HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 03-19-24; 5-a - Zoning Atlas Amendment – 6915-UT Millhouse Road, Chapel Hill 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 19, 2024
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-a
SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment — 6915-UT Millhouse Road, Chapel Hill
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Application, including Site Plan and Ashley Moncado, Planner III, 919-245-2589
Supplemental Materials Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and
2. Staff Report Zoning Manager, 919-245-2597
3. Notification Materials and Certification Cy Stober, Planning Director, 919-245-2592
4. Neighborhood Information Meeting
Report Form
5. Development Advisory Committee and
Courtesy Review Comments
6. January 3, 2024 Planning Board Minutes
and Signed Statement of Consistency
7. Statement of Consistency
8. Statement of Inconsistency
9. Ordinance Approving Zoning Atlas
Amendments, Including Proposed
Conditions
10. Class B Special Use Permit for Existing
Telecommunication Tower
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing, receive the Planning Board and staff recommendations,
and public comment, close the public hearing, and consider action on an applicant-initiated
Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone +/-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) from The
Treeist proposes to rezone an approximately 10.01 acres 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 a summary of the applicant's narrative regarding the
proposed use's consistency with County-adopted plans. Approval of a site-specific plan is
required, and binding, agreed-upon development conditions are permitted, for a conditional
zoning district.
Basic Review Process: A conditional district rezoning application requires submission of a site
plan and associated documents, in accordance with Section 2.9.1(C) of the Orange County
2
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Sections 2.8 and 2.9 of the Orange County UDO
require the following review:
• FIRST ACTION — Application is sent for courtesy review.
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 comments received from this
courtesy review are available in Attachment 5.
UDO Sections 2.5.4(C)1 and 2.8.5(8) require 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 its comments are available in Attachment 5.
• SECOND ACTION —Applicant holds a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM).
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant held the NIM on November 17, 2023 at 4:00
p.m. at the Orange County Public Library (Attachment 4).
• THIRD ACTION — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting
and makes a recommendation to the BOCC.
STAFF COMMENT. The Planning Board reviewed 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 scheduled to be held on March 19,
2024.
A formal site plan is required as part of a conditional zoning application and has been submitted
(Attachment 1). The applicant is proposing an Agricultural Support Enterprise to locate a tree
care and consulting company on this site. This use will include two office buildings, a residential
building for a property caretaker, and a service equipment staging area.
The application and site plan were presented to the APB, as required by Sections 2.5.4(C)(1)
and 2.8.5(8) of the UDO, but no substantive comments were provided (Attachment 5). Orange
County Development Advisory Committee staff approved the submitted site plan with the
imposition of recommended conditions, as included in the Ordinance in Attachment 9.
Additional Information
Existing Special Use Permit
A Class B Special Use Permit (SUP) was approved by the Orange County Board of Adjustment
in 1994 for the existing 180-foot telecommunication tower and 312 square foot equipment
building. The presence of a SUP on the property does not prohibit the use of the property for
3
other purposes, provided both uses are addressed in the conditional zoning application. The
approved SUP is contained in Attachment 10.
Site Access
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. The
easement language 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.
Proposed Conditions
Following the January 3, 2024 Planning Board meeting, the applicant requested to vest their
plan's development rights, per Section 2.5.5 of the UDO. This request was added as Condition
#7, which was not reviewed by the Planning Board.
Following Planning Board recommendation, Orange County and the applicant negotiated the
details included in Conditions #5 and #6.
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.
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(1) 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(1) 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. Initial access to the applicant's property shall be through the current access easement
held by Crown Castle, LLC, and improved consistent with the County's road improvement
terms and standards.
4
Orange County intends to develop the property on which the existing access easement is
located into a park for recreational activities. When that development occurs, the County
will construct and record a new access road running along the northern boundary of the
property with a north/south connection to the applicant's property. When that new access
road is recorded, as conceptually shown in orange on the map as Attachment A, the
County may demand that the applicant discontinue use of the initial access road and
exclusively access applicant's property using the new access road constructed by the
County. The applicant agrees to comply with the County's demand within ten business
days.
6. The additional party to the current access easement, Crown Castle, LLC, shall be
contacted and their written response should acknowledge their use of the new access
road once constructed, and their abandonment of the current access easement.
7. Approval of this plan establishes a zoning vested right under North Carolina General
Statute 160D-108. Unless terminated at an earlier date, the zoning right shall be valid
until March 19, 2029 (assuming Board of Commissioners' approval of this rezoning
application on March 19, 2024).
Public Notifications: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices of the Public Hearing
were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel. These
notices were mailed on February 28, 2024, 20 days before the hearing. Staff also posted the
subject parcel with signs on February 29, 2024, 19 days before the hearing. See Attachment 3
for the notification materials.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the zoning atlas amendment
at its January 3, 2024 regular meeting. At this meeting the Planning Board voted unanimously
to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) and the proposed
Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 9), as presented, with the exception of directing the
applicant and Orange County to continue to negotiate regarding the access road, which crosses
County-owned land (Condition 5).
The approved minutes from the January 3, 2024 meeting, as well as the Board's signed
statement of consistency, are included in Attachment 6. Agenda materials from the meeting can
be viewed at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/ 01032024-
1916.
Planning Director's Recommendation
The Planning Director recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
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 law and the Orange County UDO;
3) Review the staff report (Attachment 2), featuring analyses of UDO compliance, impact
of the use to the surrounding area, safety and efficiency of land use, and consistency
of the application with the Orange County's adopted plans;
4) Allow for the applicant's presentation of materials;
5) Conduct the public hearing, receive public comments, and consider the Planning
Board recommendation;
6) Close the public hearing; and
5
7) Vote to Approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) and Zoning Atlas
Amendment Ordinance (Attachment 9)
OR
Vote to Deny the Zoning Atlas Amendments, including a statement as to why
the application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest, as detailed in
the Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment 8).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments which
have determined that the approval of the request would not create the need for additional
funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising, including
meeting and public hearing notice and mailings, are covered by the application fee.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to
this item:
• GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes
and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no
group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or
policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Conduct the public hearing and receive the Planning Board and staff recommendations
and public comments;
2. Close the public hearing; and
3. Vote to Approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) and Zoning Atlas
Amendments (Attachment 9);
OR
Vote to Deny the Zoning Atlas Amendments, including a statement as to why the
application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest, as detailed in the Statement
of Inconsistency (Attachment 8).
Attachment 1 1 6
Orange County Planning & Inspections Department
ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278
NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or plan ningapps(a ora ngecountync.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: August 3, 2023 Rezoning Request: ❑ Conventional District ❑✓ Conditional District
Contact Information
Property Owner(s): Craig Nishimoto (Acer LLC)
Mailing Address: 1200 Hatch Rd, Chapel Hill, NC 27156
Phone: 984-215-8231 Email: Craig@thetreeist.com
Applicant (if different than property owner):
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
Property Information
Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9871503254 Total Acreage: 10.01 A
Address: 6915-UT Millhouse Rd, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Future Land Use Map Classification: Rural Buffer
Current Zoning Designation: Rural Buffer
Requested Zoning Designation: ASE-CD
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):
0 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.
0 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.
0 A detailed narrative denoting the following:
i. The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas (if any) that will be corrected by the proposed request.
Page 1 of 2
7
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.
Z✓ 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)
August 3, 2023
Date Date
Page 2 of 2
8
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.' 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.
' 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
9
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,' a truckload of wood chips contains 3,000
2 httns://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Forest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf
2
10
pounds of carbon. Decomposed and converted back into carbon dioxide, this becomes 11,000
pounds of CO2.'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.' 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
3 Since CO2 is only 27% by weight carbon, multiplying the pounds of carbon by 3.7 yields the amount of
CO2 produced. As wood chips decompose most of the carbon is released as CO2 (exposed to air and
moisture, precious little carbon remains stable as humus).
a https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
e The North Carolina Sawmill Industry: A Closer Look. NC State Extension Publications
3
11
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
12
"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
13
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.'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
14
affordable for low-income households to plant and maintain trees in their backyards."'The
reality is that "[t]rees grow on money,"' 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.'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.
' Seo, Y. Varying Effects of Urban Tree Canopies on Residential Property Values across Neighborhoods.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4331. https:Hdoi.ora/l 0.3390/su12104331
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.
httr)s:Hdoi.org/10.1371/iournal.pone.0122051
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.
7
15
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."
90 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?"
" 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.
8
16
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
17
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
18
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
19
since March 2019:
Tabie 4.4—FEMA Major Disaster Declarations,Eno-Haw Regmn
County* Disaster# Date tncident Type Event Title
A,0,P 4412 14/10/2418 Hurricane Tropical Storm Michael
A, D,0,P 4393 9/1412418 Hurricane Hurricane Florence.
A,0,P 4167 3/31/2014 Severe Ice Storm Severe winter Storm
A 1969 4/113/2011 Severe Storm{s) Severe storms,tornadoes,and Fioodin
P 1841 1D/8/2048 Severe Storrn(s) Tropical Storm Hanna
A 1553 9/18/2004 Hurricane Hurricane Ivan
D,0,P 14901 1/18/2003 Hurricane Hurricane Isabel
A,O,P 1457 3/27/2003 Severe Ice Storm Ice Storm
A, D,0,P 1448 12/12/2002 Severe Ice Storm Severe Ice Storm
A, D,0,P 1312 1/31/2000 Severe Storm(s) Severe winter Storm
A, D,O,P 1242 9/16/1999 Hurricane Hurricane Floyd Maar Disaster Declarations
D 1211 3/22/1998 Severe Storm(s) Severe Storms,Tornadoes,and Flooding
A, D,0 P 1134 9/6/1996 Hurricane Hurricane Fran
A, D,C},P 1087 1/13/1995 Snaw Blizzard of 96
D 827 5/17/1989 Tornado Tornadoes
Source:FEMA Diraster Dedmadons Summary,Match 15.2019
'Caurp tads: A=Alamance,D=Durham,fl=0tange,P=Person
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:
Dawned Trees & Debris
o For downed trees and ether debris in a roadway,assure that you are in a safe
location and call 911
o For downed trees on private property contact the primary insurer of the
property and then contact a private debris removal company
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
20
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
21
• 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
22
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
12 https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/fighting-environmental-racism-in-north-carolina;
https://www.renacommunitycenter.com/the-landfill;
https:Hmediahub.unc.edu/rowers-road-neighborhoods-fight-environmental-justice/;
https:Hhpdp.unc.edu/2011/07/landfill-air-pollution-may-be-as-unhealthy-as-it-is-unpleasant-study-finds;
httl2s:Hstonewalls.substack.com/12/areenetract
13 https:Hindyweek.com/news/northcarolina/digginci-deeper/
15
23
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."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
"2014 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, section 3-22
15 see pp. 32f from the June 5th, BOCC meeting minutes
16
24
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."
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
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 According to Chapel Hill's Commercial Development Plan, available at their Economic Development
webpag , 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.
17
25
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).
"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
26
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
99 "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
27
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
21 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 mans summary (scroll to the bottom).
20
28
resources (it spent 552 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
" 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
29
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.12 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 plan S.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...."
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
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
30
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
31
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
32
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
33
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.' 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).
' 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
34
AgrIculture
Forestry
Urban
Forestry
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."'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.i' 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.'
Forestry is a subfield of Agriculture
2 Jorgenson, E. 1970. "Urban Forestry in Canada." In Proceedings, 46th International Shade Tree
Conference (pp. 3a-51 a). International Society of Arboriculture, Urbana, Illinois.
s 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, II. p. 17.
4 Miller et. al. 2015. pp. 4-11.
2
35
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 2020-88(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
36
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.
37
Orange County Planning & Inspections Department
ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278
NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or planningapps@oranaecountync.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: August 3, 2023
Contact Information
Property Owner(s): Craig Nishimoto (Acer LLC)
Mailing Address: 1200 Hatch Rd, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Phone: 984-214-8231 Email: craig@thetreeist.com
Applicant (if different than property owner):
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
I. Property Information
Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9871503254
Address: 6915-UT Millhouse Rd, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Acreage: 10.01 A Township: Chapel Hill
Zoning District: RB
Watershed Overlay: Jordan Lake Unprotected
Other Overlay:
II. General Site Information
A. Adjacent Property
Zoning North: RB South: Chapel Hill Zoning
East: RB West: RB
Land Use North: Vacant South: Closed Landfill
East: Vacant West: Research Forest
B. Topography
■ Highest Elevation: 528'
■ Lowest Elevation: 496'
■ General direction of slope: decending slope from high ground at SW corner
Page 1 of 5
38
■ Estimated % of property with:
0 — 5% slope: 65%
5 — 15% slope: 34%
15 — 25% slope: 1
More than 25% slope: 0%
C. Water Features and Drainage
The following water features are located on the property:
❑✓ Streams ❑Wetlands ❑ Ponds ❑ Drainage Easements ❑ Special Flood Hazard Area
Describe
There is an intermittent stream that runs along the NE property boundary and cuts through the
NE property corner. This stream flows SE.
(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 ElYes❑✓ 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:
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.
B. Number of lots: 1
C. Number of structures: 3
Page 2 of 5
39
D. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for development of attached residential units
(excluding roads, but including parking areas)
2000
E. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for non-residential use (excluding roads)
80,000
F. Estimated area to be graded for roads 0
• 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? ElYes ❑✓ 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 F/-] 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 begenerated:
■ 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 lace?
E_
■ How will materials be transported to the disposal site?
■ What measures are proposed to protect water quality and air quality in case of
spills?
Page 3of5
40
C. Will the project involve a land application system for treatment of wastewater?
■ ❑✓ Yes ❑ No - If yes, describe
Subsurface Pretreated Aerobic Drip System
■ 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?
F]Yes ❑✓ No
F. Water Usage
■ Estimated number of employees: 10 x 25 gallons per day (gpd) = 250 gpd
■ Estimated water use for climate control = 0 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:
private well
Page 4 of 5
41
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 Am
Statement by Applicant - I certify that the information presented by me in this application is accurate to
the best
of.
m knowledge, information, and belief.
August 3, 2023
Applicant Date
Page 5 of 5
42
Because this Property will have one or more of the following conditions meet from section 6.16 of the
Orange County Development Ordinance:
"Requires grading in excess of 40,000 square feet, exclusive of roads,for nonresidential or
attached residential development"
The following Environmental Impact Statement is made regarding the site below:
t f
r4o so.r:r�.Rog"net
k"-79-M LA:35.9-6
LM:7941859'LM 35.58'33-
The appropriate databases researched reported that no sites as identified in "An Inventory of Sites of
Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of
Orange County"nor in an "Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North
Carolina."
The subject site is located in an area bound by Orange County-owned properties and the properties of
Duke University and The Duke Forest.The site is currently partially developed with a cellular/mobile or
wireless communications tower.
The site development as presented proposes: no mining, hazardous materials bulk storage or disposal,
no generation of process water, no demand on public water or sewer systems (municipal services are
not available), to properly permit Ranch disturbing activities and on site development with Orange County
and its particular permitting agencies.
;'lli1 FSFTfCtSAf ARP
The L.E.A.D.S.Group,PA
SOS East Davis Street j
Burlington, NC 27215 � ! f�f
Charles D.Huffine, PE _ 02494
NC Reg.No.24924 � ? r;,
�w D S• i
F/�latl ! LAND ENGINFEKING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
r � -�.f ��.� � f Rr fC•Li, x �;��f � ,
.5 f Y'1 .'y I eY 1.� "-^�t `�-'�'{ 1 � - 'r•.y SIL`'. � � ��
.c
a 4
", 1{ •
uA
a
pal,
y
,-4 ^S. *tet �• tl. '�}_
3V,
Ali
� 11 11• 11'
44
Notification Map and Mailing List
1
-----------------
rc Dc sed
k
f
•�;rriqrdrn�rl
.rem
Chapel Hill i n
ti.
K _
I
ti
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
45
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
46
P-1-23 1024
COVER
SITE - CDHNJCH
Vicinity Map�E5CALE:1'
Prwe Owner�n4ormaton:
ACER LLC
1200 HATCH ROAD
CHAPEL HILL.NC 27516
UTILITY PROVIDERS,
Pyr—Eieeo
b00 222.3107
THE TREEISTo
m
N.
CONDITIONAL ZONING PLANS
69 15-UT MILLHOUSE ROAD, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA >
0
0
Conditionale
Rzoning Case # MA23-0003
PRELIMINARY ZONING AND PLANNING PUF'OSES ONLY,NOT APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
Y/
W
W
F
W
F
,, .ae.wmmunmas..mr.x..r..s.vwv.,. V epk
u.n..a v� ..w w+.wvn-.. om..a....xmwrw. •• � t�
THE TREESST
H
47
111C11 DATA
PRJ,1-23-1024
Orange County Tax Information Z
Parcels mcwded in tme Pr�eor I Access DATA
Parcel t: GOEasement per Deed Book 31 1 Page 84 RB-WOODED
PIN: 987 1 503 254 Plat Book 43 Page H6
�1 rea ID°Free ORANGE COUNTY k,
enrrem orange county mninq:RB Rnra1 Burner-wooded 66-8��23
Orange Gounty Overlay Districts:Jordan take onprot—d EXISTING STREAM GROSSING
Deed Reference:D.B.G759 PG.948 Eamally clogged SITE _ GDi CH
51[e Address:6915-UT Millhou5e Road m..i ^
MINIMUM Bu"NG
SETBACKS
(.
P 1 g.CountyD 7
5 t 3.8 ASE GD Lon ng D stn c[
pd A B —
F 1 t5etback 40
sd setback za _.
Re Setback 2d y - �1 Vicinity M p SCALE. "=2000'
5 de and rear setbacks adt—t to rel dent a1 y coned land sna11 be equal to the
--------------------
,,'-d ' -_______ G oultnlNG 5tT 1 1C
required side or rear setback W the ad/scent residential dstnct. ------
Orange County Zoning:ASE-CD AGRICULTURAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE-Conditional Distrva � i PrweM Owner Inrormatron:
_ ACER LLC
A— 11-A t.Nore: steam buffer 1 zoo HATCH Rono
According 1/FEMA Flood Rate Map Community Panel t-th K \ CHAPEL FULL,NC 2751 G
effective 1/17/2017 this property DOES NOT lie wRnin the - -
100 y-or other special hazard flood -
I
V
I _ O
N
D
I J i zoz
RB—WOODED RB—WOODED
DUKE UNIVERSITY I j
v
I ORANGE COUNTY
AL
50LID WASTE DI5P05AL NOTE5:
All exstng structures 500 square feet and larger shall be assessed prior to
the issuance of a demolition permit to ensure compliance with the County's r -_--
Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordnance(RRMO)and to assess the
potential for deconstruction and/or the reuse of salvageable materials. r
Contact the Orange County SW Enforcement Officer at 919-968-2788 to
ansngsfor the assessment.
rs
-Puuant to the County's RRMO,clean wood waste,scrap metal,and Gell \ W
ceougrited cardboard present in construction or demolition waste must be tower 1 W
recycled.
-Pursuant to the County's RRMO,all haulere of mixed construction and \\ `�
demolition waste which includes any regulated recyclable materials shall be 1 L.-+_---- I F
licensed by Orange County. \ W
-Prior to any demolition or construction activity on the site,the applicant shall
hold a pre-demolition/pre-construction conference with Solid Waste staff.This 1.
may be the same pre-coristruclion meeting held with other .�.. L
developmentlenfomement officials. r
-The presence if any asbestos containing materials('ACM')and/or other
hazardous materials shall be handled in accordance with any and all local,
state,and federal regulations and guidelines.
v
H G IF EI fi
29 BUILDING 5ETBA11
Elan Prepared for: CHAPEL HILL ZONING — RT o' 80' 160' u�
The Treeiet_Tr 5en-ce
i $ a
00"a"h Road.G"ape'"'" ORANGE COUNTY
919zso-s97o Graphic Scale
ThetreeistQgmaa.c°m Scale: I"=401 "
48
Minor TuFinical Plan Rev
Traffic Data: vang N°fes ST
PARCEL DATA neons 4 trips per delay per w m tuber. ding Walln k UgM1ting(regvm d buJdmg entryway ngM1ting snail be provided on[ne arcM1itenu al plans e P cti f 1020 k
Or e Cou Tax Informs County Technical Rev,ew stiff sFan nave the ability t° iew and 2 ns,te auxil tall. see required it Cared Acres ve Kno+Bo+equipped key bur ho re
ang n y n apPro manges to the approved conditional 1-1 plan tnrpesnper f per iary s 2 for IigntPing plan require d per ange unry UUO sec ny propos r ngMing Z
Parcels Included in this PrMect: r ° 36 tiers f ing rl2 crews. ma e Or C° ton 6.1 fo —06— Drage 1—
D-1
kipermrtnng requirements span de determines arty
ve mrnotF the provisons under the Orange County Unified g ugnts to cue cont nes of the properq and subJecc e1 eemniI staff review ane approwl rcment O
Parcell: Development Ordinanc not exceeding 10%of the dimensional 164 tota�member for mite staff. pole lights be considered, y all be less ttdn 14'and located wi[nm t F—
"t"',
p ed ac y ea. ks properly perm
n[,Les within the sed ac[ivit a ea.
np5 pe aY.ogn es M1 d"n tied.
PIN: 9871503254 qua p opo y r AM peak(6:S AM to 7:15 AM)62 vph 12 IT.sgn� e rs proposed. S,gragee u t mmpy wiM Orange County UDO 6,Ile ro os tint ar ppl caMe'vu lel nq pem,its for tFrs protect sM1all be°brained poor
Parcel Are 0.01 Acre PM reak(2:30 PM to 3-30 PM)55 Wh Lane v na Not ro cons rust on nc ud ng a caretake q ers bu d ng_
f*st ng'eg el ton sM1a11serve to-11permeter andscap ng requr d per Orange Cov ty UDO—t-6.8 6-8��23
Cur ent Orange Coun y Zon,RB Rural Buffer Bumg No — f
Orange County Overlay Distnets:Jordan take Unprotected No burning of ce.ree materas a.-8,rs
Deed Reference:D.B.6759 PG.948 eERf�par ally cleggea snap nc SITE
CULV
5ite Padres:6915-UT adlhoose P.oad °=o mI and /a° PROPERTY ACCESS POINT - eolinven
°�2Q1cactea Gravel Access tO Millhouse Road
MIN ivluM SuaD Nc sETSAcrs ///
(to be Improved'to two lanes)
m /r�� -zomin.w,d«a,a wean-.scree, -
P O g C unty UDO.
5 t 3.8 ASE CD Lon ng D s[r ct(Proposed)
P p dueankc"
F 1 t Setback 40
sd s tbaek 2a _
_ _._ _ Gated Entry _ _ -- Vlanity M p scALE. =2000
Requ red,ae and rear-A-ks adj—t ro-a-41y A-Ad lana shah be equal w one with IF N-(73�-
required side or rear setback W the aajacenc residential dstnct. >. aosuit➢NG sOBgcn
5 TE DATAunt Zont W°odea I Gommuniwt Professional\ENTERPRISES C°nditioral Distnc[ Knox BOX f - Property Owner Information:
g RAL 5UPPOR _ 65' ACER LLC
E TE
tping use:vacan p Ions Tower Site -tarry buffer 1200 HATCH ROAD
C-1, ing ASE-co AGR1cuLTu
0 oned use:Profes5mnal Arborist,sno Tree service K — CHAPEL HILL,Ne 2751 6
M 13Ildrng fleght 45 _ -
5 d 5 tb k:20 when adjacent to RB use O uw
RE Setb k 20 wFen adjacent to RB use �/ v � ixnge"sum ew 1
U PNCT No d for Parcel 1 Shall—Morin to: _
Floor Area.Parcel 283 423 sf.(Pica des 8.000 sf.) O ___ r 4e t d to f M1
Open 5,A—Parcel 174.414 M.(Pr--174,4 5 sf) wt NCooT�gh,of ways n pav 1—,of V
- Oct
FUEL �O s aeabltywl bore °aha ng
Parkng Re ea re ems Gravel Area AST m d 1 s f eo 20rem engin°f so a
(Per o anq county uoo Table 6.9:7:OR street Parting Requ cements) O �//� 1 52,0005f. z. ° g nts f°r the argent ")
v
Parkng Data: {/J�l/�///A\ m.wax: �I e 1—vents sha p d d tp NCDOT fon rev ew
M n. space/400 54.GFA - _//O - _- fiC ane sea k d approva pso t cue dP sway perm §
o� V/�/o d
CIA sectors
CIA 5 296,. Mro5 r
Parkng 39 cP.tw Ln oN LtaeNo
PaParkng Provd d.63 /,r,�"//�/�
rkng Des g Hall meet UDO section 6.9,10 � / / � ^ � E-aZ
o D o m zF-
o \— �0 O
-LIOLED SOTEs. - to
t U
11.s pr sect located w th n the Jordan lake UNPROTECTED
Storrnwater Control for LFe site provides no net increase greater than 10%^in Peak O x N
sow post development W Pre development
RE 5ERVICE ROAD nGond tons X D - O m 3Q_POf
PIPE REQUIREMENT NOTE, LIT N o'"`°'w'. e�`^^•:�
Roads and dr ve5 5na neat f re code for w dth and stab l ty/5trudural capacity, jl
,9 caretaker 36'x 36'
MPERVOU5 ARBA SUMMARY: i _ O less than 40'ta
Ex sung lmpery A 16 000sf._PRE TOTAL n
Pro ose4 A 55,000sf P05TADDFD CO eE
Proposed\to lmpervous Area 17100,f._TOTAL - ! / o be mreder�d rroteou Nst aoa ane r,bm,aeen.Duevo y 2
P o equipment
� �Tts ��a r°4•,
staging c
Gen rat Notes. _ I� 95 �e
or rr t°
e All construct on methods and--Al,-11conform Co Me f'--_=— 1 - M
NCOOT,Orange County Ero n Control Orange County Standard _ N r n b t t bra II `
Spec,cat ons b Dela Is and the NC Plumb ng C,- I outdoo r
zea eonnoar5exsknorefnr,aoatep°graphenabrrraton to - bole q ework _
bra n d
I— urvey of rm on pr vid d by JOFiatn n F Murphy EXST. 3 p-ria Ox 5 N teSryW
Norpf carotna(Pr sect Number:Mllh-e). Cell O Q -
3. ea sanitary sewer-°n ere waste water stem ie to Wer 1 proPr�=9. stancd i" LU
4rOpO New Wates vee on wen,proposed _ f:-x
mkcngrdarnyatl n eet5 smesole sponsblhkv vO
of ens a ncanv eeonsi tem wi n oran e e I (n O� p from�e s 5n
permitting require oentsY owe ge uny + All ps°pedy pem,i�eee�a eaen. F
G. Hart s¢ and locators of exmting utilities e to be field L 1 —— — 225' rycl[pe Jee
ver,fied by Orange eouney Eng,neer,ng staff pri°r to c°nneceion a all
ar YI ral9Eorelcn gsoils.
n traction of utilities — blm 11 n eml e a n
sew The shale bot esponsible for acquiringeall pe�rmi^e. \ l p rmred.by ory g °ryes^ c u g sew
em ns[uc approval,and as-built rtrf ho s for WDOd `
0"project GO r J
r
e. contact the project engineer,mmed,ately with any ronflicts \ st0 age
regarding the design c nstrucGon of the Project.All field A area
adjustments shall be enfed by the prIj-engineer prior t° \ WOOd rz."s-•">o=U-rte==s.-..a irzasae..s ro>waa.,i
9.nsaCon�trucGonand locationof sidewalk sl° C StOrdge JN '^v"•ro^ mins^����m"^roiai 6x�
e
Fes,ram pen= area
e landings, \
approac ps,and accessible routes snap bin accordance — 1
w,n thANSI 2009 Nandirzp code or latest revision.
10. Contactor snarl contactprMectengineertoobserve -- m - .ma.,r,mm.uwsaa,a.a W m����
formworkfor sites-1h,ncretesidewelk t, I..items as LH_ _ G F EJ •,.n.,..a�usiwi, """`°°a„r>mm.um �,za. Q -afi3
C-
,11 as stung Imes or other controls poor to cue placement of `t _
ntrete,setting base course stone,or the placement of asphalt. - ,,.o.v,�Royeu r,vmamresumuwuwsnioaaa rpni '3
compaction of fill materials,approval d residual subgrade,
o,l proof rolls,stone placement,anWor other materials testing _ __
funedons shall be,n accordance with the pr sect ge°te--1
A.s7
engineer's guidance,spec,ncations,recommendations,anA[est,ng - ,rn::^m^.i m.nel,n:.",w r,mr,ua.rn ra zoza /1
standards_ 'e10e_f a L-I m3
Pro est Development Thresholds: S'
plan Prepared for: Aland Disturbing Pis required For this project,,the proposed land disturbance is greater than 10.000
The Tree,t-Tree service square feet.(Per oran-gA e county uoo sermon z.1 a).An eroseon C-16Plan i,required for this ,—n me O' 80' 160' e W
I zoo Hatch—J,chapel LLI proposes land di,twbance„greater than 20,000 square feet(Per orange County-loo 5ecbon 2.19).Th, CALL BEFORE YOUDIG! IT5 TI1E LAW r�
919-260-8970 to proposes eo disturb greater than 20.000 square feet of land area. $
Theereeist@gman.com �� a rware dv"°rat,ar mom with ULOCO North Carolina One Call Center
A 11--r Managemeno Plan,e regn,red for this pr Seco rr more oran z 1,780 zf d land areas-1-1 o g y smwn hereon 1-800-632-4949 Graphic Scale
(Per Orange County UDO Section 6.14.5)_Tfns site proposes to disWrb greater than 21.]80 sf of land
Scale: 1 1=40'
49
1-23— Z
ACER LL Owner Information:
AGER LLC
rKcus Notez tw ale). 1200 HATCH ROAD C
futste onto eases nt dnvelMment QIAPEL BILL,NC 27516
mr larye�e prepesea ted erre vemele 4�23
1"=70'
SITE CDHNJCH
(nocwscR`a e��Pa kny s��Eaea ryv�ed mess ons � a��as
m m°zo wde grave mve s°rabe r°r a weaener ��
RB—WOODED 9g°�s m°e f°°m aye b e pro o d wtMw en� Ok20' Vl—Ity Map ESCALE —z�'
ORANGE COUNTY / T 6D'Easeme°t per Deed Book 31 Page 84 Yp „r,
C / Plat Book 43 Page 86 g
aw
:easregwrea wln ^r,�
rmm ro,gn,or M°^
nqs eare,asm u...sa •,
LUSTING cutvEkr: ccccar,mwmawrem.aam,.. Ipreax.m
rtialN doggm mall to � owmu,W
An easticg cwvcrt,pa � ,w,n moporaa.away
clmcwd w[as part or tms developmrct. '-----.. as req"rea,o.vxa�aa orpm„any
/+ddrtionall.a 4a=20'pavm apprwcn(20')a�a --__ .m, �
eew,nire Izo')arae oc tnie cossicg provieee -.—i' '3�
chimol.eviesraH
asa rep°Snem to w
't ____—_____________ ----
-----------
—T
-,.qtr^ PROPERN ACCESS POINT ____ --- -----------2EJ'�rrdc�'F---'— //
�` 4.r Gravel Access fo Mulhouse Read ------ to
�i ry (W be improved'W two lanes) Ax xcoo+oarvEwnv p[nHli O
mm�enion o�tneencwnr m-
pmmmneaopmre' Stl'ImreE N -
/'1� � — Ga Fcd ^/ _ _ _ — wvamemmn�saa,mr brsenmaF
—.T Na[es-
dK.noxBw
W T � ambpp yw nedcrvewamee NtCosorTerugrhetd offowr atyo.s rot for rtohne d -N( zHILL
APdp
Z
2.
�' eda Ig P( o00 anGOapp oe OiFpr°`snm°u en s5aa°ce orgh�aa a9p.m,a U
WO r OOOsI / _ frc Data Z
Y \ 4 tr p per day per crew member. N 0
2 tr ps per day per ore teaux I ary staff U
O 36 members form ng 12 crews. @/1 90Q.
O I O aux I b for onsce staN. (,
AM Lotal t p p day.
RB-WOODED RB—WOODED PMpeak(2.30 Mto3:30PM))55vph t��
p -0 ORANGE COUNTY o ORANGE COUNTY
W O Q HIM 1 1 ° at bete" y lege pmrnt = ro.
s ag ny es mns �
❑ s oAly 11 1�
r _ te° er1-1--11 orL
t
re
wnt,canpe[e ha,tegaee e=ec on[an W
I I �� proper c.,rttcatoc tnat me Propose m�tm�s ev was c5ta ea c
4 111cewth[n°appy° a an ana pedl�to W
mI zOwden Po��,`"mmpeVeL"` �
�aaQ
e _ otnere"�eanema�aat°cL'ewo�ane�Fcaw�enen1ea°,q"Uge=fa l`moS
-f my
e _-- --- -- °
"ana°°�cedmrt.ster.g ee°5"
,e„masIl dee
a
t�a
W
CHAPEL HILL ZONING - RT c�
ORANGE COUNTY Q
01 140' 280' e Lx
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! ITS TI1E LAW
ULOCO North Carolina One Call Center
1-800-632-4949 Graphic Scale
Scale: I"=701
50
PIS „ ;a /
D
&1123
PROPERTY ACCE55 POINT 51TE - CDHNdCH
Gravel Access to Millhouse Road
(to be Improved'to two lanes)
35a.e
AC4 MN o�eSUFFER
RoeEF�rFtu�Br�eTN� oN, —
_ Gated Entry
with PINCbd — _ — uE�ernylanmv M v scALe. -z000'
e — — — — — — _ .— _ _ _ _ _
- Qoeu to Nc seT�,cK
#Knox Box - Property ow^er mrormatlon.
sTRtAM auTLb
_ loe
=Povs noolnoANL9uuc AGER LLC
65'stream bufeoo HATCH ROAD
I n — CHAPEL HILL,NC 27516
�\ J uO
ub�ngeNarezo,...w ",i
�u
D�'w — I.SM1rrequr s4or per er rype'D"buffer
-_. _ ____ -_FUEL Op ehall be met wtn low grow ng �e enrube of V
- - r accepbble qual tY and_";At—acrd ng to the type p
Gravel Area AST •D"landscapngrequrement. ,
I52,OOO5f. ab 5� e.L-*etny veyerat on seal be°sea to r°Ifu all m
La. oreer port ons of xne type•D b°xer req°cement -
3.A s�foot fence w GI opaque screen ng snail be �
O nstructep n tfie oot on as shown hereon
DD- -
DDa
D - Qg
D
a
Q�
Q-� �� O
i t:: x x1 uLn N_ U
N
tP..N ,.�
'a•,
8 " > <'
H
,9 IN
caretaker 36'x 36'
T\ less than 40'tall I fAL
f
DD
z
�O equipment
4
g
staging �
oil 1 _
EXST. 3 0+R' i O'x 15'
Gell O W
ower U V
I vOs w �r
5 Lu
F
— ------ 225'
5 Fence � fr � W
Sr wood 4-14
storage e
area wood
-- storage N �—
------------------ area N 24',de A
Rig-
'6'Pence with m
—G — — -op�a e_ee F — — — EJ ofi�
r3 C
JO BE FIILR 1l1foOBYPeM15TING V[GEfATIONI snwin r rt
680-57'
0' 80' 1 GO' ' Lx
cess N er° CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! ITS THE LAW $ r_1
metre aunar�t.e euom,°m ULOCO North Carolina One Call Center
1-800-632-4949 Graphic`JGae U
Scale: 1"=40'
51
�., S4_N x GII A
11 23
— ---- CDH
PHOTO DEMONSTRATING EXISTING VEGETATION AT SAMPLE AREA A PHOTO DEMONSTRATING EXISTING VEGETATION AT SAMPLE AREA G
3Dx10'SNMPLNG EAREA
EAB VEGETATION 30 IONAR
RMON
---
O
SCALE NTS N
PHOTO DEMONSTRATING EXISTING VEGETATION AT SAMPLE AREA B PHOTO DEMONSTRATING EXISTING VEGETATION AT SAMPLE AREA H
O
2CREXISNN VEGETANON 11 FNSTIN.VE.FTAIONSAMPLE AREA _
4
SAMPLE AREAI — T
L i4sxa y
SCALE=NTS
1---NITS 2
i
'AUME S.ENr S PHOTO DEMONSTRATING EXISTING VEGETATION ATSAMPLEAREAC nu NEnsurewvm Na PHOTO DEMONSTRATING EXISTING VEGETATION AT SAMPLE AREA " o-VJ'"""x
2P0RMSTG V ION 30.PDR pMG VEGETATION
• -
ION
AA
oN W
W
2
SCALE NTS
PHOTO DEMONSTRATING EXISTING VEGETATION AT SAMPLE AREA D PHOTO DEMONSTRATING EXISTING VEGETATION AT SAMPLE AREA J -
M oN ztrx BUFFER
0 -'s
F=E — cOMEwu. f O is
---__ -T nE M V y,
--__---- — ..
4--A
SCALE
a
_NTS =NTB
PHOTO DEMONSTRATING EXISTI NG VEGETATION AT SAMPLEAREAF PHOTO DEMONSTRATING EXISTING VEGETATION AT SAMPLE AREA N H 3
52
° Z
,., , &112323
/ PROPERTY ACCE55 POINT SITE - cD nvcn
Gravel Access tO Mdlhou5e Road
(to be Improved'to two lanes)
tro ee Fut i�1�o br aEsrwe vt6eTAnow - � u�enNr oa-
Gated Entry _ -- ylamty Map scAtE: =2000'
with PIN ode — - — — — — — —— — _ , _ _ _ _ _
#Knox Box E-AVE- property owner Inf—t-
oArv�9uFfPre:u6 ACER LLC
SITE DATA 65�stream b q) 'P.ovloes AOD1n 1200 HATCH ROAD
C,-,use:Vacant/wooded/eommumrations Tower site — uff=_ — - CHAPEL HILL.NC 275 1 G
P- d U PrMess Wool Arbonsts 5hop)---1 oval Tree Seance
M B lamp Heght 45
t 5 k:40
5-5,t,-,:20 when ad,—to RB use O
Rear Setback.20 wFen adLacent to RB use
Uses Proposed for Parcel SM1all conform to _ 2G _ _
noor Area Parcel 283,423 sf(Prov aed 18,000 sf.) o �tP _
open space Parcel 1 na al4 et(Prevdm 174.a1s ef.( -� -_FUEL O o
Gravel Area AST 0 rt, ,
152,0005f. N
ae�sparrs
c
wATERSHEo NOTES:
Th s pr sect s lowtea w th n the Jordan lake UNPROTECTED watershed_ Z
Stormwater Control for the Ste Prov des no net ncrease greater tM1an 10%.n Peak O _ — £ W Z g
flow poet aevelopmem to pre developmem eona t ons
An access and ma ntenance easement w be requ red to serve any str—.(ScM) � O - O..
control measures Prov d ng publ c access from the publ c r gM W way w / J —— W
any�eq�erd scM. SGM � Q z U
AREA <p
IMPERVIOUS AREA SUMMARY. " (0 A
lf—t6O
ng lmpev 100- PRETOTAL m . _—�
Proposed Imp A 171 OOOsf POST ADDED I Ltd' rc Ln—
Proposed rota mpery ous Area 17 LOOOsi TOTAL 8 ]l st <
,g caretaker 30 x 30 I '
All proposed mpen-oas so:fa�es shoo dra n eo any repo red storcnwater<onerol dev oe. I� v O� � less than 40'tall
The
r
o"uet of o r aa non erne ve (� __
such deuce shall pass the deegn storm d scM1a q r gtt
veloc ty.
equipment
Aw P
ny structurarmwater concro w measure be des gned n accordance wth the ° 1P 1 — r:.
Orange County Stormwater Ord nonce and apPl cable state mnmum des gn<r tern as (� /�Y�''//� SCagInG� / W IP. L_
apps cab e. o r —____—\/�,... / �❑ 95
IAW DI5TURBANCE DATA: Otd
U uoor E r
T'h s pr sect wn-, ly proposes to drsturb 7.9 Acres — — N _ — O ,o ler
EX T. 30-� Iox1s' U)
An erosion aM sed:mentat:on wntrol plan and permitting will be required 4or this Gell LLI O Q " _ LU
disturbance.ORANGE COUNN is th permitting autM1onty for this pro)ect tower U _
T,15 1 ne symbol acs me 1 m rs of d ewreance prepeee for chs-1-111Y. tt _ _ v O s ° LU
Dra nage Area to Bas.n Area shown.4.3 Acres
D—rbed Area to Basin Area showm 4.3 Aces D—+———-- 225' m m
Required su:faoe Area(remporary sea:ment crap):G,a81 sf. - 6'Fence 1 E W
Provided Surface Area(temporary 5ed:ment Trap):9.000 sf.
5r wood
storage o
area wood
- storage -
--- area. _� 24'wide i
G'Fence with -f
HIP
L.- - - - - - - - - a -.a
Pro ect Development Thresholds: - 0.6T
A land Disturbing Permit is regmred For this pro)ect:1 the proposed land disturbance is greater than 10.000
square feet.(Per Orange County UDO Section 2.1 b).An Erosion Control Plan,required for H,,pr,r—A the 0' 801 1 GO' ^e
proposed lana d�stwbanee,s greater than 20.000 square feet(Per orange County uD0 5-1—2.19).This oAl CALL BEFORE YOUDIG! IT5 TI1E LAW � a
sate proposes to disturb greater than 20.000 square feet of land area. $ „,
ULOCO North Carolina One Call Center JC:
A 51--r Management Plans r,,,—for tl,,pro)etr.r more anon z 1.781 of of land area:e-1-1o e y ,cam ner�n. a Nwre dlabuat�ae eroro«an 1-800-632-4949 Graphic;Scale
(Per Orange County UDO section G.14.5)_Thm site proposes to disturb greater than 20,000 sf of land
Scale: I"=40'
53
ata Plrv�se�so3zsa o
25 gpd per employee(21 RNee) PRI.t¢-rota
3
I —0,—,- Z
2 employees 300 gpd 6
Caretaker L-1 t,@ 120 gpdrodrm
2 bdrm-240 gpd
V-1--(2)Q 25 gpd/emplgee
2—hamos-50 epi
I T
PROPERTY ACCESS POINT SITE coinvci
Gravel Access to Millhou5e Road e
(to be Improved"to two lanes)
Gated Entry ylanity(vial' 5CALE:I•'=2OW
withPlN76de — - _ - - - - - - 40 BUILD-51-K
ff Knox Box —
Property Owner In4ormatron:
65'
ACER LLC CH
steam buff— 1200 L HILL.ROAD
— CHAPEL NC 275 D9
�. 5y-etem�
e,\ya _-, _--- FUEL 4�0 o
Gravel Area AST
152,0005f. N
_ a »arer
Z
0
_ o0
cz
work or 000. - o 5CM
stagy AREA O
•�- � ��
caretaker 3G'x 36' '`
2
car
°5 less thin 40'tall
'o \1 equlpm�It wnnTrE• - P ,
f
° I ❑
d°
— — b°Iter
Drip Exsr. I - 3l' 0 10'x 1 s Cqq�Liver N�
- cellI I di O N ti Pal ° W
t°uver u- � L
u
> h W
- ;well I vp a 1.
------- � NE�R HRV ��� E 1 SEPTCTANKS f
- \-- 1 (TYF.)
J TO DRAIN FIELDS
I wood r •�
A storage ' \ System 2 ,/
area
\ wood
/ \
System I ��-Z storage
_ _ __ __A
- � area � � PHI/ System I A\ - w R
LL-
a
C7
-- eaosr w Lr;
Q
01 80' 1 GO' e W
CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI ITS TI1E LAW r-1
ORANGE COONTYHEALTHDEPARTMENTWELLANDSEPTIC PERMITS al tnsv $
WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OP THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL i^ alu�uredlaboraz�.e exon wm ULOCO North Carolina One Call Center
9 ry=r=^�^^=rte 1-800-632-4949 Graphic Scale
Scale: I"=401
54
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.
55
July 31, 2023
The Treeist
Reference: Estimate of Traffic Increase
Proposed Treeist Operations
Millhouse Road—Orange County- North Carolina
The L.E.A.D.S. Group, PA Project Number: 1-23-1024
To the User:
The L.E.A.D.S. Group, PA is working on the development plans for the Treeist's proposed base of
operations off Millhouse Road. Based on the current concept plans and a review of ITE trip generation
rates for similar uses as proposed,the following information is presented:
Based on a trip generation rate of 4 trips per employee per day,the proposed workforce of 62 total
employees with the majority of these employees assembling to serve on an estimated work force of 15
tree service crews: A very conservative generation of traffic is estimated at 308 trips or less per day.
The proposed all weather surface connection between the property and Millhouse Road will provide an
adequate outlet for the proposed operation in the area, provide for the required emergency vehicle
access if needed and minimally affect the existing activities to the serve the communications tower on
the property.
The L.E.A.D.S. Group, Pa appreciates the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project.
Please feel free to contact us if you should have any questions regarding this information.
Very truly yours,
The L.E.A.D.S. Group, PA
C3T
Charles D. Huffine, PE -,
g 02494
NC Reg. No. 24924 =
rsFf�:.:3tx taaa�►t�`��Jr
LAM) EN(;[ I; KIN(; Am) Di-vi;i.ol^01-NI
56
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.
57
Addressing Noise Concerns
At our November 17th Neighborhood Information Meeting residents of the Heartwood
Community asked whether machinery noises produced at our proposed location might be
noticeable from within their community. At the time I was only able to show the distances from
our lot to the Heartwood community. I can now offer additional information. I compare our
proposed location to other noise sources that are likely to affect the residential parcels. I also
discuss the results of our recent noise tests.
Note, for those that simply want to watch a short video from the sound test, click here.
The aerial image below will be referenced throughout the discussion.
F,
1
S p
U
Y
Tid7- C
> •ASV:=4a
All other tests
First chainsaw '"ar
Comparing other Noise Sources
1
58
Shown in the image are the approximate locations of six noise sources likely to affect nearby
residential communities. As measured in decibels, gunfire is the loudest, followed by sirens.
Dog barks, rooster crows, highway traffic noise, and diesel engine sounds are all reported to
reach up to 100 decibels at 1 meter.'
A. Gunfire at the Shooting Range (-675' from a neighbor's house)
B. Roosters at Spence's Farm (--450' from a neighbor's house)
C. Dogs at the Pet Boarding House (-600' from a neighbor's house)
D. Sirens on Millhouse Rd
E. Diesel trucks and loaders at Town of Chapel Hill Public Works (-350' from a neighbor's
house)
F. High speed vehicles on 1-40
The most relevant comparison to our proposed project is the Chapel Hill Public Works lot. In
2005 the Town cleared about four acres of Rural Buffer to park vehicles and equipment and to
stage and to load materials. Aerial images show about 130 parked vehicles, along with various
trailers and equipment. Some Google Earth images show what appears to be a diesel loader for
managing and loading the asphalt, stone, and gravel.
Chapel Hill Public Works
y
6704 MillhOuse
At this site the materials staging and loading area is approximately 350 feet from the
neighboring residential house. For comparison, the nearest residential house to our proposed
materials staging area would be approximately 1,775 feet away. This would be to the house at
' 9mm pistol at 1 meter is -160 dB; Siren at 10 feet is -122 dB. Barking dog or rooster at 1 meter is -100
dB; diesel loader at 50 feet is -80 dB. Highway traffic at 50 feet is -80 dB. To convert these to decibel
equivalents at 1 meter, an inverse square law sound calculator is used.
2
59
1550 Bruin Trail. We have previously met with the owners of this house, who also reside there.
They had no objections to our plans for our property. The houses along Manor Drive are further
away. The closest house in the Heartwood community is well over 3,000 feet from our proposed
materials staging area.
It is also worth noting the County's own requirements for minimum distances where its
ordinances are maximally restrictive due to noise concerns. Consider outdoor shooting ranges.
The County ordinances require that there be a minimum distance of 1,000 feet between an
outdoor shooting range and the nearest occupied dwelling unit external to the property.2 Our
noisiest location would be our wood and debris staging area. It is over 2,000 feet from any
neighbors who have expressed concerns about potential noise.
Sound Tests, Day One
On the evening of December 26th we tested the noises created by a honking truck horn and a
large chainsaw. We operated the chainsaw at full throttle where we plan to locate our wood and
debris staging area: the far side of the cell tower. For the truck horn blasts, we parked the truck
on the near side of the cell tower. The first listening location was the street in front of 1219
Blackwood Mountain Road. The second location was the street in front of 1310 Manor Dr. Of the
quasi-public locations within the two communities these locations appear to be the closest to our
property at 6915-UT Millhouse Rd.
We found that neither the chainsaws nor the truck horn blasts were perceptible from the
Heartwood Community or from Manor Dr.
While the horn blasts and the chainsaw were clearly heard through the cell phone, as soon as
the cell phone at the operator's location was placed on mute, no sound from either the horn nor
the chainsaw could be heard. Three non-hearing-impaired youth conducted the hearing test
alongside me. Apart from nature noises (the occasional bird chirp), all we could hear was the
near-constant noise of vehicle travel on the 1-40. The traffic noise from 1-40 was noticeable from
both locations.
Sound Tests, Day Two
We returned on the morning of December 30th for additional tests with a louder chainsaw, a
marine air horn, and a wood chipper, this time locating all of these on the near side of the cell
phone tower. We directed the air horn and the chipper chute toward the listening location at
Manor Dr.
During this second test we were able to hear some, but not all of the marine air horn blasts. We
were not able to hear the chainsaw. The wood chipper was just audible, but not nearly as loud
as barking dogs or rustling clothing.
2 Orange County UDO 5.7.2 (13)(1)(ii)
3
60
We recorded videos of both sound tests. I recommend this video of the Day Two sound test
Video of the Day One sound test at the Heartwood location is of poorer quality, but it is available
here.
Final Thoughts
From the residential properties closest to us it is possible for someone to hear sounds produced
from our parcel. For this to happen, the trees would likely have to be without leaves, the wind
would need to be still, and the listener would need to be outdoors and attentive. We would need
to be doing something like blowing a marine air horn in the listener's direction. For the noisiest
activities we are likely to engage in—such as loading and unloading brush, wood chips, and logs,
or occasionally instructing our employees in chainsaw safety—even the most attentive residential
neighbor is unlikely to hear us.
4
61
Addressing Traffic Concerns
During our November Neighborhood Information Meeting, some concern was expressed
concerning the vehicle traffic that our proposed plan may generate.
Counting Trips-Per-Day
Some of the concern may be due to the brief traffic data note on our initial site plans. These
overstated the trips-per-day by nearly a factor of two.' Although the traffic data note has been
corrected in the latest site plans, the old figures continue to reappear (for example, on p. 72 and
85 of the agenda packet sent to the Planning Board in late December).
Some of the concern is likely due to the way that trips-per-day are counted. One trip to the
grocery store gets counted as two vehicle trips since there is both the outbound trip for the
groceries and a return trip with the groceries. Dropping your kid off at school and then later
picking her up generates four trips. Trips-per-day quickly therefore accumulate. A classroom of
twenty students is likely to generate 80 trips-per-day even before counting teachers, staff, and
admin.
At our current maximum capacity, we generate approximately 64 trips per weekday.2 If, in our
most ambitious plans for this location, we manage to eventually increase the number of tree
crews from four to twelve, we would add another 100 trips-per-day. Even this number, however,
likely overestimates the trips-per-day, as it assumes that we are working with current levels of
vehicle inefficiency, created by the logistical problem of handling wood waste. Since this is a
problem that our new lot is intended to resolve, we anticipate that only two trucks will be needed
per crew, reducing the number of trips per day by 24. More likely, we would be generating no
more than 140 trips-per-day at maximum capacity. If, moreover, we limit ourselves to hiring no
more than 10 to 15 new employees (as the Planning Department notes mentions), we would be
generating far fewer than 140 trips-per-day.
Comparing Trips-Per-Day
One way to gain a perspective on trips-per-day counts is through comparison. The nearby
Emerson Waldorf School is said to enroll approximately 260 students. If we don't count any
traffic created by teachers, aids, administrators, and facility staff, but we assume that each
' 1 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.
2 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.
1
62
student needs a separate ride to and from school, this generates 1040 trips-per-day. Looking
at only the Chapel Hill Public Works parking lot that is located in the Rural Buffer, I count what
appears to be 125 employee vehicles. The staff represented by these 125 parked vehicles likely
represents 500 trips-per-day.' If Orange County fulfills its plan to build six lighted soccer fields
in the adjacent parcels, we could expect 1,920 trips-per-day for the soccer complex on a
weekend game day.4
Peak Traffic Times
Traffic is mainly a problem when it leads to congestion. Congestion is created when lots of
vehicles are trying to use the road at the same time. The traffic we create occurs almost entirely
on weekdays between 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. This is when crew members are arriving for their
7am start time and then leave with their crew vehicles to work throughout the area during the
day. Part of the benefit of starting this early is that our employees largely avoid morning traffic
from school and commuter traffic. When we have occasionally delayed start times by an hour or
two, we have found that employees arrive to work late due to traffic delays.5
At the end of the work day, the flow of our vehicles is more staggered with crews returning when
their tasks are accomplished. Keeping an 8-hour work day, however, means that our employees
have typically left our lot by 3pm. Again, this is earlier than most commuter traffic, and certainly
earlier than high usage weekday hours of the anticipated soccer complex. County soccer fields
generally only experience high usage during weekends or on weekdays well after school lets
out.
It is rare for our tree crews to be working during evening and weekend hours. The exception is
for tree-related emergencies, typically caused by extreme weather events.
Vehicle Routes
Direction of travel and high-use routes are also worth noting. We anticipate that the vast majority
of our usage of Millhouse Road will be for the portion south of the residential locations. We
3 I assume that Public Works employees park their personal vehicles and then, in a manner similar to our
crew staff, will at some point during the day leave and then return to the lot in some Public Works truck or
vehicle. I am not including the obvious service vehicles in the adjoining areas, nor the approximately 150
additional employee parking spaces south of the buildings, which is likely parking for staff who primarily
work in offices.
'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 six soccer fields this gives us 480 vehicle trips per game slot. If
there are four game slots per game day, we have a total of 1,920 vehicle trips per Saturday during soccer
season at the soccer complex.
5 Posted online office/business hours confirm our on-the-ground experience. While our business hours
are weekdays from 7am to 3pm, the posted hours of Emerson Waldorf's office is between 8am to 4pm
during the school year and even later during the summer. Staff at the Public Works are typically available
between 8am and 5pm.
2
63
would primarily be using the segment of Millhouse Rd between Eubanks Rd and the gravel road
to our parcel. This portion of Millhouse Rd is flanked by commercial properties or properties
owned by the Town or County. It contains no residentially used parcels.
If, moreover, on this stretch of Millhouse Rd we are encountering traffic associated with the
Emerson Waldorf School, the Town's Public Works, or the businesses along Millhouse Rd, it will
likely be our outbound traffic that is passing in opposite directions from everyone else's inbound
traffic. This is due to our earlier business start time. In other words, if there is any overlap, it will
be between our latest crews leaving our lot with their trucks and the earliest arrivals to the
school, the Public Works facility, or the adjacent businesses.
The Broader Perspective
From a broader perspective, concerns about traffic problems put our proposed land usage in a
favorable light. Preventing us from using our parcel as intended does nothing to reduce the
amount of tree care services needed in this area. Instead of relying on a tree service located at
the near edge of town, homeowners will be relying on tree services located in areas beyond the
wide rural buffer, often in an adjacent county. Instead of averaging 10 minutes of drive time to a
service location, we'd often be looking at 30-minute drive times. So, without reducing the
trips-per-day of tree service vehicles, both the length and duration of each trip-per-day will on
average dramatically increase. This ultimately means dramatic increases in both road usage
and fuel consumption. It means adding to the growing problem of back-and-forth commuter
traffic traversing the Rural Buffer.
3
6
Staff Report Attachment 2
Zoning Atlas Amendment — Conditional District 7]
Basic Information
Parcel Identification
Vicinity Map for Rezoning Application-PIN y871503?74 9871-50-3254
f -(rpot Number (PIN)
LE Qr Craig Nishimoto
_11 rEM
C0e1 Applicant Name (Acer, LLC)
and Address 1200 Hatch Road, Chapel
'-' Hill, NC 27156
Chapel.Hill J Property Owner
- Y
Jordan L'akP' 10 ��hlp 'I� Name and Address
�'r (if different from N/A
' -- Applicant)
MA
Ryer
--�Yn Ity
La ad . .
Agent(s), if
unn.®rs�a
L' N/A
` Criticalapplicable
,7�
�!` f1
P d 9 Haw
R
PIN'9677°5=54 =.--To*nhipi CTY1,aM
earnc GH Lpnll3 Cewrty
C
—Major Sir— -`- At
ora�oa co,aay aora,dary cnaaei+an rownanro
Water Supply Watersheds ':+-y
1
Parcel Size +/-10.01 acres Adapted Future Land Use Map with Parcel 9871503254 Depicted
Future Land Use
Map (FLUM) Rural Buffer.
Designation
FLUM Overlay(s) N/A
Growth Management Rural Designated
System Designation
9671ij032db1
Designated lands in the = ----
r anLake Watershed
Definition of FLUM Comprehensive Plan that are
Designation adjacent to an urban or transition
(from Article 10 of area that is rural in character and
UDO) which should remain rural and not
require urban services. PIN.�" m"
:7 xcr7cnlw� roa..
�r.elc rrx.ea run,
�n�o,res amrce.n,arom
town�w un cuwmn.a
p.alw!lil FIJ — -•.
Interlocal Agreement
Applicable Yes orangeCauntyChapelHlll-Carr'borvJointPlannin ,Area
Y/N
Applicable ILA Joint Planning Area (JPA)
Future Land Use Rural Buffer
Classification
Only very low density residential, _
I
agricultural uses exempt from
Description zoning regulations, and low-
intensity agricultural support uses
are appropriate in the Rural Buffer.
i
J PIN.4$71597254
0"'d X4 Uhnk ce Nc+
]4MI:_Wrt WNnv�n
I.�CupN Rte E2] J
CNVd mn CA,lfrta A � 17
Nu-d&dlc
2
155 b
Rezoning Application to ASE-CD for PIN 9871503254 Current Zoning
District RB (Rural Buffer)
ASE-CD (Agricultural Support
Requested Zoning
'— Enterprises Conditional
District District)
Requested Zoning
District Consistent
-- -- ".I Jordan Lake Watamhud
-�, with Appendix F of
2030 Yes
9$7151332� Comprehensive
l ll Plan
Existing Zoning Jordan Lake Unprotected
- Overlay Districts Watershed
` Amendments
OPIN.%71W32.54 , Proposed for
M�;edi;. Overlay Districts NO
(Y/N)
�� "Fri
RB
3
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Aerial lma a with Parcel 9871503254 Outlined
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 a condition of the ASE-CD rezoning process. Any additional 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 (Attachment 9).
4
Site Plan
- ."�RTY ACCr55 FOINT
G; ,2_:Access it,PJ i IIhouse Pc ad
',.(to be Improve:,. '-wo lanes]
r
ee nt•um m ursnw a-sMa.�crri
r bated ntr - –
-- — w th` rN CSS
E Krox box
y��.�- ----�� \\-- -- •��?rn 6�;{� est
Area A5T
52,4005i- +s r..�
L R
41
El
g� a
i^v x
,y/ FTM
fess than+}{y ra;l
14 w-4
s Ii
— :-td;Inch ❑ .........
_ �a 5
I � I _ `4 nlRdour
I
13-1
nm
L—__—
fi
C,'Fence ,ry^ �
x --------
2C''ai+de min. z
wood
{ gravel
5torujc y
area (�YP•J ~� g
" -.Orad ------- ----- .-
--------------------- area
i6'Ferre..ntP ----- ------ ---Ir
5ECOlJ7,4RY RCCF.55 NOTE5:
A condition of the prc;zcL-hall allow for a occondary and 1 or
alternate Southern acres as part of a fLdv-e cllaborative effort with
ILt}rar�ge Cobnty as Shown hetenm.
69
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. Crown Castle has not provided comment on this application despite requests from both the applicant
and County Planning staff. 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.
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. The negotiations yielded Conditions 5 and 6 associated with this
zoning application. These conditions, effectively, allow for the continued use of the existing access drive,
which must be improved to County standards, until Orange County develops its property for recreation
purposes. When the county develops this property and constructs a new, norther access road, The Treeist
shall have ten (10) days to begin using this new access, and with the consent of the on-site easement
user, Crown Castle, who has first right of refusal for the shared use of the access easement on the subject
property.
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 308 Total Daily
Proposed Project 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.
6
70
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. (Attachment 5; Subject:
Summary of Findings Regarding Conformance with Orange County 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 LIDO, Type D Land Use Buffers are required along all parcel lines. The submitted
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 LIDO 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(13)(5) of the UDO (Attachment 5). This determination
eliminates a requirement from the applicant to provide a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement
process as outlined in Sections 2.25.2 and 6.16.4 of the UDO.
Solid Waste
The applicant has indicated development within the project will conform to the Orange County Solid
Waste Management Ordinance (Attachment 5).
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.
Following the March 7 Planning Board, the applicant requested to vest their plan per Section 2.5.5 of the
Unified Development Ordinance. This request was added as Condition #7, which was not reviewed by
the Planning Board.
Following Planning Board recommendation, Orange County and the applicant negotiated the details
included in Condition #5 and #6. Attachment 9 contains Attachment A referenced in Condition #5.
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.
IL 7
3. Allow for Planning Director to review and approve minor changes to the approved plan, per
Section 2.9.1(1) 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(1) 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. Initial access to the applicant's property shall be through the current access easement held by
Crown Castle, LLC and improved consistent with the County's road improvement terms and
standards.
Orange County intends to develop the property on which the existing access easement is located
into a park for recreational activities. When that development occurs, the County will construct
and record a new access road running along the northern boundary of the property with a
north/south connection to the applicant's property. When that new access road is recorded, as
conceptually shown in orange on the map as Attachment A, the County may demand that the
applicant discontinue use of the initial access road and exclusively access applicant's property
using the new access road constructed by the County. The applicant agrees to comply with the
County's demand within ten business days.
6. The additional party to the current access easement, Crown Castle, LLC., shall be contacted and
their written response should acknowledge their use of the new access road once constructed,
and their abandonment of the current access easement.
7. Approval of this plan establishes a zoning vested right under NCGS 160D-108. Unless terminated
at an earlier date, the zoning right shall be valid until March 19, 2029.Approval of this plan
establishes a zoning vested right under NCGS 160D-108. Unless terminated at an earlier date,
the zoning right shall be valid until March 19, 2029.
Review Milestones
Application Submittal Date August 7, 2023
Development Advisory Committee September 21, 2023
(DAC) Review October 19, 2023
December 21, 2023
Neighborhood Information Meeting November 17, 2023
NIM
Planning Board Recommendation January 3, 2024
Note: the DAC is a staff/agency committee, established in Section 1.9 of the Unified Development
Ordinance.
Courtesy Review
8
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 September 20, 2023 Yes
Preservation Board
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.
"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. The proposed use does not include on-site
grinding of materials. Furthermore, per Section 5.13.5, composting operations involving on-site
grinding of materials shall not be permitted within the Rural Buffer land use classification, as
designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan, as part of a Conditional District application
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.
9
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
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 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.
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.
10
74
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 a 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
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, placing an arborist near
11
tb
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
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.
12
76
■ 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 LIDO, 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.
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.
13
Attachment 3 =.
GRANGE COUNTY �7
NORTH CAROLINA
PLANNING mu11NSPisf.TION3
Cy 5tober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 272791919.245.2575
February 28, 2024
NOTICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
To Whom R.May Concern:
This notice is to inform you of the March 19, 2024, Board of County Commissioners meeting, at
which an application to rezone a+/- 10.01 acres(FIN: 9871-50-3254) will be reviewed. The
parcel's.address is 6915-UT Millhouse Road, Chapel Hill, within Chapel Hill Township. This
notification is occurring in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 ZoningAttas 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 Numbers (PIN) 9871-50-3254
Owner Acer LLC
,Applicant Craig Nishimoto
Location 6915-UT Millhouse Road
Acreage +r- 10.01acres
Current Zoning Rural Buffer (RB)
Proposed Zoning Agricultural Support Enterprises Conditional District
(ASE-Ca)
Watershed Designation Jordan Lake Unprotected
What is being proposed?
The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcel for future agricultural service uses in order to
locate their tree care and consulting company. This use would include two office buildings, a
residential building for a property caretaker, and service equipment storage area.
What is this meeting fart'
The Orange County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning.
Interested persons are invited to address the County Commissioners with their comments regarding
the rezoning application. The Orange County Planning Board, an advisory board comprised of
appointed volunteers,reviewed this application at its January 3, 2024 regular meeting and voted to
recommend approval of the rezoning request.
78
BOCC Meeting Information
Date March 19, 2024
Time 7:00 p.m.
Place Southern Human Services Center
Address 2501 Homestead (toad
Cha el Hill, NC
Ashley Moncado, Planner Ill
Assigned Planner Email: amoncado@)orangecountync.gov
Rhone, 919-245-2599
If you cannot attend the Public Hearing and the website does not answer your questions about the
requested rezoning,you may call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours and you will be
directed to a staff person who can assist you. You may also submit written comments via email to
ocbocc@orangecountync.gov (ernails sent to this address are considered public records and are
subject to public disclosure),
Sincerely,
Cy Stober
Additional information is available on the Orange County Planning Department's website:
https://www.oran e�ync.gov/3038/Active-Development-Projects or scan below:
[ME frO., "M
A i 160
� r
use tsus'IL
. Ir
' 3 i rid i
51
79
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1 919.245.2575
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 Public Hearing 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 February 28, 2024.
The owners were identified according to the Tax Records, as required by Section 2.8.7 of the Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance.
The mailed notices specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing.
WITNESS my hand,this 28th day of February 2024.
0,3h M mmdo-
Ashley Moncado, AICP
Planner III
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
80
PIN OWNERI_LAST OWNERI_FIRST OWNER2_LAST OWNER2_FIRST ADDRESSI ADDRESS2 CITY STATE ZIPCODE
9871503254 ACER LLC <Null> <Null> <Null> 1200 HATCH RD <Null> CHAPEL HILL NC 27516
9870199380 DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF FORESTRY <Null> <Null> 324 BLACKWELL ST WASHINGTON BLDG STE 850 DUKE UNIV CORP TAX DEPT DURHAM NC 27701
9870680737 ORANGE COUNTY <Null> <Null> PO BOX 8181 <Null> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278
9871402300 DUKE UNIVERSITY <Null> <Null> 324 BLACKWELL ST STE 850 DUKE UNIV CORP TAX-WASHINGTON BLDG DURHAM NC 27701
9871406283 DUKE UNIVERSITY <Null> <Null> 324 BLACKWELL ST STE 850 DUKE UNIV CORP TAX-WASHINGTON BLDG DURHAM NC 27701
9871519160 ORANGE COUNTY PO BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278
9871607301 ORANGE COUNTY PO BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278
9871615733 GBL PROPERTY LLC <Null> <Null> <Null> 6805 MILLHOUSE RD <Null> CHAPEL HILL NC 275164658
81
9871503254
f
I
I
Mailing List Parcels
- Parcel 9871503254 - N +in=,,zno feet
,� ORANGE
Feet
Q 1000" Buffer cour�rY o +,Zoo
_ � 1 Planning and Inspections Department(BC)
Parcels t 813112023
ti
r7:1615 WorkspacvIP'ruf-EftI,Ma111ng US:t Maaling 1.151 Kevlew.W-N9371503254 9971503254
Attachment 4 82
Noighhorhood Information Mooling Roport Form
REPORT OF INFORMATION MEETING REQUIRED 13Y
THE ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
To Taylor I'lorschrur, Django County Curront Planning ;nnd Zoning Suporvisor
Project Name 1Lf_ =
r
Approximate Location (or Address)._(( ,
Proposed Number Lots_ _ _ Residential (YIN):
The undersigned hereby certifies that the required sign(s) was posted on the property proposed
for project, on each road frontage of said project on (date) A
photo of the sign posted is recommended to be attached to th s form.
The meeting wars held at t a fo lowing e and place;
The persons in attendance at the meeting: See attached Attendance sheet
The fo lowing issues were discussed at the meeting (Attach addilional sheet(s) if needed):
a 7?r,- 'C Sufi '�' �-3S a v l e-Z r f1
As a result of the meeting, the following changes were made to the project proposal (Attach
additipnal sheet(s) i needed): r4 1, , 7'
1
Date: I 2
Applicant: � S
Please submit this Report to the Orange County Planning Department located at 131 W.
Margaret Ln or mail it to Taylor Perschau, at 131 W. Margaret Ln. Hillsborough NC, 27278, If
you have any questions, please contact the assigned staff planner.
83
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Neighborhood Information lKeeting Sign-in Sheet
F
Project/Plan: � .. — Z 3 -0003
Date & Time: /Z3 &/?M_
,;d
NameAddress Telephone Number Email Address
84
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
85
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
86
y '
En � k„ �s �� ttL�; N � �� x nb✓ .4 t
* � 5
r
LL
i „yam - y1
� � ��p' - � ♦ 1.�*���� �� �� �j�j��♦ Kr
r s Yl
<T""t � ri�'�T�r o �"•. t .� '4 biz �<�� , � C �.z ! r;�, I
� T��- 1�� ,c7:"5r�- i w� +r.'�''•lig .t�'� �,r .€�:,_a ��=�p....r.'v�ti�'�6`� � � 8• �"K4d{ ��a7i
NE
a'_ rr `•'� � �l PAF p �,..�iy���/j./s r r � c�a � r
, N a
I�F G ..
♦ � .`�.�`� yn'�r ��' � rl�c, y ! �'"'� �;f-fb-,�,le � �� �' Ir.'a ��3 r�� 'a � w g"r ��i
87
}
z sM,
�i
�'n. � �' x 7 ^�► a lv. .I ; � f � I M � ,� 4,�C,.�#x`31 I � ..I ��e �i
�, ."•- r,. w A #vn v�tiN. � e�, ;'`¢,"`S�,t s,�; Y r.h •� +.� ��t, 3�"'� °�` � f
��.,,, La `[{� " ��� '``.i;•1fi'h"' y>� � .ds �6� he ti ,u 1 c v'4i VIps
166f,J0E UN7Y zQMIL
y,: ,�v. �v �+r. 4 v r �1&��; �; •i' use FM'4-AR3.
+ Ix �uh �,"� .� -, u '' '.� r` t@�{i M u•a 5t ;..�'iil, `:t:: '!6 ���'x�7`�F ��� 'y.�, .�
,�-{�*� �'5:�1>!? �r i. •�,s { ,�I s� 19h ?'� e+' '#i� _ y� �I�.T ��K��j •� - �P�� .""+7+�.,'�c
V p
tk�.��
9,'
1 � � ?A•,win '� �
"T y
t
'y1: � I _ '� � rwT,�4 I� ���"�7.� 4yL ��' t, t r� , T �� � •.r ��'�
'�i,��'�,"� ..fi'�`5\ 9i��`�� �V1.��•''-1 's�� J�4...Y.'...'``�.'� � �,- i! _ �ir Y .,r,� rfP�.a
1.7
1p
v�m T p ;"
Opp.
Ago
,JI "�ttc3F/1 'r tt q k4
ed itTY" 3�_ ,�, *. '. , t 1.� .c..-., a - .L.a��l►".
�,
-.���� 4,_•`.. �,I l;�, �p,<'` jf�yy��.� i1 F.',� _ \ f �i� 4�'�;,".,�,,,i• ,
;.�
'ti V
Attachment 5 -
`: 89
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PLANNING and INSPECITONS
Cy Stober,AICP,Director I c5taber@orargecountync.gov 1 z31 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 193-9.245.2575
December 22, 2023
Treeist Rezoning Application
Case #: MA23-0003
PIN: 9871-50-3254
6915-UT Millhouse Road, Chapel Hill
Re: Development Advisory Committee Report (UDO, Article 1, Section 1.9.5)
The Orange County Development Advisory Committee met on December 21, 2023 for a final
review and discussion of the conditional rezoning application from Acer LLC for PIN 9871-50-
3254 (Case #: MA23-0003).
The Orange County Development Advisory Committee has no objections to the approval of the
zoning atlas amendment so long as the items in the attached departmental memos are
addressed. The application package features an abstract and staff report that provide the
foundations for my recommendation regarding this application and request.
Sincerely,
Cy Stober
Planning & Inspe tionsrector
Orange County Government 1 mm.orangecountync.gov 19-19-732-8181
90
GRANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PLANNING and INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 i 919.24S 2S7S
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 Date: Staff:
Land Records
1. No comments
Attorney's Office Date: Staff:
1. No comments
Building Michael Rettie
Inspections Date: 10/16/23 Staff: mrettie orangecount r�nc.gov
919-245-2604
1. No new comments
DEAPR Date: Staff:
1. No comments
Environmental Date: Staff:
Health
1. No comments
Erosion Nathan Jacobsen
Control Date: 10/17/23 Staff: Niacobsen(a�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
91
Fire and Life Date: Staff:
Safety
1. No comments
NCDOT Date: Staff:
1. No comments
Ashley Moncado
Planning Date: 10/16/2023 Staff: amoncado(cDorangecountync.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 Date: Staff:
Management
1. No comments
Transportation Date: Staff:
Services
1. No comments
92
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.
93
ORANGE COUNTY
A-W-
Department of Environment,
Agriculture,Parks&Recreation
MEMORANDUM
To: Brian Collie,Planner II,Planning and Inspections Department
From: Christian Himi,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
94
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.
')r 95
ORANGE COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Improving health. Inspiring change.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cy Stober, AICP — Director, Planning & Inspections Department
FROM: Victoria Hudson — Orange County Environmental Health Division
CC: Patrick Mallett— Deputy Director Development Services
DATE: 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,
919 245 2360 > 131 west Margaret Lane. Suite 100 1 Hillsborough, NC 27278 r- orangecountync.gov
96
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(c�orangecountync.gov.
(/.f,C& Wj� 11-27-2023
Victoria Hudson, MPA, REHS Date
Or designee
97
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PLANNING pant/INSPECTIONS
Cy 5tober,AICP,Directory cstober(@orangecountync.gov I 131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 272781919.245257S
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cy Stober, AICP— Director, Planning & Inspections Department
FROM: Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director Development Services
CC: Christopher Sandt, PE—County Engineer, Planning & Inspections; and
Steve Kaltenbach, Erosion Control and Stormwater Supervisor
DATE: September 29, 2023
CASE: MA23-0003
PIN: 9871-50-3254
WATERSHED: Jordan Lake Unprotected
PROJECT: The Treeist
SUBJECT: Summary of Findings Regarding Conformance with Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) for Erosion & Sedimentation Control and
Stormwater Management
This memo summarizes the Development Services Erosion Control and Stormwater
Management Division's (hereafter, the "Division's") assessment of the submitted
application for a Conditional District, submitted as "The Treeist" project (hereafter, the
"project"). The project is located within 10 acres of property at 6915-UT Millhouse Road.
The request proposes mixed-use development consisting of:
■ A residential unit, office and service shed
The Staff comments contained herein are based upon a required Conditional Zoning Plan,
sealed on August 21, 2023. These findings should not be interpreted as the Division's
final analysis/approval of the proposed development. Upon zoning approval, the
proposed development would then be required to submit a Land Disturbing Permit (LDP)
which would formally review and approve development activity consistent with the
Conditional Zoning Plan.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control:
According to current Orange County GIS imagery of the project parcel, there is one
mapped stream feature within the project parcel boundaries. Orange County enforces
stream buffers along streams, rivers, water bodies, and other water features (e.g.,
wetlands) as outlined in Section 6.13 of the Orange County UDO. Based on the submitted
materials for the proposed development, the project could meet the basic Erosion and
Page 1 of 2
98
Sedimentation Control requirements as outlined in Section 6.15 of the Orange County
UDO and could be developed as generally proposed.
Stormwater Management:
The submitted materials indicate a level of development that could meet current UDO
requirements specific to stormwater management. The project has not yet submitted
supporting stormwater management calculations; however, it is feasible that the project
can meet water quantity requirements (Le., post-development stormwater runoff
attenuation). There are no water quality requirements (i.e. post-development nutrient
attenuation) currently associated with the Watershed Overlay District within which the
project is located. The project will need to meet applicable stormwater management
requirements as outlined in Section 6.14 of the Orange County UDO and must be in
general conformance with the North Carolina Stormwater Design Manual (i.e., Minimum
Design Criteria).
Conclusion:
The Division has No Objections to the approval of the rezoning request so long as a
complete LDP application and supporting plans and calculations are submitted to Orange
County for review, processing and approval prior to commencement of onsite Land-
Disturbing Activity. As the project progresses, additional field observations, and/or
permitting by others (e.g. US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Department of Environmental
Quality, NC Department of Transportation, etc.), additional buffers, setbacks, and/or
additional Orange County review and permitting may apply beyond the proposed
development as shown with this rezoning request.
X23
Christopher Sandt, PE Date
a Z-to'L,-3
Steve Kaltenbach Date
Page 2 of 2
99
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: imaoe002.ona
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
cnedwardsQncdot.gov
115 East Crescent Square Drive
P. O. Box 766
Graham, NC 27253
. �µ
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
100
■
Grange County
a
1 31 Emergency Services
A Prepared.Coordinated,and Integrated e=mergency Services System
f8=i-1
E-911 I Fire Marshal I EMS I Emergency Management
Fire & Life Safety Division
TO: Cy Stober, AICP — Director, Planning & Inspections
FROM: Elizabeth Farnan — Fire Marshal, Emergency Services
CC: Ashley Moncado - Planner III, Planning & Inspections
Date: December 21, 2023
CASE: MA23-0003
PIN: 9871503254
PROJECT: Conditional Rezoning (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.
'f December 21, 2023
Elizabeth Farnan, FM
510 Meadowlands Drive I Hillsborough, NC 27278 1 (919) 245-6100 Main Office
www.orangecountync.gov/oces
101
ORANGE COUNTY
A-W-
Department of Environment,
Agriculture,Parks&Recreation
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.
Summaty ofAPB 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
defmition 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.
102
From: Corey Liles
To: Cy Stober;Taylor Perschau;Ashley E.Moncado;Patrick R.Mallett;Perdita Holtz
Cc: Bdtany Waddell
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAILI]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
10 Corey Liles,Planning Manager
Planning Department I Town of Chapel Hill
405 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. I Chapel Hill NC 27514
direct:919-969-5008 1 cell:919-949-4066
cliles(a)townofchapelhill ora
Planning main:919-968-2728 1 planning(a)townofchapelhill.org
From:Britany Waddell<bwaddell(@townofchaoelhill.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<cstoberPorangecountync.gov>
Sent:Friday,September 15,2023 5:17 PM
To:Patricia McGuire(pmcguire(@ci.carrboro.nc.us)<pmcguire(@ci.carrboro.nc.us>;Martin Roupe<mroupepcarrboronc.gov>
Cc:Judy Johnson<I ohnson(o)townofchaoelhill.org>;Taylor Perschau<toerschau(@orangecount ny c.gov>;amoncado<amoncado(@orangecount)znc.gov>;
Patrick R.Mallett<pmallett(cDorangecountync.gov>;Perdita Holtz<pholtz(@orangecountync.gov>;Britany Waddell<bwaddell(@townofchapelhill.org>
Subject:RE:Rural Buffer Rezoning Application Notification
I-ernal 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,
103
Cy Stober
Planning&Inspections Director
` -
tl
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH+CAROLINA
(919)245-2585(Office)
(919)245-2592(Direct)
Fax:(919)644-3022
E-mail:cstober(@orangecountync.gov
Orange County Planning Website:httos://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(cptownofchapelhilLorg>;Patricia McGuire(Dmcguire(@ci.carrboro.nc.us)<Dmcguire(@ci.carrboro.nc.us>
Cc:Judy Johnson<jjohnson(@townofchapelhill.org>;Martin Roupe<mroupe(@carrboronc.eov>;Taylor Perschau<toerschau(@orangecountync.eov>;Ashley
E.Moncado<amoncado(@orangecountync.eov>;Patrick R.Mallett<pmallett(@orangecountynceov>;Perdita Holtz<pholtz(@orangecountync.eov>
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
��
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
(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,INC 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.
' 104
ROY COOPER NORTH CAROLINA
Governor Environmental Quality
ELIZABETH S.B1SER
Secretary
To: Kadisha Molyneaux
State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Administration
From: Lyn Biles
Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service
Washington Regional Office
Re: 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
EQNorth� Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
D217 West Jones Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh.North Carolina 27699-1601
�Nn E
aft cul � /' 919,707.8600
105
r
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission I 1
Cameron Ingram, Executive Director
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
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh,NC 27699-1721
Telephone: (919) 707-0220 • Fax: (919) 707-0028
02 October 2023 Page 2 106
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.goy/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.munzergncwildlife.org if there are any questions about these comments
or for free technical guidance.
107
ROY COOPER n
Governor —
ELIZABETH S.BISER R*n
Secretary +
MICHAEL SCOTT NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
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-perm itted-
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
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of waste Management
��-D-E Asheville Regional Office 1 2090 U.S.Highway 70 1 Swannanoa,North Carolina 28778
Q�j
newi<inan v�e��o-oimrcnw uwu+r 828.296.4500
STATE 108
Roy COOPER -s
Governor 0
ELIZABETH S.RISER
Secretory
MICHAEL SCOTT NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
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://deg.nc.gov/waste-management-laserfiche.
Please contact Janet Macdonald at 919.707.8349 if you have any questions concerning the
Superfund Section review portion of this SEPA/NEPA inquiry.
EQ�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Waste Management
217 West]ones Street 1 1646 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1646
hpRTH CAHQL.fNA �'
ogrvmum m Fmwmmrtei nusi 919.707.8200
PeD,". Superfund & Brownfield Sites SEPA/NEPA Review Report 109
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
��a�wwantl �rs,„a P.
F
Ir ��
1::36,1 12
o a.aa oss i.aml
Inactive Hazardous Sites �
D D6 1 2km
Esr,'ASA,WGA,USGS.FEMA T—n dLerrbso,Stated N h
{drdlnd WT,Er,,H€R€,Garmh,5e Gr9 h,G TmAndo s,
nc,M€TFNASA,USGS.€PA,NPS,NS C-13—,USDA
Superfund and Brownfield Sites 110
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
State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 111
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
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.
Normal Process
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Time
(Statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct&operate wastewater Application 90 days before begins construction or award of
treatment facilities,non-standard sewer system❑ 30 days extensions&sewer systems that do not construction contracts.On-site inspection may be required.Post- (90 days)
discharge into state surface waters. application technical conference usual.
Permit to construct&operate,sewer
extensions involving gravity sewers,pump Fast-Track Permitting program consists of the submittal of an 30 days
❑ stations and force mains discharging into a application and an engineer's certification that the project meets all (N/A)
sewer collection applicable State rules and Division Minimum Design Criteria.
system
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water Application 180 days before begins activity.On-site inspection.Pre-
and/or permit to operate and construct application conference usual.Additionally,obtain permit to construct 90-120 days
wastewater facilities discharging into state wastewater treatment facility granted after NPDES.Reply time,30 days (N/A)
surface waters. after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
El Water days Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary. (N/A)
Complete application must be received,and permit issued prior to the
❑
installation of a groundwater monitoring well located on property not 7 days Well Construction Permit owned by the applicant,and for a large capacity(>100,000 gallons per (15 days)
)
day)water supply well.
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
❑
owner.On-site inspection.Pre-application conference usual.Filling may 55 days Dredge and Fill Permit require Easement to Fill from N.C.Department of Administration and (90 days)
Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct&operate Air Pollution Application must be submitted,and permit received prior to
❑
construction and operation of the source. If a permit is required Abatement facilities and/or Emission Sources as in an area without local zoning,then there are additional 90 days
per 15 A NCAC(2Q.0100 thru 2Q.0300) requirements and timelines(2Q.0113).
Any open burning associated with subject
® proposal must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC N/A 60 days
(90 days)
2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures Please Note-The Health Hazards Control Unit(HHCU)of the N.C.
containing asbestos material must be in Department of Health and Human Services,must be notified of plans to
® compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1110(a)(1) demolish a building,including residences for commercial or industrial 60 days
which requires notification and removal prior to expansion,even if no asbestos is present in the building. (90 days)
demolition.Contact Asbestos Control Group
919-707-5950
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity.An erosion&
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres are to be disturbed.Plan must be filed with and approved 20 days
® by applicable Regional Office(Land Quality Section)at least 30 days before beginning activity. A NPDES Construction
Stormwater permit(NCG010000)is also usually issued should design features meet minimum requirements. A fee of (30 days)
$100 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional fees.
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOT's approved program. Particular (30 days)
❑ attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable
Stormwater conveyances and outlets.
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with Local Government's approved program.
Based on Local
❑ Particular attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well
as stable Stormwater conveyances and outlets. Program
❑ Compliance with 15A NCAC 04B.0125—Buffers Zones for Trout Waters shall have an undisturbed buffer zone 25 feet wide or of sufficient width
to confine visible siltation within the twenty-five percent(25%)of the buffer zone nearest the land-disturbing activity,whichever is greater.
® Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.0126-NPDES Stormwater Program which regulates three types of activities:Industrial, 30-60 days
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System&Construction activities that disturb>_1 acre. (90 days)
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000-State Stormwater Permitting Programs regulate site development and post- 45 days
❑ construction stormwater runoff control. Areas subject to these permit programs include all 20 coastal counties,and (90 days)
various other counties and watersheds throughout the state.
DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 1 of 3
April 4,2022/lbh
State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 112
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh
Project Number: 24-0071 Due Date:10/02/2023
County: Orange
Normal Process
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Time
(Statutory time
limit)
On-site inspection usual.Surety bond filed with DEQ Bond amount
❑
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land.Affected 30 days Mining Permit area greater than one acre must be permitted.The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
If permit required,application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C.qualified engineer to prepare plans,inspect
construction,and certify construction is according to DEQ approved
❑ Dam Safety Permit
plans.May also require a permit under mosquito control program.And 30 days
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.An inspection of site is necessary (60 days)
to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of$200.00 must
accompany the application.An additional processing fee based on a
percentage,or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
❑ Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
File surety bond of$5,000 with DEQ running to State of NC conditional 10 days
❑ Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well that any well opened by drill operator shall,upon abandonment,be N/A
plugged according to DEQ rules and regulations.
❑
Application filed with DEQ at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. 10 days Geophysical Exploration Permit Application by letter.No standard application forms. N/A
Application fee based on structure size is charged.Must include
15-20 days
❑ State Lakes Construction Permit descriptions&drawings of structure&proof of ownership of riparian N/A
property
Compliance with the T15A 02H.0500 Certifications are required 60 days
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification whenever construction or operation of facilities will result in a (130 days)
discharge into navigable water as described in 33 CFR part 323.
Compliance with Catawba,Goose Creek,Jordan Lake,Randleman,Tar Pamlico or Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules is required.Buffer requirements:
❑ http:/Ideq.nc.gov/`about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/401-wetlands-buffer-permits/401-riparian-
buffer-protection-program
Nutrient Offset:Loading requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins,and in the Jordan and Falls Lake
❑ watersheds,as part of the nutrient-management strategies in these areas. DWR nutrient offset information:
http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/plann ing/nonpoint-source-management/nutrient-offset-information
❑ CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00-$475.00 fee must accompany application 75 days
(150 days)
❑ CAMA Permit for MINOR development $100.00 fee must accompany application 22 days(25 days)
❑ Abandonment of any wells,if required must be in accordance with Title 15A.Subchapter 2C.0100.
® Notification of the proper regional office is requested if"orphan"underground storage tanks(USTS)are discovered during any excavation
operation.
Plans and specifications for the construction,expansion,or alteration of a public water system must be approved by the
Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction
® as per 15A NCAC 18C.0300 et.seq.,Plans and specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh, 30 days
North Carolina 27699-1634. All public water supply systems must comply with state and federal drinking water monitoring
requirements.For more information,contact the Public Water Supply Section,(919)707-9100.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction,plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to
® the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699- 30 days
1634.For more information,contact the Public Water Supply Section,(919)707-9100.
Plans and specifications for the construction,expansion,or alteration of the water system must be approved through the delegated
❑ plan approval authority. Please contact them at for further information.
DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 2 of 3
April 4,2022/lbh
State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 113
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
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 Comments Date
comment Review
DAQ SH ❑ See checked boxes above.Also,I'd like to remind you per NC's open buring 9/14/2023
rules;you may not bring in debris from off-site to burn on your property.
DWR-WQROS ❑ &
(Aquifer&Surface) &
DWR-PWS SG ❑ See checked boxes above. 9/27/2023
DEM LR(LQ&SW) CA ❑ See checked boxes above.The proposed project will cause at least 82,000 9/26/2023
sqft(-1.9 acres)and therefore required permits for erosion and sediment
control during land disturbance and a construction stormwater permit.
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 ❑ Fayetteville Regional Office ❑ Mooresville Regional Office
2090 U.S.70 Highway 225 Green Street,Suite 714, 610 East Center Avenue,Suite 301,
Swannanoa,NC 28778-8211 Fayetteville,NC 28301-5043 Mooresville,NC 28115
Phone:828-296-4500 Phone:910-433-3300 Phone:704-663-1699
Fax:828-299-7043 Fax:910-486-0707 Fax:704-663-6040
® Raleigh Regional Office ❑ Washington Regional Office ❑ Wilmington Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, 943 Washington Square Mall, 127 Cardinal Drive Ext.,
Raleigh,NC 27609 Washington,NC 27889 Wilmington,NC 28405
Phone:919-791-4200 Phone:252-946-6481 Phone:910-796-7215
Fax:919-571-4718 Fax:252-975-3716 Fax:910-350-2004
❑ Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 Hanes Mill Road,Suite 300,
Winston-Salem,NC 27105
Phone:336-776-9800
Fax:336-776-9797
DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 3 of 3
April 4,2022/lbh
114
Department of Environmental Quality
Project Review
Project Number: 24-0071 County: Orange Date Received: 9-6-2023
Due Date: 10-2-2023
Scoping - Proposed project is for rezoning and special use permits. The
Project Description: 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.
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville a Air E]Air Quality El Coastal Management
Fayetteville a DWR P1 Waste Mgmt Marine Fisheries
FlMooresville Wr] DWR-Public Water F]Water Resources Mgmt (Public CC&PS Div. of
Water,Planning&Water Emergency Mgmt
Wf Raleigh Fv_-�I DEMLR(LQ&SW) Quality Program)
DMF-Shellfish Sanitation
Washington a DWM
DWR-Transportation Unit �✓ Wildlife Olivia
FlWilmington
Wildlife/DOT
F] Winston Salem
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
10/2/23 Melodi Deaver,DWM Hazardous Waste
Response(check all applicable)
X
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other(specify or attach comments)
115
ORANGECOUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PLANNING,wid INSPECTIONS
Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orargecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 272781s19.245.2575
December 19, 2023
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
Treeist Rezoning Application
MA23-0003
PIN: 9871-50-3254
A complete Environmental Assessment (EA) application for the Treeist Rezoning application, for
the property located at 6915-UT Millhouse Road, Chapel Hill with PIN 9871-50-3254 (hereafter,
the 'Project'), has been received and reviewed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections
Department. The EA application, Rezoning application, and site plan were sent to local, state,
and federal agencies for review.
On August 7, 2023, the applicant submitted an Environmental Assessment application as
required within Section 6.16 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. Staff did
not identify any element of the Project requiring the completion/submittal of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). In addition, an EIS was not recommended by any local, state, or
federal agency.
Based on the information contained within the EA application, Rezoning application, and site
plan, Orange County Planning staff review, and comments received from local, state, and
federal agencies, staff makes a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Project.
Sincerely,
Cy Stober
Planning & InspeJfiDUirr
116
Department of Environment,
Agriculture, Parks &Recreation
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.
Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245-2510
117
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.
Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245-2510
118
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
Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245-2510
119
The Treeist
1200 Hatch Rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
l
www.treeist.com
?� /n,eeutt
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,
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
120
stream buffer. Where the red line crosses the creek, the terrain is more difficult. This is shown
by the compressed topographical lines.
All4
�. n 411 E
{
t
Property
Our current access road, which is visible in the earliest available aerial imagery dating back 73
years,' 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
' An aerial photo from 1950 is shown on page 150 of the 2018 Feasibility Report.
2
121
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
2 From email correspondence with Katie Bowden, Economic Development Manager, Town of Chapel Hill,
July 10, 2023.
3 In 2019, the County had the opportunity to also obtain through donation the 10-acreap rcel 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 1 can find no record of the County attempting to purchase it.
a 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
122
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.
s 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
123
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.'At our present size, we would
generate approximately 64 trips per day total.'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.'
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
6 1 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.
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.
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.
5
124
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
125
Craig Nishimoto
Mobile: 984-215-8231
Email: craig@thetreeist.com
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
SO-7125B
7
126
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.' 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
' 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.
127
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
Attachment 6 128
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
1 MEETING MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 JANUARY 3,2024
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-
7 Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Delores Bailey, At-Large Representative; Beth Bronson, At-Large
8 Representative; Marilyn Carter, At-Large Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Chris
9 Johnston, Hillsborough Township Representative; Liz Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Steve
10 Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; Charity Kirk, At-Large Representative; Melissa Poole, Little
11 River Township Representative; Whitney Watson, At-Large Representative.
12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT:
14
15 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; David Stancil, Environment, Agriculture, Parks &
16 Recreation Director; Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director— Development Services; Taylor Perschau, Current
17 Planning and Zoning Supervisor; Ashley Moncado, Planner III; Lauren Coffey, Planning Technician.
18
19 OTHERS PRESENT: Craig Nlshlmoto; David Ricks; Katya Perstova; Amanda Whitton.
20
21 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
22 The meeting began at 7:00 PM.
23
24 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2024
25 Nominees for Chair were Adam Beeman and Delores Bailey. Board members voted three in favor of Ms.
26 Bailey (Liz Kalies, Marilyn Carter, and Delores Bailey) and nine in favor of Mr. Beeman (Lamar Proctor, Beth
27 Bronson, Statler Gilfillen, Chris Johnston, Steve Kaufmann, Charity Kirk, Melissa Poole, Whitney Watson, and
28 Adam Beeman).
29
30 Adam Beeman was elected Planning Board Chair for 2024.
31
32 Lamar Proctor was nominated for Vice-Chair, with a unanimous vote in favor.
33
34 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
35 December 6, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes
36 December 6, 2023 Training Session Notes
37
38 MOTION BY Melissa Poole to approve the minutes. Seconded by Delores Bailey.
39
40 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
41 No additions.
42
43 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE
44
45 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE
46 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
47 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land
48 development law of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish
49 coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers
50 the present and future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive
129
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
51 process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall
52 County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and
53 quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
54
55
56 PUBLIC CHARGE
57 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks
58 its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board
59 and with fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to
60 observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting
61 until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair
62 will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is
63 observed.
64
65
66 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS
67 None.
68
69 AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT(CONDITIONAL DISTRICT)—To review and make a
70 recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant-initiated zoning atlas amendment to rezone a 10.01 +/-acres
71 parcel from RB (Rural Buffer)to ASE-CD (Agricultural Support Enterprises Conditional District).
72
73 The parcel's address is 6915-UT Millhouse Road, Chapel Hill, within the Chapel Hill Township (PIN 9871-50-
74 3254). This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on March 7, 2024.
75
76 PRESENTER: Ashley Moncado, Planner III
77
78 Adam Beeman: We're going to review and make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on an
79 application initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone on the 10.01-acre parcel from Rural Buffer to
80 Agricultural Support Enterprises -Conditional District. The parcel's address is 6915-UT Millhouse Road,
81 Chapel Hill within the Chapel Hill Township. This item is scheduled for a vote of County Commissioner public
82 hearing on March 7th, 2024.
83
84 Cy Stober: Good evening, Mr. Chair. Well, you won't hear from me very long. Our Planner III,
85 Ashley Moncado, will be presenting the findings by staff, but I did want to just remind you of the,just the kind
86 of framework of Conditional Zoning. A Conditional Zoning case is a negotiation between the applicant and the
87 County and requires a site plan. It requires conditions as appropriate be provided for review by both the
88 Planning Board and the Commissioners. The site plan is site specific, so it is binding. Any major modifications
89 to the site plan would have to come back to the Planning Board and the Commissioners for reapproval,
90 essentially as a new zoning application. This allowance in Conditional Zoning is enabled by a general statute
91 and is reflected in our Ordinance. The Conditional Zoning District before you tonight, Agricultural Support
92 Enterprise, is an older Conditional District that the County has had, but frankly, this is the first time it's being
93 utilized in the County's history. Some of that has to do with some of the liberalization of state law for farm
94 uses, and some of that has to do with having quality applications to present to the County, but I'm very pleased
95 to be bringing an Agricultural Support Enterprise - Conditional District zoning case to you. I'm happy to answer
96 any questions, but we have gone, and especially for Ms. Carter, our newest member, if there are any specific
97 questions, this is all covered in orientation. We we went through this at length with the Lawrence Road
98 Conditional District case, but if there are questions about the Conditional Zoning process, which is significantly
99 different from standard Conventional Zoning, which takes one piece of land from a menu of uses to a different
130
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
100 menu of uses, while this is site specific, use specific, and limited in its entitlement. I'm happy to answer them at
101 this time. Otherwise, I'm very happy to turn the mic over to Ashley Moncado to present the findings by staff.
102
103 Ashley Moncado: Good evening. I am Ashley Moncado, Planner III with the Planning Department. Cy kind
104 of already went ahead and introduced the item, so I'm just going to jump right into it. The parcel related to this
105 rezoning request is located in the Chapel Hill Township approximately 1/4 mile from Millhouse Road. It's
106 identified with the red star there on the screen in front of you. The parcel is approximately 10 acres in size.
107 Currently, the parcel is zoned as Rural Buffer. The applicant is requesting to rezone to Agricultural Support
108 Enterprises-Conditional District to allow for Agricultural Services which are a permitted use in this zoning
109 district. The purpose of this is for them to locate their tree, care, and consulting service business on this site.
110 Parcels to the north, east, and west are all zoned as Rural Buffer and located in Orange County's planning
111 jurisdiction. The parcel to the south is located in Chapel Hill's planning jurisdiction and is zoned as Rural
112 Transition. The Future Land Use Classification for this parcel is Rural Buffer. No amendments are being
113 proposed to the Future Land Use Map related to this request before you tonight. As stated, part of the
114 Conditional District Rezoning application requires submission of several documents in accordance with
115 Section 2.9 of the LIDO. The applicant has provided these documents, and they are contained in Attachment 1
116 of your packets. As part of their application process, they are required to submit a formal site plan. The
117 applicants have provided a plan featuring two office buildings, which are labeled here in front of you, a
118 residential structure for an onsite caretaker, parking, outdoor storage, and equipment staging area. The site
119 plan documents also identified stream buffer, landscaping, and stormwater control measures. A Class B
120 Special Use Permit was permitted for this site in 1994 for the existing telecommunication tower and equipment
121 building that are also identified here on the site plan. The existing SUP does not prohibit the use of the
122 property for other purposes provided both uses are addressed in the Conditional Zoning application process.
123 One item, I'd like to note is more so regarding the southern portion of the site and the areas that are labeled as
124 wood storage areas. Based on the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, those are classified and
125 would be defined as Outdoor Storage which are required to be a 100 feet setback from property lines. As you
126 can see here, and it might be hard to see, the applicant is proposing to locate these areas about 42 to 46 feet
127 away from the southern property line. They have submitted a condition requesting a decrease in that setback
128 standard. I'd also like to note that their outdoor storage areas are proposed to be screened with a 6-foot fence.
129 Access to the site is being proposed along an existing gravel access way located across Orange County-
130 owned property. As you can see here, it will cross and then head east to connect to Millhouse Road. There
131 are some minor improvements that they are proposing including paving at the stream crossing as well as
132 paving at the entryway connecting to Millhouse Road. The applicant is providing for a second access on the
133 southeastern portion of the site. The reasoning for this is based on a request from conversations with DEAPR
134 and the concern that the existing access way may be lost or may need to be relocated in order to
135 accommodate the future Millhouse Road park site. A grant of easement and assignment of lease for the
136 existing access easement within the property was recorded in 2008 with the current owner at the time and
137 Crown Castle. Attachment 5 in your packets includes a letter detailing the applicant's legal right to the access
138 easement which cannot be confirmed by staff. Crown Castle has not provided comments on this application,
139 and the existing offsite access easement is located on property owned by Orange County. In response to the
140 proposed use of the existing easement as a commercial driveway to serve the applicant's use, DEAPR
141 requested a condition of future access road construction through this property from the applicant, and the
142 applicant has not agreed to this request. DEAPR's request and the applicant's response are also contained in
143 Attachment 5. And just a follow up from what Cy was saying earlier, based on Section 2.91 of the UDO,
144 mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part of the Conditional Rezoning process, and agreed
145 upon conditions are binding to the development permitted for the zoning district. As part of the process, the
146 applicant did submit conditions. The proposed conditions were reviewed, and revisions were recommended
147 by staff for clarity and consistency with the UDO. The applicant accepted the revisions, and these are what
148 were contained in your Attachment 2 and Attachment 8 of the Ordinance and are provided on the slide here for
149 you. We can go back to the slide and discuss when we to the recommendation and discussion part of this
131
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
150 evening, and you might have questions, and we also have other staff here to help answer with those. At this
151 time, I'm going to hand it over to the applicant for them to do their presentation, and then I will come back up,
152 and we will go over the staff analysis, recommendation, and answer any questions you all may have.
153
154 Statler Gilfillen: I am unclear of something that you just said about the access road in there.
155
156 Ashley Moncado: Yes.
157
158 Statler Gilfillen: Is there a conflict between this proposal and the County about the road? Did I hear that?
159
160 Ashley Moncado: We can answer that question now, but that might be to after the applicant speaks.
161
162 Statler Gilfillen: I'll put it on the table. You can answer it later.
163
164 Ashley Moncado: Yes. We have conditions, and we also have David Stancil, who is with Orange County
165 DEAPR is also here to discuss and answer questions for you this evening.
166
167 Adam Beeman: Good evening. Just to let you know, we have a time limit for your presentation. Do you
168 think that's possible?
169
170 Craig Nishimoto: Yes. Okay, I'm going to deviate from what I had planned. I, in my mind, envisioned more
171 public, so, less experts, but I want to address it as much as possible to you guys now and give you time to
172 pepper me with questions maybe later, because ultimately what I'd like you guys to leave with is feeling
173 confident that you can write to the Board of County Commissioners. There's the cell tower from the road.
174 That's where we're building the property. It's not along the road. It's quite far away. Most of my argument is in
175 the documents. That's where you're going to find all the meat. It's not going to be in this presentation, but the
176 detailed narrative is where I lay it all out, my case. It provides the fullest account of what we are doing and
177 why. It argues that there's a strong alignment between our proposal and the County's 2030 Comprehensive
178 Land Use Plan, which I understand is supposed to be guiding these decisions. That document shows that an
179 advance would be made on 14 separate County goals and 34 separate County objectives, and the arguments
180 for why, and then, possibly most importantly, it directly addresses the concerns related to the use or use of the
181 Rural Buffer. My understanding is this is somewhat precedent setting for the Rural Buffer, and so we want to
182 focus on making sure people are comfortable with that. You might be surprised the ASE-CD agricultural
183 zoning, my argument for why this is appropriate is there. Another precedent setting thing.
184
185 Charity Kirk: Can rather than continuing to refer to the document, I strongly suggest you assume that
186 we have skimmed the documents. We haven't fully read every single page. I would just make that assumption
187 that not all Board members have done that, so you might want to elaborate your conversation a little bit with
188 us.
189
190 Craig Nishimoto: Well, we can start here. Although I can imagine going in so many different ways now if
191 we haven't done the background reading. If I want to focus, knowing that we have limited time, what is the
192 most important? Are you concerned about ASE-CD zoning, or should we skip that?
193
194 Adam Beeman: Are you concerned about the agricultural designation? If you have an issue with
195 agricultural designation, that's what he's going to discuss. If not, we can move on with, to the next part of his
196 thing. So, at the end of the day, there was a discussion in the paperwork about whether or not the lumber
197 work, lumber, the tree work that you do actually qualifies as agricultural or not. That was the potential
198 discussion? Am I correct?
199
132
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
200 Craig Nishimoto: Yeah, and I would say through our concerns, two options. We can address it now or hey,
201 there's a paper written on this.
202
203 Adam Beeman: So I guess that's the question is does anybody have any concerns about this being
204 labeled as an agricultural district? If we don't have any discussions about that, then we can move forward with
205 the presentation.
206
207 Statler Gilfillen: I will ask one question just to clarify, and it's minor here. The storage is strictly for the cut
208 trees, lumber, and agricultural waste products that are stored on your site? It is not other possible retail uses
209 or selling fruit or anything else from this site? We are strictly dealing with this as your company?
210
211 Craig Nishimoto: It is largely the byproducts of the tree work that we do in town, so that's wood chips, that's
212 millable saw logs, and that's the little cut-in pieces where you can't do anything with. Maybe firewood is the
213 best thing, these kind of things, but the big goal is all these mountains of wood chips and these logs that are
214 otherwise going to waste.
215
216 Adam Beeman: I will say I have read the entire thing, and it is, it takes longer than a half an hour to go
217 through it, so I guess if you can just give us a quick summary of what the biggest points you want to hit in that
218 detailed summary, I understand it was detailed. Like I said, I read the whole thing. If you just, if you just want
219 to give the Board some of your quick highlights of this is what we're doing. "We're a tree company. We're
220 trying to eliminate having the equipment in the town area." Just those quick highlights, I think that'll help bring
221 everybody on board, and then we can kind of get into a more detailed discussion 'cause, like I said, it took
222 longer than half an hour to read through the whole packet.
223
224 Craig Nishimoto: Let me, let me just go through the bullets that I have at the top, and they kind of
225 foreshadow everything that is there. The basic idea is that we're going to make advances on some important
226 objectives for the County here in allowing us to do what we want. The town needs that we are addressing is
227 the increasingly disruptive noise pollution caused by the industrial tree processing equipment in the town. We
228 are trying to address that problem with this proposal. Countless tons of wasted natural resources from the tree
229 maintenance and tree removal services, all these mountains of wood chips, and these logs that are getting cut
230 up and not used, the rising cost of tree ownership compromising the goals of a flourishing and equitable
231 canopy coverage. If you do nothing in Chapel Hill, or trees will grow. If you stop mowing, trees will grow, and
232 then, so it's not just the really wealthy communities that have tree problems. It's everybody, or they get rid of
233 them because they know that the cost of trees will be too expensive. We are trying to make tree work efficient
234 and bring quality tree service to everybody. Then there's the challenge of attracting, training, and providing
235 local jobs to highly-skilled arborists. We're good at this. We're good at making climbing exciting and a career
236 option for people. Getting out of college, or even the most talented arborists from out of state, the west coast,
237 are coming to work with us, and we think one of the best things we can do for the trees of this community is
238 bring really talented arborists here. The need to increase tree and tree care literacy among local property
239 owners. Every week, on average, we get 75 requests from people in this area to ask for a consultant to come
240 talk to them about their trees. 80 or 85 percent of those things are free consultations,just free advice, and we
241 have our arborists are, they're all arborists, they're all tree assessment qualified, and they're not on a
242 commission. They're first and foremost giving good advice, and then if they need tree services, guess what?
243 We can also help them with that. We have the emeritus professors of botany among our clients, so we can't
244 tell them much, but we can tell them about some things about what would happen if that tree landed on your
245 house and what we can do and how much it would cost. And we have people that just moved here and don't
246 know anything about trees, but every time we go there,we move them from wherever they are to knowing a
247 whole lot, a little bit more, and we think that's the best thing that we can do for the trees and the tree care in
248 this community. And then there's the challenge of providing responsive emergency tree services to this area
249 and the populations centers. We are first responders. If you go to the County and say, "what do you do if
133
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
250 there's an emergency?" Their emergency page, prominent, the biggest illustration is trees. Tree emergency is
251 storms. They're all about tree problems here, and the County, the public will only help you out if it's on public
252 property or on the wires. Everywhere else, and that's where most of the trees are, it's tree services you need,
253 and when the storm comes, and we've been lucky in the last three years not, there hasn't been a major storm,
254 but when there is, you're either dependent on outside companies—and we can tell you horror stories about
255 what happens when that happens—or we're here. We need a central location to be able to handle this. We
256 operate 24/7 all the time.
257
258 Charity Kirk: So, we make land use decisions, so can you just summarize why this property in
259 particular and what your plans are for this property.
260
261 Craig Nishimoto: I think the best way to make this point is to think about a similar situation that the Town of
262 Chapel Hill was in in the year 2000. In the year 2000, the Town of Chapel Hill had a big problem. They knew
263 that their lease on the UNC's property for their public works was expiring, and the UNC did not want to renew
264 it. They had to find another place for their public works. What is that? That's all their trucks, all their gravel
265 storage areas, all their asphalt storage areas, all their employees to park. Really similar to what we're doing
266 here. They had a big budget, $52 million to spend on this problem. They, I can only imagine, had a bunch of
267 dedicated planners working on this problem. They had a lot of resources, other assets and holdings and they
268 knew the area really well and they cared about the future of this decision and what it would do to the Rural
269 Buffer, for example. It is telling where they chose to locate their Public Works of a something that's just quite a
270 bit larger in scale than what we're doing, but largely the same. They put it in the Rural Buffer on Millhouse
271 Road, but actually a whole lot, 5.7 times closer to residents than where we are. So, three years ago, we are
272 running out of space. We know that where we're currently at, it's just a matter of time before somebody
273 complains and shuts us down. We are desperate to find another location. Instead of watching Netflix, instead
274 of doing anything, scrolling on Twitter, I am looking at real estate listings all the time. It is hard to find places.
275 And then I came across something that said 10 acres for sale in Chapel Hill"for$100,000. 1 was sure it was a
276 mistake, but I looked it up. It was mis-listed. It, the PIN wasn't right, but after a night of searching on this, 1
277 found out who was responsible, who I could contact about this, and they said "oh, yeah, yeah, here's where
278 the property is." I got Katya, my wife, in the car. We ran out there. We looked at it. We said "oh, this is ideal."
279 No neighbors. There's a dump, the old landfill. There is Duke Forest. County property. There's a cell tower
280 here. Nobody wants this property, and no one's going to complain, so we called the guy. He says, "well,
281 here's how it works. This is a bidding process, blind bidding, and it ends at noon tomorrow, tomorrow
282 morning." So, I called David, my business partner, and I said, "hey, I've never seen something like this, a piece
283 of property like this. This is perfect for us. This is what we need." So, we double the asking price, more than
284 doubled the asking price and say no conditions, we'll take this property. I didn't think we'd see another
285 property like this come and come around, and we got it. I didn't know about all this. This is something 1
286 learned, and luckily I think we have a good case for this. I've read that 530-page Comprehensive Plan. I've
287 spent a lot of time with the UDO, 670-some-odd pages. I even read the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
288 That's 700-some pages. I respect what you guys do. You guys are volunteers. This is amazing. I didn't know
289 anything about local government. I'm learning, but it's taken a lot longer than I thought, and it's more
290 expensive and time consuming, but I think we have a good case.
291
292 Statler Gilfillen: Just so I can understand the business that you're doing. You can go to a site, groom,
293 correct the trees, whether it's after or a storm or not. You will then haul that material that is rubbish at that
294 point, or scrap, to your site. Some of it could be a 20-foot long oak tree. Now, do you do any milling on the
295 site?
296
297 Craig Nishimoto: No.
298
134
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
299 Statler Gilfillen: Or all of that type of wood,which is an industrial use, is sent, if it's usable, will be sent to a
300 mill, right?
301
302 Craig Nishimoto: Yes.
303
304 Statler Gilfillen: And you might store some of that on the site, but you don't do any work on it, right?
305
306 Craig Nishimoto: That's correct.
307
308 Statler Gilfillen: Okay. So you're limit is a place to take the natural products you're taking care of. You
309 need a place to store them. Now, once you've stored them on your site, what do you do with them then?
310
311 Craig Nishimoto: Okay, so it depends on what it is. But saw logs, for example, we need to wait until we
312 have sufficient quantity, and we need to stage them. This is pulp wood, this is high grade, white oak, Randall
313 we'll use at Fireside Saw Mill, or these are pine logs that will go somewhere else, or these are veneer logs or
314 something like this, but what we haven't been able to do is, because of these small loads and mixed loads of
315 what we get here and there, is bring them to any good use, so we stage them temporarily. When there's
316 enough white oak logs, for example, we can put those in the back of a truck and then take them to the highest
317 possible use, typically very local.
318
319 Statler Gilfillen: If I understand what you've just said and what I've read, then you are, basically, that's
320 staging recycling area where the products, the natural waste, at this point is brought to, and then distributed
321 from this site?
322
323 Craig Nishimoto: Correct.
324
325 Statler Gilfillen: It's a recycling center in a sense for the natural?
326
327 Adam Beeman: If you call it recycling center, it might draw a lot of big alarms like we're —
328
329 Statler Gilfillen: It might be perceived as industrial. That's not—
330
331 Craig Nishimoto: Yeah. It's not, it's—We,we got some wood chips here.
332
333 Adam Beeman: So, I guess the question is, before we start questioning him, are you satisfied with your
334 presentation? Do you want to wrap it up and open the floor to questions? Typically, I would like you to finish
335 your presentation, then we'll open the floor, and we'll go around in an orderly fashion so we're not playing
336 popcorn question or-
337
338 Craig Nishimoto: Let me go through what I think will be valuable, skipping a lot of stuff. When we had the
339 Neighborhood Information Meeting, two things came up that were what seemed like this is valuable. One, we
340 need to explain what we do and how we operate because there was like, "what is a tree service?" We're not a
341 logging operation. We're not these big land clearing operations. That's an entirely different industry. And then
342 the other concerns was the concerns about noise and traffic, so I wasn't prepared at the NIM, but I'm now
343 prepared to answer those things, so that's what I have a further addressed. And then "what is the Treeist."
344 Now, this I think I'm going to skip over because it's more storytelling that you guys are too serious to want to
345 worry about.
346
347 Adam Beeman: I guess the biggest thing, if you just want to tack down your day, like you have a couple
348 offices, the residence, what the residence is for, how many trucks you expect to roll in and out,just kind of a
135
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
349 day in the life of Treeist, and then we'll probably get the gist of what you're looking to do on the property from
350 that.
351
352 Craig Nishimoto: So, what we imagine is there's a lot of trucks that need to be parked there, so that's one
353 thing, but we also have a small office operation, the people that are there to take phone calls, to do the
354 scheduling. It's not a big thing, but we need to have it, and we're working out of a little metal building right
355 now, and it's hard to attract the top talent to work in here when they can take jobs anywhere else in nice, cushy
356 offices. We need to do something about that. We also are really into training people, and we see this as a
357 perfect industry to start an apprenticeship program, and for that we need a multipurpose room that can offer a
358 classroom sort of setting, something indoors and we can give good lectures and presentations to. That is part
359 of the day. We might even start the apprentices in there and then go out and join field and the crews. A lot of
360 tree services are really hard on equipment, so we have a full-time mechanic who is always fixing a track on
361 this machine, doing something, welding this or welding that, so there's a shop where he can take these things,
362 work on a chipper or something like this. And these guys work really hard. This is one of the most physically
363 laborious industries, and it's high adrenaline when they're working because they know they can get hurt
364 anytime, so I always think that the most dangerous time for our guys and gals that are working on the tree
365 crews is after they drive back to the shop, get in their personal vehicles, and then drive home. I, when I was
366 doing it, it was just like, "this is where I get killed because I'm going to fall asleep here." I would love to just
367 have a place for them to relax, lockers, shower, sharpen your chainsaws in this nice lighted area, and then hop
368 in, maybe spend time in town before you drive home, and that also is to attract the best workers. Even Town
369 of Chapel Hill Public Works, they have better than we have. I'd like to at least offer something like that to our
370 guys. Questions about that?
371
372 Adam Beeman: No, I mean, like I said, once you're done, we're going to open up the questions, then we'll
373 get more out of you as far as questioning.
374
375 Craig Nishimoto: I think what's critical is the noise and traffic issues. I mean, look at these aerial photos
376 first.
377
378 Statler Gilfillen: I'm trying to draw a distinction here. I asked the question about would you sell anything
379 on the site. Now, if you have a dozen oak trees, and you chip them up—
380
381 Adam Beeman: Hey, can we hold this off until he's done with his presentation?
382
383 Statler Gilfillen: —are you going to be selling some of that from there on a retail basis?
384
385 Adam Beeman: We'd like him to finish the presentation then we can ask the questions. Please wait.
386
387 Craig Nishimoto: Part of my slide that I wanted to impress upon everyone here is how big a need there is in
388 this area. If you look at any aerial photos, I look at our neighborhoods that we work in, and we want the trees,
389 we need houses, but we really want trees, and so what happens is this. You look just about anywhere. You
390 see these neighborhoods. This was built in the '60s, and all the trees have grown up around the houses. It's
391 not like grass where you can just mow it. You need people to climb up there and do work. In Ridgefield,
392 there's this Long Leaf, Willow Drive, Emory neighborhood. A lot of these places, and when they built the
393 houses, they just clear cut everything, but now you go back there, and it's what? You see Loblolly Pines and
394 Sweet Gums everywhere, way too dense, and then there's going to be problems, so we're managing that.
395 Even if you love trees, some of them, they're just too crowded together. It's just going to get worse. Lake
396 Hogan Farms, this is really a recent development for trees, but they're Willow Oaks that were planted, and
397 some of them are already this big. They grow super fast, and everywhere you look, this is just fairly random
398 sampling of what it looks like from the air. What you notice is trees right up against houses everywhere.
136
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
399 That's everywhere. Carrboro, '90s and 70s,just enormous trees, and even if you didn't clear cut and you just
400 had the houses, and you're trying to infill like some of these more historic areas, we're seeing huge problems
401 of people killing the old trees from that, from construction and trying to build an accessory dwelling unit. We
402 have 19 climbers. This is what you need because a lot of things you can't do. What people associate with tree
403 work is these bucket trucks, but that's because you're going down the street and seeing them work on power
404 lines. We're working in backyards, and we need to train these guys to climb. We have 19 of them. We're not
405 using the big machines that are used for clearing site development that people see when they get upset. We
406 have to get into people's backyards. We're using compact machinery like this. These are the wood chippers.
407 They make a ton of racket and people's noises, and because we can't bring it, this wood anywhere, we have to
408 process it all on site, and that is horrendous. You go down any neighborhood, you can just listen. "Well,
409 there's some tree work going on." Our dump trucks are not huge. This is our dump truck because, again,
410 we're getting into neighborhoods. All our work has to be compact. That as some of the concern of the
411 neighbors. Like, "you're driving giant machines." We're not. Our biggest machines are really specialized like
412 this type of crane that reaches out 112 feet and then grapples and cuts, and then a bucket truck, but they don't
413 go out with every crew. You can learn more about us on the websites: Instagram, 12,000 posts plus; YouTube
414 videos, David's putting a lot of drone footage; online reviews, great places. Every one of these places. If it's a
415 star rating, we have five stars, never a negative review. Ask your neighbors. Ask the local tree savvy places,
416 "who's tree savvy around here?" North Carolina Botanical Garden, New Hope Audubon Society. Ask anybody
417 there, ask about us. Noise concerns, what we've done here is, we're really far away from people. But
418 occasionally, let's say we're doing training for our new employees with chainsaws. We're gonna fire off these
419 gas chainsaws. Chainsaws are loud. The neighbors might be rightfully concerned "is that gonna wake me
420 up." I know they're concerned about the dogs that are already up there, so is this gonna cause them another
421 problem? I didn't know at the Neighborhood Information Meeting whether that would be a concern, so we
422 actually went out and tested it. One person at the location near the cell tower, where we would fire up the
423 chainsaw and then another of us went to the listening places. We shot video of it. You can see it. You can
424 compare it and listen in. You cannot hear. You cannot hear a chainsaw, even the loudest chainsaw that we
425 have, 170 decibels, they say. Cannot be heard and we have, we put together a video on this. Town of Chapel
426 Hill Public Works, what are we doing? We're staging stuff, so there's gonna be some loading and unloading of
427 logs and stuff like that. Not as loud as unloading gravel or dumping gravel into a metal bed, but we are far
428 away. You're not gonna be able to hear that. This is the Town of Chapel Hill Public Works, that Rural Buffer
429 site. They are 350 feet. They're doing that and you can see from aerial photos, they have big diesel loaders
430 out there. We are 5.7 times that distance away from the nearest residence that might complain. So, here's
431 that video. The link is there. The proof is there. We, he's great at editing videos. I am pretty proud of this
432 little video because it shows not only the chainsaw, but the Marine air horn and the woodchipper going at full
433 blast. But let's, we, we can get back to that. Traffic concerns, again, there's a little misrepresentation in the
434 packet that you got. It overcounts by a factor of two of how many trucks we'll have. Even in our biggest
435 aspirations, we're probably at 140 trips per day. Trips per day is kind of misleading and I think it alarmed
436 people because a trip to the grocery store is going to be two trips, not one, because it's the trip up to and the
437 trip back. So, our crew, if they come in the morning with their personal vehicles, leave with company vehicle,
438 come back with company, that's four trips per crew member. So, it adds up quickly. But what is helpful is
439 comparing it to other usages. Emerson Waldorf School, you're looking at like over a 1,000 trips per day.
440 Chapel Hill Public Works, if they have as many employee vehicles as it looks like in that aerial photo, from just
441 that parking lot, you're looking at 500 trips a day. The Soccer Complex, you're looking at like a 1,000 trips per
442 day on a game day. We are a drop in the bucket. And what's better is our peak traffic times are totally
443 harmonious. We start at 7:00, which means our employees are getting between 6:30 and 7:30. That's when
444 the traffic is coming. That's before Town of Public Works. That's before Emerson Waldorf. We are out, and
445 even if on that far edge of our guys leaving at the latest and the earliest arrivers, we're going in different
446 directions. This is awesome. And then later in the day, we're ending earlier because an 8-hour day for us
447 ends at 3:00. And it's staggered at the end of the day. Our guys finish when the job gets done, not when the
448 clock runs out, so it's staggered. Vehicle routes are harmonious. We're probably going south. When we turn
137
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
449 south, we're just going by nonresidential properties. This is all commercial properties or Town properties. In
450 the broader perspective, if this doesn't happen, it doesn't mean there's a lack of tree service needs in the area.
451 It just means that to fulfill those tree service needs, you're gonna be having to travel from a lot further away.
452 Maybe same trips per day, but those trips will take three times as long and that means three times as much
453 road use. More traffic intersecting back and forth through the Rural Buffer. Already a problem. This just adds
454 more to that.
455
456 Adam Beeman: If you, if you want to give your summary, you've got two minutes left. If you want to give a
457 wrap-up and a summary, we've got questions for you, so you're gonna have plenty of time to answer them. It's
458 just your chance to say your last bit before we dive in here.
459
460 Craig Nishimoto provided a summary of his personal history and background.
461
462 Adam Beeman: So, I'm going to start the questions and work our way around.
463
464 Whitney Watson: I have three questions for you. One is about working with North Carolina Forestry. I know
465 they offer some of the same tree literacy programs that you are, and so I'd been interested in how you work
466 with them or how you might increase the way in which you work with those groups.
467
468 Craig Nishimoto: Whenever I present to a crowd like a public library or some, a gardening club, I point to
469 North Carolina Forest Service as an offering. If you call the County Ranger, they will send someone out to
470 look at your trees, and it's a pretty good deal because it's free and sometimes, during COVID, they were even
471 sending two guys out, but it takes a long time. You might have to wait a month or two to get out there. This is
472 what I hear from clients. Sometimes their write-ups are excellent. In fact, one time a client showed it to me
473 and it looked like he copied the things that I was saying, telling the client. Other times they're not as good
474 because they have a different skill set. If you became a registered forester or licensed forester, you would
475 have to learn a lot of things that are totally irrelevant to the urban forest interface, you know, trees growing
476 near houses. And what we get to see is trees on houses all the time. We're looking for particular trees and
477 particular elements of this tree, not the health of this big Loblolly Pine tract. I think if everyone started calling
478 them, they just wouldn't have the capacity to do 75 visits a week, for example.
479
480 Whitney Watson: Okay. So that sort of backs into the notion that you're going to have some kind of training
481 program at your site? So, if you're not working with the local forest ranger, then it seems like there's a
482 disconnect between what you do and what they do and the customer, the potential client is losing out, so you
483 might consider about that educational aspect.
484
485 Craig Nishimoto: So, where I think the forest service is strong is on big, managing 20 acre properties or 10
486 acre properties, land management. That's where I think they have a lot to offer. When it's what particular tree
487 and how to deal with its hazard, that's where they fall short, so even though there's something called urban
488 forestry, they mainly just do standard forestry.
489
490 Whitney Watson: Next question, so there's a residential property or residential unit going to be on the
491 property for a full-time caretaker or will they also be working during the day?
492
493 Craig Nishimoto: Yeah, so it's basically our security system needs to have someone there. I could imagine
494 somebody, some eco-terrorist just doesn't like the fact that we cut down a tree coming to destroy all our
495 machines. It's kind of way tucked away, so people could do that. But I got this guy that has worked with me
496 for years and he's a young guy. He would love nothing more than to do the Henry David Thoreau thing. A
497 little cabin out there with his dog and living the life, and that's what we'd like to build for him.
498
138
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
499 Whitney Watson: The last question which I think Cy intimated about was the access road issue. Can you
500 elaborate on what you see as the best possible outcome for that?
501
502 Craig Nishimoto: We had a meeting earlier today about that, and Maribeth Carr came up with a wonderful
503 solution to this problem. She found that there was a potential route north of the current road that would no
504 matter what they did with the Soccer Complex, it should stay out of their way, and then drop down and we
505 could potentially use the same stream crossing. Apparently, the stream crossing is a big deal as far as the
506 regulatory system goes, so if we could use the same, she thought that would be a big win, and we're not going
507 through as much rough terrain. So, the idea is that, well, we don't know when this plan is going to get concrete
508 enough to say, "oh, we definitely want the road there instead of here," but we think we can accommodate this.
509 We think we can accommodate this in a really neighborly way, namely, let's spend minimal money on this
510 current road. It almost, with a few small improvements, would serve our needs for the next two years maybe.
511 Give the County time to develop its plan of where exactly they might decide "no, it doesn't work that way," but
512 give them time to decide on that, and whatever we would have put into our road improvements that we
513 eventually would have to if they decide to do nothing, we can put to contributing to the development of the new
514 road, and we're perfectly happy to do that. I'm also happy to chase down Crown Castle to get them on board.
515 They've been the most difficult.
516
517 Cy Stober: Just an administrative point, you should all have before you a letter from Craig Nishimoto
518 and Treeist regarding that condition. That basically provides the current status of the condition. It is still under
519 negotiation. There's some details that need to be determined, but David Stancil and the Department of
520 Agriculture, Parks and Recreation on behalf of the County have offered this condition to Treeist. Treeist is
521 agreeable, but I do want to note that the negotiation is not finalized. There are some specifics that need to be
522 determined, but in general, what the UDO requires and what State Law requires is that we have written
523 consent from the applicant, which we do have for you today with regard to the general road layout and the
524 shared use of that road.
525
526 Statler Gilfillen: A question then. If we approve this, can it be conditional based on the final resolution
527 before the County Commissioners would approve it?
528
529 Cy Stober: Yes, so the now six conditions that the applicant agreed to, or is offering as part of their
530 application, is the package that you have before you. Your options this evening are to vote to recommend as
531 presented, which would include those six conditions, vote to recommend with additional conditions, vote to
532 deny, or vote to continue the meeting to a date later for more time to make a recommendation to the
533 Commissioners.
534
535 Chris Johnston: My question's actually probably closer to you. So, in regards to compelling the landowner
536 to do something in the future, what is the limit on something like that? It sounds like the plans from the County
537 could be years in advance, and it sounds like the applicant would have to hold on to some amount of funds in
538 order to maintain a road or make changes that could potentially be in '28, '29. Are we allowed to make that
539 kind of stipulation?
540
541 Cy Stober: Yeah, the law's written with the qualifier that it needs to be a reasonable accommodation
542 and a reasonable condition that's related directly to the land use, so providing safe access in harmony with the
543 adjacent land use, I believe that the Attorney's Office and the County have found that to be a reasonable
544 connection to this proposed use. We do not at this time have a timeline attached to that condition.
545
546 Chris Johnston: I mean, is that something that needs to be attached? It just sounds like that could be a
547 plan that potentially moves on and moves on. The applicant mentioned how this particular plan for a soccer
139
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
548 field has been in development for a while now, and I'd hate for them to have to hold on to something for 10
549 plus years or whatever the case may be. Like, is there a plan to attach a timeline stipulation to it?
550
551 Cy Stober: So as I said, negotiations are still ongoing. What I can do is defer to David Stancil, the
552 Director of DEAPR or to Craig Nishimoto regarding that point, and that could be a consideration that you all
553 make in your motion on this matter.
554
555 Whitney Watson: And if I could go back, one more question. The condition we'll be voting on says that this
556 is anticipated to generate significant noise and operate during evening hours in the Rural Buffer. Is that
557 accurate?
558
559 Craig Nishimoto: The only time I foresee operating in the evening hours would be in the event of a storm or
560 the direct aftermath of a storm. We start early, we end early. I imagine at some point wanting to have some
561 crew working and available on call on the weekend at least, but we're pretty silent after 3:00. Now there may
562 be one crew that gets back late, but it's not making a hurricane of noise. It's parking a truck, maybe dumping a
563 truck, and leaving with personal vehicle.
564
565 Chris Johnston: If I could continue just, while we have the representative here, Mr. Stancil, regards to the
566 plans moving forward, I guess I come back to just the discomfort I have on timelines and stipulating things that
567 could happen far out in advance. In terms of the negotiations and that sort of thing, if we were to approve
568 something like this, I'd like to have an idea or understanding of where that's headed in terms of requirements
569 for the applicant.
570
571 David Stancil: Our current Capital Investment Plan envisions that we will begin master planning for this
572 long-awaited soccer center for southern Orange County probably in the next year or so. We have a number of
573 sketches that we've done to date. We've owned the property since 2005 and originally it was envisioned to be
574 constructed as a joint project with the Town of Chapel Hill as primarily a soccer facility, but also some other
575 recreational uses in the middle of the last decade, but there were redirection of resources so ultimately, it's
576 been pushed back in the CIP, but we do currently have an adopted CIP that says we will begin engineering
577 drawings, constructions drawings in 2027, construction underway in 2028. 1 can tell you that I have been in
578 contact with the Town of Chapel Hill recently as well to make sure that this is still a priority project that's still in
579 their Capital Investment Plan and it is. I can also tell you that we have been in contact with a large soccer
580 organization in the last several months that is interested in jump-starting a few fields out there. That's a
581 conversation that's ongoing. I don't know exactly what that would mean right now in terms of how many fields,
582 how much parking would be needed and where the entry would be, but so I guess this is a long-winded way of
583 saying that I believe the intention is that this project is something that's three to four years out. I certainly hope
584 that it doesn't get pushed back another five to ten years because that's already happened once. Every year the
585 Board of Commissioners looks at the Capital Investment Plan every spring, and there are changes made every
586 year, so certainly, it could happen.
587
588 Beth Bronson: Just to clarify, those soccer fields, theoretical soccer fields, are they adjacent County
589 parcels?
590
591 David Stancil: Yeah. I don't know if we have a map yet. If you look at the property to the north, and the
592 property to the south of this site is the old landfill, and that's owned by Orange County, but it's not really usable
593 for anything other than low-impact recreation, possibly someday. But we're talking here about the property in
594 this map it would be the property that you see labeled as Orange County to the east, or the right, and then the
595 property to the north. So, we own 79 acres in total. We bought it back in 2005 and the idea at that time —this
596 was shortly after the 2001 bond referendum —was we have a soccer center, a soccer complex in Efland. We
140
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
597 need one in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area. Chapel Hill and Orange County would like to jointly develop one.
598 So that's the property we're talking about.
599
600 Beth Bronson: And the entrance to the east of those are privately owned, or there's a railroad track
601 there?
602
603 David Stancil: I think the Town of Chapel Hill owns the property that's further to the right of the two
604 Orange County labeled properties on this map, and then you're at Millhouse Road and the railroad tracks. But
605 as you can see, the concern that we addressed, and I hope that we found a solution to, you can see on this
606 map that the existing access road that was done years and years ago for Crown Castle to be able to access
607 their tower severs 20 acres of our site from the rest of it, and I can count on my hands the number of times I've
608 seen a Crown Castle truck go back to the cell tower. So, that's not really been an issue for us, but if that were
609 to become something that was much more frequently used, and we had parking or soccer fields, for example,
610 we don't want kids crossing a commercial driveway to go back and forth between future fields and parking.
611 And so that was the concern that we expressed in our memo. We looked at the possibly of diving down to the
612 southern boundary line adjacent to the grey area on this map. Not a great solution, but as mentioned earlier
613 we had a meeting today. We did identify the fact that there is another access easement on the northern part of
614 the property. This is the way in for the Crown Castle tower which is being proposed for use here. We had, in
615 our letter, suggested diving down and not separating this 20-acre section from the rest of the park. But, as of
616 today, I think we have a potential solution which will use this easement and wrap around the back side of the
617 soccer fields and the future facility. We haven't done a master plan yet because it wasn't time to build the
618 park. We've stopped doing those because we ran into situations where we had an adopted master plan and
619 10 years later, we were getting around to the construction, and things would change. So, we try to do master
620 plans now closer to the point of construction, and that's why we envision doing that in the next year or two for
621 this currently planned construction. But, what we have always envisioned is back here, backing up to Duke
622 Forest, this part of the property has nice hard woods, and is much more like Duke Forest than the rest of the
623 property. These areas in the front were former farm fields. This was the old Julia Blackwood farm. And so,
624 what we would like to do, and what we have talked today, and I think is a possible solution, is come around the
625 back side of the fields.
626
627 Beth Bronson: You don't anticipate development to the west?
628
629 David Stancil: No, this, I think, would be trails and hard wood buffer to Duke Forest. So, the anticipated
630 area of development of this property is in this area here.
631
632 Beth Bronson: Duke Forest does not have anything that backs up to those properties?
633
634 David Stancil: Duke Forest has access, their area actually goes right off the map to the south and to the
635 east.
636
637 Beth Bronson: They have separate access on that Orange County property?
638
639 David Stancil: No, they do not. There was originally a continuation of this easement that I've talked
640 about already that goes to the Duke property, but I'm not, without getting into some legal territory that I should
641 not get into, it's not clear to us whether this part of that easement continues to exist. But suffice to say, that
642 Duke has the ability to access this property from a number of other directions. This is also,just so you know,
643 this is a part of Duke Forest, the Blackwood Division of Duke Forest, that has the NASA research equipment
644 on it, so it's not one of the areas that's active for recreational purposes. There are not a lot of trails here. In
645 fact, they're kind of discouraged for that purpose because there is a lot of scientific research going on back in
646 this part of the property, so there's not a lot of access need in that area.
141
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
647
648 Beth Bronson: Yeah, I just wanted to know if they had an easement with Orange County or not.
649
650 David Stancil: No, the only one that might exist would be the one that we've been talking about already,
651 whether it continues past this property now. Making a long story short, we're very much familiar with this
652 property as well. We looked at it when we purchased the property, and there are some maps in the final years
653 of the many access easements that have been done that may seem to indicate that this part of the access
654 easement no longer exists, but again, I'm getting into quasi legal territory, which I'm not—
655
656 Liz Kalies: I just want to say I appreciate the attention that you pay to diversity, equity inclusion, and
657 justice issues in your application, and obviously in your business practices and related to land use. It was
658 really nice to see. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about educational opportunities that you would
659 plan to be providing at this new site for the community.
660
661 Craig Nishimoto: David, you want to address some of that? David is my business partner, and he is all
662 about the training and community involvement. He's got a lot of dreams, and a lot of big dreams for this, and
663 he spent the last year doing quite a bit.
664
665 David Ricks: The educational opportunities that we are doing currently are Tree ID, Understanding
666 Tree Risk. We teach chainsaw classes and hand saw classes for the community. So, we have folks that use
667 our services or hear about us, and they say, "hey, I want to do some tree work,"and we'll show them how to
668 use their tools safely, and we'll talk to them about their trees and help them decide whether that's something
669 that can be done. For example, we have a chainsaw class this weekend that's from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 1
670 encourage you guys all to come if you're not confident running a chainsaw, and it's free for the public. We had
671 45 people sign up, but it's free, so when something's free, we might have 15 people there. But those have
672 been going on very regularly. That's one of our most popular classes. Another class is tree climbing —that we
673 give that's free. Craig and I,we came to this later in life, so we've had other careers and professions. And we
674 choose to do this. Most of the people at The Treeist can do other things. They choose to work among the
675 trees for the community being first responders. But climbing trees is intrinsically interesting, and we believe
676 that it should be as ubiquitous as riding a bike here. I have a video encouraging people to sign up for our free
677 classes because, if they have trees in their yard, they have extremely valuable recreational opportunities, and
678 we want to show them how to do that safely because I'm sure all of you have climbed a tree back in the day
679 without ropes or harnesses. And so that's one of the things that we want to bring to the community. The cost
680 of a kayak, to go down the Eno River, for that cost you could build a tree-climbing kit for your entire family, and
681 go out to your backyard and enjoy your trees, and so we need an opportunity to do that in a safe spot to save
682 trees for folks. So, that class is on the 20th. That's the example of our next class that we have. So, we
683 encourage you guys— it's free—to come to that one as well. We also have folks that—and this is really
684 important and near and dear to our hearts because we're lucky to be alive with the lack of training we received
685 early on in our career—next week, on the 10th, I'm training a gentleman from Johnston County to do tree work
686 professionally. He started with his business partner there, and so we're having him out to our facility and
687 showing him the best practices for our industry. And so, we offer that for the community as well. Most of the
688 folks that take us up on that are tree-care professionals that have worked for the company that Craig described
689 when he first started and was lucky to be alive. So, that one is an industry-only offer, but the educational
690 opportunities, we want to expand on them. For example, since 2016 we've given Tree ID classes, we've given
691 how mechanical advantage works for folks. We've given tree climbing. We have taught the folks that work at
692 the UNC Botanical Garden how to access their trees. We have taught folks that work at the Arboretum how to
693 access their trees to install equipment or to do minor tree work. And it's around that kind of thing. The
694 gentleman that recently left, Sam, he is one of our consultants, and he gives presentations weekly that serve
695 two purposes: they educate our team, but they also educate the community—they are on YouTube—on how
142
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
696 to spot issues with trees, but also how to understand the natural world. So, we really want to bring people in to
697 be able to teach them that in a safe environment.
698
699 Craig Nishimoto: I also pulled up this picture. Those aren't actually all our climbers. I'm not going to say
700 which companies they are from, but they're coming and we're teaching other companies in the area how to
701 climb trees safer and with the health of the tree in mind. We have done training for NC State. We're getting
702 asked by Elon University because there's not a lot of arborist companies. And fire fighters, aerial rescue
703 training, how to rescue people in trees.
704
705 David Ricks: And one fun thing that we've been working really hard on is we are offering a tree climbing
706 summer camp for kids with the Woods Charter School. They actually approached us from folks that have
707 come to our free events and wanted to make this an offering to give the students there, or the kids who go
708 there, K-12, a more challenging environment to connect with the natural world. So that's two to three weeks a
709 summer. But we're excited to have a more robust facility for things like that. We're doing one class for 1 week
710 for 6 to 9-year-olds, and then the next week is going to be from 10 to 14-year-olds.
711
712 Steve Kaufmann: I don't have any questions, but I really appreciate the package that you put together. You
713 really did your research, so I appreciate it.
714
715 Melissa Poole: I don't really have any questions,just one. It's addressed, and I did read, but just for
716 purpose. What's the nearest resident?
717
718 Craig Nishimoto: The nearest resident is the owner of Green Beagle Lodge. We met directly with him.
719 Amanda and I met with him and told him what we're doing and asked if he had any concerns because even
720 though he's about 1,800 feet away from where we would be doing the staging of the materials, he's still by far
721 the closest residence. Everyone else is beyond 2,000 feet, and he was a thumbs up, good luck.
722
723 Lamar Proctor: Where are the majority of your clients? Are they in residential Chapel Hill or...?
724
725 Craig Nishimoto: I would say 90 percent of our clients are private,just homeowners, and I would say 90
726 percent are in Chapel Hill, but in Chapel Hill Township, I would say maybe 70 percent. There are some big
727 trees in Durham, and for some historical accident, I started doing work up there, and the neighbor started
728 talking, and we're doing a lot of work up there too in the big Willow Oaks and what not, and of course,
729 Hillsborough and North Chatham County. There's just not a lot of people west in the real rural parts, but we do
730 a lot of work out in the rural parts and work with climbers with big property, and we'll find a way to just give
731 them discounts if they want to use their tractor as well.
732
733 Lamar Proctor: So the majority of the traffic from your side is gonna go south on Millhouse to Eubanks
734 and either east or west depending on —
735
736 Craig Nishimoto: I mean worst case scenario,we have a client on Woodfield Road or Mount Sinai, and
737 there's that intersection on 86 and Mount Sinai. If it's anywhere near school hours, that's just a log jam. So,
738 even in that case, I would imagine we'd still turn south and get onto Eubanks Road and then go from there.
739
740 Lamar Proctor: I guess this is a question for you and Mr. Stancil. There's a great need for athletic fields in
741 our county, and so I'm really kind of concerned about anything that's going to cross paths with that, because
742 that's an ongoing issue. Do you think that your business would be interfering with athletic field use? Why or
743 why not? And then I guess the secondary question to Mr. Stancil, do you think that this use can still
744 accommodate athletic fields in the vicinity?
745
143
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
746 Craig Nishimoto: I think it's completely harmonious. One: because County athletic fields, when are they
747 used? They're used on weekends or well after school lets out. We are not there. We're done unless it's a
748 storm or an emergency when the soccer fields are probably not gonna be used anyways. So, you're just not
749 going to see our trucks, or you might see our trucks, but they're not gonna be very many of them. So, I don't
750 think this is a problem. I think there's plenty of land out there. There's 74 acres or whatever it is. I'm hoping
751 they can build all six soccer fields and a bunch of baseball fields as well.
752
753 David Stancil: I have to be a bit careful in how I answer this. I should've said this at the beginning when
754 1 first got up here, but this is a very odd position for Orange County to be in because we are both the regulator,
755 the Planning Department and staff. And you, the Planning Board, the County Commissioners, will be
756 considering the regulatory matter of this rezoning. I'm here wearing the hat of Orange County's adjacent
757 landowner, and an adjacent landowner that has plans for development of the property. So, there certainly is a
758 great need for additional soccer fields and other playing fields in our community. We have already seen. 1
759 don't know how many of you go by Cedar Falls Park and Chapel Hill and see the one sole artificial turf field
760 that is used all day long in almost any weather. So, it's heavily used. The demand is certainly there, and that
761 is gonna continue to be the case, and the idea of having a soccer center for Southern Orange County has
762 been a very high priority of ours and, I think, of the town Chapel Hills for some time now. But the nature of this
763 rezoning request and what is being proposed, I really can't speak to the appropriateness of that, except to say
764 that we do think that the northerly access route that we've come up with and talked about today is certainly far
765 preferable to anything that would separate part of our property from the rest of it because the current access
766 road is in a location, unfortunately, where it keeps some of the land that's gonna be used for the soccer center
767 separated from the rest of it, and so something that gets us away from that is preferable to us. But in terms of,
768 you know, the agricultural sport as it applies to zoning category in this particular request, I have to stand mute
769 on that.
770
771 Beth Bronson: Can you describe one more time for us why the southern expansion was no longer
772 considered preferable?
773
774 David Stancil: Well, it requires a stream crossing that is wider and further east. So, it would create more
775 of an ecological concern by crossing the stream at that point than the way it is currently planned and the
776 location that the applicant has planned for in this new arrangement is still gonna be the same place because
777 we would wrap around and come in at the same point. That's the main reason.
778
779 Beth Bronson: I'm thinking that it would require therefore more further east, but if you were thinking about
780 expanding into a complete new— like if you had plans for all the surrounding parcels, even though you don't
781 have a master plan ready, would you not consider going in southern and making a larger more expansive
782 entryway for a soccer pavilion location? I mean I'm just thinking about like the soccer.com fields. That's quite a
783 driveway. And just why wouldn't you have a plan to do that with this one as well?
784
785 David Stancil: Again, my comment there was solely about access to this property. Yes, you're right.
786 When we do a master plan for this facility, we will need to have a fairly significant ingress and egress for how
787 that facility's gonna work, but we're not in a place right now to say it would be here on Millhouse Road or it
788 would be to the north. The issue of the southern route, it's also longer. I didn't mention that as well, but it's a
789 longer route as well, so that's the reason we think the northern approach that we've come up with today is
790 preferable to us.
791
792 Adam Beeman: So, if you follow the north path and you come down, where you would come down in your
793 potential, is that wooded or is that open field where you would come through? Because I'm understanding that
794 the southern route is heavily forested, so there's a lot of trees to remove and all that. So, would you have all
795 that going northern, or is that just gonna come through field and you're just cutting a driveway?
144
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
796
797 David Stancil: Yeah. A lot of it is going to go through Sweet Gum and Pine, that kind of succession
798 forest that we see, a lot of that area is former farm fields that is now in succession and has Sweet Gum and
799 Pine. So, it avoids the heavier, nicer hardwoods that are further to the west.
800
801 Cy Stober: Just because I feel that it's relevant to this point, any plans that the County would wish to
802 do on that adjacent property would have to be reviewed by the Planning Department, conform with our Unified
803 Development Ordinance, and be reviewed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation for a driveway
804 permit to ensure safe ingress, egress. So, all of those details would be determined with submittal of a site plan
805 and review by both our staff and state staff at the DOT. So, I just want to remind you all of that. We don't have
806 any plans in hand today. We can't comment upon any of that, but when that day hopefully comes, we would
807 be able to review that. But, again, we don't have anything in hand to review.
808
809 Statler GiIfillen: But this is something based on tonight, that is potential in the future, maybe, soccer fields
810 are not there. Now, are we asking that he be involved in helping to finance the change of road later on and if
811 maybe, and how do you handle that when you write a proposal?
812
813 Cy Stober: I believe there's reference to that in the Treeist letter, but we don't have a resolution on
814 cost share for road provision as detailed in the condition offer by the Treeist this evening. So, as I stated
815 before, negotiations are ongoing between the County and the applicant. That certainly can be something you
816 consider in your vote.
817
818 Statler GiIfillen: So we can put in something to the effect that we could approve or disapprove this, or if we
819 approve it, pending your organization and him reaching a final agreement.
820
821 Cy Stober: You may if it's reasonable and tied to the land use. I want to remind you that the
822 Commissioners under state law do have powers regarding the public interest and reasonableness that the
823 Planning Board does not. So, I want to make sure you're focused on the land use question. So, you may want
824 to make comment on that, but please stay focused on the land use.
825
826 Adam Beeman: So, day in a life, you're sending out a dump truck and a chipper, or just a dump truck?
827
828 Craig Nishimoto: Oh, so the way the typical crews operate, the standard crew would have three people.
829 One would drive a chip truck with a chipper behind it, one would drive a pickup truck towing a mini skid steer,
830 and then if needed, depending on the job, there might be a dump truck going with them, a small dump truck.
831
832 Adam Beeman: So, you're chipping the debris, like small branches and debris, on site and bringing home
833 large limbs and tree trunks. Is that what I'm understanding?
834
835 Craig Nishimoto: Almost all limbs get chipped because the chippers nowadays, they'll take big pieces. But
836 when it's a big, ugly stump or something like that, it goes in the back of a truck.
837
838 Adam Beeman: But you're bringing the small stuff up in the neighborhood, or that's coming back to your
839 business?
840
841 Craig Nishimoto: So, I described how we're working now. How we would like to work and what we're
842 working on even now is getting rid of that pickup truck so it's only two vehicles going out per crew. You've
843 probably seen these trash grapple trucks that they go by and pick up limbs for the Town of Chapel Hill like
844 Carrboro. We would like to invest in those kind of machines. They would be rear mounted, but a similar size
845 because we still have to get in to these communities. They would be tandem axle in the back, so if we load it
145
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
846 full of logs, it wouldn't break, but those things would go around and instead of sending dump trucks
847 everywhere, they could pick up logs. They can even pick up brush. So, in some cases, we might even
848 eliminate a chipper on site. That's a big thing in some areas of the country where they just get rid of chippers.
849 It's not yet been done here, so we know that our streets won't be able to handle the biggest storm chaser
850 trucks that you would see in Florida, but we do think that this is the way to go and what people are gonna want
851 more and more as they realize your chippers are way too loud.
852
853 Adam Beeman: So, if you move down to the truck and load your debris, you're bringing it back to your site
854 and shredding it, chipping it, at your site with the debris? I just want to make sure beacuse I understand the
855 logs. I get you're gonna pull off good logs and stack them to sell them. I get all that. I'm more interested in
856 what happens to the pile of wood chips because there's a house up here off of 86, logging company, that
857 they've been dumping wood chips in the yard for probably a good 20 years, and they've raised a grade from
858 where it was to 7 feet of wood chips. So, I see the pile, and if we give you the reduction in the buffer, I just
859 don't want to envision a 60-foot-tall pile of wood chips because there's nowhere to go with them, and you just
860 keep stacking them up. So that's why I'm asking. Like you're coming back to the shop. The guy's got a load
861 of stuff, and someone's sitting there actually processing material, taking it off and shredding stuff, or you're not
862 gonna be shredding on site? You're just more or less sorting?
863
864 Craig Nishimoto: Sorting is the key. So, you bring this truck back. Now,we can even do it without that
865 truck, but let's imagine the big plan is to have these grapple trucks unload the debris. They're rear mounted,
866 so you could take your logs over here, your brush over here, your trash wood over here, and then logs get
867 sorted by a loader to wherever they belong. And then if you have brush, then you take a big pile of brush back
868 in that and take it out to, for example, Coley Road where they have a green waste processing place.
869
870 Adam Beeman: So, you're not actually processing the material on site, maybe occasionally, but not—
871
872 Craig Nishimoto: Yeah, that's not the plan. I noticed that the Planning Department's write-up suggested
873 that we would be processing. That's not part of our plan, but it might be a good idea to leave it open as a
874 possibility rather than close it off because from these tests, if we put just a little berm, you would not be able to
875 hear it anywhere from the residential properties, and the County cannot serve tree services right now. They
876 can't take anything over 12 inches in diameter, and I asked those guys, "why don't you change this? You guys
877 basically only help landscapers with shrubs. What do we do with this wood?" The only places that are
878 operating are way out. They're 150 feet from residential place, and they're having these big horizontal grinders
879 there. This is a big problem. It might be nice just to leave that open if we do work later and say, "let's set up a
880 horizontal grinder in here." They're probably not as loud as the lightweight chippers that we bring and put in
881 somebody's driveway, but then we could help, but that's not part of this plan right now. I would love to leave it
882 open because I think it makes a lot of sense as a possibility, but these grinders might cost a million dollars too,
883 and we're just not ready to do that. We have no plans to start a mulching operation, but we do things with this
884 pile of wood chips. This is biofuel, if we can't do anything else with it. One, if we had a pile and a loader,we
885 could give it away, but we'll saturate that market of just giving it away to homeowners or little farms and stuff
886 like that. But ultimately, the way to get rid of it may be to put them in tractor trailers and take them up to
887 Southern Virginia where they use them as an alternative to coal. It's biofuel.
888
889 Patrick Mallett: So, we just looked it up and that's expressly prohibited in ASE-CD and in the Rural Buffer.
890 So, you can have the wood piles, and I understand the brainstorming pioneering thought.
891
892 Adam Beeman: So there's no processing allowed.
893
894 Patrick Mallett: It's black and white. You can stock pile wood chips. It's no grinding. And that's chipping.
895
146
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
896 Adam Beeman: We might have another meeting to change that. My other question, because I saw
897 something about some hazardous sites not too far away at the dump below, what's your concern about your
898 groundwater and how you're gonna go about that? I can get you can do some septic dealing, but drinking the
899 water and your future potential, I'm just curious to know what your thought process is on that.
900
901 Craig Nishimoto: So, what the residents in this area do is frequent testing, and they do have some test sites
902 there right at the perimeter of the landfill. So, we would always want to get information from their latest test,
903 and then I talked to their engineers a while back, and they described to me the underground geology, that
904 water apparently flows away from you, and I pressed him with that question. I was like, "I see water on top of
905 the ground. You're talking about under the ground?" And they said yes. So, now, of course, I don't know for
906 sure. It is, apparently, unlined. We don't know what they were dumping way back when, but it's not the end of
907 the world. We're not putting the subdivision there. My little Walden guy, we can give him bottled water, which
908 is what we're doing now.
909
910 Delores Bailey: You mentioned earlier, I want to make sure I heard this right, that your current site is too
911 small?
912
913 Craig Nishimoto: Yes.
914
915 Delores Bailey: Is that because you want to expand or is that because you've already outgrown that site?
916
917 Craig Nishimoto: We have already outgrown the site. We're squeezed.
918
919 Delores Bailey: Okay. And so how much more land is this going to be for you than where you are right
920 now?
921
922 Craig Nishimoto: Well, so, my current land is adjacent. We bought a small house, less than 1,000 square
923 feet, on a 2-acre lot, and then we started as a home occupation there, and then we needed more land. So, 1
924 called the guy who owned just a wasteland of 3 and a half acres, and we bought that from him, and then the
925 same guy owned a little 1-acre commercial property on Highway 54, and we bought that from him. We're so
926 close, I have good relationships with all of my neighbors, but I just don't want to push them any more. Our
927 operations are just too big for this area. For being right up against a bunch of residential houses.
928
929 Delores Bailey: Right now, you're about 6 acres, and you're going to...?
930
931 Craig Nishimoto: Yeah. But that 6 acres, it's not like this 6 acres. The 6 acres that we're now on has a little
932 pond that's shared with a neighbor. It's not all commercial. We can't really use it. So, we've got basically 1
933 acre of commercial property, and then I'm using a lot of my personal property too. So, maybe we have,
934 combined, maybe 3 acres of usable space there. We're going to a place with 10 acres that's wide open.
935
936 Delores Bailey: Have you imagined how long it will take you to outgrow that space?
937
938 Craig Nishimoto: That's the beauty of this place. I think we can, between what we have now, our current
939 location would be great for tree healthcare. A division of our company. The planting of trees. The little raised
940 beds where we're growing little seedlings, and tree healthcare, which doesn't require big trucks, and would be
941 compatible with that location, and then if we had this just dedicated to core tree service, I don't think we would
942 ever outgrow it. Why? Because I think we could put enough in there that we would saturate, geographically,
943 the market.
944
945 Delores Bailey: But you'll continue to use both spots?
147
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
946
947 Craig Nishimoto: That's what I foresee. Yeah. There comes a point when you're traveling more than 30
948 minutes away to do tree work where you lose efficiency, and you better open up a satellite or just let
949 somebody else have that work, and so we really think we are serving this local area.
950
951 Delores Bailey: And my second question was, I thought I heard you mention that you were close to the
952 landfill. Do you have a picture of that? Can you locate that?
953
954 Craig Nishimoto: And then the landfill is this, and you can see it's a big hill that's been sealed and covered,
955 and now it's just a hill of grass, but that's the first part. That's where they were first doing their landfilling
956 activities, and now, if you go farther south of there, then you have the grinding operation, the Recycling Center,
957 and if you go across Eubanks Road, that's a new part of their landfill that has recently shut down, I think.
958
959 Marilyn Carter: So, Dr. Nishimoto, your package was incredibly well done. I'm not an expert on the UDO
960 nor the Comprehensive Plan. We have some other folks who are here, but it read extremely clearly. You
961 addressed almost all of the questions I had. And so I just want to commend you on an excellent job in your
962 packet. I do have a couple of questions. You mentioned, and you addressed this in your packet, the
963 precedent of why the Rural Buffer. And this land use sets a precedent, but it's not a concerning precedent,
964 and briefly can you briefly cover that?
965
966 Craig Nishimoto: This would be Section 9 of my detailed narrative. I'm glad you asked because I think this
967 is the crux of the issue. This is why this is an issue. I would say there's about five related arguments, and
968 they're very brief, and the first is that if we look at the Comprehensive Plan with a fine tooth comb there are
969 three places where it talks about limiting development in the Rural Buffer. The first thing that we notice is that
970 even if we took those three things as invaluable laws, like 10 Commandment-level laws, what we are doing is
971 not in conflict with them. The wording does not prohibit them. Secondly, building on that point, it would have
972 been very easy to have rewritten those so that it would have prohibited what we're doing by just making the
973 language a little stronger. If it just changed a couple words, it would have prohibited what we have done. It
974 looks intentionally meant to build in flexibility. Why? Because the Comprehensive Plan, it is known that not all
975 of these goals and objectives are compatible with each other. They acknowledge there's going to be conflicts.
976 There's going to have to be tradeoffs. There's built into these goals and objectives, room for judgment. So,
977 then the third, the argument would be if it were the case that what we're trying to do is in conflict with these
978 three sort of statements about the Rural Buffer, then many of the other things that are permitted would also be
979 in conflict, or conversely, if some of the things that are expressly permitted are accepted, then ours should be
980 as well. So, you can imagine why should a large facility solar array be allowed in the Rural Buffer if that
981 violates the intensive non-residential uses? Well, that's permitted, but it's certainly not more intensive than
982 anything that we are planning to do. One of the principles here about the Rural Buffer is to encourage a
983 separation of urban and rural land uses. Well, then why should they allow these government facilities and
984 office buildings like the Town of Chapel Hill Public Works, but it's not permissible for us to build an office space
985 to accommodate our clerical staff? Then the third example is the objective in these principles is to maintain the
986 rural low density land as Rural Buffer. Then why would it be permissible to build kennels, care facilities,
987 recreational facilities, artificial turf and lights, artificial lights. Why is that consistent with rural land but not for
988 us to create an indoor and outdoor facility to train future tree workers? And then fourth, there's a burden of
989 proof problem here. We have, like I said, listed a lot of things that we are totally in alignment with. We are
990 solving County problems, County needs, and these things don't prohibit us. You got to just not say that, "Oh,
991 there's a little tension in between three of these things." You've listed dozens of things where you are helping
992 the Comprehensive Plan or you're in line and you're advancing it's programs and its goals, but there's a little
993 tension between three of these statements. Well, then show us how that problem overrides all of the positive
994 things we're doing. I think it's a burden of proof problem. And then finally, and I think this is crux. If the Board
995 of County Commissioners allows what we're doing, this does not, in any way, open the flood gates for more
148
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
996 incursions into the Rural Buffer. Anybody who wants to follow this is going to have to stand before the
997 Planning Board and make similar arguments. They're going to have to argue like I did, and it's not going to be
998 the case if you want to make a discount retail store in the Rural Buffer, that you're going to be able to produce
999 the same kind of arguments that I've produced. I'm so glad that I'm not arguing for a Dollar Store.
1000
1001 Marilyn Carter: Well, thank you for that. I appreciate it. And second question is a hypothetical that we
1002 may be getting closer to, which is if the Planning Board were to ask you and Mr. Stancil to go back and write a
1003 condition that addresses the item that is currently under negotiation, would that put either of you in an
1004 untenable position? Or is that something that this Planning Board could ask you to do with a motion?
1005
1006 Craig Nishimoto: So, I think that's a good question. Where we're at, where DEAPR is at in this early stage
1007 of envisioning what they want to do, I think we've come to enough of agreement to where it's as much as we
1008 should come to before putting either of us in a straitjacket of what to do next or wasting money for something
1009 that may not be of any good use, like rerouting a road now. It may turn out that the current road is perfectly
1010 compatible with what they're planning to do. It's just now that you can imagine that they want to put a soccer
1011 field or a grouping of soccer fields to make the lighting more efficient. They want to put them exactly right
1012 where the current access roads goes. Then it is entirely reasonable for us to work together and reroute. That
1013 just seems like totally reasonable. In all interactions with DEAPR, they've struck me as reasonable neighbors.
1014 We can come to a solution on this. What would be a problem is if suddenly they were saying, "Craig, you've
1015 got to build a southern route on your own dime before we allow you to do anything." It would break us. We're
1016 already sticking our neck out far in this. We couldn't afford that, but I just don't see that as being a reasonable
1017 recommendation. I think I would rely on argument to fight against that, and I think we'd come up with a
1018 reasonable solution.
1019
1020 Marilyn Carter: And just to clarify, a southern route and having you, as you've described in your response
1021 to Mr. Stancil, having to foot the bill for a southern route would be something that you'd push back on but not
1022 necessarily on continuing the negotiations. To clarify, what would happen with that northern route?
1023
1024 Craig Nishimoto: Well, the northern route, not only is it less expensive to build, but because it is also useful
1025 for maintenance crews, for the County's own work, or just access to the trails, if they can find a way to also
1026 jointly use it, then they can argue that we can also jointly fund that road, and then we can put our resources
1027 together and cooperate on that road. That would be just a perfect solution, I would think. If it comes to that.
1028
1029 Statler Gilfillen: On Page 119, is the recommendation from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
1030 Commission, and they are talking about native plants and how you will treat the land itself. I assume your
1031 intention is to try to coordinate and follow up with what they have said? Do you see any conflict in what they
1032 have suggested?
1033
1034 Craig Nishimoto: No. There's a big stream riparian area that we just aren't going to touch. There's some
1035 beautiful hardwoods in there that we'd like to try to preserve. I mean, even for our own interests, we want
1036 trees to climb on, and practice on, and train on. There's other areas that are Ash trees that are dying and
1037 whatnot.
1038
1039 Charity Kirk: So, Marilyn asked one of my Rural Buffer questions, but I was wondering, on Page 75, the
1040 staff comments, this is more for you, Ashley. The staff comment is, the proposed ASE-CD zoning district for
1041 an arborist and tree processing center is consistent with the Rural Buffer rural land use classification, then you
1042 mentioned Appendix F, relationships between land use classifications and zoning districts. I don't understand
1043 that appendix end table. Could you explain why it is consistent according to that table? Because that is the
1044 crux of the question to me is, how much does this differ from the Rural Buffer current zoning?
1045
149
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
1046 Ashley Moncado: Staff looks at the Future Land Use Classification, and this is kind of what we really rely on
1047 as planners, is this table. When they did first come to staff, I think that initial feedback was what would be
1048 supported, or would it be allowed in that Future Land Use Classification would be ASE-CD, and then also in
1049 NR-CD.
1050
1051 Charity Kirk: So, the reason why they can't just do what they want in the Rural Buffer is the commercial
1052 nature of it?
1053
1054 Ashley Moncado: Yes. The Agricultural Services use is not permitted in the Rural Buffer zoning district.
1055 That's what kind of started this. But that Agricultural Service use is permitted in the NR-CD and the ASE-CD
1056 district.
1057
1058 Charity Kirk: Are there currently any ASE-CD districts?
1059
1060 Ashley Moncado: No. This would be the first one within the county.
1061
1062 Charity Kirk: And it's already encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan to allow rezoning to it?
1063
1064 Ashley Moncado: Yes.
1065
1066 Charity Kirk: Then my other question is if this business goes out of business, we are then stuck with
1067 the current land use that is suggested here. Right? And if anything is going to change with the plans or how
1068 this land is— what buildings and the parking structures and everything, then someone has to come back here?
1069
1070 Cy Stober: That is 100 percent correct. With the exception of the Special Use Permit that prevails on
1071 the property and will be unaffected by this for the telecom tower. So, that permit persists in that the cell tower
1072 operator has the right to the property for that specific use under their Special Use Permit in perpetuity. If they
1073 want to modify that, they would have to go to the Board of Adjustment for the permit modification as well.
1074
1075 Charity Kirk: What would be a looser rezoning of this that would allow future changes? Just out of
1076 curiosity.
1077
1078 Cy Stober: Oh, sure. Any of the Conventional Districts. We would determine if it was a Commercial
1079 use or a Light Industrial use, or if it would be more intensive than the Agricultural Residential uses, so an AR or
1080 residential zoning district would not be appropriate, but we would have to get around the table with Treeist to
1081 determine if it's a commercial use or a Light Industrial use, and from there forward, we'd make a
1082 recommendation to both Planning Board and the Commissioners on that Conventional District. But you go
1083 back to the Table of Permitted Uses in that case, and you look at the menu of uses in that, say, Light Industrial
1084 or GC4 district, in any one of those uses could be allowed if somehow you could extend water and sewer.
1085 Under GC4, you could have fast food there.
1086
1087 Charity Kirk: Okay. This ASE-CD fits very nicely with the current Rural Buffer because the
1088 Comprehensive Plan is already pointing you to it, and it is very limiting in the other potentials of Commercial
1089 and Light Industrial. Like, it will not eventually be in the future get more removed from the Rural Buffer.
1090
1091 Cy Stober: No. What you have before you is a site-specific plan, and I believe Ashley's analysis also
1092 reflects that consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the harmony of land use with the surrounding land
1093 uses, all but one of which, arguably two with the kennel, are publicly owned, and if there's any major
150
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
1094 modifications to the proposed site plan, they'll have to come back before this board, they have to go back
1095 before the Commissioners for reapproval for any major modification.
1096
1097 Charity Kirk: So, with the road, how do we approve this? I mean, it is an easement, right? And it's not
1098 even on this property, and it's not a land use, per se. What do we do to say, "Please work with the County."
1099
1100 Cy Stober: Sure. That's an offsite commitment that is reasonably tied to the land use. So, let's go to
1101 a different case, and one that I think this body was frustrated by, the Lawrence Road case, and the impact to
1102 the surrounding road network that were going to be potentially created by the charter school that was going to
1103 go on that project, that ultimately was denied. If we were allowed to consider traffic commitments, the
1104 intersection improvements, or the turn lanes, or the widening of any of those roads, they're not on the property.
1105 They're off the property. They would be tied to the developer in that case would have been obligated to make
1106 some or all of those improvements based upon the decision of the Commissioners and the recommendation of
1107 the Planning Board. So, similar in this case, the access road, essentially a long driveway, through another
1108 property, owned by another party, in this case, the County, must be made through negotiation between those
1109 two parties in order to realize the use as proposed on the site plan that you have before you tonight. So, is it
1110 reasonably tied to this proposed use and, as the negotiations proceed, what does the Planning Board feel that
1111 its role in making recommendation on what they feel is reasonably tied to the proposal should be? Does that
1112 make sense?
1113
1114 Charity Kirk: Can we say, "we approve this as long as you work with the County to deal with the road
1115 within a 5 year limit?" How can we proceed with this road that's currently unsettled?
1116
1117 Cy Stober: I'll give you the answer I shouldn't, which is the direct answer, but perhaps one that steps
1118 on legal toes, which is yeah. That would be a reasonable request. When you start getting into the nickels and
1119 dimes of what that should be and exactly where on the road, in your lay opinion, Treeist obligation ends and
1120 the County's begins, that starts getting outside the bounds of reasonable, but that general statement, I think, is
1121 a reasonable recommendation as tied to the Treeist application.
1122
1123 Melissa Poole: But isn't that addressed in the letter we discussed?
1124
1125 Cy Stober: It is. It would be the new Condition 6 that's offered by the applicant.
1126
1127 Melissa Poole: If we were to make the recommendation to approve with the conditions outlined, it's
1128 already outlined.
1129
1130 Cy Stober: Yeah.
1131
1132 Patrick Mallett: I just want to throw in one crumb. Unlike almost everything you've ever seen, Orange
1133 County is also the adjacent property owner. So, the applicant is going through a zoning process, there's also
1134 negotiations with an adjacent property owner. That's an added layer to this. So, you can take that for what it's
1135 worth.
1136
151
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
1137 Adam Beeman: I would be inclined to leave the easement alone because we're only making a
1138 recommendation, and the Board of County Commissioners would make that final determination. So, I would
1139 say it's better suited to be dealt with by them or potentially the applicant gets it solved before he gets to the
1140 Commissioners, if we approve it. But other than that, I don't know about putting some sort of recommendation
1141 or condition on easements because, ultimately, at the end of the day, nothing has been settled other than what
1142 he has here.
1143
1144 Charity Kirk: Would you just say, "we approve the package including this letter?"
1145
1146 Adam Beeman: Yes. I just wouldn't try to create new easement conditions, I guess, is what I'm trying to
1147 say. I'm more than happy to move forward with this letter that he's submitted, where he's basically saying, "I'm
1148 willing to work with the County," but there's no definitive what that means, let them hash that out. I don't know
1149 that we need to stick our nose in that portion of the process. That's just my opinion.
1150
1151 Beth Bronson: I did have a few questions. On Hatch Road, are you not already in the Rural Buffer?
1152
1153 Craig Nishimoto: We are in the Rural Buffer. Yeah.
1154
1155 Beth Bronson: Okay. I mean, that's okay. I guess I just want to point out currently that the company
1156 operates within the Rural Buffer. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
1157
1158 Craig Nishimoto: Maybe I need to clarify. My house is Rural Buffer, zoned Rural Buffer. The 1-acre
1159 commercial lot is some sort of weird business Carrboro zoning.
1160
1161 Beth Bronson: So, it's already a Conditionally Zoned within the Rural Buffer probably because of
1162 grandfathering laws, as in it was a business before the Rural Buffer existed.
1163
1164 Craig Nishimoto: It was zoned business before. Yeah.
1165
1166 Beth Bronson: Which is why it would be grandfathered. And then I guess, I have another question of
1167 would you accept tree recycling and reuse from any other companies? Do you do that now, currently?
1168
1169 Craig Nishimoto: We don't do it now. We don't have the room for it, but I imagine if we get these grapple
1170 trucks, we would be really the only company with those grapple trucks. For example, if a company was
1171 offering it to me now to pick up the logs, and I didn't have to bring a dump truck to site, I would pay them a lot
1172 of money to do that, and I foresee being able to offer that to other local tree services. To pick up their logs,
1173 that way they don't have to cut them up into firewood and throw them into the back of the truck or dispose of
1174 them. We can grab them for them and then add them to our piles. That would probably be in everyone's
1175 interest, and we are great networkers with other tree companies.
1176
1177 Beth Bronson: Obviously. Okay. And then do you grade and sell the mill wood?
1178
152
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
1179 Craig Nishimoto: No. That's another industry all together. Randall Williams is the guy who I most look up
1180 to and admire in this. He would really be the guy to ask about this, but we basically send it to him or operators
1181 like him.
1182
1183 Beth Bronson: You subcontract that, or just be the liaison in between...?
1184
1185 Craig Nishimoto: We give it away or we sell it to-
1186
1187 Beth Bronson: I was gonna say give it away as well too. I'm very fascinated by the training you could
1188 offer and the education opportunities that you would have to work in the community. That would further
1189 enhance, this whole purpose of the development within the Rural Buffer and why something like this
1190 Conditional Zoning District would be beneficial for the area. As somebody who has grown up around tree
1191 service, I do know that dealing with the waste is a large problem, and I've seen plenty of houses, not just with
1192 wood chips, but with logs and logs and logs, and I do know that byproduct can become the worse problem.
1193 Then actually what to do with it. It's what to do with the decaying of debris. What does the turnover look like at
1194 your current establishment?
1195
1196 Craig Nishimoto: It's a mess. We try to get rid of it as quickly as possible, and we're next to Brockwell
1197 Trucking on Calvendar, but they're over capacity, and some winters they'll just say, "No more. We can't take
1198 any more." And then we take some to a place down by Jordan Lake where they bury the stuff, and then
1199 sometimes Gorilla Materials. If the guys are working up in Durham, but it's a mess.
1200
1201 Beth Bronson: Thank you. And then I may have missed this. I see four conditions in the packet, and
1202 then I see the roadway condition of which, I'm glad to hear that you're excited to work with, you're optimistic
1203 about working with the County to create a better entry point for a place of business, like around a municipal
1204 field, should the County decide to move forward with that. Ideally, it would be awesome if they had a master
1205 plan that incorporated your driveway and a new easement. That's obviously very complicated. Getting an
1206 easement for a cell tower versus a business, well, the easement is the same thing. It's two completely
1207 different pieces.
1208
1209 Craig Nishimoto: Yeah. There's also power lines running through there too. So, you can't really put power
1210 lines through your soccer field. Or maybe you can.
1211
1212 Beth Bronson: You definitely can't. I guess as an agricultural enterprise versus, as we were talking
1213 about, the restrictions on that agricultural, obviously we want your business as it stands applying for the
1214 application. Right? Versus having grappling trucks or what in 5 to 10 years. Because that may be a different
1215 thing. It may be a different evolved business by then. Right? You may want two or three buildings to add
1216 onto or something like that.
1217
1218 Craig Nishimoto: I don't know that we would be able to do that. This is-
1219
1220 Beth Bronson: No, I'm just— It is not up to us to speculate on how your growth is going to go.
1221
1222 Craig Nishimoto: No. No. What I mean is, I think we're locked into this site plan.
153
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
1223
1224 Beth Bronson: You absolutely are. Yes. I guess that's what I mean about these discussions about the
1225 roadways, easement, and things like that, as well as the site plan itself effecting future business. I think we
1226 were just getting very speculative about some of this. It's just that I'm thinking about it as what you have now
1227 moving into it, and huge component of the education and your opportunity to be more of a community leader in
1228 that area because there are a ton of arborists.
1229
1230 Craig Nishimoto: On that, on that recreational stuff, we think it's absurd that people are into rock climbing in
1231 Chapel Hill. Why? There's not rocks. There's a lot of trees. We think it's absurd that when you go into REI,
1232 there's a rock climbing section but no tree climbing section. We want everyone, when they go camping with
1233 their kids, to bring tree climbing gear. We can teach them to do that. So, that's kind of the vision. We're at the
1234 cutting edge.
1235
1236 Beth Bronson: For the 100 foot setback, the moving it to 40 feet, is this on the southern border?
1237
1238 Craig Nishimoto: Yes.
1239
1240 Beth Bronson: Okay, of the Superfund site?
1241
1242 Craig Nishimoto: There are no neighbors there.
1243
1244 Beth Bronson: No. It says it's zoned as residential.
1245
1246 Craig Nishimoto: Well, wait a minute. Let me correct that. Because if you look at the site plan, there's a
1247 place where it's probably within 100 feet on the Duke Forest side too. So yeah. You're right. The Duke Forest
1248 is zoned Rural Buffer, and we might be incurred within that 100 feet. It's just not residential. It never will be.
1249
1250 Ashley Moncado: I can pull the conditions up. Those were the five that were provided in your packet, and
1251 I'm not sure if we're looking at adding a sixth or we would be revising Condition Number 5?
1252
1253 Melissa Poole: The letter was the sixth.
1254
1255 Ashley Moncado: There was the potential to have the BOCC considering an addition of six or that the letter
1256 is a response to five.
1257
1258 Cy Stober: Correct. Ashley is correct. The letter would replace Number 5.
1259
1260 Melissa Poole: So, we've got five. This is a procedural question because when you throw all these at us,
1261 we get mixed up when we've got to make a motion. So, are we doing Attachment 6, the Statement of
1262 Consistency, do we have to do all these individually, or can we put them all together?
1263
1264 Cy Stober: In the statement?
1265
1266 Melissa Poole: In the motion.
154
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
1267
1268 Cy Stober: I think Ashley has it laid out for y'all.
1269
1270 Lamar Proctor: Can I make a comment real quick? I just wanted to thank you because this is exactly the
1271 kind of business that I've been hoping for since I've been on the Planning Board. Something that's organic, and
1272 by organic, I mean it evolved locally, it evolved from a local need, it provides a local service, it's unique, it's
1273 consistent with the land use. You're not Dollar Tree, or you're not a particular corporation from another local.
1274 So, I just want to commend you and I think we need more of that. I just want to say that.
1275
1276 Statler Gilfillen: Can we get a proposal then to approve this?
1277
1278 Adam Beeman: As long as no one else has any other questions. Then I look for a motion.
1279
1280 Marilyn Carter: May I just ask for clarification, and maybe that's part of the motion making, of the
1281 conditions? Because we're going one, two, three, four, and then five with the letter.
1282
1283 Adam Beeman: Correct. So, with the statement, we're going to have to specify that this letter supersedes
1284 Number 5 on the conditions.
1285
1286 Cy Stober: So, the actions before you are you can vote to recommend as presented, which would
1287 include the five conditions Ashley already showed you. You can vote to make a recommendation with new
1288 conditions, which would include a modification to the conditions before you. So, you could-
1289
1290 Melissa Poole: Hold it. I already got it. You answered my question. That's all I needed.
1291
1292 Cy Stober: And then we also need a recommendation on the Statement of Consistency or
1293 Inconsistency.
1294
1295 Melissa Poole: That's what I was asking before. Is that separate?
1296
1297 Cy Stober: And you don't have to read the entire statement. No.
1298
1299 Melissa Poole: I greatly appreciate that. Okay, I make the recommendation to approve the applicant's
1300 proposal as presented with the exception of Condition 5 being replaced with the conditional approval outlined
1301 in the letter that states there will be ongoing collaboration between the applicant and the County regarding the
1302 access road to the property. That's it. And then we're going to do Statement of Consistency separate.
1303
1304 Delores Bailey: You said, "I make the recommendation," are you making a motion?
1305
1306 Melissa Poole: I make the motion.
1307
1308 Cy Stober: You can make one motion that addresses both or you can separate them. Either way is
1309 fine.
1310
155
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24
1311 MOTION BY Melissa Poole to recommend the approval as presented with the exception of replacing Condition 5
1312 as outlined with the letter included this evening, and also including the Recommendation of Approval with the
1313 Statement of Consistency, Attachment 6. Seconded by Statler Gilfillen.
1314
1315 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
1316
1317 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT
1318
1319 MOTION BY Melissa Poole to adjourn meeting. Seconded by Statler Gilfillen.
1320
1321 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
1322
1323 The meeting adjourned at 9:23 PM.
1324
1325
1326 Adam Beeman, Chair
156
5 1 A 1 EIDIEI9 I uF CuNsls I t1guy
uF A PKuPubEU ZU19INU A I LA5 MAP AM09UM09 I
WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
An applicant-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as
follovvs:
Parcel Owner of
Identification TownshiP Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Number (PIN) Record
■ Agrivaltaral Sapport
■ Raral Gaffer (RB) Enterprises Conditional
98/1-5U-3254 (.;nape) Rill Acer CC(; ■ Jordan CaKe District (ASE-(;D)
Unprotected Watershed ■ Jordan Lake
Unprotected Watershed
The Planniny Board hereby finds:
a. The rCyairements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and UnifiuU Development Oidinancc
llmetiUmetits and 2-.9.1 CMiUitiollal Ul"tii-UtS ut the UDO nave been reviewed and. daC to
the properffy being sarroanded 6y ase-restricted properties that are nignly anlikely to 6e
developed for residential purposes, the following standards deviations have been deemed
acceptable:
- Placement of wood chips, stamps and loys, branches and similar wood by-
prudacts witnin 1 uu teet of the residentially-coned properffy 60andaries.
- Allowance for changes in the exact placement of features and structures within the
IM pits of distarbanue and designated "activity area" on the site plan, sabjCc;t 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, sobjeut to staff review and approval; and,
b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 Statement of Intent - Amendments, and 1.1.7 Contorrmance
with Adopted Plans of the UDO and to Section 160D-604(d) Planning Board review and
uommunt- Plan ConsiS,tun cy and 160D-605(a) Govoining Boaid Statement— Plan
CMiSistetiuy ut the ldorffn Carolina General Statates, the Board tinas saffident
docamentation witnin the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the
adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
o. The amendment is oonsisTem vvith applicable plans bCoaase it sapporffs the follovving:
■ Planning Principle 2-. Sastaina6le (3rowtn and Development: Growth and development
within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable
157
uVei the lul►y-tei►i►.
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 Luniny Districts). The activity
and impact ut this use will be limited to the pruperffy, generating low volumes ut trarric
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 yeneratlny large veMiule miles traveled. Its proximity to municipal
centers while being separated tram the residential and commercial uses ut those
areas serves the matual needs of the region without negatively attesting the
surrounding properties. The proposed Agricultural Services Uses is permitted in the
ASE-CD zoniny district, complies with the LIDO standards except as noted, and
meets the standards of evaluations as reviewed by the Planniny Board.
■ Planning Principle 3A. Encouragement of Energy Etticiency; Cower Energy
Consumption, and the Use of Non-Polluting Renewable Energy Resource:
Deureasil►g the use mf,►Fj,►-renewable resuurues and loweri,►g e,►ergy uu,►sumptio,►
a►e e►►umu►ageu i►► both Nubliu anu N►ivate activities. I he umu►►ty's t►a►►sl�mrCatim►►
System snuuo be ennanceu to pIun►ute n►ure energy efficient ►i►uues or tiavel and
improve air quality.
The applicant will introduce a vvood prucessiny and reuse facility within close
proximity to municipal centers where arborist services and tree prucessiny are most
needed. i he other options are to uthe►wise rely upon vendors who travel tarFTher
distances; redistribute by-products to non-local marRets; and extract these resources
from Orange County while only contributing immediate services and a higher carbon
footprint. The proposed use supporrTs a local enterprise that can immediately
contribute to the reuse of the related materials and reduce traveled miles to suppurrT
the basiness.
■ Planning Principle 4. Natural Area Resource Protection: Protection of the County's
natural areas, including forests, wildlife habitat, and other important open spaces
shmuld be a Nrimrity. The Cum ay shur70 wmrk with rugimna/ and Imual mrganiZatimns,
Me tmw►►s, anupiivate lal►dmWl►els to Pim►nmte anu aunieve pieseivatim►► ur the
Cupnty's irr►pmrtar►t r►atural resources.
The applicant provided an Environmental Assessment as part of the application
Nackaye. Staff has revievved and determined no siynificani environmental impact is
expected trom this project based on existiny conditions. The project site plan protects
the existing stream on site with provided stream battering and strives to maintain
existing trees as part of the landscape buffer.
■ Planniny Principle 5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern: The County's rural
a►eas ale a cheiisnecl uumpui ew or the cxmity s uha►aure►. l-ut1771e UeVCIVI.I►►►el►t
158
should preserve and enhance the county's rural landscape.
i ne 2060 uum[irene,lsive Flail A[jpelldix V; Land use ulassltication and uvei lay
Locational Lriteria, identities Raral Hatter as land designated in the Uumprenensive
Plan as land adjacent to an urban or transition area which is rural in character and
vvhich should Iemali, rural, contail, very low-de,lsity residential uses, and not require
rima„ services daring tMe plan period. i he reson,ce-,elated activities witn the ase are
caiisistent w tM the rural r,atare of tMe area arid; as p,esented, will not dis,apt that
character, being on the perimeter of the Town of Chapel Hill's ETJ, surrcianded by
managed forests and County-owned lands that will not serve residential or
commercial parposes.
■ Planning Principle 6. Water Resaarces P,eservatiow 1 Pu County Pas tinite water
resources to provide to future populations. The protection and management of the
County's water lesoulces should be a high priority.
I Fie proposed prujeUt will atilice g,oandwater to service the fatale laird -use; as
permitted by the Orange County uivision of tnviranmental RealtM. in additiar,; tMe site
plan provides for an 65-foot stream buffer to protect water quality downstream.
■ Planning Prinei[lle t. Promotion of Ecu„umic Pros[le,ity mid Dive,sity: Development
of a diversity of new businesses and expansion or existing businesses snuuld uuum ill
Orange County.
I Fie appiica„t will provide a„ a„de,served market vvitn „Ceded semlues, particular ly
tar tMe nearby ma„ cipalities. I ne applica„t is pru[,usi,lg to ,elocate ail existing tree
care and consulting company currently operating in Uarrb010 to this site. Relocation
of this business to a rural setting will more appropriately allow for it to operate while
co, ti„ai„g to serve the Ilea,by mal Julpal market than it ca,I f,om its current placement
i„ a ma„icipality. i Fie applicant estimates that app,oval Cuald ueate 10 — 20 „ew
jobs.
■ Pla,II ill Ig Pri,idple 8. Preservation of Community Character: Future growth and
F7evempme,it snoul(d ul:um 111 a maime, that piesevves alld ui4ha17cus the CXI1_1Jtl17g
cnaracter ut the County, its tuwnsnips, and rural mossruads cullullmu'ries.
This agricultural support enterprise will be appropriately placed within the Rural Buffer
desiynated by both the 2030 Comprehe,Dive Plan a,Id the Orange County-Chapel
Hilkuarr5oro Joint Pla,n,ing Hg,eement La„d use Plan. It mall be situated such that it
is sarroanded by an actively managed torest, a tu,me, landtill, and a pioposed
recreation facility. There will be no disruption to residential quality of lite; and the
approval will il,troduce a new business to the area and to the county's business
community. Placeme„t of tnis basil less is ii harmo,ly with the immediately
sarroar,dir,g area on tMe edge of the i own of Cnapel Hill's t I J, a„d in the public
interest so as to conveniently place an arborist near manicipai cente,s wnile
separating it from the residential and commercial activities of those areas for a more
159
raral location 5airoanaea by similar ases.
■ Eand Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and
designation of future land uses, with availability of County serviLes and facilities
SUllll7elIt to meet the //eeds of O/a/ILy.C Comiry's populatloll alld eUU/IVmy Uu s srellr
vvlrn otnel Loll penell$lve IJla/l e/ellle/lt cJ.Vals a/ld ol7je(:tives.
I he application proposes an Agricultural Support Enterprise for an arborist and wood-
processing center within an area say iucinded by pablic ur quasi-pablic uses, including
the autively manayed Dake Ful est. The ti ee-I elated upel atiurls al a uurlsistent with
butts the raiai uhaiauter ut this immediate area as well as the mule intensive ase to
the SUC10 UT the termer uoanty landtill; which is in the I uwn ut Lhapel Rill's t I J.
While, by the applicant's admission; the operations will generate noise pollution and
some odors related to tree pi ucessing intu wuud bypi udacts, the ase is cunsistent
With the "luvv-intensity ayiLciltnial sappufT" ases allowed in the Raul BaffC, by the
Oranye Lonnty-Lhapel Rill-Uaiibuiu juint Planniny Hyieement (jPH) Cana use Plan.
I he site plan and uunaitiuns uummitted to by the appiivant will separate this ase Crum
the properties owned Orange County and proposed for a recreational facility featuring
multiple soccer fields. The combinatiun of the required screening and setbacks with
the natni al envie unmental featni es of this p.uperty and the adjacent uses will
adeyaately minimiLe impacts to scmuanainy piuperffies.
■ Eand Use voal 1: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions
and features, and that protect natural reseures, cultural resources, and community
uhavautev.
I he prupusea ase meets all UDu stanaaras tui battering and screening, as well as
t5e 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 une to minimize ,anuff intu the steam. The a,bu,ist will piucess namial wuud
predauts that can be reared leu-ally fug multiple p1hpuses, edouiny the need fug area
residents to rely apon Impuffea pfuciouts. I he Iestiiutluns that exist un tMe ases ut
most of the sarioanding properties shuald ensare that low-intensity agricaltaral
production of the site will have minimal negative impacts upon natural resources or
residents.
■ Cana use uual 3: H val►ety of lana uses Mat are coordinated witnill a Nluglavn ally
pattern that/irnits sprawl, preserves community and rural character rrlinirr►izes larid
use conflicts, supported by an effiLient and balanced transportation system.
I he prupusea arborist and tree piuuessing tauility will be plauea within the Kaial
Batter, away from residentially-used properties, and within the rural areas of the
county. The neighbui ing Dake Ful est pi uperty is, in fact, a site that may be actively
timbered at its owners' disuietiun; and the suathein. uuanty-uwned piupelffy is a
termer landtill that is limited in its redevelopment potential. I hese smivanding
i
160
conditions will allow the ase to be inherently baffered from neigftors and prevent
negative impacts to them that might ot5erwise auuar in a more densely developed
area. I he use is consistent with the future land use classification allowed by the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F; and is consistent with the land ase allowances for
tMe Raral gaffer in tMe ZIPA. TFie site will generate some new traffic; Eat tMe
cumalative daily employee and Easiness-related trips are ander the Coanty's
threshold for further analysis or offsite improvement.
■ Cand Use Goal 6: A land Use planning process that is transparent, tair, Open,
efficient, and responsive.
I Fie orange Uannty stats Mas noticed tMe paEliu 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
propefTy, and advertisement in the local newspapers. Additionally, staff Have provided
all application docaments on the Active Development Projects we6page, responded
to public inquiries, posted social media notices on the project, featured it in the
weekly newsletter, uommanivated and made boiM the BOCC and Planning Board
availaEie tar paEliu emails L;onL;erning tMe application.
■ Appendix F, Land Use Classification Description for Rural Buffer: Only vc,—y low
density resigelltial, ag/iUUltrhal Uses exeniNt t10111 zorliflg legUlatiuils' al/Cl luw-
intensity agricultural support uses are appropriate in the Rural buffer.
i he proposed ar3or st and tree-prouessing facility is a low-intensity Agrivaltaral
Sapport Enterprise and is consistent with the allowaEle tatare land ases within the
designated "Rural Buffer" land use classification of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
a. TFie amendment is reasonaEle and in tMe pa6lic interest 6ecaase it fartFters the goals of
the adopted uumprehensive Plan and is located in an area designated on the -atare Cand
Use Map as "Rural Buffer."
The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed
herein and reuummends tMe Board of Coanty Lummissioners uonsider adoption of tMe proposed
Loning Atlas Amendment.
Vote: /�— For, 0 Against
Adam Beemanithair Date
161
The Treeist
1200 Hatch Rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
l
www.treeist.com
Dear Mr. Stancil,
I appreciate the meeting today. To set out what we discussed in writing: I am happy to
accommodate reasonable changes regarding the location of the access road to our parcel.
We discussed the possibility that the best site plan for the County's anticipated soccer complex
may entail soccer fields where our current access road is located. If this or something similar
turns out to be the case, I am open to working with the County in allowing our access easement
to be shifted somewhere to the north, then dropping down to cross the stream in its current
location. I understand that such a new road may also provide access options to the anticipated
park for park users and maintenance staff.
I foresee being able to work with the County in potentially sharing costs for the construction and
maintenance of the new road. In particular, Treeist funds that might have otherwise been used
for the improvements and maintenance of the current access road might alternatively be
directed to the construction and maintenance of the new road. Such funds are unlikely to cover
all of the costs of building a new road, and they will be less if they must be used earlier for full or
significant improvements of the existing road. To that end, we would hope to limit the amount of
improvements we make to the existing road in order to give the County time and opportunity to
develop definite plans for their parcels.
We look forward to neighborly cooperation!
Sincerely,
Craig
Craig Nishimoto
Mobile: 984-215 - 8231
Email: craig@thetreeist.com
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
SO-7125B
162
r,n
2
163
Attachment 7
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 Owner of
Identification Township Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Number (PIN)
■ Agricultural Support
■ Rural Buffer (RB) Enterprises Conditional
9871-50-3254 Chapel Hill Acer LLC ■ Jordan Lake District (ASE-CD)
Unprotected Watershed ■ Jordan Lake
Unprotected Watershed
The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds:
a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments and 2.9.1 Conditional Districts of the LIDO 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:
0 Planning Principle 2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development
164
within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable
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
165
areas are a cherished component of the County's character. Future development
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 a 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, placing an arborist near municipal centers while separating it from the
166
residential and commercial activities of those areas for a more 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
167
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 Board of County Commissioners adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings
expressed herein.
Vote: For, Against
Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Date
Attachment 8 168
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 Owner of
Identification Township Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Number (PIN)
• ASE-CD
(Agricultural
• RB (Rural Buffer); Support Enterprises
9871-50-3254 Chapel Acer, LLC • Jordan Lake — Conditional
Hill Unprotected District);
Watershed • Jordan Lake
Unprotected
Watershed
The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds:
a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments of the UDO have been 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.
169
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 "Rural 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
170
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 Board of County Commissioners adopts this Statement of Inconsistency and the
findings expressed herein.
Vote: For, Against
Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Date
Ordinance#: ORD-2024-006 Attachment 9 171
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(1) 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(1) 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. Initial access to the applicant's property shall be through the current access easement held by
Crown Castle, LLC, and improved consistent with the County's road improvement terms and
standards.
Orange County intends to develop the property on which the existing access easement is located
into a park for recreational activities. When that development occurs, the County will construct and
record a new access road running along the northern boundary of the property with a north/south
172
connection to the applicant's property. When that new access road is recorded, as conceptually
shown in orange on the Attachment A map, the County may demand that the applicant discontinue
use of the initial access road and exclusively access applicant's property using the new access
road constructed by the County. The applicant agrees to comply with the County's demand within
ten business days.
6. The additional party to the current access easement, Crown Castle, LLC, shall be contacted and
their written response should acknowledge their use of the new access road once constructed, and
their abandonment of the current access easement.
7. Approval of this plan establishes a zoning vested right under NCGS 160D-108. Unless terminated
at an earlier date, the zoning right shall be valid until March 19, 2029.Approval of this plan
establishes a zoning vested right under NCGS 160D-108. Unless terminated at an earlier date, the
zoning right shall be valid until March 19, 2029.
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
173
t +I
pot
s
r P
Pt
'A
O 3y
Y�
f
I
a
a -
Q County Parcels -- —
N
Existing Road Easements
ORANGEFeet
Proposed Easement(exact route to be refined) Gau�rr A,, 300
' Planning and Inspections Department(BC)
Streams ,�,zlzo:a
Attachment 10 174
Bnoid= 132
P'eturn to: Enviroftek, 1111 Oberlin Rd. , Raleigh, N, C. 27605
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
DRAFTED BY: Edward B. Kirk, Orange County Planning Department
COUNTY OF ORANGE
ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned G.T.E.
Mobilnet, 1100 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 101, Morrisville,
North Carolina, 27560, having applied to Orange County for a
Special Use Permit for the use and development of the property
hereinafter described, the same was granted by Orange County on
January 9, 1995, the terms of which are as follows:
NAME OF PROJECT: G.T. E. Mobilnet, for the purpose of
erecting a 180' cellular communications
tower and a 312 square foot equipment
building.
TYPE OF SPECIAL USE: Class B Special Use Permit
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER: E. M. Blackwood and Julia Blackwood
NAME OF DEVELOPERS: G.T.E. Mobilnet
DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
LOCATION: A private road approximately 1480 feet west
of Mill House Road (SR 1725) .
TAX MAP REFERENCE: Chapel hill Township, Tax; Map 19, Lot 24F
/
DESCRIPTION OF I S 71 - 5-0 -3 ;� S V
PROPERTY: All of the 10.01 acres indicated as Tract 3
shown on the plat and survey by Stephen E.
Wilson, Registered Land Surveyor, entitled
Property of Eugene Blackwood and Julia
Blackwood and recorded on Plat Book 43, Page
86, of the Orange County Registry,
hereinafter referred to as "the property"
1
175
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITTON8
The Board of Adjustment of Grange County approved granting a
CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT on January 9, 1995 applicable to the
property. The project subject to this SPECIAL USE PERMIT is
described above and shown on the Site Plan by Envirotek dated
December 15, 1994. G.T.E. Mobilnet will place a 180' cellular
communications tower and a 312 square foot egipment building on
the property. The terms herein contained are binding on the
present owners and lessees and their successors in title and in
interest until the expiration of this permit and any extension of
its expiration date, until such time as this permit is otherwise
changed by government action.
The 180' cellular communications tower, the equipment building
and all other site improvements shall be constructed in
accordance with the Site Plan dated December 15, 1994 and all
impact and safety commitments shall be as contained in the
narrative statement of the project all of which are incorporated
herein and made a part of this Special Use Permit. Copies of the
final site plan and supporting documentation are on file in the
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Except as
detailed on the Site Flan, the property will remain and be
maintained in its natural condition. The condition of approval
is as follows:
1. Prior to obtaining a building permit, an application on form
7460-1 must be approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration.
2. Existing vegetation shall be maintained as indicated on the
site plan.
3. The height of the tower may not exceed 180 feet.
4. The 180 foot fall down radius, as indicated on the site plan
must be located entirely within the 10.01 acre tract.
5. Per agreement of G.T.E. Mobilnet, G.T.E. Mobilnet shall
provide and lease space on the tower permitted by this
Special Use Permit to at least one other user, on a
commercially reasonable basis, provided the other user(s)
use of the tower does not unreasonably interfere with the
operation of G.T.E. Mobilnet facility (tower) . G.T.E.
Mobilnet shall have the burden of establishing commercial
unreasonability and unreasonable interference.
2
176
000x1327 Far€ 134
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grange County has caused this instrument
to be executed in its name as evidence of the issuance of said
permit, and the undersigned being all of the property owners of
the property above described, have executed this instrument in
evidence of their acceptance of said Special Use Permit as a
coy fenxt running with the land.
ATTEST ORANGE COUNTY
90
BEVERLYX. BLYTf, J N"M. LI'
CO TY MANAGER
CLERK TO THE SHARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
ACCEPTED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
file
E. Mobilnet
[SEAL]
L?.`3e�� !+ t ' f Vice President
G.T.E. Mobilnet
PPJI'PPI i�1641�it,r
ATTEST:
,,95s Secretary r
(SEAL)
l J E. M. Blackwood
L�rrG (SEAL)
Julia Blackwood-
3
lackwood3
177
BDO-M27 Prf 135
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
I, a Notary Public in and for said
County tnd State do hereby certify that John M. Link, Jr. County
Manager of Orange County, and Beverly B. Blythe, Clerk to Board
of Commissioners, personally appeared before me and duly sworn
says each for himself that he knows the corporate seal of the
County of Orange and that the seal of the County of Orange was
affixed to the document by Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board
of Commissioners and that they subscribed their names thereto,
that the corporate seal of the County of Orange was affixed by
virtue of a resolution of Board of County Commissioners, and that
said instrument is the act and deed of the County of Orange.
IN WITNESS 'WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial
SF .this the _2- day of _JrirNka(-! , 1995•
Notary Public
My commission expires:
''ry�erssrsst
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
I, _ K� Cl-R-D Notary Public for said County and
State, ce tify that' FhijiDl... Fsrhds personally came before me
this day and acknowledged that he is t�ssis±a^+
of G.T.E. Mobilnet, a corporation, and that by authority duly
given and as the act of the corporation the foregoing instrument
was signed in its name by its ce_ Pres i d-a.+ #- sealed with
its corporate seal, and attested by himself as its
Witness my hand and official seal, this the I day of
r , 19 f,-.
> iary pubitilc'
�Q tQ k ary Pubs G^r""-s County.Grapzs
�f51$n expires
H.,� .,:m:-_,, �L.., _r t��s 2? +Pad 19_-
4
178
�oqx 027 PAq 136
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY
I, a. Notary Public in and for said
County and State do her by certify that E. M. Blackwood and Julia
Blackwood personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged
the due execution of the foregoing instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal, this the day of
1495.
N6tary Pub!
My commission expires:
State of north Cerofilna-GringA COtirtty/iL46Z�� C. y
The foregoing certified—,Of
-40(arks) Public W the Diisignated Go r m ntal
unit; 7g lar+ej f.Afied to ba eor t. See Filing certificate herein.
y of 13
Betsy Jur» wayes
Register of Ueeds By: Asm�M" vrxo'/
Register of Deeds
F I LEI)
17 FES 1995, at IQ:42: 1;'AM
Book 1327, Page 132 - 126
Betty June Hayes,
F;egister of DeL-dS,
Oranue County, N. i_.
S