Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Agenda Packet - June 4 2025 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 f 17 52 s� Q AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD WHITTED MEETING FACILITY 300 WEST TRYON STREET, SECOND FLOOR I-IILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Wednesday, June 4, 2025 Regular Meeting — 7:00 pm No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 4-5 a. Planning Calendar for June and July 3. 6-28 APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 7, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 5. PUBLIC CHARGE Introduction to the Public Charge The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB)to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. Public Charge The Planning Board pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, County staff, and Board members. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. Please be kind to everyone. 2 No. Page(s) Agenda Item 6. CHAIR COMMENTS ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (CONDITIONAL DISTRICT) - To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone +/- 110.456 acres (PINs: 9892-31-0306, 9892-22-7326, 9892- 20-2052) located at 4809 Friends School Road, Durham, within the 7. 29-109 Chapel Hill Township of Orange County. The proposed rezoning is from PDH-RB (Planned Development Housing - Rural Buffer) and RB (Rural Buffer) to NR-CD (Non-Residential Conditional District). The anticipated BOCC public hearing date is September 4, 2025. Presenter: Lauren Honeycutt, Planner II H. ADJOURNMENT Sign up to receive a notification when Planning Board agendas are posted Interested persons can sign up at https://www.orangecountync.gov/list.aspx to receive a notification when agendas are posted. (Scroll down to the "Agenda Center" category and choose Planning Board). Monthly Planning & Inspections Newsletter Sign up at https://www.orangecountync.qov/list.aspx?ListlD=408 to receive the monthly communication on happenings in the Planning & Inspections Department. Written Comments Interested persons who cannot attend the meeting in-person are invited to submit written comments on agenda items to the Planning Board via email at planningboard .orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting. Please include in the Subject line of the email the title of the agenda item your comment pertains to. Emails sent to this address are viewable on Google Groups: https://groups.google.com/q/ocplanningboard Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department's offices at 131 W. Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). Written comments will be scanned and sent by staff to the email address indicated above. Review Process The Planning Board is an appointed volunteer advisory board which makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (the elected officials). The Board of County Commissioners holds a formal public hearing and makes decisions. Section 2.8 of the County's Unified Development Ordinance contains a flowchart depicting the review process for rezoning and text amendment applications. 3 Planning Board Member Potential Conflict of Interest It is the duty of every Board member to avoid both conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict. Board members having any conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict with respect to matters before the Board should identify the conflict or appearance of conflict and refrain from undue participation in the matter involved. As a reminder, NC General Statute § 160D-109 establishes the following standard: Members of appointed boards shall not vote on any advisory or legislative decision regarding a development regulation where the outcome of the matter being considered is reasonably likely to have a direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on the member. An appointed board member shall not vote on any zoning amendment if the landowner of the property subject to a rezoning petition or the applicant for a text amendment is a person with whom the member has a close familial, business, or other associational relationship. If any Planning Board member has any concern about a possible conflict related to an agenda item, please notify Planning staff and get in touch directly with a member of the County Attorney's staff before the meeting time to determine whether a conflict exists— and if so, how best to handle the potential conflict. 4 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BOCC Planning Board BOCC Budget Business Meeting Work Session Meeting 7:00 pm" 7:00 pm 7:00 pm Southern Whitted Bldg. Whitted Bldg. Human Sery Ctr. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Board of Staff Eval Adjustment Closed Meeting Session 7:00 pm 7:00 pm Whitted Bldg. Whitted Bldg. 15 16 17 18 BOCC Business Meeting 7:00 pm Southern Human Sery Ctr. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Notes: * Planning Board member attendance required Planning Board meetings are held at Whitted Human Services Building - Donna S. Baker Meeting Room 2nd floor 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 5 Sunday Monday Tuesda Wednesday ThursdayFridaySaturday 1 2 3 4 5 Planning Board Meeting 7:00 pm* Whitted Bldg. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Board of Adjustment 7:00 pm Whitted Bldg. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: * Planning Board member attendance required Planning Board meetings are held at Whitted Human Services Building - Donna S. Baker Meeting Room 2nd floor 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 6 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 MAY 7,2025 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamar Proctor(Chair) Cheeks Township, Chris Johnston (Vice-Chair) Hillsborough Township, 7 Meg Millard, Little River Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; 8 Beth Bronson,At-Large Representative; Charity Kirk,At-Large Representative;Whitney Watson, 9 At-Large Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large Representative; Venkat Yendapalli, Cedar 10 Grove Township Representative; Jonah Garson,At-Large Representative. 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; Liz Kalies, Chapel Hill Township 13 Representative. 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director—Long Range Planning 16 &Administration;Tom Altieri, Senior Planner- Long Range Planning &Administrative Division; 17 Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director—Development Services; Jack Moran, Planner 1 18 19 OTHERS PRESENT: Albert Benshoff, Lydia Lavelle, Liz Hill 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 22 23 The meeting began at 7:02 PM 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 26 27 Lamar Proctor reviewed the upcoming Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners meeting calendars. 28 29 Emergency Services Director Kirby Saunders gave a special presentation on the County's Hazard Mitigation Plan 30 31 Kirby Saunders: I appreciate the opportunity to present to you and certainly will take any questions that you have. 32 33 Lamar Proctor: Statler? 34 35 Statler Gilfillen: Starting about 1810 with the Boston Building Code to after the Chicago Worlds, or Chicago Fire in 36 the 19th century,the building codes moved to require masonry or fireproof construction in the 37 urban areas. Moderately successful in this century. If I'm hearing what you're talking about, the 38 forests now have the same danger that Boston had when it was all wood framed back in 1810, 39 and it's burning them down. Are we at a time whereas a society we should look at making the 40 building codes now for construction be masonry or concrete and not wood frame anymore? 41 42 Kirby Saunders: That's a really good question. I'm not the expert on that but I would, my gut instincts would be no. 43 The reason for that is in comparison to the risk that is posed by wildfire,for specifically an 44 example, I think it would outweigh the consequences of requiring a resistant building construction 45 in our community. I can't say that for every community, but in our community, requiring resistant 46 building materials, like concrete or masonry for all residential structures would, I think, prohibit 47 development, and prohibit affordability,for example. We feel pretty comfortable that the materials 48 that are constructed today in our community meet our risk by the North Carolina Building code. 49 We do not see examples in occurrences of increased risk when people adhere to the building 50 code when they're properly followed, and I think that's the caveat is,that's why the building code 51 exists. So, my initial reaction,again is, I think that would be prohibitive and it would reduce the 52 availability of affordable housing by doing so which would be an indirect consequence. 53 Chris Johnston: This is just a point of clarity, in regard to the subdivision recommendations, is that not already on 54 the books that we have a requirement for minimum widths for emergency services and that sort of 55 thing in subdivisions? 7 56 57 Cy Stober: It's a hot topic.We have Class A and Class B roads for private subdivisions and if you have more 58 than 12 lots you must build your road to NCDOT standards,which are class A. Our A standards 59 are nearly the same, and the intent is if you have more than 12 lots that the road will be taken over 60 by NCDOT for maintenance. That's a 50-foot right-of-way,which is more generous. The Class B 61 roads,which are two to five lots, are more challenging and really are the ones that Director 62 Saunders, I think, along with our legacy road network,which really,those are the 12-foot graded, 63 but not fully surfaced access roads, driveways, etc.,that were built 50 years ago, and we still have 64 and may have an easement likely due, maybe part of the private road network but don't meet our 65 current standards, and we seek to improve them whenever we can. The pressing matter is that 66 the NCDOT in December issued,without request for comment, a new turnaround standard, so 67 you get to a cul-de-sac or a T turnaround at the end of a private, or a public road, and it does not 68 conform with the fire code. It is much smaller. It would not accommodate an apparatus, and it 69 would be challenging from what Kirby's shared with me for even your standard ambulance to turn 70 around on that cul-de-sac. It's a 60-foot diameter, and the fire code requires 96 foot in width, and 71 we've submitted a formal comment letter to DOT at their request now, and the division engineers 72 are getting together with the Board of Transportation to see how they can resolve the matter with 73 DOT. 74 75 Chris Johnson: So, in a conflict between a DOT and a fire code, or whatever the case may be, is there one group 76 that outweighs the other in regard to these sorts of things? When DOT comes and says, hey,we 77 only require this,and fire code says this,what are we expected to adhere to? 78 79 Cy Stober: I have a professional opinion, but I think that what, right now my opinion is that the office of the 80 State Fire Marshal needs to be asked by DOT to reconcile the concern and, but I would defer to 81 what is more protective of human safety and preservation of life. 82 83 Kirby Saunders: Yeah, I think the 96, to answer your question right now,what it's requiring us to do is take each 84 development on a case-by-case basis. So,when we do review a development, it doesn't meet the 85 standard, the fire code,we will ask for or redesign or alternative design to review and get as close 86 as we can to that 96 foot, and we will have to assess it on a residential development. The risk, 87 what fire district it's in, is that acceptable to the County, is it allowing us enough opportunity to 88 make a turn around and evacuate and do a calculation on a case-by-case development basis 89 which it would maximize the best we can to ensure safety and response and access within some 90 reason as close as we could to that 96 feet. The issue with 96 feet is we don't have a long wheel- 91 based firetrucks like we used to have a long time ago. The challenge in a residential 92 neighborhood and why 96 foot is so important is because if that were a completely empty cul-de- 93 sac, 96 feet would be more than enough. We know in reality those cul-de-sacs get filled with cars 94 and basketball goals and children and bicycles and other things and so we have to account for 95 that when we have a response, and on our end, it's the response side, mainly with the fire code 96 and emergency management is we also want to make sure the people can get out of that 97 neighborhood if they had to evacuate. Regardless of fire, it could be hazardous material. It could 98 be something else, but if they need to evacuate out of that neighborhood,we want them to have 99 the best chance at success while simultaneously,we're responding into the neighborhood. 100 101 Charity Kirk: And you're assuming evacuation is going to be by car. 102 103 Kirby Saunders: By car, by walk. How ever they can get out of there. We would assume that most people if there 104 was orderly evacuation and enough sufficient time and resources,they would probably drive. 105 Yes, ma'am. 106 107 Dolores Bailey: You mentioned educating the most vulnerable populations. How are you all doing that? 108 109 Kirby Saunders: That's a great question. We are working directly with community leaders, El Futuro as an 110 example, is a community organization supports a lot of the work in the Carrboro and Chapel Hill 8 111 area,we work directly with them. We have a Triangle Disability Awareness Council that we're 112 integrated with. The Safe Kids Network that we're integrated with, so we do a lot of partnership 113 with community organizations to reach those vulnerable populations, and we usually do that in 114 partnership, so it's not a solo effort.We will partner with the department of aging,for example, to 115 reach the aging population. We will partner with El Futuro if we're trying to reach a combination of 116 those, as one example. We do a lot of outreach with faith-based communities directly. We know 117 those are hubs and centers of support and encouragement and sustainability for a lot of people at 118 increased risks in our communities, so we do a lot of work with faith-based organizations, 119 churches and faith-based communities. 120 121 Dolores Bailey: Just really quick,for the folk who live in the woods.Are you able to reach them somehow? 122 123 Kirby Saunders: That's, that's a good question. I would say that's a challenge. Folks who live in the most rural 124 portions of the county,those are all challenges. So,we use an opportunity where we can do 125 community center education, if they can get there. We also work very closely with our fire 126 departments. We find that the fire departments, particularly in the rural areas, are the community 127 centers. It's either there or the churches. Right? And so,while we don't do target direct door-to- 128 door outreach to places in the rural community,we do work with the Ruritan clubs and the, again, 129 churches, and the fire departments to host activities, and so we'll support the fire department in 130 their support of educating their communities. 131 132 Kirby Saunders: Thank you. 133 134 Charity Kirk: What is your education and outreach? Is it mostly about fire alarms or what,what is the breadth 135 of it? 136 137 Kirby Saunders: So,we cover a variety of education outreach. It depends on our division and topic. We usually 138 cover the same populations,fortunately. So,everything from hands only CPR,from an EMS 139 perspective to disaster preparedness in multiple languages. The fire safety front includes both 140 education as well as smoke alarm and risk assessments. We work very closely with our 141 community paramedic division,for example. They work hand-in-hand with our Fire and Life 142 Safety Division. The Community Paramedic Program is doing a lot of the stay up, stay active in 143 our aging programs and those who are what we would call on the fringes of society, slipping 144 through cracks so,those who have substance use disorders, or opioid use disorders, that is the 145 team that is directly engaged with those communities. They do risk assessments in the home or 146 anywhere they can, and they will bring resources to that property on a case-by-case basis or a 147 larger community. As far as fire risk reduction activities, it's largely aimed at first identifying what 148 the cause of fires are and the risks are in trying to educate those communities there. It can also 149 be insulation, like I mentioned, smoke alarms. It could be a fire safety evaluation of a home or 150 property, even if it's not owned. A rental property would be an example that we can do those 151 outreach initiatives. I would say the bulk of our education and community education is largely 152 aimed at just that education and offering the support to do things like smoke alarm installations. 153 Bringing awareness, raising awareness to the risk and the hazards in general for fire,that 154 encompasses the large amount of what we do and focus on,and we reach about 8,000 individuals 155 a year doing, using that approach. In 2024,we installed, you know, roughly 200 smoke alarms in 156 200 different properties in Orange County. We can always do more of that. The challenge is 157 building the trust and rapport and reaching the audience that needs to hear it. So,we use every 158 strategy at our disposal to try to get that message across. If there are communities that you're 159 aware of or would like us to communicate with or your partner with an organization or member of 160 an organization,we would love to,to work more closely with them, if you're aware of any. 161 162 Whitney Watson: So, I'm curious about how you guys look at the density of residential development, particularly, in 163 the western part of Orange County where it seems like routinely there are 150, 250 dwelling unit 164 proposals approved and under construction. And you may not be able to influence that, but I am 165 curious about how you look at that. 9 166 167 Kirby Saunders: You're exactly right. I'm probably not the most equipped to prepare to answer that question. I can 168 do it in my best professional opinion here and I think the correlation between density and the wild 169 and urban interface is really the focal point. Where those two areas meet and match. Particularly, 170 in areas that don't have setback distances or there are encroachments on a large tract of 171 forestland that's not managed. That would be a high priority area of high concern.We're not 172 seeing a lot of multi-family structures built without due regard to the existing regulations and 173 requirements or if they are closer than desired, they are in an area that's well protected. So, they 174 have a quick response plan, so the Mebane area would be a good example. I think the more 175 pressing concern, if we would start to see some of that development particularly occur in other 176 areas that may not, if something were to change drastically and they would start putting multi- 177 family dwellings in Cedar Grove,for example,that might be a little more concerning, because we 178 have a different topography. We have a different threat risk. I don't see that in the foreseeable 179 future. Changing things to permit that, but that would be an example. So,we monitor that as 180 closely as possible through the development process with our Safety Division. Our fire marshals 181 monitor that on a weekly basis with planning and inspections. I can't answer the question of how 182 that risk is calculated. The map you saw- I don't have the exact formula per se. But I would say 183 that in our assessment, there are not a lot of multi-family structures that are in a high risk wild and 184 urban interface area. We don't have that many wild and urban interface areas in Orange County, 185 and that is direct correlation of density and correlation to a forested area, a vegetative area. 186 187 Whitney Watson: As a kind of a follow-up to that is Orange County is undergoing a future land use planning process 188 now, and I'm wondering how planning is sharing the information about potential areas of greater 189 risk, lesser risk, resource allocation. 190 191 Cy Stober: We've used the same census data in our fact book that you saw in the risk assessment that 192 Director Saunders presented. We're using the data to guide our land use process for different 193 purposes, perhaps? But I think that what we're looking at are the same high-risk populations, 194 whether it's,we're talking about food access, access to employment centers, or accessibility of 195 affordable housing for rent or for ownership. Unfortunately,they correlate closely with where the 196 highest risk for an emergency is,where those populations have the least means to access a car, 197 access transportation to evacuate in a situation and, outside of the fire exposure,which is largely 198 in Northwestern Orange County, most of those same concerns are applicable to a lot of the other 199 land use concerns that we have about a community that is equitable, a community that is going to 200 serve everyone in the community and be accessible to those regardless of their income.Wish 1 201 had a different answer, but we're using the exact same data but to different ends. 202 203 Whitney Watson: Thank you. 204 205 Kirby Saunders: And we use that land use plan, in a working close relationship with our partners in planning to 206 inform our strategic plans in the future of where we need to develop and grow resources, and we 207 look at,we model that land use plan in correlation to our demand data,where the demand is 208 coming from as we have emergent threats and changes in what we see in the emergency medical 209 services setting,from a population health perspective with Department of Health partners,that all 210 is layered together, and they match up, unfortunately, relatively closely, but we look at that quite 211 frequently as far as our future development and growth of the services we provide. 212 213 Lamar Proctor: Any other questions? 214 215 Beth Bronson: Yeah, I just had a quick question. Considering to that point,what comes to mind,we were talking 216 about the road widths. If there's a change in the turnaround in the cul-de-sac, has there not been 217 a change in the parking requirements recently through NC General Statutes? 218 219 Cy Stober: No, I heard that story on NPR. That's House Bill 765, and it's in committee, and it hasn't even 220 made it to crossover, but that is the land use bill that is making its way through the general 10 221 assembly this summer. It has not been taken to the floor for a vote nor has it been taken up by 222 the senate. 223 224 Beth Bronson: That's for municipality parking. Is that correct? 225 226 Other Speaker: It's an effort to eliminate parking minimums in primarily municipalities. 227 228 Beth Bronson: And so what I'm thinking about is for subdivisions specifically, reducing parking minimums, or a lot 229 of the plans that I've seen in the past 4 years have grossly underestimated or under-reported the 230 average daily car use. So,while you may have those standards set roads, or Class A roads, you 231 still have two rows of cars on either side. I guess I just want to confirm that you guys are a part of 232 that discussion, like the development advisory committee. And so that is something that you guys 233 consider when you see that and what that might mean and, specifically,while there isn't 234 necessarily a huge level of wild and urban interface as a result of a lot of the land being managed 235 around here, if those requirements were to go away or,thinking about the new use of ADUs in the 236 rural areas so you may have a house that's accessible, but you may have an ADU that is 237 inaccessible. And does that get reviewed during the permitting process for emergency services. 238 239 Kirby Saunders: Is that a question? I just wanted to make sure. 240 241 Beth Bronson: Yeah. 242 243 Kirby Saunders: What I heard you asking is-are we a part of the development advisory committee? In the 244 process,we absolutely are. We're members of the table, and we look at those accessory dwelling 245 units or something that,we would look at closely and make sure that we have access and working 246 with our planning partners as well, and we're limited by the enforcement of the fire code, 247 unfortunately,so we cannot create new codes and ordinances from our perspective, but we can 248 enforce the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code,and we do have representation on those code 249 committees that help inform future codes of the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code. 250 251 Beth Bronson: Thank you. 252 253 Kirby Saunders: In Orange County, I would say just to close out, it is very proactive,we adopted Appendix D which 254 gives us the authority right now to enforce the turnaround radius. Without adoption of that,we 255 would have no ability to enforce that turnaround radius, and so we did that a number of years ago. 256 The new fire code is supposed to automatically incorporate Appendix D in the general fire code. 257 So, right now, in the State of North Carolina, it's a smorgasbord of what the turnaround radius is, 258 which I can understand from DOT's perspective, they need consistency about roads they're going 259 to pick up to maintain. It's not consistent across county to county right now in North Carolina. We 260 lean towards a safer approach to ensure that we have access of egress, ingress, routes. That's 261 not true for every county in North Carolina. 262 263 Lamar Proctor: Charity? 264 265 Charity Kirk: I have a question about your fuel reduction activities and the priority of those activities. Personal 266 experience,we have at least 5 acres of pine forest right off Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road 267 which looks like it's right near that area where you've had death, and we talked to the fire service 268 about reducing the pine straw because we don't manage it, and it was going to be difficult and a 269 lot of work on our part to get like all the neighbors on board and signed off, and there was no 270 support beyond that assessment. Like do you care about small properties like that, and how do 271 you get people like me on board? I've not been, no one's outreached to me, and I have a trailer 272 park on one side and a neighborhood on the other side. So, is that a priority since we're not too 273 concerned about that. Like people like me that have those unmanaged areas that are full of 274 pine straw, how do you handle us, and what's your thought about us? 275 11 276 Kirby Saunders: Yeah, I would,just to answer your question first of all,yes, I care about you, and I care about 277 those landowners. Unfortunately,that would be the forest service really does that outreach, and 278 I'm not sure if you spoke fire department locally or the forest service. 279 280 Charity Kirk: Through the forest service. 281 282 Kirby Saunders: Okay. That would really be more a question to ask them about how can we reengage what that, 283 and you're welcome to contact me or AK, and I'm willing to help support that and advocate for you. 284 1 don't have answer. It's not something we do in emergency services. The forest service does 285 that outreach and assessment, as well as the forest management plans, and they can work with 286 you. And if you're having struggles there,we can definitely, I would love to hear about it how we 287 can support that and advocate for you. 288 289 Charity Kirk: Me and my partner are proactive, and I imagine that there's a lot of not proactive people out there. 290 291 Kirby Saunders: Certainly. 292 293 Charity Kirk: And so, if we fell off then I can imagine people who don't even think about it are going to 294 not even pursue it. 295 296 Kirby Saunders: I agree with you. 297 298 Charity Kirk: So, is that saying that is a priority for outreach and trying to get communities to do that? 299 300 Kirby Saunders: I can't answer specifically again about the forest management. That's forestry. I can't answer 301 what their priorities are as far as where they invest forest management practices, and I don't have 302 the answer that, and I can't speak about how they do engagement or outreach related to forest 303 management and reducing the fuel loads and vegetative fuels in unmanaged forest. I can't 304 answer that. Generally, on our end, our focus is more on the home in the immediate vicinity, so 305 we focus a lot of our efforts on fire prevention within the home, basic exterior maintenance. How 306 do you prevent a fire from escaping your home or impacting your home? The forest service will 307 be the most appropriate to answer about forest management concerns, management of fuels, 308 vegetative fuels like the pine straw you mentioned in your tract. 309 310 Charity Kirk: So, even though we are attached to two other, one low-income neighborhood of people of color 311 and one sort of middle-income neighborhood,the threat to those neighborhoods, as well as our 312 house is not necessarily your concern, it's the forestry department. You sort of separate 313 yourselves. 314 315 Kirby Saunders: No,that's not necessarily what I would mean by that. What I say is we are going to put priority on 316 those people that are in the homes that are at greatest risk of losing their life over managing the 317 risk per se. We leave the risk management to the forest service-to manage the fuel risk. We 318 focus our efforts on making sure those residents who are close by at risk of losing their life or their 319 property are prepared, and that's our focus. I hope that makes a little bit more sense. 320 321 Whitney Watson: Charity, there is another alternative or another way to go. There's the Triangle Prescribed Burn 322 Association,which is run out of Orange County. If you talk to them,they can help get you get 323 signed up to be a part of the support team, and that also includes having somebody come out and 324 help do an assessment and say yes,this area really would benefit from a prescribed burn or 325 there's really not the fuel load to make it worthwhile. 326 327 Kirby Saunders: And the forest service and cooperative extension are in the same office, so those are great 328 resources. Thank you. Again, I'm happy, you're welcome to contact me if you're having 329 challenges and I can help you make the connection. 330 12 331 Charity Kirk: Well, I'm trying to bring it up as this is my personal experience, but I know to the east of me, 332 there's a lot of homes and a lot of unmanaged forests,which is in that area that you have had 333 issues with, and so it's an interesting question of like what is the forest service doing and being 334 proactive, but that's not you. 335 336 Kirby Saunders: Yeah, and those conversations I think are ongoing, and so we can continue that,we, as 1 337 mentioned on that tract or that parcel,that census track is a focus of ours and as of this week,we 338 talked about bringing the forest service. Let's look beyond just the impact and how we prepare 339 people. Let's look at the risk. How do we reduce the risk? And so, I think that's what you're 340 getting at is how do we work with landowners and adjacent to that property that's of high priority 341 for us a target to reduce risks,whether it be management of fuels or other things and do some 342 outreach there as well. 343 344 Charity Kirk: But that outreach would be the forest service? 345 346 Kirby Saunders: I think that would be the forest service in combination with us both, together. 347 348 Charity Kirk: And is, is the forest service more like public stuff,where they come and help private landowners 349 on request, but are they trying to be more proactive? Are you trying to get them to be more 350 proactive? 351 352 Kirby Saunders: I would say it's more of a partnership that we're leaning towards bringing them in. We haven't 353 done that in the past. 354 355 Lamar Proctor: All right,thank you very much. Mr. Saunders. The next item is memo on the land use plan 2050 356 process. 357 358 Tom Altieri presented the Memo and attachments on the Land Use Plan 2050 Process 359 360 Lamar Proctor: All right.Any questions for Tom? Dolores? 361 362 Dolores Bailey: Tom, can you just share a little bit what held the commissioners back? Did they have specific 363 questions? 364 365 Tom Altieri: I'll reference it in general but there's probably three pages in your packet there,and all those 366 questions verbatim are provided there, so I would encourage you to take a look at that. Some of 367 them are more like Planning 101-type questions that they've asked about,some of the things 1 368 know Perdita preps the planning board with at your orientation sessions. Questions about, our 369 joint planning agreements and what they mean,our urban services boundaries and how that might 370 relate to our water and sewer management boundary agreement and map. So, they're looking for 371 information I think to get a better understanding of how things fit together. 372 373 Beth Bronson: Regarding that document and them asking questions about the ETJ overlay and the housing 374 capacity that Chapel Hill did and if other municipalities were doing so, are those the existing 375 and/or by the time that gets published, any other comp plans that have been updated, are those 376 going to be overlaid onto Orange County's future land use to indicate that Mebane has a growth 377 area, Durham has a growth area, Carrboro has a growth area? Is that going to be visible? 378 379 Tom Altieri: So, some of the growth areas are reflected. They were reflected in the alternatives that we took 380 out to the public. For example, Mebane's urban services boundary was part of one of the 381 alternatives. We also used Hillsborough's urban services boundary to construct some of the land 382 uses that were suggested in those alternatives around the Hillsborough fringe. As far as the 383 housing study goes, I think it was primarily related to Chapel Hill. 384 385 Lamar Proctor: And,Tom,what would be the next thing that comes our way from the process? 13 386 387 Tom Altieri: As we present this information to the County Commissioners,we're happy to share those agenda 388 items and materials with the Planning Board and can do that. We do have meetings scheduled, 389 one a month, beginning in September. We'll be on the commissioner's agenda, a 30-minute 390 presentation, allowing 30 minutes for their questions. That'll be September, October, November. 391 There's also a half-day retreat that has been scheduled for mid-November with the board and our 392 clerk is polling the board to try to find another day for a second half-day retreat. We may even 393 look at,for the second retreat,trying to have some type of a meeting facilitator that might help 394 staff and help the board get through the material. One thing I'll emphasize is that the next step is 395 to take the draft out to the public and collect information from the public in a similar way that has 396 been done with our consultant's assistance before, surveys, meetings, etcetera, and then we'll 397 need to look at what are we going to change in the draft plan based on public input to develop 398 what would then become the public hearing draft. We still have a ways to go and a couple of 399 series of drafts to get through, and so we want to keep everyone engaged, the Planning Board 400 included, as well as the County Commissioners and we want to keep the public engaged as well 401 on this process. 402 403 Lamar Proctor: Well, thank you and I encourage all of us to check the website and reach out for additional 404 information and stay abreast of this thing. Any other questions for Tom? All right,thank you. 405 406 Tom Altieri: You're welcome. Thank you. 407 408 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 409 410 Lamar Proctor: Do I have a motion to approve the minutes for the ORC notes from April 9th of 2025? Well,first, 411 any additions or corrections? All right. Hearing, now, do I have a motion to approve? 412 413 Statler Gilfillen: I'll make a motion to approve. 414 415 Lamar Proctor: All right. Second? 416 417 Meg Millard: Second. 418 419 Lamar Proctor: All right. Thank you for the second. All in favor say aye, raise your hand. 420 421 MOTION BY Statler Gilfillen to approve the minutes from the April 91h ORC meeting. Seconded by Meg Millard 422 423 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 424 425 Lamar Proctor: All opposed? Seeing none,those minutes are approved. As to the regular meeting minutes from 426 April 9th, do I have any additions or corrections? I'm seeing none. Do I have a motion to approve 427 those minutes? 428 429 Statler Gilfillen: I also move to approve. 430 431 Meg Millard: Do I have second? 432 433 Lamar Proctor: Second,thank you. All in favor of approval of those minutes, raise your hand. Any opposed? 434 435 MOTION BY Statler Gilfillen to approve the April 91h meeting minutes. Seconded by Meg Millard. 436 437 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 438 439 Lamar Proctor: Seeing none, those are approved. 440 14 441 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 442 443 None. 444 445 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 446 447 Lamar Proctor read the Public Charge. 448 449 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 450 451 Lamar Proctor: I don't have any comments so I think we can move to the next agenda item,which is the UDO text 452 amendment on telecommunication facilities. Pat,thank you. 453 454 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES- 455 To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on Planning Director-initiated amendments 456 to the UDO pertaining to telecommunication facilities. This amendment was reviewed at the April 457 9, 2025, ORC meeting. The anticipated BOCC public hearing date is June 3, 2025. 458 459 Patrick Mallett: Good evening. You probably got an email from me today, apologies, but I set out some hard 460 copies at each of your desks. They're color-coded for you. I'm just going to walk you through 461 those before I jump into the presentation. These are essentially replacement items for the 462 abstract and then adding statements of consistencies for Action Items Number 7 and 8. Seven is 463 the telecom and then eight being the solar amendment. Both of these items should be familiar,for 464 those of you that attended last month's meeting,we briefed it at the ORC, noticed at the last 465 minute that we really need to include the statement of consistency,so my apologies for that late 466 breaking change. The first attachment is a replacement on page,just so you can follow along 467 and, and cross-reference in your agenda packet,that's the abstract for the telecom replaces 468 Pages 42 and 43 of your agenda packet. The statement of consistency for that text change is 469 Page 94 of your packets. You also have a letter from the Brough Law Firm, our consultants with 470 the telecom RFP responding to industry comments including the CTIA letter that's right behind it, 471 and then with the solar amendments, Pages 95 and 96,we've going to have replacements to the 472 abstracts, and then Page 107,the statement of consistency,the very last page of your agenda 473 packet. Like I said, I think this is pretty familiar to most of you because you saw it last month, and 474 I'm going to be quick, and then we can follow along with more detailed questions if needed. The 475 first one is Agenda Item Number 7. This is the telecommunications standards, Section 5.10 of the 476 ordinance, and summary of the text amendment telecommunications, elements of the LIDO have 477 not been changed since April 5th, 2011, the adoption of the ordinance. Since that adoption, there 478 have been a quite good number of federal state laws pertaining to telecommunications that have 479 changed. Our ordinance isn't consistent with current federal and state law in many respects. 480 Technology has changed. The current roles and procedures don't really align with the public 481 need. There was a gap in coverage and an equity issue, especially in the rural areas,and it 482 doesn't currently meet all of the current public safety needs, as Kirby can attest. Next two slides 483 are just maps that show where we stand today. These are the existing telecommunications tower 484 sites by type. They're color-coded. It's hard to see the little dots, but you can see that they're kind 485 of spread out and the density largely follows the urban corridors, the highways in the urban areas, 486 and as you get out to the northern part of the county, they start to become almost nonexistent. 487 This is another map that's'also available on our website. It's a telecommunications plan map. 488 This is a bit misleading, but essentially what this map shows are sites where property owners 489 have raised their hands, brought it to the commissioners and said I am willing to locate a site in 490 this area, but you can see even with people raising their hands and the differences between these 491 two, there's still a lot of white,a gap in large part to dumb it down, gaps in coverage. Summary of 492 the proposed amendments, I'm going to go through these very quickly. At the end of this, I'll ask 493 Al Benshoff and Lydia Lavelle,our consultants,to give sort of a summary of the changes, but the 494 gist of it is that this amendment would repeal in whole the existing LIDO Section 5.10 by the time 495 you start putting a scalpel to it and trying to align it with federal and state laws,there's more 15 496 revisions than not, so we decided let's just repeal the entire thing and replace it with a better 497 product. There are also revisions to Section 5.2,the table of permitted uses, better definitions and 498 an alignment of the permitted use, and then Section 10,the definitions. We're trying to continue 499 the trend to allow for lower impact towers and streamline the approval process and completed the 500 mandatory statutory definitions. We coordinated with the likes of Kirby,with EMS,with IT and 501 AMS to integrate this effort, and this is part of a,what we see as a continuum as a cross- 502 collaboration between our departments and thank you Kirby for participating in this effort. 503 Continue to update long range plans. We will look at possibly aligning fees and other fee 504 structures in accordance with federal and state laws. We will improve community and industry 505 access to communicate telecommunications data and information. The amendment process 506 we've gone through has been briefed several times through the DAC process. We were not 507 required to have a community neighborhood information meeting, yet we did. Two folks attended, 508 Liz Hill with American Towers among the folks that attended, another person named Joey Nelson 509 with AT&T attended. They gave comments and were very insightful, gave follow-on comments 510 and then we received industry comments from the CTIA in that letter that you saw. We feel like 511 we've addressed all those questions and incorporated those into the product. It was briefed last 512 month. Technical revisions and clarifications were made based on the meetings and the follow-up 513 commentary from the industry and then today, I made those changes to those replacement items. 514 The recommendation: the planning director recommends the board review and discuss the 515 proposed LIDO text amendments, consider the planning director's recommendation and make a 516 recommendation to the BOCC on the statement of consistency,Attachment 3, and the proposed 517 tax amendments. And with that,Al might have a few brief words to say. 518 519 Albert Benshoff: Good evening. My name's Albert Benshoff. I'm an attorney with the Brough Law Firm in Chapel 520 Hill. This is Lydia Lavelle. She's also an attorney with the Brough Law Firm in Chapel Hill. I have 521 worked on telecommunications zoning questions since 1986. I also was a planner for 15 years 522 before I went to law school to get into a line of work where I'd be more popular. I want to thank 523 the County for giving us this interesting project to do and thank the staff, thanks Cy, Patrick, Jack 524 and Kirby for their input and their help. I can give you a brief presentation about what we did and 525 why we did it, but before I do that, I'd like to say I would prefer to answer questions so I talk about 526 what you would like to hear about rather than what I think you need to hear about. So,are these 527 any questions this early? 528 529 Lamar Proctor: Well,just as a general question,what did you seek to accomplish and what did you think were the 530 benefits to be gained by an overhaul of this section of the UDO? 531 532 Albert Benshoff: Well, the staff,the county put out an RFP to do this work and we responded to it, and I've done a 533 fair amount of this work around the state. The jurisdiction closest is Carrboro. A few years ago, I 534 worked on their zoning ordinances about cell towers, about wireless telecommunication facilities. 535 I think I can answer your question, Mr. Proctor,with some of my prepared remarks. Yes,the 536 ordinance was last amended by Orange County in 2011 but in total, it reads like a state-of-the-art 537 1988 ordinance, and since 1988,the technology has changed,the laws have changed, and the 538 US Code and the North Carolina General Statutes require that local governments do certain 539 things about cell towers in their zoning ordinances, so some of these changes are mandatory. 540 The Federal Communications Commission also has jurisdiction, and they issue orders and rules, 541 and they're mandatory. So, some of this is trying to rationalize all the things that the county has to 542 follow because they don't necessarily agree with each other. So,we did that. Another goal was to 543 take feedback from the staff about what worked in the ordinance that you have now, and there 544 were things that seemed like a good idea in the 20th century that either weren't used or didn't 545 work out the way they were intended. For example, there's a provision in your current ordinance 546 that the planning staff and the industry all get together and have a meeting every year to talk 547 about where towers are needed,where they'll be built in Orange County,what's going to happen 548 in the next year. That's not mandatory. That's kind of died on the vine. That was deleted. That's 549 an example of things that came out. So,what's changed is the number and kind of structures and 550 towers that staff can improve are increased, and that's because the federal government and the 16 551 North Carolina Legislature have established deadlines for approvals, and some of the deadlines 552 are so tight, that means that the staff has to approve things. The number of towers that require 553 special use permits has been reduced and now special use permits are only required for towers 554 215 feet or taller, and it looks like there won't be very many of those in the future because the 555 technology is going to smaller towers to accommodate increased bandwidth for the 5G networks. 556 There are incentives for disguised towers,for stealth towers,for monopoles in terms of the 557 procedures are somewhat streamlined if you ask for those. The procedures are somewhat 558 streamlined if you build a tower on publicly owned property. Some, some new uses were added, 559 particularly small cell wireless facilities which are a mandate from the General Assembly. A few 560 years ago, North Carolina adopted a model ordinance for 5G structures, and it was adopted in 19 561 or 20 other states last time I looked, probably more now. The idea was that there would be a big 562 quick build-out of small 5G towers. That didn't happen. So,there is a provision in here which is 563 required by general statute that the staff will approve pretty quickly any small wireless cell 564 structure up to 50 feet tall located in a public right-of—way. This has made a lot of consternation in 565 places like Carrboro because they don't want to have their right-of-way full of 50-foot towers 566 necessarily. Luckily, the county doesn't own roads, so that's not the county's problem. That's 567 DOT's problem. In the general statutes, there's three pages of rules about siting small cell 568 wireless in counties and in cities, and cities own roads, counties don't. There's one paragraph for 569 DOT, and it says DOT will allow this. DOT will make some rules, make with happen. So that's in 570 here because it has to be in here, but I don't think it will have much of an effect on Orange County. 571 The aversion of the federal and state deadlines which are called shot clocks in the industry are in 572 a table in the ordinance. The ordinance includes the definitions from the general statutes almost 573 verbatim because those are terms of art. We could write new definitions that would just confuse 574 everybody,so the general statutes definitions are in here. We got in feedback from Liz Hill from 575 American Tower and made some changes that she suggested. We have feedback from the CTIA, 576 the Industry Association. You have their letter. You have our response. We made changes in 577 response to their comments, and I think that six amendments are made all together. We think we 578 have addressed that. I want to thank,since Liz is here, I want to thank her for her,for her input 579 and, again, I'm happy to answer any questions. 580 581 Lydia Lavelle: I just want to say, this is an area of law that was new to me. I've had a crash course the last 582 9 months at the foot of the master here, and I do think that,when you look at the old ordinance 583 and the way it's been rewritten and streamlined,as one who has spent time looking at this over 584 the years, I think it's much more logical, it's not only equivalent now with North Carolina law and 585 federal law, but it's just a lot easier to follow in the way it's all laid out. 586 587 Lamar Proctor: Okay, great. Does anyone have any questions? 588 589 Beth Bronson: I was just wondering about the maintenance and inspection because you were saying that one of 590 the leftovers from the 1988, or in the 2011 UDO was that there would be an annual meeting to 591 decide what the needs were. Did you create any kind of ordinance that would keep or make 592 mandatory, any kind of periodic review that was maybe, say 5 years versus annually? 593 594 Patrick Mallett: Let me preface that by saying I came to the County 12 some odd years ago. Prior to that, I was in 595 the private sector fresh out of grad school in the early'90s. My first job,the City of Burlington was 596 ripe,the first telecommunications ordinance I agree with Al and Lydia. What we have now is not 597 too dissimilar with what I spat out years ago. There are some distinctions that the balloon test 598 requirement which we were deleting,which is redundant and not necessary,this annual meeting 599 is redundant and not necessary. It's a classic example of having the idea to have a grand 600 convention. Not everybody has the time or the willingness to come, or the ability to come. And 601 technology is such that people can provide us real time input about the need. Whether it's people, 602 community leaders or industry folks. 603 604 Beth Bronson: And so, in the last 12 years here, how many of those meetings ever occurred?That you were a 605 part of? 17 606 607 Patrick Mallett: We would have some sort of meeting to have a meeting but if I'm honest every year in some 608 shape or form, either with the Planning Department or with IT, but participation was some years 609 heavy some years not so heavy. I would also add that in the timeframe that I've been here,we've 610 had on average, over 3 dozen co-locations and switch outs on existing towers, and we do a lot of 611 little stealth towers. We've only had one special use permit, new tower. We've had a lot start and 612 then pull out and withdraw the request, but only one new tower 10 years. That's kind of 613 extraordinary. And we're realizing that if you weed through the co-locations and the switch-out, 614 we're kind of reaching a point where saturation is probably occurring and there is a need for new 615 towers if you want to provide incentives for people to go out to say the Hurdle Mills area and 616 service that. 617 618 Beth Bronson: You have to create friendly regulations. 619 620 Patrick Mallett: Not a cart blanche open door, but a minimal amount of barriers to entry. 621 622 Beth Bronson: Understandable. 623 624 Patrick Mallett: That's what we're trying to achieve is that balance that's not intrusive. 625 626 Beth Bronson: Out on New Sharon Church Road, there's an AT&T tower. It's been abandoned for however 627 many years, but it hasn't gone anywhere, or is it still managed by AT&T? 628 629 Patrick Mallett: I think they still have one antenna there. If they have no antennas,they have to take it down. 630 631 Beth Bronson: I guess enforcement of abandonment. 632 633 Patrick Mallett: Sure. But that can be achieved outside of an annual meeting. 634 635 Beth Bronson: For sure,yes,separate from the meeting. 636 637 Patrick Mallett: You've heard this before. We have a new Energov central permitting system that,the tracking 638 ability for this is ten times better than it was years ago. 639 640 Cy Stober: One thing I would add is that the original texts that we are proposing to amend and replace 641 presumes that planning is the primary point of contact on this land use matter. Well,wireless 642 communications is much more of a public service than it was when this was adopted and we, 643 Kirby is in regular communication for emergency services purposes, our information technologies 644 directors and regular communication as part of the Lumos project,as well as above-ground 645 facilities that are being installed to support that. So the County, much more broadly than our 646 department and the LIDO, is in dialogue with the providers on a very regular basis and having 647 conversations about emergency services and reservation of facilities for public need and 648 particularly for the sheriffs office and emergency services to be able to respond to calls 649 throughout the County and there are some struggles currently, so as Pat said,we are likely going 650 to be seeing a few new towers in the next 10 years go up to respond to that need. But this is 651 larger than a planning matter at this point. It's a public service and emergency matter, and so we 652 don't need an annual meeting because we're in regular conversation with the providers. 653 654 Beth Bronson: Okay. But there was no consideration for something that was, like, 5 or 10 years and I would 655 agree with you that I feel like this is something that would be more appropriately added to 656 something like a comprehensive plan or long-range goals. 657 658 Cy Stober: I am very pleased with the language that Al and Lydia had provided with us for enforcement of 659 retired and abandoned facilities, and I think we have a clear path of action both through the 660 enforcement and remedies but also through civil litigation if we have to go that approach.We have 18 661 a clear path to assessment,which is a much faster remedy than trying to endlessly take folks to 662 court and I appreciate that. 663 664 Beth Bronson: Thanks for everybody's input. 665 666 Chris Johnston: Charity. 667 668 Charity Kirk: I have some nit-picky stuff, but I'll follow up on that question with the replacement of towers, like 669 removal. I only saw deadlines shall be 180 days for small micro wireless facilities. I didn't catch 670 everything so, excuse me if it's in here, but I didn't catch it, but the bigger towers, how do those 671 get removed? 672 673 Patrick Mallett: All right. The deconditioning part is, there's a built-in part of that which is,there are only a handful 674 of tower providers around nationally, and definitely in our region. Three or four. Typically, if those 675 tower providers have a facility on a property, they don't own the dirt. There are a few where they 676 actually own the dirt. The vast majority of them,they have a lease. And so, my experience has 677 been the decommissioning is kind of a built-in process from a liability perspective. They don't 678 want someone to get hurt or the property owner, they no longer have a lease. They want to take 679 that tower down pretty quickly. You'll see the scant ones that have one antenna, or the lease isn't 680 up and they're keeping their options open, but that's a built-in mechanism. 681 682 Charity Kirk: So you don't have anything in here about removal of those towers. 683 684 Albert Benshoff: It's Section 5.10.8.Which refers to all wireless support structures. 685 686 Charity Kirk: It's 30 days and then it's 180 days, so it's generally 30 days and then it's 180 days for small micro 687 wireless facilities. 688 689 Albert Benshoff: No, it's 180 days for everything. Because that's the standard law in North Carolina about non- 690 conformity,a use is deemed non-confirming and may be abated if it's abandoned for 180 days. 691 692 Charity Kirk: So, 5.10.8.(C)says 180 days for small micro wireless facilities. But where is it 180 days for all 693 facilities? 694 695 Albert Benshoff: Well, it's probably because the general statutes had that in there and I'm not sure that shouldn't be 696 changed to just say the deadline is 180 days, period. That would be fair. 697 698 Charity Kirk: Okay. 699 700 Chris Johnston: Perdita has a question. 701 702 Perdita Holtz: Well, I'm just confused because (A) clearly says remove an abandoned wireless telecom facility 703 within 30 days of the date it is deemed abandoned. So,when I read the plain language about 704 that, it's 30 days. For some reason, small and micro wireless facilities are 180 days, and 1 705 presume that's because of the special legislation they have. 706 707 Patrick Mallett: Yeah. 708 709 Charity Kirk: Well, abandonment above was saying not used for 180 days. So, it's 180 days for abandonment 710 and then another 30 days to remove it. 711 712 Albert Benshoff Right, because and that's standard zoning law in North Carolina and has been for decades that 713 people don't say oh, I'm abandoning this property, this use. They just stop and leave and,so, if 714 the county can prove that the use has stopped and people have left, in 180 days, it can be abated. 715 19 716 Charity Kirk: So, all towers have to be removed 180 days plus 30 days from the end of use. 180 days is fluid 717 depending on when someone notices it. 718 719 Albert Benshoff: The short answer is yes. 720 721 Charity Kirk: Okay. 722 723 Albert Benshoff: It gets, it gets technical. 724 725 Charity Kirk: Well, I just, I just didn't understand it,so I'm trying to understand it. 726 727 Pat Mallett: That's common, 180-day mark is common for lots of uses. 728 729 Albert Benshoff: I'm trying to remember that the general statutes. I have them, but I don't want to stop and look 730 that up. I think there was a provision in there,a special provision in there that says you can tell 731 the company to take it down. 732 733 Charity Kirk: I feel like something should be in here about when you remove everything and it's most clear 734 about small micro wireless facilities, but as long as the planning board understands 180 days. 735 736 Albert Benshoff: Let me say just by way of background. That sort of thing is going to creep in because the 737 legislature treats small cell wireless differently, and they've carved that out as a discreet land use 738 that must be treated by itself and, so, that's why there's a section of special rules for small cell 739 wireless that don't apply to that,to other kinds of wireless support structures because it's in the 740 general statues. 741 742 Chris Johnston: That's fine. I think Charity's point, and I apologize if I'm misconstruing is this specifically states 743 that the small cell tower has a specific carve out for 180 days. Correct? 744 745 Albert Benshoff: Correct. 746 747 Chris Johnston: Okay. If that's a general statute requirement or said along those lines, cause I, 1 do notice that 748 there are footnotes all up and down this thing and in regard to GS-160D-931 or whatever the case 749 may be. If this is a specific carve out,specifically because of some statute, it might make it 750 clearer to either call that out or to say all towers, rather than specifically the cell towers. Is that an 751 accurate representation? We need to say it's for everything or we need to say the reason we're 752 calling this out is because of statutes. 753 754 Charity Kirk: I'm just unclear. I'm trying to understand. I feel my comments are nit-picky like I said, and this is 755 something I didn't understand, so as long as you all are clear. 756 757 Chris Johnston: But I'm not sure, because from Perdita I heard 30 days and now I'm hearing 180 days, plus 30 758 days,so I'm not sure it is 100 percent. Sorry. Cy. 759 760 Cy Stober: Yeah, I think I can help. So, 5.10. 6 is about cessation. So,that's the operations of the facility as a 761 use. We would then go to Subsection 7 you can have abandonment,which means that the owner 762 has completely abandoned a structure and its operations. Perhaps even abandoned the vendors 763 who are using that structure. Those are separate things. 5.10.8 would be our next plinko down 764 from 5.10.6 where we go from cessation of operations to removal and that's the enforcement on 765 their end. We have the 180-day for small micro wireless there, but there's the 30-day notice of 766 abandonment and then to Mr. Benshoffs comment abatement is empowered to the county. So, 767 that means that we can order the demolition and we can place an assessment on the property or 768 even take other legal actions to assess the owner of the facility. So, in Subsection B, Item B, the 769 county's empowered to abate the use, so, more immediately within 30 days to Perdita's point, then 20 770 personal micro wireless facilities. So, the empowerment's there. It is worded less directly, but it's 771 all there. 772 773 Charity Kirk: Thank you. That was what I wanted to know. 774 775 Cy Stober: To give you the big picture,we've only had two decommission sites,towers in 12 years and in 776 both instances the property owner didn't like the deal they had with the tower provider. They 777 terminated the lease. The tower provider immediately said we're taking this thing down and then 778 new tower providers said well, I'm going to move in right next to it and under the provisions 779 reconstructed a new tower. 780 781 Charity Kirk: So, is now a good time to make amendments? 782 783 Lamar Proctor: Well, I would just say I think this is dangerous territory just as an attorney because this is a very 784 specialized area. 785 786 Charity Kirk: I have a grammatical amendment. 787 788 Lamar Proctor: Sure, a grammatical amendment, sure. 789 790 Charity Kirk: But I also have a few more questions that I might as well do. You mentioned under 5.10.2.(1).(4), 791 facility should contain a sign no larger than 4 feet square to provide adequate notification to 792 people in the immediate area of the presence of RF radiation or to control exposure to RF 793 radiation within a given area. Like does that mean the sign could be 2 inches? Because there's 794 no minimum set. But are there expectations for signs being big enough?The Feds take care of 795 that, Miss Kirk. 796 797 Charity Kirk: Okay. This is my first. 798 799 Albert Benshoff: No, I mean it, it's very confusing, it's very technical. There's no problem with your questions. 800 There's how much do you copy; how much do you repeat from what the FCC says and how long 801 do you make it. The county has an interest in not letting people put a Drink Coca Cola sign on 802 their cell tower that's 100 square feet. 803 804 Charity Kirk: And this is a bad result of just trying to clarify. 805 806 Albert Benshoff: Sure. 807 808 Charity Kirk: And then, 5.10.4, standards and procedures for administrative of approvals of wireless support 809 structures, substantial modifications, co-locations, and eligible facility requests. D., monopoles. 810 It's more a statement, like what does this mean,what does it mean that monopoles at a minimum 811 monopole-wireless support structures shall be structurally designed to accommodate as many 812 antennae rays as a tower is designed to carry. How does that relate to standards and procedures 813 of administrative approval? Does that mean that the monopole design that staff is approving has 814 to have, it has to be designed, like how does that relate to monopoles in it. Why is it under that 815 section? 816 817 Albert Benshoff: Monopoles have to do everything that's listed in 5.10.4.(A)except for the carve outs and then 818 following Subsection A, there's standards for the different kinds of wireless support structures.You 819 get down to monopoles and there's not much new to say. 820 821 Charity Kirk: Oh, you know what, I'm sorry. I do know that I am in the wrong section. I have put that under the 822 wrong section. So, never mind that fact. 5.10.2.(E).(2),well E is a site plan and site plan 823 application meeting. It's trying to say what's all required and you say elevations.A map, a site 824 plan, but 2 is all utilities at a facility shall be installed underground, but what are you wanting them 21 825 to provide? A site map or a site plan?Like you have elevation,the site plan and site plan 826 application meeting, so you say you want elevations, and you want a map, and you want a site 827 plan, but you don't say what you want with all utilities at a facility site shall be installed 828 underground. Do you want a map of where the facility's installed? 829 830 Cy Stober: That's a requirement of 2.5,which is not in the packet. All private utilities must be provided on a 831 site plan. That's sealed and delivered to the county. So, that is not proposed for amendment. 832 That's just identifying that all electrical and, in this case,fiber and should there be any other 833 utilities, such as gas,on site, they'd have to be shown on the site plan,whether they are public or 834 private. So, if there's an OWASA sewer line going through there, it must be underground. There 835 cannot be any aerials and no above-ground utilities are permitted on the site. 836 837 Charity Kirk: Well, you've stated with 1, 2, 1, 3 and 4 exactly what you want,which is an elevation, 3 is a map,4 838 is a site plan, 5 is a landscape plan, but 2 is just a statement. So, you might say,for consistency's 839 sake, how you want that to be given to you. 840 841 Albert Benshoff: We need to check the site plan section,which is not before you tonight. 842 843 Beth Bronson: I think the plan is in Section 2.5. It is outlined. 844 845 Charity Kirk: It's an inconsistent use of the bullets. 846 847 Beth Bronson: But on top of E, it does say application meeting Section 2.5. So, you do have to refer to Section 848 2.5, in which case all utilities public or private must have an accompanying site plan that would 849 indicate where those utilities are underground. 850 851 Charity Kirk: So,then why does 4 have a site plan of the wireless support structure showing all of the 852 following? 853 854 Beth Bronson: Because it's above ground and not part of 2.5. 855 856 Charity Kirk: No,that's not a part of 2.5. If you all are happy with it, I'm just saying it's inconsistent.That's the 857 only one of 1, 2, 3,4 and 5 that does not clarify what document format you want it to take. That's 858 all. 859 860 Cy Stober: That's because those are different documents an elevation is a profile of what the tower would be 861 like. 862 863 Charity Kirk: I know what elevation is. 864 865 Cy Stober: That's separate from the site plan. A site plan is a two-dimensional drawing. The utility 866 requirement is a layer that is an additional standard for what utilities may be done on the site plan. 867 The map is a locational map. It doesn't have to be as precise as the site plan. It doesn't even 868 have to be scale. The site plan comment in Item 4 is identifying additional requirements of that 869 site plan. It is redundant with language in E, but the others are not the same drawings as the site 870 plan itself of the property and its boundaries. So, I think the utility comment is an additional layer 871 of regulation beyond our site plan regulations. I'm comfortable with it. 872 873 Charity Kirk: You're comfortable with it. Okay. 874 875 Statler Gilfillen: I have one question on this. When those plans are submitted,they have to be done by a licensed 876 engineer, right,or an architect? Okay. As an architect, those are pretty standard presentations. 877 You can argue about nit-picking which way and what, but if they're not clear,the inspector at the 878 other end is going to send them back to the engineer and they're going to get it done properly. 879 That's tradition. 22 880 881 Patrick Mallett: That's a good point and I would offer if we can keep it as is. We're comfortable with it,or strike it 882 in its entirety. 883 884 Charity Kirk: I don't think you need to strike it. I'd just change the language to be more consistent. I told you 885 these were nit-picky comments. 886 887 Patrick Mallett: That's why we're here. 888 889 Charity Kirk: Okay. But the last one is 5.10.1.(A).(1),where all the bullets are. Encourage, minimize, create, 890 minimize, establish and the first one is protection of where it really could just be protect.And then 891 it would grammatically be more consistent for the bullet points. So, I would make amendment, a 892 nit-picky amendment,to 5.10.1.(A).(1),you remove protection of, and you change it to protect. 893 894 Statler Gilfillen: I will second that motion. 895 896 Chris Johnston: I think at this point we're still making sure that we don't have any additional comments. 897 898 Lamar Proctor: Do we take a motion on amendments separately or do we move to approve the statement of 899 consistency with the amendments and go through them individual before we take the vote? 900 901 Cy Stober: It's up to your discretion, but more commonly it's the second approach that you mentioned,to add 902 the amendment when the motion is made for the whole package. 903 904 Chris Johnston: Okay. Not to be that guy. Do we need to check, because half the table has had comments. 1 905 didn't know if we needed to verify if anyone else needed to weigh in. 906 907 Lamar Proctor: I think we've resolved everything with the exception of that one. 908 909 Chris Johnston: That's perfectly fine. I didn't know, like I said, if this side of the table needed to chime in. 910 911 Venkat Yendapalli: One question. More like a procedurally question. Once we go through this amendment language, 912 how long does it take to get a cell tower there? I live in Cedar Grove,and it is very spotty. How 913 long does it take to see a cell tower go up there in that area? Areas that they can't reach, 914 emergency services, or if they're in this spot or they can't get cell tower. 915 916 Patrick Mallett: I would say that the conservative, assuming it's an administrative approval for a new cell tower, 917 you're looking at about 60 days. It would go through Jackie Hicks,who was also heavily involved 918 with this package. She's our telecommunications consultant. She's the one that knows all the 919 technical co-location information. She has to review it, give a recommendation. We review it. It 920 goes through the DAC.About 60 days.A special use permit going to the Board of Adjustment for 921 approval, you're looking at anywhere from 4 to 6 months to get that processed. 922 923 Venkat Yendapalli: Thank you. 924 925 Lamar Proctor: Any other specific questions or amendments. I understand Charity's point. It's a grammatical 926 thing. It's not in line with the other numbers. 927 928 Charity Kirk: Lady of the company, did she want to talk? 929 930 Liz Hill: I'm really just here to answer any questions that she might have. 931 932 Charity Kirk: Okay. 933 23 934 Patrick Mallett: She had some very insightful questions and suggestions. We took those to heart and 935 incorporated them. 936 937 Charity Kirk: Are you happy with this? 938 939 Liz Hill: It's definitely an improvement. We appreciate the effort very much. 940 941 Charity Kirk: Okay. 942 943 Lamar Proctor: I had a motion to pass the statement of approval with Charity's modification to 5.10.1.(A).(1), the 944 grammatical correction of protect in lieu of protection of. Correct? 945 946 Charity Kirk: Thank you. 947 948 Lamar Proctor: And I heard a second. Right? 949 950 Charity Kirk: I didn't,yes, I'll make a motion. I do what you say,or you can just make the motion. 951 952 Lamar Proctor: Well, you made the motion. He seconded it. 953 954 Charity Kirk: Well, I made the motion to make it an amendment. Can I make a new motion? 955 956 Dolores Bailey: Why don't we leave it? 957 958 Lamar Proctor: Well, let me just ask this. Cy,does it have to be approved verbatim or are you allowed for 959 grammatical corrections like that, even after we adopt the statement. 960 961 Cy Stober: Oh no. Well, Orange County is fairly conservative about any sort of inline corrections needing to 962 go through hearing, so, if there are grammatically corrections that are needed,we are not 963 empowered as staff to make administrative corrections to things like missing semicolons or 964 plurals, etcetera, per the attorney's office. We've been provided by guidance that we shouldn't. 965 966 Dolores Bailey: There's a motion on the table. Are we asking her to restate it? 967 968 Lamar Proctor: Yeah,just restate it for clarity purposes., 1, 1 think what you're doing is you're moving to approve 969 the statement with the modification to 5.10.1.(A).(1),for protect. 970 971 Charity Kirk: Yes. I make a motion to approve the unified development ordinance's text amendment as 972 contained in Attachment 2 with the amendment and the statement of approval and consistency, 973 indicating text amendments are reasonable on Attachment 3 with the amendment of changing 974 protection of to protect as shown in 5.10.1.(A).(1). 975 976 Lamar Proctor: All right. Do I have a second? 977 978 Statler Gilfillen: I will second to that. 979 980 Lamar Proctor: All right. All in favor of adopting the statement of approval consistency with that modification may 981 say, raise your hand or say aye.All opposed? 982 983 MOTION BY Charity Kirk to approve the statement of consistency with amendment to section 5.10.1.(A).(1). Seconded 984 by Statler Gilfillen 985 986 MOTION PASSED 7-3: Dolores Bailey,Jonah Garson, and Beth Bronson opposed. 987 24 988 Lamar Proctor: We have however many ayes,three opposed. The ayes have it, so it,the statement of approval is 989 passed with that modification. 990 991 Cy Stober: Typically, in a split vote,we have a reason for the opposition, so we can document that for the 992 board. 993 994 Beth Bronson: I just do not find there would be a need for it. 995 996 Jonah Garson: I don't find there to be a need for it either and I just don't feel it's appropriate. 997 998 Charity Kirk: What is it? 999 1000 Beth Bronson: The change. 1001 1002 Jonah Garson: The grammatical change. 1003 1004 Dolores Bailey: And the same for me. 1005 1006 Chris Johnston: Thank you. To confirm,the problem is with the amendment, not with the process of amending, in 1007 other terms is it changing the word protect or the entire process? 1008 1009 Dolores Bailey: In the word protect. I don't think there's any reason to change it from protection of to protect. 1010 1011 Jonah Garson: And,for me, it's the same, but also, I do think we should be having motions on amendments. 1012 1013 Beth Bronson: There was no motion on the statement of consistency I didn't think. 1014 1015 Jonah Garson: I think we need two. I think I would like to see going forward two separate motions. 1016 1017 Lamar Proctor: Didn't you tell us before we needed to incorporate those into one motion? 1018 1019 Cy Stober: You have either option. Historically,we've done the latter where they've been incorporated. 1020 1021 Lamar Proctor: Right,that's been the practice. Jonah is recommending that we split that for clarity purposes. 1022 1023 Statler Gilfillen: I mean if we can in the future, I would agree with that. 1024 1025 Venkat Yendapalli: I think maybe, Jonah,you're looking at like do we even need it. Do the rest of the board support 1026 that amendment. Right? 1027 1028 Lamar Proctor: Yes. All right. So,this will have to be slightly modified? 1029 1030 Cy Stober: Yes, and until it is adopted at the hearing to up to that second. All of this, even though it is 1031 informed by federal and state regulations, can be modified without the whole process. We're 1032 already ready in the process, so if there are other comments you wish to make,you're welcome to 1033 make them in the interim to the board or to me. 1034 1035 Lamar Proctor: Sorry for any confusion. I'm trying to incorporate the planning board's input. I know that you all 1036 worked a long, hard time on this stuff, and I know it's very specialized.And that's a nit-picky thing, 1037 but future generations when they read that ordinance won't get offended by that grammatical 1038 indiscretion. 1039 1040 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ARRAYS-To 1041 review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on Planning Director-initiated amendments to 25 1042 the LIDO pertaining to residential solar arrays. This amendment was reviewed at the April 9, 1043 2025, ORC meeting. The anticipated BOCC public hearing date is June 3, 2025. 1044 1045 Patrick Mallett: Next item on the agenda, as I said before, Pages 95 and 96 are replaced. That's the abstract and 1046 107. This is the solar array amendment, in large part it's the standards within LIDO, Section 5.9.6. 1047 So,we have the need for the amendment. Our amendments of the LIDO have not been amended 1048 or updated since November 8, 2012. Those parenthetically were amendments to deal with public 1049 utility, solar arrays, and nothing to do with the actual amendments before you tonight. It's the 1050 adoption of numerous best practices and technology changes have occurred in the solar industry. 1051 The Orange County strategic plan identifies the environmental protection and climate action as a 1052 first priority strategy. We're revising 5.9.6, solar array and Article 10 definitions. What we're not 1053 revising is the public utility. That would be what used to be referred to as Solar Farms, the large 1054 public utilities,this is just pertaining to solar arrays, roof-mounted or ground-mounted as an 1055 accessory use, like powering the dam turbines at the OWASA facility out at Cane Creek or a solar 1056 array that's mounted on your house roof or on your property or on farms. It addresses overly 1057 complex text and improves on the interpretation and the application for both staff and the 1058 applicants. This was sort of brought forth to us in partnership with sustainable developments and 1059 one of our partners, Solar Smart, and the industry pointed to some needs for some minor 1060 clarifications. This is by no means as complicated or as extensive as the telecom one. So, on 1061 future efforts, this too is a continuum to look at fast-tracking the permitting process for some solar 1062 array permits. The fees,we'll look at revisiting those to give some incentives possibly for 1063 residential stuff, solar permits, and then also,we're also conducting work with solar, and EV 1064 located on government facilities. That's strictly EV charging stations and we have a consortium 1065 with both,with this part of Solar Smart and NC State and numerous other institutions that we're 1066 working on, and this is just one part of what they would like to see and what we feel like the 1067 industry wants and residents,of course, as well. These are just a few slides that Amy Eckberg 1068 was able to provide with regard to the climate action plan. She was not able to attend today's 1069 meeting because she's in a conference in Richmond. Like I said this is a major element that 1070 aligns with the climate action plan and Orange County sustainability efforts. With that greenhouse 1071 and gas emission reduction goals to reduce by 50 percent by 2030 and reduce 100 percent by 1072 2050. This just shows the distribution and the fair share. This was an interesting slide to me,the 1073 amount that's dedicated in terms of emissions to electricity, 30 percent. Overall breakdown. All 1074 energy was responsible for 54 percent of Orange County's greenhouse gas emissions, that was a 1075 pretty amazing statistic to me. And by adding solar energy,we can cut those emissions. It's in 1076 the climate action plan as identified. The manner of process they decided to brief at the ORC. 1077 You heard this item last month in your April meeting where additions were made, based on the 1078 ORC comments and comments received under courtesy and peer review. The item is recording 1079 and refined in conjunction with sustainability programs and smart initiatives and then today,as 1080 with the other one,the replacement items in your packet. Recommendation. Review and discuss 1081 the LIDO text amendments; consider the planning director's recommendation and make a 1082 recommendation to the BOCC on the statement of consistency,Attachment 2, and the proposed 1083 text amendments. 1084 1085 Lamar Proctor: All right. Any questions? 1086 1087 Dolores Bailey: Can you go back about 3 slides. 1088 1089 Patrick Mallett: There? 1090 1091 Kirby Saunders: You said with solar added to it, it would do what? 1092 1093 Patrick Mallett: So that would fall under this energy category here. 1094 1095 Beth Bronson: It would reduce it. 1096 26 1097 Patrick Mallett: And not entirely obviously, but it would offset some portion of that, but I think the point of this 1098 graphic is to show that I would not have guessed that that was 30 percent of our overall 1099 emissions. 1100 1101 Lamar Proctor: Just a general question. So, these amendments,what's the practical effect? Like what will it do in 1102 terms of these solar arrays for which they cover. 1103 1104 Patrick Mallett: We feel like the language aligns with the model ordinances that NC State has, that Solar Smart 1105 has that they've identified. I really wasn't driving this amendment. It was Amy and that initiative 1106 and that collaboration with working with her group and others to make it more understandable, 1107 transparent, and less fluff and requirements that are not necessary. To give you an example, 1108 there's a requirement for a roof load. You have to get a structural engineer to approve that it 1109 meets the supports. That's covered in the building code. We don't need it in the ordinance. It's 1110 another layer of documentation and bureaucracy that's already there. 1111 1112 Beth Bronson: I have one question. For Page 103, it says standards for farm related solar arrays. If you had 1113 bona fide farm status, you were allowed to develop solar arrays? Would having a solar array 1114 create bona fide farm status? 1115 1116 Patrick Mallett: No. Completely separate. And part of that, I'll add a parenthetical to this that that was included at 1117 the request of Solar Smart initiative and Amy Eckberg, also economic development. There's a 1118 movement called photo-aggro-voltaics and that's the placement of solar arrays on farms and 1119 studying the impacts,the temperature on a farm and the moisture composition. 1120 1121 Beth Bronson: It's called innovative farming. 1122 1123 Patrick Mallett: It's probably a good idea. 1124 1125 Beth Bronson: Yeah, it is and I don't mean anything to doubt it. I just didn't know if you were able to create a 1126 solar array farm and then say that you're making money off of it. 1127 1128 Patrick Mallett: I don't want to get too far down the utility rabbit hole, but in all instances our state, is pretty 1129 definitive about power,who can create power. Who cannot create power,who has the ability to be 1130 able to.A farm can't be a public utility,a subdivision can't be a public utility. 1131 1132 Beth Bronson: Did Orange County want to manage that, or they couldn't? Well, not Orange County, but if a utility 1133 company wanted to manage that solar array on a bona fide farm. 1134 1135 Patrick Mallett: They'd have to get a special use permit to do that. 1136 1137 Beth Bronson: Okay. 1138 1139 Lamar Proctor: Any other discussion about the specifics of the language or any discussion about proposed 1140 amendments to any of the language covered by this agenda item? 1141 1142 Beth Bronson: Is there any reason that the solar array shouldn't be available at every type of land use?So,within 1143 R-1, R-2, R-8. Is there any reason that there was no exception or exemptions for locations for 1144 solar arrays? 1145 1146 Patrick Mallett: No, because it's also covered with what it's supporting. Whether it's to a non-residential use. 1147 Theoretically this could come up in any of the districts with performance standards. And does 1148 anyone have any other questions before we make a motion. I do want to draw your attention to 1149 one item. If you turn to the table of permitted uses on Page 98, you'll see land use item sited on 1150 the table of permitted uses. Item No. 73. The county attorney's office, has of course, seen this. 1151 We always vet this through legal. He had pointed out,we don't necessarily call out accessories 27 1152 uses in the table of permitted uses,and my rebuttal back to him was this one is fairly unique and 1153 specific and does need to be called up in my opinion. My last communication with James was I'm 1154 not opposed to removing the word accessory and it's in this table, but I think it's important. 1 1155 haven't heard back from him. In your motion, I would just ask that we have the ability to modify 1156 the terminology of land use, Item 73, as currently proposed, so long as it is consistent with staff 1157 attorneys'guidance. 1158 1159 Chris Johnston: I would like to make a separate motion. 1160 1161 Dolores Bailey: Before you make your motion.Where are you talking about? 1162 1163 Chris Johnston: Page 98. Up there is Line 73,that's above 71 and 72 and it has the word accessory in it,though it 1164 doesn't necessarily need to. 1165 1166 Dolores Bailey: I see it.Thank you. 1167 1168 Chris Johnston: Do we care that 73 is above 71 and 72? 1169 1170 Patrick Mallett: As we discussed earlier,words matter, but I do know that that could go one way or another. 1171 1172 Beth Bronson: He's saying that the row was inserted above Row 71. 1173 1174 Chris Johnston: And then you're saying that because it's got an A at the start of it, it may be at the top, or it may be 1175 at the bottom. 1176 1177 Patrick Mallett: Yes. 1178 1179 Chris Johnston: I apologize,would you mind repeating your request, so that I might verbalize right back at you. 1180 1181 Patrick Mallett: Yes,the motion could point to that page in this packet and No. 73 as presented in this packet. 1182 That's one way to do it. 1183 1184 Chris Johnston: Sure. I make a motion that we provide staff with leeway on editing 73 to either include accessory 1185 or not based on the recommendation of the staff attorney. 1186 1187 Statler Gilfillen: I second it. 1188 1189 Lamar Proctor: All right. We'll take a vote on whether to add this amendment as a separate item before we 1190 approve the statement of consistency.All in favor of that amendment, raise your hand and said 1191 aye. 1192 1193 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to allow for revisions pending comments from the Staff Attorney. Seconded by Statler 1194 Gilfillen. 1195 1196 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1197 1198 Lamar Proctor: Hearing none opposed. Now, I'll take a motion on approving the statement of approval and 1199 consistency with that amendment. 1200 1201 Statler Gilfillen: I so move. 1202 1203 Lamar Proctor: Statler moved. Would you like to second? 1204 1205 Chris Johnston: I would like to second that one. 1206 28 1207 Lamar Proctor: All right. Having a second, all in favor raise your hand or say aye. 1208 1209 MOTION BY Statler Gilfillen to approve the statement of consistency with the previously approved amendment. 1210 Seconded by Chris Johnston. 1211 1212 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1213 1214 Lamar Proctor: Let the record reflect seeing none opposed, it passes with that amendment. Do I have another 1215 motion? 1216 1217 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT 1218 1219 Dolores Bailey: Motion to adjourn. 1220 1221 Beth Bronson: Second. 1222 1223 MOTION BY Dolores Bailey to adjourn. Seconded by Beth Bronson 1224 1225 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1226 1227 Lamar Proctor: All in favor? None opposed. 1228 1229 The meeting adjourned at 9:21 PM 29 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 4, 2025 Action Agenda Item No. 7 SUBJECT: Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment — 4809 Friends School Road, Durham, Chapel Hill Township DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Application, including Site Plan and Lauren Honeycutt, Planner II, 919-245-2598 Supplemental Materials Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director, 2. Staff Report (919) 245-2592 3. Notification Materials and Certification Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and 4. Neighborhood Information Meeting Zoning Manager, 919-245-2597 Materials 5. Development Advisory Committee and Courtesy Review Comments 6. Statements of Consistency and Inconsistency 7. Draft Ordinance, Including Proposed Conditions PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone +/- 110.456 acres (PINs: 9892-31-0306, 9892- 22-7326, 9892-20-2052) located at 4809 Friends School Road, Durham, within the Chapel Hill Township of Orange County. The proposed rezoning is: FROM: PDHRB (Planned Development Housing - Rural Buffer); RB (Rural Buffer) TO: NR-CD (Non-Residential Conditional District) BACKGROUND: A Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment application (Attachment 1) was received proposing to rezone approximately 110.456 acres of property at 4809 Friends School Road, Durham to bring the existing school into compliance with the current Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and allow for future expansion as enrollment increases. All application materials can be found on the Permit Portal. The Staff Report in Attachment 2 contains additional information, maps, and analysis with regard to the application's consistency with County adopted plans. Approval of a site-specific plan is part of the conditional district rezoning process, and the site plan and any agreed-upon conditions are binding to the development permitted for the zoning district. Basic Review Process: A conditional district rezoning application requires submission of a site plan and other documents, in accordance with Section 2.9.1(C) of the UDO. Sections 2.8 and 2.9 of the Orange County UDO require the following review: • FIRST ACTION — Applicant holds a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). 30 STAFF COMMENT. The NIM was held on May 7, 2025, at 7 p.m. at the Lower Library of Carolina Friends School. • SECOND ACTION — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). STAFF COMMENT. The Planning Board will review this application at its regular meeting on June 4, 2025. • 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 anticipated to be held on September 4, 2025. Per Section 2.9.1(F)(3) of the UDO, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part of this process if they address: a. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, b. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways, and access points, screening and buffer areas, the timing of development, etc.), and/or c. All other matters the County may find reasonable and appropriate or the petitioner may propose. A formal site plan is required as part of a conditional rezoning application and has been submitted (Attachment 1). The Zoning Atlas Amendment with a site-specific plan was initiated by Civil Consultants, Inc., on behalf of Carolina Friends School and the Peter and Martha Klopfer Life Estate in order to bring the existing school site into compliance with the Orange County UDO and to allow for future development as displayed within the submitted site-specific plan. The school has existing approval for operation by a 1990 Special Use Permit, but to continue providing education facilities for all ages of students, future development necessitates the approval of a zoning atlas amendment to bring the school use into compliance with the current UDO. The proposal will not change the existing use of the parcels and will allow the school to expand as proposed in response to population growth in the County. Additional background information related to this request is contained in the Staff Report (Attachment 2). Orange County Development Advisory Committee staff has recommended the imposition of conditions, as included in the Ordinance in Attachment 7. Public Notification: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices of the Planning Board meeting were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject parcel. These notices were mailed on May 21, 2025, 14 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcel with a sign on May 21, 2025, 14 days before the meeting. See Attachment 3 for the notification materials. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends that the Planning Board: 1) Consider the matter for action; 2) Acknowledge that legally sufficient public notice was given for the application and this meeting, in accordance with State and Orange County laws; 3) Review the staff report (Attachment 2), featuring analyses of compliance with the UDO, impact to the surrounding area, safety and efficiency of land use, and consistency with the county's adopted plans; 31 4) Allow for the applicant's request by presentation of materials; 5) Allow for public comments; and 6) Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 6) and the proposed ordinance (Attachment 7) FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising, including the public hearing notice and mailings, were paid from the 2024-25 Planning and Inspections Department budget. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Receive the rezoning application, 2. Deliberate on the proposal as desired, 3. Consider the Planning Director's recommendation, and 4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 6) and the proposed ordinance (Attachment 7) in time for the September 4, 2025 BOCC meeting. Attachment 1 32 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or planningapps(@orangecountync.gov Zoning Atlas Amendment — Rezoning Application Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information and submittal requirements are contained in Sections 2.8 and 2.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink. * Please fill out all required fields Date: Rezoning Request: ❑ Conventional District ❑✓ Conditional District Contact Information* Property Owner(s): Carolina Friends School and Peter and Martha Klopfer Life Estate Mailing Address: 4809 Friends School Road Durham, NC 27705 Phone: 919-383-6602 Email: mark3233@aol.com Applicant (if different than property owner): Mailing Address: Phone: Email: Property Information* Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9892 20 2052,9892-31-0306,9892-22-7326 Total Acreage: 110.456+- Address: 4200 Mt Sinai Rd, 4809 Friends School Rd, 4801 Friends School Rd Future Land Use Map Classification: Rural Buffer Current Zoning Designation: Planned Development Rural Buffer and Rural Buffer (PD-RB and RB) Requested Zoning Designation: Non-Residential Conditional District (NR-CD) If applicant/owner are different people, include a signed, notarized, statement indicating that the owner has authorized the applicant to submit the request. In cases where there are multiple property owners, please attach an additional document containing their signatures authorizing the submission of the application or other legal documentation establishing the applicants' right to file on their behalf. Other Submittal Requirements* _ Conventional District Rezoning Application Based on Section 2.8.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): C7 A map, at a legible scale, showing the property(s) subject to the request. A map may be procured at the Planning Department for a fee in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule. A legal description of the property(s) proposed for rezoning. A list showing the names and addresses of all adjacent property owners within 1000-feet of the subject property. A detailed narrative denoting the following: i. The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas (if any) that will be corrected by the proposed request. Page 1 of 2 33 ii. The changed, or changing, conditions (if any)that makes the proposed amendment reasonable necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. iii. How the proposed amendment is consistent with, or carries out the intent and purpose of the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan, or part thereof. ❑The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule. Conditional District Rezoning Application Based on Section 2.9.2 (C) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): 21 A site plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.5 of the UDO. Applications for a Master Plan Development (MPD) Conditional District (CD) shall adhere to the site plan preparation requirements outlined in Section 6.7 of the UDO. RI All CD applications, regardless of type, shall include a detailed landscape plan showing the location of on-site significant trees; proposed screening, buffers, and landscaping; and any proposed treatment of any existing natural features. RI A detailed description of the proposed use of property including an outline of the proposed development. This will include a detailed summary of proposed utility services. The utility service plan for applications for a Home Park (HP) CD shall specify if the proposed services are temporary or permanent connections. 21 A detailed traffic survey, regardless of estimated daily trips, prepared in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation requirements and Section 6.17 of the UDO. 21 The appropriate environmental document(s) prepared in accordance with Section 6.16 of the UDO. 0 A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal. 21 Other information identified during the pre-application conference deemed essential to demonstrate the project's compliance with these regulations. 0 The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule. Cer�tli canon ands$ gl0es* I (we), the undersigned, have been made aware of the process for the review and action associated with a UDO Zoning Atlas Amendment application and understand only completed applications, containing all information required by the Orange County UDO, shall be reviewed and acted upon by the County. Further I (we) understand that any assistance I (we) may receive from County staff in preparing this application in no way guarantees a favorable recommendation by staff on the merits of this proposal nor does it guarantee an approval of the proposed atlas amendment by the County. Owner Signature(s) Applicant Signature (if different from owner) 22 January 2025 Date Date Page 2 of 2 34 Riley Surveying, P.A. 3326 Durham Chapel Hill Blvd. Suite B-100 Durham,North Carolina 27707 January 21,2025 Perimeter Boundary Description Orange County Parcels 9892-20.2052,9892.31.0306&9892-22.7326 PropIrty of Carolina Friends School subject to Peter&Martha Klopfer Life Estates Being all of three Tracts of land lying in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina bounded by James and Kristin Bowers, Henderson &Law, and Gardner Lee Properties Ili, LLC on the north, Carolina Friends School,Glenn and Allison Goldman, Roger Burroughs, Deron Coy and Duke University on the east,the northern Right-of-Way(R/W)of Mt. Sinai Road, a 60'public R/W,on the south and Helen Vogel, Graham&O'Quinn, Nance&Clayton, Franck Rousseau and Zachary and Danielle Bishop on the west, and being more particularly described as: Beginning at an existing iron pipe(eip),said eip having NC Grid Values of N(Y)=820,679.744 E(X)=1,993,418.880 and ,shown as"Control Comer"in Plat Book 109 Page 49 of the Orange County Registry and being in the western One of Duke University;thence with said western line,the following four calls:S 75°01'38"W 240.8V to an eip, S 82°34'12"W 262.55'to an existing iron stake(eis),S 51°26'25"W 76.26'to an eis and S 51°28'40"W 305.94'to an eis,said eis being Duke University's northwest comer;thence,continuing with Duke University's west line the following two calls: S 0304441"W 1146.83'to an eis and S 36°42'59"W 110.87'to an eis in the northern R/W of Mt. Sinai Road;thence, With said R/W,the following three calls:N 53°18'28"W 400.05'to an elp,along a curve to the left having a radius of 1738.94'(chord N 5501954"W 125.76)for an arc length of 125.79 to an eip,along a compound curve to the left having a radius of 2284.76'(chord N 64°01'15"W 308.79)for an arc length of 309.03 to an eip at Helen Vogel's southeast comer;thence,with Vogel's eastern line,N 50*0930'E 136.26'to an eip;thence,with Vogel's and Graham&Quinn's eastern lines,N 01°48'09"E 1029.55'to an elp at the southeast comer of Nance&Clayton near a wet weather branch; thence,with Nance&Clayton's eastern line,N 00*5916"W 90.89 to an eip at Carolina Friends School southwest comer of Tract 2 as shown in aforementioned plat;thence,with said eastern line,N 00059161 W 610.28'to an eip at Carolina Friends School's southwestem comer of Tract 3;thence,with Nance&Clayton's and Rousseau's eastern lines, N 0005916'W 699.36`to an eip at Rousseau's and Bishop's northeast common comer;thence,with Bishop's northem line,N 89°27'09"W 843.0l'to an eip at Bowers'southernmost comer;thence,with Bowers'southern and eastern lines the following five calls:N 00°32'00"E 102.60'to an eip,S 89°26'58"E 613.14'to an eip,N 5302909"E 239.56 to an eip, N 5302653"E 53.86'to an eip and N 16°04'58"W 353.39'to an eip in Henderson&Laws'southem line;thence,with said southem line the following three calls:S 4102730"E 58.31'to an eip,N 79°3459"E 605.15'to an eip and,crossing Piney Mountain Creek,N 04°17'18"W 50.29 to an eip in Gardner Lee Properties III,LLC's southem line;thence,with said southem line,S 87°56'16"E 12.04'to a point in Piney Mountain Creek;thence,and continuing with Piney Mountain Creek centerline the following 65 calls:N 44026'08"E 43.42 to a point in, N 53°37'08"E 30.29 to a point,N 90000 W E 5.76'to a point,S 681511'E 15.59 to a point,N 90000'00"E 27.92'to a point,N 7600251"E 14.89 to a point,S 87038'01"E 9.74'to a point,N 90°00'00"E 52.96'to a point,S 86042'52'E 15.55'to a point,S 76°33'31"E 13.12'to a point,S 88053'06"E 12.70'to a point,N 69°54'57"E 2.73'to a point,N 89034'51'E 26.04'to a point,N 83°46'07"E 27.80'to a point,N 79°51'00"E 23.77'to a point,N 68°18'52"E 17.52 to a point,N 81040080 E 33.69 to a point,N 85*0914"E 12.17'to a point,N 87037'18"E 14.00'to a point,N.7002726"E 18.31'to a point,said point being the Phone-(919)667-0742 philr@rileysurveyingpa.com NC Firm License C-1281 35 easternmost comer common to Carolina Friends School and Gardner Lee Properties III,LLC;thence,leaving said southern line continuing with the centerline of Piney Mountain Creek and the western line of Carolina Friends School, N 86049200 E 18.89to a point,S 69024'15"E 10.93'to a point,S 54*1219'E 11.08'to a point,S 07°23'18"E 7.98'to a point,S 37042'37"E 20.17'to a point,S 44°58'26"E 14.26'to a point,S 24025'36"E 27.13'to a point,S 2300601'E 10.82'to a point,S 19°17'36"E 15.96'to a point,S 25°39'48'E 13.50'to a point,S 11°28'40"E 28.46 to a point,S 07021'43"E 17.44'to a point,S 3403600"E 19.W to a point,S 1902912"E 12.04'to a point,S 14°57'26"E 30.51'to a point,S 02*4951"E 12.05'to a point,S 07*W06"W 13.12'to a point,S 49°08'36"W 13.03'to a point, S 1200712"W 28.OT to a point,S 12°57'12"E 20.95'to a point,S 27024'37"E 30.61'to a point,S 73°15'57"E 12.59 to a point,N 63028'13"E 27.98'to a point,N 58°0T18"E 17.29 to a point,S 87°31'09"E 9.25'to a point,S 61°4342"E 4.66 to a point,N 83013'17"E 29.89'to a point,N 62°44'58"E 12.37'to a point,N 47°42'28"E 26.89'to a point, N 6V2949" E 19.63'to a point,N 5605377"E 13.3T to a point,N 44044'25"E 10.29'to a point, N 23041'41"E 11.86'to a point,S 8604939'E 33.56'to a point,N 88°41'17"E 3.57'to a point,N 89029'44"E 14.91'to a point,S 89°48'37"E 15.83'to a point,S 86037'00"E 14.99'to a point, N 72°4655"E 11.96 to a point,N 40047'59"E 10.19 to a point,N 53°38'48"E 11.87'to a point,N 63°55'34"E 13.81'to a point,N 53°1427"E 15.61'to a point, N 3500017"E 12.8T to a point and N 59*5713"E 3.04'to a point;thence,leaving said creek, N 8904412"E 82.69 to an eis in Goldman's western line;thence,with Goldman's and Burroughs'western lines,S 10°5631"E 285.99 to an eip in Deron Coy's western line;thence,with Coy and Duke University's western lines the following seven calls:S 26°414" W 35.87'to an eip, S 63*1646"E 218.79 to a point in the centerline of Friends School Road,a 60'public Right-of-Way; thence S 35041'50"E 48.76'to a point in the centerline of Friends School Road;thence S 36001'57"E 170.35'to a point In the centerline of Friends School Road;thence S 36°19'24"E 367.23'to a point in the centerline of Friends School Road;thence S W54`20"E 141.96 to a point in the centerline of Friends School Road;thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 970.04',(chord S 31°19'01"E 155.21)for an arc length of 155.38'to a point in the centerline of Friends School Road;thence,leaving Friends School Road and continuing with Duke University's northern line the following two calls and passing over a reference Iron stake at a distance of 27.34',S 71°08'17"W 263,74'to an eis and S 28054'21"W 899.83';to the point or place of beginning containing 110.456 acres,more or less,and being all of Tracts 1,2 and 3 as shown in Plat Book 109 Page 49 of the Orange County Registry. s� SEAL L-3066 /lZil2 vt ��,,p�W 36 • civil consultants LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS Carolina Friends School UDO Application Sections for Re-Zoning to Non-Residential Conditional District 2.8.3 C The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text that would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development text and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the alleged error. The application proposes to change the Zoning Designation of the subject parcels.Currently the parcels are zoned Planned Development Rural Buffer(PD-RB)and Rural Buffer(RB).The application proposes to change the Zoning Designation to Non-Residential Conditional District(NR-CD)to allow for the continued growth of the school in response to population growth in the County. 2.8.3 D The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which makes the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text amendment reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety and general welfare. North Carolina and Orange County are experiencing significant growth in population year over year. Many of the new residents are young families with school age children.The Friends School Campus is recognized as a special learning environment and is in increasing demand with many current and new North Carolinians.Continued growth and development of the campus for all age students is an important component to provide needed educational facilities and offerings to the increasing general population of the County. 2.8.3 E The manner in which the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. The NR-CD District is a flexible and streamlined approach to the continued growth and development of the 63-year-old campus.As the school is experiencing increase in demand for all ages,facilities from pre-K to High School are necessary with the most acute present demand for the higher grades associated with the Upper School. With a curriculum focus on sustainability and stewardship the NR- CD allows for future projects to utilize the Site Plan process in lieu of the Special Use Permit process. This enables the school to be more efficient and directed with their limited funding to continue its 37 [Type here] contribution to the environmentally conscious learning experience in the County and the ethos of the Comprehensive Plan Rural Buffer Land Use Category. 2.8.3 G All other circumstances,factors and reasons that the applicant offers in support of the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text amendment. Please see other components of the Application for various conditions and commitments. 2.9.1 (C) (1)(b) A detailed description of the proposed use of the property including an outline of the proposed development. School, Exterior Environmental Learning Facilities, Exterior Environmental Learning Facilities proximate to or within streams,wetlands and stream buffers as permitted by USACE and Orange County,Theatre, Walking Trails,Walking Trails within stream buffers and/or stream crossings as permitted by USACE and Orange County, Residential,Agricultural,Campus Market, Gardens, Recreational Facilities,Solar Facilities,and typical Uses Accessory to these Uses. Uses may, in accordance with the Orange County UDO, require Site Plan Approval and/or Construction Permits from Orange County and/or other Authorities Having Jurisdiction as required to implement Uses within Existing Site Improvements or to construct New Site Improvements. 38 • civil consultants LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS Carolina Friends School Project Narrative for Re-Zoning to Non-Residential Conditional District Overview and Context Carolina Friends School (CFS) is a unique educational institution deeply rooted in the values of the Quaker tradition. Located in Orange County, North Carolina, CFS sits on -110 acres, a significant portion of which remains undisturbed, reflecting both an appreciation for the rural character of this area and the school's commitment to environmental stewardship. CFS currently serves over 500 students, with approximately 460 of them on the main campus located along Friends School Road and approximately 40 students located on our Early School campuses in Durham (404 Alexander Ave) and Chapel Hill (531 Raleigh Road). With over 60 years' experience managing the timely and choreographed growth of school facilities, and acknowledging current growth trends, the School is looking to position itself to accommodate increased enrollment while underscoring our deep respect for the natural environment, and our commitment to "sit lightly on the land" —a core principle in Quaker philosophy that reflects our desire to use resources sparingly and mindfully. Sustainability and Environmental Stewardship Sustainability is central to both the ethos and the operation of CFS. Our plans for the campus expansion prioritize limiting the number of trees impacted by construction and include replanting trees wherever possible. Facilities will be designed with sustainability at the forefront, incorporating eco-friendly practices to ensure we are minimizing our ecological footprint. We will continue to employ our tradition of sustainable construction methods to reduce energy consumption by designing buildings that integrate natural light and capture and incorporate geothermal heating and solar energy. Traffic and Access Currently, the main entrance to campus is located on Friends School Road, and traffic is managed with the assistance of the county sheriff's department during peak drop-off and pick-up times. With this re-zoning, we will open an additional entrance on Mount Sinai Road, which is currently gated and only open for use on rare occasions. This new entrance will help reduce traffic on Friends School Road by essentially splitting the number of drivers between the two access points while also providing a second full access drive for emergency services. 39 Educational and Accessory Uses The core mission and use of the CFS campus will remain unchanged. CFS will continue to offer a dynamic educational experience through regular school programs, summer camps, athletic competitions, and community events. New facilities will support this mission by enhancing our outdoor learning spaces, which play a vital role in our holistic approach to education, offering hands-on experiences in nature and sustainability studies. We will continue to cultivate our community and partner school use, particularly for environmental and experiential education programs and the school's Performing Arts Center will continue to accommodate school and community arts performances. Conclusion Carolina Friends School is committed to maintaining its deep connection to Quaker values — simplicity, stewardship, and respect for the natural environment. This re-zoning not only aligns with those values but also offers exciting opportunities for growth in environmental education, sustainability practices, and community engagement. By expanding our facilities and outdoor learning spaces, we can enhance our students' educational experience while continuing to serve as responsible stewards of our land. This planned re-zoning ensures minimal disruption to the environment, preserves critical natural habitats, and supports the long-term goals of the school and its community. We respectfully seek approval for this re-zoning to allow Carolina Friends School to continue providing an exceptional, values-driven education in an environment that reflects our profound respect for the land and the natural world. 40 • civil consultants LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS Carolina Friends School Conceptual Construction Projection January 20, 2025 Facility Time Frame New Upper School approximately within 5 Years of Re-zoning to NR-CD Music approximately within 20 Years of Re-zoning to NR-CD Dance approximately within 20 Years of Re-zoning to NR-CD Lower School addition approximately within 20 Years of Re-zoning to NR-CD Middle School addition approximately within 20 Years of Re-zoning to NR-CD New Early School approximately within 20 Years of Re-zoning to NR-CD West Campus Gym approximately within 20 Years of Re-zoning to NR-CD Outdoor Classrooms approximately within 10 Years of Re-zoning to NR-CD This Conceptual Construction Projection will be updated and provided to the County a minimum of every five years, or more frequent as acceleration of Improvements warrant, beginning on the fifth anniversary of the Re-zoning to NR-CD until all Improvements are constructed. .; >,� Ss'F3" � r+.E." �F • � '" M"Y t w� R c� y � �,'� r�t;.2't .,� ! _ it AI., x� 4 ram, •::.+ �.»��` .p'r -- _ a�- � -�,,... r� � `;F �� 3' ;'agar. " 1,,.. 4 '. .. AW 'o I c- TC s +.� ® g 4'u vF rill r" s Tt � I >- s i - Rr^ _ 1 Rr 11 xxvv 1 r tt ar 14 F �. I`11 lye sss777.J11 �� t �� 42 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or planningapr)s@oranciecountync.gov Environmental Assessment Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information is contained in Section 2.25 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink. * Please fill out all required fields An Environmental Assessment(EA)shag be required for each individual parcel proposed for development consistent with applicable criteria!as detailed within the UDO. Date: Contact Information* Property Owner(s): Carolina Friends School and Peter and Martha Klopfer Mailing Address: 4809 Friends School Road Durham, NC 27705 Phone: 919-383-6602 Email: mark3233@aol.com Applicant (if different than property owner): Mailing Address: Phone: Email: I. Property Information* Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9892-20-2052, 9892-31-03060 Address: 4200 Mt Sinai Rd, 4809 Friends School Rd, 4801 Friends School Rd Acreage: 110.456+- Township: Chapel Hill Zoning District: Planned Development Rural Buffer and Rural Buffer (PD-RB and RB) Watershed Overlay: None Other Overlay: None Il. General Site Information* A. Adjacent Property Zoning North: Rural Buffer South: Rural Buffer East: Rural Buffer West: Rural Buffer Land Use North: Residential South: Residential and Forestry East: Residential and Forestry West: Residential B. Topography • Highest Elevation: 516 • Lowest Elevation: 440 ■ General direction of slope: South to North Page 1 of 5 43 ■ Estimated % of property with: 0 —5% slope: 5 — 15% slope: 15—25% slope: More than 25% slope: C. Water Features and Drainage The following water features are located on the property: © Streams©Wetlands © Ponds❑ Drainage Easements©Special Flood Hazard Area Describe (attach additional sheets if needed) D. Does the property contain any of the following Inventory of Natural or Cultural Resources? As identified in the "Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historical, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" or the "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina". 1. Cemeteries ❑ Yes© No 2. Archaeological sites ❑ Yes© No 3. Historic sites ❑ Yes© No 4. Areas of geological significance ❑ Yes© No 5. Designated natural areas ❑ Yes© No 6. Designated habitat ❑ Yes© No For each yes answer above, please indicate the location on the site plan and complete Attachment A. p� Pro�et(Des¢rp�tron'� A. Describe proposed use of property: Continuation of Carolina Friends School 60+ year campus growth to provide opportunities for growth in environmental education, sustainability practices, and community engagement to enhance our students' educational experience. B. Number of lots: 3 C. Number of structures: --26 Page 2 of 6 44 D. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for development of attached residential units (excluding roads, but including parking areas) None E. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for non-residential use (excluding roads) 450,000 SF F. Estimated area to be graded for roads 100,000 SF ■ Road type: ❑ Public © Private ❑ Class A ❑ Class B ■ Total road length: 3,000 LF 1111110;SANte;P6 Its IRed°fired* ff - A. Does the project involve the mining of earth products? ❑ Yes© No ■ If yes, how many cubic feet of material are expected to be excavated? ■ Has an application for a Mining Permit been submitted to NCDRCD? ❑Yes ❑ No Please attach map indicating expected extent of proposed activity. B. Does the project involve generation or storage of hazardous or toxic wastes, as identified by the Environmental Protection Agency? ❑ Yes © No ■ Describe the wastes to be enerated: E_ ■ How much material is expected to be generated per month? ■ Will any material be treated onsite? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, indicate volume: Will any material be stored onsite? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, indicate volume: ■ Where will disposal of the material take lace? F_ ■ How will materials be transported to the disposal site? ■ What measures are proposed to protect water quality and air quality in case of spills? Page 3 of 5 45 C Will-the=prof®ct3n�►�a[ve-a Iand=aPPll�at�on.system-#or=treatmet�-of�ra�v�'ater't- >- __ ■ ©Yes❑ No - If yes, describe Existing System ■ Has an application for a non-discharge permit been submitted to the NC Department of Environmental Management or Orange County Department of Environmental Health?❑ Yes❑ No Q. Iswa septic tank system proposed whech has.a design ca�paclty ofnore than - 3,006 gallons-p®r day. © Yes❑ No - If yes, describe Existing System E. Qoas-tti®activ[fy i �rol�resludge dEsposal ❑ Yes❑✓ No ■ If ves. where is the source of the slud e? ■ Describe where and how the sludge is being disposed ■ Has a NPDES permit from the NC Division of Environmental Quality been issued? ❑Yes ❑ No F.WaterUsage Estimated number of Stu ■ dents 500 x 10 gallons per day (gpd) = 5,000 gpd ■ Estimated water use for climate control = None gpd ■ Process Water None % Consumed % Discharged to septic system % Dischar ed to surface (including storm sewers - Describe: % Evaporated % Reclaimed/reused % Other = 100% ■ Water used for cooling, heating, etc., in association with production or manufacturing N/A % Reused • Consumed • Discharged - Describe: = 100% gpd Total Water Usage • escrebe source of waters Well Page 4 of 6 46 Attachment A* To be completed only if inventory sites are identified in I.D. (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1.a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development 1.b. Proposed Mitigation 2.a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development 2.b. Proposed Mitigation Certification and Signatures* Statement by Applicant - I certify that the information presented by me in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, infor ation, and belief. /R4k)�A Applicant Date Page 6 of 5 Traffic Impact Analysis Carolina Friends School Orange County, NC Prepared for: withArchitecture Kimley))) Horn © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.2024 48 Traffic Impact Analysis for Carolina Friends School Orange County, North Carolina Prepared for: withArchitecture Durham, North Carolina Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. NC License #F-0102 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27601 (919) 677-2000 CARS! 026218 46 7N8?4 F661 �F .� �. GINE,, •' • 11/4/2024 November 2024 016840000 49 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 50 Kimley>>)Horn Carolina Friends School— Orange County, NC Executive Summary Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has performed a Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Carolina Friends School located on located on Friends School Road in Orange County, North Carolina. It is assumed that the school will increase the total enrollment by approximately 50 students to a total of 503 students at full build-out of the site. At buildout, 227 students will utilize the new Upper School building proposed on the western portion of the campus, leaving 276 on the existing Lower/Middle School campus utilizing the existing access on Friends School Road. Access to the new building is proposed by upgrading the existing, gated gravel driveway that intersects Mt. Sinai Road. Approximately 6 buses serve the school for field trips and recreational purposes only, no impact to trip generation. The development is proposed to be built-out by the year 2026. This report presents trip generation, distribution, traffic and queueing analyses, and recommendations for transportation improvements required to meet anticipated traffic demands in conjunction with the development. The following traffic conditions were studied: • Existing Traffic (2024) • Projected Background Traffic (2026) • Projected Build-out Traffic (2026) Analyses were performed for the AM peak hour and school PM peak hour: ■ Friends School Road at Existing School Driveway ■ Friends School Road at Mt. Sinai Road ■ Mt. Sinai Road at Upper School Driveway (future unsignalized) The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Municipal School Transportation Assistance (MSTA) "School Traffic Calculator" was used to determine the trip generation potential of the schools. Table ES-1 School Traffic Generation Vehicles Land Daily AM Peak Hour School PM Use Land Use Intensity Peak Hour Code In Out In Out In Out MSTA Lower School 276 stud. 298 297 188 154 109 143 MSTA Upper School 227 stud. 247 258 174 93 73 165 ES-1 5] 4 m .0 .0 e / 99G � / ¥ « ¥ = co = < o V) � � � / / ' r, 00 $ « , u may < , u < 5 _ � / � or, .0 $ J < y < 2 / Ln « o / z tw m u . b � _ 3 y _ 7 J m o \ y / y e f ' u < u < Ln z r 7J 41 / 3f y .!A « , / < � < 3 $ I $ c : : : 0 m ƒ ƒ a : : : . ¥ \ \ \ f cu c \ m 0 0 = R 2 § / _ \ \ § r J 0 ® u a uj k f 2 m m CL CL m _ -0c m m 4 2 m / 0 -1 0 \ m \ cu $ -07 , -0 70 _ _ L _ _ 3 = o o = o = r_ / = r--- / A § G 2 o § / § � ± 2 � U) LU 52 Kimley>>)Horn Carolina Friends School— Orange County, NC Recommended Improvements: The following improvements are recommended for the projected (2026) build-out traffic condition based on the capacity analysis presented herein: Mt. Sinai Road at Upper School Driveway • Construct the north leg as a full movement stop-controlled driveway with one ingress lane and one egress lane Conclusions Currently, Carolina Friends School is served by one driveway on Friends School Road. The analysis indicates that some congestion is experienced on the site driveway in the AM peak hour resulting in the need for a traffic control officer for a short period in the morning. By constructing a new driveway on Mt. Sinai Road and moving the Upper School to this location, traffic operations will improve at the existing school driveway. The analyses indicate that with the recommended improvements in place, the study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels-of-service in all peak hours. Therefore, no additional improvements are recommended, and the existing traffic control officer may no longer be needed at the existing school driveway. ES-3 53 sP uMIT 45 NOT TO SCALE 1,15 EXISTING SITE SCHOOL DRWY. 0 J 0 00 0 = 14- U r� cl) J a_ 0 2 0 a- ry W_ LL_ 3,000' ,48 1 45 MT. SINAI RD LEGEND EXISTING LANE EXISTING STOP SIGN RECOMMENDED LANE O RECOMMENDED STOP SIGN XXX PROJECTED 2026 BUILD—OUT AADT CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL DED FIGURE Kimley*Horn ORANGE COUNTY, NC RECOMMLANEAGE ROADWAY ES-1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THIS DOCUMENT.TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN.AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE,IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED.REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT VATHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES.INC.SHALL BE WATHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC. 54 %A� ; 9 vlc ulVICINITYMAP IN DRAWING INDEX: Cl COVER SHEET C2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLAN C3.1 SITE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN C4.1 GRADING,STORMRATER MANAGEMENT AND nR noa LANDSCAPE PLAN C5.1 UTILTI'Y PLAN $ggg81 t�yr. o',s APPLICANTS °a oeu4An MNS Sa vA NOTES Rk re xx. n.m�x<o oa .`` `le'°t° xs r n, `n Xmhtvn ffi N —_ �r c r — mniu wo mn«m ncnnn<c vcx as ai«ua e,sx m s.nn�'snx` gtl'�J �Oy DY E. U (~ % Passm,mx a uMnDexn.0 5. xxEcnxc ro aueuc reonownn 1Hn11 eEwreEtiEwm ° Q a x z o � Dj o;may:==;ro D, z x _ o o E� � CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL Q z � µD z z CONDITIONAL REZONING 0 "0 Orange County,North CarolinaE. SITE DATA 11 o No o.11re so 1­TlE ,Norore reE °` Tm�,Tt «o .x E k .x ure-xx .1x,.,,nD.E.n A—Ell oioa c9�9�"»asD'm'o <vwa<xT,«. ,EE>o,o�x�xD P�oPErero�E reo. - �� ,E'A_D EN <Dx.­.Era°DDu.NEx,ow.. o,x. - P °gD:a,..D.xDx-aE:�DExn.<<oxD�nox,.n„n,o,as-m� -- �s —D mR w x « re pcWrc.E crew MgExD a DE M.'TP.RaoR , r`c�r�&�,oPZ'E11D x o Dws �D, rexro a ,wx�re «ro , DroDxD�x re �,xDE Dx,. PRELIMINARY SHEET NO. DO NOT USE FOR cRAPxIc SCALE .� CONSTRUCTION l 55 CENIERUNE PINEY MOUNTAIN CRFFK — r.e / /— •/ / ,F °�N�c'm \ , C ° v .µ S . t a ✓ °E�"o�° l" w _ v _ cn sl `zRAELCT a,08 _- `: :�. 3�a ``° - -' - ow.a-per .. .«."j � /. z c� 0°�` 0 s _ - L 0 k P fi� \ ------------ NN I F - - h w< 4-- '�� PRELIMINARY i DO NOT USE FOR P CONSTRUCTION -�— - SHEET NO. �,� GRAPHIC SCALE ^ 56 pp CENTERLINE PINEY—T—CREEK -4� 7, E 33.665t may,, /T \\ \ AC. 0% C) N, cn 2 1 SS xx cD IAc ........ z c LLt u zA4--_--�7 - -�7 L V r, 7— V Ft % LL D­------ '? 4p PRELIMINARY DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION ro SHEET NO. GRfHIC SCALE 'T 'r C 3 .o 57 ------- gill � — w*� IIIH 1 , ao l �w� •�� �� _� .�' - \ �PARCEL � i �`� —__ BB53 ' r ^ o,rs••,M. ., .• ti ,i ---- ��,E� s�, ,S � Y !, � \� u s a 1 ,h c 5 `__ J`° 5%% + �cu exmx• _ + - __ �a ,+'' .✓,� [i] z E(fir , PARCEL i 23-0 _ , o F _ AC. b- ' ��' • •�-����. � � � � � �� �re•a � w� �. E- NIVIXII z�a ,P' �,l ., , ,,_-_..��=- =". --- - _ `b� i �✓�i ,_ gymo�,p\„xs1\\,\\ r E•� U IS � �'� � ���� �, �,�`, of / t`(, .FY f,��S"r' ..^�llf.(� \.'`/ �w�•• �//�, ff�v.I \gyp,'; 1 I nxL \\.. � ;✓. } \eµuxo '�\ �i���..\ � �F' 3'' j /I' �/,,,, �� \ e� ------------ ^ ci' �_ } , " xos�.oE.�o a��E•tio,Es ��II II�� = ���__— a o••�••o.m•��•=. �:soE°a .�o���. � •� � �r .� "�V - �_ W n•n•o o•� , �.n� •n �•� / a•A«.� �. �� 1 �,� s .��•x µ•u••• E.g. . I ID g PRELIMINARY ...n�,...e.. E��r.•�E�w•nTMw��,.r� — � ` ra�9���..��«,�ooa,m.�TME,�•E�o,E<na".••.�..•s....=<.,E TME.••.s.o„n� :/, i .ne.i�•.•° :m•• ,�, — /!�_ DO NOT USE FOR ,1�, •�n�n�.�M>•o�<n,�oE��a�,,,.•��n,�.,>�n,�n n,•«n�u ono,:«�.��.•z µo, ! P•••a. - -- °• '" °°""" -._ ;- � � � � ., ------ CONSTRUCTION �\ SHEET NO. i.m ss.r• TM ..... ..i.i.r"'TM TM• --- �\• ' �.� __ GRAPHIC SOLE •o � � C 4. 1 ;� �. 58 a ile '00000rA `v: W y \ 33.6661E AC. \ \ v �'('�xa sn�x \ \\g \ �p'•gyp d r R 53.706t AC. S--/- &� Aw 23.086t AC. c� F 'awrc m z zCD Z mN< a.�Rm..T �\N41I 00 x 1. V � UTILITY LEGEND ���-� ri���" �—_�— _ .—�— =J ��•������ � A PRELIMINARY _ "° /// �� DO NOT USE FOR ...n«<....e.. ,E�ox°xE�xE —— —— .aEsax.x°x�Em.s�oExrx. / /• CONSTRUCTIONS`. GRAPHIC SOLE 2. L-: • 1 bU Staff Report Attachment Zoning Atlas Amendment — Conditional District Basic Information Vicinity Map for Rezoning Application - PINs 9892202052,9892227326, and 9892310306 E I IT x Cane Creek Protected T Jordan L 'C'ne C K zp ..... % C� Ehapel Hill township 11 Haw River x Carrh-13 is % •un IV ek-L Lake! Protected PINS: w. 9892202052,9892227326 ur)jplloir5ityf'. and 98923103106 LAKU Tm,.,nships Critical<,_�I:- City Limits law Jordan [Th "ted Lake hip ,yi Protected Chapc.l Hill Tamnship Major Streams water supply Watersheds Cha Couniv Parcel Identification Numbers (PINs) 9892-31-0306, 9892-22-7326, and 9892-20-2052 Parcel Address 4809 Friends School Road, Durham, NC Applicant Name Carolina Friends School and Peter and Martha Klopfer Life Estate and Address 4809 Friends School Road Durham, NC 27705 Property Owner Name and Address (if different from N/A Applicant) Agent(s), if applicable Civil Consultants, Inc. 60 Parcel Size +/- 110.456 acres Future Land Use Adopted Future Land Use Map with Parcels g89zzozo5z, Map (FLUM) Rural Buffer �Z7�6,/d�98� 3°6oep;°ted Designation Rz FLUM Overlay(s) Resource Protection Areas Growth Management Rural Designated System Designation 9992227326 Land adjacent to an Urban or Definition of FLUM Transition area which is rural in character and which should 9230308 Designation remain rural contain very low- (from Article 10 of UDO) density residential uses and not require urban services during the ' plan period. Interlocal Agreement Applicable Yes 9892202062 Jordan Lake 9 �c (Y/N) Applicable ILA Joint Planning Area (JPA) Future Land Use P8 Rural Buffer oP'd1823129 2227326. and 98923183C6 Classification Land which, although adjacent to aes°°rce ro.�u°n aexs an Urban or Transition Area, is r"1Pfekaa,'a°;eCSe'OfeS � rural in character and which will remain rural and not require urban services. The Rural Buffer is Orange County-Chapel Hill-CarrboroJoint Planning Area expected to contain low density o residential uses, agricultural uses exempt from zoning regulations, r and low-intensity agricultural - support uses. The Joint Planning FL Area Land Use Plan category 9892227326 within the Rural Buffer is Rural Residential, defined as low-density Description areas consisting of single-family 9a923,53os homes situated on large lots with a minimum lot size of two acres, except when part of a cluster subdivision and then adhering to a density limit of 1 unit for every 2 acres of property. Rural 9992202a52 Residential Areas are identical to the definition of the Rural Buffer. The area includes property supporting farming operations, including forestry activities, established in accordance with the o m" PIN,93922019S1,989212/316,xnd 9592310'30fi1 - provisions of the North Carolina General Statutes. 61 Rezoning Application to NR-CD for PINS 9892202052,9892227326, PDHRB (Planned and 989231 WL 03o6 Current Zoning Development Housing - Rural District Ao A�Es°" Buffer) and RB (Rural Buffer) 3 Requested Zoning NR-CD (Non-Residential 9892227326 p District Conditional District) Ago- Requested Zoning District Consistent 9892310306 with Appendix F of Yes Jordan Lake 2030 Comprehensive ' Plan �Es°o Existing Zoning Jordan Lake Unprotected Overlay Districts Watershed 9892202062 Amendments Proposed for Q PIN,9892202052.9392227326,and 9B92313306 No —st.— � � Overlay Districts w°t",sods z_ffig _ (Y/N) o POHRB 62 Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Aerial Image with Parcels 9892202052,9892227326,and North ■ All lots are zoned RB (Rural Buffer) with 9892310306 Outlined single-family residential uses or are sFA aE _ currently undeveloped and in agriculture use. South All lots are zoned RB (Rural Buffer) with ; single-family residential uses or 9892227326 undeveloped land of Duke Forest. ; East All lots are zoned RB (Rural Buffer) with single-family residential uses or are currently undeveloped and in agriculture 9892310306 use with Duke Farm. West All lots are zoned RB (Rural Buffer) with single-family residential uses or undeveloped land. Existing Roads s 9692202052 " o North None South Mount Sinai Road A Q PINs'.9A92202052.9P9222]32G nntl 9892310306 _ ' East Friends School Road West None Existing Conditions/Physical Features Carolina Friends School's main campus is located on PIN 9892-31-0306. This campus includes the Early School (ages 3-6), Lower School (ages 6-10), Middle School (fifth through eighth grade), and upper school (ninth through twelfth grade), and their supporting amenities, such as libraries, athletic facilities, and performing arts center. Carolina Friends School via the Peter and Martha Klopfer Life Estate also has supporting uses on PINs 9892-22-7326 and 9892-20-2052 to the north and south of the main campus. The northern parcel includes Peter and Martha Klopfer's residence and a wastewater drip system irrigated in to the forest. The southern parcel also includes an existing residence and barn. The current school use was permitted on all three properties through a Special Use Permit in 1990, with modifications in 1992, 1996, and 1998. Public Water and Sewer The site is served through private onsite wells and a private onsite treatment plant and irrigation system. Site Plan tp s� eeesai..� �,e• '�� ,i _ i h Iw b , J Proposed Access and Transportation Network Improvements Carolina Friends School will maintain the existing access on Friends School Road. The existing gravel driveway on Mount Sinai Road will be improved for use as the access point for future Upper School. The access will be subject to an NCDOT driveway permit. Summary of Transportation Information Existing Roadway Characteristics Affected Roadway Friends School Road (SR 1719) and Mount Sinai Road (SR 1718) Type of Roadway Local (Friends School Road) and Minor Collector (Mount Sinai Road) Current Roadway Capacity 14,600 (Friends School Road and Mount Sinai Road) Latest Traffic Volume 800 AADT (Friends School Road) and 1,900 AADT (Mount Sinai Road) Traffic Generation Number of Trips Expected to be Generated by Proposed Project 1,110 per Proposed Utilities No utilities are proposed with this development. Carolina Friends School will continue to maintain the private utilities on the property and ensure that all wastewater is treated in accordance with State and local laws. Erosion Control/Stormwater Regulations The applicant has provided a grading and stormwater management plan (Attachment 1) and will comply stormwater management (Section 6.14) and erosion and sedimentation control (Section 6.15) regulations of the UDO. Landscape Buffers/Setbacks North 30 ft. land use buffer, 20 ft. building setback South 35 ft. street yard East 30 ft. land use buffer, 35 ft. building setback on property line bordering Friends School Road, 20 ft. building setback on all other eastern lines West 20 ft. land use buffer on western property line of PIN 9892-20-2052, 30 ft. land use buffer on all other western lines, 20 ft. building setback Environmental Assessment (EA) The applicant has provided an Environmental Assessment (EA) application and supporting materials as required in Section 6.16 of the UDO with their submittal. These materials have been shared with various State agencies via the NC Department of Administration's State Clearinghouse. Planning staff have reviewed the materials and agree with a determination of"Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)" as required in Section 2.25.1 (B) (5) of the UDO (Attachment 5). This determination eliminates a requirement 65 from the applicant to provide a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process as outlined in Sections 2.25.2 and 6.16.4 of the UDO. Solid Waste Carolina Friends School utilizes a private contractor for solid waste management and recycling for the school facilities. This program requires at least the same level of current and future recycling service as that provided by Orange County Solid Waste Management. These programs will continue to be expanded or modified as appropriate for the new and existing facilities. If at any time the school uses the services of Orange County Solid Waste or Orange Community Recycling, then the applicant will comply with Orange County Solid Waste Regulations. Proposed Conditions Per NCGS 160D-703, imposed conditions and site-specific standards are limited to those that address conformance of the development and use of the site to local government ordinances and adopted plans or the impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development or use of the site. Per Section 2.9.1(F)(3) of the UDO, the following conditions are being proposed: 1. Normal hours of operation for the School Facility are typically weekdays from 7:30 am to 6:30 pm, plus occasional evening activities which may occur outside of normal hours, such as board or committee meetings, performances, special lectures, seasonal indoor sports practices or events, etc. Seasonally, outdoor sports practices and events may occur only until dark, since no outdoor athletic lighting will be provided. Occasional seasonal evening and weekend activities include campus market for on-campus grown agricultural items such as vegetables and flowers. Occasional seasonal weekend activities include very limited work by staff, facility cleaning and maintenance, scheduled rental use of the soccer fields by a community-based sports organization, and limited community use of the walking trails and track or activities such as "pick up" basketball or soccer, as allowed by the school. 2. No lighting will be provided on existing or proposed athletic fields or courts. Site lighting for Improvements on campus requiring Site Plan approval shall be provided in accordance with Orange County lighting standards at the time of Site Plan approval. 3. No burning of land clearing waste shall occur. 4. Landscape and buffer requirements shall conform to the Orange County UDO at the time of approval with the following modifications or exceptions: a. Existing conditions and facilities within the buffer area, above or below ground, may remain intact, remain in service, and be maintained as needed, but not unduly expanded b. Buffer areas that do not currently meet vegetation standards for required buffers will not require new plantings or other screening; and c. By approval of a detailed Landscape Protection and Re-vegetation Plan, selected individual trees within buffer areas may be removed and replaced. 5. Site Improvements shown hereon and/or referenced as future Site Improvements hereon or in the Conceptual Construction Projection of this Conditional Zoning application establish local building footprints and shall not be construed to specify exact locations or size of buildings or other improvements or otherwise restrict the limits of disturbance. The application Site Improvements are conceptual and shall allow for relocation of buildings and other improvements provided that the selected location is in accordance with the Orange County UDO at the time of Site Plan approval and/or Construction Permits from Orange Count and/or other Authorities Having Jurisdiction. The locations included with those future 6 applications shall be required to meet applicable standards at the time of application exc7thlel as modified herein or by proper Project Entitlement and/or Permitting Processes. 6. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 will be combined into a single parcel within 24 months of expiration o Klo fer Life Estate. Review Milestones Application Submittal Date January 30, 2025 Development Advisory Committee March 6, 2025 DAC Review Neighborhood Information Meeting May 7, 2025 NIM Note: The DAC is a staff/agency committee, established in Section 1.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Courtesy Review Jurisdiction Date Sent Comments Received (Y/N) State Clearing House February 18, 2025 Yes Town of Chapel Hill March 12, 2025 No Analysis Staff Analysis As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director shall cause an analysis to be made of the application. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers a full analysis of the application's consistency with the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. See the drafted Statement of Consistency (Attachment 6) in which the relevant Goals and Objectives of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan have been analyzed in full detail. 1. Staff review determined that the application is complete and all submitted materials are in compliance with the following applicable sections of the UDO: ■ Section 2.8, Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments ■ Section 2.9, Conditional Districts ■ Section 5.8.4, School Preparatory In accordance with Section 2.9.1(F), Approval and Conditions, the applicant has submitted conditions which are to be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners for a determination as to whether such conditions will afford protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. "School: Preparatory" is defined as Use#22 in the Table of Permitted Uses and within Article 10, Definitions of the UDO as: "A land use providing academic courses designed to satisfy curriculum requirements/standards established by the State of North Carolina Department of Public Instruction including pre-school through 12th grade/pre-college activities provided by either public or private institutions. The term includes kindergarten, elementary/secondary and high schools, schools for the mentally and/or physically disabled, military academies, schools for the deaf or visually impaired, and alternative schools." Section 5.2, Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO identifies "School: Preparatory" as a permitted use within the NR-CD zoning district. 67 2. Staff review of the application included considerations for how the request relates to the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This staff analysis found in the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) outlines elements of the Plan which staff identified as relevant to the consideration of this request. 3. The requested zoning district, NR-CD (Non-Residential - Conditional District), is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F, Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts. Attachment 3 68 May 21, 2025 NOTICE OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING To Whom It May Concern: This notice is to inform you of the June 4, 2025, Planning Board meeting, at which an application to rezone +/-110.456 acres (PINs: 9892-31-0306, 9892-22-7326, 9892-20- 2052) will be reviewed. The parcels' primary address is 4809 Friends School Road, Durham, within the Chapel Hill Township. This notification is occurring in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). You are receiving this notice because you own property located within 1,000-feet of the parcels requested for rezoning. YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT PROPOSED FOR REZONING. Property Information Parcel ID Numbers (PINs) 9892-31-0306, 9892-22-7326, 9892-20-2052 Owner Carolina Friends School and Peter and Martha Klopfer Life Estate Applicant Carolina Friends School and Peter and Martha Klopfer Life Estate Location 4809 Friends School Road, Durham Acreage +/-110.456 Current Zoning PDHRB (Planned Development Housing - Rural Buffer); RB (Rural Buffer) Proposed Zoning Non-Residential Conditional District (NR-CD) Watershed Designation Jordan Lake Unprotected What is being proposed? Carolina Friends School has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment in order to bring the existing school site into compliance with the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance and to allow for future development of the school. The applicant and property owner are requesting a rezoning of the +/-110.456 acre property to NR-CD. The applicant has provided a site-specific plan featuring the existing school facility and proposed future school improvements. What is this meeting for? The Planning Board meeting is a required step for a Conditional Rezoning application. The Planning Board meeting must take place before the project proceeds to the BOCC for public hearing and decision. The Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The Planning Board must recommend one of 69 the following four actions at their meeting, 1) Approval, 2) Denial, 3) Approval, but with specified changes, or 4) that the Planning Board be given extended time to consider the matter. Planning Board Meeting Information Date June 4, 2025 Time 7:00 p.m. Place Whitted Meeting Facility Address 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC Lauren Honeycutt, Planner II Assigned Planner Email: lahoneycutt@orangecountync.gov Phone: 919-245-2598 A formal public hearing on the proposed amendments will be held by the Board of County Commissioners. At this time, the anticipated date for the public hearing is September 4, 2025, but may be subject to change. You will receive another written notice about the public hearing at a later date. If you cannot attend the Planning Board meeting and the website does not answer your questions about the requested rezoning, you may call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you. Sincerely, Cy Stober / Additional information is available on the Orange County Planning Department's website: https://www.orangecountync.gov/3038/Active-Development-Projects or scan below: ■ [mj] �. . ■■ r:■ : •. r 1 r •�-Lr�l`J �Ilir> . Si desea servicios de traduccion para esta carta y otros documentos relacionados con el caso/asunto;y/o servicios de interpretacion de idiomas en una reunion relacionada con este caso/asunto, comuniquese con Current Planning Division at correo electronico: 1p anningapps(@orangecountync. ov o (lame at 919-245-2575. Por favor, espere at menos 10 dfas para que nuestro personal organice estos servicios. 70 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Lauren Honeycutt, Planner II with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance I have mailed, or have caused to be mailed, a Notice of the Planning Board Meeting to be held regarding a rezoning application proposing to rezone one parcel located at 4809 Friends School Road, Durham (PINS: 9892-31-0306, 9892-22-7326, 9892-20-2052) on May 21, 2025. The owners were identified according to the Tax Records, as required by Section 2.8.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. The mailed notices specified the date, time, place and subject of the Planning Board Meeting. WITNESS my hand,this 21st day of May 2025. Lauren Honeycutt Planner II Orange County Planning 71 civil consultants LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS Property Owners Within 1,000-ft OBJECTID PIN OWNERI_LAST OWNERI_FIRST OWNER2_LAST OWNER2_FIRST ADDRESSI CITY STATE ZIPCODE 1 56065 9891096484 ALEXANDER STEWART PARKS III ALEXANDER LINDA A 4001 MT SINAI RD DURHAM NC 27705 2 56066 9891097845 KRUEGER KRISTINE L RITCH KELLY L 5121 MURPHY SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 27705 3 56100 9891195925 VOGEL HANS P TRUSTEE 4730 MURPHY SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 277058029 4 56101 9891199093 PICKETT THOMAS THURSTON PICKETT MARY 1 4215 MOUNT SINAI RD DURHAM NC 277058074 5 56102 9891199127 COTHRAN LEE COTHRAN FELICIA 4209 MT SINAI RD DURHAM NC 27705 6 56125 9891297800 KLOPFER PETER H KLOPFER MARTHA S 4801 FRIENDS SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 277058193 7 56126 9891299800 DUKE UNIVERSITY 2200 W MAIN ST STE 300 DURHAM NC 27705 8 56136 9891385948 TIMBERLAKE EDWIN E JR 4422 MT SINAI RD DURHAM NC 27705 9 56137 9891393288 TIMBERLAKE IRMA 4416 MT SINAI RD DURHAM NC 27705 10 56138 9891396356 TRICE VERNON RAY TRICE JUDY 4508 MT SINAI RD DURHAM NC 277058079 11 56139 9891397953 LI JIANQUAN CHEN YING 5215 FRIENDS SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 27705 12 56141 9891398708 TAYLOR CHARLIE PHILLIP TAYLOR BRENDAT 5227 FRIENDS SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 27705 13 56150 9891431974 DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF FORESTRY 2200 W MAIN ST STE 300 DURHAM NC 27705 14 56174 9891494935 TWINE CHARLES EDWARD TWINE MARGARET 906 DEERS NEST LANE DURHAM NC 27705 15 56365 9892004799 BOHS LAURENCE N SEARLES BOHS ELIZABETH L 5001 MURPHY SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 27705 16 56366 9892008266 MAUPIN SUZANNE P THOMAS CHARLES A G IV 5107 MURPHY SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 277058038 17 56367 9892012313 CALL KIMBERLY S 3943 SERENITY FARM LANE DURHAM NC 27705 18 56368 9892013882 CALL KIMBERLY S 3943 SERENITY FARM LANE DURHAM NC 27705 19 56369 9892019217 KEEFE STEPHEN YOUNG MELANIE 717 BLUEBIRD DURHAM NC 27705 20 56370 9892020620 DAVIS KIONA M 4719 WHEELS HILL RD DURHAM NC 27705 21 56372 9892021287 VISE BILLIE L 6515 ROCKY TOP DR ROUGEMONT NC 27572 22 56373 9892023873 BEUTLER ANDREAS BANCK MICHAELA 812 CARROLL ST DURHAM NC 27701 23 56374 9892025380 LEE ROBERT E JR LEE STACY B 3934 ZERO RD DURHAM NC 277058597 24 56375 9892025730THREADGILL RYANS THREADGILL JULIAC 3915 ZERO RD DURHAM NC 27705 25 56376 9892028795 BAUGHMAN KIMBERLY ANN 2206 OAKHURST TRL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 26 56381 9892035238 RILEY DON W RILEY ROBBE B 3902 ZERO RD DURHAM NC 277058597 27 56383 9892039196 SEAWELL ROBERTJ SEAWELL SHEILA L 3926ZERO RD DURHAM NC 277058597 28 56404 9892102162 VOGEL HANS P TRUSTEE 4730 MURPHY SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 277058029 29 56405 9892102248 GRAHAM DOYLE G OQUINN AGLAIA N 5106 MURPHY SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 27705 30 56406 9892105875 NANCE ALICIA CLAYTON PAUL 710 BLUEBIRD TRL DURHAM NC 27705 31 56407 9892112865 BISHOP ZACHARY R BISHOP DANIELLE H 730 BLUEBIRD TRL DURHAM NC 27705 32 56408 9892115483 ROUSSEAU FRANCK S TRUSTEE 3707 STONEGATE DR CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 33 56409 9892121861 SEAWELL SHEILA L SEAWELL ROBERTJ 3926ZERO RD DURHAM NC 27705 34 56410 9892124411 BOWERS JAMES SAMUEL II TRUSTEE BOWERS KRISTIN WHEELER TRUSTEE 4025 GARRETT DR DURHAM NC 27705 35 56412 9892135661 GARRETT DARRELL W 4012 GARRETT DR DURHAM NC 27705 36 56413 9892137262 HORN DEENA GARRETT HORN GARY L 4028 GARRETT DR DURHAM NC 277058002 37 56414 9892139568 GARRETT DELBERT W GARRETT REBECCA P 4436 MURPHY SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 277058022 38 56432 9892202052 KLOPFER PETER H KLOPFER MARTHA S 4809 FRIENDS SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 277058193 39 56433 9892220876 HENDERSON DAVID LAW CAITLIN 4115 GARRETT DR DURHAM NC 27705 40 56434 9892227326 KLOPFER PETER H KLOPFER MARTHA S 4801 FRIENDS SCHOOL RD Durham NC 27705 41 56435 9892232325 GARDNER LEE PROPERTIES III LLC 3307 WATKINS RD DURHAM NC 27707 42 56436 9892238436 GARDNER LEE PROPERTIES III LLC 3307 WATKINS RD DURHAM NC 27707 43 56437 9892243203 CRABTREE TIMOTHY 4353 MURPHY SCHOOL RD Durham NC 27705 44 56459 9892305158 LI JIANQUAN CHEN YING 5215 FRIENDS SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 27705 45 56460 9892310306 CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL 4809 FRIENDS SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 27705 72 OBJECTID PIN OWNERI_LAST OWNERI_FIRST OWNFR2_LAST OWNER2_FIRST ADDRESSI CITY STATE ZIPCODE 46 56461 9892329381 COY DERON K 4806 FRIENDS SCHOOL RD DURHAM INC 27705 47 56462 9892329653 BURROUGHS ROGER KERMIT 4810 FRIENDS SCHOOL RD DURHAM INC 277058192 48 56463 9892335224 CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL 4809 FRIENDS SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 27705 49 56464 9892339300 GOLDMAN M GLENN GOLDMAN ALLISON R 4910 PINEY CREEK LN DURHAM NC 27705 50 56467 9892347072 DEL GAIZO ANDREW DEL GAIZO CHRISTINA 4520 FRIENDS SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 277058186 51 56497 9892403179 HARDY RICHARDJ HARDY CLAREE 915 DEER NEST LANE DURHAM NC 277057946 52 56498 9892403309 FISHER MARY BETH 4314 COTTONDALE DR DURHAM NC 27703 53 56499 9892403676 CAMPBELL SHARON L LERNER KENNETH M 4712 GANESH PL DURHAM NC 27705 54 56501 9892407696 LAW MICHAEL M LEE KILE E 12120 LOCKHART LN RALEIGH NC 27614 55 56503 9892413118 DUKE UNIVERSITY 2200 W MAIN STATE 300 DURHAM NC 27705 56 56504 9892423445 DAVIS DAVID MICHAEL TRUSTEE DAVIS VICKIE WATKINS TRUSTEE 537 NARROW LN DURHAM INC 27705 57 56505 9892424387 DAVIS DAVID MICHAEL TRUSTEE DAVIS VICKIE WATKINS TRUSTEE 537 NARROW LN DURHAM INC 27705 58 56506 9892426547 BURROUGHS ROGER KERMIT 4810 FRIENDS SCHOOL RD DURHAM NC 277058192 59 56509 9892431167 GOLDMAN M GLENN GOLDMAN ALLISON R 4910 PINEY CREEK LN DURHAM NC 27705 60 56511 9892438140 BURROUGHS ROBERT STEVEN 2164 WHITEHALL DR NE MARIETTA GA 30066 61 56529 9892515504 DUKE UNIVERSITY 324 BLACKWELL ST DURHAM NC 27701 Attachment 5 73 May 21, 2025 Carolina Friends School Rezoning Application Case #: MA25-0001 PINs: 9892-31-0306, 9892-22-7326, 9892-20-2052 4809 Friends School Road Re: Development Advisory Committee Report (per UDO Section 1.9.5) On March 6, 2025, the Orange County Development Advisory Committee met for a final review and discussion of the conditional rezoning application Case #MA25-0001 from Carolina Friends School for PINs 9892-31-0306, 9892-22-7326, and 9892-20-2052. The Orange County Development Advisory Committee has no objections to the approval of the zoning atlas amendment so long as the items in the attached departmental memos are addressed. The application package features an abstract and staff report that provide the foundations for my recommendation regarding this application and request. Sincerely, Cy Stober Planning and Inspections Director 74 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919•245•2575 Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Comments DAC review comments and recommendations do not constitute plan or permit approval for this application and/or replace any other plans and permits that may be required by other County departments and State agencies. Project: MA25-0001 (Carolina Friends School) Conditional Rezoning Location/PIN: 9892310306, 9892202052, 9892227326 Applicant: Civil Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Carolina Friends School and Peter and Martha Klo fer Life Estate Staff Planner: Lauren Honeycutt, Planner 11 DAC Meeting Date: March 6, 2025 Addressing and Britney Pendleton Land Records Date: 2-27-25 Staff: brpendleton(a orangecountync.gov 919-245-2576 1. Addressing team is working with Carolina Friends School on overall campus addressing plan and will be sure to incorporate the new building into these plans. Add ressing(a orangecountync.gov James Bryan 7 Attorney's Office Date: Staff: jbryan(c�orangecountync.gov 919-245-2319 1. No comments received. Building Michael Rettie Inspections Date: Staff: mrettie orangecountync.gov 919-245-2604 1. No comments received. Chris Hirni DEAPR Date: Staff: chirni orangecountync.gov 919-245-2514 1. No comments received. Environmental Victoria Hudson Health Date: 3/4/25 Staff: vhudson(d-)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2365 1. This parcel is served by a wastewater system under the jurisdiction of DWR. The water supply is under the jurisdiction of PWS. The school is in good standing with Environmental Health. No other public health comments. Erosion Tyler Sliger Control Date: Staff: Tsliger orangecountync.gov 919-245-2582 1. Based on the information provided and for the proposed/assumed limits of disturbance, the project will need a Land Disturbance Permit (LDP). If this project requires a LDP the 75 applicant must adhere to Sections 2.18, 2.19, and 6.15 of the UDO. If the project does not require an LDP an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Waiver will be needed for adherence to Section 6.15.6(C) of the UDO. Orange County strongly advises the applicant to submit a LDP upfront that accounts for the total project disturbance including any roads and buildings being proposed. 2. Based on the submitted materials, the project isn't proposing a stream crossing that doesn't already exist. If the project proposes a crossing and/or is disturbing the stream channel a Pre-Authorization Construction Notification (PCN) application will need to be submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the scope of work and a USACE Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be forwarded to Orange County staff. UFFireand Life Chris Pendergrass ty Date: 3/3/2025 Staff: cpendergrass(cb_orangecountync.gov 919-245-6125 1. Asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds Shall not exceed 10 percent in grade 2. 20 feet wide, not including shoulders 3. Clearance over the road would have to be no lower than 13 1/2 feet 4. Dead-end access in excess of 151 feet or more shall meet width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4 of the Fire Code 5. If hydrant(s) are installed, the road must be a minimum of 26 feet wide, not including shoulders. 6. Parking: proposed parking spaces need to take into consideration hydrant placement. Parking near hydrants should be prohibited to ensure access 7. Fire access to building(s): Designate emergency vehicle/fire lanes around proposed building(s)for staging of emergency vehicles. Per applicable Fire Code, these areas must be outside of the 'fall zone' for a structure (minimum 75 ft. away). 8. Water Tower: Staff is seeking clarification if water towers will be installed to serve the Project. Specifically, if towers are proposed will they be tied into the hydrant system or be used as supplemental flow for a building sprinkler system. 9. Electrical Line: Please confirm placement of electrical lines on the Property. David Genwright UNCDOT Date: Staff: digenwright(a)-ncdot.gov 336-570-6833 1. See attached TIA review. Lauren Honeycutt Planning Date: 2/26/25 Staff: lahoneycutt(aD_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2598 1. Please expand the narrative to address the requirements in UDO Section 2.8.3(C, D, and E), that while the school use was permitted when first established, a Zoning Atlas Amendment is required to bring the school into conformity with the current UDO, as preparatory schools are not a permitted use in the current Rural Buffer zoning district. 2. If conditions of approval are being proposed, please provide a draft for staff review. 3. Please complete an Environmental Assessment as required in UDO Section 6.16. 4. Per UDO Section 2.5.3 Site Plan Specifications and UDO Section 5.8.4 Schools— Preparatory, Submittal Requirements, include the following elements in the plan set, either on the site plan or as a note to address: a. Total acreage b. Number of total or required and proposed parking spaces c. Height of proposed buildings and finished floor elevation d. Total student capacity of school as designed e. Total number of employees at time of greatest shift 76 f. Number and dimensions of designated parking spaces for activity buses g. Number of designated parking spaces for employees h. Number of visitor parking spaces i. Number of student parking spaces j. Entry/exit points of adjacent parcels k. The estimated water usage for structures, landscaping, and athletic fields I. Note that standards contained in Section 6.4 Performance Standards shall be met. m. In addition to the use described in the project summary, please specifically call out the proposed land use as "Schools: Preparatory." 5. Provide an additional sheet in the plan set to address landscaping requirements in UDO Section 6.8, primarily including details on existing vegetation, primary and secondary tree protection areas, and a planting schedule. Please note on the sheet the planned tree protection measures and barrier method. Per UDO Section 6.8.4 Protection of Existing Vegetation, tree protection fencing shall be a minimum of four feet in height, of durable construction, and shall be placed outside of the drip line of the tree(s) to be protected. 6. Please provide an additional sheet in the plan set detailing parking per Section 6.9, road improvements, sight triangles, and stacking spaces for student drop off. 7. Confirm if there will be any outdoor storage. If proposed, please show on the site plan. 8. Confirm if there will be any signage. If proposed, please show on the site plan. 9. Confirm if there will be any outdoor lighting. If proposed, please add a note stating any proposed outdoor lighting shall meet Section 6.11 of the UDO. 10. A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is required for the conditional rezoning application based on Section 2.9.1(D) of the UDO. The meeting shall be held a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the Planning Board meeting. Matt Taylor Solid Waste Date: 2/27/25 Staff: mtaylor(p)_orangecountync.gov 919-918-4905 1. No Comments Stormwater Christopher Sandt Management Date: 3/3/25 Staff: csandt(a)_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2583 1. The project is located in the Jordan Lake Unprotected Watershed Overlay District. The submittal of a Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) is required if the proposed Land- Disturbing Activity exceeds 21,780 square feet (for non-residential use). Land disturbance thresholds are cumulative to parent tract and will carry over to any/all subdivided lots. L sportation Darlene Weaver ices Date: 3/4/2025 Staff: dweaver(a-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2002 1. The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that pedestrian and bicycle activity during peak hours is relatively low. This may be attributed to the existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in this area of the county. We recognize the importance of improving these facilities and are currently working on our County Bike and Pedestrian Plan, with Stantec as our lead consulting partner. We anticipate that the plan will be completed by Fall 2025. 77 NC* DOA Department of Administration Josh Stein Gabriel J. Esparza Governor Secretary March 25, 2025 Lauren Honeycutt Orange County Planning & Inspections 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201 Hillsborough, NC 27278- Re: SCH File#25-E-0000-0153 Carolina Friend's School Rezoning Application for a Non-Residential Rezoning from Rural Buffer(RB) and Planned Development- Rural Buffer(PDHRB)to Non-Residential Conditional District(NR-CD) of 110.456 acres at PINS 9892202052,9892310306,9892227326.With this re-zoning,we will open an additio Dear Lauren Honeycutt: The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this letter are comments made in the review of this document. The appropriate document should be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (984) 236-0000. Sincerely, KADISHA MOLYNEAUX State Environmental Review Clearinghouse Attachments Mailing Location 1301 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 325 N. Salisbury St. I Raleigh, NC 27603 a 984-236-0000 ncadmin.nc.gov 78 Control No.: 25-E-0000-0153 Date Received: 2/20/2025 County.: ORANGE Agency Response: 3/24/2025 Review Closed: 3/24/2025 LYN BILES CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Project Information Type: State Environmental Policy Act ping Applicant: Orange County Planning & Inspections Project Desc.: Carolina Friend's School Rezoning Application for a Non-Residential Rezoning from Rural Buffer(RB)and Planned Development- Rural Buffer(PDHRB)to Non-Residential Conditional District(NR-CD)of 110.456 acres at PINs 9892202052, 9892310306, 9892227326. With this re-zoning, we will open an additional entrance on Mount Sinai Road, which is currently gated and only open for use on rare occasions. This new entrance will help reduce traffic on Friends School Road by essentially splitting the number of drivers between the two access points while also providing a second full access drive for emergency services. As a result of this review the following is submitted: ❑No Comment ❑Comments Below ❑� Documents Attached Reviewed By: LYN BILES Date: 3/24/2025 79 Control No.: 25-E-0000-0153 Date Received: 2/20/2025 County.: ORANGE Agency Response: 3/24/2025 Review Closed: 3/24/2025 LYN BILES CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Project Information Type: State Environmental Policy Act ping Applicant: Orange County Planning & Inspections Project Desc.: Carolina Friend's School Rezoning Application for a Non-Residential Rezoning from Rural Buffer(RB)and Planned Development- Rural Buffer(PDHRB)to Non-Residential Conditional District(NR-CD)of 110.456 acres at PINs 9892202052, 9892310306, 9892227326. With this re-zoning, we will open an additional entrance on Mount Sinai Road, which is currently gated and only open for use on rare occasions. This new entrance will help reduce traffic on Friends School Road by essentially splitting the number of drivers between the two access points while also providing a second full access drive for emergency services. As a result of this review the following is submitted: ❑No Comment ❑Comments Below ❑� Documents Attached Reviewed By: LYN BILES Date: 3/24/2025 80 Control No.: 25-E-0000-0153 Date Received: 2/20/2025 County.: ORANGE Agency Response: 3/24/2025 Review Closed: 3/24/2025 JINTAO WEN CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Project Information Type: State Environmental Policy Act ping Applicant: Orange County Planning & Inspections Project Desc.: Carolina Friend's School Rezoning Application for a Non-Residential Rezoning from Rural Buffer(RB)and Planned Development- Rural Buffer(PDHRB)to Non-Residential Conditional District(NR-CD)of 110.456 acres at PINs 9892202052, 9892310306, 9892227326. With this re-zoning, we will open an additional entrance on Mount Sinai Road, which is currently gated and only open for use on rare occasions. This new entrance will help reduce traffic on Friends School Road by essentially splitting the number of drivers between the two access points while also providing a second full access drive for emergency services. As a result of this review the following is submitted: ❑✓ No Comment ❑Comments Below ❑Documents Attached Reviewed By: JINTAO WEN Date: 3/10/2025 81 Control No.: 25-E-0000-0153 Date Received: 2/20/2025 County.: ORANGE Agency Response: 3/24/2025 Review Closed: 3/24/2025 DEVON BORGARDT CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF NATURAL& CULTURAL RESOURCE Project Information Type: State Environmental Policy Act ping Applicant: Orange County Planning & Inspections Project Desc.: Carolina Friend's School Rezoning Application for a Non-Residential Rezoning from Rural Buffer(RB)and Planned Development- Rural Buffer(PDHRB)to Non-Residential Conditional District(NR-CD)of 110.456 acres at PINS 9892202052, 9892310306, 9892227326. With this re-zoning, we will open an additional entrance on Mount Sinai Road, which is currently gated and only open for use on rare occasions. This new entrance will help reduce traffic on Friends School Road by essentially splitting the number of drivers between the two access points while also providing a second full access drive for emergency services. As a result of this review the following is submitted: ❑✓ No Comment ❑Comments Below ❑Documents Attached Reviewed By: DEVON BORGARDT Date: 2/21/2025 82 Control No.: 25-E-0000-0153 Date Received: 2/20/2025 County.: ORANGE Agency Response: 3/24/2025 Review Closed: 3/24/2025 ALEXJONES CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF AGRICULTURE Project Information Type: State Environmental Policy Act ping Applicant: Orange County Planning & Inspections Project Desc.: Carolina Friend's School Rezoning Application for a Non-Residential Rezoning from Rural Buffer(RB)and Planned Development- Rural Buffer(PDHRB)to Non-Residential Conditional District(NR-CD)of 110.456 acres at PINs 9892202052, 9892310306, 9892227326. With this re-zoning, we will open an additional entrance on Mount Sinai Road, which is currently gated and only open for use on rare occasions. This new entrance will help reduce traffic on Friends School Road by essentially splitting the number of drivers between the two access points while also providing a second full access drive for emergency services. As a result of this review the following is submitted: ❑✓ No Comment ❑Comments Below ❑Documents Attached Reviewed By: ALEX JONES Date: 2/27/2025 83 To: Kadisha Molyneaux State Clearinghouse NC Department of Administration From: Lyn Biles Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service NC Department of Environmental Quality RE: 25-0153 Scoping - Carolina Friend's School Rezoning Application for a Non- Residential Rezoning from Rural Buffer (RB) and Planned Development—The proposal to open an additional entrance which will help reduce traffic on Friends School Road by essentially splitting the number of drivers between the two access points while also providing a second full access drive for emergency services. Orange County Date: March 24, 2025 The Department of Environmental Quality has reviewed the proposal for the referenced project. Several of our agencies have identified potential permits that may be required and have provided recommendations to help minimize negative impacts in and around the project site. I have attached the comments for the applicant's consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Attachments 84 MEMORANDUM TO: Lyn Biles, Environmental Assistance and SEPA Coordinator NCDENR Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Services FROM: Olivia Munzer, Western Piedmont Coordinator Habitat Conservation DATE: 18 March 2025 SUBJECT: Scoping for a Rezoning for the Carolina Friends School at 4809 Friends School Road in Durham, Orange County,North Carolina. DEQ No. 25-0153. Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission(NCWRC)have reviewed the subject document. Comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e)and North Carolina General Statutes(G.S. 113-131 et seq.). Civil Consultants, on behalf of Carolina Friends School(CFS),has submitted a Rezoning Application for the CFS to be rezoned to a Non-Residential Conditional District. The CFS campus occurs on approximately 110 acres between Friends School Road in Durham and Mount Sinai Road in Chapel Hill in Orange County,North Carolina. The purpose of the project is to improve the entrance stemming off Mountain Sinai Road to be used as a second entrance and to reduce traffic on Friends School Road. According to the documents provided,three unnamed tributaries to Pine Mountain Creek and Pine Mountain Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin flow through the site. The property also has five wetlands. We have no known records for state or federally listed rare,threatened or endangered species within or adjacent to the site. Although not mentioned in the Biological Inventory Report,the proposed federal endangered and state endangered tricolored bat(Perimyotis subflavus)is known to occur in Orange County. The lack of records from the site does not imply or confirm the absence of federal or state-listed species.An on-site survey is the only means to determine if the proposed project may impact federal or state rare,threatened, or endangered species. We have no concerns with the rezoning of the site to a Non-Residential Conditional District to allow for the improvement of the secondary road to be used as a secondary access road. However,it seems other construction activities may occur at the site.We offer the following preliminary recommendations with the intent of minimizing impacts on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources: 1. We recommend minimizing the amount of tree clearing, especially of large hardwoods. For any new construction,build within the open pasture so forested areas can be left undisturbed. 85 2. We recommend not clearing trees during the coldest winter months(December 15 to February 14) and pup rearing months(April 15 to July 31)to minimize impacts to the tricolored bat. 3. Use native species to seed disturbed areas. Avoid using invasive,non-native plants in seed mixtures or landscaping plants(http://www.ncwildflower.org/plant galleries/invasives_list). Also, do not use non-native and/or invasive species such as Sudangrass,Kobe lespedeza, lespedeza,tall fescue, or other non-native species for temporary or permanent seeding. Alternatively,use grains, such as oats,wheat, or rye for temporary cover and native seed mixes for permeant seeding. A list of alternatives to non-native species has been attached. We recommend planting native, wildflower seed mixes that will create pollinator habitat within the project boundary as well as planting native trees and shrubs in landscaping.Native trees and shrubs can be found at native plant nurseries throughout NC, and lists of native plants can be found https://ncwildflower.org/ and hllps://nc.audubon.org/birdfriendlynativeplantslists. 4. Maintain a minimum 100-foot undisturbed,native, forested buffer along perennial streams, and a minimum 50-foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands. Maintaining undisturbed, forested buffers along these areas will minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources,water quality, and aquatic habitat both within and downstream of the project area. Also,wide riparian buffers are helpful in maintaining stability of stream banks and for treatment of pollutants associated with urban stor .nwater. 5. We recommend installing rain gardens or other bioretention structures to reduce water runoff and soil erosion.Also, additional information on LID can be found at the NC State University LID guide: https://www.uni-groUusa.org/PDF/NC LID Guidebook.pdf. NCWRC's Green Growth Toolbox provides information on nature-friendly planning (h V://www.ncwildlife.org/Conservin /g Programs/GreenGrowthToglbox.aspx). 6. Consider using wildlife friendly outdoor lighting since light pollution can impact the circadian rhythms of animals, disrupt behavior, cause injury,or death. Lights should only be on when needed;use lights only where necessary; lights should have wavelength greater than 560 nm emissions(i.e.,narrow-spectrum LEDs or low-pressure sodium);mount the fixture as low as possible;use the lowest wattage necessary; and lights should be fully shielded. 7. Erosion control matting made of plastic mesh or twine should not be used within the project area because it can injure or kill wildlife. If I can be of additional assistance,please call(336)269-0074 or email olivia.munzer(i-�ncwildlife.org. 86 RECOMMENDED NATIVE ALTERNATIVES FOR NON-NATIVE GRASSES IN NORTH CAROLINA" (Species are appropriate for all geographic regions unless otherwise indicated) NON-NATIVE SPECIES NATIVE SPECIES Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans Crownvetch Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Centipede Beaked panicgrass Panicum anceps Bermuda Purpletop Tridens flavus Roundheaded bushclover Lespedeza capitata Deer tongue Dicanthelium clandestinum Sensitive partridge pea Chamaecrista nictitans Partridge pea Chamaecrista asciculata Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Kentucky bluegrass Beaked panicgrass Panicum anceps Tall fescue Purpletop Tridens flavus Sudangrass Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus Deer tongue Dicanthelium clandestinum Canadian wildrye Elymus canadensis Virginia wildrye Elymus virginicus Sensitive partridge pea Chamaecrista nictitans Partridge pea Chamaecrista asciculata Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Splitbeard bluestem Andropogon ternarius Sericea lespedeza Beggarlice Desmodium spp. Kobe lespedeza Deer tongue Dicanthelium clandestinum Sensitive partridge pea Chamaecrista nictitans Partridge pea Chamaecrista asciculata 87 **A recommended revegetation/stabilization mix would ideally include a combination of the species listed in this table. In addition, please note that additional consideration may be needed in areas that are (highly) erodible and/or have sloped terrain. The following species could be included in all regions for additional stabilization and wildlife benefit: Black-eyed susan: Rudbeckia hirta Plains coreopsis: Coreopsis tinctoria Lance-leaved coreopsis: Coreopsis lanceolata Narrow-leaved sunflower: Helianthus angustifolius Created October 2018 88 Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 25-0153 Due Date:3 17 2025 County: Orange After review of this project it has been determined that the DEQ permit(s)and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.All applications,information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office. Normal Process PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Time (statutory time limit) Permit to construct&operate wastewater Application 90 days before begins construction or award of treatment facilities,non-standard sewer system 30 days ❑ extensions&sewer systems that do not construction contracts.On-site inspection may be required.Post- (90 days) discharge into state surface waters. application technical conference usual. Permit to construct&operate,sewer extensions involving gravity sewers,pump Fast-Track Permitting program consists of the submittal of an 30 days ❑ stations and force mains discharging into a application and an engineer's certification that the project meets all (N/A) sewer collection applicable State rules and Division Minimum Design Criteria. system NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water Application 180 days before begins activity.On-site inspection.Pre- El and/or permit to operate and construct application conference usual.Additionally,obtain permit to construct 90-120 days wastewater facilities discharging into state wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES.Reply time,30 days (N/A) surface waters. after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later. ❑ 30 days Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary. (N/A) Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the installation of a groundwater monitoring well located on property not 7 days ❑ Well Construction Permit owned by the applicant,and for a large capacity(>100,000 gallons per (15 days) day)water supply well. Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.On-site inspection.Pre-application conference usual.Filling may 55 days El Dredge and Fill Permit require Easement to Fill from N.C.Department of Administration and (90 days) Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. Permit to construct&operate Air Pollution Application must be submitted and permit received prior to construction and operation of the source. If a permit is required ❑ Abatement facilities and/or Emission Sources as in an area without local zoning,then there are additional 90 days per 15 A NCAC(2Q.0100 thru 2Q.0300) requirements and timelines(2Q.0113). Any open burning associated with subject 60 days ® proposal must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC N/A (90 days) 2D.1900 Demolition or renovations of structures Please Note-The Health Hazards Control Unit(HHCU)of the N.C. containing asbestos material must be in Department of Health and Human Services,must be notified of plans to ❑ compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1110(a)(1) demolish a building,including residences for commercial or industrial 60 days which requires notification and removal prior to expansion,even if no asbestos is present in the building. (90 days) demolition.Contact Asbestos Control Group 919-707-5950 The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity.An erosion& sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres are to be disturbed.Plan must be filed with and approved 20 days ❑ by applicable Regional Office(Land Quality Section)at least 30 days before beginning activity. A NPDES Construction (30 days) Stormwater permit(NCG010000)is also usually issued should design features meet minimum requirements. A fee of$65 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional fees. Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOT's approved program. Particular (30 days) ❑ attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable Stormwater conveyances and outlets. Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with Orange Co.Local Government's approved Based on Local ® program. Particular attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable Stormwater conveyances and outlets. Program ® Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.0126-NPDES Stormwater Program which regulates three types of activities:Industrial, 30-60 days Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System&Construction activities that disturb>_1 acre. (90 days) Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000-State Stormwater Permitting Programs regulate site development and post- 45 days ❑ construction stormwater runoff control. Areas subject to these permit programs include all 20 coastal counties,and (90 days) various other counties and watersheds throughout the state. 89 Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 25-0153 Due Date:3 17 2025 County: Orange Normal Process PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Time (statutory time limit) On-site inspection usual.Surety bond filed with DEQ Bond amount varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land.Affected 30 days ❑ Mining Permit area greater than one acre must be permitted.The appropriate bond (60 days) must be received before the permit can be issued. If permit required,application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant must hire N.C.qualified engineer to:prepare plans,inspect construction,and certify construction is according to DEQ approved plans.May also require a permit under mosquito control program.And 30 days ❑ Dam Safety Permit a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.An inspection of site is necessary (60 days) to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of$200.00 must accompany the application.An additional processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion. ❑ Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days (N/A) File surety bond of$5,000 with DEQ running to State of NC conditional 10 days ❑ Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well that any well opened by drill operator shall,upon abandonment,be N/A plugged according to DEQ rules and regulations. ❑ Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DEQ at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. 10 days Application by letter.No standard application form. N/A Application fee based on structure size is charged.Must include 15-20 days ❑ State Lakes Construction Permit descriptions&drawings of structure&proof of ownership of riparian N/A property Compliance with the T15A 02H.0500 Certifications are required 60 days ® 401 Water Quality Certification whenever construction or operation of facilities will result in a (130 days) discharge into navigable water as described in 33 CFR part 323. Compliance with Catawba,Goose Creek,Jordan Lake,Randleman,Tar Pamlico or Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules is required. ® Buffer requirements:http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater- bra nch/401-wetla nds-buffer-permits/401-riparia n-buffer-protection-program Nutrient Offset:Loading requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins,and in the Jordan and Falls Lake watersheds,as part of the nutrient-management strategies in these areas. DWR nutrient offset ® information: http://deg.nc.gov/a bout/divisions/water-resources/pla nn ing/nonpoint-source-management/nutrient-offset-information ❑ CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00-$475.00 fee must accompany application 75 days (150 days) ❑ CAMA Permit for MINOR development $100.00 fee must accompany application 22 days (25 days) ❑ Abandonment of any wells,if required must be in accordance with Title 15A.Subchapter 2C.0100. ® Notification of the proper regional office is requested if"orphan"underground storage tanks(USTS)are discovered during any excavation operation. Plans and specifications for the construction,expansion,or alteration of a public water system must be approved by the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction ❑ as per 15A NCAC 18C.0300 et.seq.,Plans and specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh, 30 days North Carolina 27699-1634. All public water supply systems must comply with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements.For more information,contact the Public Water Supply Section,(919)707-9100. If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction,plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to ® the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699- 30 days 1634.For more information,contact the Public Water Supply Section,(919)707-9100. Plans and specifications for the construction,expansion,or alteration of the water system must be approved ❑ through the delegated plan approval authority. Please contact them at for further information. 90 Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh Project Number: 25-0153 Due Date:3 17 2025 County: Orange Other Comments(attach additional pages as necessary,being certain to comment authority) Division Initials No Comments Date comment Review DAQ DLP ❑ See checked box. 3/17/25 DWR-WQROS KM ❑ See check boxes above. Five mapped feature are depicted within/near the 3/17/25 (Aquifer&Surface) & project area that may be subject to riparian buffer rules.Any impacts to the riparian buffer will need a buffer determination/authorization from Orange County(local buffer program). If any impacts to surface water are anticipated,401/404 approval may be required.& DWR-PWS JMT ® No Comments 2/21/25 DEMLR(LQ&SW) WHD ❑ See checked boxes above. 3/4/25 DWM—UST MRP ❑ See checked box above. 3/13/25 Other Comments ❑ / / REGIONAL OFFICES Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below. ❑ Asheville Regional Office ❑ Fayetteville Regional Office ❑ Mooresville Regional Office 2090 U.S.70 Highway 225 Green Street,Suite 714, 610 East Center Avenue,Suite 301, Swannanoa,NC 28778-8211 Fayetteville,NC 28301-5043 Mooresville,NC 28115 Phone:828-296-4500 Phone:910-433-3300 Phone:704-663-1699 Fax:828-299-7043 Fax:910-486-0707 Fax:704-663-6040 ® Raleigh Regional Office ❑ Washington Regional Office ❑ Wilmington Regional Office 3800 Barrett Drive, 943 Washington Square Mall, 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Raleigh,NC 27609 Washington,NC 27889 Wilmington,NC 28405 Phone:919-791-4200 Phone:252-946-6481 Phone:910-796-7215 Fax:919-571-4718 Fax:252-975-3716 Fax:910-350-2004 ❑ Winston-Salem Regional Office 450 Hanes Mill Road,Suite 300, Winston-Salem,NC 27105 Phone:336-776-9800 Fax:336-776-9797 91 DATE: February 21, 2025 TO: Michael Scott, Division Director through Sharon Brinkley FROM: Charles Gerstell, Solid Waste Section Field Operations Branch RE: NEPA Project 25-0153, Orange County, NC Orange County Planning& Inspections - Carolina Friend's School Rezoning Application The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the scoping request for the Carolina Friend's School Rezoning Application. The project includes opening an additional entrance on Mount Sinai Road to help reduce traffic on Friends School Road in Durham, Orange County, North Carolina. The review has been completed and has found no adverse impact on the surrounding community and likewise knows of no situations in the community, which would affect this project from a non-hazardous solid waste perspective. During the project, every feasible effort should be made to minimize the generation of waste, to recycle materials for which viable markets exist, and to use recycled products and materials in the development of this project where suitable. Any waste generated by this project that cannot be beneficially reused or recycled must be disposed of at a solid waste management facility approved to manage the respective waste type. The Section strongly recommends that any contractors are required to provide proof of proper disposal for all waste generated as part of the project. A list of permitted solid waste management facilities is available on the Solid Waste Section portal site at: Solid Waste Facility List. Please contact Chuck Kirchner, Environmental Senior Specialist,for any questions regarding solid waste management for this project. Mr. Kirchner can be reached at (336) 776-9633 or by email at chuck.kirchner@dea.nc.gov. Ec: Chuck Kirchner, Environmental Senior Specialist 92 Date: February 26, 2025 To: Michael Scott, Director Division of Waste Management Through: Janet Macdonald Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch From: Katie C Tatum Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch Subject: SEPA Project# 25-0153 Orange County Planning & Inspections, Orange County, North Carolina The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of sites under its jurisdiction to the Orange County Planning & Inspections project. The proposed project is for the Carolina Friend's School Rezoning Application for a Non-Residential Rezoning from Rural Buffer (RB) and Planned Development - Rural Buffer (PDHRB) to Non-Residential Conditional District (NR-CD) of 110.456 acres at PINs 9892202052, 9892310306, 9892227326. With this re-zoning, we will open an additional entrance on Mount Sinai Road, which is currently gated and only open for use on rare occasions. This new entrance will help reduce traffic on Friends School Road by essentially splitting the number of drivers between the two access points while also providing a second full access drive for emergency services. No (0) Superfund Section sites and no (0) Brownfields Program Sites were identified within one mile of the project as shown on the attached report. Please contact Janet Macdonald at 919.707.8349 if you have any questions concerning the Superfund Section review portion of this SEPA/NEPA inquiry. 2/25/25, 11:50 AM about:blank 93 Superfund & Brownfield Sites SEPA/NEPA Review Report Area of Interest (AOI) Information Orange County SEPA project 25-0153 Area : 3,408.32 acres Feb 25 2025 11:48:29 Eastern Standard Time Rd F r s z c G°i°s °&c1F Old fv'G.Ip J in�9%tl l�� ComeeeC ub �`�OC�f 1�1 e7 '�'• Ip� Nam,Fd N c°cme �� Po w ., 4'Sew°.°� ;�os.� aye I� ��•>,s m e°:�. o' 1 e w A !e e1]II d. Nrnety lily �, Z �� cti�J ■ a 1 72,224 Inactive Hazardous Sites No Further Interest Pre Regulatory Landfill Sites D 0.5 1 2.1 NC Brownfields Location View Ineligible Investigation - r 2 4 km Q Recorded a Federal Remediation Branch DryCleaning Contaminated ro' m c,ry,coin m oomam,o�aoe.cowry,rvc,sure or 9 Active Eligible yrErl ry oq ��1,IrvcaEmFur P,usus, about:blank 1/2 2/25/25, 11:50 AM about:blank 94 Superfund and Brownfield Sites Orange County SEPA project 25-0153 Summary Name Count Area(acres) Length(mil) Certified DSCA Sites 0 N/A N/A Federal Remediation Branch Sites 0 N/A N/A Inactive Hazardous Sites 0 N/A N/A Pre-Regulatory Landfill Sites 0 N/A N/A Brownfields Program Sites 0 N/A N/A about:blank 2/2 95 Department of Environmental Quality Project Review Project Number: 25-0153 County: Orange Date Received: 2-20-2025 Due Date: 3-17-2025 Scoping- Carolina Friend's School Rezoning Application for a Non-Residential Rezoning from Rural Buffer(RB) and Planned Development-Rural Buffer (PDHRB) to Non-Residential Conditional District(NR-CD) of 110.456 acres at Project Description: PINs 9892202052, 9892310306, 9892227326. With this re-zoning, we will open an additional entrance on Mount Sinai Road, which is currently gated and only open for use on rare occasions. This new entrance will help reduce traffic on Friends School Road by essentially splitting the number of drivers between the two access points while also providing a second full access drive for emergency services. This Project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville F,/—] Air Air Quality 1:1Coastal Management Fayetteville a DWR Fv--']Waste Mgmt Marine Fisheries Mooresville �✓ DWR-Public Water W-1 Water Resources Mgmt (Public CC&PS Div. of ✓ Water,Planning&Water Emergency Mgmt Raleigh DEMLR(LQ&SW) Quality Program) DMF-Shellfish Sanitation Washington Fv—f] DWM El DWR-Transportation Unit [?]Wildlife Gabriela Wilmington Wildlife/DOT Winston Salem Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: 3/17/25 Melodi Deaver,Hazardous Waste Section Response(check all applicable) X No objection to project as proposed. No Comment Insufficient information to complete review Other(specify or attach comments) 96 Department of Environmental Quality Project Review Project Number: 25-0153 County: Orange Date Received: 2-20-2025 Due Date: 3-17-2025 Scoping- Carolina Friend's School Rezoning Application for a Non-Residential Rezoning from Rural Buffer(RB) and Planned Development-Rural Buffer (PDHRB) to Non-Residential Conditional District(NR-CD) of 110.456 acres at Project Description: PINs 9892202052, 9892310306, 9892227326. With this re-zoning, we will open an additional entrance on Mount Sinai Road, which is currently gated and only open for use on rare occasions. This new entrance will help reduce traffic on Friends School Road by essentially splitting the number of drivers between the two access points while also providing a second full access drive for emergency services. This Project is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review Asheville F,/—] Air Air Quality 1:1Coastal Management Fayetteville a DWR Fv--']Waste Mgmt Marine Fisheries Mooresville �✓ DWR-Public Water W-1 Water Resources Mgmt (Public CC&PS Div. of ✓ Water,Planning&Water Emergency Mgmt Raleigh DEMLR(LQ&SW) Quality Program) DMF-Shellfish Sanitation Washington Fv—f] DWM El DWR-Transportation Unit [?]Wildlife Gabriela Wilmington Wildlife/DOT Winston Salem Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: 2/27/2025 DWR/WRM David Wainwright Response(check all applicable) No objection to project as proposed. X No Comment Insufficient information to complete review Other(specify or attach comments) 97 -4hM1=W—W-1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245•2575 May 21, 2025 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Zoning Atlas Amendment Application (Carolina Friends School) MA25-0001 PINs: 9892-31-0306, 9892-22-7326, 9892-20-2052 A complete Environmental Assessment (EA) application for the Carolina Friends School Zoning Atlas Amendment Application, for the property located at 4809 Friends School Road, Durham at PINs 9892-31-0306, 9892-22-7326, 9892-20-2052 (hereafter, the 'Project'), has been received and reviewed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. The EA application, rezoning application, and site plan were sent to local, state, and federal agencies for review. On March 21, 2025, the applicant submitted an Environmental Assessment application as required within Section 6.16 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. Staff did not identify any element of the Project requiring the completion/submittal of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In addition, an EIS was not recommended by any local, state, or federal agency. Based on the information contained within the EA application, rezoning application, and site plan, Orange County Planning staff review, and comments received from local, state, and federal agencies, staff makes a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Project. Sincerely, Cy Sto er Planning and Inspections Director 98 Attachment 6 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An applicant-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Identification Township Owner of Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Numbers Record (PINS) Carolina ■ PDHRB (Planned Friends Development Housing - - NR-CD (Non-Residential 9892-31-0306, School and Rural Buffer) Conditional District) 9892-22-7326, Chapel Hill Peter and ■ RB (Rural Buffer) . Jordan Lake 9892-20-2052 Martha ■ Jordan Lake Unprotected Watershed Klopfer Life Unprotected Estate Watershed The Planning Board hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments and 2.9.1 Conditional Districts of the UDO have been reviewed and the following standards conditions have been deemed acceptable: 1. Normal hours of operation for the School Facility are typically weekdays from 7:30 am to 6:30 pm, plus occasional evening activities which may occur outside of normal hours, such as board or committee meetings, performances, special lectures, seasonal indoor sports practices or events, etc. Seasonally, outdoor sports practices and events may occur only until dark, since no outdoor athletic lighting will be provided. Occasional seasonal evening and weekend activities include campus market for on-campus grown agricultural items such as vegetables and flowers. Occasional seasonal weekend activities include very limited work by staff, facility cleaning and maintenance, scheduled rental use of the soccer fields by a community-based sports organization, and limited community use of the walking trails and track or activities such as "pick up" basketball or soccer, as allowed by the school. 2. No lighting will be provided on existing or proposed athletic fields or courts. Site lighting for Improvements on campus requiring Site Plan approval shall be provided in accordance with Orange County lighting standards at the time of Site Plan approval. 3. No burning of land clearing waste shall occur. 4. Landscape and buffer requirements shall conform to the Orange County UDO at the time of approval with the following modifications or exceptions: a. Existing conditions and facilities within the buffer area, above or below ground, may remain intact, remain in service, and be maintained as needed, but not unduly 99 expanded b. Buffer areas that do not currently meet vegetation standards for required buffers will not require new plantings or other screening; and c. By approval of a detailed Landscape Protection and Re-vegetation Plan, selected individual trees within buffer areas may be removed and replaced. 5. Site Improvements shown hereon and/or referenced as future Site Improvements hereon or in the Conceptual Construction Projection of this Conditional Zoning application establish local building footprints and shall not be construed to specify exact locations or size of buildings or other improvements or otherwise restrict the limits of disturbance. The application Site Improvements are conceptual and shall allow for relocation of buildings and other improvements provided that the selected location is in accordance with the Orange County UDO at the time of Site Plan approval and/or Construction Permits from Orange County and/or other Authorities Having Jurisdiction. The locations included with those future applications shall be required to meet applicable standards at the time of application except as modified herein or by proper Project Entitlement and/or Permitting Processes. 6. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 will be combined into a single parcel within 24 months of expiration of the Klopfer Life Estate. b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 Statement of Intent -Amendments, and 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans of the UDO and to Section 160D-604(d) Planning Board review and comment— Plan Consistency and 160D-605(a) Governing Board Statement— Plan Consistency of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. c. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following: ■ Planning Principle 1. Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and Services: Orange County's public facilities and services should be delivered in a manner that efficiently uses existing capacity. Expansions of facilities and services should be made only after careful consideration of the costs and benefits of expansion. Staff Comment: Not applicable. ■ Planning Principle 2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable over the long-term. Staff Comment: The proposed NR-CD zoning district for a School: Preparatory use is consistent with the Rural Buffer Land Use Classification (Appendix F: Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts). The other zoning district applied to the property, PDHRB (Planned Development Housing - Rural Buffer), is not 100 captured within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The PDHRB residential district is specific to the Carolina Friends School campus. Such districts were established for specialized purposes where tracts were deemed suitable for a specific intensity of development. Development within this district was regulated by the approved 1990 Special Use Permit and subsequent modifications, which permitted the operation of Carolina Friends School. The continued use of the school will remain limited to the property and will not result in additional impacts to the surrounding parcels. Approval of the proposed zoning atlas amendment will bring the existing school site into compliance with the current UDO and allow for improvements in the areas identified in the site plan for future development, as shown on the submitted Site Plan. The proposed School: Preparatory use is permitted in the NR-CD zoning district, complies with the UDO standards, and meets the standards of evaluations as reviewed by the Planning Board. ■ Planning Principle 3A. Encouragement of Energy Efficiency, Lower Energy Consumption, and the Use of Non-Polluting Renewable Energy Resource: Decreasing the use of non-renewable resources and lowering energy consumption are encouraged in both public and private activities. The county's transportation system should be enhanced to promote more energy efficient modes of travel and improve air quality. Staff Comment: Not applicable. ■ Planning Principle 4. Natural Area Resource Protection: Protection of the County's natural areas, including forests, wildlife habitat, and other important open spaces should be a priority. The County should work with regional and local organizations, the towns, and private landowners to promote and achieve preservation of the County's important natural resources. Staff Comment: The applicant provided an Environmental Assessment and a Biological Inventory as part of the application package. County staff has reviewed and determined no significant environmental impact is expected from this project based on existing conditions. The school utilizes natural features on the property for supporting outdoor learning. Existing conditions and facilities within the required buffered areas will be maintained as needed, but not unduly expanded. ■ Planning Principle 5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern: The County's rural areas are a cherished component of the County's character. Future development should preserve and enhance the county's rural landscape. Staff Comment: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix G, Land Use Classification and Overlay Locational Criteria, identifies the Rural Buffer Land Use Classification as 101 "Located in areas directly outside of Transition and Urban areas where prevailing uses are rural residential and agricultural in nature." The existing use of Carolina Friends School and any future expansion will conform with all applicable UDO regulations to ensure development does not create undue impacts to the surrounding uses of low-density residential, agriculture, and forestry. The school maintains a portion of forested area on the three subject parcels and incorporates outdoor education elements that necessitates a rural setting. The applicant has proposed land use buffers surrounding the parcels making up Carolina Friends School to further mitigate impacts to adjacent properties. ■ Planning Principle 6. Water Resources Preservation: The County has finite water resources to provide to future populations. The protection and management of the County's water resources should be a high priority. Staff Comment: Carolina Friends School will continue to utilize private onsite wells for any future development. The site-specific plan presented for the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment will not use public utilities. Any future development will be subject to regulation under the County's stormwater and stream buffer regulations. ■ Planning Principle 7. Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity: Development of a diversity of new businesses and expansion of existing businesses should occur in Orange County. Staff Comment: Not applicable. ■ Planning Principle 8. Preservation of Community Character: Future growth and development should occur in a manner that preserves and enhances the existing character of the County, its townships, and rural crossroads communities. Staff Comment: According to Appendix F: Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts, the proposed NR-CD (Non-Residential - Conditional District) zoning district is consistent with the RB (Rural Buffer) land use classification, defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan where "only very low density residential, agricultural uses exempt from zoning regulations, and low-intensity agricultural support uses are appropriate." The eligible zoning districts in the Rural Buffer future land use classification include the NR-CD (Non-Residential Conditional District). The zoning atlas amendment would serve to bring the existing school use into compliance with the current UDO, allowing for future development which is consistent with the existing use. The site is surrounded by low density residential uses, undeveloped parcels, including Duke Forest, and agricultural uses, including Duke Farm. Any additional traffic, lighting, or noise will be mitigated in compliance with NCDOT standards and the UDO. ■ Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and 102 designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. Staff Comment: The zoning atlas amendment with a site-specific plan as proposed for conditional approval is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's stated goals. The school has existing approval for operation by a 1990 Special Use Permit, but to continue providing education facilities for all ages of students, future development and growth is required. This future development necessitates the approval of a zoning atlas amendment to bring the school use into compliance with the current UDO. The proposal will not change the existing use of the parcels and will allow the school to expand as proposed in response to population growth in the County. The proposed project shall remain compatible with minimal negative impacts to the immediate area. ■ Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. Staff Comment: Carolina Friends School has a stated commitment to creating an environmentally conscious learning experience, with design considerations of the exterior environmental learning facilities, such as stream buffers and wetlands, as well as walking trails, Campus Market, gardens, and solar facilities. Two parcels included in the zoning atlas amendment contain the Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year Floodplain) and 500 Year Floodplain, as well as a +/- 1.5-acre pond. Future development of the school facilities is not proposed to impact these features. ■ Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. Staff Comment: The existing use is consistent with the future land use classification designated for the Rural Buffer by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F. The applicant proposes conditions to meet UDO standards for development, including landscaping, parking, and lighting. The school will maintain existing vegetation to continue buffering from neighbors and prevent negative impacts. Any site development will be subject to standards from the Orange County UDO and limited to the site plan held with the conditional district in order to protect neighboring residential properties and minimize land use conflicts. ■ Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. Staff Comment: The Orange County staff has noticed the public regarding this 103 application, as required by Sections 2.8.7, 2.9.1(D), and 2.9.2 of the UDO, including a required Neighborhood Information Meeting, mailings to neighboring property owners, posting of the property, and advertisement in the local newspapers. Additionally, staff have provided all application documents on the Active Development Projects webpage. ■ Appendix F, Land Use Classification Description for Rural Buffer: Only very low density residential, agricultural uses exempt from zoning regulations, and low- intensity agricultural support uses are appropriate in the Rural Buffer. Staff Comment: The requested zoning district is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F, Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts. a. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it furthers the goals of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and is located in an area designated on the Future Land Use Map as "Rural Buffer." The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein and recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment. Vote: For, Against Lamar Proctor, Chair Date 104 STATEMENT OF INCONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An applicant-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Identification Township Owner of Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Numbers Record (PINS) Carolina ■ PDHRB (Planned Friends Development Housing - NR-CD (Non-Residential 9892-31-0306, School and Rural Buffer) Conditional District) 9892-22-7326, Chapel Hill Peter and ■ RB (Rural Buffer) . Jordan Lake 9892-20-2052 Martha ■ Jordan Lake Unprotected Watershed Klopfer Life Unprotected Estate Watershed The Planning Board hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments and 2.9.1 Conditional Districts of the UDO have been reviewed and the following standards conditions have been deemed unacceptable: 1. Normal hours of operation for the School Facility are typically weekdays from 7:30 am to 6:30 pm, plus occasional evening activities which may occur outside of normal hours, such as board or committee meetings, performances, special lectures, seasonal indoor sports practices or events, etc. Seasonally, outdoor sports practices and events may occur only until dark, since no outdoor athletic lighting will be provided. Occasional seasonal evening and weekend activities include campus market for on-campus grown agricultural items such as vegetables and flowers. Occasional seasonal weekend activities include very limited work by staff, facility cleaning and maintenance, scheduled rental use of the soccer fields by a community-based sports organization, and limited community use of the walking trails and track or activities such as "pick up" basketball or soccer, as allowed by the school. 2. No lighting will be provided on existing or proposed athletic fields or courts. Site lighting for Improvements on campus requiring Site Plan approval shall be provided in accordance with Orange County lighting standards at the time of Site Plan approval. 3. No burning of land clearing waste shall occur. 4. Landscape and buffer requirements shall conform to the Orange County UDO at the time of approval with the following modifications or exceptions: a. Existing conditions and facilities within the buffer area, above or below ground, may remain intact, remain in service, and be maintained as needed, but not unduly 105 expanded b. Buffer areas that do not currently meet vegetation standards for required buffers will not require new plantings or other screening; and c. By approval of a detailed Landscape Protection and Re-vegetation Plan, selected individual trees within buffer areas may be removed and replaced. 5. Site Improvements shown hereon and/or referenced as future Site Improvements hereon or in the Conceptual Construction Projection of this Conditional Zoning application establish local building footprints and shall not be construed to specify exact locations or size of buildings or other improvements or otherwise restrict the limits of disturbance. The application Site Improvements are conceptual and shall allow for relocation of buildings and other improvements provided that the selected location is in accordance with the Orange County UDO at the time of Site Plan approval and/or Construction Permits from Orange County and/or other Authorities Having Jurisdiction. The locations included with those future applications shall be required to meet applicable standards at the time of application except as modified herein or by proper Project Entitlement and/or Permitting Processes. 6. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 will be combined into a single parcel within 24 months of expiration of the Klopfer Life Estate. b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 Statement of Intent -Amendments, and 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans of the UDO and to Section 160D-604(d) Planning Board review and comment— Plan Consistency and 160D-605(a) Governing Board Statement— Plan Consistency of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is inconsistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. c. As such, the following principles, goals, and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan are inconsistent with the Carolina Friends School — Conditional District proposal: ■ Planning Principle 1. Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and Services: Orange County's public facilities and services should be delivered in a manner that efficiently uses existing capacity. Expansions of facilities and services should be made only after careful consideration of the costs and benefits of expansion. ■ Planning Principle 2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable over the long-term. ■ Planning Principle 3A. Encouragement of Energy Efficiency, Lower Energy Consumption, and the Use of Non-Polluting Renewable Energy Resource: Decreasing the use of non-renewable resources and lowering energy consumption are encouraged in both public and private activities. The county's transportation system should be enhanced to promote more energy efficient modes of travel and 106 improve air quality. ■ Planning Principle 4. Natural Area Resource Protection: Protection of the County's natural areas, including forests, wildlife habitat, and other important open spaces should be a priority. The County should work with regional and local organizations, the towns, and private landowners to promote and achieve preservation of the County's important natural resources. ■ Planning Principle 5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern: The County's rural areas are a cherished component of the County's character. Future development should preserve and enhance the county's rural landscape. ■ Planning Principle 6. Water Resources Preservation: The County has finite water resources to provide to future populations. The protection and management of the County's water resources should be a high priority. ■ Planning Principle 7. Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity: Development of a diversity of new businesses and expansion of existing businesses should occur in Orange County. ■ Planning Principle 8. Preservation of Community Character: Future growth and development should occur in a manner that preserves and enhances the existing character of the County, its townships, and rural crossroads communities. ■ Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. ■ Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. ■ Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. ■ Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. ■ Appendix F, Land Use Classification Description for Rural Buffer: Only very low density residential, agricultural uses exempt from zoning regulations, and low- intensity agricultural support uses are appropriate in the Rural Buffer. The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Inconsistency and the findings expressed 107 herein and recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider denial of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment. Vote: For, Against Lamar Proctor, Chair Date Attachment 7 108 Ordinance#: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition submitted by Carolina Friends School and Peter and Martha Klopfer Life Estate (hereafter `the Applicant') seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, this petition seeks to rezone +/- 110.456 acres (PINs: 9892-31-0306, 9892-22-7326, 9892- 20-2052) from PDHRB (Planned Development Housing - Rural Buffer) and RB (Rural Buffer) to NR-CD (Non-Residential Conditional District) for the purpose of Schools: Preparatory; and WHEREAS, the petition has been submitted with a site plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.1 (C) of the UDO; and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan and reasonable and in the public interest. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the aforementioned parcels to NR-CD (Non-Residential Conditional District), as detailed within the submitted application. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT in accordance with Section 2.9.1 (F) of the UDO the approval of this Conditional Zoning application is subject to the following mutually agreed to conditions: 1. Normal hours of operation for the School Facility are typically weekdays from 7:30 am to 6:30 pm, plus occasional evening activities which may occur outside of normal hours, such as board or committee meetings, performances, special lectures, seasonal indoor sports practices or events, etc. Seasonally, outdoor sports practices and events may occur only until dark, since no outdoor athletic lighting will be provided. Occasional seasonal evening and weekend activities include campus market for on-campus grown agricultural items such as vegetables and flowers. Occasional seasonal weekend activities include very limited work by staff, facility cleaning and maintenance, scheduled rental use of the soccer fields by a community-based sports organization, and limited community use of the walking trails and track or activities such as "pick up" basketball or soccer, as allowed by the school. 2. No lighting will be provided on existing or proposed athletic fields or courts. Site lighting for Improvements on campus requiring Site Plan approval shall be provided in accordance with Orange County lighting standards at the time of Site Plan approval. 3. No burning of land clearing waste shall occur. 4. Landscape and buffer requirements shall conform to the Orange County UDO at the time of approval with the following modifications or exceptions: a. Existing conditions and facilities within the buffer area, above or below ground, may remain intact, remain in service, and be maintained as needed, but not unduly expanded 109 b. Buffer areas that do not currently meet vegetation standards for required buffers will not require new plantings or other screening; and c. By approval of a detailed Landscape Protection and Re-vegetation Plan, selected individual trees within buffer areas may be removed and replaced. 5. Site Improvements shown hereon and/or referenced as future Site Improvements hereon or in the Conceptual Construction Projection of this Conditional Zoning application establish local building footprints and shall not be construed to specify exact locations or size of buildings or other improvements or otherwise restrict the limits of disturbance. The application Site Improvements are conceptual and shall allow for relocation of buildings and other improvements provided that the selected location is in accordance with the Orange County UDO at the time of Site Plan approval and/or Construction Permits from Orange County and/or other Authorities Having Jurisdiction. The locations included with those future applications shall be required to meet applicable standards at the time of application except as modified herein or by proper Project Entitlement and/or Permitting Processes. 6. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 will be combined into a single parcel within 24 months of expiration of the Klopfer Life Estate. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of , 2025. I, Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2025 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 2025. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners