The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 02-04-2025; 5-a - Applications for Zoning Atlas Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, & UDO Text Amendments to Realize “Fiddlehead Corner”, a Master Plan Development – Conditional District 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 4, 2025 Action Agenda Item No. 5-a SUBJECT: Applications for Zoning Atlas Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, & UDO Text Amendments to Realize "Fiddlehead Corner", a Master Plan Development — Conditional District on an Unaddressed Parcel on Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop, Bingham Township DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: Al. Zoning Atlas Application, including Site Plan Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director, and Supplemental Materials (919) 245-2592 A2. Staff Report Tom Altieri, Senior Planner, (919) 245-2579 A3. Notification Materials and Certification Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and A4. Neighborhood Information Meeting Zoning Manager, (919) 245-2597 Materials Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director, (919) 245- A5. Planning Board Meetings Minutes 2578 A6. Project Correspondence and Staff Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director, (919) 245- Comment(s) 2577 A7. Statement of Consistency, Zoning Atlas Amendment A8. Statement of Inconsistency A9. Draft Ordinance, Including Proposed Conditions, for Fiddlehead Corner MPD-CD B1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application and Letter of Request B2. Future Land Use Maps — Fiddlehead Corner and Vicinity B3. Appendix F — Land Use and Zoning Matrix B4. Map — RNAN at Morrow Mill Existing Development Status B5. Map — RNAN Countywide and Existing Development Status B6. Map — RNAN Countywide and Existing Zoning B7. Resolution Amending Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Cl. UDO Text Amendment Application C2. Statement of Consistency, Applicant- Initiated UDO Text Amendment C3. Draft Ordinance, Applicant-Initiated UDO Text Amendment C4. Statement of Consistency, Staff- Recommended UDO Text Amendment C5. Draft Ordinance, Staff-Recommended UDO Text Amendment 2 PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing, receive public comment, receive the Planning Board and staff recommendations, close the public hearing, and consider action on applicant-initiated amendments to the A) Zoning Atlas, B) Comprehensive Plan, and C) Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text to realize a Master Plan Development — Conditional District (MPD-CD) on a +/-90.133-acre unaddressed property (PIN: 9739-72-0339) located off Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop, within the Bingham Township. This abstract is organized accordingly to discuss the amendments to the Zoning Atlas, Comprehensive Plan, and Unified Development Ordinance in Sections A, B, and C, respectively. As detailed in Section A below, the applicant's proposed rezoning is: From: AR (Agricultural Residential) To: MPD-CD (Master Plan Development — Conditional District) The Zoning Atlas amendment, as presented, is presently inconsistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and does not conform with the regulations of the adopted UDO. North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 160D-605 requires the BOCC to make a statement as to whether a zoning action is or is not consistent with the adopted comprehensive land use plan. The applicant has applied for a Comprehensive Plan amendment (Section B below) to: 1) expand the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node; and 2) reflect that the proposed zoning to MPD-CD of the subject property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Appendix F. Should these amendments be made by BOCC action, the Zoning Atlas amendment could be considered "consistent" with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as referenced in Attachment A7. Other considerations could determine that the Zoning Atlas amendment remains inconsistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, regardless of the amendment (Attachment A8). Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendment, a UDO amendment to Section 3.8 (Section C below) is needed to address the MPD-CD zoning district and where it is recommended for use throughout the County. The UDO is also proposed for amendment in Section 5.2 and Article 10 to allow for Family Care Facilities in MPD-CD zoning districts, as proposed in the applicant's narrative. The latter amendments will also bring the UDO into conformance with State statutory language requiring Family Care Facilities to be allowed in all residential zoning districts and, as discussed below, is recommended for approval by the Planning Director regardless of the actions on the other proposed amendments. All UDO amendments are required actions to allow for the Zoning Atlas amendment to be in conformance with Orange County's land use regulations. The BOCC is presented with four (4) actions within this public hearing: one associated with the Zoning Atlas amendment; one associated with the amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and two different actions, one staff-recommended and the other integral to the comprehensive plan amendments, related to the applicant-initiated text amendments. As discussed in more detail below, the Planning Board recommended denial of all three presented applications for amendment (Attachment A5). 3 SECTION A: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT BACKGROUND: On December 29, 2023, Orange County received a Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment application (Attachment Al) proposing to rezone 90.133 acres of property (PIN.. 9739-72-0339) off Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop, within Bingham Township. (Full application packet can be found here: https://centralpermits.orangecountVnc.gov/EnerGov Prod/SelfService#/plan/e63acbd9-28f5- 4398-a638-6a579665c9cc?tab=attachments.) The application is accompanied by a master plan for "Fiddlehead Corner", a 150-dwelling unit community featuring multifamily, townhome, and single-family housing options intermixed with a community center, fitness center, and accessible gardens and walking trails. Two "Family Care" centers are also featured in the master plan. This land use must be enabled as a permitted use within MPD-CD districts through a text amendment to UDO Section 5.2 and Article 10 (Section C). The community will feature a network of private roads that rely upon a public collector street that will intersect with both Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop. As discussed in Section B, the property lies partly within a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node as well as an Agricultural Residential area, as shown on the adopted Future Land Use Map of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Staff Report in Attachment A2 contains additional information, maps, and analysis that accounts for this relationship with the County's adopted comprehensive plan and UDO, as well as the context of the property's zoning and proposed land use relative to the local area. Approval of a site-specific plan is part of the conditional district rezoning process, and the master plan and any agreed-upon conditions (Attachment Al) are binding to the property and any development permitted upon it. Conditional zoning allows for conditions to be voluntarily imposed upon a property that regulate it in unique ways related to the uses proposed for that property. Approval of a master plan — rather than a more detailed site plan — is part of the MPD-CD rezoning process. Master Plan districts are intended "...to provide for unified large scale subdivisions, nonresidential, and mixed-use developments that promote economical and efficient land use, improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety, creative design, and a better environment through the approval of a general concept Master Plan the permits defined flexibility to accommodate land use adjustments in response to evolving market trends" (staff emphasis; Orange County UDO, p.3-63). Development of the property must be in accordance with an approved master plan and any conditions imposed as part of the MPD-CD rezoning process. Staff has recommended the imposition of conditions, as presented by the applicant (Attachment Al) and included in the drafted Ordinance of approval (Attachment A9). The applicant has not requested conditions to deviate from the UDO's development standards. Should the application be approved, development of the property will be permitted only through the review and approval of a submitted site plan application(s) in accordance with Section 2.5 of the UDO. This allows for staff to verify all imposed conditions are adhered to, and allow for final review by members of the County's Development Advisory Committee (DAC) as detailed within Section 1 .9 of the LIDO. PROPOSED CONDITIONS: The applicant provided updated conditions to the Planning Director on December 19, 2024, (Attachment Al) reflecting the discussion and stated commitments made at the July 10, 2024 Planning Board meeting. Pursuant to LIDO Section 2.9.1(F)(3), mutually agreed-upon conditions can be imposed on the MPD-CD as part of this process if they address: 4 a. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, b. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways, and access points, screening and buffer areas, the timing of development, etc.), and/or c. All other matters the County may find reasonable and appropriate or the petitioner may propose. Attachments Al & A9 provide more detail on the mutually agreed-upon conditions, which are summarized here: 1. Project shall be completed as presented in approved master plan/application packet, which details amenities and landscaping commitments, and includes the narrative phasing plan (Attachment Al). 2. A NC State Licensed Provider will operate the featured Family Care Facility homes; 3. The Fiddlehead Neighborhood Commons Building will be constructed as part of Phase 1 and will provide a full kitchen, meeting rooms, gathering rooms for collective meals for residents and guests, fitness/exercise rooms/equipment, office space for remote and in person medical therapy including vaccination clinics, etc.; 4. The Health & Fitness Center shall be constructed as part of Phase 2 or 3 and will include an exercise pool and fitness equipment; 5. The maximum number of bedrooms permitted shall be 300; and 6. Provision of Type E (75') and F (100') perimeter buffers for the entire property. Other conditions are detailed by the applicant, but are redundant with UDO development standards and/or commitments already detailed previously in the narrative and/or site plan. ZONING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS: A MPD-CD rezoning application requires submission of a master plan consistent with the provisions of Section 6.7 of the UDO. The typical cadence for review is as follows: • First Action — Applicant holds a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Staff Comment: The Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on April 15, 2024, at 6 pm at the Orange County Public Library. Notes from this meeting are in Attachment A4. • Second Action — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. Staff Comment: The Planning Board reviewed this application at its regular meetings on June 5 and July 10, 2024. Minutes from these meetings are in Attachment A5. • Third Action — The BOCC receives the Planning Board and staff recommendations at an advertised public hearing and makes a decision on the application. Staff Comment: The public hearing is scheduled to be held on February 4, 2025. In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices of the public hearing were 5 mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel. These notices were mailed on January 17, 2025, 18 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcel with a sign [or signs] on January 21 , 2025, 14 days before the meeting. See Attachment A3 for the notification materials. SECTION B: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Concurrent with the Zoning Atlas application, Hands Four Development Cooperative submitted an application (Attachment 131) to amend the Comprehensive Plan to 1) expand the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) at Morrow Mill Road and NC 54 on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM); and 2) add the MPD-CD zoning district as an allowable zoning district in the RNAN on the Appendix F Land Use and Zoning Matrix. State law and the UDO require the Board to make a finding of consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan when making land use changes. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are necessary for the Board to make this consistency finding in regard to the submitted Fiddlehead Corner zoning application detailed in Section A above. "The [Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan] Future Land Use Map (FLUM) defines the location of coordinated and appropriate land use classes and is designed to accommodate a particular combination of land uses that would achieve a desired pattern of development... [t]he Map also provides the development community and staff with clear guidance to the locations in the County where re-zonings may be appropriate and where they are not" (2030 Comprehensive Plan, p. 5-15). The subject property is currently split between two Future Land Use Classes, Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN). These land use classes provide guidance on how the property may be used and regulated through zoning. "Agricultural Residential" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as, "Land in the rural areas where the prevailing land use activities are related to the land (agriculture, forestry) and which is an appropriate location for the continuation of these uses." "Rural Neighborhood Activity Node" (RNAN) is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as, "Land focused on designated road intersections within the rural area that is appropriate for small-scale commercial uses characteristic of "Mom and Pop" convenience stores and gas stations." The proposed FLUM amendment expands the RNAN at Morrow Mill Road and NC-54 from its current +/-18.493 acres to the full 90.133 acres of the property. The expanded area realized through the proposed amendment is +/-71.64 acres (Attachments B2 and 134). The applicant also proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use and Zoning Matrix in Appendix F to allow the MPD-CD zoning district within the RNAN future land use classification (Attachment B3). The Comprehensive Plan Appendix F: Land Use and Zoning Matrix links the County UDO's zoning districts to the future land use classifications and overlays. If a zoning district is not listed as compatible with a land use classification in the Matrix, it is determined to be inconsistent with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 6 Analysis Section 2.3.2(8) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) states, "For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound, stable, and desirable development within Orange County, the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof shall not be amended except as follows: (1) Because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; (2) To correct an error or omission; or (3) In response to a change in the policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County." The Applicant's request for Comprehensive Plan amendments (FLUM and Appendix F) discussed herein are based upon "(1)" above and the premise that changes have occurred and are occurring in the County. The burden of demonstrating that an application complies with approval criteria belongs with the Applicant and is reflected in their Letter of Request (Attachment B1). The letter cites demographic information included in the Orange County Master Aging Plan and the need to accommodate significant growth in the percentage of County adults ages 65+ with increased housing and neighborhoods designed to meet the needs of seniors. Staff analysis focuses on the development status of the RNANs countywide, not just at the local area (Morrow Mill Road and NC 54 intersection) of the zoning case. Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) at Morrow Mill Road The 2030 Comprehensive Plan does not define an explicit purpose for activity nodes, but the Plan's principles, goals, and objectives all detail the need to minimize inefficient patterns of "rural sprawl" and realize efficient and compact use of the land using two basic strategies: activity nodes and infill development. The activity node strategy serves to cluster non- residential development at major intersections throughout the County in locations appropriate for serving the needs of the local residents. All ten (10) RNANs have been included on the FLUM since 1981 , and the majority of the developed non-residential uses existed at that time. Attachment B4 is a summary of the areas (in acreage) of present development status and land uses within the RNAN at Morrow Milll Road and NC 54. Approximately 46 acres (37%) within the existing node of 125 total acres have been developed. Existing non-residential land uses include the PSM Food Mart, Piedmont Feed and Garden Center, and the UNC-Chapel Hill Facility Support Building. Although 76-acres remain "undeveloped," this designation does not take into account site- specific characteristics such as stream and landscaping buffers, road rights-of-way, and stormwater control measures that are required of new development. While there is remaining development capacity within the existing RNAN at NC 54 and Morrow Mill Road, it is insufficient to practically accommodate a development the size of Fiddlehead Corner. Impacts to Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes (RNANs) Countywide Hands Four Development is requesting MPD-CD (Master Plan Development — Conditional District) zoning, which is not currently listed as a compatible district for the RNAN Future Land Use classification within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F: Land Use and Zoning Matrix (Attachment 133). The zoning districts currently compatible within RNANs include: 7 LC-1 (Local Commercial-1); - NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial-2); ASE-CD (Agricultural Support Enterprises - Conditional District); R-CD (Residential - Conditional District); and - NR-CD (Non-Residential - Conditional District). Attachment B5, "RNAN Countywide and Existing Development Status" and Attachment B6, "RNAN Countywide and Existing Zoning," offer some analysis of how much potential this amendment may create for MPD-CD rezoning requests countywide. There are a total of ten (10) RNANs in Orange County. All ten (10) RNANs were included on the FLUM since it was originally adopted in 1981 and have largely not been developed since that time. Approximately 580 acres (49.7%) within the RNANs are already developed, leaving 512 parcel acres "undeveloped". As previously noted, this does not account for site specific characteristics and development constraints (e.g. required buffers). The MPD-CD zoning district was originally established to provide a mechanism through which innovative development proposals could move forward for consideration by Orange County through a legislative land use planning process that was transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. The intent of the MPD-CD zoning district is, in part, "...to provide opportunity for unified large-scale subdivisions, non-residential, and mixed-use developments to be considered." Allowance of the MPD-CD zoning district use more broadly throughout the County may help accomplish the Comprehensive Plan's vision for activity nodes, inviting innovative mixtures of uses, including differing forms of residential uses and creative designs, at key intersections throughout the County. Any proposal of MPD-CD zoning in the RNANs would require administration of a zoning application and be accompanied by the requisite public notification and public hearing for input from property owners in the surrounding area. Fiddlehead Corner, the applicant's zoning proposal, is following this process and offers a procedural template that future applicants might use for reference and guidance. SECTION C: UDO TEXT AMENDMENTS Hands Four Development Cooperative submitted an application in December 2023, and modified in March 2024, to amend the text of the UDO's Table of Permitted Uses to add "Family Care Facility" as a permitted use in the MPD-CD zoning district (Attachment Cl) and to complement the proposed amendments to Appendix F of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. While this applicant-initiated text amendment is necessary for the MPD-CD rezoning application, as presented, staff must evaluate if "Family Care Home" is an appropriate use for consideration within the MPD-CD zoning district countywide. Applications for a conditional zoning district must include all uses contemplated within a development project as part of the conditions accompanying the rezoning approval. The proposed allowable uses are specified in the UDO's Section 5.2, the Table of Permitted Uses, including whether use-specific standards are required. Furthermore, a MPD-CD approval must "... be located in such a manner as to be compatible with the character of existing development of surrounding properties, thus ensuring the continued conservation of building values and encouraging the most appropriate use of land in the county. Therefore, when evaluating an application for this district, emphasis shall be _given to the location of the proposed 8 development, the relationship of the site and site development plan to adjoining property, and the development itself (emphasis by staff). Additionally, the applicant is proposing a UDO text amendment to allow MPD-CD districts in RNANs, as defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is complementary to the application to amend the Comprehensive Plan's Appendix F. The following sentence in Section 3.8, MPD-CD Chart, District Specific Development Standards, #1 would be rewritten as follows (red text is the proposed amendment language): 1. MPD-CD districts shall be limited to Transition Land Use Categories within the Orange County Planning Jurisdiction and Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes and Rural Community Nodes, as defined in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. ANALYSIS The UDO (in Article 10) defers definition of a Family Care Facility to State statues where it is defined as (NCGS 160D-907): A home with support and supervisory personnel that provides room and board, personal care, and habilitation services in a family environment for not more than six resident persons with disabilities. The statute further defines a "person with disabilities" as: A person with a temporary or permanent physical, emotional, or mental disability, including, but not limited to, an intellectual or other developmental disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, hearing and sight impairments, emotional disturbances, and orthopedic impairments but not including persons with a mental illness who are dangerous to others as defined in G.S. 122C-3(11)b. Additionally, the statute stipulates: A family care home is deemed a residential use of property for zoning purposes and is a permissible use in all residential districts. No local government shall require that a family care home, its owner, or operator obtain, because of the use, a special use permit or variance from any such zoning regulation, however, a local government may prohibit a family care home from being located within a one-half mile radius of an existing family care home. In accordance with the State law, the County's Table of Permitted Uses allows Family Care Homes (use #44 in Section 5.2 of the UDO) in all residential zoning districts. The use is also allowable in the zoning districts. This use is currently permitted by-right (consistent with State statutes that address the use) in the County's 16 conventional zoning districts and Residential - Conditional District and Non-Residential - Conditional District. As stated in Article 3 of the UDO, the purpose of the MPD-CD district includes the potential for residential uses (emphasis by staff): ...to provide for unified large scale subdivisions, non-residential, and mixed-use developments that promote economical and efficient land use, improved level of 9 amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety, creative design, and a better environment through the approval of a general concept Master Plan the permits defined flexibility to accommodate land use adjustments in response to evolving market trends. As such, MPD-CD districts currently allow for residential uses but not "family care homes", inconsistent with the statutory requirements. Furthermore, as included in the Application narrative, Orange County has adopted plans supporting diversified housing options for a variety of populations. Link to Countywide Strategic Plan: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/26972/Orange-County-Strategic- Plan?bidld= Link to currently adopted Comprehensive Plan: https://www.orangecountync.gov/1238/Comprehensive-Land-Use Link to Master Aging Plan: https://www.orangecountync.gov/203/Master-Aping-Plan Link to Consolidated (Housing) Plan: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/l 0806/Orange-County-NC- Consolidated-Plan-FINAL?bidld=) Staff has reviewed the options presented in the Application and recommends that Family Care Facility be added as a permitted use in the MPD-CD zoning district by adding an asterisk (*) to the appropriate column on the line for use #44 (Family Care Facility). In reviewing the application, staff discovered the definition of "Family Care Facility" in Article 10 (Definitions) of the LIDO contains an outdated reference to a State statute. Therefore, staff is recommending an update to the definition as shown (red text is the proposed amendment language): Family Care Facility A facility which meets the definition of a family care home in NCGS 168-21 160D-907. Staff does not recommend the applicant's proposal to require additional use standards (by adding a delta [A] symbol), as the State deems Family Care Facilities a permissible use in all residential districts and discourages additional requirements beyond those in place for similar residential uses. Family Care Facility is a permitted use (*) in all other Orange County zoning districts that allow the use, and to introduce additional standards exclusively for the MPD-CD is not recommended. Staff review of the amendment to UDO Section 3.8 regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan only determined that the Board of Commissioners must act in coordination with its action regarding the presented Comprehensive Plan amendments. The LIDO text amendment is unwarranted without the corresponding amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Planning Board reviewed this application at its regular meetings on June 5 and July 10, 2024 (Attachment A5). The Planning Board made three motions, all recommending the Board of County Commissioners vote to deny the applications. The text amendment application 10 was voted upon 8 — 1 to recommend denial, with the dissent being related to the need to bring the UDO into alignment with NC General Statutes. The Planning Board voted unanimously (9 — 0) to recommend that the BOCC vote to deny the 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment because the extension of the MPD-CD zoning district to rural activity nodes is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The Planning Board also voted unanimously (9 — 0) to recommend denial of the Zoning Atlas amendment application due to its present inconsistencies with the County's adopted comprehensive plan and nonconformity with its adopted UDO, as reflected in the Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment A8). PLANNING DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS The consistency of the Zoning Atlas Amendment with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan relies, in part, on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, [Attachments B1 — B7 (MA23-0004)]. As discussed herein, the amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's FLUM and Appendix F are necessary for a consistency finding on the zoning action, as required by NCGS 160D-605. Similarly, the amendment of the text of the County's UDO [Attachments C1 — C5 (TXTA23- 0001)] is required to ensure the conformance of the Zoning Atlas amendment with the UDO text. As discussed herein, the amendment to Section 3.8 is complementary with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Atlas amendments, and the action should be consistent with those actions. The amendment to allow Family Care Facilities in the MPD-CD zoning district and update this land use definition in Article 10 is recommended by the Planning Director regardless of actions directly related to the other proposed amendments. Accordingly, the Planning Director recommends the following actions to the Board of County Commissioners, which features four (4) motions to be voted upon: 1) Consider the three applications for action; 2) Acknowledge that legally-sufficient public notice was given for the zoning application and this meeting, in accordance with State law and the Orange County UDO; 3) Review the Staff Report on the zoning atlas amendment (Attachment A2), featuring analyses of UDO compliance, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, impact of the use to the surrounding area, and safety and efficiency of land use; 4) Allow for the applicant's presentation of materials regarding the three applications; 5) Conduct the public hearing, receive public comments, and consider the Planning Board recommendations of denial on all three applications; 6) Close the public hearing; 7) Vote to Approve the Staff-Recommended UDO Text Amendments to Section 5.2 and Article 10 (as reflected in the Statement of Consistency (Attachment C4) and UDO Text Amendment Ordinance (Attachment C5); 8) Vote on the Applicant-Initiated UDO Text Amendments to amend Section 3.8 (consistent with the Comprehensive Plan action, as reflected in the Statement of Consistency (Attachment C2) and UDO Text Amendments Ordinance (Attachment C3); 9) Vote to Approve or Deny the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, as reflected in the attached Resolution of Approval (Attachment 137); and 10) Vote to Approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment A7) and Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment A9) OR 11 Vote to Deny the Zoning Atlas Amendment, including a statement as to why the application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest, as detailed in the Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment A8). FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments which have determined that the approval of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising, including meeting and public hearing notice and mailings, are covered by the application fee. ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports: • GOAL 2: HEALTHY COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE 2. Expand access to quality, affordable healthcare services. (e.g., Medicaid expansion, crisis response, healthy living campaign). • GOAL 4: MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIVE 4. Coordinate transit investments with municipal and county land use planning to reduce vehicle miles travelled and to provide more equitable access to shopping, employment, medical centers, college campuses, etc. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board: 1. Conduct the public hearing and receive the Planning Board and staff recommendations and public comments on the three applications; 2. Close the public hearing; and 3. Consider Motions to Approve, Deny or Defer Action on the following four (4) items: a. Vote on the Staff-Recommended UDO Text Amendments to the Family Care Facilities language in Section 5.2 and Article 10 (as reflected in the Statement of Consistency (Attachment C4) and UDO Text Amendment Ordinance (Attachment C5)); b. Vote on the Applicant-Initiated UDO Text Amendments to amend Section 3.8 (consistent with the Comprehensive Plan action, as reflected in the Statement of Consistency (Attachment C2) and UDO Text Amendments Ordinance (Attachment C3); c. Vote on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, as reflected in the attached Resolution of Approval (Attachment 137); and d. Vote on the Zoning Atlas Amendment, either Approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment A7) and Ordinance (Attachment A9); or Denying the application, including a statement as to why the application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest (Attachment A8). Attachment Al 12 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or plan ningapps(7a orangecountync.gov Zoning Atlas Amendment — Rezoning Application Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information and submittal requirements are contained in Sections 2.8 and 2.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink. Date: 3/20/24 Rezoning Request: ❑ Conventional District 13 Conditional District Contact Information Property Owner(s): Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D) Mailing Address: PO Box 1201 Carrboro, NC 27510 Phone: 919.423.0419 Email: ebcox@yahoo.com Applicant (if different than property owner): Same as Above — Mailing Address: Phone: Email: Property Information Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9739720339 Total Acreage: 90 Acres Address: 5824 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Future Land Use Map Classification: Agricultural Residential - Rural Neighborhood Overlay Current Zoning Designation: AR- Agricultural Residential Requested Zoning Designation: MPD-CD If applicant/owner are different people, include a signed, notarized, statement indicating that the owner has authorized the applicant to submit the request. In cases where there are multiple property owners, please attach an additional document containing their signatures authorizing the submission of the application or other legal documentation establishing the applicants' right to file on their behalf. Other Submittal Requirements Conventional District Rezoning Application Based on Section 2.8.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): 13 A map, at a legible scale, showing the property(s) subject to the request. A map may be procured at the Planning Department for a fee in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule. 0 A legal description of the property(s) proposed for rezoning. 13 A list showing the names and addresses of all adjacent property owners within 1000-feet of the subject property. 13 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 13 ii. The changed, or changing, conditions (if any) that makes the proposed amendment reasonable necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. iii. How the proposed amendment is consistent with, or carries out the intent and purpose of the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan, or part thereof. 12 The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule. Conditional District Rezoning Application Based on Section 2.9.2 (C) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): 0 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. 13 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. 13 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. Q 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. 12 The appropriate environmental document(s) prepared in accordance with Section 6.16 of the UDO. 12 A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal. 12 Other information identified during the pre-application conference deemed essential to demonstrate the project's compliance with these regulations. 12 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 do s it aran ee an approval of the proposed atlas amendment by the County. Owner Signature(s) Applicant Signature (if different from owner) March 20, 2024 Date Date Page 2of2 14 Viif Hands Four Development Cooperative ehead PO Box 1201 Carrboro,NC 27510 HandsFourDevelopment@gmail.com Zoning Atlas Amendment Narrative - Fiddlehead Corner March 20, 2024 The applicant, Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D), proposes the creation of a Master Plan Development Conditional District (MPD-CD) at the intersection of Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop in southwest Orange County. The 90 acre extent of the property is a single parcel lying within two land use classifications, Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN), the latter in the northernmost portion of the property. The zoning change requested in this application is from AR to MPD-CD for the entire 90 acre parcel. Two associated changes in the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan / Future Land Use Map (FLUM) are requested in separate applications: a) FLUM Map Amendment to classify the land use of the entire 90 acres as Rural Neighborhood Activity Node and b) linkage of MPD-CD and RNAN in the Zoning Matrix of Appendix F of the Comprehensive Plan. Also requested is a UDO text amendment to the MPD-CD Development Standard to designate RNAN as a permitted location for an MPD-CD. An adjacent parcel of 35 acres now owned by Thomas Cheek was part of the original 125 acre property he owned from which the H4D parcel was created. An existing vineyard and house will remain on the Cheek land. Up to five additional house sites will be developed with conventional individual wells and septic systems. His intended uses would remain consistent with Agricultural Residential zoning. H4D has a 25 year right-of-first-refusal on sale of all, or portions of, the Cheek property. The H4D property will be home to Fiddlehead Corner, a community oriented toward older adults. The changing conditions that make this rezoning reasonably necessary are 1) the increasing demand for senior housing in Orange County, 2) the advantages of scale to make such a community financially viable and 3) the rapid disappearance of suitable land for such a community in urban Orange County. Regarding demand for senior housing, Orange County is undergoing "an explosion in the numbers of older persons, a dramatic increase in longer lives" as described in the Orange County Master Aging Plan (MAP) of 2007. The most recent update of the MAP, (2022-27), reinforces this point with an estimate that, while the overall population will increase by 20% from 2020 to 2040, the number of adults ages 65+ in Orange County is expected to increase over three times as fast - 68%! 15 This tsunami of aging adults will produce a demand for a substantial increase in the number of housing units that are designed specifically to meet the needs of an aging population. The housing stock of Orange County is geared to families, typically 3 or more bedrooms, whereas the space needed by seniors declines as their activities and family size decreases. In addition, most seniors need smaller dwellings and housing with barrier-free access, which is not generally available. At the same time, housing prices are increasing rapidly, while the incomes of seniors decrease as they age and retire. Clearly, there is a strong need for creative solutions to provide the needed senior housing. H4D seeks to answer that need. Regarding scale and financial viability, H41D determined through financial modeling that the scale needed to make a project of this type financially viable is a minimum of 150 residences, with approximately 225 residents, at full build-out. A project of this magnitude requires substantial acreage on which to locate. Regarding location in the urban vs. rural setting, H4D members strongly desired to locate in an urban setting in the Durham-Chapel Hill area in their retirement, because this is where most members reside currently. An urban location allows ready access to desired amenities. However, an extensive years-long search for an urban property on which to develop was fruitless. It was concluded that it would be necessary either to abandon the project or to develop outside the urban boundary. The property H4D has acquired exhibits ideal primary characteristics for the community. The land is only 10 minutes drive from the urban district via a major artery. It has sufficient area to accommodate the number of residences needed for financial viability in a compact footprint while conserving the majority of the property in its natural state. The appropriate zoning classification for H4D's purpose is Master Plan Development Conditional District (MPD-CD). However, MPD-CD does not have a linkage to the current AR land usage classification. The applicants propose a two step process to harmonize the zoning, land classification and intended uses. First is to extend the current land use classification of Rural Neighborhood Activity Node that applies to the northernmost aspect of the property to the entire property. Second is a text amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to create a linkage between MPD-CD and RNAN in the matrix of Appendix F, Land Use and Zoning Matrix. The property is partially within, and contiguous with, a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. Reclassification of the remainder of the property to allow its most appropriate use at this time is a logical step. Rural Neighborhood Activity Node "identifies areas in the County where small scale commercial uses serving the population in the surrounding area are appropriate" (Appendix F). In the Appendix F matrix, RNAN is linked with LC-1, NC-2, ASE-CD, R-CD and NR-CD. Rural Community Activity Node is linked to all the preceding, plus MPD-CD. The applicants request addition of a linkage between MPD-CD and RNAN. MPD-CD development standards appear to be more restrictive and allow the County at least as much discretion to control the characteristics of a development as the other three Conditional Districts. In fact, 52 permitted uses in Table 5.2 of the UDO are allowed in R-CD or NR-CD but not in MPD-CD. H4D Narrative, Pg 2 16 Only one permitted use is allowed in MPD-CD that is not allowed in the other Conditional Districts. To be clear - Fiddlehead Corner is not proposing any kind of commercial use open to the general public. Any services provided at Fiddlehead Corner are for the exclusive use of residents. The project to be developed by H4D is an intentional community that incorporates music, dance, and the arts into the fabric of its culture - activities that promote socialization and combat isolation and loneliness experienced by many seniors. In addition to providing a variety of housing units, an activities center, and other amenities, H4D is committed to delivering services on the campus allowing residents to remain there throughout their lifespan despite the infirmities of aging. Reclassification from Agricultural Residential to MPD-CD is necessary in order to support the density and mix of housing and ancillary uses needed by the community and to ensure that its character will remain stable over time, yet can respond to changing economic and market conditions. H4D is proposing to create up to 150 residences, a community center, two Family Care Facilities designed for elder care, and various recreational amenities, including but not limited to walking trails, pickleball courts, a swimming pool, and a wood shop. Roadways, commons areas, landscaping, a community well and water distribution system, and a community wastewater treatment system would be constructed, financed and maintained by the community, with professional operators managing these systems. Open-space design would be accomplished by concentrating residential development in compact clusters, thus preserving a large percentage of undisturbed common forested area for enjoyment by all community members. The view of the property from most properties and adjacent roads will be that of a forested rural property. The project was conceived by the Triangle Traditional Music and Dance Retirement Society (TTMADRS, or 2T). 2T is a 501(c)(3) organization formed in 2014 to pursue the idea of an intentional community with the arts as its organizing principle. In 2018, the grassroots organization, 2T, contracted with the national consulting group Action Pact to facilitate a series of focus groups among 2T members to determine the desired characteristics of the community. Action Pact concluded the consultation by producing an Integrated Business Plan (IBP) incorporating those features, complete with schematic drawings and a proforma. A search for land on which to develop the community culminated in locating the subject property. Once the site had been brought under contract, the 2T Board engaged Scott Radway, a land designer with vast experience in the Research Triangle area, to coordinate the project. A 2T Design Team guided by Mr. Radway and drawing upon the Action Pact IBP drafted a set of design specifications. John Felton and Glen Deal of Cline Design in Raleigh were engaged to translate the specifications into a concept design for a Master Plan that is a central part of the application package. Their design achieves the goal of a compact development footprint for the residential areas and facilities, while preserving over half of this land as undisturbed space for the common enjoyment of the community residents and embodying the H4D vision for conservation of the rural character of the property. H4D Narrative, Pg 3 17 Consultants on this project cover the range required for a major development such as this one. Agri-Waste Technologies surveyed the property soils, streams and wetlands, and developed a proposed wastewater system design. McConnell & Associates created a plan for the community well and water distribution. Groundwater Management Associates and GeoSolutions evaluated potential well sites based on hydrogeological characteristics. The Nau Company developed the civil engineering components, including roads and stormwater management. Ramey Kemp Associates conducted traffic studies and analysis. Robinson Plante conducted the land survey. Meanwhile, H4D was formed as a cooperative association pursuant to NC G.S. Chapter 54, subchapter IV, to serve as the business entity for the project. Cooperative housing is an organizational model that has grown rapidly in recent years in states like Minnesota and Wisconsin and served as an inspiration for H4D. Co-op housing provides increasing numbers of families of modest means - the missing middle, especially seniors - with affordable independent living options. However, H4D may or may not operate as a housing cooperative for the entirety of the community. That is yet to be determined, depending on decisions of the co-op members in their democratic process. H4D will initially function as the land owner and developer, then serve as an umbrella owners' association similar to the role played by such associations in planned communities. In such a role, it will develop and enforce covenants prescribing standards of construction, maintenance and operation across the entire community. It will own and operate the common facilities. Surveys of 2T members were done to elicit preferences for housing types and features. An early decision influenced by the emphasis on senior living was that all residences should be built to universal design standards to make them accessible to people regardless of age, disability or other factors. A related aspect is that of single level living, with possible consideration of multilevel dwellings to accommodate visiting family or storage areas. The survey results showed a strong preference for relatively small residences averaging 1,250 sf with 1,800 sf being a possible upper limit and others being as small as 600 sf. Multiple types of housing were included in the design specifications according to the desires of prospective residents. Three multifamily buildings would have 60 dwelling units. There would be 41 units in duplex/triplex buildings. Single family residences would make up the remaining 49 units. Implementing a plan with three different types of dwellings was challenging in regard to many details, such as access, parking, open space, and proximity to the community commons, but the Master Plan Concept Design accomplished the desired diversity. The resulting design will provide broad appeal that will facilitate individual decisions about living in the community. All residences will use an ownership model. No rental properties are planned. As previously mentioned, universal design standards will be mandatory. The multifamily buildings are three-story flats with 20 units per building. The units will range from studios to two bedroom dwellings, providing a variety of sizes to accommodate diverse numbers of occupants per unit, needs and budgets. Three such buildings are planned for final H4D Narrative, Pg 4 18 buildout. Each building will include an elevator. The flats may be organized as housing cooperatives or as condominiums. Most of the detached and semi-detached housing will be organized into clusters with a homeowners' association (HOA) to manage common areas, sometimes referred to as "pocket neighborhoods". The organizing principle of pocket neighborhoods is that of a common central greenspace. The front entrance of residences open onto the greenspace, where walking paths lead to the community commons and connect between clusters. The rear entrance of the unit opens onto a private patio and a detached garage. The front entrance of the few houses on the periphery opens toward the street and those houses have their garage in front. A system of streets provides car access to garages and also provides locations for recycling and trash containers that can be accessed by pickup services. The amenities aspect of H4D includes a multi-use community center as its main component. This building of approximately 10,000 square feet will have a central hall for gatherings and events, such as dances, concerts, banquets, and exercise. Although its primary use would be internal to the community, occasional events for which residents would invite friends and family could be accommodated. The building would have rooms for a library, classes, crafts, spiritual practices, and healthcare visits. Activity offerings will include dance, music, yoga, Tai Chi, expressive and visual arts, social games, and activities driven by the skills and needs of the residents. A commercial kitchen for preparing community meals is anticipated, which could possibly evolve to a cafe for community residents over time. Other prominent amenities are geared to relaxation, exercise and entertainment. A physical activity facility will include a workout room, a lap pool and a bathing pool. An open field with a stage can support sports activity such as Frisbee throwing, be a place for lounging in the sun, or serve as an amphitheater for outdoor performances. Pickleball courts adjacent to the open field will provide a place to play this popular sport. A community garden will provide opportunities for growing ornamental and edible plants. A woodworking shop will cater to creative members working in this medium. A loop road running roughly parallel to the internal boundary separating H4D land from the adjacent property of Thomas Cheek will have its main entrance on Morrow Mill Road and a secondary entrance on Gold Mine Loop. Vehicular access to the community will be via the Morrow Mill Road entrance. The section of the loop road entering from Gold Mine Loop will be designated as a private road serving as an access for driveways from lots on the adjacent Cheek property and additionally as an emergency access from the community. The loop road will be constructed to NC DOT standards, but it will be a private road maintained by the community. The street system will allow vehicles access to the interior of the community. Autos will park in garages where available. Separate parking places will be provided for residences that have no garages. Emergency vehicles will also be able to get to any residence or facility by way of the streets, which will be designed to handle the width and weight requirements posed by H4D Narrative, Pg 5 19 those vehicles. Sufficient parking spaces are designated on the Master Plan to provide the capacity for guests to attend events on campus. Stormwater accommodation has been analyzed according to topography and impervious surface area. Locations of ponds to hold runoff from major precipitation events have been identified and sized. One major and two minor stream corridors are present on the property, running approximately northwest to southeast. Required stream buffers were designated on the Master Plan for exclusion of any structures or other prohibited uses in these areas. No wetlands are present on the property. The property is not located in a flood plain. H4D will build and operate a community water system to supply all the residences, common buildings and other needs of the community. Because no municipal water source is available, community wells will be the water source. The hydrogeological consultants discovered the presence of diabase dikes on the property. In their experience, diabase dikes are highly associated with wells yielding 40 gpm or more at depths of 200-400 feet. A US Geological Survey study of Orange County well yields revealed average well yields in this part of the county to be 50-75 gpm, adequate for anticipated demand. The wells will be under the jurisdiction of the Division of Water Resources, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Three well sites in locations designated by the hydrogeologists with the setbacks specified by NC DEQ regulations have excellent prospects for the required yields. Two wells are planned, with a third site in reserve should more capacity be needed. There will be a central plant for water tanks and pumps, with a distribution network of mains and branches to supply housing clusters and common buildings. A commercial operator will be contracted to manage the system. H4D will build and operate a community wastewater system to service all the residence and common buildings of the community. This system will consist of STEP (septic tank effluent pressurized) tanks, a central secondary treatment plant and subsurface effluent discharge areas. STEP tanks allow settling of solid matter, with dilute discharge liquid that can be conveyed through small-diameter mains under pressure to follow topography rather than rely on gravity. Secondary treatment with circulation over a textile medium efficiently creates a highly purified odorless effluent. Subsurface discharge is a technique using small-diameter tubing that can be implemented in forested areas with only the removal of brush and scrub. Areas sufficient for the anticipated discharge have been reserved for that purpose in the Master Plan. Soils in those areas were evaluated and found to have sufficient long-term acceptance rates to support the expected effluent rates. A commercial operator will be contracted to manage the system. Life and safety planning and design for the community have been discussed with the Orange County Department of Emergency Services. Buildings that will require sprinklers for fire suppression have been identified, and provision for sufficient water supply is incorporated into H4D Narrative, Pg 6 20 water system planning. The primary fire company (White Cross) and secondary companies (Carrboro and Hillsborough) have been identified. Water for fire fighting will be brought onsite in tanker fire trucks filled from area ponds that have been designated and equipped for such use. Internal roads are being designed with accommodation for required widths, maneuvering room, weight capacity, fire lanes, and setup for aerial service as needed. The social and health care components of H41D are fundamental to the mission of the community. However, the precise implementation of these functions has been under continuing discussion and revision, due to the host of issues surrounding licensure, reimbursement, management, space, staffing and so on. At the time of this application, H4D is working with experts in the field of care provision to find solutions that meet the community's needs and at the same time are practical. The current model under consideration consists of a continuum of care, from volunteer care teams, to onsite care facilities, to partnerships with area healthcare systems. The first of these starts with organizing and providing volunteer care among friends who provide informal support addressing social and physical needs, as 2T members have been doing for 15 years. Organizational tools to support this work include online sites (e.g., Caring Bridge, Lotsa Helping Hands). Examples of care team tasks include providing rides to appointments, meals, grocery pick-up, visits, social outings, and assistance during restricted mobility. Orange County senior resources will be considered and used based on need. The next level of care - and the one specifically related to this application - is provision for up to two onsite "eldercare" facilities. One could be for members who have developed physical impairments that prevent independent living and necessitate assistance with activities of daily living. The other could be for those who have developed cognitive impairment and must be supervised for their protection. The facilities would be licensed Family Care Facilities that can qualify for coverage by long-term care insurance payors. They would provide social care for community members in situations that would otherwise result in transfer offsite. We are working with experts to create specifications for these facilities that harmonize with the applicable county and state rules and regulations. We are aware that current provisions of the UDO do not allow for Family Care Facilities, as defined in the UDO, in MPD-CD. Accordingly, we will design and build the buildings intended for this purpose to the specifications for Family Care Facilities but may put them into service as conventional multifamily residences. We have submitted a formal application for a LIDO text amendment to permit licensed Family Care Facilities in MPD-CD. For the final level of care, healthcare services, we anticipate developing partnerships with area healthcare systems and providers for more extensive healthcare options. These options include on-site physical and mental health care, telehealth services, home hospital (hospital-at-home), and hospice/death doula services. Providing space in our community for visiting healthcare providers on an interval basis (i.e., weekly, monthly basis) can be an effective and cost saving strategy for delivery of healthcare services. H4D Narrative, Pg 7 21 Hands Four Development Cooperative aeti�ead" PO Box 1201 Carrboro, NC 27510 r HandsFourDevelopment@gmail.com Hands Four Development Cooperative - The Journey March 20, 2024 This development is being undertaken by the Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D) with the cooperation of neighbor Thomas Cheek. The H4D land consists of 90 acres purchased by H4D from Mr. Cheek, and he has retained 35 of the original 125 acres of farmland for his use. This farmland was purchased by Tom Cheek's family in 1957, when he was six years old. The Cheek family lived on and farmed the land into the 1980s. After farming activities ceased, forest regenerated naturally in the formerly cultivated fields and pastures over gently rolling hills, punctuated by one major and two lesser stream corridors cutting across from west to east. Tom inherited the property, and in 2006, he had it selectively logged for timber (pine). Since 2010, about 4 acres have been cultivated as a muscadine vineyard. Tom Cheek had long desired to make a substantial portion of the land available for development. He wanted a developer that would share his respect for the beauty and rural character of the land and would agree to develop it in a way that would preserve those virtues to the greatest extent possible. In H4D, Mr. Cheek found the organization that would fulfill that vision. An agreement was reached to sell 90 acres to H4D on which to locate the future Fiddlehead Corner. The sale closed on August 16, 2023. The story of H4D began with the grassroots nonprofit organization called the Triangle Traditional Music and Dance Retirement Society (2T). In 2014, 2T was incorporated by friends who knew each other through instrumental and vocal jam sessions and house concerts, contra dancing to live music, English country dancing, square dancing, clogging and international folk dance. Many have known one another and lived in the Piedmont area for decades. They share a deep respect and concern for civil society and the environment, and many work for social justice and sustainability. There is a strong sense of the value of sustainable living choices and appreciation for nature's bounty. 2T educated the community about various aspects of aging, such as Medicare and how to set up a health care power of attorney and a living will. They soon found themselves having serious discussions about the reality and ramifications of aging. Led by three forward-thinking 2T members, they jokingly talked of waltzing right up to the end of life in the company of their dearest friends. They hatched an audacious, optimistic plan to create a community that 22 welcomes all, supports the joyful engagement in the arts, music, dance and nature, and focuses on the reality of aging and eventual failing health. 2T was determined to find creative solutions to maximize quality of life right up to the end of life. In 2018, 2T members donated substantial money to fund focus groups of about 50 2T members, facilitated by Action Pact (a full-service senior living development company) to establish parameters for the community's development. This work culminated in an Integrated Business Plan that continues to be useful. While 2T initially set out with the goal of creating a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC), they soon realized that a CCRC was not a viable structure for a variety of reasons. They decided to focus on essential elements of the CCRC model that were achievable. The residential element would consist of a variety of appropriately-sized residences ranging from individual homes to multi-family units, with the flexibility to move among them as circumstances changed. The care element would consist of a "continuum of care" for support as physical and mental capacities waned, including an on-campus Family Care Facility. The social element would consist of facilities and programs to promote an active, socially supportive lifestyle, including a community gathering place for participatory dance, music, and theater as an essential feature of community life. A major challenge was finding suitable land within the desired area. Scores of prospective properties were considered without finding a suitable parcel. It was a momentous day when 2T learned that the Cheek property was available. This land is relatively close to urban amenities and can be developed while preserving many of its natural features. The Hands Four Development Cooperative was established in February of 2023 to purchase the Cheek property on which this multigenerational residential community would be created. Co-ops spread the development costs over a substantial number of individuals, while subsequently allowing the added value gains from entitlements and development to benefit those members. 2T members who purchase a core share in H4D will have a vote on major decisions made by the cooperative. The development itself, Fiddlehead Corner, will be an inclusive, socially vibrant arts village that incorporates supportive care as people age in place. The community will be organized around music, arts, dance and nature. A community center will house a dance floor, small gathering venues, creative arts opportunities and communal dining space. Other amenities include a fitness center, accessible gardens, walking trails, and preserved green spaces. The development will consist of up to 150 modestly-sized dwelling units, including individual homes, semi-attached homes, and multi-family buildings, all adhering to H4D universal design principles. The community intends to generate a continuum of care that includes neighbors helping neighbors along with innovative wellness and healthcare approaches that prioritize helping people stay in their own homes as long as possible. We intend to build two licensed Family Care Facilities. One is planned for the first phase of development with an The Journey, Pg 2 23 option to build an additional home as the community grows. For more information, please visit 2T's website (www.2TNC.org) and H4D's website, which is under development (www.fidd lehead.coop). Mr. Cheek's retained 35 acres include the vineyard and the existing house on the corner of Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop. A maximum of five additional homesites will be developed, which will be built over time and be provided with conventional individual wells and septic systems. Mr. Cheek can choose to sell his remaining land to his children, but any other sale of Mr. Cheek's retained 35 acres is subject to a 25-year, contractual agreement with H4D for right of first refusal for purchase of part or all of the property. H4D and Tom Cheek are committed to cooperation for the mutual benefit of both parties. It is our common goal to build a community based on principles of sustainability and conservation while preserving as much of this forested land as possible. The Journey, Pg 3 24 JI, �iddCehead Hands Four Development Cooperative Corner PO Box 1201 Carrboro, NC 27510 HandsFourDevelopment@gmall.com Fiddlehead Corner MPD-CD Preliminary I Conceptual Applicant Proposed Development Conditions December 17, 2024 FIDDLEHEAD CORNER— PROPOSED MPD-CD CONDITIONS A] Fiddlehead Corner will be an Age 55+ Senior Housing Community Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D) & Fiddlehead Corner will comply with and meet or exceed all Federal, State, and Local Standards regulating this type of age restricted residential community. B] Land Uses will be limited to Residential & Residential Accessory/Support Uses 1. Primary Use — Residential buildings including: ■ Single Family ■ Duplex— (Two Dwelling Units Attached Side by Side) • Townhomes (3 to 4 Dwelling Units Attached Side by Side) ■ Flats — Multi-Family Buildings — 3 Floor Maximum Sprinkled Buildings • Studio, 1 BR, & 2BR Dwelling Units 2. Family Care Facility— H4D will contract with an NC State Licensed Provider to operate FCF homes developed by H4D. 3. Recreation, Fitness & Personal Health Uses —Customary and Routine in Residential Developments and as permitted by the UDO including but not limited to: ■ Fiddlehead Neighborhood Commons Building providing full kitchen, meeting rooms, gathering rooms for collective meals for residents and guests, fitness/exercise rooms/equipment, office space for remote and in person medical therapy including vaccination clinics, etc. [Phase 1] • Gathering space within the Fiddlehead Neighborhood Commons Building & outdoor active common open space for music and dancing. ■ Health & Fitness Center including exercise pool and fitness equipment. [Phase 2-3] ■ Pickleball & similar hard surface court activities ■ Open field areas for informal activities such as badminton, frisbee, playing catch, bocce, croquet, and other field games. ■ Walking, hiking and biking trails, including such trails in Common Open Space & Stream Buffers as permitted by the UDO at the time of Orange County BOCC Zoning Approval. 25 Fiddlehead Corner MPD-CD I Proposed Development Conditions December 17,2024 Page 2 of 5 C] Residential Dwelling Unit Maximums 1. Dwelling Units— Not to exceed 150 Dwelling Units 2. Maximum Number of Bedrooms— 300 bedrooms 3. Two (2) Family Care Facilities [Maximum 6 persons occupancy per Family Care Facility) D] Accessory Uses & Buildings as Permitted by the UDO for Residential Developments Including but not limited to: ■ Fiddlehead Neighborhood Commons Building with kitchen and open gathering spaces for residents of Fiddlehead Corner and invited guests/friends/family. This building may hold other uses in rooms that provide meeting and gathering spaces for small groups as well as aerobics and other group fitness activities. ■ Small buildings for use by residents for woodworking, photography, music practice, etc. ■ Fitness Center including pool & exercise equipment ■ Mail and/or other delivery service kiosks or small buildings strategically placed. ■ Vehicle washing facilities ■ Storage & Buildings for Building and Grounds maintenance facilities. ■ Parking for Recreational Vehicles and other oversized vehicles. ■ Bus Shelters for Future Bus System Service E] Parking per UDO §6.9, Table 6.9.7 of the LIDO in effect at the time of the Orange County BOCC zoning approval. ■ Between 275—425 off street parking spaces as defined in UDO §6.9 and Table 6.7 F] Fiddlehead Drive 1. Primary Access shall be from Morrow Mill Road, classified a minor collector street by NCDOT. 2. Secondary Access from Gold Mine Loop Road will be provided and in service prior to an occupancy permit for the 101St dwelling unit. ZAA Dev Conditions Statement 2024-12-17 26 Fiddlehead Corner MPD-CD I Proposed Development Conditions December 17,2024 Page 3 of 5 G] Perimeter Land Use Buffers— Based Upon MPD-CD Requirements and §6.8.61) and §6.8.6F at the time of the Orange County BOCC zoning approval. The Land Use Buffers shown on the Fiddlehead Master Plan and included in the table below are identical and shall be provided. Adjacent Property Fiddlehead Corner Land Use Buffer Location PIN Number Proposed Buffer Type &Width Morrow Mill Rd - 75' Width I Type E Gold Mine Loop Rd. - 100' Width I Type F Southern Boundary 9739-60-5697 100' Width I Type E Eastern Boundary 9739-80-9776 75' Width I Type F Eastern Boundary 9739-72-5988 75' Width Type E Eastern Boundary 9739-81-3741 75' Width Type E Northern Boundary 9739-73-1940 75' Width Type E Northern Boundary 9739-63-7908 75' Width Type E Northern Boundary 9739-63-1886 75' Width Type E ZAA Dev Conditions Statement 2024-12-17 27 Fiddlehead Corner MPD-CD I Proposed Development Conditions December 17,2024 Page 4 of 5 H] Common Open Space: Not less than 60% of the entire development will be Common Open Space per definitions in UDO Article 10' in effect at the time of the Orange County BOCC zoning approval. Fiddlehead Corner Common Open Space on Submitted Master Plan Acres2 Type of Open Space Description 22.25 Primary Open Space Stream Buffers, 25% & Greater Sloped Land, Critical Root Protection Zone for trees at edge of buffers. 14.99 Primary Open Space All Perimeter Land Use Buffers + Critical Root Protection Zone for trees at edge of buffers. 6.32 Secondary Open Space .35 Active Open Space 4.27 Passive Open Space 9.28 Utility Open Space Existing Forested Property to house subsurface Wastewater Distribution 57.45 TOTAL COMMON 63.8 % Common Open Space OPEN SPACE Common Open Space-UDO§10 Definition Privately held land area set aside, dedicated, owned, and maintained for common use,access, and enjoyment of multiple owners.This type of open space is held within a defined lot or a defined easement area. It may be either restricted to the owners via homeowner'/property owners'association (HOA/POA), or open to others as specified by the association. Primary Open Space: These areas have sensitive environmental features and/or significant cultural resource areas, which may make them legally or practically unbuildable. These areas are reserved for passive uses(e.g.,forests, pastures, meadows)and low impact active uses(e.g.,trails, natural observation). Secondary Open Space: Secondary Open Space Areas have fewer restrictions with regard to location, allow more flexibility to improve overall open space design, and have more active uses (e.g., community gardens, playgrounds). Active Open Space:A subset or category of open space that defines the type and/or intensity of its use. Active areas are typically built areas and most often contain equipment and/or infrastructure.They are also frequently used by the residents. Examples include:trails, community gardens, and recreation fields, plays areas, pocket parks, and ball courts. Passive Open Space: A subset or category of open space that defines the type and/or intensity of its use. Passive areas are typically undisturbed, conserved areas that have little to no direct physical human interaction within that portion of the open space. Utility Open Space: A subset or category of open space that defines the type and/or intensity of its use. Utility areas are typically open but contain public and/or private utilities and services. Examples include utility lines or easements(e.g.,water,sewer,gas, power),septic drain fields, and repair areas.Additional recreation use of these areas is typically limited based on the type of utility requirements that are in place. 2 Acreage as measured on Final Site Construction Plans may vary, but in no case shall the total Common Open Space acreage be less than 60% of the total development. ZAA Dev Conditions Statement 2024-12-17 28 Fiddlehead Corner MPD-CD I Proposed Development Conditions December 17,2024 Page 5 of 5 11 Fiddlehead Corner shall comply with the 24% Maximum Impervious Surface Requirement of the Haw Protected Watershed in effect at the time of the Orange County BOCC zoning approval. • The Orange County UDO does not contain impervious surface maximum requirements for that watershed and has limited stormwater quality discharge standards. • The submitted Fiddlehead Corner Master Plan has an 18±% calculated impervious surface. J] Stormwater Management Fiddlehead Corner shall comply with the UDO Stormwater Management requirements of the Haw River Protected Watershed in effect at the time of the Orange County BOCC zoning approval. K] Wastewater Treatment System The design and installation of the Wastewater collection, treatment & subsurface distribution system shall be approved by the NC DEQ pursuant to NC Standards & Requirements. H4D will contract with a "System Operator" Licensed in the State of NC to operate & maintain the wastewater collection, treatment and sub-surface distribution L] Wells &Water Treatment System Wells shall be approved by the NC DEQ pursuant to NC Standards & Requirements. Two (2) wells are required before occupancy permits are issued by Orange County for more than 49 dwelling units. H4D will contract with a "System Operator" Licensed in the State of NC to operate & maintain the water collection, treatment and distribution system. ZAA Dev Conditions Statement 2024-12-17 29 FIDDLEHEAD CORNER VICINITY MAP MASTER PLAN DRAWINGS 9—T—EX NC HIGHWgy,54 ORANGE COUNTY, NC PSP DECEMBER 29,2023 LOTI REVISED MARCH 21,2024 4 THOMAS CHEEK �� O Loy 2 H4D PIM-7— APPLICANT 9 HANDS FOUR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE o PO BOX 1201 CARRBORO,NC 27510 PARENT PARCEL PIN:9739624313 FLU M CASE MA23-0004 ZONING CASE MA23-0005 —1—TAND-6-- 4 i' '664 McADAMS 'N 643 S,- 30 mwarV-7277 ��xSI aMG a.eR� Um m V11" ""`w m MOWRYMI'AMC R.90 j NC2 m° sr'se GC4 fra.'a�"" rwrw�r`e m 'm"s`e " u�ras m..s eAaumr n""'u� 'x'aL3 �♦♦` ,L y �� uwu .m r2 aaros eam � NO 5C.4EE d°,�eR„ /` Sn ryry r„Em�mm+arrowrsrmn aw mmm � ----------- `vawmr`¢sw�m»canaxmwrra iia ♦�a "'�� r., uii wJEmF3.aa.,mrxae �ew Lei'9`13`Y tza oyl5 1 Ft j 4 �ry rb 4 &250 A P- wv irvrvm�i0s+ice CRES '�V,' z (IAtiYUUIW NG V Ai.124 AC.IN R/W) III@V.I.IiiI lf�ll IM ACRES cw 1] {lNCLUA'NG 7.341 AC.im RIW) ani w�� s. I�..r v� �D t��vmm�u ure.vcrrm zl 7W wapfeiiy`�rI IF ? 9vv e,Ivi vm RtE� `I [N5 AEWAC veeeuFnr FGYN% �" s�l maFmr, un m+m ianwwc.v>a aerrm.rxer � � rr�u+.un. ,J�r ems- .nmrvery o aiwa+m a..mem wo mmiunws u uvea. cu Rmal --------- w,a,vunumw..s rvw ma e.v®aa a r�+c rc eco xme rms-°,ixrrtsxir wrxaa+ �.iro.+o..usr F.wsv+ih.ha+,. ----•_-- �.,xv rEn¢ '�"^ s.emw srvlu w+twnwc mwn[no . ma a w R4VFL�� .a a3.c xm V.I.—y Agrieulwrd District marva�.Il r Farm use 6+ ++"' I I urw_ y#;s' `'Y a'`G"" ✓ 'I mow*n�LL eeeNvr srisoivarcN ROBINSON LPLANTE P.C. All Adjoining Properties and properties across Gold Mine Loop Road and Morrow Mill Road are Zoned AR and Faced fur Residential p.rpuces..fess otherwise NOW i.Red __auzc GcrFovaaAr svrmr Fg a��o T9aNu149^9tliGTWk MNN!✓:nRAAt:f BARLEY M1E hS-aJl SNa2YED 91:'!YS 1w 3TAiE.NORM CAFALAW SGF:f'.1.4' cPAMry 8r:AY SV�GlF IN Zd£:AE GLA nE2 PA.N:9]38-0Y-AJI3 pffCNN k 31 --------__---- `vv � ------ 1--�- R 1 ---------1 0 P\BOUNDARY OFFSET I McADAMS i 100 R OPERTV -- r 1 I " ' i � rear •_____ }� - --- -.- ---.� r t •, JJ � I L -_ l) r 1/4 MILE RADIUS FROM NC54 AND MORROW MILL INTERSECTION444 I 61 It Z 2 � tisk` 1000'PROPERTY~1 -- mak. iy- BOUNDARY OFFSET CL0 32 Orange County MCI�Uf1MS c @ e e s O 0NMER1:31Wd05FouR OEVEt0-CO&PE1ATiVE~e �•Y�•• m�rvc coui�r•mnw....xn,r ~0�~a�Pmp MORESS 16 POW➢O+ VALUE M- OEED REF Pw W<1ib53 m p O ALE CITY—ELHII1 T. -0—DE ETAT So" Eco UESC,zbrvo—PrvPPE Y—M . 5 a z N u U � � O K Z � � O O � o w g w J .n [LS 33 m.E .: r s A � , _1 i yyy 1 _ t l f He r 1 � �- � 5 �4N I E e + � !f � i � 11 I ,�. m �. • A� A i�� w i � VINEYARD / Z I f'— /'� / I t Ar O- u�i 2s 5F � � ! I � I j I Q ✓~i 1 I 4 12AC2Y 1 op It I I .,.Q �� fir..., .�w �r i.._t �� n •�• I - o— i 34 GeBF,'GeB McADAMS Y � ! GeC H P-E°T 1 ` ! GeB 5y , ' f GeC ->/, -/ �' �� /i \ .>,� / GeB f 1� e� � GeB 1 I HrB 4ic / I / rC f 4 GeC I APPAOX 4,-179,4I55F APO1 ! I % GeB / HrB .x,F"ear. GeB L n tl.3 35 - FIDDLE—D—IR WD .F,ffx�. Rox�Fx - J__ -- _ _ a� r� T — i li McADAms I r 1 r l w��x:F xu i I I n�lixa JE �J POD Al i�,b �I POD A5 -Cli _ F� M - I I Nsill V \ i r , r ti a III1j �L�x ffxx.x�,. �,ax� ¢ i II // I I I f 7 I I L - I /I AV � v4"9 f�' ='1 i iVINEYARD �� 11� Q�/' { i,'.`, � I' v I i ❑ a 1 � f _ Y I \ I \\ 1 I I 4 � J 1 POD A3 IE64 ;, f 4 � Irypr �• < ❑ 0 0 0 - -------------- — — —_---- j— C2.a 36 - -{ _ - 0 N � •r -� T- i ' �,! � ^ e , 1 McAnanns —. — =� - � Fs -777 2 — -- r ---— 111 oxl� a Eno r1 �og EiR t 1 W L _.—_— I a�mxea�� .� �� _�� •w F� 1 — MENiekEnoFsw� �s�vert se t � � ma /` f� � �.4 FIOOIEHFA�C[IRNEH IlSFS IMH4C�) 5 �LL I I Jnr' II a I I S �o�iu,im`„ix ix. I j a z I — Axx 1 xmxrMs.,,ary VIN YAH ``I \ 1'� 1 I //nry`r II i sn„cars nxnsrrs 1rli i I r i r xa meaF snrvneaa sewEa ,m xnry rei. annx I I ✓ II - / r I _ - ry I -- CIG — �� 37 , i xm --- 1 uui`',If�f — �'� _ J= �---ice' i� � j— _ •••••., .____ `. ww w.h....,..xsw�..�•�..��....... - i -- .......... . 1 i � =stmz i 1 r� ,1 - -� �• � Z I z / i s f - /' �\ II I - �� - - mr f•� 4n- I\ .. J� / Flpp`s` -,�_ 11I , rnu tena[rnn�tt reg wrxo - \� � +� �—� L sanrrxmurxrurrrc usrurxr f fesFamwceo trnq=rwr 38 r ———— - --�r—� — MCADAMS ---- r 1.I I :•rr V�„„ .,�^! it T T , J�•z \ f r - -- f;- ! — _ _ ,.-n•i ar tel•' _ } •' .,w,o.., ,' ``. T f MFz Ip _ a ILL C1E L : y -/!•�` .r.o ixFn Rl'�/ 'n>RnMrxEm MC[5515m1fxi ` �xrtm mom tv. mxxr`rvr: ` �'%� '� �''/fl Fwn xF CA �. \ ` —1-- ♦ / � � 1 nr xraon m. D",: _ xr v+ b- \ ~� • 1664 k t / Ir i . 144, 2• 1' •i..,,, 1 I fi" Ili - w G32 39 -� - ----- - ---4 ', �, I �, �•;•-T:I 'T-TlII'•I�III III I- '� l �I I— _, I J LII —ILII II- L --I- ACTIVE McADAMS i \y _ \�— _/ —___— — .• FlEcREATIO HEALTH I -. - SHADING DENOTES ADA FC E F ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKfROUTE r w 1 • PARKING SPACE � U 6 . — PEDESTRIANS J ITVP PATH ITTP - RIM SHADING DENOTES5(#s _ I •• • •• PA ADA0.DA ACCESSIBLE �E I ACCF5SHADSIO DENQTRO UTA •• PEO —111 ' I _ FCF soewauc/RouTE °a sHAOINcoENDTEsnoA •'••• I _ � t 1- /�--- � vro FCF / MF 1 L MF C�• // 4ti -/� ` 1V A _ --- — —26 0. I 1 � � I I s slDEwa� I 26 Y I I 260 - /ppRNE - - - _ -- ` � Z ;MF i ._-260' — � 5 SIDEWALK SHADING DEN OTES ADA III / zO.0 PAVEMENT WIDTH Q \ — ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALK/ROUTE O Q I� V o / o G S ❑ LN / SD.B'PERMANENTACCESS EASEMENT t= ' \ w SHADING DENOTES ADA \ LL _ ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKIROUTE �n04R�VE—"— .'e.N CAfRa`i'; '664 ix...rw+xr.e savn.x mrz r �,�SF't ouxu n mox ms n "" ',p jNP�- ixrvuxaa.s vxo.mix nnummro�ux[ '__ 7 x+.innm` sreum euGEe iaa uE L_------- rN,i'.ncnrt A.w��' Ao w.xu.xow _ ______._ ""`•^•"'•• ui l miuexw.i.s ivaeeri'vnu.rs�xui�..•.•.•• mawvxxxrn �=i_i�yl� - eio Fl C3.3 40 McADAms � y -------------- _ � •err_ ._- _ _ - i _"'. .,�� '1 � � rt A�;i i .aa POD POD A5 I ' e Illy e 4 �' ��: �>anr.x.Vx.��rG: II i �,.,.� w wo � '✓•^...-..�„ i � � ._ . _ hi Y.N '4Yli 1 I I fl I F-1 I - - f �2 Z F'S 1 / ROD A4 o ISI `� 1 i 1. � A VINEYARD / � O� I W w PPRox. I AREAvm - v, s sr 612AC 1 . 4 �'� W I \ Ir � 112Z,, I Q .,. rr j R„RAR i I I \\ L c '% a rue aorruers �r IEE _ POD A3 :.I--------------- �' J f ❑ �� _--- J -_ -'"' von�svrn o,00 on — C3.4 41 ` McADnms [ L 1__ WMILL ROuo r IsR izsel _�} c s 9 Q Z � � z Z 1 ——— ith _.._.._.,..... - Z s _ .__ - ° Entry Sign LL ��Ennvi�x m�.e.. e0 r _ ----------------- - � J -----" —__�__ GOLD MINE LOOP(SR 1957♦ - -- — - _ - 15:4 :+ Bdlard Fixture 1R'Tall Pd.Rl—.dFl— FIDDLEHEADCORNER Lc�xo Project Entry$ign and Site Lighting-W- 4k,LvlIne turthe Hand,FourC wlep—Cooperatim-d Thomas Chmk 1Me wNe v[ R. C3.5 42 KEY " A-COMMUNITY CENTER _ B-FITNESS CENTER C-FAMILY CARE HOMES#1 AND#2 D-MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING(20 UNITS,3 STORY AND 30 ___ �; •• I' PARKS/BUILDING) - —" - E-FRONT LOADED DETACHED HOMES(2 PARKS ON r' EACH LOT) F-REAR LOADED COTTAGES(2 PARKS ON EACH LOT) G-REAR LOADED DUPLEX AND TRIPLEX(2 PARKS ON 8 EACH LOT) H-SMALL REAR LOADED DUPLEX AND TRIPLEX(2 F _ PARKS PER DWELLING ADJACENT IN STREET) J-SMALL DUPLEX AT WALK-OUT CONDITION(2 PARKS - - PER DWELLING ADJACENT IN STREET) i K-EXISTING HOME SITE L-APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF FUTURE HOME SITES M-EXISTING VINEYARD i e 8 s 1-COMMUNITY COMMONS 2 A D D 2-ENTRY LANDSCAPE FEATURE 3-CAR AND CART DROPOFF 4 4-GUEST AND RESIDENT PARKING 5-NEIGHBORHOOD COMMONS 6-EMERGENCY VEHICLE CONNECTION 7-RESIDENT PARKING 8-COMMUNITY TREE HOUSE 9-PAVILION AT MEADOW 10-PICKLEBALL COURTS 11-COMMUNITY GARDENS,GARDENING AND MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS 12-MANICURED PRESERVE rr 13-WELL SITE#1 ■`�• 14-WELL SITE#2 - 15-STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES 16-STREAM BUFFER(TYP) 17-WOOD SHOP AND WASTE WATER TREATMENT 18-RECYCLING CENTER AND RV STORAGE 19-PRIMARY DRIP AREA 20-CONNECTION TO GOLD MINE LOOP y 21-100'NATURAL BUFFER 22-75`NATURAL BUFFER(EAST AND NORTH BOUNDARY) 23-PRIMARY ENTRY FROM MORROW MILL ROAD 24-PERVIOUS PATHS AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 25-REPAIR DRIP WASTEWATER AREAS _ r FIDDLEHEAD CORNER 3•19.2024 Illustrative Master Plan Concept 0&1 0 100 200 400' V for the Hands Four Development Cooperative SCALE: 1 Inch=100 Feet NORTH 43 KEY A-COMMUNITY CENTER B-FITNESS CENTER C-FAMILY CARE HOMES#1 AND#2 e - D-MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING(20 UNITS,3 STORY AND 30 a 22 ---- PARKS/BUILDING) E-FRONT LOADED DETACHED HOMES(2 PARKS ON EACH LOT) F-REAR LOADED COTTAGES(2 PARKS ON EACH LOT) G-REAR LOADED DUPLEX AND TRIPLEX(2 PARKS ON _ EACH LOT) H-SMALL REAR LOADED DUPLEX AND TRIPLEX(2 PARKS PER DWELLING ADJACENT IN STREET) J-SMALL DUPLEX AT WALK-OUT CONDITION(2 PARKS PER DWELLING ADJACENT IN STREET) K-EXISTING HOME SITE L-APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF FUTURE HOME SITES M-EXISTING VINEYARD 1-COMMUNITY COMMONS ;p 2-ENTRY LANDSCAPE FEATURE 3-CAR AND CART DROPOFF 'E 4-GUEST AND RESIDENT PARKING 5-NEIGHBORHOOD COMMONS 6-EMERGENCY VEHICLE CONNECTION 7-RESIDENT PARKING '' I 2•' r 8-COMMUNITY TREE HOUSE r I f 9-PAVILION AT MEADOW , 10-PICKLEBALL COURTS 11-COMMUNITY GARDENS,GARDENING AND MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS 12-MANICURED PRESERVE I 13-WELL SITE#1 �I 14-WELL SITE#2 L 15-STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES 16-STREAM BUFFER(TYP) -,✓ 17-WOOD SHOP AND WASTE WATER TREATMENT I 18-RECYCLING CENTER AND RV STORAGE 19-PRIMARY DRIP AREA 20-CONNECTION TO GOLD MINE LOOP L - -� 21-100'NATURAL BUFFER 22-75'NATURAL BUFFER(EAST AND NORTH BOUNDARY) 23-PRIMARY ENTRY FROM MORROW MILL ROAD 24-PERVIOUS PATHS AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 25-REPAIR DRIP WASTEWATER AREAS ,.0 MMUNITY CENTER,PART A OF ELDER CARE,ONE 20 UNITS STACKED FLAT BUILDING,30 TOWNS AND DETACHED UNITS.TOTAL+1-50 HOMES. WELL#1 AND 33%WASTE WATER FACILITY. •� MEADOW,COMMUNITY GARDENS,GARDEN AND MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS.35 TOWNS AND 0 DETACHED UNITS AND ONE 20 UNIT STACKED FLAT �• K L BUILDING.TOTAL-1-55 HOMES.LARGE SWC,WELL#2, AND SECOND 33%OF WASTE WATER FACILITY. `• • 0 ----. COMPLETELOOP ROAD. } I FITNESS CENTER,25 TOWNS AND DETACHED S UNITS PLUS ONE 20 UNIT STACKED FLAT BUILDING.45 TOTAL HOMES.COMPLETE STORMWATER FACILITY. FIDDLEHEAD CORNER 3.19.2024 nAakw. Illustrative Master Plan Concept - Phasing Plan MR te* for the Hands Four Development Cooperative SCALE:0 10011 cOh0=100Feet400 NORTH 44 MCADAMs 411 _ AjI � �\/ ��_� ✓fes '�� _ I- 1 ..� \�V1 �I g I , /t r cc 0_,.� ` } F rr �y -T.xII VINEYARD { d �' I I w W> APPR=AREA.I79,—SF J ` t , I I I ii I _ m o 45 P l ------- --- -------- - r-- _-------- 7/ t I i 2 F o, 77 46 I McAD MS /- - 0 3 ----- ;r ------ - - �\ T - i _ TTIT, - cl v< 1 1 / 47 \l J _ 11I MCAI?AMS ,s ��,n��—/fir_ P{"� �`�ct� f'•// I � \ ` — ��\ �.a x �Y/ � � j- J xwn � u, , r-- -----------------__- _ -- I I �- ❑ c I � IIF V I I I ❑ ❑ - ----------------- I o q � I y of - 48 „ McAnan2s 74 _ FC ol / F ��` �� \ TtE PNNTNG FEGFNO _��— ,1 rl f�� / ��_ `L�+}� —� '' � �. � SII "— -- -�••'�•.� �__ ` rcrxoorrarez -�A i � '•....... t,� TM "` _Fri � -- �e .• " �� i z m,,...,. r.rll� a , z i h\nx1�•' \� / / .�rr'r ��nrrwm.�>,r..:rs�rx�r � �x.r. P. cs.l 49 McADAMs y I i , .�e„. / � i,'• l \ � � til ..,.. � , afro �i C.T) _ _ �. -IT T'T — NIT Vi Vi T I a , i ,7i . cervi — Si 4 •• W�. zs �• _ • k e m. <KF -- � _... . .. ..m. W z q PR J 6P C � - I • LOT LL �� meq. -----�- �� i �_ �•- �' �� i � 1 � ,vP�Ano..aEs � IE6d � �I Al� iii L„„, •� 50 J .� — `•ice---� r I,i 1 T I� . - -� 1/ # ! 11_ MCA➢AMS ✓ %" � • --.._..- .----- --�-----' '�,� - � _.``�� .. • SII �� - - �> ••.•• N I,' r LIr s FF ' +� I f„` a_ 1 m�,I ttms , • I`. : If y* • �aF f • _ v f • a ; • �L..LJ ii e ob � i i' a ! _ _ - -- , o-. "� tiles � 1 � 2�• � � 1 \ Ir :- •; • • ••• ••• I iii• �� •n • ••• � •• 'I- • - • I j- ............ i I •. � � (` '� - / �- ---_ -,. l�//�� `i I E'L`I a I .4 _---- L— .-� • t Y I P e I I ` I .fes �C i -_ e f`� � �� • � 9 I I � I y � EW u� -� t - • P� !1 I. L:�PEwM.,.r.«s:EM.n J I I . y I, .xu �I• I I I I ;� � �� I ---- 1 X11 .,.�..� � ► II 5 . III .u,xnc�neuw5,i I 1 - I 1 I I • �� °1 • ' o 11 l` ` 1 •••.•.•• �� *"'�/I • i I a i o I 9� ”' ,.�•�' Pas sa.ox.weia e.rn a III ` f° , t � ! j M I I � o 1 VINEYAPD AP—X.4R2AC]9.4755F r/ C i ! I k Jj. J� I lett xo 51 -- —. �, _ , i � Jai �:nrs SrxEaM,E.,xxEs��o McAllwAls �..Tl f.� L J ,.— 7-- I '�`�.``�. _ f I w 1 '•wy f -- __ \ Ai I - � -fix o I I 7 I I , Al El O IIEd I 3 3 I I o I {1 11 Y � % y� I VINEYARC i O� 1 I1 I I � 1 n w SL � � I I ❑ F i 'r �t / � � Ste\ j �I � I I � • � -� k I IG6A� f`� \ I I 2 c�[run rrxv owo[iss , J' a� ' I` / \• I 4 -.^Y uti_ rrrux � ' I .os�• .. r ----------------- 52 ♦ i McADAMS --- ----- ♦�.,,.y/j f/��- .VI -— --- - - ------- � �xrnmm�v mom„� ® a - �,..e,� LT `�. I ••• J` �L. arc L� mox munxunew H.m�v .•. . LI i—� 4 i mr---- ———— — - - -- ` I _ .. ~ E' ~ iii .'r •.,_, � ,..•, "'�,., �. _ � � � z mP •.. I� a /, ,moi .� � 7I _ t. -_ __ •` \ 9nu�R I � - ..., p I �� xv xwrw,mrnammxm.x, � �:• _ .�o. Cal 53 --- ---- -- — --�—�� ! ! J 1 , —— McAn,, •• — ---- ! •x�u r.m:vun moz ;. .; ; - - r �// /- �_— ' —,I _ - _ _ � +� ik �\�\u,��,cwn;`I•• , ! � $6 �iB „x„sx nwx„a, no ocxnn,n rv�ECE—___ � I I r � •xem \� � //axu, /' � ••/ �' '. 1\� .m.Emo�ry � - <. ,�rvn.m,w�m � �'� L � d El- _1 - - o T mrrvx �� I - ..,. -k_4f_ a C3ti i I a z FBF `� - � rem,vr � 1 ` Tg • ..._-.... ...-_. � Ir w•f v 1 F rJ � � �• w rF / , H /./•' .�--- _l__` i__�� LFHGOpyoryf z ii, f '� 7 I f t T r m.x,e 1554 r EI 54 TYPICAL GRAN SLS RAIL DETAIL Ea id r��e� .x.M,�, � Qa c g 5 I ' "ETE SIDEA�-k 2-SHLD GRADE POINT GRID— :VARIES- ,VARIES, OkIGTNA .. 7IIT II4 � —E TO T— .E$96 M.NILI vA- LZ JI L CTED 59 SB—.Al 6"COMPACTED AGGREGATE EASE COURSE —— 12 _uu \-QEQTE—E SEPARATOR FABRIC 'S m,Tim COMPACTED EARTH -TV- TYPICAL SEUION#1-10'ASPHALT MULTI-USE PATH TYPICAL SECTION-6 FT WIDE CONCRETE PATHWAY —TE.C— ..T TO SCALE DOLLARD VLTAIL 01.1 55 W McA�=Dn1INTs EntrySign Hoilard Fixture 15Tall Pole Mounted Fixture FIDDLEHEAD CORNER ckwo, Prnlact Entry Sign and Site Lighting Fixtures I n .0. to the Hands Four Development Cocperative and Thomas Cheek a w h - _ Q 2 O o V ❑ P Q ❑ _ f._'P "' h12 56 s y W _ it �;q-�„_ „>• �r,.,.,. 40" o_ r'1.,,raty.4TivlaeMtS .... /•' �+ as f>a.a�,,4t'A Tab 9aF k..:�"'_... y} • �� 'e;�r.M- qvi •. SSR Stl��1 �! rt..ru r.•. I �Brp�.�[+rF la�rr—..r OH rot - ,.r. Xt = " t .. ei mi xomnsarrmtx .. Al ='A'..'!P 1t•s and p p rlirh'acrns�Gold M1tine Lr„!p Nnad and M1inrra»4till Rmad 9Wu arc usrd t'or Nr-:.idonti al purpercrs unlrs.c othrrwisr M1ntnd'm Rl+d +ae �r�rrrt•�rr�s uSUCadHl mraN! Surf A!mr,� 57 Warehouse St-e; w ,ors„ e."s.. _ GC4 I �..we�a....rw .Q,. GC4 I ,e^s' a.ae..s•n r..0 n'¢"O1 _ SR.vxr. __.__._� +, . ... . NCz•° tw% �„ �., ""h4m�,o/2a ,fr.„ted ,..G L .o..w.M.. � SP.1938 BP Fd.B'.A” —/l�•• u�atl � dw(N .uv.ramyna e..-� hY1 SCs{,{ Y" ♦. ��/ ----------- oMZ-zme W,�io.asv sr ..� _ Its Ileal V9-n9taa FaYI FIMF (✓>KKLM.G 1.771 AC.W 944f33 4CP� '0L .I le eWC UD?W 7.341 AC.W+UM) — -— Ltiwa+wl[sar+l i�r - ■;�"g„� •�.r.��`ae�..'�".. xa.71W 12 aw PMC r I v SEP �d l 7 % r. •n rr 41e Yom•, wq rKaww `-"---- warn•w m.e,• .re m.t-w..m�uaa. r n r...asa"':.'�rwn.+� w...�'`40vC,m•r .oras.•w a..m• �. .an a�. AR I e n. a ec n m Voluntary Agricultural Distrid Farm Use • •�,�� +4.a«a,,, rammu rr'mu.w rr.� ...+,w+�sr.fi _ ROBINSON&PL9N7f, P.C. All Adjoining Properties and properties across Gold Mine Loop Road and Morrow Mill Road ,-,.,.,•. w m - 17�urs oetx wm are Zoned AR and used for Residential purposes unless otherwise Noted in Red "L" +errsx:.+s lmav nauiotr rtrlanawt.sear AM Oa�Cf�P�7 mx7r rewe7n,9Ano-eaa o iw aoe ssL awnwrw cows .a4.vwx soarer a rt:.-P-ar srma>zu m^es STai€ACYP7rs CNtlr4Ye k£PSf30' narwe 9=A[ v..r'�'" ZpL AR,LCs,et4 P1N.:01.19-A`—w]PJ 58 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR ZONING CASE MA23-0005 All that property known as and recorded as Tract 2, Exempt Subdivision Plat, Thomas E. Cheek Property for Triangle Traditional Music and Dance Retirement Society, August 10, 2023 at Orange County NC Register of Deeds in Plat Book 126 PG 130. Property also identified at Orange County Tax Parcel 9739720339 3-20-24 Legal Description FOR ZONING CASE MA23.docx 59 r Tiddlef.ead =r Corner Fiddlehead Corner -Traffic Impact Assessment Ramey Kemp Associates, a Traffic & Transportation Engineering Firm with many years of experience in the RTP was commissioned by Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D) to provide a Traffic Impact Assessment for the proposed Fiddlehead Corner development. [PIN # 9739-72-0339] The TIA parameters were developed in consultation with Orange County staff and NCDOT staff. The TIA examined the proposed development at full buildout of 150 dwelling units and all support activities. In addition, a first phase of development consisting of 49 dwelling units plus a community building, plus one eldercare facility [6 residents] and support infrastructure was studied. The TIA was "conservative" as requested by NCDOT and Orange County. Conservative applying in several ways to the analysis. • Trip Generation Rates: The Fiddlehead Corner community will have primarily one and two- bedroom residences and be home to smaller families; nevertheless, the ITE codes for larger single-family homes and households with adults going off-site for work and children attending school were utilized for traffic generation calculations. • Important Street Intersections: In the TIA, all traffic from Fiddlehead Corner development was routed through the proposed development entrance road intersection a Morrow Mill. Of that total, 95% of the traffic is expected to go east toward NC54. This process provided the heaviest traffic flow projections from Fiddlehead on Morrow Mill Road and at the intersection of Morrow Mill with NC54. • Emergency Services Requirements: Once Fiddlehead Corner reaches 100 dwelling units a second access is required. That connection will be at Fiddlehead Drive and Gold Mine Loop Road. Additionally, that entrance will provide access to three-four homes in POD 131, the Cheek property. The Ramey Kemp TIA, using NCDOT methodology shows that roadway improvements are not warranted at the NC54 - Morrow Mill Road intersection or at the Fiddlehead Corner primary entrance to Morrow Mill Road for the first phase. Improvements to these intersections are warranted at full buildout. We agree with these conclusions, particularly because we believe that traffic generated by our households will be measurably less in the AM Peak than the ITE use code for low rise multi-family dwelling units. The TIA by Ramey Kemp was submitted to both Orange County and NCDOT for review. Included in our MPD-CD application are comments from Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Director TIA Statement 2023.12.29.docx Page 1 of 2 60 r Tiddlehead =r Corner for Orange County and from Chuck Edwards Jr., NCDOT District Engineer. The TIA and comments are included in our submission materials along with the TIA. The applicant agrees with NCDOT and Orange County improvement requirements for the location and timing of the entrance to Fiddlehead Drive from Morrow Mill RD and with the timing of improvements at the intersection of NC 54 with Morrow Mill RD. Transportation: Walking & Bus Opportunities The compact form of the Fiddlehead community and the character of the development and preserved forest areas will provide many internal opportunities for social and fitness walking and bike riding. The applicant proposes to provide a bus stop and bus shelter meeting NCDOT standards, or an equally suitable alternative design, in the community center near the multifamily buildings and the community building that is easily accessible from the single family, duplex and triplex buildings. ADA standards will be observed throughout the development. Photos of Orange County bus equipment we expect to be used for dimensional design purposes in construction documents & plans (shown below) were provided to us by county staff. 1y � �Y I Y�- TIA Statement 2023.12.29.docx Page 2 of 2 61 a` w D F. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROY COOPER J.ERIC BOYETTE GOVERNOR SECRETARY September 25, 2023 ORANGE COUNTY Ty Parham, PE Ramey Kemp Associations 5808 Faringdon Place Raleigh,NC 27609 Subject: Proposed Fiddlehead Subdivision Development Located on SR 1958, Morrow Mill Road and SR 1957, Gold Mine Loop Review of Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Dear Mr. Parham, Per your request District staff, in collaboration with Orange County staff, have completed review of the TIA and preliminary site plan for the above subject. Based on the information provided, we offer the following comments. General• The proposed site consists of a residential subdivision to be completed in two (2)phases. Phase one (1) consists of 25 single-family dwelling units, 24 multi-family dwelling units and a 6-bed assisted living facility. Phase one is expected to be completed in 2027. Upon full build out in 2030, the site will consist of 90 single-family dwelling units, 60 multi- family dwelling units and a 20-bed assisted living facility and is expected to generate approximately 1278 daily trips. The site is proposed to be accessed by one full-movement driveway on Morrow Mill Road and one full-movement driveway on Gold Mine Loop, serving as emergency access-only. Required Improvements by the Applicant: As a condition of the pending NCDOT Driveway Permit,the Applicant will be required to construct the following road improvements to mitigate traffic impacts attributable to site traffic to ensure acceptable operation. Mailing Address: Telephone:(336)570-6833 Location: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax:(336)570-6873 115 EAST CRESCENT SQUARE DRIVE DIVISION 7,DISTRICT 1 Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 GRAHAM,NC 27253 PO BOX 766 GRAHAM,NC 27253-0766 Website:www.ncdot.gov 62 Phase 1: Morrow Mill Road and Site Access A: • Construct a stop controlled access with one ingress lane and one egress lane. • Provide a minimum internal protected stem of 100'. Gold Mine Loop Road and Site Access B: • Construct a stop controlled access with one ingress lane and one egress lane. • Provide appropriate controls to restrict access to emergency vehicles only. Phase 2: Morrow Mill Road and NC 54 • Construct an exclusive northbound right turn lane on Morrow Mill Road with a minimum of 150' of full storage and appropriate transitions per NCDOT requirements. Morrow Mill Road and Proposed Site Access • Construct a southbound left turn lane with 100 feet of storage and appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements on Morrow Mill Road. Multi-modal and Streetscave Enhancements: Any locally stipulated multi-modal enhancements including but not limited to sidewalk, bike lanes, bus pull offs, lighting, landscaping etc. on State maintained routes are subject to NCDOT requirements and approval through the encroachment process. General Requirements: It is necessary to obtain an approved driveway permit and/or encroachment agreement(s) prior to performing work on the NCDOT right of way. As a condition of the permit, the permitee shall be responsible for design and construction of the above stipulated improvements in accordance with NCDOT requirements. An approved permit will be issued upon receipt of the approved site plan,roadway plans, inspection fee, and any necessary performance and indemnity bonds. The applicant shall verify that the proposed street and driveway connections provide for adequate vertical and horizontal sight distances in accordance with NCDOT requirements. 63 The applicant shall dedicate any additional right of way necessary to accommodate the required road improvements or future improvements as stipulated. Intersection radii and geometry shall be designed to accommodate turning movements of the largest anticipated vehicle. All pavement markings shall be long life thermoplastic. Pavement markers shall be installed if they previously existed on the roadway. The permitee shall be responsible for the installation and relocation of any additional highway signs that may be necessary due to these improvements and shall comply with the requirements of the MUTCD. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, DocuSigned by: �. N dwArk fir., Pf C60BB6060RA458... C. N. Edwards Jr., PE District Engineer Cc: W.R. Archer, III, PE,Division Engineer Dawn McPherson, Division Traffic Engineer Orange County 64 ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ORAN,..� aE E TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT ri COUY MEMORANDUM TO: Garrett Honeycutt, Ramey Kemp Associates Chuck Edwards, NCDOT CC: Cy Stober, Planning Director Taylor Perschau, Current Planning Supervisor FROM: Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Director DATE: July 27, 2023 SUBJECT: Fiddlehead - TIA Review The following memo summarizes Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS) comments on the Fiddlehead — Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report. OCTS staff requests the following be addressed: Multimodal Recommendations: On October 18, 2022, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners adopted a County wide Vision Zero and Complete Street Policy (Attachment 1). Staff recommends TIA include bike, pedestrian and transit consideration. NC 54 is a multimodal corridor scheduled for approval by the Board of County Commissioners in September 2023. Any traffic mitigation strategies associated with NC 54 (e.g. NC 54 at Morrow Mill Road) for must accommodate bike, pedestrian and transit. Per previous discussion in June on Bus Shelter: • Install Bus Shelter per NCDOT approved vendor Highway Recommendations: NC 54 at Morrow Mill Road • No additional improvements recommended Morrow Mill Road at Site Access A • Install sidewalk on east side of Morrow Mill Road • Include ADA ramps and crosswalks Gold Mill Loop at Site Access B • Install sidewalk on north side of Gold Mill Loop • Include ADA ramps and crosswalks Thank you very much for the opportunity to review and provide comments. Please forward any questions, comments or concerns to Orange County Transportation Director Nishith Trivedi at ntrivedi orangecountync.gov. 65 RAMEY KEMP ASSOCIATES TOGETH'EP WE ARE LIMITLESS O p.r,. 1 • _ y Fiddlehead Traffic Impact Analysis Orange County, North Carolina [(AIIL rameykemp.com 66 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR FIDDLEHEAD LOCATED IN ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Prepared For: The Triangle Traditional Music and Dance Retirement Society PO Box 1601, 150 W Main Street Carrboro, NC 27510 Prepared By: Infrastructure Consulting Services,Inc. dba Ramey Kemp Associates 5808 Faringdon Place Raleigh, NC 27609 License #F-1489 JULY 2023 RKA Project No. 23058 Prepared By: GWH Reviewed By: TCP 67 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FIDDLEHEAD ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Development Overview A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted for the proposed Fiddlehead development in accordance with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) capacity analysis guidelines and the Orange County (County) Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The proposed development is to be located at 5428 Morrow Mill Road in Orange County, North Carolina. The proposed development is anticipated to be completed in two (2) phases: Phase 1 (Completed by 2027) • 13 dwelling units of single-family detached housing • 12 dwelling units of single-family attached housing • 24 dwelling units of multi-family housing (low-rise) • Assisted Living with 6 beds Full Build (Completed by 2030) • 40 dwelling units of single-family detached housing • 50 dwelling units of single-family attached housing • 60 dwelling units of multi-family housing (low-rise) • Assisted Living with 20 beds Site access is proposed via one full movement driveway along Morrow Mill Road approximately 475 feet northeast of Gold Mine Loop. There is another full movement driveway along Gold Mine Loop; however, this access will be restricted to emergency vehicles only. No site traffic will be allowed to enter/exit via this access. lca�'AIIL RAMEY KEMP ASSOCIATES TOGETHERWE ARE LIMITLESS 68 RAMEY KEMP ASSOCIATES Fiddlehead I E-2 2. Existing Traffic Conditions The study area for the TIA was determined through coordination with NCDOT and the County and consists of the following existing intersections: • NC 54 and Morrow Mill Road • Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop Existing peak hour traffic volumes were determined based on traffic counts conducted at the study intersections listed below, in April of 2023 by Burns Service, Inc. during typical weekday AM (7:00 AM - 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 PM - 6:00 PM) peak periods while schools were in session: • NC 54 and Morrow Mill Road • Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop Traffic volumes were balanced between study intersections,where appropriate. 3. Site Trip Generation Average weekday daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips for the proposed development were estimated using methodology contained within the ITE Trip Generation Manual, lith Edition. Tables E-1 and E-2 provide a summary of the trip generation potential for the site under phase 1 (2027) and full buildout (2030),respectively. 14CARAMEY KEMP ASSOCIATES TOGETHER WE ARE LIMITLESS 69 RAMEY KEMP ASSOCIATES Fiddlehead I E-3 Table E-1: Site Trip Generation - Phase 1 Weekday Weekday Land Use Daily AM Peak PM Peak (ITE Code) Intensity Traffic Hour Trips Hour Trips (vpd) v h (vph) Enter Exit Enter Exit Single Family Detached 13 D.U. 154 3 9 9 6 (210) Single Family Attached 12 D.U. 42 0 1 2 1 (215) Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) 24 D.U. 230 7 23 19 12 (220) Assisted Living 6 Beds 16 1 0 1 0 (254) Total Trips 442 11 33 31 19 Table E-2: Site Trip Generation - Full Build Weekday Weekday Land Use Daily AM Peak PM Peak (ITE Code) Intensity Traffic Hour Trips Hour Trips (vpd) v h (vph) Enter Exit Enter Exit Single Family Detached 40 D.U. 434 8 24 26 16 (210) Single Family Attached 50 D.U. 332 5 15 15 11 (215) Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) 60 D.U. 460 10 31 29 17 (220) Assisted Living 20 Beds 52 2 2 2 3 (254) Total Trips 1,278 25 72 72 47 4. Future Traffic Conditions Through coordination with the NCDOT and the County, it was determined that an annual growth rate of 1.5% would be used to generate 2027 and 2030 no-build weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Based on coordination with the NCDOT and the County, it was determined there were no adjacent developments to consider with this study. ARAMEY KEMP ASSOCIATES l%IC46' TOGETHER WE ARE LIMITLESS 70 RAMEY KEMP ASSOCIATES Fiddlehead I E-4 Based on coordination with the NCDOT and the County, it was determined there were no future roadway improvements to consider with this study. S. Capacity Analysis Summary The study analyzes traffic conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours for the following scenarios: • 2023 Existing Traffic Conditions • 2027 No-Build Traffic Conditions • 2027 Build Traffic Conditions • 2030 No-Build Traffic Conditions • 2030 Build Traffic Conditions 6. Recommendations Based on the findings of this study, specific geometric improvements have been identified and are recommended to accommodate future traffic conditions. See a more detailed description of the recommended improvements below. Refer to Figures E-1 and E-2 for an illustration of the recommended lane configuration for the proposed development under phase 1 (2027) and at full buildout (2030), respectively. Recommended Improvements by Developer - Phase 1 (2027) Morrow Mill Road and Site Access A • Construct Site Access A with one ingress and one egress lane (shared left-right). Recommended Improvements by Developer - Full Build (2030) NC 54 and Morrow Mill Road • Construct a northbound Morrow Mill Road right turn lane with 150 feet of storage and appropriate taper length. Morrow Mill Road and Site Access A • Construct a westbound Morrow Mill Road left turn lane with 50 feet of storage and appropriate taper length. ARAMEY KEMP ASSOCIATES 1%14C TOGETHER WE ARE LIMITLESS 71 E-5 7 54 1001,11 M -------------------� t Site I � --------------------A - -cess - Access A , SITE o 7-" 'p + v U Gold +4' Mine Loop �* LEGEND O Unsignalized Intersection — Existing Lane -o- Improvement by Developer 2027 Recommended X, Storage(In Feet) Fiddlehead Lane Configurations *Access B will be restricted to emergency 004 Orange County,7�7 1 V C vehicles only. a RAMFv KFMP ASSOCIATES Scale:Not to Scale Figure E-1 72 E-6 54 ioo,y f1 -------------------� �4 -------lte � Access A SITE o 'p v U r � Gold +4' -A� Mine Loop �* LEGEND O Unsignalized Intersection — Existing Lane -o- Improvement by Developer 2030 Recommended X, Storage(In Feet) Fiddlehead Lane Configurations *Access B will be restricted to emergen004 NC Orange County,1 V C vehicles only. Re,r,Fv KFMe assvrsarr_s Scale:Not to Scale Vigure E-2 Orange County 73 October 3, 2023 This map contains parcels prepared for the inventory of real property within Orange County,and is compiled from recorded deed, plats,and other public records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. PIN: 9739720339 The county and its mapping companies assume no legal responsibility for the information on this map. OWNER 1: HANDS FOUR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE 90.13 A BUILDING COUNT: 1:24,000 OWNER 2: DEED REF: 6824/1653 LAND VALUE: 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi ADDRESS 1: 4611 POWDER MILL RD RATECODE: 01 BLDG_VALUE: ADDRESS 2: TOWNSHIP BINGHAM USE VALUE: $0 0 0.325 0.65 1.3 km CITY: CHAPEL HILL BLDG SQFT: TOTAL VALUE: STATE, ZIP: NC 27514 YEAR BUILT: DATE SOLD: 8/16/2023 ORANGE COUWY LEGAL DESC: 2 THOMAS CHEEK PROPERTY P126/130 TAX STAMPS: 2254 NORTH CAROLINA 74 OBJECTID PIN OWNERI FIRST OWNERI LAST OWNER2 FIRST OWNER2 LAST ADDRESSI ADDRESS2 CITY STATE ZIPCODE 2447 9738596749 CHRISTOPHER J BRAND KIMBERLYA HARRINGTON 201 YELLOW BRICK RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2449 9738599976 KELLY J SANFORD 217 YELLOW BRICK RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2483 9738690676 KELLY JEAN SANFORD 217 YELLOW BRICK RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2484 9738699706 JAMES E MELLON CAROL K MELLON 6410 GOLD MINE LOOP CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2506 9738792929 JAMES E MELLON CAROL K MELLON 6410 GOLD MINE LOOP CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2529 9738892562 LINDAT MERKEL 80 OAKRIDGE LN CHAPEL HILL NC 275176310 2610 19739401156 HUNDRED ACRE FARM LLC PO BOX 12079 NAPLES FL 134101 2611 9739416346 KIRK M RIGHT FAYNELLE C RIGHT 6113 GOLD MINE LOOP CHAPEL HILL NC 127516 2612 9739423541 VICKI L PARTAIN 6010 MORROW MILL RD Chapel Hill NC 27516 2613 9739426074 CHARLES M TRUSTEE FOX CHERYL W TRUSTEE FOX 6001 GOLD MINE LOOP CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2614 9739429695 ERIKA WILSON FRANK GULLO 5920 MORROW MILL RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2615 9739429893 JAMES D GOSSETT 5904 MORROW MILL RD Chapel Hill NC 27516 2616 9739431600 PEGGY J TRUSTEE DODSON 6011 MORROW MILL RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2617 9739437103 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE MIRANDA CARPER 5915 MORROW MILL RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2618 9739438254 CHERYL C ATWATER TONIC BUCK 709 RESERVE ESTATES DR WAKE FOREST NC 27587 2619 9739439360 CHERYL C ATWATER TONIC BUCK 709 RESERVE ESTATES DR WAKE FOREST NC 27587 2621 9739449182 JERRY D COPELAND GLENDA COPELAND 4744 MCBANE MILL LN GRAHAM NC 27253 2624 9739500072 RACHEL WEBSTER JAMISON 6401 GOLD MINE LP CHAPEL HILL NC 275167434 2625 9739502701 BETSY W PIERCE GASTON YORK PIERCE 6311 GOLD MINE LOOP CHAPEL HILL NC 275167432 2626 9739511234 BRENDA W KIRBY 6121 GOLD MINE LOOP CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2627 9739511825 MORGAN F PEARCE TYLER W PEARCE 6065 GOLD MINE LOOP CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2628 9739530395 CHERYL C ATWATER TONIC BUCK 709 RESERVE ESTATES DR WAKE FOREST NC 27587 2629 9739532435 CHERYL C ATWATER TONIC BUCK 709 RESERVE ESTATES DR WAKE FOREST NC 27587 2630 9739534557 AARON L PAYNE CHELSEAJ PAYNE 5811 MORROW MILL RD CHAPEL HILL NC 127516 2631 9739536914 JAY PSM LLC 4908 NC HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2632 9739545649 JOHN WAYNE JR ETAL STROWD FOYEATRUSTEE CRAWFORD 4041 MT GILEAD CHURCH RD PITTSBORO NC 27312 2633 9739554446 JOSE DIONICIO GAMEZ LEON LUZ MARIA REYES TREJO 401 GIBBON DR CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2634 9739605697 GASTON Y PIERCE 6210 GOLD MINE LOOP CHAPEL HILL NC 275167432 2635 9739620415 THOMAS E CHEEK 5824 MORROW MILL RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2636 9739631886 MICHAEL R HATCHER ANNA MYRONOVA 5802 MORROW MILL ROAD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2637 9739637908 HEALTH CARE SYSTEM UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA 101 MANNING DR CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 2638 9739640154 RICKY CAMERON DEBRA M HUNTER 5706 MORROW MILL RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2639 9739640639 FOYE ATRUSTEE CRAWFORD 2132 CRESCENT DR GRAHAM NC 27253 2640 9739642095 DAVID W EUBANKS 4828 HIGHWAY 54 W CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2641 9739642114 ABEL MANCERA VELAZQUEZ MARIA PATINO JIMENEZ 5700 MORROW MILL RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2642 9739644014 ANGEL GARCIA SOTO JOYCE H JEFFRIES 4820 HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2643 9739645698 WEST 54 LLC 1098 BURNING TREE DR CHAPEL HILL NC 27517 2644 9739648427 NETHERFIELD HOLDINGS LLC 1986 MOUNT HOPE CHURCH RD MCLEANSVILLE NC 27301 2647 9739720339 HANDS FOUR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE 14611 POWDER MILL RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 2648 9739725988 DANNY C EDDLEMAN JEAN EDDLEMAN 3408 LAPIN LN CHAPEL HILL NC 275165916 2649 9739731940 HEALTH CARE SYSTEM UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA 101 MANNING DR CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 2650 9739733871 MILES R TEMPLE BRENDA R S TEMPLE 4704 WEST HWY 54 W CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2651 9739737951 RALPH M ETAL WARREN B W WARREN 3425 LABRADOR LN CHAPEL HILL NC 275165911 2652 9739740550 MARKA APPLE CYNTHIAF APPLE 4725 KIMBRO RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2654 9739742504 KLASSIC ELECTRICAL SERVICES INC 110 LYSTRA ESTATES DR CHAPEL HILL NC 27517 2655 9739744447 RAYMOND HENRY KIRBY 4703 HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2656 9739745891 RAYMOND HENRY KIRBY 4703 HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2657 9739746321 CHARLIE CURTIS ETAL DUNCAN LEON CARLYLE DUNCAN 104 MILL CREEK DR YOUNGSVILLE NC 27596 2658 9739746567 AUTHORITY ORANGE WATER AND SEWER 400 JONES FERRY RD CARRBORO NC 27510 2659 9739747238 LEON CARLYLE DUNCAN JESSI D CHAMPION 104 MILL CREEK DR YOUNGSVILLE NC 27596 2663 9739809776 JOHN S KIZER CAROLYN KIZER 4300 NC HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2664 9739813741 RALPH M WARREN BARBARA WARREN 3425 LABRADOR LN CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2665 9739820891 DANNY C EDDLEMAN JEAN M EDDLEMAN 3408 LAPIN LN CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2666 9739824441 PEGGY RUTH LUEHRSEN 19694 GRAPHITE MT RD HAGUE NY 12836 266112Z228281 AADRA PRASHANT BHATT 3407 LABRADOR LN CHAPEL HILL NC 275165911 2668 973983223913 ELAINE CAROL STEWART TRUST 13427 LAPIN LN Chapel Hill NC 27516 75 OBJECTID I PIN OWNERI FIRST OWNERI LAST OWNER2 FIRST OWNER2 LAST IADDRESS1 ADDRESS2 I CITY ISTATEIZIPCODE 2669 19739843759 JAUTHORITY I ORANGE WATER&SEWER 1 1 1400 JONES FERRY RD ICARRBORO INC 127510 76 Hands Four Development Cooperative W4iddri, PO Box 1201 Carrboro NC 27510 f tehead Corner HandsFourDevelopment@gmail.com Fiddlehead Corner -- Master Plan Development Description March 20, 2024 Fiddlehead Corner is proposed to be developed on 90 acres. As shown on the FIDDLEHEAD CORNER Illustrative Master Development Plan, the property has street frontage on and access to both Morrow Mill Rd. and Gold Mine Loop Rd. The FIDDLEHEAD CORNER MASTER PLAN Slope Analysis Plan [Civil Sheet C1.31 shows the overall gentle topography of the property. Sloped land of 15% or greater comprises less than 5% of the site and is associated with stream corridors and stream buffers. Less than 1-acre of the 90 acres has slopes greater than 25%. Fiddlehead Corner will be a small residential community of primarily senior-aged residents with associated support uses. These uses include a community center, fitness center with lap pool, outdoor courts for pickleball, walking trails, community garden plots, and other open field areas for community activity. The plan proposes a maximum of 150 dwelling units plus two Family Care Facilities, each having a six-resident maximum. The proposed residential and support development for Fiddlehead is located deeply into the property, not within view of neighbors or those traveling along Morrow Mill RD or Gold Mine Loop RD. Substantial wooded, natural buffers of existing trees along Morrow Mill RD, Gold Mine Loop RD and all adjoining properties are provided. Please see Fiddlehead Corner Existing Rural Character Exhibits for photography showing this forested character. Primary access for Fiddlehead will be from Morrow Mill RD - 1,200 feet south of the NC54 / Morrow Mill RD intersection. Two locations for roadway access for fire and life/safety emergency vehicle access are required because the development proposes to have more than 100 dwelling units. This second access is located on Gold Mine Loop RD. After discussions with NCDOT, it was determined that Fiddlehead Drive, the primary road, will be constructed to NCDOT vertical pavement, shoulder, and drainage standards but located in full or in part within a permanent private access easement for the entire development rather than being a public road. Such an arrangement makes it possible to have a horizontal design that reduces vehicular speeds and emphasizes pedestrian safety. The plan proposes that the southeastern portion of Fiddlehead Drive be a private street complying with Orange County standards to provide street access to the adjoining Cheek property. Wells (two) will provide the water supply for both potable water and emergency services water for fire suppression where needed. The wells and water treatment facilities will be permitted as required by NC DEQ. Wastewater treatment will be provided by a ground application system that collects and treats wastewater prior to underground distribution within existing forested areas. ZAA 09a CZ DevPlan Statement 2024-03-20(v2).docx Page 1 of 9 77 The FIDDLEHEAD CORNER MASTER PLAN LAND USE PODS exhibit[Civil Sheet C2.01 shows that Fiddlehead will be developed in five (5) PODS as described below. Perimeter Buffers (13.5 Acres) and Stream Buffers (17.1 Acres) are Primary Tree Protection Areas in this application and are not included in any POD calculations. The remainder of the site is considered Secondary Tree Protection Areas. POD Al (30± Acres) will contain all the proposed residential, community buildings, recreation areas, Family Care Facilities, well sites, and water treatment facilities. POD A2 contains the wastewater treatment facilities plus solid waste, recycling and composting collection facilities as well as remote storage for H4D service vehicles and oversized vehicles such as RVs. POD A3 will be used for underground wastewater distribution after treatment. POD A3 has soils that have sufficient absorption capacity to provide for both the primary area for the proposed 150 dwelling units, the Family Care Facilities, and the community buildings & uses and a repair area if ever needed. (Please see the more detailed descriptions of utilities for more information about each of these activities.) POD A4 & POD A5 are set aside as forested open space areas to be retained in their forested condition. Each of these PODS has soil capable of being used for wastewater distribution should they be needed for repair fields. Multi-use walking trails and paths will be located throughout all PODS and as permitted by Orange County regulations in the stream buffers. Stormwater Control Measures (SCM) facilities will be provided in three locations in POD Al and as shown on plans. There will be one location in POD A2. Fiddlehead Corner - Phasing Plan -The FIDDLEHEAD CORNER Illustrative Master Development Phasing Plan shows the primary phasing plan for the development of POD Al & POD A2. Phase 1 includes the construction of Fiddlehead Drive from Morrow Mill Rd. through POD Al to POD A2. It includes the first of the two community wells and treatment facilities and the wastewater treatment facility. It also includes the first installment of wastewater distribution lines in POD A3. Permitted POD Land Use Adjacencies are shown in the following tables and Table 1 shows the expected development of residential and support facilities by phase. During final plans and first phase of development there may be modifications to the types and quantity of dwelling units constructed to respond to market conditions. Fiddlehead Corner Energy Conservation & Electric Vehicle Considerations It is the intention of Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D) to create a community that by intentional design values livability, affordability, and sustainability. Livability will be enhanced by utilizing the principles of universal design in a compact, walkable ZAA 09a CZ DevPlan Statement 2024-03-20(v2).docx Page 2 of 9 78 community with extensive natural areas and compatible new plant materials and other elements that bring residents together to celebrate life and support each other. Affordability and sustainability will be achieved through design and construction of energy efficient and modestly sized residences that utilize, as appropriate, solar energy and other non- carbon-based fuels. Over time, geothermal and other developing technologies will be considered and used where feasible. Electric Vehicles [EV] In recent years current EV technology has been steadily improving, both within the vehicles and the charging systems. Many H4D households are currently using Electric Vehicles with charging facilities at their homes. At Fiddlehead Corner, charging stations for electric vehicles will be installed in accessible locations for residents who live in flats and homes that lack private driveways and garages. Homes with garages and/or driveways will be designed with electrical service that can support owner installed EV stations. In addition, visitor parking will provide charging stations. ZAA 09a CZ DevPlan Statement 2024-03-20(v2).docx Page 3 of 9 79 FIDDLEHEAD CORNER Compatible Adjacencies POD Al P = Permitted X = Not Permitted Y = Permitted per NCDEQ Standards Use Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Single Family Detached P P P P P P P P P P Y 2 Single Family Attached (2F) P P P P P P P P P P Y 3 Single Family Townhome(3F) P P P P P P P P P P Y 4 MF 3-Story Buildings P P P P P P P P P P Y 5 Detached Garage P P P P P P P P P P Y 6 Family Care Facility P P P P P P P P P P Y 7 Community Buildings P P P P P P P P P P Y 8 Recreation Facilities P P P P P P P P P P Y 9 Fitness Facilities Including Trails P P P P P P P P P P Y 10 Accessory Buildings and Uses P P P P P P P P P P Y 11 Wells&Water Treatment Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Compatible Adjacencies POD A2 P = Permitted X = Not Permitted Y = Permitted per NCDEQ Standards Use Type 12 13 14 12 Wastewater Treatment - Y Y 13 Pedestrian Multi-Use Paths Y Y Y per Orange County Standards 14 Solid Waste, Recycling& Y Y Y Compost Facilities,Accessory Uses, &Parking ZAA 09a CZ DevPlan Statement 2024-03-20(v2).docx Page 4 of 9 80 Compatible Adjacencies POD A3 P = Permitted X = Not Permitted Y = Permitted per NCDEQ Standards Use Type 15 13 15 Wastewater Dispersal in Y Y Forested Environment 13 Pedestrian Multi-Use paths per Y Y Orange County Standards Compatible Adjacencies POD A4 P = Permitted X = Not Permitted Y = Permitted per NCDEQ Standards Use Type 15 13 15 Wastewater Dispersal in Y Y Forested Environment 13 Pedestrian Multi-Use paths per Y Y Orange County Standards Compatible Adjacencies POD A5 P = Permitted X = Not Permitted Y = Permitted per NCDEQ Standards Use Type 15 13 15 Wastewater Dispersal in Y Y Forested Environment—Repair Use Only—As Needed 13 Pedestrian Multi-Use paths per Y Y Orange County Standards ZAA 09a CZ DevPlan Statement 2024-03-20(v2).docx Page 5 of 9 81 TABLE 1 FIDDLEHEAD CORNER PROPOSED USES BY PHASE USE Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Totals Single Family Detached Homes 17 19 13 49 Single Family Attached Homes 4 6 10 20 Triplex/Townhomes 9 12 21 3-Story Multi-Family Homes 20 20 20 60 Sub Total 50 45 55 150 USE Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Totals Family Care Facility(6 beds/unit) 1 1 2 SUPPORT USES Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Totals Community Commons Building(s) Well 1 1 Wastewater Treatment Facility[staged] Fitness Center Pickleball Courts Community Gardens Open Field —Gatherings/Field Games Parking —Total Number of Spaces Including Visitor Parking for community arts 125 - 175 75 - 100 100 - 125 275 -400 events/activities Solid Waste Collection Center Support Buildings Equipment& Supplies ZAA 09a CZ DevPlan Statement 2024-03-20(v2).docx Page 6 of 9 82 Fiddlehead Corner— Existing Rural Character Exhibit The Fiddlehead Corner property is currently forested containing the remnants of a log home deep in the site. Orange County as visited the site with H4D members. The county report concludes that the building is not repairable. Bricks and stone from the building will be provided to Thomas Cheek, the prior owner of the 1-14D property. The Cheek home at the corner of Morrow Mill RD and Gold Mine Loop RD, to be retained by Mr. Cheek is one visible example of rural farm character that might be familiar to those travelling on either Morrow Mill Rd. or Gold Mine Loop Rd. It can be seen in the photograph immediately below. This home and its immediate surroundings will remain with Thomas Cheek. :'3.. �f �n ,,,.- � div;$' x + :'"`akar�a�•k � u-K, ,��.--K =�' .,,r d:�: - x-c From this corner south on Gold Mine Road, the Fiddlehead Corner frontage is forested. There is one existing entrance to the H4D property and it is noticeable from properties on the west side of Gold Mine Road and to those travelling along Gold Mine. The following photographs show the existing forested property on the east side of Gold Mine Loop Road starting at the southwestern corner of the H4D property ZAA 09a CZ DevPlan Statement 2024-03-20(v2).docx Page 7 of 9 83 Looking north on Gold Mine Loop Road from driveway at southwest corner of Fiddlehead Corner r mow 4 ZAA 09a CZ DevPlan Statement 2024-03-20(v2).docx Page 8 of 9 84 Fiddlehead Corner Property Existing Streetscape & Character on Morrow Mill Road. i ZAA 09a CZ DevPlan Statement 2024-03-20(v2).docx Page 9 of 9 85 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or planningapps(a�orangecountync.gov Environmental Assessment Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information is contained in Section 2.25 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink. An Environmental Assessment(EA)shall be required for each individual parcel proposed for development consistent with applicable criterial as detailed within the LIDO. Date: 3/20/2024 Contact Information mmu Property Owner(s): Hands Four Development Cooperative (1-14D) Mailing Address: PO Box 1201 Carrboro, NC 27510 Phone: 919.423.0419 Email:ebcoxQa yahoo.com Applicants: Same as Owners Above I. Property Information Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9739720339 Address: Not yet assigned Acreage: 90 acres Township: Bingham Zoning District: AR Watershed Overlay: Haw River Unprotected - No Overlay Other Overlay: II. General Site Information A. Adjacent Property Zoning North: AR, NC2, GC4 South: AR East: AR West: AR Land Use North: Residential & Commercial South: Agricultural [VAD] East: Residential West: Residential B. Topography Highest Elevation: 555 Lowest Elevation: 490 W General direction of slope: From North & West to South & East ,Page 1 of 5 86 ■ Estimated % of property with: 0 — 5% slope: 40% 5 — 15% slope: 560 0 15 — 25% slope: 3.3% More than 25% slope: 0.90 0 C. Water Features and Drainage The following water features are located on the property: 0 Streams ❑ Wetlands © Ponds ❑ Drainage Easements ❑ Special Flood Hazard Area Describe Please see Attachment B (attachadditional sheets if needed) D. Does the property contain any of the following Inventory of Natural or Cultural Resources? As identified in the "Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historical, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" or the "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina". 1 . Cemeteries ❑ Yes 0 No 2. Archaeological sites ❑ Yes 0 No 3. Historic sites ❑ Yes 0 No 4. Areas of geological significance ❑ Yes 0 No 5. Designated natural areas ❑ Yes 0 No 6. Designated habitat ❑ Yes 0 No For each yes answer above, please indicate the location on the site plan and complete Attachment A. III. Project Description A. Describe proposed use of property: Please see Attachment B B. Number of lots: 1 C. Number of structures: 75± ,Page 2 of 5 87 D. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for development of attached residential units (excluding roads, but including parking areas) 1 ,005,000± SF (23± Acres) Fiddlehead Corner E. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for non-residential use (excluding roads) 0 - Uses on-site in direct support of residential & farming activity F. Estimated area to be graded for roads 400,000± SF (9± Acres) ■ Road type: ❑ Public ® Private ❑ Class A ❑ Class B • Total road length: Collector Road = 3,940± LF Local Roads = 5,225± LF IIII. State Permits Required A. Does the project involve the mining of earth products? ❑ Yes ® No • If yes, how many cubic feet of material are expected to be excavated? ■ Has an application for a Mining Permit been submitted to NCDRCD? ❑ Yes ❑ No Please attach map indicating expected extent of proposed activity. B. Does the project involve generation or storage of hazardous or toxic wastes, as identified by the Environmental Protection Agency? ❑ Yes ❑x No • Describe the wastes to be enerated: • How much material is expected to be generated per month? ■ Will any material be treated onsite? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, indicate volume: Will any material be stored onsite? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, indicate volume: • Where will disposal of the material take lace? I- • How will materials be transported to the disposal site? • What measures are proposed to protect water quality and air quality in case of spills? Page 3 of 5 88 C. Will the project involve a land application system for treatment of wastewater? ■ x❑ Yes ❑ No - If yes, describe Please see Attachment B ■ Has an application for a non-discharge permit been submitted to the NC Department of Environmental Management or Orange County Department of Environmental Health?,❑ Yes1X NO APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED 1D. Is a septic tank system proposed which has a design capacity of more than 3,000 gallons per day? x❑ Yes ❑ No - If yes, describe Please see Attachment B E. Does the activity involve sludge disposal? ❑ Yes x❑ No ■ If yes, where is the source of the sludge? • Describe where and how the sludge is being disposed ■ Has a NPDES permit from the NC Division of Environmental Quality been issued? ❑ Yes ❑ No F. Water Usage • Estimated number of employees: x 25 gallons per day (gpd) = gpd • Estimated water use for climate control - gpd ■ Process Water % Consumed % Discharged to septic system % Discharged to surface (including storm sewers - Describe: % Evaporated % Reclaimed/reused % Other = 100% ■ Water used for cooling, heating, etc., in association with production or manufacturing % Reused % Consumed % Discharged - Describe: = 100% gpd Total Water Usage ■ Describe r f water: Please see Attachment B Page 4 of 5 89 Attachment A To be completed only if inventory sites are identified in I.D. (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1.a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development Not Applicable 1.b. Proposed Mitigation 2.a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development 2.b. Proposed Mitigation Certification and Signatures Statement by Applicant - I certify that the information presented by me in this application is accurate to the best of my kno e, i rmation, and belief. March 20, 2024 _Applicapt Date Page 5of5 90 Attachment B Fiddlehead Corner Environmental Information Supplement II.C. Water Features and Drainage Streams & Ponds ■ One stream that begins off site to the north flows through the property and exits the site to the east. This stream requires a buffer for its entire distance on the property that varies from 65' - 85' depending based upon the slopes of land. A small pond is situated in the northwest portion of the stream buffer. ■ Two smaller tributary streams flow west to east in the southern portion of the property, with portions of each requiring a buffer of 65'. At the southeast corner property line and lying within the required stream buffer is a small [900± SF] area of land that is subject to flooding in a 100-year storm event. That is a storm that has 1% chance of happening in any given year. III.A. Proposed Use of Property H4D will develop an arts focused residential village containing a maximum of 150 dwellings and 2 six bed Family Care Facilities plus the community buildings, recreation areas, open space and roadways that support a small community of primarily senior-aged residents. llll. State Permit Requirements C. Will the project involve a land application system for treatment of wastewater? Yes. Hands Four Development Cooperative will create a subsidiary, Hands Four Wastewater Management, to build and manage a wastewater treatment system from all facilities and residences in the Fiddlehead Corner Development. The currently planned wastewater system applies a unitary approach throughout the entire project: STEP (septic tank effluent pumping) systems for primary treatment; the Orenco AdvanTex textile filter system for secondary treatment; and subsurface drip dispersal systems for final effluent discharge. This system will be designed and operated under the direction of Agri-Waste Technology, Inc. (AWT). We have the option of permitting this system through the traditional County Permitting (with Orange County) or utilizing the Engineered Option Permit (EOP) private permitting route. Either permitting option is viable for the project. D. Is a septic tank system proposed that has a design capacity > 3,000 -gallons per day? Yes The system described above will use multiple tanks for treatment and distribution of treated wastewater. F. Water Usage - Describe source of water. Two wells will provide the water for a community water system that will serve 150 dwellings plus support uses including a community building, fitness center, pool, and a fire suppression system for the three multi-family buildings Page 1 of 1 91 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 March 11, 2024 Hands Four Development PO BOX 1201 Carrboro, NC 27510 Re: Orange County Unified Development Ordinance Surface Water Identification Haw River Unprotected Watershed PIN: 9739720339 Dear Mr. Cox, This letter serves as confirmation of an on-site surface water identification made by Orange County Erosion Control Division staff for the referenced parcel. Orange County enforces a stream buffer along streams and water features in the County per the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (see Section 6.13 Stream Buffers). According to current Orange County GIS imagery of the parcel, there are (3) previously mapped water features, two of which were evaluated. Feature A was evaluated and found subject to buffer regulations and has been modified within the Orange County GIS stream layer. Feature B was evaluated and found subject to buffer regulations and has been modified within the Orange County GIS stream layer. One additional feature was also found jurisdictional. This jurisdictional feature is subject to buffering. The water features noted on the attached aerial photo on the parcel require an undisturbed buffer along both sides, as calculated per the referenced Ordinance regulations. Undisturbed buffer areas shall be measured from the top of the stream bank, outer edge of wet, marshy areas, or outer edge of the floodplain where applicable. In the instance where a water feature has braided stream segments with channels running parallel to one another, the buffer shall be measured from the outermost bank on either side. See below for examples of how the buffer is to be measured in varying situations: Orange County Government I www.orangecountync.gov 919.732.8181 92 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 1 Buffer Width 1 1 1 � I h- A �1 1 � c ��q�_„. f.; Tap of streaizi bar�lr 4-1 a 1 1 OR Buffer WidtYi 1 1 h � ' -- 1 ,,� Edge ofF7oodplaYi 3� OR 1 Buffer Width 1 1 1 Edges ofWeta 1 Orange County Government I www.orangecountync.gov 1919.732.8181 93 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 The following is a description of how the buffers affect the property: 1. Feature A, a previously mapped water feature, has been evaluated, modified and found to be subject to buffer regulations. The water feature has been changed in the Orange County GIS system. 2. Feature B, a previously mapped water feature, has been evaluated, modified and found to be subject to buffer regulations. The water feature has been changed in the Orange County GIS system. 3. Feature C, a previously mapped water feature, has been evaluated, modified and found to be subject to buffer regulations. The water feature has been changed in the Orange County GIS system. The Ephemeral / Intermittent (E/1) point has been flagged in the field. 4. Feature D, a previously unmapped water feature, has been evaluated and found to be subject to buffer regulations and the water feature has been added in the Orange County GIS system. The Ephemeral / Intermittent (E/1) point has been flagged in the field. If you have questions about this determination, please contact me at (919) 245-2587. However, if you have further questions about the application of the Unified Development Ordinance to this parcel, how to calculate the buffer lengths, or possible restoration requirements, please contact Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director Development Services at 919-245-2577. Sincerely, C ha4ell Milk Chase Ellis Erosion Control Officer I Attachments:Aerial Photograph / Map cc: File Orange County Government 1 www.orangecountync.gov 919.732.8181 Orange County Surface Water Identification Feature A ii A^' {' ,xr•, 5-4 4. i` SA� �• i • Feature B Feature C <o Feature D PIN#: 9739720339 HANDS FOUR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE s, _ Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County 4611 POWDER MILL RD GI S and is for reference only. CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 �� Exact locations and boundaries should be field verified. i` Map prepared by Orange County Planning&Inspections. Miles Streets Streams(Deleted) Regulatory floodway 0 0.04 0.08 ��1 N USGS Water Feature Zoning 1%Annual Chance of Flooding ORANGE —•—• Soils Survey Water Feature®Water Supply Watersheds: Water Body COUNTY NORTH CAMLnrh OC Updated Water Feature Parcels 3/11/2024 95 1 % Hands Four Development Cooperative --`?'YY iddlle(ead PO Box 1201 Carrboro NC 27510 4" Corner HandsFourDevelopment@gmailxom Hands Four Development Cooperative Tree Preservation, Land Use Buffers and Landscape Plan March 20, 2024 Landscape Design for Fiddlehead Corner has interlocking layers of meaning. Rural Character- The existing "rural" character of southwestern Orange County is many faceted with active farmland, fallow fields, regenerated forests on former farmland, and rural activity nodes at the crossroads of primary roadways. Since the late 1990s, the streetscape of many primary and secondary roads has been slowly changed with introduction of large single-family homes within a travelers' viewshed. For the Fiddlehead Corner, the rural tree lined roadway character of Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Road will be maintained with Land Use buffers of existing natural plants & trees of 75' or 100' depending upon the roadway segment. With the exception of the Cheek property [PIN 9739-62-0415], adjoining properties will have buffers of 75 or 100 feet. The Cheek property will have a 25 feet existing vegetation buffer of about 1,200 LF along Fiddlehead Drive as it enters the site from Morrow Mill Road. There is no Land Use Buffer proposed for the remainder of the Cheek property that shares a property line with Fiddlehead Corner. All these buffers are shown on the Illustrative Master Plan Concept exhibits and the Civil Engineering drawings. ■ The applicant proposes to do a tree survey prior to submission of any detailed site plans. ■ Just as important as the adopted buffers, the land immediately behind the buffers will also be forested. The two required entrance/exit roadways will have a limited visual impact on either street or the neighbors whose homes face the streets. Internal Natural Landscape —Approximately 85 of the 90 acres in Fiddlehead Corner are presently forested, primarily in a mix of hardwoods and pines that have grown in a natural successional manner since the discontinuation of farming on the property 30 years ago. The Fiddlehead Commons development proposes to retain 60± acres of the 90-acre site in natural landscape with 30± acres of the site developed for residential and community support activity. To provide for the long-term health of the vegetation within the property, stream corridors and perimeter buffers, the applicant will undertake the minimal but important removal of invasive species of trees, shrubs, and grasses as well as the removal of dead trees and branches that might be a fire hazard. Landscape Statement 2024-03-20.docx Page 1 of 2 96 Landscape Design in Fiddlehead Corner—A detailed tree survey for the full 90 acres of Fiddlehead Corner is not considered applicable because the majority of the property will be retained in its forested state. For the residential community and roadways, the applicant proposes a tree survey prior to the submission of final site plans for review by the Planning Director. The applicant expects to use the tree survey to tailor street, building locations and other elements of the plan to foster the retention of as much healthy tree and plant material as possible. A Landscape Planting Plan is part of the submission exhibits. On it are shown: 1. Required Canopy and Understory Street Trees, 2. Required Parking Lot Canopy Trees, and 3. Required Rear and Side Yard Trees for residential lots. 4. Sight Visibility Triangles at street intersections. 5. The estimated number of shrubs needed to provide the parking lot and building foundation plantings required in the LIDO. The number of trees shown on the current plans— 375± - will require the provision of 10 or more species. The number of shrubs is estimated to be 850. Landscape Statement 2024-03-20.docx 2 97 11 % Hands Four Development Cooperative --`?'YY idclle(ead PO Box 1201 Carrboro NC 27510 4" Corner HandsFourDevelopment@gmailxom Hands Four Development Cooperative Open Space and Recreation Plan March 20, 2024 The framework for Fiddlehead Corner ownership is that 1-14D will own all land including roads, access easements, open space, recreation facilities, etc. as a Cooperative legal entity, much like a condominium association. With this arrangement, all land is owned in common by the membership of the cooperative. Recreation Facilities are shown on Civil Drawing Sheet C5.4, Open Space and Recreation Plan, and can be seen on the Illustrative Master Plan Rendering. • In the southeastern corner of Fiddlehead, recreation activities and facilities include Pickleball Courts, an open meadow for informal or formal activities such as badminton, bocce, playing catch, frisbee, one or more covered pavilions and community gardens. • A significant "tree save" passive recreation & contemplative area leads from the southeastern portion of the neighborhood to the active health and fitness facility that will have exercise and fitness indoor facilities and lap pools for swimming. • A pathway system through common open space leads from the fitness area to the primary community building in the center of the neighborhood. • Approximately 2.2 miles [11,500 Liner Feet] of pathways and trails approximately are proposed to run throughout the site, some weaving through the steam buffers and at the edge of Land Use Buffers when in compliance with County standards for location in these buffers. Common Open Space — Protected, includes the entirety of stream buffers on the H4D property and all Land Use Buffers. Included in this category are areas within and adjacent to the stream corridor buffer running from west to east in the northern portion of the property. This is shown on Civil Sheet C5.4. ZAA 11 b Recreation:Open Space Statement 2024-03-21.docx Page 1 of 1 98 Hands Four Development Cooperative -"V;IY7idd1ehead- PO Box 1201 Carrboro,NC 27510 Corner HandsFourDevelopment@gmail.com Hands Four Development Cooperative - Utilities December 29, 2023 Duke Energy - Electric Provider- 1-14D has received a "will serve" letter from Duke Energy, confirming that they can provide electric service, provided all necessary easements, permits and rights-of-way can be obtained. The applicant anticipates that solar photovoltaic panels will be installed for individual residences and that a community solar energy array will be evaluated. Preliminary discussions with Duke Energy indicate a potential fit with their renewable energy source requirements. The Utility Plan shows two proposed Duke access locations at Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop Road and the underground primary distribution lines for Fiddlehead Corner. Individual service to buildings will be shown in detailed site plans and construction plans. Communication Services - Communication and internet services will be provided by private companies. The applicant expects technology for cable, fiber, and satellite communication will change over time and service providers cannot be precisely specified at this time. An underground conduit distribution system is shown on the Utility Plan to facilitate the use of protected hard wired systems. Community Water System - 1-14D will build and operate a community water system to supply all the residences, common buildings and other needs of the community. Because no municipal water source is available, community wells will be the water source. The hydro-geological consultants discovered the presence of diabase dikes on the property. In their experience, diabase dikes are highly associated with wells yielding 40 gpm or more at depths of 200-400 feet. A US Geological Survey study of Orange County well yields revealed average well yields in this part of the county to be 50-75 gpm, adequate for anticipated demand. The wells will be under the jurisdiction of the Division of Water Resources, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Three well sites in locations designated by the hydro-geologists with the setbacks specified by NC DEQ regulations have excellent prospects for the required yields. Two wells are planned, with a third site in reserve should more capacity be needed. NC DEQ requires that the second well be approved and operational prior to the development of the 50th dwelling unit. Individual service to buildings will be shown in detailed site plans and construction plans. There will be a central plant for water tanks and pumps, with a distribution network of mains and branches to supply housing clusters and common buildings. A commercial operator will be contracted to manage the system. The location of the probable wells, the treatment plant and distribution pumps, and the distribution system to the buildings in Fiddlehead Corner are shown on the Utility Plan. 99 Hands Four Development Cooperative -"V;IY'iddlehead- PO Box 1201 Carrboro,NC 27510 Corner HandsFourDevelopment@gmail.com Wastewater Collection and Treatment - WD will build and operate a community wastewater system to service all the residence and common buildings of the community. This system will consist of STEP (septic tank effluent pressurized) tanks, a central secondary treatment plant and subsurface effluent discharge areas. STEP tanks allow settling of solid matter, with dilute discharge liquid that can be conveyed through small-diameter mains under pressure to follow topography rather than rely on gravity. Secondary treatment with a circulation over a textile medium efficiently creates a highly purified odorless effluent. This effluent is suitable for reclaimed water uses and such use will be evaluated. Subsurface discharge is a technique using a small diameter tubing that can be implemented in forested areas with only the removal of brush and scrub. Areas sufficient for the anticipated discharge have been reserved for that purpose in the Master Plan. Soils in those areas were evaluated and found to have sufficient long-term acceptance rates to support the expected effluent rates. A commercial operator will be contracted to manage the system. The location of the STEP collection tanks, the collection system, the treatment facilities and the primary wastewater distribution area are shown on the Utility Plan exhibit. H4D Utilities, Pg 2 100 DUKE Mailing Address: ENERGY, Duke Energy Progress PROGRESS Customer Service Center PC Box 1771 Raleigh,NC 28602-1771 o:800,452.2777 September 8, 2023 Hands Four DeveI©pment Cooperative PO BOX 1201 Carrboro,NC 27510 Subject: Letter of Electric Availability Dear Hands Four Development Cooperative: This letter confirms that Duke Energy Progress can provide electric service to the proposed site off Morrow Mill Rd in Chapel Hill, provided all necessary easements, permits and rights-of-way can be obtained. Please call Duke Energy Progress at 1-800-452-2777 when your construction plans are complete so we can discuss your electrical service requirements. Duke Energy Progress appreciates the opportunity to provide your electric service. f Leadist 4412Durh Nicholas,jones@duke-energy.com 101 %�Ifiddlehead Hands Four Development Cooperative PO Box 1201 Carrboro, NC 27510 -� Corner HandsFourDevelopment@gmail.com Fiddlehead Corner Anticipated Development Schedule March 20, 2024 A proposed schedule for development of Fiddlehead Corner has several design and approval steps subsequent to the MDP-CD zoning approval that we expect could be in fall 2024. NC DEQ approvals and associated county approvals for the wells, water treatment system, and the wastewater treatment and distribution system will take approximately 1 year. During that period, detailed access easement streets and phasing plans for the construction of the utilities and phase one residential and community buildings and other components will take place. Detailed tree surveys will take place at the stream buffer borders and perimeter land use-buffers to determine if the drip lines of trees at the edge of the buffers will require additional tree protection. Location of and removal of invasive species will also be undertaken during this time. An Erosion Control Plan will be prepared and submitted for review and approval to establish safe access to the property from existing entrances on Morrow Mill Rd. and Gold Mine Loop Rd. to provide access for well drilling and other onsite activity prior to the approval of construction plans for the development of Phase 1. Limited site preparation activities could begin in spring 2025 with more extensive site development work beginning in summer 2025. Phase 1 is expected to take approximately 18 — 24 months for completion with the occupancy of the first 50 dwelling units in 2027 in accordance with the information in the TIA submitted to and reviewed by the county and NCDOT. Phases 2 & 3 of development, as shown on the Illustrative Master Plan Phasing Plan, will be completed in 2028-2029. The TIA accounts for full buildout in 2030, which allows for a full buildout plus one year for TIA analysis purposes. ZAA 13 CZ Dev Schedule Statement 2024-03-20.docx 1 102 Hands Four Development Cooperative TiddCeherad PO Box 1201 Carrboro, NC 27510 Corner HandsFourDevelopment@gmailxom FIDDLEHEAD CORNER - ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT PLAN - MARCH 20, 2024 MPD-CD PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Architectural Information Required The master plan proposes multiple buildings and multiple pods for which some architectural information is required by UDO §6.7.1(6)(8). • Single Family, Two Family, and Townhome Dwellings are not required to provide architectural information. • Multi-family, community, recreation/fitness, and other buildings that support residential communities and farms are required to provide information. Fiddlehead Corner—Applicable Architectural Concept Elements (1) No architectural theme is proposed, however- The Community Buildings at Fiddlehead Corner will be well built, simple and functional. They will be beautiful buildings in their simplicity and attention to detail, open and airy with lots of natural light. (2) Color Palette In keeping with the natural setting of the subject site, colors shall be predominately earth tones including those tones associated with flowers, flowering trees & shrubs, sky tones, farm crops, and other commonly accepted earth tone colors. Accent colors that do not dominate the primary building colors and that will assist in developing individuality for the multi-family and common buildings are permitted. (3) Building Materials a. Exterior building materials are selected with an emphasis on durability and low maintenance. They can be selected from the categories shown below: b. Alternate material as selected by design professionals can be considered if it is equal to or better in aesthetics and performance. Roofing Material - Good quality asphalt shingles or metal standing-seam roofing in a medium to light color range or new materials meeting equal performance as developed during the lifetime of the buildings. Exterior wall materials can be one or a combination of the following: Masonry units including brick, Architectural block, and cast stone plus ZAA 22 Architectural Statement.docx Page 1 of 2 103 ■ "Cultured" Stone ■ Natural Stone ■ Metal Panels ■ Cementitious Board or Panel (other similar products as they may develop over time that are long lasting with easy maintenance. ■ Stucco on lathe (not including EIFS). Glazing Components will be a combination of fixed and operable units, simple lines with no fake dividers. Casement and/or awning type operation is preferred. Their construction can include the following: ■ Aluminum clad wood ■ Vinyl or Vinyl clad wood ■ Fiberglass or Fiberglass clad wood Exterior Awnings and Solar Shading Devices should be constructed of metal and painted by the fabricator for a durable finish. Fencing and Screen Walls should use materials common to their adjacent building. Fencing as well as Deck material can be vinyl or composite fiber, cedar, pressure treated materials, and hardwood — including from trees on site taken down for Fiddlehead Corner development and milled. Retaining Walls should be built with attractive pre-cast interlocking masonry units or block or cast concrete with a stone or masonry veneer. ■ A cast concrete wall may be exposed if finished properly. Small walls can also be stacked stone gravity walls. ■ Walls 4' or taller need to follow code and be engineered. Mechanical Equipment and Satellite Dishes should be placed to be minimally visible from public areas and adjoining buildings. ■ Screening in the form of plantings, landscaping, walls, or fencing is appropriate. ■ Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view, except: ■ Solar Voltaic panels on individual buildings that cannot serve their intended purpose without being visible. ZAA 22 Architectural Statement.docx Page 2 of 2 104 Water Supply for Fiddlehead Corner A water system will be designed and built under the aegis of Hands Four Development Cooperative to supply all the residences, common buildings and other needs of the Fiddlehead Corner community. Because no municipal water source is available at the location, community wells will be the water source. There will be a central plant for tanks and pumps, with a distribution network of mains and branches to supply housing clusters and common buildings. Project consultant is David Barcal, P.E., of MacConnell and Associates. The system will be managed by a professional water system operator. With the knowledge that well yields in Orange County are highly variable and unpredictable, water availability and well siting were thoroughly investigated. Evidence that flow yields in the amounts needed are likely to be available on this property is found in the USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4286, "Investigation of Ground-Water Availability and Quality in Orange County, North Carolina". Figure 5 from this report (below), based on reported well yields, maps the obtained flows across the county. Wells in the zone in which this property is located typically had 50- 75 gpm yields, the amount needed for our purposes. Fiddlehead Corner is depicted as "FC" on the figure. 7915' 70'07'30' 79" 36°15' — -—-—-^--— —-—- i r I dip � � r J I I � 3r'or3o' I 'f I � I � f � 36° I I e � � � t L +? EXPLANATION 35'52 30 Y— f MAXIMUM WELL YIELD - �•- - - r 4n gallons pnr miwlal E10-25 '❑St•75 0 5 10MILES Ti-IOQ I 110 O 5 10 KILOMETERS CV61 AKIATinhi 105 To obtain information more specific to the property, hydrogeologists and geophysicists were consulted to survey the property. Their survey disclosed on the property the robust presence of diabase dikes, geologic formations that are highly correlated with abundant groundwater at depths of 200-400 feet. They reported four candidate sites for wells placements they consider to have a high probability of success in obtaining substantial water flow rates from wells drilled at those locations. In their experience, yields from wells sited near diabase formation are typically 40 gpm or more. F, Zhat(u) - -4 A—*4 ° 41tli Yf�l LONAK!WE&RAW Out GMA a `- %f LCL�+bi575 II -_rte - rr+ru.a.L x i Representatives from the Division of Water Resources, Public Water Supply Section, of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality visited two candidate sites and verbally indicated that both sites were suitable. A Letter of Compliance was sent to DEQ by H4D regarding these sites, and a Preliminary Well Site Approval Letter is expected soon. Wells will be drilled incrementally to supply the amount required in each phase of the project. Fire suppression for the development will be designed to meet Orange County fire code and the International Building Code (IBC) standards. The fire flow will be designed to meet Appendix B, Tables B105.1(1) and (2) of the IBC. The multi-family residence building will be equipped with a sprinkler system and final design flow requirements will be determined in the detail design phase of the project. Any other buildings requiring sprinkler systems will be determined as the design and scope of the project progress, Should it be determined that the buildings require sprinkler systems, the appropriate fire flow will be determined. 106 Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. GLM � 2275-A Candun Drive Apex, NC 27523 Telephone 919-363-6310 www.gmc-nc.com Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. June 15, 2023 Edwin Cox, President, Hands Four Development Cooperative 4611 Powder Mill Rd Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 423-0419 RE: Hydrogeologic Evaluation for Well Placement, 90 Acres, 5824 Morrow Mill Rd, Chapel Hill 27516. PIN #9739624313, Orange County, NC. Dear Mr. Cox, Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. (GMA) is pleased to provide you with this report documenting our hydrogeological services. GMA understands that you are developing a 90-acre property for residential use in southwestern Orange County, NC (Figure 1). The site address is 5824 Morrow Mill Rd, Chapel Hill 27516 (PIN #9739624313). GMA understands that development will occur in three phases, and approximately a total of 145 multi- and single- family residences are expected to be constructed. The water-supply for this development will be community wells drawing groundwater from the fractured bedrock aquifer. GMA was contracted to investigate the property and provide recommendations for locations that may be suitable for future water-supply wells. Geologic Setting The site lies within the geologic terrane known as the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS, 1985). Groundwater occurs within the fractured rock aquifer within this region. The bedrock on the subject property is mapped by the NCGS (2016) as metamorphosed volcanoclastic sedimentary and pyroclastic racks associated with the Hyco Formation (Figure 2) that originated as ejecta (volcanic ash) from a volcano that existed east of this site approximately 613 to 616 million years ago. The ash was deposited near the volcano as very hot pyroclastic material. f=arther west of the volcano, much of this material became worked by erosional forces in a body of water or lake (epiclastic material). The pyroclastic material lies on the southeastern half of the property, and the epiclastic material lies on the northwestern half of the property. These rocks, while slightly metamorphosed, still exhibit many of the characteristics of sedimentary rocks like bedding. The Groundwater Experts 107 Hands Four Development Cooperative SW Orange County, IVC Page 2 Diabase rocks are not unusual in the region. Diabase is a dark, iron-rich, fine-grained crystalline igneous intrusive rock that was injected as magma through local fractures and fissures in the surrounding rocks. The closest mapped diabase dike to this site is located about 1,000 feet southeast of the site along the Collins Creek stream valley (NCGS 1978; 2016) (Figure 2), Diabase dikes, if present, can provide a significant source of water for water-supply wells due to the enhanced fracturing that occurs with the emplacement of diabase. No diabase has been mapped on the property in previous work by the NCGS. Geophysical Evaluation Geo-Solutions Limited, Inc. (Geo-Solutions) conducted a magnetometer survey of the property on June 7, 2023. A map prepared by Geo-Solutions is presented in Figure 3. The magnetometer survey measures the deviations of the earth's total magnetic field as magnetic energy passes through the rocks near the surface. Iron-rich rocks, like diabase, can produce measurable deviations in the natural magnetic field, and magnetometer surveys can identify the presence of diabase, as well as other changes in rock type, including abrupt contacts between different rock types. Geo-Solutions identified two areas of higher total magnetic field readings (colored in red) in the southeastern corner of the property (Figure 3). The location of these dikes corresponds to north-south trending ridges that are present in the topography at the site. The presence of high magnetic readings and their narrow, long linear nature indicate the likely occurrence of diabase dikes in the subsurface. In GMA's opinion, the apparent diabase dike locations represent favorable drilling targets for future water-supply wells. Field Investigations GMA personnel conducted a reconnaissance of the site on June 8, 2023. The purpose of the visit was to identify important geologic conditions on the property that could influence the availability of groundwater. Field reconnaissance included a physical walk-over of the property to evaluate rock exposures and stream valleys/ridges as indicators of the composition and physical structure of the underlying rocks. The locations of rock exposures with planar features (e.g., fractures, faults,joints, and bedding planes) were documented using a GPS device, and the orientations of planar features were measured using a geologic transit/compass. GMA's field effort was conducted in conjunction with preliminary data collected from the geophysical survey conducted by Geo-Solutions on June 7, 2023. GMA personnel traversed the property generally along cleared pathways and along stream beds. We observed several outcrops of metavolcanic rocks along the stream bed of Collins Creek located east of the property. We also observed an outcrop of metasedimentary rock near 108 Hands Four Development Cooperative 5W Orange County, NC Page 3 the headwater of a tributary to Collins Creek in the eastern/center of the property. We observed several locations of diabase float across the site, but no diabase outcrops were observed. "f=loat"are loose pieces of rock that are not connected to an outcrop. When many pieces of float of the same rock-type are found in a defined area, it can indicate that same rock -type is present in situ nearby, or at some depth at the location where the float is found. We observed clusters of diabase float that were spread over 54- to 60-foot-long areas along cleared pathways.. We noted the location of each occurrence by recording the latitude and longitude of each area. Those locations are shown in Figure 4. Well Site Recommendations GMA employed the well siting principles generally recommended by Heath (1984) for water- supply wells in the Piedmont. This approach focuses on siting wells near draws on the sides of the valleys of perennial streams where the bordering ridges are underlain by substantial thicknesses of regolith. Wells should be located low in the drainage basin, and near the intersections of regional structural features (regional joints, foliation fractures, or faults). These structural features often correspond with local stream valleys. However, the primary criteria for well site recommendations for this site is the proximity to diabase dikes. The locations of the diabase float that we observed fall directly on the location of the diabase dikes identified by Geo-Solutions (Figure 4). Therefore, we conclude that we have documented the presence of diabase dikes on the subject property. GMA identified four potential well locations for this site. We used published geologic literature, Feld observations by geologists, and magnetic survey data to aid us in understanding_ the geology at the site and to select suitable well sites. The proposed well locations are shown in Figure 4. All the proposed well sites are located as low in the drainage basin area as possible, but most importantly they are each associated with inferred locations of diabase dikes. Most of these sites can be easily accessed along existing pathways and should require minimal clearing by the driller. While the wells are labelled A, B, C, and D, their Labelling order is not intended to indicate any order of significance. GMA suggests you start with a well site that has easy access for a drill rig (like A or B), or the site that best fits your development needs. We have identified four potential well locations: Three are near, or in, cleared pathways (wells A, B, C); one may be difficult to access (well D). Our well B is about 50 feet northeast of your Client Well Site #2 which we understand you already have permitted by DEQ. The DEQ may accept that location as being dose enough to their approved location to not require another site visit on their part. Contact DEQ for that determination. Please see Figure 4 for well locations. 109 Hands Four Development Cooperative SW Orange County, NC Page 4 The latitudes and longitudes of the proposed well sites are: Well Name Easting (NC STATE Northing (NC Longitude Latitude PLANE) ft STATE PLANE) ft Well A 1937058 792235 -79.212580 35.926591 Well B 1937112 791484 -79.212402 35.924507 Well C 1937424 791729 -79.211323 35.925216 Well D 1936765 793446 -79,213588 35.929894 The proposed well locations should be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor to ensure they will be positioned to meet all the setback requirements from final structures constructed on this site. GMA does not offer professional land surveying services. The minimum horizontal separation, as required by North Carolina well construction standards, is generally 100 feet from all property boundaries, 100 feet from all surface water features (streams, ponds), and 100 feet from pavement. Orange County may have more restrictive requirements, so the County should be contacted during the permitting process to be sure the proper local setbacks are met. You should expect that well depths will be between 200 and 400 feet below land surface. GMA hopes this information will aid you in the development of your property. As you are aware, developing a groundwater system as a source of water supply in the fractured rock aquifers in North Carolina can be difficult and somewhat unpredictable. Therefore, GMA does not guarantee successful well installation at any well sites we have proposed. GMA made recommendations based upon our observations of the geology of the area, and we used our experience to select sites that we believe have the greater probability of providing you with higher well yields. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this report to you. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Best Regards, Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. ►V� f r , William L. Lyke, P.G., P.E. Amy W. Cressman, P.G. Senior Hydrogeologist/Civil Engineer Project Hydrogeologist Copy: Jay Halley, P.G., GMA John Wise, P.E., GMA 110 Hands l=our Development Cooperative SW Orange County, NC Page 5 Report Certification I, William L. Lyke, a Licensed Geologist for Groundwater Management Associates, Inc. (GMA), do certify that the information contained in this report is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge. GMA is a professional corporation licensed to practice geology (Greenville and Apex, NC #C-121) and engineering (Apex, NC #C-0854) i of North Carolina. XCAFJO $ .`,ENS S9 � 13 ra Enclosures: Figure 1. Site Location Map Figure 2. Geologic Map of the Area Figure 3. Magnetometry Evaluation by Geo-Solutions Figure 4. Interpreted Site Geology and Possible Well Locations References: Heath, R.C., 1984, "Ground-Water Regions of the United States", United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2242, pp 46-48. North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1978, "Diabase Dikes of the Eastern Piedmont of North Carolina, Information Circular 23. North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985, "Geologic Map of North Carolina", North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Land Resources, 1 sheet. North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 2016, "Geologic Map of Orange County, North Carolina", NCGS Open-File Report 2016-05. 111 - LEGEND SITE PARCEL 0 PARCELS N STREAMS STREETS A • SMI � Y - G�p.� + , FILE:DRAWINGS/918301 'i "tl*1.... SITE LOCATION PROJECT: 168401 _ � SITE LOCATION MAP GOLD'MINE LOOP ROAD r - FIGURE 1 DATE 6/14/2023 0 SCALE IN FEET 3.000 GOLD MINE LOOP ROAD PROPERTY, ALAMANCE CHAPEL HILL, �� .� .. COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY,NC P DURHAM COUNTY rE GMA THIS PRODUCT IS FOR GENERAL REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, - !AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR,SURVEYOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES.LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. GIS SOURCE DATA: ! 0 60,000 Feet _ - -- CON TOURSAND,PARCEL BOUNDARIES FROM ORANGE COUNTY GIS, https'.l/www.orangeaounty,,Bg /gm OROU NDWATER MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES,INC. ice•• 112 g'r � LEGEND 54 NCGS MAPPED DIABASE � a e 17 O SITE PARCEL • �� _ - ` CONTOURS IA STREAMS ■ STREETS Qal:Alluvium.Stream deposits. LAPIN •, Zgd Granodiorite. Leucoractic to II et mesocratic, fine- to medium grained, • equigranular to porphyritic granodiorite. • ® oe,• May contain quartz diorite and diorite. • Q-• Typically contains dark green to black less 1 than 1 mm to 4 mm clots of amphibole and 1 y chlorite masses. Zhat(u):Altered tuffs.Very light gray to light greenish gray(whitish in areas)with red and •ti yellow mottling,altered volcaniclastic rocks. MORR VV MILL. u % Zhe Epiclastics. Mixed unit of metasedimentary rocks. Lithologies present include mudstone,siltstone,sandy siltstone, . POND I 4 sandstone, pebbly sandstone, and conglomerate. r — I Zhe/p : Mixed epiclastic-pyroclastic rocks. o Grayish-green to greenish-gray,tuffaceous 1� sandstones, conglomeratic sandstones, siltstones,and minor phyllite.The siltstones are typically weakly phyllitic. I • FILE:DRAWINGS/918301 • SII GEOLOGIC MAP PROJECT: 168401 T — GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE AREA r r — a FIGURE 2 DATE 6/14/2023 j SCALE IN FEET 0 450 900 j_ •�� , /� GOLD MINE LOOP ROAD PROPERTY, C� CHAPEL HILL, ORANGE COUNTY,NC y GEOLOGIC MAR FROM: �� A GEOLOGIC MAP,OF'IUO1RANGE COUNTY, (/NO\RT\H CAROLINA �� A THISPRODUCT IS FOR GENERAL REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NO TBE USED, ar —"- - AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR,SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PURPOSES.LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. - - GIS SOURCE DATA: CONTOURS AND,PARCEL BOUNDARIES FROM ORANGE COUNTY GIS, YELLO/N6RCK _ httpe.//www.orangecounrynugov/gis $ROU NO WATER MANAO[MINT A S0C1ATE5,INC. 113 Nk r � Ila -------------- CA i �MyNll9 inllll,ry V s F aLO �G MM�rylrruM`WN Total Magnetic Field Values{less 49,100 nT) 0 F'",,3 MaenetomesryEvaluasian 0 Chi N fT B A R N WT b o a o O c3 o S] © 6 0 0 4 0 O b Q Gold Mine Loop Rd Property Chapel Hi IL Map scale(ft) orange county,NC 0 300 500 Ge Sol=UmL 1"=3D0' � 114 LEGEND R °i�° " 'h '♦ POSSIBLE WELL LOCATIONS FIELD OBSERVATION POINTS NCGS MAPPED DIABASE SITE PARCEL CONTOURS N STREAMS I � WELL D� -. FQl Alluvium Stream deposits. -"te. Leucoractic to mesa ocratic, fine- to medium grained, equigranular to porphyritic granodiorite. an May contain quartz diorite and diorite. 10 Typically contains dark green to black less than 1 mm to 4 mm clots of amphibole and is chlorite masses. I ZIrl:Altered tuffs.Very light gray to light an greenish gray(whitish in areas)with red and yellow mottling,altered volcaniclastic rocks. Zhe Epiclastics. Mixed unit of a metasedimentary rocks. Lithologies present include mudstone,siltstone,sandy siltstone, 85• p sandstone, pebbly sandstone, and ••J",�; ``;\Measured Outcrop A9 conglomerate. Diabase Float AI Zhe/p : Mixed epiclastic-pyroclastic rocks. WELL A \ Grayish-green to greenish-gray,tuffaceous E 1 sandstones, conglomeratic sandstones, Outcrop Diabase Floatr siltstones,and minor phyllite.The siltstones \\ _ are typically weakly phyllitic. FILE:DRAWINGS/91830/ FIELD RESULTS PROJECT: 168401 Gray Outcrop / Diabase Float 3 INTERPRETED SITE GEOLOGYAND r Diabase Floats POSSIBLE WELL LOCATIONS =c � WELL C FIGURE 4 DATE 6/15/2023 ' 0 SCALEIN FEET 700 WELEL.B— Client well Site#2 GOLD MINE LOOP ROAD PROPERTY, CHAPEL HILL, ° ORANGE COUNTY,INC �s SAI OO�Vy - GEOLOGIC MAP OF ORANGE COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA ar NCGS OFR',2016-05 ' �' GMA , THIS PRODUCT IS FOR GENERAL REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, _ - I AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR,SURVEYOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES.LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. - GIS SOURCE DATA: ' CONTOURS AND,PARCEL BOUNDARIES FROM ORANGE COUNTY GIS, / ■ hsps//wwa.orangemuntync.govlgis .9 ORi1U NCWATER MANAOEMENT ASSOCIATES,INC, 115 - ----------- .44, > J5.250 ACM (NICtWkW f.224 AC IN RIWJ & FRwr 2 9D-IJJ ACRES ("XWM F-JJl AC.W ®r ff H, • F. ---------- li-A XT- ROBINSON&KANTE, P.C. VAX %.0%Jk*,tlrlrr1///,/i � CAR oSS 116 .•4 N AVVT Engineers and Soil Scientists _ c SEAL 024582 Agri-Waste Technology, Inc. E�'0'•. 501 N Salem Street, Suite 203,Apex, NC 27502 �i /' FNGINL�.• agriwaste.com 1 919.859.0669 �.•'.- ..•D�.��Q �� September 25, 2023 qz Mr. Ed Cox President Hands Four Development Cooperative Subject: Wastewater Treatment System Summary Fiddlehead Development Dear Mr. Cox; Thank you for the continued discussions regarding the proposed wastewater treatment system to serve the proposed development in Orange County. This is a very exciting and unique project. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this wastewater system. Please consider the following information as a summary of the proposed project implementation and a general overview of how the wastewater treatment system would be developed and designed. I welcome your input as we continue to move forward. Hands Four Development Cooperative will create a subsidiary, Hands Four Wastewater Management, to build and manage a wastewater treatment system from all facilities and residences in the Fiddlehead Development(project). The currently planned wastewater system applies a unitary approach throughout the entire project: STEP (septic tank effluent pumping) systems for primary treatment; the Orenco AdvanTex textile filter system for secondary treatment; and subsurface drip dispersal systems for final effluent discharge. This system will be designed and operated under the direction of Agri-Waste Technology, Inc. (AWT). We have the option of permitting this system through the traditional County Permitting (with Orange County) or utilizing the Engineered Option Permit(EOP)private permitting route. Either permitting option is viable for the project. STEP systems are an attractive contemporary solution to rural primary wastewater treatment. They can be configured to have one tank per residence (single family home, for example) or one tank collecting from multiple residences (attached or semi-attached housing, for example). The effluent from the primary STEP system is sufficiently dilute after the settling out of solid matter that it can be conveyed by small diameter plastic pipes to the secondary treatment system, and from there on to a drip system. The small pipes are economical in cost of material and in ease of installation. The STEP systems are a much preferred option compared to traditional grinder pumps as the STEP tank will allow"foreign objects", such as wipes, to remain in the tank and not to go through the pump (highly increased clogging potential). 117 In a community system, the effluent from the STEP tank goes first to mains, somewhat larger diameter plastic pipes (24" diameter)which typically are installed running parallel to roads. The mains coalesce into other mains that deliver the effluent to the centralized secondary treatment system. The primary feature of STEP systems, including the mains that take effluent to the secondary plant, are that they are sealed and under pressure. First, this eliminates infiltration of rainwater that would increase the volume of effluent needing to be processed. Secondly, flow is not controlled by gravity,but rather by pressure generated by the STEP tank pump. As a result, mains can go up as well as down to follow land contours. Secondary plants can be located where most convenient rather than at a lower elevation. In many cases, STEP systems are typically considerably more economical than conventional gravity sewers. STEP and secondary systems are modularized in a way that overall system design is very flexible. It is feasible to have one secondary system per house or dozens of residences per secondary system. We will typically design the complete system(to serve the maximum anticipated flow from the community), but then phase in the installation of the system as the community grows to its full potential. In this manner, additional units can be added at the plant site as effluent volume increases with community expansion. Again, the flexibility in the system will allow us to phase in the systems as the community grows. The Orenco AdvanTex system for secondary treatment consists of a series of textile filters that promote exposure of the wastewater contents to bacteria that decompose the organic matter. The large surface area of the filter enhances decomposition. The liquid is intermittently recirculated over the filter. AdvanTex units come in a variety of sizes, and multiple units can be combined to increase capacity. In my opinion, the units are relatively compact, quiet, sealed, odorless and unobtrusive. They are approved for use in many jurisdictions, including North Carolina. Advantex in NC links to a video describing one such system. A major benefit of the Advantex system is that its discharge water is clear, odorless, and has impressively low levels of fecal coliform bacteria, BODS, TSS, turbidity, as well as nutrients (see attached technical reports). Indeed, in many situations this effluent is suitable for reclaimed water applications. Beyond primary and secondary system considerations, the most important one is the means of discharging the final effluent,because this is what determines how much land will need to be set aside for this purpose. The subsurface drip dispersal (SSDD) system appears well-suited to our use. It consists of small diameter(-1/2")plastic tubing buried six-nine inches underground with "nodes" (i.e., discharge ports) located at 24 inch intervals along the tubing. Fields are laid out as parallel runs of tubing called "laterals", each connected to a supply manifold at one end and a return manifold at the other end. Individual runs are typically spaced 24 inches apart. Thus, each node supplies effluent to a 4 square foot area. The system is under pressure of typically 10-50 psi to discharge the effluent at the nodes. The tubing is considered"pressure compensating" such that all 118 nodes emit the same flowrate. The drainfield is broken into multiple zones to facilitate the distribution of the effluent to the drainfield. Pumping to the drainfield is done repeatedly over short intervals during the day. An especially attractive aspect of SSDD systems is that they can be located in wooded areas with just the removal of underbrush and saplings. By contrast, standard drainfields require tree removal and trenching to a depth greater than the diameter of the discharge pipe. Drip drainfields are segmented into zones of, say, 3000 linear feet per zone. There is much latitude for how zones are combined or distributed to work with the layout of residential pods and other components of the community, so that wastewater discharge can "fit in" rather than be "worked around". Another important consideration to emphasize is that drainfields can be used for other purposes and they can be located in otherwise undisturbed areas such as meadows and forests. Within reason, I believe we could locate walking trails over portions of the drainfield if desired. Several companies manufacture systems for subsurface drip discharge, including Geoflow and Netafim. They vary slightly in the details of their systems, but the basic design and functioning is similar for all companies. The main idea is for the majority of the water discharged to go into the atmosphere through evaporation and transpiration by virtue of the overlying plants, typically grass or trees. This contrasts with conventional systems that are designed for infiltration of discharge down through the subsoil earth. Determination of the area needed for discharge has been calculated for the system as follows. Final buildout would be 150 units at 2 bedrooms/unit. An unreduced design flow is calculated to be 150 x 2 x 120 gpd per bedroom= 36,000 gpd. However, given the characteristics of the community, a flow reduction to 90 gpm per bedroom appears warranted for the drainfield portion of the design. At 27,000 gpd and a conservative loading rate (based on using treatment) of 0.15 gpd/sq.ft. yields an area required for one field at 180,000 sq.ft. A factor of 3 times this quantity is used to account for the repair field and also the fanning out that occurs due to topography (the drainlines have to be installed on contour). This gives us a planning area of 540,000 sq. ft. or 12.4 acres. This would fit into the two effluent discharge areas that are currently reserved for this purpose. The current plan shows areas of 9.5 acres and 12.7 acres allocated to SSDD primary and repair. It is possible to reduce these areas and put the treated water to useful purposes using reclaimed water methods. Further study and planning will be devoted to water reuse for watering lawns, fields, and ornamental plants to the greatest extent possible. Please let me know if there are any questions or comments on this summary. Please feel free to contact me at 919-367-6310 or via email at kdavidsonO,agriwaste.com Regards; Kevin Davidson, P.E. V.P. of Engineering 119 Is7mallCommunity Collection Systems: Construction Costs Background Small rural community water and wastewater systems currently account for approximately 90%of environmental regulation violations,according to the Electric Power Research Institute(EPRI).1 In addition,according the EPA,.....small communities tend to be economically disadvantaged,under-served and resource-poor."Consequently, "they face significant barriers to building and maintaining effective wastewater treatment services"including ... • Economic/financial limitations • Inability to sustain community-wide systems(lack of economies of scale) • Inability to attract and maintain system operators • Lack of managerial competency and consistency • Extreme topography and climate • Geographic isolation/re mote ness2 Gravity sewer costs can overtax small communities. Manholes, lift-stations,and other appurtenances essential for gravity sewers are expensive when applied to areas lacking critical density,a commonality of small communities.Slope requirements for gravity sewers often result in excessive burial depths in hilly or flat terrain, increasing the cost per foot installed. In the late 1960's,the cost of conventional gravity collection systems in rural communities was found to dwarf the cost of treatment and dispersal.3 In the late 197O's,conventional gravity sewer estimates for the small community of Glide,Oregon, represented between 85 to 90%of the total system (collection and treatment)costs. Lacking operational knowledge, resources,and adequate budgets,small communities rarely develop or enforce ordinances aimed at regulating sanitary sewer connections,often leading to excessive infiltration and inflow(1/1)over time.Unabated, extraneous flows from sanitary sewers increase the need for(1) larger sanitary sewer pipe,(2) lift station capacity and operation and maintenance(0&M) requirements,and (3)treat- ment plant capacity and 0&M requirements, including energy consumption. Electrical costs associated with the processing of 1/1 can be expen- sive and costs are on the rise.Energy use consumes 30%to 40%of the 0&M budgets at small WWTPs.4 In many sanitary sewers,extraneous flow consisting of 1/1 is a major cause of hydraulic overloading of both the collection systems and the treatment plant(Santry, 1964; "Municipal Requirements for Sewer Infiltration," 1965; Brown and Caldwell, 1957).1/1 in a sanitary sewer system in one Midwestern suburban community was found to be as high as 0.02 cfs/acre or in excess of 1,300 gpd/capita(5 m3/d/capita).Average dry weather flows,on the other hand,were less than 70 gpd/capita(0.3 m3/d/capita).5 Alternative wastewater collection systems(also known as"pressure sewers")were conceived to circumvent the challenges of gravity sewers when they are applied to small communities.These include effluent sewers and grinder sewers.Alternative sewers are particularly cost effective in ... (1)sparsely populated or suburban areas (2) hilly or flat terrain (3)poor soil conditions:areas with rock (4) high groundwater (5)small communities that require lift station(s)or include creek or river crossings (6)small communities with minimal 0&M capability The cost savings of alternative sewers can be significant. For example,a 1998 report from the Illinois Community Action Association,titled Alternative Wastewater Systems in Illinois, included the results of comparative bidding for both effluent sewers and gravity sewers for the City of New Minden, IL.The cost to install an effluent sewer was$1,090,000 (1998 US Dollars),while the cost to install a comparable gravity sewer was $2,090,000,equating to a savings of$1,000,000.6 Orenco has collected and analyzed constructed costs from more than forty publicly funded and bid collection systems serving small communities. On average,Orenco effluent sewers cost 41%less than gravity sewers.The monthly debt retirement savings—per connection—equates to$28.44/month/connection (30 years, 3%),well above estimated 0&M costs for Orenco effluent sewers.As reported in "Operational Costs of Two Pressure Sewer Technologies: Effluent(STEP)Sewers and Grinder Sewers,"the uniform equivalent monthly(0&M)costs for effluent sewers manufactured by Orenco are$7.05/month/EDU includes solids management),while the uniform equivalent monthly(O&M)costs for grinder ©2014 Orenco Systems®Inc. NFS-EFS-CC-1 Rev.1.6,©08/14 Page 1 of 13 120 CommunitySmall 1 1 Construction 1 sewers are$16.91/month/EDU excludes solids management).7 According to Cagle et al,considering up-front capital and repair/replacement costs as well as 0&M costs over the projected life of the collection systems for Lacey,Washington,the life cycle costs of Lacey's STEP sewer are lower than those of a typical gravity sewer.8 Table 1.Constructed Costs*for Various Collection System Technologies(USD 2014). Type Average Median Minimum Maximum STEP $9,702 $9,283 $6,666 $15,687 Gravity $16,394 $15,304 $10,247 $25,112 Grinder $11,468 $11,258 $6,488 $15,693 *USD 2014 costs adjusted per ENRCCI. Throughout this document,costs for collection systems are separated into two main components; (1)on-lot equipment(i.e.components installed on private property with easements for construction and maintenance),and (2) Right-Of-Way(ROW)components that consist of pressure mains, gravity mains,and ancillary equipment. 1 t � '4 17, Figure 1.Collection system costs include on-lot equipment and right-of-way components. All costs contained herein are approximate, largely predicated upon publicly bid jobs with prevailing wage requirements,and require further evalu- ation and corroboration.Where noted, 2014 costs are adjusted according to Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index(ENRCCI). On-Lot Capital Costs Costs: Effluent Sewer On-Lot Pump Package On-lot equipment for effluent sewers consists of the following: • 1,000-or 1,500-gal (4-or 6-m3) interceptor tank(typically constructed of concrete or fiberglass) • Tank access equipment(including access riser and access riser lid) • Pump vault with 1/8-inch (3-mm) mesh screen • Control panel • High-head effluent pump,%2 Hp(0.25 kW), 115 VAC • Service connection (ball valve and check valve) • Short building sewer line • Shallowly buried,small-diameter service lateral at constant depth (below frost depth) NFS-EFS-CC-1 ®2014 Orenco Systems®Inc. Rev.1.6,©08/14 Page 2 of 13 121 CommunitySmall 1 1 Construction 1 Fiheaxla.c.r Gasheted Lid with 9ainie.&y.Steel&JAY(irataoralinra gvirlmit) P C&Ter(24"0) PVC Riser w0h iCarv+nnaels(24'0) 4 hwulariotr fdjaaiatxal Grund Surfoee 1•!.7"FZ Prig 2"Below Lid FifAr.tiCawar»t t Disc BelowFRIS1 ATM Trak rkleziiter P � 1.35 iU l3rst•hcrrfe 4"( palet 114.saalat'.ahrnY Jrnst lime) 1-1.114"High Fressarry HOM l kNrl A.TTV00111'(•veNlatf,R lased rrrt rank fttunufirC•ttu-e'r) 9 Cheek MA-L, O u nco Eyii aaew Pump Filer Ccarrrldge Bieafahe Pitmp KnO Mirertight Cowrere Tanh .SECTION VIEW Figure 2.Typical STEP system. Constructed costs for on-lot effluent sewer equipment-excluding the service connection, building sewer,and service lateral-are provided in Table 2. On-lot STEP package installation costs vary as a result of(1)tank volume, (2)tank material, (3) burial depth, (4)geological conditions, (5) groundwater elevation, (6)tank location and building sewer length,and (7) number of units. Table 2.Capital Costs:On-Lot STEP Package for Orenco Effluent Sewers. Project Name Year Tank Volume,gal. (m3) Unit Qty USD/Conn. Tank Depth,ft(m) Atoka,TN 2009 1,000(3.8) Each 226 $4,700 2-3 (0.6-0.9) Lexington, IN 2010 1,500(5.7) Each 117 $4,532 2-3 (0.6-0.9) Bayou La Batre,AL 2010 1,000(3.8) Each 26 $4,400 1.5-2 (0.4-0.6) Bayou La Batre,AL 2010 1,500 (5.7) Each 26 $4,950 1.5-2 (0.4-0.6) Rathbun Lake, IA 2011 1,250(4.7) Each 24 $4,289 4-5 (1.2-1.5) Superior, IA 2011 1,000 (3.8) Each 69 $4,485 4-6 (1.2-1.8) Fulton,AL 2012 1,000 (3.8) Each 125 $3,400 1.5-2 (0.4-0.6) Fulton,AL 2012 1,500 (5.7) Each 5 $4,000 1.5-2 (0.4-0.6) Christiansburg, OH 2013 1,000(3.8) Each 100 $5,095 <3 (0.9) Coffeeville,AL 2014 1,000 (3.8) Each 190 $3,623 2-3 (0.6-0.9) ®2014 Orenco Systems®Inc. NFS-EFS-CC-1 Rev.1.6,©08/14 Page 3 of 13 122 CommunitySmall Collection Construction Costs Capital Costs: Grinder Sewer On-Lot Pump Package On-lot equipment for grinder systems consists of the following: • 1-2 Hp(0.75-1.5 kVA, 230 VAC grinder pump • 80-to 100-gallon (0.3-to 0.4-m3) basin,typically polyethylene or fiberglass • Control panel and level controls • Service connection (ball valve and check valve) • Short building sewer, • Shallowly buried, small-diameter service lateral at constant depth (below frost depth). Constructed costs for on-lot grinder packages, excluding the service connection, building sewer,and service lateral, are provided in Table 3. On-lot grinder package installation costs vary as a result of basin volume, basin material, Figure 3.Typical grinder burial depth,geological conditions,groundwater elevation, basin location and building sewer length, number of units, basin,pump,and assembly. reserve storage requirements,and existing home electrical upgrades for 230 VAC power. Table 3.On-Lot Grinder Package Capital Costs for Grinder Sewers. Project Name Yr Unit Qty USD/Connection Carlisle, IA 2008 Each 152 $4,035 Leisure Lake, IA 2012 Each 339 $5,207 Costs: Pressure Sewer(Grinder and Effluent Sewer) Service Laterals In addition to the pump packages that are required for grinder and effluent sewers,pressure sewers also require a 1-inch to 1.25-inch diameter (25-mm to 30-mm)service lateral installed at a constant depth.Service laterals include a service connection (Figure 4)that consists of a ball valve, check valve,and access riser. —k dwiXtuss Gask&0ted Lid wird/ sudilless•SIM BOILS fh.wid"t&»r q 10fial) Frm—L1ate RowdSrrrl'irec• 14 Coto, Insulared C'r+(ywrTopviilg Kirt, PVC'Af.-rc°s.sRisvrwith,Lidt1210i 6_ a ('luck•[ 401-C, Lull 1�rl�t� 1.T,ii 0 Su rvic c Lcrltrcrl tccrry icarY�N I Tee or Saddle or Tap Mouse Holes Figure 4.Pressure sewer service lateral. NFS-EFS-CC-1 ®2014 Orenco Systems®Inc. Rev.1.6,©08/14 Page 4 of 13 123 CommunitySmall 1 1 Construction 1 Table 4 lists constructed costs for several service laterals. Service lateral costs vary based upon (1) main line depth, (2) geological conditions, (3) groundwater elevation, (4) pipe material, and (5) service lateral length. Table 4.Constructed Costs:Service Laterals for Grinder and Effluent Sewers. Project Name Yr Connections USD/Linear Ft USD/Meter USD/Connection Carlisle, IA 2008 152 $8.00 $26.24 $816 Lexington, IN 2010 117 (not available) (not available) $290 Fulton,AL 2012 130 $2.75 $9.02 $275 Coffeeville,AL 2014 200 $2.83 to$6.40 $9.28 to$20.99 $401 On-Lot Costs: Gravity Sewers On-lot equipment for gravity sewers consists of a 4-inch to 6-inch (100-to 150-mm)diameter service lateral installed at a 2% slope to provide gravity flow to the mainline. If, depending on the depth of the gravity main, gravity service cannot be provided,a pumping system is required to lift the sewage up to the gravity main. Street line q Street lane Sidewalk i Sidewalk Roadway I Roadway ' ,4..i r Service connection Selvaoa connection 30'bend I I I I I I IConcrete chimney Common sewer Common sewer Cross-section Crass-section Figure 5.Typical gravity sewer service lateral(Water Supply and Wastewater Removal,2011). Table 5 lists constructed costs for service laterals from a number of gravity sewer projects. Constructed costs for gravity sewer service laterals vary based upon main line depth, geological conditions, groundwater elevation, pipe material,and service lateral length. Table 5.Constructed Costs:Building Service Laterals for Gravity Sewers. Project Name Yr Connections USD/Linear Ft USD/Meter USD/Connection Lore City, OH 2013 129 $55 to$115 $180 to$377 $2,387 Coolville, OH 2013 196 $27 $88 $700 Harrisville, OH 2013 97 $31 $101 $571 Glenford, OH 2014 64 $40 to$74 $131 to$242 $1,686 Right-Of-Way Capital Costs ROW Costs: Pressure Sewers Mainline and appurtenances for pressure sewers(grinder and effluent)typically consist of the following: • Small diameter mainlines—2-to 4-inch (50-to 100-mm)typical—that follow the contour of the land (see Figure 6) • Service saddles ®2014 Orenco Systems®Inc. NFS-EFS-CC-1 Rev.1.6,©08/14 Page 5 of 13 124 CommunitySmall Collection Construction Costs • Air release valves • Clean-outs • Pigging ports • Mainline isolation valves. Mainline material is generally polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or polyethylene (PE or HDPE),with pipe buried at shallow depths and with fewer joints compared to gravity sewers due to their increased individual pipe lengths. fi• . . . —1 J i—- -—----- Figure 6.Typical pressure sewer profile,following the contour of the land. Table 6, adapted from Water Supply and Wastewater Removal (2011), lists approximate costs for pressure sewer mains and appurtenances. Construction costs fluctuate due to(1) geological conditions, (2) burial depth, (3) pipe material, (4) groundwater depth,and (5)surface restoration requirements. Table 6.Installed Unit Costs:Pressure Sewer Mains(Effluent and Grinder)and Appurtenances.* Item Unit Cost per Unit, in 2008 USD 2-inch (50-mm) diameter mainline Linear ft(meter) $10.70($35.10) 3-inch (80-mm) diameter mainline Linear ft(meter) $11.40 ($37.40) 4-inch (100-mm) diameter mainline Linear ft(meter) $12.90 ($42.32) 6-inch (150-mm) diameter mainline Linear ft(meter) $18.00 ($59.05) 8-inch (200-mm) diameter mainline Linear ft(meter) $20.00($65.61) 2-inch (50-mm) diameter isolation valve Each $360 3-inch (80-mm) diameter isolation valve Each $390 4-inch (100-mm) diameter isolation valve Each $500 6-inch (150-mm) diameter isolation valve Each $570 8-inch (200-mm) diameter isolation valve Each $820 Automatic air release station Each $1,430 `Table 18.8,Water Supply and Wastewater Removal,2011. NFS-EFS-CC-1 m 2014 Orenco Systems®Inc. Rev.1.6,©08/14 Page 6 of 13 125 CommunitySmall 1 1 Construction 1 ROW Costs: Gravity Sewer ROW equipment for gravity sewers consists of the following: • Large diameter mainline laid at a constant slope(see Figure 7) • Manholes • Lift stations(if required) • Air release valves(if required) Costs fluctuate based upon bedding material, location (rural versus urban),clearing costs,topography,geological conditions, depth,and surface restoration costs.Table 7 lists constructed costs for PVC gravity sewer pipe, excluding manholes, lift-stations,service wye's, and terminal clean- outs. It assumes ideal soil conditions, no dewatering,and an 8-ft(2.4-meter) mean burial depth. ! CM 6 CM ., X lL7 CID � 1 j �k � 1 JL CQ VJ t as 1 ti rq Tarvia f { 1 r L4 E Cinders W = Tarvia Cinders fes~ i~�i4.5�y� �`''�� rrr drain ,y1�'' �r+ �r �Lna�r ; 'e water- f si.i 1"Ci�s mer �� ~} 10"v.c.dral., 1 rrf f Nest of rr%yn 9 A"Gas 10"-12 j r r r �'k IMIders gt 35.86' � $[ ln ¢ r •1"Garr 'r 219.78 fAIMF 'have^' r Y Vl /$al6t6f r{ 4"V.cd J d 0L' J ¢s >; r rr r Y >rr f a rk } r r r Iva lz� A cmc ++ + + ++ + + +++ rf ++ ++ + f Ir+ + NN N N N N N M v aq r + + + + s ele . 5.0mm SasBa's'e eleIvI. 115I.00 I Ci 0 1 1 +35-86 3 +00.48 4 5 + 20.23 Figure 7.Profile of gravity sewer(Water Supply and Wastewater Removal,2011). Table 7.Installed Unit Costs:Gravity Sewer Pipe USD/Linear Ft(PVC)* Item Unit Cost per Unit,in 2008 USD 6-inch (150-mm) diameter mainline Linear ft(meter) $27($88) 8-inch (200-mm) diameter mainline Linear ft(meter) $30 ($98) 12-inch (300-mm) diameter mainline Linear ft(meter) $35($114) Table 16.3,Water Supply and Wastewater Removal,2011. Manholes are generally required at the end of each line,at all changes in grade,size,or alignment, at all intersections, and at distances not to exceed 400 ft(121 m)for sewers with diameters of 15 inches (375 mm) or less.9 With small gravity sewers, a minimum manhole diameter(bot- tom) of 4 ft(1.2 m) is widely accepted.Table 8 lists constructed costs for sanitary sewer manholes. ®2014 Orenco Systems®Inc. NFS-EFS-CC-1 Rev.1.6,©08/14 Page 7 of 13 126 CommunitySmall Collection Construction Costs Table 8.Constructed Costs:Gravity Sewer Manholes(USD). Project Name Yr Connections Unit USD Lore City, OH 2013 129 Each $3,500 to$5,500 Coolville, OH 2013 196 Each $2,800 to$6,000 Harrisville, OH 2013 97 Each $2,345 to$4,650 Glenford, OH 2014 64 Each $2,700 to$4,500 When gravity sewers are installed in trenches deeper than 10 ft(3 m),the cost of sewer line installation increases significantly because of the more complex and costly excavation equipment and trench shoring techniques required. Lift stations are used to reduce mainline installation depth and, in some cases, reduce the capital cost of sewer system construction. Lift station construction has a significant economy of scale,and is generally expensive and difficult to apply to small communities. For example, if the capacity of a lift station is increased by 100%,the construc- tion cost would increase only by 50 to 55%.Table 9 lists constructed costs for lift stations that were constructed for small communities. Table 9.Constructed Costs:*Gravity Sewer Lift Stations(USD). Project Name Yr Unit Qty USD Coolville, OH (Pump Station#1) 2013 Each 1 $50,000 Coolville, OH (Pump Station#2) 2013 Each 1 $45,000 Coolville, OH (Pump Station#3) 2013 Each 1 $45,000 Coolville, OH (Pump Station#4) 2013 Each 1 $50,000 Coolville, OH (Pump Station#5) 2013 Each 1 $90,000 Harrisville, OH (Pump Station#1) 2013 Each 1 $97,250 Harrisville, OH (Pump Station#2) 2013 Each 1 $97,125 Glenford, OH 2014 Each 2 $90,000 Coolville,OH(235 connections),Harrisville,OH(97 connections),and Glenford,OH(64 connections). Tank Decommissioning and Abandonment Costs Providing sewer service to communities that currently manage wastewater with individual onsite systems typically requires abandonment of the existing septic tanks.Wastewater from existing septic tanks is first pumped, and then the tank is typically crushed and backfilled with appropriate fill material.Table 10 lists septic tank abandonment costs from various septic tank abatement projects. Construction costs will vary based upon (1) tank depths and locations, (2) geological conditions, (3) backfill costs,and (4)septic tank pumping and hauling costs. Table 10.Costs:Decommissioning and Abandonment of Existing Septic Tank. Project Name Year Unit Qty USD/Connection Atoka,TN 2009 Each 226 $400 Bayou La Batre,AL 2010 Each 26 $550 Lexington, IN 2010 Each 117 $373 EI Dorado,AR 2011 Each 440 $495 Rathbun Lake, IA 2011 Each 27 $475 Fulton,AL 2012 Each 125 $200 Bixby, MN 2012 Each 28 $280 NFS-EFS-CC-1 ®2014 Orenco Systems®Inc. Rev.1.6,©08/14 Page 8 of 13 127 CommunitySmall 1 1 Construction 1 Total Collection System Costs Constructed costs for various small community grinder, gravity,and Orenco Effluent Sewer projects are tabulated in Table 11. Costs are highly dependent on local site conditions (soil conditions, groundwater depth, surface restoration requirements,topography,and material choices) and therefore are only provided for general comparison purposes. 2014 USD costs are adjusted using Engineer News Record Construction Cost Index (ENRCCI). Table 11.Total Collection System Costs:*Orenco Effluent Sewers. Project Name Year Connections Bid USD/Connection USD/Connection(2014) Atoka,TN 2009 226 $1,816,115 $8,036 $9,113 Ewing,VA 2010 25 $150,884 $6,035 $6,666 Morefield Bottom,VA 2010 53 $610,979 $11,528 $12,733 Tishomingo, MO 2010 238 $2,213,656 $9,301 $10,274 Lexington, IN 2010 117 $1,117,792 $9,554 $10,553 Perks, IL 2011 58 $544,715 $9,392 $10,064 EI Dorado,AR 2011 402 $3,085,873 $7,676 $8,226 Hillsdale, NY 2011 130 $922,750 $7,098 $7,606 Fulton Phase I,AL 2012 130 $1,037,545 $7,981 $8,334 Christiansburg, OH 2013 242 $2,042,550 $8,440 $8,592 Cleveland, MS(Isaac Daniels) 2013 36 $401,890 $11,163 $11,365 Cleveland, MS(Stanton) 2013 43 $453,816 $10,553 $10,744 Cleveland, MS(Noblin) 2013 76 $692,995 $9,118 $9,283 McIntosh,AL 2013 409 $3,205,307 $7,836 $7,978 Eagleville,TN 2014 150 $1,429,317 $9,528 $9,529 Woden, IA" 2014 147 $2,306,052 $15,687 $15,687 Coffeeville,AL 2014 200 $1,638,943 $8,194 $8,195 The tanks in Woden,IA,were between five and ten feet deep.USD 2014 costs adjusted per ENRCCI. Table 12.Total Collection System Costs:*Grinder Sewers. Project Name Year Connections Bid USD/Connection USD/Connection (2014) Carlisle(Avon Lake), IA 2008 152 $1,409,456 $9,272 $10,845 Ellston, IA 2010 31 $440,423 $14,207 $15,693 Fenton, IA 2011 185 $2,014,830 $10,890 $11,670 Leisure Lake, IA 2012 339 $3,294,798 $9,719 $10,148 Ringgold, IA 2012 104 $1,390,888 $13,373 $13,964 Lampton, MS 2013 516 $3,288,329 $6,372 $6,488 USD 2014 costs adjusted per ENRCCI. ®2014 Orenco Systems®Inc. NFS-EFS-CC-1 Rev.1.6,©08/14 Page 9 of 13 128 CommunitySmall Collection Construction Costs Table 13.Total Collection System Costs:*Gravity Sewers. Project Name Year Connections Bid USD/Connection USD/Connection (2014) Village of Alma, IL 2005 165 $1,509,737 $9,150 $11,943 Village Manor, OH 2007 49 $596,995 $12,183 $14,865 Amesville, OH 2007 82 $688,670 $8,398 $10,247 Lawr Chester, OH 2008 170 $2,631,776 $15,481 $18,106 Marion Township, OH 2009 189 $2,040,240 $10,794 $12,242 Village of Yorkshire, OH 2010 52 $991,816 $19,073 $21,068 Pleasant Plain, IA 2010 68 $1,082,393 $15,917 $17,582 Promise City, IA 2010 63 $585,982 $9,301 $10,274 Knox County- Bladensburg, OH 2011 77 $964,767 $12,529 $13,426 Knox County- Millwood, OH 2011 48 $1,124,892 $23,435 $25,112 Town of Appalacia/Exeter,VA 2011 125 $1,218,820 $9,750 $10,448 Harrisville, OH 2011 93 $1,976,503 $21,252 $22,773 Town of Morristown, NY 2011 108 $2,497,065.00 $23,120 $24,775 Fairview, IA 2011 30 $411,001.50 $13,700 $14,680 Los Osos, CA(Area B and C) 2012 1757 $29,425,000.00 $16,747 $17,487 Hastings, IA 2012 72 $777,650.35 $10,800 $11,278 Coolville, OH 2013 235 $3,634,005.00 $15,463 $15,742 Harrisville, OH 2013 97 $1,277,721.80 $13,172 $13,410 Lore City, OH 2013 160 $3,262,767.25 $20,392 $20,760 Glenford, OH (Re-Bid) 2014 64 $1,386,718.00 $21,667 $21,667 USD 2014 costs adjusted per ENRCCI. Table 14 summarizes the data tabulated in Tables 11-13. Based upon the above data set,on average, Orenco Effluent Sewers have construction costs that are 41% less than gravity sewers. Table 14.Constructed Collection System Costs:*Three Collection System Technologies(USD 2014). Type Average Median Minimum Maximum STEP $9,702 $9,283 $6,666 $15,687 Gravity $16,394 $15,304 $10,247 $25,112 Grinder $11,468 $11,258 $6,488 $15,693 USD 2014 costs adjusted per ENRCCI. Note that STEP systems integrate primary treatment into the collection system,thereby eliminating influent screening, primary clarification, and other primary treatment processes common in secondary wastewater treatment facilities. Pressure sewers(STEP and grinder)are low pressure and watertight,therefore nearly eliminating 1/1,which enables smaller secondary and advanced treatment processes. Phasing Considerations Developments or communities that anticipate slow growth are often well suited for Orenco Effluent Sewers.The front-end infrastructure (main- lines) represent less than 20%of the overall cost of the collection system; the majority of the costs (on-lot equipment) are deferred until the home is constructed or connected,and they are generally financed with the home. NFS-EFS-CC-1 ®2014 Orenco Systems®Inc. Rev.1.6,©08/14 Page 10 of 13 129 CommunitySmall 1 1 Construction 1 For example,there is a$73,500 difference in present worth cost associated with a 100-unit development that installs all of the collection system equipment up-front(Figure 8,Option 2)compared to installing ten (10)systems per year over the next ten (10)years(Figure 8, Option 1).This assumes on-lot equipment at$5,000/connection and 3% interest.The user rate savings are$3.12/month/connection less than if the system were constructed entirely at the outset,assuming 3% interest and a 30-year term. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 A=$54,000 N=10 PW—$500,000 1=3% PAY=$426,50fl Option 1 Option 2 Figure 8.Economics of phasing in an Orenco Effluent Sewer system. Life Cycle Costs Virtually all wastewater collection and treatment system owners will spend more on operation and maintenance than on the initial capital cost of the system.Consequently,when evaluating collection system options or establishing user rates,a thorough understanding of operation and main- tenance costs is critical. Until recently,operation and maintenance costs of alternative collection systems weren't substantiated with long-term data.As reported in "Operational Costs of Two Pressure Sewer Technologies:Effluent(STEP)Sewers and Grinder Sewers,"the uniform equivalent monthly costs for effluent sewers(Orenco) and grinder sewers are$7.05/month/EDU and$16.91/month/EDU, respectively(Molatore, p.12). Moreover,the effluent sewer cost includes solids management and the grinder system cost does not. Lacey,Washington has a hybrid collection system consisting of 12,000 gravity sewer connections—with 47 lift stations and 152 miles(244 km) of mainlines—3,000 effluent sewer connections,and 102 grinder pump connections. In a paper presented at WEFTEC 2013,Orenco's Bill Cagle et al concluded that,"With substantially lower up-front capital and repair/replacement costs,and with 0&M costs that are virtually the same as those of gravity sewers,the life cycle costs of Lacey's STEP [effluent] sewer are clearly lower than those of a typical gravity sewer"(Cagle et al, P-1). Based on data listed in Table 14,the average difference in cost between an Orenco Effluent Sewer($9,702/connection)and a gravity sewer ($16,394/connection) is$6,692. If the average difference in cost(between gravity sewers and Orenco Effluent Sewers)were financed over 30 years at 3% interest,the monthly debt retirement cost per connection would be$28.44—an insurmountable deficit to overcome,even with the perceived lower operation and maintenance costs of gravity sewers. Additional Resources In 2010 the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF)developed fact sheets for gravity sewers,effluent sewers,grinder sewers,and vacuum sewers.The fact sheets include design characteristics, performance,and costs for each collection system technology.A Wastewater Planning Model (cost estimating tool) is also available that allows users to compare capital and life cycle costs of effluent sewers to those of grinder,vacuum,and gravity sewers.10 An example for a 200-unit subdivision is shown in the following tables.WERF's results generally show that effluent sewers are the lowest cost alternative,with respect to up-front and life cycle costs. ©2014 Orenco Systems®Inc. NFS-EFS-CC-1 Rev.1.6,©08/14 Page 11 of 13 130 CommunitySmall Collection Construction Costs Table 15.WERF Wastewater Planning Model:Effluent and Grinder Sewers(200 EDU). Cost Description Effluent Sewer Grinder Sewer Cost of collection network $516,179 to $774,268 $525,950 to $788,925 Installation cost of on-lot $2,625 to $3,938 $4,291 to $6,436 Total installation cost $1,041,232 to $1,561,848 $1,384,090 to $2,076,135 Total system cost/connection $5,206 to $7,809 $6,920 to $10,381 Annual on-lot 0&M $63 to $78 $224 to $336 Table 16.WERF Wastewater Planning Model:Vacuum and Gravity Sewers(200 EDU). Cost Description Vacuum Sewer Gravity Sewer Cost of collection network $2,120,188 to $3,180,283 $3,092,330 to $4,638,494 Installation cost of on-lot $3,761 to $5,641 $726 to $1,088 Total installation cost $2,120,188 to $3,180,283 $4,638,494 to $5,001,322 Total system cost/connection $10,601 to $15,901 $23,192 to $25,007 Annual on-lot 0&M Maintained by utility $16 to $24 Conclusion Small communities face enormous challenges when constructing and maintaining wastewater infrastructure. Conventional collection system tech- nologies—when applied to small, rural communities—typically result in costs that exceed affordability thresholds and ultimately require grant subsidies to attain reasonable user rates.Without economies of scale, operational budgets are often underfunded, ultimately jeopardizing system sustainability and threatening permit non-compliance. Alternative collection systems were developed and designed to avoid the shortcomings associated with applying gravity sewers to small communi- ties. Historically, effluent sewers($9,702/connection) have resulted in an average cost savings of$6,692 (41%),when compared to gravity sew- ers($16,394/connection).The monthly debt retirement savings—per connection—equates to$28.44/month/connection (30 years,3%),well above the estimated uniform equivalent monthly 0&M costs for effluent(Orenco) sewers of$7.05/month/EDU. With increasing energy costs, uncertainties about future fossil fuel supplies, and increasing awareness of the impacts of greenhouse gas emis- sions,the efficient management of energy is now of greater concern among both private and public entities." Orenco effluent sewer systems are largely immune to extraneous flows, resulting in a major cost savings, both capital and electrical, at the WWTP. Orenco effluent sewer systems, by design,also enable simpler operations, less expensive operational equipment,and less reactive maintenance with respect to immediate response time relative to individual onsite problems versus gravity or lift station problems. NFS-EFS-CC-1 ®2014 Orenco Systems®Inc. Rev.1.6,©08/14 Page 12 of 13 131 CommunitySmall 1 1 Construction 1 References Burton, Franklin L. Water and Wastewater Industries: Characteristics and Energy Management Opportunities. St. Louis:The Electric Power Research Institute Community Environmental Center, 1996. Print. 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).Wastewater in Small Communities— Basic Information.Washington, D.C.: http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/wastewater/basic.cfm.Website. 3 Shammas, Nazih K., and Lawrence K.Wang. Fair, Geyer, and Okun's Water and Wastewater Engineering:Water Supply and Wastewater Removal. 3rd ed. Hoboken:John Wiley&Sons, 2011. Print. 4 WEF Manual of Practice#32: Energy Conservation in Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities. New York City:Water Environment Federation, 2009. Print. 5 Bizier, Paul. Gravity Sanitary Sewer Design and Construction. Reston,VA:American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007. Print. 6 Alternative Wastewater Systems in Illinois. Illinois Community Action Association, 1998. Print. Molatore,Tyler J. Operational Costs of Two Pressure Sewer Technologies: Effluent(STEP) Sewers and Grinder Sewers. Orenco Systems, 2010. Print. 8 Cagle, Bill,Terry Cargil, and Roger Dickinson. 20-Year Life Cycle Analysis of an Effluent Sewer(STEP) System, City of Lacey,Washington. WEFTEC. 2013.Technical Paper. 9 Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities.Wastewater Committee of the Great Lakes—Upper Mississippi River, Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers.Albany, N.Y.: Health Research, Inc., 2004. 10 Decentralized Systems Performance and Costs Fact Sheets.Water Environment Research Foundation, 2010,www.wet.org/i/c/decentralized- cost/decentralized cost.aspx.Website. Tchobanoglous, George, H. David Stensel, and Ryujiro Tsuchihashi.Wastewater Engineering:Treatment and Reuse. New York City: McGraw Hill, 2013. Print. ®2014 Orenco Systems®Inc. NFS-EFS-CC-1 Rev.1.6,©08/14 Page 13 of 13 132 SOIL VAU Engineers and Sail Scientists Agri-Waste Technology,Inc. _ 501 North Salem Street Suite203 `9')Cw }22 Apex,NC 27502J { s 919-859-0669 www.agriwaste.eom Soil Suitabilityfor Domestic Sew"ae Treatment and Disposal Systems Morrow Mill and Gold Mine Roads, Chapel Hill, NC Orange County Prepared For: Dr. Mareah Steketee, Triangle Traditional Music & Dance Retirement Society XCOPY: Mr. Scott Radway, Radway Design Group Prepared By: Jeff Vaughan, Ph.D., L.S.S. Senior Agronomist/Soil Scientist Julie Davidson Senior GIS Analyst Report Date: April 7, 2022 133 Engineers and Soil Scientists Agri-Waste Technology, Inc. 501 N. Salem Street,Suite 203 Apex, North Carolina 27502 910-859-0669 www,agriwaste.com Soil Suitability for Domestic Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems Morrow Mill and Gold Mine Loop Roads, Chapel Hill,NC (Orange County) PREPARED FOR: Dr. Mareah Steketee, Triangle Traditional Music &Dance Retirement Society XCOPY: Mr. Scott Radway, Radway Design Group PREPARED BY: Jeff Vaughan Julie Davidson DATE: April 7, 2022 Soil suitability for domestic sewage treatment and disposal systems was evaluated on March 28, 2022, for property located on Morrow Mill and Gold Mine Loop Roads near Chapel Hill,NC. Heath Clapp, Trent Bostic, Brent Purdum, Julie Davidson, and Jeff Vaughan of Agri-Waste Technology, Inc. (AWT) conducted the soil evaluation. The detailed soil evaluation of the land area will follow. A property reference map is in Attachment 1. The permits for the existing wells and septic system on the property are also in Attachment 1. A review of the soil and landscape characteristics that dictate soil suitability for domestic sewage treatment and disposal systems can be found in Attachment 2. The total property area is approximately 125 acres. The property is mostly wooded, but there is one residence with associated septic system and wells, several outbuildings/barns, 2 ponds, and a vineyard on the property. There are several drainage features with moderate slopes on the property (Attachment 3). Soil Suitability for Domestic Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems The aerial map in Attachment 3 details the approximate property boundaries, soil boring locations, soil types, and soil areas for septic systems. Approximately 81 soil borings were advanced on the property on the property (Attachment 3). A portion of the property contained drainage features, complex topography, existing buildings, and/or unsuitable soils and, thus, are unsuitable for septic systems. However, this evaluation was merely a preliminary review to determine what potential this land might have for domestic sewage treatment and disposal systems. Therefore, specific types of septic systems, exact locations of future drainfields and repair areas, plus buffers from property lines (current and potential future lot lines),building foundations, wells, etc. are not fully considered. These things will need to be more fully considered as the plans develop for the potential 1 134 future of this site. It is possible that additional soil evaluations will be required once lot layouts are considered and developed for this property so that septic system types and the location of a septic drainfield can be more fully and appropriately considered. Several areas (see map in Attachment 3) exhibited soil characteristics and soil depths (20" or greater)that are provisionally suitable for conventional or shallow conventional trench septic systems. These areas are approximately 80,418ft2, 1,613,285ft2, 96,442ft2, and 806,107ft2. Typical profile descriptions of the provisionally suitable soil for this property are in Attachment 4. Three distinct soil profiles were observed in the soil borings on the property: a deep red clay subsoil, a shallower reddish-yellow clay subsoil, and a very shallow reddish-yellow clay subsoil. The provisionally suitable soil borings had the following characteristics. No restrictive horizons were found in any provisionally soil borings within 24" of the soil surface. Soil texture was provisionally suitable and was estimated to be silt loam near the soil surface (A horizons) and clay loam to clay in the subsoil (B horizons). Soil structure was provisionally suitable and was estimated to be granular near the soil surface (A horizons) and subangular blocky in the subsoil (B horizons). Clay mineralogy was provisionally suitable with very friable to firm moist soil consistence and non-sticky to sticky and non- plastic to plastic wet soil consistence. Indications of saprolite were detected in some soil borings,but were not dominant in profiles. The major soil types on this property are Georgeville silt loam (map symbols GeB and GeQ, Herndon silt loam(map symbols HrB and HrQ, and Tarrus silt loam (map symbol Tal)). The Orange County Soil Survey indicates that moderate limitations exist for septic systems installed in these soil types (Attachment 5). The land area required for a conventional or shallow conventional septic system is calculated based on the size of the proposed home and the Long-Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) of the soil. The LTAR range for the provisionally suitable soils on this property is 0.1 —0.4 GPD/ft2 based on the most restrictive soil texture in the subsoil. Table 1 below presents estimated conventional or shallow conventional septic system land area requirements for several home sizes and LTAR's on this property. The LTAR suggested by AWT for a majority of the provisionally suitable soil is 0.25 GPD/ft2,but the final LTAR for specific septic system types and septic drainfield locations will be set by the Orange County Health Department. The detailed computations are in Attachment 6. 2 135 Table 1. Estimated Conventional Septic System Land Requirements (including repair area) for Several Home Sizes and Long-Term Acceptance Rates (LTAR) on this Property. House Size Long Term Area Required for Minimum Area Required for Acceptance Rate Conventional Septic Innovative Conventional LTAR System Septic System -----GPD/ft------ -----W----- -----W----- 3 bedrooms 0.1 -0.4 6,750— 32,400 8,100—24,300 3 bedrooms 0.25 10,800 7,020 4 bedrooms 0.1 -0.4 9,000—43,200 6,750—32,400 4 bedrooms 0.25 14,400 10,800 5 bedrooms 0.1 -0.4 11,250—54,000 8,438—40,500 5 bedrooms 0.25 18,000 13,500 Conclusions Based on the results of this evaluation, the installation of conventional or shallow conventional septic systems seems very probable on this property in the areas designated on the map in Attachment 3. Other areas on the property could possibly be used for more sophisticated septic systems. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you in this matter. Please contact us with any questions, concerns, or comments. triangletraditional 3 136 ATTACHMENT 3: Property Map Detailing Soil Suitability for Septic Systems and Soil Types AVV 1 Suitable Area: Area 1 — 80,418 sq.ft. Engineers and Soil Sc entists °• Area 2— 1,613,285 sq.ft. Agri-Waste Technology,Inc. 0 O Area 3-- 96,442 sq.ft. 501 N.Salem St.Suite 203 O Area 4— 806,107 sq.ft. Apex NC 27502 P:919.859.0669 www.agriwaste.com Soil Type: GeB/GeC-Georgeville silt loam Preliminary Soil Evaluation ®`•'. TaD-Tarrus silt loam • °°°o`.�. HrB/HrC-Herndon silt loam • i• • • . PA JOAP • o . F '.44 • Triangle Traditional Music& -,.. Dance Retirement Society ,6 Orange Co., NC PIN:9739624313 N X A r - OParcel Parcel Buffer 10' O Well Buffer 100' Evaluation ;` - I Unsuitable Topo Disturbed Area 1 401, Area 2 X • Area 3 ' Area 4 X1 ' Soil Borind Depth(in.) X +> �„ 0 <12" r � , 13-17" m 0 18-23" d s w X O 24-29" O 30-35" O 36"+ X Bad Topo/Wet area l n Well Drawn By:Julie Davidson VaughanReviewed By:Jeff " Date:4/7/2022 100 200 400 lliiij III Fee Surface water and/or bad topo areas have not been officially evaluated for stream ID according to local regulatory requirements.This map is intended for preliminary purposes only and not to be used as a plat/survey or can it be assumed all streams are identified on this property.* «"�°��'► "�� Suitable Area: Avvr Engineers and Soil Scientists ��. :' • Area 1 - 80,418 sq.ft. �« •• Area 2- 1,613,285 sq.ft. Agri-Waste Technology,Inc. Oji&j� Area 3- 96,442 sq.ft. 501 N.Salem St.Suite 203 / # 0« O '�► Area 4- 806,107 sq.ft. Apex NC 27502 +`��I ♦`0► mss ��+y:►si- +.R P:919.859.0669 0 '� I*/�f♦�// f a .�.; sM � ' www.agriwaste.com C Soil Type: GeB/GeC-Georgeville silt loam Preliminary Soil Evaluation s'�+.4e 4 r ��-•� s + ::� +�.., ,�a'A �4 TaD-Tarrus silt loam ♦r++f ,'`��,�+yam �.��- ';r �y,>�� HrB/HrC Herndon silt loam Triangle Traditional Music& j'�►�O'is°r►��s '�� •#+«r�/�/+►4> Dance Retirement Society ' ' ,, ``'��►� / � • 11 A' Orange Co., NC PIN:9739624313 NWW CDParcel Parcel Buffer 10' t O Well Buffer 100' 2 ft.Contour {,�+ Evaluation t Unsuitable Topo � �t+';* `.«.. ■* � Disturbed CArea 1 • Area 2 Area 3 /�)Mj fy *i'► Area 4 �f;i} *o'�� X� Soil Borind Depth in. �1;�/ X fA r <12° LA Oro O 24-29" � X Bad Topo/Wet area ,�.��`y��.;+��r, �� , ��►�� 0 Well �� ♦�' + + �;~II' •� � +� ! JulieDrawn By: D . . f Reviewed By:Jeff Vaughan r D• 0 %,, = 100 200 400 Fee F>" Surface water and/or bad topo areas have not been officially evaluated for stream ID according to local regulatory requirements.This map is intended for preliminary purposes only and not to be used as a plat/survey or can it be assumed all streams are identified on this property.* 139 ATTACHMENT 4: Typical Profile Descriptions of Provisionally Suitable Soil 140 Property ID#: 9739624313 Property Recorded: County: Orange SOIL/SITE EVALUATION FOR ON-SITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM Applicant: Dr.Mareah Steketee Buyer:_Agent:X Phone: (919)785-9998 Address: Triangle Traditional Music&Dance Date Evaluated: 3/28/22 5609 Mount Sinai Road Proposed Facility: Residential Durham,NC 27705 Property Size: Approximately 125 acres Location Site: Morrow Mill&Gold Mine Loop Roads,Chapel Hill,NC Water Supply: On Site Well X Comm.Well_Public_Other_ Evaluation Method:Auger Boring X Pit_Cut_ TYPICAL PROFILE Horizon/ Matrix Mottles Mottle (a)(1) (a)(2) (a)(3) Consistence Consistence Depth(IN) Abundance Texture Structure Minerology Wet Moist /Contrast A 0-5" 10YR 3/4 None None SiL GR NEXP NS,NP Vfr Btl 5-36" 1 O 4/6 None None C SBK SEXP S,P Fi .1940 Landscape Pos/Slope% -Suitable,<15% Profile LTAR -0.4—0.1 GPD/ft2 .1942 Wetness Condition -Suitable System Type -Provisionally suitable for shallow conventional systems .1943/.1956 Saprolite -Suitable due to texture,structure,and .1944 Restrictive Horizon -Suitable depth. .1948 Profile Classification -Provisionally suitable Comments: Some indications of saprolite beginning around 30",but not dominant. TYPICAL PROFILE Horizon/ Matrix Mottles Mottle (a)(1) (a)(2) (a)(3) Consistence Consistence Depth(IN) Abundance Tex- Structure Minerology Wet Moist /Contrast ture A 0-5" 10YR 3/4 None None SiL GR NEXP NS,NP Vfr Btl 5-29" IOR 4/6 None None C SBK SEXP S,P Fi Bt2 29-36" 7.5YR 3/4 7.5YR 6/8 1,m,D C wSBK SEXP SS,SP Fr-Fi 141 .1940 Landscape Pos/Slope% -Suitable,<15% Profile LTAR -0.4—0.1 GPD/ft2 .1942 Wetness Condition -Suitable System Type -Provisionally suitable for -Suitable shallow conventional systems .1943/.1956 Saprolite due to texture,structure,and .1944 Restrictive Horizon -Suitable depth. .1948 Profile Classification -Provisionally suitable Comments: EVALUATED BY: Trent Bostic,Heath Clapp,Brent Purdum,Julie Davidson,and Jeff Vaughan COMMENTS: LEGEND OF ABBREVIATIONS FOR SITE EVALUATION FORM LANDSCAPE TEXTURE GROUP TEXTURE CLASS .1955 LTAR POSITION (gal/day/sgft) 1 S-Sand 1.2- .08 CC-Concave Slope LS-Loamy Sand CV-Convex Slope DS-Debris Slump II SL-Sandy Loam 0.8-0.6 D-Depression L-Loam DW-Drainage Way FP-Flood Plain III SCL-Sandy Clay Loam 0.6-0.3 FS-Foot Slope CL-Clay Loam H-Head Slope SiL-Silt Loam I-Interflueve Si-Silt L-Linear Slope SiCL-Silt Clay Loam N-Nose Slope P-Pocosin IV SC-Sandy Clay 0.4-0.1 R-Ridge C-Clay S- Shoulder SiC-Silty Clay T-Terrace O-Organic MOIST CONSISTENCE MOTTLES WET CONSISTENCE STRUCTURE Vfr-Very Friable 1 -Few NS-Non Sticky G-Single Grain Fr-Friable 2-Common SS-Slightly Sticky M-Massive Fi-Firm 3 -Many S-Sticky CR-Crumb Vfi-Very Firm VS-Very Sticky GR-Granular Efi-Extremely Firm F-Faint SBK-Subgranular Blocky D-Distinct NP-Non Plastic ABK-Angular Blocky P-Prominent SP-Slightly Plastic PL-Platy P-Plastic PR-Prismatic f-Fine VP-Very Plastic in-Medium c-Coarse 142 Property ID#: 9739624313 Property Recorded: County: Orange SOIL/SITE EVALUATION FOR ON-SITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM Applicant: Dr.Mareah Steketee Buyer:_Agent:X Phone: (919)785-9998 Address: Triangle Traditional Music&Dance Date Evaluated: 3/28/22 5609 Mount Sinai Road Proposed Facility: Residential Durham,NC 27705 Property Size: Approximately 125 acres Location Site: Morrow Mill&Gold Mine Loop Roads,Chapel Hill,NC Water Supply: On Site Well X Comm.Well_Public_Other_ Evaluation Method:Auger Boring X Pit_Cut_ TYPICAL PROFILE Horizon/ Matrix Mottles Mottle (a)(1) (a)(2) (a)(3) Consistence Consistence Depth(IN) Abundance Texture Structure Minerology Wet Moist /Contrast A 0-5" 10YR 3/4 None None SiL GR NEXP NS,NP Vfr Btl 5-15" 1 O 4/6 None None C SBK SEXP S,P Fi Bt2 15"+ IOR 4/6 10YR 6/2; 10YR 8/1; 2,m,D C SBK-M SEXP-EXP S-VS,P-VP Fi-Vfi IOYR 2/1 .1940 Landscape Pos/Slope% -Suitable,<15% Profile LTAR -0.05—0.15 GPD/ft2 .1942 Wetness Condition -Suitable System Type -Provisionally suitable for drip systems due to texture, structure, 1943/.1956 Saprolite -Suitable and depth. .1944 Restrictive Horizon -Suitable .1948 Profile Classification -Provisionally suitable Comments: TYPICAL PROFILE Horizon/ Matrix Mottles Mottle (a)(1) (a)(2) (a)(3) Consistence Consistence Depth(IN) Abundance Tex- Structure Minerology Wet Moist /Contrast ture 143 .1940 Landscape Pos/Slope% Profile LTAR .1942 Wetness Condition System Type .1943/.1956 Saprolite .1944 Restrictive Horizon .1948 Profile Classification Comments: EVALUATED BY: Trent Bostic,Heath Clapp,Brent Purdum,Julie Davidson,and Jeff Vaughan COMMENTS: LEGEND OF ABBREVIATIONS FOR SITE EVALUATION FORM LANDSCAPE TEXTURE GROUP TEXTURE CLASS .1955 LTAR POSITION (gal/day/sgft) 1 S-Sand 1.2- .08 CC-Concave Slope LS-Loamy Sand CV-Convex Slope DS-Debris Slump II SL-Sandy Loam 0.8-0.6 D-Depression L-Loam DW-Drainage Way FP-Flood Plain III SCL-Sandy Clay Loam 0.6-0.3 FS-Foot Slope CL-Clay Loam H-Head Slope SiL-Silt Loam I-Interflueve Si-Silt L-Linear Slope SiCL-Silt Clay Loam N-Nose Slope P-Pocosin IV SC-Sandy Clay 0.4-0.1 R-Ridge C-Clay S- Shoulder SiC-Silty Clay T-Terrace O-Organic MOIST CONSISTENCE MOTTLES WET CONSISTENCE STRUCTURE Vfr-Very Friable 1 -Few NS-Non Sticky G-Single Grain Fr-Friable 2-Common SS-Slightly Sticky M-Massive Fi-Firm 3 -Many S-Sticky CR-Crumb Vfi-Very Firm VS-Very Sticky GR-Granular Efi-Extremely Firm F-Faint SBK-Subgranular Blocky D-Distinct NP-Non Plastic ABK-Angular Blocky P-Prominent SP-Slightly Plastic PL-Platy P-Plastic PR-Prismatic f-Fine VP-Very Plastic m-Medium c-Coarse 144 Z7\�'� Engineers and Soil Scientists Agri-Waste Technology, Inc. 501 N. Salem Street, Suite 203 Apex, North Carolina 27502 919-859-0669 www.agriwaste.com April 7, 2022 MEMORANDUM TO: Triangle Traditional Music and Dance Retirement Society FROM: Julie Davidson, AWT Jeff Vaughan, AWT SUBJECT: Stream and Wetland Evaluation This report discusses a stream and wetland evaluation completed on Parcel 9739624313 in Orange County NC. Julie Davidson and Jeff Vaughan of AWT completed this on March 28, 2022. Site Details This site is approximately 120 acres and found in the Jordan Lake Watershed. It is mostly undeveloped with old growth pine and hardwoods. There are 2 defined USGS streams on this site. One is a perennial stream that diagonals north of the property. The second is an intermittent that diagonals southeast. The NRCS Soil Survey Maps shows the same perennial stream while the USGS shows both. If streams are found on USGS or NRCS Soil Survey maps these are considered correct according to regulatory agencies. Attachment 1 includes a 1: 24,000 USGS (NC White Cross) Topological map and NRCS Soil Survey Map showing these streams. 145 Stream and Wetland Evaluation Before we completed an in-field evaluation AWT used GIS to develop a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the site. The DEM is a map that clearly defines change in elevation. This change in elevation exposed peaks and valleys supplying sample locations for us to ground truth. Our infield steam evaluation was completed according to DWQ method for identifying streams. This includes completing a DWQ Stream Identification Form where each feature is scored based on geomorphology, hydrology, and biological characteristics. The resulting score defines a feature as Ephemeral, Intermittent, or Perennial. Also, each feature was GPS found, flagged, and photographed. AWT was prepared to evaluate wetlands however, we did not see any. Findings Several maps were created to show our findings. Attachment 2 includes a DEM specifying our evaluation areas, stream designations, GPS points, and scoresheet IDs scores. Included is an aerial map showing the same details. All DWQ stream forms and pictures taken throughout the evaluation can be seen in Attachment 3 Findings are Not Final As planning for this land progresses and it is found that a road crossing or an impact (to a stream feature) is necessary you must contact NC DWQ for a final confirmation of AWT's work. Moreover, the US Army Corps of Engineers maybe required to come to this site and confirm AWT's evaluation too. This property is in the Jordan Lake Watershed. Orange County and NC have special buffer rules for this area. AWT's findings could change based on a review by Orange Co.,NC DWQ or US Army Corps of Engineers. As a result, AWT's findings are not considered final at this time. This report holds all information required by regulatory agencies and fulfills their requirements for an initial stream and wetland evaluation. AWT Qualifications AWT possess the necessary qualifications to perform this evaluation. Julie Davidson was trained by Chatham County, DWQ, and the US Army Corps of Engineers to classify streams and wetlands for regulatory purposes. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call Julie Davidson at 919.367.6315 146 Attachment 1 USGS NC White Cross Quad Map-1;24,000 NRCS Web Soil Survey Map -, 147 AVVr Engineers and Soil Scientists 4Lt Agri-Waste Technology,Inc. 501 N.Salem St.Suite 203 Apex NC 27502 P:919.859.0669 www.agriwaste.com VaQ USGS QUAD-NC - White Cross Triangle Traditional Music& Dance Retirement Society Orange Co., NC PIN:9739624313 N �' A u' f m e •k e - - F OParcel 100 200 400 Fee Surface water and/or bad topo areas have not been officially evaluated for stream ID according to local regulatory requirements.This map is intended for preliminary purposes only and not to be used as a plat/survey or can it be assumed all streams are identified on this property.` 148 Attachment 2 DEM of AWT's Evaluation Aerial Map of AWT's Evaluation ._• y 0 Origin Ephemerl,49 Avvrfire 0 Stream ID/Score Engineers and Soil Scientists Parcel Agri-Waste Technology,Inc. 'F r „:° �_'•: ` # ~ „'' AWT Stream Evaluation 501 N.Salem St.Suite 203 d� Ephemeral Apex NC 27502 P:919.859.0669 Intermittent wvvw.agriwaste.com - �.. Perennial Stream Evaluation Pond l � 1 •• � " - '_-'� �• r •+ `" / No Feature(stream/pond/wetland) Digital Elevation Model Triangle Traditional Music& � . r s feet Dance Retirement Society ° 1 f y f 1 - High:253 Orange Co., NCr'J � r i Low:18 PIN:9739624313 ' r i - . J JF or Important Notes: e All streams were flagged in the field with white/red tape. _ 1 Stream identification was made according to DWO Stream Identification forms. o These forms are included in �,- the corresponding AWT ` Stream Evaluation Report. I D b� Reviewed By:Jeff Vaughan LJ Date: 2 4W�_100 200 400 Fee Surface water and/or bad topo areas have not been officially evaluated for stream ID according to local regulatory requirements.This map is intended for preliminary purposes only and not to be used as a plat/survey or can it be assumed all streams are identified on this property.* Origin Ephemeral AVVr O Stream ID/Score Engineers and Soil Scientists Agri-Waste Technology,Inc. O Parcel 501 N.Salem St.Suite 203 AWT Stream Evaluation Apex NC 27502 P:919.859.0669 Ephemeral www.agriwaste.com y USGS Intermittent Perennial Stream Evaluation Pond No Feature(stream/pond/wetland Triangle Traditional Music& Dance Retirement Society Orange Co., NC 1 I' PIN:9739624313 N �4 ii Important Notes: All streams were flagged in the field with white/red tape. Stream identification was made according to DWQ Stream Identification forms. These forms are included in the corresponding AWT Stream Evaluation Report. t Drawn By:Julie Davidson Reviewed By� , h °u _ • J: r Date:4/14/2022 sill" 100 200 400 _ Fee Surface water and/or bad topo areas have not been officially evaluated for stream ID according to local regulatory requirements.This map is intended for preliminary purposes only and not to be used as a plat/survey or can it be assumed all streams are identified on this property.' 151 Attachment 3 DWQ Stream Identification Forms v. 4.11 Pictures 152 NC Division of Water Quality-Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their t7rigins v.4.11 AI NC DWV Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 e � �_ Date: Z Project/site:'11",d f'v I a�aL�t t Latitude: 3j Evaluator: 0011 Longitude: 2) 3 +� + i� County: Total Points: 1�t,Wht X56 Stream is at least intermittent S Str f]eYermiination(circle one) Other 19or erenniafifz3o' phe intermittent Perennial e.g.Quad Name; A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1�Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 3 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 3 3. In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 rf,1 3 ripple-pool sequence lJ 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 5.AcLivelrelict floodplain 1 Ja 3 6.Depositional bars or benches 0 3 7.Recent alluvial deposits_ 0 3 8. Weadculs 0 3 9.Grade control 0 0. 1.5 10.Natural valley 0 0.5 1.5 11.Second or greater order channel No40 Yes=3 a artificial ditches are not rated;sae discusions in manual B. Hydrology Subtotal 12.Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 14.Leaf litter 1.5 1 Q.5 0 15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0. 1 1.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 .5 1 1.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 Yes t3 C. Biology Subtotal= 18.Fibrous roots in streambed 1 3 2 0 19.Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 20.Macrobeithos(note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 22.Fish 0 05 1 1.5 23.Crayfish kE0.5 0.5 1 1.5 24.Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae 1 1.5 26.Welland plants in streambed FACW=0,75; OBL= 1.5 Other 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. Notes: Sketc 41 153 NC Division of Water Quality-Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11 � O NC DW9 Stream► Identification Form Version 4.11 lz Date: Latitude: Q 3 ^ 2�v?! Project/Site: f YYl 6 3s Evaluator: t�J�n ttp County: L! Longitude: 21zZ Total Points: f 11�� Slrea eetermination(circle one) Other tr IN�}rC' Stream is at leasl intermittentY� E emery Intermittent Perennial e.g.Quad Name: CroS >_ S J 19 or Perennial if a 30' [ 'YYN�� Absent Weak Moderate Strong A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= q° ) 3 1' Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 3 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 3. In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, f 1 1 2 3 ripple-pool sequence 0 2 3 4.Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 3 5.Activelrelict floodplain 0 1 2 0 1 3 6.Depositional bars or benches 3 7.Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 8. Weadculs 0 1 3 9.Grade control 0 0 1 1.5 10.Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1,5 11.Second or greater order channel =0 Yes-3 'artificial ditches are not rated.see discuss ns in manual B. Hydrology Subtotal= 12. Presence of Basellow 0 1 2 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 14.Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1,5 16.Organic debris lines or piles D 0.5 1 1. 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 Yes=3 C. Siolo Subtotal = 18.Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 19.Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks AO 1 2 3 22. Fish 0.5 1 1.5 23,Crayfish 0.5 1 1,5 24.Amphibians 0 1 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL= 1.5 Other 0 'perennial streams may also be identified using,other methods,See p.35 of manual. Notes: Sketch: `„ ; Das-lit_4 W e-3 4 cry trW0.') R 41 V r V f�a 154 0 NC D1V l Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 ' qon Data. 3�2� Zc�2z ProjecUSite: ' TYhDeSLatitude: �� q 15 �'�SQi Md` t County: Langilude: , Evaluator: 1l Total Points: / St Detertninatfon(circle one) Other Slroarn is at!cast inlermillent , hent ral Intermittent Perennial e.9.Quad Name: if a 19 or perenniaf if Z 30' A.Geomorphology (Subtotal m Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1'Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 2 3 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 2 3 3.in-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 2 3 ri 1e- eel se uence 3 4.Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 S.Activelrelici floodplain 0 1 2 3 6.Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 7.Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 B. Fieadcuts D 1 3 1.5 9.Grade control 0 1 10.Natural valley 0 0. 1 1,5 11.Second or greater order channel N =0 Yes 3 °artificial ditches are not rated:see discuastbns in manual B.H drolo (Subtotal= 12,Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 14.Leal litter 5 1 D.5 0 15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No(-,() Yes=3 C.BiologySubtotal= 1 D 18.Fibrous roots in strearnbed 3 2 19.Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 0 0 1 2 3 20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 3 21.Aquatic M411us1ts 1 2 0.5 1 1.5 22,Fish 1 5 0.5 i 23.Crayfish 1 2�.Amphibians 0 5 1.5 25.Algae D.5 1 2 FACW W 0.75; OBL=1.5 Other= 2" 2C.li,,etland plants In streambed L2! j •gerQnnLai streams may also be identified using other methods.Sea p.35 0l manual. 26 Notes: µ Nc Sketch: SkE Cl�tr,S Cr��-- 155 ■ NC Division of Water Quality-Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and / Perennial Streams and Their Originsy.4,11 NC DNVQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 11 YV 11 Date: 1/V Project/Site: '`]M J)f C Latitude:35' , Evaluator: County: 0 Longitude:y Total Points: / Stream is tie luasr,nrerrniuenr ryl Sdream Deter Hall (circle one) Other w�,1 �}4 r/�19 or porennral if;!30' C • Ephemeralkerrni!tpht Perennial e.g.Quad Name. A. Geomorphology {Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1' Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3.In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, © 2 3 ripple-pool se uence 4.Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 3 5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3 G.Depositional bars or benches (0 1 2 3 7.Recent alluvial deposits D 2 3 8 Ficadcuts 0 1 2 3 q 9.Grade control 0 0,5 1.5 10.Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 11.Second or greater order channel _Nod 0) Yes=3 "arid+cial ditches are not rated:see disc,visions in manual B. Hydrology Subtotal= 12.Presence of Baseflow 0 1r�J 3 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 14.Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 12 15.Sediment on plants or debris D .5 1 1.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 12 17.Soii-based evidence of high water table? No=0 Yes-3 C. Biology Subtotal= 19.Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 19.Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 0 20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks 4 1 2 3 22,Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 23.Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 24.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 25,Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 2S.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0,75; OBL=1.5 Other=0 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual, fJotes: _ _ 1 Sketch: -K 41 - 156 NC division of Water Quality-Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins v.4.11 iJ \C DW 1 Stream Identification Form Versiuu 4.11 � y Date: 5- -Y y ProjectlSite: -I"f� Latitude: 9 Evaluator;-9"(Ytds"n-1 Jaw County: (/ Longitude: r 2f'JC� Total Points: T' Stream Determ' alio (circle one) tither KC- X111}1 Stream is at least Jnfonnlftent �S ,f a 19 or perennial if z 30' Ephemeral I ermitt t Perennial e.g.Quad Name: r I'1? A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= t ) Absenl Weak Moderate Strong 1°Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1--2 3 3. In-channel structure:ex.nllle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 3 ripple-pool sequence 4.Particle size of stream substrate C 1 W 3 5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3 6.Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 7.Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 8. Fteadcuts 0 1 2 3 9.Grade control 0 1 1.5 10.Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 11.Second or greater order channel No- Yes=3 a artificial ditches are not rated;see discuss. sin manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal 12.Presence of BaseOow 0 1 2 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 2 3 14.Leaf litter 1.5 1 0,5 0 15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 1 0.5 1 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 Yes 3 C. Biology Subtotal 18.Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 Y r� 19.Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 20.Macrobenthos(nate diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3_- 22.Fish 0 0.5 - 1 t 23,Crayfish © 0.5 1 1.5 1 24.Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 25.Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 26.Welland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBI=1.5 Other=0 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. Notes: !� Sketch: ^ t� a i i -001.1 Wey�.:� , �� '& ' T '... 1Fb E F Jy t ',} s.+ JI tEa fir.. Eli P/ k �-�Re"P, rtir ms, awe, +f u � ,.,,rte�..r`�f.�'�*SE� �'' ti• �' r Aboi JIV 45 t � ^ .a t yr$�d �' }'ter c wti .1 - � �'a S� dw ih ' -ih1 'R� w€ err F � ;��,y o, ` elf }�/ a �� r�. ��.'� 1,- S ;,::�,-y. �-e�-4-,s.. a "dz i'� �r � . ... .yam LY a I YY 4 4 1 + r � a " _ IIIIIIJ I f F r •1 �.e1. . A I 1 f ' meq, � ` � _ �yy�• � �• '�s��i �� V ^�� 3 Viµ,. _ 6 . r _ r r 161 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow • . • Chapel • Carolina Project • 22580189 PREPARED FOR. Triangle Traditional Music and Dance Retirement Society PO Box 4831 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515 S&ME, Inc. 8646 W Market Street, Suite 105 Greensboro, North Carolina 27616 August 25, 2022 162 r August 25, 2022 Triangle Traditional Music and Dance Retirement Society PO Box 4831 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515 Attention: Mr. Edwin Cox Reference: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 22580189 Dear Mr. Cox: S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) on the 5824 Morrow Mill Road property in Chapel Hill, Orange County, North Carolina (i.e., "subject property"). The attached report presents the findings of S&ME's Phase I ESA which was performed in accordance with ASTM E 1527-13 and S&ME Proposal No. 22580189 dated July 28, 2022. The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. ASTM E 1527-13 states that a Phase I ESA "meeting or exceeding" this practice and completed less than 180 days prior to the date of acquisition or intended transaction is presumed to be valid if the report is being relied on by the User for whom the assessment was originally prepared and the following components were completed: interviews, the regulatory review, site visit, and the declaration by the environmental professional responsible for the assessment. Based on this requirement, this report is presumed to be valid for 180 days after August 2, 2022. S&ME appreciates the opportunity to provide our services on this project. Please contact us at your convenience if there are questions regarding the information contained in this report. Sincerely, S&ME, Inc. Cody McMechen Wayne Watterson, PE Environmental Staff Professional Project Manager cmcmechen@smeinc.com wwatterson@smeinc.com 336.288.7180 336.908.7653 C M/W W/wj S&ME, Inc. 18646 W Market Street,Suite 105 1 Greensboro, NC 27409 1 p 336.288.7180 1 www.smeinc.com 163 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina E S&ME Project No. 22580189 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose............................................................................................................................................2 1.2 Detailed Scope of Services.............................................................................................................3 1.2.1 ASTM E 1527-13..............................................................................................................................3 1.2.2 Exclusions from and Additions to Scope of Services.........................................................................4 1.3 Significant Assumptions................................................................................................................4 1.4 Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment................................................................................4 1.5 Special Terms and Conditions......................................................................................................4 1.6 User Reliance...................................................................................................................................5 2.0 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION...................................................................................5 2.1 Site Location....................................................................................................................................5 2.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics...................................................................................................5 3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION............................................................................5 3.1 Title Records....................................................................................................................................5 3.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations.............................................................6 3.3 Specialized Knowledge..................................................................................................................6 3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information................................................6 3.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues.........................................................................6 3.6 Owner,Property Manager and Occupant Information............................................................6 3.7 Reason for Performing the Phase I ESA......................................................................................6 3.8 Other.................................................................................................................................................6 4.0 RECORDS REVIEW.........................................................................................................6 4.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources...................................................................................7 4.1.1 Regulatory File Review.....................................................................................................................7 4.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources................................................................................8 4.2.1 EDR Supplementary Sources............................................................................................................8 August 25, 2022 i 164 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina s S&ME Project No. 22580189 4.2.2 Tribal Record Sources.......................................................................................................................8 4.2.3 Other Record Sources........................................................................................................................8 4.3 Physical Setting Sources................................................................................................................8 4.4 Historical Use Information on the Subject Property..................................................................9 4.5 Historical Use Information on Adjoining Properties..............................................................10 4.6 Vapor Encroachment Screening.................................................................................................10 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE...........................................................................................10 5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ....................................................................................10 5.2 General Site Setting......................................................................................................................11 5.2.1 Current Use(s)of the Subject Property...........................................................................................11 5.2.2 Past Use(s)of the Subject Property.................................................................................................11 5.2.3 Current Use(s)of Adjoining and Surrounding Properties.............................................................11 5.2.4 Past Use(s)of Adjoining and Surrounding Properties...................................................................11 5.2.5 Geologic, Hydrogeologic, Hydrologic, and Topographic Conditions..............................................11 5.2.6 Description of Structures and Roads..............................................................................................11 5.2.7 Potable Water Supply and Sewage Disposal System......................................................................12 5.3 Exterior Observations..................................................................................................................12 5.4 Interior Observations...................................................................................................................13 6.0 INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................................................14 6.1 Interview with Past and Present Owners..................................................................................14 6.2 Interview with Key Site Manager..............................................................................................14 6.3 Interview with Occupants...........................................................................................................14 6.4 Interview with Local Government Officials.............................................................................14 6.5 Interviews with Others................................................................................................................14 7.0 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS ......................................................................................15 7.1 On-Site Findings...........................................................................................................................15 7.2 Off-Site Findings...........................................................................................................................15 7.3 On-Site Opinions..........................................................................................................................15 7.4 Off-Site Opinions..........................................................................................................................15 7.5 Data Gaps......................................................................................................................................16 August 25, 2022 ii 165 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina s S&ME Project No. 22580189 111 E 8.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................16 9.0 DEVIATIONS..................................................................................................................16 10.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES............................................................................................16 11.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................16 12.0 SIGNATURE(S) OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL(S)...........................17 13.0 QUALIFICATIONS) OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS) .................17 Appendices Appendix I-Figures Appendix II-EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck Appendix III-Tax Record Information and Historical Research Documentation Appendix IV-Vapor Encroachment Screening Appendix V-Site Photographs and Site Reconnaissance Checklist Appendix VI-User Questionnaire, Interview Documentation and Owner Provided Information Appendix VII-Qualifications of Environmental and Staff Professionals August 25, 2022 iii 166 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina E S&ME Project No. 22580189 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 5824 MORROW MILL ROAD CHAPEL HILL, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) on the property at 5824 morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, Orange County, North Carolina (the "subject property"). The subject property is estimated to contain approximately 125 acres and is comprised of the one parcel identified as Orange County parcel identification number (PIN) 9739624313. The subject property is predominantly wooded with some buildings, including a residence, located in the northwestern portion and an agricultural field in the central portion. Drainage features that cross portions of the property from west to east discharge into Collins Creek.Additional ephemeral drainage features were noted in the wooded areas in the central portion of the subject property. The subject property can be accessed from the north via a gravel driveway next to the residence as well as from the west from Gold Mine Loop. Property usage in the area of the subject property is a mixture of residential and agricultural. According to information reviewed by S&ME, the majority of the subject property was forested with a smaller portion used as agricultural land from some time prior to the 1930's. Small structures (likely residential and farm buildings) were observed on the northern and central portion of the subject property from the 1930's. S&ME contracted Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to conduct an environmental database search of the subject property and the surrounding area. The subject property was not identified in the EDR report. The EDR report identified three off-site listings of potential environmental concern within the applicable search radii of the subject property. Based on the nature of each listing, local topography, and/or the distance to the subject property, the off-site listings are not expected to affect soil or groundwater the subject property. Mr. Cody McMechen of S&ME conducted a site reconnaissance of the subject property on August 8, 2022. The site reconnaissance was performed by walking accessible areas of the subject property. No recognized environmental conditions were noted at the subject property during the site reconnaissance. This assessment did not identify recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions or historical recognized environmental conditions associated with the subject property. 1.0 INTRODUCTION S&ME conducted a Phase I ESA of the 5824 Morrow Mill Road property in Chapel Hill, Orange County, North Carolina (the "subject property") (Appendix I, Figures 1 and 2). The subject property is estimated to contain August 25, 2022 1 167 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina s S&ME Project No. 22580189 111 E approximately 12S acres and is comprised of the one parcel identified as Orange County parcel identification number(PIN) 9739624313. The Phase I ESA was conducted using the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process and in accordance with S&ME Proposal No. 22580189 dated July 28, 2022. 1.1 Purpose The User of this report is the Triangle Traditional Music and Dance Retirement Society. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to identify, pursuant to ASTM E 1527-13, recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, and historical recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. It is S&ME's understanding that the Phase I ESA is being conducted as pre-development due diligence. ASTM defines the term recognized environmental condition (REQ as the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or(3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. ASTM defines the term controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC) as "a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls)". ASTM defines the term historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) as a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). ASTM defines the term business environmental risk(BER) as a risk that can have a material environmental or environmentally driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of a parcel of commercial real estate, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated in this practice. Consideration of business environmental risk issues may involve addressing one or more non-scope considerations. The terms do not include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions nor controlled recognized environmental conditions. August 25, 2022 2 168 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina E S&ME Project No. 22580189 1.2 Detailed Scope of Services 1.2.1 ASTM E 1527-13 S&ME's approach to performing this Phase I ESA consisted of four major tasks in accordance with ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13. Task 1-A review of reasonably ascertainable public records for the subject property and the immediate vicinity was conducted. This review was performed to characterize environmental features of the subject property and to identify past and present land use activities, on or in the vicinity of the subject property, which may indicate a potential for recognized environmental conditions. The review of the reasonably ascertainable public records included: Review of federal, state, tribal, and reasonably ascertainable local public records for the subject property and immediate vicinity. Review of one or more of the following standard sources: aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, tax files, building department records, zoning/land use records, street directories and topographic maps of the subject property and vicinity for evidence suggesting past uses that might have involved hazardous substances or petroleum products. Review of land title records back to 1940, or first developed use - whichever is earlier, as well as a copy of the current deed if the documents are provided to S&ME by the Phase I ESA User. Task 2 - A site reconnaissance was performed to identify visible signs of past or existing contamination on or adjacent to the subject property. This reconnaissance was also performed to evaluate evidence found in our public record review that might indicate activities resulting in hazardous substances or petroleum products being used or deposited on the subject property. The site reconnaissance included the following activities: A reconnaissance of the subject property and adjacent properties was performed to look for evidence of current and past property uses, signs of spills, stressed vegetation, buried waste, underground or above ground storage tanks, subsidence, transformers, or unusual soil discoloration which may indicate the possible presence of contaminants on the properties. Photographs are provided to document these conditions. The exterior reconnaissance involved a viewing of the periphery of the subject property and a walk- through of accessible areas of the site interior. Areas of the subject property were photographed to document the current use(s) of the subject property, as well as conditions such as unusually discolored soil, stressed vegetation, or other significant features associated with the subject property. Task 3 - Interviews with past and present property owners (if available), operators and occupants as well as with appropriate local officials were conducted to consider any local knowledge of hazardous substances or petroleum products on the subject property or on adjacent properties. Task 4 - Report preparation. August 25, 2022 3 169 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina E S&ME Project No. 22580189 1.2.2 Exclusions from and Additions to Scope of Services Unless specifically authorized as an addition to the Phase I ESA work scope, the assessment did not include assessment of environmental conditions not specifically included in the ASTM E 1527-13 standard including, but not limited to sampling of materials (i.e., soil, surface water, groundwater or air), or the assessment of business risk issues such as wetlands, lead in drinking water, asbestos containing materials, mold, fungi or bacteria in on-site buildings, regulatory compliance, cultural/historic risks, industrial hygiene, health/safety, ecological resources, endangered species, indoor air quality, vapor intrusion, radon or high voltage power lines. 1.3 Significant Assumptions Information obtained from the Client, the Client's representatives, individuals interviewed, and prior environmental reports was considered to be accurate unless S&ME's reasonable inquiries clearly revealed otherwise. The groundwater within the local geologic province is typically contained in an unconfined (water table) aquifer. The slope of the water table under static conditions (no pumping interference) often approximates the land surface topography. Thus, the interpreted groundwater flow direction is assumed to be approximately the same as the topography of the ground surface. Perennial surface waters (creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, etc.) are assumed to act as discharge features for groundwater flow. 1.4 Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment The Phase I ESA was conducted using ASTM E 1527-13. The findings of this report are applicable, and representative of conditions encountered at the property on the date of this assessment and may not represent conditions at a later date. The review of public records was limited to that information which was available to S&ME at the time this report was prepared. Interviews with local and state government authorities were limited to those people whom S&ME was able to contact during the preparation of this report. Information was derived from "reasonably ascertainable" and "practically reviewable" sources in compliance with our understanding of the standards set forth by ASTM E 1527-13. The historical review failed to document property use in approximately five-year intervals back to its first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier, as historical resources for these periods were not reasonably attainable (i.e., data failure). Land title and judicial records were not reviewed for environmental liens or activity and use limitations (AULs). A reconnaissance of the interior of the residence on the subject property was not conducted. Dense vegetation limited the visibility and access in the forested areas of the subject property. 1.5 Special Terms and Conditions This Phase I ESA was conducted in accordance with S&ME Proposal No. 22580189 dated July 28, 2022. August 25, 2022 4 170 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina E S&ME Project No. 22580189 1.6 User Reliance The User of this report is Triangle Traditional Music and Dance Retirement Society. Use of this report by third parties will be at such party's sole risk except when granted under written permission by S&ME. Any such authorized use or reliance by third parties will be subject to the same Agreement under which the work was conducted for the User. The additional party's use and reliance on the report will be subject to the same rights, obligations, and limitations imposed on the User by our Agreement, unless otherwise agreed. However, the total liability of S&ME to all parties of the Phase I ESA shall be limited to the remedies and amounts as provided in the Agreement as a single contract. The additional party's use and reliance on the report shall signify the additional party's agreement to be bound by the proposal and contract that make up the Agreement between S&ME and the User. 2.0 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Site Location The subject property is located at 5824 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. According to the Orange County Geographic Information System (GIS) website, the subject property is comprised of one parcel which contains approximately 125.37 acres identified as Orange County PIN 9739624313 The location of the subject property is illustrated on Figure 1 and Figure 2 in Appendix I. 2.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics The subject property is predominantly wooded with some buildings, including a residence, located in the northwestern portion and an agricultural field in the central portion. Drainage features that cross portions of the property from west to east discharge into Collins Creek.Additional ephemeral drainage features were noted in the wooded areas in the central portion of the subject property. The subject property can be accessed from the north via a gravel driveway next to the residence as well as from the west from Gold Mine Loop. Property usage in the area of the subject property is a mixture of residential and agricultural. 3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION Certain information identified in ASTM E 1527-13 is to be provided by the User of this report. S&ME provided a User Questionnaire with our proposal, and the questionnaire was completed on August 2, 2022 by Mr. Edwin Cox, treasurer for the Triangle Traditional Music and Dance Retirement Society. A copy of the completed User Questionnaire is included in Appendix VI. 3.1 Title Records The Triangle Traditional Music and Dance Retirement Society did not provide S&ME with title records for review. August 25, 2022 5 171 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina s S&ME Project No. 22580189 111 E 3.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations Review of Activity and Use Limitations (AULs) and environmental liens by the environmental professional can help in determining if a REC is associated with the property. AULs can include both institutional and engineering controls and are often recorded in land title records in the restrictions of record rather than a typical chain-of-title or title abstract. The User has the responsibility of checking land title and judicial (federal, state, tribal and local) records. Mr. Cox indicated on the User Questionnaire that he was not aware of any AULs or liens against the property. 3.3 Specialized Knowledge Mr. Cox indicated on the User Questionnaire that he did not have specialized knowledge relating to the subject property or nearby properties. 3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information No commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the subject property within the local community that was material to RECs in connection with the subject property was reported to S&ME on the User Questionnaire by Mr. Cox. 3.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues Mr. Cox indicated on the User Questionnaire that this Phase I ESA was being conducted as pre-development due diligence, and that the purchase price for the property reflected fair market value. 3.6 Owner, Property Manager and Occupant Information As identified by Mr. Cox and Orange County tax records, subject property consists of one parcel. Mr. Cox identified Thomas Cheek as the owner and sole occupant of 5824 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3.7 Reason for Performing the Phase I ESA According to Mr. Cox, this Phase I ESA is being conducted as pre-development due diligence regarding the subject property. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to identify, pursuant to ASTM E 1527-13, RECs, CRECs and HRECs in connection with the property. 3.8 Other Mr. Cox did not provide any additional information on the subject property on the User Questionnaire. 4.0 RECORDS REVIEW This section summarizes records obtained and reviewed to help identify RECs, CRECs, and HRECs in connection with the subject property. August 25, 2022 6 172 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina E S&ME Project No. 22580189 4.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources S&ME reviewed selected federal and state regulatory lists in an attempt to identify recorded information concerning environmental impacts or conditions or concerns associated with the subject property. S&ME reviewed the regulatory lists included in the following table as obtained from EDR. The database report is attached as Appendix II, including a listing of the databases, search distances, an explanation of each database, and figures depicting the approximate locations of regulated facilities in the vicinity of the subject property. Regulatory listings are limited and include only those facilities or incidents that are known to the federal and state agencies at the time of publication of various agency databases, as indicated in the EDR report. The subject property was not identified in any of the regulatory records searched by EDR.The identified facilities of potential concern, based on distance and topography, are listed in the following table: Table 4-1 — Database Search Summary Table (Standard Record Sources) Site Name Location Direction&Distance Record Mike's Corner Store 4908 NC HWY 54 West LUST Mapped 777 ft north northwest of the LUST TRUST subject property. Comments According to the EDR Report, the date reported was July 13, 2016. The site is currently active, and a Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued April 26, 2021. Site Name Location Direction - • • Kirby's American Station Property 4721 HWY 54 West LUST Mapped 843 ft north northeast of the subject property. According to the EDR Report, the date reported was July 23, 2007. One additional off-site facility was identified in the EDR Report that based on the distance from the subject site, relative topographic relationship to the subject site, regulatory status, and/or are located in a separate groundwater flow basin from the subject property, they would not likely impact the subject property. 4.1.1 Regulatory File Review Based on a report from Henry Nemargut Engineering Services dated April 12, 2021, on the Mike's Corner Store found on the North Carolina Division of Waste Management Site Locator Tool, this site does not pose a risk to soil or groundwater at the subject property. A copy of portions of the report is included in Appendix IV. Analytical data from this report did not detect target analytes in groundwater in MW-6 (monitoring well closest to the subject property) since March of 2020. According to the report, no target analytes have been detected in water supply wells on the north and western adjoining properties located at 5802 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina and 5811 Morrow mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina respectively. August 25, 2022 7 173 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina s S&ME Project No. 22580189 111 E The information included in the report S&ME reviewed for the Mike's Corner Store (the absence of target compounds in the MW-6 and water supply well SW-9 (located on the northern adjoining property) suggests that the Kirby's American Station Property site had not impacted groundwater at the subject property at the time of sampling on January 15, 2021, and March 3, 2020, respectively. The Kirby's American Station property is located in a similar topographic position as Mike's Corner Store in relation to the subject property. Therefore, based on the information included in the Mike's Corner Store report, Kirby's American Station Property site does not pose a risk to soil or groundwater at the subject property. 4.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources 4.2.1 EDR Supplementary Sources The EDR report also includes additional environmental records not listed among the standard federal, state and tribal databases, such as historical auto stations, historical dry cleaners and manufactured gas plants. No supplementary records were identified in the EDR report within the search criteria for the respective databases. 4.2.2 Tribal Record Sources The EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck did not reveal listings of tribal environmental records. 4.2.3 Other Record Sources No additional records were reviewed during this Phase I ESA. 4.3 Physical Setting Sources Physical setting sources were reviewed to provide information about the geology and hydrogeology of the area of the subject property. Surface Drainage and Soil Based upon a review of the topographic map, it appears that the subject property slopes towards north, east and west (see Figure 1, USGS Topographic Map, Appendix 1). The subject property has an estimated surface elevation of approximately 575 feet above mean sea level. During the site reconnaissance it was observed that subject property is generally level with a hill in the center of the subject property that slopes in all directions. A small pond is located on the site in the central portion. Information regarding the subsurface soils at the subject property was obtained from the USDS Soil Survey website (www.websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov). The majority of the subject property is mapped as Georgeville silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (GeB) and 6 to 10 percent slopes (GeQ. Georgeville silt loam is characterized as a well- drained soil. Depth to water and bedrock is typically greater than 80 inches. August 25, 2022 8 174 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina E S&ME Project No. 22580189 Bedrock According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina dated 1985, the subject property is primarily located over metamorphosed dacitic to rhyolitic flows and tuffs from the Late Proterozoic-Cambrian period. The northern portion of the subject property is underlain by metamorphosed argillite, mudstone, volcanic sandstone, conglomerate and volcanic rock from the Late Proterozoic-Cambrian period. Groundwater The source of groundwater in Orange County is precipitation in the form of snow and rain. A portion of the precipitation infiltrates into the ground and moves under the influence of gravity to the water table. Alamance County is an uplifted plain moderately dissected by streams. Inter-stream areas are generally low, and most of the larger streams are bordered by wide flood plains. Based upon a review of topographic maps, groundwater on the property is anticipated to generally flow to the northwest towards Back Creek. 4.4 Historical Use Information on the Subject Property S&ME reviewed historical use information from EDR as part of this Phase I assessment. The following documents were reviewed: Aerial photographs for the years 1938, 1950, 1955, 1961, 1964, 1973, 1975, 1983, 1993, 1998, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2016. Topographic maps for the years 1968, 1981, 2013, 2016, and 2019. Historical Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were not available for the subject property. Historical city directory coverage was not available for the subject property or surrounding area. Historical information is included in Appendix III. Table 4-2—Historical Use Summary Table (Onsite) Listing/Observed this Listing The southern portion of the subject property is primarily wooded with two agricultural fields.The center and northern portions of the subject 1938, 1950, 1955, EDR Aerial property are primarily agricultural fields. Buildings can be seen near the 1961, 1964, 1973, Photograph western property boundary as well as one building in the central portion 1975, 1983 of the subject property. The agricultural fields throughout the subject property have been EDR Aerial abandoned and are now overgrown. It appears as though the property 1993, 1998,2006 Photograph was logged during this time by method of select cut. August 25, 2022 9 175 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina E S&ME Project No. 22580189 Listing/Observed this Listing An area of the central portion of the subject property has been cleared for EDR Aerial agriculture.There are several mobile trailers present near the western 2009, 2012,2016 Photographs property boundary.The subject property is as currently configured. 4.5 Historical Use Information on Adjoining Properties Historical information including the above-referenced aerial photographs were reviewed to assess off-site historical land uses. Our findings are presented in the following table. Table 4-3 —Historical Use Summary Table (Offsite) Listing/Observed this Listing The surrounding adjoining property appear to be primarily agricultural with 1938, 1950, 1955, some wooded areas. 1961, 1964, 1973, Aerial Photographs 1975 A large building/warehouse has been constructed on the northeastern 1983, 1993, 1998, property boundary.The subject property is as currently configured. 2006, 2009, 2012, Topographic Map2016 4.6 Vapor Encroachment Screening Vapor Encroachment Screening (VES) of identified potential contaminant sources was performed as part of this Phase I ESA. The conclusions of the VES indicate that a Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC) does not exist in connection to the subject property.VES completed by S&ME is provided in Appendix IV. 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE The site reconnaissance was performed by Mr. Cody McMechen of S&ME on August 8, 2022. Representative photographs of the subject property are included in Appendix IV. On-site observations are depicted on Figure 3, Appendix I. 5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions The purpose of the site reconnaissance is to obtain information indicating the likelihood of identifying RECs in connection with the subject property. The site reconnaissance was performed by walking accessible areas of the subject property. August 25, 2022 10 176 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina E S&ME Project No. 22580189 5.2 General Site Setting 5.2.1 Current Use(s) of the Subject Property The subject property is predominately wooded with a small vineyard in the central portion of the subject property. Most building on the subject property are located on the north western portion and are used primarily for storage with one residence on the northwest property boundary. 5.2.2 Past Use(s) of the Subject Property Logging roads were observed throughout the wooded areas of the subject property. 5.2.3 Current Use(s) of Adjoining and Surrounding Properties The current uses of the adjoining properties were identified to the extent that they were visually observed from the subject property during our field reconnaissance or during interviews or in the records review. Descriptions of adjoining properties are provided below: North: Primarily wooded and residential with one light industrial building owned by UNC Chapel Hill. East: Primarily wooded. South: Agriculture and residential. West: Agriculture and residential. 5.2.4 Past Use(s) of Adjoining and Surrounding Properties No indications of the previous use of adjoining and surrounding properties were noted during the site reconnaissance. 5.2.5 Geologic, Hydrogeologic, Hydrologic, and Topographic Conditions The subject property has a hill in the central portion of the subject property that drains in all directions, but predominately south and northeast. A small pond is located near the central portion of the subject property. Two small tributaries run from in a west to east orientation that feed into Collins Creek. 5.2.6 Description of Structures and Roads The subject property has one permanent residence located on the northwest property boundary.There are several old tobacco barns and sheds located throughout the subject property but are concentrated in the northwestern portion. Several other non-permanent structures are located on the subject property and are primarily used for storage. Logging roads can be found throughout the subject property. The subject property can be accessed from the north via Morrow Mill Road and from the west via Gold Mine Loop. August 25, 2022 11 177 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina E S&ME Project No. 22580189 5.2.7 Potable Water Supply and Sewage Disposal System The subject property has a water supply well and a septic system that is located next to the residence on the northwest property boundary. 