and
responsive.
Staff Comment: 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, 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 F, Land Use Classification Description for Rural Buffer: Only very low density
residential, agricultural uses exempt from zoning regulations, and low-intensity agricultural
support uses are appropriate in the Rural Buffer.
Staff Comment: The proposed arborist and tree-processing facility is a low-intensity
agricultural support enterprise and is consistent with the allowable future land uses within
the designated “Rural Buffer” land use classification of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
4. The requested zoning district, ASE-CD (Agricultural Support Enterprises - Conditional District), is
consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F, Relationships Between Land Use
Classifications and Zoning Districts.
5. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix G, Land Use Classification and Overlay Locational
Criteria, identifies Rural Buffer as land designated in the Comprehensive Plan as land adjacent to
an urban or transition area which is rural in character and which should remain rural, contain very
low-density residential uses, and not require urban services during the plan period.
78
6. The applicant has provided a basic environmental assessment as part of this submittal. Staff has
reviewed and determined 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 goals
detailed above.
79
1
Staff Report
Zoning Atlas Amendment – Conditional District
Basic Information
Parcel Identification
Number (PIN) 9871-50-3254
Applicant Name
and Address
Craig Nishimoto
(Acer LLC)
1200 Hatch Road, Chapel
Hill, NC 27156
Property Owner
Name and Address
(if different from
Applicant)
N/A
Agent(s), if
applicable N/A
Attachment 2
80
2
Parcel Size +/-10.01 acres
Future Land Use
Map (FLUM)
Designation
Rural Buffer
FLUM Overlay(s) N/A
Growth Management
System Designation Rural Designated
Definition of FLUM
Designation
(from Article 10 of
UDO)
Designated lands in the
Comprehensive Plan that are
adjacent to an urban or transition
area that is rural in character and
which should remain rural and not
require urban services.
Interlocal Agreement
Applicable
(Y/N)
Yes
Applicable ILA Joint Planning Area (JPA)
Future Land Use
Classification Rural Buffer
Description
Only very low density residential,
agricultural uses exempt from
zoning regulations, and low-
intensity agricultural support uses
are appropriate in the Rural Buffer.
The applied zoning district is RB
(Rural Buffer).
81
3
Current Zoning
District RB (Rural Buffer)
Requested Zoning
District
ASE-CD (Agricultural Support
Enterprises Conditional
District)
Requested Zoning
District Consistent
with Appendix F of
2030
Comprehensive
Plan
Yes
Existing Zoning
Overlay Districts
Jordan Lake Unprotected
Watershed
Amendments
Proposed for
Overlay Districts
(Y/N)
No
82
4
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
North RB (Rural Buffer), undeveloped
South RB (Rural Buffer), undeveloped
East RB (Rural Buffer), undeveloped
West RB (Rural Buffer), undeveloped
Existing Roads
North Existing access easement connecting to
Millhouse Road to the east
South None
East None
West None
Existing Conditions/Physical Features
The site includes an existing 180 ft. telecommunication tower and 312 sq. ft. equipment building.
Public Water and Sewer
Private well and septic are proposed for the site.
Proposed Project
Proposed Development
The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Table of Permitted Uses (Article 5, Section 2)
allows for “Agricultural Services Uses” to be permitted in the Agricultural Support Enterprises-Conditional
District (ASE-CD) zoning district, subject to specific conditions, including a site-specific plan, required by the
Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC).
The applicant and property owner Craig Nishimoto, Acer LLC is requesting a rezoning of the +/-10.01 acres
property to ASE-CD. The applicants have provided a site-specific plan featuring two office buildings, one
residential structure, outdoor storage, and equipment staging. 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 proposed well and septic system will require Orange County Environmental
Health approval.
A formal site plan is required to be submitted as part of an ASE-CD rezoning application. Approval of the
site plan is part of the ASE-CD rezoning process. 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.
83
5
Site Plan
84
6
Proposed Access and Transportation Network Improvements
The Project is proposing access via the existing access easement to Millhouse Road. Based on the
application and total number of trips to be generated, a TIA was not required per Section 6.18.2 of the
UDO.
A Grant of Easement and Assignment of Lease for the existing access easement was recorded in 2008
between the property owner at that time and Crown Castle. Attachment 5 includes a letter detailing the
applicant’s legal right to the access easement, which cannot be confirmed by staff at this time.
The existing access easement is located on property owned by Orange County. In response to the
proposed use of the existing easement as a commercial driveway to serve the applicant’s use, the County,
specifically the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation (DEAPR), requested a
condition of future access road construction through its property from the applicant and the applicant has
not agreed to the request. The applicant’s response to DEAPR’s request is contained in Attachment 5.
As found in correspondence from DEAPR (Attachment 5), the request outlines the following:
If this proposed rezoning were approved, the County as landowner of the future park site that
contains the access easement would request that the applicant be required to work with the County
and the tower owner to reroute the access easement / new commercial driveway, to minimize the
isolation of sections of the future park and the resultant safety issues that would exist if the current
location were kept.
Given the fact that the construction of the facility is planned to be less than five years away, we
would not be inclined to pursue the interim solution you offered using the current access location.
We believe that all would be best served by addressing the needed relocation of the access sooner
rather than later.
Summary of Transportation Information
Existing Roadway Characteristics
Affected Roadway Millhouse Road
Type of Roadway Local – 2 lane undivided
Current Roadway Capacity 10,000
Latest Traffic Volume Estimated 2,500
Traffic Generation
Number of Trips Expected to be Generated by
Proposed Project
308 Total Daily
107 Total AM Peak
107 Total PM Peak
Proposed Utilities
Water and wastewater services will be provided via a private well and septic system that meet Orange
County Environmental Health standards.
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).
85
7
Land Use Buffers/Setbacks
North 40 feet building setbacks, Type D 50’ Land Use Buffer
South 20 feet building setback, Type D 50’ Land Use Buffer
East 20 feet building setback, Type D 50’ Land Use Buffer
West 20 feet building setback, Type D 50’ Land Use Buffer
Per Section 6.8.6 of the UDO, Type D Land Use Buffers are required along all parcel lines. The proposed
site plan identifies access and outdoor storage areas encroaching in the required buffer area which is not
in compliance with the UDO.
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.
Proposed Conditions
Per NCGS 160D-703, 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. Per Section
2.9.1 (F) (3) of the UDO, the following conditions are being proposed:
1. Project shall be completed as presented in approved site plan/application packet.
2. Allow for a reduction of the 100’ setback from the southern property line for outdoor storage of
wood chips, stumps and logs, branches and similar wood by-products resulting from tree cutting
operations. Outdoor storage shall not be less than 40 feet from the southern property line.
3. Allow for Planning Director to review and approve minor changes to the approved plan, per
Section 2.9.1(I) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, specific to the location
and arrangement of development within the limits of disturbance and the proposed “activity area”.
The “activity area” shall be defined as the edge of gravel as shown on the provided conditional
zoning plan set.
4. Allow for Planning Director to review and approve minor changes to the approved plan, per
Section 2.9.1(I) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, specific to outdoor pole
lights. Pole lights shall not exceed 14 feet and shall not be located outside the proposed “activity
area” The “activity area” shall be defined as the edge of gravel as shown on the provided
conditional zoning plan set.
Solid Waste
The applicant has indicated development within the project will conform to the Orange County Solid
Waste Management Ordinance (Attachment 5).
86
8
5. Shall maintain a viable option for alternative site access near the southeast corner of the site in
the approximate location shown on the proposed conditional zoning plans. The need for such
alternate access may arise if, at some future date, Orange County determines that moving the
current access easement is necessary for the recreational-use needs of the adjacent County
owned parcels.
Review Milestones
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 the UDO. Staff review
determined that the application is complete and all submitted materials are in compliance with the
following applicable sections of the UDO:
▪ Section 2.8, Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments
▪ Section 2.9, Conditional Districts
In accordance with Section 2.9.1(F), Approval and Conditions, the applicant has submitted
conditions which are to be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners for a determ ination
as to whether such conditions will afford protection of the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
“Agricultural Services Uses” are defined as Use #3 in the Table of Permitted Uses and within
Article 10, Definitions of the UDO as:
“Commercial activities offering goods and services which support production of
agricultural products or processing of those products to make them marketable.
Examples include, but are not limited to, soil preparation, animal and farm management,
Application Submittal Date August 7, 2023
Development Advisory Committee
(DAC) Review
September 21, 2023
October 19, 2023
December 21, 2023
Neighborhood Information Meeting
(NIM) November 17, 2023
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 Carrboro September 15, 2023 No
Town of Chapel Hill September 15, 2023 Yes
State Clearing House September 6, 2023 Yes
Orange County Agricultural
Preservation Board September 20, 2023 Yes
87
9
landscaping and horticultural services, specialized commercial horticulture, specialized
animal husbandry, biocide services, retail sales of farm/garden products, supplies and
equipment, equipment rental and repair service, tack shop, farrier, blacksmith, welding
shops, facilities for animal shows, animal sales and auctions, agriculture-based
clubs/meeting halls, storage of agricultural supplies and products, and processing plants
for agricultural products including wineries and canneries”
Section 5.2, Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO identifies Agricultural Services Uses as a
permitted use within the ASE-CD zoning district. There are no additional use standards related
to Agricultural Services Uses contained in the UDO.
Staff Comment: The application is complete in accordance with Section 2.8 and Section 2.9 of
the UDO. The applicant provided a Description of Proposed Use, Project Narrative, and
Suitability of ASE-CD Zoning statement detailing future land use part of the application package
(Attachment 1). In addition, the applicant provided a site plan which addresses access, parking,
outdoor storage, lighting, and landscaping.
2. As currently presented, the Outdoor Storage feature on the site plan (Attachment 1) and detailed as
“wood pile(s)” does not meet the required minimum 100’ distance from residentially zoned property.
The applicant has submitted a condition to reflect this variance from the ordinance standard
established in UDO Section 6.4.10.
3. Staff review of the application included considerations for how the request relates to the Orange
County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The following analysis outlines elements of the Plan which staff
identified as application and relevant to the consideration of this request.
Chapter 2 – Planning Principles
1. Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and Services: Orange
County’s public facilities and services should be delivered in a manner that efficiently uses
existing capacity. Expansions of facilities and services should be made only after careful
consideration of the costs and benefits of expansion.
Staff Comment: Not applicable
2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development within the county should
occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable over the long-term.
Staff Comment: The proposed ASE-CD zoning district for an arborist and tree-
processing center is consistent with the Rural Buffer Rural Land Use Classification
(Appendix F Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts). The
activity and impact of this use will be limited to the property, generating low volumes of
traffic and not negatively impacting surrounding properties by its use. It is immediately
outside the Town of Chapel Hill’s ETJ, emphasizing its proximity to both municipal and
county residents that can utilize this commercial service while not generating large
vehicle miles traveled. Its proximity to municipal centers while being separated from the
residential and commercial uses of those areas serves the mutual needs of the region
without negatively affecting the surrounding properties. The proposed Agricultural
Services Uses is permitted in the ASE-CD zoning district, complies with the UDO
standards except as noted, and meets the standards of evaluations as reviewed by the
Board of County Commissioners.
3.A. Encouragement of Energy Efficiency, Lower Energy Consumption and Use of Nonpolluting
Renewable Energy Resources
88
10
3.B. Promotion of Both Air Quality Protection and the Development of an Effective
Transportation System: Decreasing the use of non-renewable resources and lowering energy
consumption are encouraged in both public and private activities. The county’s transportation
system should be enhanced to promote more energy efficient modes of travel and improve air
quality.
Staff Comment: The applicant will introduce a wood processing and reuse facility within
close proximity to municipal centers where arborist needs and tree processing are most
needed. The other options are to otherwise rely upon vendors who travel farther
distances, redistribute by-products to non-local markets, and extract these resources
from Orange County while only contributing immediate services and a higher carbon
footprint. The proposed use supports a local enterprise that can immediately contribute
to the reuse of the related materials and reduce traveled miles to support the business.
4. Natural Area Resource Preservation: Protection of the County’s natural areas, including
forests, wildlife habitat, and other important open spaces should be a priority. The County
should work with regional and local organizations, the towns, and private landowners to
promote and achieve preservation of the County’s important natural resources.
Staff Comment: The applicant provided an Environmental Assessment as part of the
application package. Staff has reviewed and determined no significant environmental
impact is expected from this project based on existing conditions. The project site plan
protects the existing stream on site with provided stream buffering and strives to
maintain existing trees as part of the landscape buffer (Attachment 1).
5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern: The County’s rural areas are a cherished
component of the County’s character. Future development should preserve and enhance the
county’s rural landscape.
Staff Comment: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix G, Land Use Classification
and Overlay Locational Criteria, identifies Rural Buffer as land designated in the
Comprehensive Plan as land adjacent to an urban or transition area which is rural in
character and which should remain rural, contain very low-density residential uses, and
not require urban services during the plan period. The resource-related activities with
the use are consistent with the rural nature of the area and, as presented, will not
disrupt that character, being on the perimeter of the Town of Chapel Hill’s ETJ,
surrounded by managed forests and County-owned lands that will not serve residential
or commercial purposes.
6. Water Resources Preservation: The County has finite water resources to provide to future
populations. The protection and management of the County’s water resources should be a high
priority.
Staff Comment: The proposed project will utilize groundwater to service the future land
use, as permitted by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health (Attachment
5). In addition, the site plan provides for an 65-foot stream buffer to protect water quality
downstream (Attachment 1).
7. Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity: Development of a diversity of new
businesses and expansion of existing businesses should occur in Orange County.
Staff Comment: The applicant will provide an underserved market with needed service,
particularly for the nearby municipalities. The applicant is proposing to relocate an
89
11
existing tree care and consulting company currently operating in Carrboro to this site.
Relocation of this business to a rural setting will more appropriately allow for it to
operate while continuing to serve the nearby municipal market than it can from its
current placement in a municipality. The applicant estimates that approval could create
10 – 20 new jobs.
8. Preservation of Community Character: Future growth and development should occur in a
manner that preserves and enhances the existing character of the County, its townships, and
rural crossroads communities.
Staff Comment: This agricultural support enterprise will be appropriately placed within the
Rural Buffer designated by both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Orange County-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement Land Use Plan. It shall be situated such
that it is surrounded by an actively-managed forest, a former landfill, and a proposed
recreation facility. There will be no disruption to residential quality of life, and the approval
will introduce a new business to the area and to the county’s business community.
Placement of this business is in harmony with the immediately surrounding area on the
edge of the Town of Chapel Hill’s ETJ, and in the public interest so as to conveniently
place an arborist near municipal centers while separating it from the residential and
commercial activities of those areas for a more rural location surrounded by similar uses.
Chapter 5 – Land Use Element, Section 5.6 Goals
The proposal is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, furthering the following goals:
▪ 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.
Staff Comment: The application proposes an Agricultural Support Enterprise for an
arborist and wood-processing center within an area surrounded by public or quasi-public
uses, including the actively-managed Duke Forest. The tree-related operations are
consistent with both the rural character of this immediate area as well as the more
intensive use to the south of the former county landfill, which is in the Town of Chapel Hill’s
ETJ. While, by the applicant’s admission, the operations will generate noise pollution and
some odors related to tree processing into wood byproducts, the use is consistent with the
“low-intensity agricultural support” uses allowed in the Rural Buffer by the Orange County-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) Land Use Plan. The site plan and
conditions committed to by the applicant will separate this use from the properties owned
Orange County and proposed for a recreational facility featuring multiple soccer fields. The
combination of the required screening and setbacks with the natural environmental
features of this property and the adjacent ones will adequately minimize impacts to
surrounding properties.
▪ Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and
features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character.
Staff Comment: The proposed use meets all UDO standards for buffering and screening,
as well as the applicable erosion control and stormwater regulations. It will utilize and
improve an existing access road, creating no new stream crossings, and, in fact, improving
the existing one to minimize runoff into the stream. The arborist will process natural wood
products that can be reused locally for multiple purposes, reducing the need for area
residents to rely upon imported products. The restrictions that exist on the uses of most of
90
12
the surrounding properties should ensure that low-intensity agricultural production of the
site will have minimal negative impacts upon natural resources or residents.
▪ 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.
Staff Comment: The proposed arborist and tree processing facility will be placed within
the Rural Buffer, away from residentially-used properties, and within the rural areas of the
county. The neighboring Duke Forest property is, in fact, a site that may be actively
timbered at its owners’ discretion; and the southern, county-owned property is a former
landfill that is limited in its redevelopment potential. These surrounding conditions will allow
the use to be inherently buffered from neighbors and prevent negative impacts to them that
might otherwise occur in a more densely-developed area. The use is consistent with the
future land use classification allowed by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F; and is
consistent with the land use allowances for the Rural Buffer in the JPA. The site will
generate some new traffic, but the cumulative daily employee and business-related trips
are under the County’s threshold for further analysis or offsite improvement.
▪ Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and
responsive.
Staff Comment: 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, 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 F, Land Use Classification Description for Rural Buffer: Only very low density
residential, agricultural uses exempt from zoning regulations, and low-intensity agricultural
support uses are appropriate in the Rural Buffer.
Staff Comment: The proposed arborist and tree-processing facility is a low-intensity
agricultural support enterprise and is consistent with the allowable future land uses within
the designated “Rural Buffer” land use classification of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
4. The requested zoning district, ASE-CD (Agricultural Support Enterprises - Conditional District), is
consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F, Relationships Between Land Use
Classifications and Zoning Districts.
5. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix G, Land Use Classification and Overlay Locational
Criteria, identifies Rural Buffer as land designated in the Comprehensive Plan as land adjacent to
an urban or transition area which is rural in character and which should remain rural, contain very
low-density residential uses, and not require urban services during the plan period.
6. The applicant has provided a basic environmental assessment as part of this submittal. Staff has
reviewed and determined no significant environmental impact is expected from this project based
on existing conditions.
91
13
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.
92
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575
December 14, 2023
NOTICE OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING
To Whom It May Concern:
This notice is to inform you of the January 3, 2024, Planning Board meeting, at which an
application to rezone a +/-10.01 acre-property (PIN: 9871-50-3254) at 6915-UT Millhouse
Road, Chapel Hill, within Chapel Hill 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 the parcels requested for rezoning.
YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT PROPOSED FOR REZONING.
Property Information
Parcel ID Number (PIN) 9871-50-3254
Owner Acer, LLC
Applicant Craig Nishimoto
Location 6915-UT Millhouse Road
Acreage +/-10.01 acres
Current Zoning Rural Buffer (RB)
Proposed Zoning Agricultural Support Enterprises Conditional District
(ASE-CD)
Watershed Designation Jordan Lake Unprotected
What is being proposed?
The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcel to ASE-CD for agriculturally-related
activities. The applicant is proposing to locate a tree care and consulting company on this
site. In accordance with Orange County UDO requirements, the applicant has provided a
site-specific plan that features two office buildings, a residential building for a property
caretaker, and service equipment staging area, as well as required features (e.g.
landscaping) to conform with UDO standards. As defined and detailed by the Orange
County UDO, should the application be subsequently approved by the Board Of County
Commissioners (BOCC), the site plan, as well as any other agreed to conditions, will be
binding for the property. Any significant changes to these conditions, including principal
use, will require a new zoning map amendment.
What is this meeting for?
The Planning Board meeting is a required step for a Conditional Rezoning application.
The Planning Board meeting must take place before the project proceeds to t he BOCC
Attachment 3 93
for public hearing and decision. The Planning Board must recommend one of the
following four actions to the BOCC at their meeting: 1) Approval, 2) Denial, 3) Approval,
but with specified changes, or 4) that the Planning Board be given extended time to
consider the matter.
Planning Board Meeting Information
Date January 3, 2024
Time 7:00 p.m.
Place Whitted Meeting Facility
Address 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC
Assigned Planner
Ashley Moncado, Planner III
Email: amoncado@orangecountync.gov
Phone: 919-245-2589
***
A formal public hearing on the proposed amendments will be held by the BOCC. At this
time, the anticipated date for the public hearing is March 7, 2024 but may be subject to
change. As required by County and State laws, you will receive another written notice
about the public hearing at a later date.
If you cannot attend the Planning Board meeting and the website does not answer your
questions about the requested rezoning, you may call (91 9) 245-2575 during regular
business hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you.
Sincerely,
Cy Stober
Additional information is available on the Orange County Planning Department’s websi te:
https://www.orangecountync.gov/3038/Active-Development-Projects or scan below:
Para servicios de traducción e interpretación, comuníquese con el personal de
planificación al 919-245-2585 o Planningapps@orangecountync.gov al menos dos
semanas antes de la reunión programada.
94
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575
CERTIFICATION OF MAILING
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I, Ashley Moncado, Planner III 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 Planning Board Meeting to be held regarding a rezoning application proposing to rezone one
parcel located at 6915-UT Millhouse Road in Chapel Hill (PIN 9871-50-3254) on December 14, 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 Planning Board Meeting.
WITNESS my hand, this 14th day of December 2023.
Ashley Moncado, AICP
Planner III
Orange County Planning
95
Attachment 4 96
97
MEETING NOTES 11.17.23 -
4.17 pm
Brief overview of why we’re glad to have this land
TRAFFIC (how do we plan to handle that?)
- Peak points:
- Right before 7 am with employees coming in
- Around 7.30/8 am, trucks leaving to the job sites
- Petering in/out around 2.30 pm/ 4 pm
COMPANY MAKEUP
- 25 ish people
- Consultants (2) - not at the site
- Office Staff (2) - stay at site
- Tree Crews (15ish) - will be arriving/leaving twice (personal and then in trucks)
INTENT OF LOT
- CN mentioned that we planned to use it as a staging area (concern was about
weight/noise of operations)
- Operations at the site is minimal, because we aren’t clearing operations, we’re
residential (detail) work
4.31 pm
TIMELINE FOR DEVELOPMENT
- Jan 3rd Planning board meeting,
- Earliest BOCC in Feb
- Ideal to move into a semi-usable space this time next year.
NOISE CREATION AT SITE
- Training employees with chainsaw during day
- Machinery moving logs/brush piles from staging area
- NO saw mill or logging operations
- The distance between our new site and the concerned parties is enough to minimize the
noise (the firing range and dump run larger machines with higher noise thresholds)
TRUCK
- Worried about poor driving making grinding gears/blocking traffic
WOOD CHIPS
- What do we do with them? Sell to landscapers?
- Discussed various ways that we could process them
98
LOGS
- While we are storing/stacking logs at the site, how often do we use big trucks to haul
them away?
4:58 pm
POTENTIAL SOCCER FIELDS
- Would they be wanting us to build any sort of barrier between us and the fields?
- There are regulations re: noise/visual barriers, but we aren’t planning to build large
scale/expansive fencing
- Trespassers are indeed an issue
5.12 pm
RURAL BUFFER
- Disseminating the purpose of the rural buffer and thinking through how our operations
continue to help/aid
99
100
101
102
Attachment 5103
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575
Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Comments
DAC review comments and recommendations do not constitute plan or permit approval for this application
and/or replace any other plans and permits that may be required by other County departments and State
agencies.
Project: MA23-0003 The Treeist ASE-CD Map Amendment
Location/PIN: 9871-50-3254
Applicant: Acer, LLC
Staff Planner: Ashley Moncado, Planner III
DAC Meeting Date: 10/19/2023
Addressing and
Land Records Date: Staff:
1. No comments
Attorney’s Office Date: Staff:
1. No comments
Building
Inspections Date: 10/16/23 Staff:
Michael Rettie
mrettie@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2604
1. No new comments
DEAPR Date: Staff:
1. No comments
Environmental
Health Date: Staff:
1. No comments
Erosion
Control Date: 10/17/23 Staff:
Nathan Jacobsen
Njacobsen@orangecountync.gov
515-745-5894
1. Both a Land Disturbing Permit and a Stormwater Management Plan appear to be
required for the proposed scope of work.
2. Land Disturbance thresholds provided below for Jordan Lake Unprotected Watershed:
a. 20,000 sq. ft. for erosion control plan
b. 21,780 sq. ft. for stormwater management plan
104
Fire and Life
Safety Date: Staff:
1. No comments
NCDOT Date: Staff:
1. No comments
Planning Date: 10/16/2023 Staff:
Ashley Moncado
amoncado@orangecountync.gov
919-245-2589
1. Proposed outdoor storage shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from the parcel lines
and meet all standards contained in Section 6.4.10.
2. Any proposed outdoor lighting shall comply with Section 6.11. Based on Section 6.11.5,
a lighting plan shall be submitted for review.
3. Provide documentation from Crown Castle and Orange County DEAPR (owner of
adjacent lot) indicating no objections to utilizing the existing access easement and drive
for the proposed use.
4. Remove parking calculations referencing one space per employee on the shift of max
employment.
5. Based on staff review, it appears there are 61 parking spaces (including 2 handicap
parking spaces) identified on the site plan, however, the site plan references 62 parking
space. Please review and confirm the total number of provided parking spaces on the
site plan.
6. Please note, the revised site plan materials submitted on October 6 did not include an
Existing Conditions page. This may have been left out since it did not require revisions. If
the applicant is no longer including that page in the site plan packet, please incorporate
Solid Waste noted on the Concept Site Plan page.
7. Based on preliminary comments from the Orange County Agricultural Preservation
Board, staff recommends the narrative and description to be revised to identify and
highlight if materials resulting from this use are utilized for agricultural purposes (i.e.
composting, ground cover, etc.).
8. A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is required for the rezoning application
based on Section 2.9.1(D) of the Unified Development Ordinance. Please refer to the
August 15 email from Taylor Perschau, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor, for
additional information related to the NIM process.
9. Please see site plan for additional comments.
Solid Waste Date: Staff:
1. No comments
Stormwater
Management Date: Staff:
1. No comments
Transportation
Services Date: Staff:
1. No comments
105
MEMORANDUM
TO: PATRICK MALLETT AND TAYLOR PERSCHAU
FROM: JOSH MOOSE, ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: MA23-0003 (TREEIST) CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATION
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2023
Orange County Solid Waste Management has no comment on the most recent set of site plans submitted.
Consider this approval from Orange County Solid Waste Management.
106
MEMORANDUM
To: Brian Collie, Planner II, Planning and Inspections Department
From: Christian Hirni, Land Conservation Manager, DEAPR
Date: September 19, 2023
Re: Acer LLC “The Treeist”- Map Amendment Conditional Rezoning Proposal
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Map Amendment – Conditional
upon land listed under Acer LLC. The map amendment would allow for rezoning the tract, currently
under Rural Buffer designation, to Non-Residential Commercial District for use as an operations site for
“The Treeist”, a certified arboriculture and tree company. The site is approximately 10.01 acres located
west of Milhouse Road, north of Eubanks Road, and is abutted to County property on three sides with
Duke Forest on the western border. The subject property is one parcel (PIN 9871-50-3254) and is within
the Neuse River/Jordan Lake Watershed.
The property contains approximately 520 linear feet of Old Field Creek, which drains directly into New
Hope Creek around 3 miles east of the property boundary.
DEAPR comments on development projects 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 developing just over two-thirds of the property as center of operations and staging for
“The Treeist” business, setting aside around one quarter of the property to protect the riparian buffers of
Old Field Creek as delineated within the site plan.
Referencing the State Natural Heritage Program Inventory and the dataset of the Biodiversity and
Wildlife Corridor Assessment confirms Old Field Creek and associated forested corridor (approximately
100-150 feet from centerline), to be of medium-high conservation value (Score 7/10). This section of Old
Field Creek headwaters at a spring just 1,500 feet north of the tract, on lands owned by Duke Forest and
listed by the County and State Natural Heritage Area Inventory (Blackwood Mountain Natural Area). As
such, Old Field Creek is recognized by the Eno New Hope Landscape Conservation Plan as the “Highest”
category of Conservation Priority as a Habitat Patch and Wildlife Connectivity Corridor. Any such use of
the areas around the creek should allow it to remain in its natural and wooded state. The improvement of
the existing roadbed to modern standards, including culverts and/or bridging, should be done with care to
limit the disturbance of the stream bed and walls. All other uses or potential improvements associated
with the development of the tract should be located outside of this area.
As the entirety of the tract is forested, apart from the already developed portion for a cell tower, the
remainder is categorized as low conservation priority per the Biodiversity and Wildlife Corridor
Assessment and moderate conservation value per the Eno New Hope Landscape Conservation Plan. Any
107
additional area available to be left in its natural and wooded state would only add benefit to the
conservation of valuable wildlife habitat and corridor.
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 Hirni at 245-2514 or Peter Sandbeck at 245-2517.
108
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cy Stober, AICP – Director, Planning & Inspections Department
FROM:
CC:
Victoria Hudson – Orange County Environmental Health Division
CC: Patrick Mallett – Deputy Director Development Services
DATE:
November 27, 2023
CASE: MA23-0003
PIN: 9871503254
WATERSHED: Jordan Lake
PROJECT: 10.01 acre property currently zoned Rural Buffer. Application is to re-
zone the property to NR-CD for the purpose of the "Treeist" tree care
and consulting company.
SUBJECT: Summary of Plan Review by Orange County Environmental
Health Division
This memo summarizes the summarizes the findings of an Orange County
Environmental Health plan review of the application for a NR-CD Conditional District,
submitted as the “Eden View” project (hereafter, the “project”). The project is located
within 10.01 acres of property at 6915-UT Millhouse Road. The request proposes
development consisting of:
• Application is proposing to re-zone the property to ASE-CD to allow for
"Agricultural Services Uses".
The Staff comments contained herein are based upon the submittal of a required Site
Plan, dated October 31, 2023. These findings should not be interpreted as the
Division’s final analysis/approval of the proposed development. Soil and site
evaluations have not been conducted by the Orange County Health Department,
109
Environmental Health Division. The Health Department’s role in the Amendment is
one involving preliminary determination of soil suitability for septic systems.
Environmental Health Conditions
X At this time, no application(s) have been received. Application(s) and fees
required.
X Improvement Permit(s) shall only be issued upon presentation of the exact
structure to be constructed.
X Permit(s) must be issued by the Orange County Health Department prior to any
alteration of the lot(s).
X Permit conditions may apply.
Existing EH records are attached.
Existing well and/or septic systems will be impacted.
Contact Public Water Supply for on-site water supply.
Other:
Conclusion:
EH 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 others may apply beyond the proposed
development as shown with this request. Please direct any questions or requests for
Laws, Rules, and policy to ehapplications@orangecountync.gov.
___________________________ _______________
Victoria Hudson, MPA, REHS Date
Or designee
11-27-2023
110
111
112
From:Edwards, Charles N
To:Ashley E. Moncado
Subject:RE: [External] FW: DAC Memo - MA23-0003 Conditional Rezoning Application (Acer, LLC.)
Date:Tuesday, December 12, 2023 3:52:48 PM
Attachments:image002.png
Ashley,
Apology for the delay in responding. I have reviewed the attached plan and have no additional
comments. The applicant should submit directly to this office for the required NCDOT driveway
permit at such time that he has received County approvals. I will also provide these comments for
the 12/21 DAC.
C. N. Edwards Jr., PE (Chuck)
District Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Division 7, District 1
336 570 6833
cnedwards@ncdot.gov
115 East Crescent Square Drive
P. O. Box 766
Graham, NC 27253
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
113
510 Meadowlands Drive | Hillsborough, NC 27278 | (919) 245-6100 Main Office
www.orangecountync.gov/oces
Fire & Life Safety Division
TO:
FROM:
CC:
Date:
CASE:
Cy Stober, AICP – Director, Planning & Inspections
Elizabeth Farnan – Fire Marshal, Emergency Services
Ashley Moncado - Planner IIl, Planning & Inspections
December 21, 2023
MA23-0003
PIN: 9871503254
PROJECT:&RQGLWLRQDO5H]RQLQJ (Acer,LLC.)
SUBJECT: Site Plan Review Regarding Conformance with Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) for Emergency Apparatus Access, Addressing,
Gate Access, and Water Availability for Required Fire Flow
____________________________________________________________________________
This memo is to show that the Fire & Life Safety Division has NO OBJECTIONS to the
approval of the rezoning request. All requirements have been met for emergency apparatus
access to the site, addressing, gate access, and water flow requirements.
Elizabeth Farnan, FM
December 21, 2023
114
MEMORANDUM
To: Ashley Moncado, Planner III, Planning and Inspections Department
From: Peter Sandbeck, Cultural Resources Coordinator, DEAPR
Date: October 20, 2023
Re: MA23-0003 The Treeist Conditional Rezoning Application
Thank you for providing the Agricultural Preservation Board (APB) with the opportunity to review and
comment on the proposal from Acer LLC to rezone 10.01 acres (PIN 9871503254) from the RB, Rural
Buffer zoning district to ASE-CD, Agricultural Support Enterprises Conditional District for agricultural
services uses. These comments are being provided according to the provisions of Section 2.8.5 of the
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, which stipulates that the application shall be provided to
the Agricultural Preservation Board for review and comment.
Summary of APB Comments:
Vehicle activity: the application should accurately reflect a realistic estimate of the proposed vehicle
activity, both for crew members individually going to and from work, and for the truck traffic, both crew
trucks and timber carrying trucks.
Site plantings: members felt that it was going to be important to have adequate site plantings to properly
screen the somewhat industrial nature of this operation.
Tree service: members wanted to be sure that a tree service operation qualifies under the general
definition of agriculture, and thus that this does not set a precedent for any future such applications.
Mulch and chip production: members felt that this was a positive aspect, as this appears to be a byproduct
of this business and that there is a good market for these byproducts and that seems to fall into the
category of an agricultural enterprise.
In summary, APB members were generally comfortable with the application and didn’t offer any other
concerns. They expressed general agreement that this appears to be a viable use for this particular parcel,
given the uses and ownership of the adjoining parcels.
Please contact me if you have any questions at 245-2517.
115
From:Corey Liles
To:Cy Stober; Taylor Perschau; Ashley E. Moncado; Patrick R. Mallett; Perdita Holtz
Cc:Britany Waddell
Subject:[EXTERNAL MAIL!] RE: Rural Buffer Rezoning Application Notification
Date:Monday, October 9, 2023 11:02:32 AM
Hi Cy and team,
Thank you for the opportunity to look over the rezoning application for Treeist. Our Current Development team came up with a few comments, which I’ve
listed below. We do not have any significant concerns with the project moving forward – it seems like an appropriate development for the site and
compatible with surrounding land uses. But we did want to note a few things that came to mind based on the proximity of the site to Chapel Hill’s
jurisdiction. Happy to talk through anything further if it’s helpful.
1. Truck Traffic
a. Improvements to the access road should minimize the deposit of dirt and grit onto Millhouse Rd. We recommend the access road be paved,
at least on the approach to Millhouse Rd, to avoid trucks tracking too much debris out of the site
b. We are interested in knowing more about the expected times for peak truck operations, given the proximity of the site to Town facilities. Is it
possible that the times when many trucks will be entering and exiting the site will overlap with high-traffic times for Chapel Hill Transit or
Chapel Hill Public Works? What can be done to minimize conflicts?
2. Stream Impacts
a. Design and construction techniques for the road crossing of the stream should minimize disruption to the stream buffer and stream channel
while adequately supporting truck weight. Paving the road may be advisable here as well to minimize dirt and debris going into the stream
b. We recommend locating the dumpster farther from the stream buffer, given what appears to be a fairly flexible site layout. If relocation isn’t
possible, include proper measures to prevent pollutant discharge into the stream
c. Same considerations for fuel tanks. Recommend relocation farther from the stream and/or appropriate measures to minimize the risks of
spills
3. Public-Facing Activities
a. The narrative describes on-site instruction and similar activities being offered. The nature of facilities proposed on-site, however, suggests
possible safety concerns. We wondered if it was possible for the business to partner with Orange County to host these activities on the
County-owned future park site, rather than on the subject property
Thanks,
Corey
Corey Liles, Planning Manager
Planning Department | Town of Chapel Hill 405 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. | Chapel Hill NC 27514 direct: 919-969-5008 | cell: 919-949-4066cliles@townofchapelhill.orgPlanning main: 919-968-2728 | planning@townofchapelhill.org
From: Britany Waddell <bwaddell@townofchapelhill.org>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 1:07 PM
To: Corey Liles <cliles@townofchapelhill.org>
Subject: FW: Rural Buffer Rezoning Application Notification
FYI
Britany J. Waddell, AICP, CZO
Director of Planning
From: Cy Stober <cstober@orangecountync.gov>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 5:17 PM
To: Patricia McGuire (pmcguire@ci.carrboro.nc.us) <pmcguire@ci.carrboro.nc.us>; Martin Roupe <mroupe@carrboronc.gov>
Cc: Judy Johnson <jjohnson@townofchapelhill.org>; Taylor Perschau <tperschau@orangecountync.gov>; amoncado <amoncado@orangecountync.gov>;
Patrick R. Mallett <pmallett@orangecountync.gov>; Perdita Holtz <pholtz@orangecountync.gov>; Britany Waddell <bwaddell@townofchapelhill.org>
Subject: RE: Rural Buffer Rezoning Application Notification
External email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To check or report click the Phish Alert Button
Tish & Marty,
My former email did not make it through your filter due to the attachment size. I am happy to provide with you access to all application materials, including
the full plan set, if you like. In the meantime, please see the attached materials.
Regards,
116
Cy Stober
Planning & Inspections Director
(919) 245-2585 (Office)
(919) 245-2592 (Direct)
Fax: (919) 644-3022
E-mail: cstober@orangecountync.gov
Orange County Planning Website: https://orangecountync.gov/792/Planning-Inspections
Address:
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third
parties.
From: Cy Stober
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 9:15 AM
To: Britany Waddell <bwaddell@townofchapelhill.org>; Patricia McGuire (pmcguire@ci.carrboro.nc.us) <pmcguire@ci.carrboro.nc.us>
Cc: Judy Johnson <jjohnson@townofchapelhill.org>; Martin Roupe <mroupe@carrboronc.gov>; Taylor Perschau <tperschau@orangecountync.gov>; Ashley
E. Moncado <amoncado@orangecountync.gov>; Patrick R. Mallett <pmallett@orangecountync.gov>; Perdita Holtz <pholtz@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: Rural Buffer Rezoning Application Notification
Trish & Britany,
I hope you are both well. Please find the notification letter regarding a rezoning application for a property in the Rural Buffer and Courtesy Joint Review
Area attached to this email. I am also providing the site plan, zoning report, application, and narrative. Please let me know if you would like the full
application package.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, including the potential need for a meeting to discuss this application.
Have a good weekend,
Cy Stober
Planning & Inspections Director
(919) 245-2585 (Office)
(919) 245-2592 (Direct)
Fax: (919) 644-3022
E-mail: cstober@orangecountync.gov
Orange County Planning Website: https://orangecountync.gov/792/Planning-Inspections
Address:
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third
parties.
117
To: Kadisha Molyneaux
State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Administration
From: Lyn Biles
Re:
Division o f Environmental Assistance and C ustomer Service
Washington Regional Office
24-0071
Scoping - Proposed project is for rezoning and special use permits. The
property will be used to house the Treeist tree care and consulting
company. The property will be home to two proposed office and workshop
spaces, a residential unit for a property caretaker, with supporting tree
service equipment nestled within a perimeter of wooded areas and buffers
on the 10-acre property.
Orange County.
Date: October 5, 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 located in and around the project site. 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
118
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Cameron Ingram, Executive Director
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: (919) 707-0220 • Fax: (919) 707-0028
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lyn Biles, Environmental Assistance and SEPA Coordinator
NCDENR Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Services
FROM: Olivia Munzer, Western Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
DATE: 02 October 2023
SUBJECT: Scoping for Acer LLC – Treeist Tree Care in Chapel Hill, Orange County. DEQ Project
No. 24-0071.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
information. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the United States National
Environmental Policy Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661 et seq.).
The L.E.A.D.S. Group P.A., on behalf of Acer LLC, is requesting scoping for the proposed rezoning and
special use permits for the Treeist Tree Care and Consulting Company to be located at 6915-UT
Millhouse Road, Chapel Hill, Orange County, North Carolina. The proposed project entails the
construction of two proposed office and workshop spaces, a residential unit, and supporting tree service
equipment on 10.01 acres of forested area.
An unnamed tributary of Old Field Creek in the Cape Fear River basin flows along the northeast property
boundary. The applicant proposes a 50-foot buffer along both sides of the intermittent stream.
Downstream of the project, we have records of the state endangered Carolina creekshell (Villosa
vaughaniana). We also have records of the state endangered and proposed federally endangered tricolored
bat (Perimyotis subflavus) in Orange County. We recommend contacting the USFWS to ensure that any
issues related to the tricolored bat are addressed. Duke Forest and Orange County Open Space (Millhouse
Road Park) manage lands surrounding the proposed project.
We offer the following general recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources:
1. We recommend not clearing the entire site, but rather maintaining the maximum amount of native
vegetation as possible.
2. Native plants should be used for seeding disturbed areas. Specifically, avoid using Bermudagrass,
redtop, tall fescue, and lespedeza, which are invasive and/or non-native. A list of alternatives to
non-native species has been attached. Alternatively, use grains, such as oats, wheat, or rye for
temporary cover and native seed mixes for permeant seeding. We recommend planting native,
wildflower seed mixes that will create pollinator habitat within the project boundary. Planting
native vegetation can reduce the cost of maintenance. Avoid using invasive, non-native plants in
119
02 October 2023 Page 2
Acer LLC - Treeist Tree Care
DEQ Project No. 24-0071
seed mixtures or landscaping plants, such as nandina or privet
(http://www.ncwildflower.org/plant_galleries/invasives_list).
3. Minimize the clearing of living, dying, or dead mature trees, particularly if they are hardwoods,
and avoid tree clearing activities during the activity period for tricolored bats (April 1 – November
14).
4. Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or
construction.
5. Erosion control matting made of plastic mesh or twine should not be used within the project area
because it can injure or kill wildlife.
If an environmental document is prepared, it should include a detailed assessment of existing natural
resources within the project area and should discuss the potential of mitigating impacts to wetlands,
waters, and high-quality upland habitat. We encourage the applicant to consult the Department of
Environmental Quality’s Guidance for Preparing SEPA Documents and Addressing Secondary and
Cumulative Impacts in preparing the environmental document. This document is available at
https://deq.nc.gov/permits-regulations/sepa. To facilitate our review of proposed project impacts on
aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources, we request the following information is included in the
environmental document. Although some of the information, requests and comments may not be
applicable to this project, these should facilitate preparation of an environmental document that addresses
impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
1. Include descriptions of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources within the project area, and a
listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered or special concern species. A
listing of designated species can be found on the N.C. Natural Heritage Program’s website at
http://www.ncnhp.org. Any protected species surveys should be conducted by biologists with
both state and federal endangered species permits.
2. The project footprint should be surveyed for wetlands and streams to ensure there are no impacts
to surface waters. In addition to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas and streams aid in flood
control and water quality protection. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permits and
NCDWR Section 401 Certifications are required for any impacts to jurisdictional streams or
wetlands. Include descriptions of any streams or wetlands affected by the project.
3. Define the service area for the project, including any ETJs (extra-territorial jurisdiction), and
provide a map of the service area.
4. Provide a description of project activities that will occur within wetlands and streams, such as fill
or channel alteration. The amount of impacts by alternative project designs should be listed.
5. Provide a description and a cover type map showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted
by the project.
6. Discuss the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands and uplands).
7. Discuss any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the project or to mitigate
unavoidable habitat losses.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this project. Please contact
me at (336) 269-0074 or olivia.munzer@ncwildlife.org if there are any questions about these comments
or for free technical guidance.
120
DATE: September 17, 2023
TO: Michael Scott, Division Director through Sharon Brinkley
FROM: Lee Hill, Environmental Senior Specialist - Solid Waste Section Field Operations
Branch
RE: SEPA Project 24-0071 Orange County, NC
Rezoning and Special Use Permits for 6915-UT Millhouse Rd (PIN 9871503254)
The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the scoping documents submitted by Orange County for the
proposed rezoning and special use permits for 6915-UT Millhouse Rd (PIN 9871503254). Five solid
waste landfills and two other permitted solid waste facilities are located within one mile of the
subject property. This property is adjacent to the closed Orange County MSW and construction and
demolition landfills (6801-MSWLF-1982, 6801-CDLF-1993, 6801-MSWLF). Closed landfills have the
potential to release contaminants into the environment and could affect groundwater. Additional
information about these facilities can be found at the following links: 6801-CDLF-1993 6801-
MSWLF-1982 6801-MSWLF 6801-MSWLF-1993 6804-CDLF-2005 6801-HHW-2003 6806-HHW-
2018 Otherwise, 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@deq.nc.gov.
Ec: Jason Watkins, Field Operations Branch Head
Chuck Kirchner, Environmental Senior Specialist
121
Date: September 8, 2023
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 # 24-0071 Orange County, Orange County, North Carolina
The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of sites under its jurisdiction to the Orange County
project. Proposed project is for rezoning and special use permits. The property will be used to house the Treeist
tree care and consulting company. The property will be home to two proposed office and workshop spaces, a
residential unit for a property caretaker, with supporting tree service equipment nestled within a perimeter of
wooded areas and buffers on the 10-acre property.
Two (2) Superfund Section sites and no (0) Brownfields Program 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://deq.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.
122
Superfund & Brownfield Sites SEPA/NEPA Review Report
Area of Interest (AOI) Information Orange County SEPA project 24-0071
Area : 2,340.37 acres
Sep 8 2023 11:47:31 Eastern Daylight Time
123
Superfund and Brownfield Sites
Orange County SEPA project 24-0071
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 0 N/A N/A
Inactive Hazardous Sites
#EPAID SITENAME Count
1 NCN000410563 EUBANKS RD CONTAMINATED WELL 1
2 NONCD0001961 KIRSCHNER, GEORGE PROPERTY 1
124
State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 1 of 3
April 4, 2022/lbh
Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh
Project Number: 24-0071 Due Date: 10/02/2023
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.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Normal Process
Time
(Statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater
treatment facilities, non-standard sewer system
extensions & sewer systems that do not
discharge into state surface waters.
Application 90 days before begins construction or award of
construction contracts. On-site inspection may be required. Post-
application technical conference usual.
30 days
(90 days)
Permit to construct & operate, sewer
extensions involving gravity sewers, pump
stations and force mains discharging into a
sewer collection
system
Fast-Track Permitting program consists of the submittal of an
application and an engineer's certification that the project meets all
applicable State rules and Division Minimum Design Criteria.
30 days
(N/A)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water
and/or permit to operate and construct
wastewater facilities discharging into state
surface waters.
Application 180 days before begins activity. On-site inspection. Pre-
application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct
wastewater treatment facility granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days
after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
90-120 days
(N/A)
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary. 30 days
(N/A)
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received, and permit issued prior to the
installation of a groundwater monitoring well located on property not
owned by the applicant, and for a large capacity (>100,000 gallons per
day) water supply well.
7 days
(15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling may
require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and
Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
55 days
(90 days)
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution
Abatement facilities and/or Emission Sources as
per 15 A NCAC (2Q.O100 thru 2Q.0300)
Application must be submitted, and permit received prior to
construction and operation of the source. If a permit is required
in an area without local zoning, then there are additional
requirements and timelines (2Q.0113).
90 days
Any open burning associated with subject
proposal must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC
2D.1900
N/A 60 days
(90 days)
Demolition or renovations of structures
containing asbestos material must be in
compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1110 (a) (1)
which requires notification and removal prior to
demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919-707-5950
Please Note - The Health Hazards Control Unit (HHCU) of the N.C.
Department of Health and Human Services, must be notified of plans to
demolish a building, including residences for commercial or industrial
expansion, even if no asbestos is present in the building.
60 days
(90 days)
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 mo re acres are to be disturbed. Plan must be filed with and approved
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
$100 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional fees.
20 days
(30 days)
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOT’s approved program. Particular
attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable
Stormwater conveyances and outlets.
(30 days)
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with Local Government’s approved program.
Particular attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well
as stable Stormwater conveyances and outlets.
Based on Local
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,
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System & Construction activities that disturb ≥1 acre.
30-60 days
(90 days)
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 -State Stormwater Permitting Programs regulate site development and post-
construction stormwater runoff control. Areas subject to these permit programs include all 20 coastal counties, and
various other counties and watersheds throughout the state.
45 days
(90 days)
125
State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 2 of 3
April 4, 2022/lbh
Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh
Project Number: 24-0071 Due Date: 10/02/2023
County: Orange
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Normal Process
Time
(Statutory time
limit)
Mining Permit
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DEQ Bond amount
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Affected
area greater than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond
must be received before the permit can be issued.
30 days
(60 days)
Dam Safety Permit
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
plans. May also require a permit under mosquito control program. And
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary
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.
30 days
(60 days)
Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
File surety bond of $5,000 with DEQ running to State of NC conditional
that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be
plugged according to DEQ rules and regulations.
10 days
N/A
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DEQ at least 10 days prior to issue of permit.
Application by letter. No standard application forms.
10 days
N/A
State Lakes Construction Permit
Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian
property
15-20 days
N/A
401 Water Quality Certification
Compliance with the T15A 02H .0500 Certifications are required
whenever construction or operation of facilities will result in a
discharge into navigable water as described in 33 CFR part 323.
60 days
(130 days)
Compliance with Catawba, Goose Creek, Jordan Lake, Randleman, Tar Pamlico or Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules is required. Buffer requirements:
http://deq.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://deq.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 an y 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 init iation of construction
as per 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq., Plans and specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
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.
30 days
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 Mai l Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
1634. For more information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919) 707 -9100.
30 days
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.
126
State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 3 of 3
April 4, 2022/lbh
Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh
Project Number: 24-0071 Due Date: 10/02/2023
County: Orange
Other Comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to comment authority)
Division Initials No
comment
Comments Date
Review
DAQ SH See checked boxes above. Also, I'd like to remind you per NC's open buring
rules; you may not bring in debris from off-site to burn on your property.
9/14/2023
DWR-WQROS
(Aquifer & Surface)
&
&
/ /
DWR-PWS SG See checked boxes above. 9/27/2023
DEMLR (LQ & SW) CA See checked boxes above. The proposed project will cause at least 82,000
sqft (~1.9 acres) and therefore required permits for erosion and sediment
control during land disturbance and a construction stormwater permit.
9/26/2023
DWM – UST MRP See checked box above. 9/25/2023
Other Comments / /
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211
Phone: 828-296-4500
Fax: 828-299-7043
Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714,
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043
Phone: 910-433-3300
Fax: 910-486-0707
Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301,
Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: 704-663-1699
Fax: 704-663-6040
Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive,
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: 919-791-4200
Fax: 919-571-4718
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall,
Washington, NC 27889
Phone: 252-946-6481
Fax: 252-975-3716
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.,
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: 910-796-7215
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
127
Project Number: 24-0071 Date Received: 9-6-2023
Department of Environmental Quality
Project Review
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Air Quality
Waste Mgmt
Water Resources Mgmt (Public
Water, Planning & Water
Quality Program)
DWR-Transportation Unit
Air
DWR
DWR - Public Water
DEMLR (LQ & SW)
DWM
Coastal Management
Marine Fisheries
CC & PS Div. of Emergency Mgmt
DMF-Shellfish Sanitation
Wildlife Olivia
Wildlife/DOT
County: Orange
Due Date: 10-2-2023
Project Description: Scoping - Proposed project is for rezoning and special use permits. The
property will be used to house the Treeist tree care and consulting company.
The property will be home to two proposed office and workshop spaces, a
residential unit for a property caretaker, with supporting tree service
equipment nestled within a perimeter of wooded areas and buffers on the
10-acre property.
Asheville
Fayetteville
Mooresville
Raleigh
Washington
Wilmington
Winston Salem
10/2/23 Melodi Deaver, DWM Hazardous Waste
X
128
129
Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245-2510
November 21, 2023
Craig Nishimoto
1200 Hatch Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Mr. Nishimoto:
I am writing in follow-up to our prior conversation about your rezoning proposal
for the property that abuts the County’s Millhouse Road Park property. More
specifically, I believe this application is referenced as “MA23-0003, The Treeist,
ASE-CD Map Amendment” by the County Planning Department. The property is
PIN number 9871-50-3254, and an aerial photo of the vicinity may be found as
Attachment 1.
I thought it would be good to document the concerns we shared at that meeting
as your application proceeds. Thank you for taking the time to meet with our staff
regarding the existing access easement to the cellular tower on the lot that you
have acquired.
In looking at the site plan that has been shared with us by Planning, there are
concerns that we have regarding impacts of the proposal, namely making the
current access easement across our property a commercial driveway for your
operation.
As background, Orange County purchased 79 acres at 6823 Millhouse Road in
2005 (69 acres) and 2009 (10 acres) for a future park. At the time of these
purchases, and in subsequent Capital Investment Plans and other documents,
this property has been identified as a future soccer center, perhaps in
conjunction with the Town of Chapel Hill. The discussions and planning to date
anticipate a complex of soccer fields and associated infrastructure on the site,
with some other ancillary and buffer uses - such as trails and natural areas as
they property abuts Duke Forest to the west.
130
Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245-2510
As shown on Attachment 1, the property which you now own includes a cellular
transmission tower that to our understanding is still owned by Crown Castle, Inc.
Since that property is landlocked, an access easement was recorded for the cell
tower with the previous owner of the County’s future park site, which now runs
with the County’s land. This easement has for the last 20 years consisted of a
rudimentary unpaved path that runs east along and through the County’s future
park site to your 10-acre parcel with the cell tower.
As mentioned in our meeting, our concerns with transforming this rudimentary
access easement into a commercial driveway with regular traffic poses significant
problems for the County’s future soccer center site. I should note that these
concerns come from the County as impacted adjacent landowner, and are not
part of any comments on the impacts of the rezoning proposal on natural and
cultural resources that our Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and
Recreation (DEAPR) makes as part of the normal development review process:
1. The current unpaved access easement, if improved, would sever access
to 20 acres of the 79-acre future park site that lies south of the existing
access easement. To date, the few trips per year by Crown Castle to visit
the cellular tower and the fact that the future park has not yet been
constructed has not posed an issue for this separation of the property.
However, if a commercial driveway were constructed on top of this
easement in its current location, this would change things substantially.
2. The creation of a commercial driveway with a projected 300 trips per day
in this location will create safety and access problems for the Millhouse
Road Park site. It is likely that parking and soccer fields would be located
across this driveway, with parents and children crossing back and forth
across it to access vehicles or other fields. We have serious concerns
about the safety of future users of the facility, especially small children, if
such a driveway separated the facility.
3. The change to a commercial driveway in this easement location would
impair the County’s ability to use its property for its intended purpose.
Having said this, as we discussed in our meeting, the County would be amenable
to relocating the access easement to minimize the severing of any of the future
soccer complex by a potential future driveway. The current adopted Capital
Investment Plan for construction of the Millhouse Road facility would find design
and engineering in FY 2027-28 and construction of the facility (with the Town of
Chapel Hill) in FY 2028-29.
In our previous discussion, you mentioned the potential for allowing the current
access easement to serve as your commercial driveway in this proposal, with
relocation of the driveway and access to a new location timed to occur with the
construction of the Millhouse Road Park facility.
131
Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245-2510
If this proposed rezoning were approved, the County as landowner of the
future park site that contains the access easement would request that the
applicant be required to work with the County and the tower owner to re-
route the access easement / new commercial driveway, to minimize the
isolation of sections of the future park and the resultant safety issues that
would exist if the current location were kept.
Given the fact that the construction of the facility is planned to be less than
five years away, we would not be inclined to pursue the interim solution
you offered using the current access location. We believe that all would be
best served by addressing the needed relocation of the access sooner
rather than later.
I hope this information is helpful, and we do plan to share this with the Planning
Department as adjacent landowner feedback.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
P. David Stancil, AICP
DEAPR Director
Attachments
Copies: Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager
Cy Stober, AICP, Planning and Inspections Director
James Bryan, Staff Attorney
132
The Treeist
1200 Hatch Rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
www.treeist.com
Dear Mr. Stancil (and all others concerned about conflicts with the anticipated soccer complex),
I received your letter dated November 21, 2023 about our easement to Millhouse Rd and the
anticipated soccer complex. Your thoughtful articulation of the concerns allows us to plan in a
way that accommodates your aspirations for a future Millhouse Road Park. As neighbors, I
foresee a cooperative relationship between the Treeist and County that will benefit local
residents whom we both serve.
Your primary concern, as I understand it, is for the safety of those who would use the County’s
anticipated soccer complex. You are also concerned about the potential limitations that the
access road, as currently located, might place upon future designs for the soccer complex.
You ask that the County require us to “work with the County and the tower owner to re-route the
access easement.” You suggest that this re-routing should be done “sooner rather than later.”
Acknowledging the importance of concerns you raise, we are happy to work with the County by
limiting and adjusting our own development plans. We have done this by dedicating a portion of
our own land to accommodate the possibility that the County may one day wish to relocate our
access easement to the opposite corner of our parcel. By incorporating this limitation into our
site plans we have permanently constrained our own development options in order to increase
those of the County.
Our request is that the County avoid imposing further constraints or costs that go beyond the
accommodations which we have made. In particular, we would object to the County requiring us
at our own expense to construct an entirely new roadway to Millhouse Road in the prospect that
this may one day aid the County’s own development plans. In the remainder of this letter I argue
why such an imposition would be unwarranted and why our development plans are not at odds
with the County’s.
(Note to the reader: I apologize for this letter’s length; if, with our site plan accommodation, our
plans strike you as harmonious with those of the County, you needn’t read any further.)
Background
The aerial map below shows our current access road in white. This is a gravel road that runs
alongside the power lines to our property. The red line represents the approximate location of
the alternative access route that I believe David Stancil is suggesting. As shown, it would be
approximately 2,300 feet in length, which is nearly a half of a mile. The land it runs through is
currently heavily wooded. Both the white line and the red line cross Old Field Creek and its
133
stream buffer. Where the red line crosses the creek, the terrain is more difficult. This is shown
by the compressed topographical lines.
Our current access road, which is visible in the earliest available aerial imagery dating back 73
years,1 is shown as a 60-foot wide access easement in a 1979 Plat (Book 30, page 135) and is
described in the 1978 Deed of Easement (Record Book 311 Page 84). Only modest
improvements would be needed to this road to accommodate our near-term needs. Essentially
we would need to widen the gravel in at least a few spots to allow for vehicles traveling in
opposite directions to pass each other. If required to do so, we could also widen the entire
length to the twenty-foot width as indicated in our site plans, but this is likely more than we
presently need.
Cost One: Financial
The first problem of having to build an entirely new access road is that a road building project is
not a trivial matter for a small business such as ours. A road building project would eat up our
financial resources, likely leaving us with a new road to an under-developed parcel. We are
counting on being able to use our current access road insofar as immediate costs for improving
it would be relatively modest and future costs of additional improvements would be manageable
insofar as costs would be spread over time, increasing proportionally with the growth of our
company and to our corresponding ability to pay for the as-needed improvements.
Cost Two: Environmental
More impartially, building a new access road also has environmental costs. The new road would
require the clearing and grading of heavily wooded areas. We would be clear cutting trees that
might turn out to be important natural buffers to the old landfill, as well as to the Town of Chapel
1 An aerial photo from 1950 is shown on page 150 of the 2018 Feasibility Report.
2
134
Hill parcels along Millhouse Rd for which there has been some discussion of development into
storage facilities.
2 The new road would add some 55,000 square feet of impervious surface,
creating another crossing over Old Field Creek and through its riparian buffer, through what has
been identified as an important wildlife corridor.
Uncertain Value due to Uncertain Plans
These considerable costs, both financial and environmental, would be of value only if two
yet-uncertain things come to pass: the County must bring about its yet-to-be designed
development, and the location of the current access road must turn out to be problematic for
that development. The value gained from the considerable road-building costs is therefore
speculative.
The County has owned the bulk of the property since 2004, with the purchase of all of these
neighboring parcels as part of its Lands Legacy Program. The purpose and mission of this
program is to “protect and conserve the county’s most important natural and cultural resource
lands before they are damaged or destroyed.” Under this program, these particular parcels were
purchased in order to serve as a “Future park with farmstead and natural heritage area.” Over
the last twenty years, the County’s plans for these lands have changed but the land remained
undeveloped. By 2014, the County published its aims to develop the land into “lighted playing
fields” and to possibly include an indoor recreation center (Parks and Recreation Master Plan,
3-22). In 2018, the County was looking into investigating its options for rezoning these parcels to
Home Park Conditional Zoning (HP-CZ) to allow for a 34-unit mobile home park to expand
affordable housing (see BOCC meetings here, and here, and the feasibility study here).3 My
understanding is that the County currently has aspirations to build as many of eight soccer
fields,4 ideally with artificial turf, lighting, parking and associated amenities.
The Special Use Permit for this project has yet to be obtained. By the County’s own projected
timelines we are still years away from seeing engineering and design proposals for the project.
Should the County’s plans materialize in the next five years as hoped for, it is yet further
speculation that the soccer complex will be designed in such a way that our current access road
would be an encumbrance.
It would be unreasonable for the County to require us to presently abandon our current access
easement road and, at our own expense, construct a new one based on the speculation that
this might later prove valuable for the County. The financial cost would be unfair to us and the
4 I believe eight soccer fields was the number Mr. Stancil mentioned during our online meeting. My
memory could be mistaken; possibly he mentioned only six fields.
3 In 2019, the County had the opportunity to also obtain through donation the 10-acre parcel that I later
purchased. At this time one of County’s stated reasons for pursuing this donation was to provide itself
with “greater authority to work with the cell tower company if changes become needed to the access
easement.” For reasons the County will not disclose, that transaction fell through, and when the parcel
was put on sale in 2021 I can find no record of the County attempting to purchase it.
2 From email correspondence with Katie Bowden, Economic Development Manager, Town of Chapel Hill,
July 10, 2023.
3
135
environmental cost would contradict the mission of the very program through which the County
originally purchased these parcels: “to protect and conserve the county’s most important natural
and cultural resource lands before they are damaged or destroyed.”
“Severing Access”
I now turn to the specific concerns that David Stancil raises. This will also provide me with an
opportunity to correct misrepresentations created by our brief notes on prior site plans.
Mr. Stancil writes, “The current unpaved access easement, if improved, would sever access to
20-acres of the 79-acre future park site that lies south of the existing access easement.” If the
current access easement does not already sever access to the southern 20 acres, then it is
hard to see how making it about eight feet wider would cause it to do so. Why, for that matter,
should any such roadway be thought to sever access to the soccer fields or to anything else? If
the proposed soccer complex is built, there will presumably need to be some roadway access
improvement to it and its parking lots. When built, these roadways will likely be viewed not as
severing access but as creating access. Rather than multiplying the number of roads, future site
planners, hired by the County, may discover that the best design of the soccer complex might
incorporate the current access road as shared infrastructure. This was a conclusion reached by
prior engineers. In 2018 Civil Consultants offered two options for the soccer complex location in
their feasibility study. The first option, shown on page 8, shows the current access road leading
to the soccer complex’s parking lot located just north of what is now my ten-acre parcel.
If, on the other hand, the current access easement does sever access to the southern 20-acres,
then the County’s problem will not be with us but with the tower owner, Crown Castle. Crown
Castle holds a “perpetual right-of-way” to the existing easement both for vehicle access and for
the utilities running parallel to the road (Record Book 4683, page 157). It is my impression that
their service contractors and technicians use this road significantly more than just for a few trips
per year.
5
It is doubtful that the County would be able to get Crown Castle to agree to moving their access
and utility easement. Crown Castle is a multi-billion dollar international entity with over 40,000
cell towers. As someone who owns land upon which a Crown Castle tower is located, I can
attest to what it is like to interact with this faceless company. There is no one in Crown Castle
who has both familiarity with the Millhouse road properties and the authority to make any legal
decision about the access road. That authority rests with Crown Castle’s out-of-state lawyers
who have no motivation to cooperate in a neighborly manner even if it costs them nothing to do
so. Unless the County can find a way to legally require Crown Castle to surrender its current
access easement, it is unlikely that such a petition will even be duly considered.
5 I have visited the site on about twenty occasions in the last year. Twice I have encountered contractors
at the cell tower and whenever I visit I notice signs of road usage. Due to the amount of discarded trash I
find near the tower, I have considered setting out trash bins.
4
136
Since the County cannot count on Crown Castle’s agreement to move its access road, any
requirement imposed upon the Treeist to construct a second access road runs the risk of ending
up with two roads traversing the Old Field Creek, the riparian buffer, and the wildlife corridor.
Moreover, since neither of these two roads may be well positioned to satisfy access needs of
the future soccer complex, a third access road may yet be needed. This outcome, with the land
divided by multiple redundant roads, might prompt an ironic parsing of the name “Millhouse
Road Park.”
The Safety of Children
Up until now, the brief traffic data note in our site plan has overrepresented by nearly a factor of
two the amount of traffic that we will create at this location.
6 At our present size, we would
generate approximately 64 trips per day total.
7 As we gradually grow this total will also grow.
Still, even at our most ambitious size, I project generating not more than 164 trips per day from
the new location.
8
Mr. Stancil foresees a possible future in which “parents and children crossing back and forth
across [the access road] to access vehicles or other fields” and that our commercial use of the
access road gives him “serious concerns about the safety of future users of the facility,
especially small children.”
It is easy to feel that no cost is too high when attempting to reduce hazards to young children.
This, however, is a faulty approach to risk. It would prevent the soccer complex from being built
in the first place.
For a small child, getting hit by a 3,500 pound Prius is not better than getting hit by a 20,000
pound chip truck. It is, moreover, far less likely for a chip truck to sneak up on you in the way
that Prius will. The riskiest time and place for a child will be when none of our trucks are in sight.
It will be during a busy Saturday in the crowded parking lot between the soccer games. The
most dangerous driver for small children will not be the professional driver of our larger trucks
who holds a commercial license subject to more stringent standards. The most dangerous driver
8 Long-term we may have as many as twelve 3-person crews. This is all that our site plan is designed to
accommodate. This means that, at maximum, we may have 36 employees who make two to-and-fro trips
to the company headquarters. Auxiliary support staff that also need to be at the company headquarters
on a daily basis may add about nine more individuals, but these will typically make only one to-and-fro
trip. While we will have additional employees, our consultants and some of our office staff will continue to
typically work from their homes, as they do now.
7 Presently we have about eighteen employees who, on a week-day, arrive and leave from our company
headquarters on a regular basis (other employees, such as consultants and some office staff typically
work from home). Of these, only fourteen of these employees create two, instead of one, to-and-fro trips
to our company headquarters per day. If we count arrival and departures as separate trips, we get a
grand total of 64 trips per day.
6 I am at fault for not looking at the traffic data site plan note more carefully. When I was originally
considering this question of traffic, I was most mindful of the 800 trips per day threshold that triggers a
need for a Traffic Impact Analysis (UDO section 6.17). Knowing that whatever we did we would be far
below this threshold, I did not take due care in counting how little traffic we actually would end up
generating.
5
137
will be a parent late for a game, distracted by young children in the back seat and scrambling to
find an available space in a crowded parking lot.
For the safety of the children it is a good thing that our use of the access road is, as Mr. Stancil
notes, commercial. It is because our traffic is business-related that we know that nearly all of our
traffic will occur at times when children are not present. The traffic we create occurs almost
entirely on weekdays between 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. (with crew members arriving from home
in their personal vehicles and then leaving with their work trucks), and then again between 2:30
p.m. and 3:30 p.m. (with crew members returning with their work trucks and then leaving for
home in their personal vehicles). You will not see school-aged children at County soccer fields
during these hours. County soccer fields are generally only used by children during weekends
or well after school lets out. This is precisely when you will typically not see our trucks.
To drive home the point, consider just how much traffic is created by eight soccer fields during
soccer season on a Saturday. Assume that each soccer team has 12 players and 2 coaches.
Each child and each coach arrives in a separate vehicle. Four of the parents simply drop their
children off at the game, driving back to pick them up afterwards. Two grandparents arrive in
separate vehicles to watch their grandchildren play. All told, this yields a total of 40 vehicle trips
per team per game. Since there are two teams per game, there are 80 vehicle trips per soccer
game. If there are eight soccer fields this gives us 640 vehicle trips per game slot. If there are
four game slots per game day, we have a total of 2,560 vehicle trips per Saturday during
soccer season at the soccer complex.
Whatever we do at our parcel - however large we grow - our contribution towards vehicular risk
to small children at these soccer fields will be as a raindrop in an ocean. This is true regardless
of where our access road is located. Eliminating our traffic will do practically nothing to increase
the safety of young children. Our vehicles generally aren’t on the road during the field usage
times. On the other hand, eliminating one soccer field would do a lot to decrease vehicular risk
to small children. Eliminating one field would subtract 320 vehicle trips per Saturday in the
height of soccer season.When compared to just one soccer field, our entire business at its
maximum size would be creating half as many vehicle trips per day during times when no
children would be at the soccer complex.I am not suggesting that the County should reduce
the number of soccer fields. Despite all of the risks, I think building all eight soccer fields and
another ten baseball fields would clearly be in the interests of young children. We are simply
asking the County to think accurately about the relative risk that traffic from our business is likely
to pose to young children at the imagined soccer complex.
My deep gratitude to you if you have read to this point and have weighed my arguments.
Sincerely,
Craig
6
138
Craig Nishimoto
Mobile: 984 - 215 - 8231
Email: craig@thetreeist.com
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
SO-7125B
7
139
To Whom it May Concern:
Orange County has asked Mr. Nishimoto to obtain a document in which Crown Castle confirms
that it has no objection to Mr. Nishimoto’s plans to improve and to use the access road to
Millhouse Rd. Crown Castle, however, is not available to weigh in on this matter.1 We therefore
ask the County to accept this letter as a substitute. This letter directly addresses what we take
to be the County’s grounds for concern about potential conflict between Crown Castle’s
recorded rights to the access easement and Mr. Nishimoto’s planned usage. You will
additionally find a listing of the available documents related to the access road. You will also find
a summary of Mr. Nishimoto’s attempts to contact Crown Castle.
We understand that the County’s concern arises over language in the 2008 Grant of Easement
(Record Book 4683, page 157) in which Julia Blackwood, then owner of 6915-UT Millhouse Rd,
granted to Crown Castle “an exclusive, perpetual right-of-way” to the existing access and utility
easement from Millhouse Rd. The concern, we take it, is that Crown Castle’s “exclusive” right to
the access road may be thought to exclude Mr. Nishimoto, the present owner of 6915-UT
Millhouse Rd, from using the same access road.
In relation to land access rights, this interpretation of “exclusive” was rejected by the NC Court
of Appeals in Hundley v. Michael, 413 S.E.2d 296 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992). Since such an
interpretation of “exclusive” would “produce an unusual and unjust result,” the Court ruled “that
the term ‘exclusive’...cannot be interpreted so as to exclude the owner of the servient tenement
from using the property within the easement consistent with the purpose of the easement.” Even
when another party has been given an “exclusive” right to use an easement, the Court has ruled
that “[a]bsent explicit language to the contrary, the owner of land subject to an easement has
the right to continue to use his land in any manner and for any purpose which is not inconsistent
with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the easement.”
Interpreting “exclusive” as excluding Mr. Nishimoto from using the access road to 6915-UT
Millhouse Road yields an unusual and unjust result, one which would not be, in the language of
the 1992 ruling, “consistent with reason and common sense.” It would mean that Mr. Nishimoto
can no longer access his land by foot or by vehicle, as the parcel would be landlocked. Such an
interpretation would also conflict with the earlier 1978 deed of easement in which the access
road is confirmed as “a perpetual right and easement…that is appurtenant to and runs with the
land” (Deed Book 311, page 84).
When the owner of 6915-UT Millhouse gave Crown Castle the right to use the access road to
6915-UT Millhouse, the owner did not thereby forfeit the right to use that access road,
regardless of the “exclusive” language that was used. As the original deed of easement puts it,
the right and easement to the access road is perpetual and runs with the land, thereby
1 More specifically, the Crown Castle representatives who can be reached do not have authority to make
decisions on behalf of Crown Castle on these matters, nor have they been able to directly connect Mr.
Nishimoto to anyone who can make such a decision.
140
transferring that right and easement to Mr. Nishimoto, the current owner of 6915-UT Millhouse
Rd.
There is no conflict between Crown Castle’s claims to use the access road and Mr. Nishimoto’s
plans to improve and to use the same road. Mr. Nishimoto’s rezoning application should
therefore not be made to depend on Crown Castle’s availability to weigh in on the matter.
History of the Access Road
● 1950: This access road is visible in this earliest available aerial photography.
● 1978: When all of the surrounding land was owned by Eugene and Julia Blackwood, the
access road is confirmed as “a perpetual right and easement…that is appurtenant to and
runs with the land” (Deed Book 311, page 84).
● 1979: A 60-foot wide right of way from Millhouse Road to what is now 6915-UT
Millhouse Rd is represented on a plat (Deed Book 30, page 135).
● 1986: what is now 6915-UT Millhouse Rd is shown as “Tract 3”, along with the R/W and
Farm Road (Book 43, page 86).
● 1987: In an agreement with Piedmont Electric, the access road is described as a “60 foot
R/W and known as Farm Road Easement” that goes to “property line of Tract 3 and 4”
(Book 658, page 162).
● 2008: Julia Blackwood grants to Crown Castle “an exclusive, perpetual right-of-way” to
the existing access and utility easement from Millhouse Rd. (Record Book 4683, page
157)
Summary of Mr. Nishimoto’s attempts to contact Crown Castle
Mr. Nishimoto has documented the following efforts to communicate with Crown Castle about
this matter since September 2023:
● multiple emails to Crown Castle’s Landowner’s Help Desk (LOHD)
● multiple voicemails left at LOHD;
● On eight separate occasions Mr. Nishimoto has spoken with LOHD representatives
● Through the LOHD, representatives agreed to send emails, marked “high priority,” to the
following parties: Crown Castle’s real estate legal team, a Crown Castle real estate
specialist, a supervisor to the real estate specialist, a Crown Castle construction
manager, a Crown Castle field technician, Crown Castle managers for the site, and the
supervisor of the LOHD agent.
● Multiple emails to Crown Castle's real estate specialist
● Multiple phone messages left for the real estate specialist
● Email to the real estate specialist’s supervisor
● One phone conversation with the real estate specialist.
● One phone conversation with the Raleigh-based onsite manager for Crown Castle
141
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
An applicant-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as
follows:
Parcel
Identification
Number (PIN)
Township Owner of
Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
9871-50-3254 Chapel Hill Acer LLC
Rural Buffer (RB)
Jordan Lake
Unprotected Watershed
Agricultural Support
Enterprises Conditional
District (ASE-CD)
Jordan Lake
Unprotected Watershed
The Planning Board hereby finds:
a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments and 2.9.1 Conditional Districts of the UDO have been reviewed and, due to
the property being surrounded by use-restricted properties that are highly unlikely to be
developed for residential purposes, the following standards deviations have been deemed
acceptable:
- Placement of wood chips, stumps and logs, branches and similar wood by-
products within 100 feet of the residentially-zoned property boundaries;
- Allowance for changes in the exact placement of features and structures within the
limits of disturbance and designated “activity area” on the site plan, subject to staff
review and approval;
- Allowance for lighting plan to be altered from what is submitted, provided that all
outdoor pole lights not to exceed 14’ and not be located outside the proposed
“activity area” on the site plan, subject to staff review and approval; 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:
Planning Principle 2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development
within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable
Attachment 6
142
over the long-term.
The proposed ASE-CD zoning district for an arborist and tree-processing center is
consistent with the Rural Buffer Rural Land Use Classification (Appendix F
Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts). The activity
and impact of this use will be limited to the property, generating low volumes of traffic
and not negatively impacting surrounding properties by its use. It is immediately
outside the Town of Chapel Hill’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), emphasizing its
proximity to both municipal and county residents that can utilize this commercial
service while not generating large vehicle miles traveled. Its proximity to municipal
centers while being separated from the residential and commercial uses of those
areas serves the mutual needs of the region without negatively affecting the
surrounding properties. The proposed Agricultural Services Uses is permitted in the
ASE-CD zoning district, complies with the UDO standards except as noted, and
meets the standards of evaluations as reviewed by the Planning Board.
Planning Principle 3A. Encouragement of Energy Efficiency, Lower Energy
Consumption, and the Use of Non-Polluting Renewable Energy Resource:
Decreasing the use of non-renewable resources and lowering energy consumption
are encouraged in both public and private activities. The county’s transportation
system should be enhanced to promote more energy efficient modes of travel and
improve air quality.
The applicant will introduce a wood processing and reuse facility within close
proximity to municipal centers where arborist services and tree processing are most
needed. The other options are to otherwise rely upon vendors who travel farther
distances, redistribute by-products to non-local markets, and extract these resources
from Orange County while only contributing immediate services and a higher carbon
footprint. The proposed use supports a local enterprise that can immediately
contribute to the reuse of the related materials and reduce traveled miles to support
the business.
Planning Principle 4. Natural Area Resource Protection: Protection of the County’s
natural areas, including forests, wildlife habitat, and other important open spaces
should be a priority. The County should work with regional and local organizations,
the towns, and private landowners to promote and achieve preservation of the
County’s important natural resources.
The applicant provided an Environmental Assessment as part of the application
package. Staff has reviewed and determined no significant environmental impact is
expected from this project based on existing conditions. The project site plan protects
the existing stream on site with provided stream buffering and strives to maintain
existing trees as part of the landscape buffer.
Planning Principle 5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern: The County’s rural
areas are a cherished component of the County’s character. Future development
143
should preserve and enhance the county’s rural landscape.
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix G, Land Use Classification and Overlay
Locational Criteria, identifies Rural Buffer as land designated in the Comprehensive
Plan as land adjacent to an urban or transition area which is rural in character and
which should remain rural, contain very low-density residential uses, and not require
urban services during the plan period. The resource-related activities with the use are
consistent with the rural nature of the area and, as presented, will not disrupt that
character, being on the perimeter of the Town of Chapel Hill’s ETJ, surrounded by
managed forests and County-owned lands that will not serve residential or
commercial purposes.
Planning Principle 6. Water Resources Preservation: The County has finite water
resources to provide to future populations. The protection and management of the
County’s water resources should be a high priority.
The proposed project will utilize groundwater to service the future land use, as
permitted by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health. In addition, the site
plan provides for an 65-foot stream buffer to protect water quality downstream.
Planning Principle 7. Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity: Development
of a diversity of new businesses and expansion of existing businesses should occur in
Orange County.
The applicant will provide an underserved market with needed services, particularly
for the nearby municipalities. The applicant is proposing to relocate an existing tree
care and consulting company currently operating in Carrboro to this site. Relocation
of this business to a rural setting will more appropriately allow for it to operate while
continuing to serve the nearby municipal market than it can from its current placement
in a municipality. The applicant estimates that approval could create 10 – 20 new
jobs.
Planning Principle 8. Preservation of Community Character: Future growth and
development should occur in a manner that preserves and enhances the existing
character of the County, its townships, and rural crossroads communities.
This agricultural support enterprise will be appropriately placed within the Rural Buffer
designated by both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Orange County-Chapel
Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement Land Use Plan. It shall be situated such that it
is surrounded by an actively managed forest, a former landfill, and a proposed
recreation facility. There will be no disruption to residential quality of life, and the
approval will introduce a new business to the area and to the county’s business
community. Placement of this business is in harmony with the immediately
surrounding area on the edge of the Town of Chapel Hill’s ETJ, and in the public
interest so as to conveniently place an arborist near municipal centers while
separating it from the residential and commercial activities of those areas for a more
144
rural location surrounded by similar uses.
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 proposes an Agricultural Support Enterprise for an arborist and wood-
processing center within an area surrounded by public or quasi-public uses, including
the actively managed Duke Forest. The tree-related operations are consistent with
both the rural character of this immediate area as well as the more intensive use to
the south of the former county landfill, which is in the Town of Chapel Hill’s ETJ.
While, by the applicant’s admission, the operations will generate noise pollution and
some odors related to tree processing into wood byproducts, the use is consistent
with the “low-intensity agricultural support” uses allowed in the Rural Buffer by the
Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) Land Use Plan.
The site plan and conditions committed to by the applicant will separate this use from
the properties owned Orange County and proposed for a recreational facility featuring
multiple soccer fields. The combination of the required screening and setbacks with
the natural environmental features of this property and the adjacent ones will
adequately minimize impacts to surrounding properties.
Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions
and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community
character.
The proposed use meets all UDO standards for buffering and screening, as well as
the applicable erosion control and stormwater regulations. It will utilize and improve
an existing access road, creating no new stream crossings, and, in fact, improving the
existing one to minimize runoff into the stream. The arborist will process natural wood
products that can be reused locally for multiple purposes, reducing the need for area
residents to rely upon imported products. The restrictions that exist on the uses of
most of the surrounding properties should ensure that low-intensity agricultural
production of the site will have minimal negative impacts upon natural resources or
residents.
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 proposed arborist and tree processing facility will be placed within the Rural
Buffer, away from residentially-used properties, and within the rural areas of the
county. The neighboring Duke Forest property is, in fact, a site that may be actively
timbered at its owners’ discretion; and the southern, county-owned property is a
former landfill that is limited in its redevelopment potential. These surrounding
145
conditions will allow the use to be inherently buffered from neighbors and prevent
negative impacts to them that might otherwise occur in a more densely developed
area. The use is consistent with the future land use classification allowed by the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F; and is consistent with the land use allowances for
the Rural Buffer in the JPA. The site will generate some new traffic, but the
cumulative daily employee and business-related trips are under the County’s
threshold for further analysis or offsite improvement.
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, 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 F, Land Use Classification Description for Rural Buffer: Only very low
density residential, agricultural uses exempt from zoning regulations, and low-
intensity agricultural support uses are appropriate in the Rural Buffer.
The proposed arborist and tree-processing facility is a low-intensity Agricultural
Support Enterprise and is consistent with the allowable future land uses within the
designated “Rural Buffer” land use classification of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
a. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it furthers the goals of
the adopted Comprehensive Plan and is located in an area designated on the Future Land
Use Map as “Rural Buffer.”
The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed
herein and recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed
Zoning Atlas Amendment.
Vote: ____ For, ____ Against
Adam Beeman, Chair Date
146
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 (MA23-0003) to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to
rezone a parcel as follows:
Parcel
Identification
Number (PIN)
Township Owner of
Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
9871-50-3254 Chapel
Hill Acer, LLC
• RB (Rural Buffer);
• Jordan Lake
Unprotected
Watershed Overlay
District
• ASE-CD
(Agricultural
Support Enterprises
– Conditional
District);
• Jordan Lake
Unprotected
Watershed Overlay
District
The Planning Board hereby finds:
a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments of the UDO have been reviewed and determined to be unacceptable due
to either the potential impacts upon surrounding properties or a lack of final conditions
on the site plan, as required by Sections 2.5 and 2.9.1(C)(1)(a) of the Orange County
UDO:
- Placement of wood chips, stumps and logs, branches and similar wood by-
products within 100 feet of the residentially-zoned property boundaries;
- Allowance for changes in the exact placement of features and structures within
the limits if disturbance and designated “activity area” on the site plan, subject to
staff review and approval;
- Allowance for lighting plan to be altered from what is submitted, provided that all
outdoor pole lights not to exceed 14’ and not be located outside the proposed
“activity area” on the site plan, subject to staff review and approval; 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 “Rural Buffer” classification, as defined in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan: Land adjacent to an urban or transition area which is rural in
character and which should remain rural, contain very low-density residential uses, and
not require urban services during the plan period.
Attachment 7 147
The applicant’s proposed site is on land adjacent to the Town of Chapel Hill
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, but introduces a non-residential use that is anticipated
to generate significant noise and operate during evening hours to the Rural
Buffer; and,
The Board also finds that the amendment is inconsistent with the following 2030
Comprehensive Plan Principles and Objectives:
1) Planning Principle 2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and
development within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density
that is sustainable over the long-term.
2) Planning Principle 5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern: The County’s rural
areas are a cherished component of the County’s character. Future development
should preserve and enhance the county’s rural landscape.
3) Planning Principle 8. Preservation of Community Character: Future growth and
development should occur in a manner that preserves and enhances the existing
character of the County, its townships, and rural crossroads communities.
4) Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources,
and community character.
5) 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.
6) Appendix F, Land Use Classification Description for Rural Buffer: Only very low
density residential, agricultural uses exempt from zoning regulations, and low-
intensity agricultural support uses are appropriate in the Rural Buffer.
The applicant proposes to introduce a non-residential use that is anticipated to
generate significant noise and operate during evening hours to the designated
Rural Buffer, greater than the intensity of most bona fide agricultural operations.
The deviations from the County’s setback and screening standards will further
encroach upon the neighboring properties and disrupt the quiet and rural
character of the area. Furthermore, the existing access road presents public
health, safety, general welfare of potential users and employees at the county’s
parks and recreation facility; and
c. Pursuant to Articles V and VI of the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint
Planning Agreement (JPA) Land Use Plan, the Board finds that the amendment is
inconsistent with the descriptions of the “Rufal Buffer” for either the Joint Planning
Operating Principles or the Future Land Use – Joint Planning Area, including the eight
categories of land use identified for the “Rural Buffer”: Resource Protection Areas,
Public/Private Open Space Areas, New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space Areas,
Agricultural Areas, University Lake Watershed Area, Rural Residential Retail Trade
Areas, Extractive Uses.
The applicant is an Agricultural Support Enterprise that is not within the supported new
uses for “Agricultural Areas”: “…very low-density [in] nature and will generally consist
of farm dwellings and outbuildings;” it is a non-residential, light-intensity commercial
use that is not a farm; and
148
d. Pursuant to Orange County UDO Section 2.9.1(F), the Board finds the amendment is
inconsistent in addressing “…impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the
proposed development,” specifically with a lack of a support facility to replace the
existing access road necessary for business operations with an alternate access road
to be constructed by the applicant upon realization of the property by Orange County
for a parks and recreation facility to minimize potential conflicts with those using the
parks and recreation facility, including children, promoting the public health, safety, and
general welfare of both property owners.
The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed
herein and recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the
proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment.
Vote: ____ For, ____ Against
____________________________ _________________________
Adam Beeman, Chair Date
149
Ordinance #:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition submitted by Craig Nishimoto
(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 +/- 10.01 acres (PIN: 9871-50-3254) from RB (Rural Buffer)
to ASE-CD (Agricultural Support Enterprises Conditional District) for the purposes of agricultural services,;
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 and 2.9 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 parcels to ASE-CD (Agricultural Support
Enterprises 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:
1. Project shall be completed as presented in approved site plan/application packet.
2. Allow for a reduction of the 100’ setback from the southern property line for outdoor storage of
wood chips, stumps and logs, branches and similar wood by-products resulting from tree cutting
operations. Outdoor storage shall not be less than 40 feet from the southern property line.
3. Allow for Planning Director to review and approve minor changes to the approved plan, per
Section 2.9.1(I) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, specific to the location
and arrangement of development within the limits of disturbance and the proposed “activity
area”. The “activity area” shall be defined as the edge of gravel as shown on the provided
conditional zoning plan set.
4. Allow for Planning Director to review and approve minor changes to the approved plan, per
Section 2.9.1(I) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, specific to outdoor pole
lights. Pole lights shall not exceed 14 feet and shall not be located outside the proposed
“activity area” The “activity area” shall be defined as the edge of gravel as shown on the
provided conditional zoning plan set.
5. Shall maintain a viable option for alternative site access near the southeast corner of the site in
the approximate location shown on the proposed conditional zoning plans. The need for such
alternate access may arise if, at some future date, Orange County determines that moving the
current access easement is necessary for the recreational-use needs of the adjacent County
owned parcels.
Attachment 8 150
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
, 2024.
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 , 2024 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 , 2024.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
151
Attachment 9
152
153
154
155
156