Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda 10-07-2025; 5-a - Zoning Atlas Amendment – 3531 NC Highway 54 W, Chapel Hill, Bingham Township
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7, 2025 Action Agenda Item No. 5-a SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment — 3531 NC Highway 54 W, Chapel Hill, Bingham Township DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Application, including Site Plan and Lauren Honeycutt, Planner II, (919) 245-2598 Supplemental Materials Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director, 2. Staff Report (919) 245-2592 3. Notification Materials and Certification Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Zoning 4. Neighborhood Information Meeting Manager, (919) 245-2597 Materials 5. Development Advisory Committee and Courtesy Review Comments 6. August 6, 2025 Planning Board Minutes and Signed Statement of Consistency 7. Statement of Consistency 8. Statement of Inconsistency 9. Ordinance Approving Zoning Atlas Amendments, Including Proposed Conditions PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing, receive the Planning Board and staff recommendations, receive public comment, close the public hearing, and consider action on a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone +/- 61.11 acres (PIN: 9749-42-2010) located at 3531 NC Highway 54 W, Chapel Hill, within the Bingham Township of Orange County. The proposed rezoning is: FROM: R-1 (Rural Residential) TO: R-CD (Residential - Conditional District) BACKGROUND: A Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment application (Attachment 1) was received from Forestar Group, Inc., on behalf of Carolyn Rigsbee, proposing to rezone approximately 61.11 acres of property at 3531 NC Highway 54 W, Chapel Hill, to allow for development of a 43-lot conservation cluster subdivision for single-family dwellings. The Staff Report in Attachment 2 contains additional information, maps, and analysis with regard to the application's consistency with County adopted plans. Approval of a site-specific plan is part of the conditional district rezoning process, and the site plan and any agreed-upon conditions are binding to the development permitted for the zoning district. 2 Basic Review Process: A conditional district rezoning application requires submission of a site plan and other documents, in accordance with Section 2.9.1(C) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). All application materials can be found on the Orange County Permit Portal. Sections 2.8 and 2.9 of the Orange County UDO require the following review: • FIRST ACTION — Application is sent for courtesy review. STAFF COMMENT. County staff submitted application materials to the State Clearing House for review on February 18, 2025. Comments were received from the Orange Grove Fire Department on July 18, 2025. All courtesy review comments are available on the Orange County Permit Portal. • SECOND ACTION — Applicant holds a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). STAFF COMMENT: The NIM was held on April 29, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. at Antioch Baptist Church, 1707 White Cross Road, Chapel Hill. • THIRD ACTION — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). STAFF COMMENT. The Planning Board reviewed this application at its regular meeting on August 6, 2025, and recommended approval by a 6-3 vote. • FOURTH ACTION — The BOCC receives the Planning Board and staff recommendations at an advertised public hearing and makes a decision on the application. STAFF COMMENT. The public hearing is scheduled for October 7, 2025. Proposed Site Plan and Conditions Per Section 2.9.1 (F) (3) of the UDO, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part of this process if they address: a. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, b. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways, and access points, screening and buffer areas, the timing of development, etc.), and/or c. All other matters the County may find reasonable and appropriate or the petitioner may propose. Orange County Development Advisory Committee staff has recommended the imposition of conditions, as included in the Ordinance in Attachment 9. A formal site plan is required as part of a conditional rezoning application and has been submitted (Attachment 1). Forestar Group, Inc., on behalf of Carolyn Rigsbee, have initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment in order allow for future development of a 43-lot subdivision for single- family dwellings. Additional background information related to this request, including information on proposed dedicated open space, impervious surface, and amenities, is contained in the Staff Report (Attachment 2). Public Notification: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices of the Public Hearing were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject parcel. These notices were mailed on September 24, 2025, 13 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcel with a sign on September 24, 2025, 13 days before the meeting. See Attachment 3 for the notification materials. 3 Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the Zoning Atlas Amendment at its August 6, 2025, regular meeting. At this meeting the Board voted 6-3 to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 9), as presented, with the exception of correcting an error in Condition #3 to accurately reflect the conditions as submitted by the applicant in Attachment 1. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1) Consider the matter for action; 2) Acknowledge that legally-sufficient public notice was given for the application and this meeting, in accordance with State law and the Orange County LIDO; 3) Review the staff report (Attachment 2), featuring analyses of UDO compliance, impact of the use to the surrounding area, safety and efficiency of land use, and consistency of the application with the Orange County's adopted plans; 4) Allow for the applicant's presentation of materials; 5) Conduct the public hearing, receive public comments, and consider the Planning Board recommendation; 6) Close the public hearing; and 7) Vote to Approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) and Zoning Atlas Amendment Ordinance (Attachment 9). OR Vote to Deny the Zoning Atlas Amendments, including a statement as to why the application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest, as detailed in the Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment 8). FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising, including the public hearing notice and mailings, were paid by the applicant in accordance with the 2024-25 Current Planning Application and Review Fees. ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports: VISION STATEMENT — We are a diverse, inclusive, and healthy county working together to strengthen our community and enhance the quality of life for all residents. GUIDING PRINCIPLE — COMMUNICATION AND AWARENESS We provide information and opportunities for engagement in a transparent manner so that all in our community have knowledge, understanding, and a voice. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board: 1. Conduct the public hearing and receive the Planning Board and staff recommendations and public comments; 2. Close the public hearing; and 3. Vote to Approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) and Zoning Atlas Amendments (Attachment 9). OR Vote to Deny the Zoning Atlas Amendments, including a statement as to why the application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest, as detailed in the Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment 8). 4 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or planningapps@orangecountync.gov Zoning Atlas Amendment — Rezoning Application Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information and submittal requirements are contained in Sections 2.8 and 2.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink. * Please fill out all reuired fields Date: 02/07/2025 Rezoning Request: M Conventional District® Conditional District Contact Information* Property Owner(s): CAROLYN RIGSBEE Mailing Address: 3531 NC 54 W, CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516 Phone: (919)619-5697 Email: crigsbee36@icloud.com Applicant (if different than property owner): FORESTAR C/O LAURA HAYWOOD Mailing Address: 8041 ARCO CORPORATE DRIVE SUITE 110 RALEIGH NC 27617 Phone: (720) 226-4200 Email: laurahaywood(a)forestar.com Property Information* Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9749422010 Total Acreage: 63.99 Address: NC 54W, CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516 Future Land Use Map Classification: RURAL COMMUNITY ACTIVITY NODE Current Zoning Designation: R1 Requested Zoning Designation: R-CD1 If applicant/owner are different people, include a signed, notarized, statement indicating that the owner has authorized the applicant to submit the request. In cases where there are multiple property owners, please attach an additional document containing their signatures authorizing the submission of the application or other legal documentation establishing the applicants' right to file on their behalf. Other Submittal Requirements* Conventional District Rezoning Application Based on Section 2.8.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): ❑A map, at a legible scale, showing the property(s) subject to the request. A map may be procured at the Planning Department for a fee in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule. ❑A legal description of the property(s) proposed for rezoning. ❑A list showing the names and addresses of all adjacent property owners within 1000-feet of the subject property. ❑A detailed narrative denoting the following: i. The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas (if any) that will be corrected by the proposed request. Page 1 of 2 5 ii. The changed, or changing, conditions (if any) that makes the proposed amendment reasonable necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. iii. How the proposed amendment is consistent with, or carries out the intent and purpose of the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan, or part thereof. ❑The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule. Conditional District Rezoning Application Based on Section 2.9.2 (C) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): 0 A site plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.5 of the UDO. Applications for a Master Plan Development (MPD) Conditional District (CD) shall adhere to the site plan preparation requirements outlined in Section 6.7 of the UDO. 0 All CD applications, regardless of type, shall include a detailed landscape plan showing the location of on-site significant trees; proposed screening, buffers, and landscaping; and any proposed treatment of any existing natural features. 0 A detailed description of the proposed use of property including an outline of the proposed development. This will include a detailed summary of proposed utility services. The utility service plan for applications for a Home Park (HP) CD shall specify if the proposed services are temporary or permanent connections. 0 A detailed traffic survey, regardless of estimated daily trips, prepared in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation requirements and Section 6.17 of the UDO. 0 The appropriate environmental document(s) prepared in accordance with Section 6.16 of the UDO. ®A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal. ® Other information identified during the pre-application conference deemed essential to demonstrate the project's compliance with these regulations. 0 The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule. Certification and Signatures* I (we), the undersigned, have been made aware of the process for the review and action associated with a UDO Zoning Atlas Amendment application and understand only completed applications, containing all information required by the Orange County UDO, shall be reviewed and acted upon by the County. Further I (we) understand that any assistance I (we) may receive from County staff in preparing this application in no way guarantees a favorable recommendation by staff on the merits of this proposal nor does it guarantee an approval of the proposed atlas amendment by the County. c.-s,,, !, CrmL�4AV4 Carolyn Rigsbee(Feb 7,2025 13:15 EST) Entitlements Manager, Forestar Owner Signature(s) Applicant Signature (if different from owner) 02/07/2025 02/07/2025 Date Date Page 2 of 2 6 Canoy Surveying Adam Canoy, PLS 1154 Shonele Ln Stem, NC 27581 984.377.2626 CANDY canoysurveying@gmail.com SURVEYING Legal Description of ALTA SURVEY for FORESTAR (USA) REAL ESTATE GROUP INC. Metes and bounds description of Weldon Jackson Rigsbee &Carolyn Rigsbee Tract, as described in Deed book 2521 at Page 166, further described in Plat book 47 at Page 27 in the Orange County Registry. Beginning at an IRON PIPE FOUND at the Southwest corner of Rigsbee tract as described in Deed book 2521, Page 166, along the right-of-way of NC HWY 54, having a NAD83 (2011) grid coordinate of N: 790,984.26' and E: 1,943,136.43; Thence leaving the right-of-way of NC HWY 54, along and with the Carolina Conference of Seventh-Day Adventist Inc property, as described in DB 5801, PG 368,Andre & Mary Ann Ristaino property, as described in DB 5771, PG 295, and Equity Trust Company Custodian for the Benefit of Andre Ristaino IRA property, as described in DB 6782, PG 1794, N 22°15'20" E a distance of 2337.29' to a T BAR FOUND; thence N 22°15'20" E a distance of 6.21'to a COMPUTED POINT in the centerline of a creek; thence along and with the centerline of the creek S 85°34'14" E a distance of 105.10' to a COMPUTED POINT; thence S 63°33'01" E a distance of 84.25' to a COMPUTED POINT; thence S 63°33'01" E a distance of 44.71' to a COMPUTED POINT, thence S 51°43'47" E a distance of 77.29' to a COMPUTED POINT, thence S 84°51'41" E a distance of 68.56' to a COMPUTED POINT; thence N 57°22'34" E a distance of 47.58'to a COMPUTED POINT; thence N 46°10'05" E a distance of 48.40'to a COMPUTED POINT; thence N 28°51'52" E a distance of 23.97'to a COMPUTED POINT; thence N 81°10'43" E a distance of 31.90'to a COMPUTED POINT; thence N 89°22'09" E a distance of 27.78'to a COMPUTED POINT; thence N 70°15'42" E a distance of 47.89'to a COMPUTED POINT, thence N 87°29'21" E a distance of 48.39'to a COMPUTED POINT; thence S 84°11'33" E a distance of 34.83' to a COMPUTED POINT; thence N 14°42'30" E a distance of 36.37'to a COMPUTED POINT; thence N 74°11'24" W a distance of 60.18' to a COMPUTED POINT, thence N 20°51'19" W a distance of 44.59' to a COMPUTED POINT, 7 Canoy Surveying Adam Canoy, PLS 1154 Shonele Ln Stem, NC 27581 984.377.2626 CANDY canoysurveying@gmail.com SURVEYING thence N 10°14'48" E a distance of 58.22'to a COMPUTED POINT, thence N 51°59'57" E a distance of 46.23'to a COMPUTED POINT, thence N 79°18'58" E a distance of 64.20'to a COMPUTED POINT, thence N 87°52'33" E a distance of 65.26'to a COMPUTED POINT, thence S 71°03'31" E a distance of 85.89' to a COMPUTED POINT; thence S 45°33'25" E a distance of 26.58' to a COMPUTED POINT; thence N 86°21'59" E a distance of 62.14'to a COMPUTED POINT, thence N 76°01'58" E a distance of 35.93'to a COMPUTED POINT; thence S 85°40'46" E a distance of 4.18' to a COMPUTED POINT; thence leaving the centerline of the creek, S 00°03'27" W a distance of 14.10'to an IRON PIPE FOUND; thence along and with Lyndon Melvin Whitfield property, as described in DB 6743, PG 81, S 00°03'27" W a distance of 1039.81'to an IRON PIPE FOUND; thence along and with Pablo Sicles&Carolina Lopez property,as described in DB 6631, PG 582,Jennifer Meyer property, as described in DB 6700, PG 2091,and Robert& Flora Davidson property,as described in DB 3985, PG 590, S 13°45'15" W a distance of 841.99'to an IRON PIPE FOUND; thence along and with Alex Keyes property, as described in DB 2565, PG 90, and John &Amanda Griffin property, as described in DB 6621, PG 1839, N 80°00'31"W a distance of 458.05'to an IRON PIPE FOUND; thence along and with John &Amanda Griffin property, as described in DB 6621, PG 1839, and Big Show Properties LLC property, as described in DB 5192, PG 392, S 11°52'26"W a distance of 838.76'to a T POST at the right-of-way of NC HWY 54; thence along and with NC HWY 54 right-of-way a curve turning to the right with an arc length of 1046.41', with a radius of 3759.72',with a chord bearing of N 73°01'35"W,with a chord length of 1043.04', thence with said curve to an IRON PIPE FOUND; which is the point of beginning, having an area of 2787501.84 square feet, 63.992 acres. For further description see map entitled PROPERTY OF WELDON J RIGSBEE,GERALDINE F EUBANKS, BERNARD E LLOYD,WILLIAM H LLOYD, DONALD W LLOYD, BETTY M LLOYD; prepared by Credle Engineering Company Inc,Sidney V. Credle PLS- 1912; said map dated May 1986, and recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County in Plat book 47. Orange County $ Riirm 5 iGR s 8 5 � 5 + jP `� rite+ 5 r y f ' ,.. IR Ram k5¢TSt ayr fr wax lila x ! 1 5 k { _{ r J LIM 2 f r _ ZR 1 5 i k xi + 1.3rx It. �ykti ry y 'o WtiA 4.. ±EY r TAY .. r - � Wz- vig r t 5 � # y. - - t: �RWrtTi January 23, 2025 This map contains parcels prepared for the inventory of real property within Orange County,and is compiled from recorded deed, plats,and other public records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. PIN: 9749422010 The county and its mapping companies assume no legal responsibility for the information on this map. OWNER 1: RIGSBEE CAROLYN SIZE: 63.46 A BUILDING COUNT: 1 1:7,323 OWNER 2: DEED REF: 2521/166 LAND VALUE: $30,940 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi ADDRESS 1: 1922 ORANGE CHAPEL-CLOVER MSI RQ BLDG VALUE: $143,200 ADDRESS 2: TOWNSHIP BINGHAM USE VALUE: $684,437 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km CITY: CHAPEL HILL BLDG SQFT: 1949 TOTAL VALUE: $174,140 STATE, ZIP: NC 27516 YEAR BUILT: 1911 DATE SOLD: 02/24/2003 ORANGE COUNTY LEGAL DESC: #5-6 RIGSBEE EUBANKS &LLOYD TAX STAMPS: 0 NORTH CAROLINA 9 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION Rigsbee Subdivision Property Located at NC 54W Bingham Township, NC 27516 County PIN 9749422010/Approximately 61.11 Acres The Applicant, Forestar C/O Laura Haywood, seeks to rezone an approximately 61.11 acres parcel of land located on NC54, approximately 1 000'west of White Cross Road Intersection.The Property is largely undeveloped,with the exception of the home fronting HWY 54, owned by the seller, Carol Rigsbee. The current zoning is R1, Rural Residential, and the proposed zoning is R-CD, Residential Conditional District.The proposed development consists of 43 single family units, each with a minimum of 20,000 SF lot.A NCDOT rural roadway section with 20'pavement and roadside ditches are proposed. Various amenities will be scattered throughout the subdivision including using rain gardens and bioretention areas as stormwater management features.A mail Kiosk,trails, parking, gathering spaces and play areas are proposed. On site septic and community well are anticipated.The proposed open space provided is 41.11%, maintaining a visually appealing design that complements the surrounding neighborhood and preserves the natural aspects of the region. The anticipated future growth in the south portion of Orange County makes the property an ideal location for a subdivision that would serve the existing community and anticipated future growth. Moreover, as shown in the more detailed plans for the Property which accompany the Application,the proposed subdivision is designed to fit in with the character of the area.The site has been designed to address concerns regarding traffic patterns on NC Highway 54. Furthermore,the site has been designed to comply with all applicable stormwater management requirements so that neighboring and nearby properties will not be negatively affected by stormwater post-development. The design and scale of the proposed subdivision is intended to be consistent with the character of the surrounding area, and not to dwarf the existing neighboring uses.The large Lot sizes, rain gardens,trails and open space provided are intended to blend in with the existing environment and serve the existing community with access to trails.The proposed 10 site development has been designed with the existing built and natural environment of the area. 11 Exhibit A Justification Statement in Support of Atlas Map Amendment (Updated September 15,2025) The subject property is approximately 6 1.11 acres located along Highway 54 north of the intersection with White Coss Road in White Cross. Surrounding and nearby land uses include homes and farms,American Legion Post No. 6, Fiesta Grill, Bravos Market,Whitecross Mart, Carrboro Tropicals,Aguilar Tire and Automotive Center, Casework Arts and Stone Services. Surrounding and nearby properties are zoned Residential-1,Agricultural-Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and Local Commercial. The subject property is zoned Residential-1 ("R-1"). R-1 allows for rural non-farm residential development at a density of one unit per acre under a conventional subdivision process. We propose to rezone the property to Residential Conditional District("R-CD") to allow for 43 homes with design flexibility in accordance with an associated site plan and written conditions that address compatibility and harmony with the surrounding area. The Future Land Use Map of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan designates this property Rural Residential and includes it in a Rural Community Activity Node. Rural Residential encourages low density residential development such as this. The Rural Community Activity Node acknowledges that the area is appropriate for certain commercial or institutional uses.Although there are many such uses in this area, none are proposed here. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element of the begins by stating that "a fundamental and repeated concept expressed throughout each of the Elements of the Comprehensive Plan is the need to plan for sustainable growth."Between 2010 and 2020, Orange County's population grew by 11%, adding nearly 15,000 new residents. The Plan clearly indicates a need for additional housing to accommodate the County's fast-growing population, but also that housing should be developed thoughtfully with the intention of maintaining the area's rural character and critical natural resources. The Rigsbee development is intended to meet this need. The neighborhood will provide new homes for 43 families while preserving nearly 20 acres of contiguous land as primary open space for habitat preservation and passive recreation. The design protects the creek and all associated floodplains and buffers, and incorporates green stormwater features to infiltrate and clean storm runoff for an added layer of protection. Rigsbee will also be built outside of prime forest land on a property managed for many years for active forestry and agriculture. The new community's open spaces will ultimately protect its most valuable land to preserve its ecological integrity while also meeting the need for sustainable long-term growth. Our goal is to create a thoughtfully designed community at Rigsbee that integrates sustainable practices, embracing the beauty of its natural setting and its long agricultural history. Green stormwater management features will be incorporated into the community design to naturally capture and treat stormwater, following practices designed to protect nearby Collins Creek and its tributaries so that they remain healthy and clean. We are proposing up to 43 lots of about 20,000 square feet, each with its own septic system and serviced by a community well. Homes will be situated along two central spines, all with easy access to a network of trails and a shared 169776813.5 12 green space with an open lawn area, covered open air structure for community gathering, outdoor grill, and nature play space, enhancing residents' sense of cohesive community and connection to the natural world. The history of the property and its surroundings will be reflected in the community's design through architecture and material choices, ensuring a strong sense of place. Like many local properties, the Rigsbee land has been occupied and farmed by the same family for many generations, most recently as a feed field for the family's dairy farm. In the 1970s, the Rigsbees removed the land from active agricultural use and turned to forestry, and it has been actively harvested by the North Carolina Forest Service ever since. The community's design will build on this long history with material choices, such as local wood to reference timber harvesting. The design of the homes will draw on local architecture, and conversations and writings from the Rigsbee family will be woven into the neighborhood through elements like place names and markers. Respect for nature and local ecosystems will be thoughtfully integrated into Rigsbee's design, affirming the community's commitment to preserving the natural environment. The layout will well exceed all landscape buffer requirements, and open spaces will be planted with a diverse array of native evergreen, deciduous and understory trees to enhance the ecological value of the local forest. If stormwater management is required, green stormwater infrastructure will be seamlessly integrated into the landscape through bioretention features planted with native perennials to help keep Collins Creek and its tributaries clean and healthy. The features will allow stormwater to slowly infiltrate into native soil, providing a natural water filter, recharging wells and preventing stormwater from flooding rivers and streams. They will also provide habitat for local birds and pollinators, ultimately enhancing the natural ecosystem. Rigsbee's meaningful community amenities will provide residents with opportunities to relax, gather, and explore the natural world. Each home will have easy access to a centrally located green space with a lawn area, outdoor grill, and covered open-air structure, opportunities for residents to come together to relax, work, or host events. Residents will stay active while exploring a network of natural surface trails which will allow community members to walk,jog or hike through the forest.An overlook over the creek and its wetlands will bring residents into this unique environment, allowing them to appreciate the natural beauty of their surroundings. Community recreation, especially through paths and trails, is an important resource both for this community and for the County as a whole. The 2014 Orange County Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified 8 recommendations for the County, including building more trails and improving open space access to promote healthy lifestyles. These recommendations were generated from community input and from emerging research in the fields of economic and public health. Community outreach conducted as part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process found that residents are eager for more opportunities to walk, hike, and bike in nature. Rigsbee's trail network will provide ample opportunities for residents to engage in healthy recreation while promoting community cohesion. The trail network at the Rigsbee Community will be designed to embrace the site's natural topography and showcase its most beautiful natural features. Trails will be constructed with natural surfacing, ensuring minimal impact on nearby streams and allowing access for all ages and abilities. 2 169776813.5 13 In conclusion, Rigsbee is not simply another residential development, but a community carefully designed for residents to live in harmony with their natural surroundings. Through green stormwater design and low-impact trails, the community's sustainable features will promote respect and love for the native ecosystem. Through planting native trees, shrubs, and perennials, the project will ultimately enhance the biodiversity of the landscape.And through meaningful open spaces, residents will explore their natural surroundings and find a sense of community belonging. Our goal is to create a place where families will truly enjoy the beauty of their surroundings. We respectfully request your support for this Atlas Amendment. 3 169776813.5 14 Rigsbee Community Narrative Our goal is to create a thoughtfully designed community at Rigsbee with sustainable practices integrated throughout, embracing the beauty of its natural setting and its long agricultural history. Low-impact design and green stormwater management features are incorporated throughout the community to naturally capture and treat stormwater,following practices designed to protect nearby Collins Creek and its tributaries so that they remain healthy and clean.We are proposing up to 40 lots of about 20,000 square feet, each with its own septic system but serviced by a community well. Homes will be situated along two central spines, all with easy access to a network of trails and a shared green space with a Great Lawn, common house, outdoor kitchen and nature play area, enhancing residents'sense of cohesive community and connection to the natural world. The history of the property and its surroundings will be reflected in the community's design through architecture and material choices, ensuring a strong sense of place. Like many local properties,the Rigsbee land has been occupied and farmed by the same family for many generations, most recently as a feed field for the family's dairy farm. In the 1970s,the Rigsbees removed the land from active agricultural use and turned to forestry, and it has been actively harvested by the North Carolina Forest Service ever since.The community's design will build on this long history with material choices like oak, hickory and poplar wood, reflecting the timber that would has historically been harvested here.The design of the homes and common house will draw on local architecture, and conversations and writings from the Rigsbee family will be woven into the neighborhood through elements like place names and markers.The neighborhood's landscape will build on its roots in small-scale agriculture with a community orchard,where residents can pick their own local fruit. Respect for nature and local ecosystems will be thoughtfully integrated into Rigsbee's design, affirming the community's commitment to preserving the natural environment. The layout will well exceed all landscape buffer requirements, and open spaces will be planted with a diverse array of native evergreen, deciduous and understory trees to enhance the ecological value of the local forest. Green stormwater infrastructure will be seamlessly integrated into the landscape through two rain gardens planted with native perennials to help keep Collins Creek and its tributaries clean and healthy.The rain gardens will allow stormwater to slowly infiltrate into native soil, providing a natural water filter and preventing stormwater from flooding rivers and streams.They will also provide habitat for local birds and pollinators, ultimately enhancing the natural ecosystem. Rigsbee's meaningful community amenities will provide residents with opportunities to relax, gather, and explore the natural world. Each home will have easy access to a centrally located green space with a Great Lawn, outdoor kitchen, and common house, providing opportunities for residents to come together to relax,work, or host events.A nature play area with logs, stumps and boulders will give children a creative play area to explore their surroundings. Residents will stay active while exploring a network of ADA-accessible trails,which will allow community members to walk,jog or hike through the forest.Trails will be paved with porous gravel, allowing residents to explore nature while treading lightly on the land. An overlook over the creek and its wetlands will bring residents into this unique environment, allowing them to appreciate the natural beauty of their surroundings. 15 Community recreation, especially through paths and trails, is an important resource both for this community and for the County as a whole.The 2014 Orange County Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified 8 recommendations for the County, including building more trails and improving open space access to promote healthy lifestyles.These recommendations were generated from community input and from emerging research in the fields of economic and public health. Community outreach conducted as part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process found that residents are eager for more opportunities to walk, hike, and bike in nature. Rigsbee's trail network will provide ample opportunities for residents to engage in healthy recreation while promoting community cohesion.The trail network at the Rigsbee Community will be designed to embrace the site's natural topography and showcase its most beautiful natural features.Trails will be constructed with ADA-compliant porous materials, ensuring minimal impact on nearby streams and allowing access for all ages and abilities. We are committed to contributing to the goals of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.The plan highlights the challenge of preserving the county's rural character and cooperative community values,while also growing to meet economic and housing needs. Rigsbee will provide new homes to meet growing demand, in a thoughtfully designed community that preserves open space and encourages respect for the land and its history. In conclusion, Rigsbee is not simply another residential development, but a community carefully designed for residents to live in harmony with their natural surroundings. Through green stormwater design and low-impact accessible trails,the community's sustainable features will promote respect and love for the native ecosystem.Through planting native trees, shrubs, and perennials, the project will ultimately enhance the biodiversity of the landscape.And through meaningful open spaces, residents will explore their natural surroundings and find a sense of community belonging. Our goal is to create a place where families will truly enjoy the beauty of their surroundings. • y b. �, +s t� TM +'. I -�yd i'"� a.,14- ,�" byy'.', � *• _ 4• , '�� �P. ,I MI. 3 K Y a r. ■ J � r • • f 18 NATURAL SURFACE TRAILS --J -'.- 1- j, ;_1 I - - ' ' A a A 7 t r r z ns. 3' _ i q d Note:Images are representative of the design intent only and do not reflect actual materials,finishes, scale,or other details.Final design will be determined at time of construction drawings. DESIGN INTENT&PRECEDENT IMAGERY design studio Weston Sampsali F©RESTAR Rigsbee Subdivision April 7,2025 19 WETLAND OVERLOOKS AND BOARDWALKS 0 101 =- Y nom- Note:Images are representative of the design intent only and do not reflect actual materials,finishes, scale,or other details.Final design will be determined at time of construction drawings. DESIGN INTENT& PRECEDENT IMAGERY Weston Sampsaio FORESTAiR a�si9� studio ��� Rigsbee Subdivision April 7,2025 1 Exhibit A-1 169774018.3 x r 21 Exhibit A-2 Well House Design r;. Note: Not to Scale 4 169774018.3 22 Exhibit B Mail Kiosk Design 'k I i REtEWVEO PMNINt9 -- f rte_ Note: Not to Scale 5 169774018.3 23 Exhibit C Community Gathering Space . •- 169774018.3 UP t' f � _ P t 24 Construction Schedule Site will be developed in one phase. Expected Development Start Date-December 2026 Expected First Houses Construction Date-February 2028 Expected Project Closeout- February 2029 25 From: Matthew Taylor<mtaylor@orangecountync.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 9:53 AM To: Patrick R. Mallett<pmallett@orangecountync.gov>; Donald Sever <donald.sever@bowman.com> Cc: Danielle Cabral <danielle.cabral@bowman.com>; Digen Wright<digenwright@ncdot.gov>; Laura Haywood (LauraHaywood@forestar.com) <LauraHaywood @forestar.com>;Taylor Perschau <tperschau@orangecountync.gov>; Steele, Nicole<Steele.Nicole@wseinc.com>; Donna Crowder <DonnaCrowder@forestar.com>; Cotter, Rachel <Cotter.Rachel @wseinc.com>; Gramolini, Allison <Gramolini.Allison@wseinc.com>;Trahos, Beth <btrahos@foxrothschild.com>; Christopher Pendergrass<cpendergrass@orangecountync.gov>; Chuck Edwards Contact <cnedwards@ncdot.gov>; Cy Stober<cstober@orangecountync.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Rigsbee Subdivision -3531 NC 54 W Chapel Hill Orange County If the Fire Marshal is ok with access of the private road portions for their apparatuses, then that should be adequate for Solid Waste for recycling collection and whatever private hauler that could/would be servicing this development for trash collection. Alaec T,*e. Environmental Enforcement Supervisor Orange County Solid Waste Management 1207 Eubanks Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (0): 919-918-4905 26 Efland Trash Service 1 May 2025 1910 Efland Cedar Grove Rd Efland NC 27243 919-812-9299 DANIELLE CABRAL 4006 Barrett Dr, STE 104, Raleigh, NC 27609 Authorization for Trash Collection Service. I, Rachel Gibson, General Manager, hereby authorize Efland Trash Service LLC to service two separate housing communities at the following addresses: 3531 NC 54 W Chapel Hill, Orange County, NC (Rigsbee Subdivision is 43-lot) 3531 NC 54 W Chapel Hill, Orange County, NC will be serviced every Tuesday(we will provide 96 gallon trash cans, per address) Each unit will be responsibility for payment every month unless otherwise arrangement is agreed. All units must follow all terms and agreements of Efland Trash Service LLC. By submitting this authorization letter, I acknowledge that I have the authority to make this decision. Rachel Gibson- General manager Jessica Bollinger- Owner David Bollinger- Owner 27 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or plan ningapps orangecountync.gov Environmental Assessment Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information is contained in Section 2.25 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink. * Please fill out all required fields An Environmental Assessment(EA)shall be required for each individual parcel proposed for development consistent with applicable criterial as detailed within the LIDO. Date: 04/02/2025 Contact Information* Property Owner(s): CAROLYN RIGSBEE Mailing Address: 3531 NC 54 W, CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516 Phone: (919)619-5697 Email: crgsbee36@icloud.com Applicant (if different than property owner): FORESTAR C/O LAURA HAYWOOD Mailing Address: 8041 ARCO CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 110, RALEIGH NC 27617 Phone: (720)226-4200 Email: laurahaywood@forestar.com I. Property Information* Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9749422010 Address: NC 54W, CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516 Acreage: 6399 Township: BINGHAM Zoning District: R1 Watershed Overlay: Other Overlay: II. General Site Information* A. Adjacent Property Zoning North: R1 South: AR East: R1 West: R1 Land Use North: residential South: residential East: residential West: residential B. Topography ■ Highest Elevation: 565 ■ Lowest Elevation: 500 ■ General direction of slope: north and west Page 1 of 5 28 ■ Estimated % of property with: 0 — 5% slope: 50 5 — 15% slope: 20 15 — 25% slope: 10 More than 25% slope: C. Water Features and Drainage The following water features are located on the property: ❑✓ Streams ❑✓ Wetlands ❑ Ponds ❑ Drainage Easements ❑ Special Flood Hazard Area Describe Three stream features (all tributaries of Collins Creek) delineated within the project area: one intermittent stream in the southwest, and two perennial streams in the north/northeast of the project. In addition, seven wetland features were delineated. (attach additional sheets if needed) D. Does the property contain any of the following Inventory of Natural or Cultural Resources? As identified in the "Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historical, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" or the "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina". 1. Cemeteries ❑ Yes❑✓ No 2. Archaeological sites ❑ Yes❑✓ No 3. Historic sites ❑ Yes❑✓ No 4. Areas of geological significance ❑ Yes❑✓ No 5. Designated natural areas ❑ Yes ❑✓ No 6. Designated habitat ❑ Yes ✓❑ No For each yes answer above, please indicate the location on the site plan and complete Attachment A. III. Project Description* A. Describe proposed use of property: Single Family Residential B. Number of lots: 43 C. Number of structures: 44 Page 2 of 5 29 D. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for development of attached residential units (excluding roads, but including parking areas) 0.2 acres E. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for non-residential use (excluding roads) 0.9 acres F. Estimated area to be graded for roads 2.5 acres ■ Road type: ❑✓ Public ❑✓ Private ❑✓ Class A ❑ Class B ■ Total road length: 3926' IIII. State Permits Required* A. Does the project involve the mining of earth products? ❑ Yes ❑✓ No ■ If yes, how many cubic feet of material are expected to be excavated? ■ Has an application for a Mining Permit been submitted to NCDRCD? ❑ Yes ❑✓ No Please attach map indicating expected extent of proposed activity. B. Does the project involve generation or storage of hazardous or toxic wastes, as identified by the Environmental Protection Agency? ❑✓ Yes ❑ No ■ Describe the wastes to begenerated: Petroleum-based fuel will likely be temporarily stored on the site during construction. Significant amounts of waste are not anticipated to be generated on the site. ■ How much material is expected to be generated per month? Significant amounts of waste are not anticipated to be generated on the site. ■ Will any material be treated onsite? ❑ Yes ❑✓ No If yes, indicate volume: Will any material be stored onsite? ❑✓ Yes ❑ No If yes, indicate volume: 200 gallons of fuel ■ Where will disposal of the material take lace? The materials will be combusted on site in vehicle engines. ■ How will materials be transported to the disposal site? truck ■ What measures are proposed to protect water quality and air quality in case of spills? Contractor will use spill containment system as recommended by DEQ Page 3 of 5 30 C. Will the project involve a land application system for treatment of wastewater? ■ ❑ Yes ❑✓ No - If yes, describe ■ Has an application for a non-discharge permit been submitted to the NC Department of Environmental Management or Orange County Department of Environmental Health?❑ Yes ❑ No D. Is a septic tank system proposed which has a design capacity of more than 3,000 gallons per day? ❑ Yes ❑✓ No - If yes, describe E. Does the activity involve sludge disposal? ❑ Yes❑✓ No ■ If yes, where is the source of the sludge? ■ Describe where and how the sludge is being disposed ■ Hasa NPDES permit from the NC Division of Environmental Quality been issued? ❑Yes ❑ No F. Water Usage ■ Estimated number of employees: N/A x 25 gallons per day (gpd) = gpd ■ Estimated water use for climate control = gpd ■ Process Water % Consumed % Discharged to septic system % Discharged to surface (including storm sewers - Describe: % Evaporated % Reclaimed/reused % Other = 100% ■ Water used for cooling, heating, etc., in association with production or manufacturing % Reused % Consumed % Discharged - Describe: = 100% gpd Total Water Usage ■ Describe source of water: Community Well Page 4 of 5 31 Attachment A* To be completed only if inventory sites are identified in I.D. (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1.a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development 1.b. Proposed Mitigation 2.a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development 2.b. Proposed Mitigation Certification and Signatures* Statement by Applicant - I certify that the information presented by me in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. &n.o., uee -Entitlements Manager, Forestar 04.02.2025 Applicant Date Page 5 of 5 32 P.O.Box 129 501 Cascade Pointe Lane Morrisville, NC 27560 Suite 103 Cary,NC 27513 (919)467-1239 www.macconnellandassoc.com MacCONNELL & Associates, P.C. "Engineering Today For Tomorrow's Future" Water Narrative The potable water system for the proposed development will consist of one onsite community well to supply water for the development. The design basis is to provide high quality potable water for the future residents of the Rigsbee property subdivision. The design is based on minimum NCDEQ standards and regulations. The system is sized for 40 single-family detached residences. The system is sized for residential peak flows per NCDEQ guidelines. The system will consist of a well house, well pump, hydropneumatic tank, liquid chlorine disinfection, greensand filtration (or equivalent) filters, valving and appurtenance. The water quality report received during testing of well indicated the water source was over the allowable limits for manganese. A greensand(or equivalent) filtration system is proposed to reduce the manganese concentrations below the allowable limits. In addition,the water will be disinfected with liquid chlorine. The water will be stored in a hydropneumatics storage tank that will provide the necessary storage required and regulate the pressure of the distribution system. Septic Narrative The subdivision proposed disposing of wastewater effluent by individual onsite systems designed to 15A NCAC 18E Wastewater Treatment and Dispersal systems and Orange County Rules for Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Dispersal Systems. Based on a preliminary soils analysis, each site is anticipated to utilize conventional disposal methods (trench systems). Each home will have a septic tank sized for the proposed number of bedrooms and if necessary, a pump tank. Influent will flow into the septic which will provide both treatment and solids removal. An effluent filter will be installed at the outlet end to prevent solids from leaving the tank. It will then either gravity to the drain field or flow into a pump tank. The pump tank if required will house the equipment required to pump the septic tank effluent to the pressure manifold which will proportionally direct the effluent to the drain field. As reference, there are surrounding neighborhoods (Heritage Hills, Rolling Hills, Rolling Woods and Dogwood)that have minimum 20,000 sf lots utilizing onsite septic systems. SPANGLER ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental Consulting I Litigation Support I Environmental Services 28 July 2025 Ms. Laura Haywood Entitlements Program Manager Forestar—Carolinas East Division VIA E-mail: LauraHaywood@forestar.com RE: Rigsbee — Orange County, NC — Proposed Community Well Drawdown: Impacts to Adjacent Single Use Wells: Preliminary Ms. Haywood: Pursuant to your request, Spangler Environmental, LLC, an Earth Systems Company (SEL) has completed a preliminary evaluation of the potential effect of the proposed residential development's community well on adjacent,single use wells,if any.The below summary is based only on a preliminary evaluation of the raw data collected during ambient conditions (i.e. prior to draw down of the proposed community well), as well as direct observations documented during and following the drawdown of the proposed community well. The results of ongoing modeling that has been initiated using AQTESOLV (Advanced Aquifer Test Analysis Software; Aquifer Test SOVer) to determine the transmissivity and storativity, which, once determined, will be input into the NCDEQ-DWR Reverse- Time Drawdown Analysis to calculate drawdowns at varying distances from ACCURATEGROUND the proposed community well. The results of this analysis will be provided WATER DATA upon completion of the modeling,which are expected to support the results of the raw data analysis detailed below, which clearly show that even significant withdrawals from the Proposed Community Well have no impacts on neither shallow, nor deep adjacent wells. Background/ambient conditions: Ambient conditions are those that are currently, typically occuring, without any new inputs. As shown in the attached Figure 1, the Rigsbee Well is approximately 600 feet west/northwest of the Proposed Community Well and the Griffin Well is approximately 660 feet north/northeast of the SAND EEO Proposed Community Well. Ambient data were collected at all three wells between 13 and 28 June 2025 using Well Sounder 2010 PRO devices, which are manufactured by Eno Scientific, LLC in Hillsboro, NC. As depicted in Illustration 1, these devices use sound waves to record static water surface depths within wells, relative to ground level and/or well head elevations. PLAIP Additional ambient data was collected at the Rigsbee and Griffin Wells prior to, during and after the drawdown testing of the Proposed Community Well, which was completed between 1100 on 16 July 2025 and 1100 on 17 July 2025. Data collection at the Rigsbee and Griffin Wells continued to be Illustration 1 collected until 25 July 2025. www.spanglerenvironmental.comRaleigh I Charlotte I Charleston Tampa 866-772-6453 34 As shown on its Orange County Existing Well/Septic System Authorization, the Rigsbee Well is 505 feet deep,with a 35-foot well casing and a static water depth of 25 feet. While no formal permit data were available for the Griffin Well (i.e., it appears to pre-date the Orange County Database/Permitting Requirement), the owner indicated that, to his knowledge, the Griffin Well depth is 75 feet, with the pump at 65 feet and the static water depth at 35 feet. As shown in the Yadkin Well Company's report (Appendix 1),the Proposed Community Well depth is 665 feet, its static well level is 33 feet below the top of the casing and the casing extends 2 feet above the ground surface. As shown in Graph 1, between 13 and 27 June 2025 the Rigsbee Well static water depth below the surface ranged from 23.49 to 105.01 and averaged 35.01. The depth to water regularly fluctuated from approximately 23 feet and approximately 45 feet below the surface throughout the monitoring period, indicating this is the well's normal variation. However, there were notable, more significant fluctuations between 14 and 16 June 2025. On 14 June, between 0554 and 1004,the depth to water dropped from 24.43 feet below the surface,to 91.23 feet. After a rapid rise to 57.08 feet at 1509 there was another rapid drop to 87.04 feet at 1554, before again rising rapidly to 24.49 at 0624 on 15 June. Again, on 15 June the water surface elevation dropped from 23.76 feet below the surface at 0734,to 105.01 feet at 1539, with a small recovery in between.Then, by 0609 on 16 June,the depth to water rose again to 23.82 feet. Although the Rigsbee Well exhibited a normal variation in depth to water of approximately 22 feet, the monitoring documented that under "ordinary use" the depth to water occasionally fluctuated more dramatically. The magnitude of these transient fluctuations were up to about four times that of the routine variation. Graph 1:Ambient Well Data 6/13/2025-6128/2025 DateMme �ry9 ,yo�9 eti9 .v°ya �h9 ,� a`E' ry1 ®� l 1ti,� ryoya �`� ryo,� a,�y T a�� ryoyo Drys ryoyw j _or rory�, ryo,�h arye rypyo- eye °�a onh ,qy5 �5 yh ,p�h ,,p�5 ,yy ,ryh p�h ,A,yS lyh pyh h r ,y°i yh ,L',a h eyh ,y°j ,,O�h b\1\1'6\v\" fir.\`�61Ma'C `Y hy'Ip 6\'s\" t� 6�h 6yM1�``➢'e,V 6�h`^V 'e, 6\ 6�'Y by�'�6�'Y��6`3'�610 y1'Ya yyI�G1'Y'p ellV �rypl'G'.10""6,e e4l'�tih�V 0 N" -0 10 -fllgsbee WeLL L G N � �GtlRln WeRI d U 60 �Praposetl Cammunily Well fl7 d } 80 100 120 PANG EFS ENVIRONMENTAL 35 The Griffin Well, on the other hand, exhibited a regular fluctuation in water depth below the surface ranging from 34.98 to 41.7 and averaging 35.01 between 13 and 27 June 2025. In addition to the approximately 6.75-foot normal variation, transient fluctuations documented in the Griffen Well during the monitoring period,were less than about 3 feet in excess of the normal variation. Adjacent well surface elevations before,during and after drawdown: As stated above, drawdown of the proposed community well was completed between 1100 on 16 July 2025 and 1100 on 17 July 2025 (Appendix 1). Data collection at the Rigsbee and Griffin Wells began on 7 July and continued until 25 July 2025. The drawdown confirmed that the proposed community well has a steady state (i.e., the balance of withdrawal and groundwater recharge, with no change to water surface elevation)of approximately 90 gallons per minute. As depicted in Graphs 2 and 3, no water level changes beyond the normal variations discussed above were documented in either the Rigsbee Well or the Griffin Well during drawdown to either maximum well depth(i.e.,606 feet below the surface)or steady state withdrawal (i.e.90 gallons/minute),as well as during the subsequent recovery period. Graph 2.Drawdown Well Data(Griffin Well):7/7/2025-7/25/2025 Date/Time ti .yti ti y� e`� 6"ry eti yti eti yti eti 6yti eti 6yti e� 6y0 5� rya e� �`�' e'b '4' ye 4, ye "P esP '4 y¢ � py am ya. e' yp. y,, yp. e yy. V yp. t yb. e� yp. e^' p` y;. yo,, yti yy* e'` yy. yti y5. y�. hy. \otih\�oti5\ryotie\ryotie\ryotih o\tioti o\tiati �.atiotititi \tioti \ryati b\tioti ti \roti \tioti 6\tion.. ti^\tioti 1\tioti \,yti \tioti 9\,roti o\tion.1\,roti \,roti ry\,�oti�,�oti�\tiotiry�\,�otiry4\tiotiryo-\,roti�,�ti 0 m zo ao d -Grlffin Well N p Community N IJ - 11ITIFT , 11Well v DmWtloWn qp Period N is so so 70 PANG EFS ENVIRONMENTAL 36 Graph 3.Drawdown Well Data(Rigsbee Well):7/7/2025-7/25/2025 Date/Time yO S .eS S yS eS yyS eS eyS yS yyti yS yyS yS '41 yti 'ee ye yyO y° eyy ya ,.ye ye �.ye yO �.ye ye ,�.ye yO ^ye ye �.yO yo ^ye yye y'y epy e'y ycy e'6 Sep tie' Sep 'tie' Sep Se, Sep tie' Sep Se, Sep 0, Sep tie, Sep Se, Sep tie' Sey Sy, Sey P Sey tie' Sey Se, Sey Sy, \SeS \SOS \SOS \SOS \SeS O\i° O\SO aSO ASO ASO eSe e\So p\So a\SO y\Se "f av y\D ^\Se ^\So e\SO e\Se 9\Se e\Se O\SO \SO 1\Se M1\So S\Se ASO A\So e\SO p\So ASO yryo.,. 0 I'hrv�YYN'li"I�'�� 100 L 200 d -Rigsbee Well al Community O � Well Drawdown Period N 300 >R 400 50U Preliminary Conclusions: As detailed above,the depth to water within the adjacent Rigsbee and Griffin Wells was continuously monitored before, during and after drawdown of the Proposed Community Well. No water level changes beyond the normal variations recorded in Rigsbee and the Griffin Wells occurred during maximum drawdown, steady state withdrawal, or subsequent recovery of the Proposed Community Well. As such, it is anticipated that the analytical modeling will further demonstrate that use of the Proposed Community Well consistent with State regulations to serve the proposed Rigsbee Residential Development will not negatively impact adjacent wells. Should you have any questions, or require further clarification, please let me know. Sincerely, Spangler Environmental, LLC Ward Marotti Director: Natural Resources AM FANG' EFS ENVIRONMENTAL 31 CANDY SURVEYING TOPOGRAPHIC - WELL ELEVATIONS P-1938 0 75 ieo soo 1154 SHONELE LANE 3531 NC HWY 54 W STEM, NC 27581 CHAPEL HILL SCALE: I"= 150' PHONE (984) 377-2626 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Figure 1 . / AERIAL IMAGERY SHOWN FROM DATA DOWNLOADED AT: https://www.nconemap.gov/ / WELL HEAD ELEV = 560.1' GROUND SHOT ELEV= 559.1' N: 791,410.99' E: 1,944,375.70' IGriffin Well L/ WELL HEAD ELEV = 561.2' ' [GROUND SHOT ELEV = 559.6' N: 790,957.64' I E: 1,943,408.17' ❑TM1' -;psi WELL HEAD ELEV = 556.0' Rigsbee Well GROUND SHOT ELEV = 553.8' N: 790,830.15' E: 1,943,950.61'1 Proposed Community Well I CERTIFY THAT THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION; THAT THIS GROUND SURVEY WAS PERFORMED AT THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL TO MEET FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE STANDARDS; THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A TOPOGRAPHIC/PLANIMETRIC SURVEY TO THE ACCURACY OF CLASS A STANDARD AND VERTICAL ACCURACY WHEN APPLICABLE TO THE CLASS A tIII111111 N 07/077/2025; THAT A THE SURVEY INWAS COMPLETED ON I 07/07/2025; ���,,��°°°�Vpi. THAT CONTOURS SHOWN MAY NOT MEET THE STATED STANDARD; AND �� �o°°F E S S ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON 'NAD 83' AND REALIZATION (2011) AND ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVD 88 GEOID 18. Zo gv ° SEAL g THIS -- --- DAY OF ---— — L-5675 0 SEAL G o°f -- --- --------- ;,%°°SURV DUSTIN A. DANIELS, PLS L-5675 �I/jj11 38 Appendix 1 PANG EFS ENVIRONMENTAL 39 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT GROUNDWATER SECTION P.O, BOX- RALEIGH, NC 27611 (919) 733-3221 3R° 24HR, TEST PUMP TEST RECORD TEST CONDUCTED BY: Yadkin Well Company WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO: 1) WELL LOCATION: NEAREST TOWN:Chapel Hill County:Orange Hwy 54 Rigsbee Site (ROAD NO.,COMMUNITY,OR SUBDIVISION AND LOT N0.) 2) OWNER: FORESTAR (NAME) (ADDRESS) 3) USE OF WELL:() DOMESTIC(X) PUBLIC()INDUSTRIAL() IRRIGATION ()OTHER 4) WELL DEPTH:665 FT. CASING DIAMETER:8IN. CASING TYPE: GALVANIZED STEEL 5) DRILLING CONTRACTOR: YADKIN WELL COMPANY. WAS CASING GROUTED:YES 6) STATIC WELL LEVEL 33FT. BELOW TOP OF CASING DATE MEASURED:7Z16/25 CASING IS 2FT,ABOVE LAND SURFACE 7) WELL YIELD:98 GPM.SPECIFIC CAPACITY_GPM/FT.DD. 8) PUMPING WATER LEVEL:606 FT.AFTER 24 HOURS AT 98 GPM 9) CLORINATION:TYPE POWDER: 70%Hypochlorite AMOUNT: 50 OZ. 10) TIME AND DATE: PUMP STARTED? 16 25 @ 11:00 AM PUMP STOPPED: 7/17/25 @ 11;00 AM 11) WATER LEVEL MEASURING DEVICE: ELECTRIC TAPE Soiomist FLOW MEASURING DEVICE: 3"Turbine RG3 12) TEST PUMP:TYPE:SUBMERSIBLE MAKE.GRUNDFOS HORSEPOWER: 25 CAPACITY: 100 GPM AT: 600 T D H. INTAKE DEPTH: 609 FT, TIME WATER PUMPING TIME WATER PUMPING LEVEL RATE LEVEL RATE 11:00 AM 33 228 12:05 PM 578 112 11:05 AM 154 224 12:18 PM 50 2Hr.Test 1.1:10 AM 366 180 1:18 PM 228 50 @ 11:15 AM 504 142 2:18 PM 230 50 50 GPM 11:20 AM 545 121 2:21 PM 260 80 2Hr.Test 11:25 AM 563 119 3:21 PM 364 8o @ 11:30 AM 569 115 4:21 PM 364 80 80 GPM 1.1:35 AM 572 115 4:23 PM 478 151 11:40 AM 575 114 5:23 PM 587 105 11:45 AM 576 112 6:23 PM 591 103 11:50 AM 576 112 7:23 PM 592 103 11:55 PM 577 112 8:23 PM 593 103 12:00 PM 578 112 9:23 PM 594 103 40 7/16/2025 TIME WATER LEVEL PUMPING TIME WATER LEVEL PUMPING RATE RATE 10:23 PM 595 102 11:23 PM 596 102 12:23 AM 597 101 1:23 AM 598 100 2:23 AM 599 99 3:23 AM 600 99 4:23 AM 601 99 5:23 AM 601 99 6:23 AM 602 99 7:23 AM 602 98 8:23 AM 603 98 9:23 AM 604 98 10:23 AM 605 98 11:25 AM 606 98 I i i i 3 I i Pace Analy4ll Services,LLC. 205 East Meadow Rd,Suite A Pace Eden,NC 27288 Phone:(336)623-8921 Fax:(336)623-5878 BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Note:All applicable information must be supplied for compliance credit. Water System Number: NC - - County: Orange Name of Water System: Rigsbee Well#2 System Type: Water Source: -------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Distribution System—Revised Total Coliform Rule(RTCR) Facility ID:D01 Sample Type: Routine(RT) Repeat(RP) Special/Non-compliance(SP) Location Code: __ _ Tap Location: Well Head#2 Street Address: Hwy 54 City: Chapel Hill Check(q)if sample site is owned or controlled by water system. Check(�)if sample site is a daycare or a K-12 school. Sample Point: Routine Original(RTOR) Repeat-Original Tap(RPOR) Repeat-Upstream(RPUP) F—]Repeat-Downstream(RPDN) ------------------ -------------------------------------------- X Source Water—Ground Water Rule(GWR) Sample Type: Triggered(TG) Additional/Confirmation(CO) Assessment(RT) Triggered/Distribution Repeat(TD)* Facility ID• Sample Point: *for systems with a population<1,000 Collected—BY: Kenny Reavis DATE: 0 9 / 1 2 / 2 4 TIME: HE] HE] a m Mail Results to(water system representative): Complete for Repeat, Triggered,or Additional/Confirmation Samples: Yadkin Well Company-David Brown Previous Positive Laboratory ID Number: 1908 Hamptonville Road " Positive Laboratory Log Number: Hamptonville,NC 27020 o Positive Location Code: Phone#: 3 3 6 4 6 8 4 4 4 0 Positive Collection Date: Fax#: Disinfectant Used: Responsible Person's email: Total Chlorine Residual(chloramines): mg/L davidbrown@yadkinwell.com Free Chlorine Residual(chlorine): mg/L Laboratory ID Number: 3 7 7 3 8 ❑ Repeat Samples Required from Client Resample Required from Client CONTAM METHOD RESULTS Invalid CODE CONTAMINANT CODE RULE z Code Present Absent INVALID CODES: L3100 Total Coliform 9223B V RTCR/GWR X 1 Confluent Growth/ No Coliform Growth Found C 014 E. coli 9223B RTCR/GWR = X___] F 2 TNTC/No Coliform Growth Found 3002 Enterococci �� GWR r� C 3 Turbid Culture/ No Coliform Growth Found 03028 Coliphage GWR 4 Over 30 Hours Old X013 Fecal Coliform TCR C 5 Improper Sample or Analysis 3001 Heterotrophic P.C. cfu/mL or MPN 'If fecal,E.coli,enterococci or coliphage is present,lab must fax results to the State on day test completed.'If total coliform bacteria is present,lab must fax results to the State within 24 hours.'If HPC is absent,enter a"0"left of the"cfu/mL or MPN"units;if present,enter a whole number.'Explain invalid code below in comments. Analyses Begun—DATE: 0 9 / 1 2 / 2 4 TIME: 0 6 4 4 , p m (Date as: mm/dd/yy) Analyses Completed—DATE: 0 9 / 1 3 / 2 4 TIME: 1 2 S S , p m (Time as: h:mm am/pm) Laboratory Log Number: 9275307600IMBIO Certified By: Jessica Mize COMMENTS: ._ 11L 2016 NCDEQ Public Water Supply Section F-CAR-CS-022-rev.01,8/3/2016 Pace Analytfihi Services,LLC. 205 East Meadow Rd,Suite A Pace Eden,NC 27288 Phone:(336)623-8921 Fax:(336)623-5878 NEW WELL INORGANIC CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Note:All information must be supplied for plan review credit. WATER SYSTEM ID#: _ - - __ County: Orange Name of Water System: Rigsbee Well#2 Sample Type: ❑ Entry Point IN Non-compliance Location Where Collected: Hose Bib Well#2 Facility ID No.: (Note:Compliance sample MUST be collected at the entry point. Sample Point: Collection Date Collection Time Collected By: Kenny Reavis 0 9 / 1 2 / 2 4 1 0 : 3 2 , A M (Please Print) (MM/DD/YY) (Specify AM or PM) Mail Results to (water system representative): Phone#: ( 336 ) 468-4440 Yadkin Well Company-David Brown Fax#: ( ) 1908 Hamptonville Road Responsible Person's email: Hamptonville,NC 27020 davidbrown(uyadkinwell.com LABORATORY ID#: 3 7 7 3 8 SAMPLE UNSATISFACTORY ❑ RESAMPLE REQUIRED CONTAM METHOD REQUIRED ;NOT DETECTED ; QUANTIFIED ALLOWABLE CODE CONTAMINANT i CODE REPORTING LIMIT i (i.e.<R.R.L) i RESULTS LIMIT* I i i (R.R.L.) i W i 0100 Turbidity ; SM 2130B- ; 0.10 mg/L ; ❑x ; mg/L : N/A ---------------- 1005 ; Arsenic ; 200.8 ; 0.005---mg/L- : 0 ; ——.———— mg/L 0.010 mg/L 1010Barium 200.8 ; 0.400 mg/L ' 0 ; mg/L ; 2.000 mg/L --'---- 1015 ; Cadmium ; 200.8 ; 0.001 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L 0.005 mg/L ------------ ------ ------ —---———-------- 1016 ; Calcium ; 200.7 ; 1.0 mg/L ; El ; 5 3 . 1 0 0 mg/L ; N/A -------------T---------------_-------r--------------r------------------T--------------r_ ----------________r________________ 1017 ; Chloride ; 300.0 ; 5.0 mg/L ; El ; 2 7 . 8 0 0 mg/L ; 250.0 mg/L ____________T_______________________r______________r__________-_______T______________r_------________r________________ 1020 ; Chromium 200.8 ; 0.020 mg/L 0 ; mg/L : 0.100 mg/L ------------ ------ -------------- ——=------------ 1022Copper 200.8 ; 0.050 mg/L 0 ; mg/L 1.300 mg/L --'---- 1024 ; Cyanide ; 450OCN-E ; 0.050 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L 0.200--mg/L- ---- ----------- —-------------- 1025 Fluoride ; 300.0 ; 0.100 mg/L ; ❑ ; 0 .4 0 0 0 mg/L ; 4.000 mg/L ------------- ------ ——--- ---------- 1028 ; Iron ; 200.7 ; 0.060 mg/L ❑ ; 0 . 1 5 0 0 mg/L ; 0.300 mg/L ------------ ------T-------------- ——------------ 1030 ; Lead ; 200.8 ; 0.003 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L 0.015 mg/L --'---- 1031 Magnesium ; 200.7 ; 1.0 mg/L ; El ; 1 0 .2 0 0 mg/L ; N/A -------------T-----------------------r--------------r------------------T--------------r_ ----------________r________________ 1032 Manganese ; 200.8 ; 0.010 mg/L ; ❑ ; 0 . 1 1 0 0 mg/L ; 0.050 mg/L ------------ ------------------------------------————— 1035 ; Mercury 245.1 ; 0.0004 mg/L ' 0 ; mg/L : 0.002 mg/L *Note:Concentrations for Lead and Copper are action levels,not MCLS. 2008 Laboratory should mail results to: Page 1 of 2 Public Water Supply Section,Attn:Data Entry,1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,NC 27699-1634 Fax:919.715.6637 Pace AnalytlCai Services,LLC. 2225 Riverside Drive Pace Asheville,NC 28804 Phone:(828)254-7176 Fax:(828)252-4618 NEW WELL INORGANIC CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (continued) Note:All information must be supplied for plan review credit. WATER SYSTEM ID#: - _ - __ County: Orange Name of Water System: Rigsbee Well#2 Facility ID No.: Sample Point: Collection Date Collection Time 0 9 / 1 2 / 2 4 1 0 : 3 2 , A M (MM/DD/YY) (Specify AM or PM) LABORATORY ID#: 3 7 7 1 2 CONTAM METHOD REQUIRED ;NOT DETECTED ; QUANTIFIED ALLOWABLE CODE CONTAMINANT i CODE REPORTING LIMIT (i.e.<R.R.L) RESULTS LIMIT* i i i (R.R.L.) i M i 1036 Nickel ; 200.8 ; 0.100 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L ; N/A ------------ ------ ——'———— 1040 Nitrate ; HACH 10206 ; 1.00 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L 10.00 mg/L _______________________r______________r__________________T______________r_— 1041 ; Nitrite ; 450ONO2-B ; 0.10 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L : 1.00 mg/L -------r-------------- ——'———— 1045 ; Selenium ; 200.8 ; 0.010 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L 0.050 mg/L --------- ----------------------- ——'———— 1050 ; Silver ; 200.8 ; 0.05 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L ; 0.100 mg/L ------------ ------ ——'———— 1052 ; Sodium ; 200.7 ; 1.0 mg/L ; El ; 2 4 . 7 0 0 0 mg/L ; N/A ------ ————------------r----------------- 1055 — 1055 ; Sulfate ; 300.0 ; 15.0 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L ; 250.0 mg/L -----------------------r--------------r------------------T______________r_———_—--________r_________________ 1068 Acidity ; 2310B ; 1.0 mg/L ; ❑ ; 6 . 1 0 0 0 mg/L ; N/A ------------ ------ -------------- ——------------ 1074 ; Antimony ; 200.8 0.003 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L ; 0.006 mg/L ------------ ------ ——'———— 1075 ; Beryllium ; 200.8 ; 0.002 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L ; 0.004 mg/L ------------ ------ ------ ——'——-----------r----------------- 1085 — 1085 Thallium ; 200.8 ; 0.001 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L : 0.002 mg/L ------------ ----------- ——=------------ 1095 ; Zinc ; 200.8 ; 1.0 mg/L 0 ; mg/L 5.0 mg/L 1905 ; ColorSM 2120B- 5 mg/L 0 ; mg/L 15 mg/L --'---- 1915 ; Total Hardness ; 200.7 ; 1.0 mg/L ; ❑ ; 1 7 4 . 0 0 0 mg/L N/A -----------------------r--------------r__________________T______________r_———-- ----------r----------------- 1925 pH ; 450OH-B ; N/A ; ❑ ; 8 . 1 0 0 0 units ; 6_ 1927 Alkalinity- -2320B- .5-8.5 ------------ ——------------ 1.0 mg/L , ----_ ❑ 1 7 1 .0 0 0 mg/L : N/A----------------- ---- _-= ----- ------'--- ---' --- ------ 1930 Total Dissolved Solids ; 2540C ; 10.0 mg/L ; ❑ ; 2 4 3 . 0 0 0 mg/L : 500.0 mg/L *Note:Concentrations for Lead and Copper are action levels,not MCLS. DATE: I TIME: ANALYSES BEGUN: 0 9 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 1 : 1 3 , A M (Specify.AM-PM) _ ____ __ ANALYSES COMPLETED: 1 0 / 0 3 / 2 4 1 2 0 6 , P M (MM/DD/YY) (Specify AM or PM) Laboratory Log#: 92753084001 Certified By: Jessica Mize (Print and sign name) COMMENTS: 2008 Laboratory should mail results to: Page 2 of 2 Public Water Supply Section,Attn:Data Entry,1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,NC 27699-1634 Fax:919.715.6637 Pace Analyt"Services,LLC. 8 East Tower Circle Pace Ormond Beach,FL 32174 Phone:(386)672-5668 Fax:(386)673-4001 VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCs)ANALYSIS Note:All information must be supplied for compliance credit. WATER SYSTEM ID#: - __ - __ County: Orange Name of Water System: Rigsbee Well#2 Sample Type: ❑ Entry Point ® Special/Non-compliance Location Where Collected: Hose Bib Well#2 Facility ID No.: Sample Point: _ Collection Date Collection Time 0 9 / 1 2 / 2 4 1 0 : 3 6 , A M Collected By: Kenny Reavis (Please Print) (MM/DD/YY) (Specify AM or PM) Mail Results to (water system representative): Phone#: ( 336 ) 468-4440 Yadkin Well Company-David Brown Fax#: ( ) 1908 Hamptonville Road Responsible Person's email: Hamptonville,NC 27020 davidbrown(a,)yadkinwell.com LABORATORY ID#: 1 2 7 1 0 ❑ SAMPLE UNSATISFACTORY ❑ RESAMPLE REQUIRED CONTAM i i METHOD CODE i REQUIRED NOT DETECTED QUANTIFIED i ALLOWABLE CODE ; CONTAMINANT ; ; REPORTING LIMIT (i.e.<R.R.L) RESULTS* LIMIT R.R.L. X � 2378 1_2_,4Tc_ho_r_obenene------r------ 4 ____r 0.0005 _ m8/_L_ r___ _____, - _ _ m /LL Fr_ Im 8/L 2380 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 524.2 ...0.0005 mg/L _- -- mg _ 0.07 mg/L ----- 2955Xylenes l) 524.2 � - ❑ _ - mg/L ____ ----------- -------------- ___----- ___ _ ___ _ __-___ __ ___10.00mgL _____2964____ ;Dichloromethane--------- 524.2 0.0005...Tg/L_ ❑x _ _ __ mg/L : 0.005 mg/L 2968 ;o_Dichlorobenzene 524.2 0.0005 mg/L ❑x --.----- In 0.60 mgj, - --- -- - --- -- -- ----- ___2969-----p_Dichlorobenzene _F 524.2-----x...0.0005___mg/L , _ ❑ :r---_-----__mg/L 0.075 mg/L 2976_ -Vinyl Chloride- 524.2 ...0-0005 _ mg/L ❑x -----M-9 ____----- mg/L ----------' -------------' -- - --m 2977 ; 1,1,_Dichloroethylene ---; 524.2 0.0005 mg/L ❑x ----- mg/L_ 0.007__mg/L -r r r___ _--__ __- ------__------ -----2979- ________2979_ ;Trans-l,2,-Dichloroethylene - ---524.2-----; 0.0005 mg/L ❑x _-----_mg/L -----0.10 mg/L 2980_ ; 1,2-Dichloroethane 524.2 0_0005 mg/L Q __._____ mg/L 0.005 mg/L r _______ __________ r_ _______ r _ r_______ _____________ r 2981 -1,1,1_Trichloroethane 524.2 0.0005 mg/L ❑x ----- mg/L ; 0.20 mg/L -- -----2982 ____;Carbon Tetrachloride-----------------------; 524.2----- 0.0005 mg/L---, ❑x mg/L_ 0.005 mg/L 2983 X-------- --------opropane ---�----524.2_____ ------ mg/L_ - ___ __ ❑x �______.-----__mg.L-____0_005 --= _____2984 ;Trichloroethylene_ 524.2 __0.0005___mg/L _ ❑x --_----- mg/L ..0-.--0--0--5---__-m------ .005__mg/L ____T__________ r______________ _ r_______--_____r-----_ T____-____ 2985 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 524.2 0_0005 mg/L x❑ --_----- mg/L ;.. 0.005mg/L _mg/L - - ----- -- -- ----F- --- -- ---- ---- 2987 ,Tetrachloroethylene ;-- 524.2 0.0005 mg/L r ❑x _______ mg/L ; 0.005 mg/L ---- ---- ------ - --- ---- ___2989____-Chlorobenzene ____524.2_____; 0.0005 mg/L_ 0____ -----0.10 mg/L 2990_ -Benzene 524.2 __0_0005 mg/L Q ______ mg/L- 0.005 mg/L ________________� ___-___ r _______r-- 2991 ;Toluene 524.2 0.0005 mg/L _ ❑ ___0_ 0 0 1 8 0 mg/L_ 1.00 mg/L T ---------------- --------------r---_-_ _------ -------_______�-- r---_-_ __ _ 2992_ _Ethylbenzene ----- ----; 524.2 0.0005 _ mg/L _ ___ ___- mg/L_ 0.70__mg/L 2996 ;Styrene 524.2 0.0005 m ❑x - mg /L 0.10 m 2 *Note:If result exceeds allowable limit,the laboratory must fax analytical results to the State within 48 hours. DATE: I TIME: ANALYSES BEGUN: 0 9 / 2 4 / 2 4 j 0 2 2 5 P M (MM/DD/YY) I-----------(SpecAM--PM) --------------------- ANALYSES COMPLETED: 0 9 / 2 4 / 2 4 0 2 2 5 , P M (MM/DD/YY) (Specify AM-PM) Laboratory Log#: 92753084002 Certified By: Jessica Mize (Print and sign name) COMMENTS: 2008 Laboratory should mail results to: Public Water Supply Section,Attn:Data Entry,1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,NC 27699-1634 Fax:919.715.6637 Pace AnalytlL,5 Services,LLC. 8 East Tower Circle Pace Ormond Beach,FL 32174 Phone:(386)672-5668 Fax:(386)673-4001 PESTICIDES AND SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS (SOCs) Note:All information must be supplied for compliance credit. WATER SYSTEM ID#: __ - __ - __ County: Orange Name of Water System: Rigsbee Well#2 Sample Type: F-] Entry Point ® Special/Non-compliance Location Where Collected: Hose Bib Well#2 Facility ID No.: Sample Point: __ Collection Date Collection Time Collected By: Kenny Reavis 0 9 / 1 2 / 2 4 1 0 : 3 S , A M (Please Print) (MM/DD/YY) (Specify AM or PM) Mail Results to (water system representative): Phone#: ( 336 ) 468-4440 Yadkin Well Company-David Brown Fax#: ( ) 1908 Hamptonville Road Responsible Person's email: Hamptonville,NC 27020 davidbrown(uyadkinwell.com LABORATORY ID#: 1 2 7 1 0 ❑ SAMPLE UNSATISFACTORY ❑ RESAMPLE REQUIRED REQUIRED NOT DETECTED ' CONTAM METHOD QUANTIFIED ALLOWABLE CONTAMINANT ; REPORTING LIMIT ; (i.e.<R.R.L) ; CODE CODE (R.R.L.) (X) RESULTS* LIMIT 2005 ;Endrin ; 525.3 ; 0.00001 mg/L ❑x mg/L ; 0.002 mg/L ------------ ------ -'---------------- 2010 ;Lindane 525.3 ; 0.00002 mg/L ❑x mg/L ; 0.0002 mg/L 2015 ;Methoxychlor 525.3 ; 0.0001 mg/L E mg/L 0.04 mg/L 2020 :Toxaphene 505 0.001 mg/L ; ❑x mg/L ; 0.003 mg/L 2031 ;Dalapon 515.3 ; 0.001 mg/L ❑x mg/L 0.2 mg/L 2035 ;Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate ; 525.3 ; 0.0006 mg/L ❑x mg/L ; 0.4 mg/L 2036 ;Oxamyl(vydate) ; 531.2 ; 0.002 mg/L ; Ox mg/L ; 0.2 mg/L 2037 ;Simazine 525.3 ; 0.00007 mg/L ; ❑x mg/L ; 0.004--mg/L- 2040 .004mg/L2040 ;Picloram 515.3 0.0001 mg/L ❑x mg/L ; 0.5 mg/L 2041 ;Dinoseb ; 515.3 ; 0.0002 mg/L ❑x mg/L ; 0.007 mg/L 2042 ;Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ; 525.3 ; 0.0001 mg/L ; ❑x -.------ mg/L ; 0.05 mg/L 2046 ;Carbofuran 531.2 0.0009 mg/L ; ❑ mg/L ; 0.04 mg/L ------------ ---------------- --------- -'-------------- ----- 2050 ;Atrazine 525.3 0.0001 mg/L ❑x -.------ mg/L ; 0.003 mg/L 2051 ;Alachlor ; 525.3 ; 0.0002 mg/L ❑x mg/L 0.002 mg/L 2065 ;Heptachlor 525.3 ; 0.00004 mg/L ; El mg/L : 0.0004 mg/L *Note:If result exceeds allowable limit,the laboratory must fax analytical results to the State within 48 hours. 2008 Laboratory should mail results to: Page 1 of 2 Public Water Supply Section,Attn:Data Entry,1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,NC 27699-1634 Fax:919.715.6637 Pace Analytft"ai Services,LLC. 8 East Tower Circle Pace Ormond Beach,FL 32174 Phone:(386)672-5668 Fax:(386)673-4001 PESTICIDES AND SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS (SOCs) Note:All information must be supplied for compliance credit. WATER SYSTEM ID#: - _ - __ County: Orange Name of Water System: Rigsbee Well #2 Facility ID No.: Sample Point: Collection Date Collection Time 0 9 / 1 2 / 2 4 1 0 : 3 5 , A M (MM/DD/YY) (Specify AM or PM) REQUIRED NOT DETECTED ' CONTAM METHOD QUANTIFIED ALLOWABLE CODE CONTAMINANT CODE REPORTING LIMIT (i.e.<R.R.L) RESULTS* LIMIT (R.R.L.) W i 2067 ;Heptachlor Epoxide 525.3 0.00002 mg/L Q mg/L ; 0.0002 mg/L ------------ ------ -------------------------------' 2105 ;2,4-D 515.3 0.0001 mg/L ❑x mg/L 0.07 mg/L 2110 :2,4,5-TP(Silvex) 515.3 0.0002 mg/L ❑x mg/L ; 0.05 mg/L 2274 ;Hexachlorobenzene 525.3 0.0001 mg/L ❑x mg/L ; 0.001 mg/L 2039 ;Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 525.3 0.00132 mg/L ❑x mg/L 0.006 mg/L 2306 ;Benzo(a)pyrene 525.3 0.00002 mg/L Ox mg/L 0.0002 mg/L 2326 ;Pentachlorophenol 515.3 0.00004 mg/L mg/L ; 0.001 mg/L 2383 (as decachlorobiphenol) 505 0.0001** mg/L Q — ——--—— mg/L 0.0005 mg/L 2931 ;DBCP 504.1 0.00002 mg/L Ox mg/L 0.0002 mg/L 2946 ;Ethylene Dibromide(EDB) ; 504.1 0.00001 mg/L mg/L ; 0,00005 mg/L 2959 ;Chlordane 505 0.0002 mg/L ❑x —.------ mg/L ; 0.002 mg/L *Note:If result exceeds allowable limit,the laboratory must fax analytical results to the State within 48 hours. **Note:R.R.L.(mg/L)for PCB screening are as follows:Aroclor 1016-0.00008,Aroclor 1221 -0.02,Aroclor 1232-0.0005, Aroclor 1242-0.0003,Aroclor 1248& 1254-0.0001,Aroclor 1260-0.0002 DATE: I TIME: ANALYSES BEGUN: 0 9 / 1 5 / 2 4 1 0 3 8 , P M ----(Specify- r------ --- ------------------------------------- ---------- -------- ---------- ANALYSES COMPLETED: 0 9 / 1 8 / 2 40 6 : 4 9 , P M (MM/DD/YY) (Specify AM.PM) Laboratory Log#: 92753084003 Certified By: Jessica Mize (Print and sign name) COMMENTS: 2008 Laboratory should mail results to: Page 2 of 2 Public Water Supply Section,Attn:Data Entry,1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,NC 27699-1634 Fax:919.715.6637 Pace Analylltl Services,LLC. 1638 Roseytown Rd.Suites 2,3,&4 Pace Greensburg,PA 15601 Phone:(724)850-5600 Fax:(724)850-5601 RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Note:All information must be supplied for compliance credit. WATER SYSTEM ID#: __ - __ - __ County: Orange Name of Water System: Rigsbee Well#2 Sample Type: ❑ Single Sample-Entry Point ❑ Composite Sample-Entry Point ® Special/Non-compliance Location Where Collected: Well Head#2 Facility ID No.: Collection Date Sample Point: -------T--------- -------r- ------------ Period ; Date Time Collected Mail Results to(water system representative): (MM/DD/YY) (specify AM or PM) By Yadkin Well Company-David Brown Single or 1908 Ham tonville Road 15'Qtr 0 9 / 1 2 / 2 4 1 0 : 4 2 A M ;Kenny Reavis p -------+-----------------F------ -- -F---------------- Hamptonville,NC 27020 2od Qtr Phone#: ( 336 ) 468-4440 -------+----------------- ----------------- ---------------- 3rd Qtr Fax#: ( ) —/--/- -------+-----------------F----------------- ---------------- Responsible Person's email: fn 4 Qtr /--/-- ' — --�—M davidbrown(a,)yadkinwell.com LABORATORY ID#: 4 2 7 0 6 ❑ SAMPLE UNSATISFACTORY ❑ RESAMPLE REQUIRED I REQUIRED 'NOT DETECTED ' CONTAM I I METHOD QUANTIFIED COUNTING ' ALLOWABLE CONTAMINANT ' REPORTING LIMIT ' (i.e.<R.RL) CODE CODE (R.R.LJ i WRESULTS* i ERROR LIMIT 4002 Gross Alpha 900 3 pCi/L ; ❑x ; — pCi/L — 0 . 9 1 ; 15 pCi/L --------------------------------------------------------- 4004 :Radon 100 pCi/L ; ❑ ; --- -- pCi/L-: —_ -- ; N/A __ _T r-------------r__________—______T______________r__ r------_____----------------- 4006 _r ___4006 Uranium D5174-97 0.67 pCi/L ; ❑x — pCi/L: — 0 . 0 ** ; 20.1 pCi/L _______________________r_____________r r _______r_— ------------------___—_—_—_r 4010 Combined Radium N/A N/A N/A 2 . 4 8 pCi/L: — 1 . 0 6 ; 5 pCi/L 4020 Radium 226 903.1 1 pCi/L ; ❑x _— pCi/L: — 0 . 6 4 ; 3 pCi/L __________T r____ r T r_---_ __________r___—_—_—_r 4030 Radium 228 904.0 1 pCi/L ; El . 6 1 pCi/L: _ 0 . 4 2 ; 2 pCi/L __ 4044 Potassium 40(Total) pCi/L ; ❑ — pCi/L: --.— ; --------------- —— — 4100 Gross Beta 4 pCi/L ; ❑ — pCi/L: --. ; 50 pCi/I ____r____ r —T r_---__ _________T__________ _r 4102 ;Tritium ; 1,000 pCi/L ; ❑ --- -- pCi/L-: -- -- 20,000 pCi/L __________T r____ r _—______T r_________________ _r r 4172 Strontium 89 10 pCi/L ; ❑ — pCi/L: N/A N/A 4174 Strontium 90 2 pCi/L ; ElCi/L; 8 pCi/L 4264 Iodine 131 1 pCi/L ; El ; — pCi/L: --._ ; N/A 4270 Cesium 134 10 pCi/L ; ❑ — pCi/L: _—._ N/A *Note:If result exceeds allowable limit,the laboratory must fax analytical results to the State within 48 hours. **Note:Not applicable if using ICP-MS. DATE: TIME: ANALYSES BEGUN: 0 9 / 2 5 / 2 4 1 1 : 1 3 , A M jMM/DD/YY) (Specify AM m PM) __________ __________ ANALYSES COMPLETED: 1 0 / 0 3 / 2 4 j 1 2 2 9 , P M (MM/DD/YY) (Specify AM or PM) Laboratory Log#: 92753080001 Certified By: Jessica Mize (Print and sign name) COMMENTS: 2008 Laboratory should mail results to: Public Water Supply Section,Attn:Data Entry,1634 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,NC 27699-1634 Fax:919.715.6637 OrderID: 022405321 48 ASBESTOS ANALYSIS - Distribution System Note.All Information m st be supplied for compliance credit. Water System Number: __-`_ -_ County: Orange Name of Water system: Rigsbee Well#2 Sample Typt: ❑ Distribution(Compliance) CNNon-cpmpliance Location Code: ___ Tap Location:Well Head StrOet Address: Hwy 54 City: Chapel Hill Check if sample site is owned or controlled by water system. ❑ Check if Sample site is a daycare or a K-12 school, ❑ Collection Date Collection Time Facility ID Nb. (Distribution: D 010 9!1 2!2 4 1 0: 4 1 , A M Sample Point: ASB (SpmHAMorPM) Collected By: Kenny Reavis (P>am pm� Mail Results to(water system representative): Yadkin Well - David Brown Phone#:(336-) 374-8736_ 1908 Hamptonville Rd. Fax M [�) Hamptonville,NC 27020 Responsible Person's email: Laboratory ID #: 3 7 7 6 6 Required Contom Method Reporting Analysis Analysis Not _ Quantified Allowable Code orrlftaminant Code Limit StartedEnded Detected Results 1,2 i Limit R.R.L. (l.e.<RAL) 1094 ASBESTOS 0.2 MFL r-f 3 MFL 7 MFL Notes: ' MFL= Million Fibers per Liter> 10 Nm. 2 If!result exceeds the allowable limit, the laboratory must report the analytical results to the State within 48 hours. Laboratory Log M Otkl 0.7 3 11-000 1 Certified By: Xls� � (Pnntand sign name) COMMENTS: PACE PROJECT#92753078 F-CAR-CS-026-rev.00 8/512016 NCDEQ Public Water Supply Section 2018 I Paae 31O 3 49 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company GROUNDWATER MODELING REPORT Riasbee - Proposed Community Well 3531 NC 54 W Orange County PIN 9749422010 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 Prepared for: Spangler Environmental, LLC 4338 Bland Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Prepared by: Envirotactics, LLC 1330 Laurel Avenue, Building 3 Sea Girt, New Jersey 08750 September 11, 2025 t330 Laurel Ave. Envirotactics Project No. 6704.02 Budding 3 Sea. Girt, NJ 08750 Phone N0 50 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................1 2.0 PROPOSED COMMUNITY WELL PUMP TESTS ............................................................................................. 2 2.1 2024-09-11 Pump Test..........................................................................................................................2 2.2 2025-07-16 Pump Test..........................................................................................................................4 2.3 2024 and 2025 Pump Test Conclusions............................................................................................7 3.0 WATER LEVEL MONITORING........................................................................................................................... 8 4.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF GROUNDWATER FLOW......................................................................................11 4.1 Physiography.........................................................................................................................................11 4.2 Geology...................................................................................................................................................11 4.3 Hydrogeologic Framework.................................................................................................................. 13 4.3.1 Hydrostratigraphy................................................................................................................... 13 4.3.2 Groundwater Supply Wells.................................................................................................... 13 4.3.3 Observed Water Levels.......................................................................................................... 13 4.3.4 Hydraulic Properties............................................................................................................... 13 4.4 Well Depth and Separation Considerations ...................................................................................14 5.0 GROUNDWATER MODELING..........................................................................................................................15 5.1 Distance Drawdown Analysis............................................................................................................16 5.2 Reverse Distance Drawdown Analysis.............................................................................................16 5.3 Time Drawdown Analysis.....................................................................................................................17 5.4 Reverse Time Drawdown Analysis....................................................................................................18 5.5 Simple Finite Difference Model..........................................................................................................19 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS...............................................................................................................20 ATTACHMENT 1 -FIGURES Figure 1 -Site Location Figure 2- USGS Map Figure 3 -Tax Map Figure 4 - Land Use Map Figure 5 -Well Location Map ATTACHMENT 2- HYDROGEOLOGIC DESKTOP STUDY ATTACHMENT 3-AQTESOLV RESULTS 51 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company 1.0 INTRODUCTION Envirotactics, LLC (Envirotactics), an Earth Systems company, in partnership with Spangler Environmental, LLC (Spangler), an Earth Systems company, has prepared this Groundwater Modeling Report in connection with our study of potential withdrawal impacts to adjacent single use wells from a proposed residential development's community well (Proposed Community Well).The Proposed Community Well was previously permitted and installed at the property having a street address of 3531 NC 54 W in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and corresponding to Orange County PIN 9749422010 (Site). Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Attachment 1, present the Site Location Map, the USGS Topographic Map, the Tax Map and the Land Use Map. Figure 5 in Attachment 1 depicts the two existing single use wells (i.e., Rigsbee and Griffin Wells) adjacent to the Proposed Community Well and included in our study. The Rigsbee Well is located approximately 600 feet west/northwest and the Griffin Well is located approximately 660 feet north/northeast relative to the Proposed Community Well. Envirotactics previously completed a desktop study to better understand the Site and locally adjacent area for consideration in planning the hydrogeologic study for the project. Attachment 2 contains the report associated with our desktop study. In addition to the understanding gained from our desktop study, our study considered data obtained from two (2), 24-hour pumping (drawdown) tests performed on the Proposed Community Well on September 11-12, 2024 and on July 16-17, 2025. Additionally, water level data from monitoring of ambient conditions (i.e., prior to drawdown of the Proposed Community Well) as well as direct observations documented during and following the July 2025 pumping test for all three wells were considered. The data from the two (2) pump tests were inputted into the commercially available aquifer test analysis software,AQTESOLV, developed by HydroSOLVE, Inc.,to estimate the transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and the storativity of the aquifer in which the Proposed Community Well is screened. The AQTESOLV- estimated hydraulic properties of the aquifer in which the Proposed Community Well is screened were then used in the Simple Groundwater Models available from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) Division of Water Resources, as applicable: • Distance Drawdown Analysis, • Reverse Distance Drawdown Analysis, • Time Drawdown Analysis, • Reverse Time Drawdown Analysis, and • Simple Finite Difference Model. The water level monitoring and pumping data as well as results of the groundwater modeling were then reviewed to gauge whether withdrawal, consistent with North Carolina regulations, from the Proposed Community Well to serve the proposed residential development would impact the adjacent single use wells. Envirotactics, LLC Page 1 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 52 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company 2.0 PROPOSED COMMUNITY WELL PUMP TESTS 2.12024-09-11 Pump Test A pump test was performed on September 11-12, 2024, and records of the test are shown below. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,HEALTH,&NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ENVIROMENT MANAGEMENT GROUNDWATER SECTION P.O.BOX-RALE{GH,N.G.27611 19191733-3221 PUMP TEST RECORD TESTCONDUCTEDBY:YADKINWELLCOMPANY,INC,_ _ WELL CONSTFILICITON PERMIT NO. WELL SITE2–W240158 rrrrrrrrr■rrrrrrrrrrrrr rrr■r�rr�rrrrrrrr■■rrr■urrrr■■rwrrrr rrr■■rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr w rarrr�■ra 1. WELL LOCATION: NEARESTTOWN; CHAPEL HILL COUNTY: ORANGE HWY.54 WEST RIGSBEE PROPERTY WELL 4'2 ROAD NO.,COMMUNITY,OR SUBDIVISION,AND LOT NO, 2. OWNER:_FORESTAR_8041 ARCO CORPORATE DR.#110,RALEIGH,NC–.- NAME ADDRESS 3. USE OF WELL: K )DOMESTIC (K)PUBLIC )INDUSTRIAL ( I IRRIGATION ( )OTHER 4. WELL DEPTH._665 FT. CASING DIAMTER�8 IN. CASING TYPE:_Ga{Vanited Steel S. DRILUNG CONTRACTOR:iYadkln Well Company Inc. WAS CASING GROUTED?Yes 6. STATIC WATER LEVEL:_38 FT. ABOVE TOP OF CASING i'BELOW .r DATE MEASURED:_09/11/2024 CASING IS—2 FT.ABOVE LAND SURFACE 7. WELL YIELD:—, 96 GPM SPECIFICCAPAOTY: GPM/FT.DD 8. PUMPING WATER LEVEL:__610 _ FT. AFTER_24 HOURS AT 96 GPM 9. CHLORINATION:TYPE`POWDER AMOUNT 3202 10. TIME AND DATE PUMP STARTED:�1:05 PM 09-11-2024 PUMP STOPPED; 1.05 PM 09-12-2024 11, WATER LEVEL MEASURING DEVICE:_Electric Tape FLOW MESURING DEVICE:_30+ 12. TEST PUMP: TYPE;_Submersible MAKE:_GrundfOs HbR5EPOWER: 25 CAPACITY_100- GPM AT 600 TDH INTAKE DEPTH 609 FT. Envirotactics, LLC Page 2 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 53 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company Mi11FF PRUPERTY 71MIE .*AIFlt 1.1%ffL I+IMP1NG&%TE T 1:MI5 PM 31S FTMW GM 1:4�i PM .. _. _ 1:10pm UFT #i5(um 1 i:15PM 1a2 FT 2d6 C. 1d4POA —-- - L•i5 F11 I�W FINI we FT 1SL GPM F4N 71lE R 162 GPM Fit __._• 1!W PINI 156 R 119 GPA4 1 15 PM 287 FT iii QPip - _ _ t'1b Fit I�rA �Aq PA4 3a FT I 132Wi1 - ._ 1135 FVN 332 h'1 71+10P11 144 S15 FSH .--_-_ _ 1�0 NA_ L'50 PM 9+16 FT ? 124S IN YA FT 1114 ii 11ti JL IIA -3H FT 11Mf�ik1 .117 _ . �:44 P1fA 1-55 RFA A-M PiA 392 Fr _ -_ �W4 --- _ — M PM 2:15 pl►1 446 FT _ in GPM 2:*5 PM 2L5 Pit 419 FT Ho GPM 2:A PM_ - -- —431Fir 106M ;.,.nPM 2A&Pini 449 FT in fim 2:35 FM In 7J va Pw - ..., 467 rF 07 GPM _. 2:1$PM 73 -��PiIM 51#rr �. lir #:SiPfe! ■45 PM4%FT 1DSPM 56PM �16FT' -. 61:95 VIA 524 F F L4+I f,Pi1 7:05 PM l'6 Fl `ICA - >i1 PM S41fT ifl3{ilR1 �. L4:0#PFA 361SFE lfiilaGFii _ _ , lift FM WA f v JWl GP1H sn FT 1171 GRIN - 12InAm MAM 07F1 - IN GM 2M AM W2 FT x"GPM — AM 695 FF 9GP741 — 4 4Aa Ake 6W 14 !1 GPM 6145 AM 1191 FF MGM _ L%AM NPOILI "Ou 7*SA M Wo FT +17 am &--BAA 109FT 117 GARY "SAM 110 FT !6$ 1DA5AM 1$10 FT 11FGM - 11:45 AM 611DtT 916" 12.0 PM. 514FT 9G r2Ph1 ' JIM PM MIT _ 9GC- sWPEL ea wv_ �ulamr maws Envirotactics, LLC Page 3 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 54 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company 2024-09-11 Pump Test 700 250 600 200 500 150 Q 400 N C (gyp 0 m 300 - a 100 E D 00 50 100 0 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time(minutes) The pumping rate and the water level were input into AOTESOLV, and the AOTESOLV results are included in Attachment 3 and summarized below: - Transmissivity, T = 28.83 square feet/day, and - Storage Coefficient, S = 0.1137. Knowing that: - Saturated Thickness of the Aquifer, B = 627 feet, the - Hydraulic Conductivity, k= T/B = 0.05 feet/day. 2.2 2025-07-16 Pump Test A pump test was performed on July 16-17, 2025, and records of the test are shown below. Envirotactics, LLC Page 4 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 55 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company DEI ARTI VENT OF ENVIftCrfr'MEW, HEALTH i-NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION CIF ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT GROUNDWATER SECTION P.0 BOX-RALEIGH,NC 27611 (919)733-3221 3"D 24 HR.TEST E'UMJ-ItSk REODRD TEST CONDUCT LD BY:Ya dki ncll�gm an WELILCONSTRUCT ION PIRIM 17 NO 1) SLG LOCATION;NEAREST TOWN:S� e I r,DMV;QMMg Hwy 54 Rlgsbee Site {*AD W,[OfJI#bl?f{RY,DF 5U8DN651tDNA rrt0TN0.J 2) OWNER:F4111ESTAR ("A191 gAvD"L%5 3) USE OF WELL:()DOMESTIC(XI PUBLIC(�)INDIUSTRIAL IRRIGATION()OTAER 4) WELL DEPTH:665.I-7.C1151I!FG DIAME1lFER:'5IN.CASING TOE' zALVANIZEI]STEEL 5I DRILLING CONTRACTOR: YAIDKIN WILL COMPANY. WAS CASING GHCIU`CErD: 6� STATIC WELL LEVEL33FT.BELOW TOP OF CASING DATE MEASURED:7126125 CASING IS 2FT.ABOVE LAND SURFACE 7� 1 'I.L YIELD:M GPM.SPECIFIC CAPACIT —GPW..JFT.fDI3. R) PUW4PING WATERI.EVEL: FT.,AFTER Z4 W)URS AT 99 G PM 9) CLORINAV ON:T1fPE P0W0ER'71 HwPucfiI r'It1AMOUNT:5JC OZ. 101 nME!IND DATE:PUMP START E07/16f2S 0YI Odd AM PLIMR STOPIPEC: 711712 a 1 AM 111 WAIFER LEVE!.[utE St1RIN(5 DEVICE. ELECTRIC TALE Strlut►4lsl,FLOW MEASURING DEVIU-. s"TUrairrEe M 121 TEST PUMP!TYPE:SUBM'ER'SIBLE MAKE:GRLIN©F05I ORSEPIGWER:25 CAPACITY: 100 GF*M AT: 600 T DR.INTAKE 13EPTH 609 f r. TIME WATER PUNINNG TIME WATER PUMPING LEVEL RATE LEVEL RATE -Ll.-05 AM 154 X24 12:18 RIM . 5o 2Hr,Test . 11-10 AIN 9(4 LW1AS PM 229 50 @ 11:1 f AM SN 143 2:118 PIN 230 SB • 50 GPM 11.24 AM 5_45 121 2:21 PFA 260 8B 21-1r,Test 11:25 AM j 61 119 3:21 PM 384 8_0 �b 11:34 AMI 569 115 _ 4:21 PMv 364 - —-liH GPM 11: AM 572 115 4:23 PM g 478 151 - 11ACI AM 575 111 5x21 PM 587 105 11-!13 AM 576 112 6:23'PAA 591 103 11:50 AM 576 171- 1:213 I'M 592 ice 11.545 RM 57? 11Z - 8;�13 RM 593 103 12:00 PM 578 112 912:1 PM 9 103 Envirotactics, LLC Page 5 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 56 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company TIMI WA—rER LEVEL OM1IMPING _ TIME WATFR LF.VFI. PUPOING V _ RATE RATE 110"l3 PM -555 172 _-. 11:23 RIM 596 102 �. .. 12 MA 597 101 1:23 AM - 598 100 2=23 AM 599 99 3:23 ANA 6W 99 -- 4:za Ann iroi 99 5:23 AM 601 99 _ 6:23 AM FWD 2 99 7;23 AICA 602 98 8:23 AM 603 98 9:2a AM 604 98 10:23 AM 98 Envirotactics, LLC Page 6 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 57 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company 2025-07-16 Pump Test 250 500 200 400 150 a N � N 41 3 300co O ' C CL N 100 E � 7 a 200 50 100 0 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time(minutes) The pumping rate and the water level were input into AQTESOLV, and the AQTESOLV results are included in Attachment 3 and summarized below: - Transmissivity, T = 31.48 square feet/day, and - Storage Coefficient, S = 0.0062. Knowing that: - Saturated Thickness of the Aquifer, B = 632 feet, the - Hydraulic Conductivity, k= T/B = 0.05 feet/day. 2.3 2024 and 2025 Pump Test Conclusions Based on the two pump tests performed in 2024 and 2025 for the Proposed Community Well, the average aquifer Transmissivity is approximately 30 square feet/day; Hydraulic Conductivity is approximately 0.05 feet/day; and Storage Coefficient is approximately 0.06. Envirotactics, LLC Page 7 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 58 EnvirotacticS An Earth Systems Company 3.0 WATER LEVEL MONITORING Water levels were monitored to document ambient conditions prior to the July 16-17, 2025 drawdown test within the Rigsbee, Griffin, and Proposed Community Wells between June 13 and 28, 2025.The locations of the wells are shown on Figure 5 in Attachment 1. Well Sounder 2010 PRO devices, which are manufactured by Eno Scientific LLC, in Hillsborough, North Carolina,were installed within each of the three wells to monitor and record the depth to water.Graph 1 below plots the depth-to-water versus date as recorded by the Well Sounder devices. Graph 1 -Well Water Levels from June 13-28, 2025 DatelTfine ry� a y9 a e 'P ti9 m ry� A ti9 e ti� v, ry@ o 'Y°i m I P m ti� p � 1ti IV a1 IV sry ti° o� T lb Ir t roti 1� IV a� 1° Q- rp roti ti° % 3"��nryy''ryory5"Aorym"�rygry ,y61"10oryy" ryv�"bvory11"`1a61"Ij�ry ,yb �yryv"9,ryo�6"%1ryoryy ryy� ,y �, gyy?��ryory� ory�ry�,yryh��ry6ryry6'ryQry dry��ry���Oryy 0 za AM A 40 � —Rigsbee Well ten. � �GriRin Well d 60 —Pra—dC--Ity Well Cn d 80 100 Un As shown in Graph 1, between June 13 and 28, 2025, the Rigsbee Well static water depth below ground surface (bgs) ranged from 23.49 to 105.01 feet bgs and averaged 35.01 feet bgs.The depth to water regularly fluctuated from approximately 23 feet and approximately 45 feet below the surface throughout the monitoring period, indicating this is the normal variation for the Rigsbee Well. However, there were notable instances of more significant fluctuations between June 14 and 16, 2025. Between 05:54 and 10:04 on June 14, the depth to water dropped from 24.43 feet bgs, to 91.23 feet bgs, respectively.After a rapid rise to 57.08 feet bgs at 15:09 there was another rapid drop to 87.04 feet bgs at 15:54 before again rising rapidly to 24.49 feet bgs at 06:24 on June 15. Again, on June 15, the water level dropped from 23.76 feet bgs at 07:34, to 105.01 feet bgs at 15:39 with a small interruption in between. Then, by 06:09 on June 16, it rose again to 23.82 feet bgs. Envirotactics, LLC Page 8 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 59 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company Although the Rigsbee Well exhibited a normal variation in depth to water of approximately 22 feet, the monitoring documented that under "ordinary use" the depth to water occasionally fluctuated more dramatically. The magnitude of these transient fluctuations was up to about four times that of the normal variation documented during the monitoring period. The Griffin Well, on the other hand, showed little change over time between June 13 and 28, 2025 exhibiting a range in static water depth below ground surface from 34.98 feet bgs to 41.7 feet bgs and an average of 35.01 feet bgs. Unlike the Rigsbee Well, the Griffin Well exhibited a normal variation of only about 6.75 feet and transient water level fluctuations documented during the monitoring period were less than about 3 feet more than the normal variation. Water level data were also collected in the Rigsbee and Griffin Wells prior to, during, and after the July 16-17, 2025 drawdown testing of the Proposed Community Well as shown in Graph 2 below. Graph 2-Well Water Levels from July 7-25, 2025 Date/Time e� 6y� 5ry �hti .5ti �yti a`'ry ti6hry byti ���ayti �6hry pyti ti6yti by7- ti6hti o-yti �6�bym ���pyro �6�a5s tib'yha �.�yye ��.�y`$ h.�y,a �.�gym ���'yyro �,.�yye ��hrya ryy ryha ryhtiy o�� o�y.Day o�y.o�y o�y.oryy oryy.Q�y oryy.oryy o��.o�y oryy.o�� oryy. y ��.oryy q�y.�y �ryy.o�y gryy)oryy o��.oryy oryy.o�� o�y.° ��tio ��tio��tio ��,yo \tio�ti c1o�`�\1aM1 \ti1ry\ti��'\tiJ�\ti��\1�ti ti°�'\tio��Vti`'��\ti`Dry\ti`�ry\��\ry\�M1\ry\'M1\�\1�ry��ry\1�ry\1�ry fL��ry Qti��ry nary nary�ry t✓���ry fti`�ry�-�ry��ti��ti M1 '� 1 M1 1 M1 M1 1 1 '1 ' 1 '1 1 M1 1 M1 M1 1 1 1 '1 1 M1 M1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M1 1 1 M1 1 0 20 ao Ir F1 I t -G,fti,Well a0 � Well W PROPOSED COMMUNITYWELL!� U PUMPTEST PERIOD oz 80 Ul m 100 10 Additionally, Graph 3 below presents the response in the Rigsbee and Griffin Well water levels (left axis) relative to the Proposed Community Well drawdown (right axis). Envirotactics, LLC Page 9 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 60 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company Graph 3- Drawdown and Adjacent Well Response July 16-17, 2025 Rigsbee Well,Griffin Welland Proposed Community Well 50 700 45 s0o 40 N 500 N N o : 30 L 0 400 00 N d 0 25 N C_ N 300 Off 3 20 - - 3 N 0 @ 5 200 ° � a N � 10 100 5 0 0 7/16/259:36 AM 7/16/252:24 PM 7/16/257:12 PM 7/17/2512:00 AM 7/17/254:48 AM 7/17/259:36 AM 7/17/252:24 PM Date --e—Rigsbee Well tGriffln Wet t Proposed Pumping Well Based upon the July 16-17, 2025, pump test and associated water level observations, we believe the Proposed Community Well has a steady state withdrawal (i.e., the balance of withdrawal and groundwater recharge, with no change to water surface elevation) of approximately 90 gallons per minute. Envirotactics, LLC Page 10 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 61 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company 4.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF GROUNDWATER FLOW Prior to the development of a mathematical groundwater flow model, it is necessary to develop a conceptual model of subsurface conditions that summarizes important geologic, hydrologic, and hydraulic features of the groundwater system. This conceptual model will provide the framework that describes essential input parameters required by a mathematical model. Thus, the understanding of the groundwater system developed in a conceptual model is the foundation for a mathematical model. A conceptual groundwater flow model succinctly describes the principal components of a groundwater flow system and is developed from regional, local, and site-specific information. Therefore, a Hydrogeologic Desktop Study, included here in Attachment 2, was conducted for the Site that provides more regional and local detail. However, it is important to understand that only limited site-specific information was available for our consideration, consisting only of basic well permitting and construction information that were absent of borehole logging. The primary components of a conceptual model for the groundwater flow systems include: (1) areal extent, configuration, and type of aquifers and aquitards; (2) hydraulic properties of aquifers and aquitards; (3) natural groundwater recharge and discharge zones; (4) anthropogenic groundwater sources and sinks; and (5) areal and vertical distribution of groundwater hydraulic head potential. 4.1 Physiography The Site lies within the Piedmont Plateau Physiographic Province. The Piedmont Plateau is an ancient erosional surface characterized by gently rolling well-rounded hills and long low ridges. The Piedmont Plateau is 60 to 75 miles wide and ranges in altitude from 500 to 1,500 feet. The topography is consistent with this characterization in the vicinity of the Site,with rolling hills incised by many streams. Drainage in the Piedmont Plateau is generally toward the southeast because of the general northwest-southeast orientation to the stream valleys. The stream valleys are generally aligned with structural features in the underlying bedrock. 4.2 Geology Generally, in the vicinity of the Site, there are two (2) discrete lithologic units: • a surficial regolith and • a bedrock complex. The surficial regolith unit consists of unconsolidated soil and saprolite material. The saprolite is primarily residual soil derived from in-situ weathering ofthe underlying rock.The regolith is typically dominated by silty clay with varying amounts of organic matter and detritus and occasional localized deposits of quartz sand. The surficial regolith is underlain by granite and diorite bedrock at depths generally ranging from zero to 25 feet. This contact is gradational, since it was formed by the downward advancement of a weathering front into the bedrock.The bedrock is generally massive, with abundant high-angle fractures.The graphic below, which was sourced from the USGA Water-Resources Investigation Report 96-4200 titled, "Ground-water Envirotactics, LLC Page 11 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 62 EnvlirotacticS An Earth Systems Company recharge to the regolith-fractured crystalline rock aquifer system, Orange County, North Carolina," depicts the representative geology. Principal Components of the Groundwater System in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of NC SOIL Regolith ZONE unsaturated zone Water table �~ 3 REGOLITH - Regolith SAPROLlTE saturated ;:f Zone - - - - _ -- _ _ WEATHERED TRANSITION '_::.. . ,•'i ::� . ZONEr _ BEDROCK, BOULDERS f- UNWEATHERED BEDROCK fL f , L / 1 FRACTURED BEDROCK r � SHEET JOINT f � , ■ I ' I BEDROCK ' STRUCTURE L l 1 I � l y f 1 FRACTURE 1 , 1 4 4 4 Source:USGS WRI 96-4220 Envirotactics, LLC Page 12 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 63 EnvirotacticS An Earth Systems Company 4.3 Hydrogeologic Framework 4.3.1 Hydrostratigraphy Within the Piedmont Plateau Physiographic Province and Site vicinity, two "major" aquifer systems are present. The surficial regolith forms an unconfined aquifer while the underlying bedrock forms an unconfined to semi-confined fractured bedrock aquifer. These aquifers are well-documented to interact, hydraulically, with one another. The water table aquifer at the Site occurs at an approximated range in depth of 25 to 35 feet bgs. No areally continuous stratification of the regolith is evident. The bedrock is expected to have a significant hydraulic conductivity based on the pump test performed for the Proposed Community Well. Nevertheless, the hydrologic behavior of the surface regolith and the fractured bedrock will be different because of their different structural compositions. 4.3.2 Groundwater Supply Wells Other than the Proposed Community Well, two (2) other groundwater supply wells were identified nearby, the Rigsbee Well, on site, and the Griffin Well on the adjacent property. As shown on its Orange County Existing Well/Septic System Authorization, the Rigsbee Well is 505 feet deep, with 35 feet deep well casing and a static water depth of 25 feet bgs. While no formal permit data were available for the Griffin Well (i.e., it appears to pre-date the Orange County Database/Permitting Requirement), the owner indicated that, to his knowledge, the Griffin Well depth is 75 feet, with the pump at 65 feet, and the static water depth at 35 feet. As shown in the Yadkin Well Company's report, the Proposed Community Well's depth is 665 feet, its static well level is 33 feet below the top of the casing, and the casing is 2 feet above the ground's surface. 4.3.3 Observed Water Levels Based on the existent water levels information for the area', a hydraulic gradient of approximately 0.04 feet/feet was estimated for both the surface regolith and in the bedrock. 4.3.4 Hydraulic Properties Geraghty & Miller (1996) and Arcadis (2005) conducted slug tests and pump tests in both the shallow (regolith) wells and the deep (bedrock) wells at a site nearby.The hydraulic conductivity from the slug and pump tests at that site nearby varied from 0.1 feet/day to 12 feet/day, and the storage coefficient varied from 0.00001 to 0.4. 'April 2005 Arcadis Groundwater Flow Model and Remedial System Design Report-UNC Chapel Hill,Airport Road Waste Disposal Area,Chapel Hill, North Carolina Envirotactics, LLC Page 13 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 64 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company For the Proposed Community Well, the hydraulic conductivity from the 2024 and 2025 pump tests was 0.1 feet/day and the storage coefficient varied from 0.0062 to 0.1137. 4.4 Well Depth and Separation Considerations A generalized cross-section was prepared to highlight the differences between the depths of the study wells. As can be seen in the figure below, the Griffin Well is shallow while the Rigsbee Well is deeper and closer in depth to the Proposed Community Well. The differences in depths between the Proposed Community Well and these adjacent single use wells is significant with 160 feet of difference for the Rigsbee Well (665 feet compared to 505 feet) and 590 feet of difference for Griffin Well (665 feet compared to 75 feet). Also, as previously discussed and shown on Figure 5 in Attachment 1, the Rigsbee Well is located approximately 600 feet west/northwest and the Griffin Well is located approximately 660 feet north/ northeast relative to the Proposed Community Well. Considering the horizontal separation between the Proposed Community Well and the adjacent single use wells in addition to the vertical separation discussed above and that vertical hydraulic conductivity is usually about 10 percent of the horizontal hydraulic conductivity, withdrawal impacts to either of the adjacent wells from pumping of the Proposed Community Well would not typically be expected. GENERALIZED CROSS-SECTION Proposed Residential Rigsbee Well Community Well Griffin Well 560 feet amsl BLC_QLTH --- --- ------ —460 feet amsl . - . . - ---- -- -----'-- --- ---- - -- , ----- ^'360 feet amsl -------,---_ p.•_` __----_--------------- -- -------------------------------------------. - . ____ _____ _______ —260 feet amsl - --- --- -= ----- ------------- ----------- ------- -�� . - . f " 160 feet am sl= ---------------- ------------------- ----------- =-------=------------- -------------- 60 feet ams - - �- -- - 160 feet amsl ------ - -- . --=------- ------- "'-260 fee#amsl Envirotactics, LLC Page 14 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 65 EnvirotacticS An Earth Systems Company 5.0 GROUNDWATER MODELING Using the Proposed Community Well pump test data from 2024 and 2025, simple groundwater modeling may be performed using available tools from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality2: • Distance Drawdown Analysis: If we have drawdown measurements at various distances from a pumping center and want to estimate the transmissivity and storage coefficient of an aquifer • Reverse Distance Drawdown Analysis: If we know the transmissivity and storage coefficient of an aquifer and need to estimate how groundwater levels will respond with distance from the pumping center after some time has elapsed. • Time Drawdown Analysis: If we have drawdown measurements from one well over time at some distance from a pumping center and want to estimate the transmissivity and storage coefficient of an aquifer. • Reverse Time Drawdown Analysis: If we know the transmissivity and storage coefficient of an aquifer and need to estimate how groundwater levels will respond over time in a well at some distance from the pumping center. • Simple Finite Difference Model: If we estimate groundwater level drawdowns associated with a pumping center overtime (non-steady state solutions). As discussed in Section 2 of this report in greater detail, we determined through use of AQTESOLV3 (see below and Attachment 3) that the average aquifer Transmissivity is approximately 30 square feet/day; Hydraulic Conductivity is approximately 0.05 feet/day; and Storage Coefficient is approximately 0.06. 2024 Pump Test 2025 Pump Test ,000 Gbm W� oKG BEE -RnOBBEE Am W Me l AWft °no� Gmnli,mB ® CUII,K9 SenR;w, Sentiai ' Pmpmd°pubmLmmper � Aapatlq,tbs-Cmmin'. i'sateelers PiRl11lII A =28.83 fl2ldmy q e 3.49 2flyy, 0.000 5 =0.110I 3 =0.006208 rtw1=0.15]n ° r( 0.211 ° rtc7=0.42 n ° (c)=a 4 128 Ee 106 l 0 1 10 100. 1000. 1.0E+9 ,0 Tm°e lmnl t. 10. 10a . t000. t.0Ea1 2https://www.deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/groundwater-resources/groundwater-management-data-tools-technical-reports 3 http://www.agtesolv.com/pumping test analysis htm#Variable_Rates Envirotactics, LLC Page 15 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 66 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company 5.1 Distance Drawdown Analysis This method calculates transmissivity and storage coefficient using distance and drawdown values from an aquifer test. This method can be used with transient flow conditions (Jacob straight-line distance- drawdown). This method is not applicable to this study since: • The pumping rate was not constant, and • No drawdown was measured away, in a monitoring well, situated at a certain distance from the Proposed Community Well. Distance Drawdown Analysis Calculate transmissivity and storage coefficient using distance and drawdown values from an aquifer test. Method can be used with transient flow conditions(Jacob straight-line distance-drawdown). Return to Modeling Menu Distance(feet) Drawdown(feet) Other Parameters Pumping Rate(gallons per minute) Length of Test(minutes) There a+e 1,440 minutes per day Radius of Well(feet) 5.2 Reverse Distance Drawdown Analysis This method calculates drawdown using known transmissivity and storage coefficient values. This method can be used with transient flow conditions (Jacob straight-line distance-drawdown). Envirotactics, LLC Page 16 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 67 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company Reverse-Distance Drawdown Analysis Calculate drawdown using known transmissivity and Distance from Pumping Center(feet)—rO=34 feet storage coefficient values.Method can be used with l0^0 l0^1 to-2 transient flow conditions(Jacob straight-line distance- -0 drawdown). / 50 Return to Modeling Menu loo 150 3 200 l a j Parameters Values a 250 Transmissivity(square feet/day) 30 a 300 Storage Coefficient(dimensionless) 0.06 Pumping Rate(gallons per minute) 90 350 Length of Test(minutes) 1440 400 There are 1440 minutes per day Radius of Well(feet) 0.6 Slope of Line= -211.41 Using this tool with the previously determined aquifer characteristics and a 90 gallon per minute pumping rate, the Proposed Community Well does not produce drawdown approximately 40 feet away from the well. 5.3 Time Drawdown Analysis This method calculates transmissivity and storage coefficient using time and drawdown values from an aquifer test. This method can be used with transient flow conditions (Cooper-Jacob straight-line time- drawdown). This method is not applicable to this study since: • The pumping rate was not constant, and • No drawdown was measured away, in a monitoring well, situated at a certain distance from the Proposed Community Well. Envirotactics, LLC Page 17 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 68 Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company Time Drawdown Analysis Calculate transrnissivily and storage c gident using time and drawdown values frim an aquifer test Method can he used with transient flow conditions fCooper-Jacob straight line ti_drawdowal. Return to Modeling Menu a Time(minutes) Drawdown(feet) I a a 9 Olher Pararrreters Pumping Rate(gallons per minute) 6istance from Pumping Well(feet) uPioauloE nwr u,.,wdaw,.,ae denme euala�,m ne»e.r�n,m. Choose File I No file chosen 5.4 Reverse Time Drawdown Analysis This method calculates drawdown at a well over time using known transmissivity and storage coefficient values. This method can be used with transient flow conditions (Cooper-Jacob straight-line time- drawdown). I 1 ". I I ' I Reverse-Time Drawdown Analysis Reverse-Time Drawdown Analysis Cakulate drawdown M a well aver time using Calculate drawdown at a—1I aver time uvng known trarl5missWitY and storage caeK ianl Thos aher Pvmplag SI.—(minutes)-10=a�a,Ro6 W min— k—Lis it Mty and storage_He ient Time elver Pumping Swrwd fminue.al-tA'-557.568.06ainrrles valves.Method can Ge us ed with fr—wnt flow ,drum Method can be-d t—lent flow 3 conditions!Cooper-Iamb strayht-Ilnra time- conditions(Cooper-Jacob strai9htdine time drawdown) 150 drawdown), 3 SO Return to Modeling Menu Retum to Modeling Menu 300 \. Parameters Value 1. Parameters Values ira,rsmisaivi,y tsgeme 1-Udayl 30 \ TransmissirtYtsq.—fe dp 39 Storage Coerflrient ltlimerxunkss! 0.08 50 C-11-1 faimersionlessl P+uY(etg Rata 14m10nsper mie,aE! iV0 G a - -d P"Ply Raw(Palk-Par'mule) 90 W, a— a., 1)6 Lan==lmara a oat 14G0 Lrgt=df�Test llnlnulesl er o21 es cer a. 1449 Oistan-ffr Pumping Well 0e ) 600 ni.,anrry±•n m."Pin"Well lh:eal 669 Using this tool with the previously determined aquifer characteristics and a 90 gallon per minute pumping rate, the Proposed Community Well does not produce drawdown at 600 feet away (Rigsbee Well) or at 660 feet away (Griffin Well) but does produce drawdown in the Proposed Community Well as expected. Envirotactics, LLC Page 18 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 69 EnvirotacticS An Earth Systems Company Reverse-Time Drawdown Analysis Calculate drawdown az a well aver time using known[ransmisslvi[Y and storage coefficient time eitn Pumping Stened{minural-10=0.01 minutes values.Method can he used with transient flow LO^a LO-o 30-a Lo-x le-1 tp^� .Lams 1COoper-lscoh straight-line time- drewdown6 L6P \\ Return to Modeling Menu �\ i x60 0'9W \\ Parameters Values Taammifixiviiy lsguam feet/dayl 30 snmaga caalr lam ldmarg�ama.sr s.Os •500 pumpng Rate(g.,11—per hi—) 90 fie0 Length .Iminut651 11 r, reoma.wrvi y 14+10 Dlstenoo fmm Pumplag We110eat) 0.1 5.5 Simple Finite Difference Model This method simulates a 1-or 2-layer aquifer system, uniform properties,well storage capacity, delayed yield, leakage, dewatering, radial flow to production well, finite-difference approximation for pumping test design. NC Division of Water Resources Simple Finite Difference Model �Y aei , Wlsy— i D.naFkecds 'im�laam orz LayerAarmee Caparny aita Rars e 1 .7 mnau iv IraetlE 1 aym vials�aakagellnawat�mq.pmral +w sd h ay Flmrro Pmalc,lnn WML mltn-tllffemmn y'.'G-s„x" 1m"f01I r'T° al all npsrmlmatinn mrv,erWingT+Sl pe.:jn w.*�ul•�ac.coaoaRyarau 9cona^vtiviry rceeli2r;f 0.1 IeakY P,o9ram L.,.w m Pen on tao9— 1 Prezenteahy Rlahmn,ILR.end- 4,ole,Thkkn¢ss tk,,il 65 All aw.t9T35eepage stlgrornaxaea Aquihv al Hyaraurc nmtlur[iri[y tfeetlaai) naly4sM analog ami signal Water Table elhrAs.bM1nlWlky65urs.I'd New Yak. eel`•'e”"'�1e'e1'aea•"^.� anG Rathmd,K.S.sIM Rushlvn,K,R,198d, —nni,g llr5[TM1iekness lfeell 600 All N--m¢lhW of OunQing test K rnb ,",g mbv¢ Wthsm GROUND WATER C fined kplkr slwag¢CxMiciont tdlm¢mimleso 0.00 All otu,Nof For delanson equal®ns aM wa —1,Aglnfer Gnrage CrvMlr'.ent{akmnti6nlrs arcl mnxrn) — MI sumpeanssee Walmn,WC1�5L,tl Mim Practicelape¢zofgrounllw Rotlixtion well Eilective Paduz lke0 0,5 All moeillnO NATIONAL w left WELL— pages 3ae,_ Top vl Ag Iftr Depth It- 100 AI 1n 1 wafer l ewl Oep h lfi Pi) 33 All Ra[urnw Motleling Menu o,amawell Di hage-gall.06 R8 All I® engl�af Tem lminu�ry 44d0 All COMPUTAI ION NE4LLI$ Water Iereds will de displayed at prOdvcfim well and.Fwe observation well sites at selected logarithmic spaced times mclucOng the end of the test.then wales leveh will tie displayed at the end oPthe[est at selecU:d IagariNmic sRaced distances L,imsWt:ORAWODWM P---well Ee,1h ae a ae)=a5.m nu 3�Tx mm 3300 33x0 33.m 33.60 6p a661 s,.m 3300. aim z3.o6 �t.6o 0,36 �i9 33a0 3300 3iM 3i.00 3100 05x {x03 33m 3300 3306 3300 3360 3360 33m 33.66 33m 3100 tµ SSn 33m 33m 33m 33.66 3360 3M6 3}60 3}66 }3.00 pm 363 3300 33gKr 3360 3360 33.00 sT3 nt 15 ton 3300 3300 33.00 3}60 s. 113, 33.60 33.t' 33A0 33Aa 3}00 h d rest lmiame1=964 0.50 15031 a)a 60.51 5 X99 33.]9 315 3391 soa 33oa Using this tool with the previously determined aquifer characteristics and a 98 gallon per minute pumping rate, the Proposed Community Well does not produce any appreciable drawdown at the modelled distances away from the proposed community well and,therefore,would not be expected to produce drawdown at the Rigsbee and Griffin wells. Envirotactics, LLC Page 19 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 70 EnvirotacticS An Earth Systems Company 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS Based upon the data from the two (2) pump test data from September 11-12, 2024, and July 16-17, 2025, observed water levels within the three wells during time intervals in June and July 2025, and the analyses performed using the simple groundwater modeling tools from NC DEQ, we believe that use of the Proposed Community Well consistent with North Carolina regulations to serve the proposed residential development will not cause withdrawal impacts to the adjacent single use wells. This report has been prepared in accordance with the standard of care expected of professionals in the industry performing similar services on projects of like size and complexity at this time in the region.We have prepared this report for the purpose intended by our Client, and reliance on its contents by anyone other than our Client is done at the sole risk of the user. No other representations expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended by this report.This report is limited to the specific project and project location described. The analyses and conclusions contained in this report are based upon the data obtained from the testing and monitoring performed from the groundwater wells indicated on the Well Location Map and other information as referenced in this report,where applicable.The study and associated conclusions rely upon specific information obtained at specific locations at specific times.This report does not reflect variations that can occur at other locations and/or at other times. Envirotactics, LLC Page 20 of 20 Groundwater Modeling Report (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 71 A A M 1 Figure Location 4 i- x , . T6 4,; ti. NY' h. ■v 1� 1 Y !Jp LO r ry 7 r A b- 1 i Rigsbee Subject Property (Approx.) N 3531 NC 54 W Orange County, PIN 9749422010 00 — — 6 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 • o i o envirOTACTICS c9 Your Environrnentai Resource y 1330 Laurel Avenue,Building 3,Sea Girt, NJ 08750 0 487.5 975 1,950 Feet •o Phone:732.449.0077 Fax:732.449.5810 1 inch equals 1,000 Feet I i i i I i i i I a I www.envirotactics.com This map was developed using New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Geographic Information System Digital Data,but this secondary product has not been verified by NJDEP and is not state authorized. FUSGS igure . • G � � 10 LO } or s I 1 Rigsbee Subject Property (Approx.) N 3531 NC 54 W Orange County, PIN 9749422010 00 — — 6 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 • o i o envirOTACTICS c9 Your Environrnentai Resource y 1330 Laurel Avenue,Building 3,Sea Girt, NJ 08750 0 1,950 3,900 7,800 Feet O Phone:732.449.0077 Fax:732.449.5810 1 inch equals 4,059.63 Feet I i i i I i i i I a I www.envirotactics.com This map was developed using New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Geographic Information System Digital Data,but this secondary product has not been verified by NJDEP and is not state authorized. Figure Tax . • 91, 943, 9749334692 9749432626 9749547142 9749336582 9749330433 " > � } q' 9749189209 9749432228 K �� 4 97492382058 +N .54 k /.k. 9749229743 9749325642 rr ts' x 9749225643 r ? 9749223199 9749322006 9749522031 9749422010 9749510856`l ate^,. rn I�DY tD I�� M 97492.15634 Biu M. u,� � ru 9749510687 "' L x;p !Ln O^i a^j I�M1 V m n 9749515420 9749330328 9749512463 9749413288 974941.9462 974941,22,5 974951x7338 �o��ti ti�ti 9749512250 5 �'� tk��1 9749508945 9749405914 �J, 9749408985 'fto �c 9749204857 � �' � �r 9749402837 � "F!I'�`"o rn `D � 9749308334 - � 9749101x791 9749208153 9749300495 rn o rn � 9749405354 9749500067 0 `b ^'> x 9748594995 � �°� ^ 9749402351 �974�950r,0366 974LO 8496924+ Rigsbee Subject Property (Approx.) N 3531 NC 54 W Orange County, PIN 9749422010 Co Orange County Parcels — — 6 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 M • o i o envirOTACTICS c9 Your Environrnentai Resource y 1330 Laurel Avenue,Building 3,Sea Girt, NJ 08750 0 220 440 880 Feet O Phone:732.449.0077 Fax:732.449.5810 1 inch equals 435.9 Feet I i i i I i i i I a www.envirotactics.com This map was developed using New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Geographic Information System Digital Data,but this secondary product has not been verified by NJDEP and is not state authorized. Figure . • Use . • 3 , D d a "1... k '11 Rigsbee Subject Property(Approx.) Temperate or sub-polar grassland N 3531 NC 54 W —Temperate or sub-polar needleleaf forest Sub-polar or polar shrubland-lichen-moss `— Orange County, PIN 9749422010 Sub-polar taiga needleleaf forest Sub-polar or polar grassland-lichen-moss Ib -Tropical or sub-tropical broadleaf evergreen forest ®Sub-polar or polar barren-lichen-moss —' — Chapel Hill, NC 27516 d+ -Tropical or sub-tropical broadleaf deciduous forest Wetland � (0 --Temperate or sub-polar broadleaf deciduous forest Cropland a nv i roTACT I C S Mixed forest Barren land O Tropical or sub-tropical shrubland —Urban and built-up r— Temperate or sub-polar shrubland —Water Your Envi onmentai Resource a.+ Tropical or sub-tropical grassland Snow andicey 1330 Laurel Avenue,Building 3,Sea Girt, NJ 08750 0 250 500 1,000 Feet '37 Phone:732.449.0077 Fax:732.449.5810 1 inch equals 500 Feet I i i i I i i i I a www.envirotactics.com This map was developed using New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Geographic Information System Digital Data,but this secondary product has not been verified by NJDEP and is not state authorized. lb CANDY SURVEYING TOPOGRAPHIC - WELL ELEVATIONS P-1938 0 75 ieo soo 1154 SHONELE LANE 3531 NC HWY 54 W STEM, NC 27581 CHAPEL HILL SCALE: I"= 150' PHONE (984) 377-2626 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA FIGURE 5 - WELL LOCATION MAP / AERIAL IMAGERY SHOWN FROM DATA DOWNLOADED AT: https://www.nconemap.gov/ / WELL HEAD ELEV = 560.1' GROUND SHOT ELEV= 559.1' N: 791,410.99' E: 1,944,375.70' IGriffin Well L/ WELL HEAD ELEV = 561.2' ' [GROUND SHOT ELEV = 559.6' N: 790,957.64' I E: 1,943,408.17' WELL HEAD ELEV = 556.0' Rigsbee Well GROUND SHOT ELEV = 553.8' ' \ N: 790,830.15' \ E: 1,943,950.61'1 \ ❑W I \ \ Proposed Community Well N�HWY 54 I CERTIFY THAT THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION; THAT THIS GROUND SURVEY WAS PERFORMED AT THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL TO MEET FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE STANDARDS; THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A TOPOGRAPHIC/PLANIMETRIC SURVEY TO THE ACCURACY OF CLASS A STANDARD AND VERTICAL ACCURACY WHEN APPLICABLE TO THE CLASS A 1111111/1! STANDARD, AD THT THE ORIGAL DATA WAS OBTANED ON07/077/2025;NTHATA THE SURV YINWAS COMPLETED ONI 07/07/2025; ♦♦♦♦,�� �A R 0�°per THAT CONTOURS SHOWN MAY NOT MEET THE STATED STANDARD; AND � ,♦♦ o°OF E S S �0 ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON 'NAD 83' AND REALIZATION (2011) q o-G o AND ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVD 88 GEOID 18. ' Q g� ° SEAL a THIS __ ___ DAY OF g L-5675 0 SEAL ° DUSTIN A. DANIELS, PLS L-5675 ,,,,I#II j j11' #%♦ 77 A A M A Envirotactics An Earth Systems Company HYDROGEOLOGIC DESKTOP STUDY Rigsbee 3531 NC 54 W Orange County, PIN 9749422010 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Prepared for: Spangler Environmental, LLC 4338 Bland Road Raleigh, North Carolina, 27609 Prepared by: Envirotactics, LLC 1330 Laurel Avenue, Building 3 Sea Girt, New Jersey 08750 June 2025 Envirotactics Job No.6704.01 1330 Laurel Ave Building 3 Sea Girt, N] 0.8750 Phone 731449.0077 Env rof3ctics An Earth Systems Company HYDROGEOLOGIC DESKTOP STUDY Rigsbee 3531 NC 54 W Orange County, PIN 9749422010 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................1 2.0 SITE DETAILS............................................................................................................................................................3 2.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................................................3 2.2 SITE VICINITY.............................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3 SOILS.......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3.1 REGIONAL SOILS ...................................................................................................................................................5 2.3.2 SITE SOILS ...........................................................................................................................................................7 2.4 HYDROGEOLOGY......................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.4.1 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY...................................................................................................................................8 2.4.2 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................16 2.4.3 BEDROCK...........................................................................................................................................................18 2.4.4 SURFACE WATER...............................................................................................................................................19 3.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................................21 Enviro ctics 16 An Earth Systems Company HYDROGEOLOGIC DESKTOP STUDY Rigsbee 3531 NC 54 W Orange County, PIN 9749422010 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 1.0 INTRODUCTION Envirotactics, LLC (Envirotactics) was retained by Spangler Environmental, LLC (Spangler) to prepare this Hydrogeologic Desktop Study in connection with the community well at 3531 NC 54 W (Orange County, PIN 9749422010) in Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (the Site). a ' o &Garde C! t OThe Barn at Valha Ila 1 wy F i The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the Site and of the locally adjacent area, for use in planning of a subsequent hydrogeologic study and groundwater model, to address the concerns expressed by the neighboring property owners for potential impacts to their potable water wells due to future groundwater pumping at the subject site. In addition to the review of the documents provided, as detailed below: Envirotactics, LLC Page 1 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics 16 An Earth Systems Company • 2024.02.02- Records of Septic and Well at Existing House- Rigsbee.pdf, and • 2024.09.11 Pump Test Results-Yadkin Well - Rigsbee.pdf, Envirotactics obtained and studied the publicly available published information regarding: • Local and the regional soil, overburden and bedrock geology and hydrogeology • Topographic maps and aerial photographs, • Private well records, and • USGS and/or the state observation wells and levels o Groundwater Observation Well Network Information' o NC OneMap2 O USGS' It is important to mention that no information was provided for the past well installation attempt(s) at the Site, that showed no groundwater yield. The following sections provide Envirotactics understanding of the Site's Hydrogeology. 'https://www.orangecountync.gov/832/Groundwater-Observation-Well-Network-Inf 2 https://www.nconemap.gov/ 3 https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/rt Envirotactics, LLC Page 2 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics An Earth Systems Company 2.0 SITE DETAILS 2.1 Property Description Physical Address: Rigsbee 3531 NC 54 W Orange County, PIN 9749422010 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Property Owner: Carolyn Rigsbee 1922 Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 4 , r41 r i w The site covers an area of 63.46 acres, as mentioned in the Orange County, NC PINLookup, on Book 2521, Page 166, recorded on 2/25/2003. Envirotactics, LLC Page 3 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviroctics 16 An Earth Systems Company The site is located on the north side of Route 54 and has a house, a barn and two (2) sheds on it, as described in the records of the septic and of the well. 1 I � r ! J / -GeB / 1 i I 1 / r ! 1 1 / / / 1 r ! I I 1^ Ta fAV-� 1 01 A ' 00 -- - - Opp �- 860.58 Thb. PaWd iv Ee Y mdM of Rr PWdf with N G. p1 G7 �V�C��'.sd i Cmydld YPn IeNYlsd dbEG OIQd,dIW AamEi4 .P Ild d{jp.UrI�dEla�RfR1ldl'IiO�dl�4,0 tldfdlblmOfME pNG pkrrry YSu�evmws■wars dMxW be r�Od ft vaEle AW M Eye idanmlfwr R/ht.0 0 Ads mR.Tln=uq s3 fh w q m,4w�..I.M I s bwrnpofwif14 bl"I ft—UM wnI mtffi-X;� Orange County GIS 1.100 Envirotactics, LLC Page 4 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics 16 An Earth Systems Company 2.2 Site Vicinity The subject property is bound to the south by Route 54, to the west Six Mile Road and Collins Creek, to the north by a wooded area and Collins Creek, and to the east by Everett Lane with residences and stone services. It is important to mention that Crane Creek Reservoir is located further north, and further east is the American Stone Co.Quarry. i -44 fp 61 � a - ui3 y. a ,s } The Barn at Va Iha Ila I OIL �1 rw n 2.3 Soils 2.3.1 Regional Soils According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey4,the following soil units are identified at the Area of Interest (AOI) covering the Site: 4 https://websoiisurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoiISurvey.aspx Envirotactics, LLC Page 5 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics 16 An Earth Systems Company r y.A�f Nor T y' ".t.W :Aw ff , �r Map Unit Legend ©range County, North Carolina (NC135) Orange County, North Carolina (NC135) Map Acres Percent of Unit Map Unit Name in AOI AOI Symbol ApB Appling sandy 23.0 52.8% loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes CP Congaree fine 0.0 0.1% sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded GeB Georgeville silt 19.7 45.1% loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes GeC Georgeville silt 0.9 2.0% loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes Totals for Area of 43.6 100.0% Interest Envirotactics, LLC Page 6 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Envrogctics An Earth Systems Company 2.3.2 Site Soils A description of the soils at the Site is provided in the 2024.02.02 - Records of Septic and Well at Existing House- Rigsbee.pdf document, as shown below. Parcel Pin: 9749422010 Orange County Health Department TMBL: 630..7G EnOmomental Hc,&h Division P.O.Box 8181.306-C Revere Road Hillsborough,NC 27279 Ph.-919.2452360 Fn 919.644-3006 1W"'M'Ura.g..— Application nate: 1110412003 Soil/Site Evaluation Field Sheet Activity#: IP03-00624 Applieamr RIGSBEE CAROLYN Owner: RIGSBEECAROLYN tl Bedroww Regrcested: 3 Address: 1410 WMTF CROSS RD Address 1410 WHITE CROSS RD GPD requested: 360 CHAPEL HILL NC 27516-7484 CHAPEL HILL NC 27516.7484 tat Si— 63.46 Prop Desc: U54 RIGSBEE EUBANKS&LLOYD SOIL BORING PROFILE INFORMATION Factors Rule 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 8 - 9 10 Landscape Position .1940 L S bS Slope(%) .1940 ?� Horizon I Depth .1943 Texture.1941(a)(l) Consistence .1941 �r• Structure.l941'(a)<2) f Clay Mineralogy.1941(a)(3) S I Horizon 2 Depth .1943 1'-;0 TextureA941(a)(1) L Consistence .1941 i•I. Structure.1941(a)(2) t�k Clay Mineralogy.1941(ax3) Horizon 3 Depth .1943 Texture.l 941(aX I) i Sid Consistence .1941 �t Structure.1941(a)(2) Clay Mineralogy.1941(a)(3) 5iY 5� Horizon 4 Depth .1943 } 3ot1,+- Texture.l941(a)(1) !� 5 46 Consistence .1941 Structure.1941(x)(2) Clay Mineralogy.1941(a)(3) Soil Wetness .1942 Restrictive Horizon .1944 Saprolite _19431.1956 Useable Soil Depth Profile Classification .1948 �fj Q5 LTAR WV) .1955 o„ls 005- Available Space .1945 Site Classification 1948 *Indicates Reclassified PS per,1956 .1957 .1969 Primary System LTAR System Type IPS Soil Depth(in.) i Repair System LTAR 0 t ZS System Type I Rd IPS Soil Depth(in.) 30 Comments; 'y{i 3&jr o+ - Qnl, rei w 1112 Sr . Evaluated By: 7LVL Date: 11-1 -M Others Present:Atf, Based on this log description above, the soils at the site are silty clay loam, clay and silty clay, agreeing with the regional soil description of silty loam. Envirotactics, LLC Page 7 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732)449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics An Earth Systems Company 2.4 Hydrogeology 2.4.1 Regional Hydrogeology Regional hydrogeology is well detailed in the USGS Report 00-42865. The regional setting of the Orange County study area in the Piedmont physiographic province of NC, with the selected drainage basins and locations of gaging stations used in the ground-water recharge analysis, is provided below. 79°I5' 7B° 78°9" nceolle; 17 a R QTY Ro 'no" CV CASWELL Creek �,• '.1 pens°" S 1....•1 /;Gw 5 /. a PERSON inms tl F/ ••, I � Cmek `�-• •:•� �' •1 5�'u" °t River '•' y 2 cee —cr- �Z. :,— —r — •r'^ --—-—•—-—-— a A LA M A WC E .�a 1 aranxe ) Littre r {.�15 14 l I :v:�..�✓• I • w 16 ` ORANGE •�, n^ �,r• Mebane: 'ERan•d� ~•Hillsborough pc1 ' O A Mi o � 13 Burlin - 65 `�� ` ,a • (Rt Alnn'rance: _ '• s�" it/ �,. f-`'y `i 1•' Creek—IJU 36° /' Cp xopc I 2 tr+eCreek •t, I Hill 1 Durham •,� ��Y �.. _• h nY �"� Mt<n/s • 7 /• 'f f r `%S r,., yr' .ri+i G4. `• eAne 4NC-126 -:} i ^•v r^ Creek { ilio rir, - f.l,„er• /6 a _ Carore - l. Ct�� ~i .{•.� Jordan t % 3 .�• Lake J .`� �Carye,, CHATHAM �' { _ v - .p, PlttsborD � f 8 WAKE Cr. 0 5 10 MILES i . I I PIEDMONT COASTAL PLAIN 0 5 10 KILOMETERS B EXPLANATION A GAG IN STATION AND NUM BER{tahle 7,p.19) NC-116• WELLAND NUMBER ••— DRAINAGE BASIN OOUNDARY LOCATION OF MAP AREA AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES IN NORTH CAROLINA 5 https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/2000/4286/wri2O004286.pdf Envirotactics, LLC Page 8 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics 16 An Earth Systems Company The geologic framework of Orange County is complex;the bedrock beneath much of the County consists of folded, fractured, and metaigneous and igneous basement rocks. Intruded into these metamorphic rocks are lesser bodies of slightly metamorphosed or unmetamorphosed igneous rocks. Typical bedrock lithologies include granite, diorite, slate, tuff, and schist. In the southeastern corner of the County, sedimentary rocks of Triassic age occur along the western margin of a large basin (graben) downfaulted into the basement rocks. Bedrock in the County is overlain nearly everywhere by unconsolidated material termed regolith. The characteristics of bedrock and regolith and the hydrologic relation between them influence the water- supply potential and ground-water-quality characteristics of the groundwater system in the County. Based on the USGS report, there are two (2) main aquifer systems at the Site: • The unconfined regolith surficial aquifer, with a thickness of 97 feet or less6, and • The semi-confined fractured bedrock aquifer. —Casing Unsaturated Sap rohte zone flegolith Watertahle •�• a ••••••• •• Transition J0 ROM zone Saturated zone Fractured Open hole— bedrock N 6 https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/2000/4286/wri2O004286.pdf Envirotactics, LLC Page 9 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics An Earth Systems Company Orange County monitors groundwater levels through a network of wells, including bedrock wells, providing valuable data on water resource conditions, according to the Orange County website'. # 4.Srurnle; East i Duke .1)urha41 'I+�, n bre rs ltr NC o - 1 Rocky Ridge � _ Ih©use raa _ Eubanks Road Q FL 1 ( -v(_H,Aryya"54 Lryv ll Carrboro chapel H0 �1 0 1 Ray Roan Groundwater Database Access Orange County Inactive Monitoring Well Database Return to Groundwater Levels and(duality--16 Wells--Download text file-- Search table for- Ld link to water level data&name link to water quality data _ County O Id A Name O Aquifer 4 Depth(feet)O Orange G44G1 NES Epiclastics 451 Orange G 45F1 Eno Confluence Property Felsic Taff 1921 Orange H 44P1 Blackwood Farm Bedrock Felsic lavas and tuffs(Daclte) 302 Orange H 44P2 911 Center Altered Tuff 4001 Orange H 44P3 Blackwood Form Regolith Felsic lavas and tuffs(Docfte) 45I Orange H 4481 Brumley Fast Mafic Lavas and Tuff 605 Orange 144B1 DF-41D Felsic plutonlcs 397.09 Orange 144B2 DF-4S Fell Piutonlcs 25 Orange 14483 DF-41 Felsic Plutonles 41 Orange 144F1 MlNhouse Road Epiclastics 166 Orange 145G1 Rocky Ridge Felsic lavas and tuffs(Docfte) 560 Orange 145J1 Eubanks Road Mafic plutonlcs(Gabbro) 141 Orange 146R1 COL-1 Felsic metavolcanic 30 Orange 14682 COL-3 Felsic metavolconic 40.5 Orange 146W1 COL-4 Felsic metavolcanic 32 Orange J 45J1 Ray Road Felsic plutonlcs-East Farrington Granite I237 7 https://www.orangecountync.gov/853/Groundwater Envirotactics, LLC Page 10 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Envrofctics An Earth Systems Company Groundwater Level Database Detail Field Data Orange Ccuntg Monitoring Database Detail for 146R1 Orange Shaw`•lcrc:--Monthly Stot'stics Plot Quad I46R1 14681 water levels-complete record-46f0912025 t11G-OkNR cl Well ICF COL-1 Jde 35.941305 515 4itude -79.203223 ] �eolagy Felsic metavolcanic ;rnerol Rack Unit C -.;rid Elevation o i 514 w I NES elevation=513.04 fee! Total Depth 30 LU 505 Casing Depth 10 rtrer of Water Levels 5,010 ,dote'feet below land surface 949.99 feet below lord surface volue 'elevcrtian} indic=ates dry well 2015 21120 2025 -22222 fleet above lord surface volae 2911.06.10 In 2025-a5�22 indicates o fbwing well hater levels daily waler levels CSV dawnlaod file(.) NES=Notional Elevotbn Dataset,1/3 arc second value 14681 water levels-06109C2025 NC-OWR + (-10 X 10 meter grid) 513.5- 5131 512.5 v 512 w L0 511.5 ` 511 r SIC-5- InC f Oct 2024 Jan 2025 Apr 2025 Jul 2U5 Oct 2025 slope:*0.8 feet/yeor between 2;,`24-10-Ol ur u 2025-Qv-22 Envirotactics, LLC Page ll of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732)449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviiro ctics 16 An Earth Systems Company Groundwater Level Database Detail Data Grange County Monitoring Database Detail for H44R1 Caunty Orange Show Map--Monthly Statistics plot Quad H 44A1 H44Rt water levels-complete record-06109T2025 NC-f3L'JR Local Well 10 Brumley East Latitude 56.022086 Longitude 49.047201 550 Geology h•1afic Lavos and Tuff General Rock unit 5 545 Land Elevation a 562.39 w NES elevation=561.34 feet } v - — W 540 Total Depth 605 Casing Depth 108 Number of Water Levels 3,1393 535 {date'feet below land s.ur'fae' 999'.99 feet below land sLrtace volae elevation} indicates dry well 2016 2018 2629 2022 2024 -22222 Leet above land st,rface value 2015-01-22 to 2025-05-20 indicates o rowing well water levels, daily Maier levels CSV download files) NEO=National Elevoton:Aztoset,iy3 arc second vague H44R1 ulaler levels-06 M2025 NC-DrNR + (-10 X 10 meter grid) 542.5- 542, 42.5542 . i v 541-5 1 v , � to C 541 W y t Lu 540.5 - 540 5395- Oct 395 Oct 2024 Jan 2025 Apr 2025 Jul 2025 0cl 2025 slope. 13.52 feet/year netween 2024-10-01 and 2025-0t-_iJ A countywide inventory was conducted of 649 wells in nine hydrogeologic units in Orange County, North Carolina. As a result of this inventory, estimates of ground-water availability and use were calculated, and water-quality results were obtained from 51 wells sampled throughout the Orange County from December 1998 through January 1999. Envirotactics, LLC Page 12 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics An Earth Systems Company Table 3. Statistical summary of selected well characteristics for inventoried wells in Orange County,N.C. Quartiles for all wells Num- Well Aver- 5th 95th bar characteristic age Mini- percen- First First Median Third Ninth percen- Maxi- of mum tile dectile quartile quartile dectile tile mum [yells Yield' 17.6 0.1 1.5 2 5 10 20 40 60 240 630 (gallons per minute) Yield per foot .119 .0001 .0049 .0094 .024 .062 .143 .311 .417 1.297 625 (gallons per minute per foot of total well depth) Depth(feet) 208.0 24 73 85 125 180 250 365 420 805 625 Casing(feet) 53.6 4 21 24 37 49.5 64 86 103.5 148 600 Water level 26.6 0 l0 15 20 25 30 40 40 88 534 (feet below land surface) Saturated thickness of 27.0 0 0 0 7 22 41 61 74 126 512 regolith(feet) 'Unadjusted for differences in depth and diaracier. The typical well in Orange County has an average depth of 208 feet, an average casing length of 53.6 feet, a static water level of 26.6 feet, a yield of 17.6 gallons per minute, and a well casing diameter of 6.25 inches. The yield per foot of total well depth is inversely proportional to the depth of the well, indicating that the amount of additional water obtained by drilling deeper continuously decreases. This is consistent with the observation that in a regolith-crystalline bedrock aquifer system, fractures are most numerous and have the largest openings nearthe top of the bedrock.As depth increases,the pressure of the overlying material, or lithostatic pressure, holds these fractures closed, and the total porosity of the bedrock can be less than 1 percent.The base of the ground-water system is indistinct because the fractures tend to decrease in size and number with increasing depth. 0.25 I 25 5 z= 0.20 20 �a ll¢.4 b Z d� � CD 0.15 Yield 15 i J J y CD F Z U'O � �� Q CD 0.10 10 �^ pp O 2 a Yield per fact 0.05 5 0 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 TOTAL WELL DEPTH,IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE Envirotactics, LLC Page 13 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics An Earth Systems Company Well yields in Orange County show little correlation with topographic or hydrogeologic setting.8 One possible explanation for why well yields in Orange County show little, if any,correlation with topographic setting is local variation in the regional relation between drainage patterns and structures in the underlying bedrock. Recent studies have shown that some high-yield wells in the County apparently are associated with fracture-controlled drainage patterns and that lower yielding wells are located not only in topographic highs but also in topographic lows where the drainage pattern is not fracture controlled. Statistical value by topographic setting Number Well characteristic Valleys Hills and All wells of and Slopes ridges wells draws Average yielda 15.6 16.6 18.1 16.8 553 (gallons per minute) Median yield 10 10 10 10 553 (gallons per minute) Average yield per foot .092 .109 .136 .113 549 (gallons per minute per foot of total well depth) Median yield per foot .062 .057 .061 .061 549 (gallons per minute per foot of total well depth) Average depth(feet) 223.1 219.2 183.8 211.5 549 Median depth(feet) 200 185 167.5 185 549 Average casing(feet) 49.6 52.9 61.1 53.9 526 Median casing(feet) 42 47 60 50 526 Average water level 25.7 26.6 28.0 26.6 466 (feet below land surface) Median water level 25 25 30 25 466 (feet below land surface) Average saturated thickness of 22.8 26.5 33.4 27.2 446 regolith(feet) Median saturated thickness of 19 20 28 22 446 regolith(feet) 'Unadjusted for differeaices in depth sand diameter. Nearly all ground-water storage in the Piedmont ground-water system is in the regolith. The quantity of water stored in the bedrock is small by comparison. 8 https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/2000/4286/wri2O004286.pdf Envirotactics, LLC Page 14 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics 16 An Earth Systems Company Ground-water levels vary seasonally; levels decline during summer and early fall when atmospheric conditions enhance evaporation and plants transpire substantial quantities of water and rise during winter and early spring when plants are dormant. The decadal hydrograph from observation well NC-126 in Orange County indicates a seasonal range of water-level change of about 4-6 ft,with the upper and lower whiskers indicating a 12-ft range in water levels over the past 62 years; thus, the average saturated thickness of the regolith can vary by 4 to 12 ft. Year-to- year variations, however, usually are small; on an annual basis, ground-water storage in the study area probably is relatively stable. 39 AL 32 LL 34 o � 38 3 g 40 42 44 46 —well dry at 463 feet 48 1981 1982 1983 1994 1985 1996 1987 1988 1989 19% 35 B. 37 ti h a 39 UPPER WHISKER � TSTN PERCENTILE 0 41 - MEDIAN 20 PERCENTILE 1 43 LOWER WHISKER tme u a 3 45 47 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. Groundwater available in storage can be estimated using the formulas: Groundwater Available in Storage = 0.2 x Change in Water Table 9https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/2000/4286/wri20004286.pdf Envirotactics, LLC Page 15 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics 16 An Earth Systems Company Data regarding sources of household water supply by census block were compiled from the 1990 census and analyzed to evaluate the use of ground water within the County. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1992), ground water is used by approximately 41 percent of the population of Orange County.This is less than approximately 47 percent of the population in North Carolina Piedmont that relies on ground water for potable supplies; however, when the data are analyzed at the scale of census blocks, it is apparent that ground-water use by the rural population approaches 100 percent over a large area of the County. 2.4.2 Site Hydrogeology A description of the pump test conducted for Well #2 (665') at the Site as detailed in the 2024.09.11 Pump Test Results-Yadkin Well - Rigsbee.pdf document. This document shows that the well pumping at rates as high as 96 gpm increased the depth to water (DTW) from 38 feet to 610 feet after 24 hours, suggesting that this pumping rate cannot be sustained. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,HEALTH,&NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ENWROMENTMANAGEMENT GROUNDWATER SECTION P.0.BOX-RALEIGH,N,C.27611 19191733-3221 PUMP TEST RECORD TEST CONDUCTED BY:YADKIN WELL COMPANY,INC. _ WELL CONSTRUCITON PERMIT NO.WELL SITE 2-W240158 1, WELLLOCATION:NEAREST TOWN:_CHAPEL NILL COUNT': ORANGE HWY.54 WEST RIGSREE PROPERTY WELL$2 ROAD NO.,COMMUNITY,OR SUBnIV61ON,AND LOT NO. 2. OWNER: FORESTAR_8041 ARCO CORPORATE DR.R130,RALEIGH,NC_, NAME ADDRESS 3. USE OF WELL I)DOMESTIC I K I PUBLIC 1 I INDUSTRIAL (I IRRIGATION I)OTHER 4. WELL DEPTH:_665FT. CASING DIAMTFR_8 IN. CASING TYPE:_Galvanized Steel S. DRIWNGCONTRACTOR:_Yadkln Well Company Inc.__ WAS CASING GROUTED?Yes 6. STATIC WATER LEVEL•,._39 F7. ABOVE TOP OF CASING '"BELOW DATE MEASURED:_0911112024 CASINGI52 T.ABOVE LAND SURFACE 7, WELLYIELD: 96 GPM SPECIFIC CAPACITY: GPM/FT.DD 8, PUMPING WATER LEVEL:_630 _ET. ARTFR_24 HOURSAT 96 GPM 9. CHLORINATION:TYPE_POWOER AMOUNT 3202 10. TIME AND DATE PUMP STARTED:_1:05 PM 09-11-2024 PUMP STOPPED: 1:05 PM 09-12-2024 11. WATER LEVEL MEASURING DEVICE: Electric Tape FLDW MESURING DEVICE_3' 12. TEST PUMP: TYPE: Submersible--MAKE GrUnd(OS HORSEPOWER: 25 CAPACITY_-_100 GPM AT600 TDH INTAKE DEPTH-609--FT. Envirotactics, LLC Page 16 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics An Earth Systems Company Pump Test data and Recovery data, in the table below, may be used to estimate the aquifer hydraulic conductivity which appears to be low. RIGSBEE PROPERTY TIME WATER LEVEE POMF4NG RATE RECOVERY 105 PM 36 F7' 219 GPM TIME SWL 1115 PM 610 1,10 PM 96 PT 215GPM 1:15PM 153 FT 106GpM 1:10 PM 381 1:30 RM 249 FT 181GPM 1:15 PM 311 1:35 PM 236 FT 1G2 GPM 5:20 PM 272 ISO PM 256 FT 149 GCM 3:25 PM 208 178 1:35 PM 287 FT 136 GPM 1d0 PM 308 FT 122 GPM 15„1 1:40 PM 7:35 PM 332 FT 114 GPM - 148 1:45 PM yM0 PM 346 FT l30 GPM 137 1:50 PM IAS PM 359 FT 110 GPM 121 1:55 PM 1:58 PM 376 FT 110 GPM 112 - -- 3:00 PM I:S5 PM 392 FT 110 GPM 104 L•OS PM 2:00 PM 97 2:35 PM 406 FT 109 GPM 2.105 PM 2:25 PM 419 FT 109 GPM 2:15 PM 91 2:35 PM 434 FT 108 GPM 2:25 PM 85 2:45 PM 449 FT 108 GPM81 Y:35 PM 2:55 PM 462 FT 107 GPM 2.:45 PM 77 3:05 PM 478 FT 306GPM 255 PM 73 4:05 PM 496 FT 105 GPM 305 PM 70 S:OS 4M 510 FT 105 GPM 6:OSPM 524 FT 104 GPM - 7:05 PM 535 FT 104 GPM elks PM 549FT 103 GPM 9805 PM 556 FT 101 GPM 10:05 PM 565 FT 201 GPM 1105PM 578 FT 1616PM - 12;0SAM 588 FT 101 GPM 105 AM 597 FT 100 GPM 2:05 AM 602 FT 100 GPM 3:05 AM 605 FT 99 GPM - 4:05 AM 607 FT 99 GPM 5:05 AM 608 FT 98 GPM 6:05 AM 608 FT 97 GPM 7:05 AM 609FT 97 GPM 8:05 AM 609 FT 97 GPM 9.105 AM 610FT 96 GPM 10:05AM 630 FT 95 GPM 11:05AM 620 FF 96 GPM 1205 PM 610 FT 96GPM 1:05 PM 610 FT 96 GP PIU MP TEST PER FORMED BY: KENNY REAVIS Envirotactics, LLC Page 17 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics 16 An Earth Systems Company There are seven (7) supply wells around the Site as shown in the NC One Map below10: 1. NC0368182 (Well#1A,4050, permanent, community, The Trails Homeowners Assoc,well yield:50 gpm. Well depth: 300 feet), 2. NC0368182 (Well#2,4051, permanent, community, The Trails Homeowners Assoc.,well yield: 96 gpm. 800 feet deep), 3. NC4068023 (Well#2, 6986, permanent, community, Davis,Vernon,well yield: 10 gpm.460 feet deep), 4. NC0368192(Well#1,4065, permanent, community, Davis,Vernon,well yield: 12 gpm. 345 feet deep), 5. NC0368480 (Well#1,4086, permanent, non-community, Blackwood, William,well yield: 7 gpm. 220 feet deep) 6. NC0368475(Well#1,4084, permanent, non-community, Patel,Ajay and Sejal,well yield: 50 gpm. 0 feet deep) 7. NC0368160 (Well#3,4065, permanent, community, Bingham Woods, LLC.,well yield: 18 gpm. 345 feet deep). Q Rigsbee 3531 NC 54 w Orange Cou... X Legend x Public Water Supply Water Sources • • • • O • 2.4.3 Bedrock Bedrock geology is extremely important for the site, since the supply well is 665 feet deep in bedrock. The Site is overlying bedrock originating from volcanism and bedded with a younger sedimentary rock (site sits upon the Hyco Formation), and this certainly explains the poor and variable yield". 'Ohttps://www.nconemap.gov/datasets/nconemap::public-water-supply-water- sources/explore?location=35.930553%2C-79.177569%2C14.61 11 https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/mapview/?center=-79.17,35.927&zoom=15 Envirotactics, LLC Page 18 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics An Earth Systems Company Bedrock geology polygons Orange E9 j�— County:zhdsi(I1 LO 1aWe �{zaom rc. G�,.unn a:z Mapuric £ntlsa gl �0 0 RPak nex oaalva�,anow�,v�a;re org,e er potion rat the Hy+a Fonmwan: Rock Deccl Graygreery hgh[.green io 9reai; plagiadase pwphyrRic Calle wM a granWer-tettured gruwdmasa ro micre- grenod�k I in[r�arve temare wa�ewiM]w hand lensy enncirsleser wuofkne- tP medium graired grarwdaprrte. Ruck Der2 Ragioclase Phmocrysts gpira:ly o rasgefrom 1 mm to 6 aarn_Blacf rdored ampluLole,wTrwr visile, as pherwcryam Irl mmto 1 mml arC as inttrgmrMass wM plag,atlasp_Amphidwe 'Vi,d-f • ,zany SLate ofNwdiCarolica gOi,Wfl SVeeCA. Miaosoh.Ezn Tan am 2.4.4 Surface Water Crane Creek Reservoir was completed in 1988, to supplement the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the communities of Chapel Hill and Carrboro who long relied on University Lake for their supply water. .54 i t e- +` J` ciR ANG E COUNTY a � �` r F- C y / cc Envirotactics, LLC Page 19 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Enviro ctics An Earth Systems Company I z Envirotactics, LLC Page 20 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Environ ctics 16 An Earth Systems Company 3.0 CONCLUSIONS Envirotactics, LLC (Envirotactics) prepared this Hydrogeologic Desktop Study based on the documents reviewed in connection with the community well at 3531 NC 54 W (Orange County, PIN 9749422010) in Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (the Site): • North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR) 2011 letter pertaining to Wastewater Treatment System • NCDENR 2024 Pump Test Data • United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2001 Investigation of Ground-Water Availability and Quality in Orange County, North Carolina (WRIR 00-4286) • USGS 1996 Ground-Water Recharge to the Regolith-Fractured Crystalline Rock Aquifer System, Orange County, North Carolina (WRIR96-4220) The documents reviewed confirmed that groundwater modeling may be used for the Site to estimate the impact of the Site's supply well's pumping on the neighboring supply wells. A Conceptual Site Model (CSM) will be created using the above documents. Simple groundwater modeling will be performed using the NC DEQ tools12: • Distance Drawdown Analysis: If we have drawdown measurements at various distances from a pumping center and want to estimate the transmissivity and storage coefficient of an aquifer. • Reverse Distance Drawdown Analysis: If we know the transmissivity and storage coefficient of an aquifer and need to estimate how groundwater levels will respond with distance from the pumping center after some time has elapsed. • Time Drawdown Analysis: If we have drawdown measurements from one well over time at some distance from a pumping center and want to estimate the transmissivity and storage coefficient of an aquifer. • Reverse Time Drawdown Analysis: If we know the transmissivity and storage coefficient of an aquifer and need to estimate how groundwater levels will respond over time in a well at some distance from the pumping center. • Simple Finite Difference Model: If we estimate groundwater level drawdowns associated with a pumping center overtime (non-steady state solutions). If the simple finite difference modeling is going to be required for the site, we recommend to move forward to either: • Install additional monitoring wells on site, in the bedrock, in order to be able to obtain triangulation to estimate bedrock flow direction or 12https://www.deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/groundwater-resources/groundwater-management- data-tools-technical-reports Envirotactics, LLC Page 21 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 Environ ctics 16 An Earth Systems Company • Obtain access to the bedrock monitoring wells to use them along with Well #2 to predict the impact of the Site's supply well's pumping on the neighboring supply wells. The numerical groundwater model will use the hydraulic conductivity estimated from the pump test data available for Well #2, and the groundwater elevation from the existing wells, at least three (3) 13 + a. Rocky Ridge Th ompsen Orange Grove . Dods(—Cr_i,...Wads Wt A .1 PI<4ard5, _ Teer Fhuun l Machrli � Maun ain� ry c rcd / COL-i• Lai,rFv • � i ,nom 5R 1958 , .v• _ it • .� it • • - M ,_.x .._�...., , 7 P � AIR.,R-d 4 " • - ♦ t Mctaui rs Mount i Cnurny Collins -------- MountainMrn 13 https://www.ncwater.org/GWMS/openlayers/ol.php?menulist=bl Envirotactics, LLC Page 22 of 22 Hydrogeologic Desktop Study (732) 449-0077 Project No.6704 102 A A M A 103 1000. WELL TEST ANALYSIS Data Set: Y:\...\RIGSBEE.agt Date: 08/07/25 Time: 00:04:06 ° ° PROJECT INFORMATION °° - El Company: ENVIROTACTICS ° Client: SPANGLER ° Project: 6704 W 100. ° o Location: CHAPEL HILL Test Well: RIGSBEE �- Test Date: 9/11/2024 0 SOLUTION Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Papadopulos-Cooper T = 28.83 ft2/day 10. 111111S = 0.1137 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 r(w) = 0.167 ft Time (min) r(c) = 0.42 ft AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 627. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. WELL DATA Pumping Wells Observation Wells Well Name X (ft) Y (ft) Well Name X ft Y ft RIGSBEE 0 0 1 , RIGSBEE 0 0 104 1000. WELL TEST ANALYSIS Data Set: Y:\...\RIGSBEE 2025-07-16.agt 0 °°°® ° °° Date: 08/07/25 Time: 00:12:30 i ° 0 PROJECT INFORMATION - Company: ENVIROTACTICS El Client: SPANGLER W Project: 6704 E 100. Location: CHAPEL HILL - Test Well: RIGSBEE �- Test Date: 07/16/2025 0 SOLUTION Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Papadopulos-Cooper T = 31.48 ft2/day 10. S = 0.006209 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 r(w) = 0.167 ft Time (min) r(c) = 0.42 ft AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 632. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. WELL DATA Pumping Wells Observation Wells Well Name X ft Y ft Well Name X (ft) Y (ft) RIGSBEE 0 0 1 , RIGSBEE 0 0 105 ao gas w d h•sN �g w LIJ aR 7�'Rk&yyy yAo \ j 048 AC 21100 SF 31929 SFo A g$` sT3�ycSy O r` 25898 SF / 0.73 AC }A s 0.59 AC 'PA t ' \` O •I I i ! . 30123 SF 20 F 0 5 0.69 AC .gS � O? LLJ z O O12 w 01S \ 0 N w 60 23638 SF wO 2 054 AC w a a I 13 O 269606 SF K K \ 25432 SF 14 21908 SF O 0.62 ACr O y O 0.58 AC 21924 SF / 0.50 AC 30778 SF • �' 0.50 AC 15 0.71 AC \ •• \ 21579 SF 0 A 21396 SF 40 \ I \ H N N O O 24 23 0.49 AC 17 22301 SF as O 0.5'. AC p0 21703 SF 22614 SF 22 1 22361 SF 39 �i o s 25 0.50 AC 0.52 AC 21994 SF 21 ig 0.51 AC ,., 0 0 r 22182 SF 0.50 AC 19 20374 SF 20694 SF ~ 0.51 AC 21691 SF/�ogSFI �� 0.48 0.50 AC2.47 C 0.47 AC 0.47 AC �, I, s t:H a ` 26 \ N Z k I I 22716 SF r ® La 0 J 0.52 AC \� — CI x of x \/ W 27 — — OQ P z v m M r. 24510 SF 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 �� J '� s a O i .l.b� 451 AC 28 O O 25354 SF O 24465 SF 22042 SF 24430 SF O �- O w 24485 SF 26923 SF 0.58 AC 23853 SF 0.51 AC 0.56 AC 28993 SF <Z a J v 24391 SF 0.55 AC 0.51 AC 0.67 AC \�`%// " 0.56 AC 0.56 AC 0.62 AC V w / Nm y.�s�,y8'L'gq r-j LEGEND ,U SUITABLE SOILS FOR CONVENTIONAL SUITABLE SOILS FOR LOW-PROFILE CHAMBERS r l O SUITABLE SOILS FOR SUBSURFACE DRIP `•J 5c� F-1 GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 200' 0 100 200 400 600 106 NOTES LEGEND L w / F F 1. PARCELS TAKEN FROM NC ON PLAN PROVIDED W_1 TAKEN FROM NC FRIS. SITE PLAN PROVIDED ADJACENT BOUNDARY C BY BOWMAN ENGINEERING. PRELIMINARY SOIL BOUNDARY(PROPERTY) U) U INFORMATION PROVIDED BY EARTHLY W ELEMENTS SOIL CONSULTING. CO CLEAN OUT "'I W OL 2. HOUSE BOXES PROVIDED BY CLIENT. .. r2} _ CONTOURS-INDEX 3. KEEP TANKS,DRAIN LINES,AND MANIFOLDS A co)1n — 4+8 CONTOURS-INTERMEDIATE i Sc�ONCK MINIMUM OF 10'OFF OF PROPERTY LINES. - DIVERSION BERM/DITCH EP FORCE N A pROR�T(Pl 4 MINIMUM OFL 5LIOFF OFDPROPERTY�NES. DRAIN LINES/TRENCHES(INITIAL) / / \ 5. INSTALL INITIAL DRAIN LINES ON CONTOUR -------------- DRAIN LINES/TRENCHES(REPAIR) O U WITH A TRENCH DEPTH OF 18". - J Z e'er•�\ \ 6. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY. DRAIN LINES-FLAGGED(NOT USED) 1 W LL EASEMENT LINE O U j 7. UTILIZED T+J PANELS WITH FLOW REDUCTION. R' F / PROPOSED / EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE (7 W O / DRIVEWAY / 8. UNADJUSTED DAILY DESIGN FLOW:480 x EXISTING FENCE Q W � \ 9. DAILY DESIGN FLOW:360 / FM PROPOSED FORCE MAIN to y Z O 10.ESTIMATED LTAR:0.250 K 2 LOT 2 / 3 C -- RIGHT-OF-WAY O a O 11.MIN,LINE LENGTH 240 LF PER INITIAL& LL V) 30778. REPAIR FIELDS RIPARIAN BUFFER \ ` 0.71 AC SETBACKS — — — SUITABLE SOILS BOUNDARY W EXISTING WATER LINE2�112 SF F O N \ \ O PROPOSED HOME \ ��G N \ N (FOO'PRINT) \ O Q O 'NES INITIAL LINE FLAG LENGTH DESIGN LENGTH 1,000 GAL, SEPTIC TANK 5 N m a 1,000 GAL. PUMP TANK y�, \\ 5 L Z m TOTAL LENGTH 270 z Z m p _ J K JO�aa y)K \ 2 U m K n LINE SEGMENTS REPAIR Oa H O 2 LINE FLAG LENGTH DESIGN LENGTH W xO a Mj D Z J 0 1 - - 95' Q J v � B 105' UQ TOTAL LENGTH 290' O O W INITIAL DRAINFIELD \ N ~ REPAIR DRAINFIELD \ \ I UNSUITABLE SOIL \ 4 5 \ 6\ � 3 Cao W � O o ctU 1 GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 30' 0 15 30 60 90 107 NOTES LEGEND ' 1. PARCELS TAKEN FROM NC ONEMAP.TOPO I1 O TAKEN FROM INC FRIS. SITE PLAN PROVIDED ADJACENT BOUNDARY UU J N BY BOWMAN ENGINEERING.PRELIMINARY SOIL In or BOUNDARY(PROPERTY) INFORMATION PROVIDED BY EARTHLY W� U ELEMENTS SOIL CONSULTING. CO CLEAN OUT d W 2. HOUSE BOXES PROVIDED BY CLIENT. V1 ,..a CONTOURS-INDEX Q y 3. KEEP TANKS,DRAIN LINES,AND MANIFOLDS A — 4+g— — — CONTOURS-INTERMEDIATE MINIMUM OF 10'OFF OF PROPERTY LINES. - 4. KEEP SUPPLY LINES AND FORCE MAIN A DIVERSION BERM/DITCH i MINIMUM OF 5'OFF OF PROPERTY LINES. DRAIN UNES/TRENCHES(INITIAL) - � 1 5. INSTALL INITIAL DRAIN LINES ON CONTOUR -------------- DRAIN UNES/TRENCHES(REPAIR) Z OZ WITH A TRENCH DEPTH OF 18'. DRAIN LINES-FLAGGED(NOT USED) a a y 6. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY. n F_ / EASEMENT LINE O V Z / 1 7. UTILIZED T+J PANELS WITH FLOW REDUCTION. K SO [ EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE O p - 8 8. UNADJUSTED DAILY DESIGN FLOW:480 K LU U EXISTING FENCE Q N LU T\ \ 1 9. DAILY DESIGN FLOW:360H- LU O FM PROPOSED FORCE MAIN W a Q OV' 6 10.ESTIMATED LTAR:0.250 0 0 11.MIN,LINE LENGTH 240 LF PER INITIAL& RIGHT-OF-WAY O O 5 �, REPAIR FIELDS RIPARIAN BUFFER 4 \ REPAIR GRAINFIELD �I 1 \ SETBACKS I 3 1 �� — — — — — — SUITABLE SOILS BOUNDARY 2 \ 1 \� \� W EXISTING WATER LINE F N N � � o \ / INITIAL DRAINFIELD i 1 7 � , m LINE SEGMENTS INITIAL LINE FLAG LENGTH DESIGN LENGTH o N 1,000 GAL.SEPTIC TANK I 3 90 W {y 90' n Q N I LOT 9 1,000 GAL. PUMP TANK � ' / 1 5 - - 90' y N Z r Al: TOTAL LENGTH 270 LL Q 0 r 11 1 W 0 X O Q F LL m�W �,_ I 1 1 LINE SEGMENTS REPAIR O= O PROPOSED / PROPOSED HOME Wv ' 1 y F-O Z DRIVE 11 r• 2512 SF 1 LINE FUG LENGTH DESIGN LENGTH ' t (FOOTPRINT) ' 1 O Z a j AD 1 - - 75' Uv ' N 7 = = 50' V U C m ' 8 - - 40 O Li i 9 30' in F f e 15'0ATOTAL LENGTH 255' L LL NG ' 1 0 v 1 1 O 1 I U T:n �Y- Ii M� 1 GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 30' I 1 0 15 30 60 90 108 LEGEND M f ADJACENT BOUNDARY IL O Mo / BOUNDARY(PROPERTY) LU CO CLEAN OUT d LU CO r CONTOURS-INDEX Q} a ( — 448— — — CONTOURS-INTERMEDIATE 1n DIVERSION BERM DITCH — � � DRAIN UNES/TRENCHES(INITIAL)CK o 1/1 1 j 10'PROPERTY SETBA' `�( I / ------ DRAIN LINES/TRENCHES(REPAIR) Z a Z DRAIN LINES-FLAGGED(NOT USED) a w y 1 LOT 37 I" PROPOSED / EASEMENT LINE O U Y DRIVEWAY �' H EXISTING ELECTRIC LINEU' W O K y w N I x EXISTING FENCE Q O I I ? PROZ2SF 01Dw HOME 1 I FM PROPOSED FORCE MAIN 0 J Z (FOOTPRINT) I -- Of w RIGHT-OF-WAY O Q O 3 RIPARIAN BUFFER y I I I — SETBACKS INITIAL DRAINFIELD SUITABLE SOILS BOUNDARY 1,000 GAL.SEPTIC TANK y I \ W EXISTING WATER LINE F N ` 1,000 GAL. PUMP TANK \ \\ p O Y O �Ly�,JI N � REPAIR DRAINFIELD � 14 15 m N F O LINE SEGMENTS INITIAL m O f.1 UNE# LENGTH IDESIGN LENGTH n o 0 8 \ / - - h I V \ \ \ \ 1 100' M1 N 2 - - 100' \ / 3 - - 100' y N Z i 5 - 4 - - 100' LLQ 0x� P 3 4 \ 5 - - 100' a0N ` 2 / � — TOTAL LENGTH 500' O L,O C 0 LINE SEGMENTS REPAIR 2 U 000 K m L / UNE# FLAG LENGTH DESIGN UENGTHI O H O O / n z - - z 6 - - 40 ooawe 7 40' a2 / 90 35 V V 0w Li w 10 30' O 11 30' m F f 12 - - 25. F / 13 25 T \ 14 - - 65' 36 15 - 38 - 60' n \ 22919 SF TOTAL LENGTH 5' NOTES W N 1 1. PARCELS TAKEN FROM ONTOPO TAKEN FROM NC FRIS. SITE PLAN PROVIDED ED B7 BOWMAN 6. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY. ENGINEERING.PRELIMINARY SOIL INFORMATION (� PROVIDED BY EARTHLY ELEMENTS SOIL CONSULTING. 7. UTILIZEDLOW-PROFILE CHAMBERS WITH REOO REDUCTICTION FOR INITIAL SYSTEM, 2. HOUSE BOXES PROVIDED BY CLIENT. >' \ Cn B. UTILIZED CHAMBERS WITH FLOW REDUCTION FOR `! C 3. KEEP TANKS,DRAIN LINES,AND MANIFOLDS A REPAIR SYSTEM. (� MINIMUM OF 10'OFF OF PROPERTY LINES. 9. UNADJUSTED DAILY DESIGN FLOW:480 4. KEEP SUPPLY ONES AND FORCE MAIN A MINIMUM ^,y OF 5'OFF OF PROPERTY LINES. 10.DAILY DESIGN FLOW:360 '�+V 5. INSTALL INITIAL DRAIN LINES ON CONTOUR WITH A 11.ESTIMATED LTAR:0.250 TRENCH DEPTH OF 18'. 12.MIN,UNE LENGTH 480 LF PER INITIAL FIELD AND GRAPHIC SCALE: 1 30 360 LF PER REPAIR FIELD 0 15 30 60 90 109 U M u.Ds ac � LEGEND � �\ ADJACENT BOUNDARY LU O C \ BOUNDARY(PROPERTY) LU CO CLEAN OUT d LU U H CONTOURS-INDEX �Q 0 —— — CONTOURS-INTERMEDIATE V)U DIVERSION BERM/DITCH i DRAIN LINES/TRENCHES(INITIAL) i \ / -------------- DRAIN UNES/TRENCHES(REPAIR) Z O Z DRAIN EINES-FLAGGED(NOT USED) 0 0 Y I- 1 EASEMENT LINE O U z / K H EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE U' d O PROPOSEDRIVEWAY \ \ l` x EY STING FENCE Q N LU D / \ N LU 0 f / •T \ REPAIR DRAINFIELD \ 15 FM PROPOSED FORCE MAIN W 0' \ 4 Q RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 0 RIPARIAN BUFFER INITIAL DR INFIELD �� �R SETBACKS PROPOSED HOME \ 2 8\ �� — — — — — — SUITABLE SOILS BOUNDARY 2328 IF 6 W EXISTING WATER LINE LOT 38 F N (FOOTPRINT) 4 > N � \ \ 3 \ \ 2 LINE SEGMENTS INITIAL } O V Q o 10�P \ 1 UNE FLAG LENGTH DESIGN LENGTH m 7 A'OA 6565 ' �n o OW�yV`�l 60' Yul-vl m i 1,000 GAL.SEPTIC TANK l 4 - - 50 N Z \ \ / 1,000 GAL. PUMP TANK 5 - - 50' LLQ 0 p� eY 6 _ _ 40' W 2 O TOTAL LENGTH 330' J �x \ \\ I LINE SEGMENTS REPAIR 2 U I. m UNE FLAG LENGTH DESIGN LENGTH O F D O r 7 40' ay ZS 39 6 0 2.48 SF 9 .0.48 AC / \ 11 40' a a rn 11 - - 35 'U OC 12 35' O W 13 35' m F f 14 35' F 15 30 T TOTAL LENGTH 330' NOTES a a 1. PARCELS TAKEN FROM NO ONEMAP.TOPO l TAKEN FROM NC FRIS. SITE PLAN PROVIDED 6. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY. BY BOWMAN ENGINEERING.PRELIMINARY SOIL i INfORMATION PROVIDED BY EARTHLY 7. UTILIZED T+J PANELS. ELEMENTS SOIL CONSULTING. J- e. UNADJUSTED DAILY DESIGN FLOW:480 ? 2. HOUSE BOXES PROVIDED BY CLIENT. 9. DAILY DESIGN FLOW:480 3. KEEP TANKS,DRAIN LINES,AND MANIFOLDS A V MINIMUM OF 10'OFF OF PROPERTY LINES. 10.ESTIMATED LTAR:0.250 O Q 4. KEEP SUPPLY LINES AND FORCE MAIN A 11.MIN,UNE LENGTH 320 LF PER INITIAL& U Cn MINIMUM OF 5'OFF OF PROPERTY LINES. REPAIR FIELDS ' 5. INSTALL INITIAL DRAIN LINES ON CONTOUR M I WITH A TRENCH DEPTH OF 18". GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 30' 0 15 30 60 90 BOLTON 41$S DStreet N � Raleighgh,, N NC 27596 Ph: (9191719-1800 Real People. Real Solutions. Balton-Menk.com April 10,2025 C. N. (Chuck) Edwards Jr.,PE Division 7-District 1 Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation PO Box 766 115 East Crescent Square Dr. Graham,NC 27253 (336) 570-6833 Reference: Rigsbee Subdivision Orange County,North Carolina Subject: Trip Generation&Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Update Dear Mr. Edwards: This updated letter provides the trip generation potential for the proposed Rigsbee Subdivision development to be located along NC 54 in Orange County,North Carolina.A letter was previously submitted in February 2025 to the Orange County(County) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for the proposed development. This updated letter addresses changes to the land use density for the proposed development. The original letter showed the proposed development would consist of a maximum of 41 single- family detached homes. This updated letter for the proposed development is assumed to consist of a maximum of 43 single- family detached homes. Site access is proposed via one (1) full-movement driveway along NC 54. In addition to providing the updated trip generation information for the site,this updated letter summarizes if any turn lane warrants are met at the proposed driveway per the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways (Driveway Manual) Warrant for Left and Right- Turn Lanes nomograph. This updated letter also analyzes traffic conditions with the proposed development built-out during the weekday AM and PM peak hours at the proposed driveway along NC 54. A copy of the preliminary site plan has been attached for your reference. Per the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Congestion Management Guidelines, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required if the proposed development is anticipated to generate more than 3,000 daily trips. Based on the Orange County (County) Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), a TIA is required if the proposed residential development is anticipated to consist of 80 dwelling units or generate more than 800 daily trips. Bolton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. 111 Trip Generation The proposed development is assumed to consist of a maximum of 43 single-family detached homes.Average daily,AM peak hour,and PM peak hour trips for the proposed development were estimated using methodology contained within the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual,11th Edition.Table 1 provides a summary of the trip generation potential for the proposed development. Table 1: Trip Generation Summary Daily Weekday AM Weekday PM Land Use Density Traffic Peak Hour Peak Hour (ITE Code) (vpd) Trips (vph) Trips (vph) Enter Exit Enter Exit Single-Family Detached Housing 43 Units 464 9 26 28 17 (210) It is estimated that the proposed development will generate approximately 464 total site trips on the roadway network during a typical 24-hour weekday period. Of the daily traffic volume, it is anticipated that 35 trips (9 entering and 26 exiting) will occur during the weekday AM peak hour and 45 trips (28 entering and 17 exiting)will occur during the weekday PM peak hour. It should be noted that the daily traffic volume generated by the proposed development is expected to be below the NCDOT and County's thresholds to require a TIA. Based on coordination with the NCDOT and County,it was determined that a TIA is not required for the proposed development. Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Turn lanes were considered at the proposed driveway based on the criteria contained in the NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways(Driveway Manual)Warrant for Left and Right-Turn Lanes nomograph. Existing peak hour traffic volumes along NC 54 were determined based on 24-hour tube counts conducted in the vicinity of the site along NC 54, in January of 2025 by Burns Service Inc. (BSI) during a typical weekday while schools were in session. Refer to the attachments for a copy of the count data. The trip distribution used in assigning the site traffic for the proposed development was estimated based on a combination of existing traffic patterns, population centers in the vicinity of the study area, and engineering judgement. It was assumed that the site trips will be distributed at the proposed full-movement driveway along NC 54 as follows: • 20 to/from the west via NC 54 • 80% to/from the east via NC 54 2 Be iton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. 112 Refer to the attachments for an illustration of the build peak hour traffic volumes with the existing volumes along NC 54 (in red) from the count data and the site trips (in blue) based on the distributions listed on the previous page at the proposed intersection of NC 54 and Site Drive. Based on the NCDOT turn lane warrant methodology, turn lanes were not warranted for the proposed driveway along NC 54. Refer to the attachments for the Turn Lane Warrant Chart for the proposed driveway. Capacity Analysis Capacity analysis at the proposed driveway was completed according to NCDOT Congestion Management Guidelines. The proposed unsignalized intersection of NC 54 and Site Drive was analyzed under build traffic conditions with the lane configurations and traffic control shown in Table 2. Build traffic is comprised of the existing traffic from the count data and the proposed site trips. Refer to the attachments for the Synchro capacity analysis and SimTraffic queueing reports. Table 2: Analysis Summary of NC 54 and Site Drive A WEEKDAY AM WEEKDAY PM P PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR P LEVEL OF SERVICE LEVEL OF SERVICE Analysis R LANE Scenario O CONFIGURATIONS A Approach Overall Approach Overall (seconds) H EB 1 LT-TH Al Bl Build WB 1 TH-RT -- N/A -- N/A SB 1 LT-RT D2 D2 Improvements shown in bold. 1. Level of service for major-street left-turn movement. 2. Level of service for minor-street approach. Capacity analysis of build conditions indicates that the major-street left-turn movement and the minor-street approach are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.SimTraffic reports indicate the maximum queues for the southbound approach are not expected to exceed 53 feet during either peak hour. 3 Be iton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. 113 Conclusion The proposed Rigsbee Subdivision development was reviewed to determine the trip generation potential for the site, the need for turn lanes into the proposed driveway, and expected capacity analysis at the proposed driveway. Per NCDOT and the County's requirements, the proposed development trips do not meet the thresholds to perform a TIA. Based on the NCDOT turn lane warrant methodology, turn lanes were not warranted for the proposed driveway along NC 54. Additionally, capacity analysis indicates that the proposed driveway is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with minimal queueing. If you have any questions or concerns,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Bolton &Menk,Inc. ,i'`�N C ASR 4. QSEAL : Y 039251 �..= 4/10/2025 Joshua Reinke,PE Traffic Project Manager Attachment: Preliminary Site Plan Build Peak Hour Traffic Figure Count Data Turn Lane Warrant Chart Synchro Capacity Analysis Reports SimTraffic Queueing Reports 4 Be iton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. 114 —50'RIGHT OF M'PAVFNDRI i —I- \ �/ 1 10' 10 BN WER 11 IDEWAI�, -MLI -12 A, A— UY 3x2950 50' RIGHT OF WAY 20' ROADWAY SECTION `— Pia exxx 8' 9 C. TYPICAL T LAYOUT SECTION VIEW 30'PPiVAIE PoCin OF NY W—E D- 6. 5' SHoUaP --P 3:1 MAMM —E(I 621 I I Al 30' PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY 18' PRIVATE DRIVEWAY SECTIONpo, Al oo' SECTION VIEW p � I,D %/' ,�j�� ,�,®�, n X34 ,_ j � ��\ — , lf�„ r xAWT;.p.111 Z, fl--1�111 ,A a- o < Lu cn 00" rL RMj L SIGHT TRIANGLE NOTE N N. AN I IN— PRELIMINA Y 'TAro ear N DO 01' m USE FOR -zr CONSTRUCTION FA T 4" A- V", "'N\\'N m �W, PLAN S—S A— A- M-PIP— ITAPI"—�Al STP ,zi ALLTZ�'LINK-6--N—M—PING N..220242-01-001 wg T" --.--lT---NN- LL MTRI N7 APRIL 8.2025 ArONs n, loL?50o 1. Know what s below. Call before you dig. 115 SITE 0) m � Ui N 7/22 t—295/907 54 2/6 —+ 1024/325—Oo� LEGEND OUnsignalized Intersection X/ y ---► Weekday AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic [Existing &Site] Note:Based on NCDOT Congestion Management guidelines,a volume of 4 vehicles per hour(vph) was analyzed for any movement with less than 4 vph. BOLTON Risbee Subdivision Build Peak 9 Hour Traffic C' .) & MENK Orange County, NC Real People.Real Solutions. Scale:Not to Scale Figure Printed:01/29/2025 at 13:18 PicoCount 2500 V2141&/n#24022913) TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 Daily Vehicle Volume Report Study Date: Tuesday,01/28/2025 Unit ID: Rigsbee Location: Rigsbee Westbound Eastbound Total Volume Volume Volume 00:00-00:59 38 15 53 01:00-01:59 15 7 22 02:00-02:59 9 11 20 03:00-03:59 9 17 26 04:00-04:59 17 40 57 05:00-05:59 38 174 212 06:00-06:59 107 658 765 07:00-07:59 262 997 1259 08:00-08:59 266 844 1110 09:00-09:59 237 398 635 10:00-10:59 233 320 553 11:00-11:59 243 304 547 12:00-12:59 286 278 564 13:00-13:59 314 264 578 14:00-14:59 400 292 692 15:00-15:59 639 250 889 16:00-16:59 836 306 1142 17:00-17:59 845 296 1141 18:00-18:59 500 253 753 19:00-19:59 272 148 420 20:00-20:59 199 96 295 21:00-21:59 159 77 236 22:00-22:59 107 54 161 23:00-23:59 58 21 79 Totals 6089 6120 12209 AM Peak Time 7:48-08:47 7:09-08:08 7:09-08:08 AM Peak Volume 295 1024 1307 PM Peak Time 16:35-17:34 7:18-18:176:29-17:28 PM Peak Volume 907 325 1194 C:\Users\Burns\OneDrive\Email attachments\Documents\TrafficViewerPro Data\Rigsbee.tvp Page 1 Rigsbee Subdivision-Orange County, NC TURN LANE STORAGE WARRANTS 1800 Warrant for Left and Right-Turn Lanes AT GRADE, UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 1600 Right Turn Storage Lengths are based on apposing volume of 100 VIPH (MINIMUM) o S=STORAGE LENGTH REOUIRED n 140 Vi - rn ro 9L '120 LU Q 1000 CD J - 'J n SOD CD g a 0 EL601] 0 t� d 4 400 S fti 3 200 O sP 7 -1k 0 so 100 150 200 250 300 390 400 450 500 550 600 V'LEFT TURNING VOLUME(VPH) Note: Where adjacent signalization may provide opportunities for L. WRIGHT TURNING VOLUME(VPH) gaps in the traffic stream a reduction in the above storage values can he considered on a case by case basis. INTERSECTION: NC 54 and Site Drive / Turning Volume Approach SCENARIO Movement Turn Lane Opposing Volume Symbol (VR/VL) (VA/VO) AM Build EBL Left 2 295 AM Build WBR Right 7 100 PM Build EBL Left 6 907 PM Build WBR Right 22 100 118 HCM 6th TWSC Build 1: NC 54 & Site Drive Timing Plan:AM Peak Hour Intersection FL Int Delay,s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SB Lane Configurations Traffic Vol,veh/h 4 1024 295 7 21 5 Future Vol,veh/h _ 4 1024 295 7 21 5 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 4 1138 328 8 23 6 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 336 0 0 1478 332 Stage 1 - - - 332 - Stage 2 - 1146 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1223 - - 139 710 Stage 1 - 727 - Stage 2 - 303 - Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1223 - - - 138 710 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 138 - Stage 1 - 720 - Stage 2 303 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 0 31.8 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity(veh/h) 1223 - - 163 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.177 HCM Control Delay(s) 8 0 - 31.8 HCM Lane LOS A A - D HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.6 Rigsbee Subdivision-Orange County, NC Synchro 11 Report Bolton&Menk Page 1 119 HCM 6th TWSC Build 1: NC 54 & Site Drive Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection FL Int Delay,s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT Lane Configurations *' Traffic Vol,veh/h 6 325 907 22 14 4 Future Vol,veh/h _ 6 325 907 22 14 4 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 361 1008 24 16 4 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1032 0 0 1395 1020 Stage 1 - - - 1020 - Stage 2 - - 375 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 673 - - 156 287 Stage 1 - - 348 - Stage 2 - - 695 - Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 673 - - 154 287 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 154 - Stage 1 - 343 - Stage 2 - 695 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0.2 0 28.7 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity(veh/h) 673 - - 172 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - 0.116 HCM Control Delay(s) 10.4 0 - 28.7 HCM Lane LOS B A - D HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.4 Rigsbee Subdivision-Orange County, NC Synchro 11 Report Bolton&Menk Page 1 120 Queuing and Blocking Report Build AM Peak Hour Intersection: 1: NC 54 & Site Drive Movement EB SB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue(ft) 15 53 Average Queue(ft) 1 18 95th Queue(ft) 8 47 Link Distance(ft) 1008 984 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty:0 Rigsbee Subdivision-Orange County, NC SimTraffic Report Bolton&Menk Page 1 121 Queuing and Blocking Report Build PM Peak Hour Intersection: 1: NC 54 & Site Drive Movement EB SB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue(ft) 58 53 Average Queue(ft) 4 16 95th Queue(ft) 26 44 Link Distance(ft) 1008 984 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty:0 Rigsbee Subdivision-Orange County, NC SimTraffic Report Bolton&Menk Page 1 122 SITE PLAN DOCUMENTS VICINITY MAP C Proposed3r R,E � RIGSBEE SUBDIVISION NC So ® NC Hwy 54 W Bingham Township, North Carolina m Orange County DEVELOPER CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER CIVIL ENGINEER $ Forester,Inc. Carolyn Rigsbee Bowman North Carolina,Ltd. s Attn.Laura Haywood 3531 NC 54W 4006 Barrett Drive w 8041 Arco Corporate Drive,Suite 110 Chapel Hill,NC 27516 Suite 104 Raleigh,NC 27617 (919)619-5697 Raleigh,NC 27609 (919)804-7220 (919)553-6570 laurahaywood@forestar.com donald.sever@bowman.com FIRM#F-1445 TRAFFIC CONSULTANT WELL&SEPTIC DESIGNER LANDSCAPE ARCHTECT MacCONNELL&Associates,P.C. Weston&Sampson Engineers,Inc Bolton&Menk,Inc. z 501 Cascade Pointe Lane 424 S.Dawson Street p 418 S Dawson Street Raleigh,NC 27601 Raleigh,NC 27596 Suite 103 9 (978)532-1900 LL j i Cary,NC 27513 = (919)719- 19 1800 steele.nicrole@wseinawm A 3 z (919)467-12-39 N 3 joshua.reinke@bolton-menk.com david@mcconnellandassoc.com °C ° W V] 0,> , Z Q 0U ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SURVEY m cG Spangler Environmental,Inc. Canoy Surveying 4338 Bland Road 1154 Shonele Ln Raleigh,NC 27609 Stem,NC 27581 (980)308-9888 (984)377-2626 ward@spanglerenvironmental.com canoysurveying@gmail.com DEVELOPMENT DATA PRELIMINARY DO NOT USE FOR ARRE U0 ARRE MARRE MARRE U0 CONSTRUCTION EFEA ./v. ersz 11RIER,-I RI ACREA. 99 AE RE ALTA RESO.VLON IEREAGE Al L.1 ILASI -ANT 9a IM I I 11R1 ER III REA COMMITMENTS9,z zs ndex of Drowin s - PLEASE SEE NE NARRAT ME OF ZONING CONDITIONS OFFERED INCLUDED IN THE SIISMI1rAL PAC%AC£ Sheet Number Sheet Title Pury SinNs EAME1 SHEET AE ARE b Er FIRE&LIFE SAFETY DIVISION.CHRIS PENDERGRASS !.B. -2 n'au rnsEr LEMEL (919)245-6125 DESCRIPTON pb'u"I15 Pm AIRE SHERIFF.CHARLESSBLACKWOOD ELECTRICITY-DUKE ENERGYDS(919)245 2900 WATER-PRIVATE COMPANY(1BD) Q �/� ORAYM CHrcO Im Ff csblockwaod®orongecountync.gov SEPTIC-ON LOT LUUUV J�lu stAlE 1111 ARRE1 NATURAL GAS-PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA N°.220242-01-001 YipEO 11,11% STOP Q as DATE SEPTEMBER 12,2025 Know what's below. LL1.d Callbefore you dig. e-..— rz-o.-on.Exc- A—V 123 VIGINITY MAP EROSION CONTROL NOTES'. c�°n°°s�cnr��OMGs c°uNrr am°N ro srAnr°r�"s � � YYY SURVEY NOTE zm+c "f l / \ s�°Aaµp"r °10=11,11=111,. vmHN nc. wN STREAMYJETNNC NOTE. TME a;O aAac[L uM/AND w Mrnrvl°—1 oN mN n>Ru t nno a _ Z O o LD0 3 z 7� Uvr v f° v I , rz tiaamse v `—I n> > i i o ° Eo�P� a10 '�� GSz� s v� r; l iv �� — _ �s vv I.v� v rs�.;i F— i Uj1-- — ,��� ' ;r its IT PRELIMINAFY DO NOT USE P OR CONSTRUCTION � NqE C,]T� i�`vzJJ, iii, j k a '� ,.` j e/ie/zs Pun srnns C� � I _ Know whafs below. Call before you dig- 0A DESCRIPnoN \/ 0c 0c os GRAeHIC SCALE 53 N. 220242-01-001 c. \azm,:-.ea°, 124 TREE SYMBOL LEGEND MULE SYMEETDM HICXORv ,Y\ ` �zoxixc\-ar \\I ELM _ N_�� PONT zoxwc z _ ANMIERE ON SITE PROTEEED BUFFER AREA. EESGREATER iIux IT IN ANY _��eoe o --•�; _ ME�y\lgE Half xz, MEgtpVF QYEAR5,THEE%ISnNGTREESTOREMAINONSIIEAFEFREOOMMATELYS LruRDWOWSR "NI /��C._„•• - _ - •Q\,� ----- PRIMPRV DPEN SPACE rz.ab ACRES zoq%) NouxlpuE OR ExcEPnpxuL2 LA RGETREESXAVEBEENIOEMIEIEp. uR OAKS OR MAPLES INTHE BUFFERAREABTHAi HAVE REMAINED uxmsiu1ISPOVERTHEvenxS _Q P __ — yp� k� \.0 • �� rpq qr�z— O zar xc ar stil � � , FA Q\\ •` 1 I __— -_ - � �\ � � e =' _ pprALy� zyy � \"'It`'i�if, •t I ,�.o — ,qp_ LA •1 l ; \1 �'• 1 PRIMARY PEN SPACE , "-_ _ _ _ t$ a i 2 t5 _ `"- _ Q _( _'_, _ •_ _ _ e. - �c�r� I ,RIPARIANSUREERN TOAD,,, zwruc- ' � -_'-•J�1 l _ �' Y�.vp � �*z _ --- f - '��-__`/, - LLI NSDE ARDI w o z xDN RE.11A.SDFEERI a, P SO Z ED ------------' 16, - , SPApEpA LATIpNE FROM OPEN \ I� ,1\ 1\' 141 % � --- _ -- - �\ ••� � I -- I `W r o '•�;• RID ce zz°°c>'ar \� "\ C ( � .� �l r, i l\---_ _ - �� aevclaTreeG�______•___._—.ii\\� - _ \ ''}/'�_ Emr '>;IY!I'f''! V.kehn®SmPeaR zwruc Q ,, °e izi>i ie' W mr«xc-a. `GO -'`f ,i''I zoxl�uc_ar r i - / 1, PRELIMINARY SE r• -!';'� DO NOT P> ______,- LAN A AT 01 USE FOR h y ,\ /� coNsrRuanoN ='Nx An i ;�"i i' — _^- PLAN STATUS Know whai's below. Call before you dig. ® ro =w,xo_,� � T� �`T DATE �"oescRlPnoN zwruc-rcr.ar zonirvc-zn.xcz. __ _ DSCNLE H'.Rt�rpo A. \\\\\\ c.220242-01-001 DATE SEPTEMBER 12,2025 Too 50 D 100 200 zaxrvc zc GRAPHIC /\\ 100' Cr2.1 em ne mme.P.\mwraYve.rs arVx¢s-m 9 mmrv,\on-ran\oz-nemd omlmt\rz.r msmc apl�ui,eq 125 w^ 50'RIGHT OF 5'hr'Niel DHGI SHOUMIBx 10' 10 S1 WER i to n000EoxF ' tiiw 5IDEWROxZa:E / 0:02 a uAxluuu DazA IwrD r.1 ace D.oe slaoE j 1 G / f— \ SLOPE(MIGL) u Pnv6uExr DESlcx 50 RIGHT OF WAY 20' ROADWAY SECTION TYPICAL LOT LAYOUT SECTION VIEW RAN 30'PMVAIE MCill OF WAY _AI 18'PI—E DRMYlAr 6' 5 SHOUM%R 9' SHOULDER c ,xx R9� w,xxD'Pt »u�roa Arcs Draz 3:1 IIAM. SLOPE a'sSSC 30' PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY s•Aec 18' PRIVATE DRIVEWAY SECTION SECTION VIEW r x,«�iE` � I Ilx -sc�� p z D 1 S�`�`\i \ 1\ O \ .♦ C[ �0 xs3 o F P �� / J as U UJI V,cL m `I �� I III rx6rn �1 I� Oi r � �— n 1 L I /)l�Exmwrl!ret l Toss/ / F sros rr�� �s ,x LEceND .. a• 1 I,e w— /`%: r �,� `Ir1 v ` �.� - w I I A '�: — —NAroIAL suRPAce � °e II «I� '� wrt�,�. � `A• I II I �"`I� � r /rt i v/�'�aAIF��Ir r 0 SIGHT TRIANGLE NOTE " � _ I '�'' I vnixx m¢sai ia.wcles sx an ms Pux PRELIMINARY �� os eErlwFx NEc 'n0 Iz1 sEcr Aro ear USE lel Pm xT.teovf wE cu6e uNF urignax 7 t ,ziiLrnUSE FOR CON&TRUCTON nA caxslwrnoN mAE N Accamgxa w1x ArtNGF COLNIrc IN0 NC00i srANO.wDs ANa sr x \ 1-or LxT s/12/zs ry/r PLAN S-5 U— \ OgIE DESCRIPTON AA STOP oeslw DRArm cxrcD \� C�\ v co o�$ �, xo.220242-01-00I arnio n, DATE SEPTEMBER 12,2025 Know what100 50[TMr0 100 2<l0 ,wErosEbExneEOwrx WnuWmwnl,u00us,E5®nG NE No. 's below. cRAPxI�SaLE Call before you dig. cw A.,„m.v.xmza-Feao,os,R.L—a„w rz-o.-on.Fxc-R— —1lu 126 TREESYMBOLIEGEND LEGEND „� EVERGREENUNDERSTORY Otto) rREOmT OA1t SIOFWAU( - rlaa DwusV RSToar Di41 \ ^' \ i MARE 0 —TTREE(sS0.G) tt \ s HpxoRY f��I z be o I 2 ElM � PNMMVmEEFR0IEG MEA SH RU-12(W)N 1 n SHRUB TYPE I W) H. NONDGKmFE ERE ALLHMDWOOD SPEC ES TREE PROTECTION CALCULATION6 "^`•• cREnIFRix TOTAL PROPERTY AREA': 61.11AC s zwuxc - b�p•nA gvvS,,'PP, S-° y PRmEcrEDeU—AREn. EES GREAmamMtz NnrvY DR A1LTF (sEF xOTE yz PRIMARY TREE PROTECTION AREA 1411ACOS1%1 --. .. - _,/ •`Q\ °D@°qq ADk a z ) rc "(�W� SECDNDARYTREE PROTECTION AREA. i6A6 AC(26.9%) VOl 5 16RRE. EARYM6IPNOSGAPE RIPPER,M. TOTAL PROTECTED AREA: B0.5TACI50.0%) —'-' rnEF Pµ+Ee[sgy a �x 0 - �. �. r MKI ` RMwA� :TR MA6 MTER P 4 OBYELOPMEMS NPBE&R MPROMIwiE VOL N� ��'�� � � \ �'FAr a �P.YC6'SY�,�� 6 pip _ �g \ ``•• iS �%=N B Ha.IE51g MruPirsGlxMw,o i "s��£y a ®"COW-GA m 1TREBPER—BFOFBUFFER PR wxrTREEPnDTECTwx - s Fsmuc�iuRFM MEANMW�E I ® °k MULLUTSHNOSIIBSUM44 /� 1 q SEGONOA%IREE PRD1EDnoN nREA 5g 9s^u/� rzbi a Y or Hmn EE. zmess G PI °4 db\ �J i','�"' - i � QS,,_, M«Ap "�l r✓o '�?' i�"" � 6.a°e N �° 4���4p /i J P A\ / ,�'�/ i^— •/I �`'' "aim °�'� ° �d "G.'+,^➢.+ycS� /!f a - - YT \ AZ Aq ti°op°°pnR \ rosrl _a bO p p PN" Z � 1n Lu US Z m y I,QRENSPAeE—K `� Wb° J _ __ _ - _ '•-Fw': mnluavERL00x Q 2 axsPncEA� J _xMw6a&xrmu00 1-11,mV 6FI, ,4 QEMW CMNW x 0�N MD STpRUR \ PRiMARrr P= _ _ ,jam z _nr S wnws PRELIMINARY DO NOT .F )^^", lie axoEalTaMA eKEo �" USEFOR 4� Iww.ElSECONDARYTREE � °NrwNc"aEN^ CONSTRUCTION •\ ¢PD° 1111 1E uxoim ED zc«Nc-.w \ rvA o� BUFELR lsnwroN -4AM1 mem;o,xo T 421 uc. -_ wz SPeG^P�'c'83 _✓. PIAN STANs n "�:� a Know CallWbefore byou dig. EPRIwRrTu.ErnMG�E,MiM6 ND zamrc_i xcz, 4911 N. 220242-01-001 DAIS SEPTEMBER 12,2025 100 50 0 100 200 FILL No. z P ra \� =axrvc ,c / \ GRAPHIC 100, sREEr L100 127 ioTu srtE AnE51.11 AC LEGEND OPEN s"c'AN, sI�DEwuP PRI PEN SPACE', 121AC(15.5%I PalEwavOPETa svACEcaESER.En 'MTHID%INCPFASE. 11.95 AC w]<%I sECDrv0AaY0PEx SPACE. 10.16 Ac(15.5XI sECONOMr.WENSPACE TOTALOPBI SPACEPRONOEO'. 45.11 AC 11.11%1 211 QQ �© " E°M nsMEH:A� e cOc aarnER rvc SPACE o9 NsP Q 3C�CCCCni■CCCCo r?� Q r o g o . a � � s E Q .. '■r�i F T�I luA�i■C:■■o.. Lu � Z aw.c _ C. :■CC. z N Q o o © o _� os"Ac nu u H P r� 2 4Lu a� HOLO �C = \ R O ROAN 2 O o.w x j j . O Q °'555 O 20 ACF aQ EENT u n1ANACt N�Tsr oAlQ o.cl u Q .. Q �6g �"• \?8■IDn®Sarpe07i / ■o `aa zl ■■:' uric C Q "xG.1sµ�"�—.L.1�; A' PRELIMINARY DO NOT USE FOR IC L CONSTRUCTION N.. AN Brans Know what's below. Call before you dig. � m ® rom P DArL %NOESCRIPnoN RC NS STOP DESIGN N OR;Ntd CND SCAtE H _ N No.220242-01-001 DAIS SEPTEMBER 12,2025 100 200 F6£No PHIC SGLE 100 sHEEr L"o w n.�..:o-.\nueVa.,re uwP\DleeE-ma-Pkmm men.mlae-un\m-w�nume Oiwti•.e4m ottx mrrc y _.— 128 Narrative of Zoning Conditions Offered R-CD Updated 9/11/2025 The property owner hereby offers, consents to and agrees to abide by the conditions written below, if the rezoning is approved. 1. The subject property shall be developed generally in accordance with the proposed site plan submitted as a part of this application("Site Plan") featuring no more than 43 lots, no less than 25 acres of dedicated open space and at least 5,600 linear feet of dedicated private trails, all as described below. 2. All streets not offered to NCDOT as public streets shall meet the design requirements of Class A Private Roads, provided that,private street rights-of-way shall permit the encroachment of kiosks, raingardens, bioretention areas, trails, parking, gathering spaces, play areas and other similar improvements designed to serve the neighborhood. No such encroachment shall extend into a Travel-Way, which shall be at least eighteen feet (18') wide and constructed of compacted gravel of pavement. 3. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. This deviates from the minimum in UDO Section 3.8. Suitable septic shall be provided on each parcel. 4. No home shall be constructed on the subject property with more than four(4) bedrooms. 5. A decorative well house shall be installed over the well head within the general area designated as "100'well radius" on the Site Plan. The well house shall be designed to incorporate elements of the existing Rigsbee farmhouse located on Highway 54 by utilizing white siding as the primary material on the exterior walls and black accents such door color or light fixture color.A photo of the existing Rigsbee farmhouse is attached hereto as Exhibit A-1. An example of a well house that meets the requirements of this condition is attached as Exhibit A-2. 6. The mail kiosk shall be designed to complement the existing Rigsbee farmhouse located on Highway 54 by continuing the white color for the exterior elements. The mail kiosk shall incorporate a weather covering with recessed lighting and shall include at least two (2) benches and at least one (1) trash can.An example of a mail kiosk that meets the requirements of this condition is attached as Exhibit B. 7. At least 5,600 linear feet of private trails shall be installed as shown on the Site Plan with precise trail locations to be determined at subdivision plat. Trail surfaces shall be natural (earthen), mulch, wood chip, gravel, or crushed stone. No asphalt or pavement shall be permitted. Trail amenities shall include at least three (3) benches located along the trail and at least(4) signs providing scientific information about the flora and fauna found on the subject property with picture or other images. 169774018.5 129 8. No less than 25 acres of Open Space areas shown on the Site Plan shall collectively include a total of: a. one (1) covered, open air structure similar to those shown on the attached Exhibit C in the general area identified as the "Community Building Structure" on the Site Plan; b. at least two (2) grilling stations, c. at least one (1) fire pit; d. at least four(4) trash cans; e. at least four(4)pet waste stations; and f. at least ten (10) bird nesting boxes in the general area identified as a"bird sanctuary" on the Site Plan, all to be maintained by the HOA. 9. Individual septic systems meeting Orange County requirements and designed to serve homes with four(4) bedrooms shall be provided on each residential lot. 10. Subject to NCDOT approval, the property owner shall provide a right-hand turn lane (deceleration) and a left-hand turn lane (center lane) into the property entrance on Highway 54 meeting NCDOT standards 2 169774018.5 1 ExistingExhibit A-1 Rigsbee Farmhouse .. ���� • +Ips �. s ���_ �' yam.•�!� -�'� - 169774018.5 131 Exhibit A-2 Well House Design J S 4 1 + s 1 Note: Not to Scale 4 169774018.5 132 Exhibit B Mail Kiosk Design •IS I PARIaNCI - Note: to Scale 169774018.5 133 Exhibit C Community •. • - Imagery "i • 169774018.5 Staff Report Attachment 2 Zoning Atlas Amendment — Conditional District Basic Information Vicinity Map for Rezoning Application - PIN 9749422010 LneeKS[,OWIII Hativ ��`�� t + � Lower Eno { C 41, CaneoP�e°� I; 9 °H Creek YO ! e j+ 1 Protected �nR _ Lr�BJRVM1NO �� n \ 2 oA' f w � RO F'MIN� 2r. BfEA O y �a r ] O tical //�//// y� J� EUBANK5 R0 QUO 'I.� �F'Rn k CriE 4 cane Cree1 u�9i Bingha�mJTownship W — d JY ' Haw Riverh;,Mes'reyo II RD UnIVerSit�l s Lake ERRE -� Protected e s Carr oro I i0fi �T sl]Z'N RALE141{ -"� I �UnlV�erSltyOLD _ O "ENS ak RU Le R '� Critical Haw�' o '� " Chapel HillTownshil: Rivet i %Jordan ET]s Protected ` " Lake Prot.ed PIN:9749422010 - - - _ r1� m� / Bingham Township Townships Major Streams City Limits Water Supply Watersheds Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9749-42-2010 Parcel Address 3531 NC Highway 54 W, Chapel Hill, NC Applicant Name Forestar Group, Inc. and Address 8041 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 110, Raleigh NC 27617 Property Owner Name and Address Carolyn Rigsbee (if different from 3531 NC Highway 54 W, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Applicant) Agent(s), if applicable N/A 1 lqR Parcel • + - r arce Size / 61.11 acres Adopted Future Land Use Ma with Parcel 9749422010 Depicted Future Land Use Rural Community Activity Map (FLUM) Node Designation FLUM Overlay(s) Resource Protection Areas Growth Management Designated System Designation Rural Desig <� . Land focused on designated road intersections which serves as a nodal crossroads for the Definition of FLUM surrounding rural community 9749422010 Designation and is an appropriate (from Article 10 of location for any of the UDO) following uses: church, fire station, small post office, school, or other similarp Haw River institutional uses and one or more commercial uses. Interlocal Agreement war eoaes Resnurra Prnieerlan Anes � Applicable No F","re Lend Nee C-q"rm �n n� R (Y/N) R-1Rn<I�l Agn�� .i R-1 n�y Rezoning Application Lo R-CD for PIN 9749422010 a— — Current Zoning � R-1 (Rural Residential) District _ R-CD (Residential Conditional Requested Zoning q g District fora 43-lot District conservation cluster subdivision Requested Zoning District Consistent with Appendix F of Yes 974%22614 4 2030 Comprehensive Plan Existing 9 Zonin g Not in a Water Supply r1aW R`"£' -� Overlay Districts Watershed. A1i PIR.9740422010 f _ I Amendments Proposed for No __j AR , - l - Overlay Districts R1 ® C1 (Y/N) -NC2 2 Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Aerial Image with Parcel 9749422010 Outlined North All lots are zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) with single-family residential uses. South Lots are zoned AR (Agricultural Residential) with single-family residential uses or undeveloped land, and NC-2 (Neighborhoods Commercial) with a vacant structure. East Lots are zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) with single-family residential uses or undeveloped 3 land, and NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) with a HVAC business. West All lots are zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) with x719422010 single-family residential uses. Existing Roads North None South NC Highway 54 W East None Q PIN:Y]494220i0 - -- West Six Mile Road Existing Conditions/Physical Features A single-story frame dwelling, as well as its accessories of a concrete pad, pole barn, firepit, and two sheds, currently exists on the property. The applicant is offering the entirety of the parcel for rezoning, but should an approval be provided, the property owner will subdivide out a 2.56-acre parcel containing the single- family home and accessory structures. The Development Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed Minor Expedited subdivision to subdivide out the 2.56-acre parcel at their November 21, 2024, meeting and has approved the minor subdivision with comments. The subdivision has not been finalized yet for recordation. The remainder of the parcel is undeveloped. The applicant has provided photos of existing conditions on the site supporting that existing trees are predominantly small hardwoods. No unique or exceptionally large trees have been identified. The parcel also contains streams, floodway, Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year Floodplain), and 500 Year Floodplain. Public Water and Sewer No public utilities are requested. The applicant proposes service of the site through private septic systems and a community well. 3 137 Requested Land Use & Site Plan Number of Lots and Density 43 lots (1.42 units per acre) Lot Size Minimum: 20,000 sq. ft. Average: 22,250 sq. ft. Range: 20,037 sq. ft. (0.46 acre) - 36,154 sq. ft. 0.83 acre Open Space Total: 25.11 acres (41.11%) Primary: 14.95 acres Secondary: 10.16 acres Tree Protection 30.57 acres (50%) Dog park, bird sanctuary with nesting boxes, decorative well house, mail kiosk with benches and trash Amenities can, trails with benches and informational signs, community building with grilling stations, fire pit, trash cans, and pet waste stations oinw i 5Q'Rl T Or WAY ._• , r^ \, 10'ROMW1YWCl riP1GµLOT luY _ 5€CTON NEW - Taft +W..rwoLs 36 Pffimm Rif T CE WAY t- ' - -.{ y �}' ' .! r- •, f r-�. al, f j fucIY PI�VATC OI�VEWtiY YGTON,. . : � / � - '•� � J. M A _ 11 tri \ 7, � �4��,� l m STUP A\ Coll W—you dig. • x C-3A Proposed Access and Transportation Network Improvements The applicant proposes the construction of two public roads internal to the project, consisting of 50 ft. rights-of-way and 20 ft. travel ways, to be accepted for maintenance by NCDOT. These roadways will end in cul-de-sacs and feed into three privately maintained roads, consisting of 30 ft. rights-of-way and 18 ft. travel ways. These private roads will be maintained by the HOA. Access to the subdivision will be via a single access to NC Highway 54 W. As a condition of approval, the applicant proposes to provide a right-hand turn lane (deceleration) and a left-hand turn lane (center lane) into the property entrance on NC Highway 54 W, subject to NCDOT approval. Summary of Transportation Information Existing Roadway Characteristics Affected Roadway NC Highway 54 W Type of Roadway Minor Arterial Current Roadway Capacity 15,100 AADT Latest Traffic Volume 11,550 AADT Traffic Generation Number of Trips Expected to be Generated by 464 trips per day Proposed Project Proposed Utilities The site-specific plan presented for the proposed zoning atlas amendment proposes the use of a community well and individual septic systems for each lot. The future subdivision will not require use of public utilities. Erosion Control/Stormwater Regulations The applicant has provided a grading and stormwater management plan (Attachment 1) and will comply stormwater management (Section 6.14) and erosion and sedimentation control (Section 6.15) regulations of the UDO. The property is located in the Haw River watershed, which is not a water supply watershed and therefore has no impervious surface limit. Landscape Buffers/Setbacks All lot property lines Front 20 ft., Side 10 ft., Rear 15 ft., Corner 20 ft. North Dedicated Common Open Space South 10 ft. tree protection area East Type E 75 ft. buffer, 50 ft. voluntary buffer, 10 ft. tree protection area, dedicated Common Open Space West 50 ft. voluntary buffer, 10 ft. tree protection area, dedicated Common Open Space 5 139 Environmental Assessment (EA) 11 The applicant has provided an Environmental Assessment (EA) application, and supporting materials as required in Section 6.16 of the UDO with their submittal. The EA and supporting documents have been shared with various State agencies via the 'VC Department of Administration's State Clearinghouse. Planning staff have reviewed the materials and agree with a determination of"Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)" as required in Section 2.25.1(B)(5) of the UDO (Attachment 5). The full EA is available through the , ermit Portal. Solid Waste The applicant will comply with the Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance. The applicant has provided a "Will-Serve" letter from Efland Trash Service for private hauling. Orange County Solid Waste has confirmed that the proposed road configuration will meet the requirement for recycle material collection service. Proposed Conditions Per NCGS 160D-703, imposed conditions and site-specific standards are limited to those that address conformance of the development and use of the site to local government ordinances and adopted plans or the impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development or use of the site. Per Section 2.9.1 (F) (3) of the UDO, the following conditions are being proposed: 1. The subject property shall be developed generally in accordance with the proposed site plan submitted as a part of this application ("Site Plan") featuring no more than 43 lots, no less than 25 acres of dedicated open space and at least 5,600 linear feet of dedicated private trails, all as described below. 2. All streets not offered to NCDOT as public streets shall meet the design requirements of Class A Private Roads, provided that, private street rights-of-way shall permit the encroachment of kiosks, raingardens, bioretention areas, trails, parking, gathering spaces, play areas and other similar improvements designed to serve the neighborhood. No such encroachment shall extend into a Travel-Way, which shall be at least eighteen feet (18') wide and constructed of compacted gravel of pavement. 3. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. This deviates from the minimum in UDO Section 3.8. Suitable septic shall be provided on each parcel. 4. No home shall be constructed on the subject property with more than four (4) bedrooms. 5. A decorative well house shall be installed over the well head within the general area designated as "100' well radius" on the Site Plan. The well house shall be designed to incorporate elements of the existing Rigsbee farmhouse located on Highway 54 by utilizing white siding as the primary material on the exterior walls and black accents such door color or light fixture color. A photo of the existing Rigsbee farmhouse is attached hereto as Exhibit A-1. An example of a well house that meets the requirements of this condition is attached as Exhibit A-2. 6. The mail kiosk shall be designed to complement the existing Rigsbee farmhouse located on Highway 54 by continuing the white color for the exterior elements. The mail kiosk shall incorporate a weather covering with recessed lighting and shall include at least two (2) benches and at least one (1) trash can. An example of a mail kiosk that meets the requirements of this condition is attached as Exhibit B. 7. At least 5,600 linear feet of private trails shall be installed as shown on the Site Plan with precise trail locations to be determined at subdivision plat. Trail surfaces shall be natural (earthen), mulch, wood chip, gravel, or crushed stone. No asphalt or pavement shall be permitted. Trail amenities shall include at least three (3) benches located along the trail and at least (4) signs providing scientific information about the flora and fauna found on the subject property with picture or other images. 6 JAQ 8. No less than 25 acres of Open Space areas shown on the Site Plan shall collective) include a p p Y total of: i. one (1) covered, open air structure similar to those shown on the attached Exhibit C in the general area identified as the "Community Building Structure" on the Site Plan; ii. at least two (2) grilling stations; iii. at least one (1) fire pit; iv. at least four (4) trash cans; V. at least four (4) pet waste stations; and vi. at least ten (10) bird nesting boxes in the general area identified as a "bird sanctuary" on the Site Plan, all to be maintained by the HOA. 9. Individual septic systems meeting Orange County requirements and designed to serve homes with four (4) bedrooms shall be provided on each residential lot. 10. Subject to NCDOT approval, the property owner shall provide a right-hand turn lane (deceleration) and a left-hand turn lane (center lane) into the property entrance on Highway 54 meeting NCDOT standards. Review Milestones Application Submittal Date February 7, 2025 Development Advisory Committee March 6, 2025 DAC Review Neighborhood Information Meeting April 29, 2025 NIM Note: The DAC is a staff/agency committee, established in Section 1.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Courtesy Review Jurisdiction Date Sent Comments Received (Y/N) State Clearing House February 18, 2025 Yes Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department N/A Yes All comments received through Courtesy Review are available via the Permit Portal. Analysis Staff Analysis As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director shall cause an analysis to be made of the application. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers a full analysis of the application's consistency with the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. See the drafted Statement of Consistency (Attachment 6) in which the relevant Goals and Objectives of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan have been analyzed in full detail. 1. Staff review determined that the application is complete and all submitted materials are in compliance with the following applicable sections of the UDO: ■ Section 2.8, Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments ■ Section 2.9, Conditional Districts ■ Section 5.21.1(A), Standards for Major Subdivisions, Conditional Districts 7 JAJ In accordance with Section 2.9.1(F), Approval and Conditions, the applicant has submitted conditions which are to be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners for a determination as to whether such conditions will afford protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. "Dwelling, Single-Family" is defined as Use #42 in the Table of Permitted Uses and within Article 10, Definitions of the UDO as: "A detached building containing one dwelling unit." Section 5.2, Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO identifies "Dwelling, Single-Family" as a permitted use within the NR-CD zoning district. 2. Staff review of the application included considerations for how the request relates to the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This staff analysis found in the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 6) outlines elements of the Plan which staff identified as relevant to the consideration of this request. 3. The requested zoning district, R-CD (Residential - Conditional District), is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F, Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts. 8 Attachment 3 142 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245.2575 September 24, 2025 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Dear Property Owner: This notice is to inform you of the October 7, 2025, Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meeting, at which an application to rezone +/-61.11 acres (PIN: 9749-42-2010) will be reviewed. The parcel's primary address is 3531 NC Highway 54 W, Chapel Hill, within the Bingham Township. This notification is occurring in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). You are receiving this notice because you own property located within 1,000-feet of the parcels requested for rezoning. YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT PROPOSED FOR REZONING. Property Information Parcel ID Number (PIN) 9749422010 Owner Carolyn Rigsbee Applicant Forestar Group, Inc. Location 3531 NC Highway 54 W, Chapel Hill Acreage +/- 61.11 acres Current Zoning Rural Residential (R-1) Proposed Zoning Residential Conditional District (R-CD) Watershed Designation Haw River Unprotected What is being proposed? Forestar Group, Inc., as an authorized agent of Carolyn Rigsbee, has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment to allow for future residential development of the parcel. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the +/- 61.11 acre property to R-CD. The applicant has provided a site-specific plan and conditions for the proposed single-family development. What is this meeting for? The BOCC will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning. Interested persons are invited to address the County Commissioners with their comments regarding the rezoning application. The Orange County Planning Board, an advisory board comprised of appointed volunteers, reviewed this application at its August 6, 2025, regular meeting and voted to recommend approval of the rezoning request. 143 This amendment request will be reviewed by the BOCC during a public hearing scheduled at 7:00 p.m., October 7, 2025, at the Whitted Meeting Facility (300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC). All interested persons are invited to address the Board with their comments regarding the application. The BOCC is the decision-making body regarding zoning matters. The Board may take one of the following four actions at their meeting, 1) Approval, 2) Denial, 3) Approval, but with specified changes, or 4) that the Board be given extended time to consider the matter. BOCC Meeting Information Date October 7, 2025 Time 7:00 p.m. Place Whitted Meeting Facility Address 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC Lauren Honeycutt, Planner II Assigned Planner Email: lahoneycutt .orangecount ny c.aov Phone: 919-245-2598 If you cannot attend the public hearing and the website does not answer your questions about the applications, you may call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you. Sincerely, Cy Stober Additional information is available on the Orange County Planning Department's website: https://www.orangecountync.gov/3038/Active-Development-Projects or scan below: FEET R � r Nor ■ r Si desea servicios de traduccion para esta carta y otros documentos relacionados con el caso/asunto;y/o servicios de interpretacion de idiomas en una reunion relacionada con este caso/asunto, comuniquese con Current Planning Division al correo electronico: planningapps(a�orangecountync.qov o llame al 919-245-2575. Por favor, espere al menos 10 digs para que nuestro personal organice estos servicios. 144 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov I iii W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245.2575 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Lauren Honeycutt, Planner 11 with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance I have mailed, or have caused to be mailed, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held regarding a rezoning application proposing to rezone one parcel located at 3531 NC Highway 54 W, Chapel Hill (PIN: 9749-42-2010) on September 24, 2025. The owners were identified according to the Tax Records, as required by Section 2.8.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. The mailed notices specified the date,time, place and subject of the Public Hearing. WITNESS my hand, this 24`" day of September 2025. Lauren Honeycutt Planner 11 Orange County Planning Orange County c2u LLj z Lu Uj Ir BERIEDGE DR rrL January 18. 2025 This map contains parcels prepared for the inventory of real property within Orange County,and is compiled from recorded deed, plats,and other public records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary information sources should be consulted forverification of the information contained on this map. PIN: 9749422010 The county and its mapping companies assume no legal responsibility forthe information on this map. OWNER 1: R|GSBEECAR(}LYN SIZE: 83.46A BUILDING COUNT 1 1:38.615 OWNER 2: DEED REF 2521/166 LAND VALUE: n oo 0.6 1.2 mi ADDRESS1: 1922 ORANGE CHAPEL-CLOVER MfEP§bb@H RQ BLDG`VALUE: ADDRESS 2: TOWNSHIP 8|NGHAK� USE VALUE: » u« 1 2 k CITY: CH/\PELH|LL BLDG SOFT: 1949 TOTAL VALUE: -4111111111111 �� STATE, Z|p: NC 27518 YEAR BUILT: 1011 DATE SOLD: 2/25/2003 ��� ������� COUNTY —��U Uh����/ TAX STAMPS: 0 �'� ° ~�� ���' � " " LEGAL DESC: #5'8 R|GSBEE EU8ANKS &LLDYD � Nv]gTD-I CAROLINA 146 OBJECTID PIN OWNERI_LAST OWNERI_FIRST ADDRESSI ADDRESS2 CITY STATE ZIPCODE 2868 9748396909 TILLEY GREGORYT 3600 HYW 54 W CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2869 9748398598 DAVIS VERNON P 2401 NC HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2870 9748399899 DAVIS VERNON P 2401 NC HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2900 9748491572 DAVIS VERNON P 2401 NC HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2902 9748493910 DAVIS VERNON P 2401 NC HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2903 9748494626 DAVIS VERNON P 2401 NC HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 2904 9748496921 HARI DEV LLC 300 W MAIN ST CARRBORO NC 27510 2905 9748499852 TIMBERIDGE RENTALS LLC 2401 NC HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 CHAPEL HILL POST NO LEGION 3113 9749101791 AMERICAN INCORPORATED 3700 NC HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 275168272 FRANK GAETANO 3134 9749204857 RAO TRUSTEE 3642 NC 54W CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3135 9749208153 TILLEY GREGORYT 3600 HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3136 9749215634 JAMISON KATHRYN D 3282 EASTBROOK DR CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3137 9749223199 BARN AT VALHALLA LLC PO BOX 511 CARRBORO NC 27510 3138 9749225643 BARN AT VALHALLA LLC PO BOX 511 CARRBORO NC 27510 3139 9749229743 BARN AT VALHALLA LLC PO BOX 511 CARRBORO NC 27510 3140 9749238205 MCGUIRE JOYCE S 9323 CHARLES LN CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3162 9749300495 CLANTON ROBERT PAUL 3536 HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3163 9749306411 TILLEY GREGORYT 3600 HWY 54W CHAPELHILL NC 27516 3164 9749308334 CHAPPELL LEON 3510 NC 54 W STE A&B CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 CAROLINA CONFERENCE OF 3165 9749310328 SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST INC PO BOX 44270 CHARLOTTE NC 28215 3166 9749322006 RISTAINO ANDRE G 867 SIX MILE RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 FBO ANDRE RISTAINO 3167 9749325642 EQUITYTRUST COMPANY IRA 873 SIX MILE RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3168 9749330433 MCGUIRE JOYCE S 9323 CHARLES LN CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3169 9749330848 SHEPARD SCOT R 9316 LUCILLE LN CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3170 9749331692 REEVES ELIZABETH S 9317 LUCIELLE LN CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3171 9749336582 SMITH DAVID A 9337 LUCIELLE LN CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3172 9749336993 WEAR CINDY MICHELE 9336 LUCIELLE LN CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3175 9749348218 KARTESZ JOHN THOMAS 9319 BRACKEN LA CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3186 9749402351 DAVIS VERNON P 2401 NC HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3187 9749402837 BIG SHOW PROPERTIES LLC 100 FLORAL DR Chapel Hilt NC 27516 3188 9749404659 BPSI INC 3403 HWY 54 W CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3189 9749405354 HARI DEV LLC 300 W MAIN ST CARRBORO NC 27510 3190 9749405914 LEWIS STAN HOWARD 3445 HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3191 9749408985 BLACKWOOD WILLIAM KELLY 320 DAIRYLAND RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 WHISNANT PHILLIPS PTNS 3192 9749412275 DBA WHITE CROSS PARTNERSHIP 116 E MAIN ST CARRBORO NC 27510 3193 9749413288 GRIFFIN AMANDAJOHNSON 546EVERETTLN CHAPELHILL NC 27516 3194 9749414263 FERGUSON MICHAEL P 528 EVERETT LN CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 ZURIBEL P 3195 9749415111 GUERRERO HERNANDEZ 532EVERETTLN CHAPELHILL NC 27516 3196 9749419462 DAVIDSON ROBERT P 3261 HWY 54 W CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 1922 ORANGE CHAPEL- 3197 9749422010 RIGSBEE CAROLYN CLOVER GARDEN CH RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3198 9749432228 MONTGOMERY NATHAN 9625 COLLINS CREEK DR CHAPELHILL NC 27516 3199 9749432626 LEWIS CYNTHIA LYNN 9613 COLLINS CREEK DR CHAPEL HILL NC 275167591 3200 9749432908 BRADSHAW DENNIS W 9523 COLLINS CREEK DR CHAPEL HILL NC 275167589 3201 9749436482 HOUCK KEITH A 9622 COLLINS CREEK DR CHAPEL HILL NC 275167590 3202 9749437727 KALANYOS KATHY R 9608 COLLINS CREEK DR CHAPEL HILL NC 275167590 3203 9749442312 LINDSTROM ANDREW 9511 COLLINS CREEK DR Chapel Hill NC 27516 3205 9749447110 DINKELOO EERO 9518 COLLINS CREEK DR CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 3217 9749500067 TIMBERIDGE RENTALS LLC 2401 NC HWY 54 W CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3218 9749500194 TIMBERIDGE RENTALS LLC 2401 NC HWY 54 WEST CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3219 9749500366 J&1 BRAVO LLC 3300 NC 54W CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3220 9749501789 SARKARIA PROPERTIES INC 1064 MONTVALE RIDGE DR CARY NC 27519 3221 9749504904 HOLTZ PERDITA H 9903 OAK HOLLOW RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3222 9749505975 BRILLIANT ELIZABETH 9905 OAK HOLLOW RD CHAPELHILL NC 27516 3223 9749506994 LITTLE JACQUELINE LOY 9907 OAK HOLLOW RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3226 9749510687 MEYER JENNIFER E 9603 LESLIE DR CHAPEL HILL NC 275167531 3227 9749510856 LOPEZ CAROLINA 9601 LESLIE DR CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3228 9749511086 PRATER I LARRY R 3225 NC HWY 54 W CHAPEL HILL NC 1 27516 147 OBJECTID PIN OWNERI_LAST OWNERI_FIRST ADDRESSI ADDRESS2 CIN STATE iZIPCODE 3229 9749512250 NALLY HEATHER DEANS 9901 OAK HOLLOW RD CHAPELHILL NC 27516 3230 9749512463 WOODWARD DIANNE M 9900 OAK HOLLOW RD CHAPEL HILL NC 275165975 3231 9749513665 BLACK DAWN TRUSTEE 9609 LESLIE DR CHAPEL HILL NC 27516 3232 9749513987 SHACKLEFORD KENDRICK W II 9608 LESLIE DR CHAPELHILL NC 27516 3233 9749515420 SPENCER SHARON 9904 OAK HOLLOW RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 3234 9749515615 DIX SARAH MEROE 9615 LESLIE DR CHAPELHILL NC 27516 3235 9749515957 BOOTH DEBORAH G 9614 LESLIE DR CHAPELHILL NC 275169749 3236 9749516675 GRODENSKY CATHERINE A 9621 LESLIE DR CHAPELHILL NC 275167531 3237 9749517338 PARADIS MARC P 9906 OAK HOLLOW RD CHAPELHILL NC 27516 3238 9749517906 FRIEDMAN STEPHEN N 9620 LESLIE DR CHAPELHILL NC 275169749 3239 9749518623 JAMES BETTY B 9705 LESLIE DR CHAPELHILL NC 275167533 3240 9749518956 FULLER CHARLES RANDALL 9706 LESLIE DR CHAPELHILL NC 27516 3242 9749519671 ROYLE DIANE L 9711 LESLIE DR CHAPELHILL NC 27516 3243 9749519985 MULKY RICHARD L 9712 LESLIE DR CHAPELHILL NC 275167532 3244 9749522031 YOUNGBLOOD GRAHAM 9602 LESLIE DR CHAPELHILL NC 27516 9623DODSON 3245 9749538060 WHITFIELD LYNDONMELVIN CROSSROADS CHAPELHILL NC 27516 9505DODSONS 3247 9749547142 BRITZ GREGORY J TRUSTEE CROSSROADS CHAPELHILL NC 27516 148 April 9, 2025 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) Zoning Atlas Amendment—Conditional Rezoning To Whom It May Concern: We, Forestar Real Estate Group, have submitted a Conditional Rezoning Application proposing to develop property located at 3531 HWY NC 54 W (PIN: 9749422010) for Residential Conditional District (R-CD). Per Section 2.9 Conditional Districts of the Unified Development Ordinance, you are receiving this letter because property you own is within 1,000 ft. of this parcel. The parcel is further described below: Property Information Parcel ID Numbers (PIN) 9749422010 Owner Carol Rigsbee Applicant Forestar c/o Laura Haywood Location 3531 HWY NC 54 W, Chapel Hill, NC Acreage 63.46 Zoning Rural Residential (R-1) Watershed Designation Haw River Unprotected What is being proposed? We propose 43 homes on no less than half acre lots. The lots are clustered to the interior of the site with open space located around the perimeter to provide a buffer for our neighbors. Roughly 1/3 of the site will be preserved as open space. Please see the attached subdivision plan for more information about our proposal. What is this meeting for? This Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM)will allow you and other nearby property owners to meet with the applicant and discuss the proposal. When and where is the meeting? Meeting Information Date April 29, 2025 Time 7:OOPM Place Antioch Baptist Church Address 1707 White Cross Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Lauren Honeycutt, Planner II Assigned Planner Email: lahoneycutt(a�orangecountync.gov Phone: 919 245-2598 170371730.1 149 After the NIM, this proposal will go on to the Planning Board for review and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will then hold a public hearing to make a final decision on the application. You will also receive a letter regarding when those meetings will take place and at what time. If you have any question regarding this project, feel free to reach out to us, our contact information is listed below. Best Regards, Forestar Real Estate Group, Inc. 8041 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27617 (919) 804-7220 Enclosures: Site Plan 170371730.1 1 R a , F 9e V �f 1 ITQL'� , y , 1 , , e 4 +1. =b. •i`._ tea.. 'Amp a rya _ � , �P•� _ ,9y e�r.:,e�'t'�.-.w` 1 t$. .�p� �� S''I *•' o . �^�� ��,, r is e• ' n AL , ` a P0i - r. �• _ :e PAR Dom All NO Rue '.• -, �°i app `� - f M_ *:. - a5V •�, .-r -+�a�n'�L- r r ',.. �„ . e 1. , .r I'>•I �. � P � .: ;y, }• {`,Fx".`r`�.� rp .u,. � 9 ',:,,e, a ,• •' ,. ,.° '' - .r, P - ` � e c Y , • I g'��F, s e � _. ^ F.• � ��`�_ q -. � _ L�i �.� r -I ^ .. : �, '- r° I p � ..,,. �,. , '• ;`1,•,•� •.'Y a .,_ .�''' a, +j•+7 �' 4 a '.1 � ,ig r vt, I ° .' - j... _ G - P,,.b � '.� � • 1 f� - ry _. .. , p e , , r z. [ 1 ' ' v '-. a�y��r.SS�' �', F 1-- 1, T,• ,,1 Y w �-..,� �, �, y�}3 . 'r { . ° r- { y gr ,,.PF, ,.: ac - .} ..!++ _.. �{•. ,_ I, �.� ,L. ' - rf- ,F 1, rl iP h { r _ �".'" ,� - �, `'yam "e .�^ + -,141,,p � �' � ,� L ,�° ,'-, fir• rP'�r' ; ,, .4��1 . .. _t�yy�'��'' ,?� � .ky ar +, �j��,Ila :F'r"•.+ :i„1 _�: � r ° ,.fV , 1 r y. .. Y.yy,rt:'..5'_ ' praz".,. "4rls ,,5�• 4.— e F, I '� 't` r. ,k` }k e, + - d 1� L il''�� i• _ �P w'°'F I - I , �.. �' :;� ,� i'L�." ' f_.�. �c �i� ?'� ��•Sy JI:. 1 a�' +� lv Pv :I ti, ,Y, .+ � - � _ � t 4 o-. :. l;r_a �1a; s a''��••�r a•' .y„� .{, - ,�Y r. gR.e �� �• �,,ri •.k r` ��- �•5a�' 1 '�� i -��4 ,. . •� $ r ,a-'•t •.+�'�•f � 1 �,�' t� ,0.• I � l•,"� , r �i }' .� , ,fir� '&' � 'd• .. � •�,ny�f�+� ,', 1 d' 'r;5 i`�' :. .- ..4 •� L w'R`. .- Td a�,a yR � ,�. :4i .':. 15"� .1�� : �ti t b � r:1 a X =r ,•A"I,,. i ..1 } j {";1 Its;�I .•+! j':� 1.�' ..p� �, r , , 't,_ 6 i• ,i`! a �I -� I r �14 •,J`• � e .ri , �1 �, .,� y._ ,. ', .'. `aye. � :,, -#A r�,-!,.~,�- •e'� [°° ,�:��.e `.2.•I .• - ;.,, ° y Y ,�'l�,ew` ,L.. � ' _ {w'�. .� � ,� P _ 1�fir,' ��° r4-. � •., ,t J r7� ,, .+ . -er•��� •..� r. r - � F� 1�" Y{�FI, �.+=�� 1 v ,T s, ,■Ili' P �� � •� e. J2^b' �j a�. �.mss% � I ,P ,1. .p ' �: p'• rF 'y d., .113 -`�_ 1 }�� '' {..rP=. �` '.•, s,",tµl 1.. �1 I � ��-�,. '' rt' � •5 ° ..� '� � .,LY• r. J� ➢ ,,� ya.. 2.X.! °l 4. �k°�,.-:��41Y-1I�,�„�'r r L- J� 5�rr'➢��T�� _, ���' - e"� L�� F•A ° .., '�I..F--M�,1Pl PiiY' 'R��`�' ' "'_: 151 Neighborhood Information Meeting Report Form REPORT OF INFORMATION MEETING REQUIRED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE To: Lauren Honeycutt, Planner II Project Name: Rigsbee Subdivision Approximate Location (or Address): NC 54 W, Bingham Township, NC Proposed Number Lots: 43 Residential (Y/N): Y The undersigned hereby certifies that the required sign(s) was posted on the proposed Rigsbee Subdivision property, on each road frontage of said project on 04/11/2025 by Orange County Planning staff. The meeting was held at the following time and place: Meeting was held on 04/29/2025, 7:00 p.m.at Antioch Baptist Church, 1707 White Cross Road, Chapel Hill, NC The persons in attendance at the meeting: Please See Attachment A The following issues were discussed at the meeting (Attach additional sheet(s) if needed): Please See Attachment B As a result of the meeting, the following changes were made to the project proposal (Attach additional sheet(s) if needed): Please See Attachment C Date: 05/20/2025 Applicant: Forestar Real Estate Group By: Laura Haywood — Entitlements Manager Please submit this Report to the Orange County Planning Department located at 131 W. Margaret Ln or mail it to Lauren Honeycutt, at 131 W. Margaret Ln. Hillsborough NC, 27278. If you have any questions, please contact the assigned staff planner. 172382604.2 Attachment A 152 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Neighborhood Information Meeting Sign-In Sheet t 52 P zject/Plan: Ripme Sunaivision •,,�r0 It yL`�t Daft &T;...e: 04/29/2025-7r.rn. Name Address Tele hu.LLe N ujmbe, ti Gill Addreoo wor)�4 4Z 1A — w� a Q — � l � b aC� kc7aiftj anpAcuw Rt��-f(a cl/ 9 - qqlw-*� /*J/,s 0 L 4,M n P't U eStc-0it'd 1-f Q'22 � SO D t4C- � i CSGLIt R�Ptl 153 ��•'" K o ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT :ems Neighburhooa Inforatution Meeting Sign-In Sheet J Proj«yrian: Rigaa« Subdivision Date &Time: 04/29/2025 -7r.�&&. Name Address Telephone Number Email Addrzsu 9-14 , J�,, qjj - Z)q - ),y4q (r o k�"�y lw I co/n Qc.,..QST � /��� �p0�y ��L<l /�.0 G( � �l� 077 z� �-�P �'�'• b•r�o���.l rCp Lyn da-1-1 v ` ni9 t &! v yA-*G pi FbbtS^�r��d@v0-1;bo "lop �Vo5o 21747 F�.oo r�, CA%A,� l-h Y �t �� p v W-n ry oar I. Lc �, C��-�►-� n� `r tj - �3� - Saco Jjar���.b d-C� �^� 154 ORANGE COUNTY rLANN1NG N 1NSYLCTIONS 1JEFAKTMENT �., Neighborhood Informarion Meering #w P.uject/Plan: Rigsbee Subdivision Date &Tinau: 04/29/2025-7y.m. Iq mai tt Name Addreaa 'fele horke Number Email Addres3 6tT14 H ZIS Z(Z6 (�fGDz�q-T (fxEcK - 9`fZ •/d`f esh��h—e c .rr.cern-+ %-7D )- :5 -6 A ''� `l lc — Y 4 .2 -38r Lf Yu Cc 7 �f � Mai L.Y g °Ac avu � ( Cl-5"37 L v aumU-B GG a tq - 12-9 - �-13 T3 ya f'svt sS ce*iill. • C oil �1 flim k�.A5�,�nd ',-;tY, Mile t:::� l `i IGt - 5 / c7 rvlo:,"sj-tUrojjj�Z►-w, . tA:, q 3 d--� 4-, Krj("[-� _ 9 o�•L CO i 1�!�S`'� �6�-./' /I q l9 1 ' 17��L 4/!1`4 vtA C►Lt �r e-- x"A!I CO f 155 Attachment B During the Neighborhood Information Meeting, the following concerns were brought up and discussed: ➢ The top concern amongst neighbors is the availability of water with the proposed use of the community well. Neighbors wondered whether there is sufficient water supply to support future residents of the Rigsbee Subdivision (proposed) and already existing homes in the area (established residents). Traffic on Highway 54 was also a concern. Some worried that the Rigsbee Subdivision would add more cars, thus causing more delays and the possibility of more accidents. Neighbors voiced their understanding that there is a future possibility of NCDOT widening Highway 54. They indicated that they have no desire for Highway 54 to be widened. ➢ There were questions about the appearance of the proposed subdivision and if it would align with the rural characters of the region. ➢ A few attendees expressed their concerns about how stormwater would be managed. Some neighbors are concerned about trespassing from future residents onto their properties. Some neighbors requested clarification as to the property as surveyed by Forestar. There was some confusion as to property lines, because of the ALTA survey. 172382604.2 156 Attachment C Based on the Neighborhood Information Meeting feedback, the following changes were addressed on the plans or in process of being conducted: Y We have engaged a hydrogeologist with Spangler Environmental to study further water availability and existing and future demand in the area. Y Our traffic engineer, Josh Reinke, PE with Bolton & Menk, prepared a Trip Generation letter. NCDOT will review the study and determine if any road improvements, such as turn lanes, are necessary as we move forward to subdivision plat. It should be noted that NCDOT has received the Trip Generation Letter and a copy has been provided to Orange County Planning Department. ➢ Our team is deeply focused on delivering a community that blends well with the rural and natural characteristics of the region. We prepared and shared illustrations and schematics of the proposed community prepared by Rachel Cotter RLA, Nicole Steele PLA, Allison Gramolini RLA, CPSI, with Weston & Sampson Design Studio to specifically show our desire to maintain the historic, natural environment and the overall rural characteristic of the area. y Danielle Cabral, EI and Don Sever, PE with Bowman Engineering will continue to develop a stormwater design in accordance with County and State regulations. ➢ Forestar is reaching out to neighbors individually to address unique concerns raised in the meeting. 172382604.2 Attachment 5 157 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director 1 cstober@orangecountync.gov I 131W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245.2575 July 23, 2025 Rigsbee Rezoning Application Case #: MA25-0002 PIN: 9749-42-2010 3531 NC Highway 54 W, Chapel Hill Re: Development Advisory Committee Report (per UDO Section 1.9.5) On March 6, 2025, the Orange County Development Advisory Committee met for a final review and discussion of the conditional rezoning application Case #MA25-0002 from Forestar Group, Inc. for PIN 9749-42-2010. The Orange County Development Advisory Committee has no objections to the approval of the zoning atlas amendment so long as the items in the attached departmental memos are addressed. The application package features an abstract and staff report that provide the foundations for my recommendation regarding this application and request. Sincerely, PatKEC�Z MpUett Patrick Mallett Deputy Director— Development Services Orange County Government I www.orangecountync.gov I 919.732.8181 158 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1 131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245.2575 Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Comments DAC review comments and recommendations do not constitute plan or permit approval for this application and/or replace any other plans and permits that may be required by other County departments and State agencies. Project: MA25-0002 (Rigsbee) Conditional Rezoning Location/PIN: 9749422010 Applicant: Forestar Group Inc. c/o Laura Haywood Staff Planner: Lauren Honeycutt, Planner II DAC Meeting Date: March 6, 2025 Addressing and Britney Pendleton Land Records Date: 2-27-25 Staff: brpendleton(a)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2576 1. The addressing team will need to discuss the number of road names needed, and if it will need to be 3 named roads, or 6. Further review is needed a. Roads can not "Y" split under our ordinance. Lots 35-38 road will need to be named, separately from road "1". b. If continuous road loops will retain names, then road 1 might retain name through lots 26-30 c. If continuous road loops will retain names, then road 2 might retain name lots 10- 13 2. For Road Naming and Addressing Guidelines; information on how to reserve road names, please visit: https://www.orangecountync.gov/3465/911-Addressing-and-Road- Naming Road names are not reserved until confirmation is received from our team. James Bryan Attorney's Office Date: Staff: jbryan orangecountync.gov 919-245-2319 1. No comments received. Building Michael Rettie Inspections Date: Staff: mrettie .orangecountync.gov 919-245-2604 1. No comments received. Chris Hirni DEAPR Date: Staff: chirni(a)-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2514 1. No comments received. Environmental Victoria Hudson Health Date: 3/4/25 Staff: vhudson(a)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2365 1. There are some earlier permit starts at 3341 NC 54 and a new well construction. 159 2. No applications have been received for other actions. 3. No public health concerns. Erosion Tyler Sliger Control Date: Staff: TsIiger(cD-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2582 1. Based on the materials provided for the March 6, 2025 DAC meeting, there are 2 mapped stream features or other surface water features (e.g. ponds and/or wetlands) within the project's parcel boundaries. Regulated streams (if any) must comply with Section 6.13 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If applicable, the applicant must also comply with Section 2.20 of the UDO and submit a Buffer Use Authorization Certificate (BAC) application for disturbances inside the regulated stream buffer. 2. Based on the submitted materials, the project isn't proposing a stream crossing. If the project proposes a crossing and/or is disturbing the stream channel a Pre-Authorization Construction Notification (PCN) application will need to be submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the scope of work and a USACE Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be forwarded to Orange County staff. 3. Based on the information provided and for the proposed/assumed limits of disturbance, the project will need a Land Disturbance Permit (LDP). If this project requires a LDP the applicant must adhere to Sections 2.18, 2.19, and 6.15 of the UDO. Orange County strongly advises the applicant to submit an LDP upfront that accounts for the total project including the roads and lots. 4. Please add the following signature block to the Final Plat: A Land Disturbance Permit has/has not been approved for this subdivision. This certification is not a Land Disturbance Permit or an approval for Land Disturbance. Subsequent changes to this subdivision may affect the ability to obtain a Land Disturbance Permit and/or Stormwater Permit. Erosion Control Officer Date Please add the following note to the Final Plat: 5. Orange County Erosion Control and Stormwater Note: Orange County regulates: Land Disturbance (UDO Section 2.18); Stormwater Management (UDO Section 2.21); Impervious Limits (UDO Section 4.2); Stream Buffer buffers UDO Section 2.20); Floodplain Development(UDO Section 2.6); Watershed Protection (UDO Section 4.2), and High-Quality Water Zone areas (HQW) (UDO Section 4.2). Before building, installing, developing or land disturbing on any parcel or area within the subdivision, please contact the Orange County Erosion Control and Stormwater Division to determine which regulations may apply. Orange County strongly also advises the applicant to submit a Land Disturbance Permit (LDP) before final plat recordation to account for the total regulated disturbance(s), including any roads and lots within the subdivision area. If permanent Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) are constructed to meet Stormwater Management requirements, then the SCM(s) may require the recordation of permanent stormwater maintenance easements and/or access easements (accessible via the nearest public right of way) to provide perpetual access to the SCM(s) for Orange County inspection. Fire and Life Chris Pendergrass Safety Date: 3/3/2025 Staff: cpendergrass orangecountync.gov 919-245-6125 160 1. Asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds 2. Roadway shall not exceed 10 percent in grade 3. Roadway shall be 20 feet wide, not including shoulders 4. Clearance over the road would have to be no lower than 13 1/2 feet 5. Two separate and approved apparatus access roads shall be provided when number of dwelling units exceeds 30 with the exception of all dwelling units are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the International Fire Code. Number of dwellings on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development as determined by the fire code official. David Genwright NCDOT Date: Staff: digenwright(a-_)ncdot.gov 336-570-6833 Comments from correspondence included: 1. Prior to performing work in the NCDOT right of way, the applicant will need to obtain the following: a. Approved NCDOT Driveway Permit b. Approved NCDOT 3-party encroachment agreement for any proposed/stipulated water and sewer or sidewalk construction 2. Assuming proposal of public streets to be maintained by NCDOT. All requirements in the Subdivision Manual January 2010 Revised December 2020.pdf must be met. NCDOT does not allow privately maintained structural stormwater controls which would include rain gardens within the NCDOT right of way. Refer to page 17 of this manual. Based on the exhibit, the proposed rain gardens are located within areas inscribed by short loop roads. If these roads are constructed to NCDOT geometric requirements, the areas occupied by the proposed rain gardens would likely not fall within the right of way. 3. The proposed public roads would need to meet all NCDOT requirements 4. The proposed private accesses serving the lots and the postal CBU would not be eligible for NCDOT maintenance and would be considered driveways subject to NCDOT requirements. Lauren Honeycutt Planning Date: 3/4/25 Staff: lahoneycutt(cDorangecountync.gov 919-245-2598 General 1. A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is required for a Conditional District Zoning Atlas Amendment. The meeting shall be held a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the Planning Board meeting. 2. The R-CD District is intended to be used for the purpose of binding development to a detailed site plan with a list of specific conditions that ensure compatibility and harmony with surrounding areas. If conditions of approval are being proposed, please provide a draft for staff review. 3. LIDO Section 3.8 Conditional Districts— R-CD includes a note of"for lots outside of a Watershed Protection Overlay District (see Section 4.2), the minimum usable lot area for lots that utilize ground absorption wastewater systems shall be 30,000 square feet for parcels between 40,000 square feet and 1.99 acres in size." Consider the inclusion of a condition addressing that the proposed lot size is deviating from this minimum and that the parcels will include suitable septic. 4. Please provide update regarding the status of the Minor Expedited Subdivision for the existing home. Application 1. Please expand the narrative to directly address the requirements in LIDO Section 2.8.3(C-E): 161 a. The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text that would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development text and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the alleged error b. The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which makes the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text amendment reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety and general welfare c. The manner in which the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Unified Development Ordinance text amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof 2. The application description currently references development of"up to 45 single family units." Please revise this to reflect the 40 proposed units proposed in the site plan. 3. Please complete an Environmental Assessment, as required in UDO Section 2.15(6) for Major Subdivisions. 4. Per UDO Section 5.21.1, since the proposed lots are to be served by community wells, a professionally prepared groundwater yield analysis relating the proposed wells to the U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4286 and any later USGS Water Resource Investigation Report data available is required. 5. Per UDO Section 5.21.1, a written and graphic site analysis illustrating soils, depth to water table, slope, hydrology, vegetation, natural areas and habitats of special concern, infrastructure and other constructed features, historic and archaeological sites, and visual analysis of views into and from the site is required. Site Plan 1. Per UDO Section 2.5.3 Site Plan Specifications and UDO Section 5.21.1 Major Subdivision Standards for Conditional Districts, include the following elements in the plan set. This may be on the site plan itself, or as a note, condition, or explanation in the narrative. a. Note the maximum impervious surface is N/A for the Haw River Watershed. b. Indicate proposed use in the development data. C. Note estimated traffic generated by the proposed development in trips per day. d. Propose front, side, and rear setbacks. e. To the best ability, estimate house footprints, building height, finished floor elevation, and driveways. This may be addressed through an illustration of a typical lot. f. Show proposed access for each lot. g. Common Open Space consists of both primary open space and secondary open space. More information on primary and secondary areas can be found in UDO Section 7.12.4(6) Planning for Open Space and Section 7.12.4(C) Types of Common Open Space. Identify these areas and provide the total acreage of both. Clearly illustrate Primary and Secondary Open Space boundaries and describe the treatment of passive and active open space areas (e.g., natural/undisturbed areas, trails, recreational amenities), as well as type of ownership. h. For any amenities, provide a graphic representation of the improvement. i. Identify the classification of roads proposed. j. Include Six Mile Rd on the Preliminary Plat. k. Show proposed street lighting, if any. I. Show proposed signage, if any. m. Relabel the area currently identified as wetlands to reflect the Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year FloodZone) and 500 Year Floodplain with stream buffers applied. n. To the best ability, illustrate the location of septic tanks and wastewater disposal fields, as well as the community water supply system. o. Illustrate any community well easements for individual lot access. 162 p. Note the source of water supply and wastewater treatment methods. q. Show private utility easements on the site plan and identify the relevant utility providers. r. Identify fire and police providers. Landscape Plan 1. Please note the proposed barrier method for denoting the tree protection area. Per UDO Section 6.8.4 Protection of Existing Vegetation, tree protection fencing shall be a minimum of four feet in height, of durable construction, and shall be placed outside of the drip line of the tree(s) to be protected. 2. Illustrate a typical lot to include between lot planting and street trees. 3. Provide a general description of the existing trees to be preserved. For example, this could be a photograph of typical existing conditions. 4. Please include a note that new plants will be consistent with the Orange County Preferred Plant List. Matt Taylor Solid Waste Date: 2/28/25 Staff: mtaylo1orangecountync.gov 919-918-4905 1. Lots 10-13, 27-30 and 35-38 would either need to have the shared drives constructed to handle the weight of weekly/bi-weekly visits from waste collection vehicles or they would need to have a staging area to put their carts out for collection. Also, The roadway width seems suitable for waste collection vehicles, we just need to ensure that the cul-de-sacs are big enough for waste collection vehicles to turn around. Stormwater Christopher Sandt Management Date: 3/3/25 Staff: csandtCcDorangecountync.gov 919-245-2583 1. The project is located in the Haw River Unprotected Watershed Overlay District. A Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) submittal is required if the proposed Land- Disturbing Activity exceeds 43,560 square feet, or if the project is a subdivision. The Land-Disturbing Activity threshold is cumulative to the parent parcel (i.e., the original parcel boundary before subdividing) and will carry over to any/all resulting subdivided parcels, regardless of development timelines or ownership transitions for the subdivided parcels. Development activity associated with a subdivision will almost certainly trigger the need for an SMP or a Land Disturbance Permit (LDP) up front, in concurrence with the subdivision process. Orange County advises the applicant to clearly relay this information in writing to prospective buyers/builders. Transportation Darlene Weaver Services Date: 3/4/2025 Staff: dweaver(a-)-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2002 1. No comment 163 14C*DOA Department of Administration Josh Stein Gabriel J. Esparza Governor Secretary March 25, 2025 Lauren Honeycutt Orange County Planning& Inspections 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201 Hillsborough, NC 27278- Re: SCH File#25-E-0000-0152 Rezoning Application for proposed Rigsbee Subdivision project on approximately 63.99 acres parcel of land located on NC54, approximately 1000'west of White Cross Road Intersection in Bingham Township, NC.The current zoning is R1, Rural Residential,and the proposed zoning is R-CD, Residential Cond Dear Lauren Honeycutt: The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this letter are additional comments made in the review of this document. The Department of Cultural Resources has requested additional information prior to their concurrence with the above referenced document. Therefore, pursuant to 1 NCAC 25 .0506(c),this office requests that a supplemental document providing the additional information requested by the Department of Cultural Resources be submitted to the Clearinghouse for further review and comment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (984) 236-0000. Sincerely, KADISHA MOLYNEAUX State Environmental Review Clearinghouse Attachments Mailing r, Location 1301 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 325 N. Salisbury St. I Raleigh, NC 27603 s•; `�• "✓ 984-236-0000 4� ncadmin.nc.gov 164 Control No.: 25-E-0000-0152 Date Received: 2/20/2025 County.: ORANGE Agency Response: 3/24/2025 Review Closed: 3/24/2025 LYN BILES CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Project Information Type: State Environmental Policy Act ironmental Assessment Applicant: Orange County Planning & Inspections Project Desc.: Rezoning Application for proposed Rigsbee Subdivision project on approximately 63.99 acres parcel of land located on NC54, approximately 1000' west of White Cross Road Intersection in Bingham Township, NC. The current zoning is R1, Rural Residential, and the proposed zoning is R-CD, Residential Conditional District. The proposed development consists of up to 45 single family units, each with a minimum of 20,000 SF lot. A NCDOT rural roadway section with 20' pavement and roadside ditches are proposed. County PIN 9749422010 As a result of this review the following is submitted: F-1 No Comment F-1 Comments Below ❑✓ Documents Attached Reviewed By: LYN BILES Date: 3/24/2025 165 Control No.: 25-E-0000-0152 Date Received: 2/20/2025 County.: ORANGE Agency Response: 3/24/2025 Review Closed: 3/24/2025 DEVON BORGARDT CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF NATURAL& CULTURAL RESOURCE Project Information Type: State Environmental Policy Act ironmental Assessment Applicant: Orange County Planning & Inspections Project Desc.: Rezoning Application for proposed Rigsbee Subdivision project on approximately 63.99 acres parcel of land located on NC54, approximately 1000' west of White Cross Road Intersection in Bingham Township, NC. The current zoning is R1, Rural Residential, and the proposed zoning is R-CD, Residential Conditional District. The proposed development consists of up to 45 single family units, each with a minimum of 20,000 SF lot. A NCDOT rural roadway section with 20' pavement and roadside ditches are proposed. County PIN 9749422010 As a result of this review the following is submitted: F-1 No Comment F-1 Comments Below ❑✓ Documents Attached Reviewed By: DEVON BORGARDT Date: 3/6/2025 166 Control No.: 25-E-0000-0152 Date Received: 2/20/2025 County.: ORANGE Agency Response: 3/24/2025 Review Closed: 3/24/2025 JINTAO WEN CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Project Information Type: State Environmental Policy Act ironmental Assessment Applicant: Orange County Planning & Inspections Project Desc.: Rezoning Application for proposed Rigsbee Subdivision project on approximately 63.99 acres parcel of land located on NC54, approximately 1000' west of White Cross Road Intersection in Bingham Township, NC. The current zoning is R1, Rural Residential, and the proposed zoning is R-CD, Residential Conditional District. The proposed development consists of up to 45 single family units, each with a minimum of 20,000 SF lot. A NCDOT rural roadway section with 20' pavement and roadside ditches are proposed. County PIN 9749422010 As a result of this review the following is submitted: ❑✓ No Comment F-1 Comments Below F-1 Documents Attached Reviewed By: JINTAO WEN Date: 3/10/2025 167 Control No.: 25-E-0000-0152 Date Received: 2/20/2025 County.: ORANGE Agency Response: 3/24/2025 Review Closed: 3/24/2025 ALEX JONES CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF AGRICULTURE Project Information Type: State Environmental Policy Act ironmental Assessment Applicant: Orange County Planning & Inspections Project Desc.: Rezoning Application for proposed Rigsbee Subdivision project on approximately 63.99 acres parcel of land located on NC54, approximately 1000' west of White Cross Road Intersection in Bingham Township, NC. The current zoning is R1, Rural Residential, and the proposed zoning is R-CD, Residential Conditional District. The proposed development consists of up to 45 single family units, each with a minimum of 20,000 SF lot. A NCDOT rural roadway section with 20' pavement and roadside ditches are proposed. County PIN 9749422010 As a result of this review the following is submitted: ❑✓ No Comment F-1 Comments Below F-1 Documents Attached Reviewed By: ALEX JONES Date: 2/27/2025 168 GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov I 131W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919.245.2575 July 18, 2025 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Zoning Atlas Amendment Application (Rigsbee) MA25-0002 PIN: 9749-42-2010 A complete Environmental Assessment (EA) application for the Rigsbee Zoning Atlas Amendment Application, for the property located at 3531 NC Highway 54 W, Chapel Hill at PIN 9749-42-2010 (hereafter, the 'Project'), has been received and reviewed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. The rezoning application, site plan, and Environmental Impact Statement were sent to local, state, and federal agencies for review. On April 10, 2025, the applicant submitted an Environmental Assessment application as required within Section 6.16 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. Staff did not identify any element of the Project requiring the completion/submittal of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In addition, an EIS was not recommended by any local, state, or federal agency. Based on the information contained within the EA application, rezoning application, and site plan, Orange County Planning staff review, and comments received from local, state, and federal agencies, staff makes a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Project. Sincerely, Cy Stober Planning and Inspections Director Attachment 6 169 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. 170 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 171 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. 164 172 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 173 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? 274 174 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 175 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. 384 176 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 177 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. 178 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. 179 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. 180 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 I, 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. 658 181 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? 713 182 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 183 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- 184 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? 878 185 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 186 Approved 9.3.25 934 outdoor lighting standards as contained in this section of the LIDO 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? 187 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 GiIfillen: 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 GiIfillen: But no formal peres. 1041 188 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. 189 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. 190 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 191 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. 192 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 193 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 194 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 195 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 196 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 197 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 198 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 199 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? 200 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. 201 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 202 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 LIDO 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. 203 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 204 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 205 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An applicant-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Owner of Identification Township Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Number (PIN) Carolyn ' R-1 (Rural Residential) R-CD (Residential 9749-42-2010 Bingham Rigsbee ' (Not in a Water Supply Conditional District) Watershed) The Planning Board hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments and 2.9.1 Conditional Districts of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been reviewed and, in addition to the standards of the UDO on the date of approval, the following conditions have been deemed acceptable: 1. The subject property shall be developed generally in accordance with the proposed site plan submitted as a part of this application ("Site Plan"). 2. All streets not offered to NCDOT as public streets shall meet the design requirements of Class A Private Roads, provided that, private street rights-of- way shall permit the encroachment of kiosks, raingardens, trails, parking, gathering spaces, play areas and other similar improvements designed to serve the neighborhood. No such encroachment shall extend into a Travel-Way, which shall be at least eighteen feet (18') wide and constructed of compacted gravel of pavement. 3. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. 4. No home shall be constructed on the subject property with more than four (4) bedrooms. 5. A Homeowners Association ("HOA") shall be established with a Declarations of Development Restriction including Architectural Design Guidelines ("Guidelines") to be administered by an HOA-appointed Architectural Review Committee ("ARC") and shall be recorded with the Final Plat. The Guidelines shall govern tree removal on individual lots and open spaces, subject to approval of the ARC. 6. A decorative well house shall be installed over the well head within the general area designated as "100' well radius" on the Site Plan. The well house shall be designed to incorporate elements of the existing Rigsbee farmhouse located on 206 Highway 54 by utilizing white siding as the primary material on the exterior walls and black accents such door color or light fixture color. A photo of the existing Rigsbee farmhouse is attached hereto as Exhibit A-1. An example of a well house that meets the requirements of this condition is attached as Exhibit A-2. 7. The mail kiosk shall be designed to complement the existing Rigsbee farmhouse located on Highway 54 by continuing the white color for the exterior elements. The mail kiosk shall incorporate a weather covering with recessed lighting for a portion of the site and shall include at least two (2) benches and at least one (1) trash can. An example of a mail kiosk that meets the requirements of this condition is attached as Exhibit B. 8. Private trails shall be installed as shown on the Site Plan with precise trail locations to be determined at subdivision plat. Trail surfaces shall be natural (earthen), mulch, wood chip, gravel, or crushed stone. No asphalt or pavement shall be permitted. Trail amenities shall include at least three (3) benches located along the trail and at least (4) signs providing scientific information about the flora and fauna found on the subject property with picture or other images. 9. Open Space areas shown on the Site Plan shall collectively include a total of L One (1) covered, open air structure similar to those shown on the attached Exhibit C in the general area identified as the "Community Building Structure" on the Site Plan; ii. At least two (2) grilling stations; iii. At least one (1) fire pit; iv. At least four (4) trash cans; v. At least four (4) pet waste stations; and vi. At least ten (10) bird nesting boxes in the general area identified as a "bird sanctuary" on the Site Plan, all to be maintained by the HOA. 10. Individual septic systems meeting Orange County requirements and designed to serve homes with four (4) bedrooms shall be provided on each residential lot. 11. Subject to NCDOT approval, the property owner shall provide a right-hand turn lane (deceleration) and a left-hand turn lane (center lane) into the property entrance on Highway 54 meeting NCDOT standards. b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 Statement of Intent-Amendments, and 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans of the UDO and to Section 160D-604(d) Planning Board review and comment— Plan Consistency and 160D-605(a) Governing Board Statement— Plan Consistency of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. c. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following: ■ Planning Principle 1. Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and Services: Orange County's public facilities and services should be delivered in a manner that efficiently uses existing capacity. Expansions of facilities and services should be made only after careful consideration of the costs and benefits of expansion. 207 Staff Comment: Not applicable. ■ Planning Principle 2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable over the long-term. Staff Comment: The proposed R-CD zoning district to allow for single-family dwellings is consistent with the Rural Community Activity Node Land Use Classification (Appendix F: Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts). The proposed lot count for the future subdivision does not exceed the maximum density permitted by the density regulations in the UDO. The applicant proposes a Flexible Subdivision following the Conservation Cluster model, which concentrates the development outside of environmentally sensitive areas and maintains contiguous Common Open Space on 25.11 acres, or 41.11% of the parcel subject to rezoning. A conditional zoning district is required to permit a Major Subdivisions of 21 lots or more, allowing for legislative review of the proposed site plan by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners to assess its suitability and apply site-specific conditions to ensure any unique aspects of the project not captured within typical development standards are met. ■ Planning Principle 3A. Encouragement of Energy Efficiency, Lower Energy Consumption, and the Use of Non-Polluting Renewable Energy Resource: Decreasing the use of non-renewable resources and lowering energy consumption are encouraged in both public and private activities. The county's transportation system should be enhanced to promote more energy efficient modes of travel and improve air quality. Staff Comment: Not applicable. ■ Planning Principle 4. Natural Area Resource Protection: Protection of the County's natural areas, including forests, wildlife habitat, and other important open spaces should be a priority. The County should work with regional and local organizations, the towns, and private landowners to promote and achieve preservation of the County's important natural resources. Staff Comment: The applicant provided an Environmental Assessment and an Environmental Impact Statement as part of the application package. County staff has reviewed and determined no significant environmental impact is expected from this project based on existing conditions. The proposed Conservation Cluster Flexible Development Subdivision has taken the identified environmental features into consideration in its design and construction commitments to minimize negative impacts. Environmentally sensitive features have been preserved in dedicated open space and or committed landscaping. 208 ■ Planning Principle 5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern: The County's rural areas are a cherished component of the County's character. Future development should preserve and enhance the county's rural landscape. Staff Comment: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, particularly Appendix G: Land Use Classification and Overlay Locational Criteria, identifies the Rural Community Activity Node land use classification as "land focused on designated road intersections which serves as a nodal crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate location for any of the following uses: church, fire station, small post office, school, or other similar institutional uses and one or more commercial uses." The subdivision proposed with the binding site plan adheres to the density of rural development reflected in the surrounding area's residential land use patterns, with an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per 1.42 acres, not including the property owner's future parcel. It does, however, achieve this by concentrating lots to protect the more sensitive areas of the land from development, respecting the rural character and environmental protections prioritized by the Comprehensive Plan. This measured approach is compatible with the nodal crossroads location, introducing more households in an environmentally-sensitive conservation cluster pattern that will support the node's present and future non-residential uses while being consistent with the residential development densities of the surrounding area. Any development resulting from the Conditional District rezoning approval will conform with all applicable UDO regulations to ensure development does not create undue impacts to the surrounding uses of single-family residential and small commercial uses. The binding site plan subject to the Conditional District proposes Common Open Space on 25.11 acres, or 41.11% of the parcel subject to rezoning. The applicant has stated a commitment to ensuring that the rural and historic character of the community is incorporated into the design of the neighborhood and architecture of the shared amenities. Exhibits addressing rural and historic character are included in the conditions offered by the applicant. ■ Planning Principle 6. Water Resources Preservation: The County has finite water resources to provide to future populations. The protection and management of the County's water resources should be a high priority. Staff Comment: The site-specific plan presented for the proposed zoning atlas amendment proposes the use of a community well. The future subdivision will not require use of public utilities. Any future development will be subject to regulation under the County's stormwater and stream buffer regulations. ■ Planning Principle 7. Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity: Development of a diversity of new businesses and expansion of existing businesses should occur in Orange County. 209 Staff Comment: Not applicable. ■ Planning Principle 8. Preservation of Community Character: Future growth and development should occur in a manner that preserves and enhances the existing character of the County, its townships, and rural crossroads communities. Staff Comment: According to Appendix F: Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts, the proposed R-CD (Residential Conditional District) zoning district is consistent with the Rural Community Activity Node land use classification, defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as "land focused on designated road intersections which serves as a nodal crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate location for any of the following uses: church, fire station, small post office, school, or other similar institutional uses and one or more commercial uses." The eligible zoning districts in the Rural Community Activity Node future land use classification include R-CD (Residential Conditional District). ■ Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. Staff Comment: The zoning atlas amendment with a site-specific plan as proposed for conditional approval is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's stated goals. The development pattern for the proposed future subdivision will follow a Conservation Cluster model, with considerations that balance the dedication of Common Open Space and minimized environmental impacts with creating housing. Should approval of the zoning atlas amendment be granted, the Major Subdivision process and Residential Building Permit review following the rezoning are in place to ensure all development is in accordance with the UDO and remains compatible with minimal negative impacts to the immediate area. ■ Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. Staff Comment: The binding site-specific plan proposes Common Open Space on 25.11 acres. This open space is divided between Primary Open Space, which is undisturbed areas including water features and tree preservation areas, and Secondary Open Space, which provides outdoor recreational amenities, such as unpaved walking trails for residents. Both considerations prioritize the preservation of valuable existing site features and ensure development is clustered outside of these sensitive areas. The parcel contains floodway, streams, Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year 210 Floodplain), 500 Year Floodplain. Future development is not proposed to impact these features. ■ Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. Staff Comment: According to Appendix F: Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts, the proposed R-CD (Residential Conditional District) zoning district is consistent with the Rural Community Activity Node land use classification, defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as "land focused on designated road intersections which serves as a nodal crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate location for any of the following uses: church, fire station, small post office, school, or other similar institutional uses and one or more commercial uses." The eligible zoning districts in the Rural Community Activity node future land use classification include R-CD (Residential Conditional District). Any site development will be subject to standards from the Orange County UDO and limited to the site plan held with the conditional district in order to protect neighboring properties and minimize land use conflicts. ■ Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. Staff Comment: The Orange County staff has noticed the public regarding this application, as required by Sections 2.8.7, 2.9.1(D), and 2.9.2 of the UDO, including a required Neighborhood Information Meeting, mailings to neighboring property owners, posting of the property, and advertisement in the local newspapers. Additionally, staff have provided all application documents on the Active Development Projects webpage. ■ Appendix F, Land Use Classification Description for Rural Community Activity Node: Land focused on designated road intersections which serves as a nodal crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate location for any of the following uses: church, fire station, small post office, school, or other similar institutional uses and one or more commercial uses. Staff Comment: The requested zoning district is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F, Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts. a. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it furthers the goals of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and is located in an area designated on the Future Land Use Map as "Rural Community Activity Node." The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein and recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment. 211 Vote: �? For, .] Against LaMgf-Prod4or, Chair Date 212 Attachment 7 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An applicant-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Owner of Identification Township Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Number (PIN) Carolyn ' R-1 (Rural Residential) R-CD (Residential 9749-42-2010 Bingham ■ (Not in a Water Supply Rigsbee Watershed) Conditional District) The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments and 2.9.1 Conditional Districts of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been reviewed and, in addition to the standards of the UDO on the date of approval, the following conditions have been deemed acceptable: 1. The subject property shall be developed generally in accordance with the proposed site plan submitted as a part of this application ("Site Plan") featuring no more than 43 lots, no less than 25 acres of dedicated open space and at least 5,600 linear feet of dedicated private trails, all as described below. 2. All streets not offered to NCDOT as public streets shall meet the design requirements of Class A Private Roads, provided that, private street rights-of- way shall permit the encroachment of kiosks, raingardens, bioretention areas, trails, parking, gathering spaces, play areas and other similar improvements designed to serve the neighborhood. No such encroachment shall extend into a Travel-Way, which shall be at least eighteen feet (18') wide and constructed of compacted gravel of pavement. 3. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. This deviates from the minimum in UDO Section 3.8. Suitable septic shall be provided on each parcel. 4. No home shall be constructed on the subject property with more than four (4) bedrooms. 5. A decorative well house shall be installed over the well head within the general area designated as "100' well radius" on the Site Plan. The well house shall be designed to incorporate elements of the existing Rigsbee farmhouse located on Highway 54 by utilizing white siding as the primary material on the exterior walls and black accents such door color or light fixture color. A photo of the existing 213 Rigsbee farmhouse is attached hereto as Exhibit A-1. An example of a well house that meets the requirements of this condition is attached as Exhibit A-2. 6. The mail kiosk shall be designed to complement the existing Rigsbee farmhouse located on Highway 54 by continuing the white color for the exterior elements. The mail kiosk shall incorporate a weather covering with recessed lighting and shall include at least two (2) benches and at least one (1) trash can. An example of a mail kiosk that meets the requirements of this condition is attached as Exhibit B. 7. At least 5,600 linear feet of private trails shall be installed as shown on the Site Plan with precise trail locations to be determined at subdivision plat. Trail surfaces shall be natural (earthen), mulch, wood chip, gravel, or crushed stone. No asphalt or pavement shall be permitted. Trail amenities shall include at least three (3) benches located along the trail and at least (4) signs providing scientific information about the flora and fauna found on the subject property with picture or other images. 8. No less than 25 acres of Open Space areas shown on the Site Plan shall collectively include a total of: i. one (1) covered, open air structure similar to those shown on the attached Exhibit C in the general area identified as the "Community Building Structure" on the Site Plan; ii. at least two (2) grilling stations; iii. at least one (1) fire pit; iv. at least four (4) trash cans; v. at least four (4) pet waste stations; and vi. at least ten (10) bird nesting boxes in the general area identified as a "bird sanctuary" on the Site Plan, all to be maintained by the HOA. 9. Individual septic systems meeting Orange County requirements and designed to serve homes with four (4) bedrooms shall be provided on each residential lot. 10. Subject to NCDOT approval, the property owner shall provide a right-hand turn lane (deceleration) and a left-hand turn lane (center lane) into the property entrance on Highway 54 meeting NCDOT standards. The subject property shall be developed generally in accordance with the proposed site plan submitted as a part of this application ("Site Plan"). b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 Statement of Intent -Amendments, and 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans of the UDO and to Section 160D-604(d) Planning Board review and comment— Plan Consistency and 160D-605(a) Governing Board Statement— Plan Consistency of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The application, including the site-specific plan and the proposed conditions, is reasonable and in the public interest because it furthers the goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed R-CD (Residential Conditional District) zoning district to allow for single- family dwellings is consistent with the Rural Community Activity Node Land Use Classification of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. According to Appendix F, the proposed R- 214 CD zoning district is consistent with the Rural Community Activity Node land use classification, defined as "land focused on designated road intersections which serves as a nodal crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate location for any of the following uses: church, fire station, small post office, school, or other similar institutional uses and one or more commercial uses." Eligible zoning districts in the Rural Community Activity node future land use classification include R-CD (Residential Conditional District). A conditional zoning district is required to permit Major Subdivisions of 21 lots or more, allowing for legislative review of the proposed site plan by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners to assess its suitability and apply site-specific conditions to ensure any unique aspects of the project not captured within typical development standards are met. Any site development will be subject to standards from the Orange County UDO through the Major Subdivision process and Residential Building Permit review. Land use is limited to the site plan approved with the Conditional District in order to minimize negative impacts and ensure development remains compatible with surrounding uses of single-family residential and small commercial uses. The site-specific plan presented for the proposed zoning atlas amendment proposes 43 lots using individual septic tanks and a community well, 25.11 acres of dedicated open space, and amenities including a dedicated natural trails system. Any future development will be subject to regulation under the County's stormwater and stream buffer regulations. The parcel contains floodway, streams, Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year Floodplain), 500 Year Floodplain. Future development is not proposed to impact these features. The proposed lot count for the future subdivision does not exceed the maximum density permitted by the density regulations in the UDO (43 lots on 61 acres = 0.70 dwelling units per acre). The applicant proposes a Flexible Subdivision following the Conservation Cluster model, which concentrates the development outside of environmentally sensitive areas. This development pattern is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's stated goals, with considerations that balance the dedication of Common Open Space and minimized environmental impacts with the goal of creating housing. Common Open Space is proposed on 25.11 acres, or 41.11% of the parcel subject to rezoning. This open space is divided between Primary Open Space, which is undisturbed areas including water features and tree preservation areas, and Secondary Open Space, which provides outdoor recreational amenities, such as unpaved walking trails for residents. Both considerations prioritize the preservation of valuable existing site features and ensure development is clustered outside of these sensitive areas. The applicant provided an Environmental Assessment as part of the application package. County staff has reviewed and determined no significant environmental impact is expected from this project based on existing conditions. The proposed Conservation Cluster Flexible Development Subdivision has taken the identified environmental features into consideration in its design and construction commitments to minimize negative impacts. Environmentally sensitive features have been preserved in dedicated open space and or committed landscaping. 215 The applicant has stated a commitment to ensuring that the rural and historic character of the community is incorporated into the design of the neighborhood and architecture of the shared amenities. Exhibits addressing rural and historic character are included in the conditions offered by the applicant. The applicant also has volunteered to make turn lane improvements on NC 54, including a northbound right turn lane and a southbound center left turn lane to provide for access to the subdivision's driveway entrance. These improvements would require approval, permitting, and engineer review by NCDOT, which has regulatory authority on NC 54. These improvements are being made even though the applicant's own traffic analysis demonstrated that their new homes will not adversely affect the traffic and safety conditions on NC 54. Rather, this improvement was volunteered in response to public concerns, including those of the Volunteer Fire Chief, who was satisfied with the proposed condition. The future land use proposed through the Conditional District rezoning's binding site plan adheres to the density of rural development reflected in the surrounding area's residential land use patterns, with an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per 1.42 acres, not including the property owner's future parcel. It achieves this by concentrating lots to protect the more sensitive areas of the land from development, respecting the rural character and environmental protections prioritized by the Comprehensive Plan. This measured approach is compatible with the nodal crossroads location, introducing more households in an environmentally-sensitive conservation cluster pattern that will support the node's present and future non-residential uses while being consistent with the residential development densities of the surrounding area. The Orange County staff has noticed the public regarding this application, as required by Sections 2.8.7, 2.9.1(D), and 2.9.2 of the UDO, including a required Neighborhood Information Meeting, mailings to neighboring property owners, posting of the property, and advertisement in the local newspapers. Additionally, staff have provided all application documents on the Active Development Projects webpage. c. As such, the Rigsbee Residential — Conditional District (R-CD) zoning amendment is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan s because it supports the following: ■ Planning Principle 2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable over the long-term. ■ Planning Principle 4. Natural Area Resource Protection: Protection of the County's natural areas, including forests, wildlife habitat, and other important open spaces should be a priority. The County should work with regional and local organizations, the towns, and private landowners to promote and achieve preservation of the County's important natural resources. 216 ■ Planning Principle 5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern: The County's rural areas are a cherished component of the County's character. Future development should preserve and enhance the county's rural landscape. ■ Planning Principle 6. Water Resources Preservation: The County has finite water resources to provide to future populations. The protection and management of the County's water resources should be a high priority. ■ Planning Principle 8. Preservation of Community Character: Future growth and development should occur in a manner that preserves and enhances the existing character of the County, its townships, and rural crossroads communities. ■ Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. ■ Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. ■ Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. ■ Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. ■ Objective WR-20: Promote Best Management Practices for new developments which minimize stormwater runoff. ■ Objective NA-1: Conserve high-priority natural areas and wildlife habitats, including wetlands, rivers and streams, floodplains, steep slopes, prime forests, wildlife corridors, and other critical habitats. ■ Objective NA-10: Require that all major subdivisions (defined as having more than 5 lots according to the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance) include within their boundaries open space suitable for low-impact recreation and wildlife habitat. ■ Objective NA-13: Promote clustering of residential development and dedication of large areas of undisturbed land for low-impact recreational use by residents and for wildlife habitat. Where feasible, these areas should be contiguous to neighboring tracts of undisturbed land. ■ Objective PR-4.1: Developers shall provide for adequate and appropriate open space suitable for active/low-impact recreation in residential developments. 217 ■ Objective PR-5.4: Encourage development of a system of private open space and conservation areas, including nature preserves, parks, linear parks, and scenic vistas compatible with the character of Orange County. ■ Services and Facilities Element Goal 5: Efficient and effective drainage, stormwater, floodplain management, and erosion control systems. ■ Objective EC-1: Continue to use Best Management Practices (BMP's) for stormwater control, as outlined within the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, to minimize potential adverse impacts on the water quality. ■ Objective EC-5: Minimize sedimentation and erosion to reduce the transport of sediment and pollutants to surface waters. ■ Objective PS-T-5: Include in applied site design standards for residential, commercial, and industrial development, appropriate road design standards to ensure adequate law enforcement and emergency vehicle access to the development. ■ Appendix F, Land Use Classification Description for Rural Community Activity Node: Land focused on designated road intersections which serves as a nodal crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate location for any of the following uses: church, fire station, small post office, school, or other similar institutional uses and one or more commercial uses. d. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it furthers the goals of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and is located in an area designated on the Future Land Use Map as "Rural Community Activity Node." The Board of County Commissioners adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein. Vote: For, Against Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Date 218 Attachment 8 STATEMENT OF INCONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An applicant-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Owner of Identification Township Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Number (PIN) Carolyn ' R-1 (Rural Residential) R-CD (Residential 9749-42-2010 Bingham ■ (Not in a Water Supply Rigsbee Watershed) Conditional District) The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments and 2.9.1 Conditional Districts of the LIDO have been reviewed and the following conditions are not reasonable amendments to the adopted Zoning Atlas due to due to potential impacts upon the quality of life and incompatibility of land uses to surrounding properties, as required by Sections 2.8 and 2.9.1 of the Orange County UDO: 1. The subject property shall be developed generally in accordance with the proposed site plan submitted as a part of this application ("Site Plan"); and 2. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. Pursuant to Sections 1 .1.5 Statement of Intent - Amendments, and 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans of the UDO and to Section 160D-604(d) Planning Board review and comment— Plan Consistency and 160D-605(a) Governing Board Statement— Plan Consistency of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is not in the public interest and is an unreasonable zoning application for approval, due to its inconsistency with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. More specifically, the "Rigsbee" subdivision proposes 43 lots featuring a "typical lot" of 20,000-square feet in area, which is a smaller lot size than those found in the immediate area of the subject property. While permissible as a conservation cluster subdivision and a condition of zoning approval, approval of this application will disrupt the character of the surrounding community and area, features 1-acre residential lots but also is composed of larger rural residential lots. Principles 2 and 8 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan respectively require consideration of whether land use changes provide "Growth and development within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable over the long- 219 term;" and "Future growth and development should occur in a manner that preserves and enhances the existing character of the County, its townships, and rural crossroads communities." The smaller lots clustered as presented on the site plan provide a lot pattern out of character with the location of this property and a density internal to the subject property that is not seen anywhere in this local area. As such, it disrupts the local character of Orange County at the White Cross Road and NC 54 intersection and inconsistent with the principles, goals, and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, specifically ■ Planning Principle 2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable over the long-term. ■ Planning Principle 5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern: The County's rural areas are a cherished component of the County's character. Future development should preserve and enhance the county's rural landscape. ■ Planning Principle 8. Preservation of Community Character: Future growth and development should occur in a manner that preserves and enhances the existing character of the County, its townships, and rural crossroads communities. ■ Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. ■ Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. The Board of County Commissioners adopts this Statement of Inconsistency and the findings expressed herein. Vote: For, Against Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Date 220 Attachment 9 Ordinance#: ORD-2025-031 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition submitted by Forestar Group, Inc. (hereafter `the Applicant') seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, this petition seeks to rezone +/- 61.11 acres (PIN: 9749-42-2010) from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-CD (Residential Conditional District) for the purpose of a Conservation Cluster Major Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the petition has been submitted with a site plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.1 (C) of the UDO; and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan and reasonable and in the public interest. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the aforementioned parcel to R-CD (Residential Conditional District), as detailed within the submitted application. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT in accordance with Section 2.9.1 (F) of the UDO the approval of this Conditional Zoning application is subject to the following mutually agreed to conditions: 1. The subject property shall be developed generally in accordance with the proposed site plan submitted as a part of this application ("Site Plan") featuring no more than 43 lots, no less than 25 acres of dedicated open space and at least 5,600 linear feet of dedicated private trails, all as described below. 2. All streets not offered to NCDOT as public streets shall meet the design requirements of Class A Private Roads, provided that, private street rights-of-way shall permit the encroachment of kiosks, raingardens, bioretention areas, trails, parking, gathering spaces, play areas and other similar improvements designed to serve the neighborhood. No such encroachment shall extend into a Travel-Way, which shall be at least eighteen feet (18') wide and constructed of compacted gravel of pavement. 3. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. This deviates from the minimum in UDO Section 3.8. Suitable septic shall be provided on each parcel. 4. No home shall be constructed on the subject property with more than four (4) bedrooms. 5. A decorative well house shall be installed over the well head within the general area designated as 100' well radius" on the Site Plan. The well house shall be designed to incorporate elements of the existing Rigsbee farmhouse located on Highway 54 by utilizing white siding as the primary material on the exterior walls and black accents such door color or light fixture color. A photo of the existing Rigsbee farmhouse is attached hereto as Exhibit A-1. An example of a well house that meets the requirements of this condition is attached as Exhibit A-2. 6. The mail kiosk shall be designed to complement the existing Rigsbee farmhouse located on Highway 54 by continuing the white color for the exterior elements. The mail kiosk shall incorporate a weather covering with recessed lighting and shall include at least two (2) benches and at least one (1) trash can. An example of a mail kiosk that meets the requirements of this condition is attached as Exhibit B. 221 7. At least 5,600 linear feet of private trails shall be installed as shown on the Site Plan with precise trail locations to be determined at subdivision plat. Trail surfaces shall be natural (earthen), mulch, wood chip, gravel, or crushed stone. No asphalt or pavement shall be permitted. Trail amenities shall include at least three (3) benches located along the trail and at least (4) signs providing scientific information about the flora and fauna found on the subject property with picture or other images. 8. No less than 25 acres of Open Space areas shown on the Site Plan shall collectively include a total of: a. one (1) covered, open air structure similar to those shown on the attached Exhibit C in the general area identified as the "Community Building Structure" on the Site Plan; b. at least two (2) grilling stations; c. at least one (1) fire pit; d. at least four (4) trash cans; e. at least four (4) pet waste stations; and f. at least ten (10) bird nesting boxes in the general area identified as a "bird sanctuary" on the Site Plan, all to be maintained by the HOA. 9. Individual septic systems meeting Orange County requirements and designed to serve homes with four (4) bedrooms shall be provided on each residential lot. 10. Subject to NCDOT approval, the property owner shall provide a right-hand turn lane (deceleration) and a left-hand turn lane (center lane) into the property entrance on Highway 54 meeting NCDOT standards. The subject property shall be developed generally in accordance with the proposed site plan submitted as a part of this application ("Site Plan"). BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of 12025. I, Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2025 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 2025. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 222 Exhibit A-1 Existing •-- Farmhouse .. ���� • +Ips �. s ���_ �' yam.•�!� -�'� - 169774018.5 223 Exhibit A-2 Well House Design J S 4 1 + s 1 Note: Not to Scale 4 169774018.5 224 Exhibit B Mail Kiosk Design •IS I PARIaNCI - Note: to Scale 169774018.5 225 Exhibit C Community •. • - Imagery "i • 169774018.5