5.3 Exterior Observations Exterior observations from the site reconnaissance are summarized in the following table. Table 5-1 — General Exterior Observations Reported or Description • observations . On-sitediscussed below the table.) Hazardous Substances and Petroleum N Products Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) N One propane tank was observed outside of the main Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) Y residence. Oil/Water Separators N Strong, Pungent,or Noxious Odors N Pools of Liquid N Drums, Barrels and/or Containers > 5 Y Several water poly containers were observed throughout the Gallons subject property. Unidentified Substance Containers N Potential Polychlorinated Biphenyls N (PCB)-Containing Equipment Hydraulic Equipment N Utilities and Stormwater Management N Pits, Ponds, Lagoons,and Surface Y Several streams were observed throughout the subject Waters property with a small pond in the central portion. Surface Water Discoloration, Sheen or N Free Product Stained Soil or Pavement N Stressed Vegetation N Solid Waste N Process/industrial Wastewater N Discharges August 25, 2022 12 178 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina s S&ME Project No. 22580189 111 E Reported or . � (Noteworthy observations ObservedDescription On-site discussed below Wells Y Water supply well located near the residence in the northwestern portion of the subject property. Septic Systems Y Septic system is present near the residence in the northwestern portion of the subject property. Heating/Cooling N Drains and Sumps N Other N 5.4 Interior Observations Interior observations from the site reconnaissance are summarized in the following table. The shell of the site building was present at the time of the site reconnaissance— no rooms or structures were present inside the building. Table 5-2 - General Interior Observations ObservedReported or Comments (Noteworthy observations are further Description On-site Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products N U STs N ASTs N Oil/Water Separators N Strong, Pungent,or Noxious Odors N Pools of Liquid N Drums, Barrels and/or Containers > 5 N Gallons Unidentified Substance Containers N Potential PCB-Containing Equipment N Hydraulic Equipment N Contracted Maintenance Services N Stained Surfaces Y Small surface soil staining under storage pavilion where motorized equipment is stored. August 25, 2022 13 179 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina E S&ME Project No. 22580189 observationsReported or Comments (Noteworthy ObservedDescription On-site Solid Waste N Drains and Sumps N Other N 6.0 INTERVIEWS S&ME contacted individuals and local authorities that may have information concerning existing conditions, activities, and history of the property and off-site facilities. Brief summaries of the information from those interviews are discussed below. Copies of interview documentation are included in Appendix VI. 6.1 Interview with Past and Present Owners Mr. Thomas Cheek is the current owner of the subject property. Mr. Cody McMechen of S&ME conducted an on- site interview with Mr. Cheek on August 8, 2022. Mr. Cheek's family bought the subject property in 1957. It's use at the time of purchase was agricultural. Mr. Cheek indicated that no permanent buildings have been removed from the subject property. Mr. Cheek was not aware of any contamination on or around the subject property. Mr. Cheek informed S&ME that residence was historically heated via an above ground heating oil tank (AST). The tank was located where the air conditioning unit resides at the time of writing this report. 6.2 Interview with Key Site Manager Mr. Cheek serves as the Key Site Manager of the subject property. 6.3 Interview with Occupants Mr. Cheek serves currently occupies the subject property. 6.4 Interview with Local Government Officials On August 9, 2022, S&ME contacted the City of Chapel Hill Fire Department via email to obtain information regarding possible hazardous spills or fire-related incidents in connection with the subject property. The City of Chapel Hill Fire Department has not responded as of writing this report. 6.5 Interviews with Others No other interviews were performed for this Phase I ESA. August 25, 2022 14 180 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina E S&ME Project No. 22580189 7.0 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS The results of the Phase I ESA are summarized in the following sections. 7.1 On-Site Findings The following on-site findings were identified during this assessment: One propane AST used for heating the residence on the subject property. Septic system present at the residence on the subject property. A heating oil AST was formerly located on eastern side of residence on subject property. Portions of the subject property have been used cultivated fields for agriculture. 7.2 Off-Site Findings The following off-site finding was identified during this assessment: Mike's Corner Store LUST incident. Kirby's American Station Property LUST incident. 7.3 On-Site Opinions The following opinions are provided concerning the on-site findings of this assessment: The propane AST is not considered a REC as it appeared to be in good condition and no signs of a release, such as staining or leakage, were noted. The septic system is not considered a REC as there were no signs of a release, such as staining or leaking, were noted. Based on the development of the subject property, the septic system was used for residential purposes. The historical heating oil AST is not considered a REC as the AST had been removed and no signs of a release, such as staining or leakage, were noted. The former use of portions of the for agricultural uses is not considered a REC. S&ME did not observe evidence of storage (one container of approximately 5 gallons was observed) or mixing of agricultural chemicals at the subject property on the day of the site visit. 7.4 Off-Site Opinions The following opinion is provided concerning the off-site findings of this assessment: A report from Henry Nemargut Engineering Services dated April 12, 2021, on the Mike's Corner Store found on the North Carolina Division of Waste Management Site Locator Tool, did not detect any target analytes in groundwater in MW-6 (monitoring well closest to the subject property) since March of 2020. No target analytes have been detected in water supply wells on the north and western adjoining properties located at 5802 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina and 5811 Morrow mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina respectively. Based on these findings the Mike's Corner Store site is not considered a REC. August 25, 2022 15 181 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina s S&ME Project No. 22580189 111 E The absence of target compounds in the MW-6 and water supply well SW-9 (located on the northern adjoining property), suggests that the Kirby's American Station Property site had not impacted groundwater at the time of sampling on January 15, 2021, and March 3, 2020, respectively. Based on this evidence, Kirby's American Station Property site is not considered a REC in reference to the subject property. 7.5 Data Gaps The following data gaps were identified during this assessment: The historical review failed to document property use in approximately five-year intervals back to its first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier(i.e., data failure). See Section 4.4 of this report for more details on historical information. Land title and judicial records were not reviewed for environmental liens or AULs; however, the Client reported no knowledge of environmental liens or AULs. These data gaps are not considered significant to our ability to identify RECs in connection with the subject property. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS S&ME has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E 1527-13 of the 5824 Morrow Mill Road property, Chapel Hill, Orange County, North Carolina. Exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Section 1.4 and Section 10 of this report. This Phase I ESA did not identify any RECs, CRECs, or HRECs associated with the subject property during this assessment. 9.0 DEVIATIONS No deviations from the standard were made. 10.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES No additional services were performed by S&ME. 11.0 REFERENCES Material references are cited within the report text, unless listed below. August 25, 2022 16 182 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 5824 Morrow Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina E S&ME Project No. 22580189 12.0 SIGNATURES) OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL(S) I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312 and I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. Wayne Watterson Environmental Professional 13.0 QUALIFICATION(S) OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL(S) S&ME delivers engineering, design, planning, environmental, and construction services for the built environment. Founded in 1973, we have grown to an over 1,100-person corporation operating from 34 offices across the United States. Qualifications of the environmental and staff professionals who contributed to this Phase I ESA are included in Appendix VII. August 25, 2022 17 pppppp- Orange County Department on Aging endless possibilil-je`' Robert& Pearl Seymour Center 12551 Homestead Rd. I Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Jerry M.Passmore Center 1 103 Meadowlands Dr., PO Box 8181 1 Hilisbarough, NC 27278 March 22, 2024 Orange County Board of County Commissioners :!' Orange County Planning Department C/o Patrick Mallett, OC Planning Department Dear Orange County Board of County Commissioners, We, the Orange County Advisory Board on Aging, are writing in support of the Fiddlehead Corner application for a rezoning that would allow the development of a 150-unit residential community in Orange County whose focus is aging in place. This project would be an excellent step towards meeting a portion of Orange County's urgent need for senior housing along the outlines of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the 2022-27 Master Aging Plan. The applicant is Hands Four Development Cooperative (1141)).The members of H4D and its sister organization, Triangle Traditional Music and Dance Retirement Society(2T),are largely residents of Orange County and its vicinity. Over the past decade,members of 2T and H4D have pursued the goal of creating a community where they can live and age in community together. In their planning, they have developed a deliberate and thoughtful master plan that echoes issues crucial to successful aging as reflected in the current Orange County Master Aging Plan.These issues are highly relevant in the evaluation of the H4D application,so they will be enumerated. First of all, it is important to keep in mind that Orange County is facing"an explosion in the numbers of older persons, a dramatic increase in longer lives", as described in the 2007-12 Master Aging Plan (MAP), The most recent update of the MAP, (2022-27), reinforces this point with an estimate that the overall population will increase by 20%b from 2020 to 2040, while the number of adult ages 65+ in Orange County is expected to increase over three times as fast- 68916! This oncoming wave of aging adults will produce an increasing demand for housing and neighborhoods that are designed specifically to meet the needs of an aging population. Foremost among the goals of the MAP is the housing element to address this demand.The Comprehensive Plan's Chapter 4 makes specific reference to the MAP with its emphasis on the housing needs of seniors. MAP 2022-27 continues the emphasis on Housing,with Goal 3 being to"improve choices, quality, and affordability of housing for older adults". Visit us online @ www.arangecountync.gov/departments/aging Like us on Facebook @a www.facebook.com/OrangeCountyDepartmentOnAging 184 The Fiddlehead Corner Master Plan responds to this demand by providing a range of choices of high quality that are sized for the comfort, convenience and budget of older adults.Specifically, residences will average 1,250 sf and will consist mostly of one-and two-bedroom units. Units will include a variety of housing types-single family, multiplex, and multifamily buildings-to meet the preferences and desires of a diverse group of individuals.They will adhere to principles of universal design,a term that refers to the design of buildings,products or environments to make them "barrier-free" -accessible to people, regardless of age, disability or other factors. Universal design incorporates elements such as wide doorways,handrails,and level entry. Only a small fraction of the existing housing stock of Orange County meets these criteria. It is very encouraging to see that the Fiddlehead Corner(FC) plans go well beyond the basic requirements of housing to specifically respond to Goals 1, 2,4, 7 and 8 of the MAP 2022- 27.Goal 1 is to optimize the variety and usability of outdoor spaces and buildings that enhance social interactions for older adults. FC will have walking trails,outdoor areas for recreation and events,a community garden and meditation spaces. Goal 2 is to increase access to,and awareness of,affordable, safe,and equitable mobility options for older adults in all parts of Orange County. Crucially,the community is compact to promote ready access to the community center even for those with limited mobility or using personal mobility devices. FC will coordinate closely with transportation providers to assure that community members needing assistance are able to reach desired destinations such as shopping venues,entertainment and medical facilities. Universal design will be applied to planning for all shared indoor and outdoor spaces. Goal 4 is to promote diverse and accessible opportunities for participation and engagement of older adults.The community center will serve as the hub for the social life of the community-a place to gather daily to be with others and pursue a wide variety of activities together.Social interaction protects against the isolation and loneliness that many older adults experience. FC cultivates community values that embrace all races,all faiths,all cultures and countries of origin,and all sexual and gender orientations. Goal 7 seeks to ensure that the community has accessible and affordable resources to support individual health and well-being goals throughout the aging process. Fiddlehead Corner has an entire team dedicated to planning and providing a continuum of care in the community to ensure that the needs of the community are covered.Specifically, resources will be available to allow most community members to"age in place",with their increasing care needs provided for as needed,rather than forcing them to leave the community for such care. Goal 8 relates to communication and information. FC will have high-speed internet connectivity with which residents can use web search and other tools to learn of resources. FC is well aware of Orange County aging services and will inform its members about them. Members will be informed of volunteer engagement opportunities in the larger community. 185 Information about resources related to health,faith practices,public events,and civic and community organizations will be disseminated within the community. Implicit in planning a community that will be able to meet the needs of an older population is that it has to have sufficient scale to provide the services. In other words, it must be large enough to support those services financially. In planning Fiddlehead Corner,a size of 150 residences and about 225 individuals was projected to be the minimum size required to make the needed amenities and services financially viable. It is impressive that H4D persisted after an extensive search for a satisfactory urban property was fruitless.The property H4D has acquired in rural Orange County could allow a community of the scale required for financial viability,and otherwise meet criteria that H4D has in terms of location and access to amenities. Input from consultants has provided solutions for access to water and wastewater treatment that are challenges for a sizable development in a rural location. Intelligent planning combines the compact development zone with preservation of the majority of the land in its natural state to address ecological and environmental aspects. The remaining hurdle is that the land must be rezoned for the purpose,and that is the objective of the 1-141) application. The Advisory Board on Aging urges you to carefully consider how well their plan addresses the objectives of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Master Aging Plan as you make your decision. Sincerely, W�ev Colin Austin,Chair Orange County Advisory Board on Aging 1 AIR Staff Report — MA23-0005 Attachment A2 ORANGE Zoning Atlas Amendment — �unditic nal District ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAR01 INA Basic Information Unaddressed Parcel Vicinity nnapfor ReZ°°ing4pplicatf°n PIN 973972D339 Parcel Address off Morrow Mill Road at r r^- cWO s Gold Mine Loop Parcel Identification Bingnam IoLwnsnip Number (PIN) 9739-72-0339 r Daae Hands Four Development kEiH Applicant Name and (1-14D) Address P.O. Box 1201 ma Haw Rive cnapei H IITownsn r Carrboro, NC 27210 PropertyOwner Name and Address Same as Above L P E eId (if different from �T hp, Applicant) H J ChV \l�I L �� 6 ` -1H LeAnn Nease Brown Li m ynm rown,hu ,t Brown & Bunch, PLLC water supply—1— 101 North Columbia St. Agent(s), if Chapel Hill, NC 27514 applicable Radway Design c/o Scott Radway 735 Summer Spring Ln. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Parcel Size +/- 90.133 acres, including 1.341 acres in the R/W. Future Land Use 18.493 acres located within the Map (FLUM) Rural Neighborhood Activity Designation Node (RNAN); 71.64 acres in Agricultural Residential FLUM Overlay(s) 1.66 acres within Resource Protection Areas Growth Management Rural System Designation 1 Definition of FLUM RNAN: Land focused on Designation designated road intersections Adopted Future Land Use Map with within a Rural Residential or PIN 9739720339 Depicted Agricultural-Residential area that is appropriate for small scale commercial uses characteristic of"Mom and $y`" Pop" convenience stores and gas stations. AR: Land in the rural areas where the prevailing land use activities are related to the land Haw River (agriculture, forestry) and which is an appropriate location for the continuation of these uses. 1 s slla�. �a«,al«wax«Iplnla«„ FWUM Lane Uaa CAlWAn AQ11c1"Ree 1.1 A R-1 gmtbaw Current Zoning Rezoning Application'toMPD-CDfor PIN9739720339 District AR (Agricultural Residential) Requested MPD-CD – Master Plan Zoning District Development- Conditional District Requested Zoning District F: Consistent with Appendix F of No, see Section B 2030 9779729379 Comprehensive Haw River Plan Existing Zoning Haw River Unprotected Overlay Districts Watershed ` Amendments Proposed for —sums 2anbq TW';, N o Overlay Districts (Y/N) 2 1 AR i- Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses Aerial Image with PIN 9739720339 Outlined North - AR (Agricultural Residential), GC-4 (General Commercial, LC-1 (Local Commercial, and NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) - Single-family residential land uses, UNC Facility Support Building, convenience store/gas station, garden center, deer processing, electrical services company South - AR (Agricultural Residential) - Single-family residential and farm uses, including Voluntary Agricultural District 7 720339 East - AR (Agricultural Residential) - Single-family residential and farm uses West - AR (Agricultural Residential) - Single-family residential and farm uses Y• Existing Roads North Morrow Mill Road and NC 54 W South None East None - West Gold Mine Loop Road Existing Conditions/Physical Features Varying topography that is completely wooded, with a few trails and streams. Public Water and Sewer The Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) does not designate this area as a Primary Service Area for water and sewer services. As such, private well and septic systems are used in this area. As presented, the systems will likely need to be permitted by the NC Department of Environmental Quality due to their complexity and scale (Environmental Health memo, Attachment 5). Proposed Project Proposed Development-Applicant Submitted Narrative The development itself, Fiddlehead Corner, is proposed to be an all-inclusive, socially vibrant arts village that incorporates supportive care as people age in place. The community will be organized around music, arts, dance, and nature. A community center will house a dance floor, small gathering venues, creative arts opportunities, and communal dining space. Other amenities include a fitness center, accessible gardens, walking trails, and preserved green spaces. The development will consist of up to 150 modestly sized dwelling units, including individual homes, semi-attached homes, and multi-family buildings, all adhering to H4D universal design principles. The community intends to generate a continuum of care that includes neighbors helping neighbors along with innovative wellness and healthcare approaches that prioritize helping people stay in their own homes as long as possible. The applicant intends to build two licensed Family Care Facilities. One is planned for the first phase of development with an option to build an additional home as the community grows. For more information, please visit 2T's website (www.2TNC.org) and H4D's website, which is under development vvvw. luu�el leau.�oo . 3 F To review the applicants full narrative please go to the following link: Active Development Projects Dashboard (arcgis.com) Proposed Access and Transportation Network Improvements The Project is proposing access from Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop. The following access improvements, as recommended in the submitted Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) (Attachment 1), have been proposed: Phase 1: Morrow Mill Road and Site Access A: • Construct a stop controlled access with one ingress lane and one egress lane. • Provide a minimum internal protected stem of 100'. Gold Mine Loop Road and Site Access B: • Construct a stop controlled access with one ingress lane and one egress lane. • Provide appropriate controls to restrict access to emergency vehicles only. Phase 2: Morrow Mill Road and NC 54 • Construct an exclusive northbound right turn lane on Morrow Mill Road with a minimum of 150' of full storage and appropriate transitions per NCDOT requirements. Morrow Mill Road and Proposed Site Access • Construct a southbound left turn lane with 100 feet of storage and appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements on Morrow Mill Road. Proposed Utilities The property is not in an area served by public water/sewer. Water and wastewater services will be provided via a community well and distribution system and a community wastewater treatment system. Appropriate local and state agencies will be conducting review and permitting for such systems. As presented, the systems will likely need to be permitted by the NC Department of Environmental Quality due to their complexity and scale (Environmental Health memo, Attachment 5). 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 (Erosion Control & Stormwater memo, Attachment 5). IL 4 lan Land Use Buffers/Setbacks North MPD-CD Buffers Determined at Time of Approval/ No Requirement South MPD-CD Buffers Determined at Time of Approval/ No Requirement East MPD-CD Buffers Determined at Time of Approval/ No Requirement West MPD-CD Buffers Determined at Time of Approval/ No Requirement Stream Buffers Stream buffers shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.13 of the UDO and are 65 ft. based on slope. A Zoning Report of the property that gives an aerial image of the Stream Buffer areas is attached to this report. Environmental Assessment (EA) The applicant has provided an Environmental Assessment (EA) application and supporting materials as required in Section 6.16 of the UDO with their submittal. These materials were subsequently shared with various State agencies via the NC Department of Administration's State Clearinghouse. Planning and DEAPR Staff have also jointly reviewed the materials and agree with a determination and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) as required in Section 2.25.1(B)(5) of the UDO. This determination eliminates a require from the applicant to provide a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process as outlined in Sections 2.25.2 and 6.6A of the UDO. Solid Waste The applicant has indicated development within the project will conform to the Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance (Attachment 5). Proposed Conditions The following conditions have been proposed by either the applicant or staff: 1. Per UDO Section 6.7, the Master Plan presented as part of the application in Attachment Al will determine allowable uses, the layout including setbacks and buffers, maximum building heights, a utility master plan showing all proposed locations of utility lines, structures and accompanying easements for sanitary sewer, potable water, and stormwater, development lots/pods with acreage, a master sign plan, the interior roadway plan, proposed access/driveway points, and all proposed on-site recreation and/or open space, and architectural concepts. 5 Review Milestones Application Submittal Date 10/6/2023, revised: 12/29/2023, 3/20/2024 Development Advisory Committee (DAC) 2/1/2024 and 4/4/2024 Review Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) 4/15/2024 Planning Board 6/4/24 & 7/10/24 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 March 27, 2024 Yes, FONSI May 21, 2024 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 a full analysis of the application's consistency with the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. See the drafted Statement of Consistency (Attachment 6) and drafted Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment 7) in which the relevant Goals and Objectives of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan have been analyzed in full detail. 1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of the LIDO. Staff Comment: Staff review determined that the application is complete, and all submitted materials are in compliance with the following applicable sections of the UDO: • Section 2.8, Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments • Section 2.9, Conditional Districts • Section 6.7, Additional Standards for MPD-CD 2. The consistency of this Zoning Atlas Amendment with the Unified Development Ordinance relies, in part, on the LIDO Text Amendment, see Attachments C1 — C3 (TXTA23-0001), submitted concurrently with this Zoning Atlas Amendment application. The inclusion of"Family Care Facility" as a permitted use within the MPD-CD zoning district would allow for staff to determine that this request is in compliance with the established standards of the Unified Development Ordinance. 3. The consistency of this Zoning Atlas Amendment with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan relies, in part, on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, see Attachments B1 — B7 (MA23-0004), submitted concurrently with this Zoning Atlas Amendment application. The expansion of the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) to include the entirety of the subject parcel and the inclusion of MPD-CD zoning district as a compatible zoning district within the RNAN would allow for staff to determine that this request is consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 6 lao The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix G, Land Use Classification and Overlay Locational Criteria, identifies Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes as a half-mile area surrounding intersections in areas surrounded by rural or agricultural residential uses and containing one or two commercial uses; and serves the surrounding low-density rural and agricultural population, generally less than 1,000 persons. When considered in coordination with the Comprehensive Plan and UDO amendments, and presuming the approval of both requests, the proposed development would be consistent with existing/anticipated development within the area and the various land uses associated with the project are compatible with various goals/policies as detailed herein. L_ 7 193 Parcel Data: Stream,Water Body,and Floodplain Buffers: Land Disturbance Permitting Requirements: Relevant Documents from Register of Deeds: Zoning Information: Disclaimer: Date: of : r O h 530 522 ` 532 534 s18 S?6 S`?6 Soil:GeC Soil:Tau r Soil: Mi S SSO ;� 00 Flood SI r ZIP �A 5s8 SS ssr4 Haw Ri er e Unprote ted yh� � co Water ed 558 m u7N p h� AR hN �o Soil: HrC U6 ./ a a' 6 Soil. HrC` ,r 77777 Soil:Gets `, 492 Soil• F" 526 N _; 194 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 January 16, 2025 NOTICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING To Whom It May Concern: This notice is to inform you of the February 4, 2025, Board of County Commissioners meeting, at which applications to amend the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and rezone a +/-90.133 acre parcel (PIN: 9739-72-0339) will be reviewed. The property is located south of the intersection of Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop within the Bingham Township. This notification is occurring in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and 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. Please see the enclosed maps for specific location and information. YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT PROPOSED FOR REZONING. Property Information Parcel ID Number(PIN) 9739-72-0339 Owner Hands Four Development Cooperative Applicant Hands Four Development Cooperative Location Located off Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop Acreage +/-90.133-acre parcel Current Future Land Use Map Agricultural Residential and Rural Neighborhood Classifications Activity Node Proposed Future Land Use Map Rural Neighborhood Activity Node Classification Current Zoning Agricultural Residential (AR) Proposed Zoning Master Plan Development—Conditional District (MPD-CD) Watershed Designation Haw River Unprotected What is being proposed? The property owner Hands Four Development Cooperative is requesting a Future Land Use Map amendment of a portion (71.64 ac.) of the +/-90.133 acre property to Rural Neighborhood Activity Node, and a rezoning of the entire property to MPD-CD. The applicants have provided a site-specific master plan featuring 150 dwelling units, a community center, fitness center, accessible gardens, walking trails, and preserved green spaces. The site-specific plan features landscaping, interior roads, parking, on-site well water and wastewater treatment systems, and stormwater control measures that conform 195 with the Orange County UDO. As defined and detailed by the Orange County UDO, should the application be approved, these conditions will be binding for the property, with any significant change, including principal use, requiring subsequent zoning map amendment. What is this meeting for? The Orange County Board of Commissioners will hold one (1) public hearing on the proposed amendments, as well as a related amendment to the text of the UDO. The Orange County Planning Board, an advisory board comprised of appointed volunteers, reviewed these applications at their June 6 and July 10, 2024, meetings and voted to recommend denial of all of the applications, including the rezoning request. Board of County Commissioners Meeting Information Date February 4, 2025 Time 7:00 p.m. Place Whitted Meeting Facility Address 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC Cy Stober, Planning Director Assigned Planner Email: cstober@orangecountync.gov Phone: 919-245-2592 If you cannot attend the Board meeting and the website does not answer your questions about the requested rezoning and associated applications, you may call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you. You may also submit written comments via email to ocbocc -orangecountync.gov (emails sent to this address are considered public records and are subject to public disclosure). Sincerely, Cy Stober Additional information is available on the Orange County Planning Department's website: https://www.orangecountync.gov/3038/Active-Development-Projects or scan below: qLJ1 ` - R 196 Proposed Future Land Use Map Change with PIN 9739720339 Depicted /-� Z VZO �S�l , 1 Haw River Watershed 9739720339 <O 1� -# °'o Proposed Change to Rural Neighborhood (71.64 acres) Streams _ Resource Protection Areas N i in=400 feet Future Land Use Categories oRE COUNTY Feet Agricultural Residential U 0 400 Planning and Inspections Department(BC) Rural Neighborhood Activity Node 4/3/2024 O:IGIS Workspace�Projects\Staff Report\Fiddlehead MA23-0005\Fiddlehead MA23-0005.aprx\Proposed Change to Future Land Use Map with PIN 9739720339 Depicted C1 11 A Rezoning Application Nto MPD-CD for PIN 9739720339 i o� Z 9739720339 Haw River �o �a Q PIN 9739720339 i Streams o 0 Zoning 0 AR GC4 N t in=400 feet ORANGEFeet LC1 COUNTY 4 0 00 NC2 Planning and Inspections Department(BC) 41312024 O:`iGIS Workspace\Projects�Staff ReportViddlehead MA23-0005\Fiddlehead MA23-0005.aprx�Rezoning Application to MPD-CD for PIN 9739720339 198 Attachment 3 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1133 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245.2575 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance I have mailed, or have caused to be mailed, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held regarding a rezoning application proposing to rezone a parcel of property located off Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop (PIN 9739-72-0339) on January 17, 2025. The owners were identified according to the Tax Records, as required by Section 2.8.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. The mailed notices specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing. WITNESS my hand, this 17th day of January, 2025. Cy Stober Planning and Inspections Director 199 March 29, 2024 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) Type of Application Submitted: MPD-CD Rezoning Case Number: MA23-0005 Project Name: Fiddlehead Corner Fiddlehead Corner Neighbors: We (Hands Four Development Cooperative) have submitted a MPD-CD Rezoning Application proposing to develop property located at the intersection of Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (PIN 9739-72-0339) for Master Plan Development-Conditional District. Per Section 2.9 Conditional Districts 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) 9739-72-0339 Owner Hands Four Development Cooperative Applicant Hands Four Development Cooperative Location Intersection of Morrow Mill Rd. and Gold Mine Loop, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Acreage 90.13 acres Current: Agricultural Residential (AR) Zoning Proposed: Master Plan Development-Conditional District MPD-CD Watershed Designation Haw River Unprotected What is being proposed? The applicant is a cooperative formed by area residents to develop Fiddlehead Corner, a community designed for "aging in place". The development will consist of pocket neighborhoods, a tried-and-true land plan where clusters of homes are gathered around a landscaped common area, giving meaningful connection with neighbors. Universal design paths leading to a central gathering place for residents - the community center - will assure mobility, social interaction, and access to amenities for those of all abilities. As compact design allows two-thirds of the property to remain in its natural forested state, Fiddlehead Corner will blend seamlessly into the rural landscape. The proposal requests rezoning the property to Master Plan Development-Conditional District, a designation consistent with the scale and characteristics of the project. 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. 200 When and where is the meeting? Meeting Information Date April 15, 2024, Monday Time 6:00-8:00 pm Place Hillsborough Public Library, Main Meeting Room Address 134 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Brian Collie, Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Assigned Planner Email: bcollie(2orangecountync.gov Phone: 919 245-2599 After the NIM, this proposal will go on to the Planning Board for review and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will then hold a public hearing to make a final decision on the application. You will also receive a letter regarding when those meetings will take place and at what time. If you have any questions regarding this project, feel free to reach out to us, my contact information is listed below. Best Regards, Mareah C. Steketee 919.606.9631 (Voice or text) mcsteketee25@gmail.com Enclosure: Site Plan 1 h� ti "r y V go, ' 4 f gall] l a .. NciAh6rba r CASE DATE TIME Y � 0j J r 2 en r Cc I PLACE M i 1. s �, — i { r ! -�'''�.�s � >I iA' •.*'•L. S j� f� ..�,y � � �, �• _� his'� - -- � A �•� t D� - 1 203 Fiddlehead NIM Report Attachment A The following are summaries of comments and questions - in bold - made by audience members at the NIM. The H4D response follows each. One change is proposed, designated in the responses by underlining. "At the northeast border of the developed area, houses come into the stream buffer and are close to steep slopes that could endanger residents walking there". The plans have been scrutinized to confirm where setbacks are required to comply with the UDO requirements. The area referenced by the NIM audience member raised a legitimate concern. In response, H4D had a supplemental drawing prepared - Attachment B - to illustrate how adjustments could be made if necessary that would still allow 150 dwelling units to be sited in Pod A. The drawing shows the required buffer plus a 25 foot additional drip line buffer width plus an additional 10 feet construction zone. All roadways and lots/homes have been pulled out of these three areas. A swap of unit types consists of converting one detached home and two duplex homes to one triplex. Some minor adjustments to accommodate parking can be made. This exhibit also shows topography. The red hatching denotes the slopes greater than 25%. The green hatching shows the slopes ranging from 15-25%. Overall, this plan looks like the submitted plan with development pulled back from the regulatory buffer by 20-35 feet. The results are that more vegetation and hillsides remain untouched and construction is easier. These are adjustments that would have been made sometime during the plan review process or the detailed construction plan design. Further adjustments are inevitable, as Fiddlehead adjusts to market demand. The flexibility to make such adjustments is the essence of the MPD-CD concept. "Your land contains a FEMA-designated floodzone". A tiny triangular wedge measuring approximately 1400 square feet (0.04 acre) on the southern aspect of our eastern boundary is designated FEMA AE (1% annual chance flood hazard). It lies in a stream corridor that is protected by a stream buffer and is well away from any development. No special precautions are necessary otherwise. "The wastewater plant would create odors to adjoining neighbors and effluent discharge would harm the soil". The technical information filed in the application describe a secondary treatment plant that has no odor emanating from the processing chambers beyond its immediate environs. The effluent water distributed sub-surface will be treated and purified to a cleanliness level higher than NCDEQ standards, a level that allows its use for reclaimed water applications such as toilet flushing and irrigation. The effluent will pose no risk to the soil. 204 "The community wells will lower the water pressure in our wells and make them unusable". This possibility is often brought up in the context of community wells but occurs very rarely in actual practice. Mathematical modeling with tools such as MODFLOW is sometimes done to assess the potential of well interference, but our consulting hydrogeologist advises that modeling tools are only applicable where water is supplied from sedimentary rock, not from fractured rock as in the case at our location. There is no way to predict a priori whether or not our well would likely interfere with an adjacent well, though again it is very unlikely that such would occur. Should suspected interaction occur, H4D would work with the neighbor to perform tests to determine whether or not our well is causing the interference and, if so, seek a solution. "The added traffic will pose a safety risk and will increase backup at peak travel times". A Traffic Impact Analysis has been done and NCDOT has outlined adjustments that will be required on Morrow Mill Road and NC 54 to handle increased traffic based on industry standard methods. The calculations were not adjusted for the fact that the great majority of residents are expected to be retirees and not traveling during peak travel times, so the traffic estimates are very conservative. Realistically there would be minimal peak hour impact. "Power outages due to storms would pose a risk to your elderly residents and compromise water and wastewater systems". We have a plan for energy resiliency during loss of power from the utility that will be fully specified as we move into the development phase. All utilities will be routed underground for maximum reliability. "The UDO talks about the county maintaining green space, sparsely populated space, and the County has worked towards that for decades. How do you make something that goes in there compatible with the goal of low density in the rural area? It's a radical change from what's there. It takes real space to support animal life". We've given high priority to preserving the existing rural character in the way our development uses the land. Two-thirds of the property will remain as green space in perpetuity according to the master plan. That will provide 60 acres for native fauna and flora to flourish and provide a buffer such that the peace, quiet and security of surrounding neighbors will be preserved. "An underground plume of petroleum that originated from a leak at the intersection of Morrow Mill Road and Highway 54 is spreading and could potentially threaten your water supply". A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that was conducted on our behalf by SM&E in 2022 referred to the situation at that site. Their conclusion was that "the site is not considered an REC [Recognized Environmental Condition] in reference to the subject property". Nevertheless, we will continue to follow any evolving issues there. 205 "Community lighting will add to the light pollution in the area". Our plans call for sufficient lighting along paths and in common areas for safety and security. This will be accomplished by carefully aimed downlighting and bollards. There will be no commercial activity that would require lighted signs, spotlights and other broad lighting. We anticipate no increase in ambient light or glow perceptible from Morrow Mill or Gold Mine Loop. Immediate neighbors may see faint light through the woods during winter months. "Your plans and zoning requests appear to be self-serving. How are the goals and priorities of Orange County as described in the Comprehensive Plan addressed in your project?". An overarching goal of our project is to help fill an anticipated shortage of appropriate housing and living environments for senior citizens of Orange County, a demographic segment that is growing faster than the general population. This need is emphasized in the Comprehensive Plan and Orange County Master Aging Plan (MAP). The narrative in our zoning application outlines in detail the ways in which our community will meet the identified needs of seniors as described in the MAP. The Commission on Aging has voiced its favorable impression of how our project addresses these needs. In addition to the NIM, H41D representatives have held "porch meetings" and engaged in email exchanges with groups of neighbors to discuss plans for the development, solicit their concerns and respond to them. The concerns and responses follow: Item 1: Neighbors across Gold Mine Loop from the southwest corner were concerned about the initial plan to site a cluster of homes in the southwest corner. In response to their concerns, as well as other considerations, that cluster was incorporated into the primary development in the eastern aspect of the property, allowing the southwest corner to remain in its current forested condition. In a followup conversation, those neighbors stated that the change addressed their concerns about limiting traffic and development visibility adequately. Item 2: The primary wastewater processing plant and dispersal area were initially planned to be in the northern region of the property. Neighbors to the north were concerned about the possible odor that they expected could result. In response to their concerns, as well as other considerations, the primary dispersal area was relocated to the southern portion of the property. However, Agri-Waste Technology, the NC licensed wastewater treatment firm consulting on the project, has emphasized that the technology employed eliminates any possibility of odor from the processing plant or dispersal area to be perceived on neighboring property. Item 3: Neighbors near the proposed primary entrance to Fiddlehead onto Morrow Mill Road requested consideration of relocating the primary entrance to Gold Mine Loop. They cited concerns of safety and additional trips during peak hours that would increase delays in turning onto Highway 54. In response, we noted that retirees - the great majority of residents - would not be going to work and otherwise would generally avoid traveling during peak hours, so Fiddlehead is expected to add little to the peak hour traffic. We noted that Gold Mine Loop is a 206 "Local Street" as defined in the UDO and therefore is not intended to carry the number of daily trips that would be generated by Fiddlehead. Distance to Highway 54, the main road that residents will be traveling, would be increased by one-third mile on average for each trip if the primary entrance were on Gold Mine Loop rather than Morrow Mill. The Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted with the primary entrance located at Morrow Mill Road. For all these reasons, moving the primary entrance to Gold Mine Loop is not a consideration. �7---_-r--------- 'J MCADAMF r , /'' �J��+r �•.••� ••t••_ naw x.+e.�.ruA - — — — - .' FI7-I-I-IyM vl _L:.' ��f J /I• �;�- i -, �-- Ir. I MOIAkMIIi WTA - - -�,-�--+ti's• �3�c, � .� � j _ � _• Si- \ p w ,�'.• / 5 tzT 5 ••a r •r O nx 9 �•• .•� J kiUMF __- /`• ��r-` �- gI w I � r� // :v/• .u.w.a..0 i- _ � � mna.nwu wn a ZOO• .'//� �mm�• •`� \ ':. /,� ''_ akwwisrmsnwis +� � wu wwovn v nrn wr m " 1p • ' , w•asu n AN s a 'J /iOMmYfYMlfltIWOY.I �-�-, � � i i � I I�•...Y+Ym.rn. ]13CADAMS , Jlitsr� , SECTION i I �q�waMenekaw�aLnehYYYe 14± .00 --• — r I Idyl ISI�lyl�l 2 i d1 uavro.uu rd I •. •it i # m.Rv.w.R¢.nort of m i� .2�'M- - `- r = �. _`�Ir 1 i •.,...�.u ............ O O ., -; A, � _, .. - -_ roeYsweeeenee uxaurYon.oYe.w+a ons. • �.---- r - - - - -. Mw�vs.Y..wrYYhY p..YryYmhM.YUMIYY¢vu{I.OM� _i v�RtY br�x� �, 14fiM`M�pwJnNYh�`a`mm pM g r R R • -�-�� "R""Eraua 209 Approved 7.10.24 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 JUNE 5,2024 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township 7 Representative; Marilyn Carter,At-Large Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; 8 Charity Kirk,At-Large Representative; Chris Johnston, Hillsborough Township Representative;Whitney Watson,At- 9 Large Representative; Liz Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large Representative; 10 Beth Bronson,At-Large Representative. 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT:Adam Beeman (Chair) 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director;Tom Altieri, Senior Planner—Long Range Planning & 15 Administration;Ashley Moncado, Planner III; Lauren Coffey, Planner I;Jack Moran, Planning Technician. 16 17 OTHERS PRESENT: Edwin Cox, Scott Radway,John Felton, Kevin Davidson, Mareah Steketee, Peggy Craft, Clare 18 Steece Julich, Ralph Warren, Dan Eddleman, Sadie Rapp, Laura Streitfeld, Greg Rapp, Betty Lou Whitford, Kathy 19 McHugh,Ann Simpson,Aadra Bhatt,Anna Hatcher, Joshua Setzer, Carol Mellon, John Kizer, Suzanne Moore, 20 Steckley Lee, Mary Latham, Colin Austin,Alan Julich, Bryna Rapp, Wilson Lamb, Susan Houck, Mike Hatcher, 21 Miriam Cowan, Tom Chirk, Christopher McGee, Bland Simpson, Isa Cheren, Stephen Stiebel, Linda D. Smith,Aditi 22 Watson, Ron Rouster,John Vogel, David D'Agostino, Jean Eddleman. 23 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 26 The meeting began at 7:03 PM. 27 28 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 29 30 Lamar Proctor: My name is Lamar Proctor, I am the Vice-Chair of the Orange County Planning Board. I want to 31 thank everyone for being here. Do we have a quorum? Mr. Stober has indicated we do have a quorum, so we can 32 go ahead and proceed. As for informational items, let me pull that up, and I'm just going to ask for everyone's 33 patience tonight. There are three agenda items on our agenda related to the Fiddlehead Corner Development 34 applicant and the application for rezoning. We are going to discuss openly and transparently as a board as to how to 35 proceed in order to make the most efficient use of our time. I will tell you about our local rules, our meetings end at 36 10:00 p.m., so I anticipate that this meeting and these agenda items will probably extend over multiple sessions, so 37 we meet on the first Wednesday of the month and so my agenda items are still loading but I can tell everyone that 38 our next meeting, and correct me if I'm wrong, is July 3rd. 39 40 Chris Johnston: July 10. 41 42 Lamar Proctor: July 10th, excuse me. Mr. Proctor reviewed the Calendars included in the agenda packet. 43 44 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 45 46 Lamar Proctor: Do I have a motion to approve the minutes from our May 1st of 2024 regular meeting? 47 48 MOTION BY Marilyn Carter to approve the Meeting Minutes.Seconded by Statler Gilfillen. 49 50 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 51 210 Approved 7.10.24 52 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 53 None. 54 55 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 56 57 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 58 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 59 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 60 law of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 61 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and 62 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 63 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 64 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 65 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 66 67 68 PUBLIC CHARGE 69 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 70 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 71 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 72 public charge,the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 73 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 74 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 75 76 77 Lamar Proctor read the public charge. 78 79 PROCEDURAL ISSUES. 80 Because the three agenda items are interrelated the Board discussed procedural issues. 81 82 Lamar Proctor: Generally speaking when we have an agenda that includes multiple items,we address them each 83 separately; however, in this unique circumstance, I would entertain a motion to consolidate Items 7, 8, and 9 on the 84 agenda for the staff and the applicant presentations, as well as public comment, so I would welcome a motion or 85 entertain a motion at this time as to that or any discussion prior to. 86 87 MOTION BY Charity Kirk to combine the agenda items. Seconded by Statler Gilfillen 88 89 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 90 91 Lamar Proctor: By our stated policies,we give the public 3 minutes per agenda item, given that we have 92 consolidated those, I would like some discussion from the board given the large number of people who want to 93 speak,any idea or discussion as to public comment and time limits thereon. I looked at the sign-in sheets which are 94 still being filled out,there are multiple people for each agenda item, some in excess of 10 or 11, so roughly we got at 95 least by our rules about 2 hours of public comment, at least, so we can either have speakers present and do 3 96 minutes on the agenda item and they can just state the agenda item on which they would want to present. That 97 would be my idea on how to proceed, but, I would welcome any discussion about that. 98 99 Marilyn Carter: Mr. Chair, point of information. Will the public comment precede the presentations by the applicant 100 or follow. I see by meeting process it follows, is that right? 101 211 Approved 7.10.24 102 Lamar Proctor: The meeting process is there's a staff presentation on our items,the applicant presents,then there 103 are questions that will be entertained in sequential order from the Planning Board, and then we take public 104 comments,and then our deliberation and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners following that 105 process. Since we have consolidated the items,we will, in essence, be discussing all three agenda items at once, so 106 we have to be very careful because, and I want to be clear, Mr. Stober,there's Agenda Item 7 is to review and make 107 recommendations to the BOCC on applicant-initiated amendments to the comprehensive plan to amend the FLUM, 108 the Future Land Use Map to expand a rural neighborhood activity node and to amend the text of Appendix F Land 109 Use and Zoning Matrix. That's the first item. Is that correct? 110 111 Cy Stober: That is correct. 112 113 Lamar Proctor: And so that would be to consider expanding, making conditional zoning that is under consideration 114 in this case applicable to the rural activity node. 115 116 Cy Stober: So the staff presentation will detail our analysis,yes, at present the zoning application is 117 inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map as well as Appendix F, and we have a fairly thorough presentation on our 118 analysis on the existing inconsistency and the applicant's proposed remedy to it. 119 120 Lamar Proctor: Okay, and the Agenda Item No. 8 is review and make recommendation to the BOCC on the 121 applicant-initiated amendments to the UDO pertaining to family care homes. And No. 9 is to review and make 122 recommendations to the BOCC on the zoning atlas amendment to rezone this particular parcel essentially from 123 Agricultural Residential to MPD-CD Master Plan Development Conditional District. 124 125 Cy Stober: That's correct. On Item 8 there's a staff recommendation on this submitted application to resolve 126 some statutory inconsistencies or some inconsistencies of our LIDO with general statute that are independent of the 127 applicant's proposed amendments. 128 129 Chris Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I would request that,you know,just looking at our meeting process,we have the 130 applicant presentation that's going to take place, 'we're going to have the questions from the board and the public 131 comments, I would say if we can keep the questions from the board concise and not repeat each other and then for 132 the public comment request that the public listen to what everyone's saying and if someone is about to repeat what 133 'you've already said, in the interests of everyone here, if you have signed up to speak and that item has already been 134 covered, please state that you are reiterating what someone has already said, that will help us understand and gauge 135 where we are that will help move the process along and make sure that everyone can be heard. I would ask that we 136 not necessarily limit people to a lesser amount of time, but as long as we can all understand and work towards that, 1 137 think that'll move this process along. 138 139 Lamar Proctor: Okay,thank you. Any other comments? 140 141 Marilyn Carter: Mr. Chair, I would also recommend following the process that the Board of County Commissioners 142 uses for public comment', I believe it's 1 hours in a given meeting. They typically do it up front at the beginning of 143 their meetings, but we're allowed 1 hour to tonight and if we find that as we may that we're going to reach our 10 p.m. 144 time limit for the meeting that we follow into the next meeting with continued public comment and our deliberations. 145 146 Cy Stober: So, Ms. Carter and the board,that is for general public comments that are addressed to the board 147 on unspecified agenda items or topics. For agenda items, and particularly for those going to public hearing,which 148 this would, there's no limit on the number of comments or the duration of the comment period. 149 150 Marilyn Carter: Okay, in that case, in keeping with the policy then, I would agree. 151 212 Approved 7.10.24 152 Charity Kirk: I would suggest, it sounds like from my reading of Item 8 is that we are bringing things in line with 153 the state. 154 155 Cy Stober: In part,there are two amendments one will bring our UDO under compliance with the general 156 statute. 157 158 Charity Kirk: So my suggestion is we give each person 6 minutes, 3 minutes on each item because I think Item 159 8 is probably a little less contentious and that will try and keep it shorter, so 6 minutes total, 3 minutes per each item, 160 so if they only want to talk about one item, it's only 3 minutes that they get to talk. 161 162 Lamar Proctor: Well, I do think that the sign-in sheet accurately reflects which item and the name of the person 163 who wants to speak, so given that I think we're all accepting of the fact that this is going to be a multi-session 164 meeting, I think we should just be cognizant of the time and call those up in order in the order in which they signed up 165 and I would ask the public if you feel that your position has been stated, I don't want to cut anyone's time, but if you 166 feel that someone else has said what you wanted to say and it would be duplicative,then you're welcome to just let 167 us know you agree with someone else or I would just ask the public to be mindful of the time.we're not going to cut 168 anybody's time short because this is a public hearing and you all have the right to have your voices heard. So,what 1 169 would propose is that we just follow our normal meeting process and be cognizant of the time and give each 170 individual as they have signed up on the list their 3 minutes. Once the buzzer goes off, we're not trying to be rude, 171 we're just trying to be efficient about time, so when that buzzer goes off the 3 minutes is up, and you'll be asked to 172 step away from the podium to keep things moving forward. There is one additional request that has been made by 173 Preserve Rural Orange which is a community group who has asked for additional time. Before we get into that, does 174 everyone agree as to the process on individual comment on the sign-up sheet,does anyone have any further 175 thoughts. 176 177 Charity Kirk: Suggesting 3 minutes per topic? 178 179 Lamar Proctor: I think the individuals who have signed up have listed their name and the agenda item on which 180 they want to speak,so they should just be called up in order. If a particular individual wants to comment for 3 181 minutes on 7, 8 and 9, well,first we hear the comments on 7, then we'll hear the comments on 8,then we'll hear the 182 comments on 9. 1 don't see any other way to proceed that doesn't get confusing or lead to people feeling that their 183 time has been cut short and that they haven't had the opportunity to address each item as per our explicit rules. 184 185 Charity Kirk; So a 3-minute limit per person to talk about all agenda items. 186 187 Lamar Proctor: Per agenda item,that is our, unless you want to make another motion. 188 189 Charity Kirk: 3 minutes per person per agenda item, so 9 minutes maximum. 190 191 Lamar Proctor: If they signed up for 7, to comment on 7, 8 and 9, and we will do them in the order in which they 192 signed up. 193 194 Charity Kirk: That's fine. 195 196 Lamar Proctor: As per and in sequential order of the agenda items. 197 198 Chris Johnston: I think that makes sense because if we didn't have that we were going to smush them together. 199 200 Lamar Proctor: Right. 201 202 Cy Stober: So to be clear,there will be no deviation from the rules of procedure? 213 Approved 7.10.24 203 204 Lamar Proctor: No, I 'don't think, I think that would just create confusion and lead to the possibility that people'feel 205 like their voice isn't being heard completely. So that being said as Chair, that is the way we'll proceed on public 206 comment. There is one additional request, like I said,from Preserve Rural Orange,who has asked for additional 207 time, so I welcome any comment about that. I will just say as Chair, I believe that since Rural Orange is essentially 208 addressing each agenda item and we have consolidated this, that they would be entitled to 9 minutes. They've 209 asked for 12 but I welcome any motions or any discussion about that. Given they are in kind of a unique situation in 210 that they represent a group rather than just an individual. 211 212 Marilyn Carter: I'll attempt a motion Mr. Chair,so the motion is consistent with the procedural rules for time that 213 each person coming to speak will speak for up to 3 minutes on the item that they have identified. If they have 214 identified more than one item,they will speak for an additional 3 minutes for each of those items up to 9 minutes 215 total, and so we'll hear from one individual who would like to address us for 9 minutes on all three items. 216 217 Lamar Proctor: And I think we can keep track of that. I think if we have the list and an individual has signed up for 218 7, 8 and 9, if that could be noted when they come up to speak and so I don't know if you guys want them to only talk 219 on 7 and then hear all the people who want to talk about 7, and then move to 8 or have one individual who is signed 220 up for 7, 8, 9,just talk about 7 and 8 and for 9 minutes straight. 221 222 Steven Kaufmann: Just that one individual? 223 224 Lamar Proctor: Well, anyone who has signed up, 'I haven't seen the sign-up sheet,so I 'don't know if individuals 225 signed up for all three, or two out of the three, or one out of the three. 226 227 Charity Kirk: What does the sign-up sheet look like? Are they one and a name where they say what they're 228 signing up for or is there a sign-up sheet for 7 and a sign-up sheet for 8 and a sign-up sheet for 9? 229 230 Cy Stober: They're separate sign-up sheets. We have 7,8 and 9. 231 232 Charity Kirk: Okay, so why'don't we just do 3 minutes for 7 and 3 minutes for 8 and 3 for 9,follow the sign-up 233 sheet. 234 235 Lamar Proctor: Okay. 236 237 Statler Gilfillen: May I just ask this? The Preservation Organization represents a broader group of individuals, 238 more than one person. Can we just not,with that group give them the 12 minutes they've asked for, 3 minutes 239 difference and be done with it. 240 241 Lamar Proctor: So that's your motion, do I have a second? 242 243 Steve Kaufmann: I second. 244 245 Lamar Proctor: All right,all in favor of allowing that one individual to get 12 minutes, all in favor raise your hand. 246 247 Chris Johnston: And everyone else gets 3 minutes per agenda item. 248 249 Charity Kirk: So 9 minutes total. 250 251 Lamar Proctor: If they signed up for all three agenda items, 'but we're going to do it sequentially as they're listed, 252 so we're going to hear everyone who wants to comment about 7,then everyone who wants to comment about 8 and 214 Approved 7.10.24 253 everyone who wants to comment about 9. So'that's how the individuals on the sign-up sheet and then as to this 254 motion for 12 minutes for Preserve Rural Orange, I did have a second all in favor raise your hand. Okay. 255 256 Lauren Coffey: Could you please clarify any opposed? 257 258 Lamar Proctor: Yeah, any opposed? 259 260 MOTION BY Statler Gilfillen to allow 12 minutes for Preserve Rural Orange. Seconded by Steve Kaufmann 261 262 IN FAVOR: Statler Gilfillen, Marilyn Carter, Steve Kaufmann, Lamar Proctor, Charity Kirk,Whitney Watson, Liz 263 Kalies, Dolores Bailey, Beth Bronson 264 OPPOSED: Chris Johnston 265 MOTION PASSED 9 TO 266 267 Lamar Proctor: Okay, so the motion passes,so Preserve Rural Orange will get 12 minutes. As to their placement in 268 this process, I will entertain any discussion about their placement in the public comment section. 269 270 Chris Johnston: I make a motion that we place them before the public comments, right after the questions from the 271 board. 272 273 Lamar Proctor: Okay. 274 275 Statler Gilfillen: I'll second that. 276 277 Marilyn Carter: I missed that,what'd you say? 278 279 Chris Johnston: The motion is to put them before the public comments and directly after questions from the board. 280 281 Lamar Proctor: Now I heard a second, do you need discussion? 282 283 Charity Kirk: The other option is just at the start of agenda Item 9 since I believe that's probably what you're 284 talking about. 285 286 Lamar Proctor: We could put them at the beginning of public comment,we could put them after 7 is done,we 287 could put them after 8 is done,we could put them after 9 is done. 288 289 Chris Johnston: I have my motion and a second. 290 291 Dolores Bailey: Question. Is there a reason why you think they should go first.Why shouldn't they just go in order 292 to how they signed up,where they signed up? 293 294 Chris Johnston: To move the process along. 295 296 Lamar Proctor: Are they signed up on a particular agenda item or they signed up on all three. 297 298 Cy Stober: They were the first individual signed up on Agenda Item 9. 299 300 Chris Johnston: I amend my motion to be the presentation at the beginning of Item 9. 301 302 Lamar Proctor: And they'll be the first presenter on Agenda Item 9. All right, all in, do I have a second on that? 303 215 Approved 7.10.24 304 Statler Gilfillen: I second it again. 305 306 Lamar Proctor: All right. All in favor? All opposed. 307 308 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to place Preserve Rural Orange's public comments first for Agenda Item 9. Seconded 309 by Statler Gilfillen 310 311 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 312 313 Lamar Proctor: I guess we are ready with that understanding to move forward in the agenda and the process to the 314 staff presentation. 315 316 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 317 None. 318 319 320 AGENDA ITEM 7: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP(FLUM)AND TEXT AMENDMENTS—To review 321 and make a recommendation to the BOCC on applicant-initiated amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to 322 amend the FLUM to expand a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node(RNAN); and to amend the text of Appendix F: Land 323 Use and Zoning Matrix. The BOCC public hearing date is"to be determined." 324 325 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—ADD FAMILY CARE HOMES AS 326 PERMITTED USE TO MPD-CD ZONING DISTRICT AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS—To review and make a 327 recommendation to the BOCC on applicant-initiated amendments to the UDO pertaining to Family Care Homes.The 328 BOCC public hearing date is"to be determined." 329 330 AGENDA ITEM 9: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT(CONDITIONAL DISTRICT)—To review and make a recommendation 331 to the BOCC on an applicant-initiated zoning atlas amendment to rezone 90.133 acres (PIN: 9739-72-0339) located 332 off Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop,within the Bingham Township.The proposed rezoning is from AR 333 (Agricultural Residential)to MPD-CD (Master Plan Development—Conditional District). The BOCC public hearing 334 date is"to be determined." 335 336 Cy Stober: So, Mr. Chair,we have a number of administrative procedural slides just to discuss what we're 337 doing here generically before we even get into the specifics of the item. I'll just note the Efland Ruritan Club was 338 presented at the last meeting on May 1 st, and were approved by the commissioners, by the way, last night and that 339 was a conventional zoning application, so they applied for general commercial 4, had 52 permitted uses in general 340 commercial districts,what we're here tonight is to consider conditional zoning. Conditional zoning is use-specific with 341 individualized development conditions and standards. These conditions must be agreeable both to the county and to 342 the applicant. All conditional zoning requires a site-specific development plan. In this case as the Master Plan 343 Development,the site-specific plan is a master plan which has some liberties but also additional responsibilities in its 344 drafting and how it is to be constructed. So, a conditional district, according to North Carolina General Statutes 345 160D-703, as I said, they are permitted, they are allowed through the legislative process rather than the quasi-judicial 346 process. Additional conditions may be negotiated, and you'll see this in the motions that are available to you when 347 you do make a motion on the zoning case that's presented to you this evening if it is agreeable to the applicant and 348 they agree to it in writing by the time we get to the end of the public hearing.Again,you're making a recommendation 349 to the Board of Commissioners tonight, this is not a public hearing, but it will lead to one, and oh,this is very 350 important, rezoning decisions are based on the determination of whether that request is consistent with the purpose 351 and intent of the principles, goals, and objectives of the adopted comprehensive plan. That is per statute. So the 352 process that led us to today,the application was received by the County, it was reviewed by our development 353 advisory committee several times,there was a neighborhood information meeting hosted by the applicant per our 354 ordinance requirements,we are at this point this evening where the planning board is considering the matter and will 216 Approved 7.10.24 355 be making a recommendation to the commissioners. You also will be making recommendations to the 356 commissioners on a related text amendment application and two amendments to the comprehensive plan, one to the 357 Future Land Use Map and the other to Appendix F. So this is just to drive the point home,the enabling legislation is 358 160D-703, this is reflected in Section 2.9 of the Orange County UDO, and some guidance from the statute is that all 359 zoning regulations should be made in accordance with the comprehensive plan and the intent of that is to promote 360 the public health, safety and general welfare and something that should be considered when changing the zoning is 361 the character of the district, it's particular suitability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of 362 buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of the land throughout our jurisdiction which is countywide. 363 Additionally, in 702 it identifies what may be regulated through conditional zoning,what cannot, and this is at the very 364 bottom and was clarified in the regulatory reform text amendments that were also heard by this board in May is that 365 we are not permitted to regulate the appearance, architecture or aesthetics of any buildings covered by the North 366 Carolina Residential Code, so that's single-family dwellings,duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes. And then this just 367 reiterates that we are empowered to regulate conventional zoning districts as well as conditional zoning districts by 368 statute, and that we are permitted to do so per statute in a negotiation with the applicant, and that these conditions 369 should be limited to those that address the conformance of the development and use of the site to local government 370 ordinances or the impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development or use of the site. So, what is 371 the applicant's responsibility? They must establish the use type,this evening we're considered a master plan 372 development. They must provide a formal site plan or in this case a master plan according to our LIDO and the 373 application is subject to conditions of approval both those that are included in the application which, in this case is the 374 master plan,as well as any other conditions the board or the board of commissioners wishes to negotiate with the 375 applicant. So just a remainder,the comprehensive plan according to 160D and our UDO is the principal guiding 376 document for all land use decisions in Orange County and any jurisdiction, but ours relates to our county. The 377 Unified Development Ordinance is the laws that dictate how land is used and what development occurs in Orange 378 County. Of course,construction is dictated by the building code. Any changes and what is permitted on a piece of 379 land, the zoning, must be consistent or at least must be analyzed where it is consistent with the adopted 380 comprehensive plan. I will remind you that 160D also makes it clear that the County can make decisions that are 381 inconsistent with our comprehensive plan and thereby amend our comprehensive plan through a zoning decision. 382 They do not have to necessarily be consistent, but the actions of the elected officials can be inconsistent with our 383 adopted plan and thereby amend the adopted plan to reflect the actions of the board. The principal guidance for land 384 use decisions in our comprehensive plan is the Future Land Use Map that is proposed for amendment as well this 385 evening and we will have details on that in a moment. And just a reminder that this is where we are in the process, 386 this has been a lengthy process,the application was first received by the county last year and has been under review 387 for over a year. So,the objectives tonight,just to reiterate, is to hear from the staff and our analysis,the applicant 388 and to take public comments to discuss the analysis and the recommendations and to make a recommendation on 389 the zoning application, but also the text amendment and comprehensive plan amendments to the Board of 390 Commissioners for their consideration. And with that, I do thank you for the motion to consolidate the matters,we're 391 going to begin with the zoning atlas analysis and then you'll see we will lead right into the text amendment and then 392 into the comprehensive plan amendments, and the current inconsistencies that the applicant proposes to remedy and 393 what the impacts of those may be to the county. So where is the property in question? It is in Bingham Township 394 near the intersection of 54 and Morrow Mill Road, more specifically at Gold Mine Loop. It is an unaddressed 395 property, it was formerly the Cheeks Farm, but the property was subdivided about a year ago to create this parcel of 396 land that was purchased by Hands Four Development. Its current zoning is agricultural residential. The requested 397 zoning is master plan development conditional district and the proposed use is for 150 residences in a variety of 398 housing types, a community center,two family care facilities, and recreational amenities to serve the residents of that 399 community. Additionally,as you'll see in a future slide there is a principal stem road that will be partly DOT 400 maintained and access to both Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop. The surrounding zoning is a mixture of 401 principally agricultural residential and then on North Carolina 54 you have commercial zoning that is adjacent to the 402 property. This is the site-specific master plan, and you can see the different housing types here. You'll see in the 403 middle the kind of center of the community with the non-principal non-residential uses. Just to orient you, this is true 404 north, so this is how the layout that's in the plans, but if we are to get our bearings,this is north, and North Carolina 405 54 is just north of this orientation. To the west is Gold Mine Loop. If you're just trying to think about where you're at. 217 Approved 7.10.24 406 Any other requirements are the requirements for site plan and master plan development submittal, there are no other 407 proposed conditions. The applicant conducted a traffic impact analysis, an environmental site assessment,they've 408 provided analysis on architectural for all non-residential uses and made commitments there, and they've also 409 analyzed the utilities and they have more detail on this, including the proposed wastewater treatment. Those have all 410 been reviewed by the staff on the development advisory committee which includes staff from environmental health; 411 emergency services; solid waste; and department of environment, agriculture, parks, and recreation. The 412 consistency analysis was conducted by staff and I'll note that it was not just current planning and zoning staff, but 413 also our comprehensive and long-range planning and administrative staff, and you'll hear more from Tom Altieri,the 414 senior planner in that division in a moment. And part of the analysis is that family care facilities are not a permitted 415 use in the master plan development conditional district which brings us to Item 8,the proposed text amendments. 416 There are two amendments proposed by the applicant, one is to add family care home as a permitted use in MPD- 417 CD district and the other is to rewrite a footnote in Section 3.8 which is the description of the MPD-CD zoning district 418 that corresponds to the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan that would allow MPD-CD districts in rural 419 neighborhood activities nodes. There was one amendment proposed by staff that is in the abstract for Item 8 that is 420 to bring our definition for family care home into alignment with that of the state. So just a brief analysis and this really 421 is a reiteration of what's in the abstract, it's fairly straightforward. 160D,which is the land use and development 422 statute, determines what a family care facility is for everyone in the state and the definition is provided here. To be 423 clear, a family care home is deemed a residential use of property for zoning purposes and is a permissible use in all 424 residential districts and we shall not limit that use by making it a special use or requiring a variance to require 425 additional burdens for anyone who wishes to have a family care facility on a residential property. Our definition of 426 master plan development, it references unified large-scale subdivisions which are presumed to be residential in 427 nature, as well as mixed use developments, also presumed to be partially residential in nature. And reviewing that, 428 we've assessed that all 16 conventional zoning districts that permit residential uses and the two conditional districts 429 that support residential uses already allow family care facilities and therefore, it would be appropriate to bring this use 430 as an allowed use into the MPD-CD district. There is an accompanying amendment in the applicant's text 431 amendment application that addresses, again,that footnote in Article 3 for MPD-CD being permitted in the rural 432 neighborhood activity node,and this corresponds to the application for the comprehensive plan amendment to 433 amend Appendix F to allow the same thing. You are permitted to consider the two amendments separately. Are 434 there any questions on that before we move forward? 435 436 Whitney Watson: Yes, I have a question. One of the notes about the MPD-CD,was that there seemed to be an 437 oversight in the matrix,which is one of the suggestions. I was wondering if perhaps the rural community 438 neighborhood, or rural community activity node,was not the actual mistake where it had allowed the master plan 439 development conditional district as opposed to having been omitted from the other. Because it seems to me that in 440 both the community and the neighborhood activity nodes going into this master plan fundamentally changes the 441 character of those activity nodes, at least according to the definitions in both the LIDO and the plan, so could you talk 442 a little bit about how those two nodes, activity nodes are different from each other and how they will be, how it might 443 be corrected by adding. 444 445 Cy Stober: Thank you for the segue,that's the very next thing we were going to get to Mr. Watson, thank you. 446 447 Lamar Proctor: All right,good, and I do want to take an aside. This is unrelated to your presentation, but the sign- 448 up sheets, the people who have signed up tonight, that will be the end of the sign-up. If we go into multiple sessions, 449 1 just want to make this clear,there won't be an additional opportunity for more people to sign up. Only those who 450 sign up this evening prior to the public comment period will be permitted to speak. 451 452 Cy Stober: Let me rush those back to the sign-in table so folks can sign in if they want. 453 454 Dolores Bailey: Mr. Chair, does that mean that if they haven't signed up tonight that they will be able to sign up? 455 218 Approved 7.10.24 456 Lamar Proctor: No,that means, they will not. If you don't sign up tonight, even if we go multiple sessions, if we go 457 to July, you can't sign up to speak at the public comments section in July. These agenda items are what were 458 started, and this sign-up sheet is the totality of those who have signed up for public comment. Regardless if we go 459 June,July and August. 460 461 Dolores Bailey: And are you going to give an opportunity for a member of the public who sits there and then 462 decides they want to sign up to sign up? 463 464 Lamar Proctor: No, once we start the public comment portion, and I think that's fair, unless anyone disagrees,to 465 leave the sheets out until we begin the public comment portion and then we'll take them up and then we'll begin 466 hearing public comment, the sign-up will be closed at that point. 467 468 Beth Bronson: Acknowledging that there is another public comment period during the BOCC's public hearing. 469 470 Lamar Proctor: Right,this is not the final answer on this project. We make our recommendation and it goes 471 forward to the Board of County Commissioners. 472 473 Marilyn Carter: Mr.Vice Chair, my point of view is that someone may hear something in comment and then have a 474 point of view about it. 475 476 Statler Gilfillen: Can we do it this way? If they are here this evening, can they sign up to the end of tonight to 477 speak,even though it may mean that the next time instead of censoring it or stopping it right before anybody speaks, 478 just be flexible. 479 480 Lamar Proctor: Well, I think for efficiency purposes, because we collect the sign-up sheets and begin the process, 1 481 think people during the presentation if they hear something that they want to comment on,they can sign up for that 482 item but once we begin, my plan as Chair would be to take up the sign-up sheets once we begin the public comment 483 portion. 484 485 Charity Kirk: You're welcome to pass on your sign-up on speaking too, if you don't have anything to talk about. 486 We don't mind. 487 488 Dolores Bailey: So after we're done talking about 7 we can't talk about it again,that's what you're saying. 489 490 Lamar Proctor: Yeah, I mean,that'll be it, once we collect the sign-up sheets at the beginning of the public 491 speaking portion,that's it, so I just want the public be aware that they need to sign up now if they want to be heard as 492 to these agenda items, because we will not have an opportunity to sign up again in July or in August if this goes into 493 multiple sessions. And that has been our general practice just so everyone knows that this has been our rule is that 494 those who sign up when we begin the agenda items are the ones who are permitted to speak, you can't come in 495 halfway through the process and then sign up. 496 497 Chris Johnston: Returning to the staff presentation, to confirm on Item 3,the proposal brings the Orange County 498 UDO in conformance with the intent of NCGS 160D,we're just aligning the state definitions, correct, so really,there's 499 not a whole lotta discussion there. We have to follow the state requirements for family care facilities, correct? 500 501 Cy Stober: So, the application brought this to light,that we were not in conformance with the statute,and to be 502 fair,the statute was adopted in 2021 so it's still fairly recent, and this was a new update. 503 504 Marilyn Carter: Just a point of information in our process, if the board is in agreement with an item earlier versus 505 later and perhaps once we get to the point of staffs presentation completing,would that be something we would vote 219 Approved 7.10.24 506 on as first, in other words, at what point if there's general agreement of the board, that we should vote on accepting 507 this particular amendment,the one amendment. 508 509 Lamar Proctor: I think we need to go through the process as stated, hearing from staff, hearing from the applicant, 510 questions from the board, public comment, deliberation,and then we will take each item separately. 511 512 Marilyn Carter: Okay,very good,thank you. 513 514 Cy Stober: So,this was not a staff-initiated amendment, it was an applicant initiated amendment, so the 515 applicant needs to speak to the matter before any action should be taken. 516 517 Lamar Proctor: Yes, and I had a quick question and tell me if this is the next part of your presentation,the 518 difference between rural community and rural neighborhood activity nodes and why MPD-CD zoning was applicable 519 to RCAN, but not RNAN if there's some explicit reason. 520 521 Cy Stober: Tom and I will do our best to try to read the minds of folks in 2006 and make that determination. 522 But yeah,that's where we're heading. 523 524 Lamar Proctor: All right,thank you. Any other questions before we proceed, okay,thank you. 525 526 Cy Stober: So,the Future Land Use Map designations for this property are agricultural residential in green. 527 The definitions that are applied to the two Future Land Use Map designations can be found here on the slide. The 528 other is rural neighborhood activity node which covers the intersection of Morrow Mill and North Carolina 54. And 529 then the applicant has proposed to amend here in the hashing the activity node to extend to the limits of the property. 530 And with that, I will ask Tom to come up and address Item 7 which he conducted the analysis on. This is Tom Altieri, 531 Senior Planner. 532 533 Tom Altieri: Yes,thank you Cy, good evening. So, the purpose of this item is to consider two applicant-initiated 534 amendments to the comprehensive plan,the first being to the Future Land Use Map to expand the Rural 535 Neighborhood Activity Node and the second a text amendment to Appendix F of the Comprehensive Plan which is 536 the land use and zoning matrix. I have about 13 slides so a couple of them will look similar to what was provided in 537 the zoning atlas amendment deck so I'll go through those quickly. The proposed amendment is to expand the rural 538 neighborhood activity node by approximately 71.6 acres from the land use classification agricultural residential to 539 rural neighborhood activity node. And the text amendment again to Appendix F as I mentioned. This particular slide 540 includes a vicinity map of the Future Land Use Map and it shows how the adjacent properties or local properties are 541 classified on the Future Land Use Map. The classifications that you see here include agricultural residential,the 542 node that we have mentioned several times, rural residential, rural community activity node, and then the rural buffer, 543 and on the next slide it's a little bit better view of the area here. Just to kind of orient, the reverse C shape in the 544 middle of the map there, that is the property in question. Just to the north is the rural neighborhood activity node. 545 The rural community activity node at White Cross is further to the east there. It's a little less than 2 miles,about 1.8 546 miles,from the central portion of the neighborhood node to the central portion of that community node. The 547 boundary of the rural buffer is further to the east you can see it there on the map where University Lake watershed is 548 labeled there, but predominantly agricultural residential which is the lighter of the two green shades on the map. In 549 Mr. Stober's presentation he reviewed the definitions of the agricultural residential and rural neighborhood activity 550 node. I'll get to the community node in just a bit. But there's also an overlay in this area and that is the resource 551 protection area overlay that is land designated as primary conservation area which includes wetlands and flood 552 plains, steep slopes, natural areas,wildlife habitats and corridors, and significant historic and archaeological sites. 553 There is a very small portion on the property all the way in the lower right-hand corner where you see the dark green 554 area, that is the area of resource protection overlay. There is a letter in your packet, really all of this information is in 555 your packet, but I know you can't read the letter that's here on the screen, but it is from the county's Department of 556 Environment,Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation, and it speaks specifically to those resource protection areas that 220 Approved 7.10.24 557 are shown on the map. It does identify flood plain,wetlands, bottom land, hardwood forests and soils of importance 558 that are of conservation value, so that has been noted in that letter in that section.The letter, I believe is Attachment 559 5 as part of the zoning atlas agenda item,you can find it there. These flood plains,wetlands, hardwood forests,soils 560 of importance,that reflects what's included in the letter. Just a little bit of analysis of the neighborhood node. So, this 561 is the node at Morrow Mill and centered at NC 54. The node is a quarter mile radius and based on an assumption, 562 what we've tried to do here is try to make some determination of,well, how much of that existing node is developed 563 versus undeveloped, and in order to do that you have to make an assumption, and the assumption that's used here, 564 the areas that are shown in darker blue as developed,the assumption is if there's a structure on a lot that's 20 acres 565 or greater in size,we're saying that's developed, so again, it's up to individual property owners choices. There may 566 be some development potential that's left on those lots that are 20 acres or less in size that we're calling developed, 567 but, generally that's the assumption that we've made here. You change that assumption and the map here would 568 look a little bit different. So based on that assumption, approximately 37 percent of the acreage within the node is 569 developed. Just a little bit about land uses in the area,we do have some non-residential uses,the PSM Food Mart, 570 the Piedmont Feed and Garden Center, and the UNC Chapel Hill facility there as well. There are also 16 single 571 family homes located within the node. So,there's been reference to Appendix F in the comprehensive plan. The 572 amendment is to add MPD-CD, Master Plan Development Conditional District as a compatible use within the rural 573 neighborhood activity node. The matrix does provide that linkage, that connection for consistency between the future 574 land use classifications on the map with zoning districts that are part of the zoning atlas and this amendment would 575 establish that consistency between the comprehensive plan and the applicant's request for its rezoning and with this 576 matrix the only change is highlighted in that red box, adding a diamond there at the rural neighborhood activity node. 577 Noting that, in the rural neighborhood activity node, the only conditional district that is not currently consistent is 578 MPD-CD, so there are three other conditional districts that are permissible within that node. The applicant's request 579 for amendments is based on the premise that changes have occurred and are occurring in the county. The changes 580 are reflected in the letter of request from the applicant,that's Attachment 1 in your packet and just very generally, it's 581 more detailed in the letter, but that letter speaks largely to changing demographics in the county, the growing senior 582 age population,those age 65 and over, and the need for housing and neighborhoods to meet their needs. Staff has 583 put together this slide and the subsequent slide to provide some land use-related information about all of the rural 584 neighborhood activity nodes countywide. If that matrix were amended to include that MPD-CD,then it would also be 585 permissible in the other nodes that are throughout the county, so that brings me to this slide. There are ten 586 countywide, including the node at Morrow Mill and NC 54,totaling a little over 1,100 acres based on the same 587 assumption used previously about the 20-acre lot size being developed with a structure on it,48 percent of the 588 neighborhood nodes countywide could be considered developed noting that this does not represent the actual 589 impervious development footprint, it's just based solely on lot size. These nodes have been included as part of our 590 land use element on the Future Land Use Map since it was originally adopted in 1981. The same applies with our 591 rural community activity nodes, as well, those have been on the map since the original plan,as well,and were carried 592 over in the 2006 comprehensive plan that we're currently discussing today. Staff analysis as required under UDO 593 Section 2.3, the planning director is to cause an analysis to be made in the application and prepare a 594 recommendation. The planning director has acknowledged that the application is complete, that Appendix F is 595 supportive of the principals, goals and objectives outlined in the comprehensive plan,the proposal does speak to 596 changing demographic conditions in the county and that the proposal establishes consistency between the 597 comprehensive plan and the requests for the rezoning. The MPD-CD zoning district was originally established to be 598 a mechanism through which innovative proposals could be considered. I will add here that I have not listed on this 599 slide the consistent goals and objectives and principles, those are all listed specifically in your abstract, I just didn't 600 want to take up this time and the space on this slide here, but those are in your packet within the abstract.And then, 601 finally, the text amendment application features a complementary amendment to Article 3 MPD-CD standards 602 regarding the future land use classifications that support MPD-CD. So that concludes the presentation. I will just 603 address the one question to the extent that I am able,those nodes were established in the original 1981 plan. There 604 is a little bit of information in the plan regarding the definitions of those areas and I didn't provide the definition for the 605 rural community activity node in the slide deck,this was the larger node that was located at the intersection of NC 54 606 and White Cross, and as defined, a rural community activity node is land focused on designation road intersections 607 which serve as a nodal crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate location for any of the 221 Approved 7.10.24 608 following uses: church,fire station,small post office, school or other similar institutional uses and one or more 609 commercial uses. And then again,just to hear them back to back,the rural neighborhood activity node is defined as, 610 land focused on a designated road intersection within the rural areas that is appropriate for small scale commercial 611 uses,characteristic of mom and pop convenience stores and gas stations. I do know that part of the rationale for the 612 location of the community nodes was that they correspond with historic crossroad communities in the county and so 613 in addition to White Cross,there's Cedar Grove,there's Carr,there's Caldwell and Schley which are four rural 614 community nodes that are all in the northern part of the county. As far as why MPD-CD was left out of one node and 615 not the other, I just won't venture to guess, I would say I would do the same thing that the board and others might do 616 is try to read the definitions there and try to maybe guess at what may have been the original intentions. We did 617 have previously, before conditional districts, there was a planned development district and so there were some 618 changes when the code was updated to include conditional districts and that may have been, the time in between the 619 original establishment of those nodes and the creation of the original matrix from 1981, when a change was made to 620 the matrix. So, I will stop there. I hope that helped some. 621 622 Lamar Proctor: All right,any questions of Mr.Altieri? 623 624 Chris Johnston: I do have one quick question. The rural neighborhood activity district, they're all circles and so my 625 question would be in regards to how often they expand outside those designated circles that they have? They all 626 looked pretty standard still, and so was this the first one that has tried to venture outside of its designated zone since 627 1981? 628 629 Tom Altieri To my knowledge I believe this would be the first expansion of one of those nodes. There are a 630 couple going back, again to the original plan that aren't full circles,that were like little slices of circles, and there are a 631 couple of those in different areas of the county. Having read a while back the 1981 plan, these things were located 632 where there were existing uses on the ground at that point in time, so my guess is where there's a slice and not a full 633 radius they were trying to cover maybe one corner of an intersection and make sure that there was a consistent land 634 use classification. 635 636 Chris Johnston: Sure, and I guess my follow-up question then is in regards to why they picked a circle versus, 1 637 mean, I don't want to get into the logistics there, but why they picked a circle instead of following the existing parcels 638 or anything along those lines. It just feels like it belabors itself to having to be expanded one way or another if it were 639 to follow that. 640 641 Cy Stober: If I may, that is a consistent frustration of staff with our Future Land Use Map. The failure to follow 642 property lines presents some challenges. 643 644 Chris Johnston: So, it's not unreasonable to expand it because the circle just seems to have been pulled out of— 645 646 Tom Altieri: Correct. And so again, going back to 1981,well before geographic information systems we had 647 paper copies, I wasn't here then, but paper copies of the zoning maps with the parcel lines, literally blue lines. 648 There's been a lot of changes in technology and so yes,with our update to our plan we do see it being more parcel 649 based than what we have now. 650 651 Chris Johnston: Okay,thank you. 652 653 Marilyn Carter: Thank you for the presentation and the history. I do have a question about MPD-CDs and whether 654 any rezonings have taken place under that classification with the rural community activity node over time. Have we 655 had an MPD-CDs yet in the county? 656 657 Tom Altieri: There have not been. 658 222 Approved 7.10.24 659 Lamar Proctor: Can you briefly sum up the difference between RNAN and RCAN node, rural community rural 660 neighborhood? 661 662 Tom Altieri: Not any more than I did by reading those definitions of the two. 663 664 Beth Bronson: Chair, I apologize, I have a question. But if you would like to go first, please. 665 666 Cy Stober: The only thing that I would have to add is that when they were assigned,the rural 667 neighborhood activity node was to serve a population of 1,000 people or less and the rural community activity node 668 was to serve a population of 1,000 to 5,000 people. Tom covered everything else. 669 670 Lamar Proctor: Okay, Ms. Bronson. 671 672 Beth Bronson: Thank you, and just because you did clarify the definition of the RCAN and the RNAN, the 673 neighborhood activity node would be more for like the mom and pop convenience stores, this idea that there were 674 local farmers that were coming together at this historical crossroads and provided a service, versus a rural 675 community activity node that would be focused on where that 1,000 to 5,000 would come for, I guess congregation or 676 there would be a fire station and or a post office or a school, something, it would be an institution. So, to be clear, the 677 proposed amendment is asking to change it from a rural neighborhood activity to a rural community activity. Would 678 that be accurate? 679 680 Tom Altieri: No, all but the last part, so we're talking about expanding the existing rural neighborhood 681 activity node at Morrow Mill and NC 54 to cover the balance of the property, a portion of the property on the north 682 does have some of the neighborhood node within it. So it would be to expand that node to cover the entire property 683 and then for consistency purposes, that's where you get to the matrix and add in the diamond there to allow for that 684 zoning district within the rural neighborhood activity node. It's already allowed in the rural community activity node. 685 686 Beth Bronson: Got it, now that said, does the rural neighborhood activity node have a limit on the acreage 687 that can be designated? 688 689 Tom Altieri: Not in the comprehensive plan, no. 690 691 Beth Bronson: Okay, and I only ask this because a couple of meetings ago we had a conversation about the 692 rural community activity node reaching its limit of rezoned parcels from agricultural residential to general commercial 693 and there was a discussion about whether or not that hit a threshold for what was allowable, not to say that that can't 694 be changed or that can't be amended, but I just wanted to clarify if that would create the same type of limitation. 695 696 Tom Altieri: So, I believe the standard or the threshold that you're referring to is in the unified development 697 ordinance, I don't have that section off the top of my head, but given time I think I could find it. There was at one 698 point a threshold there that applied to how much acreage within the node could be rezoned. 699 700 Beth Bronson: And to be clear,when we were speaking about that, that was the rural community activity 701 node, not the neighborhood, so I don't know, we haven't discussed if there is an actual threshold to the rural 702 neighborhood activity node, so I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. 703 704 Lamar Proctor: Ms. Kirk and then Statler. 705 706 Charity Kirk: I'm hoping that the applicant will present, but since we're asking questions now, why does the 707 whole parcel need to be converted to a rural activity node? Is it because an agricultural residential parcel doesn't 708 support multi-family dwellings? 709 223 Approved 7.10.24 710 Tom Altieri: So the zoning district they have applied for,the MPD-CD is not a permissible district, it's not 711 consistent with either the agricultural residential land use classification that applies to the majority of the property or 712 the rural neighborhood activity node that's on the northern portion. 713 714 Charity Kirk: So, it's potentially easier to bring it into consistency with the rural activity node than agricultural 715 residential. 716 717 Tom Altieri: Yes. 718 719 Charity Kirk: Okay. 720 721 Lamar Proctor: Statler? 722 723 Statler Gilfillen: In your opinion, as I understand,we are being asked to potentially approve a change to the 724 code which may expand the existing situation of what can be done at these nodes. As a professional who has 725 reviewed this,do you have any feelings about what the impact 10-20-30 years of this expansion could be, both 726 realistically and perhaps hypothetically? What would this do to change the county? 727 728 Tom Altieri: I wish my crystal ball was that good, I do have one, but I think the question that you're asking 729 is really more of that countywide question,you know, if the MPD-CD were permitted in all of the rural neighborhood 730 activity nodes countywide,what impact would that have,would it be a catalyst for more requests for MPD-CD zoning 731 within those nodes, I think that's what you're asking and I just, I don't have an answer to that question. It certainly 732 offers additional opportunity if this is made consistent and was not previously. There was the question about the rural 733 community activity nodes which do currently allow MPD-CD, how much has been rezoned in those nodes because 734 they have been on the map since 1981. That answer is there have been none. 735 736 Lamar Proctor: Okay,thank you and just for the public's clarification,we're asking questions to staff so that we 737 fully understand going forward the foundational elements because the unified development ordinance which controls 738 planning and zoning and all rules in the county is very complex, so we want to make sure we have a full 739 understanding before the applicant presents and before we hear public comments so thank y'all for that. 740 741 Whitney Watson: So one other question, if this becomes MPD-CD, does become permitted in the rural 742 neighborhood networks,what will be the distinction then between the community activity nodes and the 743 neighborhood activity nodes. How will staff move forward or the public move forward trying to know which zoning 744 they're in and what their limits or permissions might be available. 745 746 Tom Altieri: I don't have any answer to that question specifically; however I can say that we are currently 747 about a third of the way with an update to our comprehensive land use plan that will include a review of the Future 748 Land Use Map and these classifications and so how those nodes are defined,whether they remain in circles, 749 parcels, is all going to be up for review and discussion and input in public meetings as we update that map. 750 751 Cy Stober: If I may add, it is a very difficult analysis to perform and right now I think that the guidance,the 752 best guidance we have is actually what Ms. Bronson already identified which is that the community activity nodes are 753 intended for larger institutional uses that would draw people from outside that area to that institution, so a fire house, 754 library, post office, etc. But it really is that nuanced in terms of making that determination,as well as the immediate 755 population served,that 1,000 or 1,000 to 5,000 population. 756 757 Beth Bronson: If I may just add on that to Chris's point on why the circle and not a square,why it doesn't 758 follow the parcels,the idea that it is a radius from a point, right, is this idea that there was no guidance or there was 759 no federal guidance for a comprehensive plan,or comprehensive land use plan in 1981, and, in fact, Orange County 760 being one of the first counties, I could be wrong, but definitely in the state, but potentially in the country to implement 224 Approved 7.10.24 761 a comprehensive land use plan that was to span and to provide guidance to not only planning boards, but to 762 legislative commissions to make sure decisions. Is that correct? 763 764 Tom Altieri: Certainly within the State of North Carolina, yes. 765 766 Beth Bronson: Okay. 767 768 Lamar Proctor: Any other questions of staff before we move to the applicant presentation? 769 770 Charity Kirk: When talking about the MPD-CD or CD whatever you want, it states in the unified 771 development ordinance that it shall be limited to a transition land use categories. What are transition land use 772 categories? 773 774 Tom Altieri: It's a broad category distinguished from rural land use categories based on the availability of 775 public utilities primarily water and sewer utilities,so transition from rural to urban with those utilities. 776 777 Charity Kirk: So agricultural residential is not a transitional land use category. 778 779 Tom Altieri: Correct. All of the transition and that's a broad land use classification of transition, all of those 780 classifications are adjacent, near our municipalities so none out in the rural areas. These are areas that by and large 781 are served by private wells and septic tanks and that's the distinction there between the rural land use classifications 782 and the transition classifications. 783 784 Charity Kirk: So if we like this project we need to turn it into this rural activity node,we can't leave the 785 activity node the way it is. 786 787 Tom Altieri: Mr. Stober had mentioned that the pleasure of the planning board recommendation and the 788 Board of County Commissioners, per state statutes,they do have the ability to approve a rezoning request that is 789 inconsistent with the plan and therefore the plan shall be amended. 790 791 Charity Kirk: That would mean agricultural residential then would be allowed to have conditional zoning 792 districts applied to it. It would be a permanent mark in the comprehensive plan or something else. 793 794 Cy Stober: So that requires a UDO text amendment and the applicant has proposed a text amendment so 795 there's two amendments,one is for the family care facility,the other is to that exact language that you're referring to 796 for the transition area and the rural community activity node which is footnote No. 1 under the MPD-CD standards, 797 and to include rural neighborhood activity node as one of the other allowable future land use classifications. 798 799 Charity Kirk: But if we don't want to touch the rural activity node,then we would have to touch agricultural 800 residential. 801 802 Cy Stober: Or propose a different type of node to be placed there. 803 804 Charity Kirk: Okay,thank you. 805 806 Lamar Proctor: Okay, any other questions of staff? All right, I think we're ready for the applicant presentation. 807 Thank you very much. 808 809 Marilyn Carter: Is there a limit on the applicant's time? 810 811 Lamar Proctor: 30 minutes. 225 Approved 7.10.24 812 813 Edwin Cox: I think we would like to be able to use a little bit more time to get the display of information that addresses 814 your questions up. 815 816 Charity Kirk: So I think it's in your notes that you have to officially request it. 817 818 Edwin Cox: We officially request it. 819 820 Lamar Proctor: At the beginning of your presentation our Rule E sub a says should an applicant anticipate 821 needing more than 30 minutes to present their applicant's,the applicant shall state their requested time allocation at 822 the beginning of their presentation and the planning board shall determine by a majority vote whether additional time 823 be allocated. 824 825 Charity Kirk: So how much time do you want? 826 827 Edwin Cox: An additional 15 minutes,45 minutes. This is a very complicated proposal. 828 829 Charity Kirk: Oh,we know,we've been through complicated proposals before, that's why we set these 830 rules. 831 832 Chris Johnston: I make a motion to accept the additional 15 minutes. 833 834 Beth Bronson: Second. 835 836 Lamar Proctor: Any discussion? 837 838 Dolores Bailey: I do want us to remember that we stop at 10 no matter what so we're cutting the public off if we 839 give them the extra 15 minutes. 840 841 Lamar Proctor: Right, as we stated, I anticipate this will take multiple sessions so the public will get an 842 opportunity to speak if not tonight then at the next session. So, any other discussion about expanding the time from 843 30 to 45 minutes. 844 845 Whitney Watson: Mr. Proctor, I think that since this information was available in advance that the applicant 846 should have known that they had 30 minutes. I am reluctant to shortchange the public, however,we may continue 847 this discussion to a future meeting.We have practical experience where the second and sometimes third meetings 848 are not as helpful as when we have everybody here, so I really advocate for holding to the 30-minute limit. 849 850 Lamar Proctor: All right,any other discussion? 851 852 Statler Gilfillen: I would respectfully differ with the gentleman. I spent 432 pages, I got this yesterday and 1 853 spent most of today reading through this. It is very easy to miss a single detail like that. In all the documents, all the 854 proposals and all the legalese, I'd like to, even though it means extends, and I want to hear the public,don't get me 855 wrong, but I don't want to shut off this organization for 15 minutes or a half an hour longer so that they can make their 856 presentation fairly also. 857 858 Beth Bronson: With that said,would you consider including your motion to extend the meeting until 10:15? 859 860 Lamar Proctor: So we have a seconded motion to extend the applicant's time to 45 minutes, any further 861 discussion before I take a vote? I'm hearing none, all those in favor of extending the applicant's presentation to 45 862 minutes raise your hand. All those opposed raise your hand. Okay, I believe it's opposed,you have 30 minutes. 226 Approved 7.10.24 863 864 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to extend applicants presentation time to 45 minutes.Seconded by Beth 865 Bronson 866 867 IN FAVOR: Statler Gilfillen, Chris Johnston, Liz Kalies, Beth Bronson. 868 OPPOSED: Marilyn Carter, Steve Kaufmann, Lamar Proctor, Charity Kirk,Whitney Watson, Dolores Bailey 869 MOTION FAILS 6 to 4 870 871 Edwin Cox: Thank you, my name's Edwin Cox, I'm the president of Hands Four Development Cooperative. 872 That's the applicant. So we're going to have to speed things up a bit,we will refer to Hands Four as H4D through our 873 presentation. The name of our development's Fiddlehead Corner and the application's a group of coordinated 874 proposed amendments that you've heard about to the UDO,the Future Land Use Map and the comprehensive plan, 875 and approval of this set of amendments would allow our organization to create an intentional community for people 876 who share a common interest in the arts. There's a strong emphasis in this community on senior living and aging in 877 place, as we'll talk about later. So to tell you more about how this came about, I'm pleased to introduce Mareah 878 Steketee who is the president of our sister organization, Triangle Traditional Music and Dance Retirement Society. 879 880 Mareah Steketee: Thank you for the opportunity to present tonight. We're hoping to share a lot of information in 881 a short period of time, shorter than expected. 2T, H4D and Fiddlehead Corner are three related organizations, 2T is 882 a nonprofit that was established formally in 2014. It is primarily an educational and social organization now. We have 883 offered formal orientations about aging and aging in place, what does it take to end life gracefully for over 300 people 884 to our orientations. Of those 300 people, a hundred are now 2T members, Hand Four Development was developed 885 or established in 2023, it's a cooperative, a business entity, there are 34 members who are contributing financially 886 and of their time. This is all based on volunteer work done with a great team of professionals which you'll hear from 887 tonight. Fiddlehead Corner, as you know, is our hope to be able to live together, age in place, senior living, has a 888 number of different core interests that we hold all in high value. Reasonably priced housing is a bit of a conflict for us 889 because we're hoping, planning to provide a significant number of amenities for people, including a large common 890 house which will become a living room and activity areas,shared spaces, and so it makes it more difficult along with 891 a family care home,two family care homes if the community is built out, to hold costs down. We're very cognizant of 892 costs,we're also an environmentally sensitive group. We dance, we're creative individuals, dance, play music, sing, 893 carry on and have a lot of different commitments to each other. We've done care teams for many, many years, about 894 20 years of care teams and I could talk more about that, but our professionals are here, Scott Radway,John Felton, 895 Mike is in the audience, Kevin Davidson will speak. We've continued to use, as you can read in the very long 896 application, a number of different professionals that have guided us along the way. I'm going to turn this over to Ed 897 again. Thank you. 898 899 Edwin Cox: Thank you Maria. As we set the goal for ourselves as an intentional community for living as 900 we aged,we wanted features that would allow us remain in the community as our abilities declined. And from the 901 experience of our parents and others that we knew,we recognized the pitfalls of trying to live in our own home, so we 902 concluded that some sort of communal living was our best solution. We knew about CCRCs and you're familiar with 903 them, as well. They're a good many positive attributes,there's independent living but step up care as your needs 904 increase. Assisted living, skilled nursing and memory care. But a lot of activities and social interaction as well. The 905 negative attributes are the complex licensing and financing requirements,steep entry fees, often nonrefundable, high 906 monthly costs, and long waiting lists. I don't know if you've tried to think ahead and get on Carol Woods or Carolina 907 Meadows,you've got to think well ahead. Our approach has been to take the best features of the CCRCs and leave 908 the rest behind, so we wanted a variety of housing that was right sized and had universal design, we wanted 909 clustering to be close so mobility would be easy for all people of all abilities. We wanted activities planned and 910 managed by the creative community of residents,a continuum of care, care teams to look after one another,family 911 care home, inclusive governance, ownership with equity and no special licensing other than the family care homes. 912 So in order to implement this,we had the idea of two complementary characteristics, one is to have a compact 913 community that would facilitate interaction and mobility as I discussed earlier, and it would develop on a small portion 227 Approved 7.10.24 914 of the land and we would then conserve a large percentage of the remaining land and undisturbed forests. This type 915 of development embodies the ideas contained in the flexible development conservation cluster in section 7.12.5B of 916 the UDO. We mentioned these synergistic aspects,the compactness of the developed area and maximizing 917 conserved acreage to our master planning,John Felton who you'll hear from just now, and he started work on the 918 project and he'll tell you about what he came up with. 919 920 John Felton: Thank you, good evening, my name's John Felton, architect and senior designer at Cline. 921 We're a landscape and planning and architectural firm. So in our web sessions the group gave us great opportunities 922 and a lot of feedback. What they wanted was really in line with either a TND development or a compact 923 neighborhood. Compact neighborhoods are really just shrinking the built, creating sort of shared spaces, celebrating 924 common spaces, preserving natural topography and space and de-emphasizing the car. We looked at the TND 925 model which basically is an alley loaded street front for this group and how they wanted to live,the idea of a pocket 926 neighborhood basically and Ross Chapin,you're seeing some examples of his work. He practices in the Portland/ 927 Seattle area,fantastic work and you can see from the images that the car is minimized, the car is still on the street 928 but it's on the back side of the living space. These small cottages and small homes really,the front porch is to a 929 natural environment with rain gardens and decomposed gravel walkways so there's less impervious surfaces,and it's 930 a place that celebrates what they want to celebrate which is each other and so they didn't need a big yard, a big lot, 931 they don't want that. They want to live closer together in a place that allows them to celebrate each other and their 932 life and then also multiple or different living opportunities so that they can age in place and not be forced to,when 933 they're too old to maintain that house,to have to leave and leave their friends. So, it's a purpose built idea and what's 934 great about it is that when you're driving along the roads you'll never see it, you'll have an entry, you'll have two 935 entries and then the development is compactly located inside the property. It's a great group and really, I think we've 936 come up with a wonderful way to put housing on this property. Thank you. 937 938 Scott Radway: Good evening, Scott Radway, planning consultant. I have lived here in Orange County since 939 1989 and have followed many of their projects through the process for Orange County and also for Hillsborough and 940 one of the projects I worked on was the Waterstone project and figuring out how to blend the sort of edge of urban 941 and the edge of I would call rural,which it had been. First I want to talk about the environmental framework for the 942 project to get it towards the design and what defined the design and how we got together, streams and regulated 943 buffers, slope, drainage analysis,water supply, soil suitability and many of the documents the County has and others, 944 it talks about the ability to use public water, public wells, and private water systems and to use collective wastewater 945 treatment areas in areas where the soils and other aspects are appropriate and we believe this is one. Within the 946 packet,you have a number of reviews by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,which is another 947 layer above the County and those pieces of information are there. This is the property; I think it is the image that you 948 see as clear as the one I see up on the wall. 949 950 Beth Bronson: It is. 951 952 Scott Radway: Okay.What we have here is the property that's outlined and four photographs of the types of 953 streams that run through the site. The streams corridors, and the streams are identified by the county stamp so 954 we've been working with that information as a core piece of our activity. These two images present almost the same 955 information. On the left is the piece of property we're talking about and is adjoining properties. Immediately to the 956 east is the flood plain,the stream corridors are identified but we've identified on here are the stream corridors and the 957 buffers that are required for them. Some cases they're 85 feet and some cases they're 60 feet, you don't see it on 958 the screen so well but there's an additional 25 foot drip zone or critical root zone buffer area outside of this specific 959 distance buffer. The property is really a pretty gentle piece of property, 95 percent of the property is less than a 15 960 percent slope which you can see on here. A25 percent slope,which make up less than 1 percent of the site, and 961 they are, as all know in Orange County, they are part of the stream corridor alignments most of the place, and then 962 there's 15 to 25 percent slopes. What you see in the middle, it looks like a whitewashed area basically between 0 963 and 15 percent slopes and that's 96 percent of the property and it's a pretty gentle piece of property. Of course what 964 we were looking at was also geological formations for water supply and then for wastewater there is the soils. And I 228 Approved 7.10.24 965 did want to make one comment about the question that was asked about how this might affect the rest of the county 966 and just what we have gone through here.This is in the Haw River watershed,we've got stream buffers,we've got 967 roadway connection pieces and we've got a number of things. I would be absolutely flabbergasted if there was 968 another identical piece of property and that is just to say that looking as the staff has talked about into what might be 969 in other places in the county, you really have to be looking at a specific analysis of what's that watershed,whether it's 970 a protected watershed and some other things like that. And that just, expands on the work they have to do. Thank 971 you. 972 973 Edwin Cox: Very briefly on the water,we had a hydrogeologist cross the property back and forth, back and 974 forth with a magnetometer and generate this map that you see before you. The red areas are areas of high magnetic 975 strength that represent iron,that is in formations called diabase dikes and they were looking specifically for diabase 976 because it is highly correlated with a very good source of water,typically 40 gallons per minute or more in the wells 977 that are drilled in the areas of diabase. There has also been a U.S. Geologic Survey of 600 wells in Orange County. 978 It was published around 2000 but correlated the area in Orange County with the amount of well yield and in this 979 particular location in the county,the average well yield was 50 to 75 gallons per minute, so we're pretty confident that 980 we've got water down there and it's in cracked,fractured rock, it's not in sedimentary rock so the probability of 981 interference between wells our geologist tells us is very low. And this is the man telling you about the wastewater 982 system, Kevin Davidson. 983 984 Kevin Davidson: My name is Kevin Davidson, I'm a wastewater engineer. I'm here with my colleagues Jasmine 985 and Chris. We are AWT engineers and soils scientists,we're a local company that's been around for quite a while. 986 We routinely help out residents in Orange County. We work with many folks here, are vested in it, been here a long 987 time, matter of fact we're still working with the local fire station. We will be the ones that help out the development for 988 the wastewater system.We have looked at the soils and we will continue to look at that. We also will put together the 989 conceptual plan which is a plan that we have worked with many times throughout North Carolina,the fundamental 990 part of is called the step system to treatment with ultimately drip dispersal, and we've done that throughout North 991 Carolina. We've had very good success with it. During the question and answer time, I'd be glad to discuss any 992 particular components or how we have helped the residents of Orange County and how this system and the 993 experience that we have with this system, be glad to answer any questions that you,that you may have. 994 995 John Felton: I guess I could read this, but I'd rather get to the other images, but if you have any questions, 996 let me know on this. Well, I guess the information here, 150 dwelling units,that's in 3 phases, 1.66 dwelling units per 997 acre, all ownership dwellings, 90 single family dwellings, 60 multi-family flats, 300 maximum bedrooms,260 to 285 998 estimated residences, internal road construction is to NCDOT standard and three development phases, as I said, 999 essentially equal, so 50, 50 and 50. This is the overall master plan and you see the development is nested at the top 1000 of the site along the upper stream buffer with two access points, one Gold Mine and one off the Morrow Mill. And 1001 Morrow Mill, the added left and right turn lanes will be added to those two entries and then internal road construction 1002 to NCDOT standards, so that's a loop road inside. This shows the phase,the proposed phasing for the project. You'll 1003 see Phase 1, P1,that includes the entry drive for Morrow Mill to the P1 phase and then that loop road extends to the 1004 first phase of the waste treatment plant and to the recycling center,they're all in the blue color. In Phase 1 and we 1005 may get to this, but in Phase 1 the community building would be started, in Phase 2, and that's in the yellow color, 1006 you will have additional single-family residences, townhouses and stacked flat buildings. You'll also have the 1007 community gardens, storm water management at that point and by the end of that phase we'll need to do Well No. 2 1008 to comply. Also, in Phase 2 you'll have the completion of the internal loop road out to Gold Mine. And then in Phase 1009 3, if you can see the colors here, Phase 3 is over on the left-hand side,that'll be the final phase of 50 units,they'll be 1010 30 single family houses and 20 multi-family with additional storm water control. 1011 1012 Scott Radway: Four or five slides here that really reflect elements of what's required as information from the 1013 applicant that fits within the MPD-CD and all of the various layers that are in that. Our requirement is to identify what 1014 uses are in what pods on the site and what uses are not in what pods on the site, and so what we have here is Pod 1015 Al which has all of the residential development, it has the community buildings, it has the family care facilities,two 229 Approved 7.10.24 1016 buildings that are six persons each as a maximum. It has open space and recreation and if you look at the plans that 1017 have been provided whether they're small scale or large scale, you can see some of the detailed information. Pod 1018 No. 2 is about an acre to an acre and a quarter in size and that's where the wastewater treatment would be, but it's 1019 also where solid waste and recycling collection would be and it's also where we would use to maintain maintenance 1020 equipment, maintenance vehicles, things like that. Pod 3, 11 acres,this would be the area that would be the primary 1021 area for the wastewater distribution, that's subsurface, and it would also include a repair area and that is for the full 1022 complement of the 150 or so dwellings, plus the community buildings that are there. Pod 4 is 7 acres and Pods 5 is 6 1023 acres, they are proposed to be retained in their existing treed character. Pod 3 would retain most of its tree character 1024 even though the drip system can wind through the trees and that's part of the elements of what's required to be 1025 submitted. There's a hierarchy of roads that might not have been so easy to see in the lesser plans. These are all to 1026 be built to NCDOT constructions standards. There's loop roads, they've been reviewed for emergency vehicle 1027 access, FedEx, UPS and all of the other things that we now get delivered at home on a much more regular basis. 1028 Tree preservation and landscape plan. It's not really possible to see what's on here at this scale but in the large 1029 scale drawings we have, it includes information,the ordinances require street trees,yard buffer trees, parking lot 1030 trees, parking lot shrubs and then in the perimeter buffer which is a 100-foot buffer or 75-foot buffer that goes around 1031 the complete site, there is a requirement for how many trees of what type and what size are in those buffers. We're 1032 going to retain these natural buffers and augment them as needed in order to meet those requirements. 1033 1034 Dolores Bailey: Mr. Chair, can we do a time check? 1035 1036 Lamar Proctor: I have them until 8:50. 1037 1038 Scott Radway: 8:50? Okay, I'll use one more minute then. This shows you essentially what is going to be 1039 green on the site when we're completed,the perimeter buffer,the stream buffers,the treed areas,within the 1040 development area which has the residential development, there's a lot of area that will not become impervious, in 1041 fact,the site right now as we have it designed and laid out and measured it as we can at this level of detail,we're 1042 about 19 percent for the entire site. My 1 minute's up,thank you. 1043 1044 Edwin Cox: You've heard from Mr.Altieri and Mr. Stober about what changes are needed in detail, so I'll 1045 just summarize them here for you to look at a moment. Future Land Use Map amendment to classify our entire 1046 parcel as a rural neighborhood activity node, comprehensive plan amendment to link MPD-CD and RNAN. The 1047 zoning atlas amendment to rezone the parcel to MPD-CD and the UDO text amendment to put in some text where 1048 it's required. I thought it was important to emphasize that you can't just apply for these changes to the 1049 comprehensive plan and the Future Land Use Map and say, it's because I want it, it requires justification in terms of 1050 the objectives of Orange County as defined in the comprehensive plan, so our justification is that if the changes are 1051 approved the success of our project beneficially addresses a number of objectives outlined in the master aging plan. 1052 And these specifically are housing Goal three,choices, quality and affordability of housing. We will have houses, 1053 duplexes and condos,so those are our choices. Universal design that will allow people of all abilities to use any of 1054 the residential areas and it'll be high quality construction. Social interaction, Goal 1;there will be buildings and 1055 spaces for that purpose,that will be our community center,our walking trails, community garden. There will be 1056 mobility options. We will have short distances from residences so that wheelchairs and mobility devices such as 1057 scooters can get to the places they need to go. There will be participation in engagement through activities led by 1058 the creative community, health and wellbeing resources,we have a continuum of care with care teams that are being 1059 planned and a fitness center and there will be communication and information to meet Goal 8, a high speed Internet 1060 connectivity and volunteer engagement. So Fiddlehead Corner will help fill the gap in support that is expected by the 1061 tsunami of new aging adults in Orange County over the next few years and I did also want to mention sustainability. 1062 Environmental sustainability is a high priority among our members and we, many of us have been engaged in local 1063 and state sustainability efforts,the conservation cluster master plan design will preserve two-thirds of our land in 1064 open space. We will have solar energy to generate electricity and energy efficiency in building design and Kevin 1065 didn't get to tell you about our reclaimed water, but we're going to have the ability from this advanced secondary 1066 treatment system to use the water for things like toilet flushing and therefore,save a lot of clean water that we 230 Approved 7.10.24 1067 otherwise would use for those purposes. Thank you for your time and attention. We'd ask our H4D members who 1068 are in the audience to stand up and show you who we are. 1069 1070 Lamar Proctor: Thank you for that presentation. If it's any consolation to the applicant,this particular board is 1071 very robust in its questioning so I imagine that any information you feel you didn't get an opportunity to present you 1072 will get to explore with this board, so is the board ready to move to the question portion for the applicant? 1073 1074 Chris Johnston: Will we be following our normal procedure going down the line? 1075 1076 Lamar Proctor: Yes.All right, so Statler if you'd like, do you have any questions? 1077 1078 Statler Gilfillen: I do have one, and going through all the information, and I see a lot of good in your proposal, 1079 but the schedule is there,the numbers of units, can you give me some idea of what the estimated budget when this is 1080 completed will be? What is the financial impact in Orange County for this, approximately? 1081 1082 Edwin Cox: I estimated the total budget is between 60 and 75 million for full build out to the 150 units but 1083 it's going to be in phases so that will be comparably less for each phase. 1084 1085 Statler Gilfillen Thank you. 1086 1087 Lamar Proctor: Ms. Carter? 1088 1089 Marilyn Carter: Mr. Chair, I have several questions, so I don't mind deferring to the other end of the table to 1090 come back my way. 1091 1092 Lamar Proctor: Let's stick with the normal protocol, because you may ask questions that others are planning 1093 to ask that will get answered. 1094 1095 Marilyn Carter: Okay,thank you. Well,first off,thank you for the extensive preparation. Your packet, I think it 1096 made for a lot of very good reading for all of us over the last number of days. I really appreciate the time that it takes 1097 to put something like this proposal together and of course the staffs time as well. Because we do look at the 1098 comprehensive plan very closely, I have a question about future land use in the comprehensive plan that I'll ask in a 1099 moment. I did want to, I have several questions, one has to do with a why, in terms of the consideration for the 1100 conservation cluster,and it may be Statler to chime in here, but with respect to the proposal and the MPD-CD 1101 designation,was there a compelling reason why a structure like that, such that was approved recently for the 1102 Stonewall project,which was also a conservation cluster using AR zoning, I believe, is there a compelling reason why 1103 that wasn't pursued in this particular zoning request? 1104 1105 Cy Stober: So, I can speak to our analysis,which is two-fold. One is any subdivision creating more than 1106 20 lots is required to pursue some sort of rezoning. So,the recommendation in the LIDO is residential conditional 1107 district; however, master plan development, because it's a large complex subdivision featuring multiple housing 1108 types,the definition of master plan development includes large subdivisions and multi-and mixed-use developments. 1109 The incorporation of the community center and the family care facilities, and my interpretation, and this was, Tom can 1110 attest to, a subject of robust discussion among the staff, my interpretation was the MPD-CD was the most 1111 appropriate zoning district to be applied to what Hands Four was proposing. 1112 1113 Marilyn Carter: Okay,thank you. 1114 1115 Charity Kirk: What were the other options? 1116 231 Approved 7.10.24 1117 Cy Stober: Well, because the other option would've been residential conditional district, but that doesn't 1118 include the nonresidential features, because there's several outparcels that have primary uses that are completely 1119 nonresidential. And when you are involving more than one primary housing type-so they have detached single 1120 family homes,attached single family homes,which are also known as townhomes, and multi-family structures-the 1121 Master Plan Development,just definition or description, lends itself exactly to that type of community,or that type of 1122 conditional district. 1123 1124 Marilyn Carter: So just a quick follow-up then to confirm, if the community didn't have those mixed types of 1125 housing opportunities,then it would be more appropriate to consider an agricultural residential cluster subdivision. Is 1126 that correct? 1127 1128 Cy Stober: If it was entirely single-family residential homes with no nonresidential components or maybe 1129 an incidental outparcel for a pool or something like that,then yes,this would be an R-CD application. 1130 1131 Marilyn Carter: Understand. So, a follow-on question has to do with family care facilities, and as someone 1132 who is a primary caregiver for an elder, I'm very interested in your proposal in terms of all the aspects and the 1133 comprehensiveness of it. But family care facilities can take a number of different forms under statute, and so I'm 1134 curious about whether the family care facilities are targeted to be family care homes,which would be, I imagine, in 1135 single family or multi-family up to six residents, or whether you're envisioning something larger under the flexibility 1136 provided by the MPD-CD designation. 1137 1138 Edwin Cox: No,we'd be going for six residents in a facility and up to two facilities. We'll build one and if 1139 we need more capacity,the second. And it would be for assistance with activities of daily living and possibly for 1140 cognitive problems. 1141 1142 Marilyn Carter: Thank you. 1143 1144 Cy Stober: And if I may, Ms. Carter,that was the substance of the slides and the primary motive for staff 1145 to recommend the definition update because 160D-907 limits the number of inhabitants to a family care facility to six 1146 individuals. So,we would regulate that use to be limited to no more than six per structure. 1147 1148 Marilyn Carter: Thank you for that clarification. Question about the septic system, and it may be that 1149 Mr. Davidson might be able to,or the team, might be able to answer, but it has to do with the nature of the primary 1150 treatment. And some of us have heard about issues in other neighborhoods that are tied into the MBR approach for 1151 handling the solid waste treatment. So,what type of system are you proposing in that up-front stage of treatment? 1152 1153 Kevin Davidson: Okay. Appreciate the question there. So,what we're proposing for the whole development, 1154 the first piece of primary treatment is called a step tank, and it's very similar to a septic tank that many of us have that 1155 are on septic systems at our house, a traditional septic tank. You collect the waste from the building, and in a step 1156 tank-step is S-T-E-P, and it stands for Septic Tank Effluent Pump-and in that tank,we're going to collect those 1157 solids, that waste,that comes from,whether it's a house, a row of houses, a community building. We're going to 1158 collect it in that first initial tank. That tank serves as a traditional septic tank in the sense that we're settling the solids, 1159 we're letting any scum layer float to the top and- I apologize,this is my day-to-day thing, so when we deal with solids 1160 and scum, that's normal septic conversations for us poop people-so we deal with that. And so,we settle those 1161 solids,we let that scum layer rise. In the outlet side of the tank-and there was a slide, and I believe it's in your 1162 packet there; it shows a schematic of a STEP tank-we have a pump vault unit, and inside that pump vault unit is a 1163 high-head turbine pump very similar to a well style pump. That filter in that pump vault protects that pump from any 1164 solids, and we're trying to draw through the clear zone of this tank. So, if you picture those solids are down low, the 1165 scum layer is high,and essentially as clean as I can be is that center of that tank. We're drawing water through that 1166 clear zone of that tank through that filter and into that pump. Now, that pump, as I said, it's a high-head pump. We're 1167 able to send that filtered effluent-it's not wastewater at this point; it's filtered effluent-we're able to send that quite 232 Approved 7.10.24 1168 some distance if we need to and also at some elevation if we need to. This collection system now is also small- 1169 diameter pipe, so it's very unobtrusive in terms of how we put in the collection. We're able to follow the contour, 1170 follow the roads. And John and I actually had gone through the development, and we had located where we would 1171 put several of these STEP tanks to serve maybe a row of houses, one of the care facilities that Ed was just talking 1172 about or larger versions of that same style tank to serve each of the multi-family units. In the end,we can bring those 1173 lines together, and that was another detail that's there. It's called a STEP connection detail, and think about it almost 1174 like a reverse water system. So, everybody's house that's on a community or municipal water system, that main 1175 water line comes down through the road, and then we all have our water taps that feed into our individual house. 1176 That's how they charge us, right? They go look at that meter. This is almost the same idea in the reverse. And so, 1177 we have the STEP tank at the house, small-diameter line that goes to a STEP connection system,which is a back 1178 flow, some ball valves, and now we have a common line. Again, generally, it's small-diameter, 2-, 3-inch-diameter, 1179 generally not any larger than that. And we take that line,we bring it together and then we bring it over to our 1180 treatment system. You referenced, ma'am, a MBR system, Membrane Bioreactor. Well,we're using on this, or 1181 proposing, it's called a recirculating media filter. The actual product is called AdvanTex. I started designing with 1182 AdvanTex back in, I think, 2006, 2007, somewhere in that ballpark. It has been permitted in North Carolina for use 1183 since early 2000, about 2001. The AdvanTex technology is developed and manufactured by a company called 1184 Orenco Systems that is out in the west coast, in Oregon. It's a very strong company. They're international. They've 1185 got projects all over the place. Very,very large number of them are in North Carolina. We've worked with hundreds 1186 of them in North Carolina. There's many of them,the same technology, in Orange County. We have designed, 1187 permitted, helped to install, certified,we operate several systems with this same technology throughout Orange 1188 County, throughout North Carolina,and we've even done some work in Virginia. But the technology is proven. It's a 1189 great system for residential style waste, and it very, very much allows,when you have the ebbs and flows that come 1190 with domestic waste products, houses, this type of system works very well with that. And part of the application is 1191 actually a report that we had done several years ago,where we actually went in -and I will admit, I'm sometimes 1192 skeptical of- I get sales people come to my office and say, Kevin,we see you do a lot of waste water work;we'd like 1193 you to design with our system. And so,one of my first questions is,well, let me see your data. Is your system going 1194 to work? Oh, yes,we have all this data from Utah, California. We have data from North Carolina,stuff that we have 1195 operated that I have installed ourself. It's a recirculating media filter. It's an entirely different technology than an 1196 MBR. 1197 1198 Marilyn Carter: Thank you, Mr. Davidson. I just wanted to understand if it was different from an MBR and that 1199 doesn't mean MBRs,or the membrane bioreactors are bad. It just means that there are certain considerations that 1200 we've all heard about in the public about the concerns about those kinds of systems in neighborhoods like Briar 1201 Chapel and others that did not apply here. Is that correct? 1202 1203 Kevin Davidson: We are not using that system here. My colleague, Chris, knows even more about that system 1204 than I do. 1205 1206 Marilyn Carter: All right. Thank you for that clarification,and I have another question, but I'm going to pass on 1207 because I suspect my other question might get asked by someone else. Thank you, Mr. Chair,thank you. 1208 1209 Steven Kaufmann: I'm going to pass. 1210 1211 Lamar Proctor: Okay, I think it would be helpful if you could go back from my questions to the land-use pods 1212 slide. I thought that was a very helpful diagram of proposed uses. If we can find it. 1213 1214 Scott Radway: There we go. 1215 1216 Lamar Proctor: So, my question in the center area where it's not designated that just says land-use pods. 1217 What's the intention on that area of the property? 1218 233 Approved 7.10.24 1219 Scott Radway: It's not their property. 1220 1221 Lamar Proctor: It's not y'all's property? 1222 Scott Radway: It's not part of this application. The person who owns that could speak to that if you want that 1223 as an answer. I can say how the pieces of property fit together in a fashion. 1224 1225 Lamar Proctor: Sure. 1226 1227 Scott Radway: One point that may have gotten lost in the process is, the staging process,which we have one 1228 here, goes and fits with some of the ordinances that the County has and some of the considerations about 1229 emergency services and other things. So, you have Phase 1 in Pod 1,which you saw. We have an entry from 1230 Morrow Mill Road that comes into that,and along that edge,there is a contract agreement to provide an opportunity 1231 to connect from the center property to that property, and there is a relationship buffer that you can't quite see in here 1232 of a set back from the property line, and that's part of a contract agreement with that property owner. 1233 1234 Chris Johnston: One of those slides does show the Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 with the colors. 1235 1236 Scott Radway: Sorry, I'm trying not to page through too many slides. So, Phase 1, 50 dwelling units relates to 1237 a well and it relates to traffic volume,and it relates to a number of other things. Phase 2,which is another 50 units, 1238 relates to emergency service needs and where, at that point, you need two entrances for emergency services to the 1239 site. So,that brings us to the point where we have primary entrance on Morrow Mill Road. We have a secondary or 1240 minor entrance, if you will, on Gold Mine Loop Road that needs to be active for the third phase to be started. So,that 1241 needs to be connected at that point in time. You see a funny setback of the property line over there. That's actually 1242 a strange, but perfectly functional form, of having a wider right of way along that road so that the property owner that 1243 owns the remaining 35 acres here in the center can have individual lots in areas that have good soils, and they can 1244 have access to this secondary entrance or this roadway where we anticipate substantially less traffic in and out, even 1245 at full completion. The property's zoned AR. It's a bona fide farm at this point. It can do all the things that a bona 1246 fide farm can do with its property, or it can develop residential, and so that's sort of the relationship. One is to be 1247 compatible, connective,and still let the property owner from whom this larger piece was bought do what he wishes to 1248 do for his family and his children in the future. 1249 1250 Lamar Proctor: And the applicant's proposed amendment will expand RNAN through the crescent-shaped 1251 property that's the subject of tonight, correct? 1252 1253 Scott Radway: Yeah, correct. 1254 1255 Lamar Proctor: And so, any future zoning of that is a separate question and would be, if it was brought into 1256 MPD-CD zoning, it would have to go through the same process. 1257 1258 Cy Stober: Yes, absolutely. To be frank, it was included in the initial application but due to its bona fide 1259 farm use and the limitations zoning might place on that versus the existing AR zoning and its farm status, my 1260 recommendation to the applicant was to remove it from the application. 1261 1262 Lamar Proctor: Okay,thank you. There was also a small portion that was in the resource protection overlay in 1263 one corner of the property, so I was wondering how that was addressed or how that was taken into consideration into 1264 the site plan. 1265 1266 Scott Radway: Does it show up on this slide, or is it in the one that's the more environmental slide? 1267 1268 Lamar Proctor: It's in our overlay on the future land use map. 1269 234 Approved 7.10.24 1270 Scott Radway: Okay, I think I know what you mean. The piece it's in, I think you're speaking about the 1271 environmental piece that sticks in the tiny corner of the property. 1272 1273 Lamar Proctor: Correct. 1274 1275 Scott Radway: So,this was the east side,flowing from west to east, the northern piece, and its various stream 1276 channels in here flowing, again,west to east getting into this higher-level stream,which also then has a flood plain, 1277 so it's a FEMA flood plain and regulated. Where we overlap is like 8,000 square feet or so out of 90 acres in an area 1278 that's protected by your stream buffer ordinance and the state's regulations also. So,one of the review comments 1279 from the state was it's there, make sure it's dealt with, and that's sort of a recommendation both to us and to you as 1280 the County. What we haven't shown on here, is we have ended our buffers at our property line because we don't 1281 want to be presumptive and draw a buffer on somebody else's property line. It may not be a buffer on their property 1282 line based on their use in the future, and so we've tried not to get fingerprints on something and 5 years from now it 1283 gets interpreted incorrectly. 1284 1285 Lamar Proctor: I guess my question,generally, is it seems like the site plan is consistent with preserving the 1286 rural character to the degree that you can. I was just wondering if you want to comment a little more about 1287 preservation, and green spaces, and protection of the stream buffers on this property and how that fits into the overall 1288 design. 1289 1290 Scott Radway: Well, as you heard Ed talk about,who's a principal, and the members of H4D and 2T, the sort 1291 of marching orders was,this looks like a piece of property that's gentle to build on, it does have environmental 1292 pieces,they want a lot of trails and want a lot of other things for active adults, not necessarily baseball fields. But, in 1293 looking at the property, then the challenge to John Felton and to 2T and working on this together was how do we, in 1294 essence, be invisible to the public, if you will, on the roads. What we have is one roadway entrance that'll come from 1295 Morrow Mill Road and come into the site and except as you go past it and probably have a 60-foot-wide opening in 1296 what's now treed land;you will notice that it's anything other than we have to provide turning lanes for NCDOT's 1297 evaluation. The entrance character on Gold Mine will even be a lesser impact because it can be really simply, it's 1298 going to be a 20-foot-wide paved surface because that's what emergency services needs. But, it goes through a 1299 forest on a pass where we're trying to use the existing logging road that was in there from many, many years ago, 1300 and so we're trying to have it as little at the edge of the property that somebody would see. If you like speed limit 1301 kinds of considerations,or if you like baseball and know how far a ball can go at a hundred miles an hour, and how 1302 many feet in how many seconds. People driving by those entrances will have about 3 seconds to notice that they're 1303 there. And, that's sort of a sales pitch, but it's also real. 1304 1305 Lamar Proctor: And you talked about you were going to incorporate solar and minimize any light pollution. 1 1306 was wondering if you could just comment on those things. 1307 1308 Scott Radway: I can. Solar,the layout, I'm not going to go back to the layout in detail, but the layout with what 1309 you can see on here and, obviously,we have 24, 25 acres in this area that's going to be disturbed, and some of it will 1310 be tree removal, and that's part of what your ordinance addresses for the number of plantings and trees we have to 1311 put back in. But what you see in here in what are the single-family or the townhouse rooftops, there's also a 1312 detached garage. So,you have a 1,200 to 1,500 single-floor,two-bedroom house with a detached garage space, or 1313 two-parking spaces. The roofs and the roofs of both of those, a separate garage and a separate house, can be fit 1314 with a roof line that will go whatever direction it needs to go to capture the sun as the sun rotates through the site. 1315 So, a part of the ability to work with solar and part of the ability to do some of the other pieces is because the building 1316 model is going to be one in which the flexibility to change the shape of a garage, or not necessarily the shape of it, 1317 but the roof orientation of the garage, is possible for every piece of property in here so each piece of property can get 1318 an orientation that does that, and that's the level of detail that the H4D and the 2T people charged John with figuring 1319 out. 1320 235 Approved 7.10.24 1321 Lamar Proctor: Okay,thank you. 1322 1323 Charity Kirk: Okay, I think I have some questions for Cy too. I don't find the R-CD in the UDO. Can you 1324 point me to the page where that conditional district is detailed— 1325 1326 Cy Stober: In the UDO? I have to use my phone because I've been kicked off the Wi-Fi. 1327 1328 Beth Bronson: Is anybody else having an issue? 1329 1330 Charity Kirk: No, it's down. 1331 1332 Tom Altieri: Page 3-61 has the list of all the conditional districts. 1333 1334 Charity Kirk: But is there, you know how all the other zones have their own multi-page spread of what's 1335 allowed? 1336 1337 Cy Stober: Yes, it should be right before MPD-CD if you'll just give me a moment. I apologize for the 1338 delay. 1339 1340 Charity Kirk: And I ask because it seems like the crux of the issue is where do we want multi-family housing 1341 and where is multi-family housing allowed. I don't feel like the rural neighborhood activity note is meant for a 1342 residential area? It seems like it's very much into local small businesses and sort of providing a community hub, and 1343 this is not that, and the only reason why it's being put in that is because there's multi-family housing here. 1344 1345 Beth Bronson: The MPD-CD district is what they're applying for. 1346 1347 Charity Kirk: Yes, but you can't put a conditional district in agricultural residential. You can put one of these 1348 MP things in agricultural residential, so you have to move it into a rural neighborhood activity node in order to allow 1349 for the multifamily housing and the other amenities. Is that right? 1350 1351 Cy Stober: Yes and the nonresidential components of the principal uses, primary use of the community 1352 center,the family care facilities, by my analysis,would have necessitated an MPD-CD zoning as well and that would 1353 be my recommendation to both the applicant and the board, and the analysis, because it's not exclusively residential. 1354 1355 Charity Kirk: Right, so the question for the board, I think, is where do we want multifamily housing and 1356 some of these other amenities, so the question is how many of these multifamily units, how many units are in a 1357 building? Like what size are these multifamily housing units? 1358 1359 Beth Bronson: 150. 1360 1361 Charity Kirk: And that's a total of total families in the whole development. 1362 1363 Beth Bronson: One hundred fifty residences. 1364 1365 Charity Kirk: Yeah, but some of them are single family. 1366 1367 Beth Bronson: Three hundred bedrooms. I apologize. 1368 1369 Scott Radway: We're planning, in the full build out,three buildings, each building has 20 units. 1370 236 Approved 7.10.24 1371 Charity Kirk: Okay, so in the county,where are other large-scale apartment buildings or apartment buildings 1372 like this located? It seems like they're located much more, like if you look at R-2, R-2 was talking about being closer 1373 to cities, it seemed,for me. So is there a precedent for a development with these multifamily housings further in the 1374 county? Are there any examples you can think of? 1375 1376 Cy Stober: The only one that comes to my mind, and I'll defer to Tom given his experience with the county 1377 will be much longer than mine, but Settlers Point included some multifamily in it but that was being served by Town of 1378 Hillsborough Water and Sewer. That's at the present location of RTLP, south of the interstate. But otherwise,to my 1379 knowledge, multifamily has not been permitted through zoning by the county in recent history. We do a lot of 1380 duplexes by right. We see a limited number of those in the county. They're oddities, I'd say. But not, nothing more 1381 dense than duplexes. 1382 1383 Charity Kirk: So, if we want to allow this,the easiest way to allow it is to go into this rural neighborhood 1384 activity node and sort of pull it, pull all the land. Because that's where we can do the MPD-CD. 1385 1386 Cy Stober: So those are the corresponding amendments to the comprehensive plan and the LIDO as well. 1387 The amendment to the MPD-CD along with the future land use classifications where MPD-CD is allowed,which is 1388 both the UDO amendment and the Appendix F amendment to the comprehensive plan, and then expansion of that 1389 node in the Future Land Use Map. So at present, no,you can't, that cannot be done. It would require these other 1390 amendments that have been applied for by the applicant to be approved. 1391 1392 Charity Kirk: So to the applicant,why should we allow this new and novel thing so far out into the county, 1393 this development that doesn't have a precedent? 1394 1395 Scott Radway: I don't want you to take this personally, but this kind of a design is not new and it is not novel, 1396 but it is— 1397 1398 Charity Kirk: I know the design isn't, it's just the location in our particular county. 1399 1400 Scott Radway: I want to make it,without offending anybody, make it clear that this is a compact neighborhood 1401 and it's designed to have single-family detached housing opportunity,front house which is attached unit opportunity 1402 and multifamily, and we're looking at multifamily opportunity,that's three buildings.And I'll get to your point, and from 1403 Cy, you've heard some zoning aspect pieces of it, but it's not a new and a novel, it's not a new and a novel design. 1404 You can tell from the discussion tonight that it's been very, very difficult to figure out how to do something that has 1405 been proven to be successful in many places in North Carolina, as well as many places in the United States,within 1406 the zoning ordinances and land use plan,for Orange County and in many discussions back and forth,the issue of 1407 the Master Plan Development CD, is the zoning district which provides the type of requirements and standards 1408 under which you could do this type of a district. It happens that there's a piece of property which is identified as 1409 being supportive of a rural neighborhood activity center that has part of it within that and I think you are right. The 1410 question is whether you, as a County, and whether you,as a board, look at this and see it as saying this is a location 1411 which, and forgetting the site itself and its character for a second,this is a location where the addition of 280 more 1412 people towards your comprehensive plan identification piece of 1,000 people might support the existing retail uses 1413 that are already there, not bring new competition to it, and to do so in a way that is practically invisible from the road 1414 and from the neighbor's property, and so these are the pieces that we have been putting together in this to look and 1415 say is this an appropriate place. As the applicant,we believe it's an appropriate place to do that and what we're 1416 asking you is to think with us along the way and if you think this has the benefit of being the type of community that 1417 you'd want,figure out how to do it so it's as good as what we've drawn or even better. 1418 1419 Charity Kirk: I mean me, personally, I like the vision, but we've dealt with this before where the vision was 1420 good but the location wasn't the right location and, right now, I feel like we're slotting this in, in a very awkward way to 237 Approved 7.10.24 1421 try and make it happen,so to me,the question is how much do we want it and where do we want multifamily housing 1422 of this size. 1423 1424 Scott Radway: It's a great question. Maybe it's the central question and the issues about whether it's the right 1425 place or not, let's take a look at the population that it's proposed for. It's an older population. Forgetting what's 1426 inside, it's an older population which has,through NC 54 down to Carrboro and Chapel Hill, immediate access to 1427 probably the best health care services you can get in the State of North Carolina and practically anyplace else in the 1428 U.S. 1429 1430 Charity Kirk: No, I understand that but we're land use. I have to make land use decisions. That's what 1431 we're charged with. So thank you, I think those are my questions. I would probably have a follow-up question but 1 1432 don't have it now. 1433 1434 Scott Radway: I would hope that we can continue to talk. 1435 1436 Cy Stober: So Ms. Kirk, to your first question, I finally have an answer which is Page 203 of the UDO. 1 1437 believe that's correct, Page 203 or 3-69, residential conditional district,that's were you can find that. Non-residential 1438 district is on Page 205.And the only thing I would add from a staff perspective and regarding our analysis of this 1439 project and the process that's brought it to you this evening, should the comprehensive plan Appendix F amendment 1440 be approved, this same process would apply to any new applications for MPD-CD that would be received by the 1441 County, so there would be a planning board review and a public hearing to determine if it is appropriate for that 1442 location and if it is appropriate and in the public interest of the county to allow a new MPD-CD district in Orange 1443 County, so that would not change. 1444 1445 Charity Kirk: Why don't we just modify agricultural residential, rather than the rural activity note? 1446 1447 Cy Stober: I'm happy to have that conversation. I don't want to take away from the questions but we 1448 would also have to amend the definition of agricultural residential, I believe, in order to accommodate that. 1449 1450 Chris Johnston: My question is in regards to who is eligible to partake in these units. So, I'm 35 and I think this 1451 is a really great idea and I'd love to move in. I love solar and I think the way we separate our refuse waste is exciting. 1452 1453 Edwin Cox: Glad you're convinced. We have deliberately decided to have no age restriction. 1454 1455 Chris Johnston: Okay. So the reason I bring that up is this did come up in some of the email-related things and 1456 what I wanted to bring out with that was if this is in related to,for instance,the master aging plan and that sort of 1457 thing, if there are no age restrictions, I could move in there and I wouldn't necessarily be fulfilling those goals for 1458 mobility or participating in engagement or health and well, I mean, I really didn't see so much as I'd be enjoying those 1459 different benefits, but it wouldn't necessarily be the aging in place that maybe is necessary for this to fit within that 1460 mold. Does that make sense? 1461 1462 Edwin Cox: I don't think this would be particularly attractive to you unless you like to live among— 1463 1464 Chris Johnston: —I mean I would push back in that and say that my preferences are my own but I guess what 1465 I'm saying is if we're making a determination in regards toif this fits within,the goals of the comprehensive plan, does 1466 that fit the mold if this is open and again, I love the idea of sustainability and conservation and that sort of thing but in 1467 regards to the master aging plan and the components within that,without that requirement, a unit goes up for sale, 1 1468 purchase it because I love the idea and I'm in there, I don't necessarily know if that fits the aging in place idea. 1469 1470 Edwin Cox: So as a cooperative, we have a process whereby people apply to become members of the 1471 cooperative first. And only then will they be eligible for living there. And we have a process by which people 238 Approved 7.10.24 1472 understand our goals, among them, aging in place and to have provisions specifically for seniors and part of the buy- 1473 in, or whatever you want to call it, is in relation to supporting those services. They're going to be small units which 1474 are most suitable for people who are downsizing and would not be supportive of families or not attractive to families, 1475 because it wouldn't have enough bedrooms. So I think for all these reasons, our goal of being a place for aging 1476 adults is going to be met organically. 1477 1478 Chris Johnston: Okay. The cooperative I think is the only thing that would keep me from respectfully 1479 disagreeing,so, and I apologize to keep harping on this in regards to master aging plan, but could you help me 1480 through the cooperative decision making process for determining whether someone is eligible to live in this 1481 neighborhood. Because it sounds like in order to live in this neighborhood,you have to be a member of the 1482 Cooperative. I would like to know what the requirements to being in the Cooperative are in regard to that seems to 1483 be the barrier of entry to this particular land. 1484 1485 Edwin Cox: So we do not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, religion, or any other factors that relate 1486 to fair housing. It has to do more with the person who's applying educating themselves about what our goals are for 1487 the community and agreeing to those goals, and once they have completed that process of going through it,we have 1488 a membership committee. Then their identity is opened up to the entire Cooperative for anyone to come forward if 1489 they know of any particular objections they might have.And that's generally pretty straightforward and then they're 1490 allowed in. So, Peggy. This is Peggy. 1491 1492 Chris Johnston: Hi Peggy. 1493 1494 Peggy Craft: Hi. 1495 1496 Chris Johnston: Hi, Peggy. And I apologize. I don't mean to make a stink about this, but part of our 1497 determination is in regards to, how does this fit, and how does this fulfill the goals of comprehensive plan and the 1498 master aging plan component seems to be a large part of it,and I just want to make sure I fully understand. 1499 1500 Peggy Craft: I get that. 1501 1502 1 am secretary of MD, I'm also head of the membership committee and had the difficult task of doing exactly what 1503 you're asking. Being a Cooperative requires us to have this acceptance approval process, so what do we want that 1504 to look like. I'm a contra dancer, I said, if they can't dance,you know, I'm not sure. Joking. Joking. Absolutely 1505 joking. We couldn't do that. We don't want to do that. What we want is for it to be a community. A community of 1506 people who share in our belief in the culture of active participation physically and governmentally. We want it to be 1507 run in a cooperative manner. We want people who appreciate and take part in traditional music and art and dance 1508 and nature. So when I talked to people,we've going through this process with several people and it's sort of like you 1509 got to understand who we are trying to be, and if you don't like banjo music,you're not going to be happy here,you 1510 know. It's just we are traditional music and dance people. And that's what the community is intended to be. We 1511 don't care if you're 35. I'd be quite happy to have you. 1512 1513 Chris Johnston: I do apologize, and I just want to keep unpeeling this onion a little bit because I don't have a 1514 whole lot of experience with Cooperatives, but in regards to how you determine who is appropriate to be within the 1515 Cooperative.And I'm going to be that guy, and I do apologize. How many members have you turned away. 1516 1517 Peggy Craft: None. 1518 1519 Chris Johnston: Applicants,excuse me, applicants. 1520 1521 Peggy Craft: None. 1522 239 Approved 7.10.24 1523 Chris Johnston: You've had none. 1524 1525 Peggy Craft: We've turned away no applicants. 1526 1527 Chris Johnston: So an applicant has gone through the process, expressed an interest, and you have not turned 1528 anyone away. 1529 1530 Peggy Craft: Correct. 1531 1532 Chris Johnston: Okay. All right. I just want to make sure. And then, again, I don't know how to ask this again 1533 without being inappropriate,and I do apologize. In regards to your mention of race and religion,the diversity of your 1534 group. 1535 1536 Dolores Bailey: Ask about the demographics. 1537 1538 Chris Johnston: Yes, I do have to be uncomfortable and ask about the demographics of your group. Is it 1539 something where if we allow this, is it something that is going to be open to everybody or is it going to be 1540 demographically stilted? 1541 1542 Peggy Craft: We'd love for it to be open. 1543 1544 Chris Johnston: Open. Okay. 1545 1546 Peggy Craft: And we're doing what we can. So, yes. We understand it's a problem. 1547 1548 Chris Johnston: And I just want to make sure that I'm clear that I'm not accusing anyone or saying anything 1549 along those lines, but I would not be doing my job if I didn't bring it up. 1550 1551 Peggy Craft: No, it's a reasonable question. 1552 1553 Chris Johnston: Okay. Thank you. 1554 1555 Peggy Craft: For the aging part, I will say, I understand the aging part as well. I'd love to have more 1556 younger people there. We didn't want to make it a 55 plus because we don't want to discriminate. Why can't you 1557 come in if you're 40. That'd be great. But I think it is true that the people who are interested in living in that kind of 1558 environment, and living communally are more likely to be the older people. 1559 1560 Chris Johnston: Wonderful. Thank you for your clarification. I appreciate it, Peggy. Thank you. 1561 1562 Peggy Craft: Thank you. 1563 1564 Whitney Watson: So I have a couple of questions. Some of them are perhaps not the purview of this board, but 1565 they're interesting to me, and one of them is the governance style. You referenced that in a couple of statements, so 1566 how are you going to govern this intentional community. Like as in is it a democracy, or a sociocracy, or. 1567 1568 Edwin Cox: We have a board of directors that are elected democratically,and that is an annual process. 1569 We have bylaws that specify all these conditions, and our goal is to have unanimity whenever possible, and we work 1570 very hard, so it's moving in the direction of sociocracy without adapting a whole cloth. We are a group of people who 1571 believe in working very hard to achieve unanimity whenever possible, and if we find even a single person is opposed 1572 to a particular action that we are proposing,we continue to work until we have satisfied everybody to the greatest 1573 extent,so that is our ethic, and we've worked very hard. Let me say about where the idea of the Cooperative came 240 Approved 7.10.24 1574 from. There are senior housing cooperatives that are really becoming very popular in the upper Midwest and 1575 Minnesota and Wisconsin. There are about 150. It's become an industry, and these are typical high-rise buildings 1576 with 60 to 100 residents, but after a developer creates the building, it's sold to the people who have moved in there, 1577 and they govern it as a cooperative,and it's a democratic structure. It's an operated cost structure, so there's no 1578 pecuniary benefit to the cooperative from their actions, and it seems to work very well up in those states, and that 1579 was our inspiration for trying to do that model here. 1580 1581 Whitney Watson: So who would actually own the dwelling unit? Would the individual or family and therefore 1582 they have the right to sell it to whoever they please? Or does the Co-op own the building? 1583 1584 Edwin Cox: In a full Cooperative model, the Cooperative owns all the buildings, all the units. The person 1585 buying the share in the Cooperative has the right to live there as long as they want and play by the rules and, you 1586 know, are current on their fees.And when they go to sell, though,they are able to sell it to anyone with the provision 1587 that that person first has to become a member of the Cooperative. 1588 1589 Whitney Watson: Okay, so this will be a full Cooperative? 1590 1591 Edwin Cox: We haven't determined that. It's possible that some of the units will be fee simple, and others 1592 might be under Cooperative model, but that's still to be determined. 1593 1594 Whitney Watson: Okay. Other questions I have. Looking at the other businesses in this neighborhood activity 1595 node,they provide services and resources for the broader community. How will Fiddlehead add to the mix and 1596 continue to enhance the existing activity node?And I really note it is kind of a cheap shot, but you talked about 1597 zipping past the entrance to the community in 3 seconds, so clearly,you're not really encouraging the broader 1598 community to come in. 1599 1600 Edwin Cox: I want to make it clear that this is not a commercial activity in the sense of offering any kind of 1601 services to outside people such as having a restaurant where they could come in and eat. There won't be anything 1602 of that type, so no commercial activity that would be part of an activity node. 1603 1604 Whitney Watson: But your narrative also mentions events and having parking for events though.There is an 1605 assumption there that people will be coming to this development from outside the community, and you are reaching 1606 out to a broader community, so to say,well,we're not really providing that for other people is perhaps disingenuous. 1607 1608 Edwin Cox: They would be coming as friends. 1609 1610 Whitney Watson: So there'd be no publicity that anybody would see anywhere else. No social media 1611 publications, no... 1612 1613 Edwin Cox: But it's possible it could be on social media but not advertisements as such. No, it would not 1614 be an event like that.There could be things like house concerts. A lot of people in our group host house concerts. 1615 And they charge a fee to pay the musicians and so something of that type is a possibility, but to have a public dance 1616 where there's an admission charge or something like that, I think that would not be the case. 1617 1618 Whitney Watson: Okay, so back to my question. So what will Fiddlehead do to enhance this activity node given 1619 the other businesses and residences that are in that area already? 1620 1621 Edwin Cox: I don't know that we have really made any determination on that. I can see some possibilities. 1622 We're going to have an energy resiliency strategy where we provide for our residents in terms of power continuity 1623 when the utility power goes out, and I think we can serve as a resource for education in the surrounding community 241 Approved 7.10.24 1624 to share the knowledge that our engineers have provided to help others keep their power on. That's just an example 1625 that came to mind. 1626 1627 Whitney Watson: Okay. What for me was missing in the narrative are ways in which public transportation or 1628 other kinds of transportation will be addressed or provided for the residents. I get that it's only a few miles down 54 1629 to Chapel Hill and Carrboro, but if somebody's got a medical appointment it can be tricky, and they're still shopping, 1630 so I guess I'm sort of questioning perhaps the assumptions of the traffic analysis in saying, oh no, there won't be any 1631 increase in traffic or virtually none. 1632 1633 Scott Radway As I heard the question before about what Fiddlehead might add to or support within the rural node 1634 is there is existing gas station and mini mart and the nursery, Piedmont, and other things that are in there, and I know 1635 for a fact that already we do that as we individually and as other members. So I think what you're doing is putting 1636 purchasing power in for some of the neighborhood's things that frankly you don't find anyplace else in the county 1637 within a half a mile of where you live. So if that was the question about what might be the impact on those 1638 businesses I would think it would be positive. The transportation piece,we had conversations with NCDOT and we 1639 had conversations with the County and with the transportation department and other things like that. We are very 1640 interested in being able to have bus service out this far in the county. What we don't have yet is a route structure and 1641 a number of other things that don't usually happen unless there's actually people there to do something for, and so 1642 one of the reasons that we are excited about that, there's an opportunity out here that with 285 or 300 people over 1643 the time of the project,that will provide enough mass at one location, and specifically we've talked about having a 1644 bus entrance or a bus stop that would be in location right at the entrance point which then is accessible to other 1645 people. We've talked about how to do a park and ride when there would be a demand and an opportunity within the 1646 bus system to get there, how to do a supportive use like a park and ride. There's a minimal impact around there. 1647 The other part of it is we have designed a location within the center of the development as specifically designed 1648 around the dimensions and requirements of what the County now has as the busses that are used for a call in and 1649 pickup dial-a-ride and things like that,so this is just one of the many things that you got to ask the questions to us 1650 because the information is, it's in there, but it's buried pretty far. Not because we want it to be buried but because 1651 there is so many different things. 1652 1653 Whitney Watson: So one of the things that showed up often in the narrative was this comment about affordable 1654 housing, and we've heard a project budget, but what do you anticipate an individual dwelling unit might go for? 1655 1656 Scott Radway: Well I guess the best answer for that is 2 years ago, if I had guessed the answer it would be 1657 wrong. But what we're looking for in the process is a dwelling unit's about 1,200 to 1,500 square feet, two bedrooms, 1658 small footprint, single floor as possible and other things like that and so all of those are pieces that are to reduce the 1659 cost of development in what we now see from national builders which are two stories, and they want four bedrooms, 1660 so they've got to have so many feet on the ground floor to support four bedrooms and that kind of stuff, so we're 1661 looking at a housing product that can be downsized into and it can be done with not all of the extra corners and 1662 windows and all of the other things that go into houses that are two and three stories and are$600,000. That's not 1663 an answer. The answer is we don't know for sure what it will be because we're looking at being out there about 2 1664 years if the project gets approved, getting the wells approved, getting the wastewater treatment approved, going 1665 through all of the preliminary site work which includes identifying—we have to do the tree survey and doing a lot of 1666 other things. I'm not trying to avoid the question or avoid the answer. It's just not quite possible to do that, but we do 1667 know that two-bedroom houses on one floor are going to be more affordable than four bedroom houses and two 1668 bathrooms on two floors, and so we're aiming at that piece. We've talked with the County about affordable housing 1669 and how that mechanism can come into place or not, and we have not figured out if it can be done through the 1670 budget process and through the funding of affordable housing. So, it's two pieces. One is how to reduce the cost for 1671 the people who are going to move there,which is one aspect, and the other is in a broader sense of what's affordable 1672 housing, and we don't have an answer for that yet. 1673 242 Approved 7.10.24 1674 Whitney Watson: So the only other question I have has to do with management of all the activities happening 1675 and you mentioned the board of directors and committee but also where is the staffing going to come from for some 1676 of these activities and facilities and predictably the healthcare? 1677 1678 Scott Radway: I think overall what you're looking at, in a bigger sense, is for some items, it's the same kinds 1679 of things that a homeowners'association takes care of: storm drainage ponds in the streets and other things like 1680 that. And so really,you're importing that same set of procedures. You're just importing a board and a management 1681 system that's not called a condominium association. It's called a coop association. For the other services, I guess as 1682 we've talked about things, solid waste collection,for example,which is something to pick up and store and work with 1683 the County, and we have a plan for that. Somebody will be required onsite and so that's a service that you either fill 1684 with somebody that's in your community already who would like to do that, sometimes that's a volunteer. Often it's 1685 not volunteer, it's paid or have others come who do that as a business. So, I guess I would say there's movement 1686 back and forth in the different kinds of services. 1687 1688 Whitney Watson: To be more specific and transparent, so my parents went into a continuing care facility in 2017 1689 and they very quickly came to depend on staff to help with their medications even though they were in independent 1690 living. And when they went to assisted living,they had the same kind of staffing issues. So,where is that staffing 1691 going to come from because it can't just be volunteers? 1692 1693 Scott Radway: Let me have Mareah answer that specific aspect. 1694 1695 Mareah Steketee: That's a great question. Family care home as a licensed facility has to be operated by 1696 licensed individuals and so that is part of the cost of living in the community and we'll cover it in whatever way we 1697 can. A lot of it will be single payer. If I need care, I need to be prepared to pay for that. Medicare may cover some 1698 things. Medicare is now covering a bit more than it was before, but it doesn't typically cover day-to-day, assisted 1699 living sort of care but that home will be licensed by the state,will be operated by an official operator. So,does that 1700 answer your questions? 1701 1702 Whitney Watson: Yeah. 1703 1704 Lamar Proctor: All right,thank you. Elizabeth? 1705 1706 Elizabeth Kalies: I just want to follow up on some of Chris'questions and wonder if you could speak to any sort 1707 of diversity, equity, inclusion plans that you have in place? I think they alluded to we're working on it, but are there 1708 any really firm commitments you're making beyond we're looking into affordable housing,we're looking into, you 1709 know, how are you hoping to really achieve those goals? 1710 1711 Mareah Steketee: We're hoping to achieve those goals by continuing to not only educate ourselves but reaching 1712 out to the broader creative community. We've been in consultation with Carol Woods in terms of their outreach 1713 program. The basic trend for many families, black and brown families, is that they take care of their elders in their 1714 own homes. That's a potential changing pattern. We don't have a formal plan right now. Our bylaws are inclusive of 1715 all individuals and we'll do whatever outreach we can. It's an open community. Our dance community, our music 1716 community, is inclusive of all people so we don't have a formal plan. It's something that I've been talking about for a 1717 long time. 1718 1719 Dolores Bailey: I know we only have a few minutes. 1720 1721 Cy Stober: So, yes,two points. Just one acknowledging the time and that two board members haven't 1722 had an opportunity to ask questions.And the other just a reminder to all board members that ultimately the 1723 applications are with regard to land use and development or preservation and your decisions ultimately must be 1724 based upon the land use and the applications before you. 243 Approved 7.10.24 1725 1726 Lamar Proctor: Thank you for that reminder and I would like to keep things moving, but I don't want to limit 1727 board members'questions too much. With that caveat from Mr. Stober that we need to focus on the land uses, do 1728 you think if we extended the meeting by 15 minutes we could get everyone's questions in? 1729 1730 Charity Kirk: I just want to clarify that we are supposed to evaluate whether or not this development would 1731 fit with the character of the zoning request. 1732 1733 Cy Stober: That is absolutely correct. 1734 1735 Charity Kirk: Okay. Just checking. 1736 1737 Cy Stober: Yeah,the character of the community, the character of the activity node, and also the 1738 principles, goals, and objectives of the comprehensive plan, many of which speak to equity. You are correct. 1739 1740 Lamar Proctor: So, my question is do you think if we extend the meeting by 15 minutes we could get the 1741 remaining board members'questions so we could finish that portion of the program? If not,that's fine. We'll just pick 1742 up where we left off. 1743 1744 Beth Bronson: I just need 2 minutes. 15 minutes for questions will be just fine. 1745 1746 Dolores Bailey: Three? 1747 1748 Chris Johnston: I make a motion to extend by 3 plus 2 is 10 minutes. 1749 1750 Beth Bronson: Nope, 15 minutes. 1751 1752 Chris Johnston: Okay, 15 minutes to finish out the board query and so that we can start the meeting fresh with 1753 public comment. 1754 1755 Marilyn Carter: Second. 1756 1757 Lamar Proctor: All in favor? All opposed? Okay. We'll extend it 15 minutes for the purposes of finishing out 1758 board member questions so we can begin with public comment at the next meeting. 1759 1760 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to extend the meeting by 15 minutes.Seconded by Marilyn Carter 1761 1762 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1763 1764 Dolores Bailey: So, as I was saying, I get what you all are trying to do. I am a board member of Carol Woods 1765 Retirement Center, been a board member for a while. So, I am confused with what this is trying to be. Are you trying 1766 to be a retirement center?Are you trying to be a cooperative? 1767 1768 Mareah Steketee: We are a cooperative. 1769 1770 Dolores Bailey: Okay. So, are you asking us to change the land use only so that you can create a separate 1771 community for this coop? 1772 1773 Mareah Steketee: It is a community that will be guided by principles of cooperative living that really wants to 1774 incorporate aging in place. We're not building walls to separate from other people. We are welcoming to those 1775 people. I mean,we often joke that it would only be appropriate to join this community if you can live with a banjo. 244 Approved 7.10.24 1776 1777 Dolores Bailey: That's not a problem for many of the people I serve. I provide affordable housing and in 1778 Orange County there's a 1,900-unit gap of people who are looking for housing.And seniors in particular, and black 1779 and brown seniors in particular.And Carol Woods has a 1,600 person wait list.And there's not much diversity on that 1780 list. 1781 1782 Mareah Steketee: Correct. 1783 1784 Dolores Bailey: So Carol Woods has not figured out how to provide diversity. I am saying this because if 1785 you're getting ready to build a community like this, you really must look at that. And let me just give a comment on 1786 something you said. The African-American community is no longer able to keep their families at home. They 1787 absolutely want and need places like this but often when they are created, like what this sounds like to my ears, is 1788 exclusive. It does not include everyone and so what I think I heard was that we need to change the zonings because 1789 you want to put in a facility for aging. You're going to put in a family center but you don't want to be seen. 1790 1791 Mareah Steketee: No,we think that others don't want to see us, ma'am. 1792 1793 Dolores Bailey: That is so not true. The need for housing in Orange County is so desperate for everybody. 1794 1795 Mareah Steketee: It is. Yes, it is. 1796 1797 Dolores Bailey: As Chris said, if he could live in this community, he would,too. It's a wonderful-sounding 1798 community. So, if you are not going to restrict it to 55, if this is not a retirement center which we need more of in 1799 Orange County,we do, there's no place for people to age which is why this sounded good to me because it sounded 1800 like you were creating another Carol Woods but that's not what you're doing. So, I am confused. 1801 1802 Mareah Steketee: Well,the confusion probably comes because the CCRCs that you are familiar with, Carol 1803 Woods, etc. are enormously expensive. Many of our community members could not afford to live there and so we're 1804 looking for an alternative that is between,that isn't age restricted. In fact,there's a person who's interested in the 1805 community who says I have a disabled daughter who needs her own home. Can she live in this community? We say 1806 absolutely yes. We're not restricting. We need to do a better job at reaching out, right? A lot of our interested 1807 parties right now don't want to commit because they don't want to do it before zoning. They're more risk averse. We 1808 have a lot of outreach and marketing to do yet. We're at the beginning of that. Even though we have 34 people who 1809 say I want to live there and 100 more who are interested and many more in the background, yes,we can do a better 1810 job of being inclusive. We have not said tonight that we're affordable housing because we have tried very hard to 1811 meet that bar and with a family-care home,two family-care homes,and the expense of a common house and health 1812 facilities, it's very difficult to keep the cost down. That has to be spread across all the people in the community and 1813 once we're established there may be an opportunity to provide some options for people with lower income, but we 1814 don't want to be exclusive in terms of background. 1815 1816 Dolores Bailey: When you mention the affordable side of it, normally we base that on people's income,and if 1817 we're talking about seniors I am convinced there's not going to be a whole lot of really high incomes that are out 1818 there. You talk about exclusivity, you mention the family center and needing caretakers. Will the caretakers be able 1819 to live here? 1820 1821 Mareah Steketee: We've talked about it. 1822 1823 Scott Radway: Dolores,we've known each other and gone through a lot of affordable housing wars on the 1824 same side.And I wanted to make one comment about what people are talking about and some of the questions are 1825 about is anybody could live there that's under 55 and some other things like that. Some of you may have experience 1826 with age 55 or age 62 age-restricted residential developments, and some with CCRCs, and some with assisted living 245 Approved 7.10.24 1827 and some other things, and one of the specific reasons not to do those is because all of those were established 1828 exactly to create discrimination against younger folks and go on down the line. And some of the operating 1829 procedures of what you can do and what you can't do to become a member of the community are flatly outright 1830 racist. And so, part of the effort to trying not to have to be pushed into one of those models is to set up a different 1831 kind of model,which has worked successfully elsewhere, see if can be done here. I guess the biggest thing about it 1832 is, John mentioned this to me and so I'll mention it, one of the things that was part of the design process is the three 1833 buildings of 20 dwelling units. And one of the reasons that it's very useful is because that's an easy place to be able 1834 to provide services to people in their dwelling units. It's also one of the places on the property that is going to cost 1835 the least to build the dwelling units. So,we're looking at this on that model of trying to make it possible to relocate to 1836 this community from a bigger house. I'm not saying the work is done. You know that, but some of the component 1837 pieces are just really difficult to put together, and what we haven't really said tonight, but Maria said it a little bit, 1838 which is a lot of the things you can't get somebody excited about until you've actually got what they think is a project 1839 that's real. And so, one of the steps in this process has been get to the planning board, get further along in the 1840 process on those types of things. We've been asked a question about well,what do you know about this financing 1841 and that financing. Well, I'm not sure I know anybody doing their own house or doing something else that can go into 1842 the bank and say give me a mortgage for$800,000, I'm thinking about building a house. So,we are in the process of 1843 doing these steps and we hope we're doing them right, and we hope we gain some good input which we have. 1844 1845 Dolores Bailey: Scott, you said it was going to be a$65 to$75 million project over the full haul and you know 1846 how many square feet you're going to put into this thing. The way we normally calculate is figuring out how much 1847 we're talking about per square foot for building. 1848 1849 Scott Radway: It's a slightly different model for the costing of this than I would say an individual building or an 1850 individual structure. 1851 1852 Beth Bronson: Do a ballpark. You can do a ballpark. 1853 1854 Scott Radway: We can do a ballpark. We can bring it back to you. What the pieces in the ballpark look like 1855 are wastewater system. We don't have tap fees like you do if you've got public water. We don't have those kinds of 1856 things but we do have another cost. So,we can't give you specific numbers that are going to be realistic probably a 1857 month after we give them to you but they're going to be ballpark. Kind of these are the pieces that go into it. This is 1858 how the cost gets looked at. It's not necessarily something that you might ask, but in a lot of places wouldn't ask, MI 1859 Homes or Toll Brothers or something about it, they'd just say okay,you've been in business a long time. We think 1860 you're good. We've got to get to that step to prove it. 1861 1862 Dolores Bailey: My question, and I know you guys can't answer tonight, about affordability is who's going to be 1863 able to afford it. 1864 1865 Beth Bronson: Thank you very much and to that point, if you're going to have 150 residences and you project 1866 it's going to be$60 million, it's roughly$400,000.00. I'm, I'm just letting anybody know who's saying that this master 1867 plan that they're applying for is for 150 residences and in the application, I understand it's 300 bedrooms. Is that 1868 correct? 1869 1870 Scott Radway: Yes,we're asking for an upset number on dwelling units, 150 and an upset number on 1871 bedrooms as 300. 1872 1873 Beth Bronson: And what I kind of want to clarify because of the master plan development application is that 1874 when you are applying for that, you are required to provide,and this may be specifically with conditional zoning, but 1875 any master plan is conditional, right? So, you are required to provide this level of detail, this level of thought and 1876 output into what would be the plan. Any deviation from that plan would need to come back to the planning board,to 1877 my understanding, if you're going to deviate from the master plan as being approved on whatever conditions they're 246 Approved 7.10.24 1878 being approved. So, if we were to say that, like, how many parking spots you could have,we could put a condition 1879 on that to say,you know,or that your community center couldn't be more than 10,000. It's very arbitrary. I'm just 1880 pointing out that the master plan development is conditional on what is being submitted in the application.And that's 1881 more for, I think, public knowledge than it is for the applicant, per se. I did see four different lift stations for the septic 1882 plan and not to say that's not feasible, but as somebody who's going through that permitting process myself, 1883 understanding how much to do the STEP system might incur and how much land disturbance might be required to 1884 accommodate all of this. Because I think what's very critical is that while it's an activity node, there are no utilities 1885 available at 54, right? So, there is no fire hydrant. There is no septic. There's only volunteer fire departments. So, 1886 when we say first responders,that I think would be the concern that I would have in my line of questioning, and 1 1887 realize we're at 10:10 and to those that are asking about banjo music my friends and I have, and I'm a millennial, 1888 we've been talking about doing this for about a decade. So it's not that,you know, 55 and younger don't want to. It's 1889 that it's a non-attainable thing that a lot of people who are 35 to 45 think oh, I can find a plot of land in a community 1890 that I feel accepted in and then age in place until I'm 70 or 80 or 90. And that is very much, I think,what you guys 1891 have put there as this community, as this coop. I think is is a very ambitious goal and I think it is very much in line 1892 with Orange County,with this aging in place. I don't have to know the very specific goals to know that what's 1893 intended is absolutely aligned with that idea. Whether or not it is prudent of this planning board to recommend that or 1894 not is completely separate of how I personally feel about it. 1895 1896 Scott Radway: Can I have half a minute of the 1 minute that's left, maybe, to answer or make one comment? 1897 1898 Lamar Proctor: There will be an opportunity for debate and discussion amongst the board,so if we can get to the 1899 questions then we can finish. I'm not trying to cut you off. 1900 1901 Beth Bronson: No, I get it. Everybody else had their time. And maybe what we can do with this remaining 1902 time is make this motion to continue,and are we going to be creating a special session or are we going to be meeting 1903 in July? And I apologize if I was late and did not hear about this in the beginning, but we do need to decide whether 1904 or not we are meeting before our next scheduled planning board meeting. 1905 1906 Lamar Proctor: Well, if you're done with your questioning of the applicant,then I can move onto that. 1907 1908 Beth Bronson: Oh, no. I only have 2 minutes and we're supposed to stop so that's why I figured it was 1909 necessary. 1910 1911 Lamar Proctor: Okay. My intent was to just resume through the normal process at the July meeting on 1912 July 10th,just continue with this agenda. 1913 1914 Beth Bronson: Okay. 1915 1916 Lamar Proctor: And I will welcome suggestions from staff. 1917 1918 Cy Stober: Well, point of order is we have two applications that have a due process need to be completed 1919 in July so we're going to need to talk about agenda composition and how they are ordered. One is a by-right 1920 subdivision that you've already reviewed as a concept plan for the Stonewall subdivision and the other is a down 1921 zoning for the Common Ground project on Frazier Road. 1922 1923 Charity Kirk: Both of those you want in July? 1924 1925 Cy Stober: They have a right to be heard in due time, so they need to be scheduled at some point. So, I'll 1926 probably need to speak with Mr. Beeman and Mr. Proctor about it, and the staff attorney, James Bryan,about how 1927 we process these, so they are able to get their due process and get to a public hearing in due time. 1928 247 Approved 7.10.24 1929 Marilyn Carter: You would like them in July? 1930 1931 Cy Stober: They're tentatively on the schedule. The first available hearing date is not until September so 1932 conceivably it could be August. 1933 1934 Lamar Proctor: So, I welcome staff to help us. 1935 1936 Cy Stober: We'll need to discuss more offline. So, if you schedule this, the date certain is the next 1937 scheduled board meeting. That's fine but then we also have several text amendments. You're going to have a busy 1938 summer. 1939 1940 Charity Kirk: Would you suggest we schedule a special session? 1941 1942 Cy Stober: It would help the staff to a degree. I'll be on parental leave so those folks over there may want 1943 to kill me but,you could schedule a special session,or we just need to ensure that those other applications are heard 1944 prior to September. 1945 1946 Statler Gilfillen: Can we just take a moment to schedule a special session based on what you've said. 1947 1948 Cy Stober: And I can discuss with the chair and vice chair offline but if you would like to schedule this to 1949 the date certain being July 10th,that's fine and it'll just affect how we have this conversation about the other 1950 applications that we have in the queue. 1951 1952 Lamar Proctor: Well, I can also entertain a motion if the board wants to continue this on June 19th. 1953 1954 Chris Johnston: June 19th is Juneteenth. 1955 1956 Cy Stober: It's a holiday. 1957 1958 Lamar Proctor: Oh. That's right. June 261H 1959 1960 Statler Gilfillen: I'll make a motion that we do this and continue it on June 26th. I'm trying to get us out of here. 1961 1962 Chris Johnston: I second. 1963 1964 Lamar Proctor: All in favor of having a special session to continue this agenda on June 26th. 1965 1966 Beth Bronson: I'm not available so I vote no. 1967 1968 Steven Kaufmann: Well, I have a comment on that. Between now and 4th of July is like major vacation time. And 1969 1 would be in favor of staying with our schedule but then possibly having other meetings in July after that date 1970 because I think we're going to be missing a lot of people. 1971 1972 Chris Johnston: Having a special session for the two other items because we need to finish this one out. 1973 1974 Cy Stober: Yeah,we can figure that out. 1975 1976 Lamar Proctor: So, I had a motion for June 26th with a second so I'm going to—we had some discussion so 1977 I'm going to take another vote on whether to continue this on June 261h. All in favor, raise your hand. All opposed 1978 raise your hand. So,can we get a count on that? 1979 248 Approved 7.10.24 1980 Charity Kirk: Five. 1981 1982 Cy Stober: It's a split vote. It fails. 1983 1984 MOTION BY Statler Gilfillen to hold a special meeting on June 261h. Seconded by Chris Johnston. 1985 1986 IN FAVOR: Statler Gilfillen, Charity Kirk, Chris Johnston, Whitney Watson, Liz Kalies 1987 OPPOSED: Marilyn Carter, Steve Kaufmann, Lamar Proctor, Dolores Bailey, Beth Bronson 1988 MOTION FAILED 5 TO 5 1989 1990 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. 1991 1992 Beth Bronson: I would just say, if Wednesday has to be the day, if there was an availability for everybody on 1993 the 13th or the 201H 1994 1995 Charity Kirk: So, it fails so we're going to have it on July 10th? 1996 1997 Lamar Proctor: Yeah. It would be July 10th. 1998 1999 Cy Stober: Yes,the next scheduled regular meeting is Wednesday,July 10th due to the 4th of July 2000 holiday. 2001 2002 Lamar Proctor: So,just so the record is clear,we will continue this session on July 10th and we will finish with 2003 any follow-up questions briefly from board members and move as quickly as possible into public comment. Does 2004 anyone have any discussion about that plan? Okay. So,that will be the next date to continue this agenda. Thank 2005 you. Do I have a motion? 2006 2007 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT 2008 2009 Chris Johnston: I make a motion to adjourn for the night. 2010 2011 Steve Kaufmann: Second. 2012 2013 Lamar Proctor: All in favor? Any opposed. All right. Thank you. 2014 2015 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Steve Kaufmann 2016 2017 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 2018 2019 The meeting adjourned at 10:18 PM. 2020 2021 2022 28023 �N 249 Approved 8.7.24 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 33 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 34 The meeting began at 7:02 PM. 35 36 Adam Beeman: I'm going to call this meeting to order. Before we get started, I have Tom Altieri with a few 37 informational items. 38 39 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 40 41 Tom Altieri: Yes, thank you. Just about a 60 second announcement before you get started, I'm Tom 42 Altieri, Orange County senior planner. I wanted to announce that the County is currently 43 working on a process to update its land use plan. The project is called Land Use Plan 44 2050. We will be kicking off our second window of community engagement in late 45 September and it will span through October. We have a kickoff meeting that's scheduled 46 at Gravelly Hill Middle School on September 25th. That will be from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Maybe 47 more so for the benefit of the group here this evening, we'll also be holding a meeting on 48 the plan update in the White Cross area at the American Legion Post facility off of NC 54. 49 1 do not yet have a date for that meeting, but that will be in October. We have not started 50 the notification process yet, but we will certainly be doing that and getting the word out for 51 those meetings as well as some others in the county to be scheduled, but I wanted to 52 make that announcement this evening. If people, tonight, are interested and want to sign 250 Approved 8.7.24 53 up for updates on the project, they can do that. It's a website 54 orangecountylanduseplan.com, and I welcome you to do that, and I'll be back to the 55 Planning Board for your September meeting with a more detailed update on the process. 56 1 have a few links to the website, notification brochures, that I'll leave on the back table 57 here for any members of the public that might want to pick that up on their way out. 58 59 Charity Kirk: Do you know when the draft version of the plan is going to be out for discussion? 60 61 Tom Altieri: We'll have a draft version for our third wave of outreach, which will be late this year, 62 possibly early in the new year, and then that will precede a public hearing process to 63 occur later, probably after our summer meeting break next year, so ball parking around 64 the September, October timeframe for a potential county commissioner hearing and, of 65 course, a planning board recommendation that would precede it. 66 67 Charity Kirk: Thank you. 68 69 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 70 None. 71 72 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 73 74 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 75 The Board of County Commissioners, underthe authority of North Carolina General Statute, 76 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land 77 development law of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish 78 coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers 79 the present and future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive 80 process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall 81 County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and 82 quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 83 84 PUBLIC CHARGE 85 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks 86 its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board 87 and with fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to 88 observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting 89 until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair 90 will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is 91 observed. 92 93 Adam Beeman read the public charge. 94 95 Adam Beeman: I don't have any other comments. As of the last meeting, the staff had done their 96 presentation and the applicant tonight has 5 minutes to get up there, and he has an 97 update to something that he was adjusting from comments, so he's going to have 5 98 minutes to speak, and then the board has two people that have left to question the 99 applicant, and then we'll go to public comment. As far as public comment is concerned, if 100 you weren't here and did not sign up to speak in the June meeting, unfortunately, you will 101 not be allowed to speak tonight. There is an avenue through Google docs where you can 102 submit your comments to us. There's an avenue through Google docs where you can 251 Approved 8.7.24 103 submit your comments to the board of county commissioners, and you can also go to the 104 board of county commissioners meeting and have your public comments heard there 105 when this application gets to them. With nothing else, we're going to give the applicant 106 his 5 minutes to update us on what he had changed and then we're going to move on to 107 questioning and get onto the public comment. 108 109 Edwin Cox: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening, everyone. I'm Edwin Cox. I'm the president 110 of Hands Four. We've heard some comments at the June 5th meeting to the effect that it 111 was not clear that we were fully committed to be a community of elderly residents and that 112 we needed, or it would be advisable for us to provide, some sort of very credible indication 113 that that is the case, and we took that to heart. We went back and became more fully 114 informed about what it means to be a community of persons 55 and older. That is 115 enshrined in the law and a very specific terminology. It brings very specific criteria for 116 being such a community. I won't go into those now for the lack of time, but we studied 117 that very carefully and became more informed, and we took it to our community, our 118 cooperative, and as a cooperative we have now decided that we will declare ourselves to 119 be a community for persons 55 and older. I can explain more about that in response to 120 questions later in the meeting, but that's what we have to say at the moment. 121 122 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 123 124 Adam Beeman: Thank you very much. I also had to approve the minutes from last month. Do I have a 125 motion to approve last month's minutes? 126 127 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to approve the meeting minutes. Seconded by Lamar Proctor 128 129 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 130 131 Adam Beeman: All right. Beth? You're up if you have any questions for the applicant because you didn't 132 get a chance to finish. 133 134 Beth Bronson: Thank you. The last time I was up here, I asked about the utilities and emergency 135 services, I believe that was where we left off. I guess that my question for the applicant 136 would be what kind of integration or communication have you had with the county's 137 emergency services or the volunteer fire departments, first responders, as to how you 138 would handle an emergency in the rural area for the group medical centers? 139 140 Scott Radway: Thank you for the question. I don't have a graphic up here yet or available to show that 141 as deep in all the other material that's in there, but for a quick answer, let me do the 142 emergency responder person issue first. Orange County requires that residential 143 developments that have more than 100 dwelling units have two ways in and out to the 144 property and that's what we have on the plan, a primary entrance on Morrow Mill Road 145 and what we believe will be an emergency vehicle service entrance only from Goldmine 146 Loop. We have worked with them at a number of meetings and gone through the various 147 pieces of fire protection that are needed, police protection, vehicles, how they get in and 148 how they get out, how they work within the internal road system, and then connected that 149 also with what happens for fire service, which was a portion of the question, and for fire 150 service, there's different layers for the proposed three multi-story, three-story buildings. 151 Those all have to be sprinklered. So, part of the system that we will be putting in place, 152 the wells and the public water system regulated by the state, will be lines of sufficient 252 Approved 8.7.24 153 pressure and sufficient capacity and storage so that all of those buildings will be 154 sprinklered according to building code, which is State code and County code also. There 155 will also be a public, if you will call it, water system, although it's not a public like county 156 owned or city owned, that will be lines that provide distribution water to all of the 157 properties, all the homes, all the buildings, and those will also be operated just as if they 158 were a municipal utility providing water from all of the water quality requirements, all of the 159 water pressure requirements, all of those things. Again, that is reviewed and approved or 160 criticized and resubmitted and approved by the state. The County also has a role in that 161 you don't directly approve those pieces, but I think as Cy noted at the last meeting, the 162 County has a direct obligation to make sure that those rules and that this proposal actually 163 are copacetic and do work together, and so there are overlaps of looks at that. The water 164 distribution will go basically along the street system that's internal,just like it would in a 165 city structure with water pipes, and the same for collection for wastewater, which would go 166 to a treatment plant, and then which goes through a treatment level and out, so that's sort 167 of the basic structure, that organization, of how those pieces fit together. 168 169 Beth Bronson: Thank you, I saw the proposed water assessment and having the four main wells, and 170 then I also saw from the department of environment quality that where those wells were 171 located were also in protected areas, buffer zones for the existing protected waters that 172 were there, either the streams or ephemeral streams— 173 174 Scott Radway: You saw that they were or were not? 175 176 Beth Bronson: They were within the areas of where the stream buffers would be. 177 178 Scott Radway: No, they are not. Those wells are located outside the buffers required by both the State 179 and the County, and there is an additional dimensional feature in there in addition to just 180 buffers of how far you have to actually be from the stream. And so, of the wells we have 181 proposed and all that we would ever get permitted, none of them can be within a buffer 182 and the ones that are showing on our plan are not within any buffers or any protected 183 stream areas. It's hard when you're looking at a small drawing of a big map to be able to 184 decipher all of those pieces. 185 186 Beth Bronson: I was looking at Attachment 1, Page 206, but it was where those four wells are proposed 187 and you are correct, well C does not look like it and they do not look like they are near the 188 buffer area but thank you very much for addressing those concerns. I guess I did not see 189 in that report that there was a proposal for any kind.You have worked with emergency 190 services to make sure that you've required this, but that is depending upon the pipes 191 being to pressure at all times or there'd be a reservoir for the sprinkler system? 192 193 Scott Radway: There's a minimum pressure you have to have all the time in the fire sprinkler system. In 194 addition to that, if a sprinkler head comes on, there is a pressure that you have to have 195 and that has to be maintained in the system and it's based on time. So, you'd have to 196 have that to operate for a number of minutes. There's two overlaps here as it fits in within 197 the county's volunteer fire structure, which is, the most important pieces are don't let 198 damage happen or absolutely minimize the damage until the fire protection services can 199 get to the property with their equipment and so we have not run a time structure test on 200 this yet in order to size the tanks and to work on the pressure, but before we get 201 approved, we anticipate we will have the fire company out there, from the cooperating 202 agreements with Carrboro and others, Hillsborough agreement, for service for aerial 253 Approved 8.7.24 203 trucks also that we will have worked out what is the time period for which we will keep that 204 pressurized system in place. I've done one of these before in Orange County for a 205 neighborhood of single-family houses, and we couldn't get permission until we absolutely 206 satisfied the State on the time periods. 207 208 Beth Bronson: Understandable. So,just to be clear that the three-story buildings that have a care facility 209 in them, those will have the sprinkler systems, or the community center would have them, 210 but then all of the 150 homes that are proposed would not, and they would be specifically 211 reliant on the emergency services that were available in that district? In Bingham? 212 213 Scott Radway: The three-story buildings for multifamily would have sprinklers. The other 90 dwellings 214 that we've proposed are single family houses sort of side-by-side, attached single family, 215 and then three together townhouse or triplex, realtor language differs from regulatory 216 language, but those can be sprinklered. They don't have to be sprinklered by building 217 code, and being the location that's pretty accessible, so we have some time response 218 things, so I think working advantage of this location. 219 220 Beth Bronson: I did drive by there today and did a time trip from the intersection at Morrow Mill and 54 221 down to the hospital, the emergency department basically, and it was 15 minutes. It was 222 interesting to see because I grew up in that area, and so I know kind of how far out of 223 town it is, but you forget how close and yet how far away as well. 224 225 Scott Radway: I did that trip 2 weeks ago myself. 226 227 Beth Bronson: Oh my. I hope there were no potholes. 228 229 Scott Radway: Thank you for your questions. 230 231 Adam Beeman: For expediency, I'm just going to go right to the public comments unless anybody else has 232 any other questions. 233 234 Beth Bronson: If I had a comment that was pending, I do not have it anymore. 235 236 Adam Beeman: Anybody else on the board have any follow-ups? 237 238 Statler Gilfillen: I just would like a clarification of the first gentleman that spoke. You made the comment 239 that it is declared that it would be for people over 55. Is that meant that you are declaring 240 it as a legal issue to include in the final documents so that that is binding? Declared 241 doesn't tell me. Is it legally binding? That's all. 242 243 Scott Radway: That's a great question and it pushes us into the weeds on some issues. If you're an age 244 55, there's three types of descriptions you can say that HUD finds, or the federal register 245 has found in its definitions to be acceptable for this community. One is it's senior housing, 246 one is a retirement community, or one is its age 55 plus and you have to advertise and go 247 through a whole bunch of legal steps, and if you don't advertise correctly of what you are 248 and other things, you're subject to a number of penalties. You can, we can, an applicant 249 can, but somebody will declare that they are an age-restricted, age 55-plus community 250 and then there's, we talked a little bit about it last month, there is the split between how 251 many households have to be occupied by people that are 55 and older and how many 252 could be occupied that are 54 and younger, and as a community or as an entity you can 254 Approved 8.7.24 253 choose. The minimum you can do is you have to be at least 80 percent senior housing 254 occupied by 55 and older. The mechanisms for enforcement of that are some are civil, 255 and they go with people who are residents of that development. If they don't think it's at 256 the right balance, they can bring a complaint, and they can go to court and adjudicate it in 257 that fashion. The most likely way to make it a binding agreement would be that the 258 applicant offers that it will be this kind of a community to the county commissioners. They 259 agree that that's a good thing, and with both parties in agreement, it could then be put into 260 the zoning approval. 261 262 Adam Beeman: What he's asking is, are you guys proposing that as a condition for the zoning package, 263 so in the zoning package, the condition would be a 55 and older community. I think that's 264 what he's trying to get to here. Are you guys willing to put that in writing as a condition 265 right now as part of our consideration, pretty sure that's what he's asking. 266 267 Scott Radway: We are proposing, yes, that it will be age 55 community. 268 269 Adam Beeman: And that is a condition? 270 271 Statler Gilfillen: Put it in writing so that it's a legal binding issue. That's all. 272 273 Scott Radway: We can't do that at this time. We can put it in writing what we're proposing. It doesn't 274 become legal until the board of county commissioners would do something with it. For 275 our intent with you, yes. 276 277 Adam Beeman: Right, this is the back and forth. We can negotiate, like if we wanted to say oh, we want 278 you to put up solar panels on everybody's building, you say no. Well, we can go back and 279 forth and have that discussion. And so, in that same step that you guys are proposing, the 280 55 and older, then that would be a condition in the zoning where that's a 55 and older 281 community period. 282 283 Scott Radway: I thought the question was more about at what point is it possible to insert that as a legal 284 condition within the zoning approval process. 285 286 Adam Beeman: If that's what you are guys are saying is a condition, then that will be part of our approval if 287 we do approve it at the end of the night, it will be included in our verbiage that it's a 55 288 and older community, so if you guys are in agreement, then we'll move forward from there 289 and get the public comment. 290 291 Lamar Proctor: Just a follow-up question to that, what you're saying is if you use that specific verbiage, 292 then that puts you under federal regulations to that 80 percent, at least 80 percent of the 293 housing has to be sold to or owned by persons 55 and older? 294 295 Scott Radway: Not precisely that. It has to be occupied by somebody 55 or older, so I could buy it for my 296 mother, or I could own it for my mother to be in it and there are, if you want to read the full 297 set of federal register regulations from 1999, I'll be glad to forward them to you. 298 299 Lamar Proctor: So, 80 percent of the occupants? 300 301 Scott Radway: Eighty percent occupancy by household that's got one 55 or older person and you have to 302 do an annual census of the residents and the dwelling units in the property and have that 255 Approved 8.7.24 303 record available any time somebody wants to look at it. One of the things that I think Pat 304 and I talked about is an aspect of reporting that information back to the County. The 305 County is left out of that process. Local government is left out of that process via the 306 federal regulations, but it's a piece of information for follow up to verify that the 307 development is doing what it says it was going to do, and so that's another mechanism of 308 making sure that it happens. 309 310 Adam Beeman: Thank you. 311 312 Beth Bronson: The only other condition I would discuss is basically you were explaining about the first 313 responder, you referred to the Goldmine Loop entrance as an emergency vehicle only 314 entrance. 315 316 Scott Radway: Yes. 317 318 Beth Bronson: And is that the original intention and is that an okay condition for the approval? 319 320 Scott Radway: I would say the original intention when we did the first concept, no it wasn't based on 321 where dwelling units were in initial concepts and as they evolved we reached the point 322 where it became apparent that most of our development was going to go out to, and the 323 application you have with the location of dwelling units, neighbors across the street on 324 Goldmine Road, Mr. Fox and his family and their neighbors, when we met with them two 325 times at least, discussed the issue of traffic coming out and being on that road, and so we 326 did explore what mechanism is there for doing an emergency services access entrance 327 only, and so again, back to talking to emergency services and go through all of the other 328 pieces that have to go through there, and as a County, you already have standards for the 329 kind of gated emergency vehicle access that could be used, and so there is both the 330 standard and a model in many places already in the county for that kind of gate piece to 331 occur. We have thought about where it might be, along that entrance road, how it would 332 make possible for somebody who makes a mistake to get into the site and turn around 333 safely, so the gate might not be right at the edge of the property. It might be internal to 334 the property some distance, but the goal and the effect would be to keep all of the 335 Fiddlehead Corner traffic going out onto Morrow Mill Road. Back to your back and forth 336 and the discussion among yourselves and with the community, is if you think that's 337 inadvisable with the issues around the neighborhood, I'd suggest that you put that within 338 your recommendations. 339 340 Beth Bronson: Thank you very much for providing those responses and clarification. 341 342 Adam Beeman: So, we're going to head to public comment. There's a time of 3 minutes. We have one 343 person that was granted 12 minutes to speak. She will speak first. I'm going to call three 344 names. If you guys just want to come up, stand in the line and we can move through this 345 because if everybody here speaks we have 3 hours of public comment. I need to ask that 346 if it's redundant and repetitive, please just say I agree with so and so and we can kind of 347 get through this. I'm not trying to strip you from your time, but to hear you say it over and 348 over again it's going to be a long night. 349 350 Charity Kirk: Should they clarify the topic they're supposed to be speaking about. 351 352 Adam Beeman: We're just going to let them have their 3 minutes. 256 Approved 8.7.24 353 354 Charity Kirk: But it's 3 minutes per item. 355 356 Adam Beeman: Correct. 357 358 Charity Kirk: So, which item are you? 359 360 Adam Beeman: Item 7 is the first one up. So, comprehensive plan, future land use map, and text 361 amendments, but before we start that, Laura Streitfeld has the floor for 12 minutes. 362 363 Statler Gilfillen: Can I just make a comment. I think we all remember that one of the greatest speeches in 364 American history about one of the most complex things ever said was the Gettysburg 365 address. Lincoln condensed it down into 2 minutes. You have each got 3'/z minutes. 366 Thank you. 367 368 Chris Johnston: I apologize, so to confirm we have re-split up the 3-minute speaking time for someone 369 based on— 370 371 Charity Kirk: I thought it was 9 minutes total. 372 373 Adam Beeman: Based on what I have, I'm going to read your name and if you happen to be on another 374 page, you're going to get your name and you come back for another 3 minutes and if 375 you're on another page, I'm going to read your name again, you're going to come up and 376 get your third 3 minutes. That's the way that this has been labeled. 377 378 Chris Johnston: All right. Does there need to be a clarification of what the speaker is talking about when 379 they come up to speak. 380 381 Charity Kirk: I thought it was just 9 minutes total and all at once. 382 383 Adam Beeman: Nope. Because, technically, you signed up to speak on that particular amendment, and if 384 you don't, you're not talking about that topic, then it's kind of just tough. I'm just going to 385 let everybody have their time and we're going to listen to what everybody has to say. 386 387 Charity Kirk: I would, I would rather not have people repeat the same thing 3 minutes, 3 minutes, and 3 388 minutes. 389 390 Adam Beeman: Correct, that's why I asked to not be redundant. Just stand up and agree with the 391 previous person if that's what you do, make it strong. The floor is yours. 392 393 AGENDA ITEM 7: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP(FLUM)AND TEXT AMENDMENTS—To 394 continue review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on applicant-initiated amendments to the 2030 395 Comprehensive Plan to amend the FLUM to expand a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN); and to 396 amend the text of Appendix F: Land Use and Zoning Matrix. The BOCC public hearing date is "to be 397 determined." 398 399 Laura Streitfeld: I'm Laura Streitfeld, and I live on Morrow Farm Lane off of Morrow Mill Road in Bingham 400 Township. I'm speaking first about Item 7. According to the planning director, until this 401 application no developer has asked to change the county's comprehensive plan, which is 402 guided by robust public participation. This meeting is continued and although some of us 257 Approved 8.7.24 403 signed up to speak in June, the numerous community members opposed to the project, 404 who are here tonight hoping to speak, and yet, even if everyone here were to speak 405 tonight, we represent a small fraction of the wider community expected to participate in 406 envisioning County land use policy for the next 26 years. On Highway 54 and Morrow Mill 407 Road, there's a gas station, convenience store, and Piedmont Feed fully consistent with 408 the definition of rural neighborhood activity nodes in the LIDO and comprehensive plan. 409 Seeking rural neighborhood activity node, which I'll call RNAN, designation to add 70 plus 410 acres of mixed use, serving only this proposed private development's residents and 411 visitors is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan's direction to locate RNANs to serve 412 the local agricultural and residential community. Changing policy to allow commercial use 413 with no public benefit on a non-crossroads property would threaten the genuine public 414 interest of local communities of crossroads throughout Orange County. The future land 415 use map includes ten RNAN nodes totaling 1,166 acres and 82 percent of that is zoned 416 agricultural residential, 15 percent of it is R1 residential. By design, these nodes are 417 confined to a small radius. This developer requests adding 70 plus acres to a 125-acre 418 node beyond the circle. The intersection of 54 and Morrow Mill Road, like other nodes, is 419 not in an area marked for transition from rural to urban-type development or infrastructure. 420 This is a significant inconsistency because development standards in the UDO state that 421 MPD-CD districts shall be limited to transition land use categories. If this board were to 422 recommend allowing MPD-CDs in nodes, you would open up ten nodes in non-transition 423 areas to unlimited exponential high-density intrusion into the surrounding low-density rural 424 communities. It's important to note that if you were to rezone a conditional district in a 425 node, there's an exception in which acreage limitations do not apply as they would for the 426 existing small-scale LC1 or NC2 commercial zoning, each of which are limited to a 427 maximum of 5 acres under the existing ordinance. I urge you not to recommend this 428 change to the future land use map and comprehensive plan because there are significant 429 unanswered questions about the rationale for allowing multiple and mixed uses in our 430 node. At the last meeting, the developer stated they would provide no services to outside 431 people, such as restaurants. The full range of proposed commercial uses are unclear in 432 the application packet, but in communications with planning staff and at neighborhood and 433 orientation meetings, the developer has discussed a pub, a coffee shop, and a store 434 exclusively for the development's investors and guests. The developer's proposal is 435 inconsistent with Appendix F stating that a rural neighborhood activity node identifies 436 areas in the county where small-scale commercial uses serving the population in the 437 surrounding area are appropriate and the overlay locational criteria that say serving the 438 local low density rural and agricultural population generally less than 1,000 persons. So, 439 residents of a high-density development cannot simultaneously be part of the node and 440 also be the low-density population surrounding the node. We in the Morrow Mill Road and 441 Goldmine Loop communities make up the surrounding population, and we would not be 442 served. Please do not allow a single developer to re-write County policy to benefit 443 themselves and burden rural communities around all ten nodes with misplaced high- 444 density use in low-density areas without supporting infrastructure. There would be zero 445 harm in not recommending the proposed LIDO amendments in Item 7. Not expanding the 446 node would not harm the public interest because the proposal does not plan uses that 447 would serve members of the public. Not allowing MPD-CD districts and RNANs would not 448 harm local communities because rural communities at these nodes are not seeking high- 449 density mixed-use development that would encroach on farms and rural properties. Item 450 8, 1 urge you not to amend the UDO to allow family care homes in an MPD-CD zoning 451 district. The developer proposes changing UDOs necessary to build these centers and 452 that the rural neighborhood activity nodes designation should change. The parcel's 258 Approved 8.7.24 453 current AR zoning, however, already permits family care centers without rezoning. The 454 claim that these centers should be a permitted use that family care homes should be a 455 permitted use in MPD-CDs to align with state law raises several unanswered questions. 456 While North Carolina law defines family care homes as a permissible use in all residential 457 districts, an MPD-CD district provides for nonresidential and mixed-use developments as 458 well as large scale subdivisions and allows quote "flexibility to accommodate land use 459 adjustments in response to evolving market trends." It appears from communications 460 over the past year and a half the planning staff and the developer have been discussing 461 who staff or developer would request this change to permit family care homes in MPD-CD 462 zoning. This proposal is part of a wholesale attempt by the developer to re-write County 463 ordinances and comprehensive planning to benefit a single developer. Please do not 464 approve this proposed amendment, given that the motivation for it and beneficiaries of the 465 proposed changes remain unclear. Please note that the analysis and staff 466 recommendation in the agenda packet referring to healthcare include inaccuracies. The 467 statement of consistency claims that the development would provide outpatient medical 468 care and I heard earlier a discussion about a group medical center. This is unfounded 469 because according to definitions in state law and the health and human services 470 department, a family care facility does not require skilled nursing or physicians for 471 licensing and would not provide medical care, outpatient, or inpatient. It's simply a facility 472 providing personal care for daily living. There would be zero harm in not recommending 473 the proposed LIDO amendments from Item 8. Not recommending this change would not 474 harm people seeking to establish a family care home in a residential district because 475 family care homes are permitted in residential zones, including agricultural residential. 476 Item 9, rezoning from agricultural residential to master plan conditional would streamline 477 the application process but only benefiting the developer to the detriment of the 478 surrounding community. According to the UDO, MPD-CD districts shall be limited to 479 transition land use categories within the Orange County planning jurisdiction and rural 480 community nodes. By design, our low-density agricultural residential zone without water 481 or sewer lines, public transit, or sidewalks, is not slated to support the massive 482 infrastructure needs of high-density development without depleting limited water 483 resources and irrevocably transforming farmland, waterways, and woodlands. The 484 proposed rezoning is wildly incompatible with the surrounding multi-generational 485 community. Recommending the proposed rezoning and a decade or more of construction 486 would likely displace existing community members, heritage farms, and young farmers 487 currently thriving and supporting older relatives who are truly aging in place. The 488 developer proposes changes that threaten not only this rural community but all of Orange 489 County's current and future farmers, food economy, consumers of local products, and 490 open space. The Morrow Mill and Goldmine Loop residents are a model of successful 491 rural community. We're thriving despite a series of problematic proposals for the area that 492 have put farms, public health, and the environment at risk. We firmly reject this project 493 because it threatens an existing community. I want to clarify some key information about 494 diabase dikes. In 1991, an attempt to site a landfill was defeated because it would have 495 leached contaminants into ground water based on a rock formation called a diabase dike 496 on Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road,just up the road from this facility. In 2008, 497 commissioners learned of the presence of the same diabase dike in the same area 498 proposed for developing the UNC Airport at the time that was defeated. More recently, 499 neighbors at the corner of Morrow Mill and Highway 54 have had their wells contaminated 500 by leakage from a previous gas station. This developer's proposal for massive water 501 draws and disposal of liquid sewage would further threaten these wells, surrounding 502 neighbors with a cluster of polluting infrastructure co-located next to them and raising 259 Approved 8.7.24 503 potential issues of environmental justice. Now, on a parcel just up the road, the applicant 504 has touted the benefits of the same diabase dike rock formation as a positive sign that the 505 wells will run massive water draws of 36,000-plus gallons per day. Unfortunately, altered 506 or fractured diabase dikes can allow contaminants to pass unfiltered down into ground 507 water. According to Dr. Paul Fullagar, a former chair and emeritus faculty of UNC's 508 Geology Department and a resident of Morrow Farm Lane and my neighbor, the dikes are 509 unlike sandstone and limestone which filter out contaminants. The applicant's own report 510 acknowledges water capacity is unpredictable, but it fails to disclose that the combination 511 of diabase dikes and sewage disposal on 22 acres of the property as a significant risk of 512 contaminated wells. Fullagar notes that anyone who thinks they know they can get a high 513 volume of water from a diabase dike is fooling themselves. He says that that location is 514 particularly risky for every well in the area as well as for the developers themselves 515 because disposal of 36,000-plus gallons a day of liquid sewage with a drip septic system 516 may allow contaminants to go directly down into ground water. The project risks depleting 517 ground water for surrounding neighbors and farms. For residences alone, the proposed 518 development would use 36,000 gallons a day, but that doesn't count water for other 519 facilities, fire suppression, sprinklers, landscaping and irrigation with no requirement prior 520 to rezoning to prove there's water available. Thirty-six thousand gallons of water a day 521 draws would far exceed the ability of the ground water to recharge itself, according to the 522 developer's own report citing a nearby location on Orange Grove Road at Cane Creek 523 where the recharge rate is less than 400 gallons per day per acre. Massive water draws 524 would strain our very limited water supply. An informal survey of neighbors surrounding 525 the property finds wells ranging from 1 to 5 to 8 gallons per day. Many nearby properties 526 also have diabase dikes. I ask you to make your decision based on protecting the water 527 supply for all of Orange County. This project is inconsistent with guidance in the land use 528 element directing development away from rural areas in order to prevent pricing out 529 farmers from their own land. The comprehensive plan cites the potential for complaints 530 and legal actions against farmers if more urban residents were to assert that farm 531 operations are incompatible with subdivision residents. The developer's proposal is 532 incompatible with existing and future farms, and it also threatens the watershed. The 533 applicant proposes locating wastewater fields along streams that lead into Collins Creek, 534 which flows into the Haw River and drinking water supply in Jordan Lake. There would be 535 zero harm in not recommending the proposed changes to the future land use map and 536 comprehensive plan in Agenda Item 7. While the request claims to meet the future needs 537 of a so-called tsunami of aging people in Chapel Hill who need affordable housing 538 options, this claim is unfounded. The proposal would not address the local need for 539 housing because, according to the applicant's statements at the neighborhood information 540 meeting and their orientation meetings, they've recruited a network of out-of-state people 541 who are waiting to purchase units. Not recommending these proposed changes would 542 not harm seniors because the developers are not restricting sales by age. Not 543 recommending this project would not harm people seeking affordable housing because 544 the proposal offers no plan for income-based affordability or for recruiting or subsidizing 545 lower-income residents and because banks do not give mortgages for cooperative 546 housing, meaning that any potential buyers would need to pay cash. Not recommending 547 this project will not harm diverse communities because the proposal offers no plan for 548 recruiting diverse residents. At the last meeting, the developer said that someone driving 549 by would not see this site in a flash of a second when they drove by the entrance. 550 However, the developer has been contacting Orange County asking for guidelines about 551 purchasing a sign and installing a sign similar to the one at the American Legion that's 552 electronic and illuminated. Given the presence of large signs, a widened roadway, turn 260 Approved 8.7.24 553 lanes, sidewalks, bus stops and three-story buildings with lighting that would extend into 554 the community, I believe that people would see this site from the road, and it would differ 555 from what's out there. Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it. 556 557 Adam Beeman: So, let me just clarify. The first item up is the comprehensive plan, future land use map, 558 and text amendments. I'm going to call your name up, you come up, give me your 3 559 minutes on this amendment, and then you can sit down, and if you're signed up for 560 another one, you can come up and give me your 3 minutes on the next amendment, and 561 we'll go through all three amendments. I apologize if I butcher your name. Some of your 562 handwriting is tough to read. Kevin Davidson, Clare Steece Julich, and Ralph Warren. 563 564 Patrick Mallett: Sir, as they come up if they could just clearly state their names so we can get the 565 transcription correct. 566 567 Adam Beeman: Okay. 568 569 Edwin Cox: Kevin Davidson is a member of our development team, so, he's not going to make a 570 public statement. 571 572 Adam Beeman: Okay. So, Claire, Ralph Warren, and Dan Eddleman. 573 574 Clare Steece Julich: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the Planning Board. I'm Clare Steece Julich. 1 575 live out in Bingham Township on 9 wooded acres. I've lived out there with my husband 576 for over 35 years. I'm a member of 2T and Hands Four Development Cooperative, and 1 577 hope to be a resident of Fiddlehead Corner. There are many Fiddlehead Corner 578 supporters here this evening tonight, and I'd like them to raise their hands now. Thank 579 you all. I live across from Sykes Dairy Farm in Bingham Township. I'm 7 miles from the 580 Fiddlehead Corners property. I've observed the changes that have occurred to the rural 581 qualities of the county over the past 3 decades. I've been pleased by the efforts of our 582 county leadership to promote sustainable growth and development that balances the 583 social and environmental needs and the economic factors. This kind of growth can serve 584 the needs of the people for housing while maintaining natural systems in a fiscally sound 585 way, and it's described in Page 1-7 of the comprehensive plan. The June 5th Planning 586 Board meeting packet has an analysis starting on Page 37 in which the planning director 587 states that the applicant's proposal is supportive of the following principles, goals, and 588 objectives outlined within the comprehensive plan and goes on to cite nine specific 589 examples. The last of those is promote clustering of residential development and 590 dedication of large areas of undisturbed land for low-impact recreational use by residents 591 and for wildlife habitat. He concludes the proposal establishes consistency between the 592 comprehensive plan and the applicant's request for MPD-CD zoning as part of the 593 Fiddlehead Corner development proposal. The UDO follows this theme of conservation 594 cluster development in Section 7.12 addressing flexible development. The purpose of 595 flexible development, it says, is to preserve agriculture and forestry lands, natural and 596 cultural features, environmentally sensitive areas and areas with potential for maintaining 597 the character of the community that might be otherwise lost or marginalized with the 598 conventional development. If Fiddlehead Corner proposed for a conventional residential 599 district or even a residential conditional district, its design is exactly what the planners in 600 the earlier boards of commissioners had in mind as an ideal type of development that 601 fulfills the vision for sustainable growth in Orange County. The type of project we are 602 proposing can be an antidote to the creeping sprawl that is occurring in many parts of our 261 Approved 8.7.24 603 region. We hope you, the Planning Board, will keep these considerations in mind as you 604 deliberate. Thank you. 605 606 Ralph Warren: Good evening and thank you for this opportunity. My name is Ralph Warren. My spouse 607 and I own land on the eastern boundary of the application, and we've lived on our land for 608 50 years. We're in a neighborhood of four households within one hundred and nine acres 609 of land. I have lived in Orange County since 1954, with the exception of 7 years of 610 Raleigh residency. My spouse moved to Chapel Hill in 1944. These speakers are here to 611 address incompatibility of this application with existing County ordinance and planning. 1 612 want to offer a view of the affected surrounding community as a need to understanding 613 our community and its land use. I have used GIS information to identify the landowners 614 and the acreage of properties that form a continuous land area bounded by Six Mile 615 Road, NC 54, Morrow Mill Road and Goldmine Loop Road. Each of these properties has 616 frontage on one of the listed roadways. The land area within this Bingham Township 617 segment is six hundred and sixty acres, and there are 18 households currently occupying 618 those adjoining lands. That total includes the 90 acres under discussion tonight. If the 619 requested classifications were to be granted, one hundred and fifty residences would be 620 added within 30 acres of those six hundred and sixty acres. The incompatibility of the 621 proposed high-density urban housing development is obvious on paper as well as my 622 drive through this area. Part of our community population is made up of families who 623 have lived a rural lifestyle on their land for multiple generations. Those of us newcomers, 624 whether 50-year or 30-year or recent residents, chose to locate here in order to join and 625 continue the existing lifestyle. We do not fit the conventional description of a 626 neighborhood, but we do form a strong community. Our members have come together on 627 many occasions to successfully protect our rural character as prescribed by consecutive 628 land use plans and successive boards of Orange County commissioners. This application 629 plan would attract residents drawn to an inward focus as opposed to those wishing to 630 meld with the longstanding lifestyles and values of the surrounding community. Dense 631 placement of the 200 or more residents together in an area with more expanded services 632 will be an open invitation to rapid commercial development. Granting the changes 633 requested by the current application would ease the path for such incompatible growth 634 both here and across the county. Our community residents are not opposed to 635 development that maintains the rural nature of our area. A long succession of Orange 636 County Boards of Commissioners and their land use plans have specified and maintained 637 rural agricultural zones in Orange County, including our area. So, we, as residents, ask 638 that you reject this current application, and thank you very much for the opportunity to 639 speak. Thank you for your time. 640 641 Dan Eddleman: My name is Dan Eddleman, adjacent landowner, senior citizen, aging in place in Bingham 642 Township, agricultural and multi-generation community for the past 45 years. My past 643 service to the county was as a member of the Bingham Township Advisory Council, 644 Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, and was a strong advocate for the extension of 645 zoning into all of Orange County. The above experience was during this era commented 646 on in the first meeting of the County to our planning agreements with Chapel Hill, 647 Hillsborough for water supply planning protection, for municipal throughfare planning, and 648 for development of best management practices for growth, where it should and should not 649 occur. The rural buffer zone serves as a bit of a demarcation of the types of development 650 that good land use planning would dictate be close to, or within the municipalities, and of 651 what is permissible and not permissible in the areas outside of the rural buffer. Rural land 652 node classification and zoning is an integral part of this question. In the June 5th meeting, 262 Approved 8.7.24 653 you asked some good questions about why the rural nodes were created, and what were 654 the concerns in creating them. I'd like to summarize. Marvin Collins, an Orange County 655 planning director, brought this topic before the Planning Board seeking feedback on the 656 following issues: The initial drafts of the county land use plan and zoning maps did not 657 have a category to recognize the presence of what we now call rural nodes. Unless a 658 change was made by extending zoning, these locations would have become a non- 659 conforming use, and zoning was already a highly contentious issue. The pledge you 660 speak of at the beginning of this meeting came from those meetings, and making these 661 mom-and-pop rural services in the smaller communities and agricultural regions of the 662 county non-conforming was not an acceptable option. On the other hand, there was 663 concern that, without very explicit definition and size limitation on these rural nodes, 664 uncontrolled expansion would become the mechanism through which strip development, 665 spot zoning, and urban sprawl would happen. Significant urban high-density development 666 in the rural areas would also have the effect of putting Chapel Hill's water supply at risk, 667 especially since 54 West extends through our watersheds, and this proposal would 668 change all rural nodes in the county. Uncontrolled rural node growth would become the 669 endline around the rural buffer districts put in place to protect and preserve water quality 670 not only for rural residents but Chapel Hill to avoid urban sprawl and to protect the 671 economic viability of the agricultural operations. As stated in Sections 1.1. 5 and 1.1.7 of 672 the UDO, rural activity node encompasses land focused on designated road intersections 673 within the rural area that is appropriate for small-scale commercial uses and mom-and- 674 pop convenience stores. This use is inconsistent with that goal. 675 676 Sadie Rapp: My name is Sadie Rapp. I grew up at 6819 Morrow Mill Road, and I now run a craft studio 677 and lead adult arts education on my family's property here. I'm also working to shift the 678 pastures on the property into food agriculture so as to better steward this land. I won't 679 have time to get into all of my concerns regarding this proposal, so I've tried to focus on 680 two main points. The proposed amendments hinge, in part, on whether or not this parcel 681 gets the designation of rural neighborhood activity node. These nodes are defined in the 682 comprehensive plan as land focused on designated rural intersections that is appropriate 683 for small-scale commercial uses that serve the public. The intersection of Morrow Mill and 684 54 has had that pink dot over it on the future land use map since the 80's. This identifies 685 the intersection as a place where, essentially, some commercial development may be 686 appropriate. The developer is claiming it is relevant to their application because the pink 687 dot overlaps with the corner of their parcel but fails to contend with the fact that this 688 subdivision as it's currently proposed does not touch an intersection and contains no 689 commercial element. The designation as a rural neighborhood activity node would be 690 wholly relevant to the proposed location and uses. The developer has failed to 691 meaningfully make the case otherwise. Looking beyond the existing ordinances, the 692 Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 effort just released their new issues and 693 opportunities report, which I think serves as an excellent tool for anchoring our discussion 694 today. As I'm sure you all know, last fall, residents and County staff had the chance to 695 share their values and vision for the future of the county and to help guide its conservation 696 and growth efforts through the year 2050. This report outlines key planning themes 697 identified during the first engagement window. The first bullet point is protect critical 698 watershed areas in open spaces and preserve agricultural lands, which I'm personally 699 worried is kind of hard to achieve if we are rezoning agricultural parcels and building 700 subdivisions between streams. Farmland conversion, which is the change of farmland to 701 non-agricultural uses is one of the threats identified in this report. Maintaining farmland is 702 critical, not only to the identity and image of the county, but to our resiliency as a region. 263 Approved 8.7.24 703 To grant the developer their proposed changes would be to rob the neighbors, as well as 704 Orange County more broadly, of our vision for our own growth by circumventing the land 705 use plan process. It would negatively impact the ability of Morrow Mill and Goldmine 706 residents to build the future that serves our collective needs. It would shake the trust in 707 County procedure if a developer were able to usher in such significant policy changes that 708 are so inconsistent with the surrounding area and county-wide goals. The scale and 709 location of this proposal is not in line with the 2050 Land Use Plan with current County 710 policies and ordinances and isn't worth jeopardizing our natural resources over. I ask you 711 to please vote against recommending. Thank you. 712 713 Gregory Rapp: Hi, my name is Gregory Rapp. At the start of last month's meeting, we were told by the 714 planning director that, quote, "The MPD-CD zoning district was originally established to be 715 a mechanism through which innovative proposals could be considered. Innovation, 716 essentially, is the key that unlocks the door to overriding established zoning rules." I was 717 expecting the next sentence to be something like we, the planning staff, believe this 718 project to be innovative because of A, B, C and D, but we just sort of moved on as if it was 719 assumed that this project must be innovative. I looked for anything in the application that 720 spoke to this but found nothing. So, what do we see in the application? We see an 721 applicant that is seeking to upend decades of thoughtful planning for a self-serving 722 subdivision; an applicant who has professed no experience in the fields of real estate 723 development, real estate management, senior care, water management, or sewage 724 management. If approved, this would be their very first development. This applicant is 725 asking to build 150 units, the largest development in the history of the county, without any 726 legitimate justification for this outlandish scale; an applicant who has been planning an 727 intentional community for over a decade and still can't make their intentions clear. Their 728 application targets seniors as their primary audience without mention of any other type of 729 residents; no families, no children, no teens, while at the same time, their articles of 730 incorporation registered a year prior with the secretary of state say their development will 731 be multi-generational with no mention there at all of seniors or aging and, now, tonight, we 732 just learned that it's a 55 and up residential development. So, we're not sure what it is. 733 An applicant who may not know that the banks don't write mortgages for cooperative 734 homes. Since the residents don't own their homes, there's no collateral for the bank. Any 735 resident would have to pay in full, up front, putting this out of reach for people of modest 736 means and making affordability pure fantasy. An applicant who was unable to articulate 737 the membership criteria for their cooperative, let alone how a resident could cash out. 738 You can't sell your place on the open market because the cooperative owns your home. 739 You would have to wait until all of the other members agree to admit a new member. 740 What is the cooperative's obligation to even let you leave? And, even if they let you 741 leave, how will they calculate the value of your membership? To my ears, this sounds like 742 a financial trap, and it frightens me to think of how this could play out for seniors or any of 743 our aging loved ones whose health status and needs can change overnight. There's 744 nothing new about targeting a vulnerable group. Is this the kind of innovation the planning 745 department has in mind? Is this the kind of innovation that opens the door to sweeping 746 zoning changes? I, for one, certainly hope it is not. Thank you. 747 748 Betty Lou Whitford: Good evening. My name is Betty Lou Whitford. I'm a Hands Four co-op member. 1 749 want to emphasize just one aspect of Fiddlehead Corner, so it isn't overshadowed by the 750 complexities of the zoning proposal. That aspect is how Fiddlehead Corner can be a 751 leading-edge model for Orange County, one that is right within your grasp. To appreciate 752 its importance as a model, one only need picture conventional subdivision development. 264 Approved 8.7.24 753 The 90 wooded acres in our proposal could be developed without regard to conservation 754 resulting in de-foresting of most of the land with large houses, lots with required septic 755 fields without regard to natural habitats. Fiddlehead Corner is significantly different. It is 756 what some call a conservation subdivision. It clusters modest housing on only 30 of the 757 90 acres leaving most of the land, 60 acres, minimally disturbed. I currently live in a 55- 758 plus community that is part of a large subdivision in Chatham County. Development 759 meant significant destruction of natural habitats that come with clear cutting and scraping 760 off the topsoil to enhance profitability. Trees were planted, but it will be many years 761 before they replace what mature trees provide, natural habitat, and also shade for the 762 residents walking the neighborhood streets. In contrast, Fiddlehead is a conservation 763 cluster design. The clustering of homes will face green spaces rather than streets, a 764 design that, according to a North Carolina State University report on conservation 765 subdivisions, cuts down on paving cost and reduces the percent of impervious surfaces 766 by 31% on average. This approach is highly consistent with the conservation values of 767 Orange County land use further supporting the County's leadership in the state with an 768 approach that allows needed innovative development while avoiding suburban sprawl. 769 Quoting from the planning document analysis, Page 37 of June's agenda, I'm not sure 770 about tonight's, Fiddlehead Corner"offers a procedural and creative template that future 771 applicants might use for reference and guidance." Such creativity also appears to be 772 consistent with the direction of the revision of the Land Use Plan 2050. 1 urge you to 773 embrace this innovative application, because it is a both/and rather than an either/or. It 774 combines serving the needs of people with conserving Orange County's natural 775 resources. Thank you. 776 777 Kathy McHugh: My name is Kathy McHugh. I'm a member of 2T, a local resident and a schoolteacher. 1 778 strongly support approval of the zoning that would allow Fiddlehead to be built. I hope to 779 live many years to come, but I'm definitely getting older. I know from watching older 780 family members and friends that challenges come as we age. Physical problems that limit 781 mobility and independence and waning of cognitive abilities. It's a bit scary to think about 782 how I would be able to deal with these challenges if I live long enough to encounter them. 783 Moving into a continuing care retirement community is one possible answer, but as I look 784 at my finances and compare them to the costs of the CCRC, they just don't match up. To 785 live in an unfamiliar rental unit, like the ones that are springing up all over, isn't very 786 appealing to me. I wonder if there would be anyone there who shares my values and 787 interests, and who would come to my aid when I encounter rough patches. That's why 788 Fiddlehead Corner is so appealing to me. I know I would be among long-term friends 789 there. My favorite activities, such as contra dancing would be right there where I can walk 790 to them. When friends need help, I'll be there to help them and vice versa. And without 791 all the overhead costs that one pays in a CCRC, I think it will fit in my budget. It's just 792 amazing how this plan for Fiddlehead has gradually been developing from the first spark 793 of an idea now to a full master plan. It's heartening that a small seed of an idea has 794 grown so much. We will be hunkered down in a compact campus in the woods where we 795 can easily get to the community center and to one another and to gorgeous surroundings. 796 1 urge you to approve this application that will allow Fiddlehead Corner to become a 797 reality. It's a win-win-win for Orange County. 798 799 Aadra Bhatt: Good evening. Thank you so much for giving me a chance to talk. I don't think I could 800 summarize all my thoughts as eloquently as my neighbors. 801 802 Chris Johnston: I'm sorry, your name. 265 Approved 8.7.24 803 804 Aadra Bhatt: Oh, yes, sorry. My name is Aadra Bhatt. I live on Labrador Lane adjacent to the planned 805 subdivision. Sorry, thank you for clearing that up. As I was saying I couldn't really speak 806 any more eloquently than my neighbors, Dan Eddleman, Ralph Warren, Laura Streitfeld 807 and the Rapps have already done. So, I just would like to share two major points with 808 you. I'm a microbiologist by training, and I've submitted my written comments via email to 809 the board. I'm really concerned about the risk for potentially contaminating our ground 810 water for existing residents who already live there, while managing the sewage that is 811 generated by the 300 units that are being proposed to be put up. According to the 812 presentations at the neighborhood information meeting in April, as well as meetings with 813 H4D at our neighbor the Warren's home, we shared the seed of the idea that we all found 814 so charming and wonderful. The proposed development was initially conceived by a 815 group of well-meaning individuals as an intentional community for 34 locals. Along the 816 way they've been advised to go big to spread out the cost of construction and 817 infrastructure, and as it stands today, the proposed project has been moved to a 818 subdivision with we learn today of maybe a 55-age limit. But that proposes to house 300 819 or more residents. When asked who would purchase the remainder units, one of the 820 investing members has shared that they anticipate more buyers coming from individuals 821 around the country. So, I'm not sure whether this plan really addresses the needs of 822 aging members of the Orange County community. I want to stop here and I want to just 823 close up with some numbers. The times the word senior appears is in the application 824 packet is 52. The times that the word senior appears in the Fiddlehead developers' 825 website is 0. The number of senior services that the planning department will actually 826 hold the developer for putting on to Fiddlehead Corner is 0. The number of times the 827 Orange County Advisory Board on Aging refers to this development as affordable is 2. 828 The total area of farmland in Orange County threatened by proposed changes to the 829 unified development ordinance, the comprehensive plan, the future land use map, and the 830 zoning map is more than 53,000 acres, thank you. 831 832 Anna Hatcher: Good evening, my name is Anna. I live on Morrow Mill Road at 5802, and this is Chelsea, 833 my next neighbor, 5811. So, up until today we heard about this age restriction, I was 834 against all of this project because it had like, we're going to get all the low-income 835 darkness of Durham right in my back yard. I don't want to have any teenagers selling 836 drugs to all our kids which live in our expensive, fancy houses, okay? Today when we 837 heard about 55-plus, I would say I probably will welcome this project with a few 838 restrictions, no, few adjustments, which we will ask to review and add to the list of 839 concerns. As it's going to be a community of 55-plus, we will need to have traffic lights, 840 we will need to have walking paths. We already have an issue of the people on the 841 bicycles which are extremely, you know, impacting our traffic and there is not really like a 842 side, or a pass for them to drive safe. So it has to be in the first 3,000 feet on Morrow Mill 843 Road when they get off Highway 54. It has to be at least in the requirements to the 844 developers to manage it somehow, maybe widen the road and have a narrow pass for 845 bicyclists because it's a problem on this road already. And these people are going to be 846 out to ride. I also have 77-years-old grandpa in my own house and I'm not sure that we 847 will have challenges with all the bicycles, which we love so much to ride in our street. 848 Another concern which I have is they want to put the entrance and access, the main one 849 on Morrow Mill Road. I'm against this entry and exit as the main one. I think it has to be 850 on Gold Mine Loop because there at least it's slow, less traffic and they can safely enter 851 and exit. If this enter and exit is going to be on Morrow Mill Road, first of all people just 852 take off from Highway 54, and they are already on high speed at my mailbox. And we 266 Approved 8.7.24 853 need to slow down traffic to, I don't know, 15 miles in that area. So, all this entry and 854 exiting of people will not hit, , I don't want to have so many crashes in my front yard. And 855 it's going to impact my neighbor, Chelsea. She has five kids and they want to put an entry 856 and exit right in her gate. I'm not comfortable with that, I'm not too happy with that, 857 especially if she has the young special child, and I think this has to be reviewed and entry 858 and exit has to be on Gold Mine Loop, not on Morrow Mill Road because it's going to 859 create lots of crashes. 860 861 Carol Mellon: I'm Carol Mellon, I live at 6410 Goldmine Loop with my husband Jim, and I just wanted to 862 say that our area is not zoned for high density development. We purchased our property 863 with existing zoning in mind because we desire to live in a rural area with a rural lifestyle 864 away from the noise, pollution, and congestion that we have experienced living in cities or 865 suburbs. Some of neighbors continue to find properties that their families have owned for 866 generations. We do not need another rural Fearrington Village type development in our 867 area or yet another party barn or entertainment venue with events disruptive to the lives of 868 nearby residents. Nor do we need a multistory apartment building. That's just out of 869 character with our area. And I would just like to say that most of us, even those of us who 870 are newcomers, bought properties that were appropriately zoned for our own plans and 871 now the applicant comes in and wants to change the character of the neighborhood and 872 we feel that that's unfair and we hope that you will reject their proposal, thank you. 873 874 John Kizer: John Kizer is my first name, but Steve Kizer is what I go by. And my home and property 875 are located about 600 yards from the proposed urban development. At the last meeting, 876 several board members wondered what the original framers of the land use plan, zoning 877 ordinances were thinking specifically about the contour of the rural nodes. I'm standing 878 here as a relic of that time. I was chairman of the board of adjustment and a member of 879 the planning board when they put zoning in place in Orange County, and at that time, we 880 developed the land use plan with several considerations. For example, the rural nodes 881 that you asked about, had we followed the parcel boundaries in defining the nodes, we 882 would have codified a commercial monopoly on a select few properties, an outcome that 883 neither we nor the community desired. The nodes were circular to provide a crude area to 884 which we could apply the principal zoning, avoiding any preference to a given landowner. 885 The philosophy charged to us by the county commissioners in those days of developing 886 the zoning ordinance was twofold. Number one, prevent urban sprawl and direct intense 887 urban development to the cities of Hillsborough and Chapel Hill where urban services and 888 utilities were available. Preserve the rural character of the county and prevent strip 889 development, that was threatening transportation quarters in and out of the county. As an 890 incentive, the selling of zoning to a wary and skeptical county population was based on 891 the promise that once enacted and approved, exceptions and variances to the ordinance 892 would be few and difficult to obtain. Thereby providing permanence to the county 893 structure. I have a few comments about the proposed project. Number one, water. The 894 proposal lists a minimum of 150 living units. According to the EPA, the average water 895 usage per day for an adult is about 85 to 100 Gallons. Assuming two persons per living 896 unit, the daily water needs of this development would be upwards of 30,000 gallons of 897 water a day. At the meeting, it was stated a well on the property could produce 40 gallons 898 per minute. This is an unrealistic estimate. And notwithstanding, it is not plausible that 899 one could pump 30,000 gallons daily from this relatively small parcel of land. In our area 900 wells usually produce no more than 5 to 6 gallons per minute; moreover, wells also run 901 dry in drought conditions in our area. For example, several years ago my neighbor had to 902 sell off his dairy herd as his wells ran dry. Wastewater, number two, assuming a closed 267 Approved 8.7.24 903 unit, the project would generate a bit more than 30,000 gallons per day of sewage. The 904 project proposes a high-tech solution to provide onsite waste management. Such 905 solutions are not free from failure. If the sewage system of the project should fail, the 906 company would have to condemn the existing drawings and provide water and sewer to 907 the outreaches of the county. 908 909 Adam Beeman: Thank you, unfortunately, time is up. 910 911 Colin Austin: Thank you, my name is Collin Austin. I'm the chair of the advisory board on aging here in 912 the county. We sent a letter to the planning department outlining our support for this 913 project. Our board supports this project because it was created by seniors for seniors, 914 and in response to many of the goals in our county master aging plan. I'd just like to 915 highlight three aspects. First, it increases accessibility for people regardless of age or 916 disability, incorporating wide doorways, handrails, level entries. Only a small fraction of 917 the housing stock in Orange County currently meets this criteria. Second, the 918 development enhances social interaction for older adults; has walking trails, outdoor areas 919 for recreation and events, community garden; and third provides a continuum of care in 920 the community to ensure that the needs of the community are covered and that would 921 allow community members to age in place with their increasing care needs rather than 922 forcing them to leave the community. We believe this is an important proposal, seniors 923 helping seniors age in place, instead of seniors living in isolation or being relocated to 924 facilities with little or no connection to any community. Thank you very much. 925 926 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—ADD FAMILY CARE HOMES AS 927 PERMITTED USE TO MPD-CD ZONING DISTRICT AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS—To continue review and make a 928 recommendation to the BOCC on applicant-initiated amendments to the LIDO pertaining to Family Care 929 Homes. The BOCC public hearing date is"to be determined." 930 931 Adam Beeman: Thank you. So, this next item is the LIDO Text Amendment referring to the family care. If 932 you have comments on that, we're going to go through this group right now. 933 934 Dan Eddleman: This agenda item is based on the premise that the entire region encompassed by Orange 935 County has no provision for family care homes and that the rural neighborhood activity 936 nodes located throughout the county ought to be exploited to permit such use. My first 937 speaking to you about rural activity nodes states why that's inconsistent to use that kind of 938 rural activity node for this. Here is why. The assertion that the Orange County region has 939 no provision for high density family care homes and is an omission needing correction is a 940 mistaken assertion. By design, the LIDO mandates that high density residential housing is 941 to be where water and sewer, transportation, and other infrastructure is in place and in 942 fact accommodated in the municipalities by the use of R5 and other zoning categories. 943 Chapel Hill and Hillsborough have accommodated many variations of such facilities, some 944 for the most advanced healthcare needs, some for 55-plus senior living facilities, and a 945 number with specific requirements for affordability. Examples are, as many recent news 946 articles point out, these reports include the Legion Road Residential Community Priority 947 Conditional Zoning that was approved for such use. Other similar facilities are located in 948 Chapel Hill where the required infrastructure is in place and make frequent use of R5 949 zoning. Just to quote a little bit about the Legion Road from Chapelboro.com, the Chapel 950 Hill Town Council unanimously proposed a resolution for the project at 1708, 1712 Legion 951 Road Development that will provide affordable housing property to accommodate 952 affording housing units for, and over the age of 55 and that is a legally binding 268 Approved 8.7.24 953 requirement. I've read that zoning permit and classification, it's legally binding in there. 954 They know what they're doing in permitting these kinds of facilities. And where certain 955 people earning at or below 60% of the average median income. That the land chosen is 956 uniquely suitable for providing affordable housing with this walkable proximity, things like 957 grocery stores, access to public transportation, things at the residential frontage of the 958 property, residents will benefit from and needed for an age-restricted site because of the 959 proximity to those amenities. Overall to say, this was a perfect site. The council 960 approved a conditional zoning request, the residential community conditional zoning 961 permit, a process that started in November 1992 just for these facilities. The core 962 problem with this proposal, it's located in a wrong part of the county. All the things about 963 cost, infrastructure, etc., etc., by incorporating themselves where it's already provided will 964 help improve the affordability of these facilities, thank you. 965 966 Alan Julich: I'm Alan Julich, thanks for the opportunity to speak. I am a member of 2T, and Hands 967 Four Development. I live near by the proposed Fiddlehead Corner just off Bradshaw 968 Quarry Road. I want to address the family care home that's being proposed, because it's 969 a basic feature of our planning since we first envisioned our community. And I have 970 personally been part of the research to see what a family care home would look like and 971 how it would operate. Fortunately, in Chapel Hill, we've had the resource of the Charles 972 House Association, that is a resource for those with family physical or mental faculties. 973 They own and operate Winmore, a residential family care home off Homestead which is 974 identical in concept to what we expect to do at Fiddlehead. I was with the group that 975 visited there, observed the staff, and we talked extensively with Paul Cleaver, who I'm 976 sure a lot of you know, to get ideas for how our planning for our family care home should 977 go. It's difficult to overstate what a tremendous resource this will be at Fiddlehead to 978 allow residents to remain in familiar surroundings and get some of the care they need 979 when they encounter physical and cognitive challenges. This resource is one of the many 980 reasons why so many of our members are convinced that Fiddlehead is the place they 981 want to live. However, for various reasons the family care home with the family care 982 facility is not currently linked with MPD-CD in the UDO even though it does meet with 983 other residential districts including the RCD. We've gotten advice from the planning staff 984 that if we want this to happen, then we need to take the step, which we do and are 985 requesting, a text amendment to the UDO, and we've done that. And I hope you agree 986 that this will benefit not us, but others in the future because this type of family care facility 987 just doesn't make sense that it could not be part of an MPD-CD. Thank you very much. 988 989 Bryna Rapp: My name is Bryna Rapp. I am an architect and a resident of Morrow Mill Road for 990 34 years. I've designed many homes on this road and my neighbors have become my 991 extended family. We welcome these new folks to our neighborhood. All we ask is that 992 they abide by the planning and zoning ordinances the rest of us have respected for 993 generations. At the information meeting, the developer said they tried to find land close to 994 town, but it was too expensive to build there. So, they had to look further out where the 995 land is cheap. The reason this land is more affordable is because those of us already 996 living here have made thoughtful choices about how we live. Choices that respect the 997 long-term development goals of the County which seek to preserve farmland and protect 998 the watershed. What does this look like in practice, it means we put one or two homes on 999 a lot. We carve off a couple of acres for our kids or our aging parents. We rent parcels of 1000 pasture to local farmers for a nominal amount so they can raise the produce that fills our 1001 award-winning farmers' markets. If you currently live in town, rural Orange is literally your 1002 breadbasket. Changing the UDO affects the whole county and threatens all of that. Most 269 Approved 8.7.24 1003 people are unaware that dozens of Morrow Mill landowners including us have voluntarily 1004 put restrictive covenants on their properties requiring 10-acre minimum lot sizes so that 1005 their land can be protected from development for future generations. These restrictions 1006 go far beyond what the County requires in the unprotected watershed. It may be hard for 1007 a developer to understand, but those of us who live here do not have a transactional 1008 relationship with this land. We know that once agriculture and forested land is lost, you 1009 don't get it back. Playing by the County's rules has meant that our property values have 1010 not increased the way property values close to town have. Though we may not get rich 1011 selling our land to a developer one day, this stability serves a greater good. It means that 1012 folks can still find smaller lots and homes that are affordable and young farmers have a 1013 chance of holding on to their inherited land because tax values are not sky high. It is only 1014 because the rest of us have played by the rules that this developer can now see our land 1015 as cheap and ready to be exploited for their suburban development. This project is 1016 unnecessary and unneighborly. I say unnecessary because without changing a single 1017 ordinance, they can build enough homes for all of the current members to live side by 1018 side, sharing resources and supporting one another like the rest of us do. I ask the 1019 planning board to respect the wisdom of the UDO and the vision outlined in the Land Use 1020 Plan 2050 and reject this proposal because it is wholly inconsistent with both, thank you. 1021 1022 Carol Mellon: Yes, first I'd like to say, I've had to make a lot of changes to my notes because, we were 1023 first told that there would be an assisted living center on the campus of the proposed 1024 development and it has since been changed to family care home. This seems like kind of 1025 an effort to shoe-horn this proposal into or toward approval, but let me continue. Our area 1026 does not have the infrastructure to support a large community of people needing frequent 1027 medical care. We are served by a volunteer fire and rescue squad that is not equipped to 1028 transport residents to relatively distant hospitals on a frequent basis and along a hilly, two- 1029 lane highway with infrequent passing zones. Those needing skilled care would have to go 1030 elsewhere in any case since the planners of this community will not have any provision for 1031 that. Even if everything goes as planned from a financial point of view, a high-density 1032 staff intensive development will not only increase environmental pollution nearby, but will 1033 definitely increase the amount of traffic, air pollution, and noise. As one of our previous 1034 residences was adjacent to an assisted living center, we know that the required staff will 1035 be working around the clock as well, coming and going at hours that are now reserved for 1036 peace and quiet in our area. Again, I ask that you reject this proposal, thank you. 1037 1038 Anna Hatcher: So, for me personally, because of the concerns about the traffic which is going to grow, 1 1039 don't know, probably three times more than we have originally, I think that one of the 1040 requirements for this neighborhood is they will go ahead and build a public bus station 1041 because people in age sometimes have challenges with driving good and paying 1042 attention, especially when it's getting dark. I think it has to be a requirement a public bus 1043 station, something like that. Next concern is the construction hours. I don't want to live in 1044 hell for the next 10 years, right? I came to this country from the huge city Kyiv in Ukraine 1045 5 years ago. I know what construction is, and at least it has to be mandatory that after 1046 5:00 p.m. no noisy construction work. It has to be documented. If you don't want us, with 1047 Chelsea to pull out my truck and block the entrance and exit and makes strikes and 1048 revolution which I know how to do revolutions trust me. And you don't want to have it in 1049 the county, right? So, no construction after 5:00 p.m., no noisy construction activities on 1050 weekends. It has to be documented and be a requirement to these people.Also, we 1051 would like to have and see a backup from this group, like a backup plan. Because they 1052 are in respected age, right? If they aren't able to perform in 3 years, what's next steps. 270 Approved 8.7.24 1053 We don't want to end up with what we expected before this 55 plus, they will just dump it 1054 for, instead of$1 million or how much they spent on the land, for$5 million and then 1055 another black neighborhood from that will come and build cheap condos. So, we want to 1056 see the backup plan, what if they are not able, because they have zero experience, they 1057 don't have enough funds maybe something can happen, age, you know. We want to see 1058 a documented plan for this community, what it's going to be if they are not able to perform 1059 what they wish, thank you. 1060 1061 AGENDA ITEM 9: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT(CONDITIONAL DISTRICT)—To continue review and make a 1062 recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant-initiated zoning atlas amendment to rezone 90.133 acres (PIN: 1063 9739-72-0339) located off Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop, within the Bingham Township. The proposed 1064 rezoning is from AR (Agricultural Residential) to MPD-CD (Master Plan Development—Conditional District). 1065 The BOCC public hearing date is "to be determined." 1066 1067 Adam Beeman: This is the one we're all here for. 1068 1069 Clare Steece Julich: Thank you, I'm Claire Steece Julich. As indicated earlier, my husband and I have lived in 1070 Bingham Township for over 35 years on 9 wooded acres. We're both retired, 68 years old 1071 and members of the 2T and Hands Four Cooperative. We have no children and no 1072 immediate family living nearby that can help us in our senior years. As we age, it's 1073 becoming more challenging to physically care for our home and property and each other. 1074 1 know there are many others in our situation. One solution would be for us to move to a 1075 smaller affordable home in town, but those properties have become rare. We can't afford 1076 to move to a CCRC like Carol Woods, and even if we did qualify for one there's a waiting 1077 list of 10 years or more. Our cooperative did an exhaustive search over several years for 1078 property to purchase for our development in an area that was closer to city limits, but 1079 nothing suitable was available. Living at the Fiddlehead Corner community would provide 1080 us and other senior citizens a place in which we can age in place comfortably, safely, and 1081 in a beautiful walkable environment with neighbors, activities, and support services 1082 nearby. Fiddlehead Corner will be less expensive up front and on a monthly basis than 1083 our local CCRCs. I appreciate Orange County Department of Aging's strong work to 1084 promote the needed senior housing that our people require. I know that there is a 1085 pressure in our county for development and response to our increasing population. A 1086 large percentage of them are will-be seniors. Please support the zoning changes needed 1087 to allow Fiddlehead Corner to happen, thank you all very much. 1088 1089 Miriam Cowan: Good evening, planning board. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm married to Tom 1090 Cheek who is the landowner who sold the land to 2T. He and I got married 20 years ago. 1091 1092 Adam Beeman: I'm sorry, what is your name? 1093 1094 Miriam Cowan: I'm sorry, my name is Miriam Cowan. I attended Davidson College and Antioch School of 1095 Law, worked for 10 years in Washington, D.C. for a big law firm and learned a lot about 1096 politics. Decided I didn't like it so much and moved back home with my two children after 1097 a divorce when I met Tom, and this wonderful and kindhearted person. He introduced me 1098 to this farm. This farm is spectacular. It has beautiful, wooded streams. It is just a real 1099 haven. So, my first instinct was wow, this would be great to share with other people. 1100 Because I'm one of those people that likes to share. Tom and I always talked about 1101 developing this land and his idea of developing differed from mine, but we both wanted to 1102 preserve the integrity of the land by having people that really cared about what was going 271 Approved 8.7.24 1103 out there. There were three things we could do. We could create a land conservation 1104 easement, but we would only have netted 50% of the fair market value, and this is our 1105 retirement income, because we don't have anything else. This second thing was to sell 1106 this land to a developer for a fair market value and have multiple lot owners do whatever 1107 they want with their lots, clear cut the trees, watch the building of more mc-mansions with 1108 true green lawns, and use of herbicides and pesticides. I have a degree in viticulture and 1109 enology. I built a vineyard there. I also have another degree in organic agriculture. So, I 1110 am adamantly opposed to anything, pesticides, herbicides, true green, uh-uh, no, not for 1111 me. So, the third option was to find a like-minded group which came to us in the form of 1112 2T. That group has pledged to keep the trees, not use pesticides or herbicides and 1113 preserve the integrity of the land. The other thing that nobody has mentioned here is that 1114 these people are also going to preserve our cultural heritage by the use of contra dancing 1115 and developing the folk dancing. This type of heritage is vital to the preservation of our 1116 society. It was brought over here by the Scots who founded North Carolina in the 1700s. 1117 It's a part of the English and French traditions as well. So, I am definitely for this 1118 development. 1119 1120 Tom Cheek: As I walk up here, I see my friends and neighbors. I see a lot of people who I hope will 1121 soon be my friends and neighbors. 1122 1123 Adam Beeman: Can you identify yourself, please? 1124 1125 Tom Cheek: I am Tom Cheek; I am the landowner. Let me give you a bit of background. My paternal 1126 line has been in Orange County for 150 years. My family has been here for a long time. 1127 I'm the sixth generation to grow up. In 1957 my family bought this property when I was 6 1128 years old. This is where I've grown up. This land is in my blood. I knew at an early age 1 1129 wanted to be a builder. Found out God did not want me to be a chemist, so I went into the 1130 building trades. I am a licensed commercial general contractor and a civil engineering 1131 technician. It has always been my intent to divide this land and build residential on it. 1 1132 had a horrific car accident in 2005 which prevented me from doing that. I realized 1 1133 needed to partner with someone who would fulfill my vision for the land. These folks 2T, 1134 are the best answer for that land. I believe in what they're doing and having the 1135 construction background that I have, has allowed me to see that the way they are doing it 1136 is adequate, beyond adequate, admirable. Usually when we have people move into our 1137 neighborhood, we don't know what their character is like. This time is different. About 2 1138 years ago we had a monthly meeting scheduled but the 2T participants were late, about a 1139 half hour late. I found out that they had stopped to help my elderly neighbor who had 1140 gone down to her mailbox and fallen and was lying in the driveway. This is the character 1141 of the people who would be our neighbors. I ask you to pass this, thank you. 1142 1143 Stephen Stiebel: All right, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Stephen Stiebel, I've lived on 1144 Henderson Field Road just off Morrow Mill Road for 22 years. I'm speaking in favor of this 1145 rezoning amendment. I'm a member of Hands Four and a longtime member of the dance 1146 community. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering and in that 1147 career, I have managed construction projects and I was involved in the startup of two 1148 facilities. More recently, I owned and operated a construction-related business for over 20 1149 years. I have served on the board of directors of the Orange Durham Chatham County 1150 Home Builders Association. During my involvement with 2T and H4D, I have been 1151 impressed by the care, thoughtfulness and professional approach of this community. 1152 Importantly, I have been impressed with the planning taking into account to minimize their 272 Approved 8.7.24 1153 impact on the surrounding community. I have been involved in the contra dance 1154 community for 25 years and I know personally that the social fabric of this community is 1155 extremely important to the physical and mental health of its members. Over the years, 1 1156 have personally been involved in care teams to support members of the community in 1157 need. Recently, I injured my shoulder and now have a new shoulder. My dance 1158 community put in place a care team and I was supported until I was able to be on my own. 1159 We want to be able to continue these activities as we age. We want to incorporate this 1160 social glue into the Fiddlehead community so that it isn't necessary for any one person to 1161 carry the load. We can all pitch in. Over the years, I have hosted house concerts and 1162 dances and it's a gift and joy to share my home with this community. We have given an 1163 enormous amount of time and attention, all those volunteers, to how we would structure 1164 our continuity of care at Fiddlehead. We have nurses, doctors, and healthcare 1165 professionals among us thinking through how medical issues would be addressed. But 1166 there is so much more to well-being than just going to the doctor. Being fit and active is 1167 such an important aspect of staying healthy and avoiding the healthcare system in the first 1168 place. But when that need for care comes into the picture, it's important to have a plan. 1169 That's what Fiddlehead is planning for. People caring for one another, a mutual care 1170 community. That approach relieves a lot of planning and expense from the county's 1171 resources. Fiddlehead has so much to offer Orange County seniors, but Fiddlehead can 1172 only become a reality if this master plan development conditional district zoning is 1173 approved allowing Fiddlehead to be located in an appropriate setting. A compact campus 1174 where all abilities can easily get to its facilities, I urge you to approve this application. 1175 Thank you for the time. 1176 1177 Linda Smith: My name is Linda Smith. I'm a 2T member and live about 2 miles from the Fiddlehead 1178 Corner location. Having grown up on a tobacco farm in eastern North Carolina, I moved 1179 to that area for the very reason that most of the people are speaking about here. I love 1180 rural North Carolina. I lived in this area for 16 years and over off of Dodson's Crossroads 1181 prior to that for 18 years. I joined 2T because after I built my house by the Haw River my 1182 husband passed away. He and his daughter and I took care of him during that process 1183 and so I know what it's like to need help while you're in those aging and last years. Now 1184 I'm in a position where I'm going to need some help eventually myself, as many of us in 1185 this room will. I am one of the neighbors already, and I think 2T and H4D is a wonderful 1186 community. I'm a singer and I've been dancing with these folks for a long time, I'm really 1187 excited about the possibility of sharing a neighborhood with all of them and everyone else 1188 in this room. I already shop at Bravos Market, at Fiesta Grill, and at Piedmont Feed and 1189 what used to be Feed and Seed, it's now Feed and Garden Center, and believe the White 1190 Cross community is a wonderful place. I think the people I know in Hands Four will be a 1191 fine addition to this community, and I'm looking forward to the support that we can offer 1192 each other through our support network. Some people describe Hands Four Cooperative 1193 as a closed group, but it's not. H4D is a cooperative, not an exclusive club. Co-op 1194 members value being good neighbors beyond the boundary of Fiddlehead Corner as 1195 you've just heard mentioned and share a common desire to preserve the environment. 1196 Everyone is welcome to join, anyone is welcome to join who meets the basic 1197 qualifications, and I will try to describe a few important ones. A potential member needs 1198 to understand and agree with the philosophy of cooperative living and of aging in place. 1199 Fiddlehead is oriented towards people who are downsizing and happy to live in smaller 1200 homes. It's for people who want to have close relationships and who are eager to 1201 participate in a wide range of activities and stay as active as possible for as long as 1202 possible. Potential residents will have to meet conventional mortgage income 273 Approved 8.7.24 1203 requirements for the housing they choose. The leadership is working hard to keep costs 1204 under control so that living at Fiddlehead is financially attainable for those of us of modest 1205 means. The plan provides for a variety of housing sizes, including studios and one- 1206 bedroom units, which is in line with that goal. Up to now, news about H4D has spread 1207 entirely by word of mouth and through educational orientations. It's a grass roots effort, 1208 people empowered, and not a big developer. I urge you to approve it, please. 1209 1210 Aditi Watson: My name is Aditi Watson; I also go by Atula. Thank you for giving me a chance to speak. 1211 Me and my family moved here from Northern California, small town, and the place we 1212 were living in California was high land taxes and very high market for real estate so we 1213 were searching for a community that we could fulfill our dreams of homesteading and 1214 living sustainably and coming to North Carolina and finding the little place on Goldmine 1215 Loop and Morrow Mill Road was exactly everything we had been envisioning for a decade 1216 of searching, and we found that the like-minded neighbors and the whole area suited 1217 exactly our vision. For the past 3'/z years we've been living homesteading, our farm 1218 gardens. I am concerned about this project greatly, because it affects so many aspects of 1219 our life on Goldmine Loop. For one, Goldmine Loop is a beautiful setting for bike riding, 1220 taking walks, I'll even meet my neighbors along the way and it's just a beautiful place to 1221 be and live, and I really would be sad to see the whole lifestyle of the rural community 1222 jeopardized by this project and everyone, all my neighbors have spoken so well and so 1223 good, so I don't really have so much more to say, but I'm wholly against this development, 1224 thank you. 1225 1226 David D'Agostino: Hi, I'm David D'Agostino, I live on Labrador Lane, with my partner, Audra Bott, and I'm 1227 neighbors with Dan Eddleman and Ralph Warren and I completely agree with everything 1228 they say, and I'm against the development. I do feel like they're not really giving us 1229 straight answers and, I would love to see an age in place community for 35 people which 1230 was originally presented to us. That's a lot different now and there's really no confirmation 1231 that this is going to be a place for people over 55. That's all I have to say, thank you. 1232 1233 Carol Mellon: Hi, I'm Carol Mellon and I'd just like to say that agricultural and forested lands are 1234 precious finite resources that should not be permanently marred by developments that will 1235 be redundant within decades. This isn't the 1980s when birth rates were still high. 1236 Demographic trends, including the two upcoming so-called academic cliffs or sharp 1237 declines in the number of college age persons and the coming decline in the number of 1238 55-plus persons due to the aging of the baby boomer generation, will result in a multi-unit 1239 housing surplus in communities like Chapel Hill. They will drive a projected surplus of 1240 rural housing of any kind since the infrastructure and amenities of cities will continue to 1241 attract the majority of home seekers. Retirement communities such as these are highly 1242 leveraged with a relatively high default rate. The Wall Street Journal has reported that 1243 they have become less popular in recent decades and particularly since the start of the 1244 pandemic. The power of retirement community borrowers to issue federally tax-exempt 1245 bonds, however, creates a perverse incentive for investors chasing yields to put money 1246 even into projects that simply are not viable over the long term. Many planned retirement 1247 communities have had to open their doors to the general public due to lack of interest 1248 from their target population and I think we may have seen that here or have had to greatly 1249 increase planned fees to compensate for the increasing costs of labor that is now in short 1250 supply. Others have been purchased by hospital corporations, effectively becoming 1251 healthcare centers. Were this to happen in our area we fear that the nearby land would 274 Approved 8.7.24 1252 be subject to seizure through eminent domain, further reducing the supply of farmland, 1253 and I would urge you to reject this proposal. Thank you. 1254 1255 Ron Royster: Hi, my name is Ron Royster. I moved to Morrow Mill Road 30 years ago and I love my 1256 community. When I first heard about this development, I was kind of excited because 1 1257 have some friends who are part of it, but after hearing all the details, I'm very concerned 1258 about all the ramifications and if we go forward with it, there's no turning back, and we 1259 would be stuck with it forever. I would urge you to say no, thanks. 1260 1261 Jean Eddleman: My name is Jean Eddleman, I'm a resident landowner residing on property directly 1262 abutting the eastern boundary of this proposed subdivision. My husband and I built our 1263 home and have lived here for over 45 years with plans to continue to age in place. We 1264 have a deep and abiding respect for the land, the native flora and fauna with which we 1265 share the space. We are mindful that our water supply is not unlimited and conservation, 1266 especially in times of drought, is needed. We have built and maintained our living space 1267 to achieve a soft footprint on the environment out of respect for all of our neighbors and 1268 our native wildlife here in southwest Orange. That said, I have great concerns about the 1269 proposed rezoning and the proposed large scale amendments to the Orange County 2030 1270 Comprehensive Plan, to wit: No. 1, to amend a future land use map to expand a rural 1271 neighborhood activity node and RNAN in an agricultural residential area and 2, to then 1272 expand and amend the text of the land use and zoning matrix to allow master plan 1273 development conditional districts, that's the MPD-CD, into proposed enlarged RNAN 1274 which is in a non-transitional land use classification. These proposed changes have the 1275 potential to negatively impact the current and future land use zones in all of rural Orange 1276 County. Of note, there's an important difference between the 10 and 20-year transitional 1277 areas close to municipalities and services, and areas in the non-transitional areas located 1278 in rural Orange. Therefore, the lack of the intersection between the non-transitional 1279 RNAN and the MPD-CD was intentional, it was not an oversight, to prevent poorly 1280 controlled sprawl in infrastructure poor areas in Orange County. Among the many 1281 concerns I have about these two zoning changes is the direct potentially negative impact 1282 on long-term availability of water for members of the existing residential and agricultural 1283 community and the entry of treated sewage effluent into the area water tables, as well as 1284 into the unprotected Haw River and Jordan Lake watersheds. Of interest, OWASA states 1285 in their long-range water supply plan dated 7/12/2022 that water from Jordan Lake will be 1286 required by Chapel Hill in the future due to growth and limitations in the Cane Creek 1287 Reservoir capacity. 1288 1289 Anna Hatcher: So, I would like to highlight again that my status with Chelsea changed because of 55- 1290 plus, we all heard it right. We believe in happy, dance and sing and people in retirement 1291 age and if at some point we will see that this was dropped and it's not going to be 55-plus 1292 but 30 years or people who can afford the cost, I don't know, 150 grand, we will be not 1293 happy and we will definitely strike, so 55-plus happy, retirement grandmas and grandpas, 1294 we are fine with it. I want Chelsea to record. Also, my neighbor Deborah, I talked about 1295 the darkness of Durham, I didn't mean skin color, absolutely. The darkness of Durham, 1 1296 was working for 2 years in Durham, on Miami Boulevard in Toshiba. The darkness of 1297 Durham is not in colors, but she took it and she got pissed, that I thought darkness of 1298 Durham. Darkness of Durham is in the drugs on the street, in pawn shops, you know what 1299 is pawn shops, right? Where people bring stolen rings or something to get cash. This is 1300 the darkness of Durham. The favorite teacher of my own child is a black person, he's 1301 incredibly educated cool guy. My personal manager in Toshiba, she's a black lady. I'm 275 Approved 8.7.24 1302 not American, okay? It has nothing to do with are you black, Spanish or Jewish or 1303 whatever, Mexican, Ukrainian, American. I'm talking about people which we are working 1304 hard all life long, build their retirement plan and,just a normal life without riding my 1305 motorcycle or ATV at night when I'm asleep. Darkness of Durham is not about skin color. 1306 My neighbor, which left us and got pissed, took it wrong. I didn't mean color of skin, 1 1307 meant pawn shops, drugs, alcohol, its crazy parties; I don't want just people which are 1308 young people,just not willing to work hard are looking for the cheap condos, that's what 1 1309 don't want to have next to me. So, I hope Deborah will get it and understand. Her front 1310 yard is always perfect, clean, I don't know if it's perfection, not always, a hundred out of a 1311 hundred, I wish my yard looked as perfect as hers. So, she took it wrong, and darkness 1312 of Durham is not in color, come on, I'm not even American, I'm Ukrainian Jewish. So, it's 1313 not about color, it's about lifestyle. Thank you. 1314 1315 Margaret E. Craft: Thank you for being here and for all you do, my name is Peggy Craft, I have lived in this 1316 area for a long time, worked as a high school teacher and I am on the H4D board and 1317 have been working for many years really hard to come to this point, and I'm very excited 1318 about the progress we're making. Everyone has said most of what I wanted to say and 1319 I'm not sure what your process is, but I do want to point out that the first speaker was 1320 inaccurate in a number of ways, so if I should address that now I will. For example, yes, 1321 people can get loans to live and buy property. There are banks that specialize in co-op 1322 loans so that was incorrect. We want a modest sign, no one's wanting glitter, I don't know 1323 where that idea came from. And also, a lot of comments were about we're going to lose 1324 farmland. We don't have farmland, ours is a forested area. Tom Cheek retained the 1325 farmland that's in the middle of our big plot, so just a few things. I have a lot of sympathy 1326 for the concerns about water, but I also have a lot of faith in the planning staff of Orange 1327 County and they have looked this stuff over really well, so if they've done something 1328 wrong, fine, let's talk about it, but I'd like you to understand that we've spent a lot of 1329 money and hired experts and it's gone through the Orange County process, so, a little 1330 faith there would probably be a good idea. I want to point out that Orange County has 1331 been pressured to do a lot of development lately because of population growth. When the 1332 growth spilled over into the rural areas, primarily what we're seeing are these 1333 checkerboard, chop, cut down all the trees, put up a bunch of houses, developments. Not 1334 good for anybody, not good for the trees or the streams or the animals, and it's certainly 1335 not sustainable. Hands Four is doing it differently, we will be concentrating our growth as 1336 you heard on 30 acres, leaving 60 free to the animals and the plants and the people who 1337 want to enjoy that. The Orange County commissioners have created in the unified 1338 development ordinance incentives to do this kind of flexible development. No developer 1339 has taken them up on it yet, our cooperative is interested in rising to that challenge, 1340 planning a conservation subdivision with a master plan that preserves contiguous areas of 1341 the forest for the animals and the plants to thrive. Orange County has consistently 1342 chosen to place environmental concerns on an equal footing with economic and social 1343 considerations and therefore, I urge you to take a strong stand and your commitment to 1344 sustainable development in Orange County by approving our application. 1345 1346 Adam Beeman: Mr. Eddleman will be the last speaker of the night for the public. 1347 1348 Perdita Holtz: Mr. Chair, I have something that I needed to say about that. Earlier I think you were 1349 informed that Mike Fox was erroneously crossed off the lists and should have been called. 1350 1351 Adam Beeman: You're correct, I apologize. 276 Approved 8.7.24 1352 1353 Dan Eddleman: Mr. Stober, our planning director, reminded us sternly at the first meeting here that is 1354 about land use, not intent. You've heard a lot about intent, but the bottom line is you have 1355 to judge this on what the footprint is on the ground and what you see in this plan is a large 1356 development R5 zoning category which, again, the land use plan specifically states where 1357 those areas are perfectly acceptable. This approach and their intent could have been 1358 applied to those areas. Mr. Gilfillen made a comment about quick speeches and one that 1359 came to mind to me is, "We hold these truths to be self-evident". And it is in the land use 1360 planning principles 5 and 8, preservation of rural land and rural character, future growth 1361 and development should occur in a manner that preserves and enhances the existing 1362 character of the county, its townships and rural crossroads. Land use goal three, a variety 1363 of land uses that are coordinated within a program that limits sprawl, preserves 1364 community, rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and 1365 balanced transportation system, discourages urban sprawl, this is Land Use LU-3.1, 1366 discourages urban sprawl, encourages separation of urban and rural land use and direct 1367 new development into areas where community facilities and services exist. To coordinate 1368 land use, this is LU-3.4, coordinate land use patterns that facilitate the expanded use of 1369 non-automobile transportation modes. This is NA-17, maintain and protect land that 1370 contains valuable productive water, productive resources such as prime farmland, prime 1371 forest land and directing incompatible development away from these areas. We hold this 1372 to be the truth in this matter. Let me read something quickly here from the 2022 long 1373 range OWASA land use plan for water. While we, this is OWASA speaking, have plenty 1374 of water in the most circumstances, Cane Creek Reservoir is vulnerable to extended 1375 drought or back-to-back droughts. It was designed to maximize storage which is 1376 generally good and provides a higher yield; however, it has a relatively small drainage 1377 area for storage volume and can take a long time to refill. University Lake refills quickly, 1378 but it doesn't hold enough water for our daily needs. Cane Creek Reservoir can take over 1379 a year to refill under these weather conditions. Chapel Hill's water supply is these 1380 agricultural, low population density land contains small creeks and tributaries that feed 1381 into the reservoir. This is about Chapel Hill's water supply. I'm surprised that Chapel Hill 1382 doesn't have the opportunity to speak on this matter, so I think that's why it should be part 1383 of the comprehensive plan in the future. 1384 1385 Mike Fox: Mike Fox, thank you for allowing me to speak. I have until 10, is that correct? I'm kidding. 1386 I'm opposed to the rezoning. Alan, Maria, Scott, they've all been in my house, we live right 1387 across the street from this proposed development. Our property, 20 acres, my daughter's 1388 property, 2'/z acres, could probably not sit more directly right in front of where this land is. 1389 If I would have had any idea, I did a couple years ago, that Tom was going sell his 1390 property, I would have done my best to purchase it myself or get people around us to 1391 purchase it, because we just love the 90 acres of trees there. My daughter lives right next 1392 door, I have her two horses right there on Goldmine Loop. I don't like the horses, but 1 1393 don't want them spooked all the time with the noise. Very concerned about all this. 1394 We've been meeting with them for 2 years, went into the meeting very open-minded 1395 because initially you're like, okay, well, this is something that's never heard of this before, 1396 1 left the last meeting proud of myself that I learned what a rural activity node was. So 1397 now that I've learned all this, and I see what's getting ready to happen here, this is totally 1398 inconsistent with why we moved out there, Tom said he's been there for six generations, 1399 Gaston Pierce has been there 3-4 years, generation farmers, right next to this 1400 development. This is a massive project, so Fiddlehead Corner they say that they're going 1401 to blend in with rural Orange County. There's no 3-story building within miles of where 277 Approved 8.7.24 1402 this development is on Morrow Mill and Goldmine Loop. Emergency road is going to 1403 come out right in front of my daughter's house and my soon to be fourth grandchildren. 1404 Come out and please drive down Goldmine Loop, it still has gravel on it, it's still a gravel 1405 road in places. So, we moved out there to be in a rural area, rural community, and all 1406 those people along Goldmine Loop. They're going to put 300 people on 30 acres and no 1407 offense to them, but they're saying that the other 60 acres, two-thirds of this is going to be 1408 less forested. We all know that cannot happen. You cannot put a road in there, you 1409 cannot put sidewalks in there, berms in there, storm water drainage, and if they can dig a 1410 well there that gets 40 gallons a minute, they need to go into the well drilling business, 1411 because I've never heard of that before, that's not happening out there. I was not 1412 opposed to this initially; I just was listening with an open mind. Thanks for listening. I'm 1413 not as eloquent as all these other people but this is going to affect our lifestyle, 10 years 1414 of construction, please, 10 years. Thank you. 1415 1416 Adam Beeman: Thank you. That concludes the public conversation, we're going to close the public 1417 comments and discuss amongst the board and see if we can't hash this out. Elizabeth, 1418 do you have any questions or concerns? 1419 1420 Chris Johnston: What are we doing here? 1421 1422 Adam Beeman: Work your way through, we have a motion one way or the other. 1423 1424 Beth Bronson: Have any comments on the public comments, maybe we'd like to discuss any of this. 1425 1426 Chris Johnston: Sure, I do want clarity real quick, because it was brought up in the previous meeting. Item 1427 8, in regard to how it, and I'm sorry, I'm used to looking at Cy and then Cy looks back at 1428 me, who am I looking at here today in terms of talking about Item 8? This is the one 1429 where we need to be in alignment with state law. Is that an accurate representation or is 1430 that an inaccurate representation? 1431 1432 Charity Kirk: The family care, care facilities and, and master planning district. 1433 1434 Lamar Proctor: It's Agenda Item No. 8. 1435 1436 Perdita Holtz: So, the UDO text amendment, it's in the abstract. When we were researching it, we 1437 determined that state law requires that you cannot discriminate against family care homes 1438 if they're allowed in any residential area, they need to be allowed in all the residential 1439 areas or in a zoning district that allows residential, which MPD-CD does. It was an 1440 oversight when MPD-CD was created back in 2010 to not have the little star there 1441 indicating that you can apply for that. So, even if that text amendment does not get 1442 approved at this point, at some time staff will be back to add that tick mark to that. 1443 1444 Chris Johnston: But to confirm, tonight, this is in front of us, to put us into alignment with state regulations. 1445 One way or another this has to occur unless we do what? There is no unless we do what, 1446 correct? 1447 1448 Perdita Holtz: The text amendment, that stipulation, has multiple parts in the UDO. The part that I just 1449 described about having a little star in the table of permitted uses is the one thing that will 1450 have to occur at some point, whether it's part of this action or whether it's part of a future 1451 action initiated by staff. 278 Approved 8.7.24 1452 1453 Chris Johnston: And I apologize, could you,just for my own personal clarification, break it out a little bit 1454 more so that star specifically means that we need to... 1455 1456 Perdita Holtz: The star in the table of permitted uses means that it's a permitted use. When you get to 1457 the conditional districts, what it means is that it's a use that can be applied for as part of a 1458 conditional district. So, it would just mean that somebody can apply for that to get 1459 approved as part of their conditional district application. 1460 1461 Charity Kirk: Can we approve just that Amendment 1 in Item 8, right now? 1462 1463 Perdita Holtz: You could recommend that that go forward if you didn't want to approve the other parts. 1464 1465 Charity Kirk: Do we have to do them together or can we just get that done with right now? 1466 1467 Perdita Holtz: It would probably be unlikely since this is a bundled application that staff is going to just 1468 take forward one thing that's not part of this whole bundle of applications. We'll come 1469 back in the fall with this one amendment if things did not go forward at this point. 1470 1471 Chris Johnston: I apologize, I just hate arguing about things that we don't have any control over, that's 1472 what I want to make sure that we're not doing necessarily, like if this is something that is a 1473 state regulation. 1474 1475 Perdita Holtz: I would recommend that you not take out just that one part. We'll come back with a text 1476 amendment, if necessary, in the future. 1477 1478 Adam Beeman: Any other questions or concerns? 1479 1480 Chris Johnston: I have general thoughts and comments and that sort of thing, but are we at the point 1481 where we're summarizing our thoughts or are we still asking questions of the public? 1482 1483 Adam Beeman: I mean, we're looking for a motion so if you're ready for a motion or someone wants to 1484 discuss things, let's have it. 1485 1486 Chris Johnston: I'm still putting together Agenda Item 8 and I apologize, I thought that that was a little bit 1487 more bundled than it turned out it was, so I need to do a little bit of additional digging 1488 there. In regards to Agenda Item 7, which is essentially growing the pink dot, right? 1489 We're talking about expanding the rural neighborhood activity node. That makes sense 1490 based on the comments that were brought before by the previous planning board,why 1491 they didn't do it by parcels, that makes complete sense now. They didn't do it by parcels 1492 because, and if I misunderstand, I apologize, but they didn't do it by parcels because if 1493 they did then there would be no growth, it would just be whoever is there is there, so this 1494 makes sense in that regard insomuch as if someone comes in, they may be outside that 1495 dot, extending it makes sense to make it in compliance or whatever the case may be. If 1496 I'm misunderstanding that also, please correct me. But the key question here on is 1497 Agenda Item 9, right? Agenda Item 9 is the proposal by the applicant, and I think that 1498 everyone agrees with what Fiddlehead is trying to do there, they are trying to age in place, 1499 they want a community of like-minded individuals who have kind of fun with their 1500 neighbors, they can grow together and have that community, and I think that community 1501 actually in some ways already exists at Morrow Mill, right. There are people there who 279 Approved 8.7.24 1502 really enjoy their neighbors and feel like they have that community, and I completely 1503 understand why Fiddlehead wants that. I think the question is, does that fit in this 1504 particular area? Does it make sense? Everything I've heard so far about Fiddlehead 1505 makes it feel like a neighborhood island, and what I mean by that is it feels like it's not 1506 necessarily supporting the neighborhood in the sense of the rural neighborhood activity 1507 node is land designated in the comprehensive plan that is focused on road intersections 1508 within a rural agricultural residential area that is appropriate for small scale commercial 1509 uses. When I read that, I think of local support and growth of commercial uses that are 1510 supposed to be supporting the local neighborhood. This feels like it is an amazing and 1511 wonderful thing, I love the green, I love the solar, all the things about it. Does it fit that 1512 necessary designation at this point, I don't necessarily think so. So that's where 1 1513 currently land with that. That is no dig on Fiddlehead or anything along those lines, land 1514 is expensive everywhere, I totally understand going above and beyond to try to find a 1515 place and make it fit. For this particular designation I struggle with that, so that is where 1516 I'm at right now. 1517 1518 Whitney Watson: So, I'm going to disagree with Chris. I think the most important issue is Item 7, the 1519 change proposed to the land use map and expanding what is possible within the rural 1520 neighborhood activity nodes. Because if it happens here, it does mean that it's now 1521 possible in all the additional 9 activities nodes throughout the county. So, this one change, 1522 while it may have benefitted a very worthwhile project, it now changes the future for the 1523 entire county, so for me that's really the crux of why we're here tonight is trying to address 1524 that. I had some conversation with some of the planning staff and it does help to have 1525 that history about why the activity nodes don't follow the parcel lines, but in this particular 1526 instance, perhaps, we could direct that the activity node go back to the parcel line, the 1527 one that's furthest away from the current AR designation, and ask the applicant to 1528 propose a project that fits within either the agricultural residential or change that zoning 1529 from AR to master plan development, because I'm really reluctant to sweep the entire 1530 history of activity nodes out the door in this one episode. I don't have any problem with the 1531 family care home, doing that text change and Perdita's right, we're going to have to come 1532 back at some point and make that change to the table, so no big deal there. 1533 1534 Charity Kirk: I'm going to echo what Chris said. I'm in support of the vision but I think we're talking 1535 about something that is a much more core or root level here, and it's something that 1536 would be nice if it is addressed in a comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan is 1537 being worked on right now, so doing such a change that seems fairly dramatic for this one 1538 project where it doesn't meet the current comprehensive plan vision, it doesn't seem wise 1539 if we are purely trying to use the UDO and the comprehensive plan to make our land use 1540 decisions. 1541 1542 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 1543 board members, my concern is opening up rural activity nodes to master plan conditional 1544 districts. This was talked about a little, I was looking through the minutes where Cy 1545 Stober indicated that the intended uses for this project fell out of what would be allowed in 1546 a rural activity node which is a rural conditional district. So, clearly our entire 1547 comprehensive land use plan envisions consistent uses throughout the county to match 1548 the population densities and the existing uses and to give our population consistency and 1549 security about what's going to be developed around them and people purchase land with 1550 the idea that they know what the conforming uses are around them, they can see what 1551 areas are for future development, they know when they buy it, if they buy it next to a 280 Approved 8.7.24 1552 transition node this is some sort of industrial transition node, that, hey, this may be coming 1553 your way. And if they buy something in the middle of the rural buffer or agricultural 1554 residential areas, they would not expect that kind of dense development. As this is 1555 presented, to ask that we change the entire planning scheme to allow for MPD-CD zoning 1556 within rural activity nodes, I think is too far of a stretch. I wish this had been presented as 1557 somewhat a more consistent residential conditional district, but for whatever reason that 1558 was not how this is presented. I think what Cy said is that the anticipated uses and the 1559 vision, the big picture and the grandeur of this vision, there were uses that the developer 1560 and the applicant are looking to put in that couldn't conform with residential conditional 1561 district zoning. 1562 1563 Charity Kirk: I think it was the large-scale multi-family housing. 1564 1565 Lamar Proctor: Right, that's just where I am. I love the vision. I just think expanding MPD-CD zoning into 1566 rural activity nodes, given the history of it, given the consistency of the uses and within 1567 entire comprehensive land use scheme is inconsistent for me. 1568 1569 Steve Kaufmann: I guess I just don't feel comfortable with the plan, especially given the feedback from all 1570 the neighbors. It just doesn't seem to fit in that particular place. Even though the vision is 1571 great, the neighbors really don't want it, and it doesn't fit with the culture there, so for that 1572 reason I would not support it. 1573 1574 Beth Bronson: I think that we should be supporting a diverse kind of housing opportunities within the 1575 county and countywide. I think that the idea that more residents over the age of 55 will be 1576 coming to the area or aging in place in the area is only going to grow, but as is the rest of 1577 the population in this county, both for manufacturing, as well as for jobs that are outside of 1578 the county, and so it's well known that the rural buffer area has long been wanting to be 1579 preserved with agricultural residential and farmland. There are efforts to preserve 1580 farmland in the area; however, that doesn't stop owners from wanting to develop on their 1581 land and wanting to do a novel thing on their land. The master plan development 1582 conditional district is not something that I would find conducive to be adjacent to 1583 agricultural residential, and much less that far from community services such as public 1584 utilities and emergency services. I would find that there's a lot more questions that 1585 remain, and to go with a master plan development I feel like that would be shortchanging 1586 the precedent that this would be setting, so that's kind of where I'm at with this. The 1587 couple of conditions that we've discussed I think might be a good start, but I'm also 1588 wondering if anybody with Hands Four Development or anybody from planning staff 1589 brought the Economic Development Department into the discussion around this 1590 cooperative development or project. 1591 1592 Patrick Mallett: Well two things, so I would encourage you if you get into the part where you're crafting 1593 conditions you be very specific as you normally do with conditional districts and word 1594 them out item by item as part of your recommendation. Cases go through a process and 1595 a calendar and that starts with an internal analysis and then the items are also shared 1596 with various other departments. Economic Development is part of a development 1597 advisory committee. 1598 1599 Beth Bronson: So, the DAC saw it? 1600 281 Approved 8.7.24 1601 Patrick Mallett: That's right. They see it and are able to comment or not comment on any given project. 1602 For this specific case. In many cases they don't chime in. 1603 1604 Beth Bronson: I want to say they had no comment but let me just double check that real quick. 1605 1606 Patrick Mallett: That's my recollection. 1607 1608 Beth Bronson: I do not actually see them on here. 1609 1610 Patrick Mallett: So, they get the information, they attend the meeting, but they may not put in a comment. 1611 Or provide a memo. Most of the other departments, we ask for a specific memo because 1612 they have a very technical application and integration into the request. 1613 1614 Beth Bronson: And so when this was originally provided, I want to say that if there was proposals going 1615 back as far, and this is probably for the applicant, but proposals going back as far as 2020 1616 and 2019, was the Economic Development Department ever consulted or did you guys 1617 ever approach them about how to work with the County on creating this type of co-op 1618 environment so far away from municipality and doing that in rural county development 1619 land? 1620 1621 Scott Radway: I think all of us working on the project and H4D members and 2T members realize the 1622 complexity of the overlaying of these many issues that are here. The proposal itself, 1623 which is, there's some statements that have been made that aren't accurate. The 1624 proposal itself is completely a residential development. It does not have any non- 1625 residential components. 1626 1627 Statler Gilfillen: I'm sorry. That differs with what you said about the medical facilities and other things that 1628 will be there. When you say it's only residential, but you've been telling me the opposite 1629 of that, so that's why you're getting that response. 1630 1631 Scott Radway: Well, I think that's incorrect. The medical piece which is state law as Perdita talked 1632 through and gone through and to this item that's No. 8 is that when we start, as applicants 1633 doing due diligence on property and uses, we started going in detail to what did it mean to 1634 be in X, Y, or Z district. What did it mean to be a flexible development within the existing 1635 zoning? What did it mean to be a residential conditional district? This application could 1636 have been brought forward in almost all or any of those districts, and it could have in fact 1637 been brought forward without requiring any rezoning component to it. It could have been 1638 brought forward in the agricultural residential district with one exception, which is the fact 1639 that there are multi-family dwelling units in this rather than all single family or all single 1640 family and duplex, and that's an important distinction, but the assisted living or the family 1641 care centers are governed by state statute. Part of the activity, it was referenced that 1642 there was a lot of back and forth between the applicant and the County. I took that to 1643 imply that somehow there was collusion someplace in there, but, in fact, when we tried to 1644 find that out and did some research, and the County did that research, looked at it and 1645 discovered that the state statutes and the definitions in the LIDO were not matched. So, a 1646 simple piece in this is get the right definition in the right place, that's technical. The other 1647 part is should it be here, and that's obviously a bigger discussion, but state statute 1648 establishes, as was said, that all districts that permit single family or residential 1649 development, actually in any form, can have what is now called a family care home, 1650 defined correctly according to the state statute, which can have a maximum of six people, 282 Approved 8.7.24 1651 it's licensed by the state and it's further distinctive piece in here is that it has to be by a 1652 licensed provider within that piece of property, and so what's in the application is for a 1653 maximum of two single family homes, as defined by the state, that would have a 1654 maximum of six residential occupants within those. That's not, with due respect to some 1655 conversations at the last meeting and other things, that's not a non-residential use as 1656 defined by the state. Now we can all argue about whether it ought to be or whether it 1657 shouldn't be. 1658 1659 Beth Bronson: And I can appreciate that. Thank you for clarifying that there is no commercial 1660 component. 1661 1662 Scott Radway: There is no commercial component, and as such, this application could have come 1663 forward as a residential conditional district or, in some ways, as a flexible development, so 1664 if I can, before Patrick comes up and swats me, if I can say one thing. There's a lot of 1665 overlaps in the design that are pieces that are required by the ordinance. For example, 1666 there was a comment about signs and a lot of back and forth as we were trying to figure 1667 out signs. Well, in fact, to make the application we have to design a sign and submit it 1668 with the application. So, the back and forth on many of these items is not conspiracy in 1669 any fashion. It's trying to find out what we have to submit in order to begin the process. 1670 The second piece that we've heard about things that don't match up is the zoning districts 1671 for this require a perimeter buffer around the property on all sides; buffers against what's 1672 across the street, buffers against the adjacent properties. This project, if brought forward 1673 as a flexible development, in the subdivision process would not have to provide any of 1674 those buffers around to any properties, so the claim that this is a village that's put into the 1675 woods and hidden from everything is, in part,just because your ordinance requires it to do 1676 that, so parts of these are elements of how to build a community, and they're the elements 1677 of how to bring forward and have a good discussion about this, and I think it would be 1678 helpful to have Cy be able to comment on some of these things from this meeting that 1679 happened at the first meeting too. I don't get to make that choice, but it's my 2 cents. 1680 1681 Adam Beeman: Correct me if I'm wrong, Patrick, but the community buildings is why they can't use those 1682 residential districts? 1683 1684 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, in short, they've been working on this for quite some time, and they kind of came to 1685 the point of let's talk about what we need to do and what our vision is and which 1686 category, which way do we go with our request, and I think that a lot of the considerations 1687 with where the category they ended up with were based in, or, what is our best 1688 opportunity to be consistent as best we can or a path towards consistency with our plans, 1689 our goals, our objectives. Also knowing that this board reviewed a residential conditional 1690 district recently, Eden View, 30 plus units, and that is a fairly simple design because 1691 you're talking about just single-family homes on public or private roads. This group is 1692 contemplating more than just single family in a sense that single family, duplex, triplex, 1693 town homes, family care facility, like a multi-family, so the difference from a design 1694 perspective, I think that there was, and I'm not trying to speak for them or weigh whether 1695 that's good or bad, but the reality is once you cross that line you start to get into building 1696 and design commitments. With a master plan there is some very limited flexibility to that. 1697 If you go to an RCD and/or, let's just say theoretically to accommodate their other uses 1698 other than the residences, you start to get into where are the dumpsters, where is the fire 1699 lane, exactly where is the ADA accessibility space, where's the route? It's a higher level 1700 of design, and so I think that there was an obvious choice, like we know a lot about what 283 Approved 8.7.24 1701 we want to do. Do we know definitively where the dumpsters are going to be and the 1702 ADA. I'm not speaking for the applicant. I'm just saying that that is a reality and a 1703 distinction between those two zoning categories. 1704 1705 Beth Bronson: And I think that makes complete sense that you would need a master plan conditional so 1706 that you could obtain approval and then make those changes necessary as you go 1707 through. 1708 1709 Pat Mallett: Then you're diving into more of the details in the design of the site plans and construction 1710 drawing-type documents. 1711 1712 Beth Bronson: Correct. And in the final site plan, if you are awarded a master plan conditional district, 1713 that final plan that gets submitted with the first land distributing permit is that plan and 1714 cannot deviate from that plan. Is that correct? 1715 1716 Patrick Mallett: It has to be consistent, yes. 1717 1718 Beth Bronson: Okay. And if anybody wants to see, this is the general statute for family care homes. 1719 This is the one that they're referencing. They're speaking to about being consistent with 1720 general statute language. Quite simply, it makes a ton of sense. 1721 1722 Charity Kirk: I don't have a problem with the family care homes. I have a problem with the rural 1723 neighborhood activity node getting enlarged so much and it not being consistent with what 1724 they want, but the family care homes I'm fine with. 1725 1726 Beth Bronson: And so, to my original questions that brought you up there to explain so much, it would've 1727 been so helpful to this application had the Economic Development Department been 1728 involved in the construction of this or in the development of this idea in setting this 1729 precedent. There would've been so many more questions that could've been addressed 1730 that the community would've had. 1731 1732 Charity Kirk: And why? Why would it have been more helpful? 1733 1734 Beth Bronson: Because what they're proposing doesn't have a precedent in the area. It is a stark 1735 change to the comprehensive land use plan and the future land use map, and so, if there 1736 were something like that that they have been working with the County on for years, 1 1737 thought that it would be beneficial because the Economic Development Department would 1738 be able to help quantify and qualify all of these different elements that would help 1739 preserve that natural rural character while also allowing innovation to occur. So, that's 1740 just my comment. Thank you. I do also wonder if the reason for the amendment cannot 1741 include the multi-family standards. To what we were talking about earlier, this is an 1742 extremely complex project, and so, the idea that it's going to be so far from any westward 1743 expansion of a municipality, that there are no municipalities that could expand north of it 1744 or south of it, I have a real concern just about going forward with a recommendation that 1745 is going to be taking such a chance on this rural development. So, that's kind of where 1 1746 stand, and I realize that that's not very eloquent, but it does, I think, address the 1747 neighbors, as well as the concerns of the residents and for the members of H4D. Again, 1748 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 1749 very good plan. It's just understanding what that's doing while we're in the middle of 1750 reviewing the comprehensive plan for 2050, and it does bring a lot of questions up for 284 Approved 8.7.24 1751 what does that look like as far as continuity of the neighborhood in line with the rural 1752 neighborhood activity network, which a mom and pop store would it not be, and so, at the 1753 same time, if that's a requirement just to get this land to be able to have this site plan on 1754 it, it's a convoluted way of going about it, and I think that there's better ways to approach 1755 this. 1756 1757 Chris Johnston: I want to make sure that we have the time for Statler's questions as well. 1758 1759 Statler Gilfillen: I'll try to keep mine short. I think we are watching democracy, as it should be, at its best. 1760 1 appreciate both sides and what you've said. What I have listened to is a developer 1761 whose goals and intentions, I think, are excellent. I think they are needed in this county, 1762 but I've also listened to the neighbors, the people there, and when I look at the logistics, 1763 which are the water, the sewer, the transportation issues, that are still fairly undefined, 1764 and I'm concerned about them, and as an architect, there are issues of the design that 1765 this is much more of a scaled down subdivision in the layout than it is actually a village, 1766 and there's a difference. That's an architect speaking. And listening to the neighbors and 1767 the people that are surrounding this, I have to raise serious questions if this particular 1768 location is appropriate for this scale of a development being put in. I'll keep it short, and 1 1769 think that's enough. 1770 1771 Adam Beeman: So, the pieces for me is that you want to change the activity node, and that's to benefit the 1772 public, but your statement from several members in the literature is we want to be left 1773 alone and be invisible to the community. So, you want the benefit of a public rezoning, 1774 but the public doesn't get any benefit from your property. I kind of find that weird. Like 1775 everybody else said, I think the development itself is a great idea. I think it's just trying to 1776 shoehorn in the wrong place. So, with that being said, I'm just going to cut if off there and 1777 say that I'm not for this proposal the way it's proposed. I don't think that any of these 1778 things, if we change this, we're going to open a can of worms that I don't think the 1779 county's ready for. If we are ready for it, then we should do that in the comprehensive 1780 plan because I've been to those meetings, and the community in every one of those 1781 meetings say that we want rural, rural, rural, keep the woods, keep the nature, keep the 1782 animals, keep the wildlife, and this yes, it is stuffed in. If you did a normal development, 1783 you could put 90 homes on that 90 acres. You want to put 60 additional homes on a third 1784 of that 90 acres. To me, that's just a wrong place. We're not in the city. We're not 1785 anywhere close to those metropolitan areas, and while I get the point, you want to have 1786 concerts. That's not really something that your neighbors get a benefit of, but they'll have 1787 to hear it. You want to have all those other things, and the traffic, they'll have to deal with 1788 it, but they don't get any benefit of it. So, if you want to use something that's benefiting 1789 the public, then I think you should benefit the public. Otherwise, go back and figure out 1790 how to do it with an appropriate zoning where you don't have to jump through all these 1791 hoops to make it happen, because it's like twisting an arm to make it happen for you, and 1792 then the next guy that comes along, we've got to twist an arm to make it happen for him, 1793 where it should just happen at the County level and the UDO. So, I would say if you want 1794 that to happen, go advocate with the Board of County Commissioners and see if we can 1795 make that happen in the 2050 comprehensive plan because we're currently working on 1796 that. But until that gets changed, I really don't see how this whole thing works. I'm going 1797 to leave it at that, and I'm going to leave it for the Board to any other questions or 1798 comments or motion. I'm open for it all. 1799 285 Approved 8.7.24 1800 Chris Johnston: I would make a motion, and this is to put a flag up. The motion is to reject the three 1801 agenda items as presented and submit to the County Commissioners as such. 1802 1803 Statler Gilfillen: Will second that. 1804 1805 Beth Bronson: Each one of these needs to be an individual motion? 1806 1807 Adam Beeman: Perdita is going to clarify for us. 1808 1809 Perdita Holtz: It would be good if you could do three separate motions, and if you could use the words 1810 approve or deny instead of reject. 1811 1812 Chris Johnston: Okay. I make a motion to deny Agenda Item 7 and submit that to the Board of County 1813 Commissioners. 1814 1815 Statler Gilfillen: Second that. 1816 1817 Chris Johnston: All of these seemed tied together, so,just to confirm, we're doing this three separate 1818 times? 1819 1820 Perdita Holtz: You need to, for a couple of them state why you're doing it, not for the comp plan, but for 1821 the rezoning. You have to state why you're doing it. There's a statement of consistency 1822 and such. 1823 1824 Chris Johnston: Sure. Of course. 1825 1826 Beth Bronson: So, before you finish with that motion, because I think you're on the right track, I would 1827 like to make a motion to extend the meeting time. Like 15 minutes, if needed be, up to 1828 10:30. Just making sure because we have three different motions to go through. 1829 1830 Chris Johnston: I was planning on doing all three in tandem because I think all three of them depend on 1831 each other. 1832 1833 Adam Beeman: If we get to 10:00 here we'll vote on a push out. 1834 1835 Patrick Mallett: Just to clarify, we'll do them in succession, but they're different applications that have 1836 different case numbers, so we could do them in rapid succession, but they really do need 1837 to be three separate items. And 'its approval or denial on all, as Perdita said, on the 1838 zoning case, you need to have a statement of inconsistency or consistency. 1839 1840 Chris Johnston: Lamar, would you mind handling that now?You are so much better at this than I am. 1841 1842 Patrick Mallett: You need to articulate why. 1843 1844 Adam Beeman: We'll start with 7. 1845 1846 Lamar Proctor: Does 7 need a statement of inconsistency? 1847 1848 Perdita Holtz: No, it does not. 1849 286 Approved 8.7.24 1850 Patrick Mallett: The zoning is the only one. 1851 1852 Perdita Holtz: Well, the UDO text amendment also. 1853 1854 Patrick Mallett: Yep, sorry. 1855 1856 Adam Beeman: 7, we don't need a statement of consistency. 1857 1858 Lamar Proctor: 8, do we need a statement? 1859 1860 Perdita Holtz: You need to give your rationale on why you're denying a text amendment. 1861 1862 Lamar Proctor: Okay. And then 9, obviously we do. Got it. I make a motion to deny the application as to 1863 Agenda Item 7. 1864 1865 Chris Johnston: I second that motion. 1866 1867 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to Deny Agenda Item 7. Seconded by Chris Johnston 1868 1869 IN FAVOR: Adam Beeman, Lamar Proctor, Charity Kirk, Chris Johnston, Whitney Watson, Liz Kalies, Steve 1870 Kaufmann, Statler Gilfillen 1871 1872 OPPOSED: Beth Bronson 1873 1874 MOTION PASSES 8 TO 1875 1876 Lamar Proctor: All right. I make a motion to deny the application as to Agenda Item No. 8, that it is 1877 inconsistent with the comprehensive land use plan and adopt the statement of 1878 inconsistency as presented by the Planning Department. 1879 1880 Perdita Holtz: There isn't a statement of inconsistency for 8. Just give a rationale on why. 1881 1882 Lamar Proctor: So, I make a motion to deny the application as to Agenda Item No. 8. Part of that is to 1883 codify on which future land use classifications MPD-CD may be applied. So, the rationale 1884 would be that extending MPD-CD zoning to rural activity nodes is inconsistent with the 1885 comprehensive land use plan. 1886 1887 Adam Beeman: Do I have a second? 1888 1889 Chris Johnston: Seconded. 1890 1891 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to Deny Agenda Item 8. Seconded by Chris Johnston 1892 1893 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 1894 Lamar Proctor: I make a motion to deny the application as to Agenda Item No. 9 with the statement that it 1895 is inconsistent with the comprehensive land use plan and adopt the statement of 1896 inconsistency as presented by the Planning Department and its attachment. 1897 1898 Adam Beeman: Do we have a second? 1899 287 Approved 8.7.24 1900 Beth Bronson: I will second that motion. 1901 1902 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to Deny Agenda Item 9. Seconded by Beth Bronson 1903 1904 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 1905 1906 Beth Bronson: And I just wanted to make sure, I'm making a comment now that this recommendation is 1907 denied, but this is still going to the Board of Commissioners for a public hearing. 1908 1909 Patrick Mallett: It has to. That is the end of the process. 1910 1911 Beth Bronson: It's their ultimate decision on whether to accept or reject the proposed amendments. 1912 1913 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT 1914 1915 Adam Beeman: Do I have a motion to adjourn? 1916 1917 Chris Johnston: I make a motion that we adjourn. 1918 1919 Steve Kaufmann: Second. 1920 1921 Adam Beeman: All in favor? Adjourned. 1922 1923 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Steve Kaufmann. 1924 1925 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 1926 1927 The meeting adjourned at 9:54 PM. 1928 1929 Attachment A6 288 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov I 131W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245.2575 May 28, 2024 Hands Four Development Cooperative Zoning Atlas Amendment— Conditional District Application Case #: MA23-0005 PI Ns: 9739-72-0339 Re: Development Advisory Committee Report for MA23-0005 (UDO § 1.9.5) The Orange County Development Advisory Committee (DAC) met on February 1, 2024 and April 4, 2024, for review and discussion of the Zoning Atlas Amendment— Conditional District application for PIN 9739-72-0339 (Case #: MA23-0005). The Orange County DAC has no objections to the approval of the Zoning Atlas Amendment— Conditional District 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, JA Cy tober Planning & Inspections Director Orange County Government I www.orangecountync.gov 1 919.732.8181 289 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: April 30, 2024 CASE: MAP23-0005 PIN: 9739720339 WATERSHED: Haw River PROJECT: Planned community- Zoning request change to MPD-CZ 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 "Fiddlehead Corner" project (hereafter, the "project"). The project is located within 90.133 acres of property on Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill. The request proposes development consisting of: Planned mixed housing and product type residential community with community components including: • Community Center; • Fitness Center; Farm; • Walking trails; • Community outdoor commons space; • Community tree house; • Pavilion; • Community gardens; and, 290 • Wood shop. The Staff comments contained herein are based upon the submittal of a required Site Plan, dated March 21, 2024, and posted for review on March 25, 2024. These findings should not be interpreted as the Division's final analysis/approval of the proposed development. Soil and site evaluations will not be 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. X Contact Public Water Supply for on-site water supply. X Other: Pending inspections requirements from DHHS regarding facilities 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. 04-30-2024 Victoria Hudson, MPA, REHS Date Or designee 291 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 191.9.245.2575 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: May 14, 2024 CASE: MA23-0005 - Zoning Atlas Amendment Rezoning Application (Conditional District) PIN: 973-97-203-39 WATERSHED: Haw River Unprotected (Cape Fear River Basin) PROJECT: Fiddlehead Corner 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 Rezoning, submitted as "Fiddlehead Corner" project (hereafter, the "project"). The project is located within 90.13 acres of property to the southeast of the intersection of Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop in the Bingham Township of Orange County, North Carolina. The application/request proposes development of a mixed housing and product type residential community with community components consisting of: ■ community center; fitness center; farm; walking trails; community outdoor common space; community tree house; pavilion; community gardens; and wood shop. The Staff comments contained herein are based upon review of Master Plan Drawings, dated December 29, 2023 and revised on March 21, 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 be reviewed and approved development activity consistent with the Site Plan. Page I of 2 292 Erosion & Sedimentation Control (E&SC): According to current Orange County GIS imagery of the project parcel, there are mapped stream features within the project parcel boundaries. Orange County enforces stream buffers along streams, rivers, water bodies, and other water features (e.g., wetlands) as outlined in Section 6.13 of the Orange County UDO. Based on the submitted materials for the proposed development, the project could meet the basic Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements as outlined in Section 6.15 of the Orange County UDO 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: The submitted materials indicate a level of development that could meet current UDO requirements specific to stormwater management. Three (3) permanent Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) are proposed. Only the general locations of the proposed SCMs have been provided, with no supporting calculations. It is feasible that the project can meet water quantity requirements (i.e., post-development stormwater runoff attenuation). There are no water quality requirements (i.e., post-development nutrient attenuation) currently associated with the Watershed Overlay District within which the project is located. There is a small section of Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) located in the southeastern corner of 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 rezoning request so long as a complete LDP application and supporting plans and calculations are submitted to Orange County for review, processing and approval prior to commencement of on-site Land- Disturbing Activity. As the project progresses, additional field observations, and/or permitting by others (e.g., US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Department of Environmental Quality, NC Department of Transportation, etc.), additional buffers, setbacks, and/or additional Orange County review and permitting may apply beyond the proposed development as shown with this rezoning request. P.E. Digitally signed by Christopher J.Sandt,P.E. Christopher J. Sandt EDN:cn=ChristopherJ.Sandt,P.E.,o-Orange County,North Carolina, ou-Engineering Division,email=csandt@orangecountync.gov,c-US Date:2024.05.14 12:27:14-04'00' Christopher Sandt, PE Date 5/14/2024 Steve Kaltenbach Date Page 2of2 293 ORANGE COUNTY A. - V Department of Environment, Agriculture,Parks&Recreation MEMORANDUM To: Taylor Perschau, Current Planning Supervisor, Planning and Inspections Department From: Christian Himi,Land Conservation Manager, DEAPR Date: January 30,2023 Re: Fiddlehead-Zoning Map Amendment and Master Plan Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Zoning Map Amendment upon land listed under Hands Four Development Cooperative and Thomas Cheek. The development would include"a maximum of 150 residences,with community buildings, open space, and roadways, on approximately 90 acres acres located on the southwest side of Morrow Mill Road,just south of the intersection with NC 54 West. The subject property is one parcel (PIN 9739-72-0339) and is within the Haw River Watershed. The property contains three unnamed tributaries, and one confluence,which drain directly into Collins Creek approximately 350 feet east of the property boundary. DEAPR comments on development projects are generally intended to a)address any concerns with respect to potential impacts on important natural or cultural resources, and b)identify any areas that might be desirable for possible dedication to the County for public recreation/open space pursuant to Section 7.11.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Natural Resources Review Comments: The plan is not specific as to how much area will be set aside as open space,but it appears primarily around the riparian buffers of the three unnamed tributaries as delineated within the site plan. The southeasternmost area on the property containing the tributary and associated forested area, approximately one to two 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 Inventory,and the dataset of the Biodiversity and Wildlife Corridor Assessment, confirms the primary tributary and associated forested corridor (approximately 100-150 feet from centerline)to be of medium conservation value (Score 5/10). The section of Collins Creek south of NC 54, one-and three-quarter miles downstream,is listed by the County and State Natural Heritage Area Inventory(Haw River Aquatic Habitat). Any such use of the areas around the tributaries should allow 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. The development of the site,including culverts and/or bridging, should be done with care to limit the disturbance of the stream bed and walls. All other uses or potential improvements associated with the development of the tract should be located outside of this area. 294 Water Resources Review Comments: The surveyed streams differ from what is currently mapped in the Orange County GIS Hydrology Layer so I would suggest that a Surface Water ID be conducted by Orange County staff to verify jurisdictional/ non jurisdictional streams present on the property. If the noted non jurisdictional stream that is in the SCM#1 area of Phase 2 is in fact jurisdictional,then SCM's and proposed development cannot occur within the stream footprint or it's buffer. As for the section of Fiddlehead Drive that crosses the noted jurisdictional stream channel,please make sure that proper permits are obtained, and that infrastructure is in place to divert stormwater away from the stream channel crossing and to SCM's. This same stream channel continues up to the small existing farm pond that is proposed to be enlarged and it is currently mapped in the Orange County GIS as being jurisdictional despite the survey saying it is not. If it is in fact jurisdictional then the pond area could be hydrologically connected to the stream and subject to buffer regulations as well. Cultural Resources Review Comments: There are no previously identified historic properties or resources located on the subject parcel. However,the project subdivision plat and sheets C1.0 and C1.2 indicate the presence of a dilapidated house with a stone chimney. This has the potential to be a historic/cultural resource and therefore requires documentation by DEAPR staff to make an assessment of its condition, significance and physical integrity,prior to any development taking place.Also,the historic house and related farm buildings located at the intersection of Morrow Mill and Goldmine Loop roads appear to date to the 1930s and therefore should be documented and photographed for the County's historic property inventory program by DEAPR staff. As with any development,care should be taken to locate,identify and protect any potential human burial sites or cemeteries. Our review of maps showing the locations of existing cemeteries does not show any identified burials on this parcel. However,this site may contain burials in the form of informally arranged graves marked only by plain field stones used to mark the graves of the enslaved population and their descendants. This site should be carefully searched for the presence of such burial sites. 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 currently holds no land in the Bingham District to be developed as a park site,but is working to acquire ca 75 acres for the district park site. This is far more than a land dedication for this site would generate, so based on this,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 Hirm at 245-2514 or Peter Sandbeck at 245-2517. 295 AC*DOA Department of Administration Roy Cooper Pamela B. Cashwell Governor Secretary May 21, 2024 Brian S. Collie Hands Four Development Cooperative c/o Orange County Planning& Inspections 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200 Hillsborough, NC 27278- Re: SCH File#24-E-4300-0257 Rezoning application for the purpose of Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D)to develop an arts focused residential village, Fiddlehead Corner, containing a maximum of 150 dwellings and 2 six bed Family Care Facilities plus the community buildings, recreation areas, open space and roadways that Dear Brian S. Collie: 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 r, Location 1301 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 116 West)ones St. I Raleigh NC 27603 s , ,.4`::'::..-;�`✓ 984-236-0000 T ncadmin.nc.gov 296 Control No.: 24-E-4300-0257 Date Received: 4/1/2024 County.: ORANGE Agency Response: 5/1/2024 Review Closed: 5/1/2024 JESSICA MOSLEY CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Project Information Type: State Environmental Policy Act ping Applicant: Hands Four Development Cooperative Project Desc.: Rezoning application for the purpose of Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D)to develop an arts focused residential village, Fiddlehead Corner, containing a maximum of 150 dwellings and 2 six bed Family Care Facilities plus the community buildings, recreation areas, open space and roadways that support a small community of primarily senior-aged residents. Location: 5824 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27516; PIN:9739720339 Additional documents regarding this project can be access at https://centraIpermits.orangecountync.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SeIfService#/plan/e63acbd9-28f5- 4398-a638-6a579665c9cc?ta b=attachments As a result of this review the following is submitted: ❑✓ No Comment ❑Comments Below F-1 Documents Attached Reviewed By: JESSICA MOSLEY Date: 4/22/2024 297 Control No.: 24-E-4300-0257 Date Received: 4/1/2024 County.: ORANGE Agency Response: 5/1/2024 Review Closed: 5/1/2024 DEVON BORGARDT CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF NATURAL& CULTURAL RESOURCE Project Information Type: State Environmental Policy Act ping Applicant: Hands Four Development Cooperative Project Desc.: Rezoning application for the purpose of Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D)to develop an arts focused residential village, Fiddlehead Corner, containing a maximum of 150 dwellings and 2 six bed Family Care Facilities plus the community buildings, recreation areas, open space and roadways that support a small community of primarily senior-aged residents. Location: 5824 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27516; PIN:9739720339 Additional documents regarding this project can be access at https://centraIpermits.orangecountync.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SeIfService#/plan/e63acbd9-28f5- 4398-a638-6a579665c9cc?tab=attachments As a result of this review the following is submitted: [-]No Comment F-1 Comments Below ❑✓ Documents Attached Reviewed By: DEVON BORGARDT Date: 4/22/2024 298 Control No.: 24-E-4300-0257 Date Received: 4/1/2024 County.: ORANGE Agency Response: 5/1/2024 Review Closed: 5/1/2024 JINTAO WEN CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Project Information Type: State Environmental Policy Act ping Applicant: Hands Four Development Cooperative Project Desc.: Rezoning application for the purpose of Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D)to develop an arts focused residential village, Fiddlehead Corner, containing a maximum of 150 dwellings and 2 six bed Family Care Facilities plus the community buildings, recreation areas, open space and roadways that support a small community of primarily senior-aged residents. Location: 5824 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27516; PIN:9739720339 Additional documents regarding this project can be access at https://centraIpermits.orangecountync.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SeIfService#/plan/e63acbd9-28f5- 4398-a638-6a579665c9cc?ta b=attachments As a result of this review the following is submitted: ❑No Comment ❑✓ Comments Below F-1 Documents Attached The proposed project site is in close vicinity of Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). If there is any encroachment, grading, fill or placement of equipment or materials in the SFHA, a floodplain development permit issued by Orange County will be required. Please coordinate with the County's Floodplain Administrator for permitting if needed. Reviewed By: JINTAO WEN Date: 4/22/2024 299 Control No.: 24-E-4300-0257 Date Received: 4/1/2024 County.: ORANGE Agency Response: 5/1/2024 Review Closed: 5/1/2024 LYN BILES CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Project Information Type: State Environmental Policy Act ping Applicant: Hands Four Development Cooperative Project Desc.: Rezoning application for the purpose of Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D)to develop an arts focused residential village, Fiddlehead Corner, containing a maximum of 150 dwellings and 2 six bed Family Care Facilities plus the community buildings, recreation areas, open space and roadways that support a small community of primarily senior-aged residents. Location: 5824 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27516; PIN:9739720339 Additional documents regarding this project can be access at https://centraIpermits.orangecountync.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SeIfService#/plan/e63acbd9-28f5- 4398-a638-6a579665c9cc?ta b=attachments As a result of this review the following is submitted: ❑No Comment ❑Comments Below ❑✓ Documents Attached Reviewed By: LYN BILES Date: 5/21/2024 300 North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M.Bartos,Administrator Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History Secretary D.Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary,Darin J.Waters,Ph.D. April 19, 2024 MEMORANDUM TO: Kadisha Molyneaux kadisha.mol ny eauxgdoa.nc.gov North Carolina State Clearinghouse Department of Administration FROM: Ramona M. Bartos, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer SUBJECT: Construct residential village, 5825 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, Orange County, 24-E-4300-0257, ER 24-0200 Thank you for your email of April 1, 2024, concerning the above project. We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or environmental.review(adncr.nc.gov. In all future communication concerning this project,please cite the above referenced tracking number. Location:109 East Jones Street,Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address:4617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax:(919)814-6570/814-6898 oE,,STATE Fti 301 xy *�[pVloEv�* ROY COOPER NORTH CAROLINA Governor Environmental Quality ELIZABETH S.BISER Secretary To: Kadisha Molyneaux State Clearinghouse NC Department of Administration From: Lyn Biles Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service Washington Regional Office Re: 24-0257 Scoping- Rezoning application for the purpose of Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D)to develop an arts focused residential village, Fiddlehead Corner, containing a maximum of 150 dwellings and 2 six bed Family Care Facilities plus the community buildings, recreation areas, open space and roadways that support a small community of primarily senior-aged residents. Orange County Date: May 11, 2024 The proposal for the mentioned project has been reviewed by the Department of Environment Quality.After analyzing the information provided, our agencies have identified several permits that may be required.You'll find the comments attached for your review. We are always available to assist the applicant with any doubts or concerns. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond. Attachments D E Qo Nrth Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 217 West Jones Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1601 NORTHcnaouNA ......eM of Envtron...,OualKY /`� 919.707.8600 �c STATE oF� 302 p�O MP o.173 4W a �y ROY COOPER n Governor ELIZABETH S.BISER Secretary *fa`Q ^N0`w* MICHAEL SCOTT NORTH CAROLINA Director Environmental Quality DATE: April 9, 2024 TO: Michael Scott, Division Director through Sharon Brinkley FROM: Lee Hill, Environmental Senior Specialist-Solid Waste Section Field Operations Branch RE: SEPA Project 24-0257 Orange County, NC Fiddlehead Corner Development The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the scoping document submitted by Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D)for the proposed arts focused residential village containing a maximum of 150 dwellings, recreations areas, open space and roadways that support a small community of primarily senior-aged residents located at 5824 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, 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: https://deq.nc.gov/about/d ivisions/waste-management/solid-waste-section/solid-waste-perm itted- facility-information-and-guidance/solid-waste-facility-lists Please contact Chuck Kirchner, Environmental Senior Specialist,for any questions regarding solid waste management for this project. Mr. Kirchner can be reached at(336) 776-9633 or by email at chuck.kirchner@deq.nc.gov. Ec: Jason Watkins, Field Operations Branch Head Chuck Kirchner, Environmental Senior Specialist E Q101, 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 oenemmemofEn.mnm�iauaft /`� 828.296.4500 State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 303 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 24-0257 Due Date:4/26/2024 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. El Water days Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary. (N/A) Complete application must be received,and permit issued prior to the ❑ installation of a groundwater monitoring well located on property not 7 days Well Construction Permit owned by the applicant,and for a large capacity(>100,000 gallons per (15 days) ) day)water supply well. Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property ❑ owner.On-site inspection.Pre-application conference usual.Filling may 55 days Dredge and Fill Permit require Easement to Fill from N.C.Department of Administration and (90 days) Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. Permit to construct&operate Air Pollution Application must be submitted,and permit received prior to ❑ construction and operation of the source. If a permit is required Abatement facilities and/or Emission Sources as in an area without local zoning,then there are additional 90 days per 15 A NCAC(2Q.0100 thru 2Q.0300) requirements and timelines(2Q.0113). Any open burning associated with subject ® proposal must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC N/A 60 days (90 days) 2D.1900 Demolition or renovations of structures Please Note-The Health Hazards Control Unit(HHCU)of the N.C. containing asbestos material must be in Department of Health and Human Services,must be notified of plans to ® compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1110(a)(1) demolish a building,including residences for commercial or industrial 60 days which requires notification and removal prior to expansion,even if no asbestos is present in the building. (90 days) demolition.Contact Asbestos Control Group 919-707-5950 The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity.An erosion& sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres are to be disturbed.Plan must be filed with and approved 20 days ® by applicable Regional Office(Land Quality Section)at least 30 days before beginning activity. A NPDES Construction Stormwater permit(NCG010000)is also usually issued should design features meet minimum requirements. A fee of (30 days) $100 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional fees. Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOT's approved program. Particular (30 days) ❑ attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable Stormwater conveyances and outlets. Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with Orange County Local Government's approved Based on Local ® program. Particular attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable Stormwater conveyances and outlets. Program ❑ Compliance with 15A NCAC 04B.0125—Buffers Zones for Trout Waters shall have an undisturbed buffer zone 25 feet wide or of sufficient width to confine visible siltation within the twenty-five percent(25%)of the buffer zone nearest the land-disturbing activity,whichever is greater. ❑ Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.0126-NPDES Stormwater Program which regulates three types of activities:Industrial, 30-60 days Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System&Construction activities that disturb>_1 acre. (90 days) Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000-State Stormwater Permitting Programs regulate site development and post- 45 days ❑ construction stormwater runoff control. Areas subject to these permit programs include all 20 coastal counties,and (90 days) various other counties and watersheds throughout the state. DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 1 of 3 April 4,2022/lbh State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 304 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 24-0257 Due Date:4/26/2024 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. ❑ Application filed with DEQ at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. 10 days Geophysical Exploration Permit Application by letter.No standard application forms. N/A Application fee based on structure size is charged.Must include 15-20 days ❑ State Lakes Construction Permit descriptions&drawings of structure&proof of ownership of riparian N/A property Compliance with the T15A 02H.0500 Certifications are required 60 days ® 401 Water Quality Certification whenever construction or operation of facilities will result in a (130 days) discharge into navigable water as described in 33 CFR part 323. Compliance with Catawba,Goose Creek,Jordan Lake,Randleman,Tar Pamlico or Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules is required.Buffer requirements: ® http:/Ideg.nc.gov/`about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/401-wetlands-buffer-permits/401-riparian- buffer-protection-program Nutrient Offset:Loading requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins,and in the Jordan and Falls Lake ❑ watersheds,as part of the nutrient-management strategies in these areas. DWR nutrient offset information: http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/nonpoint-source-management/nutrient-offset-information ❑ CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00-$475.00 fee must accompany application 75 days (150 days) ❑ CAMA Permit for MINOR development $100.00 fee must accompany application 22 days(25 days) ❑ Abandonment of any wells,if required must be in accordance with Title 15A.Subchapter 2C.0100. ❑ Notification of the proper regional office is requested if"orphan"underground storage tanks(USTS)are discovered during any excavation operation. Plans and specifications for the construction,expansion,or alteration of a public water system must be approved by the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction ® as per 15A NCAC 18C.0300 et.seq.,Plans and specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh, 30 days North Carolina 27699-1634. All public water supply systems must comply with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements.For more information,contact the Public Water Supply Section,(919)707-9100. If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction,plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to ® the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699- 30 days 1634.For more information,contact the Public Water Supply Section,(919)707-9100. Plans and specifications for the construction,expansion,or alteration of the water system must be approved through the delegated ❑ plan approval authority. Please contact them at for further information. DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 2 of 3 April 4,2022/lbh State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 305 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 24-0257 Due Date:4/26/2024 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. 4/18/2024 DWR-WQROS ❑ & (Aquifer&Surface) & DWR-PWS TP ❑ See checked boxes. 4/16/2024 DEM LR(LQ&SW) ❑ DWM—UST ❑ Other Comments ❑ / / REGIONAL OFFICES Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below. ❑ Asheville Regional Office ❑ Fayetteville Regional Office ❑ Mooresville Regional Office 2090 U.S.70 Highway 225 Green Street,Suite 714, 610 East Center Avenue,Suite 301, Swannanoa,NC 28778-8211 Fayetteville,NC 28301-5043 Mooresville,NC 28115 Phone:828-296-4500 Phone:910-433-3300 Phone:704-663-1699 Fax:828-299-7043 Fax:910-486-0707 Fax:704-663-6040 ® Raleigh Regional Office ❑ Washington Regional Office ❑ Wilmington Regional Office 3800 Barrett Drive, 943 Washington Square Mall, 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Raleigh,NC 27609 Washington,NC 27889 Wilmington,NC 28405 Phone:919-791-4200 Phone:252-946-6481 Phone:910-796-7215 Fax:919-571-4718 Fax:252-975-3716 Fax:910-350-2004 ❑ Winston-Salem Regional Office 450 Hanes Mill Road,Suite 300, Winston-Salem,NC 27105 Phone:336-776-9800 Fax:336-776-9797 DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 3 of 3 April 4,2022/lbh 306 ROY COOPER Governor ELIZABETH S.BISERd Secretary MICHAEL SCOTT NORTH CAROLINA Director Environmental Quality Date: April 9, 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# 24-0257 Hands Four Development Cooperative/Orange County Planning and Inspection, Orange County, North Carolina The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of sites under its jurisdiction to the Hands Four Development Cooperative/Orange County Planning and Inspection project. Proposed project is for the development of an arts-focused residential village, Fiddlehead Corner, containing a maximum of 150 dwellings and two six-bed Family Care Facilities plus the community buildings, recreation areas,open space and roadways that support a small community of primarily senior-aged residents. 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. EQ� �� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Waste Management 217 West Jones Street 1 1646 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1646 `oaFricnaoi.FNn i 919.707.8200 4/9/24,9:12 AM about:blank 307 PaP., Superfund & Brownfield Sites SEPA/NEPA Review Report Area of Interest (AOI) Information Orange County SEPA project 24-0257 Area : 3,214.63 acres Apr 9 2024 9:10:20 Eastern Daylight Time �rrN 4 M+�tM1Etem Ch Rd3 mI to=r RA - "�P I El I `Why I �yL for±.a� n I ! I � 6 exp 1 � �0 - `F. Carr�i:■ .f "V t �i ee z _ ■ 4 Y$ _ 1 I _moi gym.. I ? V 192 224 Inactive Hazardous Sites 4 Inactive Eligible Pre Regulatory Landfill Sites n 1 1 z n,l NC Erownfields Location View 91 No Further Interest Investigation o z a km Recorded • DryCleaning Contaminated _ can.oa�s�county,N s 90T,Eon,H£n£,Gamnn,ING3IEMENi P,115G5.h1ETINASA. about:blank 1/2 4/9/24,9:12 AM about:blank 308 Superfund and Brownfield Sites Orange County SEPA project 24-0257 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 2/2 309 Department of Environmental Quality Project Review Project Number: 24-0257 County: Orange Date Received: 4-2-2024 Due Date: 4-26-2024 Scoping-Rezoning application for the purpose of Hands Four Development Project Description: Cooperative (H4D) to develop an arts focused residential village, Fiddlehead Corner, containing a maximum of 150 dwellings and 2 six bed Family Care Facilities plus the community buildings, recreation areas, open space and roadways that support a small community of primarily senior-aged residents. Location: 5824 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27516;PIN:9739720339 Additional documents regarding this project can be access at https:// centralpermits.orangecountync.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService#/plan/ e63acbd9-28f5-4398-a 638-6a579665c9cc?tab=attachments This Project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville a Air E]Air Quality El Coastal Management Fayetteville a DWR Waste Mgmt Marine Fisheries FlMooresville Wr] DWR-Public Water Water Resources Mgmt (Public CC&PS Div. of Water,Planning&Water Emergency Mgmt Wf Raleigh Fv_-�I DEMLR(LQ&SW) Quality Program) DMF-Shellfish Sanitation Washington a DWM DWR-Transportation Unit �✓ Wildlife Olivia FlWilmington Wildlife/DOT F] Winston Salem Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: 4/12/2024 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) 310 Department of Environmental Quality Project Review Project Number: 24-0257 County: Orange Date Received: 4-2-2024 Due Date: 4-26-2024 Scoping-Rezoning application for the purpose of Hands Four Development Project Description: Cooperative (H4D) to develop an arts focused residential village, Fiddlehead Corner, containing a maximum of 150 dwellings and 2 six bed Family Care Facilities plus the community buildings, recreation areas, open space and roadways that support a small community of primarily senior-aged residents. Location: 5824 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27516;PIN:9739720339 Additional documents regarding this project can be access at https:// centralpermits.orangecountync.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService#/plan/ e63acbd9-28f5-4398-a 638-6a579665c9cc?tab=attachments This Project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville a Air E]Air Quality El Coastal Management Fayetteville a DWR Waste Mgmt Marine Fisheries FlMooresville Wr] DWR-Public Water Water Resources Mgmt (Public CC&PS Div. of Water,Planning&Water Emergency Mgmt Wf Raleigh Fv_-�I DEMLR(LQ&SW) Quality Program) DMF-Shellfish Sanitation Washington a DWM DWR-Transportation Unit �✓ Wildlife Olivia FlWilmington Wildlife/DOT F] Winston Salem Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: 4/19/24 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) 311 � + Orange County Emergency Services A Prepared,Coordinated,and Integrated Emergency Services System E-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: Patrick Mallett - Deputy Director Development Services, Planning & Inspections Date: May 30, 2024 CASE: MA23-0005 (Fiddlehead) PIN: 9739624313 & 9739720339 PROJECT: Master Plan Conditional District (MPD-CD) 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 rezoning request. All requirements have been met for emergency apparatus access to the site, addressing, and water flow requirements. More requirements like types, location, and fire department connections for sprinkler systems not shown on the site plan will be addressed during developmental phases. May 30, 2024 Elizabeth Farnan, FM Date 510 Meadowlands Drive I Hillsborough, NC 27278 1 (919) 245-6100 Main Office www.orangecountync.gov/oces 312 MEMORANDUM TO: DAC:FIDDLEHEAD PROJECT FROM: MATT TAYLOR,ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBJECT: COMMENTS FOR FIDDLEHEAD DEVELOPMENT DATE: 5/29/24 Location of waste enclosure has been discussed for the multi-family and commercial buildings that will be on the property in POD A2 along Fiddlehead Drive. The waste enclosure will need to be located within POD A2 so that collection vehicles will be able to access the dumpsters/carts and exit efficiently. The waste enclosure will need to be in place for future residents/businesses to use. The townhome/single family dwelling will all have individual recycling carts that can be collected by OC Solid Waste Management. 313 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECI`IONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1132.W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245 2575 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: May 14, 2024 CASE: MA23-0005 - Zoning Atlas Amendment Rezoning Application (Conditional District) PIN: 973-97-203-39 WATERSHED: Haw River Unprotected (Cape Fear River Basin) PROJECT: Fiddlehead Corner 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 Rezoning, submitted as "Fiddlehead Corner" project (hereafter, the "project"). The project is located within 90.13 acres of property to the southeast of the intersection of Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop in the Bingham Township of Orange County, North Carolina. The application/request proposes development of a mixed housing and product type residential community with community components consisting of: ■ community center; fitness center; farm; walking trails; community outdoor common space; community tree house; pavilion; community gardens; and wood shop. The Staff comments contained herein are based upon review of Master Plan Drawings, dated December 29, 2023 and revised on March 21 , 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 be reviewed and approved development activity consistent with the Site Plan. Page I of 2 314 Erosion & Sedimentation Control (E&SC): According to current Orange County GIS imagery of the project parcel, there are mapped stream features within the project parcel boundaries. Orange County enforces stream buffers along streams, rivers, water bodies, and other water features (e.g., wetlands) as outlined in Section 6.13 of the Orange County UDO. Based on the submitted materials for the proposed development, the project could meet the basic Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements as outlined in Section 6.15 of the Orange County UDO 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: The submitted materials indicate a level of development that could meet current UDO requirements specific to stormwater management. Three (3) permanent Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) are proposed. Only the general locations of the proposed SCMs have been provided, with no supporting calculations. It is feasible that the project can meet water quantity requirements (i.e., post-development stormwater runoff attenuation). There are no water quality requirements (i.e., post-development nutrient attenuation) currently associated with the Watershed Overlay District within which the project is located. There is a small section of Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) located in the southeastern corner of 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 rezoning request so long as a complete LDP application and supporting plans and calculations are submitted to Orange County for review, processing and approval prior to commencement of on-site Land- Disturbing Activity. As the project progresses, additional field observations, and/or permitting by others (e.g., US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Department of Environmental Quality, NC Department of Transportation, etc.), additional buffers, setbacks, and/or additional Orange County review and permitting may apply beyond the proposed development as shown with this rezoning request. Christopher Sandt, PE Date 5/14/2024 Steve Kaltenbach Date Page 2 of 2 315 Attachment A7 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An applicant-initiated amendment (MA 23-003) 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) Hands Four ' Agricultural Residential 0 Master Plan Development (AR) Development — 9739-72-0339 Bingham (H D4) ' Haw River Unprotected Conditional District Watershed Haw River Unprotected Watershed The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments, 2.9.1 Conditional Districts, and 6.7 Additional Standards fora MPD-CD of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been reviewed and, with the provision of a Master Plan satisfying these needs and otherwise demonstrating consistency with the UDO; and b. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it furthers the goals of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and is located in an area designated on the Future Land Use Map as "Rural Neighborhood Activity Node." Such Nodes have been identified as "land focused on designated road intersections within a Rural Residential or Agricultural-Residential area that is appropriate for small scale commercial uses characteristic of "Mom and Pop" convenience stores and gas stations." (reference pages 5-16 and F-2 of the Comprehensive Plan and page 10-39 of the UDO). As detailed in the site-specific plan and the applicant's submitted conditions, Fiddlehead Corner includes two Family Care Facilities for no more than six (6) individuals each, and a community center that will be sized to serve local interests in entertainment and congregation; and c. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 Statement of Intent - Amendments, and 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans of the UDO 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; and 316 d. The proposal is consistent with goals/objectives outlined within the Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: Fiddlehead Corner proposes to bring 150 senior-targeted homes to southwestern Orange County via a Master Plan Development - Conditional District (MPD-CD) with a binding master plan that commits their layout, road network, utility network, amenities, aesthetics, and buffering and open space protection. Fiddlehead Corner is placed within a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN), and the MPD-CD zoning district is supported within that activity node, consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Appendix F, as amended. The master plan accompanying the application shows a layout and design that concentrate density and development internal to the property, preserving open space on over half of the property and separating the rural, largely agricultural land uses from this site. While the project introduces substantial new homes to the area it is unlikely to create an unsustainable land use pattern (i.e. "sprawl") due to its location within the RNAN and the limited remaining area both within the activity node and availability of properties that can support such development. Indeed, by focusing density at this location, Fiddlehead Corner will serve the market demands within a focused location, rather than distributing 150 new lots throughout the NC 54 corridor. The adjacent farms should be effectively unimpacted by this more intensive and overwhelmingly residential development that surrounds itself with preserved open space and buffering. The project serves the Comprehensive Plan's Parks and Recreation Goal 4: Healthy lifestyles, quality of life and community building through the provision of a variety of affordable recreational facilities and choice of leisure activities, while responding to the changing needs and interests of County residents. Fiddlehead Corner provides an unmet housing market need for Orange County's aging population and has integrated health care, transportation, recreation, and environmental protection features into the design to ensure that this site is contained within the property while also providing direct connection to the urban goods and services in the towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. With the integration of transit services and a multimodal network in the development's design, Fiddlehead Corner "[p]romote[s] public transportation [and] alternative modes of transportation" (Objective ED-2.3). The introduction of on-site, outpatient medical facilities, including those that qualify as "Family Care" facilities, will enable the residents to access essential health care needs without traveling in their personal vehicle, enhancing the project's sustainability through the reduction of carbon emissions and vehicle miles traveled. Similarly, the community center integrated into the development's design will allow for entertainment and recreational experiences mixing uses to "...support [a] walkable communit[y]" without requiring use of personal automobiles, a stated interest of the applicant representing the 150 potential homeowners (Objective ED-2.2). Fiddlehead Corner's design appears to be a direct response to the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Objectives 1.1, 2.4, and 3.9 challenging Orange County to utilize 317 conditional zoning to "...allow for a mixing of commercial and residential uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more pedestrian friendly development pattern', and to consider whether the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) is accomplishing the land use goal established for it in 2008 by the adopted comprehensive plan. The development proposes to incorporate non-residential uses and concentrate residential density on its site, optimizing their land use impact rather than consuming 40,000 square feet of land per home, as would be allowed by right in this area. The increased density will "[p]romote clustering of residential development and dedication of large areas of undisturbed land for low- impact recreational use by residents and for wildlife habitat... contiguous to neighboring tracts of undisturbed land' (Objective NA-13). The effect of this clustering will allow for more people to reside on a smaller area of land while ensuring that the footprint of this development will not negatively impact the environment by the effective treatment of stormwater to prevent degradation of nearby waterways and the use of robust landscaping to mitigate the urban heat island effect. Focusing density in this manner is an effective approach to reducing carbon footprints of individuals that also enables growth to meet market demands, rather than accommodating it through a potentially degradative conventional single-family subdivision approach. Similarly, the street network has been designed to accommodate all modes, including transit, to minimize reliance on automobiles for transportation (Objective ED-2.3). Fiddlehead Corner is proposing to preserve the majority of the forests on the property, with the intent of separating the development site from the neighboring properties, with the exception of Mr. Thomas Cheeks, who sold them the land and wishes to integrate his farm operations into their community. The development's layout is intentionally designed to orient this mixed use community so that it "...preserves and enhances the existing character of the County, its townships, and rural crossroads communities," incorporating this development into the RNAN and buffering it from the agricultural areas to the south (Planning Principle 8). Fiddlehead Corner conserves more open space and land than other, more conventional development approaches would be able to, within the regulations of the county's UDO, and providing "...adequate and appropriate open space suitable for active/low-impact recreation" (Objective PR-4.1). Even a flexible conservation cluster single-family subdivision approved on this property would require greater loss of forestland while realizing fewer residential lots/homes. As such, all waterways on the property have robust riparian buffers, the open spaces — including the two Resource Protection Areas onsite — are permanently protected from development and contiguous, allowing for greater ecological habitat protection, and the surrounding farmlands, including VAD, will not be directly impacted by this use, as it will be separated by this open space protection and intentional sustainable design. Placed in the Haw River Unprotected Watershed, the development prioritizes the "...protection and management of the County's water resources," including the potential impacts to downstream users (Planning Principle 6). Similarly, the 318 development project proposes to use innovative technologies for a decentralized wastewater system that will discharge regulated, treated wastewater into receiving waters, rather than 150 single-family homes' septic systems that are permitted and managed individually. This will enable the NC Department of Environmental Quality and Orange County to work with a single management entity on wastewater treatment system performance and standards to better protect aquatic and riparian habitat. Having a single legal entity to engage with on water usage will similarly be more effective than the equivalent of 150 individual well owners, allowing for more assurance of groundwater protection and conservation. As such, Fiddlehead Corner provides Orange County with certainty on the form and design of the community, including the potential impacts to the surrounding rural area. Contingent upon approval of the applicant's proposed text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and an amendment to the local RNAN on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to enable the proposed uses and provide consistency with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Fiddlehead Corner Master Plan Development — Conditional District (MPD-CD) zoning atlas amendment is consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan due to its satisfaction of multiple elements of the plan, 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 3A, Encouragement of Energy Efficiency, Lower Energy Consumption and the Use of Non-Polluting Renewable Energy Resources Planning Principle 3113, Promotion of Both Air Quality Protection and the Development of an Effective Transportation System Decreasing the use of non-renewable resources and lowering energy consumption are encouraged in both public and private activities. The county's transportation system should be enhanced to promote more energy efficient modes of travel and improve air quality. 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. 319 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. Economic Development Objective ED 2.2 Encourage mixed use projects that support walkable communities. Economic Development Objective ED 2.3 Promote public transportation, alternative modes of transportation, and encourage carpooling and park-and-ride participation. Housing Goal 1 A wide range of types and densities of quality housing affordable to all in all parts of the County. Housing Objective H-1.6 Promote innovative approaches to housing that are responsive to the needs of Orange County, maintain quality and human scale, increase energy efficiency, and reduce construction and maintenance costs. Housing Goal 2 Housing that is useable by as many people as possible regardless of age, ability or circumstance. 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 1 Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life. Land Use Objective LU-1.1 Coordinate the location of higher intensity/high density residential and non- residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, 320 commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. 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 Objective LU-2.4 Evaluate the development potential in rural crossroads communities to identify whether current regulations permit appropriate development that is in character with these communities, and whether potential development in these areas would require significant expansions or cause depletions of public services. 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. Land Use Objective 3.1 Discourage urban sprawl, encourage a separation of urban and rural land uses, and direct new development into areas where necessary community facilities and services exist through periodic updates to the Land Use Plan. Land Use Objective LU-3.2 Coordinate land use patterns to facilitate the expanded use of non-auto modes of travel, the increased occupancy of automobiles, and the development and use of an energy-efficient transportation system. Land Use Objective LU-3.9 Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of commercial and residential uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more pedestrian friendly development pattern. New districts should be applied in areas where public services exist or are planned for in the future, in areas that promote higher intensity and high density uses on the Land Use Plan map. Natural and Cultural Resources Overarching Goal A sustainable balance and appreciation of natural, cultural and agricultural resources. Natural and Cultural Resources Goal 6 Sustainable quality and quantity of ground and surface water resources. 321 Natural and Cultural Resources Objective WR-1 Preserve natural resources such as grasslands, woodlands and wetlands to allow for water recharge of ground water and water quality protection. Natural and Cultural Resources Objective WR-7 Promote land use patterns that preserve the natural hydrologic system and maintain a sustainable "carrying capacity" balance for the future between ground water and surface water resources. Natural and Cultural Resources Objective WR-20 Promote Best Management Practices for new developments which minimize stormwater runoff. Natural and Cultural Resources Objective NA-4 Encourage adequate stormwater runoff controls in existing developed areas and require these controls for new subdivisions to protect sensitive downstream aquatic habitat. Natural and Cultural Resources Objective NA-10 Require that all major subdivisions (defined as having more than 5 lots according to the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance) include within their boundaries open space suitable for low-impact recreation and wildlife habitat. Natural and Cultural Resources Objective NA-13 Promote clustering of residential development and dedication of large areas of undisturbed land for low-impact recreational use by residents and for wildlife habitat. Where feasible, these areas should be contiguous to neighboring tracts of undisturbed land. Parks and Recreation Goal 4 Healthy lifestyles, quality of life and community building through the provision of a variety of affordable recreational facilities and choice of leisure activities, while responding to the changing needs and interests of County residents. Parks and Recreation Objective PR-4.1 Developers shall provide for adequate and appropriate open space suitable for active/low-impact recreation in residential developments. Parks and Recreation Goal 5 Park and recreational facilities that are environmentally-responsible, and where cultural and natural resources and open space within these sites are protected. 322 Parks and Recreation Objective PR-5.1 Locate parks and recreational facilities close to residential areas to encourage informal interaction with nature, encourage walkability, and create areas of wildlife habitat with appropriate recreational facilities within the more populated areas. Parks and Recreation Objective PR-5.4 Encourage development of a system of private open space and conservation areas, including nature preserves, parks, linear parks, and scenic vistas compatible with the character of Orange County. Services and Facilities Overarching Goal Growth consistent with the provision of adequate and sustainable County services and facilities while managing the impacts upon the environmental infrastructure and effectively protecting the County's natural and cultural resources. Services and Facilities Goal 2 Adequate, safe, and healthy groundwater withdrawal and wastewater disposal systems with minimal impacts upon water and land resources. Services and Facilities Objective WW-18 Allow on-site wastewater disposal in rural areas where soil conditions are acceptable. Where there are unacceptable soils, state-approved on-site sewage disposal systems shall be required. Services and Facilities Goal 5 Efficient and effective drainage, stormwater, floodplain management, and erosion control systems. Services and Facilities Objective EC-1 Continue to use Best Management Practices (BMP's) for stormwater control, as outlined within the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, to minimize potential adverse impacts on the water quality. Services and Facilities Objective EC-6 Protect and maintain the existing aquatic, riparian and terrestrial habitats-of fish and wildlife. Services and Facilities Objective PS-T-5 Include in applied site design standards for residential, commercial, and industrial development, appropriate road design standards to ensure adequate law enforcement and emergency vehicle access to the development. 323 Transportation Goal 1 An efficient and integrated multi-modal transportation system that protects the natural environment and community character. Transportation Objective T-1.3 Develop new transportation facilities in a manner that has a positive impact or avoids negative impacts on the natural environment, including air quality, water resources, biological resources, and wildlife habitat. Transportation Objective T-1.4 Develop new transportation facilities in a manner that has a positive impact or avoids negative impacts on the community, including historical or cultural assets, existing neighborhoods, schools and recreational facilities, and the overall rural character in Orange County. Transportation Goal 3 Integrated land use planning and transportation planning that serves existing development, supports future development, and is consistent with the County's land use plans which include provisions for preserving the natural environment and community character. The Board of County Commissioners adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein. Vote: For, Against Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Date 324 Attachment A8 STATEMENT OF INCONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER APPLICABLE ADOPTED PLANS An applicant-initiated amendment (MA23-0003) to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Owner of Identification Township Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Number (PIN) Agricultural Master Plan Hands Four Residential (AR) Development— 9739-72-0339 Bingham Development Haw River Conditional District (H D4) Unprotected Haw River Watershed Unprotected Watershed The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments and 2.9.1 Conditional Districts of the UDO have been reviewed and determined to be unacceptable due to the potential impacts upon surrounding properties, as required by Sections 2.5 of the Orange County UDO; 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 160D-605(a) Governing Board Statement— Plan Consistency of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the amendment is inconsistent with the "Rural Neighborhood Activity Node" classification, as defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Land focused on designated road intersections within the rural area that is appropriate for small-scale commercial uses characteristic of "Mom and Pop" convenience stores and gas stations. As presented, Fiddlehead Corner's zoning application is inconsistent with both Orange County's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and 2030 Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Map. The Master Plan Development — Conditional District zoning application is not supported in the Comprehensive Plan's Appendix F Land Use Matrix, nor in the identified Future 325 Land Use classifications specified in the zoning district's description in Article 3 of the UDO. Approval of the zoning application would require amendment of these texts to bring the application into consistency and conformance with the county's adopted plans and regulations.As such, it is non-conforming and inconsistent with the county's adopted ordinance and plans, respectively, and cannot be approved. Furthermore, the majority of the proposed development lies outside the "Rural Neighborhood Activity Node" in an "Agricultural Residential" Future Land Use Classification. This land use is described in the Comprehensive Plan as where "[a]gricultural activities and associated residential and commercial uses predominate". The proposed development is a 150-unit master plan development subdivision at a density of approximately 5 dwelling units per acre, and features multifamily structures and a layout that is more suitable for, as acknowledged in the applicant's narrative, an urban environment; it does not fit in an Agricultural Residential area. In the event that the applicant's text and Future Land Use Map amendments are approved, the zoning application remains inconsistent with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan for its intensity in a rural area and adjacency to agricultural lands, including voluntary agricultural districts. As such, it does not "preserve and enhance the county's rural landscape," nor its character (Planning Principles 5 and 8). Though somewhat insulated from the neighboring properties by open spaces and buffers, the loss of forested open space and creation of 150 new homes on roughly 30 acres of land, at densities greater than 1 dwelling unit per acre, are incompatible with the area and will likely generate traffic and land use patterns that could degrade the rural character of the area. This is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan's objectives to "...discourage the location of new non-farm development, particularly more intensive residential development, within farming areas" and, rather, to place them "...near employment centers and commercial centers and that efficiently uses existing and planned public services" (Objectives H-1.5, LU-3.4, and NA-17). The applicant's assertion of sustainability is predicated upon assumptions that its plan will meet an untapped demand for senior-targeted housing serving individuals who will behave in a manner described by the applicant. As described in the narrative, residents will rely upon transit services, enjoy healthy outdoor lifestyles, and maintain cordial relationships with each other and their neighbors. Their outpatient medical needs will be met through onsite care at the Family Care facilities. These guarantees are largely only enforceable through private covenants. If not realized, Fiddlehead Corner will create an isolated and dense community of seniors who must travel miles to the Town of Chapel Hill (or farther) for their medical, recreational, retail, and other needs, presumably using their individual automobiles, as is the case for the majority of Orange County residents. The Statement of Inconsistency must focus upon land use concerns and the consequences of (dis)approval, but if the sustainability ethic is not realized by the 326 future behavior of Fiddlehead Corner residents, the land use impacts to the neighboring and local properties will be profound and significantly distinct from the lifestyles enjoyed by the rural residents presently in the local area. As such, the following principles, goals, and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan are inconsistent with the Fiddlehead Corner Master Plan Development — Conditional District proposal: 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 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. Housing Objective H-1.5 Ensure that a variety of housing types can be developed throughout the County in a sustainable manner that locates housing near employment centers and commercial centers and that efficiently uses existing and planned public services. 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. 327 Land Use Objective LU-3.1 Discourage urban sprawl, encourage a separation of urban and rural land uses, and direct new development into areas where necessary community facilities and services exist through periodic updates to the Land Use Plan. Land Use Objective LU-3.2 Coordinate land use patterns to facilitate the expanded use of non-auto modes of travel, the increased occupancy of automobiles, and the development and use of an energy-efficient transportation system. Land Use Objective LU-3.4 Recognize the right to farm and discourage the location of new non-farm development, particularly more intensive residential development, within farming areas to minimize the incidence of complaints and nuisance suits against farm operations. Natural and Cultural Resources Overarching Goal A sustainable balance and appreciation of natural, cultural and agricultural resources. Natural and Cultural Resources Objective NA-13 Promote clustering of residential development and dedication of large areas of undisturbed land for low-impact recreational use by residents and for wildlife habitat. Where feasible, these areas should be contiguous to neighboring tracts of undisturbed land. Natural and Cultural Resources Objective NA-17 Maintain and protect land that contains valuable productive resources, such as prime farmland and prime forestland, by directing incompatible development away from these areas. Transportation Goal 3 Integrated land use planning and transportation planning that serves existing development, supports future development, and is consistent with the County's land use plans which include provisions for preserving the natural environment and community character. The Board of County Commissioners adopts this Statement of Inconsistency and the findings expressed herein. Vote: For, Against Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Date 328 Attachment A9 Ordinance#: ORD-2025-003 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 90.133 acre parcel of property (PIN 9739-72-0339), from AR (Agricultural Residential) to MPD-CD (Master Plan Development— Conditional District), for the purposes of developing a community center, small gathering venues, creative arts opportunities, and communal dining space. The development will consist of up to 150 modestly sized dwelling units, including individual homes, semi-attached homes, and multi-family buildings. Other amenities include a fitness center, accessible gardens, walking trails, and preserved green spaces; and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan and reasonable and in the public interest. WHEREAS, the property lies within the Haw River Unprotected 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 90.133 acre parcel to MPD-CD (Master Plan Development— Conditional District), as detailed within the submitted application. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT in accordance with Section 2.9.1(F) of the UDO the approval of this Conditional Zoning application is subject to the following mutually agreed to conditions: 1. Project shall be completed as presented in approved site plan/application packet. 2. Allow for Planning Director to review and approve minor changes to the approved plan, per Section 2.9.1(1) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, specific to the location and arrangement of development within the limits of disturbance and the proposed "activity area". The "activity area" shall be defined as the edge of gravel as shown on the provided conditional zoning plan set. 3. Allow for Planning Director to review and approve minor changes to the approved plan, per Section 2.9.1(1) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. l 329 Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of ' 2025. 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 , 2025 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 2025. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 330 — Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or planningapps@orangecountync.gov Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Text and Map Amendment Application Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information and submittal requirements are contained in Section 2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink. Date: 3/20/24 Request: 0 Text Amendment El Map Amendment Contact Information Property Owner(s): Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D) Mailing Address: PO Box 1201 Carrboro, NC 27510 Phone: 919.423.0419 Email: ebcox@yahoo.com Applicant (if different than property owner): Same as Above Mailing Address: Phone: Email: Property Information Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9739720339 Total Acreage: 90 acres Address: 5824 Morrow Mill Road Text Amendment Proposed Amendment Information Section(s) of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element proposed for amendment: Comprehensive Plan Appendix F General Amendment Request: Add a linkage between Master Plan Development - Conditional District and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node in the matrix of Appendix F Map Amendment Does this request include a rezoning application? El Yes ❑ No Current Plan Category Designation(s) MIM General: Agricultural Residential Activity Node: Rural Neighborhood Page 1 of 3 331 Watershed: Haw River Unprotected Current Zoning Designation: AR -- Agriculture Residential Joint Planning Area: N/A General Site Information Zoning North: AR, NC2, GC4 South: AR East: AR West: AR Land Use North: Residential and Commercial South: Agriculture [VAD] East: Residential West: Residential Request Land Use Classification Designation(s) Requested: Rural Neighborhood Activity Node for entire property If applicant/property 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 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Text Amendment Based on Section 2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): 0 Copy of the existing text provision(s) which the applicant proposes for amendment El A written statement describing in detail: a. Changes which the applicant proposes to make to the text of the Comprehensive Plan b. The rationale for the proposed amendment consistent with the standards established in the UDO. El All other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. El Review fee Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment Based on Section 2.3 of the LIDO, this application should be submitted with the following materials: El Orange County GIS map with the parcel, or portion thereof highlighted or otherwise indicated. 0 Legal description of the parcel, or portion thereof. Letter of request to include: ■ Parcel Identification Number (PIN), general location, and owner of the parcel ■ Current and requested land use plan classification designation(s) ■ Narrative stating the manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof ■ Statement of any other circumstances, factors, and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment ■ Statement of the changed or changing conditions in the area, or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary. Q Review fee Page 2 of 3 332 Certification and Signatures I (We), the undersigned, certify that all statements furnished in this application are true and to the best of my (our) knowledge t pplication as submitted is complete. Owner Signature(s) Applicant Signature (if different from owner) March 20, 2024 Date Date Page 3of3 333 . Hands Four Development Cooperative "►' it ixFi� ead" PO Box 1201 Carrboro,NC 27510 Corner HandsFourDevelopment@gmail.com Letter of Request A) 2030 Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Map - Map Amendment B) 2030 Comprehensive Plan - Appendix F - Text Amendment March 20, 2024 A) 2030 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Map Amendment This request involves a parcel of land with PIN 9739720339 owned by Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D). This land is located at 5824 Morrow Mill Road, 1000 feet from the intersection of Morrow Mill Road and NC Highway 54. The current land use classification is Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) on the northernmost segment of the parcel. Agricultural Residential (AR) is the current land use classification for the remainder of the parcel. This request is for classification of the entirety of the parcel as Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) on the FLUM (see attached Exhibit A). A concurrent Zoning Atlas Amendment by H4D requests rezoning of this parcel to Master Plan Development Conditional District (MPD-CD). MPD-CD is not currently linked to Rural Neighborhood Activity Node in the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan in Appendix F. The applicant requests in section B of this document that such linkage be made by means of a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to Appendix F. Approval of that linkage, along with the referenced Zoning Atlas Amendment, would harmonize the zoning, land classification and intended uses, as will be discussed further on. Changing Conditions That Make the Proposed Amendment Reasonably Necessary A significant and ongoing changing condition in Orange County that makes the proposed amendment reasonably necessary is "an explosion in the numbers of older persons, a dramatic increase in longer lives" described in the Orange County Master Aging Plan (MAP) of 2007. The most recent update of the MAP, (2022-27), reinforces this point with an estimate that the overall population will increase by 20% from 2020 to 2040, while the number of adult ages 65+ in Orange County is expected to increase over three times as fast- 68%! This tsunami of aging adults will produce a demand for increased housing and neighborhoods that are designed specifically to meet the needs of an aging population. Much of the housing stock of Orange County is geared to families, typically 3+ bedrooms, whereas the space needed by seniors declines as their activities and family size decreases. Many seniors need housing with barrier-free access, which is not generally available. At the same time, housing prices are increasing rapidly, while the incomes of seniors often decrease as they age and retire. In planning to meet the need for housing by creating our intentional community with its focus on living in retirement, H4D members desired to locate in an urban setting in the Durham-Chapel Hill area. FLUM Amendment Narrative, Pg. 1 334 However, an extensive search for an urban property on which to develop was fruitless. We concluded it would be necessary either to abandon our project or to develop outside of the urban boundary. The property acquired by H41D appears to be ideal for the purpose of creating our intentional community, apart from having the split designation of Rural Neighborhood Activity Node and Agricultural Residential on the FLUM. The appropriate zoning classification for our purpose is MPD-CD, which is not now permitted in the RNAN or the AR classification. A reclassification of the AR portion of the subject property land use to RNAN, in concert with rezoning the properties to MPD-CD and creating the Appendix F linkage between RNAN and MPD-CD, will provide the appropriate jurisdictional setting for the project. The Proposed Amendment and the Goals of the Comprehensive Plan - Housing Approval of the proposed amendment, in combination with proposed rezoning as MPD-CD, will allow the development of a residential community that achieves a number of goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan and the Master Aging Plan (MAP) that it references. First and foremost are the goals in the Housing Element. The Comprehensive Plan's Chapter 4 makes specific reference to the MAP with its emphasis on the housing needs of seniors. MAP 2022-27 continues the emphasis on Housing, with Goal 3 being to "improve choices, quality, and affordability of housing for older adults". Our proposal addresses this goal by providing a range of choices (single family, multiplex and multifamily) of high quality that are sized specifically for the comfort, convenience and budget of older adults. Specifically, residences will average 1,250 sf, will mostly be one- and two-bedroom units, and will adhere to principles of"universal design". The latter term refers to the design of buildings, products or environments to make them accessible to people, regardless of age, disability or other factors. Our community, which will be named Fiddlehead Corner (FC), plans to go well beyond the basic requirements of housing to specifically respond to Goals 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 of the MAP 2022-27. Goal 1 is to optimize the variety and usability of outdoor spaces and buildings that enhance social interactions for older adults. FC will have walking trails, outdoor areas for recreation and events, a community garden and meditation spaces. Goal 2 is to increase access to and awareness of affordable, safe, and equitable mobility options for older adults in all parts of Orange County. Crucially, the community is compact to promote ready access to the community center even for those with limited mobility or using personal mobility devices. FC will coordinate closely with transportation providers to assure that community members needing assistance are able to reach desired destinations such as shopping venues, entertainment and medical facilities. Universal design will be applied to planning for all shared indoor and outdoor space. Goal 4 is to promote diverse and accessible opportunities for participation and engagement of older adults. The community center will serve as the hub for the social life of the community - a place to gather daily to be with others and pursue a wide variety of activities together. Social interaction protects against the isolation and loneliness that many older adults experience. We cultivate community values that embrace all races, all faiths, all cultures and countries of origin, and all sexual and gender orientations. We aspire to build and sustain a safe place for all. Goal 7 seeks to ensure that the community has accessible and affordable resources to support individual health and well-being goals throughout the aging process. Fiddlehead Corner has an entire team dedicated to planning and providing a Continuum of Care in the community to ensure that the needs of the community are covered. Specifically, resources will be available to allow most community members to "age in place", with their increasing care needs provided for as needed, rather than be forced to leave the community for such care. FLUM Amendment Narrative, Pg. 2 335 Goal 8 relates to communication and information. FC will have high-speed internet connectivity with which residents can use web search and other tools to learn of resources. FC will be aware of Orange County senior services and inform its members about them. Members will be informed of volunteer engagement opportunities in the larger community. Information about resources related to health, faith practices, public events, and civic and community organizations will be disseminated within the community. The Proposed Amendment and the Goals of the Comprehensive Plan - Sustainability Environmental sustainability is a core aspect of the Planning Principles expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. In planning Fiddlehead Corner, environmental sustainability has been a high priority because several members of Fiddlehead Corner are active in local and state environmental sustainability efforts. These members will bring their energy, enthusiasm, knowledge, experience and dedication to the development of the community. We acknowledge the human role in climate change and seek to actively address its prevention and mitigation. Features such as water conservation, solar energy, geothermal energy, and overall energy efficiency are being carefully considered and will be incorporated to the greatest extent feasible. The technology and economics of these areas are evolving so rapidly that we consider it unwise to commit to specific measures in this application, but go on record to state that we give high priority to environmental sustainability in our planning. Other Factors in Support of the Proposed Amendment Implicit in planning a community that will be able to meet the needs of an older population is sufficient scale to provide the services. In other words, it must be large enough to support those services. In the case of Fiddlehead Corner, a size of 150 residences and about 225 individuals is projected to be the minimum size required to make the planned amenities and services financially viable. The intensity of land use required is generally available only in an urban setting. Our consultants have identified state-of-the-art wastewater treatment technologies that make it possible to use available rural land much more efficiently for wastewater discharge and thereby make feasible housing densities that were previously out of consideration. Potential Impact of the Proposed Project on Rural Character Life sometimes presents situations where two or more valuable goals come in conflict. Choices must be made in order to strike a sustainable balance between the economic, social, and environmental systems that make up the community. In this application, proposing to locate a sizable development in a rural area could potentially threaten to disrupt the rural character of its location that the Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain. Our members called for a location close to Chapel Hill and Durham, where our families, friends, activities, shopping, medical services and other supports are located. Finding a site that was already zoned for a development of the type we are seeking proved to be an exercise in futility due to the area being a high growth region with rocketing land values. Alternatively, reasonably priced land was available in adjacent rural areas. However, we recognized that siting Fiddlehead Corner in a rural location risked disrupting the rural character of the land. Fortunately, we arrived at what we believe is an excellent solution that strikes a balance, preserving the rural character while meeting our needs. We propose compact neighborhood clusters that allow individuals of all mobility levels to access all locations within the community. The Fiddlehead Corner Master Plan sites the development on 30 acres nestled deep within the center of the property, leaving nearly all of the remaining 60 acres of forest undisturbed, including buffers at the periphery on all sides. In this sheltered location, the development would not be visible from most of its neighboring FLUM Amendment Narrative, Pg. 3 336 properties and from the bordering roads, Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop. There will be virtually no disturbance to neighbors of any kind emanating from the community. Thus, the rural character of the property would be preserved while providing appropriate housing for the expanding population of older adults. B) 2030 Comprehensive Plan - Appendix F - Text Amendment Existing text provisions which the applicant proposes for amendment The table below is the matrix from Appendix F: Land Use and Zoning Matrix of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan 2030. Attention is directed to the absence of a linkage between Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) and MPD-CD. ppendix F. Land Use and Zoning Matrix ZONING DISTRICTS T °, N�, U U ❑ ❑ C C N M T v z _ ri °' ❑ U ❑ U Land Use Classifications& !n a .. r+ a�, v� t� V U Z,1 V LY, N ri 2,E a ❑ Uj 0. y U a Overlays Z Z U U Z Chapel Hill Transition Permit Administration b} Municipalities under the provisions of the Joint Planning Agreemei t- Can-boro Transition Contact a nate Municipality fiir an Aicable Z-nin•Standards _ 10-Year Transition 20-Year Transition • • • • • • • = Commercial Transition Activity Node • • • ♦ • • Commercial-Industrial R Transition Activ itv • • • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • Economic Development • ♦ • Transition Active it v Nude _ Rum]Butler Rum]Residential Agricultural Residential ♦ ♦ • s. Rum]Community Activity C Node Rural Neighborhood I Activity Nude Rural Industrial Activity Node Public I-te—I Area c Changes which the application proposes to make The requested change is creating a linkage between RNAN and MPD-CD. This would be indicated by placement of a diamond symbol (0) at the intersection of Rural Neighborhood Activity Node and MPD-CD in the matrix of Appendix F. Rationale for the proposed amendment This text amendment is proposed in conjunction with a Zoning Atlas Amendment in which the applicants are requesting rezoning described below in the All other circumstances section. This amendment would be necessary to allow that zoning request to move forward. According to LIDO Sec. 3.8, "The purpose of the Master Plan Development Conditional District (MPD-CD) is to provide for unified large scale subdivisions, non-residential, and mixed-use FLUM Amendment Narrative, Pg. 4 337 developments that promote economical and efficient land use, improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety, creative design, and a better environment through the approval of a general concept Master Plan the [sic] permits defined flexibility to accommodate land use adjustments in response to evolving market trends." The community to be developed by Hands Four Development Cooperative is a model of creative design to accomplish the purpose stated in the UDO: economical and efficient land use with a high level of amenities that simultaneously protects the environment. In the matrix of Appendix F in the Comprehensive Plan, Rural Community Activity Node (RCAN) is linked with four types of Conditional Districts: ASE-CD, MPD-CD, R-CD and NR-CD. Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) is linked with three of these (ASE-CD, R-CD, and NR-CD) but not with MPD-CD. We are not aware of a reason for omission of a linkage between RNAN and MPD-CD. Perhaps it was an oversight rather than a specific choice. Notwithstanding, it is relevant to notice that MPD-CD Development Standards in the UDO appear to allow the County at least as much discretion to control the characteristics of a development as do the other three Conditional Districts. In fact, 52 permitted uses in Table 5.2 of the UDO are allowed in R-CD or NR-CD but not in MPD-CD. Only one use is permitted in MPD-CD that is not allowed in the other Conditional Districts. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan reflects a delicate balance involving the interplay of a disparate set of objectives to be simultaneously optimized. These include building community, meeting people's needs (e.g., affordable quality housing, human services), supporting a diverse economy, conserving natural areas, minimizing pollution and waste, protecting the environment, and protecting the water supply. Tension arises when two or more of those objectives come into conflict. The current situation in Orange County is that of expansion of population and institutional activity on a scale that was hardly conceivable when the Comprehensive Plan was created. The principles driving its intent and purpose remain relevant. Increasing pressure in one area - the need for affordable housing for a rapidly increasing number of seniors - conflicts with a desire to resist any change to the rural character, such as increasing the density of development. Simply put, land suitable for congregate living for seniors in districts presently zoned for such purposes has grown scarce and prohibitively expensive for such projects. On the other hand, there are land use areas, namely Activity Nodes, that have been identified in the Comprehensive Plan in rural Orange County for greater intensity of development, such as Conditional Districts. Their applications have been relatively limited in regard to higher-density residential uses due to limitations in water availability and wastewater effluent absorption capacity. However, modern technology and planning principles go a long way toward maintaining a healthy balance while allowing more efficient use of land. For example, combining cluster neighborhoods with preservation of large swaths of open space instead of conventional subdivisions is a means of maintaining the rural character while allowing higher residential density. Community wastewater treatment technology now treats to a much higher standard of pollutant removal that allows more efficient effluent dispersal. We contend that these considerations allow a project such as the one proposed to establish a new favorable balance. A changing condition in Orange County that makes the proposed amendment reasonably necessary is "an explosion in the numbers of older persons, a dramatic increase in longer lives" described in the Orange County Master Aging Plan (MAP) of 2007. The most recent update of the MAP, (2022-27), reinforces this point with an estimate that the overall population will increase by 20% from 2020 to 2040, while the number of adult ages 65+ in Orange County is expected to increase over three times as fast- 68%! FLUM Amendment Narrative, Pg. 5 338 This tsunami of aging adults will produce a demand for increased housing that is designed specifically to meet the needs of an aging population. The housing stock of Orange County is geared to families, typically 3 bedrooms, whereas the space needed by seniors declines as their activities and family size decreases. Many seniors need housing with barrier-free access, which is not generally available. At the same time, housing prices are increasing rapidly, while incomes in seniors decrease as they age and retire. The applicants wanted to locate their community for seniors in an urban setting but were unable to locate suitable land in Orange County districts currently approved for such projects and thus focused our efforts on a suitable rural location. A Rural Neighborhood Activity Node appears to be well suited, assuming the requested amendment is granted. All other circumstances, factors and reasons the applicant offers in support of the proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment The applicant - Hands Fours Development Cooperative (H4D) - is applying for the rezoning of a 90 acre parcel in Orange County to MPD-CD for the purpose of locating an intentional community designed primarily to serve seniors who wish to age in place. For this purpose, H4D has purchased land that lies partially within a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN). H4D has applied for a FLUM Map Amendment for the land use classification of the remainder of the property to be revised from AR to RNAN. H4D has further applied for a UDO Zoning Atlas amendment to request rezoning of the property from AR to MPD-CD. A third application is a UDO text amendment to the MPD-CD development standards to include RNAN as an allowed location for an MPD-CD. Should those requests be approved, the Land Use and Zoning matrix needs this requested change for all changes to be harmonized. Future Land Use Map Amendment — Exhibit A The image shows the location of the property and its relationship to the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) centered at the intersection of NC54 and Morrow Mill Road. The northernmost extent of the property lies within the Node. The striped area south of the Node represents the remaining part of the property requested for designation as RNAN. C� 4 j 54 R FLUM Amendment Narrative, Pg. 6 Proposed Future Land Use Map Change with PIN 9739720339 Depicted /-� Z VZO �S�l , 1 Haw River Watershed 9739720339 <O 1� -# °'o Proposed Change to Rural Neighborhood (71.64 acres) Streams _ Resource Protection Areas N i in=400 feet Future Land Use Categories oRE COUNTY Feet Agricultural Residential U 0 400 Rural Neighborhood Activity Node Planning and Inspections O:�GIS Workspace�Projects\5taff Report,Fiddlehead MA23-0005\Fiddlehead MA23-0005.aprx\Proposed Change to Future Land Use Map with PIN 9739720339 Depicted 340 Adopted Future Land Use Map with PIN 9739720339 Depicted ow Watershed,� I A Can Creek •- i r tected` - '■' �.�•� '� r•• '•� •� Watershed ` "' r• z Z y m h � O �— M z v 0 o \ \0 ;t 54 C —` d ■ �Ha%River Watershed low, ' O — _� -�U iv L rot t -� MORR _ `yt W e I� A � � r J - Ao �1 Streams Future Land Use Categories a N �a Q PIN 9739720339 Rural Residential - Water Bodies Rural Buffer �P�J • Watersheds - Agricultural Residential �,.° .••"*• !I �° - Resource Protection Areas Activity Nodes ,•0 �•�.•� ,—HaW ORANGE-- N I in=o.5 mile Miles Parcels Rural Neighborhood . —II Prot COUNTY 0 0.5 Q OC/CH/CA Joint Planning Area Rural Community • • Wate Planning and Inspections Department(BC) 4/3/2024 's\Fiddlehead MA23-0005.aprx\Adopted Future Land Use Map with PIN 9739720339 Depict- 341 ppendix F. Land Use and Zoning Matrix ZONING DISTRICTS N In Fi•i ,-. �' C y A ao WWW NA A U A A Land Use Classifications& Overlays pG d pC f1, Z Z U C1 W o •: •: •: W www d 0 P, d 0." Chapel Hill Transition Permit Administration by Municipalities under the provisions of the Joint Planning Agreement- Carrboro Transition Contact a ro riate Munici alit r aDDlicable Zonine Standards 10-Year Transition 20-Year Transition c Commercial Transition Activity Node Commercial-Industrial sem. Transition Activity ♦ Economic Development Transition Activity Node Rural Buffer Rural Residential Agricultural Residential Rural Community Activity u" Node Rural Neighborhood A ti i y Node Rural Industrial Activity Node Public Interest Area 0 Amended 5-18-21 Ora.vWCau+ity Cawprdw*i/,i e PLaYv Page F-2 ORANGE COUNTY , NC 342 Morrow Mill Rural Neighborhood Activity Node - Existing Development Status and Uses Developed 46ac Undeveloped 70ac ROW 9ac � ,Total 125ac Piedmont Feed& Al Garden Center 54 p v 54 PSM Food Mart `< UNC-Chapel Hill Facility Support Building k x I" I S' 3 "^ 9739T20339 Streams m Q PIN 9739720339 " Rural Neighborhood ; ,,- a Activity Node 0 W 9739720339 Developed Z o Undeveloped 0 1% Annual Chance of Flooding ` N t in=700 feet h, ORANGE Feet COUNTY Undeveloped =vacant, no structure 0 J00 Developed =structure on a lot<20 acres in size Planning and Inspections Department(Bc) 415/2024 O:\GIS Workspace\Projects\Staff Report\Fiddlehead MA23-0oo5\Fiddlehead MA23-0005.aprx\Morrove Mill Rural Neighborhood Activity Node-Existing Development Status and Uses Future Land Use Map - Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes (RNAN)- Development Status �N\LR Caswell County S D uRDL� n HS(EY RD � ' O O BREEZE -- GRAV,� __ S I UR�O�v D (r msTF,p BROWN jy6. -� J RD `� 1 �o o� HAWKINS RD Developed 49ac 49 ° Undeveloped 70ac °LI/V Total 125ac* N it W s SX Developed 62ac as o s Undeveloped 56ac gpVdMILLRD \(TL P IRS CHURCH RD Total 125ac* otiRID a2 NPRMO 1 KIGER RD = s Developed 66ac yGH �cy�o Developed 82ac Undeveloped 50ac � Developed 71ac Rocs Undeveloped 36ac Total 125ac* Undeveloped 47ac Total 125ac* A Total125ac* yFdPS RD wA4 I! Developed 46ac HALLSM\LLRo Undeveloped 72ac BRO m9 y�MPRYSRD Total 125ac* o S70 R(r; Z Developed 80ac ® WEST N RD p o Undevelo ed 33ac1 RD � TE 70A Total 125ac* G� vv rg l� — 70 I �g( N L� ti �� I► Developed 73aco D o10 0= ' Undeveloped 46ac 751 Total 125ac* �ooR'Wv Ol O� p�ORL�ANDRO N N , � SAO Z O MT All RO <u Q 1y O U) vP P Y Developed 7ac ° ,_ Yi v Q Undeveloped 33ac z � �N\'CFIELDRD, Total 41ac* o EUgAN o a Developed 46ac TEER�D �^ U) Undeveloped 70ac �° o Total 125ac* Z- �HOMFS7EP� 86 _ a o rp__ ' Q 0 54 �o �. Q- o jMORROVdM\ �9� �" Er 501 M gyp wM OW OA l7 Sr. . '� Total All RNANs Developed 580ac a OCD GREENSBORO Ro I D z 1� o�;/x Po ;I Undeveloped 512ac N o w `,,, Total RNAN Area 1,166ac* o rn ��o Includes acres in Ino, �� \ right-of-way City Limits fETJN i in=3 miles ORANGE Miles COUNTY Developed Undeveloped =vacant, no structure """ 0 3 Undeveloped Developed = structure on a lot<20 acres in size Planning and Ins pectiio0�4Department(BQ O:�U)Worl<space�i'rojects\Comprehensive Land Use FIan\Rural Neighborhood Node Analysis�Rural Neighborhood Node Analysis.aprx\Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes(RNAN)-Development Status Future Land Use Map - Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes (RNAN)- Zoning Info �� Caswell County uRDL� LS RD n �S(EY RD � H� O BRE 4` -- GRAY -- ARD ¢ t co ham° PiQG� guR1� l� m J SRO BROWN 49 �Ov O� HAWKINSI2D AR 123aC 157 cFRo �CKeRG ! �� NC2 lac IP0 86 °L"�o Total 125ac AR 124ac - %LL RD 1\TTLE RIVE CHURCH RD 0 PENS SURD NC2 lac sP�M S I, J CO PEAR Total 125ac HA KIGER RD AR 113ac EC5 6ac scH ° AR 120ac' AR 124ac / NC2 6ac �� LCI 3ac Total 125ac7 NC2 2ac NC lac A Total 125ac Total 125ac ti PS RD W�4 j- AR 35ac HALLS M\LLRo — �Qo Rvs �-7NC2 lac B �R189ac o �o N ; [LTota I 125ac SRp AR 33ac 51 `� .... 70 r' W � z z;4 NC2 5ac WEST TEN R1 87ac co, D � RD +r I � �� J- Bow� Rz�°� J oA s Total 125ac G � _ 70 o, � `� z° �o AR 124ac w o 10 0= ' ECS lac �U) 751 o Total 125ac <C/ G Q q Al D �N1 GO w T Sij�Al Rp � �� GlOJP G2 �Rp°5 AR 4lac A z l x �N<CFIELD Total 41ac ° ° ARD AR 110ac < ° EVBAN�S GC4 5ac TEER�� _ LCI Sac NC2 Sac HOMFSTEP� 66 �� t1 ; Q Total 125ac o� a`54 MORRovd `r `�� `�� E sol I+7 Total All RNANs A ti$ wM�tiSTa� AR 947ac 0 City Limits o 0 0 EC5 6ac 0 ETJ a OCD GREENSBORO�RD z a, � GC4 Sac LC1 Sac 0 AR o ° w �� NC2 23ac 0 EC5 — -- -� o ��o R� R1 176ac GC4 _ e �i�cGSGcH TO RNAN Area 1,166ac 0 0 LC1 N o,-3 ORANGEMiles NC2 COUNTY 0 3 R1 Planning and Inspections Department(BC) 4/4/2024 0:1GIS Workspace\Projects\Comprehensive Land Use Plan\Rural Neighborhood Node Analysis\Rural Neighborhood Node Analysis.aprx\Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes(RNAN)-Zoning Info Attachment B7 345 Resolution#.--RES-2025-009 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND TEXT WHEREAS, an Applicant has initiated amendments to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan: • Future Land Use Map, and •Appendix F: Land Use and Zoning Matrix, as established in Section 2.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map consists of the following: •Amend a portion of 1 parcel, totaling 71.64 acres, located off Morrow Mill and Gold Mine Loop Roads, south of NC 54 from Agricultural Residential to Rural Neighborhood Activity Node, and WHEREAS, the following parcel is affected by the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map amendment proposal: Parcel Owner on Record Acreage Identification Entire or Partial Proposed to Number Parcel to be be Changed PIN Changed? 9739720339 Partial HANDS FOUR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE 71.64 WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Appendix F: Land Use and Zoning Matrix consists of the following: •Adding the zoning district MPD-CD as a compatible zoning district within the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node future land use classification with the corresponding diamond symbol. WHEREAS, the Board finds the proposal supportive of the following principle/objective/goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan, 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 Patterns 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 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 Objective LU-1.1 Coordinate the location of higher intensity/high density residential and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with 1 346 protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. Land Use Objective LU-2.4 Evaluate the development potential in rural crossroads communities to identify whether current regulations permit appropriate development that is in character with these communities, and whether potential development in these areas would require significant expansions or cause depletions of public services. 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. Land use Objective LU-3.9 Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of commercial and residential uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more pedestrian friendly development pattern. New districts should be applied in areas where public services exist or are planned for in the future, in areas that promote higher intensity and high density uses on the Land Use Plan map. Land Use Goal 6 A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. Natural and Cultural Resources Objective NA-13 Promote clustering of residential development and dedication of large areas of undisturbed land for low-impact recreational use by residents and for wildlife habitat. Where feasible, these areas should be contiguous to neighboring tracts of undisturbed land; and WHEREAS, the Board finds the proposal establishes consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the Applicant's request for MPD-CD zoning, as part of the Fiddlehead Corners development proposal, and WHEREAS, the requirements of Sections 2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been deemed complete, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Text are hereby amended as depicted on the attached map and matrix. Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of , 2025. 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 , 2025 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. 347 WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 2025. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 348 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or planningapps@orangecountync.gov Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment Application Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information and submittal requirements are contained in Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink. Date: 3/20/24 Contact Information Applicant: Hands Four Development Cooperative Mailing Address: PO Box 1201, Carrboro, NC 27510 Phone: 919-423-0419 Email: ebcox@yahoo.com Proposed Amendment Information Sections of the UDO ro osed for amendment: Fl. Section 5.2 2. Section 3.8 General Amendment Request: 1. Section 5.2: Create a linkage between Family Care Facility and MPD-CD as a permitted use 2. Section 3.8: Add Rural Neighborhood Activity Node to Land Use categories wherein MPD-CD is permitted Other Submittal Requirements Based on Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): x❑ A copy of the section(s) of the UDO proposed for modification, ® A written statement describing in detail: Attachments 1 and 2 a. A description of the proposed changes sought by the applicant, b. The revised text as requested by the applicant, c. How the proposed amendment is consistent with, or carries out the intent and purpose of, the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, d. In accordance with Section 2.8.3 (c) of the UDO, the alleged error (if applicable) that would be corrected by the proposed amendment, e. In accordance with Section 2.8.3 (d) of the Ordinance, the changing conditions within the County, if any, that make the amendment reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and f. In accordance with Section 2.8.3 (h): `All other circumstances, factors, and reasons' that the applicant offers to justify approval of the request 0 The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule. Page 1 of 2 349 Certification and Signatures I (we), the undersigned, have been made aware of the process for the review and action associated with a UDO Text Amendment application and understand that 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 text amendment by the County. March 20, 2024 Applicant Signature Date Page 2 of 2 350 UDO Text Amendment Application - Attachment 1 a. Description of the proposed changes sought by the applicant Section 5.2: Change table entry in line 44 , "Family Care Facility", in the "MPD-CD" column from "blank", indicating "Not Permitted", to a "*" (asterisk), indicating "Permitted Use". Alternatively, change the entry from "blank" to "A" (Greek delta), indicating "Permitted Subject to Use Standards". If the decision is "Permitted Subject to Use Standards", make an entry in Section 5.5. for "Family Care Facility". Model language is offered in (b.). Family Care Facility is listed in the UDO Definitions and is defined as "a facility which meets the definition of a family care home in NCGS 168-21". Although NC GS 168-21 was repealed in Session Law 2020-25, it previously read as follows: § 168-21. Definitions. As used in this Article: (1) "Family care home" means a home with support and supervisory personnel that provides room and board, personal care and habilitation services in a family environment for not more than six resident persons with disabilities. (2) "Person with disabilities" means a person with a temporary or permanent physical, emotional, or mental disability including but not limited to mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, hearing and sight impairments, emotional disturbances and orthopedic impairments but not including mentally ill persons who are dangerous to others as defined in G.S. 122C-3(11)b. (1981, c. 565, s. 1; 1985, c. 589, s. 62; 1995, c. 535, s. 36; 2002-159, s. 24; 2005-450, s. 1.) The applicant would prefer that Family Care Facility be designated a Permitted Use in MPD- CD zoning. However, if the decision were to be its designation as Permitted Subject to Use Standards, the text in the next section is offered for consideration, based on Use Standards for Group Care Facility and Health and Personal Care Facility. b. The revised text as requested by the applicant The revision requested would require the insertion of an appropriate symbol in the table of permitted uses, 5.2, at the intersection of line 44, Family Care Facility, and the column for MPD-CD. The symbol would be an "asterisk" or a "Greek delta", depending on whether the approval is for Permitted Use or Permiited Use Subject to Use Standards. 351 The text addition that follows would apply only if Family Care Facility is Permitted Subject to Use Standards. SECTION 5.5: STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES 5.5.13 Family Care Facility (A) Submittal Requirements and Standards of Evaluation for Special Use Permit or Conditional Districts (1) Submittal Requirements In addition to the information required by section 2.7 or 2.9, as applicable, the following information shall be supplied as part of the application for approval of this use: (a)A description of the type of persons to be cared for and the nature of the care to be provided. (b) If structural alterations to existing structures or new construction is required, a complete description of the nature and extent of these alterations or new construction. (2) Standards of Evaluation (a) Structural alterations shall be of such a nature as to preserve the residential character of the building. (b) If a state license or permit is required to operate such a facility, the standards necessary to qualify for such a permit have been met. c. How the proposed amendment is consistent with, or carries out the intent and purpose of, the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4, the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan 2030 (CP2030), makes specific references in its Background to goals from other Orange County Plans: a. The Orange County 2005-2010 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSOLIDATED PLAN referenced on page 4-2 of CP2030 includes a specific Strategic Plan Goal: "Provide housing and services for populations with special needs. Such special needs groups include the homeless, elderly, disabled, mentally ill, and persons with AIDS." b. The ORANGE COUNTY MASTER AGING PLAN referenced beginning on page 4-3 of CP2030 includes "Goal B: Housing and Shelter— Promote an adequate supply of safe, affordable, and suitable housing options for older residents to age in place." The proposed amendment carries out these purposes by permitting a facility for care of incapacitated aging adults in their own community as the need arises. d. The alleged error that would be corrected by the amendment Family Care Facility (FCF) is a permitted use in every Orange County conventional residential zoning district (Sec. 5.2, line 44). There is no apparent reason for MPD-CD to be singled out 352 for exclusion of FCF. We are unaware of documentation of an explicit decision to deny permission for Family Care Facility in MPD-CD. The omission appears, in our view, to be an oversight. Family Care Facility is an entity described, permitted and regulated by N.C. law. The Family Care Facility thus represents an important residential option for the care of persons with disabilities. In particular, it provides for the care of persons with dementia requiring supervision and the care of persons who are incapacitated with respect to independent living because they require assistance in activities of daily living (ADLs). Such care is administered according to the social model. An example of the great value FCFs provide in Orange County is Charles House - Winmore Neighborhood Eldercare. Group Care Facility and Health and Personal Care Facility are permitted uses in MPD-CD subject to use standards. These two types of facility differ from a Family Care Facility only with respect to the number of persons. Specifically, Family Care Facility is defined as a facility with six or less residents. Group Care Facility is defined as encompassing seven to fifteen residents. Health and Personal Care Facility encompasses sixteen or more residents. Qualitatively the types of activities involved are indistinguishable except for the Health and Personal Care Facility, where a much broader spectrum of facility types and activities is included in its entry in the LIDO Definitions (Sec. 10.1, p. 10-18). e. Changing conditions within the County that make the amendment reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety and general welfare With the demographic shift in which "baby boomers" are entering the ranks of senior citizens in ever increasing numbers, there is expected to be an increasing number of people who will become disabled and require service of the type described. f. 'All other circumstances, factors and reasons' the applicant offers to justify approval of the request An applicant - Hands Fours Development Cooperative (H4D) - is applying for the rezoning of a 90 acre parcel in Orange County to MPD-CD. As a community largely composed of senior citizens, H4D wants to be prepared for the inevitable occurrence of incapacitated community members. It wants to provide for them to remain in the community and be cared for there, rather than be sent to facilities off-campus. The Family Care Facility definition corresponds to the H4D's vision of the facility in which such care could be administered. However, the current lack of permitted use of a Family Care Facility in MPD-CD is a major stumbling block to realizing this objective. 353 UDO Text Amendment Application - Attachment 2 We recommend considering this application in conjunction with three associated applications, namely those for a Zoning Atlas amendment, a Future Land Use Map amendment, and a Comprehensive Plan text amendment. Details presented in those applications - especially in their narratives - further illuminate aspects that are touched on here only briefly. a. Description of the proposed changes sought by the applicant In Section 3.8 of Article 3, Base Zoning Districts, a description of Master Plan Development Conditional District (MPD-CD) beginning on page 3-63 contains the following: MPD-CD DISTRICT SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. MPD-CD districts shall be limited to Transition Land Use Categories within the Orange County Planning Jurisdiction and Rural Community Nodes, as defined in the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan. We propose the addition of "Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes" to Land Use Categories in which MPD-CD is permitted. b. The revised text as requested by the applicant MPD-CD DISTRICT SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. MPD-CD districts shall be limited to Transition Land Use Categories within the Orange County Planning Jurisdiction, Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes and Rural Community Nodes, as defined in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Italics added for clarity. c. How the proposed amendment is consistent with, or carries out the intent and purpose of, the Orange County Comprehensive Plan The Housing Element, Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan, prominently mentions the provision of quality affordable housing for senior citizens as a key objective. For example, there is "Objective H-2.3: Increase the number of affordable multi-family housing units which are designed to support the needs of the elderly, especially those with limited incomes". A section of Chapter 4 titled Orange County Master Aging Plan (MAP) describes the expected massive increase in the numbers of Orange County residents 65 and older in coming years. A corresponding demand for appropriate housing is further detailed in section e. of this attachment, quoting from the MAP. 354 Our project would serve as a step in the direction of fulfilling this need described in the Comprehensive Plan and provide a model by which additional senior housing could be provided in a manner compatible with other objectives of the Master Aging Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, as more fully explained in the FLUM application narrative. The applicants would have preferred to locate our community for seniors in an urban setting but were unable to locate suitable land in Orange County districts currently approved for such projects. We faced the choice of trying to locate in a rural area or abandoning our project. We were able to find and purchase a rural property that meets our locational criteria. Its land use classification is not presently compatible with the zoning that would be required, MPD-CD. That incompatibility was the basis for the associated Zoning Atlas and FLUM amendment applications. d. The alleged error that would be corrected by the amendment In the matrix of Appendix F in the Comprehensive Plan, Rural Community Activity Node (RCAN) is linked with four types of Conditional Districts: ASE-CD, MPD-CD, R-CD and NR-CD. Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) is linked with three of these (ASE-CD, R-CD, and NR-CD) but not with MPD-CD. In fact, 52 permitted uses in Table 5.2 of the UDO are allowed in R-CD or NR-CD but not in MPD-CD. Only one permitted use is allowed in MPD-CD that is not allowed in the other Conditional Districts. MPD-CD development standards appear to allow the County at least as much discretion to control the characteristics of a development as do the standards of the other three Conditional Districts. Thus it appears that omission of a linkage between MPD-CD was more of an oversight than a specific choice. Notwithstanding, establishment of the linkage would be a necessary step to allow use of land in RNAN for MPD-CD developments such as we propose. In a concurrent application for a text amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan 2030, the applicants are requesting linkage between RNAN and MPD-CD. Assuming that request is granted, the text in the UDO would need to be amended as we propose in order to harmonize the Comprehensive Plan and UDO. e. Changing conditions within the County that make the amendment reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety and general welfare The changing condition in Orange County that makes the proposed amendment reasonably necessary is "an explosion in the numbers of older persons, a dramatic increase in longer lives" described in the Orange County Master Aging Plan (MAP) of 2007. The most recent update of the MAP, (2022-27), reinforces this point with an estimate that the overall population will increase by 20% from 2020 to 2040, while the number of adult ages 65+ in Orange County is expected to increase over three times as fast - 68%! This tsunami of aging adults will produce a demand for increased housing that is designed specifically to meet the needs of an aging population. The housing stock of Orange County is geared to families, typically 3 bedrooms, whereas the space needed by seniors declines as 355 their activities and family size decreases. Many seniors need housing with barrier-free access, which is not generally available. At the same time, housing prices are increasing rapidly, while incomes in seniors decrease as they age and retire. The applicants would have preferred to locate their planned community for seniors in an urban setting but were unable to locate suitable land in Orange County districts currently approved for such projects. f. 'All other circumstances, factors and reasons' the applicant offers to justify approval of the request In a concurrent zoning application, the applicant - Hands Four Development Cooperative (H4D) - is applying for the rezoning of a 125 acre parcel in Orange County to MPD-CD for the purpose of locating an intentional community designed primarily to serve seniors who wish to age in place. For this purpose, H4D has purchased land that lies partially within a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) and is applying for a FLUM amendment to request that the entire property be classified RNAN. Furthermore H4D has submitted a 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan text amendment to add a linkage between MPD-CD and RNAN in the Comprehensive Plan Appendix F. Should that request be approved, the language in the UDO section concerned with Development Standards for MPD-CD would need to be brought into agreement with that change, as is requested in this text amendment proposal. 356 Attachment C2 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT WITH ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY PLANS An application was received to amend the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to add Family Care Facility as a potential use in the MPD-CD (Master Plan Development Conditional District) and to allow MPD-CD districts to be considered in the Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes, as designated by the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Board of County Commissioners hereby issues this Statement of Consistency pursuant to NCGS §160D-605 Governing Board Statement. The Board finds that the amendments to the Orange County UDO text of Section 3.8 to allows for the MPD-CD zoning district in the "Rural Neighborhood Activity Node" future land use class of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is consistent for the following reasons: 1. The requirements of UDO Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments have been met; 2. The amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan, as prescribed by UDO Section 1.1.5 Statement of Intent—Amendments and Section 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans; a. The amendment is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan because it supports the following: Housing Goal 1: A wide range of types and densities of quality housing affordable to all in all parts of the County. Housing Goal 2: Housing that is useable by as many people as possible regardless of age, ability or circumstance. Objective H-2.1: Accommodate the development of group homes, foster care facilities, transitional housing facilities and other housing types in appropriate locations to provide increased opportunities for social interaction, a de-institutionalized lifestyle, and gainful employment. 3. The amendment is consistent with the adopted Master Aging Plan 2022-2027; a. The amendment is consistent with the master aging plan because it supports the following: Goal 3— Housing: Improve choice, quality, affordability, and stability of housing for older adults. Objective 3.1: Expand the development of a wide array of housing models that advance racial equity, livable design, and social connections for older adults. 357 4. The amendment is consistent with the adopted Consolidated (Housing) Plan 2020-2025; a. The amendment is consistent with the consolidated plan because it supports the following: Priority Need #3 - Integrated Housing for People with Service Needs 5. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it encourages development of a needed housing type for disadvantaged and/or aging populations. The Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein. Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Date 358 Attachment C3 Ordinance # ORD-2025-004 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY Whereas, an application was received to amend the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to allow MPD-CD (Master Plan Development Conditional District) zoning districts as a permitted district in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's Rural Neighborhood Activity Node, and to make other associated amendments, and Whereas, the County has held the required public hearing and has found the proposed text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, the adopted Master Aging Plan, and the adopted Consolidated Plan (Housing). Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Unified Development Ordinance of Orange County is hereby amended by: A. Rewriting the MPD-CD District Specific Development Standards in Section 3.8 (MPD- CD Chart on page 3-63) to read as follows: 1. MPD-CD districts shall be limited to Transition Land Use Categories within the Orange County Planning Jurisdiction and Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes and Rural Community Nodes, as defined in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. 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 12025. 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 , 2025 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 , 2025. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 359 Attachment C4 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT WITH ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY PLANS An application was received to amend the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to add Family Care Facility as a potential use in the MPD-CD (Master Plan Development Conditional District) and to allow MPD-CD districts to be considered in the Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes, as designated by the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Upon review, the Orange County Planning Director recommended alternative amendments to the UDO text to update Family Care Facility use and definition. The Board of County Commissioners hereby issues this Statement of Consistency pursuant to NCGS §160D-605 Governing Board Statement. The Board finds that the amendments to the Orange County UDO text that allows for Family Care Facilities as a permitted use in MPD-CD districts and updates the definition of"Family Care Facility" is consistent for the following reasons: 1. The requirements of UDO Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments have been met; 2. The amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan, as prescribed by UDO Section 1.1.5 Statement of Intent—Amendments and Section 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans; a. The amendment is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan because it supports the following: Housing Goal 1: A wide range of types and densities of quality housing affordable to all in all parts of the County. Housing Goal 2: Housing that is useable by as many people as possible regardless of age, ability or circumstance. Objective H-2.1: Accommodate the development of group homes, foster care facilities, transitional housing facilities and other housing types in appropriate locations to provide increased opportunities for social interaction, a de-institutionalized lifestyle, and gainful employment. 3. The amendment is consistent with the adopted Master Aging Plan 2022-2027; a. The amendment is consistent with the master aging plan because it supports the following: Goal 3— Housing: Improve choice, quality, affordability, and stability of housing for older adults. 360 Objective 3.1: Expand the development of a wide array of housing models that advance racial equity, livable design, and social connections for older adults. 4. The amendment is consistent with the adopted Consolidated (Housing) Plan 2020-2025; a. The amendment is consistent with the consolidated plan because it supports the following: Priority Need #3 - Integrated Housing for People with Service Needs 5. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it encourages development of a needed housing type for disadvantaged and/or aging populations. The Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein. Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Date 361 Attachment C5 Ordinance # ORD-2025-005 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY Whereas, an application was received to amend the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to add Family Care Facility as a potential use in the MPD-CD (Master Plan Development Conditional District) and to update its definition, consistent with N.C. General Statutes, and Whereas, the County has held the required public hearing and has found the proposed text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, the adopted Master Aging Plan, and the adopted Consolidated Plan (Housing). Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Unified Development Ordinance of Orange County is hereby amended by: A. Adding an asterisk (*) to the MPD-CD column of use #44 (Family Care Facility) in the Table of Permitted Uses (Section 5.2), and B. Amending the definition of Family Care Facility in Article 10 (Definitions) to read as follows: A facility which meets the definition of a family care home in NCGS 160D-907. 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 12025. 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 , 2025 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 , 2025. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners