HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-04-2025-Business Meeting 1
APPROVED 3118/25
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BUSINESS MEETING
February 4, 2025
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Tuesday, February
4, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, Vice-Chair Jean Hamilton
and Commissioners Marilyn Carter, Amy Fowler, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, and Phyllis Portie-
Ascott
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Travis Myren, Interim Deputy County Manager
Caitlin Fenhagen, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present.
Chair Bedford read the public charge. She explained the process for making public
comments for items not on the agenda vs. items that are on the agenda.
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
None.
2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
None.
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.)
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
Commissioner McKee had no comments to share tonight.
Commissioner Greene acknowledged the death of Capt. Rebecca Lobach who was one
of the three victims of the Black Hawk helicopter crash in Washington, D.C. She said that she was
a UNC Alum and a native of Durham. She shared that on the 151" the Orange County Community
Remembrance Coalition is holding a dedication for the historical marker from the Equal Justice
Initiative to commemorate the lives of Washington Thomas Jefferson and Daniel Morrow. She
said they were three black family members that were terrorized and lynched around Hillsborough
in 1869. She said that she also attended a groundbreaking for Griffin Partners in the Buckhorn
EDD. She said they will build two buildings for office space. She said it fits very well within the
economic development facilities. She said there are hearings this week on the Orange County
Consolidated Housing Plan at the RENA Community Center and the Efland Cheeks Community
Center.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott said the Ag Summit will be Monday at the Cedar Grove
Community Center. She said that she attended the low-barrier to housing community meeting last
weekend. She said that she was impressed that they pointed out the biggest solutions. She said
she also attended the Orange County Partnership for Young Children meeting and the GoTriangle
Special Tax Advisory Meeting. She said that she was elected to an officer position there.
2
Chair Bedford reiterated what Commissioner Greene shared about the Consolidated Plan
hearings and encouraged attendees to sign up for the county newsletter.
Vice-Chair Hamilton said she also attended the low entry housing forum and thanked
Housing staff and Alliance Health for their work on the event. She said she also attended the
training on leading the county for chairs and vice-chairs. She said she will share what she learned
in the upcoming months. She said she ran into a resident that expressed gratitude for their
emergency services and the sheriff's department.
Commissioner Fowler said she attended the BOH meeting on 1/22 and received a
presentation from nutrition services. She said they provide 1:1 and group nutrition education and
a variety of nutrition services. She said that on 1/28, the Triangle West Transportation Planning
Organization, formerly the DCHC-MPO met, and they have recently rebranded. She said that she
also attended the GoTriangle Special Tax Board meeting on 1/30.
Commissioner Carter said she attended the Essentials of County Government class
provided by NCACC. She said she sat in on an MPO joint meeting and said there is a lot of work
being done for transportation. She said the JLOW is having a meeting next week on 2/13 at 9 am
to talk about water and water quality. She encouraged anyone interested to sign up to attend.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Black History Month Proclamation
The Board adopted a proclamation designating February 2025 as Black History Month in Orange
County.
BACKGROUND: Black History Month originated from the efforts of Carter G. Woodson and three
colleagues, who established the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History (ASNLH) in
1915. Their mission was to research, preserve, and promote the achievements of Black
Americans and people of African descent. Inspired by the fiftieth anniversary of emancipation
celebrations in Washington, D.C., the ASNLH introduced the concept of a Negro History Week in
1926.
This celebration was intentionally placed in February to honor the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln
and Frederick Douglass, two pivotal figures in the fight for freedom and equality. Over time, the
event grew in prominence, culminating in 1976 when President Gerald Ford officially expanded
the observance to the entire month of February. President Ford called on Americans to"seize the
opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of Black Americans in every area
of endeavor throughout our history." Since then, every U.S. president has recognized Black
History Month.
This year's theme is "African Americans and Labor", honoring the role Black people have played
in establishing this country through both free work and enslaved labor.
Paul Slack, Chief Equity and Inclusion Officer, reviewed the background information for
this item. He read and the following proclamation:
3
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, it is essential to sustain a harmonious and inclusive society, Orange County
discourages practices and actions deemed detrimental to the peace, welfare, and progress of
our community; and
WHEREAS, Black Americans, descendants of people forcibly taken from Africa and subjected to
the brutalities of slavery, White supremacy, and family separation, have survived and overcome
over 400 years of systemic oppression, creating a vibrant and dynamic legacy that is central to
the cultural, economic, and political fabric of this nation; and
WHEREAS, the resilience, innovation, and indomitable spirit of Black Americans have pushed
this nation closer to the ideals of freedom, equality, and democracy that the Founders expressed
but did not fully pursue, even as they have fought tirelessly against the enduring specter of racial
injustice, oppression, violence, and discrimination; and
WHEREAS, Black history is not only a celebration of victories won but also a testament to the
years and lives lost in the pursuit of equity, inclusion, social justice, and liberation; and
WHEREAS, we honor the legacy of leaders, martyrs, visionaries, and revolutionaries who
sacrificed safety to defy both legal and illegal acts of oppression, and recognize the current
generation of leaders who continue to dismantle barriers, uplift communities and pursue justice;
and
WHEREAS, Orange County, recognizing it is home to numerous unmarked cemeteries for
enslaved people, will soon be adding a commemorative headstone collectively marking at least
34 individual graves at Blackwood Farms, honoring the lives and legacy of those whose labor and
sacrifice were foundational to the history of Orange County; and
WHEREAS, this year's theme of"African Americans and Labor" highlights the vital economic role
Black Americans have played in the development of the United States, acknowledging that Black
work — both free and forced — has been critical to the nation's infrastructure, industries, and
cultural identity, while also underscoring the need for fair labor practices, equitable wages and
hiring policies, along with workplace justice that continues today;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, do proclaim
February 2025 as "BLACK HISTORY MONTH" and encourage residents to honor this
distinctive month by becoming more enlightened as to the true history of Black Americans in this
Country and in our community.
THIS THE 4ch DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025.
Jamezetta Bedford, Chair
Orange County Board of
Commissioners
4
A motion was made by Vice-Chair Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Portie-Ascott, to
approve the proclamation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5. Public Hearings
a. 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
The Board held a public hearing, received public comment, received the Planning Board and staff
recommendations, closed the public hearing, and considered 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.
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.
5
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 UDO.
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 UDO 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:
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 LIDO. 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.
6
• 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 LIDO, notices of the public hearing were
mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel.
These notices were mailed on 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 133). 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.
Analysis
Section 2.3.2(B) 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 131). 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
8
Use classification within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F: Land Use and Zoning
Matrix (Attachment 133). The zoning districts currently compatible within RNANs include:
- 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
9
application for this district, emphasis shall be _given to the location of the proposed
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 LIDO, 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
10
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.orangecountVnc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26972/Orange-County-Strategic-
Plan?bidld=
Link to currently adopted Comprehensive Plan:
https://www.orangecountVnc.gov/1238/Comprehensive-Land-Use
Link to Master Aging Plan: https://www.orangecountVnc.gov/203/Master-Aping-Plan
Link to Consolidated (Housing) Plan:
https://www.orangecountync.qov/DocumentCenter/View/l 0806/Orange-County-NC-
Consolidated-Plan-FINAL?bid Id=)
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 UDO 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
UDO 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 was voted upon
8 — 1 to recommend denial, with the dissent being related to the need to bring the UDO into
11
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 LIDO 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 B7); and
10) Vote to Approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment A7) and Zoning Atlas
Amendment (Attachment A9)
OR
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).
12
Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director, introduced the item and began the following
presentation:
Slide #1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Items 5a:
"Fiddlehead Corner" Proposal
➢ Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendments
➢ Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) and Text Amendments
➢ Zoning Atlas Amendment to Master Plan
Development - Conditional District
BOCC Public Hearing
February 4,2025
Slide #2
MEETING PROCESS
1. Staff Presentation (on all items)
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Questions from the Board
4. Public Hearing
5. Board Deliberation and Action on Four(4) Motions
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Slide #3
13
Adopted Future Land Use Map with PIN 9739720339 Depicted
i - ` Wrier 4 r��bane Cr0�Nr.
Protected— IL
-j, u�•-.�,� •, watgj il,ed
—� n_ • T 1
'Haw r
watersncd , �.� �
LaIM vros:cl
f - � ,� _
- _V,-
— streams Fuhre Lane Vw Caseyones -
CM PIN 973972M9 RIXaI Re*XW*
_vwter ew" FhraI BL&t
r.�j YWterit,eOt �AgrloutlYaFResldetCla * r � n�, �
-Res"oe Pro*cbw Areas AC:tN*N00ft
Parws FhxaI Ne19rbyrmd Pioti A m
i at"i
ID OC4H'CA.lo m PynnN Area RWaI CCrrY%-m .
Cy Stober said the property in question is in Southwestern Orange County at the
intersection of Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop, just off of the intersection of HWY 54 and
Morrow Mill Road. He said it is currently zoned Agricultural Residential and is in the Haw River
Unprotected Watershed.
Slide #4
recommended Motion
• The Zoning Atlas Amendment requires:
— UDO Text Amendments to be legal and
conforming
— Comprehensive Plan Amendments to found
"consistent", as required by State law
..)RANGE COUNTY
NOR I C',AAC,I.INA
Slide #5
14
Proposed Future Land Use Map Change with
PIN 9739720339 Depicted
f
Hawn rWMenhed a i.
Pmpoxn Grasps o pai ye VneMbce i>t M aural
—sraenx
:in Raswice Pmlw-nrea
"FNYR Land UN Cm9wW
Woke (RANGE COUNTY
Rrn'Heqmrn�Actmy
NORTH CAROLINA
Cy Stober said most of the property in question is in the Agricultural Residential Future
Land Use Class. He said that given that this proposal is a Master Plan Development involving
150 units, staff feels the expansion of that activity node to the rest of the property is necessary in
order to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
15
Slide #6
fly-- -- ------- s• ` , --- MQAD,WC
aao Al Fi7
POD A4
t•� f ,T �� ��. m 41 q
POD A3
1 ---------------
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH C:AROLINA
16
Slide #7
POD Al
J •f
POD Al
L
ML I
MI
s
Cy Stober said this is a close up of two-family care facilities. He said family care homes
are currently not a permitted use in the Master Plan Development Zoning District, so the Unified
Development Ordinance needs to be amended to allow for family care facilities in this zoning
district, and a complementary change in the UDO is required along with the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. He explained that the Zoning Atlas Amendment cannot happen without the UDO
being amended. He further explained that if the UDO is not amended, it is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
17
Slide#8
Recommended Motion
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).
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Cy Stober said this is a preview to the end so the Board has an understanding of what
they will be considering. He said the first UDO Text Amendment is staff-recommended based on
state law.
Slide #9
CONDITIONAL DISTRICT - Overview
Conventional District ZoningConditional
Standards must he uniformly Request is use-specific with
applied throughout the County individualized development
conditions and standards
No site-specifc,individualized Site-specific development plan
conditions may nd imposed is part of review and approval
process
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
18
Slide #10
CONDITIONAL DISTRICT- Overview
Enabling NC General Statute 160D-703 Zoning Districts
_ Orange County UDO Section 2.9 Conditional
Districts
• Site plan and development conditions are site-
CD rezoning specific.
• County and applicant must mutually agree to
"Conditional"? the conditions.
Basis of • Staff and Board recommendations and final
Decision approval should be based on consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Cy Stober underscored that this proposal is currently inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the Plan will have to be amended if this proposal is to be approved.
Slide #11
ZONING & LAND USE REVIEW
NCGS 160D-701
Zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and shall be
designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.... The regulations
shall be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, as to the character of
the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the
value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the local
government's planning and development regulation jurisdiction. The regulations may not
include, as a basis for denying a zoning or rezoning request from a school,the level of
service of a road facility or facilities abutting the school or proximately located to the
school.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
19
Slide#12
ZONING & LAND USE REVIEW
NCGS 160D-703
Specific conditions may be proposed by the petitioner or the local government or its
agencies, but only those conditions approved by the local government and consented to
by the petitioner in writing may be incorporated into the zoning regulations. Unless
consented to by the petitioner in writing... a local government may not require, enforce,
or incorporate into the zoning regulations any condition or requirement not authorized by
otherwise applicable law...
Conditions and site-specific standards imposed in a conditional district shall be limited to
those that address the conformance of the development and use of the site to local
government ordinances... or the impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the
development or use of the site...
Any other modification of the conditions and standards in a conditional district
shall follow the same process for approval as are applicable to zoning map
amendments.
vr�
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Slide #13
CONDITIONAL DISTRICT - Applicant
Responsibility and Review Flexibility
L Establishment of Use Type
Applicant is required to define what type of development and/or
land use is anticipated.
2. Master Plan Development
A master plan, reviewed and approved by staff in accordance with
UDO Sections 2.5 & 6.7, must be submitted and approved prior to
any development activity on the parcel.
3. Subject to Conditions of Approval
Review and approval allows for negotiation of development
standards and may vary considerably from ordinance standards.
Room for creativity both from applicant and review authority.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
20
Slide #14
REZONING PROCESS
Public Notice
(signs posted,letters mailed)
lu
Application Received I
•Staff Review •CD Zoning only •Public Meeting -
Publicring
-Development •Plan Consistency stency
Advisory Finding nessCommittee Review •Recommendtion•Interagency Made to BOCC enial ofCoordination uest
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Cy Stober said this application was received almost a year ago.
Slide#15
Fiddlehead Corner Rezoning Application
Morrow Mill Road & NC 54
Morrow Mill Road at
•• Vicinity Map far ReapninS Application PiN g7397zo339
Gold Mile Loop _�..r.,. f.�
9739-72-0339 &ngham rownro �+
v 1 1
f
r
TownshipBingham
-� CI•asel Hif iovms�is
Haw River Unprotected � .
*ro....,...,p si yam`>l.. •L
ti
Hands Four Development i� }
(H4D) rApplicantImo_
c/o Scott Radway, V ' 1 i
Radway Design
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Zoning Manager, continued the presentation.
21
Taylor Perschau noted that since the Haw River Watershed is unprotected, there is no
intrinsic zoning-related maximum residential density.
Slide #16
Fiddlehead Corner Rezoning Application
Morrow Mill Road & NC 54
Rezoning Application to MPD-CD for PIN 9739720339
CurrentZoninl� ---_,--:-
■ Agricultural Residential(AR)
I
r
Requested Zoning -
■ Master Plan Development(MPD-Ca)
■ No proposed Overlay District changes
■ Use:
■ 150 residences in detached single-family,
X1w RWW
townhome,and multifamily structures;
• community center;
• two Family Care Facilities;
■ recreational amenities,including but not
limited,to walking trails,pickleball courts,
a swimming pool,and a wood shop
Surrounding Zoning
AR, LC-1,NC-2,CC-4
22
Slide#17
Fiddlehead Corner Rezoning Application
Morrow Mill Road & NC 54
Adopted Future Land use Map with
Future Land Use Map Designations PIN 973972o339Depicted
Agricultural Residential
Land in the rural areas where the prevailing
s
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
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. .,•
A
Slide #18
Fiddlehead Corner Rezoning Application
Morrow Mill Road & NC 54
Alga .12
Proposed Future Land Use Map Change with
Future Land Use Map Designations PIN 9739720339 Depicted
Agricultural Residential
Land in the rural areas where the prevailing ' P%'
land use activities are related to the land
(agriculture,forestry)and which is an
appropriate location forthe continuation of
these uses.
Rural Neighborhood Activity Node
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. „
.. A
23
Slide #19
Site-Specific Master Plan
f:.
J '
R1E
x
ANGE COUNTY
._.... --
�.-___i IORTH CAROIINA
Taylor Perschau said as part of the application, the applicant was required to submit a site-
specific plan that is binding. She said as a Master Plan Development,they were required to submit
more than would be required for a non-Master Plan Development conditional zoning district
application, including a utility plan and an architectural plan.
Slide #20
Site-Specific Master Plan
a
I _
C '� � - j�m �'-- ice- t•..,
24
Slide#21
• Driveway Accesses
• Community Wells 0
• Septic System Areas
• Stormwater Devices 0
Slide #22
Other Requirements
AVW
024591
MPM0 Hd,F.
Irlmry
.............
'z
Th.f
E�.d Op—
YAM T�"11
baw� pip. Z1.11 of hd—&., —VW ti v-11
d�—w I—au6 hmu there wl roartrry [W wallTaylor Perschau described the additional requirements met by the applicant including a
Traffic Impact Analysis, an Environmental Assessment,Architectural Concept Plan, and a Utilities
Plan.
25
Slide #23
Staff Analysis (Attachment 2)
• The zoning amendment application is reD sentlX not consistent with either
the UDO or the Comprehensive Plan.
• Family Care Faci I ities are not permitted in MPD-CD
• MPD-CD is not a permitted zoning district in the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node
(RNAN)
— Both UDO and Comp.Plan amendments
• The RNAN does not include most of the subject property.
• The Statements of Consistency(A7) and Ordinance (A9) acknowledge that
the proposed amendments will support numerous Comprehensive Plan
principles,goals,and objectives
• The Statement of Inconsistency (A8) acknowledges that most of the
amendments will be in conflict with numerous Comprehensive Plan
principles,goals, and objectives. ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Slide #24
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
REVIEW PROCESS
Public Notice
(signs posted,letters mailed,legal advertisement for Planning Board meeting and public hearing)
Application Received Planning Board L
Commissionersr
•Staff Review
•Development
Advisory •Public Meeting .Public Hearing
Committee •Review •Approval/Denial of
Review •Recommendation Comprehensive
•Staff Made to BOCC Plan Amendment
Recommendation
to Planning Board
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
26
Tom Altieri, Senior Planner, continued the presentation:
Slide #25
Amendments to Comprehensive Plan FLUM
and Appendix F
• Proposed by Applicant:
— Map amendment to expand a Rural
Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) by +-
71 .6-acres
• From: Agricultural Residential
• To: Rural Neighborhood Activity Node
— Text amendment to Appendix F: Land Use
and Zoning Matrix to allow Master Plan
Development — Conditional Districts in
RNANs
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Slide #26
Proposed Amendmentto Comprehensive Plan FLUM
Overview:
Current FLUM Agricultural Residential;
Rural Neighborhood
Activity Node(RNAN) —p—r.,t. Landu¢M pwun PIN 9;9Ru339 Depl,Im
Current FLUM
Resource Protection AreaOverlay
-
4
Agricultural Residential; .
RNAN;
LocalRural Residential;
ClassificationsRural Community Activity 1
Node; ORANGE COUNTY
Rural Buffer NORTH CAROLINA
27
Slide #27
• - • •
FLUM Classification �3
Proposed Future Land Use Map Change
with
Agricultural Residential PIN 9739720339 Depicted
■ Land in the rural areas where the
prevailing land use activities are related
to the land(agriculture,forestry)and
which is an appropriate location forthe
continuation of these uses. -
Rural Neighborhood Activity Node
■ Land focused on designated road
intersections within the rural area that is ~.n„V,.,r-,=n„�
appropriate for small-scale commercial
uses characteristic of"Mom and Pop"
973972039
convenience stores and gas stations. _
Resource Protection Area(Overlay) i' r
• Land designated as Primary
Conservation Area which includes
wetlands and floodplains,steep slopes, .o.°
(15%or greater),natural areas,wildlife
habitats and corridors,and significant ORANGE COUNTY
historic and archaeological sites. NOR rlf('A ROI INA
Tom Altieri said approximately 71 acres of the property are classified as Agricultural
Residential. He said there is a letter from DEAPR in the agenda packet that addresses the small
dark green area in the bottom right of the parcel on the slide above, which is a Resource
Protection Area.
Slide #28
Morrow Mill Rural Neighborhood Activity Node Existing Development Status and Uses
araa,rnenr a
Iodenpra 9S c
undnebGM�Wc
RQN 9Y
®Rhl lzSa[
B
3H�ms 9]39]20339
0 PIh 97j9Yi0339
Rural Na9RbatmE
Kw HOJ
9739720334 �
ix annual chance d
a r�aav
1/4-Mile radius centered near intersection of Morrow Mill Rd and NC 54
■ Based on noted assumption,37%of the parcel acreage within the Node is developed
■ Beyond the labeled non-residential land uses,there are 16 single-family homes within this Node
28
Tom Altieri said since there are some large parcels in this area, staff had to make
assumptions about which parcels were developed vs. undeveloped. He said the parcels in pink
above are undeveloped with no structures. He explained that the areas in blue are developed,
meaning there is a structure on a lot with less than 20 acres. He said 37% of the parcel acreage
within the Neighborhood Activity Node is developed.
Slide #29
Proposed Amendmentto Appendix F
Appendix1 Use and Zoning Matrix
mum oFsmlcrx
fi j �1 C C (•
I.-1 1 =n,——,4
IIIIIT]in„Ii... PYnlll AfInINI,IrYbn trT iNmkllfYllb,II[ulrr Mr Elm\'IYoln.E tRf.Id IR 11.nitln¢A.rc[mml _
("Yrialu'E'I n„Ill.inn
fu 1'rur I
2n 1elr . n
= urv+xan ♦ ♦ I
T C.n11n11crl.11lnfu.lrlW
Tnnnclnu.fill.u.
E' F:colluni H•Iln Ho pnMnf
Ru 1 u
RIII.1 RNiuinalIF
M1¢r%i11111rY NtglmflYIk
a
- Ruul("ml[numlly Ar[IvlEy
xl lurt.1.„w,l>oroar
EILR .i nan.A.I arn,u,
ewl,>rrnnnwnrr.
Amend to allow the MPD-CD zoning district
within the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node
The Matrix links the County's zoning districts to the future land use classifications.
The amendment establishes consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the Applicant's
requestfor MPD-CD zoning
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
29
Slide #30
There are 10 RNANs located on the Future
Future land Use Map-Rural NeIghborhood Activity N odes(RNAN}Development status
Land Use Map(FLUM),
AllacNnen[5 � :..
■ Totaling+ 1,166 acres 2 DRAFr
■ Based on noted assumption,48% of T 1° '°�°
the parcel acreage within the RNANs ce`�°a"�`
_� �
are developed T "
'�PrWll+t e2ac ��.+dawd Smc DercbVau rlac
,lntler 3fia. _.Fmd llSx• Iptlppap�<=x
■ This does not representthe actual .. .a�u�,°'
impervious development footprint
• These Nodes have been included on
the FLUM since the Land Use Element u "
was originally adopted in 1981
■ The majority of the developed land !' r
uses within the RNANs existed in
1981 --�
- - aebpsa5t2a
.'. --i�NWJ Preall�ac'
R A
a„eepaa oeteaRee•avKcwra sac.p sc,rr.ur�
30
Slide #31
' -d
This map depicts how the RNANs are currently Future Land Use Map• RuralNeighhorhoodActivityNodes(RNAN)-Zoninglnfo
zoned.
■ Zoning Districts within the Nodes oRAFT
WR v.
include: T"U
TdM 125s
• Agricultural Residential(AR)&Ruralx
ad flsxi u
Residential(R-i) �• G R!A JEC56• a>a
• Local Cum mercial(LC-1);Neighborhood W2,,_
To41,Sac '.J� Tofnli 25nc
Commercial(NC 2);General Commercial �
(GC-4);Existing Commercial(EC-5) ! o•;a
■ While Conditional Districts(CD)are I
consistentwith Appendix F,there is '
Tel¢115E
S
no CD zoning within any of the Nodes ,
■ The only CD District not currently
permitted in the RNANs is the Master a
Plan Development- Conditionalw
AR l]Pa[
District(MPD-CD)
L�1 sac
sa<
ToS I All�f�Fls
! 4F 34Ig�
��a1'llmRs _ - �C56ac
JC1 me
! AR
�-ECS E Ada TBac
1✓ "T� - IgryaN Alesllp5gc:
LCI
" Ao•.
ncz cnwh.m .
kl 4ua v
31
Slide#32
Staff Analysis
As required under UDO Section 2.3.8,the Planning Directoris required to'...cause an
analysis to be made of the application and,based upon that analysis,prepare a
recommendation for consideration'. In analyzing this proposal,the Planning Director offers
the following:
1. The application is complete in accordance with Section 2.3.7 of the UDO.
2. The proposal to amend Appendix F is supportive of principles/goals/objectives
outlined within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan(See Planning Director's
Recommendation section of abstractfor specifics).
3. The proposal speaks to changing demographic conditions in the County.
4. The proposal establishes consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the
Applicant's requestfor MPD-CD zoning,as part of the Fiddlehead Corners development
proposal.
5. The MPD-CD zoning district was originally established to provide a mechanism through
which innovative development proposals could move forward for consideration through
a legislative land use planning process that was transparent,fair,open,efficient,and
responsive.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Slide #33
Text Amendments to UDO
• Two amendments proposed by Applicant:
— Rewrite the MPD-CD District Specific Development Standards to allow MPD-
CD zoning districts in Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes(Section 3.8)
— Add"Family Care Home"as a permitted use in the MPD-CD zoning district
(Section 5.2)
• One amendment proposed by Staff, upon analysis:
— Update the statutory reference in the definition of Family Care Home(Section
10.1)
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
32
Cy Stober continued the presentation:
Slide #34
Amendments to UDO §3.8 (Master Plan
Development - Conditional District)
0MR-1
I. districts shall be limited to Transrbon Land legtrws within the orange County Planning junsdkion
Rural CennM+rty Npdes.as defined in the Orange COwlsy ComprehensiW Man.
2.
are restricted based an the Watershed Pro*cWn Overlay Drsbia in which"property is located Refer to Section
4.2.3 for land use resOtci ms.
3. The residential density permitted on a given pareel is based an the Watershed Protection Overlay District in which
the property is krated. Refer to Section 4 2 4 for a breakdown of the allowable density(i a-,the number of
individual dwellings that can be developed on a parcel of property)
4. Allowable impervious surface area is based on the Watershed Protection Overlay District in which the property is
located. Refer to Sections 4.2.5 and 4.2.8 for a breakdown of the allowable impervious surface area.
For lots outside of a Watershed Protection Orertay District(see Section 421.the minimum usable lot area for lots
that u4lize ground absorption wastewater systems shall be 30.000 square feet for parcels between 40.000 square
feet and 1.99 ao n Size:zoning lots two ales and greater in Size Shall helve 3 minimum usable lot area of at
Ieasl40.000 uareI.,
Amend to—andRuraI Neighborhood Activity Nodes and Rural
CommunityNodes, as defined in the Orange County Comprehensive
plan.
�-
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Slide #35
Amendments to UDO 10 and §5a2 (Table of
Permitted Uses)
NCGS 160D-907 "Family Care Facility"
A home with support and supervisory personnel that provides room and
board, personal care, and habilitation services in a family environment
fornot more than six resident persons with disabilities
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
33
Slide #36
Amendments to UDO 10 and §5.2 (Table of
Permitted Uses)
NCGS 160D-907 "Family Care Facility"
A fami/y 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.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Slide #37
Staff Analysis
As required under UDO Section 2.8.5,the Plan ningDi rector is required to'...cause an
analysis to be made of the application and,based upon that analysis,prepare a
recommendation for consideration'. In analyzing this proposal,the Planning Director offers
the following:
1. The application is complete in accordancewith Section 2.8.3 of the UDO.
2. The proposal is supportive of principles/goals/objectives outlined within the Orange
County Comprehensive Plan(See Planning Director's Recommendation section of
abstract for specifics).
3. The amendments can be considered separately.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
34
Slide #38
Staff Analysis
As required under UDO Section 2.8.5,the Plan ningDi rector is required to'...cause an
analysis to be made of the application and,based upon that analysis,prepare a
recommendation for consideration'. In analyzing this proposal,the Planning Director offers
the following:
4. The Director recommends the proposed amendmentsto Section 5.2"Table of
Permitted Uses"and Article 10 Definitions.
1. The proposal brings the Orange County UDO in conformance with the intent of NCGS 1601).
2. This use is allowed by right in the 16 conventional and 2 conditional districts zoning districts in which it is
currently permitted by-right.
3. Staff recommends approval of Family Care Facility as a by-right use in MPD-CD rather than imposing
additional county standards to the use,as presented by the applicant.
5. The proposal also establishes consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the
Applicant's request for MPD-CD zoning,as part of the Fiddlehead Corners development
proposal.
�1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Slide #39
Applicant Presentation
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
35
LeAnn Brown, Land Use Attorney, Brown & Bunch LLC made the following presentation
on behalf of the applicant:
Slide #1
Fiddlehead Corner
LeAnn Brown introduced herself and reiterated the four parts of the application, as
described by Orange County staff. She said her presentation will focus on the Conditional Zoning
and what the Master Plan Development looks like.
LeAnn Brown said she forwarded a letter to the Board in January and wants to emphasize
the most important parts of that letter tonight. She said the Master Plan Development-CD is a tool
to help the Board be more flexible to the needs of a changing community. She said the purpose
of the tool is to allow the Board to consider proposals that provide an economic and efficient land
use. She said the Master Plan Development-CD allows the Board to see the full plan for
consideration. She shared that in discussions of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan, the idea to have
a rural activity node rather than RCANs and RNANs has been proposed, so part of the request
focused on changing the zoning from one to the other speaks to the idea that the differentiation
may not be necessary today. She said there are many ways this project meets the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and this project would be perfectly appropriate to the
changing circumstances of how Orange County continues to develop over time.
Slide#2
Fiddlehead Corner
Neighborhood Planning&Design Team
Scott Radway, AICP Planning•Design•Zoning Radway Design
John Felton, AIA Architect I Master Plan Cline Design
Mike Warrant, P.E. Engineering i Landscape Design John McAdams Co.
Kevin Davidson, P.E. Wastewater System Design AWT
David Barcal, P.E. Water System Design MacConnell&Assoc.
Bill Lyke Hydrogeologist Groundwater Mgmt Assoc.
LeAnn Nease Brown Land Use Attorney Brown&Bunch PLLC
36
LeAnn Brown asked those present in favor of the development to please stand so the
Board could see their support.
Slide #3
Anacnment 2(Candnued) ,
—
7
Fiddlehead
Corner
r , I
nftll'Y�J �r\l /
WAL
— st,.aP,a FLA�L&A use CakW
Q PIN 973972=9 RWAI Rodent l
��W6ltlfhetlb _Aovw M Rea,arrtH, ' -�7-
-Raaovoa Preta(gp AV AM*POMS -
Pa2Lli �..Rml NaghDorr*W — s Piule
Q O".,K7K.AJonSPM^w9 Mw RiralCb+mnly W�„�,
Scott Radway of Radway Design continued the presentation:
Slide #4
Rezoning Application to MPD.{D for PIN 9739720339
Residential
Neighbors
Across
Street
a 't
s�»ztm»
Haw River3 Residential
Z.
Neighbors
with Shared
16
Line
Property
MAN
Original
Ju
Fiddlehead Corner
i �yy Master Plan
150 Dwelling Units
� fir! /• f F
i
r �
Modified
It
- ! Fiddlehead Corner
Master Plan
it 100 Dwelling Units
Ak-
38
Slide #7
1 Dwellings 100 Dwellings
1p, 'Y ^ •
Chair Bedford asked the County Attorney if the Board should be considering the proposed
alternative, or the plan as it was submitted originally.
John Roberts invited James Bryan, Staff Attorney, forward to address the Board's legal
questions about this application.
James Bryan said because the modification was brought forward before this meeting and
is being heard by everyone in the room, due process has been followed, and proper notice has
been provided. He said if something new were to be proposed after the public hearing, it would
be more of an issue. He said if this were a substantial change, it would also have been an issue,
but he does not consider this to be a substantial change.
Commissioner McKee asked why this is not a substantial change.
James Bryan said the Board is still considering a rezoning to a conditional district and is
still considering the same changes to the UDO and Comprehensive Plan. He said a good way to
think about it is to ask, "if this was a new application, would it result in the same process being
followed?"
Commissioner McKee said he was very concerned that this change came through with
such late notice.
Commissioner Greene said she wants to hear from everyone possible tonight, but given
this change, she does not think the Board will finish deliberations tonight.
Commissioner Fowler asked what the applicant is actually asking for the Board to consider
and why did they make the change.
Scott Radway said they are requesting the Board consider the 100-unit proposal. He said
this is not a change in land use, it is a change in form of land use. He said the reason they made
the change is because they heard from a lot of people who thought 150 units was too intense for
the area and wanted to address those concerns.
Slide39
• :
HeardPlanning Board Meetings
Comments and Concerns
proposedIt was stated that many of the uses allowed
District or in a RNAN-Rural Neighborhood Activity Node.
Actually, every use proposed for Fiddlehead is permitted in one or more of the Zoning Districts linked to the AR
RNAN land use categories in the 2030 Land Use Plan.
supplyWater ..
Prior to submitting a plan for Fiddlehead, the applicant engaged GMA, Inc. a hydrogeology firm that fully
evaluated the property&had the Public Water Supply Section of the Division of Water Resources, NC
Department of Environmental OualitV visit the site on two occasions during the due diligence process of site
review as well as looking at County public well records for some of the nearby properties.
In addition, the applicant reviewed thoroughly the well and water materials provided by the Eden View,the
R CD Subdivision Applicant. That information addressed the same concerns about water supply. The BOCC
approved Eden View with 34 lots,each with an individual well with the possibility of developing at 4-5 bedrooms.
The applicant has additional information about water demand for Fiddlehead for presentation tonight.
Slide
VerificationPlanning Board Meeting --- Neighbors: Comments and Concerns
ell Process
ust as asingle-family home is required to submit a site plan to Orange County Health showing one or more
possible well locations, Fiddlehead is required to submit the same information to Public Water Supply Section of
the Division of Water Resources, NC Department of Environmental Quality
No permits for occupancy for a home in the case of the county jurisdiction, nor any home or community use in
Number of Homes, Residents, Cars,Parking &Traffi
the case of Fiddlehead with DWO jurisdiction will be issued prior to their review and approval of not only the well,
but its proven water supply, above ground storage,and water quality treatment facilities to be licensed by the
state.
y reducing the size of the proposed neighborhood to 100 dwelling units, resident population and vehicles
owned by residents is reduced by 1I3. Parking spaces are and daily vehicle trips are also reduced. The
modified information is contained in tables that follow.
.0
Slide#10
Fiddlehead Corner
Original vs Modified Plan
Dwelling nrfs o Ile �ecreas�
Single Family ��49 �� 36 ��3 126%'
Two Family � ■ t2�.8 140%'
Three Family 142°/
Fla MF Buildin
Total Dwelling Units��0�� 100 ��
Family Care Facility 2[12 persons"1 [6 persons] �so
Estimated Res' 225± " 150±
r
Dwellii 1.6 " 1.1 �_
Slide
• • ' . • Corner
Original vs Modified Plan
Fiddiehead Data
Water Demand�Use
Wastewater -. t�■ 1b0 DU � ■
Common Open Space . 70� ■ � +7% ■
Total Open Space � 85�� +3% ■
Impervious SurF� I 1�- -314% ■
Parking Space��.400 225-30��100125% ■
Daily Vehicle Traffic�� 1,278 885 �� -32%
Parking includes all resident parking,parking for delivery services,tradesmen,service vehicles,spaces at recreation facility
locations,solid waste collection vehicle spaces,and spaces for relatives&friends that visit for social gatherings at the
neighborhood community building. Much of this parking meets ADA standards for aisles and slopes per county and state
standards.
As NCDOT roads do not provide for curbed road sections,there is no on-street parking. Therefore,parking is located on house
lots and in parking lots meeting County Design Standards.
41
Slide
• . - . . Corner
Is T
Situated in the
Haw River Unprotected - •
• The Haw River Unprotected Watershed in Orange County Has no Impervious Surface
Standard or Maximum and has limited Stormwater requirements.
• The Haw River Unprotected Watershed flows to the Haw River Protected Watershed
which flows to Jordan Lake. It does not provide water to either the Cane Creek
Reservoir or University Lake. The Haw River Protected Watershed Standards are:
• Maximum Impervious Surface = 24% of a property.
• High Stormwater Management for Quality and Quantity Discharge
• Fiddlehead Commons Modified Plan for 100 dwellings and support uses as
drawn has an impervious ratio of 15%
■ Fiddlehead Commons will adopt and use the standards of the Haw River
Protected Watershed
® � Watersheds
It
FiddleheadUn-Protected
Corner
Watershed
Fiddlehead Corner
Will Utilize
Protected �•
Watershed
" — Standards
42
Slide#14
Fiddlehead Corner
Environmental Features & Considerati Is]ns
Streams & Regulated Buffers - ■ •
- Water Supply - Public Well Locations - NCDEQ
Soil Suitability - . ■ •
Stormwater Management ■ •
Environmental information is part of the Fiddlehead Corner Application Materials
Scott Radway said the site plans would be reviewed by Orange County staff to ensure the
requirements of the UDO are met.
Slide #15
Fiddlehead Cornertreams
_ wsrouaoehoaMehi cooaeannre
c�e MURuciriu �••^^••••^^^e•-•^
§ em Oa
Scott Radway said the streams on the property are shown by the blue lines.
43
Slide#16
FEMA''Flood Plain
Off-Site . - IMF
-
`] , Regulatory Steams
P
_ Stream Buffers
` r
J
O'
Scott Radway said the image on the right shoes the stream buffers required by the UDO.
He said design has adopted an additional 25 ft of protected zone to address the critical root zone
in the UDO as well. In the left side image, he said the FEMA flood plain is visible.
Slide #17
_ da `
25%+SLOPES
-----------
Topography
.� 5-25°/°/ +SLOPES
r r
& Slopes
A `
�► i -" � r'-'fib-, -
GeB li.,. ..,1 GeB _ Wo I 1 {
Slope
NL
1 8 1 1 I I Slope%'J GeB5-15% 1
i 11
1 Ge8
1
1 j ,
0.85
l
Scott Radway said the percentages on the slide above mean there will be limited
disturbance to the topography and slopes of the land because it is already well-suited for the type
of community being proposed particularly when considering ADA requirements.
44
Slide#18
Geologic Formations - GMA, IN
Q I R 1
�� .
ael,
�+°�Mayes �0 a tlia<aM diorN.
M I�l
I ^n e
_ \ Elre W Epkl�tirs. M of
I neaeE�m.n ry Lm ng
Zhe
_�m��re r oebW�w d ann
d r a� e
>3..rD Mlnetl epkMa pymcMatic rotes,
WELLP �.. are,+sn-greenmgea,el.grey�esa�s
MaNeBF, wglmlerWc nd4KKIW
�` � 11�' / �.�� I \ .IniWnn.arkmnm MyllAe Ilia alplonea
.,�; mlavcWlY nklY PhyR tic
-- ��✓'/// � �� , .Ere true PROJECT 16F4D1
INTERPRETED SITE GEOLOGYANE
POSSIBLE WELL LOCATIONS
WELLC oa
_- - srn�reer
WELL B�
'� 1 GOLD MINE LOOP ROAD PROPERTY,
CHAPEL HILL,
ORANGE CO11 NTY.NC
aEaocw ww 1— - —
GEOLOGtCM�P�O,FCOU CARf)-.fs A G_ MA
NCGS'OFR.t01665 .ww+wcw.w. � ' on.�in..n.cr.re••1io,•r,1 w,
i� ra.ame.c.euew.nwmes w...¢aE.e.w.wr�' i /.
5
Scott Radway said the well sites selected for the plan are Well C and Well D, because
according to the geological analysis, they have the highest opportunity to reach a good supply of
water and not at extreme depths.
Slide #19
RN—A313
�i.Nmre�eernyY,re %J Nee a 9Ub lu n9�.
vr.rmrn.n sal cn.ww�on � � _ 3.•.%'t% i_---:,_� rnn-remR sGil ism
rlmnnc llomAm un n3m
InmNW ruaw,N Musna - !-'� \ii �. �� �-. .• •
umnc Pcl.em;nl5ocury � � 'ylll I" ,�Jj�� �'Y
creme co.NcE �': 1 l •J. • / • •
. ullllllnl ;,.
I`I
�1 WeI16VIfi 1W �rj _ � ,
san ev,na B.M Pa! ' � 4a� •�<'i''� r-" `c' L
NN
Well r]'r �(fy . �`• ��'�
11q,�
r re
45
Slide #20
' Fiddlehead
' Corner
Master Plan
Neighborhood
� i Design
00 Residences. - Family
12 Two Family
40 Stacked flats
0• Common
Open Space
John Felton, Senior Designer with Cline Design Associates, continued the presentation:
Slide #21
hL
Fiddlehead
Corner
y'
Master Plan
Compact
Neighborhood
Design
Variety of
iE
Housing Choice
Modest
Homes
1 Be. ••
Bedroom
Variable "o•
Orientation For
Maximize Solar
4'. Access
John Felton said Compact Neighborhood Design has been gaining momentum as an
alternative to density and sprawl, creating opportunities for preserving meaningful open space
and forested land. He said by clustering homes on smaller lots, designing smaller homes,
minimizing roads and drives, and a variety of compact housing types, they are able to leave 2/3
of the property forested.
Slide46
1Fiddlehead
Corner
Master Plan
John Felton said a tree survey will be done for the are where homes are planned to be
developed to see which trees can be preserved in that area as well.
Slide #23
t
j Compact
- j �,— �1;. j Neighborhood
I I 1 � Respect Existing
_ I, j Forested Land
I
" l� I,1 j / f Preserve Trees
/: Inside Community
� � —" Practice Biophilic
� Design
Common Open Spac � I
— jFiddlehead
Corner
y L • � j s
r PI
Compact
�' Neighborhood
I I � Approximately 1 DUlAC
� Designed to use 1!3 of
� � the property
j 70%common open
,1 / � space which includes
J / I
. i" /� Stream buffers
- � Retained natural
`� forested buffers
•,� '--r_- ---- -- -- ------ ---_—�- Preserved natural
`v'' _� Common Open Space areas
47
-
Land
` p ? Fiddlehead
Master Plan
Corner
IY
Slide #25
Fiddlehead
Corner
Master Plan
Buffer j �•"` Y1 ` j - Buffe
- I � Expanded
I J � Perimeter
j I
/ I Buffers
-- � j j Stream Buffers
j.
u ' Buffer
stormwater ponds - '�, s,. -
"` / waste treatment ��,_-• I
'•'` " Entrance Drive
I ~� and recycling 1 � Main entry&drive
I 1 � j Emergency access
=' � I'l % � stormwater ponds
� j Well sites
Primary Entry �� + � � Solid waste and
�� 'r_`- — — J - arEa vail recycling
'� able for Subsurface
'�-/ emergency� — subsurface forested wastewater
- access � ,, wastewater dispersion distribution
Compact Residential ILj
Courtyards
Residential
• i f Courtyards
M1 I
Porches face
_ courtyards
Low impact shared
open space
Retain forest[70%]
\, Remove invasive
/ I species
Common landscape
Rain gardens
` \ RESIDENTIAL
L , l COURTYARDS • , •
Porches front the courtya •
Cars sheltered in the rear
1 residential
Natural landscape with preserved x courtyards
trees, accessible paths &low-level 1� Identify and
pedestrian lighting "� preserve trees
Common
landscape
• Community
setting
16 � .:-!
•-r Porches and
r� gardens
Slide49
� rfllf �fJf'�� RESIDENTIAL
• rl1_. .rl1
COURTYARDSiddlehead
1F 11* • ■
Master Plan
„y• � : �� - Variety of Modest Compac
Illustrative Examples
Home Designs residential
i � courtyards
Gatherin Sots - - Identify and
9 P �� - � preserve trees
for Neighbors � 'f'" •
! Common
•• � _ landscape
t
• ,�• Setting
•f1 •`%t���+�r � porches and
gardens
Slide #29
Community �
► Fiddlehead
Corner
Master Plan-
j � �,�-•— I ommun!
� '" ; 1 • Community center
- � l �� ■ Common landscape
r,` % I ■ Walkways and
- seating areas
`� �" � 1 ■ Ram gardens
F'' � � — — I^ � • Community
_ J gathering
'�•"/ r • Residential Care
1
•- 1
fi
rain gardens
help minimize
stormwater
ponds
•
athering
pace for
ommunity Communit
"�"� ��� � � 1' '•_� ctivity
' commurn uilding `+ Commons
ro provides space for Small community
classes and events _ v center
�- ■ Common landscape
Gathering
organic and 4 ?-
creative =' i.- Identify and
landscape and preserve mature
i trees
seating link the
3
commons area f "• ] Natural feel
Integrate existing n'
I trees into the jkns
r • � common space
V1 .FAR--- Community
Lr *� . _. Commons
I OW,
'M;� ■ Small community
center
Community building as ■ Common landscape
well as homes have roofs Use pervious
oriented for solar .� walking surfaces Gathering locations
where safe & Identify& preserve
possible mature trees
' Natural texture&feel
Slide51
maintain natural contours �
Fiddlehead
Corner
' brophilic tJesign - • j
fior stormwater I "''��" "�' 1 j
Master
� j Landscape and
`� � , I Areas to preserve
a i �
� � �! Grade and plan to
% I i maintain trees within
� f community
� i Accessible walking
• � � i paths
walking paths •� f
throughout the community ------- ______w_. use of pervious
� / r —;-�� gravel in walks as
'�-' � possible
Slidey ' use pervious surFace materials
; - � ,ain gardens
r 7;
management ��_=� �" Fiddlehead
Corner
Master Plan
� "r � Recreation
- natural
_ _ .+t, minimize grading
-_ � 'L Identify and
_ preserve mature
��� trees
aintain existing trees within the natural feel
community where possible
Slide52
#34
- _ natural feelr ='� • -- -�'*� �A
74
t
Fiddlehead
Corner
s:
walking trailsMaster Plan
low impact parking areas _T-- -- --,
near retained existing trees �4 .' " .-s': .'
, °. , . Preservation
`_ Landscape and
maximize use of � Recreation
gravel paths small walls to
- --.� natural landscape
t ,� minimize grading
- ■ Identify and
_ - - �. , preserve mature
■ natural feel
illustrative
Slide
--�. �'�� �" -.��►. ,"-:� walking trails
— 4 * Fiddlehead
Corner
e T '
Master Plan
j �--'- _� � ellness Center
r
_ � � � � � � � ■ Exercise areas
I, i Sauna and steam
i � Heated lap pool
_ } \ � �� ■ Wellness classes
y � �-- % + Connection to trai€s
53
-
tir u; heated lap pool �` ,
Fiddlehead
• Corner
Slide#37
- Indoor and outdoor flex space '"
Welf �s Center
connects to trails
� exercise areas
:,�,I sauna and steam
heated lap pool
�� �19 I i �� � t wellness classes
,x
classes I '^`f
f 4_.
h • �,. • ! ter •
t Corner-
Master
lan
training - _ • -
• - e "Hess cent"e"""r
Exercise areas
;, �, r _ Sauna and steam
'� yoga Heated lap pool
- - Wellness classes
I � Connection to
trails
Slide54
community gardens � �
Fiddlehead
-`' and recteation --------- --- ._J• ,� � �*. � I
pyre• ram` 4 j • `
Rom'+ Master Plan
j �-•' 1 ` I Community
' � � j� gardens and
I I 1 I Vegetable plots
J�~ .� I � j Maintenance
\ L,.- /� � j � ■ Dog park
�! � --`-------� J ■ Pickleball
Slide#39 k
illustrative
Fiddlehead
Corner
Master Plan
individua nth rden ar
1 „ ommun�
malnterlanCe l]Uilding �" I Vegetable plots
small o en field ��^
z +yl
- ; ) Pickleball Courts
55
Slide #40
Fiddlehead
Corner
Master Plan
R
LeAnn Brown began to answer a list of questions she received from a resident. She said
that one access to the community will be for emergency vehicles only.
Chair Bedford asked LeAnn Brown to pause so that Board members can ask their
questions.
Commissioner Fowler asked what would happen if the wells in this community affected
wells of surrounding properties.
LeAnn Brown said based on the hydrology work completed, she and her team do not have
any reason to believe there is not enough water to support this community and the existing
surrounding properties. She said it is a fear, but there is not scientific evidence to support it would
happen. She said if surrounding wells were impacted they would have to have a conversation
with those impacted about how to move forward, but do not believe that it is a possibility.
Commissioner Greene said at the Planning Board meetings, it was not clear that this would
be a 55+ community. She asked if the thinking has evolved since then.
LeAnn Brown said the thinking has evolved, and the intent is for this to be a 55+
community.
Chair Bedford asked if the Board is allowed to ask about what the intent is for the
development itself or if the Board can only consider land use.
James Bryan said the Board is limited in that it cannot consider the particular owner, and
it cannot be arbitrary or capricious in its decision-making. She said the Board can look at the land
use and should really be focused on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Greene asked if the Board can consider that it would be a 55+ community.
James Bryan said if it is related to the Comprehensive Plan, for instance if aging or types
of housing is mentioned, it is legally plausible that it could be relevant to the discussion.
Commissioner McKee said the terminology used in the proposal was "age-restricted".
James Bryan said if there is any uncertainty or vagueness in the proposal, the Board
should ask for an explicit condition. He said with conditional zoning, the applicant has to agree to
the conditions.
56
Commissioner McKee said he does not understand why "age-restricted" would not be
considered discriminatory.
Scott Radway said beginning several decades ago, Congress allowed communities that
considered age/were age restricted. He said 55+ has a specific meaning from HUD and requires
that a minimum of 80% of dwelling units to be occupied by at least 1 person who is 55+. He said
the community may establish a minimum higher than 80%. He said the applicant intends to
establish this community as 55+ and follow all requirements that go along with that. He said
conditions can be used to get census-related information of the community members if that is
something the Board wants.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if there is generally a bond requirement for the
developer.
Cy Stober said no, but there is a required performance guarantee which can be a bond,
and letters of credit or cash are also accepted. He said the county would require that all amenities
and dedicated areas be guaranteed in some form. With regard to water and wastewater, Cy
Stober said they are under the regulatory jurisdiction of the state, not the county. He said there is
a separate surety process for stormwater devices which is either 125% of the construction and
labor and materials of an unconstructed device up until an inspection is done and it is performing.
He said there is a 25% performance bond for one year after that.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if that is performing on the project or the neighbor's
projects? She asked whose responsibility it would be if neighbors notice a change in their water
supply after residents begin to move in.
Cy Stober said he does not have an answer regarding the impact this development might
have on neighboring properties' drinking water.
Commissioner Carter asked if allowing the Master Plan Development-CD as an eligible
zoning district in the RNAN would be setting a precedent and how it would affect development in
those nodes.
Cy Stober said amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and UDO would allow for Master
Plan Development districts countywide in Neighborhood Activity Nodes. He said as Tom Altieri
pointed out, they are already permitted in Community Activity Nodes, but none have been seen
to date. He said all Master Plan Development applications are subject to legislative review and
have to go through rezoning. He said, in short, it would mean this is permitted in activity nodes,
but anyone wanting this type of zoning in that node would be required to follow this same process.
Commissioner Carter asked the applicant to describe the benefits of the development to
the neighboring community.
Scott Radway said, in his view, the benefit is that 70% of the property will be preserved
forever in its forested state. He said that it is significantly different from a standard/different type
of subdivision which would divide it into smaller parcels. He reiterated that one entrance to the
community is an emergency entrance which would be a benefit for emergency responders. He
said the other entry road would be like any subdivision entry road as seen and approved by the
Board in other developments. He said there is a smaller opening in the forested area and the
community is '/4 mile inside of the parcel from Morrow Mill Rd. and Gold Mine Loop. He said
additionally, this plan does not propose commercial development.
Commissioner Fowler asked if there is a decrease in the proposed number of wells with
the decrease in dwelling units.
Scott Radway said there will still be two due to state requirements on community wells.
Commissioner Fowler asked if the number of septic fields decreased.
Scott Radway said yes, one is now proposed.
Commissioner Fowler asked if there will still be sprinklers now that the multi-family
buildings are proposed to be two stories instead of three.
57
Scott Radway said there will still be sprinklers for safety and would like for them to be able
to handle the first 10-15 minutes before fire equipment can get there. He said the only difference
is that with two stories, the aerial truck does not have to be the first respondent to a fire.
Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if the properties will now be two stories.
Scott Radway said yes.
A motion was made by Vice-Chair Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to open
the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Danny Eddleman asked since there has been new information presented at the meeting
if it would be continued.
Chair Bedford said that looking at the time, she is almost certain it will be.
Danny Eddleman continued and said a key concern of the Planning Board was about the
rural nodes. He said there were two concerns being that the county does not want to make the
mom-and-pop node non-conforming but if there is not explicit information on the size of them and
how much they can grow, this will be the mechanism that strip development and urban sprawl will
grow. He said the urban high- density development being discussed is typically seen when water
and sewer are available. He said this is being placed in a rural watershed. He said there is new
news about the Haw River watershed being unprotected. He said that OWASA stated in the 2023
Plan that the Cane Creek Reservoir could be pulled down to where it would take two years to
replenish it and the need to begin to rely more on Jordan Lake is becoming more important. He
asked if it is appropriate to consider such massive changes outside of the long-range 50-year
planning process. He said the 50-year process will show the items he mentioned are important.
Margaret (Peggy) Craft said she has been a resident for over 30 years. She said that she
is speaking as a member of the Board from the Hands for Development Cooperative and a
longtime member of 2T. She said many folks from 2T are in favor of the development but may
waive their time due to the hour and to allow others to speak. She said it was a hard decision to
move to a 55+ community but will not be like others that are popping up in the area. She said that
they made the decision as a cooperative to clarify the situation. She said it was a very big deal.
She said that middle-income seniors need more housing opportunities. She said that this is not a
for-profit 55+ community. She said that they trust the Board will make a decision on the facts.
Jean Eddleman read the following prepared statement:
"My husband and I built our home over 46 years ago and have been living in this rural,
residential/agricultural community since that time. We are mindful that our water supply is not
unlimited and that conservation, especially in times of drought, is needed. Our property abuts the
eastern boundary of the land parcel being considered for re-zoning and the proposed
development of high density, high impact residential and commercial uses. We have grave
concerns about the proposed re-zoning and the proposed large-scale amendments to the Orange
County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). It would make massive changes outside of the
long-range planning process to the Comprehensive Land Use Map to permit high density use of
AR-1 Rural Node Areas instead of 10- and 20-year Transitional Zones intended for such growth.
AR-1 areas were never intended to be used for such growth nor have the municipal water and
sewer services to support such growth. These proposed changes permitting high density,
high impact growth in areas lacking supportive infrastructure are inconsistent with the
UDO. The water and sewer services in the proposed development plan pose a direct, potentially
negative impact on the long-term availability of water for members of the existing residential and
agricultural community and the entry of sewage effluent into area water tables and into the Haw
River and Jordan Lake watersheds. The proposed changes to zoning and land use
58
development are all antithetical to this agricultural and residential community and similarly
zoned nodes within Orange County. Thank you for your time and attention."
Barbara Warren read an email her daughter, Dr. Paige Warren, sent to the Board:
"I am writing in opposition to the proposed H4D housing development and the requested
zoning changes. My parents own land adjacent to the proposed site, having a long common
boundary on the site's eastern side. I grew up roaming the woods and creeks, from my childhood
through my college years at UNC-Chapel Hill. While I now live far away, I feel a deep tie to the
land and community. I return home several times per year with my children, walking the land and
teaching them about its history and stewardship. The values I learned from life in a rural and
agricultural setting and experiencing the "hands-on" work ethic existing throughout the Morrow
Mill community was key to forming who I am today. My family and those in the surrounding rural
community have invested effort and care to maintain a rich farm and forest environment
throughout southwestern Orange County. Both the multi-generational and the newer landowners
have been effective stewards of this rural area, maintaining healthy forests, clean water, and
abundant wildlife habitat as well as a mutually supportive residential community. My training and
expertise are in urban ecology, and I am also committed to making a world in which people can
be housed affordably, live sustainably, and enjoy high environmental quality. I recognize the
intense pressure the growing population is putting on Triangle area cities and towns, as well as
the critical need for affordable housing. However, the H4D housing development as currently
designed is not providing a solution in keeping with sustainable urban planning principles. To
contribute to sustainability, high density development should be clustered with the infrastructure
to support it — transportation, food, and walkability. My chief concerns with the H4D housing
development are the mismatch between it and the surrounding community, the high impact it is
likely to have on water quality, and its lack of connection to the infrastructure to support its
population. Decades of Orange County land use plans and successive boards of commissioners
have wisely maintained this vital community setting. I add my voice to those asking you to continue
that history by denying the application for this dense urban development and the zoning changes
required for its implementation. Thank you for considering my concerns."
Ralph Warren referenced a packet of information he prepared for the Board. He thanked
the Board for the opportunity to speak. He said there is data to support the community concerns.
He said he hopes the information supports a vote against the changes that are being requested.
He said it will be drastically inconsistent with the current community. He said many questions have
been raised around water and sewer. He said there are private wastewater failures in the data he
has. He said that the application proposes a dense urban development in an area that it does not
fit. He said it will encourage urban sprawl and lead to farmland losses. He said that data from the
USDA includes Orange County farming activity and defines the farmland that is at risk if the rural
nodes are modified to allow the proposed expansion.
Alan Julich said he is a 46-year resident of Orange County. He read an email from Sherri
Rosemond, retired director of UNC's Partnership on Aging, about benefits to the county. He said
she wrote asking the Board to vote to approve the application because this development will only
scratch the surface of the colossal need for senior housing in Orange County and it is fully aligned
with the Master Aging Plan. He said the email also noted that she said she has been following the
development since it was conceptualized, and it is built around the model of neighbors helping
neighbors. He said that there will be smaller housing and provisions for caregiving facilities. He
said the email says this will make Orange County more livable.
Galen Kirkpatrick said this can go a long way to address senior housing needs in Orange
County. He said this is a non-profit that wants to build this community which is also a model that
can be useful to Orange County going forward. He said this is not a commercial development,
for-profit developer. He said it is a complete alternative to that and would be helpful moving
forward. He said that he understands there is strong opposition to large scale commercial
development in rural Orange County and that as a person that has had family here for 80 plus
59
years, he can understand that. He said this is not commercial development. He said these are
people who already live here, and they are choosing to live in a responsible way and will be good
neighbors. He said that he is sure that the way these people treat neighbors is better than the
standard commercial developer would and that he would pick these as neighbors if he could.
Tom Cheek said he is the landowner at Morrow Mill and Gold Mine Loop. He said his
family has been there since 1957. He said this is the best use of this land. He said he is a licensed
commercial contractor and a civil engineering technician and had always planned to subdivide
and live on the land. He said this is so much better. He said this is a very good and sustainable
plan and all concerns have been addressed, and it is sustainable.
Sadie Rapp said she has lived on Morrow Mill Rd. her entire life. She said the proposal
offers nothing in terms of serving the needs of the county apart from the developers' hobby group.
She said she is lucky to have grown up in the area and she does not want to change county law
to abide one project for a group that does not have any experience managing developments or
senior care facilities. She said the proposal is too big of an ask with too much at risk. She said
there is nothing inevitable about bringing this to the rural area. She said that it would put demands
on the aquifer, would increase wildlife pressure, and risk contamination of the entire water table.
She said her objections are about the scale and location. She said there cannot be enough
conditions on the project to make it feasible for this part of the county. She said she plans to live
here the rest of her life and hopes the Board will uphold the Planning Board's denial.
Gregory Rapp said a lot has changed and they still do not know enough about the
proposal. He said it started as twenty-five homes and has now changed to a much larger proposal.
He asked how the for-profit developer is using the non-profit for their betterment. He asked why
a non-profit is managing the membership for a private area. He asked if residents would own the
homes or be a member of the cooperative that owns the homes and land. He asked how someone
would get out once they were in and how this would work. He asked how priority would be given
if more than one member wanted to leave at the same time. He said they are talking about
hundreds of thousands of dollars. He said that this does not offer the serious care of aging seniors
and expressed concerns this would have on the aging community. He said there are layers and
layers of risks, and the county would be taking a tremendous gamble by moving this forward. He
asked the Board to deny the project and the requested zoning changes.
Bryna Rapp said she is an architect and a 35-year resident of Morrow Mill Rd. She said
the developer says if they do not get on board with this type of development, the neighborhood
will turn into "McMansions." She said the ones that already live there are a very diverse group,
but they all have agreed that this is a bad idea. She said that by respecting the rules of AR means
property values have not increased as drastically as some other areas of the county. She asked
the Board to reject this proposal. She said that they could consider changing the allowance and
size of ADUs, but to please respect the UDO and vote no.
Pat Peterson said that as a retired person, she does not leave her home more than 3-4
times per week. She said that the traffic study numbers are likely excessive. She asked the
community to look at the map and imagine rather than a cluster of homes with greenspace around
them, imagine 40-50 individual driveways with land cleared around it, and that impact is much
larger than the proposal. She said the developer is Hands for Development, LLC and they have
34 members that are financing themselves. She said there is no master outside developer.
Chris Martin said he believes this is a thoughtful plan. He said what is in front of the Board
is what they need to consider. He said that he hears a lot of people questioning the actors and
the intent, but he said that he knows the actors and that it would be nuts to think they are involved
in some conspiracy scheme. He said there has been a lot of analysis done as part of this proposal.
He said he would like to see more types of development like this rather than communities that
lead to sprawl.
Cheryl Fox said she lives on Gold Mine Loop and is across the road from the proposed
development. She said her daughter and her family live closest to the development. She said a
60
streetlight on a 25-foot pole would shine into their barn and property. She said she and her family
fear this project will disrupt their life. She said the scale of this project is overwhelming and the
proposed density has increased drastically.
Mike Fox said the increased traffic will change the character of the rural road. He said a
project of this scale will inevitably disrupt the surrounding land, wildlife, and residents.
Bland Simpson said he is from the Morrow Mill Rd. community. He said he is speaking in
opposition to this request. He said that if this is approved, other developers will propose the same
in other AR areas of the county. He said the Board can support the Planning Board's unanimous
opposition to the proposal. He said that the project demands and assaults are extravagant and
excessive. He said that they can speak for farm and community preservation and that the whole
community hopes they will deny this application.
Tom Barren said he sees only risk involved with this proposal. He questioned where the
money will come from to develop this land. He said he has lived in Orange County for 20 years.
He said he is an engineer and a project planner that has worked on a lot of big projects. He said
the land cost was reasonable, the cost of planning is 100 times that. He said people have natural
questions about where the money is coming from. He asked if the people that are signing up are
going to get what they think they are getting. He asked the Board to do the right thing and to do
no harm by not approving this proposal.
Ellen Lohr-Hinkel said she has been a member of H41D for a long time. She said a lot of
work was put into this to make sure there will be as little disruption as possible to the land and
surrounding community. She said she hears a lot of fear, but the research was done. She said if
this application is denied and the land is sold to a developer, a lot more houses could be built that
would be much more disruptive.
Miriam Cowen said she supports this development because it maintains sustainability. She
said she is married to Tom Cheek who spoke earlier. She said she has a 3-acre vineyard and that
is her life's work. She said it is sustainable, and they do not use pesticides. She said she has 800
feet of vegetable beds. She said that her dream for this property is what the people are proposing.
She said she appreciates that the plan preserves the land. She said she has worried about the
number of homes that could be built as it is currently allowed. She said they are the closest
neighbors, and they plan to build their retirement home on the remaining 35 acres. She said that
she does not agree with the fear that she is hearing. She said they will not put up fencing and it
will be open space. She asked for the Board's support.
Roberta Romano said she opposes this development as a resident and homeowner on
Morrow Mill Road. She said they moved here seeking a more sustainable and rural lifestyle. She
said this area is full of residents that encourage sustainable practices. She said this project does
not benefit the existing residents and would increase social and environmental pressures. She
said it would rush this place toward a trajectory that is irreversible. She asked the Board to reject
the proposal and protect the longstanding vision of sustainable and responsible land-use.
Coy Isaacs asked the Board to vote no. He said they seem like wonderful folks and have
a major passion and important mission. He said that utilities would need to be run accordingly
because the land footprint will not handle the pressure.
Laura Streitfeld said she is a neighbor of Morrow Mill Rd. She asked the Board to deny
this application as unanimously recommended by the Planning Board. She said that the
application is full of discrepancies, but regardless, the plan is incompatible with surrounding area.
She said this would slice the property in half.
Nathan Bearman said he has been a resident of the community for over 20 years. He said
this development is incompatible with the character of the surrounding rural community. He said
it is incompatible with the county's land use goals, and he urged the Board to continue getting
community input before amending land use policy. He said no services would be available to
surrounding neighbors that are not a part of the community.
61
Steckley Lee asked the Board to deny this application. She said she has a concern for the
watershed and how the septic fields would affect those downstream.
Peter Childers said he does not live near this development but is here in support of
neighbors who do. He said he would be more inclined to support this if there was water and sewer
there rather than wells and septic. He said that he does not want this to become a precedent for
the county.
Kelly Bruce said she has lived on Morrow Mill Rd. for over 10 years. She said she has no
problem with the people of H4D, but this proposal is wrong for this area. She asked the Board to
vote no.
Josh Setzer said he has been to all the meetings about this development. He said he is
fearful that H4D is not a traditional developer. He said this group was founded by a few people of
different backgrounds, but it doesn't change the fact that there is no portfolio of properties. He
said there has been flipping and flopping about the development. He said he has questions about
the leadership and stability of this entity.
Steve Kizer said that his home and property is located about 600 yards from the proposed
development. He said that he was chairman of the Board of Adjustment and a member of the
Planning Board when the current land use plans were developed and installed. He said the goal
was to prevent urban sprawl and preserve the rural character of the county. He said that in those
days, zoning was not well received by the residents. He said that promises were made that
explained how difficult it is to change zoning laws, and these were laws based on the two priorities
mentioned above. He said this proposal is certainly a test of the limits of the plans. He expressed
concerns about water usage and septic systems of the development. He said no wells produce
more than 5-6 gallons per minute. He said it is simply not possible to plan on well water to provide
water for this development. He said the on-site waste management will have to be pumped into
the adequate soil and if it fails, the county will have to condemn or provide the services.
Atiti Watson said her family has lived on Gold Mine Loop for 4 years. She asked the Board
to deny the project. She said they purchased their home with the goal of being in a rural area.
She said she is concerned about the noise and not just what you can see from the road. She said
they are in the process of growing enough produce to serve the needs of the community. She
said they plan to age in place where they are. She said the project will increase the traffic and
harm the charm of the neighborhood. She said that the development will pose a threat to the
water supply. She said the location of the septic system is also concerning. She asked the Board
to deny the project.
Carol Mellon said she lives on Gold Mine Loop. She said they purchased their home with
a desire to live in a rural area. She said they have lived in cities and high-density areas, and they
chose this area because it is far enough from a city. She said that they did not realize that high
density development would follow them out to where they are because it does not fit the area.
She said they live about 1,000 feet from the area. She said that she is concerned with noise that
may come from the development. She said it does not fit with the rural character of the
surrounding area. She submitted an article"Americans Risk Losing Life Savings when Retirement
Homes Go Bust." She said that bankruptcy courts can void any promises made of returning funds
to residents. She asked the Board to agree with the Planning Board that it is not a suitable
development for this area.
Aadra Bhatt said she heard about this project from her neighbors. She said she at first
really liked the idea but now that it is at 100 units, she does not see it as sustainable. She said
she does not oppose the project in its spirit, however the fear that is shared, is not unfounded.
She said she grew up in India and she could hear what was happening in her neighbors' home
and they were allotted one hour of running water per day. She said that the sewage can
contaminate the neighbors' water as well. She said she is not sure that the entire community's
water usage and need can be accurately calculated. She asked the Board to consider all of those
points.
62
David D'Agostino said he lives with Aadra Bhatt, his fianc6. He said the car wash has not
been mentioned enough and said he is against the proposal but could change his mind if he is
allowed to use the carwash, have a plot in the community garden and use the pickleball courts.
He said if all the neighbors could use the facilities it would be greatly beneficial.
Andrew Sham asked everyone opposed to stand. He said this is not NIMBYism. He said
that this is a request to change many documents, laws, and policies. He said that this is a
community that is saying it does not belong for all of the reasons that the Board already knows.
A motion was made by Chair Bedford, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to continue
the public hearing to March 6th at 7:00 pm at the Whitted Building.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Regular Agenda
None.
7. Reports
None.
8. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to
approve the consent agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
a. Minutes — None.
b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refund
The Board adopted a resolution to release a motor vehicle property tax value for one (1)
taxpayer with a total of one (1) bill that will result in a reduction of revenue.
c. Late Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
The Board approved seven (7) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
taxation for seven (7) bills for the 2024 tax year.
d. Acceptance of the Agricultural Growth Zone Grant with the North Carolina Department
of Agriculture
The Board accepted an award and authorizing a Memorandum of Agreement for the
Agricultural Growth Zone Grant with the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
e. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) —Approval of Membership and
Capacity Numbers
The Board approved the November 15, 2024 membership and capacity numbers for both
school districts (Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools) which will be
used in developing 10-year student membership projections and the 2025 SAPFO Technical
Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report.
9. County Manager's Report
Travis Myren had no report for the Board.
63
10. County Attorney's Report
John Roberts said before the continued public hearing for item 5-a he will provide the
Board an overview of what they can and cannot consider when they are deciding to approve or
deny an application of this type, not specific to this project. He also shared that North Carolina
General Statutes require the Board to receive a report of settlements when it has been considered
in Closed Session. He said in the case of Robert Crouch v. Orange County, a worker's
compensation case considered by the Board on December 2, 2024, settled at the end of January
for$70,100 in return for a release of all claims.
Laura Jensen and Chair Bedford reminded Commissioners that they will meet next
Tuesday, February 11, 2025, at 6:00 pm at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill.
11.Appointments
None.
12. Information Items
• January 21, 2025 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
• Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
• Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
• Tax Collector's Report— Foreclosure Chart
• Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under$100
• January 2025 Child Care Subsidy Monthly Report
13. Closed Session
None.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to
adjourn the meeting at 10:38 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Jamezetta Bedford, Chair
Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board
Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board