HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-6-25 Planning Board Minutes Approved 9.3.25
1 MEETING MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 AUGUST 6,2025
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 Charity Kirk,At-Large Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large Representative; Beth Bronson,At-
9 Large Representative;Venkat Yendapalli, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Jonah Garson,
10 At-Large Representative.
11
12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Whitney Watson,At-Large Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative;
13 Liz Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative.
14
15 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Taylor Perschau, Current Planning Manager; Lauren
16 Honeycutt, Planner 11; Jack Moran, Planner 1
17
18 OTHERS PRESENT: Donna Crowder,Ward Marotti, Laura Haywood, Joshua Reinke, Don Sever, Danielle Cabral,
19 David Barcal, Beth Trahos, Nicole Steele,Amber Ogrodnik, Betty James, Laura Streitfeld, Elaine
20 Stewart, Kathy Kalanyos, Sarah Wagner, Ralph Warren, Peter Childers,Vicki Childers, John
21 Griffin, Dan Eddleman, Jean Eddleman, David Smith, Joshua Setzer.
22
23 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
24
25 The meeting began at 7:01 PM
26
27 Lamar Proctor: Good evening, everyone. I'm Lamar Proctor. I'm the Chair of the Planning Board. We are going
28 to go ahead and convene this meeting in the interest of valuing everyone's time, I will just at the
29 start say there is a sign-up sheet. If you want to speak during the public comment section of this
30 matter on our agenda, then you do need to sign up on the sign-up sheet in the back prior to when
31 we start calling people up. For public comment,we give people 3 minutes each, so just be
32 mindful of time if you want to speak publicly on this issue.
33
34 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS
35
36 Lamar Proctor reviewed the upcoming Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners meeting calendars.
37
38 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
39
40 Lamar Proctor: The next item is approval of the June 4th, 2025, regular meeting minutes. Do I have a motion?
41
42 Statler Gilfillen: I'll so move to approve it.
43
44 Lamar Proctor: Do I have a second?
45
46 Venkat Yendapalli: Second.
47
48 Lamar Proctor: All in favor say aye.
49
50 MOTION BY Statler Gilfillen to approve the minutes from June 4th meeting minutes. Seconded by Venkat Yendapalli.
51
52 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
53
54 Lamar Proctor: Noting that June 4th regular meeting minutes have been unanimously approved. As to the July 9,
55 2025, Ordinance Review Committee notes,we have to approve those as well, or no?Okay.
Approved 9.3.25
56
57 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
58
59 None.
60
61 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE
62
63 Lamar Proctor read the Public Charge.
64
65 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS
66
67 Lamar Proctor: As to comments, I don't have any comments this evening, so we'll move to the next agenda item
68 which is the Zoning Atlas Amendment.
69
70 AGENDA ITEM 7: PLANNING BOARD RULES OF PROCEDURE—To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC
71 on a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone+/-61.11 acres(PIN: 9749-42-2010) located at 3531 NC
72 Highway 54 W, Chapel Hill, within the Bingham Township of Orange County.The proposed
73 rezoning is from R-1 (Rural Residential)to R-CD (Residential-Conditional District).The
74 anticipated BOCC public hearing date is October 7, 2025.
75
76 Lauren Honeycutt: Good evening, Board. So, as Lamar went over, this is the Zoning Atlas Amendment for a
77 Conditional District. This is a Conditional District zoning which means that the request is use
78 specific with individualized development conditions and standards. There's a site-specific plan
79 that is a part of the review and approval process. So, as we went over, this is at 3531 NC
80 Highway 54 West within the Bingham Township. It's in the Haw River Unprotected Watershed,
81 and our applicant tonight is the Forestar Group who is here. Current zoning is Rural Residential,
82 and the requested zoning is a Residential-Conditional District for use for a major subdivision to
83 allow for single-family dwellings. Surrounding zoning is Rural Residential, Agricultural Residential
84 on the other side of 54, Local Commercial, and Neighborhood Commercial. The Future Land Use
85 designation is for the Rural Community Activity Node. This is land focused on designated road
86 intersections which serve as a crossroads for the surrounding rural community. Uses appropriate
87 here are institutional uses,things like churches,fire stations, as well as smaller commercial uses,
88 and there is no proposed amendment to this Future Land Use designation. For the Conditional
89 District application, staff reviews for a site-specific plan, an Environmental Assessment, a
90 biological inventory, and any additional information as required by agencies that are reviewing.
91 This is the site-specific plan that the proposal and approval would be bound to. Our applicant
92 tonight will overview the plan and be able to answer any questions about it. As part of the
93 Conditional District process,there are also conditions that are allowed to be imposed. The UDO
94 allows for mutually agreed-upon conditions as part of this process for addressing compatibility of
95 the proposed development with surrounding property, any proposed support facilities, so this is
96 roadway improvements, buffers, screening, also timing of the development, and any other county
97 matters that are reasonable and appropriate that may be proposed as part of the conditions. The
98 applicant proposes 11 conditions which they will go over in their presentation, but these are
99 conditions addressing things such as the minimum lot size, roadway improvements, and also
100 amenities that are offered with the subdivision, and so with that, I will turn it over to our applicant
101 tonight to go over their portion.
102
103 Beth Trahos: Thank you, Lauren. Good evening, Mr. Chair and Planning Board Members. My name is Beth
104 Trahos, and I'm an attorney with Fox Rothschild, and I'm here today on behalf of Forestar
105 Development. I have with me a robust team that has worked closely together on this project
106 including Laura Haywood and Donna Crowder with Forestar, Don Sever and Danielle Cabral who
107 are our civil engineers, Rachel Cotter and Nicole Steele who are our landscape architects, Josh
108 Reinke who is our traffic engineer, Ward Marotti who is our environmental consultant, and David
109 Barcal who is a civil engineer that focuses on septic and wastewater issues. We have a
110 knowledgeable team that we've put together to work on this project that we're bringing forward
Approved 9.3.25
111 tonight. We've also worked very closely with your staff, and you can see how many of us there
112 are. We have called on your staff many times to ask them for clarification or to help us
113 understand the process or a particular provision of your code or your Comprehensive Plan, and
114 they have been thorough and helpful, kind and patient with us, and so we are very grateful for
115 your planning staff and want you to know the good folks that work for you, so thank you. What we
116 propose is to build 43 single-family homes on a 61-acre piece of property owned by the Rigsbee
117 family on Highway 54 in White Cross. It's very near the Fiesta Grill which I suspect most of you
118 know where that is. It is a very delicious place to eat dinner, and if you haven't been, I certainly
119 recommend it, and is something people are familiar with on this stretch of the roadway. And the
120 Rigsbee family is here tonight sitting in the front row. This property has been in the Rigsbee
121 family for many generations, and Mrs. Rigsbee has decided that selling this property now is best
122 for her family. She intends to keep a portion of the property, the exiting farmhouse along 54
123 where her daughter lives, and they have kept up with us and been involved with us carefully
124 because they, too, are future neighbors of this project, and they have told us that they were
125 pleased with what we have proposed, so know that we have been held to account by the Rigsbee
126 family. As you heard from your staff, the property is currently zoned R1, and we propose to zone
127 it Residential-Conditional District, which, in your Comprehensive Plan, is one of the districts that's
128 appropriate, given the land use recommendations here. It also allows us to put forward this very
129 specific development plan as well as written conditions, so you know for sure what we're going to
130 build. The Comprehensive Plan designates this as rural residential with a rural community activity
131 node, and these homes are appropriate within that Comprehensive Plan designation. Our goal in
132 designing this site was to provide much-needed housing while maintaining the appearance of a
133 rural area and the historic character of White Cross which we've heard quite a lot about from the
134 Rigsbee family. These concepts are supported by your Comprehensive Plan, and there's a lot of
135 detailed analysis in your staff report. A couple of things to draw your attention to;the historic
136 farmhouse which is visible from Highway 54 will remain, so that existing appearance will continue,
137 and you can see the lots are set back from the road and clustered at the center of the site, so
138 open space can be preserved along the perimeter to provide a transition and to protect the
139 environmentally sensitive areas, and it's a pretty significant portion of the site. It's 41.1 percent of
140 the total site, a little more than 25 acres, and I would point out that only 43 homes are proposed
141 on the slightly over 61 acres which is less than the roughly one unit per acre the exiting R1 density
142 would support. I would like to ask Laura Haywood to come forward and give you a little bit more
143 detail about Forestar's vision for this property, and then I'll continue to share with you my thoughts.
144 Laura.
145
146 Laura Haywood: Thank you, Beth. Hi, my name is Laura Haywood, and I'm the entitlements manager at Forestar
147 Real Estate Group. I am also the project manager for the Rigsbee Project and have been the one
148 closely working with Carol Rigsbee and her family. I am also a Chapel Hill resident, so I do live in
149 Orange County as well. I do want to thank you personally on behalf of myself,the team, and the
150 staff at large for being here tonight and allowing us the opportunity to present our project to you.
151 There are many aspects of this project that are very special. We have worked hard to identify
152 what is special about this piece of property and how we can preserve the feel for the surrounding
153 area, to preserve the natural environment, and I just would like to take a moment to go through
154 some of the site plan and the aspects just to become a little familiar. I'm assuming if I walk away
155 from them microphone, it's not going to pick me up.
156
157 Beth Trahos: Well,you want me to point?
158
159 Laura Haywood: All right. Thank you, Beth. First off,we'll start at the front of the community. We currently have a
160 well that is drilled and established to support the community. We also have a well house that we
161 have been working side by side with Peter Sandbeck.
162
163 Chris Johnston: If I could get the location of the well,that'd be really helpful.
164
Approved 9.3.25
165 Laura Haywood: Absolutely. Let's go back. My apologies. Sorry, it's disjointed a little bit. Okay, so the well that we
166 have already established that has been drilled that supports this community is located where
167 Donna is pointing her finger, and we have been working closely with Peter Sandbeck which is the
168 cultural resource coordinator for Orange County. We had communications with him early on in the
169 process. His concern was wanting to maintain the feel of the old Rigsbee house along with the
170 White Cross Schoolhouse, historical house there, so our mission was to design this really
171 beautiful well house that would incorporate architectural components so it would blend. I have
172 already shown this rendition to Peter and had an extensive conversation which he has expressed
173 that he very much likes, and so I just wanted to point that out. We also have a mail kiosk on the
174 property. We'll go to the rendition, and then we'll switch between the maps. This is the rendition of
175 the mail kiosk that we presented. Couple things to note, one of the staffs'concerns when we were
176 working through this process was making sure that in which was fully ADA accessible, and we
177 took that to heart, and so we have provided that in our rendition to show how it will be ADA
178 accessible. We also incorporated two benches under the fully enclosed covering of the mail kiosk
179 with the vision that if the school bus uses that area as a way to pick up and drop off students that
180 the students have a way of sitting there without being in the rain and snow occasionally, and so
181 we incorporated that as well. I also presented this to Peter as well, and he really liked the design.
182 Donna can point out where the mail kiosk is located. I'd also like to point out that in this area,
183 we've incorporated a dog park. The dog park is in close proximity to the mail kiosk for a couple
184 reasons. If you can picture it with me, you have mom, dad, maybe both, maybe it's grandma—I'm
185 not sure—with their children, grandchildren, dropping them off for school, hopefully that they walk
186 to this bus stop, and that they are able to bring their dogs, maybe let their dogs run around a little
187 bit, and then once the kids are off,they can jump onto the trail system that we have incorporated
188 into this community. The trail system is designated by the bold dotted lines that Donna can point
189 to.
190
191 Donna Crowder: Kind of a light color on this map.
192
193 Laura Haywood: The trail system is going to be a natural surface trail system. They will not be paved, so I feel like
194 that's a really great aspect of this community. We also have a sidewalk system as well
195 incorporated for those who need that accessibility which will be concrete or paved in some
196 capacity. It will be on just one side of the community, not on both sides of the road.We also
197 incorporated an open space to the back of the property just for the natural environment to thrive. 1
198 don't know if any of you have been back that way, but I have been back there a couple of times,
199 and it is a gorgeous piece of this property. I cannot express that enough. It is a gem to this
200 community, and the stream that runs through that area has these large boulders, and it's got a
201 meandering stream coming down. It's a very aesthetically pleasing quiet peaceful place for
202 people to enjoy, and actually,when I saw that, that's what really moved me. We do have an
203 incorporated small parking area for those who would like to access the trail and that little piece of
204 property in the back if they wish to just go and sit and be, so we want to establish that as a place.
205 Just a couple more things we have incorporated. Instead of a large SCM pond that you see in
206 most developments,we have incorporated three bio-retention natural filtration storm water devices
207 that will be planted with natural plantings, so the neighbors around will have something very
208 aesthetic to look at. Last but not least,we have an area for a gathering where folks can come and
209 be part of a community and hopefully utilize that space to grill, hang out with their children,jump
210 on a trail, and so that also is one of our aspects of creating place in this community. Those are just
211 a couple of highlights that I wanted to point out for this community, and I think that's all for me.
212
213 Donna Crowder: This would be the gap, an example of the type of structure that we were thinking about using, and
214 1 did want to add one thing that back in that back area, and that plan that we were looking at was
215 actually the landscape plan, but we're going to have a bird sanctuary back there and put up
216 several bird boxes. I think we committed to eight at least.
217
218 Beth Trahos: We do have some conditions that provide for additional amenities, and I'll show you those. You
219 may have read them in your packet, and we are trying to be efficient with your time, so I'll just hit
Approved 9.3.25
220 the highlights. Of course, the proposed site plan is an element of a commitment. We also
221 included a commitment with regard to the private streets that was suggested by staff. Minimum lot
222 size is 20,000 square feet. No home should have more than four bedrooms, and every septic
223 system should be designed to accommodate four bedrooms. That's the reason for that condition.
224 There will be an HOA that will administer architectural guidelines. The decorative well house that
225 you have seen in the pictures is a commitment as well as the mail kiosk which will include
226 benches and a trash can for ease of use. The private trails shown on the site plan are a
227 commitment, and they will also include benches along the trail, signs providing scientific
228 information about the flora and fauna that's found in that area with pictures or images to sort of
229 engage folks in what they are seeing. The community building structure and gathering area is
230 also a commitment, and, in addition to that structure, it will have grilling stations and a fire pit, and
231 some trashcans and pet waste stations and the bird nesting boxes to encourage the proliferation
232 of species that are seen in that area. Also,the commitment that the septic systems would be
233 designed to serve those four bedrooms, so it's clear that's the limit, and a commitment to provide
234 turn lanes, right-and left-hand turn lanes into the community if NCDOT approves them, and that
235 was a request made by the fire chief in the area. We do have our traffic engineer, and he did do
236 some analysis and talked with NCDOT. NCDOT did not suggest the addition of turn lanes, but
237 since that was a request from the fire chief in the area,we're happy to do that with NCDOT's
238 approval, and so that is an additional commitment. We are proposing individual septic systems on
239 each lot, and these are conventional systems, and included in your packet are materials that show
240 layouts on certain lots to see that they will fit and with all of the associated requirements, and
241 there are similar systems already operating in Orange County, and we're proposing a community
242 well. The community well is existing on site. We built it, and it's been permitted, and it's
243 constructed and operational, and we heard some questions about the capacity of the well and its
244 impact on other wells in the area in our community meeting and in our conversations outside of
245 those meetings with folks in the area, and so first, our employed experts did do actual testing
246 using that new well and two nearby wells, and their data showed much more water capacity than
247 is needed to serve this community and no impact on nearby wells. I told you as well that we heard
248 concerns about traffic, and so we have added those commitments with regard to the turn lanes.
249 These things that we have added were a result of our conversations not only in the community
250 meeting but outside of the community meeting with members of the community, some folks that
251 we met at that meeting and some folks who were brought to our attention through others in the
252 area, and so we did try to be broad and engage with as many folks as we could. We do see this
253 site as providing a number of public benefits, and I think chief among them is that Orange County
254 is growing significantly. People want to move here, and more housing is needed. We saw,
255 between 2010 and 2020, 15,000 new residents moved into Orange County which is an 11 percent
256 increase, and so you can see that there is growth. We think this proposal balances the need for
257 more housing with a desire to maintain that rural appearance and character, and we hope that you
258 will agree.We would ask for your support, and our whole team is available to answer any
259 questions, and Mr. Chair, if appropriate,we'd like to reserve the remainder of our time in case
260 there are other comments that are appropriate.
261
262 Lamar Proctor: Yeah. I have you as, and I think Mr. Stober informed me we'd try to limit these to 30 minutes.
263 You've used 20.
264
265 Beth Trahos: Okay, more than I thought. We tried to be efficient but maybe we weren't as successful as we
266 would have liked to have been but thank you so much for your time and your attention.
267
268 Beth Bronson: We appreciate the consideration. Thank you.
269
270 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. What I'd like to do, if the board is okay with it, is go ahead and move into public
271 comment. I find that I would like to get the input of the public, and any public speakers before we
272 start asking questions, so we can have that input as well. Is there any objection to that? Hearing
273 no objection, Cy, do we have a sign-up sheet?
274
Approved 9.3.25
275 Delores Bailey: Mr. Chair. Just a quick point of that. Are we, then, changing the agenda? And if so,then we
276 probably should have voted on that.
277
278 Beth Bronson: All the comments are directed specifically at the agenda item and not general.
279
280 Cy Stober: The order of cadence of the meeting is at the board's discretion. The agenda just states that we
281 will consider the matter for recommendation to the board. So, there's no agenda amendment
282 necessary.
283
284 Lamar Proctor: Okay. Thank you.
285
286 Beth Trahos: I think our team signed up. I think I'm the end of our team, so we don't need to speak, but unless
287 you would like to hear from us.
288
289 Lamar Proctor: I'm just looking at the sheet. The direction of the sheet is, and I know people have signed up who
290 may not want to speak. But if you wish, it says in the last comment, if you wish to address the
291 board, indicate the agenda item number. So, I'm going to call on those who put the agenda item
292 number. Indicating that they wanted to speak on this agenda item. Is it Laura Streitfield? Come
293 on up.
294
295 Chris Johnston: And for our public comment, if you wouldn't mind speaking into the microphone, it makes
296 transcription a lot easier. And also, there's going to be a timer on there for 3 minutes. I'll start
297 that. You'll just see the little light on there.
298
299 Laura Streitfeld: Okay. Thank you.
300
301 Chris Johnston: Whenever you're ready.
302
303 Laura Streitfeld: I'm Laura Streitfeld. Thank you for hearing my comments tonight. I want to say first quickly that
304 the Statement of Inconsistency on Page 138 of your agenda appears to have an error that should
305 be corrected if you do decide to vote to deny this application. Where it should say that principal's
306 goals and objectives of the proposed development are inconsistent, it says that those items are
307 consistent with the proposal. I wanted to call that to your attention.
308
309 Lamar Proctor: Thank you.
310
311 Laura Streitfeld: Having a long-term plan or Comprehensive Plan has set expectations for property owners and
312 also has set size limits for lots that appear to be sustainable and fitting to the rural community.
313 Doubling the number of permitted lot minimum sizes. Cutting in half, doubling the number of lots,
314 cutting in half for lot size to half acre rather than full-acre lots raises a lot of concerns for
315 surrounding property owners, and I would like to say for the Rigsbee family, I do know that folks
316 I've heard from in the community really do support the family's ability to sell their land and develop
317 it; however,the rezoning is what folks object to, and I would strongly urge you tonight to consider
318 not approving rezoning. Because even if built and meeting standards that are set by the county
319 and the state, this development would still double the amount of lots and double the amount of
320 construction and post construction run off, stormwater issues. Today, I drove here and drove into
321 standing water on my rural road where the road had washed away on the side of the road, and my
322 car almost got stuck and, I can't count the number of flash flood days in the last 2 weeks as well
323 as I'm sure all of you know,folks,who had to evacuate the houses. I do. Lost everything. Folks
324 who washed off the road and passed away. So,we're living in times where were vacillating
325 between drought and flood and to approve this rezoning would be to say we want to have more
326 density in an area that may not be able to handle it. I also believe that some of the numbers that
327 you've seen are not perhaps as useful as they could be. Our concern is that,where you could,
328 where it says that this is a conservation community,the area that's being conserved is largely,
329 there's three waterways,wetlands and other water features that are already buffered and that area
Approved 9.3.25
330 would be conserved regardless largely. So, to call it a Conservation Cluster is a concern. The
331 biggest concerns is that neighbors hear from the developer at the neighborhood meeting that the
332 developer initially thought of fewer lots and were encouraged by planning staff to have the highest
333 density possible. That's what the developers told the neighbors, and we heard this during the
334 Fiddlehead neighborhood meeting as well. This appears inconsistent with the commissioners'
335 priorities. The commissioners have deliberately slowed down the comprehensive planning
336 process, and I would just encourage you all at the time when they're slowing it down to consider
337 whether Conservation Clusters do fit and where they fit, not to approve rezoning. Thank you.
338
339 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. John Griffin?
340
341 Beth Bronson: Do you want to read like two in a row so that the next person knows they're ready? Whoever will
342 be after Griffin.
343
344 Lamar Proctor: Well, I think that's the only two who put the agenda items.
345
346 Beth Bronson: My bad. I'm sorry.
347
348 John Griffin: I'm John Griffin. I live at 546 Everett Lane. I share two property lines with the proposed
349 development. I want to express my concerns about the development as proposed for conditional
350 rezoning in White Cross, particularly it's impacts on water resources and rural character. First, the
351 septic low outs documented in the application raised some red flags. 43 individual systems
352 installed on roughly 61 acres will clearly threaten tree density,which not only disrupts wildlife
353 habitat and the county's natural beauty, but also increases storm water runoff, potentially
354 degrading both soil quality and nearby waterways. Second, I question the developer's reliability
355 when it comes to abiding Orange County's interests. This is a company that Preserve Rural
356 Orange reports to have been sued dozens of times throughout the US for water pollution and
357 negligent construction and business practices. Given that history, it's difficult to trust that they'll
358 prioritize clean water in quality homes in White Cross without persistent county oversight. Third,
359 this development undermines the rural character that defines rural Orange County at White Cross.
360 We can expect increased noise and air pollution from such a concentrated spike in landscaping,
361 traffic, and fenced-in dogs as well as significantly increase light pollution, each of which erodes the
362 quiet, natural environment we all choose to live in and pay high taxes for. Lastly, I'd like to briefly
363 raise a concern with the well impact report regarding the proposed community well. Full
364 disclosure, my wife and chose to participate as one of the two volunteer wells to add data to the
365 report. However,the conclusion of the report that nearby wells won't be affected by a 43-home
366 community well is based on a single 24-hour draw-down test involving only two neighboring wells.
367 1 can't yet support those findings without a much more thorough analysis that considers long-term
368 use, seasonal variation, drought conditions,43-plus sprinkler systems in high summer and the
369 likely increase in demand from future neighboring development. In conclusion, this proposed
370 rezoning and development demands much deeper scrutiny, and zoning conditions that aim to
371 avert obvious conflicts with rural Orange County's water resources, quality of housing, and rural
372 character. Thank you.
373
374 Lamar Proctor: So,those were the individuals who actually indicated the agenda item. Is there anyone else who
375 was on this sign-up sheet who wanted to speak? You can raise your hand. Okay. Hearing none.
376 We will move on to board questions of the applicant. If that's okay with everyone? All right,
377 Delores, do you want to start?
378
379 Delores Bailey: I can. Thank you. So, is the applicant going to come back up?
380
381 Beth Trahos: Yes, ma'am.
382
383 Lauren Honeycutt: We have a little bit more on our side from Planning. Sorry.This one always gets lost.
384
Approved 9.3.25
385 Lamar Proctor: Oh, sorry.
386
387 Lauren Honeycutt: Just before we run into questions because it may help get ahead of some. Notices were mailed to
388 property owners within 1,000 feet of the parcel on July 23rd, two weeks before today's meeting, as
389 well as signs were posted on the subject property and the application information was posted on
390 our Active Development Page available on our website. We did complete staff analysis and
391 determined that the application was complete and in accordance with requirements of the UDO.
392 We looked through the Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance and in that section of
393 what's required there as well as specifically for Conditional Districts, and our specific use
394 standards that relate to Major Subdivision Conditional Districts. We included how consideration
395 thinking about how the request relates to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and we
396 determined that it is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan,Appendix F, the use that's
397 requested for the Residential-Conditional District is found in the consistent land-use
398 classifications. The applicant also provided an Environmental Impact Assessment, and staff
399 reviewed and determined that there are no significant environmental impacts expected from this
400 project based on existing conditions.This is where we are at tonight. We are requesting the
401 Planning Board hear from the applicant, staff, and public, review and discuss analysis and the
402 staff recommendation, and then recommend approval or denial to the Board of County
403 Commissioners. Our recommendation as staff is that you receive the rezoning application,
404 deliberate on the proposal as desired, consider the Planning Director's recommendation, which is
405 to make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency or Inconsistency, and
406 my apologies for the error,that one is all on me, and review the proposed ordinance and make a
407 recommendation in time for the October 7th BOCC meeting. And so, I'll turn it back to you for
408 your questions.
409
410 Lamar Proctor: All right. Thank you.
411
412 Delores Bailey: Yes, good evening. Let me just say that we've received several letters in opposition to this, so I'm
413 trying to get to the bottom of that. Can you tell me from the well was drilled? You mentioned the
414 well that's a thousand feet down. When was that drilled?
415
416 Beth Trahos: Let me ask. November.
417
418 Delores Bailey: So, is this already started? Or done? Has this project already started, and we're just agreeing to
419 it?
420
421 Beth Trahos: No. The well was dug to get an understanding of the capacity, and having the well dug also
422 allowed for the additional testing that was done and analysis based on comments received from
423 the community, so, it was to understand what is achievable here.
424
425 Delores Bailey: It just seemed per the letters that it felt like y'all had already started on this, and this is going to
426 happen regardless.
427
428 Beth Trahos: No, ma'am. We, of course, cannot do that unless the county allows us to. But we wanted to be
429 sure if the county would allow us to that we would have capacity necessary. And drilling a well is
430 a significant investment.
431
432 Delores Bailey: And is the mall kiosk already up?
433
434 Beth Trahos: No, ma'am.
435
436 Delores Bailey: Okay, that's planned. A couple things about the well. Somebody said that you didn't feel like it
437 would have an impact on the current wells. So, I'm concerned about that. If you're putting a well
438 there, and each one of the 43 homes will be attached to that single well. The one that the
Approved 9.3.25
439 community well. You don't think that's going to tap into the natural source that the residents who
440 already live there are tapped into as well?
441
442 Beth Trahos: Well,that was a question that was raised. And so,we turned to experts because to do some
443 research and to coordinate with our neighbors and to do some research to see what happened.
444 And I'm going to ask Ward, thank you, to come forward, and he is the gentleman that did this
445 work, and his report is in your packet. And he can provide more details now.
446
447 Delores Bailey: Before we do it,what I just want to say. I'm familiar with communities that are on wells and the
448 stream that they tap into, so that's what my question is going to be about. What this community
449 well is tapping into that's different than what everyone else is using now.
450
451 Ward Marotti: We collected a couple weeks of ambient data of the three wells,the proposed community well,
452 and the two adjacent single-use wells. One of which was the gentleman's that just spoke. The
453 other of which was the Rigsbee's existing single use well. We collected a couple weeks of
454 ambient data prior to the draw down of our proposed community well.
455
456 Chris Johnston: I apologize, could you define ambient in this situation?
457
458 Ward Marotti: I was just about to.
459
460 Chris Johnston: Wonderful. Thank you.
461
462 Ward Marotti: Ambient data, meaning with no impact or no effects, no withdrawals from us. In other words,the
463 exiting conditions. Document existing conditions with no impact from our use or testing. After a
464 couple weeks of ambient data were collected,we then did a draw down, both all the way down to
465 the 660-something feet of the proposed pump depth of the proposed community well as well as a
466 steady state 2-hour draw down,which the yield of which was 90 gallons per minute. Steady state
467 draw down means that the level of water in the well does not change. The volume of water that
468 comes into the well equals the volume of water that's being pumped out. The surface elevation
469 within the well doesn't change. So,we did a steady-state test as well as a full draw down test, and
470 there were no impacts to the adjacent wells as documented by the surface levels that we were
471 monitoring, both a deep well, which was the Rigsbee's well at approximately 500, 1 think it was
472 505,was the depth of their pump, and based on the landowner that just spoke,we didn't have any
473 actual permit data for his well, but based on the information he provided, it was approximately the
474 well and/or pump is approximately 75 feet deep, so we did a shallow well and a deep well. That is
475 the direct results, and looking at the direct results before, during, and then 10 days or 2 weeks
476 after that draw down was done, no impacts were observed in those adjacent well levels. That was
477 the direct data, and the analysis of the direct data, a hydro geologist on my team is putting those
478 data into a hydro geologic model that is established by the state of North Carolina to extrapolate
479 and document other potential impacts, but again, based on the initial results of just the raw data
480 and before, during, and after, and no documentable impacts to those levels in both the shallow
481 well and the deep well, adjacent wells, it's very unlikely that the result of that modeling will have a
482 different outcome, but we'll see what that outcome is when the modeling's completed. That's
483 underway now.
484
485 Delores Bailey: So,what source is the well tapping into?
486
487 Ward Marotti: Groundwater.
488
489 Delores Bailey: And what are the other residents tapping into?
490
491 Ward Marotti: Likely different aquifers. Because the Rigsbee well is at, again, I think it's 505 feet.
492
493 Delores Bailey: Right.
Approved 9.3.25
494
495 Ward Marotti: It could be.
496
497 Delores Bailey: So,you didn't have to go down 1,000 feet before you reached this level?
498
499 Ward Marotti: No, I didn't. No.
500
501 Delores Bailey: Okay.
502
503 Ward Marotti: There's different seams of water in the cross section as you drill down.
504
505 Delores Bailey: I'm from a well community so I know what you're talking about, okay?
506
507 Ward Marotti: Okay. So,there is high potential for disparate sources of ground water and different ones to be
508 tapped into for different wells, not only at different depths, but in different X,Y locations as well.
509 You may have the same well depth, but if the aquifer is like this and goes like that,you may be at
510 the same depth but not in the same aquifer even. And so that was the intent of having the direct
511 monitoring of adjacent wells was to document what, if any, impacts to those adjacent wells
512 occurred as a result of draw down of the proposed well.And like I said that's in your packet. I don't
513 know if it's in an appendix or what, but the graphs are in what was submitted to you all, and you
514 can see both the ambient data before we did anything, and then we collected data again for a
515 week or 10 days prior to doing any pump down. Then during the pump down, and then another
516 10 to 14 days post draw down. And if there was going to be any, based on the hydrologic, or the
517 geologic research that we did in the area, actually drilled two wells for this site, one of which came
518 up with no water. Didn't hit an aquifer, but there was geologic data associated with that, and
519 based on that, it's likely that these are not even touching the same water tables, or the same
520 aquifers, rather.
521
522 Delores Bailey: Okay. I've got others, but I'll let it pass. I'll wait and go through.
523
524 Beth Bronson: I have a related question to the well if you don't mind just staying up there. Yeah, so, can you
525 explain that like, anomalous drop is at the beginning of the ambient
526
527 Ward Marotti: Sure.
528
529 Beth Bronson: Graph 1 of the ambient well data.
530
531 Ward Marotti: Right.
532
533 Beth Bronson: It experiences a dramatic drop.
534
535 Ward Marotti: No. No idea.
536
537 Beth Bronson: Do you have a general explanation for how that happens,why that happens?
538
539 Ward Marotti: It could be anything.
540
541 Beth Bronson: Does that look normal?
542
543 Ward Marotti: It has nothing to with anything that we are associated with. Which is why you collect the ambient
544 data in the first place to document what conditions are. You'll also see in that same graph for the
545 Rigsbee's well, a pretty, relative to the other adjacent well, a pretty large variance.A consistent
546 variance. It drops up and down.
547
548 Beth Bronson: I am specifically referring to here.
Approved 9.3.25
549
550 Ward Marotti: I'm just pointing out that not only is there that big drop, but you can also notice in that,just purely
551 speculative answer to that is either on-site use for irrigation or an adjacent user's use because you
552 can see in that little series that has the substantive vertical drop,there's also very rapid return.
553
554 Beth Bronson: Absolutely.
555
556 Ward Marotti: And so, it's going down, and then filling back up. And again, I can speculate about what potential
557 causes and sources are, but it has nothing to do with anything.
558
559 Beth Bronson: Completely speculative. I just didn't know as a professional.
560
561 Ward Marotti: Yeah.That's what sprang to mind to me when I saw that was an adjacent user or use for irrigation.
562 The hose was cut on and off and that is to some degree what explained that rapid rise and then
563 again, a rapid drop in the water surface elevation.
564
565 Beth Bronson: Okay.
566
567 Ward Marotti: Good. No, that's a great question. Absolutely.
568
569 Beth Bronson: Trying to understand that from the hydrologist or hydrologist specialist,what would account for
570 some certain randomness. See here it drops, or not. And then there, I wanted to know how many,
571 what is it, gallons per minute? It was?
572
573 Ward Marotti: The steady state was 90 gallons per minute.
574
575 Beth Bronson: 90. That's right.
576
577 Ward Marotti: The proposed use is a maximum. The state requirement is .57 gallons per user, and so the
578 steady state is almost quadruple the state minimum.
579
580 Beth Bronson: No, as a local, I am very aware of the triple A quality of the water around here.
581
582 Ward Marotti: So,the steady state is well above what the maximum use per the state threshold is.
583
584 Beth Bronson: Certainly. And then in the actual 24-hour testing,was there any like notation or asterisk about the
585 100-year flood that was experienced 2 weeks before? Does that have any impact? In your
586 professional opinion.
587
588 Ward Marotti: It would have similar impacts on all the wells, and the point was to document whether there were
589 not the impacts of precipitation events that would be, to some degree, consistent between sample
590 sites, but to some degree it wouldn't be because we're talking about 600 feet down and 70 feet
591 down.
592
593 Beth Bronson: Certainly. In those 2 weeks,yeah.
594
595 Ward Marotti: Supplies that are dependent more on direct surface water infiltration are going to have a much
596 more prompt impact based on precipitation events then ones that are 600 feet through rock.
597
598 Beth Bronson: And just to translate for the generic audience members that over those 2 weeks,there's no
599 chance that the water that came down will have an effect on what's 600 feet below.
600
601 Ward Marotti: Oh, I wouldn't say no chance. Unlikely.
602
603 Beth Bronson: Unlikely chance. Okay. Thank you very much.
Approved 9.3.25
604
605 Lamar Proctor: Anyone else?
606
607 Meg Millard: My question is kind of like Beth's. It just seems like when you were testing the wells, it was when
608 we had the most rainfall that we have had in forever. So,the wettest possible time,which is not
609 the time you worry about your well going dry or your neighbor's well going dry. And I have lived
610 not far from there, and definitely,there are some well problems.
611
612 Chris Johnston: You mentioned that this was drilled in November, and when did you start the ambient data
613 collection?
614
615 Ward Marotti: June. Specifically started after concerns were raised following the public meeting.
616
617 Chris Johnston: Gotcha. Okay.
618
619 Meg Millard: But the draw downs on the Griffin well and the Rigsbee well happened in July.
620
621 Ward Marotti: Happened in July. That's correct.
622
623 Meg Millard: When we had the most rain of forever.
624
625 Ward Marotti: It wasn't specifically tied to that precipitation event. That was not intentional.
626
627 Meg Millard: No, I'm not proposing that you did that on purpose. It just happens to coincide, and have you
628 considered doing any further testing because of one brief testing when there's a huge water
629 impact on the community is.
630
631 Beth Trahos: Can I point one thing. The purpose of the testing was not so much the quantity of water, although
632 the testing showed significantly more than is required, but people were asking what is the impact
633 on my well?
634
635 Ward Marotti: Rough draw down on adjacent well. Exactly.
636
637 Beth Trahos: It doesn't matter whether there's a lot of rain or a little, right?
638
639 Ward Marotti: Well,the fact that there was no documentation of any noticeable draw down coalesced to the
640 draw down timing, I would say that's correct.
641
642 Beth Trahos: And the other thing I would say is that 1, I'll ask you,Ward, and I, myself, I have never been
643 involved in a case where we actually did well testing. In my experience in almost 30 years
644 somehow as a land use lawyer, I've never seen anybody test wells before.
645
646 Ward Marotti: It's typically speculative modeling. Not based on real data.
647
648 Beth Trahos: Right. So,the idea that there is data available is unusual as well.
649
650 Beth Bronson: Thank you for clarifying.
651
652 Lamar Proctor: I was going to generally try and move down, so we don't get in a free for all, but if a planning
653 board member is asking a question, and you have a follow up that's directly related to what they're
654 asking,then I think that that's appropriate. Otherwise, I would just everybody to reserve your
655 questions for your turn. Did you have something related to wells?
656
657 Statler Gilfillen: I'm going to get to septic.
658
Approved 9.3.25
659 Lamar Proctor: Okay. We'll get to that as a different issue. All right. I was going to move down to Charity. Is that
660 okay Beth?
661
662 Beth Trahos: Yes.
663
664 Lamar Proctor: Okay.
665
666 Charity Kirk: On Page 121, the fire and life safety was commenting that two separate and approved apparatus
667 access roads shall be provided when the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 with the exception
668 of all dwelling units are equipped throughout and with approved automatic sprinkler systems, and
669 the number of dwellings on a single-fire apparatus access roads shall not be increased unless fire
670 apparatus access roads will connect with future developments as determined by the fire code
671 official. Like, there's more than 30. But I didn't quite understand what this meant for this
672 development.
673
674 Donna Crowder: I'm Donna Crowder, Director of Entitlements working on this project. Thank you for letting me talk.
675 The Fire Marshall that made that comment,that was in the first round. And we responded to that
676 and there was new regulation out there through the state of North Carolina, and I'm glad to
677 provide that information to you, the general statue, but you do not have to have two access roads
678 unless you have more than 100 single-family dwellings and that is the state of North Carolina.The
679 Fire Marshall at one time made that comment, but that was back in the very beginning, and we
680 sent him the regulations, and he said, oh, yeah, you're right. So, he agreed with the regulations
681 that was provided, but I would be glad to provide you with that general statute. I think we can pull
682 it up here tonight. If you give us a moment, we can find that statute.
683
684 Cy Stober: If I could provide context, that was the former interim Fire Marshal. We have a new Fire Marshal.
685 He was quoting from what he thought was the current version of Appendix D of the State Fire
686 Code, and Donna is correct that the applicant is correct. That reference was out of date, and the
687 Fire Code was changed to increase that from 30 to 100 dwellings by the State.
688
689 Charity Kirk: Thank you. On Page 126,just to go over the minor details. From the Department of Natural and
690 Cultural Resources, it's said there are documents attached, and I didn't see anything from the
691 Department of Natural and Cultural Resources in my document. I was wondering what they said.
692
693 Lauren Honeycutt: All of the documents that we receive from the State Clearinghouse,which is where these different
694 external agencies comment, are only available through the Permit Portal,which is indicated in
695 your abstract. You have to, unfortunately, go through the link in order to view the full documents
696 just because of the length of the documents.
697
698 Charity Kirk: So, I need to go to the PDF, not this printout that was sent to me in the mail?
699
700 Lauren Honeycutt: Correct.
701
702 Charity Kirk: Okay. I will take a look at that. Where did it say that? I did read lots of stuff.
703
704 Lauren Honeycutt: It can be a little bit tricky, but the hyperlinks are available in the abstract and the staff report.
705
706 Charity Kirk: Okay. I will look out for that from now on. Thank you.
707
708 Lauren Honeycutt: Yeah. Apologies. It can be a little confusing.
709
710 Charity Kirk: It's okay. That's why I asked. If this maintained an R1 status, how many lots would be allowed on
711 this property with the stream and wetlands? Because they're 1-acre lots for R1, but you have a lot
712 of half-acre lots for this rezoning. So,what is the tradeoff between the two?
713
Approved 9.3.25
714 Beth Trahos: So,that's an engineering design question. Roughly, one unit to the acre is the R1 zoning district.
715 This is 61 acres.
716
717 Charity Kirk: Yeah, but some of that land is probably not, you can't build on it anyway because of the creek and
718 the flood zone.
719
720 Beth Trahos: That's true. However,that area could be included in lots. So,the benefit of the conservation is
721 you could preserve large areas of open space as a group as compared to if you individually lot,
722 these things will be included as a part of individual lots, and oftentimes folks just consider that
723 more of their backyard, and I'm familiar with some situations where there has been sort of more
724 disturbance of those areas than there should have been because folks just thought it was their
725 backyard. This allows you to preserve, the swaths of property together. The exact number of units
726 that could be permitted,you could bring in probably five engineers, and they'd come up with
727 different numbers. It's an art to lay them out, and I don't specifically know how many.
728
729 Donna Crowder: I can tell you that in the very beginning we were contemplating it as doing acre lots and we came
730 up with 50 units, is what we came up with. Because we could cross the creek into the back, and
731 we could put five or six lots back there, and we had a total of 50. We met with the planning
732 department. They indicated that Orange County would like to see smaller lots with more open
733 space. So, that is why we went with the plan that we did and why we went with smaller lots, and 1
734 would say to best point out, if the land is on larger lots, they own privately, those people can do
735 whatever they want. They can knock down trees. They can put up fences and this and that,
736 which I know you're probably very aware about conservation subdivisions, but if it's preserved,
737 you have more land that's going to be preserved. And that whole area in the back is perfect for
738 wildlife and that is developable, and I will tell you that the land was suitable. All over the whole
739 subdivision. Everywhere that wasn't in wetlands had good dirt that we could have put probably
740 more houses. We chose to go with this conservation subdivision in order to preserve it. So,that's
741 just to let you know. We couldn't go over 50 lots because of the community well.
742
743 Charity Kirk: What are you expecting the home sizes to be? You say four bedrooms, but like what do you think
744 the footprint of each. Because I know there's lots of septic everywhere, but it didn't have an
745 estimate for the footprint.
746
747 Donna Crowder: And there are those examples though that do show the footprint.
748
749 Charity Kirk: Yeah. But it didn't have dimensions.
750
751 Beth Trahos: Yeah, it didn't have dimensions. So,just to be kind of put this record straight. We're a developer.
752 We're not a builder, so we don't go vertical. And we have not picked a builder yet. We have
753 several different builders that are interested in it. But we are just a developer. Full disclosure,we
754 are 65 percent owned by DL Horton, but we are not obligated to sell these lots to DL Horton, and
755 its quite honestly kind of out of their wheelhouse. I don't know that they would build on these
756 anyway. I would expect that it would be a minimum of 2,500 to 3,000 square feet, probably more.
757
758 Charity Kirk: For the footprint?
759
760 Donna Crowder: No,for the total house size, but we don't know what the footprint's going to be because we're just
761 the developer, and we don't know who's going to buy it and what houses they're going to put.
762
763 Charity Kirk: Okay.
764
765 Donna Crowder: David, do you have the dimensions that you used for that? David Barcal, come on.
766
767 David Barcal: The house boxes that I took from,we had about four different ones shared with us. We took the
768 largest one. We had to make the most conservative approach when we're laying these out, and
Approved 9.3.25
769 the lots we picked were the weird, funky-shaped lots where you would have the most difficult
770 trouble in some of them. And the few spots that there wasn't suitable soil, you'll see one where it
771 was going through, so we chose those lots. I don't have the square footage on the top of my
772 head.
773
774 Donna Crowder: But those are just examples anyway, right?
775
776 David Barcal: Yeah.
777
778 Charity Kirk: And so,with the conservation subdivision,why did you choose to do half-acre lots rather than, 1
779 mean, it makes more financial sense, but is there any other rationality to do smaller lots when it's
780 becoming a sort of a question for the community of not matching the existing area.
781
782 Beth Trahos: As a land planner, my understanding of the goal of the conservation was to have the smaller lots,
783 and the smaller the better, so that more area could be preserved in that open space. And so, 1
784 think the balance was,what is a reasonable lot that can accommodate the individual septic but still
785 allow for the broader area to be preserved. So, this was where we came down.
786
787 Charity Kirk: And have you considered offering any of these units or having any of these units be low-income
788 housing? Or like having a percentage be allotted to low-income housing?
789
790 Beth Trahos: Our expectation is that this will be a market rate project and given the development costs in the
791 area,that's our expectation moving forward, so, no.
792
793 Charity Kirk: Okay. I think I'm done for now.
794
795 Chris Johnston: Okay. I have no questions. Thank you.
796
797 Lamar Proctor: So, good evening. So, on Page 121, under general under No. 3. It says R-CD,which is a
798 residential conditional district. It includes a note for lots outside of a watershed protection overlay
799 district. The minimum usable lot are for lots that utilize ground absorption wastewater systems.
800 So that's septic, right?
801
802 Donna Crowder: I'm sorry. I'm not caught up with you. 121.
803
804 Lamar Proctor: Page 121. Planning section under the bottom.
805
806 Donna Crowder: Okay, yes.
807
808 Lamar Proctor: So, it's the minimum usable lot area for lots that utilize ground absorption wastewater system shall
809 be 30,000 square feet for parcels between 40,000 square feet and 1.99 acres in size. And then it
810 says consider the inclusion of the condition addressing that the proposed lot size is deviating from
811 the minimum and that the parcels will include suitable septic. I'm reading that right? That there's
812 a concern. And I appreciate the smaller lot sizes. I think that's the right direction. To concentrate
813 human housing and give more room to the environment. But how is septic going to work?Am 1
814 reading that right? That there's a concern that the lot size is for septic get problematic.
815
816 Beth Trahos: And so,there again,we also conducted the experts, and David Barcal is our septic expert, and he
817 can talk to you about how that would work.
818
819 David Barcal: Yeah, we've done a preliminary soils analysis on the site that I talked about by a licensed soil
820 scientist as is mentioned earlier. Pretty much the whole development site was rated for
821 conventional use which is the highest quality soil you're going to find in this area. And we did
822 provide a couple of those. We did select those four lots that were going to be more problematic or
823 the tougher ones to simulate what we could fit in there and what would work as far as a four-
Approved 9.3.25
824 bedroom count, and trying to make sure it fits within what are the requirements of Orange
825 County's environmental health department and assuming a lower LTAR value. Which is what we
826 call for the loading rate, so we assume, I believe, a .25,which is on the low end of a conventional
827 soil. And then we documented in there what was the type of systems we were assuming. We're
828 assuming 3-foot trench systems. You can use gravel trench. You can use innovative systems like
829 easy-flow or infiltrator or TNJ panel,which are panel systems. So,we are able to fit on all four of
830 those four-bedroom lots.
831
832 Lamar Proctor: Okay.
833
834 Cy Stober: Mr. Chair?
835
836 Lamar Proctor: Yes.
837
838 Cy Stober: If I may? Just a reminder for the public as well as the board. Regardless of whether the proposal
839 tonight or application tonight is recommended for approval or denial and regardless of whether it
840 ultimately is approved or denied by the Board of Commissioners, that is no assurance of
841 Environmental Health permitting,which is a separate process, so all of the septic systems would
842 have to be permitted by the county and will be at the discretion of the Environmental Health
843 Department.
844
845 Lamar Proctor: That will that be permitted per lot, right?
846
847 Cy Stober: Correct.
848
849 Lamar Proctor: So, it could end up that there are only 40 lots or.
850
851 Statler Gilfillen: Or 20.
852
853 David Barcal: Yeah. And when you get to a detailed soil analysis, and you actually get boots on the ground and
854 lay out the actual lines with the house boxes that are proposed.
855
856 Chris Johnston: But then at that point, it would be potentially a change in the conditional use, and if any changes
857 had to occur,they'd have to come back to submitting a new plan? Or are there variances that are
858 allowed if this site doesn't perc right or whatever the case may be.
859
860 Cy Stober: There are minor modifications permitted to me as the director to make administrative levee. They
861 largely are shifting locations of commitments like their mail kiosk or some of their amenities. We
862 can modify some of the lot dimensions, provided they don't totally change the layout. But if they're
863 not able to fulfill the lot and they fall short of the lot count,that is really a more of a subdivision
864 matter at that point, and they have the approval for up to, in this case,40 lots. But if you can't
865 fulfill that then that would be where they're at. The lots that they're able to permit.
866
867 Chris Johnston: So, their options would be to only have the number of lots that they could permit based on the
868 septic systems, or if they wanted to readjust it in such a way that it exceeds your variance
869 allowance, they'd have to then submit again for.
870
871 Cy Stober: Yeah, if it fundamentally alters the character and the layout and design of the subdivision,the
872 cluster subdivision in this case,they would have to go back through the hearing process.
873
874 Lamar Proctor: And then I didn't see anything about lighting conditions. I know that one of the important things in
875 White Cross and in rural Orange County is light pollution, so you're going to have 40-plus potential
876 homes. Are there any ideas or conditions that were discussed as to lighting to minimize light
877 pollution?
878
Approved 9.3.25
879 Beth Trahos: We have not discussed any specific ideas, but if that's a concern,we certainly could do that. Are
880 you concerned about the houses which those are interior as well, so there's some separation both
881 from the road and the adjacent neighbors,which would ameliorate any sort of lighting but also
882 could look to address in some other fashion if there was a concern by the group.
883
884 Lamar Proctor: Well, I think we've had in the past, and maybe staff can help me out on here. There have been
885 projects where there were certain like, all the external lights will be down. Pointed down.
886 Nothing's going up. There are certain angles that they won't be out like this they'll be pointed
887 down.
888
889 Beth Trahos: Yeah. I'm familiar with those in the context of the amenities, but I don't typically see those with
890 regard to homes but that's not to say that we couldn't achieve that if it was a concern.
891
892 Chris Johnston: And in some level,that's Duke Energy putting in their poles or doing whatever the case may be.
893 Is that accurate?
894
895 Cy Stober: We do have lighting standards. They are effectively cut-off lighting. I'm pulling up the standard in
896 Article 6 right now. They generally do not apply to the actual residences themselves because we
897 are restricted by state law to not regulate the architecture of single-family residences. And that is
898 state law. But in terms of street lighting, that would need to comply with our ordinance. If you
899 could just give me a moment.
900
901 Lamar Proctor: And while you're looking, I was just thinking of the mail kiosk and the public areas. Especially
902 because I think the mail kiosk at the front,where there's going to be a proposed bus stop, I would
903 imagine residents are not going to look favorably on this big, bright beacon.
904
905 Beth Trahos: We do have some language in that condition about recessed lighting within the mail kiosk.
906
907 Lamar Proctor: And where is that in the conditions?
908
909 Beth Trahos: That's Condition 7. It says in the second sentence,the mail kiosk shall incorporate a weather
910 covering with recessed lighting for a portion of the site and shall include at least two benches and
911 one trash can.
912
913 Cy Stober: Section 6.11 of the LIDO provides lighting standards, and we require at construction with
914 construction drawings of full lighting plan at the photo metric data and foot candle data, and our
915 standards for, again, this is all outdoor lighting, are that they must be .5-foot candles. The
916 maximum light level permitted along common property lines shall be .25-foot candles that adjoin
917 any residential zone property line. So, that's exterior to this development that would include the
918 kiosk and that would include the shelter, and/or.5-foot candles at any adjoining property line with
919 a non-residential land use. And foot candle essentially, it's the light given off by a candle,
920 effectively for reference's sake. A very weak flashlight, a 1980s flashlight, not one that we have
921 today. And of course, wall-pack features. Wall packs are the lights that you see, usually on the
922 sides of industrial or like on a loading dock or for a non-residential use. Those have to be cut off
923 as well, and they must be. This is a standard. All lights shall be shielded in such as a way as to
924 direct light toward the earth's surface and away from reflective surfaces unless otherwise
925 exempted.And flood lights are generally not permitted unless they can really reassure us that
926 they're not going to bleed over into adjoining property lines.
927
928 Lamar Proctor: And so that would cover the kiosk and the like.
929
930 Cy Stober: Yeah. And there are specific subdivision standards within Section 6.11.6. That are if any
931 subdivision, I'm just quoting here, if any subdivision proposes streetlights or other common or
932 public area outdoor lighting,the final plats, so that's the subdivision plats, not the site plan that
933 you're reviewing today, shall contain the statement certifying that the applicable provisions of the
Approved 9.3.25
934 outdoor lighting standards as contained in this section of the UDO shall be adhered to, and again
935 that's .25-foot candles at the property line. And the required lighting plan, which is a full
936 photometric plan, and associated documents shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
937 Department prior to installation. Then it must be reviewed by the staff and approved by the staff
938 for conformance with the Ordinance.
939
940 Lamar Proctor: Okay, thank you. And was there any discussion of solar? Is it possible to utilize solar on any of
941 the public buildings?
942
943 Beth Trahos: We didn't have any discussion about that. It's certainly something that we can discuss, but it
944 would be atypical in the residential context in my experience.
945
946 Lamar Proctor: Yeah, and I guess the only buildings that are in the site plan that are not residences are the mail
947 kiosk and then the common area.
948
949 Beth Trahos: Yes. And my expectation for that common gathering area is not that it would not have electricity.
950
951 Lamar Proctor: Okay. I got it. And then your application said that there were no significant trees for preservation.
952 Am I remembering that correct? I think on page,was it 84? Does have a tree symbol legend and
953 does indicate trees. I didn't know if those are ones that you intend to preserve. Because I noticed
954 there,to the west,there are two other housing subdivision like properties, and they're pretty well
955 wooded, so I would imagine that the people living in this area would like to preserve as much tree
956 cover as possible, so I didn't know what your plan was for that.
957
958 Nicole Steele: Nicole Steele first of all. You are correct that there is not as many trees on the site, and part of
959 that's due to the history of the site and with the forestry program. The 40-some off years ago,the
960 family volunteered the use the property for, so most of the significant trees on site were already
961 harvested or used for other purposes. It would be the goal to preserve what we can and the
962 survey document's what's there. Minimally disturb the land and then work around the septic and
963 the house footprint for each lot.
964
965 Lamar Proctor: So, looking on that Page 84, the trees in the preserved areas,they would remain, right?The
966 woods that are going to be open.
967
968 Donna Crowder: Correct. And you can see they're clustered in the existing buffers. around the stream. Those are
969 more significant, so obviously, the forestry department did not take those down.
970
971 Lamar Proctor: Okay. All right.Then one last question on the turn lanes, is that going to happen, or is that subject
972 to DOT approval?
973
974 Beth Trahos: That is subject to NCDOT's approval as their road. None of us can do anything without their
975 permission. But we do have our traffic engineer here.
976
977 Lamar Proctor: And I think that was proposing a right-turn lane coming out going towards east. Towards Chapel
978 Hill, and then a left turn lane in the center. Is that correct?
979
980 Josh Reinke: Correct. Josh Reinke,with Bolton and Menk. Essentially, the reason we have to put in that
981 working is we have to get a driveway permit from DOT, and DOT is going to say,this is our road.
982 1 find it highly unlikely that they would say, hey, if you're willing to put in turn lanes,we don't want
983 that. They didn't require them, but if we're going to offer them up, they'd probably say, incorporate
984 that into the design, and they'll want the left-turn lane,which would be sort of in the center of the
985 road, and then yes,the right-turn lane going into the site. Both turn lanes would be on NC-54 by
986 the access.
987
988 Lamar Proctor: And that's the proposed condition, I believe? Correct?
Approved 9.3.25
989
990 Beth Trahos: It's a condition. Yes, sir.
991
992 Josh Reinke: Correct.
993
994 Lamar Proctor: If it's approved, then you're going to build them.
995
996 Beth Trahos: Well,with DOT approval.
997
998 Lamar Proctor: If DOT approves it.
999
1000 Josh Reinke: That's right.
1001
1002 Lamar Proctor: That's what I meant.
1003
1004 Josh Reinke: Yes.
1005
1006 Delores Bailey: So,you guys thinking that that's going to abate the fears of the current residents that there's
1007 already a problem with that left turn, and you're thinking that's going to fix it?
1008
1009 Josh Reinke: The purpose of this is to say,there is no capacity issues. We just got a backstory, as nothing was
1010 required to be done by DOT or county. We did a traffic study anyways. We even ran analysis, so
1011 it's not even saying it's a low-trip generator. It's below the threshold. We ran analysis to see how
1012 that would operate. Then nothing was required by DOT. Once I seal it and submit it to them,they
1013 have to review it. They said,we're not requiring any turn lanes. Essentially, this will get traffic
1014 safely out of that through movement to allow them to turn in. So,the purpose of a traffic study is
1015 to mitigate any traffic impacts this development would have.
1016
1017 Delores Bailey: Yeah. And I'm just concerned about what the neighbors feel like. Do they feel like this is
1018 absolutely going to satisfy the problems that they think they're having already?
1019
1020 Josh Reinke: I won't speak on behalf of how the neighbors feel, but yeah, go ahead.
1021
1022 Beth Trahos: Yeah. I won't speak on that either, but I will say that these turn lanes were specifically requested
1023 in a letter from the fire chief and so that's why we've added the condition above and beyond the
1024 requirements not only of your code but of what NCDOT would require. To go above and beyond to
1025 provide things that we have heard from the community that they would like to see.
1026
1027 Delores Bailey: Okay. And I'm just speaking from a comment that was sent to us. That there were some
1028 concerns about a left turn from this.
1029
1030 Beth Trahos: Yes, ma'am.
1031
1032 Lamar Proctor: Okay. All right. Thank you.
1033
1034 Statler Gilfillen: Both the landscaping and septic system. I'm an architect, and I've dealt with a lot of septic
1035 systems. They've controlled what we can do on many sites. So, I'm a little bit concerned. You
1036 said that four of the sites have been tested already. You've done the peres on them?
1037
1038 David Barcal: No, so there's been a preliminary analysis done on the whole site.
1039
1040 Statler Gilfillen: But no formal peres.
1041
Approved 9.3.25
1042 David Barcal: I don't believe you would with the soil classification as conventional, I don't think you'd have to do
1043 like an actual perc test. It'd just be more of a bore-hold test. But no,we have not put formal full
1044 reports ready for submittal for each individual lot. No.
1045
1046 Statler Gilfillen: What happens? Those four sites were adjacent to each other?
1047
1048 David Barcal: No,they were all over. They were scattered. I can't remember exactly where they were on the
1049 site, but they weren't all adjacent to each other, no.
1050
1051 Statler Gilfillen: Okay. What I'm looking at, and it's not trying to be critical here. Maybe this will be helpful. You're
1052 working with sites that are minimum size with the septic system on it. Basically,you can't plant
1053 trees on top of a septic system. Is my experience. You're in Orange County. Now,that affects
1054 the landscaping. I'm hearing throughout how you want to put trees and whatever. I'm assuming
1055 that the homeowner's organization will have rules to control where and how you can landscape
1056 and particularly with the septic systems on each site, so they don't conflict with each other. Am 1
1057 right? It may not have been thought of,well I'm raising it. This can really make a mess of any
1058 development.
1059
1060 David Barcal: The septic permit itself would be the determination, like,you cannot by rule,you can't put certain
1061 structures, objects within the septic field. So,the septic permit itself would be kind of the
1062 regulating factor you're talking about.
1063
1064 Delores Bailey: But I think he's speaking to the fact that if you've got to have a septic system, then you're not
1065 going to be able to have trees on your lot the way you're anticipating.
1066
1067 Statler Gilfillen: Thank you.
1068
1069 David Barcal: Well, I believe in the landscaping that we're talking about with the project is all done within the
1070 open space and the public right-of-way area. Not necessarily the homeowner's lot, right?
1071
1072 Statler Gilfillen: So,typical homeowners. 5 years go by, they've moved in.They've got a backyard area. They
1073 want to put a couple trees and bushes in to screen against their neighbors. But that may very well
1074 be right on top of the septic system and not allowed.
1075
1076 David Barcal: Well, so septic systems we have a natural 10-foot setback we have to be from all property lines.
1077 So, if you're talking about putting bush and shrubbery along that 10-foot setback,there's no issue.
1078 We actually,from a septic perspective,we like trees because they do help absorb. And, you
1079 know,what you do find sometimes is if you do have a mature tree, and a homeowner cuts it down
1080 with a septic system that's been in there,typically, a lot of times,you see that the septic system
1081 starts to fail because that tree was acting as a natural absorbent.We're putting in an initial system,
1082 and then you have a dedicated repair system. So, the repair system is just a reserve. It's not
1083 built, and you don't have to do any clearing or anything in that area.
1084
1085 Statler Gilfillen: So,the real question focused with 40-something units. If you finally get all your approvals, and
1086 you start to build some of them, and then you got to come in and finally do those tests. The septic
1087 system does not work on a quarter of your lots,what do you do? Financially,that's a disaster.
1088
1089 David Barcal: Yes, which is why we did the preliminary soils analysis from the licensed soil scientist that.
1090
1091 Statler Gilfillen: That's 10 percent of the lots. Four of them would represent about 10 percent of your lots. What if
1092 you find that there are other adjacent areas that don't work?
1093
1094 Beth Trahos: The four layouts were to show on how the septic system and repair field and other improvements
1095 could fit on four of the more difficult lots. That was not the soil that was analyzed. The soil
1096 analysis was done for the full property.
Approved 9.3.25
1097
1098 David Barcal: Yeah. For the full property and it was pretty consistent. It was consistent throughout the whole
1099 property other than some small pieces. But the majority, I would say the vast majority of all these
1100 lots, have a 100 percent conventional soil, suitable soil from the preliminary soils, and like you
1101 said,when we get into detailed analysis when the soil scientist does his full analysis on each
1102 individual lot,we lay out,we flag each line. It's his stamp. It's also my stamp that we have to put
1103 on this, so it's our livelihoods, and if it doesn't work,we're not putting our stamp on that.
1104
1105 Delores Bailey: But you haven't done a perc test on any of these?
1106
1107 David Barcal: There's been bore-hole samples done throughout the whole site. Yes. But when the site was
1108 evaluated,there wasn't a site layout at the time. We'll we always advise our clients when we look
1109 at it.
1110
1111 Delores Bailey: I understand the process.
1112
1113 David Barcal: Yeah.
1114
1115 Delores Bailey: I understand the process.
1116
1117 David Barcal: We do a preliminary soil, so we know if you even have a viable site.
1118
1119 Delores Bailey: Well, part of that preliminary is what, like I agree with Statler's time, is the perc test. And that is so
1120 important to know what kind of absorption rate you have in the soil. Not just the soil testing.
1121
1122 David Barcal: I believe in this case because of the soil classing and what we're proposing as conventional it's
1123 just we're not going to do what's called a perc test. That's like an actual water-standing test.
1124 They're doing that more looking at the actual consistency of the soil.
1125
1126 Statler Gilfillen: My concern is that what you've done is based on the general conditions. Which is very good. But
1127 when I'm looking at this plan, I'm down to very tight,very specific conditions. That the general
1128 conditions is,when you get down to the specific may not match.That's my concern.
1129
1130 Chris Johnston: But just to confirm, right? So, the applicant is requesting this zoning request and is the one that is
1131 going to take on the risk of if this does or does not perc, right?
1132
1133 David Barcal: Yes.
1134
1135 Chris Johnston: What we're asking is does this fit the land-use model that we have and if they decide to do this,
1136 and you know,they do their 10 percent, and that's perfectly fine, or whatever the reasonable
1137 metric is,then if it does not work, it's on them, right? At that point they have to reassess and
1138 readdress.
1139
1140 Statler Gilfillen: Respectfully, I'm going to disagree with you on one philosophical principle. As a member of the
1141 board, I think we have a certain obligation to try to ethically point out if we see what might be a
1142 problem long term that could negatively impact them financially in what they're doing. Because if
1143 it negatively impacts them financially, it negatively impacts all of us to a certain degree. I've seen
1144 as an architect, many projects left deserted, unfinished because somebody didn't plan something
1145 in advance. Or think it through in full detail. That's where I'm coming from. That's all. And
1146 hopefully,what I've asked is at least good food for thought before you spend too much money.
1147 Make sure that you're safe.
1148
1149 David Barcal: Yeah. That's an excellent point. Thank you.
1150
1151 Beth Trahos: Yeah, thank you.
Approved 9.3.25
1152
1153 Lamar Proctor: Any other comments?
1154
1155 Venkat Yendapalli: I'm probably on the same topic here he just discussed. So, you have some of the lots at less than
1156 half an acre. And you just made a point that you have to leave 10-foot buffers along the boundary
1157 of each lot. Is that enough room for the primary septic field and the repair field? For the four-
1158 bedroom home sites is there enough land? Assuming that we have the best soil from the area, is
1159 there enough lands from the fields? Less the footprint of the house and everything else. The
1160 driveways and everything else you have to exclude. Have you even looked at the concept to plan
1161 for these lots? You know if that is even possible?
1162
1163 David Barcal: Yeah. That's the four concept plans that we put together.
1164
1165 Venkat Yendapalli: Four?
1166
1167 David Barcal: Four. Four of the tighter sites, I would say. And then also,we've done the due diligence of
1168 looking at some other 20,000-square foot lots that has same septic requirements in the area of
1169 Orange County. And then also our experience of doing,we have done other subdivisions with
1170 20,000 square foot minimum lots that we've been able to get four-bedroom homes in.
1171
1172 Venkat Yendapalli: Two other topics I want to touch on is the impervious surface. How much impervious surface are
1173 we creating? How much is allowed here? I think probably the planning team may have looked
1174 into it.
1175
1176 Beth Trahos: With regard to the permitted impervious surface, my recollection is its 24 percent. Is that correct?
1177
1178 Don Sever: 24 percent.
1179
1180 Beth Trahos: Yes, is the allowed impervious area.
1181
1182 Venkat Yendapalli: So, the storm water ponds created here is designed to capture all that?
1183
1184 Beth Trahos: This is our civil engineer.
1185
1186 Venkat Yendapalli: Okay. All right,from a civil engineer as you've done the homework, but every topic is I think some
1187 of my colleagues already touched on the well capacity. In 43 homes, there being one well, don't
1188 you think there's no problems there. Anything goes wrong with the well, and there's no water
1189 coming to 43 homes? Is that a good design, or do you have to have, particularly what I've seen in
1190 my past experience, is there's more than one well so if one well fails,the residents are not left
1191 holding an empty bucket.
1192
1193 Beth Trahos: The analysis, and Ward might come back up and talk about that, but the analysis that he found
1194 really quadrupled the capacity that the state would require for this site. So,we feel like that's
1195 good.
1196
1197 Donna Crowder: Just so you know, I'm not sure if you're familiar with Aqua. It's a private utility company.
1198
1199 Venkat Yendapalli: I'm familiar with Aqua. Yeah.
1200
1201 Donna Crowder: Okay, so Aqua has agreed to take over the maintenance and testing and ownership of the entire
1202 water system. So, in the event that there's failures, they are legally responsible for fixing and
1203 maintaining and providing water in the event that something happens, in the event that the system
1204 fails. So, it's not going to be on the homeowner's association to try to find a plumber in the middle
1205 of the night. Aqua is going to be billing the homeowner directly and will be responsible for all the
1206 maintenance and making sure that that well is doing what it's supposed to. I will say that they do
Approved 9.3.25
1207 this all over the state for community wells everywhere, and there's no backup well. I do want to
1208 say that when we originally dug the well,we did a draw-down test, and this was back in
1209 November, and we had 90 gallons a minute. So, it's not that this was the first time it came up that
1210 we had 90 gallons. We already knew he had 90 gallons a minute, and it's very,very deep, so the
1211 thing that would fail would be a pump, which Aqua would come out and fix in the middle of the
1212 night. And it's the same thing if you had public water. My husband works for the town of Apex,
1213 and somebody busts out a water main, and people are out of water, and he has to go out there
1214 and fix it, so, it's the same type of situation. I just wanted to let you know that that's the plan.
1215
1216 Chris Johnston: Point of clarification. So, you mentioned. I apologize. When we originally talked the draw down
1217 and tests that you mentioned was in June? You just mentioned.
1218
1219 Donna Crowder: When we first drew the well,the purpose of drilling the well in the beginning was to make sure that
1220 we had water and that the project was viable. But part of that testing including draw-down tests.
1221 So,we had to know that. We initiated a second draw-down test just for the purposes of testing to
1222 make sure that our neighbors were not going to be affected.
1223
1224 Chris Johnston: Okay. So,the draw-down test initially. And I apologize. I'm not a hydrologist. I'll just be clear.
1225 So,the initial draw-down test found similar results as the secondary one, and so the reason it
1226 wasn't included in the packet was because they were so similar, or? I apologize because we
1227 asked originally about the November one.
1228
1229 Ward Marotti: Yeah, they were just, they were separate tests that. As she said the initial one was to determine
1230 what the capacity of the well was and ensure that there was sufficient capacity to move forward to
1231 be where we're standing right now. And then subsequent to that,the second test that I spoke
1232 about and the graphs in the packet are and the draw-down direct results that came from the
1233 drilling company were specifically in the context of impacts to adjacent single-use wells. So,
1234 they're stand-alone data, but what I believe what she was conveying was the result with regard to
1235 the capacity was essentially the same in both November when the precipitation conditions were
1236 not what they are today as well as what they were when we did it in the context of impacts to
1237 adjacent wells.
1238
1239 Chris Johnston: Okay.
1240
1241 Beth Trahos: And the purpose of the inclusion of the study in your packet was impacts on adjacent wells
1242 because that's what our neighbors asked us. Are you going to cause trouble for our well, not do
1243 you have enough water for your development.
1244
1245 Ward Marotti: Right.
1246
1247 Chris Johnston: Gotcha. So, the additional analysis that ended up in our packet specifically had the Griffin well in
1248 it, and its purpose was to show it wasn't effecting future, or nearby wells, but the draw-down test
1249 that happened in November was just for the viability of the project.
1250
1251 Beth Trahos: Correct.
1252
1253 Ward Marotti: Correct.
1254
1255 Chris Johnston: Okay. My fault.
1256
1257 David Barcal: Just,just to correct. The original draw-down test,which we call the 24-hour draw-down test is on
1258 Page 61 and that's specific to the actual permitting.Ward's test was specific to seeing the effects
1259 of the other wells. When we do the well permitting with DEQ they require this 24 hour.
1260
1261 Chris Johnston: I apologize. That one didn't have the pretty graph associated with it.
Approved 9.3.25
1262
1263 David Barcal: That's a test that is required from NCPWS. Public water supply. For us to permit, to actually
1264 permit design the well.
1265
1266 Chris Johnston: So,you said 61, correct?
1267
1268 David Barcal: Page 61,yes.
1269
1270 Beth Trahos: It is.
1271
1272 Lamar Proctor: So, on the static well level. The says date measured 7/16/25. Is that accurate?
1273
1274 Ward Marotti: That was the one that we just did. I don't know if the original one is in here or not.
1275
1276 David Barcal: I apologize. It's the exact same company that's.
1277
1278 Beth Trahos: Yeah. No, so,just to clarify, you were incorrect. This is actually a copy. So, you thought this was
1279 the original, but it was not.
1280
1281 David Barcal: It's so similar to the one we did. So,we got similar results.
1282
1283 Lamar Proctor: And is 90 gallons per minute going to be sufficient for 40 plus homes?
1284
1285 Ward Marotti: Yeah, the state requirement is a bit less than half a gallon a minute per user. And so,we've got
1286 almost quadruple the state minimum.
1287
1288 Lamar Proctor: Okay. And just a quick follow up on the storm water retention areas. Those are not open water.
1289
1290 Don Sever: Good evening, I'm Don Sever with building consulting.
1291
1292 Lamar Proctor: So, those aren't open ponds, right?
1293
1294 Don Sever: That would be bio-retention areas for infiltration. Something similar.
1295
1296 Lamar Proctor: Okay.
1297
1298 Don Sever: But not standing water.
1299
1300 Lamar Proctor: So,just with like natural wetlands?
1301
1302 Don Sever: Natural vegetation.
1303
1304 Lamar Proctor: Okay. That was just my follow up. Thank you.All right. Jonah?
1305
1306 Jonah Garson: I'm good.
1307
1308 Lamar Proctor: Meg?
1309
1310 Meg Millard: Oh. I have some questions.
1311
1312 Beth Trahos: Yes, ma'am.
1313
1314 Meg Millard: So,for keeping the character of the community and the neighborhood and the rural aspects of
1315 Orange County, it seems like looking at the satellite view, it's more wooded than not. And you
1316 would be taking out about 35, 36 acres of trees to put all the houses in and all the septic field and
Approved 9.3.25
1317 all the roads. 10 bird nest boxes seem a little insufficient for taking out 35 acres of forest. And
1318 what kind of bird species were you thinking of putting up boxes for, and who's going to maintain
1319 those because they do get worn out.
1320
1321 Beth Trahos: The condition requires that the HOA maintain them along with the amenities. We did not identify
1322 specific species in the document, but if there are some in particular that you are interested in or
1323 knowledgeable about,we can certainly look into those. We are certainly trading off some open
1324 space for housing, but just as much as maintaining the rural character is important, having places
1325 for people to live is also important given the growth coming to the county, so that's the balance
1326 we're trying to achieve.
1327
1328 Meg Millard: Okay. And also, I've also driven that stretch of 54 a lot. I don't know how many other people on
1329 this group have, but that curve is difficult to turn in and out of, especially making a left turn towards
1330 Chapel Hill. Cars go way above the speed limit. If you're at Fiesta Grill,which has a much clearer
1331 view of the road, you're still taking your life in everybody else's hands, not your own hands when
1332 you're trying to turn onto 54. Even if you're coming on White Cross Road and turning right towards
1333 Chapel Hill, cars come flying around that curve. And this is right at the peak of the curve so it's
1334 even harder to see, it seems to me. I'm not sure how a right-turn lane would help that at all. 1
1335 don't know if anybody else looked at the DOT stuff in here, but they did say 80 percent of the cars
1336 would be heading towards Chapel Hill, and 20 percent would be turning right, and they also said
1337 only like 26 cars would be leaving in the morning, and I'm like, they're 43 households. If those
1338 houses are 3,000 square feet, it's going to be at least two people working to pay for that house.
1339 And then all their teenage drivers as well, so it seems to me a lot more than 26 cars will be leaving
1340 in the morning. So that concerns me a lot. To put that many houses with one exit.
1341
1342 Josh Reinke: Would you like for me talk about that?
1343
1344 Meg Millard: Yup, I'd love to hear how you're going to fix that because.
1345
1346 Josh Reinke: I can explain because I know what it is like if you're not in the transportation world,you'll be like,
1347 what is this? I hear that all the time. It's like,where do these numbers come from? First off,
1348 NCDOT follows the Institute of Transportation Engineers guidelines for trip generation, so when
1349 you say,well how is it possible that there's only X amount of vehicles? This is based on pure
1350 studies. Studies across the US. Studies saying here it is. And they update it about every 2 years
1351 saying here's new information. Here are trends that changed. Things changed during COVID of
1352 patterns of vehicles and things like that, and some haven't bounced back completely. But
1353 essentially, the trip generation itself is based on actual data staying here is what enters and exits
1354 during those peak times. What we do is we collect data out there in the field saying here's what's
1355 going on currently. We grow that up to the future saying what is the typical growth. We add in our
1356 site traffic when we do analysis,which once again, not required, but we did analysis to see how
1357 that would operate. So, it is kind of conservative. You're assuming that peak hour of what's going
1358 on out there now is the exact same peak hour. And it's pretty common with residential that it is.
1359 You know, peak hours are driven by employment, schools,things like that, so you are studying
1360 when schools are in session and all, so that's where that data comes from. DOT says you will use
1361 the Institute of Transportation Engineers unless it is of some very unusual land use. I work on
1362 certain projects like Novo Nordisk is one that I'm working on. There is nothing like the Novo
1363 Nordisk site, so we had to collect data at their existing things like that where it might be abnormal,
1364 but for residential, that's the guidelines we're using there. To address some of the concerns about
1365 the curvature in the road and such, and how would turn lanes help that. So, essentially,when
1366 they go for a driveway permit, it gets more into like we were hearing there's preliminary stuff. It
1367 gets into the real designs. They have site distance standards where you're saying, here is how it'll
1368 actually operate. You are sitting there waiting to turn out, turn in,whatever, and they need to meet
1369 NCDOT standards. It's based on speeds,things like that. They do buffer out conservatively. It's
1370 not based on speed limit. It's based on a design speed,which is typically higher than that. So,
1371 that is how you say,we want to make sure cars can safely turn out of there,whether it's vertical or
Approved 9.3.25
1372 a horizontal curvature, the alignment of the road. All that will come into the design of the driveway
1373 permit, and DOT will require them to consider that. The turn lanes, once again, this is not just,
1374 you're plunking a little bit of pavement. You have the tapers. You have the storage. That's to get
1375 those cars safely out of that through movement, so you don't have the rear-end accidents. I know
1376 that's the concern of neighbors. If you have your own individual driveway,you probably don't
1377 have a turn lane, and you're terrified when somebody's coming up behind you quick, and you're
1378 waiting to turn left,waiting for a gap in traffic. That's the good thing with when you have a cluster
1379 of homes here is there is the possibility that they say,well that's more than one vehicle. We're
1380 concerned about that. We want a turn lane. So, putting in these turn lanes will remove that traffic
1381 from the through. Get them safely in where they can transition so they're not having to hit the
1382 brakes and have somebody hit him from behind. They're going to be able to be in turn lanes and
1383 then have that peace of mind and not do a risky turn in front of somebody because they know
1384 people are backing up behind them or anything like that. So, that is why the turn lanes are
1385 important and how they would see.
1386
1387 Meg Millard: That doesn't help turning left out of the neighborhood.
1388
1389 Josh Reinke: Well, left out would be the site distance where you say I know I can safely move that. If you
1390 added laneage there, it wouldn't help that. It would make sure you didn't have as much queuing
1391 into the site,which is expected to be fairly minimal here based on those volumes as that is
1392 something we looked at. And yes, you will have to wait for a gap in traffic on the main line, but it
1393 doesn't queue up, or it's any safety concern. It's on the site. You're not going to get rear ended.
1394 You're going to have neighbors that know that they're coming up to a stop sign, and then they're
1395 going to wait to come out of there. It's mainly 54 that is safety concerns. Like I said, capacity.
1396 That's not really the issue of why the turn lanes are being put in. That is more of a safety thing
1397 with just the speeds and things like that on 54 and the volumes on 54.
1398
1399 Meg Millard: Okay. And the last thing I have a just septic concern as well, like many others in this group. It
1400 seems like a lot of houses in a small area. They're definitely compacted, and the samples that
1401 you gave had a lot of the area of the lots covered by a septic field, and that does mean less places
1402 people can do a lot of things in their yard. Have you considered reducing the number of houses
1403 and making the lots a little bigger?
1404
1405 Beth Trahos: Well, I think our thought was that the lots are smaller, but in my world, building houses all around
1406 the triangle,these are actually quite large for Raleigh or Durham for instance, but the benefit of
1407 this conservation is that there's open space that folks can use for those recreational purposes.
1408 And so,we've tried to make that common space a place where folks can also gather or walk on
1409 the trails, so that there are other opportunities beyond their individual lot,which benefit more folks.
1410
1411 Meg Millard: But it's still a lot of septic tanks.
1412
1413 Beth Trahos: Well, I think the septic tanks are the same size regardless of the size of the lot.
1414
1415 Meg Millard: Right. But if you had a 3/4-acre lot, you would have fewer lots, so there would be fewer septic
1416 systems on the property.
1417
1418 Beth Trahos: And fewer places for people to live as well.
1419
1420 Meg Millard: Right.
1421
1422 Beth Trahos: You're trying to create that balance here. People want to live in Orange County, and they're going
1423 to find a way to live here. What we're proposing to you is that this is a gentle way that actually
1424 doesn't allow for additional units. But it allows for more clustering and could create 43 homes for
1425 families to live in this area. We think that's a public benefit.
1426
Approved 9.3.25
1427 Delores Bailey: Lamar can I ask a quick question?
1428
1429 Lamar Proctor: Sure.
1430
1431 Delores Bailey: Can you tell us what you all imagine your typical family is going to be able to afford in this
1432 neighborhood?
1433
1434 Beth Trahos: I can't tell you what the prices of the homes would be. Again, Forestar is a developer they don't
1435 actually build them.
1436
1437 Delores Bailey: They don't have an approximately square footage cost,though? Approximately? A range.
1438
1439 Beth Trahos: They don't build them. But they would be market-rate housing for sure. And I would expect if
1440 would be families in this area, so folks with kids of varying ages. I certainly see it as a desirable
1441 and attractive area, and I see the amenities as things that would be of interest to me with my
1442 family and kids.
1443
1444 Delores Bailey: And just a real quick point for you. In Orange County,the biggest housing need is for those
1445 families that make 50,000 and below. But it doesn't sound like this subdivision would be for them.
1446
1447 Beth Trahos: Likely not. It would be a market-rate community. But my understanding is that there are needs for
1448 houses at all levels throughout the triangle. And with the growth that y'all are seeing. Just even
1449 that 2010 to 2020 before folks started moving because of COVID, 15,000 more people, 11 percent
1450 of the population. My view is that's continuing with everything that I'm seeing throughout the area.
1451 We hope you will find that this is a balance that you can live with. Enough of the environmental
1452 protections. Enough of the open space and amenities and some opportunity for homes.
1453
1454 Lamar Proctor: Any other questions?
1455
1456 Beth Bronson: Sorry. Yeah, sorry, I didn't get a chance to ask. Besides the well and septic. I share a lot of the
1457 same concerns with the septic just because of the density hasn't been necessarily tested out here
1458 in this rural area, and as far as comparison lots, all of the other lots in the area are reflective of R1
1459 zoning. Is that accurate?
1460
1461 Beth Trahos: There are, in the power point,there are existing septic systems on 20,000-square foot lots in
1462 Orange County. And some of them actually, I believe built in the 60s and 70s.
1463
1464 Beth Bronson: Yes. I saw that part. I meant like within that area. Within that intersection of White Cross.
1465 Between White Cross and Orange Grove?
1466
1467 Beth Trahos: To my knowledge, I don't know. There are some smaller lots there. I certainly see them
1468 throughout the triangle,functioning well, and I think David shared that, his experience too.
1469
1470 Beth Bronson: Certainly yes. I mean, again, I'm not an expert in that, and I would absolutely defer it to the
1471 permitting experts to provide that information to you. But it does kind of raise the question. In the
1472 application, I see that it changed from like 40 houses, or 40 lots to 41 to 43. And now, I believe
1473 the application is for 45? Home lots?
1474
1475 Beth Trahos: There were some iterations of the application as we were finalizing our design, and with the just
1476 sheer number of consultants that we brought in to make sure we were covering every aspect,
1477 some folks picked up an earlier number of lots, so you do see that. What is proposed is 43 lots.
1478 That is on your plan and that plan is a committed element that.
1479
1480 Beth Bronson: 43 is the committed.
1481
Approved 9.3.25
1482 Beth Trahos: Yup.
1483
1484 Beth Bronson: And just throughout the process, it started as 40 that were mapped out.
1485
1486 Beth Trahos: Yes, I think that was an error, and some folks picked up on someone else's error, and then it sort
1487 of snowballed, and so yes. You do see some different numbers, but the answer is 43.
1488
1489 Beth Bronson: Okay. I'm sorry. One of the consultants was referring to the density for this conservation
1490 neighborhood that the idea that they could have developed across the stream, and there could be
1491 more spread out, and the choice was to create a more dense lot and smaller lot sizes for the
1492 community feel, but I would pause at that. I would think it'd be much more affordable if you're
1493 going to be running a community well line throughout the neighborhood to not cross a stream or a
1494 protected water area. I just wanted to point that out, out of necessity, I think it's important that
1495 when applicants are presenting these concept plans that you are taking advantage. And I think
1496 that this application does that. Is that it reflects a thoughtful process, and yes, it's more cost
1497 effective to do this, but it's also environmentally beneficial to stay away from the stream ways, and
1498 so, it's just not a reasoning, I think,for what could have been done. And then if the DOT
1499 application is approved, one of the conditions was that they would provide the right-turn lane, and
1500 then I don't understand necessarily how the center lane would work if it was approved. Do you
1501 have anybody to speak to that?
1502
1503 Beth Trahos: Well, Josh can speak to that, but I can tell you the short answer,which may be what you're after is
1504 one is a right-turn lane into the site, and one is a left-turn into the site from the center.
1505
1506 Charity Kirk: So,the road's going to be widened slightly?
1507
1508 Beth Bronson: That's what I'm asking about the center. Maybe you can explain that to me.
1509
1510 Josh Reinke: Absolutely. Yeah. So, it would likely be symmetrical, and I'm not a designer, but typically, you're
1511 looking to keep it within the existing right-of-way, and yes, you would have to widen the road to get
1512 that center turn lane in, so while right-turn lane is just kind of on the side of the site itself, so you're
1513 just impacting how far you're going into that. The center or left-turn lane there would be,we're
1514 going to widen on each side and kind of taper it down further down the road, so it will be a wider
1515 section of road there to allow for them to, like I said, taper so you can slowly transition into that.
1516 You don't just all of a sudden have wider pavement here.
1517
1518 Beth Bronson: And this would be for primarily people coming westbound, or eastbound from Alamance County.
1519 Basically, coming from Alamance toward Carrboro? Right?
1520
1521 Josh Reinke: Yes.
1522
1523 Beth Bronson: Coming from the rural area to town.
1524
1525 Josh Reinke: Yes.
1526
1527 Beth Bronson: Or, as Meg was saying the left-turn lane out of the neighborhood. Right?
1528
1529 Josh Reinke: Well, not out of. It's going into the neighborhood to get traffic out of the through movement along
1530 54. So, like I said, it's a safety thing. It's to say we know 54. We know people are moving fast.
1531 We know you've got now people that are going to be turning into the subdivision. You don't want
1532 them just stopping and waiting for gaps in the traffic. You want them to be able to and to be in a
1533 safe turn lane where people could be going around them in the through lane essentially.
1534
1535 Beth Bronson: Absolutely. And all that to point out that it is not for turning left out of the neighborhood, right?
1536 Like,there would be no center lane to transition from the westbound to the eastbound
Approved 9.3.25
1537
1538 Josh Reinke: Oh, no.A lot of people think those two-way left-turn lanes are a way to safely get into the flow of
1539 traffic when you're leaving. That is not what those are for. And I get it that people do it.
1540
1541 Beth Bronson: Welcome to the road county.
1542
1543 Josh Reinke: That is very unsafe, and that is not what two left-turn lanes are for. I was thinking you meant, are
1544 we widening the driveway? I was like, no,there's no need for that. You are correct. That is solely
1545 to get in there, and it would taper down on the other side, so it would not be appealing to be like,
1546 ooh, I can use that to accelerate. No, you would want to wait for gaps in traffic,which is the safe
1547 thing, but now I understand what you're saying, and I was like,yes, I've heard that a million times
1548 where people are like,well, I use that. That's very bad because something might be coming right
1549 at you at that point if you're using a two way left-turn lane or anything. So,this would be as you're
1550 turning left, it would be very quickly tapering down and not, like, I have a lane for a while and then
1551 1 can merge in because there is no need to extend that left. It's to get into the site.
1552
1553 Beth Bronson: So, if approved,would it be funded by DOT or would it be funded by the developer?
1554
1555 Josh Reinke: Funded by the developer.
1556
1557 Delores Bailey: I guess that the application was put in, and DOT said,yeah, sure for the right-hand turn lane, but
1558 we don't see a reason to have the center lane. Would that be an option for the DOT to
1559 recommend?
1560
1561 Josh Reinke: It could be, because I never want to speak on behalf of the DOT, but it is unlikely because it is
1562 typically the left turn that is the less safe. You're kind of a sitting duck. You're waiting for traffic. A
1563 right turn, you're slowing down to make that turn, but a left, you might be waiting for opposing
1564 traffic to get by you, and you're sitting there and the longer you sit there, if people are coming up
1565 quickly,the more likely there is to be a rear-end crash or something like that. So, it is unlikely,
1566 unless if it were something that when it comes to the design, that there's no way you could fit it in
1567 the existing right of way. You need to get land from neighbors, and they say, I absolutely will not.
1568 Then it could come up there, but it is unlikely, and I think it would fit within the right of way. They
1569 go for symmetrical widening, so it doesn't impact either side too much.
1570
1571 Beth Bronson: Fine, and to that point of the existing right of way, does the parcel have enough right of way to
1572 create that right turn lane on the property? On the parcel,without needing DOT approval.
1573
1574 Josh Reinke: Yes.
1575
1576 Beth Bronson: Okay, so theoretically,that could be a condition of the application, I would think, if it is possible,
1577 that regardless of DOT approval, that that right turn lane is still included.
1578
1579 Josh Reinke: Well, it's still their road, so that's why we need DOT, NC 54 is a main road, so we need their
1580 approval of that.And I think it's likely, but it's still technically even though we have a turn lane into
1581 our site and outside, if it's within a public roadway connected to theirs, it's theirs. But like I said,
1582 the likelihood that Chuck Edwards will say yes, that sounds great is very high, but I'm not him, and
1583 we do need their approval and we would show that in the driveway permit because that's when it
1584 does get into the design and things like that.
1585
1586 Beth Bronson: Thank you. Yeah, and in some of the discussion about the septic fields and the gentleman that
1587 was explaining how mature trees do actually pose a benefit to the septic lines because it acts as
1588 absorption, and this gets back to Chair Proctor's question about tree preservation specifically, and
1589 1 may have missed the answer to this question, but where the tree preservation plan was in the
1590 application?
1591
Approved 9.3.25
1592 Lamar Proctor: There isn't one. It'll be in the open areas because I think given the lot size and correct me if I'm
1593 wrong it was dairy pasture, and then it was wooded, and then it was forested, so what's left is
1594 really new growth, and so given the lot size and the septic requirements,there's not going to be a
1595 lot of trees, if any, on the lots themselves, but the intent I think was to preserve in the open areas
1596 the trees that exist there now.
1597
1598 Beth Bronson: Would you like to confirm that?
1599
1600 David Barcal: I would just say,from the septic side, again, the repair field is not actually going in, so if the
1601 homeowner chooses to keep those trees in the repair area, they could.
1602
1603 Beth Bronson: And how does the homeowner choose if it was going to be bulldozed to be constructed in the first
1604 place?
1605
1606 David Barcal: I believe our project is just the public improvements and then since they're turning it over to the
1607 home builder,the home builder would develop the lots.
1608
1609 Beth Trahos And they only install the actual septic field. The repair area is where another septic field could go
1610 in the future, but it's not needed immediately. So that's the thought. There could be trees where
1611 there's no septic field today. In the future, if they have to install a septic field.
1612
1613 Beth Bronson: I guess I'm trying to find a way to encourage, once it's handed over to the home builder,to actively
1614 do that tree preservation when they're working with the home builder. I don't know how that would
1615 work into a covenant. And I understand that wouldn't be yours.
1616
1617 David Barcal Sorry. I don't want to speak for a home builder, but to me, doing less work is the goal. So
1618 bulldozing trees is more work, so if I can only clear what I have to clear, that's more benefit from
1619 the home builder. I would assume from their perspective,they would want to do the least amount
1620 of work.
1621
1622 Beth Bronson: It's definitely one perspective on it. The other one is if you just clear a blank slate, then you have
1623 enough room.
1624
1625 David Barcal If the homebuyer says hey, I will pay you extra to clear it.
1626
1627 Beth Bronson: Yeah. Homeowner rights. I do understand. Thank you very much. I appreciate that for clarifying.
1628 Is there a possibility to get a, I guess with the open space because it's so large and because there
1629 wouldn't really be a need to do any kind of identification.
1630
1631 Lamar Proctor Yeah. I don't think there's a condition that's workable in terms of that.
1632
1633 Beth Bronson: And then, I guess there was one last thing about the neighborhood activity, the community node.
1634 Was that referenced in this application?
1635
1636 Charity Kirk: The White Cross one?
1637
1638 Beth Bronson: The White Cross,yeah.
1639
1640 Charity Kirk: It's nearby, but it's not on this property.
1641
1642 Beth Bronson: Okay, and it's not referenced as part of the Statement of Consistency? That's what I'm wanting to
1643 make sure.
1644
1645 Lamar Proctor: Well, it's referenced because it's a nearby rural activity node, I think.
1646
Approved 9.3.25
1647 Beth Bronson: Yeah. For commercial.
1648
1649 Charity Kirk: Well, they're trying to put some density in these.
1650
1651 Beth Bronson: Definition of the community activity node is for commercial specifically, so it wouldn't really, at all,
1652 apply to a subdivision. Even if it was a major subdivision.
1653
1654 Charity Kirk: You're welcome to read that.
1655
1656 Delores Bailey: Yes. And I guess this question is now directed at staff is because that property, and I know that
1657 this is going to change, because there's a Comprehensive Plan coming, and so therefore, if the
1658 new Comprehensive Plan was adopted, this may change. But right now,there's an allotted
1659 acreage for commercial activity out there in that intersection. And I know this came up a couple
1660 years ago when there was a rural residential wanting to become commercial activity. Basically,
1661 there's an allotment of acreage, and so by the idea of this parcel removing itself from commercial
1662 potential, does that just eliminate the acreage available for commercial development?
1663
1664 Cy Stober: No. It's a flat acreage. It's not proportional, so what it would theoretically result in is more
1665 pressure on the remaining properties to potentially be developed for non-residential purposes,
1666 because there would be less gross acreage to develop for non-residential purposes. All of these
1667 properties would have to go through a hearing process and be rezoned, or this subject property
1668 would should it come before us as a non-residential proposal, so we'd be at a hearing anyway, but
1669 it does take acreage out of the activity node that theoretically could be developed for non-
1670 residential purposes. So, there's less gross acreage, but it doesn't affect that hard,firm number
1671 that can be developed for non-residential purposes and per our comp plan. I'm not sure if that
1672 makes sense. I hope it does.
1673
1674 Beth Bronson: No, it does. Yeah. It's just an overly direct question, I guess, but yes,would allow other
1675 properties that would now have additional acreage knowing that that property was no longer
1676 available for commercial. It could now go to other areas or other parcels.
1677
1678 Cy Stober: Yeah. If you do the simple math, your denominator just got smaller.
1679
1680 Beth Bronson: Yes. Thank you.
1681
1682 Lamar Proctor: Did you have another question, Charity?
1683
1684 Charity Kirk: Well, it's kind of a question-statement, and it comes off the bird box thing, especially since you
1685 don't know what birds you're trying to support, and bird boxes only support birds at particular times
1686 of the season. Native plants are what support birds, and I know you are going to be required to
1687 plant native plants, but I would encourage you to plant a diversity of native plants, and consider
1688 buffers, meadows, as well as forest edges. The Audubon Society has wonderful volunteers and
1689 services that can help support the birds in the area. But landscapers tend to know stuff too, so I'm
1690 just assuming you do.
1691
1692 Lamar Proctor: All right, any discussion amongst the Board about any conditions or any other aspect?
1693
1694 Cy Stober: Mr. Chair,we have had one member of the public ask staff if they may be allowed to speak before
1695 the Board. It would be at your discretion.
1696
1697 Lamar Proctor: And who is that?
1698
1699 Cy Stober: I'm afraid I don't know.
1700
1701 Lamar Proctor: Oh. If you could raise your hand?
Approved 9.3.25
1702
1703 Joshua Setzer: I'm an hour late, so I want to add my name to the list, if possible.
1704
1705 Beth Bronson: Did you want to speak?
1706
1707 Joshua Setzer: I assumed there would be a public comment window, and I just want to be added to the list.
1708
1709 Lamar Proctor: Yeah,we already had it, so we're discussing whether to give you time. What's your name?
1710
1711 Chris Johnston: He's not on the list. He was an hour late.
1712
1713 Lamar Proctor: Oh, okay. Is there any objection to giving him 3 minutes?
1714
1715 Beth Bronson: No.
1716
1717 Lamar Proctor: No. All right, come on up.
1718
1719 Joshua Setzer: I apologize. I actually didn't know the public comment already happened. I didn't mean to. I do
1720 appreciate it.
1721
1722 Chris Johnston: So,just to confirm, please state your name, and then I'm going to push this button, and then a
1723 light's going to show up, and that will be your timer.
1724
1725 Joshua Setzer: Sounds good. Thank you all so much. I didn't mean to inconvenience. My name is Joshua
1726 Setzer. I live in the Collins Creek Community,which is the neighborhood off the north side of the
1727 proposed development. Just a little bit about our community. You may have already heard some
1728 of it, but I don't know the exact number of houses, in the neighborhood I think 30 or so. All gravel
1729 drive, no streetlights whatsoever. What I wanted to share, I appreciated some of the comments
1730 and questions around biodiversity, specifically. I wanted to share a little bit about the level of
1731 biodiversity,the level of density we have in our neighborhood,which is quite a bit smaller than it
1732 appears to be supporting. I actually have a list that's been maintained for quite some time. It was
1733 started by a gentleman named Norm Christensen,who lived in our neighborhood for 20 years and
1734 was one of the founding deans of the Nicholas School for the Environment at Duke, and is an
1735 esteemed botanist, and so the list that he passed on;we have 11 known amphibians, at least 12
1736 lizards and snakes, possums, shrews, minks, 3 species of bats, probably more, moles,voles,
1737 white-footed deer, mice, squirrels, chipmunks,flying squirrels, rabbits, coyotes, red fox, raccoon,
1738 striped skunk,we've seen bobcats multiple times in the neighborhood, including recently.
1739 Obviously,white-tail deer. We've actually seen juvenile black bear and photographed them in the
1740 neighborhood. That happens seasonally, but it's quite interesting. And then the birds. I did want
1741 to talk about. We have blackbirds,five species of golds beaks, chickadees,titmice, corvids,
1742 cuckoos, ducks and geese, at least 5 species of finch, gnat catchers, we have hawks, herons,
1743 hummingbirds, kingwits, let's see, nuthatches, 3 or 4 species of owls. We see wild turkey
1744 periodically,we also have 5 species of tyrant flycatcher,which is pretty interesting. Thrushes,
1745 vireos, obviously vultures, cedar ox wings, 5 or 6 species of warbler, 7 species of woodpecker,
1746 and so on and so forth. So, it's at least 73 known species in the neighborhood. I wanted the
1747 record to just kind of reflect that level of biodiversity and would urge the Board to consider how the
1748 level and density that is currently allowed in this area has allowed a tremendous amount of
1749 biodiversity to be maintained, and how higher density would adversely affect that. Thank you very
1750 much.
1751
1752 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. And Mr. Setzer, I'm just going to have this list, if you could continue filling it out, so we
1753 have a record.
1754
1755 Joshua Setzer: Absolutely. Thank you again.
Approved 9.3.25
1756
1757 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. So, any discussion amongst the Board? I'll just say this is the direction that I think the
1758 Board of County Commissioners wanted to move in terms of residential development in terms of
1759 concentrating homes and leaving more open space, but I also recognize that you are, as the
1760 applicant pointed out,you're providing homes, but you're losing that space, that natural space
1761 where the homes are going to be, so it's a constant tradeoff. I just say that for what it's worth, and
1762 the recognition that development comes at some price, but it also provides some benefit. I do
1763 think that in terms of conditional districts and what we see in subdivisions, there was thought put
1764 into this in terms of trying to concentrate the housing and leave more open space,which I think is
1765 a benefit. I just say it for what it's worth. I welcome any comments or discussion, or any motions
1766 as to the Statement of Consistency in Attachment 6, or the Statement of Inconsistency in
1767 Attachment 7.
1768
1769 Charity Kirk: I would agree with you in that I think this is probably preferable over the status quo of spreading
1770 things out. There is an area for wildlife. I would prefer,just personally, I would prefer the lot sizes
1771 to be bigger and the number of houses to be smaller, but I understand where it's coming from and
1772 the alternative, and I think this is preferable to the alternative potential.
1773
1774 Meg Millard: Clustering is a nice idea, and having some open space is a nice idea, but I don't know why you
1775 have to pack as many houses as 43 in the buildable area, and that it could be less if you were
1776 really considering the rural character. I mean, if we're really trying to preserve things in the rural
1777 areas of Orange County.
1778
1779 Charity Kirk: What would you think would be a better number?
1780
1781 Meg Millard: Well, if the buildable land that they're proposing to build on is 35 acres, if you did 35 homes
1782 instead of 43. Just drop it down some.
1783
1784 Chris Johnston: Just to confirm, Cy, given the R1 designation, how many homes would you fit in at the current rate
1785 by right?Sorry to put you on the spot there.
1786
1787 Taylor Perschau: If the subject parcel is 63 acres,the current zoning is Rural Residential, minimum lot size is
1788 40,000 square feet,which is .92 acres.
1789
1790 Lamar Proctor: Okay.
1791
1792 Charity Kirk: So,you could fit about 60 homes potentially, but there's the stream.
1793
1794 Beth Bronson: I you consider what they were developing, the 35 acres, it would be 35 homes.
1795
1796 Delores Bailey: Changing the zoning would change this how?
1797
1798 Taylor Perschau: Proposing greater than 20 lots requires this rezoning request.
1799
1800 Lamar Proctor: I mean,they could subdivide the parcel and do the one house per acre within R1 as of right.
1801
1802 Chris Johnston: Sure. But the conservation district, the benefit is you have the entire chunk that is being left alone,
1803 more or less, right, so you're smushing it, yes, but arguably, a person who is purchasing this lot
1804 understands what they're purchasing when they go into something like this, and if no one
1805 purchases it, I keep coming back to the developer is developing, they have presented a plan, does
1806 it fit with what we're looking for. We're not developers. I'm not a developer at least.
1807
1808 Delores Bailey: I am.
1809
Approved 9.3.25
1810 Chris Johnston: You are. That's why I said I am, I'm sorry. Delores is a developer. I defer to her on most things,
1811 but what I'm saying is this is the project that's been presented to us. Does it fit with what we're
1812 trying to do here in the county, does it adhere to what we're doing, and really, do the conditions
1813 that they've asked for, because everything else applies, do the conditions that they ask for fit with
1814 what we're trying to do.
1815
1816 Lamar Proctor: Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
1817
1818 Chris Johnston: Right. Exactly. Everything else applies. It's just the conditions that we have to look at, and do
1819 they fit as far as I'm aware.
1820
1821 Lamar Proctor: Then I did hear some concern about the bird box. So, we can propose changes to the conditions.
1822
1823 Chris Johnston: Is the bird box a condition?
1824
1825 Lamar Proctor: Yes. Theres 10 in the conditions.
1826
1827 Chris Johnston: Gotcha.
1828
1829 Charity Kirk: I think it's ridiculous that they're in the conditions, but what are someone else's thoughts.
1830
1831 Lamar Proctor: Well, I'm just pointing it out that they're going to have to maintain those 10. That's part of the
1832 conditions.
1833
1834 Charity Kirk: I would rather have them plant a diversity of native plants and go have a fire meadow to support,
1835 do something that rather than bird boxes. That's just me.
1836
1837 Lamar Proctor: That's covered in the landscaping, right? In the UDO on the landscaping.
1838
1839 Charity Kirk: Yeah, and we can't. We can't do too much more than that.
1840
1841 Beth Bronson: We could ask for it to be within the HOA regulations.
1842
1843 Lamar Proctor: I wouldn't.
1844
1845 Cy Stober: If I may, HOA covenants are not enforceable by County staff.
1846
1847 Chris Johnston: Right. If someone such as myself,were to say this follows the acceptable use per the, I think at a
1848 certain point,we have to make a motion and put the cards on the table, right. Are we at the point
1849 where we're willing to accept this, and if it doesn't pass,then it doesn't pass, and we go from
1850 there.
1851
1852 Lamar Proctor: Yeah. I'm willing to entertain a motion.
1853
1854 Chris Johnston: Does anyone disagree with that? Delores?
1855
1856 Beth Bronson: Yeah, I mean I, as far as conversation goes, I think there's a concern for density, and if that is
1857 consistent with the motions.
1858
1859 Statler Gilfillen: Put the motion up.
1860
1861 Chris Johnston: Okay, so I am always terrible at this, and yet, here I am doing it again. I make a motion that per
1862 Page 137,Attachment 6.
1863
1864 Lamar Proctor: Oh, you're doing the inconsistency.
Approved 9.3.25
1865
1866 Chris Johnston: No, I'm doing consistent.
1867
1868 Lamar Proctor: I will say on Page 130, there is one typo on Number 3. It says the minimum lot size M-E to 20,
1869 000 square feet. That should be B. I don't know if we need to make that amendment, or if that's
1870 just typographical.
1871
1872 Cy Stober: Please make the amendment.
1873
1874 Lamar Proctor: Motion to adopt the Statement of Consistency in Attachment 6 with the amendment that Number
1875 3,the word "me"will be changed to"be".
1876
1877 Chris Johnston: Yes. So motioned.
1878
1879 Lamar Proctor: Is there a second?
1880
1881 Statler Gilfillen: I'll second that one.
1882
1883 Lamar Proctor: All right. All in favor of adopting the Statement of Consistency in Attachment 6 to find that the
1884 proposed Zoning Atlas Map Amendment is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and
1885 make that recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Raise your hand and say Aye
1886 with that amendment to Number 3.
1887
1888 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to approve the Statement of Consistency. Seconded by Statler Gilfillen.
1889
1890 MOTION PASSED 6-3: Delores Bailey, Beth Bronson, and Meg Millard opposed.
1891
1892 Lamar Proctor: And then I believe that for record purposes we want the opposed to state their reasons for the
1893 opposition.
1894
1895 Meg Millard: I don't think it's consistent with the rural character.
1896
1897 Lamar Proctor: Okay. Beth?
1898
1899 Beth Bronson: I agree that I did not find a lot density of 20,000 square foot lots to be consistent with the area, as
1900 well as the preservation of community character. Land goal Number 3, is it? Planning principle
1901 Number 3, or Land Use Goal Number 3, and Planning Principle Number 8. From the
1902 comprehensive 2030 plan.
1903
1904 Lamar Proctor: All right.
1905
1906 Delores Bailey: I agree that I do not find it consistent with the conservation plan.
1907
1908 Lamar Proctor: All right. Is that sufficient, Cy?
1909
1910 Cy Stober: Thank you Mr. Chair.
1911
1912 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT
1913
1914 Lamar Proctor: All right. Do I have a motion for adjournment? Is there anything else before we adjourn?
1915
1916 Cy Stober: Just a note that this is at present scheduled for public hearing at the October 7th Board of
1917 Commissioners Meeting.
1918
Approved 9.3.25
1919 Lamar Proctor: Okay, so for those interested in the public, this will proceed on to the Board of County
1920 Commissioners on that date. Motion to adjourn?
1921
1922 Beth Bronson: Motion to adjourn.
1923
1924 Lamar Proctor: Second?
1925
1926 Statler Gilfillen: Yep.
1927
1928 Lamar Proctor: And all in favor? Unanimous. All right.
1929
1930 MOTION BY Beth Bronson to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Statler Gilfillen.
1931
1932 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
1933
1934 The meeting adjourned at 9:25 PM