Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
8-7-24 PB Agenda Packet
1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 f 17 52 sa Q car" AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD WHITTED MEETING FACILITY 300 WEST TRYON STREET, SECOND FLOOR I-IILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Wednesday, August 7, 2024 Regular Meeting — 7:00 pm No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER 2 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 4 -5 a. Planning Calendar for August and September 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6 - 44 July 10, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 5. PUBLIC CHARGE Introduction to the Public Charge The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB)to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. Public Charge The Planning Board pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, County staff, and Board members. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. Please be kind to everyone. 6. CHAIR COMMENTS 2 No. Page(s) Agenda Item 7. 45 - 100 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (CONVENTIONAL DISTRICT) - TO review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant-initiated zoning atlas amendment to rezone one parcel totaling +/- 112.17 acres from MPD-CD (Master Plan Development — Conditional District) to R-1 (Rural Residential). The parcel is located at 1031 Frazier Road, Mebane within the Cheeks Township (PIN: 9835-74-8573). This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 5, 2024. Presenter: Lauren Coffey, Planner 1 8. 101 - 140 MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT: To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Preliminary Plat application for a Major Subdivision named Stonewall. The Plat is consistent with the Concept Plan reviewed and approved by the Planning Board in April 2024. The proposal is for an 18-lot subdivision on approximately 36.36 acres with 47.9% (17.42 acres) of dedicated open space. The parcel is located on Miller Road in the Hillsborough Township, PIN 9875-64- 5097. Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Planner III 9. 141 - 186 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT - To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a County-initiated zoning atlas amendment to amend the boundary of the Watershed Protection Overlay District on two parcels located east of Dimmocks Mill Road, Hillsborough within the Hillsborough Township (PINs: 9863-09-3922 and 9864-00-2205). This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 5, 2024. Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director— Development Services 10. 187 - 232 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT - To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a County-initiated zoning atlas amendment to amend the boundary of the Watershed Protection Overlay District on a parcel located at 711 Faith Way Road, Mebane within the Cheeks Township (PIN: 9835-67-1605). This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 5, 2024. Presenter: Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director— Development Services 11. ADJOURNMENT Sign up to receive a notification when Planning Board agendas are posted Interested persons can sign up at https://www.orangecountync.gov/list.aspx to receive a notification when agendas are posted. (Scroll down to the "Agenda Center" category and choose Planning Board). 3 Monthly Planning & Inspections Newsletter Sign up at https://www.orangecountync.qov/list.aspx?ListlD=408 to receive the monthly communication on happenings in the Planning & Inspections Department. Written Comments Interested persons who cannot attend the meeting in-person are invited to submit written comments on agenda items to the Planning Board via email at plan ning board(d�orangecountync.qov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting. Please include in the Subject line of the email the title of the agenda item your comment pertains to. Emails sent to this address are viewable on Google Groups: https://qroups.google.com/g/ocplanningboard Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department's offices at 131 W. Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). Written comments will be scanned and sent by staff to the email address indicated above. Review Process The Planning Board is an appointed volunteer advisory board which makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (the elected officials). The Board of County Commissioners holds a formal public hearing and makes decisions. Section 2.8 of the County's Unified Development Ordinance contains a flowchart depicting the review process for rezoning and text amendment applications. Planning Board Member Potential Conflict of Interest It is the duty of every Board member to avoid both conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict. Board members having any conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict with respect to matters before the Board should identify the conflict or appearance of conflict and refrain from undue participation in the matter involved. As a reminder, NC General Statute § 160D-109 establishes the following standard: Members of appointed boards shall not vote on any advisory or legislative decision regarding a development regulation where the outcome of the matter being considered is reasonably likely to have a direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on the member. An appointed board member shall not vote on any zoning amendment if the landowner of the property subject to a rezoning petition or the applicant for a text amendment is a person with whom the member has a close familial, business, or other associational relationship. If any Planning Board member has any concern about a possible conflict related to an agenda item, please notify Planning staff and get in touch directly with a member of the County Attorney's staff before the meeting time to determine whether a conflict exists —and if so, how best to handle the potential conflict. 4 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Frida Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Planning Board Meeting 7:00 pm* Whitted Bldg. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Board of Adjustment 7:00 pm Whitted Bldg. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: * Planning Board member attendance required Planning Board meetings are held at Whitted Human Services Building - Donna S. Baker Meeting Room 2nd floor 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 5 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday FridaySaturday 1 12 3 4 5 6 7 Planning Board BOCC Meeting Business 7:00 pm* Meeting 7:00 pm Whitted Bldg. Whitted Bldg. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 BOCC Work Session Board of 7:00 pm Adjustment 7:00 pm* Southern Human Sery Whitted Bldg. Ctr. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 BOCC Business Meeting 7:00 pm Southern Human Sery Ctr. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BOCC Joint Meeting with School Boards 7:00 pm Whitted Bldg. 29 30 Notes: * Planning Board member attendance required Planning Board meetings are held at Whitted Human Services Building - Donna S. Baker Meeting Room (2nd floor) 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 6 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 JULY 10,2024 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), 7 Cheeks Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Steve 8 Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; Charity Kirk,At-Large Representative; Chris 9 Johnston, Hillsborough Township Representative; Whitney Watson,At-Large Representative; Liz 10 Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Beth Bronson,At-Large Representative. 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Marilyn Carter,At-Large Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large Representative 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Perdlta Holtz, Deputy Director—Long Range Planning &Administration; Patrick Mallett, 15 Deputy Director— Development Services; Tom Altieri, Senior Planner— Long Range 16 Planning &Administration; Lauren Coffey, Planner I; Jack Moran, Planning Technician 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Edwin Cox, Clare Steece Julich, Stephen Stiebel, Joan Shui, Betty Lou Whitford, Meg 19 Sorrell, Deborah Chestnutt, Francine Warwick, Wendy Curtis, James Curtis, Mark Mason, 20 Lisa Clark, Robin Rosenthal, Margret Mueller, Anna Myronova, Robin Royster, John 21 Kizer, Carol Kizer, Jamal Tomlinson, Elley Schopler, Susan Houck, Debra H.,Andrew 22 Shauer, Mitch Renkow, Beth Williams, Debbie Stanford,Jim Mellon, Pat Gingrich, David 23 Ikenberry, Colin Austin, Dean Herington, Ron Royster,Aadra Bhatt, David D'Agostino, Robert 24 Dalton, Mary Deb Enslung, Carol Mellon, Cynthia Suggs, Mike Fox, Cheryl Fox,Whitney Fry, Bob 25 Gingrich. Linda Ikenberry, Dan Eddleman, Margaret E. Craft, Mareah Steketee, Norma Stanley- 26 Bibbey, Tom Cheek, Doug Shier, Ralph Hinkel, Ellen Lohr-Hinkel, Rose Etheridge, Gregory Rapp, 27 Bryna Rapp, Sadie Rapp, Chris Martin, Virginia Callghan, Kevin Davidson, Jasmine Bauer, Peter 28 Childers,Vicki Childers, Bree Ralb, Ralph Warren, Barbara Warren, Jean Eddleman,Alan Julich, 29 Scott Radway, George Gurley,John Felton, Kathy McHugh,Jason Pickard, Laura Streitfeld, 30 Susan Zimmerman, Beth Thompson, Daniel Mason, Chelsea Payne,Aviva Enoch, Roberto 31 Romeno, Coy Isaacs, Miriam Cowan, S. Shahin, Laura Walter, Sarah Thompson, YB Howard. 32 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 33 The meeting began at 7:02 PM. 34 35 Adam Beeman: I'm going to call this meeting to order. Before we get started, I have Tom Altieri with a few 36 informational items. 37 38 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 39 40 Tom Altieri: Yes, thank you. Just about a 60 second announcement before you get started, I'm Tom 41 Altieri, Orange County senior planner. I wanted to announce that the County is currently 42 working on a process to update its land use plan. The project is called Land Use Plan 43 2050. We will be kicking off our second window of community engagement in late 44 September and it will span through October. We have a kickoff meeting that's scheduled 45 at Gravelly Hill Middle School on September 25th. That will be from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Maybe 46 more so for the benefit of the group here this evening, we'll also be holding a meeting on 47 the plan update in the White Cross area at the American Legion Post facility off of NC 54. 48 1 do not yet have a date for that meeting, but that will be in October. We have not started 49 the notification process yet, but we will certainly be doing that and getting the word out for 50 those meetings as well as some others in the county to be scheduled, but I wanted to 51 make that announcement this evening. If people, tonight, are interested and want to sign 52 up for updates on the project, they can do that. It's a website 53 orangecountylanduseplan.com, and I welcome you to do that, and I'll be back to the 7 54 Planning Board for your September meeting with a more detailed update on the process. 55 1 have a few links to the website, notification brochures, that I'll leave on the back table 56 here for any members of the public that might want to pick that up on their way out. 57 58 Charity Kirk: Do you know when the draft version of the plan is going to be out for discussion? 59 60 Tom Altieri: We'll have a draft version for our third wave of outreach, which will be late this year, 61 possibly early in the new year, and then that will precede a public hearing process to 62 occur later, probably after our summer meeting break next year, so ball parking around 63 the September, October timeframe for a potential county commissioner hearing and, of 64 course, a planning board recommendation that would precede it. 65 66 Charity Kirk: Thank you. 67 68 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 69 None. 70 71 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 72 73 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 74 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 75 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land 76 development law of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish 77 coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers 78 the present and future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive 79 process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall 80 County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and 81 quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 82 83 PUBLIC CHARGE 84 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks 85 its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board 86 and with fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to 87 observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting 88 until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair 89 will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is 90 observed. 91 92 Adam Beeman read the public charge. 93 94 Adam Beeman: I don't have any other comments. As of the last meeting, the staff had done their 95 presentation and the applicant tonight has 5 minutes to get up there, and he has an 96 update to something that he was adjusting from comments, so he's going to have 5 97 minutes to speak, and then the board has two people that have left to question the 98 applicant, and then we'll go to public comment. As far as public comment is concerned, if 99 you weren't here and did not sign up to speak in the June meeting, unfortunately, you will 100 not be allowed to speak tonight. There is an avenue through Google docs where you can 101 submit your comments to us. There's an avenue through Google flocs where you can 102 submit your comments to the board of county commissioners, and you can also go to the 103 board of county commissioners meeting and have your public comments heard there 8 104 when this application gets to them. With nothing else, we're going to give the applicant 105 his 5 minutes to update us on what he had changed and then we're going to move on to 106 questioning and get onto the public comment. 107 108 Edwin Cox: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening, everyone. I'm Edwin Cox. I'm the president 109 of Hands Four. We've heard some comments at the June 5th meeting to the effect that it 110 was not clear that we were fully committed to be a community of elderly residents and that 111 we needed, or it would be advisable for us to provide, some sort of very credible indication 112 that that is the case, and we took that to heart. We went back and became more fully 113 informed about what it means to be a community of persons 55 and older. That is 114 enshrined in the law and a very specific terminology. It brings very specific criteria for 115 being such a community. I won't go into those now for the lack of time, but we studied 116 that very carefully and became more informed, and we took it to our community, our 117 cooperative, and as a cooperative we have now decided that we will declare ourselves to 118 be a community for persons 55 and older. I can explain more about that in response to 119 questions later in the meeting, but that's what we have to say at the moment. 120 121 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 122 123 Adam Beeman: Thank you very much. I also had to approve the minutes from last month. Do I have a 124 motion to approve last month's minutes? 125 126 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to approve the meeting minutes. Seconded by Lamar Proctor 127 128 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 129 130 Adam Beeman: All right. Beth? You're up if you have any questions for the applicant because you didn't 131 get a chance to finish. 132 133 Beth Bronson: Thank you. The last time I was up here, I asked about the utilities and emergency 134 services, I believe that was where we left off. I guess that my question for the applicant 135 would be what kind of integration or communication have you had with the county's 136 emergency services or the volunteer fire departments, first responders, as to how you 137 would handle an emergency in the rural area for the group medical centers? 138 139 Scott Radway: Thank you for the question. I don't have a graphic up here yet or available to show that 140 as deep in all the other material that's in there, but for a quick answer, let me do the 141 emergency responder person issue first. Orange County requires that residential 142 developments that have more than 100 dwelling units have two ways in and out to the 143 property and that's what we have on the plan, a primary entrance on Morrow Mill Road 144 and what we believe will be an emergency vehicle service entrance only from Goldmine 145 Loop. We have worked with them at a number of meetings and gone through the various 146 pieces of fire protection that are needed, police protection, vehicles, how they get in and 147 how they get out, how they work within the internal road system, and then connected that 148 also with what happens for fire service, which was a portion of the question, and for fire 149 service, there's different layers for the proposed three multi-story, three-story buildings. 150 Those all have to be sprinklered. So, part of the system that we will be putting in place, 151 the wells and the public water system regulated by the state, will be lines of sufficient 152 pressure and sufficient capacity and storage so that all of those buildings will be 153 sprinklered according to building code, which is State code and County code also. There 9 154 will also be a public, if you will call it, water system, although it's not a public like county 155 owned or city owned, that will be lines that provide distribution water to all of the 156 properties, all the homes, all the buildings, and those will also be operated just as if they 157 were a municipal utility providing water from all of the water quality requirements, all of the 158 water pressure requirements, all of those things. Again, that is reviewed and approved or 159 criticized and resubmitted and approved by the state. The County also has a role in that 160 you don't directly approve those pieces, but I think as Cy noted at the last meeting, the 161 County has a direct obligation to make sure that those rules and that this proposal actually 162 are copacetic and do work together, and so there are overlaps of looks at that. The water 163 distribution will go basically along the street system that's internal,just like it would in a 164 city structure with water pipes, and the same for collection for wastewater, which would go 165 to a treatment plant, and then which goes through a treatment level and out, so that's sort 166 of the basic structure, that organization, of how those pieces fit together. 167 168 Beth Bronson: Thank you, I saw the proposed water assessment and having the four main wells, and 169 then I also saw from the department of environment quality that where those wells were 170 located were also in protected areas, buffer zones for the existing protected waters that 171 were there, either the streams or ephemeral streams— 172 173 Scott Radway: You saw that they were or were not? 174 175 Beth Bronson: They were within the areas of where the stream buffers would be. 176 177 Scott Radway: No, they are not. Those wells are located outside the buffers required by both the State 178 and the County, and there is an additional dimensional feature in there in addition to just 179 buffers of how far you have to actually be from the stream. And so, of the wells we have 180 proposed and all that we would ever get permitted, none of them can be within a buffer 181 and the ones that are showing on our plan are not within any buffers or any protected 182 stream areas. It's hard when you're looking at a small drawing of a big map to be able to 183 decipher all of those pieces. 184 185 Beth Bronson: I was looking at Attachment 1, Page 206, but it was where those four wells are proposed 186 and you are correct, well C does not look like it and they do not look like they are near the 187 buffer area but thank you very much for addressing those concerns. I guess I did not see 188 in that report that there was a proposal for any kind. You have worked with emergency 189 services to make sure that you've required this, but that is depending upon the pipes 190 being to pressure at all times or there'd be a reservoir for the sprinkler system? 191 192 Scott Radway: There's a minimum pressure you have to have all the time in the fire sprinkler system. In 193 addition to that, if a sprinkler head comes on, there is a pressure that you have to have 194 and that has to be maintained in the system and it's based on time. So, you'd have to 195 have that to operate for a number of minutes. There's two overlaps here as it fits in within 196 the county's volunteer fire structure, which is, the most important pieces are don't let 197 damage happen or absolutely minimize the damage until the fire protection services can 198 get to the property with their equipment and so we have not run a time structure test on 199 this yet in order to size the tanks and to work on the pressure, but before we get 200 approved, we anticipate we will have the fire company out there, from the cooperating 201 agreements with Carrboro and others, Hillsborough agreement, for service for aerial 202 trucks also that we will have worked out what is the time period for which we will keep that 203 pressurized system in place. I've done one of these before in Orange County for a 10 204 neighborhood of single-family houses, and we couldn't get permission until we absolutely 205 satisfied the State on the time periods. 206 207 Beth Bronson: Understandable. So,just to be clear that the three-story buildings that have a care facility 208 in them, those will have the sprinkler systems, or the community center would have them, 209 but then all of the 150 homes that are proposed would not, and they would be specifically 210 reliant on the emergency services that were available in that district? In Bingham? 211 212 Scott Radway: The three-story buildings for multifamily would have sprinklers. The other 90 dwellings 213 that we've proposed are single family houses sort of side-by-side, attached single family, 214 and then three together townhouse or triplex, realtor language differs from regulatory 215 language, but those can be sprinklered. They don't have to be sprinklered by building 216 code, and being the location that's pretty accessible, so we have some time response 217 things, so I think working advantage of this location. 218 219 Beth Bronson: I did drive by there today and did a time trip from the intersection at Morrow Mill and 54 220 down to the hospital, the emergency department basically, and it was 15 minutes. It was 221 interesting to see because I grew up in that area, and so I know kind of how far out of 222 town it is, but you forget how close and yet how far away as well. 223 224 Scott Radway: I did that trip 2 weeks ago myself. 225 226 Beth Bronson: Oh my. I hope there were no potholes. 227 228 Scott Radway: Thank you for your questions. 229 230 Adam Beeman: For expediency, I'm just going to go right to the public comments unless anybody else has 231 any other questions. 232 233 Beth Bronson: If I had a comment that was pending, I do not have it anymore. 234 235 Adam Beeman: Anybody else on the board have any follow-ups? 236 237 Statler Gilfillen: I just would like a clarification of the first gentleman that spoke. You made the comment 238 that it is declared that it would be for people over 55. Is that meant that you are declaring 239 it as a legal issue to include in the final documents so that that is binding? Declared 240 doesn't tell me. Is it legally binding? That's all. 241 242 Scott Radway: That's a great question and it pushes us into the weeds on some issues. If you're an age 243 55, there's three types of descriptions you can say that HUD finds, or the federal register 244 has found in its definitions to be acceptable for this community. One is it's senior housing, 245 one is a retirement community, or one is its age 55 plus and you have to advertise and go 246 through a whole bunch of legal steps, and if you don't advertise correctly of what you are 247 and other things, you're subject to a number of penalties. You can, we can, an applicant 248 can, but somebody will declare that they are an age-restricted, age 55-plus community 249 and then there's, we talked a little bit about it last month, there is the split between how 250 many households have to be occupied by people that are 55 and older and how many 251 could be occupied that are 54 and younger, and as a community or as an entity you can 252 choose. The minimum you can do is you have to be at least 80 percent senior housing 253 occupied by 55 and older. The mechanisms for enforcement of that are some are civil, 11 254 and they go with people who are residents of that development. If they don't think it's at 255 the right balance, they can bring a complaint, and they can go to court and adjudicate it in 256 that fashion. The most likely way to make it a binding agreement would be that the 257 applicant offers that it will be this kind of a community to the county commissioners. They 258 agree that that's a good thing, and with both parties in agreement, it could then be put into 259 the zoning approval. 260 261 Adam Beeman: What he's asking is, are you guys proposing that as a condition for the zoning package, 262 so in the zoning package, the condition would be a 55 and older community. I think that's 263 what he's trying to get to here. Are you guys willing to put that in writing as a condition 264 right now as part of our consideration, pretty sure that's what he's asking. 265 266 Scott Radway: We are proposing, yes, that it will be age 55 community. 267 268 Adam Beeman: And that is a condition? 269 270 Statler Gilfillen: Put it in writing so that it's a legal binding issue. That's all. 271 272 Scott Radway: We can't do that at this time. We can put it in writing what we're proposing. It doesn't 273 become legal until the board of county commissioners would do something with it. For 274 our intent with you, yes. 275 276 Adam Beeman: Right, this is the back and forth. We can negotiate, like if we wanted to say oh, we want 277 you to put up solar panels on everybody's building, you say no. Well, we can go back and 278 forth and have that discussion. And so, in that same step that you guys are proposing, the 279 55 and older, then that would be a condition in the zoning where that's a 55 and older 280 community period. 281 282 Scott Radway: I thought the question was more about at what point is it possible to insert that as a legal 283 condition within the zoning approval process. 284 285 Adam Beeman: If that's what you are guys are saying is a condition, then that will be part of our approval if 286 we do approve it at the end of the night, it will be included in our verbiage that it's a 55 287 and older community, so if you guys are in agreement, then we'll move forward from there 288 and get the public comment. 289 290 Lamar Proctor: Just a follow-up question to that, what you're saying is if you use that specific verbiage, 291 then that puts you under federal regulations to that 80 percent, at least 80 percent of the 292 housing has to be sold to or owned by persons 55 and older? 293 294 Scott Radway: Not precisely that. It has to be occupied by somebody 55 or older, so I could buy it for my 295 mother, or I could own it for my mother to be in it and there are, if you want to read the full 296 set of federal register regulations from 1999, I'll be glad to forward them to you. 297 298 Lamar Proctor: So, 80 percent of the occupants? 299 300 Scott Radway: Eighty percent occupancy by household that's got one 55 or older person and you have to 301 do an annual census of the residents and the dwelling units in the property and have that 302 record available any time somebody wants to look at it. One of the things that I think Pat 303 and I talked about is an aspect of reporting that information back to the County. The 12 304 County is left out of that process. Local government is left out of that process via the 305 federal regulations, but it's a piece of information for follow up to verify that the 306 development is doing what it says it was going to do, and so that's another mechanism of 307 making sure that it happens. 308 309 Adam Beeman: Thank you. 310 311 Beth Bronson: The only other condition I would discuss is basically you were explaining about the first 312 responder, you referred to the Goldmine Loop entrance as an emergency vehicle only 313 entrance. 314 315 Scott Radway: Yes. 316 317 Beth Bronson: And is that the original intention and is that an okay condition for the approval? 318 319 Scott Radway: I would say the original intention when we did the first concept, no it wasn't based on 320 where dwelling units were in initial concepts and as they evolved we reached the point 321 where it became apparent that most of our development was going to go out to, and the 322 application you have with the location of dwelling units, neighbors across the street on 323 Goldmine Road, Mr. Fox and his family and their neighbors, when we met with them two 324 times at least, discussed the issue of traffic coming out and being on that road, and so we 325 did explore what mechanism is there for doing an emergency services access entrance 326 only, and so again, back to talking to emergency services and go through all of the other 327 pieces that have to go through there, and as a County, you already have standards for the 328 kind of gated emergency vehicle access that could be used, and so there is both the 329 standard and a model in many places already in the county for that kind of gate piece to 330 occur. We have thought about where it might be, along that entrance road, how it would 331 make possible for somebody who makes a mistake to get into the site and turn around 332 safely, so the gate might not be right at the edge of the property. It might be internal to 333 the property some distance, but the goal and the effect would be to keep all of the 334 Fiddlehead Corner traffic going out onto Morrow Mill Road. Back to your back and forth 335 and the discussion among yourselves and with the community, is if you think that's 336 inadvisable with the issues around the neighborhood, I'd suggest that you put that within 337 your recommendations. 338 339 Beth Bronson: Thank you very much for providing those responses and clarification. 340 341 Adam Beeman: So, we're going to head to public comment. There's a time of 3 minutes. We have one 342 person that was granted 12 minutes to speak. She will speak first. I'm going to call three 343 names. If you guys just want to come up, stand in the line and we can move through this 344 because if everybody here speaks we have 3 hours of public comment. I need to ask that 345 if it's redundant and repetitive, please just say I agree with so and so and we can kind of 346 get through this. I'm not trying to strip you from your time, but to hear you say it over and 347 over again it's going to be a long night. 348 349 Charity Kirk: Should they clarify the topic they're supposed to be speaking about. 350 351 Adam Beeman: We're just going to let them have their 3 minutes. 352 353 Charity Kirk: But it's 3 minutes per item. 13 354 355 Adam Beeman: Correct. 356 357 Charity Kirk: So, which item are you? 358 359 Adam Beeman: Item 7 is the first one up. So, comprehensive plan, future land use map, and text 360 amendments, but before we start that, Laura Streitfeld has the floor for 12 minutes. 361 362 Statler Gilfillen: Can I just make a comment. I think we all remember that one of the greatest speeches in 363 American history about one of the most complex things ever said was the Gettysburg 364 address. Lincoln condensed it down into 2 minutes. You have each got 3'/z minutes. 365 Thank you. 366 367 Chris Johnston: I apologize, so to confirm we have re-split up the 3-minute speaking time for someone 368 based on — 369 370 Charity Kirk: I thought it was 9 minutes total. 371 372 Adam Beeman: Based on what I have, I'm going to read your name and if you happen to be on another 373 page, you're going to get your name and you come back for another 3 minutes and if 374 you're on another page, I'm going to read your name again, you're going to come up and 375 get your third 3 minutes. That's the way that this has been labeled. 376 377 Chris Johnston: All right. Does there need to be a clarification of what the speaker is talking about when 378 they come up to speak. 379 380 Charity Kirk: I thought it was just 9 minutes total and all at once. 381 382 Adam Beeman: Nope. Because, technically, you signed up to speak on that particular amendment, and if 383 you don't, you're not talking about that topic, then it's kind of just tough. I'm just going to 384 let everybody have their time and we're going to listen to what everybody has to say. 385 386 Charity Kirk: I would, I would rather not have people repeat the same thing 3 minutes, 3 minutes, and 3 387 minutes. 388 389 Adam Beeman: Correct, that's why I asked to not be redundant. Just stand up and agree with the 390 previous person if that's what you do, make it strong. The floor is yours. 391 392 AGENDA ITEM 7: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP(FLUM)AND TEXT AMENDMENTS—To 393 continue review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on applicant-initiated amendments to the 2030 394 Comprehensive Plan to amend the FLUM to expand a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN); and to 395 amend the text of Appendix F: Land Use and Zoning Matrix. The BOCC public hearing date is "to be 396 determined." 397 398 Laura Streitfeld: I'm Laura Streitfeld, and I live on Morrow Farm Lane off of Morrow Mill Road in Bingham 399 Township. I'm speaking first about Item 7. According to the planning director, until this 400 application no developer has asked to change the county's comprehensive plan, which is 401 guided by robust public participation. This meeting is continued and although some of us 402 signed up to speak in June, the numerous community members opposed to the project, 403 who are here tonight hoping to speak, and yet, even if everyone here were to speak 14 404 tonight, we represent a small fraction of the wider community expected to participate in 405 envisioning County land use policy for the next 26 years. On Highway 54 and Morrow Mill 406 Road, there's a gas station, convenience store, and Piedmont Feed fully consistent with 407 the definition of rural neighborhood activity nodes in the UDO and comprehensive plan. 408 Seeking rural neighborhood activity node, which I'll call RNAN, designation to add 70 plus 409 acres of mixed use, serving only this proposed private development's residents and 410 visitors is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan's direction to locate RNANs to serve 411 the local agricultural and residential community. Changing policy to allow commercial use 412 with no public benefit on a non-crossroads property would threaten the genuine public 413 interest of local communities of crossroads throughout Orange County. The future land 414 use map includes ten RNAN nodes totaling 1,166 acres and 82 percent of that is zoned 415 agricultural residential, 15 percent of it is R1 residential. By design, these nodes are 416 confined to a small radius. This developer requests adding 70 plus acres to a 125-acre 417 node beyond the circle. The intersection of 54 and Morrow Mill Road, like other nodes, is 418 not in an area marked for transition from rural to urban-type development or infrastructure. 419 This is a significant inconsistency because development standards in the LIDO state that 420 MPD-CD districts shall be limited to transition land use categories. If this board were to 421 recommend allowing MPD-CDs in nodes, you would open up ten nodes in non-transition 422 areas to unlimited exponential high-density intrusion into the surrounding low-density rural 423 communities. It's important to note that if you were to rezone a conditional district in a 424 node, there's an exception in which acreage limitations do not apply as they would for the 425 existing small-scale LC1 or NC2 commercial zoning, each of which are limited to a 426 maximum of 5 acres under the existing ordinance. I urge you not to recommend this 427 change to the future land use map and comprehensive plan because there are significant 428 unanswered questions about the rationale for allowing multiple and mixed uses in our 429 node. At the last meeting, the developer stated they would provide no services to outside 430 people, such as restaurants. The full range of proposed commercial uses are unclear in 431 the application packet, but in communications with planning staff and at neighborhood and 432 orientation meetings, the developer has discussed a pub, a coffee shop, and a store 433 exclusively for the development's investors and guests. The developer's proposal is 434 inconsistent with Appendix F stating that a rural neighborhood activity node identifies 435 areas in the county where small-scale commercial uses serving the population in the 436 surrounding area are appropriate and the overlay locational criteria that say serving the 437 local low density rural and agricultural population generally less than 1,000 persons. So, 438 residents of a high-density development cannot simultaneously be part of the node and 439 also be the low-density population surrounding the node. We in the Morrow Mill Road and 440 Goldmine Loop communities make up the surrounding population, and we would not be 441 served. Please do not allow a single developer to re-write County policy to benefit 442 themselves and burden rural communities around all ten nodes with misplaced high- 443 density use in low-density areas without supporting infrastructure. There would be zero 444 harm in not recommending the proposed UDO amendments in Item 7. Not expanding the 445 node would not harm the public interest because the proposal does not plan uses that 446 would serve members of the public. Not allowing MPD-CD districts and RNANs would not 447 harm local communities because rural communities at these nodes are not seeking high- 448 density mixed-use development that would encroach on farms and rural properties. Item 449 8, 1 urge you not to amend the UDO to allow family care homes in an MPD-CD zoning 450 district. The developer proposes changing UDOs necessary to build these centers and 451 that the rural neighborhood activity nodes designation should change. The parcel's 452 current AR zoning, however, already permits family care centers without rezoning. The 453 claim that these centers should be a permitted use that family care homes should be a 15 454 permitted use in MPD-CDs to align with state law raises several unanswered questions. 455 While North Carolina law defines family care homes as a permissible use in all residential 456 districts, an MPD-CD district provides for nonresidential and mixed-use developments as 457 well as large scale subdivisions and allows quote "flexibility to accommodate land use 458 adjustments in response to evolving market trends." It appears from communications 459 over the past year and a half the planning staff and the developer have been discussing 460 who staff or developer would request this change to permit family care homes in MPD-CD 461 zoning. This proposal is part of a wholesale attempt by the developer to re-write County 462 ordinances and comprehensive planning to benefit a single developer. Please do not 463 approve this proposed amendment, given that the motivation for it and beneficiaries of the 464 proposed changes remain unclear. Please note that the analysis and staff 465 recommendation in the agenda packet referring to healthcare include inaccuracies. The 466 statement of consistency claims that the development would provide outpatient medical 467 care and I heard earlier a discussion about a group medical center. This is unfounded 468 because according to definitions in state law and the health and human services 469 department, a family care facility does not require skilled nursing or physicians for 470 licensing and would not provide medical care, outpatient, or inpatient. It's simply a facility 471 providing personal care for daily living. There would be zero harm in not recommending 472 the proposed LIDO amendments from Item 8. Not recommending this change would not 473 harm people seeking to establish a family care home in a residential district because 474 family care homes are permitted in residential zones, including agricultural residential. 475 Item 9, rezoning from agricultural residential to master plan conditional would streamline 476 the application process but only benefiting the developer to the detriment of the 477 surrounding community. According to the UDO, MPD-CD districts shall be limited to 478 transition land use categories within the Orange County planning jurisdiction and rural 479 community nodes. By design, our low-density agricultural residential zone without water 480 or sewer lines, public transit, or sidewalks, is not slated to support the massive 481 infrastructure needs of high-density development without depleting limited water 482 resources and irrevocably transforming farmland, waterways, and woodlands. The 483 proposed rezoning is wildly incompatible with the surrounding multi-generational 484 community. Recommending the proposed rezoning and a decade or more of construction 485 would likely displace existing community members, heritage farms, and young farmers 486 currently thriving and supporting older relatives who are truly aging in place. The 487 developer proposes changes that threaten not only this rural community but all of Orange 488 County's current and future farmers, food economy, consumers of local products, and 489 open space. The Morrow Mill and Goldmine Loop residents are a model of successful 490 rural community. We're thriving despite a series of problematic proposals for the area that 491 have put farms, public health, and the environment at risk. We firmly reject this project 492 because it threatens an existing community. I want to clarify some key information about 493 diabase dikes. In 1991, an attempt to site a landfill was defeated because it would have 494 leached contaminants into ground water based on a rock formation called a diabase dike 495 on Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road,just up the road from this facility. In 2008, 496 commissioners learned of the presence of the same diabase dike in the same area 497 proposed for developing the UNC Airport at the time that was defeated. More recently, 498 neighbors at the corner of Morrow Mill and Highway 54 have had their wells contaminated 499 by leakage from a previous gas station. This developer's proposal for massive water 500 draws and disposal of liquid sewage would further threaten these wells, surrounding 501 neighbors with a cluster of polluting infrastructure co-located next to them and raising 502 potential issues of environmental justice. Now, on a parcel just up the road, the applicant 503 has touted the benefits of the same diabase dike rock formation as a positive sign that the 16 504 wells will run massive water draws of 36,000-plus gallons per day. Unfortunately, altered 505 or fractured diabase dikes can allow contaminants to pass unfiltered down into ground 506 water. According to Dr. Paul Fullagar, a former chair and emeritus faculty of UNC's 507 Geology Department and a resident of Morrow Farm Lane and my neighbor, the dikes are 508 unlike sandstone and limestone which filter out contaminants. The applicant's own report 509 acknowledges water capacity is unpredictable, but it fails to disclose that the combination 510 of diabase dikes and sewage disposal on 22 acres of the property as a significant risk of 511 contaminated wells. Fullagar notes that anyone who thinks they know they can get a high 512 volume of water from a diabase dike is fooling themselves. He says that that location is 513 particularly risky for every well in the area as well as for the developers themselves 514 because disposal of 36,000-plus gallons a day of liquid sewage with a drip septic system 515 may allow contaminants to go directly down into ground water. The project risks depleting 516 ground water for surrounding neighbors and farms. For residences alone, the proposed 517 development would use 36,000 gallons a day, but that doesn't count water for other 518 facilities, fire suppression, sprinklers, landscaping and irrigation with no requirement prior 519 to rezoning to prove there's water available. Thirty-six thousand gallons of water a day 520 draws would far exceed the ability of the ground water to recharge itself, according to the 521 developer's own report citing a nearby location on Orange Grove Road at Cane Creek 522 where the recharge rate is less than 400 gallons per day per acre. Massive water draws 523 would strain our very limited water supply. An informal survey of neighbors surrounding 524 the property finds wells ranging from 1 to 5 to 8 gallons per day. Many nearby properties 525 also have diabase dikes. I ask you to make your decision based on protecting the water 526 supply for all of Orange County. This project is inconsistent with guidance in the land use 527 element directing development away from rural areas in order to prevent pricing out 528 farmers from their own land. The comprehensive plan cites the potential for complaints 529 and legal actions against farmers if more urban residents were to assert that farm 530 operations are incompatible with subdivision residents. The developer's proposal is 531 incompatible with existing and future farms, and it also threatens the watershed. The 532 applicant proposes locating wastewater fields along streams that lead into Collins Creek, 533 which flows into the Haw River and drinking water supply in Jordan Lake. There would be 534 zero harm in not recommending the proposed changes to the future land use map and 535 comprehensive plan in Agenda Item 7. While the request claims to meet the future needs 536 of a so-called tsunami of aging people in Chapel Hill who need affordable housing 537 options, this claim is unfounded. The proposal would not address the local need for 538 housing because, according to the applicant's statements at the neighborhood information 539 meeting and their orientation meetings, they've recruited a network of out-of-state people 540 who are waiting to purchase units. Not recommending these proposed changes would 541 not harm seniors because the developers are not restricting sales by age. Not 542 recommending this project would not harm people seeking affordable housing because 543 the proposal offers no plan for income-based affordability or for recruiting or subsidizing 544 lower-income residents and because banks do not give mortgages for cooperative 545 housing, meaning that any potential buyers would need to pay cash. Not recommending 546 this project will not harm diverse communities because the proposal offers no plan for 547 recruiting diverse residents. At the last meeting, the developer said that someone driving 548 by would not see this site in a flash of a second when they drove by the entrance. 549 However, the developer has been contacting Orange County asking for guidelines about 550 purchasing a sign and installing a sign similar to the one at the American Legion that's 551 electronic and illuminated. Given the presence of large signs, a widened roadway, turn 552 lanes, sidewalks, bus stops and three-story buildings with lighting that would extend into 17 553 the community, I believe that people would see this site from the road, and it would differ 554 from what's out there. Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it. 555 556 Adam Beeman: So, let me just clarify. The first item up is the comprehensive plan, future land use map, 557 and text amendments. I'm going to call your name up, you come up, give me your 3 558 minutes on this amendment, and then you can sit down, and if you're signed up for 559 another one, you can come up and give me your 3 minutes on the next amendment, and 560 we'll go through all three amendments. I apologize if I butcher your name. Some of your 561 handwriting is tough to read. Kevin Davidson, Clare Steece Julich, and Ralph Warren. 562 563 Patrick Mallett: Sir, as they come up if they could just clearly state their names so we can get the 564 transcription correct. 565 566 Adam Beeman: Okay. 567 568 Edwin Cox: Kevin Davidson is a member of our development team, so, he's not going to make a 569 public statement. 570 571 Adam Beeman: Okay. So, Claire, Ralph Warren, and Dan Eddleman. 572 573 Clare Steece Julich: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the Planning Board. I'm Clare Steece Julich. 1 574 live out in Bingham Township on 9 wooded acres. I've lived out there with my husband 575 for over 35 years. I'm a member of 2T and Hands Four Development Cooperative, and 1 576 hope to be a resident of Fiddlehead Corner. There are many Fiddlehead Corner 577 supporters here this evening tonight, and I'd like them to raise their hands now. Thank 578 you all. I live across from Sykes Dairy Farm in Bingham Township. I'm 7 miles from the 579 Fiddlehead Corners property. I've observed the changes that have occurred to the rural 580 qualities of the county over the past 3 decades. I've been pleased by the efforts of our 581 county leadership to promote sustainable growth and development that balances the 582 social and environmental needs and the economic factors. This kind of growth can serve 583 the needs of the people for housing while maintaining natural systems in a fiscally sound 584 way, and it's described in Page 1-7 of the comprehensive plan. The June 5th Planning 585 Board meeting packet has an analysis starting on Page 37 in which the planning director 586 states that the applicant's proposal is supportive of the following principles, goals, and 587 objectives outlined within the comprehensive plan and goes on to cite nine specific 588 examples. The last of those is promote clustering of residential development and 589 dedication of large areas of undisturbed land for low-impact recreational use by residents 590 and for wildlife habitat. He concludes the proposal establishes consistency between the 591 comprehensive plan and the applicant's request for MPD-CD zoning as part of the 592 Fiddlehead Corner development proposal. The UDO follows this theme of conservation 593 cluster development in Section 7.12 addressing flexible development. The purpose of 594 flexible development, it says, is to preserve agriculture and forestry lands, natural and 595 cultural features, environmentally sensitive areas and areas with potential for maintaining 596 the character of the community that might be otherwise lost or marginalized with the 597 conventional development. If Fiddlehead Corner proposed for a conventional residential 598 district or even a residential conditional district, its design is exactly what the planners in 599 the earlier boards of commissioners had in mind as an ideal type of development that 600 fulfills the vision for sustainable growth in Orange County. The type of project we are 601 proposing can be an antidote to the creeping sprawl that is occurring in many parts of our 18 602 region. We hope you, the Planning Board, will keep these considerations in mind as you 603 deliberate. Thank you. 604 605 Ralph Warren: Good evening and thank you for this opportunity. My name is Ralph Warren. My spouse 606 and I own land on the eastern boundary of the application, and we've lived on our land for 607 50 years. We're in a neighborhood of four households within one hundred and nine acres 608 of land. I have lived in Orange County since 1954, with the exception of 7 years of 609 Raleigh residency. My spouse moved to Chapel Hill in 1944. These speakers are here to 610 address incompatibility of this application with existing County ordinance and planning. 1 611 want to offer a view of the affected surrounding community as a need to understanding 612 our community and its land use. I have used GIS information to identify the landowners 613 and the acreage of properties that form a continuous land area bounded by Six Mile 614 Road, NC 54, Morrow Mill Road and Goldmine Loop Road. Each of these properties has 615 frontage on one of the listed roadways. The land area within this Bingham Township 616 segment is six hundred and sixty acres, and there are 18 households currently occupying 617 those adjoining lands. That total includes the 90 acres under discussion tonight. If the 618 requested classifications were to be granted, one hundred and fifty residences would be 619 added within 30 acres of those six hundred and sixty acres. The incompatibility of the 620 proposed high-density urban housing development is obvious on paper as well as my 621 drive through this area. Part of our community population is made up of families who 622 have lived a rural lifestyle on their land for multiple generations. Those of us newcomers, 623 whether 50-year or 30-year or recent residents, chose to locate here in order to join and 624 continue the existing lifestyle. We do not fit the conventional description of a 625 neighborhood, but we do form a strong community. Our members have come together on 626 many occasions to successfully protect our rural character as prescribed by consecutive 627 land use plans and successive boards of Orange County commissioners. This application 628 plan would attract residents drawn to an inward focus as opposed to those wishing to 629 meld with the longstanding lifestyles and values of the surrounding community. Dense 630 placement of the 200 or more residents together in an area with more expanded services 631 will be an open invitation to rapid commercial development. Granting the changes 632 requested by the current application would ease the path for such incompatible growth 633 both here and across the county. Our community residents are not opposed to 634 development that maintains the rural nature of our area. A long succession of Orange 635 County Boards of Commissioners and their land use plans have specified and maintained 636 rural agricultural zones in Orange County, including our area. So, we, as residents, ask 637 that you reject this current application, and thank you very much for the opportunity to 638 speak. Thank you for your time. 639 640 Dan Eddleman: My name is Dan Eddleman, adjacent landowner, senior citizen, aging in place in Bingham 641 Township, agricultural and multi-generation community for the past 45 years. My past 642 service to the county was as a member of the Bingham Township Advisory Council, 643 Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, and was a strong advocate for the extension of 644 zoning into all of Orange County. The above experience was during this era commented 645 on in the first meeting of the County to our planning agreements with Chapel Hill, 646 Hillsborough for water supply planning protection, for municipal throughfare planning, and 647 for development of best management practices for growth, where it should and should not 648 occur. The rural buffer zone serves as a bit of a demarcation of the types of development 649 that good land use planning would dictate be close to, or within the municipalities, and of 650 what is permissible and not permissible in the areas outside of the rural buffer. Rural land 651 node classification and zoning is an integral part of this question. In the June 5th meeting, 19 652 you asked some good questions about why the rural nodes were created, and what were 653 the concerns in creating them. I'd like to summarize. Marvin Collins, an Orange County 654 planning director, brought this topic before the Planning Board seeking feedback on the 655 following issues: The initial drafts of the county land use plan and zoning maps did not 656 have a category to recognize the presence of what we now call rural nodes. Unless a 657 change was made by extending zoning, these locations would have become a non- 658 conforming use, and zoning was already a highly contentious issue. The pledge you 659 speak of at the beginning of this meeting came from those meetings, and making these 660 mom-and-pop rural services in the smaller communities and agricultural regions of the 661 county non-conforming was not an acceptable option. On the other hand, there was 662 concern that, without very explicit definition and size limitation on these rural nodes, 663 uncontrolled expansion would become the mechanism through which strip development, 664 spot zoning, and urban sprawl would happen. Significant urban high-density development 665 in the rural areas would also have the effect of putting Chapel Hill's water supply at risk, 666 especially since 54 West extends through our watersheds, and this proposal would 667 change all rural nodes in the county. Uncontrolled rural node growth would become the 668 endline around the rural buffer districts put in place to protect and preserve water quality 669 not only for rural residents but Chapel Hill to avoid urban sprawl and to protect the 670 economic viability of the agricultural operations. As stated in Sections 1.1. 5 and 1.1.7 of 671 the UDO, rural activity node encompasses land focused on designated road intersections 672 within the rural area that is appropriate for small-scale commercial uses and mom-and- 673 pop convenience stores. This use is inconsistent with that goal. 674 675 Sadie Rapp: My name is Sadie Rapp. I grew up at 6819 Morrow Mill Road, and I now run a craft studio 676 and lead adult arts education on my family's property here. I'm also working to shift the 677 pastures on the property into food agriculture so as to better steward this land. I won't 678 have time to get into all of my concerns regarding this proposal, so I've tried to focus on 679 two main points. The proposed amendments hinge, in part, on whether or not this parcel 680 gets the designation of rural neighborhood activity node. These nodes are defined in the 681 comprehensive plan as land focused on designated rural intersections that is appropriate 682 for small-scale commercial uses that serve the public. The intersection of Morrow Mill and 683 54 has had that pink dot over it on the future land use map since the 80's. This identifies 684 the intersection as a place where, essentially, some commercial development may be 685 appropriate. The developer is claiming it is relevant to their application because the pink 686 dot overlaps with the corner of their parcel but fails to contend with the fact that this 687 subdivision as it's currently proposed does not touch an intersection and contains no 688 commercial element. The designation as a rural neighborhood activity node would be 689 wholly relevant to the proposed location and uses. The developer has failed to 690 meaningfully make the case otherwise. Looking beyond the existing ordinances, the 691 Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 effort just released their new issues and 692 opportunities report, which I think serves as an excellent tool for anchoring our discussion 693 today. As I'm sure you all know, last fall, residents and County staff had the chance to 694 share their values and vision for the future of the county and to help guide its conservation 695 and growth efforts through the year 2050. This report outlines key planning themes 696 identified during the first engagement window. The first bullet point is protect critical 697 watershed areas in open spaces and preserve agricultural lands, which I'm personally 698 worried is kind of hard to achieve if we are rezoning agricultural parcels and building 699 subdivisions between streams. Farmland conversion, which is the change of farmland to 700 non-agricultural uses is one of the threats identified in this report. Maintaining farmland is 701 critical, not only to the identity and image of the county, but to our resiliency as a region. 20 702 To grant the developer their proposed changes would be to rob the neighbors, as well as 703 Orange County more broadly, of our vision for our own growth by circumventing the land 704 use plan process. It would negatively impact the ability of Morrow Mill and Goldmine 705 residents to build the future that serves our collective needs. It would shake the trust in 706 County procedure if a developer were able to usher in such significant policy changes that 707 are so inconsistent with the surrounding area and county-wide goals. The scale and 708 location of this proposal is not in line with the 2050 Land Use Plan with current County 709 policies and ordinances and isn't worth jeopardizing our natural resources over. I ask you 710 to please vote against recommending. Thank you. 711 712 Gregory Rapp: Hi, my name is Gregory Rapp. At the start of last month's meeting, we were told by the 713 planning director that, quote, "The MPD-CD zoning district was originally established to be 714 a mechanism through which innovative proposals could be considered. Innovation, 715 essentially, is the key that unlocks the door to overriding established zoning rules." I was 716 expecting the next sentence to be something like we, the planning staff, believe this 717 project to be innovative because of A, B, C and D, but we just sort of moved on as if it was 718 assumed that this project must be innovative. I looked for anything in the application that 719 spoke to this but found nothing. So, what do we see in the application? We see an 720 applicant that is seeking to upend decades of thoughtful planning for a self-serving 721 subdivision; an applicant who has professed no experience in the fields of real estate 722 development, real estate management, senior care, water management, or sewage 723 management. If approved, this would be their very first development. This applicant is 724 asking to build 150 units, the largest development in the history of the county, without any 725 legitimate justification for this outlandish scale; an applicant who has been planning an 726 intentional community for over a decade and still can't make their intentions clear. Their 727 application targets seniors as their primary audience without mention of any other type of 728 residents; no families, no children, no teens, while at the same time, their articles of 729 incorporation registered a year prior with the secretary of state say their development will 730 be multi-generational with no mention there at all of seniors or aging and, now, tonight, we 731 just learned that it's a 55 and up residential development. So, we're not sure what it is. 732 An applicant who may not know that the banks don't write mortgages for cooperative 733 homes. Since the residents don't own their homes, there's no collateral for the bank. Any 734 resident would have to pay in full, up front, putting this out of reach for people of modest 735 means and making affordability pure fantasy. An applicant who was unable to articulate 736 the membership criteria for their cooperative, let alone how a resident could cash out. 737 You can't sell your place on the open market because the cooperative owns your home. 738 You would have to wait until all of the other members agree to admit a new member. 739 What is the cooperative's obligation to even let you leave? And, even if they let you 740 leave, how will they calculate the value of your membership? To my ears, this sounds like 741 a financial trap, and it frightens me to think of how this could play out for seniors or any of 742 our aging loved ones whose health status and needs can change overnight. There's 743 nothing new about targeting a vulnerable group. Is this the kind of innovation the planning 744 department has in mind? Is this the kind of innovation that opens the door to sweeping 745 zoning changes? I, for one, certainly hope it is not. Thank you. 746 747 Betty Lou Whitford: Good evening. My name is Betty Lou Whitford. I'm a Hands Four co-op member. I 748 want to emphasize just one aspect of Fiddlehead Corner, so it isn't overshadowed by the 749 complexities of the zoning proposal. That aspect is how Fiddlehead Corner can be a 750 leading-edge model for Orange County, one that is right within your grasp. To appreciate 751 its importance as a model, one only need picture conventional subdivision development. 21 752 The 90 wooded acres in our proposal could be developed without regard to conservation 753 resulting in de-foresting of most of the land with large houses, lots with required septic 754 fields without regard to natural habitats. Fiddlehead Corner is significantly different. It is 755 what some call a conservation subdivision. It clusters modest housing on only 30 of the 756 90 acres leaving most of the land, 60 acres, minimally disturbed. I currently live in a 55- 757 plus community that is part of a large subdivision in Chatham County. Development 758 meant significant destruction of natural habitats that come with clear cutting and scraping 759 off the topsoil to enhance profitability. Trees were planted, but it will be many years 760 before they replace what mature trees provide, natural habitat, and also shade for the 761 residents walking the neighborhood streets. In contrast, Fiddlehead is a conservation 762 cluster design. The clustering of homes will face green spaces rather than streets, a 763 design that, according to a North Carolina State University report on conservation 764 subdivisions, cuts down on paving cost and reduces the percent of impervious surfaces 765 by 31% on average. This approach is highly consistent with the conservation values of 766 Orange County land use further supporting the County's leadership in the state with an 767 approach that allows needed innovative development while avoiding suburban sprawl. 768 Quoting from the planning document analysis, Page 37 of June's agenda, I'm not sure 769 about tonight's, Fiddlehead Corner"offers a procedural and creative template that future 770 applicants might use for reference and guidance." Such creativity also appears to be 771 consistent with the direction of the revision of the Land Use Plan 2050. 1 urge you to 772 embrace this innovative application, because it is a both/and rather than an either/or. It 773 combines serving the needs of people with conserving Orange County's natural 774 resources. Thank you. 775 776 Kathy McHugh: My name is Kathy McHugh. I'm a member of 2T, a local resident and a schoolteacher. 1 777 strongly support approval of the zoning that would allow Fiddlehead to be built. I hope to 778 live many years to come, but I'm definitely getting older. I know from watching older 779 family members and friends that challenges come as we age. Physical problems that limit 780 mobility and independence and waning of cognitive abilities. It's a bit scary to think about 781 how I would be able to deal with these challenges if I live long enough to encounter them. 782 Moving into a continuing care retirement community is one possible answer, but as I look 783 at my finances and compare them to the costs of the CCRC, they just don't match up. To 784 live in an unfamiliar rental unit, like the ones that are springing up all over, isn't very 785 appealing to me. I wonder if there would be anyone there who shares my values and 786 interests, and who would come to my aid when I encounter rough patches. That's why 787 Fiddlehead Corner is so appealing to me. I know I would be among long-term friends 788 there. My favorite activities, such as contra dancing would be right there where I can walk 789 to them. When friends need help, I'll be there to help them and vice versa. And without 790 all the overhead costs that one pays in a CCRC, I think it will fit in my budget. It's just 791 amazing how this plan for Fiddlehead has gradually been developing from the first spark 792 of an idea now to a full master plan. It's heartening that a small seed of an idea has 793 grown so much. We will be hunkered down in a compact campus in the woods where we 794 can easily get to the community center and to one another and to gorgeous surroundings. 795 1 urge you to approve this application that will allow Fiddlehead Corner to become a 796 reality. It's a win-win-win for Orange County. 797 798 Aadra Bhatt: Good evening. Thank you so much for giving me a chance to talk. I don't think I could 799 summarize all my thoughts as eloquently as my neighbors. 800 801 Chris Johnston: I'm sorry, your name. 22 802 803 Aadra Bhatt: Oh, yes, sorry. My name is Aadra Bhatt. I live on Labrador Lane adjacent to the planned 804 subdivision. Sorry, thank you for clearing that up. As I was saying I couldn't really speak 805 any more eloquently than my neighbors, Dan Eddleman, Ralph Warren, Laura Streitfeld 806 and the Rapps have already done. So, I just would like to share two major points with 807 you. I'm a microbiologist by training, and I've submitted my written comments via email to 808 the board. I'm really concerned about the risk for potentially contaminating our ground 809 water for existing residents who already live there, while managing the sewage that is 810 generated by the 300 units that are being proposed to be put up. According to the 811 presentations at the neighborhood information meeting in April, as well as meetings with 812 H4D at our neighbor the Warren's home, we shared the seed of the idea that we all found 813 so charming and wonderful. The proposed development was initially conceived by a 814 group of well-meaning individuals as an intentional community for 34 locals. Along the 815 way they've been advised to go big to spread out the cost of construction and 816 infrastructure, and as it stands today, the proposed project has been moved to a 817 subdivision with we learn today of maybe a 55-age limit. But that proposes to house 300 818 or more residents. When asked who would purchase the remainder units, one of the 819 investing members has shared that they anticipate more buyers coming from individuals 820 around the country. So, I'm not sure whether this plan really addresses the needs of 821 aging members of the Orange County community. I want to stop here and I want to just 822 close up with some numbers. The times the word senior appears is in the application 823 packet is 52. The times that the word senior appears in the Fiddlehead developers' 824 website is 0. The number of senior services that the planning department will actually 825 hold the developer for putting on to Fiddlehead Corner is 0. The number of times the 826 Orange County Advisory Board on Aging refers to this development as affordable is 2. 827 The total area of farmland in Orange County threatened by proposed changes to the 828 unified development ordinance, the comprehensive plan, the future land use map, and the 829 zoning map is more than 53,000 acres, thank you. 830 831 Anna Hatcher: Good evening, my name is Anna. I live on Morrow Mill Road at 5802, and this is Chelsea, 832 my next neighbor, 5811. So, up until today we heard about this age restriction, I was 833 against all of this project because it had like, we're going to get all the low-income 834 darkness of Durham right in my back yard. I don't want to have any teenagers selling 835 drugs to all our kids which live in our expensive, fancy houses, okay? Today when we 836 heard about 55-plus, I would say I probably will welcome this project with a few 837 restrictions, no, few adjustments, which we will ask to review and add to the list of 838 concerns. As it's going to be a community of 55-plus, we will need to have traffic lights, 839 we will need to have walking paths. We already have an issue of the people on the 840 bicycles which are extremely, you know, impacting our traffic and there is not really like a 841 side, or a pass for them to drive safe. So it has to be in the first 3,000 feet on Morrow Mill 842 Road when they get off Highway 54. It has to be at least in the requirements to the 843 developers to manage it somehow, maybe widen the road and have a narrow pass for 844 bicyclists because it's a problem on this road already. And these people are going to be 845 out to ride. I also have 77-years-old grandpa in my own house and I'm not sure that we 846 will have challenges with all the bicycles, which we love so much to ride in our street. 847 Another concern which I have is they want to put the entrance and access, the main one 848 on Morrow Mill Road. I'm against this entry and exit as the main one. I think it has to be 849 on Gold Mine Loop because there at least it's slow, less traffic and they can safely enter 850 and exit. If this enter and exit is going to be on Morrow Mill Road, first of all people just 851 take off from Highway 54, and they are already on high speed at my mailbox. And we 23 852 need to slow down traffic to, I don't know, 15 miles in that area. So, all this entry and 853 exiting of people will not hit, , I don't want to have so many crashes in my front yard. And 854 it's going to impact my neighbor, Chelsea. She has five kids and they want to put an entry 855 and exit right in her gate. I'm not comfortable with that, I'm not too happy with that, 856 especially if she has the young special child, and I think this has to be reviewed and entry 857 and exit has to be on Gold Mine Loop, not on Morrow Mill Road because it's going to 858 create lots of crashes. 859 860 Carol Mellon: I'm Carol Mellon, I live at 6410 Goldmine Loop with my husband Jim, and I just wanted to 861 say that our area is not zoned for high density development. We purchased our property 862 with existing zoning in mind because we desire to live in a rural area with a rural lifestyle 863 away from the noise, pollution, and congestion that we have experienced living in cities or 864 suburbs. Some of neighbors continue to find properties that their families have owned for 865 generations. We do not need another rural Fearrington Village type development in our 866 area or yet another party barn or entertainment venue with events disruptive to the lives of 867 nearby residents. Nor do we need a multistory apartment building. That's just out of 868 character with our area. And I would just like to say that most of us, even those of us who 869 are newcomers, bought properties that were appropriately zoned for our own plans and 870 now the applicant comes in and wants to change the character of the neighborhood and 871 we feel that that's unfair and we hope that you will reject their proposal, thank you. 872 873 John Kizer: John Kizer is my first name, but Steve Kizer is what I go by. And my home and property 874 are located about 600 yards from the proposed urban development. At the last meeting, 875 several board members wondered what the original framers of the land use plan, zoning 876 ordinances were thinking specifically about the contour of the rural nodes. I'm standing 877 here as a relic of that time. I was chairman of the board of adjustment and a member of 878 the planning board when they put zoning in place in Orange County, and at that time, we 879 developed the land use plan with several considerations. For example, the rural nodes 880 that you asked about, had we followed the parcel boundaries in defining the nodes, we 881 would have codified a commercial monopoly on a select few properties, an outcome that 882 neither we nor the community desired. The nodes were circular to provide a crude area to 883 which we could apply the principal zoning, avoiding any preference to a given landowner. 884 The philosophy charged to us by the county commissioners in those days of developing 885 the zoning ordinance was twofold. Number one, prevent urban sprawl and direct intense 886 urban development to the cities of Hillsborough and Chapel Hill where urban services and 887 utilities were available. Preserve the rural character of the county and prevent strip 888 development, that was threatening transportation quarters in and out of the county. As an 889 incentive, the selling of zoning to a wary and skeptical county population was based on 890 the promise that once enacted and approved, exceptions and variances to the ordinance 891 would be few and difficult to obtain. Thereby providing permanence to the county 892 structure. I have a few comments about the proposed project. Number one, water. The 893 proposal lists a minimum of 150 living units. According to the EPA, the average water 894 usage per day for an adult is about 85 to 100 Gallons. Assuming two persons per living 895 unit, the daily water needs of this development would be upwards of 30,000 gallons of 896 water a day. At the meeting, it was stated a well on the property could produce 40 gallons 897 per minute. This is an unrealistic estimate. And notwithstanding, it is not plausible that 898 one could pump 30,000 gallons daily from this relatively small parcel of land. In our area 899 wells usually produce no more than 5 to 6 gallons per minute; moreover, wells also run 900 dry in drought conditions in our area. For example, several years ago my neighbor had to 901 sell off his dairy herd as his wells ran dry. Wastewater, number two, assuming a closed 24 902 unit, the project would generate a bit more than 30,000 gallons per day of sewage. The 903 project proposes a high-tech solution to provide onsite waste management. Such 904 solutions are not free from failure. If the sewage system of the project should fail, the 905 company would have to condemn the existing drawings and provide water and sewer to 906 the outreaches of the county. 907 908 Adam Beeman: Thank you, unfortunately, time is up. 909 910 Colin Austin: Thank you, my name is Collin Austin. I'm the chair of the advisory board on aging here in 911 the county. We sent a letter to the planning department outlining our support for this 912 project. Our board supports this project because it was created by seniors for seniors, 913 and in response to many of the goals in our county master aging plan. I'd just like to 914 highlight three aspects. First, it increases accessibility for people regardless of age or 915 disability, incorporating wide doorways, handrails, level entries. Only a small fraction of 916 the housing stock in Orange County currently meets this criteria. Second, the 917 development enhances social interaction for older adults; has walking trails, outdoor areas 918 for recreation and events, community garden; and third provides a continuum of care in 919 the community to ensure that the needs of the community are covered and that would 920 allow community members to age in place with their increasing care needs rather than 921 forcing them to leave the community. We believe this is an important proposal, seniors 922 helping seniors age in place, instead of seniors living in isolation or being relocated to 923 facilities with little or no connection to any community. Thank you very much. 924 925 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—ADD FAMILY CARE HOMES AS 926 PERMITTED USE TO MPD-CD ZONING DISTRICT AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS—To continue review and make a 927 recommendation to the BOCC on applicant-initiated amendments to the LIDO pertaining to Family Care 928 Homes. The BOCC public hearing date is "to be determined." 929 930 Adam Beeman: Thank you. So, this next item is the UDO Text Amendment referring to the family care. If 931 you have comments on that, we're going to go through this group right now. 932 933 Dan Eddleman: This agenda item is based on the premise that the entire region encompassed by Orange 934 County has no provision for family care homes and that the rural neighborhood activity 935 nodes located throughout the county ought to be exploited to permit such use. My first 936 speaking to you about rural activity nodes states why that's inconsistent to use that kind of 937 rural activity node for this. Here is why. The assertion that the Orange County region has 938 no provision for high density family care homes and is an omission needing correction is a 939 mistaken assertion. By design, the LIDO mandates that high density residential housing is 940 to be where water and sewer, transportation, and other infrastructure is in place and in 941 fact accommodated in the municipalities by the use of R5 and other zoning categories. 942 Chapel Hill and Hillsborough have accommodated many variations of such facilities, some 943 for the most advanced healthcare needs, some for 55-plus senior living facilities, and a 944 number with specific requirements for affordability. Examples are, as many recent news 945 articles point out, these reports include the Legion Road Residential Community Priority 946 Conditional Zoning that was approved for such use. Other similar facilities are located in 947 Chapel Hill where the required infrastructure is in place and make frequent use of R5 948 zoning. Just to quote a little bit about the Legion Road from Chapelboro.com, the Chapel 949 Hill Town Council unanimously proposed a resolution for the project at 1708, 1712 Legion 950 Road Development that will provide affordable housing property to accommodate 951 affording housing units for, and over the age of 55 and that is a legally binding 25 952 requirement. I've read that zoning permit and classification, it's legally binding in there. 953 They know what they're doing in permitting these kinds of facilities. And where certain 954 people earning at or below 60% of the average median income. That the land chosen is 955 uniquely suitable for providing affordable housing with this walkable proximity, things like 956 grocery stores, access to public transportation, things at the residential frontage of the 957 property, residents will benefit from and needed for an age-restricted site because of the 958 proximity to those amenities. Overall to say, this was a perfect site. The council 959 approved a conditional zoning request, the residential community conditional zoning 960 permit, a process that started in November 1992 just for these facilities. The core 961 problem with this proposal, it's located in a wrong part of the county. All the things about 962 cost, infrastructure, etc., etc., by incorporating themselves where it's already provided will 963 help improve the affordability of these facilities, thank you. 964 965 Alan Julich: I'm Alan Julich, thanks for the opportunity to speak. I am a member of 2T, and Hands 966 Four Development. I live near by the proposed Fiddlehead Corner just off Bradshaw 967 Quarry Road. I want to address the family care home that's being proposed, because it's 968 a basic feature of our planning since we first envisioned our community. And I have 969 personally been part of the research to see what a family care home would look like and 970 how it would operate. Fortunately, in Chapel Hill, we've had the resource of the Charles 971 House Association, that is a resource for those with family physical or mental faculties. 972 They own and operate Winmore, a residential family care home off Homestead which is 973 identical in concept to what we expect to do at Fiddlehead. I was with the group that 974 visited there, observed the staff, and we talked extensively with Paul Cleaver, who I'm 975 sure a lot of you know, to get ideas for how our planning for our family care home should 976 go. It's difficult to overstate what a tremendous resource this will be at Fiddlehead to 977 allow residents to remain in familiar surroundings and get some of the care they need 978 when they encounter physical and cognitive challenges. This resource is one of the many 979 reasons why so many of our members are convinced that Fiddlehead is the place they 980 want to live. However, for various reasons the family care home with the family care 981 facility is not currently linked with MPD-CD in the UDO even though it does meet with 982 other residential districts including the RCD. We've gotten advice from the planning staff 983 that if we want this to happen, then we need to take the step, which we do and are 984 requesting, a text amendment to the LIDO, and we've done that. And I hope you agree 985 that this will benefit not us, but others in the future because this type of family care facility 986 just doesn't make sense that it could not be part of an MPD-CD. Thank you very much. 987 988 Bryna Rapp: My name is Bryna Rapp. I am an architect and a resident of Morrow Mill Road for 989 34 years. I've designed many homes on this road and my neighbors have become my 990 extended family. We welcome these new folks to our neighborhood. All we ask is that 991 they abide by the planning and zoning ordinances the rest of us have respected for 992 generations. At the information meeting, the developer said they tried to find land close to 993 town, but it was too expensive to build there. So, they had to look further out where the 994 land is cheap. The reason this land is more affordable is because those of us already 995 living here have made thoughtful choices about how we live. Choices that respect the 996 long-term development goals of the County which seek to preserve farmland and protect 997 the watershed. What does this look like in practice, it means we put one or two homes on 998 a lot. We carve off a couple of acres for our kids or our aging parents. We rent parcels of 999 pasture to local farmers for a nominal amount so they can raise the produce that fills our 1000 award-winning farmers' markets. If you currently live in town, rural Orange is literally your 1001 breadbasket. Changing the LIDO affects the whole county and threatens all of that. Most 26 1002 people are unaware that dozens of Morrow Mill landowners including us have voluntarily 1003 put restrictive covenants on their properties requiring 10-acre minimum lot sizes so that 1004 their land can be protected from development for future generations. These restrictions 1005 go far beyond what the County requires in the unprotected watershed. It may be hard for 1006 a developer to understand, but those of us who live here do not have a transactional 1007 relationship with this land. We know that once agriculture and forested land is lost, you 1008 don't get it back. Playing by the County's rules has meant that our property values have 1009 not increased the way property values close to town have. Though we may not get rich 1010 selling our land to a developer one day, this stability serves a greater good. It means that 1011 folks can still find smaller lots and homes that are affordable and young farmers have a 1012 chance of holding on to their inherited land because tax values are not sky high. It is only 1013 because the rest of us have played by the rules that this developer can now see our land 1014 as cheap and ready to be exploited for their suburban development. This project is 1015 unnecessary and unneighborly. I say unnecessary because without changing a single 1016 ordinance, they can build enough homes for all of the current members to live side by 1017 side, sharing resources and supporting one another like the rest of us do. I ask the 1018 planning board to respect the wisdom of the LIDO and the vision outlined in the Land Use 1019 Plan 2050 and reject this proposal because it is wholly inconsistent with both, thank you. 1020 1021 Carol Mellon: Yes, first I'd like to say, I've had to make a lot of changes to my notes because, we were 1022 first told that there would be an assisted living center on the campus of the proposed 1023 development and it has since been changed to family care home. This seems like kind of 1024 an effort to shoe-horn this proposal into or toward approval, but let me continue. Our area 1025 does not have the infrastructure to support a large community of people needing frequent 1026 medical care. We are served by a volunteer fire and rescue squad that is not equipped to 1027 transport residents to relatively distant hospitals on a frequent basis and along a hilly, two- 1028 lane highway with infrequent passing zones. Those needing skilled care would have to go 1029 elsewhere in any case since the planners of this community will not have any provision for 1030 that. Even if everything goes as planned from a financial point of view, a high-density 1031 staff intensive development will not only increase environmental pollution nearby, but will 1032 definitely increase the amount of traffic, air pollution, and noise. As one of our previous 1033 residences was adjacent to an assisted living center, we know that the required staff will 1034 be working around the clock as well, coming and going at hours that are now reserved for 1035 peace and quiet in our area. Again, I ask that you reject this proposal, thank you. 1036 1037 Anna Hatcher: So, for me personally, because of the concerns about the traffic which is going to grow, 1 1038 don't know, probably three times more than we have originally, I think that one of the 1039 requirements for this neighborhood is they will go ahead and build a public bus station 1040 because people in age sometimes have challenges with driving good and paying 1041 attention, especially when it's getting dark. I think it has to be a requirement a public bus 1042 station, something like that. Next concern is the construction hours. I don't want to live in 1043 hell for the next 10 years, right? I came to this country from the huge city Kyiv in Ukraine 1044 5 years ago. I know what construction is, and at least it has to be mandatory that after 1045 5:00 p.m. no noisy construction work. It has to be documented. If you don't want us, with 1046 Chelsea to pull out my truck and block the entrance and exit and makes strikes and 1047 revolution which I know how to do revolutions trust me. And you don't want to have it in 1048 the county, right? So, no construction after 5:00 p.m., no noisy construction activities on 1049 weekends. It has to be documented and be a requirement to these people.Also, we 1050 would like to have and see a backup from this group, like a backup plan. Because they 1051 are in respected age, right? If they aren't able to perform in 3 years, what's next steps. 27 1052 We don't want to end up with what we expected before this 55 plus, they will just dump it 1053 for, instead of$1 million or how much they spent on the land, for$5 million and then 1054 another black neighborhood from that will come and build cheap condos. So, we want to 1055 see the backup plan, what if they are not able, because they have zero experience, they 1056 don't have enough funds maybe something can happen, age, you know. We want to see 1057 a documented plan for this community, what it's going to be if they are not able to perform 1058 what they wish, thank you. 1059 1060 AGENDA ITEM 9: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT(CONDITIONAL DISTRICT)—To continue review and make a 1061 recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant-initiated zoning atlas amendment to rezone 90.133 acres (PIN: 1062 9739-72-0339) located off Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop, within the Bingham Township. The proposed 1063 rezoning is from AR (Agricultural Residential)to MPD-CD (Master Plan Development—Conditional District). 1064 The BOCC public hearing date is "to be determined." 1065 1066 Adam Beeman: This is the one we're all here for. 1067 1068 Clare Steece Julich: Thank you, I'm Claire Steece Julich. As indicated earlier, my husband and I have lived in 1069 Bingham Township for over 35 years on 9 wooded acres. We're both retired, 68 years old 1070 and members of the 2T and Hands Four Cooperative. We have no children and no 1071 immediate family living nearby that can help us in our senior years. As we age, it's 1072 becoming more challenging to physically care for our home and property and each other. 1073 1 know there are many others in our situation. One solution would be for us to move to a 1074 smaller affordable home in town, but those properties have become rare. We can't afford 1075 to move to a CCRC like Carol Woods, and even if we did qualify for one there's a waiting 1076 list of 10 years or more. Our cooperative did an exhaustive search over several years for 1077 property to purchase for our development in an area that was closer to city limits, but 1078 nothing suitable was available. Living at the Fiddlehead Corner community would provide 1079 us and other senior citizens a place in which we can age in place comfortably, safely, and 1080 in a beautiful walkable environment with neighbors, activities, and support services 1081 nearby. Fiddlehead Corner will be less expensive up front and on a monthly basis than 1082 our local CCRCs. I appreciate Orange County Department of Aging's strong work to 1083 promote the needed senior housing that our people require. I know that there is a 1084 pressure in our county for development and response to our increasing population. A 1085 large percentage of them are will-be seniors. Please support the zoning changes needed 1086 to allow Fiddlehead Corner to happen, thank you all very much. 1087 1088 Miriam Cowan: Good evening, planning board. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm married to Tom 1089 Cheek who is the landowner who sold the land to 2T. He and I got married 20 years ago. 1090 1091 Adam Beeman: I'm sorry, what is your name? 1092 1093 Miriam Cowan: I'm sorry, my name is Miriam Cowan. I attended Davidson College and Antioch School of 1094 Law, worked for 10 years in Washington, D.C. for a big law firm and learned a lot about 1095 politics. Decided I didn't like it so much and moved back home with my two children after 1096 a divorce when I met Tom, and this wonderful and kindhearted person. He introduced me 1097 to this farm. This farm is spectacular. It has beautiful,wooded streams. It is just a real 1098 haven. So, my first instinct was wow, this would be great to share with other people. 1099 Because I'm one of those people that likes to share. Tom and I always talked about 1100 developing this land and his idea of developing differed from mine, but we both wanted to 1101 preserve the integrity of the land by having people that really cared about what was going 28 1102 out there. There were three things we could do. We could create a land conservation 1103 easement, but we would only have netted 50% of the fair market value, and this is our 1104 retirement income, because we don't have anything else. This second thing was to sell 1105 this land to a developer for a fair market value and have multiple lot owners do whatever 1106 they want with their lots, clear cut the trees, watch the building of more mc-mansions with 1107 true green lawns, and use of herbicides and pesticides. I have a degree in viticulture and 1108 enology. I built a vineyard there. I also have another degree in organic agriculture. So, 1 1109 am adamantly opposed to anything, pesticides, herbicides, true green, uh-uh, no, not for 1110 me. So, the third option was to find a like-minded group which came to us in the form of 1111 2T. That group has pledged to keep the trees, not use pesticides or herbicides and 1112 preserve the integrity of the land. The other thing that nobody has mentioned here is that 1113 these people are also going to preserve our cultural heritage by the use of contra dancing 1114 and developing the folk dancing. This type of heritage is vital to the preservation of our 1115 society. It was brought over here by the Scots who founded North Carolina in the 1700s. 1116 It's a part of the English and French traditions as well. So, I am definitely for this 1117 development. 1118 1119 Tom Cheek: As I walk up here, I see my friends and neighbors. I see a lot of people who I hope will 1120 soon be my friends and neighbors. 1121 1122 Adam Beeman: Can you identify yourself, please? 1123 1124 Tom Cheek: I am Tom Cheek; I am the landowner. Let me give you a bit of background. My paternal 1125 line has been in Orange County for 150 years. My family has been here for a long time. 1126 I'm the sixth generation to grow up. In 1957 my family bought this property when I was 6 1127 years old. This is where I've grown up. This land is in my blood. I knew at an early age 1 1128 wanted to be a builder. Found out God did not want me to be a chemist, so I went into the 1129 building trades. I am a licensed commercial general contractor and a civil engineering 1130 technician. It has always been my intent to divide this land and build residential on it. 1 1131 had a horrific car accident in 2005 which prevented me from doing that. I realized 1 1132 needed to partner with someone who would fulfill my vision for the land. These folks 2T, 1133 are the best answer for that land. I believe in what they're doing and having the 1134 construction background that I have, has allowed me to see that the way they are doing it 1135 is adequate, beyond adequate, admirable. Usually when we have people move into our 1136 neighborhood, we don't know what their character is like. This time is different. About 2 1137 years ago we had a monthly meeting scheduled but the 2T participants were late, about a 1138 half hour late. I found out that they had stopped to help my elderly neighbor who had 1139 gone down to her mailbox and fallen and was lying in the driveway. This is the character 1140 of the people who would be our neighbors. I ask you to pass this, thank you. 1141 1142 Stephen Stiebel: All right, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Stephen Stiebel, I've lived on 1143 Henderson Field Road just off Morrow Mill Road for 22 years. I'm speaking in favor of this 1144 rezoning amendment. I'm a member of Hands Four and a longtime member of the dance 1145 community. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering and in that 1146 career, I have managed construction projects and I was involved in the startup of two 1147 facilities. More recently, I owned and operated a construction-related business for over 20 1148 years. I have served on the board of directors of the Orange Durham Chatham County 1149 Home Builders Association. During my involvement with 2T and H4D, I have been 1150 impressed by the care, thoughtfulness and professional approach of this community. 1151 Importantly, I have been impressed with the planning taking into account to minimize their 29 1152 impact on the surrounding community. I have been involved in the contra dance 1153 community for 25 years and I know personally that the social fabric of this community is 1154 extremely important to the physical and mental health of its members. Over the years, 1 1155 have personally been involved in care teams to support members of the community in 1156 need. Recently, I injured my shoulder and now have a new shoulder. My dance 1157 community put in place a care team and I was supported until I was able to be on my own. 1158 We want to be able to continue these activities as we age. We want to incorporate this 1159 social glue into the Fiddlehead community so that it isn't necessary for any one person to 1160 carry the load. We can all pitch in. Over the years, I have hosted house concerts and 1161 dances and it's a gift and joy to share my home with this community. We have given an 1162 enormous amount of time and attention, all those volunteers, to how we would structure 1163 our continuity of care at Fiddlehead. We have nurses, doctors, and healthcare 1164 professionals among us thinking through how medical issues would be addressed. But 1165 there is so much more to well-being than just going to the doctor. Being fit and active is 1166 such an important aspect of staying healthy and avoiding the healthcare system in the first 1167 place. But when that need for care comes into the picture, it's important to have a plan. 1168 That's what Fiddlehead is planning for. People caring for one another, a mutual care 1169 community. That approach relieves a lot of planning and expense from the county's 1170 resources. Fiddlehead has so much to offer Orange County seniors, but Fiddlehead can 1171 only become a reality if this master plan development conditional district zoning is 1172 approved allowing Fiddlehead to be located in an appropriate setting. A compact campus 1173 where all abilities can easily get to its facilities, I urge you to approve this application. 1174 Thank you for the time. 1175 1176 Linda Smith: My name is Linda Smith. I'm a 2T member and live about 2 miles from the Fiddlehead 1177 Corner location. Having grown up on a tobacco farm in eastern North Carolina, I moved 1178 to that area for the very reason that most of the people are speaking about here. I love 1179 rural North Carolina. I lived in this area for 16 years and over off of Dodson's Crossroads 1180 prior to that for 18 years. I joined 2T because after I built my house by the Haw River my 1181 husband passed away. He and his daughter and I took care of him during that process 1182 and so I know what it's like to need help while you're in those aging and last years. Now 1183 I'm in a position where I'm going to need some help eventually myself, as many of us in 1184 this room will. I am one of the neighbors already, and I think 2T and H4D is a wonderful 1185 community. I'm a singer and I've been dancing with these folks for a long time, I'm really 1186 excited about the possibility of sharing a neighborhood with all of them and everyone else 1187 in this room. I already shop at Bravos Market, at Fiesta Grill, and at Piedmont Feed and 1188 what used to be Feed and Seed, it's now Feed and Garden Center, and believe the White 1189 Cross community is a wonderful place. I think the people I know in Hands Four will be a 1190 fine addition to this community, and I'm looking forward to the support that we can offer 1191 each other through our support network. Some people describe Hands Four Cooperative 1192 as a closed group, but it's not. H4D is a cooperative, not an exclusive club. Co-op 1193 members value being good neighbors beyond the boundary of Fiddlehead Corner as 1194 you've just heard mentioned and share a common desire to preserve the environment. 1195 Everyone is welcome to join, anyone is welcome to join who meets the basic 1196 qualifications, and I will try to describe a few important ones. A potential member needs 1197 to understand and agree with the philosophy of cooperative living and of aging in place. 1198 Fiddlehead is oriented towards people who are downsizing and happy to live in smaller 1199 homes. It's for people who want to have close relationships and who are eager to 1200 participate in a wide range of activities and stay as active as possible for as long as 1201 possible. Potential residents will have to meet conventional mortgage income 30 1202 requirements for the housing they choose. The leadership is working hard to keep costs 1203 under control so that living at Fiddlehead is financially attainable for those of us of modest 1204 means. The plan provides for a variety of housing sizes, including studios and one- 1205 bedroom units, which is in line with that goal. Up to now, news about H4D has spread 1206 entirely by word of mouth and through educational orientations. It's a grass roots effort, 1207 people empowered, and not a big developer. I urge you to approve it, please. 1208 1209 Aditi Watson: My name is Aditi Watson; I also go by Atula. Thank you for giving me a chance to speak. 1210 Me and my family moved here from Northern California, small town, and the place we 1211 were living in California was high land taxes and very high market for real estate so we 1212 were searching for a community that we could fulfill our dreams of homesteading and 1213 living sustainably and coming to North Carolina and finding the little place on Goldmine 1214 Loop and Morrow Mill Road was exactly everything we had been envisioning for a decade 1215 of searching, and we found that the like-minded neighbors and the whole area suited 1216 exactly our vision. For the past 3'/2 years we've been living homesteading, our farm 1217 gardens. I am concerned about this project greatly, because it affects so many aspects of 1218 our life on Goldmine Loop. For one, Goldmine Loop is a beautiful setting for bike riding, 1219 taking walks, I'll even meet my neighbors along the way and it's just a beautiful place to 1220 be and live, and I really would be sad to see the whole lifestyle of the rural community 1221 jeopardized by this project and everyone, all my neighbors have spoken so well and so 1222 good, so I don't really have so much more to say, but I'm wholly against this development, 1223 thank you. 1224 1225 David D'Agostino: Hi, I'm David D'Agostino, I live on Labrador Lane, with my partner, Audra Bott, and I'm 1226 neighbors with Dan Eddleman and Ralph Warren and I completely agree with everything 1227 they say, and I'm against the development. I do feel like they're not really giving us 1228 straight answers and, I would love to see an age in place community for 35 people which 1229 was originally presented to us. That's a lot different now and there's really no confirmation 1230 that this is going to be a place for people over 55. That's all I have to say, thank you. 1231 1232 Carol Mellon: Hi, I'm Carol Mellon and I'd just like to say that agricultural and forested lands are 1233 precious finite resources that should not be permanently marred by developments that will 1234 be redundant within decades. This isn't the 1980s when birth rates were still high. 1235 Demographic trends, including the two upcoming so-called academic cliffs or sharp 1236 declines in the number of college age persons and the coming decline in the number of 1237 55-plus persons due to the aging of the baby boomer generation, will result in a multi-unit 1238 housing surplus in communities like Chapel Hill. They will drive a projected surplus of 1239 rural housing of any kind since the infrastructure and amenities of cities will continue to 1240 attract the majority of home seekers. Retirement communities such as these are highly 1241 leveraged with a relatively high default rate. The Wall Street Journal has reported that 1242 they have become less popular in recent decades and particularly since the start of the 1243 pandemic. The power of retirement community borrowers to issue federally tax-exempt 1244 bonds, however, creates a perverse incentive for investors chasing yields to put money 1245 even into projects that simply are not viable over the long term. Many planned retirement 1246 communities have had to open their doors to the general public due to lack of interest 1247 from their target population and I think we may have seen that here or have had to greatly 1248 increase planned fees to compensate for the increasing costs of labor that is now in short 1249 supply. Others have been purchased by hospital corporations, effectively becoming 1250 healthcare centers. Were this to happen in our area we fear that the nearby land would 31 1251 be subject to seizure through eminent domain, further reducing the supply of farmland, 1252 and I would urge you to reject this proposal. Thank you. 1253 1254 Ron Royster: Hi, my name is Ron Royster. I moved to Morrow Mill Road 30 years ago and I love my 1255 community. When I first heard about this development, I was kind of excited because 1 1256 have some friends who are part of it, but after hearing all the details, I'm very concerned 1257 about all the ramifications and if we go forward with it, there's no turning back, and we 1258 would be stuck with it forever. I would urge you to say no, thanks. 1259 1260 Jean Eddleman: My name is Jean Eddleman, I'm a resident landowner residing on property directly 1261 abutting the eastern boundary of this proposed subdivision. My husband and I built our 1262 home and have lived here for over 45 years with plans to continue to age in place. We 1263 have a deep and abiding respect for the land, the native flora and fauna with which we 1264 share the space. We are mindful that our water supply is not unlimited and conservation, 1265 especially in times of drought, is needed. We have built and maintained our living space 1266 to achieve a soft footprint on the environment out of respect for all of our neighbors and 1267 our native wildlife here in southwest Orange. That said, I have great concerns about the 1268 proposed rezoning and the proposed large scale amendments to the Orange County 2030 1269 Comprehensive Plan, to wit: No. 1, to amend a future land use map to expand a rural 1270 neighborhood activity node and RNAN in an agricultural residential area and 2, to then 1271 expand and amend the text of the land use and zoning matrix to allow master plan 1272 development conditional districts, that's the MPD-CD, into proposed enlarged RNAN 1273 which is in a non-transitional land use classification. These proposed changes have the 1274 potential to negatively impact the current and future land use zones in all of rural Orange 1275 County. Of note, there's an important difference between the 10 and 20-year transitional 1276 areas close to municipalities and services, and areas in the non-transitional areas located 1277 in rural Orange. Therefore, the lack of the intersection between the non-transitional 1278 RNAN and the MPD-CD was intentional, it was not an oversight, to prevent poorly 1279 controlled sprawl in infrastructure poor areas in Orange County. Among the many 1280 concerns I have about these two zoning changes is the direct potentially negative impact 1281 on long-term availability of water for members of the existing residential and agricultural 1282 community and the entry of treated sewage effluent into the area water tables, as well as 1283 into the unprotected Haw River and Jordan Lake watersheds. Of interest, OWASA states 1284 in their long-range water supply plan dated 7/12/2022 that water from Jordan Lake will be 1285 required by Chapel Hill in the future due to growth and limitations in the Cane Creek 1286 Reservoir capacity. 1287 1288 Anna Hatcher: So, I would like to highlight again that my status with Chelsea changed because of 55- 1289 plus, we all heard it right. We believe in happy, dance and sing and people in retirement 1290 age and if at some point we will see that this was dropped and it's not going to be 55-plus 1291 but 30 years or people who can afford the cost, I don't know, 150 grand, we will be not 1292 happy and we will definitely strike, so 55-plus happy, retirement grandmas and grandpas, 1293 we are fine with it. I want Chelsea to record.Also, my neighbor Deborah, I talked about 1294 the darkness of Durham, I didn't mean skin color, absolutely. The darkness of Durham, 1 1295 was working for 2 years in Durham, on Miami Boulevard in Toshiba. The darkness of 1296 Durham is not in colors, but she took it and she got pissed, that I thought darkness of 1297 Durham. Darkness of Durham is in the drugs on the street, in pawn shops, you know what 1298 is pawn shops, right? Where people bring stolen rings or something to get cash. This is 1299 the darkness of Durham. The favorite teacher of my own child is a black person, he's 1300 incredibly educated cool guy. My personal manager in Toshiba, she's a black lady. I'm 32 1301 not American, okay? It has nothing to do with are you black, Spanish or Jewish or 1302 whatever, Mexican, Ukrainian, American. I'm talking about people which we are working 1303 hard all life long, build their retirement plan and,just a normal life without riding my 1304 motorcycle or ATV at night when I'm asleep. Darkness of Durham is not about skin color. 1305 My neighbor, which left us and got pissed, took it wrong. I didn't mean color of skin, 1 1306 meant pawn shops, drugs, alcohol, its crazy parties; I don't want just people which are 1307 young people,just not willing to work hard are looking for the cheap condos, that's what 1 1308 don't want to have next to me. So, I hope Deborah will get it and understand. Her front 1309 yard is always perfect, clean, I don't know if it's perfection, not always, a hundred out of a 1310 hundred, I wish my yard looked as perfect as hers. So, she took it wrong, and darkness 1311 of Durham is not in color, come on, I'm not even American, I'm Ukrainian Jewish. So, it's 1312 not about color, it's about lifestyle. Thank you. 1313 1314 Margaret E. Craft: Thank you for being here and for all you do, my name is Peggy Craft, I have lived in this 1315 area for a long time, worked as a high school teacher and I am on the H4D board and 1316 have been working for many years really hard to come to this point, and I'm very excited 1317 about the progress we're making. Everyone has said most of what I wanted to say and 1318 I'm not sure what your process is, but I do want to point out that the first speaker was 1319 inaccurate in a number of ways, so if I should address that now I will. For example, yes, 1320 people can get loans to live and buy property. There are banks that specialize in co-op 1321 loans so that was incorrect. We want a modest sign, no one's wanting glitter, I don't know 1322 where that idea came from. And also, a lot of comments were about we're going to lose 1323 farmland. We don't have farmland, ours is a forested area. Tom Cheek retained the 1324 farmland that's in the middle of our big plot, so just a few things. I have a lot of sympathy 1325 for the concerns about water, but I also have a lot of faith in the planning staff of Orange 1326 County and they have looked this stuff over really well, so if they've done something 1327 wrong, fine, let's talk about it, but I'd like you to understand that we've spent a lot of 1328 money and hired experts and it's gone through the Orange County process, so, a little 1329 faith there would probably be a good idea. I want to point out that Orange County has 1330 been pressured to do a lot of development lately because of population growth. When the 1331 growth spilled over into the rural areas, primarily what we're seeing are these 1332 checkerboard, chop, cut down all the trees, put up a bunch of houses, developments. Not 1333 good for anybody, not good for the trees or the streams or the animals, and it's certainly 1334 not sustainable. Hands Four is doing it differently, we will be concentrating our growth as 1335 you heard on 30 acres, leaving 60 free to the animals and the plants and the people who 1336 want to enjoy that. The Orange County commissioners have created in the unified 1337 development ordinance incentives to do this kind of flexible development. No developer 1338 has taken them up on it yet, our cooperative is interested in rising to that challenge, 1339 planning a conservation subdivision with a master plan that preserves contiguous areas of 1340 the forest for the animals and the plants to thrive. Orange County has consistently 1341 chosen to place environmental concerns on an equal footing with economic and social 1342 considerations and therefore, I urge you to take a strong stand and your commitment to 1343 sustainable development in Orange County by approving our application. 1344 1345 Adam Beeman: Mr. Eddleman will be the last speaker of the night for the public. 1346 1347 Perdita Holtz: Mr. Chair, I have something that I needed to say about that. Earlier I think you were 1348 informed that Mike Fox was erroneously crossed off the lists and should have been called. 1349 1350 Adam Beeman: You're correct, I apologize. 33 1351 1352 Dan Eddleman: Mr. Stober, our planning director, reminded us sternly at the first meeting here that is 1353 about land use, not intent. You've heard a lot about intent, but the bottom line is you have 1354 to judge this on what the footprint is on the ground and what you see in this plan is a large 1355 development R5 zoning category which, again, the land use plan specifically states where 1356 those areas are perfectly acceptable. This approach and their intent could have been 1357 applied to those areas. Mr. Gilfillen made a comment about quick speeches and one that 1358 came to mind to me is, "We hold these truths to be self-evident". And it is in the land use 1359 planning principles 5 and 8, preservation of rural land and rural character, future growth 1360 and development should occur in a manner that preserves and enhances the existing 1361 character of the county, its townships and rural crossroads. Land use goal three, a variety 1362 of land uses that are coordinated within a program that limits sprawl, preserves 1363 community, rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and 1364 balanced transportation system, discourages urban sprawl, this is Land Use LU-3.1, 1365 discourages urban sprawl, encourages separation of urban and rural land use and direct 1366 new development into areas where community facilities and services exist. To coordinate 1367 land use, this is LU-3.4, coordinate land use patterns that facilitate the expanded use of 1368 non-automobile transportation modes. This is NA-17, maintain and protect land that 1369 contains valuable productive water, productive resources such as prime farmland, prime 1370 forest land and directing incompatible development away from these areas. We hold this 1371 to be the truth in this matter. Let me read something quickly here from the 2022 long 1372 range OWASA land use plan for water. While we, this is OWASA speaking, have plenty 1373 of water in the most circumstances, Cane Creek Reservoir is vulnerable to extended 1374 drought or back-to-back droughts. It was designed to maximize storage which is 1375 generally good and provides a higher yield; however, it has a relatively small drainage 1376 area for storage volume and can take a long time to refill. University Lake refills quickly, 1377 but it doesn't hold enough water for our daily needs. Cane Creek Reservoir can take over 1378 a year to refill under these weather conditions. Chapel Hill's water supply is these 1379 agricultural, low population density land contains small creeks and tributaries that feed 1380 into the reservoir. This is about Chapel Hill's water supply. I'm surprised that Chapel Hill 1381 doesn't have the opportunity to speak on this matter, so I think that's why it should be part 1382 of the comprehensive plan in the future. 1383 1384 Mike Fox: Mike Fox, thank you for allowing me to speak. I have until 10, is that correct? I'm kidding. 1385 I'm opposed to the rezoning. Alan, Maria, Scott, they've all been in my house, we live right 1386 across the street from this proposed development. Our property, 20 acres, my daughter's 1387 property, 2'/z acres, could probably not sit more directly right in front of where this land is. 1388 If I would have had any idea, I did a couple years ago, that Tom was going sell his 1389 property, I would have done my best to purchase it myself or get people around us to 1390 purchase it, because we just love the 90 acres of trees there. My daughter lives right next 1391 door, I have her two horses right there on Goldmine Loop. I don't like the horses, but 1 1392 don't want them spooked all the time with the noise. Very concerned about all this. 1393 We've been meeting with them for 2 years, went into the meeting very open-minded 1394 because initially you're like, okay, well, this is something that's never heard of this before, 1395 1 left the last meeting proud of myself that I learned what a rural activity node was. So 1396 now that I've learned all this, and I see what's getting ready to happen here, this is totally 1397 inconsistent with why we moved out there, Tom said he's been there for six generations, 1398 Gaston Pierce has been there 3-4 years, generation farmers, right next to this 1399 development. This is a massive project, so Fiddlehead Corner they say that they're going 1400 to blend in with rural Orange County. There's no 3-story building within miles of where 34 1401 this development is on Morrow Mill and Goldmine Loop. Emergency road is going to 1402 come out right in front of my daughter's house and my soon to be fourth grandchildren. 1403 Come out and please drive down Goldmine Loop, it still has gravel on it, it's still a gravel 1404 road in places. So, we moved out there to be in a rural area, rural community, and all 1405 those people along Goldmine Loop. They're going to put 300 people on 30 acres and no 1406 offense to them, but they're saying that the other 60 acres, two-thirds of this is going to be 1407 less forested. We all know that cannot happen. You cannot put a road in there, you 1408 cannot put sidewalks in there, berms in there, storm water drainage, and if they can dig a 1409 well there that gets 40 gallons a minute, they need to go into the well drilling business, 1410 because I've never heard of that before, that's not happening out there. I was not 1411 opposed to this initially; I just was listening with an open mind. Thanks for listening. I'm 1412 not as eloquent as all these other people but this is going to affect our lifestyle, 10 years 1413 of construction, please, 10 years. Thank you. 1414 1415 Adam Beeman: Thank you. That concludes the public conversation, we're going to close the public 1416 comments and discuss amongst the board and see if we can't hash this out. Elizabeth, 1417 do you have any questions or concerns? 1418 1419 Chris Johnston: What are we doing here? 1420 1421 Adam Beeman: Work your way through, we have a motion one way or the other. 1422 1423 Beth Bronson: Have any comments on the public comments, maybe we'd like to discuss any of this. 1424 1425 Chris Johnston: Sure, I do want clarity real quick, because it was brought up in the previous meeting. Item 1426 8, in regard to how it, and I'm sorry, I'm used to looking at Cy and then Cy looks back at 1427 me, who am I looking at here today in terms of talking about Item 8? This is the one 1428 where we need to be in alignment with state law. Is that an accurate representation or is 1429 that an inaccurate representation? 1430 1431 Charity Kirk: The family care, care facilities and, and master planning district. 1432 1433 Lamar Proctor: It's Agenda Item No. 8. 1434 1435 Perdita Holtz: So, the UDO text amendment, it's in the abstract. When we were researching it, we 1436 determined that state law requires that you cannot discriminate against family care homes 1437 if they're allowed in any residential area, they need to be allowed in all the residential 1438 areas or in a zoning district that allows residential, which MPD-CD does. It was an 1439 oversight when MPD-CD was created back in 2010 to not have the little star there 1440 indicating that you can apply for that. So, even if that text amendment does not get 1441 approved at this point, at some time staff will be back to add that tick mark to that. 1442 1443 Chris Johnston: But to confirm, tonight, this is in front of us, to put us into alignment with state regulations. 1444 One way or another this has to occur unless we do what? There is no unless we do what, 1445 correct? 1446 1447 Perdita Holtz: The text amendment, that stipulation, has multiple parts in the UDO. The part that I just 1448 described about having a little star in the table of permitted uses is the one thing that will 1449 have to occur at some point, whether it's part of this action or whether it's part of a future 1450 action initiated by staff. 35 1451 1452 Chris Johnston: And I apologize, could you,just for my own personal clarification, break it out a little bit 1453 more so that star specifically means that we need to... 1454 1455 Perdita Holtz: The star in the table of permitted uses means that it's a permitted use. When you get to 1456 the conditional districts, what it means is that it's a use that can be applied for as part of a 1457 conditional district. So, it would just mean that somebody can apply for that to get 1458 approved as part of their conditional district application. 1459 1460 Charity Kirk: Can we approve just that Amendment 1 in Item 8, right now? 1461 1462 Perdita Holtz: You could recommend that that go forward if you didn't want to approve the other parts. 1463 1464 Charity Kirk: Do we have to do them together or can we just get that done with right now? 1465 1466 Perdita Holtz: It would probably be unlikely since this is a bundled application that staff is going to just 1467 take forward one thing that's not part of this whole bundle of applications. We'll come 1468 back in the fall with this one amendment if things did not go forward at this point. 1469 1470 Chris Johnston: I apologize, I just hate arguing about things that we don't have any control over, that's 1471 what I want to make sure that we're not doing necessarily, like if this is something that is a 1472 state regulation. 1473 1474 Perdita Holtz: I would recommend that you not take out just that one part. We'll come back with a text 1475 amendment, if necessary, in the future. 1476 1477 Adam Beeman: Any other questions or concerns? 1478 1479 Chris Johnston: I have general thoughts and comments and that sort of thing, but are we at the point 1480 where we're summarizing our thoughts or are we still asking questions of the public? 1481 1482 Adam Beeman: I mean, we're looking for a motion so if you're ready for a motion or someone wants to 1483 discuss things, let's have it. 1484 1485 Chris Johnston: I'm still putting together Agenda Item 8 and I apologize, I thought that that was a little bit 1486 more bundled than it turned out it was, so I need to do a little bit of additional digging 1487 there. In regards to Agenda Item 7, which is essentially growing the pink dot, right? 1488 We're talking about expanding the rural neighborhood activity node. That makes sense 1489 based on the comments that were brought before by the previous planning board,why 1490 they didn't do it by parcels, that makes complete sense now. They didn't do it by parcels 1491 because, and if I misunderstand, I apologize, but they didn't do it by parcels because if 1492 they did then there would be no growth, it would just be whoever is there is there, so this 1493 makes sense in that regard insomuch as if someone comes in, they may be outside that 1494 dot, extending it makes sense to make it in compliance or whatever the case may be. If 1495 I'm misunderstanding that also, please correct me. But the key question here on is 1496 Agenda Item 9, right? Agenda Item 9 is the proposal by the applicant, and I think that 1497 everyone agrees with what Fiddlehead is trying to do there, they are trying to age in place, 1498 they want a community of like-minded individuals who have kind of fun with their 1499 neighbors, they can grow together and have that community, and I think that community 1500 actually in some ways already exists at Morrow Mill, right. There are people there who 36 1501 really enjoy their neighbors and feel like they have that community, and I completely 1502 understand why Fiddlehead wants that. I think the question is, does that fit in this 1503 particular area? Does it make sense? Everything I've heard so far about Fiddlehead 1504 makes it feel like a neighborhood island, and what I mean by that is it feels like it's not 1505 necessarily supporting the neighborhood in the sense of the rural neighborhood activity 1506 node is land designated in the comprehensive plan that is focused on road intersections 1507 within a rural agricultural residential area that is appropriate for small scale commercial 1508 uses. When I read that, I think of local support and growth of commercial uses that are 1509 supposed to be supporting the local neighborhood. This feels like it is an amazing and 1510 wonderful thing, I love the green, I love the solar, all the things about it. Does it fit that 1511 necessary designation at this point, I don't necessarily think so. So that's where 1 1512 currently land with that. That is no dig on Fiddlehead or anything along those lines, land 1513 is expensive everywhere, I totally understand going above and beyond to try to find a 1514 place and make it fit. For this particular designation I struggle with that, so that is where 1515 I'm at right now. 1516 1517 Whitney Watson: So, I'm going to disagree with Chris. I think the most important issue is Item 7, the 1518 change proposed to the land use map and expanding what is possible within the rural 1519 neighborhood activity nodes. Because if it happens here, it does mean that it's now 1520 possible in all the additional 9 activities nodes throughout the county. So, this one change, 1521 while it may have benefitted a very worthwhile project, it now changes the future for the 1522 entire county, so for me that's really the crux of why we're here tonight is trying to address 1523 that. I had some conversation with some of the planning staff and it does help to have 1524 that history about why the activity nodes don't follow the parcel lines, but in this particular 1525 instance, perhaps, we could direct that the activity node go back to the parcel line, the 1526 one that's furthest away from the current AR designation, and ask the applicant to 1527 propose a project that fits within either the agricultural residential or change that zoning 1528 from AR to master plan development, because I'm really reluctant to sweep the entire 1529 history of activity nodes out the door in this one episode. I don't have any problem with the 1530 family care home, doing that text change and Perdita's right, we're going to have to come 1531 back at some point and make that change to the table, so no big deal there. 1532 1533 Charity Kirk: I'm going to echo what Chris said. I'm in support of the vision but I think we're talking 1534 about something that is a much more core or root level here, and it's something that 1535 would be nice if it is addressed in a comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan is 1536 being worked on right now, so doing such a change that seems fairly dramatic for this one 1537 project where it doesn't meet the current comprehensive plan vision, it doesn't seem wise 1538 if we are purely trying to use the UDO and the comprehensive plan to make our land use 1539 decisions. 1540 1541 Lamar Proctor: I think it's a beautiful vision and I love the idea of it, I think I'll just echo the other planning 1542 board members, my concern is opening up rural activity nodes to master plan conditional 1543 districts. This was talked about a little, I was looking through the minutes where Cy 1544 Stober indicated that the intended uses for this project fell out of what would be allowed in 1545 a rural activity node which is a rural conditional district. So, clearly our entire 1546 comprehensive land use plan envisions consistent uses throughout the county to match 1547 the population densities and the existing uses and to give our population consistency and 1548 security about what's going to be developed around them and people purchase land with 1549 the idea that they know what the conforming uses are around them, they can see what 1550 areas are for future development, they know when they buy it, if they buy it next to a 37 1551 transition node this is some sort of industrial transition node, that, hey, this may be coming 1552 your way. And if they buy something in the middle of the rural buffer or agricultural 1553 residential areas, they would not expect that kind of dense development. As this is 1554 presented, to ask that we change the entire planning scheme to allow for MPD-CD zoning 1555 within rural activity nodes, I think is too far of a stretch. I wish this had been presented as 1556 somewhat a more consistent residential conditional district, but for whatever reason that 1557 was not how this is presented. I think what Cy said is that the anticipated uses and the 1558 vision, the big picture and the grandeur of this vision, there were uses that the developer 1559 and the applicant are looking to put in that couldn't conform with residential conditional 1560 district zoning. 1561 1562 Charity Kirk: I think it was the large-scale multi-family housing. 1563 1564 Lamar Proctor: Right, that's just where I am. I love the vision. I just think expanding MPD-CD zoning into 1565 rural activity nodes, given the history of it, given the consistency of the uses and within 1566 entire comprehensive land use scheme is inconsistent for me. 1567 1568 Steve Kaufmann: I guess I just don't feel comfortable with the plan, especially given the feedback from all 1569 the neighbors. It just doesn't seem to fit in that particular place. Even though the vision is 1570 great, the neighbors really don't want it, and it doesn't fit with the culture there, so for that 1571 reason I would not support it. 1572 1573 Beth Bronson: I think that we should be supporting a diverse kind of housing opportunities within the 1574 county and countywide. I think that the idea that more residents over the age of 55 will be 1575 coming to the area or aging in place in the area is only going to grow, but as is the rest of 1576 the population in this county, both for manufacturing, as well as for jobs that are outside of 1577 the county, and so it's well known that the rural buffer area has long been wanting to be 1578 preserved with agricultural residential and farmland. There are efforts to preserve 1579 farmland in the area; however, that doesn't stop owners from wanting to develop on their 1580 land and wanting to do a novel thing on their land. The master plan development 1581 conditional district is not something that I would find conducive to be adjacent to 1582 agricultural residential, and much less that far from community services such as public 1583 utilities and emergency services. I would find that there's a lot more questions that 1584 remain, and to go with a master plan development I feel like that would be shortchanging 1585 the precedent that this would be setting, so that's kind of where I'm at with this. The 1586 couple of conditions that we've discussed I think might be a good start, but I'm also 1587 wondering if anybody with Hands Four Development or anybody from planning staff 1588 brought the Economic Development Department into the discussion around this 1589 cooperative development or project. 1590 1591 Patrick Mallett: Well two things, so I would encourage you if you get into the part where you're crafting 1592 conditions you be very specific as you normally do with conditional districts and word 1593 them out item by item as part of your recommendation. Cases go through a process and 1594 a calendar and that starts with an internal analysis and then the items are also shared 1595 with various other departments. Economic Development is part of a development 1596 advisory committee. 1597 1598 Beth Bronson: So, the DAC saw it? 1599 38 1600 Patrick Mallett: That's right. They see it and are able to comment or not comment on any given project. 1601 For this specific case. In many cases they don't chime in. 1602 1603 Beth Bronson: I want to say they had no comment but let me just double check that real quick. 1604 1605 Patrick Mallett: That's my recollection. 1606 1607 Beth Bronson: I do not actually see them on here. 1608 1609 Patrick Mallett: So, they get the information, they attend the meeting, but they may not put in a comment. 1610 Or provide a memo. Most of the other departments, we ask for a specific memo because 1611 they have a very technical application and integration into the request. 1612 1613 Beth Bronson: And so when this was originally provided, I want to say that if there was proposals going 1614 back as far, and this is probably for the applicant, but proposals going back as far as 2020 1615 and 2019, was the Economic Development Department ever consulted or did you guys 1616 ever approach them about how to work with the County on creating this type of co-op 1617 environment so far away from municipality and doing that in rural county development 1618 land? 1619 1620 Scott Radway: I think all of us working on the project and H4D members and 2T members realize the 1621 complexity of the overlaying of these many issues that are here. The proposal itself, 1622 which is, there's some statements that have been made that aren't accurate. The 1623 proposal itself is completely a residential development. It does not have any non- 1624 residential components. 1625 1626 Statler Gilfillen: I'm sorry. That differs with what you said about the medical facilities and other things that 1627 will be there. When you say it's only residential, but you've been telling me the opposite 1628 of that, so that's why you're getting that response. 1629 1630 Scott Radway: Well, I think that's incorrect. The medical piece which is state law as Perdita talked 1631 through and gone through and to this item that's No. 8 is that when we start, as applicants 1632 doing due diligence on property and uses, we started going in detail to what did it mean to 1633 be in X, Y, or Z district. What did it mean to be a flexible development within the existing 1634 zoning? What did it mean to be a residential conditional district? This application could 1635 have been brought forward in almost all or any of those districts, and it could have in fact 1636 been brought forward without requiring any rezoning component to it. It could have been 1637 brought forward in the agricultural residential district with one exception, which is the fact 1638 that there are multi-family dwelling units in this rather than all single family or all single 1639 family and duplex, and that's an important distinction, but the assisted living or the family 1640 care centers are governed by state statute. Part of the activity, it was referenced that 1641 there was a lot of back and forth between the applicant and the County. I took that to 1642 imply that somehow there was collusion someplace in there, but, in fact, when we tried to 1643 find that out and did some research, and the County did that research, looked at it and 1644 discovered that the state statutes and the definitions in the LIDO were not matched. So, a 1645 simple piece in this is get the right definition in the right place, that's technical. The other 1646 part is should it be here, and that's obviously a bigger discussion, but state statute 1647 establishes, as was said, that all districts that permit single family or residential 1648 development, actually in any form, can have what is now called a family care home, 1649 defined correctly according to the state statute, which can have a maximum of six people, 39 1650 it's licensed by the state and it's further distinctive piece in here is that it has to be by a 1651 licensed provider within that piece of property, and so what's in the application is for a 1652 maximum of two single family homes, as defined by the state, that would have a 1653 maximum of six residential occupants within those. That's not, with due respect to some 1654 conversations at the last meeting and other things, that's not a non-residential use as 1655 defined by the state. Now we can all argue about whether it ought to be or whether it 1656 shouldn't be. 1657 1658 Beth Bronson: And I can appreciate that. Thank you for clarifying that there is no commercial 1659 component. 1660 1661 Scott Radway: There is no commercial component, and as such, this application could have come 1662 forward as a residential conditional district or, in some ways, as a flexible development, so 1663 if I can, before Patrick comes up and swats me, if I can say one thing. There's a lot of 1664 overlaps in the design that are pieces that are required by the ordinance. For example, 1665 there was a comment about signs and a lot of back and forth as we were trying to figure 1666 out signs. Well, in fact, to make the application we have to design a sign and submit it 1667 with the application. So, the back and forth on many of these items is not conspiracy in 1668 any fashion. It's trying to find out what we have to submit in order to begin the process. 1669 The second piece that we've heard about things that don't match up is the zoning districts 1670 for this require a perimeter buffer around the property on all sides; buffers against what's 1671 across the street, buffers against the adjacent properties. This project, if brought forward 1672 as a flexible development, in the subdivision process would not have to provide any of 1673 those buffers around to any properties, so the claim that this is a village that's put into the 1674 woods and hidden from everything is, in part,just because your ordinance requires it to do 1675 that, so parts of these are elements of how to build a community, and they're the elements 1676 of how to bring forward and have a good discussion about this, and I think it would be 1677 helpful to have Cy be able to comment on some of these things from this meeting that 1678 happened at the first meeting too. I don't get to make that choice, but it's my 2 cents. 1679 1680 Adam Beeman: Correct me if I'm wrong, Patrick, but the community buildings is why they can't use those 1681 residential districts? 1682 1683 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, in short, they've been working on this for quite some time, and they kind of came to 1684 the point of let's talk about what we need to do and what our vision is and which 1685 category, which way do we go with our request, and I think that a lot of the considerations 1686 with where the category they ended up with were based in, or, what is our best 1687 opportunity to be consistent as best we can or a path towards consistency with our plans, 1688 our goals, our objectives. Also knowing that this board reviewed a residential conditional 1689 district recently, Eden View, 30 plus units, and that is a fairly simple design because 1690 you're talking about just single-family homes on public or private roads. This group is 1691 contemplating more than just single family in a sense that single family, duplex, triplex, 1692 town homes, family care facility, like a multi-family, so the difference from a design 1693 perspective, I think that there was, and I'm not trying to speak for them or weigh whether 1694 that's good or bad, but the reality is once you cross that line you start to get into building 1695 and design commitments. With a master plan there is some very limited flexibility to that. 1696 If you go to an RCD and/or, let's just say theoretically to accommodate their other uses 1697 other than the residences, you start to get into where are the dumpsters, where is the fire 1698 lane, exactly where is the ADA accessibility space, where's the route? It's a higher level 1699 of design, and so I think that there was an obvious choice, like we know a lot about what 40 1700 we want to do. Do we know definitively where the dumpsters are going to be and the 1701 ADA. I'm not speaking for the applicant. I'm just saying that that is a reality and a 1702 distinction between those two zoning categories. 1703 1704 Beth Bronson: And I think that makes complete sense that you would need a master plan conditional so 1705 that you could obtain approval and then make those changes necessary as you go 1706 through. 1707 1708 Pat Mallett: Then you're diving into more of the details in the design of the site plans and construction 1709 drawing-type documents. 1710 1711 Beth Bronson: Correct. And in the final site plan, if you are awarded a master plan conditional district, 1712 that final plan that gets submitted with the first land distributing permit is that plan and 1713 cannot deviate from that plan. Is that correct? 1714 1715 Patrick Mallett: It has to be consistent, yes. 1716 1717 Beth Bronson: Okay. And if anybody wants to see, this is the general statute for family care homes. 1718 This is the one that they're referencing. They're speaking to about being consistent with 1719 general statute language. Quite simply, it makes a ton of sense. 1720 1721 Charity Kirk: I don't have a problem with the family care homes. I have a problem with the rural 1722 neighborhood activity node getting enlarged so much and it not being consistent with what 1723 they want, but the family care homes I'm fine with. 1724 1725 Beth Bronson: And so, to my original questions that brought you up there to explain so much, it would've 1726 been so helpful to this application had the Economic Development Department been 1727 involved in the construction of this or in the development of this idea in setting this 1728 precedent. There would've been so many more questions that could've been addressed 1729 that the community would've had. 1730 1731 Charity Kirk: And why? Why would it have been more helpful? 1732 1733 Beth Bronson: Because what they're proposing doesn't have a precedent in the area. It is a stark 1734 change to the comprehensive land use plan and the future land use map, and so, if there 1735 were something like that that they have been working with the County on for years, 1 1736 thought that it would be beneficial because the Economic Development Department would 1737 be able to help quantify and qualify all of these different elements that would help 1738 preserve that natural rural character while also allowing innovation to occur. So, that's 1739 just my comment. Thank you. I do also wonder if the reason for the amendment cannot 1740 include the multi-family standards. To what we were talking about earlier, this is an 1741 extremely complex project, and so, the idea that it's going to be so far from any westward 1742 expansion of a municipality, that there are no municipalities that could expand north of it 1743 or south of it, I have a real concern just about going forward with a recommendation that 1744 is going to be taking such a chance on this rural development. So, that's kind of where 1 1745 stand, and I realize that that's not very eloquent, but it does, I think, address the 1746 neighbors, as well as the concerns of the residents and for the members of H4D. Again, 1747 it's not that I, and I echo what you guys are saying, it's not that this is a bad plan. It's a 1748 very good plan. It's just understanding what that's doing while we're in the middle of 1749 reviewing the comprehensive plan for 2050, and it does bring a lot of questions up for 41 1750 what does that look like as far as continuity of the neighborhood in line with the rural 1751 neighborhood activity network, which a mom and pop store would it not be, and so, at the 1752 same time, if that's a requirement just to get this land to be able to have this site plan on 1753 it, it's a convoluted way of going about it, and I think that there's better ways to approach 1754 this. 1755 1756 Chris Johnston: I want to make sure that we have the time for Statler's questions as well. 1757 1758 Statler Gilfillen: I'll try to keep mine short. I think we are watching democracy, as it should be, at its best. 1759 1 appreciate both sides and what you've said. What I have listened to is a developer 1760 whose goals and intentions, I think, are excellent. I think they are needed in this county, 1761 but I've also listened to the neighbors, the people there, and when I look at the logistics, 1762 which are the water, the sewer, the transportation issues, that are still fairly undefined, 1763 and I'm concerned about them, and as an architect, there are issues of the design that 1764 this is much more of a scaled down subdivision in the layout than it is actually a village, 1765 and there's a difference. That's an architect speaking. And listening to the neighbors and 1766 the people that are surrounding this, I have to raise serious questions if this particular 1767 location is appropriate for this scale of a development being put in. I'll keep it short, and 1 1768 think that's enough. 1769 1770 Adam Beeman: So, the pieces for me is that you want to change the activity node, and that's to benefit the 1771 public, but your statement from several members in the literature is we want to be left 1772 alone and be invisible to the community. So, you want the benefit of a public rezoning, 1773 but the public doesn't get any benefit from your property. I kind of find that weird. Like 1774 everybody else said, I think the development itself is a great idea. I think it's just trying to 1775 shoehorn in the wrong place. So, with that being said, I'm just going to cut if off there and 1776 say that I'm not for this proposal the way it's proposed. I don't think that any of these 1777 things, if we change this, we're going to open a can of worms that I don't think the 1778 county's ready for. If we are ready for it, then we should do that in the comprehensive 1779 plan because I've been to those meetings, and the community in every one of those 1780 meetings say that we want rural, rural, rural, keep the woods, keep the nature, keep the 1781 animals, keep the wildlife, and this yes, it is stuffed in. If you did a normal development, 1782 you could put 90 homes on that 90 acres. You want to put 60 additional homes on a third 1783 of that 90 acres. To me, that's just a wrong place. We're not in the city. We're not 1784 anywhere close to those metropolitan areas, and while I get the point, you want to have 1785 concerts. That's not really something that your neighbors get a benefit of, but they'll have 1786 to hear it. You want to have all those other things, and the traffic, they'll have to deal with 1787 it, but they don't get any benefit of it. So, if you want to use something that's benefiting 1788 the public, then I think you should benefit the public. Otherwise, go back and figure out 1789 how to do it with an appropriate zoning where you don't have to jump through all these 1790 hoops to make it happen, because it's like twisting an arm to make it happen for you, and 1791 then the next guy that comes along, we've got to twist an arm to make it happen for him, 1792 where it should just happen at the County level and the UDO. So, I would say if you want 1793 that to happen, go advocate with the Board of County Commissioners and see if we can 1794 make that happen in the 2050 comprehensive plan because we're currently working on 1795 that. But until that gets changed, I really don't see how this whole thing works. I'm going 1796 to leave it at that, and I'm going to leave it for the Board to any other questions or 1797 comments or motion. I'm open for it all. 1798 42 1799 Chris Johnston: I would make a motion, and this is to put a flag up. The motion is to reject the three 1800 agenda items as presented and submit to the County Commissioners as such. 1801 1802 Statler GiIfillen: Will second that. 1803 1804 Beth Bronson: Each one of these needs to be an individual motion? 1805 1806 Adam Beeman: Perdita is going to clarify for us. 1807 1808 Perdita Holtz: It would be good if you could do three separate motions, and if you could use the words 1809 approve or deny instead of reject. 1810 1811 Chris Johnston: Okay. I make a motion to deny Agenda Item 7 and submit that to the Board of County 1812 Commissioners. 1813 1814 Statler GiIfillen: Second that. 1815 1816 Chris Johnston: All of these seemed tied together, so,just to confirm, we're doing this three separate 1817 times? 1818 1819 Perdita Holtz: You need to, for a couple of them state why you're doing it, not for the comp plan, but for 1820 the rezoning. You have to state why you're doing it. There's a statement of consistency 1821 and such. 1822 1823 Chris Johnston: Sure. Of course. 1824 1825 Beth Bronson: So, before you finish with that motion, because I think you're on the right track, I would 1826 like to make a motion to extend the meeting time. Like 15 minutes, if needed be, up to 1827 10:30. Just making sure because we have three different motions to go through. 1828 1829 Chris Johnston: I was planning on doing all three in tandem because I think all three of them depend on 1830 each other. 1831 1832 Adam Beeman: If we get to 10:00 here we'll vote on a push out. 1833 1834 Patrick Mallett: Just to clarify, we'll do them in succession, but they're different applications that have 1835 different case numbers, so we could do them in rapid succession, but they really do need 1836 to be three separate items. And 'its approval or denial on all, as Perdita said, on the 1837 zoning case, you need to have a statement of inconsistency or consistency. 1838 1839 Chris Johnston: Lamar, would you mind handling that now?You are so much better at this than I am. 1840 1841 Patrick Mallett: You need to articulate why. 1842 1843 Adam Beeman: We'll start with 7. 1844 1845 Lamar Proctor: Does 7 need a statement of inconsistency? 1846 1847 Perdita Holtz: No, it does not. 1848 43 1849 Patrick Mallett: The zoning is the only one. 1850 1851 Perdita Holtz: Well, the LIDO text amendment also. 1852 1853 Patrick Mallett: Yep, sorry. 1854 1855 Adam Beeman: 7, we don't need a statement of consistency. 1856 1857 Lamar Proctor: 8, do we need a statement? 1858 1859 Perdita Holtz: You need to give your rationale on why you're denying a text amendment. 1860 1861 Lamar Proctor: Okay. And then 9, obviously we do. Got it. I make a motion to deny the application as to 1862 Agenda Item 7. 1863 1864 Chris Johnston: I second that motion. 1865 1866 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to Deny Agenda Item 7. Seconded by Chris Johnston 1867 1868 IN FAVOR: Adam Beeman, Lamar Proctor, Charity Kirk, Chris Johnston, Whitney Watson, Liz Kalies, Steve 1869 Kaufmann, Statler Gilfillen 1870 1871 OPPOSED: Beth Bronson 1872 1873 MOTION PASSES 8 TO 1874 1875 Lamar Proctor: All right. I make a motion to deny the application as to Agenda Item No. 8, that it is 1876 inconsistent with the comprehensive land use plan and adopt the statement of 1877 inconsistency as presented by the Planning Department. 1878 1879 Perdita Holtz: There isn't a statement of inconsistency for 8. Just give a rationale on why. 1880 1881 Lamar Proctor: So, I make a motion to deny the application as to Agenda Item No. 8. Part of that is to 1882 codify on which future land use classifications MPD-CD may be applied. So, the rationale 1883 would be that extending MPD-CD zoning to rural activity nodes is inconsistent with the 1884 comprehensive land use plan. 1885 1886 Adam Beeman: Do I have a second? 1887 1888 Chris Johnston: Seconded. 1889 1890 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to Deny Agenda Item 8. Seconded by Chris Johnston 1891 1892 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 1893 Lamar Proctor: I make a motion to deny the application as to Agenda Item No. 9 with the statement that it 1894 is inconsistent with the comprehensive land use plan and adopt the statement of 1895 inconsistency as presented by the Planning Department and its attachment. 1896 1897 Adam Beeman: Do we have a second? 1898 44 1899 Beth Bronson: I will second that motion. 1900 1901 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to Deny Agenda Item 9. Seconded by Beth Bronson 1902 1903 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 1904 1905 Beth Bronson: And I just wanted to make sure, I'm making a comment now that this recommendation is 1906 denied, but this is still going to the Board of Commissioners for a public hearing. 1907 1908 Patrick Mallett: It has to. That is the end of the process. 1909 1910 Beth Bronson: It's their ultimate decision on whether to accept or reject the proposed amendments. 1911 1912 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT 1913 1914 Adam Beeman: Do I have a motion to adjourn? 1915 1916 Chris Johnston: I make a motion that we adjourn. 1917 1918 Steve Kaufmann: Second. 1919 1920 Adam Beeman: All in favor? Adjourned. 1921 1922 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Steve Kaufmann. 1923 1924 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 1925 1926 The meeting adjourned at 9:54 PM. 1927 1928 45 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 7, 2024 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment — 1031 Frazier Rd., Mebane, Cheeks Township DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Application, including Map of Land Lauren Coffey, Planner I, (919) 245-2598 Proposed for Rezoning and Supplemental Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director of Materials Development Services, (919) 245-2577 2. Staff Report Cy Stober, Planning Director, (919) 245-2592 3. Notification Materials and Certification 4. Development Advisory Committee Memo 5. Statement of Consistency 6. Draft Ordinance PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on an applicant-initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone a +/- 112.17-acre parcel (PIN: 9835-74-8573) located at 1031 Frazier Rd., Mebane, Cheeks Township. The proposed rezoning is: FROM: MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning) TO: R-1 (Rural Residential) BACKGROUND: On April 19, 2024, a Conventional Zoning Atlas Amendment application (Attachment 1) was received proposing to rezone +/- 112.17 acres at 1031 Frazier Rd., Mebane. The Staff Report in Attachment 2 contains additional information, maps, and analysis. Requirements: As detailed within the Zoning Atlas Amendment application package (Attachment 1), and Section 2.8 of the UDO, rezoning submittals are required to contain: 1. A completed/signed Zoning Atlas Amendment application; 2. A map, at a legible scale, showing the land proposed for rezoning; 3. A detailed narrative denoting the following: a. The existing zoning of the subject property and the requested zoning, as defined in Article 3 of the UDO; b. The current land use designation of the subject property consistent with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which can be accessed utilizing the provided links. c. The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas (if any)that will be corrected by the proposed request; 46 d. The changed, or changing, conditions (if any) that makes the proposed amendment reasonable and necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; and e. How the proposed amendment is consistent with, or carries out the intent and purpose of, the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. 4. Plan review fee(s) consistent with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule. Basic Review Process: A conventional district rezoning application requires submission of a detailed area map and other documents, in accordance with Section 2.8.3(A) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). A site-specific plan is not required for conventional rezoning applications and conditions cannot be applied to an approval action. The typical cadence for the review is as follows: • FIRST ACTION — Staff holds a Development Advisory Committee Meeting. STAFF COMMENT: The Development Advisory Committee Meeting was held on May 16, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., via Microsoft Teams. Comments received from this review are available in Attachment 4. • SECOND ACTION — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. STAFF COMMENT. The Planning Board will review this application at its regular meeting on August 7, 2024. • THIRD ACTION — The BOCC receives the Planning Board and staff recommendations at an advertised public hearing and makes a decision on the application. STAFF COMMENT: The public hearing will be scheduled following the issuance of a recommendation from the Planning Board. Public Notification: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices of the Planning Board meeting were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject parcel. These notices were mailed on July 24, 2024, 14 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcel with signs on July 24, 2024, 14 days before the meeting. See Attachment 3 for the notification materials. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 5 and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment Ordinance contained in Attachment 6. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising, including the public hearing notice and mailings, are covered by the application fee. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Receive the rezoning application, 2. Deliberate on the proposal as desired, 3. Consider the Planning Director's recommendation, and 47 4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and the proposed ordinance (Attachment 6) in time for an expected BOCC public hearing on September 5, 2024. FAttachment 1 48 - Orange County Planning & Inspections Department " RANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane Suite 200, Hillsborough NC 27278 , ,. AI I fT�IA 919-245-2575 or�larginej p�?sLairrgecc�rr7t�rc,c�c�v 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. * Please fill out all reui ed fields Date: I Rezoning Request: Conventional District❑ Conditional District Contact Information* Property Owner(s): HA tt-I i I'll I L.,L Mailing Address: ' �`Z. I C � 1yC S �1) �'13�'(', —�� Phone: C-t �� --- "�S 3.;. �Z I � Email: �J C e(0 1,1 , Applicant (if different than property owner): Mailing Address: Phone: Email: Property lnformatioW. Parcel ID Number (PIN): `� � - - 1 Total Acreage: Address: i 1`12AZ 1 CTZ ISA-Ili& Future Land Use Map Classification: (---gAN& - e- 612- j12A NSt 1 0tJ , Current Zoning Designation: Requested Zoning Designation: Tz-- C0t jyCs�17-10 1 AL ' 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): IL,VI'A map, at a legible scale, showing the property(s) subject to the request A map may be procured at the Planning Department for a fee in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee' Schedule. A legal description of the property(s) proposed fdr rezoning. IRA list showing the names and addresses of all adjacent propertyowners within 1`000-feet of the " subject property. A detailed narrative denoting the following: i. The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas (if any) that will be corrected by the proposed request. Page 1 of 2 49 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 purposeof the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan, or part thereof. ' 'RThe 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. El 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 documents) prepared in accordance with Section 6:16 of th e UDO. ❑A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal., . ❑ Other information identified during the pre-application conference deemed essential to demonstrate the project's compliance with these regulations. ❑ The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule. Certification and Signatures*` I (we), the undersigned, have been made aware of the process for the review and action associated with a UDO Zoning Atlas Amendment application and understand only completed applications, containing all information required by the Orange County.UDO, shall'be reviewed and acted upon by the County. Further I (we) understand that any assistance I (we) may receive from,County staff in preparing,this application in no way guarantees a favorable recommendation by:staff on the merits of this proposal nor does it guarantee an approval of the proposed atlas amendment by,the County. MANA4 r,t ti' 1V1C�7�'►73�� Owner Si ature(s) Applicant Signature (if different from owner) Date Date Page 2 of 2 50.. Date: 16 April 2024 Re: Rezoning Application, Orange County PIN 9835-74-8573 Author: Anthony Weston,for Common Ground Ecovillage Hart's Mill Ecovillage Rezoning Application Narrative Hart's Mill EcoviIIa'ge, LLC (dba'Corrimon Ground'EcoviIIage) is applying to vacate the'existing Master Plan Development-Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)for our"land and revert to R-1 conventional base zoning. This is to enable us to'develop an'alternative site plan using th`e UDO's Flexible Development-Conservation Clusterframework'fora'simiIarly cornpact"but smaller and lot-based village layout that is now much more feasible for us given our membership and resources but is precluded under our current MPD-CZ: Congruent goals Our MPD-CZ application was approved by the OC BOCC in late;203.5.It was designed to nestle a compact, neighborly"agrarian ecovillage".of low- or positive-impact residences`into.about 12 acres within our 112-acre parcel, preserving most of the land as,forest and meadow-common areas for the community and neighborhood, animal habitat, and open space-as,well as supporting intensive agricultural production and training programs for upcoming farmers pP 9 g p 9 p g p 9 , within the community and hopefully beyond. Our'project's guiding "Principles and Intentions" included, and continue to include' these`' relevant items, among others: p 2. We are abidingly loyal to the land.We are committed to living closely and attentively with . each other and the land...to long-term restoration and stewardship of that land and to protecting it from exploitation or speculation. Major portions of the larger land under our stewardship will be established in watershed and farmland conservation trusts. 11. Buildings and infrastructure will be designed to integrate harmoniously With,each other and with the land... ix. Buildings and infrastructure will be designed for minimal or positive impact and ' maximal livability. We prioritize clean and healthy water and air(indoor and out),water. catchment and recycling on-site..., soil restoration and enrichment, and careful preservatioim and enhancement of viewscape....We seek to absolutely minimize unsustainable impacts and, where they may be necessary,to more than compensate them with positive impacts as well.` 1 51 As we pointed out in 2015 and reaffirm even more wholeheartedly now; our goals are fully congruent with and supportive of the 2030 OC Comprehensive Plan and its various urgent,and ambitious objectives, These include, broadly, "aligning our built environment and socioeconomic activities with the natural systems that support life" (section 1.3 "protection of the County's natural areas, including forests, wildlife habitat,'and other important open spaces"(2.2.4) and "discouraging urban sprawl, encourage a separation of urban and rural land uses" (5.7.3), "providing a diversity of housing types and housing densities... fora range of housing needs of current and future populations"(1.3.2 and 4.2'); and "supporting local agriculture and maintain the viability of local farms" (345),All,of these goals seem.likely to be reaffirmed and deepened in the emerging 2050 Plan as well. As an earnest of these commitments, we note that we have made rriajor'progress toward many of these goals, even without a residential community, For one, following up on our, commitment to open space and land preservation, we are in the.midst of putting about40%of our 112 acres into NC Land and Water Fund and Working Land easements, in partnership with both Orange County and the Eno River Association. Our land-preserving, conservation-and farm-oriented development is notable also because we lie within an area of high expected impact and urbanization (FLUM-designated 2o-yeartransition zone). As to "affordable... housing initiatives,designed to support non-profit organizations,.mdke use of state and federal funds, and provide housing opportunities for'County residents" (i:3,2), we are actively establishing partnership with Community Home Trust`forthe ownership of some of our community residences. We continue to explore potential USDA support and other state and federal opportunities as well. Low-cost natural building materials and methods, which'we embrace also for ecological purposes, combined with well-integrated "sweat equity opportunities, should also help to lower housing.costs for more.families. As for"preservation of working farms, forestry, and ancillary.a"gricultural businesses"and "developing a local food system that links local producers"and consumers" we have already established an active CSA(Community-Sponsored Agriculture' )'farm that supplies upwards of 6o,area households weekly. We also recently applied for and received a $so;000,Orahoe County Agricultural Economic Development grant to expand the CSA's washing and packing facility, work that has just now been completed. Looking beyond the MPD-CZ Our ideas and intentions have not changed, Indeed, based'upon our e'xperlence so far, the' are stronger than ever. We are proud of our on-the-'ground accomplishments so:far, asjust described, and of the non-residential community of several dozen people, mostly local but including some from all over the country, who have actively and continuously sustained planning and other activities since 2012. But circumstances have changed. Our existing MPD-CZ was approved in late 2osS. We;were thinking big. Our'application envisioned"a village of thirty flexibly-configured residence's along with a Common House; built all together and upfront, under cooperative ownership. A loop 2 52 utility road was required along with a community.su.bsurface drip septic,system on a field on the far east of the development. Today, a project on that scale has proved to be financially and otherwise no,longer'feasible: - COVID-sg intervened, building costs have skyrocketed,while�ourown economiocapacitiesto meet them remain limited and modest,especially since we remain committed to affordability and a diverse community both culturally and across the lifespan. Moreover, the funding opportunities that"we have been able to find (for example through Community Home,7ru:st for affordable housing), and that our individual members are in the best position to`take, presuppose individual,rather than cooperative,ownership, while existing members'various ; . intentions and capacities also require more personalized opportunities as well as more variable timetables. For these reasons, iron!cally.but unfortunately, the MPD-CZ that enabled and supported the last decade's vision has become an impossible constraint on actually achieving our goa!s`in the current climate. One County planner even offhandedly described'our currentMPD-CZ`as a "dinosaur". We need to"step'back to leap forward" under different auspices. Flexible Development— Cons&vation Cluster Once reverted to R-1 conventional zoning; our intention is to bring forward an alternative site plan using the UDO's Flexible Development=,,Conservation Cluster frameworkfora similarly compact but smallerand lot-base'd village layout. The Flexible Development—,Conservation Cluster option did not exist when our MPD-CZ as in process in 2015 but in many ways,is„a far more suitable and flexible framework, and it might well have been the framework we would, have chosen in the first place had it been available then. The same goals.and strategies that motivate us also underlie the Flexible De'velopment— Conservation Cluster designation;The key idea is to cluster residences to create"a compact neighborhood while conserving farm and forest as Common Areas,'ncluding the riparian°zone, coordinated.with the proposed easements, a's lightly used or.un used areas. Under the n'ew , designation, the village itself will need to be in individually-held lots, HOA-g'overned,,rather than a cooperatively owned single plot, which is a retrenchment from,our origi'naltplans, but once again is more realistic given our present circumstances, asjust noted, and the flexibility it will allow is welcome. In parallel as this'rezoning application works its way through the planning process, we are developing and refining our alternative site plan, lot and septic layouts and other infrastructure designs, and financing arrangements, so that upon approval we should be able to move quickly to request approval for a Conservation Cluster Flexible Development and begin infrastructure construction. Another earnest of our commitment to land-preserving, conservation-and farm- oriented development is our current engagement with Commissioner Greene's Whole;Orar ge initiative and the working group of other groups and developers already embracing the Conservation Cluster framework, hoping to assist each other in fine'-tuning the framework for OC's particular needs and circumstances. 3 53 Summary Seeking to "step.back.to leap forward", we appreciate your.support clearing the way for what is both a retrenchment but correspondingly an`advance in another and likely even more congenial direction, as we work to bring the Common Ground residential ecovillage actually to " life. . r 4 54 :20170113000008030 DEED Bk Bk:R66250 Pg:145 01/13/2017 01:51:23 PM 1/3 FILED dark Chilton Register of Deeds, Orange Co,NC Recording Fee: $26.00 NC Real Estate TX: $970.00 NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL.WARRANTY DEED Excise Tax: 970.00 Parcel Identifier Nos,9835748573 Verified by_ County on the day of ,20_ By: Mail/Box to: Grantee This instrument was prepared by: Ronald G. Coulter,Attorney at Law,Without a Title Examination Brief Description for the Index: Tr.A Hart's Mill,LLC;PB 114/81 THIS DEED made this 13`b day of January ,2017,by and between GRANTOR GRANTEE ALANA M.ENNIS,AKA ALANA M.ENNIS HART'S MILL,LLC (Unmarried) A North Carolina Limited Liability Company 4209 Pin Oak Drive P.O.Box 2844,Chapel Hill,NC 27515-2844 Durham,NC 27707 Enter in appropriate block for each party: name, address, and, if appropriate,character of entity, e.9, corporation or partnership. This designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular,plural,masculine,feminine or neuter as required by context. WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,has and by these presents does grant, bargain,sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all of that certain lot or parcel of land situated in the City of Cheeks Township, Orange County, North Carolina and more particularly described as follows: See the attached Exhibit A,which is incorporated herein by reference. No portion of the property herein conveyed includes the primary residence.of the Grantor. The property herein described was acquired by Grantors by instruments recorded in Book 901 at Page 453 and in Book 5770 at Page 504 A neap showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book 114 ,Page 81 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple. submitted electronically by "Beemer, Hadler & Willett, P.A." in compliance with North Carolina statutes governing recordable documents and the terms of the submitter agreement with the orange county Register of Deeds. Book 6250 RB6250 146 213 And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to convey the same in fee simple,that title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances,and that Grantor will warrant and defend the title, against- the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever, other than the following exceptions: Liens,encumbrances,and other exceptions of record. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has duly executed the foregoing as of the'day and year'first above written. i (SEAL) Alana M.E ni STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF 'D„2ts^" 1,the undersigned Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify.that Alana M. Ennis personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein expressed. Witne my hand and notarial stamp or seal this ( n, _day of January,2017. My Commission Expires:''1-2,+z1 CH RiST0PHER M- LIC WILLETT No Public {rr feat} b sham County North Carolina 7'1 My Commission Exp 'Z The foregoing Certificates)of is/are certified to be correct. This instrument and this certificate are duly registered at the date and time and in the Book and Page shown on the first page hereof. Register of Deeds for County By: Deputy/Assistant-Register of Deeds Book 6250 56 R86250 147 3/3 EXHIBIT A REAL PROPERTY OF ALANA M.ENNIS BEING ALL OF LOT A and containing 112.17 acres,more or less,as shown on a mag and survey prepared by ENT Land Surveys,Inc., dated November 18,20+4,entitled "Property for HART'S NULL,LLC" and recorded in Plat Book 114 at Page 81,Oran County Registry,to which reference is made for a more particular description of same. s TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO that perpetual right and easement of egress,ingress and regress over,upon and through said 50' Private R/W as set forth in that certain Cross-Easements For Joint Driveway Easements"recorded in Book 5770,Page 502, Orange County Registry. PIN: 9835748573 Book 6250 57 $ooK IN Tage 81 6e�4 P. / / FAME 51REE7� NATW9EL aM wlle' Yg- RN pl.nlJJ-r°- ., wx a.o a.Jm.wwMTA — yy[��N k rsY rYaw' nx 9&s-os-J52r Ma'O1 Clltp( x— "1 AJ•W /sE sn.eYmtM __ ______________.�--,ffiss• I 5 swz,az w s� ZZ all sau-e°Y-o J y I °I ' r 88 P. Ps vw saJs-sa- DN. 112.17 Aa AUTE ° int a �� Cer,lerNw f mwv.Y V SwM. rw e a /bVrWa4'9rrw. i I vv Mr— I --�BTez Y i 's"w fts5bbf• P' wx"v&u-e.-eo.e 'nt � 5a ra rzeszr' a s b �L. z ��� Don I oBv°r°as��•1nv wes oz taw mei, RN rJ-z9xe I•9aunaor�.nw sury rw _nnl a rw sass-sa-zars � PROPERTY SURVEYED fDR / HAO MILL, LLC CHEEKS TWP.,ORANGE CO.,AMW CAROLIAW k NOVEMBER 18,2014 scut 1•_roo• 2 rso o reo 30o wN Er/xwr9/mn �9cz s.,�aN. �o�anotcrs m'wnm..N:°"m n,.mw.mxs w.x."N css, cbwc..Vow.set pots"imm inem�%v b is«ma°i uw mmv.a. = G a o iuw w«t w maq..n ��°b -avDvzuz. e mn."o Cmraww.0 cei°.WrvM W//FIII\1\\\s` � uxmy°Miroi QyPn4awe.w,d im M,a. " PMfs Ac oM b Nano Ennis x°COfw w tvd.,, rWJ6 6P09 Pin OPk Or oumaa,Nc srro] ,z� 1. ENTxi°P PDN H WP.a�wi� wN° E o m 453 aM 9°�aoik 901 w -arcnM d- J P9 P9� >u_ M10i _ PIN 9835-]h8573 ThQxl u� m/ND• -BWK 114 61 5$• Common Ground Ecovillage Rezoning-Applic`ation Two additional checklist items Checklist #3: Contact information for utility provider.a'nticipated:serv'ing the project Duke.Energy . John Norwood, Duke Energy Engineering Technologist. Office: 336-634-4.622 Cell: 919-339-3724 e-mail: johnA01,wood fake-Frier yc .conk`. Checklist #4: Adjacent right of way widths with road:names and.nu;mbers North Frazier Road SR,1342 Right of way 60` Pavement 20' • 1 Staff Report Attachment 2 �+ ORANGE Zoning Atlas Amendment — Conventional District COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Parcel Information Parcel Address 1031 Frazier Rd, Mebane, NC 27302 Vicinity Map for RezoningApplicatlon-PIN 9835748573 Parcel Identification 9835-74-8573 9 °° -d - I � ✓' Number (PIN) C Isi Gwe-To hp ` E a t l a rrp oe�a � 1 Applicant Name Hart's Mill, LLC "aisn°,°°yn o 1625 Ben Johnson Rd, -' aw n2hp- El. yE 'T and Address Mebane, NC 27302 h, ;. � men now°en newF Cheeks Township r.°yea a Property Owner Name and Address F< He k -PP°, °, (if different from Same as Applicant Applicant) amT hp Anthony Weston rm e..,7aH ua�eos �e 1 o�'p°i"o T snip gent(s), if � e�,k � � A Planning, Design, and J tl L. applicable Development Circle Operational Leader RexoningApplication to' Interlocal Rf for`PlN 9835748573 Agreement I Applicable No (Y/N) Current Zoning MPD-CZ (Master Plan - District Development Conditional Zoning District) -- � - 1111111171 Requested Zoning District R-1 (Rural Residential) I VPVer Btip P tecte _ _. Requested Zoning District Consistent with Appendix F of Yes Comprehensive Plan Q PM:D WY W73 y —Eon Existing Zoning Upper Eno Protected Overlay Districts Watershed ®EftKbGMki"N1�M10'TOOwIMy Ohpkl M pvl lii"W ca—d M WN A Amendments Proposed for Overlay Districts No (Y/N) Parcel Size +/- 112.17 acres Adopted Future Land Use Map with'Parcel 9835748573 Depicted Future Land Use Map 20-Year Transition FLUM Designation Rural Residential FLUM Overlay(s) Resource Protection Area Growth Management Rural System Designation Definition of FLUM 20 Year Transition Definition: Designation Land located in areas that are in 35748573 (from Article 10 of the process of changing from Unified Development rural to urban, that are suitable Ordinance (UDO) for urban-type densities and should be provided with public utilities and services within the second 10-year phase of the Plan. Rural Residential definition: Land in the rural areas of the —Sams County which is appropriate for low intensity and low-density - 10Yoa:ir..nsihon �$ 1 A m— residential development, and which would not be dependent on urban services during the plan period. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Aerial Image with Parcel 9835748573 Outlined North All lots are zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) with single-family residential uses or are currently undeveloped and in agriculture use. M' South All lots are zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) with single-family residential uses or are currently undeveloped. East All lots are zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) with 98357G8573 single-family residential uses. °NE E West All lots are zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) with and are currently undeveloped and in d` agriculture use. Existing Roads North Faye Street (no direct access) South Red Gate Rd. (no direct access) East N/A West Frazier Rd. EM 11N 9835748573 , - 61 Existing Conditions/Physical Features The parcel currently supports a cleared field of approximately 20 acres that contains farm-related structures and an approximately 0.3-mile access road. The parcel contains an approximately 1.8-acre pond. The remainder land of the parcel is forested. Public Water and Sewer A water line for Orange Alamance Water and Sewer (OAWS) runs along Frazier Rd. west of the parcel. Two fire hydrants are within 400 feet of the parcel on Fraizer Rd. Public utilities will not be required for any proposed development resulting from the rezoning. Provision of water service is at the discretion and permitting authority of OAWS. Zoning Overview Conventional District Rezoning Zoning promotes development of land uses that can co-exist in proximity to one another consistent with the promotion of public health, safety, and general welfare. Regulations established by the UDO provide opportunities/constraints associated with land development to ensure one person's `reasonable use' of property does not impact another person's ability to make reasonable use of their property. In acting on this request, the County is unable to impose conditions and the applicant is not required to define what type of development (i.e. land use) is anticipated. If approved, all 30 land uses permitted within the R-1 (Rural Residential) district could be developed on the property accordingly, consistent with applicable regulations. Conventional district rezoning applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e., does not require sworn testimony or evidence) and decisions are based on the Board of County Commissioners determination the request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. A formal site plan, reviewed and approved by staff in accordance with Section 2.5 of the UDO and conforming with the development standards of Article 6, must be submitted and approved prior to any development activity on the parcel. Review Milestones Application Submittal Date Submitted on April 19, 2024, and deemed complete by staff on April 25, 2024 Orange County Development May 16, 2024 Advisory Committee (DAC) Review Note: the DAC is a staff/agency committee, established in Section 1.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Courtesy Review Jurisdiction Date Sent Comments Received (Y/N) State Clearing House 5/6/24 Yes Analysis Staff Analysis As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director shall cause an analysis to be made of the application. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: 1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.8.3 of the UDO; 2. The proposal is consistent with goals/objectives outlined within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: a. 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. Staff Comment: The property is designated 20 Year Transition on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which is defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as "land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban, that are suitable for urban-type densities and should be provided with public utilities and services within the second 10-year phase of the Plan." A small portion of the parcel is designated Rural Residential which is defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as "land in the rural areas of the County which is appropriate for low intensity and low-density residential development and which would not be dependent on urban services during the plan period." By rezoning the property, the existing MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development- Conditional Zoning) district, approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2015 to allow for 34 residences on 22 acres of the parcel, will cease to exist. The proposed R-1 (Rural Residential) zoning district meets the goals of both this planning principle and the overlay district, which identifies the parcel as a location where both a land use maintaining rural character and a use that increases density with potential for a residential development are encouraged. b. 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. Staff Comment: According to Appendix F: Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts, the proposed R-1 (Rural Residential) zoning district is consistent with both the 20-Year Transition Land Use Classification, which is defined as "areas changing from rural to urban in form and density. All densities of residential development would be appropriate," and the Rural Residential Land Use Classification, defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as "rural areas to be developed as low intensity and low density residential." The eligible zoning districts in the 20-Year Transition future land use classification include R-1 (Rural Residential). The request to zone the property to R-1 (Rural Residential) will assign the parcel the same zoning district as all surrounding properties and ensures that rural character and land use will be preserved. The R-1 zoning permits uses consistent with low density development and limits disturbance to surrounding rural lands. c. 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. 63 Staff Comment: Future development resulting from the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment will not require use of public utilities. Any future development for residential purposes would be subject to regulation under the County's stormwater and water supply watershed regulations, as the property is located in the Upper Eno Protected Watershed. d. 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. Staff Comment: According to Appendix F: Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts, the proposed R-1 (Rural Residential) zoning district is consistent with both the 20-Year Transition Land Use Classification, which is defined as "areas changing from rural to urban in form and density. All densities of residential development would be appropriate," and the Rural Residential Land Use Classification, defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as "rural areas to be developed as low intensity and low density residential." The eligible zoning districts in the 20-Year Transition future land use classification include R-1 (Rural Residential). e. 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: Per the FLUM, the parcel's future land use classification is 20-Year Transition, which is defined as "areas changing from rural to urban in form and density. All densities of residential development would be appropriate." A portion of the parcel is also designated as R-1 (Rural Residential), which is defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as "land in the rural areas of the County which is appropriate for low intensity and low-density residential development and which would not be dependent on urban services during the plan period." It is also A rezoning to R-1 is consistent with these stated goals and objectives. f. 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 property is designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)as 20-Year Transition, which is defined as "areas changing from rural to urban in form and density. All densities of residential development would be appropriate." A portion is also identified as Rural Residential and is defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as "land in the rural areas of the County which is appropriate for low intensity and low-density residential development and which would not be dependent on urban services during the plan period." The proposed rezoning is consistent with a transition to allow for residential development while maintaining a low intensity land use. The parcel contains the Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year Floodplain) and 500 Year Floodplain, as well as a 1.8-acre pond. Future development of the parcel would not infringe on these features, with the low density and open space requirements for development within the R-1 zoning district. g. 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. 64 Staff Comments: The request to assign the parcel's historic zoning of R-1 (Rural Residential) ensures that rural character and land use are preserved from any development resulting from the rezoning. R-1 permitted land uses are consistent with low density development and limit disturbance on surrounding rural lands. The amendment will assign the parcel the same zoning district as all surrounding properties. Under N.C.G.S. 106-581.1 and 160D-903, the parcel has Bona Fide Farm Exemption status. The property owners will maintain this status and use the rear of the parcel for farm use. This aligns with adjacent property uses as agriculture and maintains the rural character of the area. h. 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 Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, including 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. i. Natural and Cultural Resources Overarching Goal: A sustainable balance and appreciation of natural, cultural and agricultural resources. Staff Comments: Under N.C.G.S. 106-581.1 and 160D-903, the parcel has Bona Fide Farm Exemption status. The property owners will maintain this status and use the rear of the parcel for farm use. This use of the land in a manner consistent with a rural land use aligns with preservation of natural and agricultural resources. j. Appendix F, Land Use Classification Description for 20 Year Transition: Identifies areas changing from rural to urban in form and density, where all densities of residential development would be appropriate. The applied zoning district is R-1 (Rural Residential). Appendix F, Land Use Classification Description for Rural Residential: Identifies rural areas to be developed as low intensity and low density residential. The applied zoning district is R-1 (Rural Residential). Staff Comment: The requested zoning district is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F, Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts. Attachment 3 65 �1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245•2575 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Lauren Coffey, Planner I 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 Public Hearing to be held regarding Zoning Atlas amendments proposing to rezone two parcels of property located at 1031 Frazier Rd, within the Cheeks Township of Orange County (PIN 9835-74-8573) The owners were identified according to the Tax Records, as required by Section 2.8.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. The mailed notices specified the date, time, place and subject of the Planning Board Meeting. WITNESS my hand, this 24th day of July 2024. Lauren Coffey Planner I Planning and Inspections Department 66 �1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1 231 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278191.9.245.2575 July 24, 2024 NOTICE OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING Dear Property Owner: This notice is to inform you of the August 7, 2024, Planning Board meeting, at which an application to rezone a parcel totaling +/- 112.17 acres (PIN 9835-74-8573) will be reviewed. The subject property is located at 1031 Fraizer Rd., Mebane, within Cheeks Township. This notification is occurring in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). You are receiving this notice because you own property located within 1,000-feet of the parcels requested for rezoning. YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT PROPOSED FOR REZONING. Property Information Parcel ID Number 9835-74-8573 (PIN) Owner/ Hart's Mill, LLC Applicant Agent Anthony Weston (Planning, Design, and Development Circle Operational Leader) Location 1031 Frazier Rd., Mebane Acreage +/- 112.17 Acres Current Land Use Rural Residential Designation Current MPD-CZ(Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning Zoning District) Proposed Rural Residential (R-1) Zoning Watershed Upper Eno Protected Watershed Designation The parcel is currently zoned MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District). The requested zoning district is Rural Residential (R-1). Additionally, due to the property's location, the Upper Eno Protected Watershed zoning overlay regulations will be applied. This amendment request will be reviewed by the Orange County Planning Board at a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., August 7, 2024, at the Whitted Meeting Facility(300 West Tryon Street, 67 Hillsborough, NC — see attached map). All interested persons are invited to address the Planning Board with their comments regarding the application. The Planning Board is an advisory board comprised of appointed volunteers that makes recommendations to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) regarding land use and zoning matters. The Planning Board must recommend one of the following four actions at their meeting, 1) Approval, 2) Denial, 3) Approval, but with specified changes, or 4) that the Planning Board be given extended time to consider the matter. Planning Board Meeting Information Date August 7, 2024 Time 7:00 p.m. Place Whitted Meeting Facility Address 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC Assigned Lauren Coffey, Planner I Planner Email: Icoffey@orangecountync.gov Phone: 919-245-2598 A formal public hearing on the proposed amendment will be held by the BOCC. The date of the public hearing has not yet been determined. You will receive another written notice about the public hearing at a later date. If you cannot attend the Planning Board meeting and the website does not answer your questions about the applications, you may call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you. Sincerely, Patrick Mallett Deputy Director, Development Services Additional information is available on the Orange County Planning Department's website: https://www.arcg is.com/apps/dashboards/16e9edd 5de724468aed69571 dd 1 d9e70 F!]fr�lrl E •. �. L. .0" . ` .: _ Whitted Building (300 W. Tryon St.) - Meeting Lidtation • R 1 i E! f • Parking �. J t`• � A = - � .. Parking Ab Y Whitted 1. 7 I� Building A. W TR: N 4, LU ''�i y '-' ---'� •�• -,•r. �� � 1 in=100 feet 0 50 moo .,.�..' � Feet ypy; r: `•- _ - Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson(5/8/2015) Attachment 4 69 July 22, 2024 Common Ground Rezoning Application Case #: MA24-0002 PIN: 9835-74-8573 1031 Frazier Rd. Re: Development Advisory Committee Report (per UDO Section 1.9.5) On May 16, 2024, the Orange County Development Advisory Committee met for a final review and discussion of the conventional rezoning application Case #MA24-0002 from Hart's Mill, LLC for PIN 9835-74-8573. 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, PCmr6ck,Mattew Patrick Mallett Deputy Director— Development Services 70 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 193.9•245•2575 Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Comments DAC review comments and recommendations do not constitute plan or permit approval for this application and/or replace any other plans and permits that may be required by other County departments and State agencies. Project: MA24-0002 (Common Ground) Location/PIN: 9835748573 Applicant: Harts Mill, LLC Staff Planner: Lauren Coffey, Planner I DAC Meeting Date: 5/16/2024 Addressing and Britney Pendleton Land Records Date: 5/14/24 Staff: brpendleton(a)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2576 1. Addressing team recommends naming access road for future development James Bryan Attorney's Office Date: Staff: jbryan orangecountync.gov 919-245-2319 1. No comments received. Building Michael Rettie Inspections Date: Staff: mrettie(cD-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2604 1. No comments received. Chris Hirni DEAPR Date: Staff: chirni(a)_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2514 1. No comments received. Environmental Victoria Hudson Health Date: 5/14/2024 Staff: vhudson(a-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2365 1. This Department has existing records for 1021, 1023, 1031, and 1035 Frazier Road. 2. No other applications have been received. Erosion Nate Jacobsen Control Date: 5/13/24 Staff: njacobsen(a)-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2580 1. Proposed project per the "Project Narrative" will eventually require a Land Disturbing Permit. 71 Fire and Life 5/15/24 Elizabeth Farnan Safety Date: Staff: efarnan(c)-orangecountync.gov 919-245-6153 1. No comments for the rezoning required. Further comments will be provided once a site plan is submitted, and development is initiated. Chuck Edwards NCDOT Date: 5/13/24 Staff: cnedwards(a)ncdot.gov 336-570-6833 1. NCDOT has previously issued a driveway permit for the connection to Frazier Road a. That permit has since expired and will either need to be renewed or reapplied for if there is a major change in use Lauren Coffey Planning Date: 5/10/24 Staff: Icoffey(a)_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2598 1. Please elaborate on if any development resulting from the proposed rezoning will require service from public utilities. Matt Taylor Solid Waste Date: 5/13/24 Staff: mtaylor(aD-orangecountync.gov 919-918-4905 1. Future development will require review for future recycling collection by OC Solid Waste and any construction will require adherence with Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance (RRMO). Stormwater Christopher Sandt Management Date: 5/13/24 Staff: csandt(_)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2583 1. The parcel is located in the Upper Eno Protected watershed overlay district. A Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) is required if proposed Land Disturbance exceeds 21,780 square feet. Transportation Darlene Weaver Services Date: 5/14/24 Staff: dweaver(a)-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2002 1 . No comment 72 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: May 28, 2024 CASE: MA24-0002 PIN: 9835748573 WATERSHED: Upper Eno Protected PROJECT: Conventional rezoning from MPD-CZ to R1 SUBJECT: Summary of Plan Review by Orange County Environmental Health Division This memo summarizes the findings of an Orange County Environmental Health plan review of the application for a map amendment, submitted as the "Common Grounds" project (hereafter, the "project"). The project is located within 112.17 acres of property on Frazier Road, Mebane. The request proposes development consisting of: • Down-zone to the parcel's original zoning of R1 from the current Master Plan Development Conditional District zoning • Abandon the MPD-CZ site plan and develop with an alternative site plan using Flexible Development under R1. The Staff comments contained herein are based upon the submittal of a required Site Plan, dated November 18, 2014, and posted for review on April 19, 2024. These findings should not be interpreted as the Division's final analysis/approval of the 73 proposed development. Soil and site evaluations have not been conducted by the Orange County Health Department, Environmental Health Division, unless the plan for wastewater disposal changes from current intention. The Health Department's role is regulatory for any permitted or licensed facilities or amenities included in the master plan. Consultation and permitting for public water supply wells is anticipated early in the project. Environmental Health Conditions X At this time, no application(s) have been received. Application(s) and fees required. n/a Improvement Permit(s) shall only be issued upon presentation of the exact structure to be constructed. n/a 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. X 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 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(u)_orangecountync.gov. " A ` W a "l 05-28-2024 Victoria Hudson, MPA, REHS Date Or designee 74 Orange County 7 ,2 Emergency Services A Prepared,Coordinated,and Integrated Emergency Services System E9�,i1�r1 >=-911 I Fire Marshal I EMS I Emergency Management Fire & Life Safety Division TO: Cy Stober, AICP— Director, Planning & Inspections FROM: Elizabeth Farnan — Division Chief of Fire & Life Safety, Emergency Services CC: Lauren Coffee — Planner I, Planning & Inspections Date: May 30, 2024 CASE: MA24-0002 (Common Grounds) PIN: 9835748573 PROJECT: Conventional rezoning from MPD-CZ to R1 SUBJECT: Rezoning Review Regarding Conformance with Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for Emergency Apparatus Access, Addressing, and Water Availability for Required Fire Flow This memo is to show that the Fire & Life Safety Division has NO OBJECTIONS to the approval of the rezoning request. Further requirements will be in place once site and construction plans have been submitted. May 30, 2024 Elizabeth Farnan, FM Date 510 Meadowlands Drive I Hillsborough, NC 27278 1 (919) 245-6100 Main Office www.orangecountvnc.gov/oces 75 MEMORANDUM TO: Cy Stober, AICP — Director, Planning & Inspections Department FROM: Christopher Sandt, PE — County Engineer, Planning & Inspections; and Steve Kaltenbach, Erosion Control and Stormwater Manager CC: Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director Development Services DATE: June 5, 2024 CASE: MA24-0002 PIN: 9835-74-8573 WATERSHED: Upper Eno Protected (Neuse River Basin) PROJECT: Common Ground Conventional District Zoning Atlas Amendment 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 Zoning Atlas Amendment application for an R-1 Conventional District, submitted as the "Common Ground" project (hereafter, the "project"). The project is located within 112.17 acres of property located at 1031 Frazier Road in the Cheeks township of Orange County, North Carolina. The request proposes rezoning from MPD-CZ to R-1. The Staff comments contained herein are based upon an Application and a "Site Plan" (i.e., a copy of the recorded plat, Book 114, Page 81). 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 available documents. Erosion & Sedimentation Control (E&SC): No E&SC related materials were submitted with the Zoning Atlas Amendment application. According to current Orange County GIS imagery of the project parcel, there are three mapped stream features within the project parcel boundaries. Orange County enforces 76 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. A floodplain buffer is located on the Eastern portion of the subject parcel. Based on the submitted materials for the proposed development, the project could meet the basic Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements as required by Orange County UDO Section 6.15 and could be developed as generally proposed. The proposal will also require an Army Corps PCN 404/401 application for both the wetland impact and stream buffer impact and issuance of Orange County buffer impact authorization certificate for the planned stream crossing. Stormwater Management: No stormwater management related materials were submitted with the Zoning Atlas Amendment application. According to current Orange County GIS imagery, there are mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) located on the project parcel. 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 Zoning Atlas Amendment request so long as a complete LDP application and supporting plans and calculations are submitted for review, processing, and approval prior to commencement of on-site 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 Zoning Atlas Amendment request. Christopher Sandt, PE Date :14 12024 Steve Kaltenbach Date 77 ORANGE COUNTY Department of Environment, Agriculture,Parks&Recreation MEMORANDUM To: Ashley Moncado,Planner III, Planning and Inspections Department From: Christian Hirni,DEAPR Land Conservation Manager Date: June 6,2024 Re: Common Ground EcoVillage-Map Amendment Application Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Common Ground EcoVillage- Map Amendment Application. The Map Amendment would revert the zoning designation to Rural Residential on approximately 112 acres located east of Frazier Road and south of Lebanon Road(Upper Eno Protected Watershed). The subject property is compiled of one parcels (PIN 9835-74-8573). The property contains a large tributary(over 3,700 linear feet)to McGowan Creek, and almost the entire eastern border(over 2,700 linear feet) is the center streamline of McGowan Creek. DEAPR comments on subdivisions are generally intended to a)address any concerns with respect to potential impacts on important natural or cultural resources,and b)identify any areas that might be desirable for possible dedication to the County for public recreation/open space pursuant to Section 7.11.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Natural Resources Review Comments: The sections of the forested areas along both McGowan Creek and its tributary, approximately 34 acres in size,is recognized in the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as a"Resource Protection Area". These areas were determined to be of conservation value considering several factors, including but not limited to the existence of floodplains,wetlands,bottomland hardwood forests,and soils of statewide importance. Cross referencing the State Natural Heritage Program dataset of the Biodiversity and Wildlife Corridor Assessment confirms the area to be of Moderate conservation value. All of the forested areas are recognized in the 2019 Eno-New Hope Landscape Connectivity Report to be of Moderate conservation value as Habitat Patch and Wildlife Corridors.As such,this area would be a desired addition to any potential extension of the proposed open space on the tract. All these areas are under current negotiations for a permanent conservation easement to be held jointly by Eno River Association and Orange County. 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. 78 Potential for Parks/Open Space Dedication: The amount of land generated by this development would not constitute sufficient or usable land area. Staff recommends that payment-in-lieu of dedication be utilized in this case. If you have questions please contact Christian at 245-2514 or Peter Sandbeck at 245-2517. 79 NC* DOA Department of Administration Roy Cooper Pamela B. Cashwell Governor Secretary June 10, 2024 Lauren Coffey Hart's Mill Ecovillage, LLC c/o Orange County Planning& Inspections 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201 Hillsborough, NC 27278- Re: SCH File#24-E-4600-0287 Hart's Mill Ecovillage, LLC is applying to vacate the existing Master Plan Development-Conditional Zoning(MPD-CZ)for our land and revert to R-1 conventional base zoning.This is to enable us to develop an alternative site plan using the smaller and lot-based village layout that is now much more fe Dear Lauren Coffey: The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this letter are comments made in the review of this document. Because of the nature of the comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review action on your part is needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.The attached comments should be taken into consideration in project development. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (984) 236-0000. Sincerely, KADISHA MOLYNEAUX State Environmental Review Clearinghouse Attachments Mailing Location 1301 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 116 West Jones St. I Raleigh NC 27603 a 984-236-0000 T ncadmin.nc.gov 80 To: Kadisha Molyneaux State Clearinghouse NC Department of Administration From: Lyn Biles Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service Re: 24-0287 Environmental Assessment- Hart's Mill Ecovillage, LLC is applying to vacate the existing Master Plan Development-Conditional Zoning(MPD- CZ) for our land and revert to R-1 conventional base zoning, in order to develop an alternative site plan using the smaller and lot-based village layout that is now much more feasible for us given our membership and resources but is precluded under our current MPD-CZ. Orange County Date: June 8, 2024 The Department of Environment Quality has reviewed the proposal for the project mentioned.After analyzing the information provided, our agencies have identified several permits that may be required.The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)offers preliminary recommendations for planning the community with the intent to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.You'll find the comments attached for your review. We are always available to assist the applicant with any specific doubts or concerns related to the permits and recommendations. We sincerely appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing our response to the project proposal. Attachments 81 9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9 Ingram Cameron, 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: 07 June 2024 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment for the Hart's Mill Ecovillage in Orange County,North Carolina. DEQ No. 24-0287. Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission(NCWRC)have reviewed the subject document. Comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes(G.S. 113-13 1 et seq.). Hart's Mill Ecovillage is applying to change the zoning of the property from Master Plan Development- Conditional Zoning to R-1 Conventional Base Zoning. This change in zoning will allow for a UDO's Flexible Development-Conservation Cluster framework. The site is located on approximately 112 acres at 1031 N. Frazier Road, Mebane, Orange County,North Carolina. According to the application,the plans for the village will be individually held lots,HOA governed, and approximately 40% of the 112 acres will be put into Open Space and land preservation. McGowan Creek in the Neuse River Basin flows through the site.McGowan Creek is classified as a Water Supply Watershed II,Nutrient Sensitive, and High Quality Water by the NC Division of Water Resources.We have records for the state threatened notched rainbow(Villosa constricta)downstream from the site. The lack of records from the site does not imply or confirm the absence of federal or state- listed species.An on-site survey is the only means to determine if the proposed project may impact federal or state rare,threatened, or endangered species.We have known records for the state endangered and federally proposed endangered tricolored bat(Perimyotis subflavus) in Orange County and potentially suitable habitat may occur on the site. We recommend contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any issues related to this species are addressed. We offer the following preliminary recommendations for planning of the community with the intent 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. Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh,NC 27699-1721 Telephone: (919) 707-0220 • Fax: (919) 707-0028 82 07 June 2024 Page 2 NCWRC Comments Hart's Mill Ecovillage Orange County 2. Maintain a minimum 100-foot undisturbed,native,forested buffer along perennial streams, and a minimum 50-foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands.Maintaining undisturbed, forested buffers along these areas will minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources,water quality, and aquatic habitat both within and downstream of the project area. Also,wide riparian buffers are helpful in maintaining stability of stream banks and for treatment of pollutants associated with urban stormwater. 3. We recommend minimizing 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. Incorporate the following elements into erosion and sediment control plans: minimize clearing and grading,protect waterways,phase construction for larger construction sites(>25 acres), stabilize soils as rapidly as possible (<2 weeks),protect steep slopes,establish appropriate perimeter controls, employ advanced settling devices, implement a certified contractors program, and regularly inspect erosion control measures. 5. We recommend using native plants for seeding disturbed areas. Avoid using non-native and/or invasive species such as Bermudagrass,redtop,fescue,and lespedeza. Alternatively,use grains, such as oats,wheat,or rye for temporary cover and native seed mixes for permeant seeding.A list of alternatives to non-native species has been attached. We recommend planting native, wildflower seed mixes that will create pollinator habitat within the project boundary as well as planting native trees and shrubs in landscaping. Avoid using invasive,non-native plants in seed mixtures or landscaping plants(http://www.ncwildflower.org//plant galleries/invasives_list). 6. Use non-invasive native species and Low Impact Development(LID)technology in landscaping. Using LID technology in landscaping will not only help maintain the predevelopment hydrologic regime,but also enhance the aesthetic and habitat value of the site. LID techniques include permeable pavement and bioretention areas that can collect stormwater from driveways and parking areas. Additional alternatives include narrower roads, swales versus curbs/gutters, and permeable surfaces such as turf stone,brick, and cobblestone. Compared to conventional developments,implementing appropriate LID techniques can be more cost-effective, increase property values,provide space-saving advantages,reduce runoff, and protect water quality (Roseen et al. 2011). Also, additional information on LID can be found at the NC State University LID guide: LID Guidebook. NCWRC's Green Growth Toolbox provides information on nature-friendly planning(Green Growth Toolbox). 7. We recommend using green construction techniques to improve water,waste, and energy efficiency, such as environmental-friendly building techniques,construction waste management, energy efficient building materials,and rain gardens. 8. Consider using wildlife friendly outdoor lighting since light pollution can impact the circadian rhythms of animals, disrupt behavior, cause injury, or death. Lights should only be on when needed;use lights only where necessary; lights should have wavelength greater than 560 nm emissions(i.e.,narrow-spectrum LEDs or low-pressure sodium);mount the fixture as low as possible;use the lowest wattage necessary; and lights should be fully shielded. 9. Erosion control matting made of plastic mesh or twine should not be used within the project area because it can injure or kill wildlife. We have no concerns regarding the change to zoning if the applicant adheres to the Conservation Cluster Framework and maintains at least 40%natural open space and land preservation.At this time,the information provided is not sufficient for our staff to make definitive recommendations or conclusions concerning this project. A site plan can help guide our recommendations. If I can be of additional assistance,please call(336)269-0074 or email olivia.munzer@ncwildlife.org. 83 RECOMMENDED NATIVE ALTERNATIVES FOR NON-NATIVE GRASSES IN NORTH CAROLINA" (Species are appropriate for all geographic regions unless otherwise indicated) NON-NATIVE SPECIES NATIVE SPECIES Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans Crownvetch Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Centipede Beaked panicgrass Panicum anceps Bermuda Purpletop Tridens flavus Roundheaded bushclover Lespedeza capitata Deer tongue Dicanthelium clandestinum Sensitive partridge pea Chamaecrista nictitans Partridge pea Chamaecrista asciculata Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Kentucky bluegrass Beaked panicgrass Panicum anceps Tall fescue Purpletop Tridens flavus Sudangrass Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus Deer tongue Dicanthelium clandestinum Canadian wildrye Elymus canadensis Virginia wildrye Elymus virginicus Sensitive partridge pea Chamaecrista nictitans Partridge pea Chamaecrista asciculata Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Splitbeard bluestem Andropogon ternarius Sericea lespedeza Beggarlice Desmodium spp. Kobe lespedeza Deer tongue Dicanthelium clandestinum Sensitive partridge pea Chamaecrista nictitans Partridge pea Chamaecrista asciculata 84 **A recommended revegetation/stabilization mix would ideally include a combination of the species listed in this table. In addition, please note that additional consideration may be needed in areas that are (highly) erodible and/or have sloped terrain. The following species could be included in all regions for additional stabilization and wildlife benefit: Black-eyed susan: Rudbeckia hirta Plains coreopsis: Coreopsis tinctoria Lance-leaved coreopsis: Coreopsis lanceolata Narrow-leaved sunflower: Helianthus angustifolius Created October 2018 Il 11 11 11 11 111'.l11t.11t.1111.1 111'.11'.11'.11�1►;I�11'.11'11'.1 ►1 ►1►�/�;111i1 ►;I�I;1►1►1 ►IIII/�;�1111 ►;���; ►1►11►;� 11►11►;r„11/1►l 1'.�1/11/1►; 1 1',I 111 ll 1 I;I'„111'.11'll 1t.�11111 Itl Itl 1:1 It.1111:11:11.1I1;1 1:1 I,1111:11.11t.1 Itl Itl 1;1',i1 Itl,lllll Ii;l Itl Itl 11/11111 Itl I,1 It.11111 Itl►;IIII►;II11t.11t.�1111t.11t.1 1 ►1 I F',2 1►�/�1I111 ►;III;1111 ►••1►••111►`„ Illt•lIlll`,IIII/��I►;III►I1111/�111►;I; Il1I1I111►111 .11►1Will III 1. .IIII•.►`,11►:IIII IT,.1►1►`,II►11►51►IIII`„►ll/l1t•:Illl',1111►\,+11111�I1/�►;I1►1 ►;II►ro1/�1 11►�1II►I►11►I11►�1 /�1111►;I;11►II1111/►I►% /�Illl►1111►11.11►1OPI'llII1II1►I1111111�1111111►:11111111►:111►.1 11 Itllullltl l 11111►1111111111t1111� 111�111111 1111111111111 l il11l11111� 111111111UR',',1111111111�111114�111111111 11 11 11 11111111�11111111111'il111111l�l111ailIIII 11 III►11l111►111►; 111111i'I►o111►�11►1/�11►1►1►'I1►1►;�II;1 1►1111►1111►1►1/i►1�1►;I; ►l►1 ►1 ►1►1►;I11!1►1►;IIIIII�1►;I;i1►1/�►1►1►;III1►l►1►1►1►1 11►1►u11111111►1►11 ►1►1►1►1►1►1►; 111►11 ►PI 11►;!1►;I1111 PI 1►�:►1►11►11►;111l11"'1111�;111►11►1►111►s1i1►;I►11►.1►PI 1111111111111�111►;111►.11►1►;1/�111 ►1IlllliIIII„Ill111►11111IIII1111�1II►11„111,I1►1111111I;1111�l11Tll PI11►;1Itl1III►1II11►;I1►;1111►;111►;II►111�111111111111►;I;i;�11iII:I III:III1111 ►;I1 ►1111 11111111►I;till E►1►1►;I1111:I III:11t11:11:1►;I111►1►;IIII�1111 ►1111`,il►tll�i IIIII►1►`,il l•.III�11`,illl1:�11:11:11:11:11;I1IIt.11t.1I,�111►1►;I11►;lll;l�lll11`,l ltllllt•�1 11111111►;I1111�11111►!1/'IIIIIl11III 1�►%1111�1�111f 1►;I1 11►1 1/'►1/I/1►i1 ►.1 IIII:►%1►1►%11:►11I1►;i1/�►1►;111►I1l ll 1i11�1►;II�II1111►1/111111111;�11111�;111111 ►u1►1►1►1►1►;1 11i111/1►1►.Il1 ►I11►;I3►;IIII►I►;�11l211s1►1/l�1IFAl21 11I1►I1►1►u111►11►IIiI11I111IPI1111111111i1111111 Ill 11 1►;�1 1111111111111111111111 1tl111111:11t.�1011 II IIII►;I11i11111111111I111111111►:lIII►;I1 111t.1111�111t.11111111;II11►:1►;IIII111►:1 II IIl�iIIIIIIli111111111II IIIIIII►:Il1►:I III ll 11111�1►;II11111 11 IIII►;I11I111►;1111111 It.111111.11',111t.11t.1111\,111t.11t.11.11t.1 Itl It.11111 l\,i1 QI111',II I1111/.1 ltl Itol ►;III 11111►;II 11111 I111111\„11 Itl 1.11�1 1 PM►:11111111111►;I',I;111I Itl l 11111t.11',il ►;IIII\,\,111'.4 111t.1111t.1 1��111111�'I III`11111111101 Vll1l l/l 1i•1 II IIII pp", 111��11��11!'Il ll �l ll II II/1r111 110111l211i1 011011II/111��1111��I li 71`1111I 11'�I llll ll �';f71`i�'l ll l`!I I�i11'tl ll l'�1 21111 .♦111111.►111111.1:1♦111.►♦... ►.....�.�.►..�.�.....►�.�. ...u.► ....►...♦11.11..11.►♦I:►♦21101 .1.11.1111.►..�.�..�.►... ltl'llll.11:►. t��111 I i►11 1111�1111i111'l.)111��11�1 �' III111 11111111 1111 II II IIII D l' 11i i 11 ♦ . I . '. 7♦I� •� l'1 . 1.I/Il•1. 1Ir11111 II l . 111 I1I D7 PI lI1P1I:1.11 I� � 11t1IL . 1. l�ll l'711 1111 l f�l 1��II 111 I1j1�1 FE"Ill Hill 1"l l��l II1�I�11�r 1I ll I�11111/I II 1�i111�11�11�1111���1111�111 1111 Ij11:911►1 I/�I I�I�I \�I1`/\'I t♦t�11„r t1�lr 11♦\'I♦t♦1�1 t\'ICI\`II 111 t♦\`I IIII 1,/\`�'♦\`I��1�1 t��'I��♦\"I�''I�/\`I�/♦1�/t tt t\, �111 1�1\'I 1►t♦tt \11♦11 t\'I PV211 1�1 11 11 II I l 1.:1 1�::Ill ll 1'I Il 1I 111.�11111b:11�,11 11 11 11 1Ml IIII 1:1 111I 11 11o1 11l Iba 1l 11�►Ill II 111 15 11lld:•1 11 1�:1111,111 1 w1 1�:11 1:�1 1�111�1 II II IF'l 1v v1 1"1l ll II II111111 1l21111 111 1F 211DI II 1F 1l 111�1 0116 11 l l�l ll ll ll I1 I111111110111111 II II I11►11 II IIII/I I�1��1 11 1�11I 1I III I11►1 1�1II 1I11I I 111 1}�1 1��1111I1 I 1l'1��1/11'11 Il 111�1�11/Il 1►I►;II I I I1►1►;IIi1 I111T►11 ;I1►11►01 ►111I1►1►;i11111i11015011 ►l►;1►111I1.►tl►',�;I111 ►t.111/�►1 II 11►I 1►111►;i111/11►.1►;1►'.1►1ll1 I1 E11�1641aIN1110 1 15 I 11 I hill 11E1111151:aIIIII I'll 111:11:11:11111�11151:,1 III 111 I1 III IIN111:115INIFlI ►:1►`,II►I.►11 ►I.1►11►:11►a1►I1111►t.�ll►;1;111;11►I►11 1I11 11►:11A'al•lll►`,;lll►`11 Itll',411111 111►:111 rAl01 1 l►:Ill/111►11.►:11 111I111►11,1►lllll1 ♦\�rtt��r.t� ►t♦��r♦t�►t♦��r♦ rt♦t►t��r�tr\►tt♦♦tt��yrrtt\►tt\r♦tr�t♦�♦♦�r5t\►♦♦\►t\n♦\►t��r ♦tt\►tt��r II/M;I II Il/�11I POl 1"�I;I ll rMl I I P1I 1,.,111111111111,11111�p,,�1p;1/1��@II I1"V Il1:,Q III 1'llED 1,�1I 11�1:11.��II II II II 1l1111.�'11.1111,111.11,1"�1111,111.��:,1 111��11PNII�p:,Q�I�p;11 Fill'111111►;11 III;I'll►I►1►;I11PIII►III;I;I1►,11111III1 ►111►11►;IIIIII►; ►:1►I'll 1111'111111111►PI'11 1►I11►I1 41, 11►,'1►III I►I'llII►III►I►1►I 11 1��111111�D11��'ir 1��1/ I��t�•�111`II t :;',I/��'il 11'�1`I�111`II 11 11 1 11 It'l ll t 11��111111 1 1 11 11 III 11 tl�!I�IIII 1�4N t Di/IIII)/11f1111��1 /l�!!l 11 • �.�•♦♦♦l.►In.l•I,► •�.I A'711►I114l . 111k1•1111♦1:1♦•1:► • ♦ 1 ♦l.i:\•II...►•♦..► 1 / ♦ •.:► •Il•..:1/.,11•Il p,1♦11..:►♦L►/I,I:1/�•♦ 11b1• Itl ll Itl 11 Itl l',i ,1111t.11t.11t.11',i l Itl Itl IIII Itl It.�lll ll(tl ll',l1 111t.11t.11111 I Itl Itl Itl 111111t.11111,I I Itl ltl 111111t.�;111t.1,111111,I1►:�IIII►.111►:11; (,I111.11t.1111111t.1111 ►;III'.1►;II I'.11'.1 I I II►;I10 ;i1 ►1►11111►PI 1111 11111111111l1111�111 ►;11 III 1i11►;I11►1 ►;I1Y Pull PI'All'll21111 ►;I11►;1►I►11I11!11►1►;I;111►121►lI I►l I I I II►;i 1;i1 ►I ►I►11I1►I►III►1►; ►1►1I1►III►; ►�1►I►I►l1►1I;I1►.11►;I1►�11►1VklIP1I'll A'I11I11►I►;11 ►l11►IIsII11111111PI1111111 I111li;I'llII11111IIIIII 11111���'111I111111IIll►;II1►1 110Ill I►;!1►I I I/P1111111111111I II II II I1111►l►;11 11 11l1111►11 III/!11i II1111111111 I!1'11t1111l II II II D l 1111111�1i111 I11`I�111►1101 P 1►1 IIl�1 II II'1 RI1 lul ►11�/4l 1'1111�1111l1 I I D'`1 Di'•l ltl'I'111•�•I IUD l l��1111t11t1 D l ll 111�11 11t11'111t'lrl'�111 1 1 1 L11.►♦•L►♦♦•Il♦♦•♦1.1♦•L►♦♦♦♦♦/.1♦1.1♦•IJ.1 1♦♦♦ ♦♦01 1♦..1•♦♦/.1♦♦�.1.1 LI♦P.11i:P. 1♦♦L►•L►••♦L►♦•1.11.1 1•4.1:►♦I1I�'llI ♦1♦11 II II1 ll ll ll li l 11111111111111/41 11 II II 111'11l1 I I I I I P,H1 IN 14 111 IN IN IN 0 Fll 1 11111 11:11:111 -- 11 l',t1111.11l 1►;I111 11 11 1�1 11/�11�I dill 11 I�i'il ll ll II11111►:1111►:1 M RWW®R®RRNIR REM MMMMMMEM RWWM TMESEM& RRRRRRN WREN MIN%RRW ®NRRIENMERNWIR®WR 86 METRE MMMMMMUMMMEEM RWIR®R®RWRRR RRRREMR RR RRRRRRWRRRR MEN HER RRR®RRREN RRRR RRWRE MITE NNW ENE®®®®®®®®®®®WE QwM M EMMMIM, "NIMMME R WRRR®ER RRRRR RRR RWRR®® R RRRRWNR RWN RRRRWW R R RW RW ® RIRRR® R RR R RN RRR HEM RRRWIRR RRR RRW R RE RWW®WRENWE RRRR RRWRE MINE MEW ENE®®®®MERE®®®®WR R RRRRRRE WHEN RRRR RRWRN MINE RRW ®ERRIENMEREWIR®WR R RRRRRR&WRN RR R R R RRR R R RRMRRR R WRRRNRRR%N RRRNRRRR ®RRWRRRRR R WRRRNRRRW RRRRMRRRWR RRR RRR R RRMERW R WRRRERRRWE RRRNRRRRIRR RRRE 2 R WRRRERRRW RRRRMRRRWR RRR ®RRIR NEW ERRERRRRERRRENWWR®REWRWR RRE RRR® RR®®R®RMW®RWWR RRRRWR HUM MMM R WRRRERRRWER®R RRR R WRRRERRRW RRRR®RRRWR RRR R WRRRERRRWER®R RRR R WRRRERRRW RRRRMRRRWR RRR R WRRRNRRRWER®R RRR R WRRRNRRRW RRRRMRRRWR RRR ®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®MEMEEEX® MUM 87 NCNHDE-26267: Hart's Mill Ecovillage Rezoning . . ....... ......... 77: .....7...... r Oa W.: e/i . .............. ......... Perry Hills .......... p ...... ...... :v0. .......... E. ed4 ml q ......... &A . ...... -f 1pmd- Opt n,S a .. . . . ........na.. . ....—4—d. men 0.6 1.2 Miles June 5,2024 Managed Area(MAREA) Natural Heritage Element Occurrence(NHEO) E.ri,NASA,NGA,USGS,FEMA Buffered Project Boundary State of North Carolina DOT Esri, TornTorn, Gannnin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, O Project Boundary USDA,USFWS MME 88 DATE: May 22, 2024 TO: Michael Scott, Division Director through Sharon Brinkley FROM: Lee Hill, Environmental Senior Specialist-Solid Waste Section Field Operations Branch RE: SEPA Project 24-0287 Orange County, NC Hart's Mill Ecovillage The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the Environmental Assement documents submitted by Hart's Mill Ecovillage for the proposed rezoning 1031 N. Frazier Road, Mebane, Orange County. 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: htti3s://deci.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/solid-waste-section/solid-waste-perm itted- faci I ity-i nformation-a nd-gu ida nce/so I id-waste-faci I ity-I ists 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@dea.nc.gov. Ec: Jason Watkins, Solid Waste Section Chief Chuck Kirchner, Environmental Senior Specialist 89 Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 24-0287 Due Date:6 5 2024 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. ❑ Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary. 30 days (N/A) Complete application must be received,and permit issued prior to the ❑ Well Construction Permit installation of a groundwater monitoring well located on property not 7 days 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 ❑ Dredge and Fill Permit owner.On-site inspection.Pre-application conference usual.Filling may 55 days 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 (30 days) Stormwater permit(NCG010000)is also usually issued should design features meet minimum requirements. A fee of $100 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional fees. 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. 90 Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 24-0287 Due Date:6 5 2024 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 ❑ Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land.Affected 30 days 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. ❑ Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DEQ at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. 10 days 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://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/401-wetlands-buffer-permits/401-riparian- buffer-protection-program Nutrient Offset:Loading requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins,and in the Jordan and Falls Lake ® watersheds,as part of the nutrient-management strategies in these areas. DWR nutrient offset information: http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/nonpoint-source-management/nutrient-offset-information ❑ CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00-$475.00 fee must accompany application 75 days (150 days) ❑ 22 days CAMA Permit for MINOR development $100.00 fee must accompany application (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. 91 Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 24-0287 Due Date:6 5 2024 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. 5/16/2024 DWR-WQROS ❑ &See checked boxes.Several mapped features are depicted on site 5/29/2024 (Aquifer&Surface) &KM and may be subject to the riparian buffer rules.Any impacts to the riparian buffer will need a buffer determination and auhtorization. Local and State buffer programs should be checked for applicability. If any impacts to surface water are anticipated,401/404 approval may be required. DWR-PWS ❑ / / DEMLR(LQ&SW) ❑ DWM—UST MRP ® 5/28/2024 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 92 Date: May 13, 2024 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# 24-0287 Hart's Mill Ecovillage, LLC/Orange Co, Orange County, North Carolina The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of sites under its jurisdiction to the Hart's Mill Ecovillage, LLC/Orange Co project. Hart's Mill Ecovillage, LLC is applying to vacate the existing Master Plan Development-Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) for our land and revert to R-1 conventional base zoning. This is to enable us to develop an alternative site plan using the smaller and lot-based village layout that is now much more feasible for us given our membership and resources but is precluded under our current MPD-CZ. No (0) Superfund Section sites and one (1) 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. 5/13/24,3:45 PM about:blank 93 Superfund & Brownfield Sites SEPA/NEPA Review Report Area of Interest (AOI) Information Orange County SEPA project 24-0287 Area : 3,557.47 acres May 13 2024 15:44:06 Eastern Daylight Time M�II v � e 4'N"Wwan rc k F � - WVawan C Ry sy�brc _ _ Re�9¢ie R,i u �xA Eflantl ^ r as• = F o w � r'a W �,��uS_H•aM1waY]0 W T'` - - - VSHr9�waY•10•W OaMwoctl`• _--Haw�rc� `a0 � H yul�m❑r LV ien Rd n�chrpb 136112 0 a 33 0.65 1 3 mi Inactive Hazardous Sites INC Brownfields Location View o os s 2km 0 Recorded "E wage C CR rue,sw Gamiin.INCREMENT V 115G5.METVNASA.EPA.VSVAn about:blank 1/2 5/13/24,3:45 PM about:blank 94 Superfund and Brownfield Sites Orange County SEPA project 24-0287 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 0 N/A N/A Pre-Regulatory Landfill Sites 0 N/A N/A Brownfields Program Sites 1 N/A N/A Brownfields Program Sites # BF ID BF Name Count 1 300399068 Redman Homes(Barber&Ross) 1 about:blank 2/2 95 Department of Environmental Quality Project Review Project Number: 24-0287 County: Orange Date Received: 5-8-2024 Due Date: 6-5-2024 Environmental Assessment-Hart's Mill Ecovillage, LLC is applying to vacate the existing Project Description: Master Plan Development-Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) for our land and revert to R-1 conventional base zoning. This is to enable us to develop an alternative site plan using the smaller and lot-based village layout that is now much more feasible for us given our membership and resources but is precluded under our current MPD-CZ. 1031 N. Frazier Rd, Mebane, NC 27302, Parcel ID: 9835-74-8573 This Project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville F,/—] Air Air Quality 1:1Coastal Management Fayetteville a DWR Fv--']Waste Mgmt Marine Fisheries Mooresville �✓ DWR-Public Water Fl—fl Water Resources Mgmt (Public CC&PS Div. of ✓ Water,Planning&Water Emergency Mgmt Raleigh DEMLR(LQ&SW) Quality Program) DMF-Shellfish Sanitation Washington Fv—f] DWM El DWR-Transportation Unit �✓ Wildlife Olivia Wilmington Wildlife/DOT Winston Salem Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: 6/5/24 Melodi Deaver,DWM Hazardous Waste Response(check all applicable) No objection to project as proposed. X No Comment Insufficient information to complete review Other(specify or attach comments) 96 Department of Environmental Quality Project Review Project Number: 24-0287 County: Orange Date Received: 5-8-2024 Due Date: 6-5-2024 Environmental Assessment-Hart's Mill Ecovillage, LLC is applying to vacate the existing Project Description: Master Plan Development-Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) for our land and revert to R-1 conventional base zoning. This is to enable us to develop an alternative site plan using the smaller and lot-based village layout that is now much more feasible for us given our membership and resources but is precluded under our current MPD-CZ. 1031 N. Frazier Rd, Mebane, NC 27302, Parcel ID: 9835-74-8573 This Project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville F,/—] Air Air Quality 1:1Coastal Management Fayetteville a DWR Fv--']Waste Mgmt Marine Fisheries Mooresville �✓ DWR-Public Water Fl—fl Water Resources Mgmt (Public CC&PS Div. of ✓ Water,Planning&Water Emergency Mgmt Raleigh DEMLR(LQ&SW) Quality Program) DMF-Shellfish Sanitation Washington Fv—f] DWM El DWR-Transportation Unit �✓ Wildlife Olivia Wilmington Wildlife/DOT Winston Salem Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: 5/16/2024 DWR/WRM David Wainwright Response(check all applicable) No objection to project as proposed. X No Comment Insufficient information to complete review Other(specify or attach comments) Attachment 5 97 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) ■ MPD-CZ (Master Plan Hart's Mill, Development R-1 (Rural Residential)9835-74-8573 Cheeks LLC Conditional Zoning • Upper Eno Protected District) Watershed ■ Upper Eno Protected Watershed The Planning Board hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been reviewed and deemed complete; and, b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 Statement of Intent - Amendments, and 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans of the UDO and to Section 160D-604(d) Planning Board review and comment— Plan Consistency and 160D-605(a) Governing Board Statement— Plan Consistency of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. c. The proposed R-1 zoning district meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. By rezoning the property, the existing MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development - Conditional Zoning) district, approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2015 to allow for 34 residences on 22 acres of the parcel, will cease to exist. The subject property is designated as R-1 (Rural Residential) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), and is defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as "land in the rural areas of the County which is appropriate for low intensity and low-density residential development and which would not be dependent on urban services during the plan period." It is also located in the 20 Year Transition, which is defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as "land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban, that are suitable for urban-type densities and should be provided with public utilities and services within the second 10- 98 year phase of the Plan." According to Appendix F: Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts, the proposed Rural Residential zoning district is consistent with both the Rural Residential Land Use Classification, defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as "rural areas to be developed as low intensity and low density residential"; and the 20-Year Transition Land Use Classification, which is defined as "areas changing from rural to urban in form and density.All densities of residential development would be appropriate." The eligible zoning districts in the 20-Year Transition future land use classification include R-1 (Rural Residential). The request to zone the property to R-1 (Rural Residential) will assign the parcel the same zoning district as all surrounding properties and ensures that rural character and land use will be preserved. The R-1 zoning permits uses consistent with low density development and limits disturbance to surrounding rural lands. Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with goals/objectives outlined within the Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: 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. 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. 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. 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. Land Use Element 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. 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. 99 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. Natural and Cultural Resources Overarching Goal A sustainable balance and appreciation of natural, cultural and agricultural resources. The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein and recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment. Vote: For, Against Adam Beeman, Chair Date Attachment 6 100 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed an application seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2, of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, this petition seeks to rezone a +/- 112.17 acre parcel of property (PIN 9835-74- 8573) from MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning) to R-1 (Rural Residential), hereafter `the Property'; and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 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. WHEREAS, the property lies within the Upper Eno Protected Watershed delineated by the NC Department of Environmental Quality Water Supply Watershed program and is thereby consistent with that same zoning overlay district, as established in Section 4.2 of the UDO. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the aforementioned +/- 112.17-acre parcel to R-1 (Rural Residential), as detailed within the submitted application. 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 101 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 7, 2024 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application — Stonewall Subdivision DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Preliminary Plat Application Package Ashley Moncado, Planner III 919-245-2589 2. Staff Report Cy Stober, Planning Director, 919-245-2592 3. Neighborhood Information Meeting Materials 4. Development Advisory Committee Comments PURPOSE: To review and take action on a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application for the property with Parcel Identification Number 9875-64-5097, at the intersection of Miller Road and Minnick Road, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.15 and Article 7 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). BACKGROUND: A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application was received proposing an 18-lot subdivision with 47.9% open space. Review Process: A Major Subdivision application requires the submission of a preliminary plat and other documents, in accordance with Section 2.15 of the UDO. • First Action — Onsite visit with the Planning Director. Staff Comment— The onsite visit occurred on February 16, 2024. • Second Action — The applicant holds a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Staff Comment: The NIM was held on February 28, 2024, at 5:30 p.m., at the Orange County Public Library (Attachment 3). • Third Action - The Planning Board reviews and takes action on the Concept Plan application approving Concept Plan - Flexible Development Plan. Staff Comment: The Planning Board approved the Concept Plan — Flexible Development Option at its regular meeting on April 3, 2024. • Fourth Action — Once a concept plan is approved, the Planning Board reviews and makes a recommendation on the approval of the Preliminary Plat for the project. Staff Comment: The Planning Board will review the Preliminary Plat at its regular meeting on August 7, 2024. • Fifth Action — The BOCC reviews and take action on the Preliminary Plat application. 102 • Sixth Action — Once all construction activities have been completed, or appropriate performance guarantees have been approved, the Planning Director shall take action on an application solely to affirm conformity with all applicable regulations and established conditions and approve the recordation of a Final Plat, per UDO Section 2.15.4, allowing for the individual lots to be created. Proposal: The petitioner has submitted a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application proposing to develop 18 single-family residential lots with approximately 47.9% (17.42 acres) of dedicated open space. As enabled by UDO Sections 2.15.2(C) and 7.12.5, the applicant has proposed to pursue the Conservation Cluster Flexible Development option and has not submitted a Conventional option. Additional information regarding the proposal is contained in Attachment 2. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Receive the Preliminary Plat application, and 2. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat to the BOCC, as submitted. Attachment 1 103 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or planningapps c( orangecountync.gov Subdivision Application Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink. Date: 04/24/2024 * Please fill out all required fields Subdivision Type (please select one)* ❑Expedited Minor ❑Regulated Minor Concept Plan ❑Major Concept Plan ❑✓ Major Preliminary Plat ❑Regulated Minor Final Plat ❑Major Final Plat Contact Information* Property Owner(s): Grayrose Proerties, LLC Mailing Address: 1050 Rhodes Gap Trail Phone: (919)808-8227 Email: grayroseproperties@gmail.com Applicant (if different than property owner): R.S. Jones & Associates, Inc. (Bobby Jones) Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1700 Mebane, NC 27302 Phone: (919)563-3623 Email: bobby@ rsjsurveyors.com Property Information* Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9875645097 Total Acreage: 36.36 Location (Road Name): Miller Road Existing Structures?❑Yes❑No - If yes, iplease list existing structures: Subdivision Information* Proposed Number of Lots: 18 If existing road, how many lots are using it? 0 New private road proposed?❑ Yes❑ No New public road proposed?❑✓ Yes[:] No Water Supply: ❑✓ Well❑ Community Public —❑ Durham❑ Hillsborough❑ Mebane[:] OWASA❑ OAWS Wastewater: ❑✓ Septic❑ Community Public —❑ Durham[] Hillsborough❑ Mebane ❑ OWASA❑ OAWS Page 1 of 2 104 Certification and Signatures I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the information contained above, and in the supporting documents, is a factual representation of the proposed development. I acknowledge that by signing this application, the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department is authorized, pursuant to NCGS 160D-403, to make as many inspections of the subject property as may be necessary to verify that the proposed work outlined herein is consistent with the provisions of all applicable State and local laws, ordinances, and regulations. By signing this application, I acknowledge and agree that inspectors, zoning officers, erosion control officers, and other staff of the Orange County Planning & Inspections Department have a right, upon presentation of proper credentials, to access the subject property at a reasonable hour for the purposes of inspection or other enforcement action. DocuSigned by: 2FDC298C819F48B... Owner Signature(s) Applicant Signature (if different from owner) 4/24/2024 Date Date Section Completed by Staff Zoning: Watershed: Other overlay districts impacting property: Stream on lot?❑Yes❑ No Floodplain on lot? Yes MNo Note: If the property to be subdivided is currently under farm use value taxation, please contact the Orange County Tax Office at 919-245-2100. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under farm use value taxation. Page 2 of 2 f al F J Z a �k Ile I toZCA § rd' ICI yd I,h w - --- --- i � e Oda 1 m II. =I �rv4 1m I " Dui m i °e rc S a0s_—J p it 1 mag 1 "I s� 4 _ o$ M o 8ige e a o es _ km n� ¢ wN i R�GGzUR,, m A �jj by 4 ° e x_`N M 106 • Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA 8412 Falls of Neuse Road,Suite 104,Raleigh,NC 27615•Phone; (919) 846-5900• Fax: (919)846-9467 s andec.com Grayrose Properties, LLC March 17, 2021 Attn: Kevin Currin S&EC Project#14635.52 1050 Rhodes Gap Trail Durham,NC 27705 Re: Soil/Site Evaluation on the White Properties, Approximately 41.4-Acre Site at Miller Road and Minnick Road, Orange County,NC Dear Mr. Currin: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC)performed a detailed soil and site evaluation on the above referenced tract. This was performed at your request as part of the preliminary planning process in order to determine areas of soil that have potential for subsurface wastewater disposal per our agreement from March 8, 2021. Fieldwork was performed in March 2021. S&EC traversed the property and observed landforms (slope, drainage patterns, past use, etc.) as well as soil conditions (depth, texture, structure, seasonal wetness, restrictive horizons, etc.) through the use of hand auger borings. The site was evaluated during moist soil conditions. From these observations, an evaluation of the site was developed, relative to subsurface disposal of wastewater. Soil areas were GPS located in the field. The soil/site evaluation criteria used is that contained in 15 A NCAC 18A .1900 "Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems" and"Orange County Regulations for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems". FINDINGS This site is located in the Slate Belt region of Orange County. The upland soils on this tract are similar to the Georgeville, Tarrus, and Badin soil series. The Georgeville, Tarrus, and Badin soils have a loamy surface material over a red clayey subsoil. These soils are generally useable for subsurface septic systems. The accompanying AutoCAD sketch map indicates the estimated areas with potential use for subsurface wastewater disposal. The red cross hatched units indicate areas of soils which are at least 24 to 36+ inches deep to prohibitive soil characteristics and these areas have potential for a conventional septic system, a modified conventional (shallow placed lines with no fill required over the disposal area), ultra-shallow conventional (shallow placed lines with fill required over the disposal field), low-profile chamber, and/or a low pressure pipe (LPP) septic system. The cyan hatched units indicate areas of soils which are at least 18 to 24+inches deep to prohibitive soil characteristics and these areas have potential for low profile chamber and/or pretreatment subsurface drip septic systems. The blue hatched units indicate areas of soils which are at least 13+ inches deep to prohibitive soil characteristics and these areas have potential for a pretreatment subsurface drip septic system. S&EC recommends to further evaluate the cyan and 107 blue hatched soil areas with the county health dept and use backhoe pits to evaluate the underlying soils/saprolite to determine the best septic options for these areas. Pretreatment drip are expensive septic systems that may require additional soils work& soil hydraulic conductivity (Ksat)testing and a wastewater engineered design. Unit"UN" on the attached map indicates areas of soils that are less than 13 inches to prohibitive soil characteristics or are unsuitable areas due to landscape position and are generally unsuitable for the type of systems mentioned above. Unit"NE" on the attached map indicates areas that were not evaluated due to existing gravel road and/or large overhead power lines. There are some small overhead power lines on the property that may need to be rerouted when a subdivision is developed. The site plan for each lot must ensure that adequate soil area for system and repair is unaffected by site elements (house placement, driveway, wells, patios, decks, etc.) on that or adjacent lots. The area ultimately designated by the health department on the site plan for the septic system and repair must remain undisturbed(no mechanical clearing, excavation, heavy traffic or other significant site disturbing activities)until authorized by the health department and/or state permitting agency. A lot with initially adequate useable soil area may be rendered unusable as a result of improper site planning and/or disturbance. A field layout of the proposed septic systems may be required as part of the individual lot development process. ORANGE COUNTY REGULATIONS During the subdivision recordation process, Orange County requires a backhoe and backhoe operator to dig pits to evaluate the soils for septic suitability on each lot for subdivisions with 6 or more proposed lots. Any lots/houses proposed with more than 600 gallon per day daily design flow (more than a 5-bedroom house) will require a backhoe and backhoe operator to dig pits for the county heath dept's soils evaluation as well. The cost and coordination of the backhoe and backhoe operator is the responsibility of the septic permit applicant. GENERAL WASTEWATER CONSIDERATIONS Once potentially useable areas are located through vertical borings, the next consideration is the horizontal extent of those areas. The size and configuration of the useable soil area dictate the utility of that area. The size of a subsurface disposal field is determined by: 1)the design flow from the source (120 gallons/bedroom/day in residences), and 2)the long term acceptance rate (LTAR) of the soil (based on the hydraulic conductivity of the soil, a function of the soil's texture, mineralogy, structure,porosity, etc.). The configuration must be such that an efficient layout of disposal lines (on contour) is possible. An additional consideration is the required setbacks for the system from various elements such as wells (50' to 100'), streams and ponds (-80') or more (depending on watershed regulations),property lines (10'), top of embankment (15'), watershed buffers, etc. (see Attachment 1). The utility of a potential useable soil area for a subsurface system is most accurately determined by an on-ground layout of the proposed system. The total area needed for system and repair areas will depend upon the system type, the layout of that system and the total design flow (factors mentioned above). A typical area needed for a 4 bedroom residence is approximately 14,000 to 16,000 ft2 (could be more depending on site features) or 880 to 960 linear feet of conventional line (system and repair) or 1,164 to 1,280 linear feet of low profile chamber line (system and repair). These estimates reference Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Page 2 of 4 108 Disposal Systems for North Carolina and use a LTAR of 0.225 to 0.3gpd/ft2 for conventional septic systems (.1955) and a LTAR of 0.225 to 0.3gpd/ft2 for modified conventional and Low Profile Chamber(.1956) septic systems. The ultimate LTAR will be determined by the health department after their lot evaluation. A 4-bedroom residence utilizing a drip septic system and repair would need approximately 15,000 to 20,000 ft2 (could be more depending on site features and/or soil hydraulic conductivity [Ksat] testing). S&EC will be glad to assist in any system layout, Ksats, or sizing calculations if requested. This report discusses the general location of potentially useable soils for on-site subsurface wastewater disposal and, of course, does not constitute or imply any approval or permit as needed by the client from the local health department. S&EC is a professional consulting firm that specializes in the delineation of soil areas for wastewater disposal and the layout and design of wastewater treatment systems. As a professional consulting firm, S&EC is hired for its professional opinion in these matters. The rules governing wastewater treatment(interpreted and governed by local and state agencies)are evolving constantly and,in many cases, affected by the opinions of individuals employed by these governing agencies. Because of this, S&EC cannot guarantee that areas delineated and/or systems designed will be permitted by the governing agencies. As always, S&EC recommends that anyone making financial commitments on a tract be fully aware of individual permit requirements on that tract prior to final action. An individual septic system permit will be required for each lot prior to obtaining a building permit. This will involve a detailed evaluation by the local health department to determine, among other things, system size and layout, well, drive and house location. Only after developing this information can a final determination be made concerning specifics of system design and site utilization. This report and site evaluation is not conformant to the Engineered Option Permit(EOP) process. Additional site testing and evaluations will be required to utilize the EOP process. The soil report and map associated with this project is for the exclusive use of the addressee and the use or reliance by all others is expressly denied without the written consent of S&EC. Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA is pleased to be of service in this matter and we look forward to assisting in any site analysis needs you may have in the future. Please feel free to call with any questions or comments. ,SOIL Sincerely, f� CONS Soil &Environmental Co y� Q- r,;TArfO C�` Y-1 x Cory Connell NC Licensed Soil Scien 01;343 Encl: Attachment 1 OP G�' ! Soil Suitability Map M � °� 1�' ''''�� Page 3 of 4 109 Attachment 1 .1950 Location of Sanitary Sewage Systems("Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems"& "Orange County Regulations for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems") (c) Every sanitary sewage treatment and disposal system shall be located at least the minimum horizontal distance from the following: (1) any private water supply source including a well or spring 100 feet (2) any public water supply source 100 feet (3) streams classified as WS-I 100 feet (4) water classified as S.A. 100 feet from mean high water mark (5) Other coastal waters 50 feet from mean high water mark (6) any other stream,canal,marsh,or other surface waters 50 feet (7) any Class I or Class 11 reservoir 100 feet from normal pool elevation (8) any permanent storm water retention pond 50 feet from flood pool elevation (9) any other lake or pond 50 feet from normal pool elevation (10) any building foundation 15 feet (11) any basement 15 feet (12) any property line 10 feet (13) top of slope of embankments or cuts of 2 feet or more vertical height 15 feet (14) any water line 10 feet (15) drainage systems: (A)Interceptor drains,foundation drains and storm water diversions (i) upslope 10 feet (ii) sideslope 15 feet (iii) downslope 25 feet (B)Groundwater lowering ditched and devices 25 feet (16) any swimming pool(in-ground) 25 feet (above-ground) 15 feet (17) any other nitrification field(except repair area) 20 feet (18) Drip line 5 feet (19) Lined/Watertight ornamental pond 25 feet Note: Systems over 3000 GPD or an individual nitrification fields with a capacity of 1500 GPD or more have more restrictive setback requirements, see.1950(a)(17)(d)for specifics. Page 4 of 4 1 40 1 NOiivnidn;l gilt/SIIOS agIldlg4 :'oN;aa49 mw'J3ovasmrcn, L966-968(61��pd OOfiS-968(6l�:amVd SI9LZ emlore�yyoN`4Qaley ppl>nv9`PNasraN)o sIR3 ZI08 wr'DD ,00z=„I oll 531123do&A 3So?L Vb9 ON "003 99W24Q I oMpla,� :alias q-ID eao, Vj `sjue;jnsuo3 Icluamuoileua v lgos , :�a6eueyy a,J NO I N N I W QJ 'JI111 W • mp�a ;aar,d ZS'9£94I+'-N 4-bld ;aafo�d Z O Z OP 4 S2 ~ O a' U Z W H W Z Q Q J D ~O U N W O z O O J w �Q~Q mNU Z W Wpm }N~O�Z3p U-CDL-H H a0 w Q w �Lj -i ZZ O ZUZ5 d' YZw mo Ezwwo O]W ONW J W Z OOLLI CQ O V) 0 U m azmJH F W C,W: 0QJ� f _ Q J W F-D 0 N Z K ON Z J EHOWIi HNWOIWipm U)� W CV) vi N 00 1 ZWd~WO f0>Q6NNM}apwN HOW w ri K (fin W000 c) o U7W Lu�2a=� OUN~WHma TNEMQp OZ~KU00~N� Y to Y Z Q NQ O = II J30~aJM zQO��r3w O�wJm Ow�m�w0(nz=? m O�m ¢ jZ�< Z Q� �(/7 w_w Za a�z��Zw Wa��awOvai¢=�WwO~}p(;i .ri o'Lw ""00O LLI ZwzOww <am az F� mZd=}mNwJQJJyw JwQ �'w~r o� Jw z V L,j M � �jOZOQW �- m0 U-�Z-Np p OZ OZ In- U QWUO _� wW N WOHJN �Z�2y�7W Z�00Q Y(n Q N U �J OQ Np a c)Zr� Q J H =W Z H p J J 7 O 5 d d Z�Z H Of Q Z O o ~- w�WU ~O apaF �gJOQ2p WO OQOQOp oW � N M W ZdO0Uw WO WZ W + tn00<6jm • d3iosmom RM VI -omowo (n N C) Za Q?ix N T L r DU W L N N °NEE E d Z D Z E�� - °10 E „o, � 3 yyo a a a zO 23 N O \ z D OUO . C i O E u° d co `o m$ m °o I ° d ^ > « w E o y«r °w wi ° � aco-. d °ia 0. v d.NO 2 «O (°l�E o.E L` � Q« oa j co Z Z LU z DZ LLJ Z ObOyH INNIW 0 L.LJ c o y o 0 Z Ei N E w o d E°'o d 0 0« °- o c\ ° E.«w ° 0a, >c pt'no c o 0 E° _ E cw o 0 `ova `o °°Y o w E y y o dar oava aai Z Qo �E_ �- omcq o - p m o < °E-n U M o G N v Oo z «� ; .O..D�cpy L u L 0.i E o w 3 w a ;° o d N O-E-* L N U W oy � O� O UCO.N «« « Z ° dU U U O N O 2 ViC Ur NL y°j oo >« ova� m Qt uy QL'�03y w Z .� Staff Report Attachment 2 Major Subdivision — Preliminary Plat Basic Information Parcel Identification Vicinity Map for PIN g875645o97 — 9875-64-5097 ti -yf - Number (PIN) _ - ��� LL11eR T ship �J R erPrcected - Kevin Curtin Applicant Name d °vaTow hP 1 1050 Rhodes Gap Trail and Address T 1� Durham, NC EPP �4 DPP n°✓ zr' � , . ' H„sb ghT ws�P f Property Owner ak Towns '-' m ;E,°T,"°=hlP Name and Address Kevin Currin 1050 Rhodes Gap Trail (if different from Hi l is Durham, NC p jL .—gh - — ° Applicant) PmN:- /` sPPo, EarthCentric Engineering Agent(s), if 204 West Clay Street Im, - o°rham_ applicable Mebane, NC F-141111ooro°9n—hip Later SUPpIy LV—h d •.�LaNe F �. A Existing Zoning Current Zoning R-1 (Rural Residential), District AR (Agricultural Residential) r l� \ ;r rE^o - Current Use Undeveloped Township Hillsborough 987N4W97 Existing Zoning N/A ' Overlay Districts AR Watershed District Lower Eno Unprotected �Rl ETJ POHR2 s Parcel Size +/-36.36 acres Adopted Future Land Use Map with Parcel 9875645097 Depicted Future Land Use U Rural Residential, Agricultural Map (PLUM) Designation Residential g FLUM Overlay(s) Resource Protection Area Growth Management Rural Designation System Designation uwerEno Rural Residential - Land in the rural areas of the County which is Definition of FLUM appropriate for low Designation intensity and low-density 9875645097 residential development and which (Land Use Element would not be dependent on urban of Comprehensive services during the plan period. Plan) Agricultural Residential - Land in the rural areas where the (Appendix F of prevailing land use activities are Comprehensive related to the land (agriculture, R=o�g�P��,o„A Plan) forestry) and which is an FP1PfeL1"'°9eCd�0fe5 �io Year Transioi°" appropriate location for the ETJ continuation of these uses. ;.,. ... ,. .. Interlocal Agreement Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Applicable Yes Coordinated Area Land use Plan Y/N Applicable ILA Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan Future Land Use Classification Rural Living These areas reflect existing very- low density residential uses with densities below 0.5 dwelling units per acre that occurs in areas 6 Description without public water and sewer �peN."76n 6097 service, in locations where b1t a-ae„LA continued low-intensity use without public water and sewer is desirable for the foreseeable future. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Aerial Image with Parcel9875645097Outlined — AR (Agricultural Residential) and R-1 North (Rural Residential) �..y — Undeveloped, Residential homes g South — R-1 (Rural Residential) — Undeveloped, Residential homes — R-1 (Rural Residential) and AR East (Agricultural Residential) _ — Residential homes West — R-1 (Rural Residential) Residential homes ? $• Existing Roadss' ' wys• �� � -�. � o-yV North None s, South Minnick Road (Private - 50 ft. Right of Way) East None West Miller Road (Public - 50 ft. Right of Way) O PIN:9875815697 Existing Conditions/Physical Features The parcel is undeveloped with a cleared section on the majority of land. The northern and eastern portion of the site is wooded and contains a stream, identified by Orange County as a Resource Protection Area. The existing stream includes an 80-foot buffer on either side of the bank based on UDO Section 6.13. The site is located within a Special Flood Hazard area due to the existing 500-year floodplain located along the stream on the northern and eastern portion of the site. An existing 100-ft. Duke Power easement runs east/west through the parcel and contains three towers onsite. Public Water and Sewer Private well and septic are proposed for the site. The property lies within the Town of Hillsborough's Primary Service Area, as identified in the Water And Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement but has not petitioned for annexation or proposed extension of municipal utilities to the property. Proposed Project Proposed Development Grayrose Properties, LLC, is proposing a flexible major subdivision including 18 single family homes and 47.9% (+/-17.42 acres) open space on +/- 36.36 acres. The average lot size is 40,012 square feet. The applicant has proposed to pursue the Flexible Development option and has not submitted a Conventional option per Section 2.15.2(C) of the UDO. The Flexible Development Conservation Cluster option involves the preservation of a minimum 33% of the total tract's land area as protected open space. The applicant has submitted a concept plan layout (Attachment 1) with proposed lots adhering to the 1-acre (43,560-square feet) lot size and proposing approximately +/-17.42 acres of open space. As allowed by UDO Section 7.12.4(A)(2), the applicant is permitted to have 30,000-square foot lots with an open space dedication of 40% or greater. The applicant has requested not requested this decreased lot size and/or increased density. A summary of the proposal is as follows: Number of Average Lot Open Space Subdivision Type Lots Size Area in Open Space percentage Flexible Development 18 40,012 sq. ft. +/-17.42 acres in open 47.9% in Plan space open space Open Space The Flexible Development plan proposed a total of+/-17.42 acres of open space. Primary open space, including the stream, flood, and buffer areas, total 12.90 acres; Secondary Open Space includes 4.52 acres. Landscape Buffer The Flexible Development plan identifies a 30-ft. Type B Buffer along Miller Road. No additional buffers are required, per UDO Section 6.8.6. Recreational Facilities Recreational facilities payment in lieu fees shall be paid towards North Hillsborough/Cheeks Community Park before final plat approval. Preliminary Plat �'. . . .. . . . f f � �' ���~ ,. wpm•• .``•-.. . . . . .. . ti �w f f �•� _ -+•_ �.. C-- _ � � p�4 i�^ � -':r�7.�-� + � �/ER Cp���-�� �'� wr�'i!��w�a ++ r„4y`_+ 4� _�_t_�.=�4y �a��- r� ! 7 1 r -..-.__ 1 rw J j wn.•r�r.,e -__ --_ --- �.__ 1 I1 +J n. a+i...,-- :"iwrwin 1 _ J 116 Proposed Access and Transportation Network Improvements The project proposes residential access via a new 50-foot public right of way connecting Miller Road and is subject to NCDOT design and construction standards. No roadway improvements are required by NCDOT but the project will require a Driveway Permit. The new road shall not be interconnected to any adjacent properties and is proposed to terminate in a cul-de-sac conforming with the NC State Fire Code. Per UDO Section 6.17.2(2), a traffic impact analysis is not required. Summary of Transportation Information Existing Roadway Characteristics Affected Roadway Miller Road Type of Roadway Local — 2 lane undivided Current Roadway Capacity 10,000 AADT Latest Traffic Volume 1,600 AADT Traffic Generation Number of Trips Expected to be Generated by 150 Proposed Project Proposed Utilities Water and wastewater services will be provided via individual private wells and septic systems on each lot. Wells and septic systems shall meet Orange County Environmental Health standards. Erosion Control/Stormwater Regulations The applicant has indicated the project will conform to existing stormwater management (Section 6.14) and erosion and sedimentation control (Section 6.15) regulations of the UDO. Land Use Buffers/Setbacks North 30' from front, 15' from side and rear Setback South 30' from front, 15' from side and rear Setback East 30' from front, 15' from side and rear Setback West 30' from front, 15' from side and rear Setback, 30' Type B Buffer Reduced setbacks are permitted as part of the Flexible Development Option. Environmental Assessment (EA) An Environmental Assessment is not required. Solid Waste The applicant has indicated development within the project will conform to the Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance. Review Milestones Application Submittal Date January 9, 2024 Development Advisory Committee February 1, 2024 (DAC) Review Neighborhood Information Meeting February 28, 2024 N I M) Note: the DAC is a staff/agency committee, established in Section 1.9 of the UDO. Courtesy Review Jurisdiction Date Sent Comments Received (Y/N) State Clearinghouse February 20, 2024 Yes Analysis Staff Analysis As required under UDO Section 2.15.2 (E), the Planning Director is required to: `prepare and submit a recommendation' on the concept plan to the Planning Board for consideration. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: 1. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of Sections 2.2 and 2.15.2 of the UDO. 2. Staff has determined that the property is of sufficient size to support the proposed subdivision. 3. Staff has determined that the concept plan should conform with the development standards of Article 6 and the subdivision standards of Article 7 when refined as a preliminary plat. 4. Staff supports the approval of the flexible development option contained in Attachment 1. Attachment 3 118 Neighborhood Information Meeting Report Form REPORT OF INFORMATION MEETING REQUIRED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE To: Ashley Moncado, Planner III Project Name: Stonewall Approximate Location (or Address): East of the intersection of Miller Road & Paw Court Proposed Number Lots: 18 Residential (Y/N): Yes 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) 02/08/2024. A photo of the sign posted is recommended to be attached to this form. The meeting was held at the following time and place: Wednesday, February 28, 2024, Orange County Public Library, Main Meeting Room, 137 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 The persons in attendance at the meeting: See attached Attendance sheet The following issues were discussed at the meeting (Attach additional sheet(s) if needed): 1. Prior to the NIM, a call was received asking about fencing and landscaping against Panther Ct Lots and what the homes look like. Power easement prevents fencing and landscape. 2. Discussion on why Orange County Planning is not part of the meeting. 3. Well Discussions regarding common or individual wells. Concerns about impact of 19 additional wells on adjacent well pressure, quality and availability. 4. Open space area discussions. Open space owned by HOA. 5. Discussions on what the home are going to look like and the sizing of the homes. 6. Discussion as to why this subdivision can't be included on public water & sewer. 7. Discussion regarding the existing trees and what will be retained. 8. Concerns about walking safety on Miller Road. Neighbors think there is too much traffic and that the traffic is moving too fast on Miller Road. Questions about a traffic study. 9. Discussions on the overcrowding of schools. 10. Reminder about an upcoming Planning meeting. 11. Questions about an easement to the neighbor lot and if fiber is coming to the area. 12. Stormwater facility discussion about type, location and appearance. 13. Discussion about protection of the existing creek. 14. Revisit of traffic discussions and location of new road. Concern about sight distance. 15. Disappointment regarding the "boring" appearance of the layout. Discussion regarding what possible alternate layouts would look like. 16. Revisit home appearance and timeline of construction. 17. Questions regarding if the developer intends on building the homes or selling the lots. 18. Conclusion of the meeting and general congregation around the site plan exhibit. 119 As a result of the meeting, the following changes were made to the project proposal (Attach additional sheet(s) if needed): No changes to the plan were deemed necessary based on the discussions had at the neighborhood meeting. Date: 02/29/2024 Applicant: EarthCentric Engineering Inc. By: Shawn C. Sidener Please submit this Report to the Orange County Planning Department located at 131 W. Margaret Lane or mail it to Ashley Moncado, at 131 W. Margaret Ln. Hillsborough NC, 27278. If you have any questions, please contact the assigned staff planner. 120 nl C V Q •� �: N W V, DO W D z � �_ � � � `� � � o �— �` cr z N v t ,ti a `^ 0 V w CIT- a v o _� Y s 00 121 au � C d o � Z � N W � U ran er Z ta 0 v rrs it z � o � H ra • .c c d e� 122 IP ON 4r L' R4Pbu 7F. - S n,. e If'FLU -e 123 02/08/2024 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) STONEWALL(MAJOR FLEXIBLE SUBDIVISION); CASE#SUB24-0001 To Whom It May Concern: We (the applicant)have submitted a Flexible Major Subdivision Application proposing to develop property located just east of the intersection of Miller Rd&Paw Court(PIN#9875-64-5097) for development of a single-family home subdivision. Per Section 2.15,Major Subdivisions of the Unified Development Ordinance, you are receiving this letter because property you own is within 1,000 ft. of this parcel. The parcel is further described below: Property Information Parcel ID Numbers (PIN) 9875-64-5097 Owner Grayrose Properties, LLC Applicant EarthCentric Engineering Inc. Location No Address (East of Miller Rd & Paw Court) Acreage 36.36 Zoning R1 (Rural Residential)&AR (Agricultural Res.) Watershed Designation Lower Eno Unprotected (Neuse River Basin) What is being proposed? 18-unit single-family home subdivision with public road ending in a cul-de-sac. What is this meeting for? This Neighborhood Information Meeting(NIM)will allow you and other nearby property owners to meet with the applicant and discuss the proposal. When and where is the meeting? Meeting Information Date Wednesday, February 28, 2024 Time 5:30 PM Place Orange County Public Library, Main Meeting Room Address 137 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough NC 27278 Ashley Moncado, Planner III Assigned Planner 919-245-2589 amoncado@orangecountync.gov Following the NIM,the concept plan will go to the Planning Board for review and approval. Following this action, a preliminary plat shall be submitted for review and recommendation by the Planning Board,prior to review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. If you have any questions regarding this project, feel free to reach out to Shawn Sidener at EarthCentric Engineering,Inc.by phone at 919-563-9041or by email at Shawn.Sidener(u),EarthCentric.com. Thank you. bE9ZZk 3dON-HOOK IIHd 9 OPIUOOqIJZ3 11WN'I!4d:I!eW-3 tl33NION3ltldlONltld '3 5 E6�5! bEZE-b0E(6l6) Lb06-ESS(6L6):auo4d NV'Id HZIS g I I o ZOE[Z ON'euegeW ,aallS FeiO'M vu NouonHiSNOO 8E93-0#Moon80=1 ioN VNI70HVO HIHON 'AIN[IOO 3JNVHO oul' ulaaaul u3 ouluaOyue3 AUVNIWI13Hd NIOISIAIQSfIS 'I'IVMHNOZS od te / kA - 1 'm3 �o gi Ike w� sod 6k md�E aqk� :k <8 b .2 s$dffiN E.:oo st fi3r tl I � 8` k S ens ff w na m�e mr , go I L Io Ek=€ tlff X '� 8 IE ------------- -no -Hpl w " '- c b 4< WQaki \ %a.;-'"• _ �6G E`ffi�g8 a-���w833tl su gig i - S wog`do:Y a"kfa_ � \ sss�y.ssnaiy 3 �` g`o f° - - - &gdw @ . LLgg& i r e g Attachment 4 125 March 25, 2024 Stonewall Subdivision Case #: SUB24-0001 PIN: 9875-64-5097 Re: Development Advisory Committee Report for SUB24-0001 (UDO § 1.9.5) The Orange County Development Advisory Committee (DAC) met on February 1, 2024, for a final review and discussion of the major subdivision concept plan application for PIN 9875-64- 5097 (Case #: SUB24-0001). The Orange County DAC has no objections to the approval of the major subdivision concept plan application 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 Stob r Planning & Inspections Director 126 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245•2575 Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Comments DAC review comments and recommendations do not constitute plan or permit approval for this application and/or replace any other plans and permits that may be required by other County departments and State agencies. Project: SUB24-0001 Location/PIN: 9875-64-5097 Applicant: Kevin Currin Staff Planner: Ashley Moncado, Planner III DAC Meeting Date: 2/1/2024 Addressing and Britney Pendleton 9 Land Records Date: 1-19-24 Staff: brpendleton(aD-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2576 1. Email add ressing(aD_orangecountync.gov to request road name reservation for new street and information on road naming process. James Bryan VAttorney's Office Date: Staff: jbryan(a-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2319 No comments received. Building Michael Rettie Inspections Date: 1/19/24 Staff: mrettie(a_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2604 1. All construction regulated by the NC Building Codes will require building permits. 2. If a CBU is to be provided, compliance with NCDOT, USPS and ADA will be required. Chris Hirni DEAPR Date: 1/30/24 Staff: chirni(a)_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2514 1. Please see attached memo. Environmental Victoria Hudson Health Date: 01/26/2024 Staff: vhudsonCa)-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2365 1. No applications have been received for this project. Erosion Nate Jacobsen Control Date: 1/23/24 Staff: njacobsen(aD_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2580 1. A Land Disturbing Permit will be required for the proposed project. 2. Based on project extent and site contours, proposed SCM basins may need to act as sediment control basins prior to conversion. 127 Fire and Life Elizabeth Farnan Safety Date: 1/29/24 Staff: efarnan(a)orangecountync.gov 919-245-6153 No comments. Chuck Edwards NCDOT Date: Staff: cnedwards(a)-ncdot.gov 336-570-6833 1. Permitting: Prior to performing work in the NCDOT right of way, the applicant will need to obtain an approved Driveway Permit for the proposed site access. 2. Trip Generation and Traffic Impacts: Based on the information provided, the site consists of 18 single family residential lots. The site is expected to generate approximately 150 daily trips at full buildout. The site access and adjacent road network is expected to operate acceptably with no road capacity improvements required per NCDOT guidelines. 3. Jurisdictional Authority- Internal Streets: The submitted materials contain contradictory information regarding public or private internal street. The applicant needs to specify. Public subdivision streets are subject to NCDOT design and construction requirements. 4. Intersection Sight Distance: NCDOT staff performed a site visit to evaluate intersection sight distance. Observed time gaps and associated sight distances were not observed in the field due to horizontal and vertical road geometry and vegetative obstructions. The applicant will need to further evaluate and provide design information meeting NCDOT and AASHTO requirements. 5. Plans: Prior to issuance of the driveway permit and approval of internal subdivision streets (if applicable) the applicant will need to submit complete and final plans per NCDOT requirements to NCDOT for review and approval. Ashley Moncado Planning Date: 1-24-24 Staff: amoncado(a)_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2589 Concept Plan 1. Provide a note referencing recreational facilities payment in lieu fees shall be paid towards North Hillsborough/Cheeks Community Park before final plat approval. 2. Site Analysis sheet shall be drafted based on Section 7.13.2(A)(3), including the labeling of Primary and Secondary open space areas. In addition, a design process checklist, as contained in Section 7.12.8(B), shall be provided from the applicant. 3. Recommend the removal of the proposed parcel lines from the Site Analysis Map — Pre Development Sheet C3.1 and the removal of the proposed house locations, wells, and septic fields from the Site Analysis Map— Post Development Sheet C3.2. 4. Landscape buffers shall be identified on the concept plan per Section 6.8.6. 5. The application for this project proposed a public road, however, Sheet C1.0 of the concept plan references Proposed Private Roadway Data. Please confirm with staff if the proposed road is public or private and revise sheet C1.0 and label sheets C3.0, 3.1, 3.2, and 5 as public or private. 128 Application and Review Process 1. A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is required at least 14 days prior to Planning Board meeting. NIM notifications are required to be sent out a minimum of 14 days prior to the meeting. Once the NIM is scheduled, please notify staff in order to finalize Planning Board meeting date. 2. Per Section 2.15.2(B), the applicant shall schedule an onsite visit with the Planning Director. This shall occur prior to the Neighborhood Information Meeting. Matt Taylor Solid Waste Date: 1/29/24 Staff: mtaylor(a)-orangecountync.gov 919-918-4905 1. Road width and Cul-de-sac radius are sufficient for OC Solid Waste Recycling Collection vehicles to access safely and turn around Stormwater Nate Jacobsen Management Date: 1/23/24 Staff: nlacobsenCcDorangecountync.gov 919-245-2580 1. A Stormwater Management Plan will be required for the proposed project. Transportation Darlene Weaver Services Date: 1/30/24 Staff: dweaverCo)-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2002 1. In accordance with Orange County Complete Streets and Vision Zero Policy we request the applicant provide opportunities for all travel modes especially bike, pedestrians. i.e., Sidewalks 129 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919•245.2575 Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Comments DAC review comments and recommendations do not constitute plan or permit approval for this application and/or replace any other plans and permits that may be required by other County departments and State agencies. Project: SUB24-0001 (Stonewall) Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Location/PIN: 9875-64-5097 Applicant: Bobby Jones Staff Planner: Ashley Moncado, Planner III DAC Meeting Date: 5/16/2024 Addressing and Britney Pendleton Land Records Date: 5/13/24 Staff: brpendleton(a)_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2576 Magpie Lane has been approved and reserved for use by the addressing team. James Bryan Attorney's Office Date: Staff: jb rya n(cborangecountync.gov 919-245-2319 1. No comments received. Building Michael Rettie Inspections Date: Staff: mrettie(D-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2604 1. No comments received. Chris Hirni DEAPR Date: Staff: chirni(a)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2514 1. No comments received. Environmental Victoria Hudson Health Date: 5/14/2024 Staff: vhudson(a)-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2365 1. No further comments. Erosion Nate Jacobsen Control Date: 5/13/24 Staff: niacobsen(a)-oa) 919-245-2580 1. Proposed project will require a Land Disturbing Permit for all homes to be built on separate lots. 2. Collectively, permitting through NCG01 with the State will be required. 130 VFireand Life Elizabeth Farnan ty Date: 5/15/2024 Staff: efarnan(a)orangecountync.gov 919-245-6153 1. No further comments needed. Chuck Edwards NCDOT Date: 5/14/2024 Staff: cnedwards(a)ncdot.gov 336-570-6833 1. NCDOT has preciously provide comments during the January 30th DAC which are still applicable. 2. The plat indicates that's Magpie Lane is to be a public street a. Internal streets must comply with the NCDOT Subdivision Manual 3. We have previously requested information to verify intersection site distance a. The applicant's engineer has provided this, and we have reviewed and sent back comments directly to them. i. Based on the information provided, there may need to be additional clearing and grading and associated easements to provide adequate intersection site distance 4. Permitting a. The applicant will need a driveway permit for the proposed "Magpie Lane" connection to Miller Rd SR 1555). Ashley Moncado Planning Date: 5/7/24 Staff: amoncado(a)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2589 1. The location of any existing curbs, gutters and culverts. These features shall also be shown in cross section. 2. Proposed streets, pavement or travel way widths shall be denoted as well as typical roadway cross sections. The approximate centerline radius shall be shown on all proposed streets. 3. The location and size (if appropriate) of above ground installations of major electric, CATV and telephone transmission lines, underground gas transmission mains, underground water mains and sanitary sewer lines, and important storm sewer systems on or abutting the tract shall be shown. If there are none, please provide note stating as such on the plat. 4. The zoning of the subject tract and adjacent parcels shall be noted. 5. Identify and label proposed "Drainage Easements" and "Access Easements". 6. Identify and label "Pedestrian Open Space Area". 7. Provide a note referencing recreational facilities payment in lieu fees shall be paid towards North Hillsborough/Cheeks Community Park District before final plat approval. Matt Taylor Solid Waste Date: 5/13/24 Staff: mtaylor(a)orangecountync.gov 919-918-4905 1. Upon viewing the preliminary plat, the road width and cul-de-sac radius/diameter are not listed. Please provide those measurements so that OC Solid Waste can confirm if waste/recycling collection vehicles can safely access and exit this development. Stormwater Christopher Sandt Management Date: 5/13/2024 Staff: csandt(a)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2583 1. The parcel is located in the Lower Eno Unprotected watershed overlay district. A Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) is required if proposed Land Disturbance exceeds 21,780 square feet. 131 Transportation Darlene Weaver Services Date: 5/14/2024 Staff: dweaver(a)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2002 1.Orange County Complete Street policy and Vision Zero Policy • Request applicants provide opportunities for all travel modes especially bike, pedestrian, and transit. i.e., Sidewalks iA— 9 Z CA Cw ph jl( PT 2n, 1 2 '21 Mm.. P q NM jM i aaaaaga as ^mwamncsa ' 112112TIT vol m mw MM g n oa ph aga WO 1;OR HE g, kL 133 ORANGE COUNTY Department of Environment, Agriculture,Parks&Recreation MEMORANDUM To: Taylor Perschau, Current Planning Supervisor,Planning and Inspections Department From: Christian Himi,Land Conservation Manager Date: January 30,2024 Re: Stonewall Subdivision-Regulated Major Subdivision Application Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Regulated Major Subdivision upon land listed under Grayrose Properties LLC. The development would create 18 single-family lots and associated open space on approximately 36 acres located on the east side of Miller Road,north of the intersection with Orange High School Road The subject property is one parcel(PIN 9875-64-5097)and is within the Lower Eno River Watershed. The property's northern bounds contain approximately 1,500 linear feet of Strouds Creek and a small tributary entering from the north for an additional 200 feet. Strouds Creek is a direct tributary to the Eno River,meeting its confluence just over 1.3 miles downstream. DEAPR comments on subdivisions are generally intended to a)address any concerns with respect to potential impacts on important natural or cultural resources,and b)identify any areas that might be desirable for possible dedication to the County for public recreation/open space pursuant to Section 7.11.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Natural Resources Review Comments: The plan calls for setting aside approximately 15.99 acres of Open Space(-44 percent)primarily around riparian buffers of Strouds Creek and its tributaries, and the floodplains as delineated within the site plan. The area on the property containing the Strouds Creek,its tributaries,the floodplains, and a one-acre portion of the forested area around the tributary through the northern portion of the property, approximately acres in size,is recognized in the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as a"Resource Protection Area". These areas were determined to be of conservation value considering several factors, including but not limited to the existence of floodplains,wetlands, bottomland hardwood forests, and soils of statewide importance. Cross-referencing the State Natural Heritage Program dataset of the Biodiversity and Wildlife Corridor Assessment confirms Strouds Creek(and its forested corridor approximately 200-300 feet from centerline),to be of highest conservation value(Score 10/10). This section of the Strouds Creek is listed within the State Inventory of Natural Areas for Eno River Aquatic Habitat and is confirmed by the Natural Heritage Program to be primary habitat for(and contain occurrences of)two species of highly sensitive freshwater bivalves(mussels), including the listed state threatened Notched Rainbow Villosa constricta, and state threatened Creeper Strophitus undulatus. As such,this area would be the desired addition to any potential extension of the proposed open space on the tract.Any such use of this area should be limited to allowing it to remain in its natural and wooded state, and the recommendation would be to provide only low impact recreational uses in the designated open space. All other uses or potential improvements associated with the development of the tract should be located outside of this area. 134 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. Potential for Parks/Open Space Dedication: Orange County has previously developed the Fairview Park property in this park district, approximately one and one-half miles to the west. Several State Parks are also located in close proximity. Based on these existing sites,payment-in-lieu funds to help fund future park amenities in the district is recommended rather than land dedication. If you have questions,please contact Christian at 245-2514 or Peter Sandbeck at 245-2517. 135 From: Edwards,Charles N To: Ashley E. Moncado; Elizabeth Farnan; Nishith Trivedi;Matthew Taylor;Christian Hirni Cc: Steve Kaltenbach;Christopher Sandt Subject: RE: [External]DAC Memo-SUB23-0098(Williams Glen)and SUB24-0001(Stonewall) Date: Wednesday,February 21,2024 9:58:19 AM Attachments: imaae003.pna Ashley, NCDOT has previously provided comments to DAC on these submittals. NCDOT has no additional comments at this time. C. N. Edwards Jr., PE (Chuck) District Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways Division 7, District 1 336 570 6833 cnedwardsCc�ncdot.gov 115 East Crescent Square Drive P. O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 F 136 TO: DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: MATT TAYLOR,ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBJECT: SUB24-0001 DATE: 2-27-2024 1. ROAD WIDTH AND CUL-DE-SAC RADIUS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR OC SOLID WASTE RECYCLING COLLECTION VEHICLES TO ACCESS SAFELY AND TURN AROUND. NO FURTHER COMMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT FROM OC SOLID WASTE 137 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: February 28, 2024 CASE: SUB24-0001 PIN: 9875-64-5097 WATERSHED: Lower Eno Unprotected (Neuse River Basin) PROJECT: Stonewall Subdivision 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 Major Subdivision Concept Plan (SUB), submitted as the "Stonewall Subdivision" (hereafter, the "project"). The project is located within 36.36 acres of property located along Miller Road within the Hillsborough township. The request proposes development consisting of: ■ New 18-lot flexible subdivision ■ New public entrance road (50-ft right-of-way) The Staff comments contained herein are based upon a Subdivision Plan dated January 4, 2024. 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 Site Plan. Erosion & Sedimentation Control (E&SC): Based on the submitted materials for the proposed development, the project could meet the Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements as required by Orange County UDO Section 6.15 and could be developed as generally proposed. 138 Stormwater Management: The submitted materials indicate a level of development that could meet current UDO requirements specific to stormwater management. Two (2) permanent Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) are proposed; specifically, "SWM 1" and "SWM 2". Only the general locations of the proposed SCMs have been provided, with no supporting calculations. 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 SUB application so long as a complete LDP application and supporting plans and calculations are submitted for review, processing, and approval prior to commencement of on-site Land-Disturbing Activity. As the project progresses, additional field observations, additional 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 SUB application. Christopher Sandt, PE Date 2/28/24 Steve Kaltenbach Date 139 Ak 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: March 18, 2024 CASE: SUB24-0001 PIN: 9875645097 WATERSHED: Lower Eno PROJECT: 18 lot major subdivision, flexible option with 48.8% open space and new public road 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 flexible subdivision plan, submitted as the "Stonewall" project (hereafter, the "project"). The project is located within 36.36 acres of property on Miller Road, Hillsborough. The request proposes development consisting of: • Application is proposing to subdivide parcel into 18 lots. The Staff comments contained herein are based upon the submittal of a required Site Plan, dated January 4, 2024, and posted for review on February 19, 2024. 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, Environmental Health Division. The Health Department's role in the subdivision is one involving preliminary determination of soil suitability for septic systems and available space for private water supply wells. 140 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 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(a)_orangecountync.gov. �A ` Wav" 03-18-2024 Victoria Hudson, MPA, REHS Date Or designee 141 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 7, 2024 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment — Dimmocks Mill Road, Hillsborough, Hillsborough Township DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Application Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director of 2. Staff Report Development Services, (919) 245-2577 3. Notification Materials and Certification Cy Stober, Planning Director, (919) 245-2592 4. Development Advisory Committee Memo 5. Statement of Consistency 6. Draft Ordinance PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on a County-initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment to amend the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District boundary line on two parcels (PINs: 9863-09-3922 and 9864-00- 2205). BACKGROUND: On June 24, 2024, the Orange County Planning Director initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment application (Attachment 1) to amend the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District boundary line. The Staff Report in Attachment 2 contains additional information, maps, and analysis. The Project Narrative contained in Attachment 1 provides additional background information related to this request. Requirements: As detailed within the Zoning Atlas Amendment application package (Attachment 1), and Section 2.8 of the UDO, rezoning submittals are required to contain: 1. A completed Zoning Atlas Amendment application; 2. A map, at a legible scale, showing the land proposed for rezoning; 3. A detailed narrative; and 4. Plan review fee(s) consistent with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule. [Note: As a County-initiated action, no review fees were collected] Basic Review Process: A rezoning application for an overlay district amendment requires submission of a detailed area map and other documents, in accordance with Section 2.8.3(A) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). A site-specific plan is not required for overlay district amendment applications and conditions cannot be applied to an approval action. The typical cadence for the review is as follows: • FIRST ACTION — Staff holds a Development Advisory Committee Meeting. STAFF COMMENT. The Development Advisory Committee Meeting was held on July 11, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., via Microsoft Teams. Comments received from this review are available in Attachment 4. 142 • SECOND ACTION — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. STAFF COMMENT. The Planning Board will review this application at its regular meeting on August 7, 2024. • THIRD ACTION — The BOCC receives the Planning Board and staff recommendations at an advertised public hearing and makes a decision on the application. STAFF COMMENT. The public hearing will be scheduled following the issuance of a recommendation from the Planning Board. Public Notification: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices of the Planning Board meeting were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject parcel. These notices were mailed on July 24, 2024, 14 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcel with signs on July 24, 2024, 14 days before the meeting. See Attachment 3 for the notification materials. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 5 and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment Ordinance contained in Attachment 6. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Receive the rezoning application, 2. Deliberate on the proposal as desired, 3. Consider the Planning Director's recommendation, and 4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and the proposed ordinance (Attachment 6) for BOCC consideration during a public hearing to be conducted for review of this request. Attachment 1 143 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or alanningapps(a�orangecountync.gov Zoning Atlas Amendment — Rezoning Application Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information and submittal requirements are contained in Sections 2.8 and 2.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink. * Please fill out all required fields Date: June 24, 2024 Rezoning Request: ❑J Conventional District ❑ Conditional District Contact Information* Property Owner(s): Frank David Cohen and New Goloka Village LLC Mailing Address: Unaddressed — East of Dimmocks Mill Road Phone: Email: Applicant (if different than property owner): Orange County Mailing Address: 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough Phone: 919-245-2575 Email: Property Information* Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9863-09-3922, 9864-00-2205 Total Acreage: 16.97 Address: Unaddressed — East of Dimmocks Mill Road Future Land Use Map Classification: Hillsborough 10 Year Transition, Agricultural Residential, and Rural Residential Current Zoning Designation: R1 , Rural Residential Requested Zoning Designation: Amend Upper Eno Critical and Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed boundary line If applicant/owner are different people, include a signed, notarized, statement indicating that the owner has authorized the applicant to submit the request. In cases where there are multiple property owners, please attach an additional document containing their signatures authorizing the submission of the application or other legal documentation establishing the applicants' right to file on their behalf. Other Submittal Requirements* Conventional District Rezoning Application Based on Section 2.8.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): ❑ A map, at a legible scale, showing the property(s) subject to the request. A map may be procured at the Planning Department for a fee in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule. ❑ A legal description of the property(s) proposed for rezoning. ❑ A list showing the names and addresses of all adjacent property owners within 1000-feet of the subject property. ❑ A detailed narrative denoting the following: i. The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas (if any) that will be corrected by the proposed request. 144 Narrative In May 2024, property owners Frank David Cohen and New Goloka Village, LLC hired R.S. Jones & Associates, Inc., to survey two parcels, including the topography and ridge line between the two watersheds on the property. This professional survey work revealed a discrepancy with Orange County's mapped watershed boundary lines, which are based upon the State's delineation of water supply watershed boundaries. As a matter of policy, the State advises delegated programs such as Orange County to notify the elected body of the watershed boundary change for formal recognition. Orange County Planning staff informed the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) of the watershed boundary change at their June 18, 2024 meeting. At that time, the Board approved an amendment to the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District boundary line and authorized the Planning Director to initiate a Zoning Atlas Amendment to amend the watershed overlay district boundary. The BOCC agenda packet can be found at this link: ,-ittp://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink/0/doc/72912/Page1.aspx The Zoning Atlas Amendment includes the following parcels: PIN 9863-09-3922 Location Unaddressed — East of Dimmocks Mill Road Acreage 15.97 acres Property Owner New Goloka Village, LLC Legal Description 3 New Goloka Village LLC P127/100 Zoning R1, Rural Residential Watershed Upper Eno Critical Overlay Major Transportation Corridor Future Land Use Hillsborough 10 Year Transition, Agricultural Classification Residential, and Rural Residential PIN 9864-00-2205 Location Unaddressed — East of Dimmocks Mill Road Acreage 1 acre Property Owner Frank David Cohen Legal Description 1 New Goloka Village LLC P127/100 145 Zoning R1, Rural Residential Watershed Upper Eno Critical Overlay Major Transportation Corridor Future Land Use Agricultural Residential and Rural Residential Classification Based on staff review and coordination with the NC Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (NC DEMLR) Water Supply Watershed Protection Coordinator, the sealed professional survey represents the most recent and accurate data and should be recognized as the true ridgeline and watershed boundary on the parcels. Staff has notified NC DEMLR and the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) of the change. The change was reviewed and approved by the state on July 29, 2024. Critical and Protected Watersheds within Orange County are part of the County's delegated Stormwater Management Program, as reflected in the adopted Orange County Watershed Boundary Map. These watersheds are also adopted Zoning Overlay Districts in the Unified Development Ordinance. This Planning Director-initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment will bring this overlay district into alignment with the State-recognized watershed. No amendments are proposed to the base zoning district, Major Transportation Corridor overlay district, or Future Land Use Map. 146 II II II II II PRABHUPA DAD R I 1 A 9864002205 Lower Eno 1 1 1 I 1 9863093922 1 }J 1J Y 1 V 1 O 1 Upper Eno Critical Streams I Major Transportation Corridor Proposed Watershed Boundary Q PINs 9864002205 and 9863093922 ` Existing Watershed Boundary N 1 in=zoo feet Zoning _ ORANGE Feet R1 COUNTY o zoo Planning and Inspections Department(BC) AR 6/28/2024 O:\GIS Workspace\Projects\Staff Report\PINS 98640022o5 and 9863093922 Watershed Overlay Amendment\PINS 9864001105 and 9863093922 Watershed i'J i 1 !.I i !•I Zoning Report 147 Parcel Data land Disturbance Thresholds Parcel Identification Number(PIN):9884002205 Erosion Control:Upper Eno Critical:10,000 sq.ft.Waiver needed if otherwise;Lower Eno Size:1 acres Unprotected:20,000 sq.ft. Stormwater Management 21,780 for residential use,12,000 for nonresidential use Relevant Documents for Register of Deeds High Quality Water Zone(YIN):Yes Plat Book/Page:2 NEW GOLOKA VILLAGE LLC P1271100 Other Relevant Documents:NIA Disclaimer This report contains documents prepared for the inventory of real properly within Orange Zoning Information County,and is compiled from recorded deed,plats,and other public records and data. Base Zoning District:Rural Residential(RI) Some of these documents are private agreements.Users of this report are hereby notified Min Lot Size:40,000 sq.ft. that the aforementioned public primary information sources should be consulted for Min Lot Width:130 ft verification of the information contained in this report.The county and its mapping Max Density:Upper Eno Critical:1 dwelling per 2 acres;Lower Eno Unprotected:1 companies assume no legal responsibility for the information on this report. dwelling per 40,000 sq.ft. Overlay Zoning District{s}:Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed,Upper Eno Critical Please contact staff at 919-245-2575 if you have flood plain,High Quality Water Zone,or Watershed,Major Transportation Corridor wetlands indicated on this report. Max Impervious Surface:Upper Eno Critical:fi%(980 sq.ft.);Lower Eno Unprotected:NIA Max Building Height:29 Building Setbacks:Front 40',Side 20',Rear 20' Date: 5/31/2024 by jomoran Streams,Water Body,Floodplain Buffers StreamlWater Bodies:NIA Floodplain:NIA 3 ' , 4 � J r' r Upper En❑ - Flood :no Critical Area Paneli Itecte64 d r•. rrshed r �J,• r_. 6+�0 _ J J Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County I r• �GIS and is far reference only. Exact locations and boundaries should be verified. _ Wetland information represented(of any)does not - constitute a jurisdictional determination of exact location of wetland features. .. � / Map prepared by Orange County Planning&inspections. ORANGE Zoning ® Watersheds COUNTY N Parcels Major Transportation Corridor Road Easement — — 2'Contours(NCDOT) t••—� i . .. Soils �.._.�, FIRM in=50feet Feet 0 150 Zoning Report 148 Parcel Data Land Disturbance Thresholds Parcel Identification Number(PIN):9863D93922 Erosion Control:Upper Eno Critical:10,DD0 sq.ft.Waiver needed if otherwise;Lower Eno Size:15.97 acres Unprotected:20,000 sq.ft. Stormwater Management:21,780 for residential use,12,000 for nonresidential use Relevant Documents for Register of Deeds High Quality Water Zone(YIN):Yes Plat Book/Page:3 NEW GOLQKA VILLAGE LLC P1271100 Other Relevant Documents:N/A Disclaimer This report contains documents prepared for the inventory of real property within Orange Zoning Information County,and is compiled from recorded deed,plats,and other public records and data. Base Zoning District:Rural Residential(RI) Some of these documents are private agreements.Users of this report are hereby notified Min Lot Size:40,D00 sq.ft. that the aforementioned public primary information sources should be consulted for Min Lot Width:13D ft. verification of the information contained in this report.The county and its mapping Max Density:Upper Eno Critical:1 dwelling per 2 acres;Lower Eno Unprotected:1 companies assume no legal responsibility for the information on this report. dwelling per 40,000 sq.ft. Overlay Zoning District(s):Upper Eno Critical Watershed:-6.15 acres,Lower Eno Please contact staff at 919-245-2575 if you have floodplain,High Quality Water Zone,or Unprotected Watershed,Major Transportation Corridor wetlands indicated on this report. Max Impervious Surface:Upper Eno Critical:6%(16,073 sq.ft-);Lower Eno Unprotected: NIA Max Building Height:25' Date: 6/31/2024 by jomaran Building Setbacks:Front 40',Side 20',Rear 20' Streams,Water Body,Floodplain Buffers StreamlWater Bodies:80 ft.buffer Floodplain:NIA �oA � Soil:Gec a A Floo.d Flood �p Panel: C �'� 'Panel: 4� 9864J r 9864J Opp J6�6.- h C a� Soil•TaE `•Soil.GeB Lower Eno Upper Eno � Unprotected ,Critical Area Watershed to � t � ' J � � �� �'• _;�-�- �yti '1 4 Soil:TaD Flood /" �O Flood C�`a E' Panel: 7 r Panel: 9853J i i t ► g 9863J FAr FitO re � u7 W Soil:Ch ' i _ •'t I*p,+ r �a to shown on this map is obtained from Orange County -•, :!'r' / / GIS and is for reference only. Exact locations and boundaries should be verified. `•� I J , Wetland information represented(of any)does not y• 598 constitute a jurisd ictionaJ determination of exact location of Q s9 ,'\ I I !' wetland features. Cb s1 •k i 4] L Map prepared by Orange County Planning&inspections. ORANGE Zoning USGS Stream - - 2'Contours(NCDOT) COUNTY t..�S N Parcels —• Soils Survey Stream L_.J FIRM Road Easement ® Watersheds i Stream Buffer 80ft i in=200 feet . .. Soils Major Transportation Corridor ®Feet 0 150 mx :15 a hums oa MR 04,47, -- -------- - ---------- -- ---------- - --------------- ------- --- ------------- ----------- OV, �Lu avow-1-7jw S)fooww)a loll A'� 1p'miI M 3 Eon pil 9 Rosa Ng-- HIP 1 1111101H mo - NOW 1p ph ph I il PH 150 ,Waters } Roanoke RiyerjBasin: Hyco Creek SPOWHyco Creek' Flat River (Protected) (Pr t cted)� I I I 49 157 r I 86 I� � ( 1 Little,Ri ev� _I West Fork (Protected) on•the Eno ✓ i Back_Creek - r r Reservoi I Protected Lake Orange �I ( ) NPE'643' NPE 615' )Neuse; 57 River Basin y7 If , i Upper Eno (Protected) % I Upper-En, �I j (Critical) j Lower r Eno Corporate Lake NPE 538' I 70 LowerEno� l (Protected) Lake Ben Johnston Q 1 fVPE 515' Haw Creek Seven Mile Creek ` 70A N20581' ; I 70 m Municipal Jurisdiction t Streams 751 Water Bodies River Basin Boundary ( Cane Creek \ (Protected) ` 2 Watersheds Cape'Fear River Basin I y j Water Supply Watersheds: Jordan Lake Protected i Critical Cane Creek .�. Cane Creek �(�tiC81) m Railroad Reservoir NPE 500' 86 I Haw River' 54 • 15 i ORANGE c Universtl Lake 501 � COUNTY (Protected) I NOR'rl1 CAROLIN.A 0 1 2 3 4 V 1 University.Lake Miles Note: This watershed map replaces previous versions. Haw River University, + Reference: Orange County Zoning Ordinance UECA revision adopted June 1,2010 (Protected), (critical)` Orange County Planning&Inspections Department f GIS map prepared by Brian Carson ao\rdan_Lak@' Watersheds/Critical Areas/Basins Data:November,2010 Revision 'Protected) 10n/2020 Cp � � �'• 151 ROY COOPER Goverzar a 4 ELIZABETH S.MISER a Secte?ary WILLIAM E.TOBY V'INSONJR NORTH CAROLINA interim OtrecP?r Envirorkmerncai Quaf'ty July 29, 2024 Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Attn: ChristopherJ.Sandt, PE,County Engineer 131 W. Margaret Lane,Suite 201 PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Orange County Water Supply Watershed Protection Boundary Change Request Approval Dear Mr. Sandt: The Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) reviewed and approved the Orange County Water Supply Watershed Protection boundary change request information received by our office via email on July 8, 2024. On June 18,2024,the Orange County Board of County Commissioners approved Orange County to submit the Water Supply Watershed Protection boundary change request. DEMLR approves the boundary change request in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-214.5 and North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B .0100, .0200, .0620-.0624. We appreciate the efforts of Orange County to help protect the vital public water supplies of this state. Please contact me at mike.lawyer@deg.nc.gov or(919)707-3639 should you need assistance. Sincerely, Michael Lawyer, CPSWQ Stormwater Program Supervisor DEMLR ec: Bill Denton, PE, Regional Engineer—DEMLR Raleigh Regional Office E � North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Dhislon of Energy,Mineral and Land Resources Sit North Salisbury Street 11612 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North.Carolina 27699-1612 f,mcmriu�ermr+� 9E9.i079200 Staff Report Attachment 2 �+ ORANGE Zoning Atlas Amendment COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Parcel Information Vicinity Map for Watershed Overlay Amendment Application Unaddressed — East Of PINs9864002205 and 9863093922 Parcel Address Dimmocks Mill Road Back Creek °z� 'O q. P�otecledr -- P teeted C d—ro To"Alp Little River I ' Township Parcel Identification Ena °pcerlb� �,� � 9863-09-3922 and N Peer ProteRetl ° • Protected -��• 1 ,b Cheek,To Hi sborough •ahlp x f • Number (PIN) 9864-00-2205 � \ �,o ll f -.. ,��eaµ°" Township LE TrtwrtshiP Applicant Name Orange County xiHill— Ert Mebane and Address 131 W. Margaret Lane - Protep;a Hillsborough, NC He.Creek �� °Epe? •. New GOloka Village, LLC �r�t��� _ Property Owner 1414 Dimmocks Mill Rd. PINS 98fi9f102205 and 9863093922m •• Name and Address * ° Hillsborough, NC r Tom k. I Bingham Township ore Fj= L • — - -- CityLimita ... ° �• .F,�'--'...k- Frank Cohen Ens o� —Chapel HIII Township j yam,/' '°M„' ]HillabproughT l 'Oc.' J ° Property Owner Major 6trasms a -� 131 Shelton Court water Supply watersheds N; Jordan Name and Address Hillsborough, NC Interlocal Agreement Watershed Overlay Amendment PI Ns 9864002205 and 9863093922 Applicable NO Current zoning (Y/N) Current Zoning District R-1, Rural Residential NWaaa,w.a Requested Zoning 64092205 District N/A 98 i' Lower no Requested Zoning I 9863093922 District Consistent with Appendix F of N/A Comprehensive Upper Eno Critical Plan I Upper Eno Critical Existing Zoning Watershed Protection PINe 969W92205 and 980093922 Overlay Districts Overlay District and —5aeame Major Transportation p arapoeea wateranea eaunaary EA� Major sporthedBo"ahary Corridor Overlay District J Ma]or Tmnsponallon Gortpor Zoning �R, M.I►or.., Amendments ,00 o AR Proposed for Overlay Districts Yes (Upper Eno Critical) (Y/N) Parcel Size +/- 16.97 Future Land Use Map 10 Year Transition, Agricultural Adopted Future Land Use Map with Parcels (FLUM) Designation Residential, and Rural 9864002205 and 9863093922 Depicted Residential FLUM Overlay(s) Resource Protection Area Growth Management Rural and Urban System Designation Definition of FLUM 10 Year Transition - Areas Designation changing from rural to urban in (from Article 10 of form and density. All densities of oa Unified Development residential development would i8fi4002206 Ordinance (UDO) be appropriate. Non-residential I Lower Eno uses implemented in accordance with small area 1 9863093922 plans and/or overlay districts may be appropriate. Upper Eno Critical Agricultural Residential - Land in the rural areas where the prevailing land use activities are Q PINS 9864002205a"dsae3�3ez SVeems related to the land (agriculture, OP,.,-d--neda°" ., SI forestry) and which is an M R"..P'�,eP Areasa" appropriate location for the F.—`a. "_ �iov°ar Tananion continuation of these uses. R"'�'R��'°en-Agricultural Resitlenlial .cec Rural Residential - Land in the rural areas of the County which is appropriate for low intensity and low-density residential Aerial Image with Parcei5�0646oz265 and 9863093922 Outlined development, and which would , not be dependent on urban services during the plan period. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning North South All lots are zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) with Po single-family residential uses or are currently East undeveloped and in agriculture use. I' ' ! � dower Eno E , Existing Roads rt North N/A I I Upper Eno Critical South N/A ' I ' V East N/A N.4fi�n z West Dimmocks Mill Road P R„��g939ZZ r—,E.g��s wal9rgn�a""A°ry �A a P,°p°setl waleranaaso°nda,y 154 Existing Conditions/Physical Features The parcels currently contain a cleared field of approximately 8.36 acres. The remaining area of the site is forested. A stream is located along the eastern property line which requires an 80 ft. stream buffer based on Section 6.13 of the LIDO. An existing residential structure, accessory structures, and gravel driveway are located on the northern property. Zoning Atlas Amendment Overview Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment to modify the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District boundary line. State-designated Critical and Protected Watersheds located in Orange County are regulated as a Watershed Protection Overlay Districts. Based on Article 4, Overlay Zoning Districts, the Watershed Protection Overlay District applies to the Orange County portion of watershed which have been classified as WS-II, WS-III, or WS-IV by the State of North Carolina. The Zoning Atlas Amendment will bring this overlay district into alignment with the State-recognized watershed. No amendments are proposed to the R-1 (Rural Residential) zoning district, Major Transportation Corridor Overlay District, or Future Land Use Map. Additional background information regarding this request is contained in the Narrative (Attachment 1). In acting on this request, the County is unable to impose conditions. Overlay district rezoning applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e., does not require sworn testimony or evidence) and decisions are based on the Board of County Commissioners' determination the request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Review Milestones Application Submittal Date June 24, 2024 Orange County Development July 11, 2024 Advisory Committee (DAC) Review Note: the DAC is a staff/agency committee, established in Section 1.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Courtesy Review Jurisdiction Date Sent Comments Received (Y/N) State Clearing House 6/25/24 Yes Analysis Staff Analysis As required under Section 2.8.5 of the LIDO, the Planning Director shall cause an analysis to be made of the application. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: 1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.8.3 of the UDO. IOU 2. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. Chapter 5— Land Use Element, Section 5.6 Goals a. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. d. Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. e. Natural and Cultural Resources Overarching Goal: A sustainable balance and appreciation of natural, cultural and agricultural resources. Staff Comment Professional survey work completed in May 2024 revealed a discrepancy with Orange County's mapped watershed boundary lines, which are based upon the State's delineation of water supply watershed boundaries. As a matter of policy, the State advises delegated programs such as Orange County to notify the elected body of the watershed boundary change for formal recognition. Orange County Planning staff informed the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) of the watershed boundary change at their June 18, 2024 meeting. At that time, the Board approved an amendment to the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District boundary line and authorized the Planning Director to initiate a Zoning Atlas Amendment. Based on staff review and coordination with the NC Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (NC DEMLR) Water Supply Watershed Protection Coordinator, the sealed professional survey represents the most recent and accurate data and should be recognized as the true ridgeline and watershed boundary on the parcels. Staff has notified NC DEMLR and the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) of the change. This Zoning Atlas Amendment request will bring this overlay district into alignment with the State- recognized watershed. No amendments are proposed to the base zoning district, Major Transportation Corridor overlay district, or Future Land Use Map. The existing R-1 zoning is consistent with Appendix F, Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts of the Orange County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Any future development for residential purposes would be subject to regulation under the County's stormwater and water supply watershed regulations. Staff has reviewed and determined no significant environmental impact is expected from this request to amend the Watershed Protection overlay district. The Orange County staff has notified the public regarding this application, as required by Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, including mailings to neighboring property owners and posting of the property. Additionally, staff have provided all application documents on the Active Development Projects webpage. 157 Attachment 3 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Ashley Moncado, Planner III with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance I have mailed, or have caused to be mailed, a Notice of the Planning Board Meeting to be held regarding a rezoning application proposing to amend the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District boundary line on two parcels (PINS: 9863-09-3922 and 9864-00-2205) on July 24, 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 Planning Board Meeting. WITNESS my hand,this 24th day of July 2024. OA MmWla Ashley Moncado, AICP Planner III Orange County Planning 158 �1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278191.9.245.2575 July 24, 2024 NOTICE OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING Dear Property Owner: This notice is to inform you of the August 7, 2024, Planning Board meeting, at which an application to amend the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Protection Overlay District boundary line on two parcels (PINs 9863-09-3922 and 9864-00-2205) will be reviewed. The subject properties are located east of Dimmocks Mill Road, Hillsborough, within the Hillsborough Township. This notification is occurring in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). You are receiving this notice because you own property located within 1,000-feet of the parcels requested for rezoning. YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT PROPOSED FOR REZONING. Property Information Parcel ID Number(PIN) 9863-09-3922 and 9864-00-2205 Owner New Goloka Village, LLC and Frank David Cohen Applicant Orange County Location Unaddressed — East of Dimmocks Mill Road Acreage PIN 9863-09-3922 +/- 15.97 acres PIN 9864-00-2205 +/- 1 acre Current Land Use 10 Year Transition, Agricultural Residential, and Rural Designation Residential Current Zoning R1, Rural Residential Proposed Zoning N/A Watershed Designation Upper Eno Critical and Lower Eno Unprotected Professional survey work completed in May 2024 revealed a discrepancy with Orange County's mapped watershed boundary lines, which are based upon the State's delineation of water supply watershed boundaries. The County Initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment will bring this overlay district into alignment with the State-recognized watershed. No amendments are proposed to the base zoning district or Future Land Use Map. This amendment request will be reviewed by the Orange County Planning Board at a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., August 7, 2024, at the Whitted Meeting Facility(300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC — see attached map). All interested persons are invited to address the Planning Board with their comments regarding the application. The Planning Board is an advisory board comprised of appointed volunteers that makes recommendations to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) regarding land use and zoning matters. The Planning 159 Board must recommend one of the following four actions at their meeting, 1) Approval, 2) Denial, 3) Approval, but with specified changes, or 4) that the Planning Board be given extended time to consider the matter. Planning Board Meeting Information Date August 7, 2024 Time 7:00 p.m. Place Whitted Meeting Facility Address 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC Patrick Mallett Assigned Planner Deputy Director— Development Services 919-245-2575 or pmallett@orangecountync.gov A formal public hearing on the proposed amendment will be held by the BOCC. The date of the public hearing has not yet been determined. You will receive another written notice about the public hearing at a later date. If you cannot attend the Planning Board meeting and the website does not answer your questions about the applications, you may call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you. Sincerely, vx/� M jjj Patrick Mallett Deputy Director— Development Services Additional information is available on the Orange County Planning Department's website: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/16e9edd5de724468aed6957l ddl d9e70 FME I Ir'Md., . - .Try 1 AM 2 - 1 Whitted Building (300 W. Tryon St.) - Meeting Location � �•I I' 'I { � � t ' '�tY aF � ;. a s � •^s . � y� Ay 1; t; jo 1 � S Whitted Building i f r �'•yI k S a� ! 1 � l 1' �� �• - - - Fkttl Y W TR" PN ST _ j v 'rf �,`" ,fit• '+'�r' {��11�CLCI,C,�i lI r 1 ( ti'; ' 't 10arkng ,, kr yWt r " - i' XI ti• i ate' riC t r1 4, 7 �1; kY •i , 1 .! '. �r ft I;i+' �5'aTtA"���'+1 � �- � Z „�(�{i' � ■+ S u:'1'^c r ! �� ,}, ! l F(r•.r., � 'r? f ����. ,y .� � � � a!: t•L �$ .� � �u fu �rrl!["'•t �d _d4 ( rt_. t. 'd•+. 11 i>� +' u ti � .r �, -r yii �+F ;3� F� N°tie ? a s'Pz: Y: I W. sir 1 in=100 feel r „ ,�; � M W1C=I1mC=M Feet Orange County Planning and Inspections;t '�•, ���i t'� � 0 1 i "' ' ;; 1 r;r Brian Carson(5/8/2015) f 161 PIN OWNER1_LAST OWNER1_FIRST OWNER2_LAST ADDRESS1 ADDRESS2 CITY STATE ZIPCODE 9864002205 COHEN FRANK DAVID <Nutt> 131 SHELTON CT <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9863093922 NEW GOLOKAVILLAGE LLC <Nutt> <Nutt> 1414 DIMMOCKS MILL RD <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9853888960 WAGNER CAROLYN M <Nutt> 1916 MOOREFIELDS RD <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 272788400 9853895588 JACOBS BARRY MARC JACOBS 2105 MOOREFIELDS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9853989517 SETTLEMYRE DANNY W SETTLEMYRE 1700 DIMMOCKS MILL RD <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9853989811 TILLEY RONALD KEITH 1618 DIMMOCKS MILL RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9853993350 SYKES EDWARDT SYKES 1909 MOOREFIELDS RD <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9853993575 MIDLAND TRUST COMPANYAS CUSTODIAN FBO VIJI SRIDHAR <Nutt> 6121 MOINEAR LN <Nutt> CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 9853994812 MCGUIRE BRIAN MCGUIRE 1435 DIMMOCKS MILL RD <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9853995059 TURNER EDWARD C TURNER 1605 DIMMOCKS MILL RD <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9853999023 SHARPE JUSTIN <Nutt> 1616 DIMMOCKS MILL RD <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787890 9854808486 ROBBINS LINDA <Nutt> 1220 PRABHUPDADA DR <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789343 9854809730 MACLACHLAN DAVID MACLACHLAN 1219 PRABHUPADA DR <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9854900310 SHARMA O M SHARMA 11509 DELANO ST <Nutt> NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91606 9854903085 GARDNER ADRIENNE D 1419 DIMMOCKS MILL RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9854904381 VANDENBURG MYRON JOHN VANDENBURG 1206 PRABHUPADA DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9854904515 PERRY BRIAN A PERRY 1207 PRABHUPADA DR <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9854910340 KITTRELL ALBERTT MCADOO P O BOX 135 EFLAND NC 27243 9854915288 NEEMS ROY EDWARD NEEMS 1319 DIMMOCKS MILL RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9863082536 SETTLEMYRE COY <Nutt> 9700 DIMMOCKS MILL RD <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9863087288 DRAUGHON CAROLYN M <Nutt> 1632 RIVERSIDE DRIVE <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9863096107 BLANCHARD 1ERRYTHOMAS 1R BLANCHARD 1570 DIMMOCKS MILL RD <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9863281858 ORANGE COUNTY <Nutt> <Nutt> PO BOX8181 <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9864002848 CATES BILLY B CATES 1229 DIMMOCKS MILL RD <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787886 9864005422 NEW GOLOKAVILLAGE LLC <Nutt> <Nutt> 1414 DIMMOCKS MILL RD <Nutt> HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 O RAN G E C O U N T Y , NC Watershed Overlay Amendment PI Ns 9864002205 and 986093922 Notification Map C' m PRABHUPADA DR 98i 4002205 9863093922 � Lower Eno Upper Eno Criticil � 0 J J f� Y U MO FIELDS RD O 0 D� GGHONOR z J 0 NEW GRADY BROWN SCHOOL RD Q PINS 9864002205 and 9863093922 a 1,000 Foot Notification Area N tin=50o feet 9C, ORANGE Feet Q Proposed Watershed Boundary ��� SaM 0 500 � Planning and Inspections Department(BC) Existing Watershed Boundary �y 6/28/2024 O:\Us Workspace\Projects\Sta$Report\PINS 98640022o5 and 9863093922 Watershed Overlay Amendment\PINS 98640022o5 and 9863093922 Watershed Overlay Amendment.aprx\Watershed Overlay Amendment PINS 163 Attachment 4 July 22, 2024 Dimmocks Mill Road Rezoning Application Case #: MA24-0003 PIN: 9863-09-3922 and 9864-00-2205 Unaddressed — East of Dimmocks Mill Road Re: Development Advisory Committee Report (per UDO Section 1.9.5) On July 11, 2024, the Orange County Development Advisory Committee met for a final review and discussion of the overlay district rezoning application Case #MA24-0003 for PINs 9863-09- 3922 and 9864-00-2205. 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, PcL tv'tck,MaUPit Patrick Mallett Deputy Director— Development Services 164 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245•2575 Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Comments DAC review comments and recommendations do not constitute plan or permit approval for this application and/or replace any other plans and permits that may be required by other County departments and State agencies. Project: MA24-0003 Dimmocks Mill Road - Zoning Atlas Amendment Location/PIN: 9863093922, 9864002205 Applicant: Orange County Staff Planner: Ashley Moncado DAC Meeting Date: 7/11/24 Addressing and Britney Pendleton Land Records Date: 7/2/24 Staff: brpendleton(d_)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2576 1. Please note that under the Orange County Road Naming and addressing Ordinance, any drive with three or more habitable structures/ homes must be named. We have found that it's much easier to name the road beforehand, as 75% of the property owners having access on the street must sign the Road Name Agreement Form. (One vote per owner even if several properties are owned and addressed), so it can be easier to choose a road name before any lots are sold. - BP 2. More information about the ordinance can be found at: https://www.orangecountVnc.gov/851/Road-Naming-Addressing-Ordinance-informa James Bryan Attorney's Office Date: Staff: jbryanCa)_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2319 No comments received. Building Michael Rettie Inspections Date: 7/2/2024 Staff: mrettie(c_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2604 1. Any proposed construction that is regulated by the NC Building Codes will require permitting. Chris Hirni DEAPR Date: Staff: chirni(aD_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2514 No comments received. Environmental Victoria Hudson Health Date: 7/08/2024 Staff: vhudson(a)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2365 165 1. No applications have been received. No Permits are linked to these parcels. Erosion Nate Jacobsen Control Date: 7/9/24 Staff: niacobsen(cDorangecountync.gov 919-245-2580 No Comments. Fire and Life Elizabeth Farnan Safety Date: Staff: efarnan(a.orangecountync.gov 919-245-6153 No comments received. David Genwright NCDOT Date: Staff: digenwright(a)ncdot.gov 336-570-6833 1. This rezoning request appears to have no new structures currently being proposed. As long as that is the case and no new accesses are being proposed, no NCDOT action or approval is required. Pat Mallett Planning Date: 7/8/24 Staff: Pmallett@orangecoutync.gov 919-245-2577 1. No comment. Matt Taylor Solid Waste Date: Staff: mtaylor(@-orangecountync.gov 919-918-4905 No comments received. Stormwater Christopher Sandt Management Date: 7/9/2024 Staff: csandtCcDorangecountync.gov 919-245-2583 1. The project is located in the Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed Overlay District. Stormwater Management is required if proposed Land-Disturbing Activity exceeds 21,780 square feet. Transportation Darlene Weaver Services Date: 7/2/2024 Staff: dweaver(aD-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2002 1. No comment 166 From: Genwriaht, David I To: Ashley E. Moncado Subject: Re: [External]DAC Memos MA24-0003(Dimmocks Mill Road)and MA24-0004(Faith Way Road) Date: Tuesday,July 16,2024 3:45:28 PM Attachments: imaae002.r)na Outlook-i4w4xx2z.pna Good afternoon,Ashley, Please take this as NCDOT's response for the DAC memo MA24-0003 Dimmocks Mill Road This rezoning request appears to have no new structures currently being proposed. As Long as that is the case and no new accesses are being proposed, no NCDOT action or approval is required MA24-0004 Faith Way Road This rezoning request appears to be taking place off NCDOT maintained road. It also appears to not be proposing any new structures or accesses.With that, no NCDOT action or approval is required. If you need anything else, please let me know.Thanks, and have a good day. Wishing you the best, David Genwright Assistant District Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways Division 7, District 1 (336)570-6833 digenwrightCcbncdot.gov 115 East Crescent Square Drive P.O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 r 1 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and maybe disclosed to third parties. 167 From:Ashley E. Moncado<amoncado@orangecountync.gov> Sent: Friday,July 12, 2024 11:20 AM To: Elizabeth Farnan <efarnan@orangecountync.gov>;Trivedi, Nishith <ntrivedi@orangecountync.gov>; Matthew Taylor<mtaylor@orangecountync.gov>; Christian Hirni <chirni@orangecountync.gov>; Sandt, Christopher<csandt@orangecountync.gov>; Steve Kaltenbach <skaltenbach@orangecountync.gov>; Genwright, David I <digenwright@ncdot.gov>; Hudson, Victoria <vhudson@orangecountync.gov> Cc: Patrick R. Mallett<pmallett@orangecountync.gov> Subject: [External] DAC Memos MA24-0003 (Dimmocks Mill Road) and MA24-0004 (Faith Way Road) CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab. Good Morning, As part of the DAC review process,the Planning Department is requesting a memo for MA24-0003 (Dimmocks Mill Road) and MA24-0004 (Faith Way Road).These items were reviewed at the July 11 DAC meeting. Staff would appreciate to have the memos by end of day Wednesday,July 24 to meeting Planning Board review deadlines. If you have no further comments, please let us know. Thank you, Ashley Ashley Moncado,AICP Planner III Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Office: 919-245-2589 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201, P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough. NC 27278 Applications. Forms. and Submittal Information ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 13Z correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties. Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C.Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. 168 Fire & Life Safety Division TO: Cy Stober, AICP — Director, Planning & Inspections FROM: Elizabeth Farnan — Division Chief of Fire & Life Safety, Emergency Services CC: Ashley Moncado — Planner III, Planning & Inspections Date: July 17, 2024 CASE: MA24-0003 PIN: 9863093922, 9864002205 PROJECT: Rural Residential Watershed Boundary Line Zoning Atlas Amendment SUBJECT: Site Plan Review Regarding Conformance with Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)for Emergency Apparatus Access, Addressing, and Water Availability for Required Fire Flow This memo is to show that the Fire & Life Safety Division has NO OBJECTIONS to the approval of the zoning atlas amendment request. July 17, 2024 Elizabeth Farnan, FM Date 169 MEMORANDUM TO: Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director, Development Services FROM: Christopher Sandt, PE — County Engineer, Planning & Inspections; and Steve Kaltenbach — Erosion Control and Stormwater Manager DATE: July 18, 2024 CASE: MA24-0003 — Zoning Atlas Amendment PINs: 9864-00-2205, 9863-09-3922 WATERSHED: Upper Eno Critical and Lower Eno Unprotected (Neuse River Basin) PROJECT: Dimmocks Mill Road 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 Zoning Atlas Amendment (MA24-0003), submitted as the "Dimmocks Mill Road" project (hereafter, the "project"). The project is located within 16.97 acres of collective property (both PINs) on the east side of Dimmocks Mills Road and to the north of Moorefields Road in the Hillsborough township of Orange County, North Carolina. The request proposes a watershed overlay district boundary modification so as to accommodate subsequent development. The staff comments contained herein are based upon a required Rezoning Application and supporting information dated June 24, 2024. These findings should not be interpreted as the Division's final analysis/approval of the proposed development. Upon zoning approval, the proposed subsequent development would then be required to submit a Land Disturbing Permit (LDP) which would formally review and approve development activity consistent with the Rezoning Application. Erosion & Sedimentation Control (E&SC): According to current Orange County GIS imagery of the project parcel, there are two mapped stream features within the project parcel boundaries. Orange County enforces stream buffers along streams, rivers, water bodies, and other water features (e.g., wetlands) as outlined in Section 6.13 of the Orange County UDO. Based on the submitted materials, the project could meet the basic Erosion and Sedimentation Control 170 requirements as required by Orange County UDO Section 6.15 and could be developed as generally proposed. Stormwater Management: There were no stormwater management related materials included in the Rezoning Application. The submitted materials indicate a level of development that could meet current UDO requirements specific to stormwater management. 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 Obiections to the approval of the Rezoning Application so long as a complete LDP application and supporting plans and calculations are submitted for review, processing, and approval prior to commencement of any on-site Land-Disturbing Activity. As the project progresses, additional field observations, additional permitting by others, and/or additional Orange County review and permitting may apply beyond the proposed development as shown with the Rezoning Application. Christopher Sandt, PE Date EE/2024 Steve Kaltenbach Date 171 NC* DOA Department of Administration Roy Cooper Pamela B. Cashwell Governor Secretary July 26, 2024 Ashley Moncado New Goloka Village LLC Orange County Planning & Inspections 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201 Hillsborough, NC 27278- Re: SCH File#24-E-4600-0326 Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment (conventional rezoning)to amend to the Upper Eno Critical and Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed boundary line. No amendments are proposed to the zoning district, other overlay district, or Future Land Use Map. Parcel pin 9863-09-3922, 9864-00-2205 Dear Ashley Moncado: The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this letter are comments made in the review of this document. Because of the nature of the comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review action on your part is needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, pending comments from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).The attached comments should be taken into consideration in project development. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (984) 236-0000. Sincerely, KADISHA MOLYNEAUX State Environmental Review Clearinghouse Attachments Mailing Location 1301 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 325 N. Salisbury St. I Raleigh, NC 27603 a 984-236-0000 ncadmin.nc.gov 172 To: Kadisha Molyneaux State Clearinghouse NC Department of Administration From: Lyn Biles Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service Re: 24-0326 Environmental Assessment-Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment(conventional rezoning)to amend to the Upper Eno Critical and Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed boundary line. Orange County Date: July 25, 2024 The Department of Environment Quality has reviewed the proposal for the referenced project. Please find attached the comments for the applicants consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Attachments STATE., 173 ROY COOPER Governor u ELIZABETH S.BISER Secretary *EBf QUAM MICHAEL SCOTT NORTH CAROLINA Director Environmental Quality DATE: July 5, 2024 TO: Michael Scott, Division Director through Sharon Brinkley vL.A FROM: Deb Ajar Western District Supervisor- Field Operations Branch RE: SEPA Project 24-0326, Orange, NC New Goloka Village, LLS/Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Watershed Rezoning Project The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department documents for initiating a Zoning Atlas Amendment (conventional rezoning)to amend the Upper Eno Critical and Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed boundary line in Orange County, North Carolina. The review has been completed and has found no adverse impact on the surrounding community and likewise knows of no situations in the community, which would affect this project from a solid waste perspective. During the project, every feasible effort should be made to minimize the generation of waste, to recycle materials for which viable markets exist, and to use recycled products and materials in the development of this project where suitable. Any waste generated by this project that cannot be beneficially reused or recycled must be disposed of at a solid waste management facility approved to manage the respective waste type. The Section strongly recommends that any contractors are required to provide proof of proper disposal for all waste generated as part of the project. A list of permitted solid waste management facilities is available on the Solid Waste Section portal site at: Solid Waste Facility List. Please contact Chuck Kirchner, Environmental Senior Specialist, for any questions regarding solid waste management for this project. Mr. Kirchner can be reached at (336) 776-9633 or by email at chuck.kirchner@ncdenr.gov. Ec: Drew Hammonds, Field Operations Branch Head Chuck Kirchner, Environmental Senior Specialist D E Q�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Waste Management Asheville Regional Office 1 2090 U.S.Highway 70 1 Swannanoa,North Carolina 28778 NORTH CAROLINA _ Department m Environmental Quality /`� 828.296.4500 174 Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 24-0326 Due Date:7 22 2024 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. ❑ Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary. 30 days (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 El 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.O100 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 (30 days) Stormwater permit(NCG010000)is also usually issued should design features meet minimum requirements. A fee of $100 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional fees. 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 046.0125—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 various other counties and watersheds throughout the state. (90 days) 175 Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 24-0326 Due Date:7 22 2024 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. ❑ Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DEQ at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. 10 days 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://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/401-wetlands-buffer-permits/401-riparian- buffer-protection-program Nutrient Offset:Loading requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins,and in the Jordan and Falls Lake ❑ watersheds,as part of the nutrient-management strategies in these areas. DWR nutrient offset information: http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/nonpoint-source-management/nutrient-offset-information ❑ CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00-$475.00 fee must accompany application 75 days (150 days) ❑ CAMA Permit for MINOR development $100.00 fee must accompany application 22 days (25 days) ❑ Abandonment of any wells,if required must be in accordance with Title 15A.Subchapter 2C.0100. ❑ Notification of the proper regional office is requested if"orphan"underground storage tanks(USTS)are discovered during any excavation operation. Plans and specifications for the construction,expansion,or alteration of a public water system must be approved by the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction ® as per 15A NCAC 18C.0300 et.seq.,Plans and specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh, 30 days North Carolina 27699-1634. All public water supply systems must comply with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements.For more information,contact the Public Water Supply Section,(919)707-9100. If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction,plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to ® the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699- 30 days 1634.For more information,contact the Public Water Supply Section,(919)707-9100. Plans and specifications for the construction,expansion,or alteration of the water system must be approved through the delegated ❑ plan approval authority. Please contact them at for further information. 176 Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 24-0326 Due Date:7 22 2024 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. 7/15/2024 DWR-WQROS JM ® & 7/12/2024 (Aquifer&Surface) & DWR-PWS TP ❑ See checked boxes. 7/15/2024 DEMLR(LQ&SW) CA ® No land disturbance proposed. 7/12/2024 DWM—UST MRP ® 7/9/2024 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 177 Date: July 5, 2024 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# 24-0326 New Goloka Village LLC/Orange County Planning and Development, Orange County, North Carolina The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of sites under itsjurisdiction to the New G61oka Village LLC/Orange County Planning and Development project. Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment (conventional rezoning) to amend to the Upper Eno Critical and Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed boundary line. No amendments are proposed to the zoning district, other overlay district, or Future Land Use Map. Parcel pin 9863-09-3922, 9864-00-2205 No (0) Superfund Section sites and no (0) Brownfields Program Sites were identified within one mile of the project as shown on the attached report. Please contact Janet Macdonald at 919.707.8349 if you have any questions concerning the Superfund Section review portion of this SEPA/NEPA inquiry. 7/2/24, 12:04 PM about:blank 178 Superfund & Brownfield Sites SEPA/NEPA Review Report Area of Interest (AOI) Information Orange County SEPA project 24-0326 Area : 2,484.24 acres Jul 2 2024 12:01:46 Eastern Daylight Time `�o�Us:H19Rwuv'�'s'W iu, WMllgv mem. Ir, � U SHghwav-�n'N Eflnntl -_- _ Hlllsborou gn - hV Kirvx�I W Teii HI dnn lvn�efvn Re 4 r oe WeY Rw -- ctY' �olea�x Im9�r "'4a �N Mali liJ - - - PoN¢r Ritlgp " OUcxwrvc hveM I u ' h-No S 4 sew Naiuw a^Buoae �wlnntl\Vx NF_.saTRULmN ey'� II ,,,�n�^ uzwe,�avarow•s'nrx,�nAly��o , .Nis - �" G„ ll_ a Cov A wv�y 36 112 Q 3 C.65 1 Inactive Hazardous Sites INC Brownfie ds Location View o os 1 2 km © Recorded �,�,oar C—Y,Nc,s.me m ri—ca—-T , 9 mHERE f in.INC REMENTP J—METIINASA EPA. No Further Interest usoA about:blank 1/2 7/2/24, 12:04 PM about:blank 179 Superfund and Brownfield Sites Orange County SEPA project 24-0326 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 0 N/A N/A Pre-Regulatory Landfill Sites 0 N/A N/A Brownfields Program Sites 0 N/A N/A about:blank 2/2 180 Department of Environmental Quality Project Review Project Number: 24-0326 County: Orange Date Received: 6-25-2024 Due Date: 7-22-2024 Environmental Assessment- Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment Project Description: (conventional rezoning) to amend to the Upper Eno Critical and Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed boundary line. No amendments are proposed to the zoning district, other overlay district, or Future Land Use Map. Parcel pin 9863-09-3922, 9864-00-2205 This Project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville F,7] Air Air Quality 1:1Coastal Management Fayetteville a DWR Fv--']Waste Mgmt 1:1Marine Fisheries Mooresville �✓ DWR-Public Water Fv--']Water Resources Mgmt (Public CC&PS Div. of ✓ Water,Planning&Water Emergency Mgmt Raleigh DEMLR(LQ&SW) Quality Program) DMF-Shellfish Sanitation Washington Fv—f] DWM El DWR-Transportation Unit �✓ Wildlife Olivia Wilmington Wildlife/DOT Winston Salem Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: Response(check all applicable) No objection to project as proposed. No Comment Insufficient information to complete review Other(specify or attach comments) 181 Department of Environmental Quality Project Review Project Number: 24-0326 County: Orange Date Received: 6-25-2024 Due Date: 7-22-2024 Environmental Assessment- Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment Project Description: (conventional rezoning) to amend to the Upper Eno Critical and Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed boundary line. No amendments are proposed to the zoning district, other overlay district, or Future Land Use Map. Parcel pin 9863-09-3922, 9864-00-2205 This Project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville F,7] Air Air Quality 1:1Coastal Management Fayetteville a DWR Fv--']Waste Mgmt 1:1Marine Fisheries Mooresville �✓ DWR-Public Water Fv--']Water Resources Mgmt (Public CC&PS Div. of ✓ Water,Planning&Water Emergency Mgmt Raleigh DEMLR(LQ&SW) Quality Program) DMF-Shellfish Sanitation Washington Fv—f] DWM El DWR-Transportation Unit �✓ Wildlife Olivia Wilmington Wildlife/DOT Winston Salem Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: 7/22/24 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) 182 Department of Environmental Quality Project Review Project Number: 24-0326 County: Orange Date Received: 6-25-2024 Due Date: 7-22-2024 Environmental Assessment- Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment Project Description: (conventional rezoning) to amend to the Upper Eno Critical and Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed boundary line. No amendments are proposed to the zoning district, other overlay district, or Future Land Use Map. Parcel pin 9863-09-3922, 9864-00-2205 This Project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville F,7] Air Air Quality 1:1Coastal Management Fayetteville a DWR Fv--']Waste Mgmt 1:1Marine Fisheries Mooresville �✓ DWR-Public Water Fv--']Water Resources Mgmt (Public CC&PS Div. of ✓ Water,Planning&Water Emergency Mgmt Raleigh DEMLR(LQ&SW) Quality Program) DMF-Shellfish Sanitation Washington Fv—f] DWM El DWR-Transportation Unit �✓ Wildlife Olivia Wilmington Wildlife/DOT Winston Salem Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: 7/3/2024 DWR/WRM David Wainwright Response(check all applicable) No objection to project as proposed. X No Comment Insufficient information to complete review Other(specify or attach comments) Attachment 5 183 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A County-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to amend a zoning overlay district as follows: Parcel Owner of Proposed Identification Township Record Current Zoning Zoning Number (PIN) New Goloka 0 R1, Rural Residential Change to 9863-09-3922 Village, LLC 0 Upper Eno Critical Watershed and Hillsborough Watershed Protection Protection g and Frank Overlay District Overlay 9864-00-2205 David Cohen Major Transportation District Corridor Overlay boundary The Planning Board hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been reviewed and deemed complete; and, b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 Statement of Intent - Amendments, and 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans of the UDO and to Section 160D-604(d) Planning Board review and comment — Plan Consistency and 160D-605(a) Governing Board Statement — Plan Consistency of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. c. Professional survey work completed in May 2024 revealed a discrepancy with Orange County's mapped watershed boundary lines, which are based upon the State's delineation of water supply watershed boundaries. As a matter of policy, the State advises delegated programs such as Orange County to notify the elected body of the watershed boundary change for formal recognition. Orange County Planning staff informed the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) of the watershed boundary change at their June 18, 2024 meeting. At that time, the Board approved an amendment to the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Protection Overlay District boundary line and authorized the Planning Director to initiate a Zoning Atlas Amendment. 184 Based on staff review and coordination with the NC Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (NC DEMLR) Water Supply Watershed Protection Coordinator, the sealed professional survey represents the most recent and accurate data and should be recognized as the true ridgeline and watershed boundary on the parcels. Staff has notified NC DEMLR and the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) of the change. This Zoning Atlas Amendment request will bring this overlay district into alignment with the State-recognized watershed. No amendments are proposed to the based zoning district, Major Transportation Corridor overlay district, or Future Land Use Map. Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with goals/objectives outlined within the Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: 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. Planning Principle 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. 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. 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. Land Use Element 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. 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. 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. 185 Land Use Goal 6 A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. Natural and Cultural Resources Overarching Goal A sustainable balance and appreciation of natural, cultural and agricultural resources. The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein and recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment. Vote: For, Against Adam Beeman, Chair Date Attachment 6 186 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated an application 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 modify the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Protection Overlay District boundary line on PINs 9863-09-3922 and 9864-00-2205, hereafter `the Property'; and WHERAS, professional survey work completed in May 2024 revealed a discrepancy with Orange County's mapped watershed boundary lines, which are based upon the State's delineation of water supply watershed boundaries; and WHEREAS, Zoning Atlas Amendment to modify the boundary will bring the overlay district into alignment with the State-recognized watershed; and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 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 modify the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Protection Overlay District boundary line, as detailed within the submitted application. 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 187 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 7, 2024 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment — 711 Faith Way Road, Mebane, Cheeks Township DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Application Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director of 2. Staff Report Development Services, (919) 245-2577 3. Notification Materials and Certification Cy Stober, Planning Director, (919) 245-2592 4. Development Advisory Committee Memo 5. Statement of Consistency 6. Draft Ordinance PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on a County-initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment to amend the Back Creek Protected Watershed Overlay District and Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District boundary line on one parcel totaling approximately 1.73 acres (PIN: 9835-67-1605). BACKGROUND: On June 24, 2024, the Orange County Planning Director initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment application (Attachment 1) proposing to amend the Back Creek Protected Watershed Overlay District and Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District boundary line. The Staff Report in Attachment 2 contains additional information, maps, and analysis. The Narrative contained in Attachment 1 provides additional background information related to this request. Requirements: As detailed within the Zoning Atlas Amendment application package (Attachment 1), and Section 2.8 of the UDO, rezoning submittals are required to contain: 1. A completed Zoning Atlas Amendment application; 2. A map, at a legible scale, showing the land proposed for rezoning; 3. A detailed narrative; and 4. Plan review fee(s) consistent with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule. [Note: As a County-initiated action, no review fees were collected] Basic Review Process: A rezoning application for an overlay district amendment requires submission of a detailed area map and other documents, in accordance with Section 2.8.3(A) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). A site-specific plan is not required for overlay district amendment applications and conditions cannot be applied to an approval action. The typical cadence for the review is as follows: • FIRST ACTION — Staff holds a Development Advisory Committee Meeting. STAFF COMMENT. The Development Advisory Committee Meeting was held on July 11, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., via Microsoft Teams. Comments received from this review are available in Attachment 4. 188 • SECOND ACTION — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. STAFF COMMENT. The Planning Board will review this application at its regular meeting on August 7, 2024. • THIRD ACTION — The BOCC receives the Planning Board and staff recommendations at an advertised public hearing and makes a decision on the application. STAFF COMMENT. The public hearing will be scheduled following the issuance of a recommendation from the Planning Board. Public Notification: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices of the Planning Board meeting were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject parcel. These notices were mailed on July 24, 2024, 14 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcel with signs on July 24, 2024, 14 days before the meeting. See Attachment 3 for the notification materials. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 5 and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment Ordinance contained in Attachment 6. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Receive the rezoning application, 2. Deliberate on the proposal as desired, 3. Consider the Planning Director's recommendation, and 4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and the proposed ordinance (Attachment 6) for BOCC consideration during a public hearing to be conducted for review of this request. Attachment 1 189 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or alanningapps(a�orangecountync.gov Zoning Atlas Amendment — Rezoning Application Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information and submittal requirements are contained in Sections 2.8 and 2.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink. * Please fill out all required fields Date: June 24, 2024 Rezoning Request: ❑J Conventional District ❑ Conditional District Contact Information* Property Owner(s): Frank David Cohen and New Goloka Village LLC Mailing Address: Unaddressed — East of Dimmocks Mill Road Phone: Email: Applicant (if different than property owner): Orange County Mailing Address: 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough Phone: 919-245-2575 Email: Property Information* Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9863-09-3922, 9864-00-2205 Total Acreage: 16.97 Address: Unaddressed — East of Dimmocks Mill Road Future Land Use Map Classification: Hillsborough 10 Year Transition, Agricultural Residential, and Rural Residential Current Zoning Designation: R1 , Rural Residential Requested Zoning Designation: Amend Upper Eno Critical and Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed boundary line If applicant/owner are different people, include a signed, notarized, statement indicating that the owner has authorized the applicant to submit the request. In cases where there are multiple property owners, please attach an additional document containing their signatures authorizing the submission of the application or other legal documentation establishing the applicants' right to file on their behalf. Other Submittal Requirements* Conventional District Rezoning Application Based on Section 2.8.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): ❑ A map, at a legible scale, showing the property(s) subject to the request. A map may be procured at the Planning Department for a fee in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule. ❑ A legal description of the property(s) proposed for rezoning. ❑ A list showing the names and addresses of all adjacent property owners within 1000-feet of the subject property. ❑ A detailed narrative denoting the following: i. The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas (if any) that will be corrected by the proposed request. 190 Narrative Property owners Nathan and Jessica King hired Riley Surveying, PA, to survey the parcel's existing impervious cover and topography, including the ridge line between the two watersheds on their property. This professional survey work revealed a discrepancy with Orange County's mapped watershed boundary lines, which are based upon the State's delineation of water supply watershed boundaries. This Watershed Boundary Location Survey was subsequently recorded with the Orange County Register of Deeds on March 28, 2024 (PB127, PG87). As a matter of policy, the State advises delegated programs such as Orange County to notify the elected body of the watershed boundary change for formal recognition. Orange County Planning staff informed the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) of the watershed boundary change at their May 21, 2024 meeting. At that time, the Board approved an amendment to the Back Creek Protected Watershed Overlay District and Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District boundary line and authorized the Planning Director to initiate a Zoning Atlas Amendment to amend the watershed overlay district boundary. The BOCC agenda packet can be found at this link: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink/0/doc/72545/Pagel.aspx The Zoning Atlas Amendment includes the following parcels: PIN 9835-67-1605 Location 711 Faith Way Road, Mebane Acreage 1 .73 acres Property Owner Nathan and Jessica King Legal Description 2 NATHAN R KING & ALICE H DELOZIER P126/189 Zoning R-1, Rural Residential Watershed Back Creek Protected and Upper Eno Protected Future Land Use Classification Rural Residential Based on staff review and coordination with the NC Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (NC DEMLR) Water Supply Watershed Protection Coordinator, the sealed professional survey represents the most recent and accurate data and should be recognized as the true ridgeline and watershed boundary on the parcels. Staff notified 191 NC DEMLR and the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) of the change. The change was reviewed and approved by the state on June 10, 2024. Protected Watersheds within Orange County are part of the County's delegated Stormwater Management Program, as reflected in the adopted Orange County Watershed Boundary Map. These watersheds are also adopted Zoning Overlay Districts in the Unified Development Ordinance. This Planning Director-initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment will bring this overlay district into alignment with the State-recognized watershed. No amendments are proposed to the base zoning district or Future Land Use Map. 192 T� A. . Swill— cEBgNDN RD Back Creek Protected i i 9835671605 f � i Upper Eno Protected • n v Q Proposed Watershed Boundary I,!?- Existing Watershed Boundary N t in=too feet Q PIN 9835671605 oR�E COUNTY Feet Zoning 0 100 Planning and Inspections Department(BC) R 1 6/26/2024 O:\GIS Workspace\Projects\Sta$Report\PIN 9835671605 Watershed Overlay Amendment\PIN 983567i6o5 Watershed Overlay Amendment.aprx\Zoning 193 Parcel Data: Land Disturbance Permitting Requirements: Relevant Documents from Register of Deeds: Zoning Information: Disclaimer: Stream,Water Body,and Floodplain Buffers: Date: +' It soil:Or _ I ��6 Bac Creek - Wat rshed '- 1�ti 1^� Flood Soil:GeB Panel: ! 9835J. 10 Upper Eno - o Protected Soil:GeC Watershed Soil: HiQk irA 0 IFEO N i SI/RVEYON'S CERTIF/UTE ., , 194 I..11,IP W.RILEY.CERTIFY TNAT THIS PLAT rw E WS OR W UNDER MY SUPERVISION F AN ACTUAL a wMxx LFRAMVu SURVEY MAD£UNDER MY SUPERVISION(DEED DESLRIP)lON a'�' RfCONDEO IN BOgL�'�.PACE 888 THAT THE BO.RDARIES �� .1 SUPVEYED ARE CLEARLY IND/UTEO AS ORAIWJ FRW Trx[o Itxrs Mr sinrvra.Y &a� INFO@NT/ON FWND FOUW IN EMIT-ES_.PACE IrtliED; A[pvraasxTs A THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION OR PGS/TIOW CCURAC L AY y AS ULLW.ATED IS 10000.; TNAT THE GLOBAL POSITIONING s SITE y SYSTEM(OPS)SURVEY AND 1N£F I.—ND INFQ'NWTION WAS S USED TO PFRFQPM THE CPS SURVEY: t 1)CLASS ON SUTV£Y: CLASS C TrT�GTrM V I C I N I T Y M A P N T S 1)POSITIONAL ACCURACY: —RESIDUM.0.—FT(H) D.OBS(V) J TYPE DF GPS FIELD SIARVEY: REAL TIME KINEMATIC VIA NLVRS I)DATE DF",Y: FOa[Y4..1-2.1024 B)PIXEO LONTJ//2OIdE� NqV£FpMO W/THIN Z000' ])GEOID GRID G IZA ROL 3010 B)LKeB/NED GRID FACTON: 0.99993450 Doc No: 30+0 2 B)UNITS: US TATIFOOT F ft m :21.00 02A 10:+"al 10)GPS INSTRLMENTATIQV: TRIMSLF RB ALICE H. DELOZIER Fee Arm:$z+.a0 Pa9e+or+ THAT THIS PLAT NEETS THE RfWIRELENT ON G.S.4]-a0 SECTION 1-11 C i I DB 3008 PG 35 Orerge—mN NAM Caroline /yT THAT 1NE SURVEY IS OF AN EXISTING PARCEL ON PARCELS (� PB 92 PG 128 M - OF LAND ON MR£EXISTING USEMENTS AND DOES ACTT CRUTE A O Pax muaTsnw Merk Re9latar of Deetls NEW STREET ON CHANCE AN EXISTING STREET. I II BK 127Chilbn,PG 87•871+) iNIS PLAT WAS PREPARED IN ACCOTDANCE WITH G.S.4—AS AME— I TD EX.'MAC'Na ILO 0/NTERSELTIdJ ll n FAI WAY LE RD.TH I TRESS MY 1I1I//1.�LLA��51�/C��N,,4��TUKK AND SfAt THIS THE ZG DAY DFLr+CJ.A.D..2024 a I r3$' O =y NEB°SSJPE 1M 7 PROFESSiOW�LAM SIWrv£YON , C 2 ~NNm DAV/D&ETSUKO HARWARD 3 L ICEN1 ~EREss/ N GARp r[ Ln a V I 8 T OB 3555 PG 549 oe�.Fo PB,x92,P�„28 �`� �• i � I s � SBB•SR<YW i as I i 720 . d SHEDS O BLOCKSut B u I I�OO I 9L� �Lq$ ALICE H. DELOZIER 35 u Ll PB 92 PG G2B NATHAN&JESSICA KING OB 6830 PG 856 PBvrx2v6ePea189 lL i I p / $g AREA= 1.7287iC. �_ £x.ORArEt ORINL,MY N—1 G(Y)-B5 565.72 N(Y)-BSJ°s6s.I.27 Il ELEV.:716.67 e BASED ON,AORKL(N�CS OFFEO) < .s g _" EX IRON PIPE(5/B•) -g a _-_ CFPApyE.CABLE FgAb I 4 ' EXISTING IRON STAKE(1/2,) LL✓zo,,y I 'd UTIL I TY POLE a F _ )S CLEAN-WT ALICE H. DELOZIER - SEPTIC TANK LID �— O• 'O Try OB 30U8 PG 35 lY TELEPHONE PEDESTAL PB 92 PG 1211 ® BELL Pix aesseTUBe —o WOODEN FENCE —. W/RE FENCE "— UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE CABLE W W OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES CENTERLINE 100'AT&T R/W NEW PROPERTY LINE WATERSHED BOUNDARYLOCAT/ON EX.PROPERTY LINE TO REWIN PROPERTY LINE HEREBY ABANDONED ONL Y ON THE PROPERTY OF I) h-1— DISTANCES ———— LIMITS OF 50'PRIVATE ROAD CROWN SHgM�. NA THAN&JESSICA KING 2) AREAS BY TEE LG-ORDINATE LETIAM. RILEYSURVEYING,P.A. J) Ia+TERSNED DEMARCATION L INE T—FROA QRAMSE—1 GIS AND MCDIFIED 3326DURHAMCWEL HILL BLVD.S7EB-100 CHEEKS TOWNSHIP BASED W FIELD TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TD DEPICT AC—RIDGELI^E. DURHAM,N.C.27707 ORANGE COUNTY,NC " " FEE. MMOW2A202a 4) FIELD—v£r PERFOrauEO FFER Y 2D24. 919667-0742 C-IXI pMi&INGyaurvey4p{arom 195 ,Waters } Roanoke RiyerjBasin: Hyco Creek SPOWHyco Creek' Flat River (Protected) (Pr t cted)� I I I 49 157 r I 86 I� � ( 1 Little,Ri ev� _I West Fork (Protected) on•the Eno ✓ i Back_Creek - r r Reservoi I Protected Lake Orange �I ( ) NPE'643' NPE 615' )Neuse; 57 River Basin y7 If , i Upper Eno (Protected) % I Upper-En, �I j (Critical) j Lower r Eno Corporate Lake NPE 538' I 70 LowerEno� l (Protected) Lake Ben Johnston Q 1 fVPE 515' Haw Creek Seven Mile Creek ` 70A N20581' ; I 70 m Municipal Jurisdiction t Streams 751 Water Bodies River Basin Boundary ( Cane Creek \ (Protected) ` 2 Watersheds Cape'Fear River Basin I y j Water Supply Watersheds: Jordan Lake Protected i Critical Cane Creek .�. Cane Creek �(�tiC81) m Railroad Reservoir NPE 500' 86 I Haw River' 54 • 15 i ORANGE c Universtl Lake 501 � COUNTY (Protected) I NOR'rl1 CAROLIN.A 0 1 2 3 4 V 1 University.Lake Miles Note: This watershed map replaces previous versions. Haw River University, + Reference: Orange County Zoning Ordinance UECA revision adopted June 1,2010 (Protected), (critical)` Orange County Planning&Inspections Department f GIS map prepared by Brian Carson ao\rdan_Lak@' Watersheds/Critical Areas/Basins Data:November,2010 Revision 'Protected) 10n/2020 196 AK ROY COOPEI Governor �I ELIZABETH S.BISER Secretar}, ;ouv ` WILLIAM E.TO BY VINSON,1P, NORTH CAROLINA Interim Director Environmental Quality June 10, 2024 Mr. Christopher Sandt, County Engineer Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201 P.O. BOX 8181 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Subject: Orange County Water Supply Watershed Protection Boundary Change Request Approval Dear Mr. Sandt: The Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR)reviewed and approved the Orange County Water Supply Watershed Protection boundary change request information received by our office on May 22, June 4, and 6,2024. On May 21, 2024, Orange County Board of Commissioners approved Orange County to submit the Water Supply Watershed Protection boundary change request. DEMLR approves the boundary change request in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-214.5 and North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B .0100, .0200, .0620-.0624. We appreciate Orange County's efforts to help protect the vital public water supplies of this state. Please contact me at paul.clark@dN.iie.gov or(919) 707-3642 should you need assistance. Sincerely, �il Yd, -.,/ Paul Clark Water Supply Watershed Protection Coordinator cc: Bill Denton,Raleigh Regional Office, Supervisor North Carolina Department of Environmental Q mlity Division of Energy,Mineral and Land Resources 512North Salisbury Street 1 1612 Mail Service Centex 1 Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-16t2 919.707.9200 luf Staff Report Attachment 2 �+ ORANGE Zoning Atlas Amendment COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Parcel Information Vicinity Map for Watershed Overlay Amendment Application llllzmm�ll711 Faith Way Road, `qy PIN 9835671605 i Parcel Address oreC1QO "�, Ceda�)GrEv T n hip %'• ji Tole _- Mebane UpEno Pot..t.d �-% Parcel Identification CheeKS 10Wn6hlp N ,i' Hlushorough1ToWnship�'�r•�� ' 9835-67-1605 ow ° Number (PIN) Enor 1 •, � I=' Eno Township Applicant Name Orange County .�l _ � r`"H1aborough � Melia"e - _ L.—E.. and Address 131 W. Margaret Lane �• Pfotected Hillsborough, NC H •C eek �`�x �/ rUEner J. Crnoal ,1 °„ 1 �� Nathan and Jessica PIN W3567IW5 Can 9in9hamTow shlpl �/ �' i ,- Property Owner g Townships ,�k f-- /cV% ; < \�j.W°.�._ Kin atyUmi[s °reete, /r/) \1\ Ewa° Chapel Hill Township �S„�.�• s Name and Address 711 Faith Way Road, CheeksT-ship / �Q a°�° ✓ JONen Mebane Water Supply WMersheds Interlocal Watershed OverlayAmendmerot 0X'965671605 Current Zoning Agreement Applicable No (Y/N) Current Zoning District R-1, Rural Residential Back Creek Pro[ectetl Requested Zoning N/A District Requested Zoning 9835671665 District Consistent 1 with Appendix F of N/A Comprehensive Upper Eno Protected Plan Back Creek Protected g Existing Zoning Watershed Protection - Overlay Districts Overlay District and Upper Q PIN 98356715M5 Eno Protected Watershed —s°•ama Protection Overlay District Water 6odles o Pto—g W,1a ehod 6.p°-day Amendments �} g Watershed Boundary m T' Zoning mxr Proposed for �R Overlay Districts Yes (Y/N) Parcel Size +/- 1.73 Adopted Future Land Use Map with Parcel 98356716o5 Depicted Future Land Use Map Rural Residential (FLUM) Designation FLUM Overlay(s) N/A Growth Management Rural System Designation Back Creek roteeted ft Rural Residential - Land in the ; Definition of FLUM rural areas of the County which 9835fi7�605 Designation is appropriate for low intensity (from Article 10 of and low-density residential Unified Development development, and which would Ordinance (UDO) not be dependent on urban Upper Eno Protected services during the plan period. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning North 0 PIN 9835671605 ;}F' rg Watershetl Boundary Q Proposed Watershed Boundary Streams Water Bodles SouthResource PmteclionAreas cc xi A All lots are zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) with Future Land Uae Ca,egudea Rural Residential single-family residential uses or are currently East undeveloped and in agriculture use. Aerial image w'ith'Parcei98356716o5Outlined West 7- Existing Roads North N/A ¢" Back CreekrProtec� f, South N/A �: t East N/A ; West Faith Way Road + - Upper Eno Pr tact tl t, PIN 9835671605 ;}Ezlsting Watershetl Boundary A p,rtl• Q Proposed Watershed Boundary Existing Conditions/Physical Features The parcel currently contains an existing residential structure, accessory structure, and gravel driveway. Faith Way Road (private road) is located within the western portion of the parcel. Zoning Atlas Amendment Overview Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment to modify the Back Creek Protected Watershed Overlay District and Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District boundary line. State- designated Critical and Protected watersheds located in Orange County are regulated as a Watershed Protection Overlay Districts. Based on Article 4, Overlay Zoning Districts, the Watershed Protection Overlay District applies to the Orange County portion of watershed which have been classified as WS- II, WS-III, or WS-IV by the State of North Carolina. The Zoning Atlas Amendment will bring this overlay district into alignment with the State-recognized watershed. No amendments are proposed to the base zoning district or Future Land Use Map. Additional background information regarding this request is contained in the Narrative (Attachment 1). In acting on this request, the County is unable to impose conditions. Overlay district rezoning applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e., does not require sworn testimony or evidence) and decisions are based on the Board of County Commissioners determination the request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Review Milestones Application Submittal Date June 24, 2024 Orange County Development July 11, 2024 Advisory Committee (DAC) Review Note: the DAC is a staff/agency committee, established in Section 1.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Courtesy Review Jurisdiction Date Sent Comments Received (Y/N) State Clearing House 6/25/24 Yes Analysis Staff Analysis 1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.8.3 of the LIDO. 2. 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. 200 Chapter 2 — Planning Principles 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. 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. 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. 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. Chapter 5— Land Use Element, Section 5.6 Goals a. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. d. Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. e. Natural and Cultural Resources Overarching Goal: A sustainable balance and appreciation of natural, cultural and agricultural resources. Staff Comment Professional survey work completed in March 2024 revealed a discrepancy with Orange County's mapped watershed boundary lines, which are based upon the State's delineation of water supply watershed boundaries. As a matter of policy, the State advises delegated programs such as Orange County to notify the elected body of the watershed boundary change for formal recognition. Orange County Planning staff informed the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) of the watershed boundary change at their May 21, 2024 meeting. At that time, the Board approved an amendment to the Back Creek Protected Watershed Overlay District and Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District boundary line and authorized the Planning Director to initiate a Zoning Atlas Amendment. Based on staff review and coordination with the NC Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (NC DEMLR) Water Supply Watershed Protection Coordinator, the sealed professional survey represents the most recent and accurate data and should be recognized as the true ridgeline and 201 watershed boundary on the parcels. Staff has notified NC DEMLR and the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) of the change. This Zoning Atlas Amendment request will bring this overlay district into alignment with the State- recognized watershed. No amendments are proposed to the base zoning district or Future Land Use Map. The existing R-1 zoning is consistent with Appendix F, Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts of the Orange County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Any future development would be subject to regulation under the County's stormwater and water supply watershed regulations. Staff has reviewed and determined no significant environmental impact is expected from this request to amend the Watershed Protection overlay district. The Orange County staff has notified the public regarding this application, as required by Section 2.8.7 of the UDO including mailings to neighboring property owners and posting of the property. Additionally, staff have provided all application documents on the Active Development Projects webpage. 202 Attachment 3 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Ashley Moncado, Planner III with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance I have mailed, or have caused to be mailed, a Notice of the Planning Board Meeting to be held regarding a rezoning application proposing to amend the Back Creek Protected Watershed Overlay District and Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District boundary line on one parcel (PIN: 9835-67-1605) on July 24, 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 Planning Board Meeting. WITNESS my hand,this 24th day of July 2024. OA (0 Ashley Moncado, AICP Planner III Orange County Planning 203 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 113z W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278193.9.245•2575 July 24, 2024 NOTICE OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING Dear Property Owner: This notice is to inform you of the August 7, 2024, Planning Board meeting, at which an application to amend the Back Creek Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District and Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District boundary line on one parcel (PIN 9835-67-1605) will be reviewed. The subject property is located at 711 Faith Way Road, Mebane, within the Cheeks Township. This notification is occurring in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). You are receiving this notice because you own property located within 1,000-feet of the parcels requested for rezoning. YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT PROPOSED FOR REZONING. Property Information Parcel ID Number(PIN) 9835-67-1605 Owner Nathan and Jessica King Applicant Orange County Location 711 Faith Way Road, Mebane Acreage +/- 1.73 acres Current Land Use Rural Residential Designation Current Zoning R1, Rural Residential Proposed Zoning N/A Watershed Designation Back Creek Protected and Upper Eno Protected Professional survey work completed in March 2024 revealed a discrepancy with Orange County's mapped watershed boundary lines, which are based upon the State's delineation of water supply watershed boundaries. The County Initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment will bring the overlay districts into alignment with the State-recognized watershed. No amendments are proposed to the base zoning district or Future Land Use Map. This amendment request will be reviewed by the Orange County Planning Board at a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., August 7, 2024, at the Whitted Meeting Facility(300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC — see attached map). All interested persons are invited to address the Planning Board with their comments regarding the application. The Planning Board is an advisory board comprised of appointed volunteers that makes recommendations to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) regarding land use and zoning matters. The Planning Board must recommend one of the following four actions at their meeting, 1) Approval, 2) Denial, 204 3) Approval, but with specified changes, or 4) that the Planning Board be given extended time to consider the matter. Planning Board Meeting Information Date August 7, 2024 Time 7:00 p.m. Place Whitted Meeting Facility Address 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC Patrick Mallett Assigned Planner Deputy Director— Development Services 919-245-2575 or pmallett@orangecountync.gov A formal public hearing on the proposed amendment will be held by the BOCC. The date of the public hearing has not yet been determined. You will receive another written notice about the public hearing at a later date. If you cannot attend the Planning Board meeting and the website does not answer your questions about the applications, you may call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you. Sincerely, �G Io et 1 Patrick Malle t Deputy Director— Development Services Additional information is available on the Orange County Planning Department's website: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/16e9edd 5de724468aed69571 dd1 d9e70 . .I r:. L •. • — • ' � .IRV �. EW •j' J LL'J■ Whitted Building (300 W. Tryon St.) — Meeting Lmation _ �{� i � � W.I. ►-1 _ _ rl#1 "s1� _ � '� 4-4 ; t rf q r j 1 Parking; 34 1 A ; (�' I`S• ._ ''7 ,j _Romer- As I f}ir- W • _ UZI i i.. ,f 1 Z , • , i is ?►. ! ► Parking ' [_ Whitted ' Building i i, ��.1J;t r.♦� LT � �' r� 1.. k'''�� f1 ,'f .., .,1 M. ]ENT N 16 N ,• �: 'r 'Parking / P, Jill LU 1 in=100 feet 1:' yy ' LI�[�/j* 'S./ , J .1 ?, [. ./ !� \� ■ jai Feel If }, 1 t .. ♦ > , 'ti + 1 i , ,; Orange County Planning and Inspections �' �y;}�! ;,�• Brian Carson(5/8/2015) 206 PIN OWNERI_LAST OWNERI_FIRST OWNER2_LAST OWNER2_FIRST ADDRESS1 ADDRESS2 CITY STATE ZIPCODE 9835671605 KING NATHAN R KING JESSICA 711 FAITH WAY RD <Nutt> MEBANE INC 27302 9835478563 BAKER JEFFREYT BAKER JUNE C 717 HARLEY DAVIDSON LN MEBANE INC 27302 9835567547 SHARPE MELINDA <Nutt> <Nutt> 1213 HIGH RIDGE DR <NutI> MEBANE NC 273028865 9835574149 NICHOLS CARLA 1318 HIGH RIDGE DR MEBANE NC 27302 9835577393 TOLAND MARLENEI <Nutt> <Nutt> 1323 HIGH RIDGE DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835577590 WILKIE ANTHONY <Nutt> <Nutt> 1401 HIGH RIDGE DR <NutI> MEBANE NC 27302 9835578108 SKOUBY MEGAN SKOUBY TIFFANY 1319 HIGH RIDGE DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835584220 EDWARDS LYNNEE EDWARDS ANDYS 5809 LEBANON RD MEBANE NC 27302 9835585260 BOHLING LINDAI <Nutt> <Nutt> 5805 LEBANON RD <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835589253 TINNIN JAMES RODNEY 5715 LEBANON CH RD MEBANE NC 273028818 9835684049 ROACH DIANETRUSTEE ROACH MIKETRUSTEE 96 HENLEY WAY <NutI> AVON CT 6001 9835688104 LEHTO JANAE JACKAN MICHAELHRS 5528 FIELDVIEW RD <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835688337 SMITH RENELDAP 5544 FIELDVIEW RD MEBANE INC 27302 9835762475 TERRELL ELIJAH C <Nutt> <Nutt> 5506 LEBANON RD <NutI> Mebane INC 27302 9835771708 MARTINEZ LUIS MARTINEZ LAUREN 5510 FIELD VIEW RD <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835479265 BAKER BRENDA K <Nutt> <Nutt> 716 HARLEY DAVIDSON LN <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835562903 FRENCHI CHRISTOPHER <Nutt> <Nutt> 513 ROLLING MEADOW RD <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835564837 SCHAD ADAM M <Nutt> <Nutt> 1304 HIGH RIDGE DR <Nut> MEBANE INC 27302 9835567742 FRUEH ERICZ FRUEH JOHANNAHR 1223 HIGHRIDGE DR MEBANE INC 27302 9835574043 HAMILTON CHARLESMJR HAMILTON ANNETTET 1312 HIGH RIDGE DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835575879 COLLEY CRYSTAL <Nutt> <Nutt> 1419 HIGH RIDGE DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835577831 PETTIFORD CORDICE D PETTIFORD HATTIE M 5716 LEBANON RD MEBANE NC 273028818 9835578003 CARDWELL CHRISTOPHER DOUGLASS CARDWELL SARAJANE 1313 HIGH RIDGE DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835580337 DENTON MARGARETCRAVEN 1508 CEDAR POINTE DR MEBANE INC 273028856 9835582525 KNOWLES ANDREWTRUSTEE <Nutt> <Nutt> 1517 CEDAR POINT DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835589719 KUNSMAN MORGAN ELIZABETH FAIRCLOTH JARED GLEN 5800 SAM MILLER DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835663366 MCADOO TERRANCES LONG MCADOO HELENM 216 CLIMBING ASTER CT <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835664755 KING ROBERT KING TAMMY 1057 GOLD ROCK LN <NutI> MORRISVILLE INC 27560 9835772792 MORGAN DANNYK <Nut> <Nut> 5504 FIELDVIEW RD <Nut> MEBANE INC 27302 9835781074 LEE TYLER LOCKWOOD <Nutt> <Nutt> 5511 FIELDVIEW RD <NutI> MEBANE INC 273027031 9835783032 SHAMBLEY WILLIAM C <Nutt> <Nutt> 5505 FIELDVIEW RD <NutI> MEBANE INC 273027031 9835478936 THOMAS CHRISTOPHERJ <Nutt> <Nutt> 1000 SAM TUCKER LN <NutI> HILLSBOROUGH INC 27278 9835564614 VESCOVI CALEBJ PECORA MARINAN 1220 HIGH RIDGE DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835570992 ALLEN REGINA D 5820 LEBANON RD MEBANE INC 273028819 9835572686 DANIELS RICHARD H SR HRS <Nutt> <Nutt> 3917THOMPSON MILL RD <NutI> GRAHAM INC 27253 9835574345 FRACCARO HOLLY <Nutt> <Nutt> 1322 HIGH RIDGE DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835574913 MARTINEZ KRISTIN E MARTINEZ JONATHAN O 1420 HIGH RIDGE DR <NutI> Mebane INC 27302 9835580223 BAZEMORE SUSAN BYRD 1500 CEDAR POINT RD MEBANE INC 273028856 9835582292 ROSSON GARY <Nutt> <Nutt> 1503 CEDAR POINTE DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835584505 HOWELL WEBB CALDWELL IV HOWELL CHRISTINA 5812 SAM MILLER DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 273028857 9835586523 TREJO OSCARABRAHAM ARROYO NANCI BONILLA 5804 SAM MILLER DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835660317 SCHAUB RICHARDF SCHAUB TAMMYS 208 CLIMBING ASTER CT <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835670877 HARWARD DAVID ZACHARY HARWARD ETSUKOT 717 FAITH WAY RD MEBANE INC 27302 9835685074 TOTTEN NELLIE <Nutt> <Nutt> 5607 LEBANON RD <NutI> MEBANE NC 273029525 9835688640 JONES LEANDERC JONES TONYAS 5550 FIELD VIEW RD <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835780166 WALKER PHYLLIS <Nutt> <Nutt> 5533 FIELDVIEW RD <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835781428 ATKINSON COLIN ATKINSON CAROLINE 5551 FIELD VIEW RD MEBANE INC 27302 9836604380 MARKHAM FARMS LLC <Nutt> <Nutt> <Nutt> 5635 HIDEAWAY DR <Nut> CHAPELHILL INC 27516 9835560931 DUDLEY JOHN S DUDLEY AMY R 521 ROLLING MEADOW DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835567856 BROOKS MONISASHEREE 1303 HIGH RIDGE DR MEBANE INC 27302 9835570900 TATUM JOHNWJR <Nutt> <Nutt> 9601 LESLIE DR <NutI> CHAPELHILL INC 27516 9835577689 NEAL IMARI ROUNDTREE TIFFANY 1415 HIGH RIDGE DR <NutI> MEBANE NC 27302 9835588575 HUGHES TRACEY HUGHES EDWARDJ 5802 SAM MILLER DR <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835661395 WADE ANNER <Nutt> <Nutt> 212 CLIMBING ASTER CT <Nut> MEBANE INC 27302 9835665397 HAUSSER DANIEL LSR HAUSSER KARENM 220 CLIMBING ASTER CT <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835676393 DELOZIER ALICE H <Nutt> <Nutt> 700 FAITH WAY RD <NutI> MEBANE NC 27302 9835678947 JONES KEVIN L 5522 FIELDVIEW RD MEBANE INC 273027031 9835679834 DAY HOLLYMCPHERSON DAY WENDYCAROL 5514 FIELDVIEW RD <NutI> MEBANE INC 273027031 9835682139 TROYER DANIELJ TROYER MELISSAN 2599 US HWY 64E <NutI> MOCKSVILLE INC 27028 9835683161 FLICEK ELIZABETH FLICEK ROBERT 5619 LEBANON RD <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 9835781314 REGNAULT LORILYA HRS <Nutt> <Nutt> 5539 FIELDVIEW RD <NutI> MEBANE INC 27302 O RAN G E C O U N T Y , NC 207 Watershed Overlay Amendment PIN 9835671605 Notificaticfn Map Ooo OR el/V ME4) CN 0 z Ln SAM.MILLER DR T o' FIELD CT o ❑ w 3 A Back Creek Protectec o Z J W LL CFBANON RO 983567'1605 T NPRLEy DAV IDS.ON'L'N D S 0 W C7 2 (9 Upper Eno Protected MEAD_O_W DR RpLLING- Qti Q� v CLIMBING ASTER CT Q/VT hONPCT O Q PIN 9835671605 N tin=400 feet 1,000 Foot Notification Area ORANGE COUNTY Feet V,E" Existing Watershed Boundary 0 400 Planning and Inspections Department(BC) Proposed Watershed Boundary 6/25/2024 O:\GIS Workspace\Projects\State Report\PIN 98356716o5 Watershed Overlay Amendment\PIN 9835671605 Watershed Overlay Amendment.aprx\Watershed Overlay Amendment PIN 98356716o5 Notification Map 208 Attachment 4 July 22, 2024 Faith Way Road Rezoning Application Case #: MA24-0004 PIN: 9835-67-1605 711 Faith Way Road, Mebane Re: Development Advisory Committee Report (per LIDO Section 1.9.5) On July 11, 2024, the Orange County Development Advisory Committee met for a final review and discussion of the overlay district rezoning application Case #MA24-0004 for PIN 9835-67- 1605. 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, PCmr6ckv MaRett Patrick Mallett Deputy Director— Development Services 209 �1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245•2575 Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Comments DAC review comments and recommendations do not constitute plan or permit approval for this application and/or replace any other plans and permits that may be required by other County departments and State agencies. Project: MA24-0004 Faith Way Road - Zoning Atlas Amendment Location/PIN: 9835671605 Applicant: Orange County Staff Planner: Ashley Moncado DAC Meeting Date: 7/11/24 Addressing and Britney Pendleton Land Records Date: 7/2/24 Staff: brpendleton(a-_)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2576 No comment James Bryan Attorney's Office Date: Staff: 0b rya n orangecountync.gov 919-245-2319 No comments received. Building Michael Rettie Inspections Date: 7/2/2024 Staff: mrettie(a)_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2604 1. Any proposed construction that is regulated by the NC Building Codes will require permitting. Chris Hirni DEAPR Date: Staff: chirni(@orangecountync.gov 919-245-2514 No comments received. Environmental Victoria Hudson Health Date: 7/8/2024 Staff: vhudson(a)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2365 1. No comments to report. Erosion Nate Jacobsen Control Date: 7/9/24 Staff: niacobsen(a-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2580 1. No comments. 210 Fire and Life Elizabeth Farnan Safety Date: Staff: efarnan(a_orangecountync.gov 919-245-6153 No comments received. David Genwright NCDOT Date: Staff: digenwrigh�ncdot.gov 336-570-6833 1. Rezoning request appears to be taking place off NCDOT maintained road. It also appears to not be proposing any new structures. With that, no NCDOT action or a roval is required. , _- Patrick Mallett Planning Date: 7/8/24 Staff: Pmallett(a)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2577 No comment Matt Taylor Solid Waste Date: Staff: mtaylor orangecountync.gov 919-918-4905 No comments received. Stormwater Christopher Sandt Management Date: 7/9/2024 Staff: csandt(a_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2583 1. The project is located in the Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District. Stormwater Management is required if proposed Land-Disturbing Activity exceeds 21,780 square feet. Transportation Darlene Weaver Services Date: 7/2/2024 Staff: dweaver(@orangecountync.gov 919-245-2002 No comment 211 From: Genwriaht, David I To: Ashley E. Moncado Subject: Re: [External]DAC Memos MA24-0003(Dimmocks Mill Road)and MA24-0004(Faith Way Road) Date: Tuesday,July 16,2024 3:45:28 PM Attachments: imaae002.r)na Outlook-i4w4xx2z.pna Good afternoon,Ashley, Please take this as NCDOT's response for the DAC memo MA24-0003 Dimmocks Mill Road This rezoning request appears to have no new structures currently being proposed. As Long as that is the case and no new accesses are being proposed, no NCDOT action or approval is required MA24-0004 Faith Way Road This rezoning request appears to be taking place off NCDOT maintained road. It also appears to not be proposing any new structures or accesses.With that, no NCDOT action or approval is required. If you need anything else, please let me know.Thanks, and have a good day. Wishing you the best, David Genwright Assistant District Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways Division 7, District 1 (336)570-6833 digenwrightCcbncdot.gov 115 East Crescent Square Drive P.O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 r 1 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and maybe disclosed to third parties. 212 From:Ashley E. Moncado<amoncado@orangecountync.gov> Sent: Friday,July 12, 2024 11:20 AM To: Elizabeth Farnan <efarnan@orangecountync.gov>;Trivedi, Nishith <ntrivedi@orangecountync.gov>; Matthew Taylor<mtaylor@orangecountync.gov>; Christian Hirni <chirni@orangecountync.gov>; Sandt, Christopher<csandt@orangecountync.gov>; Steve Kaltenbach <skaltenbach@orangecountync.gov>; Genwright, David I <digenwright@ncdot.gov>; Hudson, Victoria <vhudson@orangecountync.gov> Cc: Patrick R. Mallett<pmallett@orangecountync.gov> Subject: [External] DAC Memos MA24-0003 (Dimmocks Mill Road) and MA24-0004 (Faith Way Road) CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab. Good Morning, As part of the DAC review process,the Planning Department is requesting a memo for MA24-0003 (Dimmocks Mill Road) and MA24-0004 (Faith Way Road).These items were reviewed at the July 11 DAC meeting. Staff would appreciate to have the memos by end of day Wednesday,July 24 to meeting Planning Board review deadlines. If you have no further comments, please let us know. Thank you, Ashley Ashley Moncado,AICP Planner III Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Office: 919-245-2589 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201, P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough. NC 27278 Applications. Forms. and Submittal Information ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 13Z correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties. Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C.Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. 213 Fire & Life Safety Division TO: Cy Stober, AICP — Director, Planning & Inspections FROM: Elizabeth Farnan — Division Chief of Fire & Life Safety, Emergency Services CC: Ashley Moncado — Planner III, Planning & Inspections Date: July 17, 2024 CASE: MA24-0004 PIN: 9835-67-1605 PROJECT: Rural Residential Zoning Atlas Amendment SUBJECT: Site Plan Review Regarding Conformance with Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for Emergency Apparatus Access, Addressing, and Water Availability for Required Fire Flow This memo is to show that the Fire & Life Safety Division has NO OBJECTIONS to the approval of the zoning atlas amendment request. July 17, 2024 Elizabeth Farnan, FM Date 214 MEMORANDUM TO: Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director, Development Services FROM: Christopher Sandt, PE — County Engineer, Planning & Inspections; and Steve Kaltenbach — Erosion Control and Stormwater Manager DATE: July 18, 2024 CASE: MA24-0004 — Zoning Atlas Amendment PIN: 9835-67-1605 WATERSHED: Upper Eno Protected (Neuse River Basin) PROJECT: Faith Way Road 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 Zoning Atlas Amendment (MA24-0004), submitted as the "Faith Way Road" project (hereafter, the "project"). The project is located within 1.73 acres of property at 711 Faith Way Road in the Cheeks township of Orange County, North Carolina. The request proposes a watershed overlay district boundary modification so as to accommodate subsequent development consisting of: ■ garage construction The staff comments contained herein are based upon a required Rezoning Application and supporting information dated June 24, 2024. These findings should not be interpreted as the Division's final analysis/approval of the proposed development. Upon zoning approval, the proposed subsequent development would then be required to submit a Land Disturbing Permit (LDP) which would formally review and approve development activity consistent with the Rezoning Application. Erosion & Sedimentation Control (E&SC): According to current Orange County GIS imagery of the project parcel, there are no mapped stream features or special flood hazard areas within the project parcel boundaries. Orange County enforces stream buffers along streams, rivers, water bodies, 215 and other water features (e.g., wetlands) as outlined in Section 6.13 of the Orange County UDO. Based on the submitted materials, the project could meet the basic Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements as required by Orange County UDO Section 6.15 and could be developed as generally proposed. Stormwater Management: There were no stormwater management related materials included in the Rezoning Application. The submitted materials indicate a level of development that could meet current UDO requirements specific to stormwater management. 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 Obiections to the approval of the Rezoning Application so long as a complete LDP application and supporting plans and calculations are submitted for review, processing, and approval prior to commencement of any on-site Land-Disturbing Activity. As the project progresses, additional field observations, additional permitting by others, and/or additional Orange County review and permitting may apply beyond the proposed development as shown with the Rezoning Application. Christopher Sandt, PE Date I'EE/2024 Steve Kaltenbach Date 216 NC* DOA Department of Administration Roy Cooper Pamela B. Cashwell Governor Secretary July 29, 2024 Ashley Moncado Orange County Planning& Inspections 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201 Hillsborough, NC 27278- Re: SCH File#24-E-3700-0327 Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment (conventional rezoning)to amend to the Back Creek Protected and Upper Eno Protected Watershed boundary line. No amendments are proposed to the zoning district or Future Land Use Map. Location: PIN 9835-67-1605 Dear Ashley Moncado: The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this letter are comments made in the review of this document. The appropriate document should be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (984) 236-0000. Sincerely, KADISHA MOLYNEAUX State Environmental Review Clearinghouse Attachments Mailing Location 1301 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 325 N. Salisbury St. I Raleigh, NC 27603 a 984-236-0000 ncadmin.nc.gov 217 To: Kadisha Molyneaux State Clearinghouse NC Department of Administration From: Lyn Biles Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service Re: 24-0327 Scoping-Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment (conventional rezoning) to amend to the Back Creek Protected and Upper Eno Protected Watershed boundary line. Orange County Date: July 25, 2024 The Department of Environment Quality has reviewed the proposal for the referenced project. Please find attached the comments for the applicants consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Attachments STATE., 2 1 Q U ROY COOPER Governor u ELIZABETH S.BISER Secretary *EBf QUAM MICHAEL SCOTT NORTH CAROLINA Director Environmental Quality DATE: July 5, 2024 TO: Michael Scott, Division Director through Sharon Brinkley FROM: Deb Ajar Western District Supervisor- Field Operations Branch RE: SEPA Project 24-0327, Orange, NC Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Watershed Rezoning Project The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department documents for initiating a Zoning Atlas Amendment(conventional rezoning)to amend the Back Creek Protected and Upper Eno Protected Watershed boundary line in Orange County, North Carolina. The review has been completed and has found no adverse impact on the surrounding community and likewise knows of no situations in the community, which would affect this project from a solid waste perspective. During the project, every feasible effort should be made to minimize the generation of waste, to recycle materials for which viable markets exist, and to use recycled products and materials in the development of this project where suitable. Any waste generated by this project that cannot be beneficially reused or recycled must be disposed of at a solid waste management facility approved to manage the respective waste type. The Section strongly recommends that any contractors are required to provide proof of proper disposal for all waste generated as part of the project. A list of permitted solid waste management facilities is available on the Solid Waste Section portal site at: Solid Waste Facility List. Please contact Chuck Kirchner, Environmental Senior Specialist, for any questions regarding solid waste management for this project. Mr. Kirchner can be reached at (336) 776-9633 or by email at chuck.kirchner@ncdenr.gov. Ec: Drew Hammonds, Field Operations Branch Head Chuck Kirchner, Environmental Senior Specialist D E Q�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Waste Management Asheville Regional Office 1 2090 U.S.Highway 70 1 Swannanoa,North Carolina 28778 NORTH CAROLINA _ Department m Environmental Quality /`� 828.296.4500 219 Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 24-0327 Due Date:7 22 2024 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. ❑ Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary. 30 days (N/A) Complete application must be received,and permit issued prior to the ❑ Well Construction Permit installation of a groundwater monitoring well located on property not 7 days 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 ❑ Dredge and Fill Permit owner.On-site inspection.Pre-application conference usual.Filling may 55 days 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 (30 days) Stormwater permit(NCG010000)is also usually issued should design features meet minimum requirements. A fee of $100 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional fees. 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. 220 Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 24-0327 Due Date:7 22 2024 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 ❑ Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land.Affected 30 days 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. ❑ Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DEQ at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. 10 days 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://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/401-wetlands-buffer-permits/401-riparian- buffer-protection-program Nutrient Offset:Loading requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins,and in the Jordan and Falls Lake ❑ watersheds,as part of the nutrient-management strategies in these areas. DWR nutrient offset information: http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/nonpoint-source-management/nutrient-offset-information ❑ CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00-$475.00 fee must accompany application 75 days (150 days) ❑ 22 days CAMA Permit for MINOR development $100.00 fee must accompany application (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. 221 Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 24-0327 Due Date:7 22 2024 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. 7/15/2024 DWR-WQROS JM ® & 07/12/2024 (Aquifer&Surface) & DWR-PWS TP ❑ See checked boxes. 7/15/2024 DEMLR(LQ&SW) CA ® No land disturbance propsoed. 7/12/2024 DWM—UST MRP ® 7/9/2024 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 222 Date: July 5, 2024 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# 24-0327 Orange County Planning and Inspection, Orange County, North Carolina The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of sites under its jurisdiction to the Orange County Planning and Inspection project. Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment (conventional rezoning) to amend to the Back Creek Protected and Upper Eno Protected Watershed boundary line. No amendments are proposed to the zoning district or Future Land Use Map. Location: PIN 9835-67-1605 No (0) Superfund Section sites and no (0) Brownfields Program Sites were identified within one mile of the project as shown on the attached report. Please contact Janet Macdonald at 919.707.8349 if you have any questions concerning the Superfund Section review portion of this SEPA/NEPA inquiry. 7/2/24, 12:08 PM about:blank 223 Superfund & Brownfield Sites SEPA/NEPA Review Report Area of Interest (AOI) Information Orange County SEPA project 24-0327 Area : 2,162.02 acres Jul 2 2024 12:07:27 Eastern Daylight Time 5 e rye si - .� . C2 ) _ a Renn,ile NO �M,Gewn T•�ax A uy S ~eY')O.ry E 6 � �' ■ = Mr�hwa w ..., ,i rl I �. � us.Nrvnw.r-i0'w' Elland 1 36 112 ■ Q C.33 C.s5 13mi Inactive Hazardous Sites 1 INC Brownfie ds Location View o os 1 2 km 9 Recorded rle w,nae rAnny,rue,sw 4 Gamiin.INCREMENT V 115G5.METVNASA.EPA.IISNAn No Further Interest - Dry0eaning Contaminated about:blank 1/2 7/2/24, 12:08 PM about:blank 224 Superfund and Brownfield Sites Orange County SEPA project 24-0327 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 0 N/A N/A Pre-Regulatory Landfill Sites 0 N/A N/A Brownfields Program Sites 0 N/A N/A about:blank 2/2 225 Department of Environmental Quality Project Review Project Number: 24-0327 County: Orange Date Received: 6-26-2024 Due Date: 7-23-2024 Scoping- Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment(conventional rezoning) Project Description: to amend to the Back Creek Protected and Upper Eno Protected Watershed boundary line. No amendments are proposed to the zoning district or Future Land Use Map. Location:PIN 9835-67-1605 This Project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville F,7] Air Air Quality 1:1Coastal Management Fayetteville a DWR Fv--']Waste Mgmt Marine Fisheries Mooresville �✓ DWR-Public Water Fv--']Water Resources Mgmt (Public CC&PS Div. of ✓ Water,Planning&Water Emergency Mgmt Raleigh DEMLR(LQ&SW) Quality Program) DMF-Shellfish Sanitation Washington Fv—f] DWM El DWR-Transportation Unit �✓ Wildlife Olivia Wilmington Wildlife/DOT Winston Salem Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: Response(check all applicable) No objection to project as proposed. No Comment Insufficient information to complete review Other(specify or attach comments) 226 Department of Environmental Quality Project Review Project Number: 24-0327 County: Orange Date Received: 6-26-2024 Due Date: 7-23-2024 Scoping- Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment(conventional rezoning) Project Description: to amend to the Back Creek Protected and Upper Eno Protected Watershed boundary line. No amendments are proposed to the zoning district or Future Land Use Map. Location:PIN 9835-67-1605 This Project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville F,7] Air Air Quality 1:1Coastal Management Fayetteville a DWR Fv--']Waste Mgmt Marine Fisheries Mooresville �✓ DWR-Public Water Fv--']Water Resources Mgmt (Public CC&PS Div. of ✓ Water,Planning&Water Emergency Mgmt Raleigh DEMLR(LQ&SW) Quality Program) DMF-Shellfish Sanitation Washington Fv—f] DWM El DWR-Transportation Unit �✓ Wildlife Olivia Wilmington Wildlife/DOT Winston Salem Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: 7/23/24 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) 227 Department of Environmental Quality Project Review Project Number: 24-0327 County: Orange Date Received: 6-26-2024 Due Date: 7-23-2024 Scoping- Orange County has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment(conventional rezoning) Project Description: to amend to the Back Creek Protected and Upper Eno Protected Watershed boundary line. No amendments are proposed to the zoning district or Future Land Use Map. Location:PIN 9835-67-1605 This Project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville F,7] Air Air Quality 1:1Coastal Management Fayetteville a DWR Fv--']Waste Mgmt Marine Fisheries Mooresville �✓ DWR-Public Water Fv--']Water Resources Mgmt (Public CC&PS Div. of ✓ Water,Planning&Water Emergency Mgmt Raleigh DEMLR(LQ&SW) Quality Program) DMF-Shellfish Sanitation Washington Fv—f] DWM El DWR-Transportation Unit �✓ Wildlife Olivia Wilmington Wildlife/DOT Winston Salem Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: 7/3/2024 DWR/WRM David Wainwright Response(check all applicable) No objection to project as proposed. X No Comment Insufficient information to complete review Other(specify or attach comments) Attachment 5 228 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A County-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to amend a zoning overlay district as follows: Parcel Owner of Proposed Identification Township Record Current Zoning Zoning Number (PIN) ■ R1, Rural Residential Change to ■ Back Creek Protected Watershed Nathan and Watershed Protection Protection 9835-67-1605 Cheeks Jessica King Overlay District Overlay ■ Upper Eno Protected District Watershed Protection boundary Overlay District The Planning Board hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been reviewed and deemed complete; and, b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 Statement of Intent -Amendments, and 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans of the UDO and to Section 160D-604(d) Planning Board review and comment— Plan Consistency and 160D-605(a) Governing Board Statement— Plan Consistency of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. c. Professional survey work completed in March 2024 revealed a discrepancy with Orange County's mapped watershed boundary lines, which are based upon the State's delineation of water supply watershed boundaries. As a matter of policy, the State advises delegated programs such as Orange County to notify the elected body of the watershed boundary change for formal recognition. Orange County Planning staff informed the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) of the watershed boundary change at their May 21, 2024 meeting. At that time, the Board approved an amendment to the Back Creek Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District and Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District boundary line and authorized the Planning Director to initiate a Zoning Atlas Amendment. 229 Based on staff review and coordination with the NC Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (NC DEMLR) Water Supply Watershed Protection Coordinator, the sealed professional survey represents the most recent and accurate data and should be recognized as the true ridgeline and watershed boundary on the parcels. Staff has notified NC DEMLR and the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) of the change. This Zoning Atlas Amendment request will bring the overlay districts into alignment with the State-recognized watershed. No amendments are proposed to the base zoning district and Future Land Use Map. Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with goals/objectives outlined within the Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: 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. Planning Principle 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. 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. 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. Land Use Element 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. 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. 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. 230 Land Use Goal 6 A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. Natural and Cultural Resources Overarching Goal A sustainable balance and appreciation of natural, cultural and agricultural resources. The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein and recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment. Vote: For, Against Adam Beeman, Chair Date Attachment 6 231 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated an application 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 modify the Back Creek Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District and Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District boundary line on PIN 9835-67-1605, hereafter `the Property'; and WHERAS, professional survey work completed in March 2024 revealed a discrepancy with Orange County's mapped watershed boundary lines, which are based upon the State's delineation of water supply watershed boundaries; and WHEREAS, Zoning Atlas Amendment to modify the boundary will bring the overlay districts into alignment with the State-recognized watershed; and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 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 modify the Back Creek Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District and Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District boundary line, as detailed within the submitted application. 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. 232 SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners