Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda 11-18-2025; 5-a - Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment – 1039-UT NC 86 N, Hillsborough, Hillsborough Township
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 18, 2025 Action Agenda Item No. 5-a SUBJECT: Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment — 1039-UT NC 86 N, Hillsborough, Hillsborough Township DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Application, including Site Plan and Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Zoning Supplemental Materials Manager, 919-245-2597 2. Staff Report Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director, 3. Notification Materials and Certification (919) 245-2592 4. Neighborhood Information Meeting Materials 5. Development Advisory Committee and Courtesy Review Comments 6. Excerpt of Planning Board September 3, 2025 Approved Minutes, Excerpt of October 1, 2025 Draft Minutes, and Signed Statement of Consistency 7. Statement of Consistency 8. Statement of Inconsistency 9. Draft Ordinance, Including Proposed Conditions 10. Staff and Applicant Presentations NOTE: CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM IS CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 6, 2025 BUSINESS MEETING. THE PUBLIC HEARING/COMMENT PERIOD FOR THIS ITEM WAS CLOSED AT THE NOVEMBER 6 MEETING. The BOCC will not be accepting any further public comments on this item. The November 6, 2025, agenda materials are available at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/ 11062025-2427 PURPOSE: To continue Board consideration and deliberation of public comments, receive staff recommendations, and consider action on a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone +/- 78.11 acres (PIN: 9865-87-8090) located at 1039-UT NC 86 North, Hillsborough, within the Hillsborough Township of Orange County. The proposed rezoning is: FROM: AR (Agricultural Residential) TO: R-CD (Residential - Conditional District) At its November 6, 2025 Business meeting, the Orange County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing to consider applicant, staff, and public comments on the Zoning Atlas Amendment application. Staff and applicant presentations were initiated, and public comments were received. Upon hearing from all individuals that signed up to speak, the Board closed the 2 public hearing and approved a motion continuing its consideration of the application at its November 18, 2025 Business meeting. The application includes an applicant-proposed condition that would commit the applicant to petition the Town of Hillsborough for water service should the Zoning Atlas Amendment be approved. Subsequent to the application being scheduled for the November 6, 2025 BOCC Business meeting, the Town of Hillsborough confirmed that the petition for water service would be reviewed at the Town of Hillsborough's Board of Commissioners' November 10, 2025 meeting. During the Town Board's November 10 review of the request for water service, the Town Board voted to not allow water service extension to this proposed development. This continuance will include concluding staff presentations on the matter and hearing from staff and the applicant on any additional questions or comments the Board may have regarding the application and new considerations related to the November 10, 2025 Town of Hillsborough Board denial to extend Town water service to the proposed development. BACKGROUND: A Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment application (Attachment 1) was received from Forestar Group, Inc., on behalf of Amy Powell, et al., proposing to rezone approximately 78.11 acres of property at 1039-UT NC 86 North, Hillsborough, to allow for development of a 49-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. All application materials can be found on the Orange County Permit Portal. 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). Sections 2.8 and 2.9 of the Orange County UDO require the following review: • FIRST ACTION — Applicant holds a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). STAFF COMMENT. The NIM was held on May 29, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. at Eno River Academy, 1100 NC 57, Hillsborough, NC 27278. • SECOND ACTION — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. STAFF COMMENT. The Planning Board reviewed this application at its regular meetings on September 3 and October 1, 2025. At the board's October 1, 2025 meeting, the board voted 9-0 to recommend approval with conditions. • THIRD ACTION — The BOCC receives the Planning Board and staff recommendations at an advertised public hearing and makes a decision on the application. STAFF COMMENT. The public hearing was held at the November 6, 2025 business meeting and the Board moved to continue its consideration of the application during the November 18, 2025 Business meeting. 3 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. A formal site plan is required as part of a conditional rezoning application and has been submitted with the full application materials from the Forestar Group, Inc. (Attachment 1). Forestar Group, Inc., have initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment in order allow for development of a 49-lot subdivision for single-family dwellings. Additional background information related to this request is contained in the Staff Report (Attachment 2). The applicant has submitted conditions for consideration by the BOCC, as included in the Ordinance in Attachment 9. One of the submitted conditions commits the applicant to request water service from the Town of Hillsborough, should the rezoning request be approved by the BOCC. Prior to the November 6 BOCC business meeting, Town of Hillsborough Administration reviewed this condition and provided a memo of support for that condition, which is available for review in Attachment 5 and ultimately led to the November 10 Town Board review of the petition for water service. Following the BOCC public hearing and its continuance, the Town Board voted at its November 10 meeting to not allow water service to be extended to this site. 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 feet of the subject parcel. These notices were mailed on October 22, 2025, 15 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcel with a sign on October 22, 2025, 15 days before the meeting. See Attachment 3 for the notification materials. Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the Zoning Atlas Amendment at its September 3, 2025, regular meeting. At this meeting the Board voted 4-4 on a motion to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 9), as presented. Due to the split vote, the motion was not approved, and the Planning Board continued its consideration of the application to its October 1 , 2025 meeting at which the Board voted 9-0 to recommend approval with conditions. An excerpt of the Planning Board's September 3, 2025 approved meeting minutes and an excerpt of the October 1, 2025 draft meeting minutes are included at Attachment 6. The Planning Board's signed Statement of Consistency is also provided at Attachment 6. Planning Director's Recommendation The Planning Director recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1) Deliberate further, as needed; and 2) 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). 4 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 the Board: 1. Deliberate further, as needed, to include review of the Planning Board and staff recommendations and public comments received at the November 6, 2025 meeting; and 2. 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). 5 - Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAIZOY.I NA 919-245-2575 or planningapps cDorangecountync.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 ren red fieldsDate: 02/24/2025 Rezoning Request: Conventional District 0 Conditional District Contact Information* Property Owner(s): PLEASE SEE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT A Mailing Address: PLEASE SEE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT A Phone: SEE EXHIBIT A Email: SEE EXHIBIT 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: lauraiiaywood(aDforestar.com Property Information* Parcel ID Number (PIN): 9865878090 Total Acreage: 79.76 Address: HWY 86N, HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 Future Land Use Map Classification: RURAL INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY NODE,AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL Current Zoning Designation: AR Requested Zoning Designation: R-CDS 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* j 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 DigiSign Verified - b71 b480e-cd83-484b-b083-25217a2a0881 6 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): ®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. ®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. ®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. ®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. ®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. ® 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 imendment by t e County.- TpliJe�l 02/28/2025JV Own Si ature(s) 4AJic"aa�ntI_Ign4tke_VIf ifferen from owner) 0a ISI � ZS Date Date Page 2 of 2 7 1 Exhibit A Property Owners Estate of Lanie Brown(B.)Powell, c/o Hughes B. Powell Jr.,Executor P.O. Box 636 Smithfield,North Carolina 27577 919.901.5374 Powellhugh8ggmail.com Amy L. Powell 1234 Aken Street Port Charlotte,FL 33952 910.895.1500 amyl�nnpowell e,icloud.com Jenny Powell Parks and Russell Micheal Parks 560 Parkertown Road Four Oaks,NC 27524 919.963.3733 i i 168971755.1 j i 8 Rezoning Authorization Form I,Amy L. Powell (aka Amy Powell), one of the fee simple owners of property located on 1101 State Highway 86 N, totaling approximately 78.11 acres and known by Orange County PIN 9865-87-8090, hereby petition Orange County to amend the zoning atlas- rezone-from R1 to R- CD in an application with Forestar, Inc. as Applicant. I certify that I have examined the application and it is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Ag�yePoweli Date: Q 2, 'Z10 l �Ior�`c�c- G C,Cl pf�R..., COUNTY, SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this the day of 2025. [Official Seal] - S'gnature ofNotary� ublic a 4 , "CjCj 'A VAA 0,1d :otiRYPv"-.. AMANDAJNIELAND ? Notary Public•State of Florida Printed Name of Notary blic Commission#HH 597636 My Comm.Expires Jan 4,2028 f (� —2�.Z Bonded through National Notary Assn. My COmmlSSlon explreS: �T 9 Rezoning Authorization Form I, Hugh B. Powell, Jr. Executor of the Estate of Lanie Brown(B.) Powell, one of the fee simple owners of property located on 1101 State Highway 86 N, totaling approximately 78.11 acres and known by Orange County PIN 9865-87-8090, hereby petition Orange County to amend the zoning atlas-rezone- from R1 to R-CD in an application with Forestar, Inc. as Applicant. I certify that I have examined the application and it is true and accurate to the best of my knowlqdge. zL Hugh owell, Jr. Executor of thostate o2anie Brown(B.) Powell Date: 2 -a� S� SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this the day of A `(ct..art�L , 2025. llYl f� COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA [Official Seal] G� Si `a/ture of Notary Pu lic/A/ le4-- Printed Name of Notary Public b My Comm.Exp. U = M commission expires: d;SEPT-14-204; � �' common 2' A G `t��`PPPfltdtt.i:11C6i1 10 Rezoning Authorization Form I, Jenny Powell Parks (aka Jenny E. Powell Asmo, aka Jenny Powell, aka Jenny Eva Powell, aka Jenny E. Powell, aka Jenny Powell Asmo), one of the fee simple owners of property located on 1101 State Highway 86 N,totaling approximately 78.11 acres and known by Orange County PIN 9865-87-8090 hereby petition Orange County to amend the zoning atlas-rezone- from RI to R- CD in an application with Forestar, Inc. as Applicant. I certify that I have examined the application and it is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Jenny Powell Parks Date: Q-- )U _ '�)01)5 ah�S7�� COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA II SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this the day of _, 2025. [Official Seal] C Signature of Notary Public �vtttaraaaeP C Printed Name of Notary Public �a < v®Aad °.'to-�'a ��p�/ My commission expires:com �EpT 4 2oJ 4—'2 ®0 �Nat �00,`aa, 11 Rezoning Authorization Form I, Russell Michael Parks, one of the fee simple owners of property located on 1101 State Highway 86 N,totaling approximately 78.11 acres and known by Orange County PIN 9865-87- 8090 hereby petition Orange County to amend the zoning atlas- rezone- from RI to R-CD in an application with Forestar, Inc. as Applicant. I certify that I have examined the application and it is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Russell Michael Parks Date: Jz)khS COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this the iday of rer y 2025. Prt eti��` [Official Seal] Signature of Notary Public ����car�aaaasoa�r�,� L IV) LJ ' Printed Name of Notary Public OTAy My Comm.Exp. E My commission expires: 014 / D U SEPT-14-2Q e U m pU B 1G N ............. ��a`0e 1111;+e r 1 o r a 1 e�t r s�"` 12 Canoy Surveying Adam Canoy, PLS 1154 Shonele Ln Stem, NC 27581 984.377.2626 CANDY canoysurveying@gmail.com SURVEYING Legal Description of PIN # 9865878090, Hillsborough NC Metes and Bounds for PIN #9865878090, Hillsborough NC: Commencing at a NCGS Monument"SATTERFIELD" (PID: FY2207) being North Carolina grid coordinates N:856494.74, E:1967959.66 Nad83(2011); Thence N 8403'11" E a distance of 348.58'to an IRON PIPE FOUND being the true point of Beginning; Thence N 86°22'19" E a distance of 218.14' along and with Property of Robert Medred Deed Book 1881 Page 238 to an IRON PIPE FOUND; Thence N 16°20'29"W a distance of 993.62' along and with Property of Robert Medred Deed Book 1881 Page 238 to an IRON PIPE FOUND; Thence S 73°41'39"W along and with Property of Robert Medred Deed Book 1881 Page 238 a distance of 542.56'through an IRON PIPE FOUND 512.56'to a COMPUTED POINT in the center of NC highway 86; Thence N 16°11'31"W along and with the centerline of NC highway 86 distance of 413.52'to a COMPUTED POINT; Thence N 66°19'31" E a distance of 242.62' through an IRON PIPE FOUND at 30.61' along and with Ruth B Ferguson Deed Book 2093 Page 178 to a STONE; Thence N 42°20'54" E along and with Ruth B Ferguson Deed Book 2093 Page 178 a distance of 777.02'to a COMPUTED POINT in the centerline of the creek; Thence S 88°38'13" E along and with Ruth B Ferguson Deed Book 2093 Page 178 and Stroud's Creek Homeowners Association Deed Book 6416 Page 318 a distance of 1291.62'to an IRON PIPE FOUND; Thence S 01°32'26"W along and with Eno River Academy Holdings Inc Deed Book 6664 Page 1162 a distance of 1984.26'to an IRON PIPE FOUND; Thence S 88°01'59" E along and with Eno River Academy Holdings Inc Deed Book 6664 Page 1162 a distance of 499.00'to a REBAR FND; Thence S 04°30'24"W along and with Sarah Catherine W Cheek Estate file 22-E Page 569 a distance of 15.52'to a Computed Point; Thence N 88°17'01"W along and with Sarah Catherine W Cheek Estate file 22-E Page 569, 14and1Properties LLC Deed Book 4422 Page 171, 14and1Properties LLC Deed Book 6638 Page 1248, Charles G Miller and Juli-Carlie Rice Deed Book 6633 Page 1324 a distance of 749.74'to a IRON PIPE FOUND; Thence S 01°23'38"W along and with Charles G Miller and Juli-Carlie Rice Deed Book 6633 Page 1324 a distance of 363.71'to a IRON PIPE FOUND; 13 Canoy Surveying Adam Canoy, PLS 1154 Shonele Ln Stem, NC 27581 984.377.2626 CANDY canoysurveyins@gmail.com SURVEYING Thence S 74°25'01"W along and with David Allan Cook Deed Book 6840 Page 1799,James William Dodson and Pamela Oakley Dodson Deed Book 475 Page 639,Sandra H Reynolds Deed Book 5463 Page 562, Richard D Lloyd and Linda P Lloyd Deed Book 387 Page 562, Richard D Lloyd and Linda P Lloyd Deed Book 306 Page 340,and James E Dunn and Barbara L Dunn Deed Book 2651 Page 549 a distance of 1172.68' passing through IRON PIPES AT 243.32',381.85',437,657.57',and an angle iron at 1141.35' to a Computed Point in the center of NC Highway 86; Thence N 1606'26"W along and with the centerline of the road a distance of 373.21'to a Computed point; Thence N 73°39'28" E along and with R.R. Brown and Eva P Brown Deed Book 136 Page 272 a distance of 541.89' passing through an IRON PIPE at 30.00'to an IRON PIPE FOUND; Thence N 16°20'33"W along and with R.R. Brown and Eva P Brown Deed Book 136 Page 272 a distance of 219.77'to an IRON PIPE FOUND; Thence S 73°37'14"W along and with R.R. Brown and Eva P Brown Deed Book 136 Page 272 a distance of 272.60'to an IRON PIPE FOUND; Thence N 03°48'58" E along and with Property of Robert Medred Deed Book 1881 Page 238 a distance of 174.62'to an IRON PIPE FOUND; which is the point of beginning, having an area of 79.76 acres total. Orange County 14 7I l I rrua f'` 1 I March 4, 2025 This map contains parcels prepared for the inventory of real property within Orange County,and is compiled from recorded deed, plats,and ott Users of this map are hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the inforr PIN: 9865878090 The county and its mapping companies assume no legal responsibility for the information on this map. OWNER 1: BROWN AMY L ET AL SIZE: 78.11 A BUILDING COUNT: OWNER 2: POWELL JENNY DEED REF: LAND VALUE: o ADDRESS 1: 560 PARKERTOWN RD RATECODE: 00 BLDG_VALUE: (- ADDRESS 2: TOWNSHIP HILLSBOROUGH USE VALUE: 0 CITY: FOUR OAKS BLDG SQFT: TOTAL VALUE: STATE, ZIP: NC 27524 YEAR BUILT: DATE SOLD: 06/11/2024 LEGAL DESC: E/S HWY 86 NORTH TAX STAMPS: 15 VICINITY MAP SITE PLAN DOCUMENTS Proposed µ HWY86 SUBDIVISION IR ® NC Hwy 86 N O Hillsborough, North Carolina m Orange County DEVELOPER SURVEY ¢- �.� - Forestar,Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT Atm.Laura Haywood Canoy Surveying Spangler Environmental,Inc. w 1154 Shonele Ln 4338 Bland Road y 8041 Arco Corporate Drive Stem,NC 27581 Raleigh,NC 27609 Raleigh,NC 27617 (984)377-2626 0 888 308-908-9 (919)804-7220 canoysurveying@gmail.com ward@spanglerenvironmental.com nmental.com laurahaywood@forestar.com TRAFFIC CONSULTANT WELL DESIGNER LANDSCAPE ARCHTECT Z Balton&Menk,Inc. MacCONNELL&Associates,P.C. Weston&Sampson Engineers,Inc o 418 S Dawson Street 501 Cascade Pointe Lane 424 S.Dawson Street Raleigh,NC 27596 Suite 103 Raleigh,NC 27601 w z (919)719-1800 Cary,NC 27513 (978)532-1900 stee = z o (919)467-12-39 le.nicDle@wseinc.cam En T allison.wise@bolton-menk.com david@mcconnellandassoc.00m w 3 'a LU x iv p oz CIVIL ENGINEER CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS U Y Bowman North Carolina,Ltd. Estate of Lanie Brown(B.)Powell o 4006 Barrett Drive C/O Hughes B.Powell Jr.,Executor Suite 104 P.0 Box 636 Raleigh,INC 27609 Smithfield,NC 27577 T (919)553-6570 (919)901-5374 donald.sever@bowman.com FIRM#F-1445 Amy L.Powell 1234 Akan Street Port Charlotte,FL 33952 PRELIMINARY 910.895.1500 Do NOT USE FOR Jenny Powell Parks and Russell Michael Parks CONSTRUCTION 560 Parkertown Road DEVELOPMENT DATA Four Oaks,NC 27524 ;Ig^+•<t.y$�`: X—MLIN,IC 2127B 919.963.3733 _ COMMITMLNTS en+ne PRASE SEE ME NARRATIVE OF ZONING COND1110N5 OFFERED INCLUDED IN THE 4JaMIrtAL PACKAGE ndex o rawin 5 Sheet Number Sheet Title PLAN STATUS g.E.. HAN 11 11A1 1111 Af4 9TEFIRE&LIFE SAFETY DIVISION.CHR S PENDERGRASS w mAtE PPRIAT (919)245-6125 unUTLTY PROVDERS SOLID DISPOSAL SERVICES' DSSHERIFF.CHARLES S,BLACKWOOD ELECTRICITY-DUKE ENERGY ORANGE COUNTY WAS.MANAGEMENT DRAWN DHrcO (919)245 2900 WATER-PRIVATE COMPANY(TBD) ® �,I/'III BCAD: MwIM +/F2 AOM sIluEi lET4 csblackwood®arangecantync,gov SEP11C-ON LOi LJ o N TE NATURAL GAS-PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA STOP as o.220242-01-002 OSfD DATE SEPTEMBER 2+,2025 Know what's below. " 11 IT Call before you dig. sHEEr C1.0 16 ' VICINITY MAP A � MATCHLINE�A �A a �II i xca�xe Knowwhat's below P�15 j , Call before you,dig. w xx x�+�/row 4v PV SPG I v � V A v. /"•� \ AFP ^ 05 \� \ \ \ - \� \ \� \ \ �- _ mca�/ wE2v�I �- &APB SqP _ A A v\� � _ A VAvII`IAvIiII II II - � 3Ei,�e ,�PIT I6 \\ v----------- c \ _ \Ili IIn \\ � - � D1 o ` ,— 'IIII, �3a3.aE..y»I•I � sr„” "c -.. )vI i�/�.,/�.) IIwV A. A�Iv.�v. `. �\�\—��� __' '/ � I II IIA �_����I��l Z���i%�/II v ,_ vxc_zs � 'iv`.= _ �a..�i�y'_'�''s� ) �i II ��IIVIv��V.A��wvIIIVIII lI li ll�iijilivlilliiil it ;;s --- I IIII�� Will I II II IIII IIII�I IIiI SII IIV�A-'/,% � r .• - �� �,�`. l�iii�iii/iii'IliiiilIIlllill��� /!'����� lllIllv���'i/// z \�.�,, i(I Iv�w�AvvvA ii��illlllll _ ////'i�/iiillllll�lllv�i, / %� ti Z o VAI IIII', i p w 0 vv 0\ --_ °° m ✓�� �/����Ii�I�r:' ;:vAvIIrI II�IIIwIAv. \������I I �I I III Iv I IIIIV`I vy __ _ _, /�/ / / / I _ �`A vA IvI :��✓ � -_- 0 3 a 1/1f/I \�Il�jlil�I iJl_ ��\I11AIII II III III II II\I\s�� - ='� � IIII II III II II II IA ' I ��VA VV II II z z --- _ SL \vv III nIIv / w IN v i A :. v �� ,'�'/i� v.u`I IIIv�v A"v�A��' _ l I I I I I I� v I I �__ __ �Vim• I IIII vv VA`s`- v` vovv.o ��` •A`: _ I, II I I I I v I I �� VvI ss �, " ' l -_ Iii vvIvA ' PRELIMINARY - � 1 i iii�i��i IIII \. DO NOT i II IvvIIIIv ��j�_ .. �� -,i �j /%��//; A �.�: - USE FOR CONSTRUCTION P.�I a .Y /'�/��u/�/ ����//. _ 211 oae m 7� l .; \ I x � enw.v 11F i G • �"$'� li owwwr - I - - \\I\\I \ar mI _ PIAN SN s EROSION CONTROL NOT x'=D� IAT- -- �u =J FV -11 II, /xpAxv Txx+mASUUREYNOTE EO BTREAMWETtAND NOTE nxc sWGx/uVx xx -AN,iEANAEs ox I \�.< j mExt.wt ols me vxavos5 vAxm. - - - . a N.220242-0I-002 wGRAPHIC SCALE MATCHLINE A SATE KAB R 24,2625 PN 5 wl l l l I I I I A / y° I I I I A xo ,i ,�....zvmu-vawa,xs.v.a vab, ,.zoz.z o -x.v m sev x.�.wm.�.,,vo 17 TREE SYMBOL LEGEND 0FOR- YRILC wIBNM 0� 0HICKORY 0 ®O vv V v \ 0 O �O �A, �I��rl �<< �� 0 O O v ��, v ® - - NDI�IDDALREE:DENTEE�RE L�R0woOO:PEEN ROER wPNNN aNL.DEENFN E11CSTOREwxO"RANDxTENOF EENEFA_PMMAF',_TC..ETOT ����; O ;,`�;;r;•;��A`,::< �;���, T, , MAUNAR0w�0R 0 RTHANI—INY NDNRRROMARRRDRMIRLY—DI ORx.NOUTAMEO ® O E� FESC D E RED - reCTEDEDrRERAREA. ©yea cEiAEE�s nAxEeE"° . .��� xNEA OF r�����' r NRRACE 71'=I:221MI �, .1111 = ,_. �,,�,�� N�, O O '� ,I �n � II ,_ w� �:�A�_�r... � e � .II II I!`. - 0 0 li niiri'irnl`I r�c�`• L �l , t.� ,`. ,� .; o- Ir�;✓r�`✓;I�I�I�` ,� c.AI, ��:: II✓ /ii , �Jr II II i/��F"zrzn f� ��.��„ T� II ✓,/ 0 i Unlr✓� /✓Y. II�II[� u�noo14z ✓rV��A�rAL�`�` ����� A irr�' O. ��I, �IIr IIgII� /R✓ rr �: ���.. NE,�J,__�� ( ,m__ tOr ��� a.y���+ .l,N��,iA�,`..\V`t�it`1 ,� ., �✓ N O Q VQ _3, _ �'a-`'��� m ��A=�-._'�r��_`-�_a''_��a=mr°s�s_7�,�-��,.,'�dE..�W',(,�Y,�z>Sm4�„v;l,Yi,��I��l_I,�'NdAll��nr/r-lrr'<l✓l-=iR.iIi*hrll4l/��i1lI1n✓�1h1d,uxl�%a�''rIl 11 � Ir� V O 0 O O 1 0�O nA�A�ugO1FRO OeOE� A .O Q3O .�.x:-_��{-i!J'\V�Ai�']Iri�E2��o��A✓,�R,`l���uI��,l.�Alr�r`-y�.�-�r��,I,Al�5�l`:i�I,�E���.IArrr,�.r..,,�Av\�v'� \I�1 IrrI rlI\ ,_vllllrI�i 1 J, IRRN IETINo OO 00 ILo 04 MARYO ER 0 00 0 QO� 0OO �OOOO 0 lljilllllw;1;; �; '0 OO O 00O �J;Yl�ur�,r��r�T��r, 0 O0d lO , COOO , 0 CO O00 0 LES*aSEoco 0R`: x0 CK OOO )rl� E0�C (p0lQ O O O 0 0r 40 000 00 �L l Lu ,11, € ¢ak >z 0. %/r �Rr, III✓li/ lI d O�� O 4'E. ` O .0 0 OOCY ��\A = W �M;ii,Ar A fE II .I lrll�ir�r_ A , 1Js^� q5. O ,a �_ , t l I 'I ti ...�. o 360 /S o O fl� O ;. ` �� c o iii 1' I,l II 111111'111<�� r 0 :.:OV�Q '\:.'.® ! a. >t\ `�`�11�3�1� G�-\�, , � �p YJ. llgo 0� s d'`) L',1�`T�'T t s �3 0 3 00 ilr i,_,1 �� ✓�I , ��'� V �0 O , . -Lu ®:,'t �ri"'R+5',�i 5" C� GQ 0 �h IF 6NCCEss i 5 n,,<i,} _ �,,�. .I 0 O J .2G ,. po ,� r .._ `- C E,�E,AN,�R\T��Et� ,A C7 ooLANNr SHCCE `i - '- .A` 0. 0 A ' 4 1 m //��,, ,,ma�yyl.',� ,"5'') � �: e `: A 1`111�1 4'i� _ 4 t A I\I II�IIII II �T "_'YI".�`_�.I , — 'i_.•- -�Vl - UU -0 Q Li \`\`\\ _` K-..,.I f1,\\i I )1�r�r,\\��r�TT _ \L^-�'���4` � I�IIII I �M >< tJ -�IEi✓A�„ A CRc < O , Q 00 O i l �E �li�Ii�ll°II���I`l w f ti 1 O 0 (S*J ��_ _� 0InuIJIrL i 0 ® _a :-.''/(,rA,'�'' i'�;t l/Ar ( 3 nE��;r v ti O 0 �'�✓1�1�Il�du�nullr Chpl Ir;!Ih Z t`:.cd I 114 0 0 O ��I a nI•'� ,.,..rte E L� ,,fir�>`��Il hl l'i'�illnh-Ir l'7� IN p0 0 O i �✓ O rll I'IiG'illh �I I q .. 00 1 4kr - - 0 '� .III �✓ l`n z �., ':' .Ur r�/ r — V+a"I&Sari RMA -I ' = .'I 0 RAN U&Ip } t� O �I �- '- { - � � , 0 I .'r V � _ /�cirir✓i r ��v�i •vdr� ..,. ,,,w..m. „ _ O <x r III 4 b, ARIA ,I Iln �I \ I , aN�i oa.�.,N .. O � kl�r� �, ��� - TATE, � ' _ 1✓ J��rid/1 �o� ��ft'� Si 0 _ �7000L v l EA i � m.vr I - SPACE rv+O 91dif/ry%' ¢r`II 0 flII',I,I,�✓ �'=� �;;;T' 3 _ 000 (� Aro pp II r,r V. V O Rr -V Allll �r ;< 00.. ___ -.� ) � 0 � PLANnems R. - � ir 00 � y.�� .�� � I�Do of FA- � ' DESgiIFnW ox�rsm am 0 N STOP ” _ 1Ji GRAPHIC SCALE DATE zzauz-Ln-Doz SEPTEMBER 24,8025 now what's below. =_____• o r+ ,A �e R E xa CCII before you dig.o c? - • �liF��� 1mm Lmrn ST C2.1 18 A MATCHLINE-A pvq BOO ,IN c _.Oa" Fcouxn l=11M.IIAO-I GEN ALL N-LINO STU111--1 OOAIII 086 AN Ic, NO,I.I I I POOL 5 PC,64 _4 50'PLRI IC RIGHT OF�X T REFPG5( COMMUN17Y WELL WELL R.1N kieessIT I I LAI- N, II X A\ LEGEND- "'ZZI A mT,I,"I_L xousmu NA-SURFACE F F PAUL L ONITNI ILAILA -A 1 AIA .1 JI ZZ,,N I Al I'A- ANN mow NI.....E'Tx. Ll-ANOl RI-RL.3 AV T 7-4-1 1— M _A IONN LI 'IN A �AAINNA -LONLI, = JA- I.NN AO A.A, A 1AAI-All I z ILL 0 z A— < IL(,Q) EL I > < IN. z LU (D IN 'Al \/p A, I I.I. , I.. -illlx Er 0 ILIANA if - CL 2 tc 0 A Ol 7 3 jjjlD N-AT 0/l/ A.. s II IAl, I_I 011 AO I A A_ A,\ ------- W I A"I 11p A' IE �IE \�7 A 2, T I. IAL.1 -INO-A� EEO 1� .-- l.- A N=L-LAT.Ol A.,Oo�g, 11E, 10 PLOLO PRELIMINARY 11A A_ ON N DO NOT IT ILL 110 17 -- / -- - �lll ; , 0 "8`IA`ll OIL @ 00 USE FOR @iii AI I_ ILL.— NSTRUCTION IN ALAN I.. -N O__ I I I A. --------- - OINING AIR OP PLAN-TLS LEa� 1i ill IN "I zE DB"T A1ITA1-lk� P8 8.1 AZAII I I IN, 'A" A-\ ,?� SIGHT TRIANGLE OTE —I-A, , ,- —T ..E 3IT TIMOLENS 8"" ——————--——— "'"I Sp re0 - ---- ------ .-T 1-,0(T-) Tj IIINI I-I--, NO WMICTON BE-1�I)(2)I=E�01� 0 LJ E. cot Roc RRn o ------------- 7-A awmxr LE 11� A ". .-AN. A. lkz ".1 A�L/--0, OW. MATCHLINE NO "0. "IND A,NNALL- / A._PO_ '- I (: DA7 KP-24,2025 EW�nnery Know What's bel 12 N. 220242-01-002 GRAPHIC SCALE Call before you dig. P.1 pI INO- N. Fr ]R-115321T I kil 'lpr-Nall�ILIsheer C3.0 � o -,e � �rRR1Q ,e FJ Nill 3leegy.49-E4 �' 4 Y o '6r..5�eyL�aps'L'ti aa�> (j I p 1 •`.I Ilk At ,,,,. � ,•' o �. Ryz a� , o � n k � � � �:.-ra)� �a��e e'er •R.'� YY � 0 eeae = ,�a ole5$e e£ V. Aare a c .. \� epe zaaeLu r9 a r' 4> r; , •V`: Gid' .'s3.R..•'. g e a. ,Fe. . ! e a �'�4 ,ea ........ ..ase��. �� a c s cez�e y tier c azk �, �� ey a t� Luoo M �sL,�ez�e'��g���' sna:az a:e ne et�a�e s o y �•z�>:a �ea ...... ra a � tipg . eauj EL • kgy K5 ae � e � ,;3� , bt 39 BeSRePbp 4 g i q, �.+•` na i'9a 'aee t !,. a 9 o ae aea z u MIN ze. 'az ;_� �u; lea Qe 9m z`���'��a�����,�e�'� �e��SSe����p e E>� _ Z�d�3a�,,raS��a�ea�� •''�i`� d ,�. �`'�.v_ ,r��hE ® 3> e e S e C'e as •. .ot� Et S �'>�� a a .. - ;� r ra 3zec z zaeZ 3'�tEg�Eec °e°eeZere a ',.Lsr s, $. '�� � e � II � 6,�9e9ael� ee q` � ■ g R o Gr a un :6o.e 4AaryA a time. fi32 yi�ys. �• a .P.sX .•� ae>ea� o�,£a ?: a83�5. �°'-W I1 zoo @g3o 3 y$ Jens e3 seygc `s:rQ.az`ema�e Rr g cry �a:ti !s.. %. ,y- Sze'So..4•i' ® ,>4'.°�e a ......a.� ..,.53.4.. Sa .5R5.R�2e.E a' ............ Mom , 11 1 •• ._ g�ILL Il LLQ. z __ L L L� I LL LL L L - LZ;L L - �L L7, L JILLLi o -eeoH �2 L� � ® t i L L� oauF� L I L, 4 axo�ae,enck" L _i�i_ -L 1 � Lam. L �� II t`�' s z o - \ " L_ L T ` til 2i LZi L _. ' L�_L o Lij mmmw� L '-, Lu Z _ \ EL o IL LL Lu • / ILL 2L ZL 2- E L � �L, L , .:. LLLI 1 �V L L �L e Z i 2L - I LL L \� IL L / L L� �z E�LLILL � 1 L ILL I LILL -LL - Z L n �, ELL LL_ z t� ��LI p Am ��� 21 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION Hwy 86 Subdivision Property Located at Hwy 86N Hillsborough, NC 27278 County PIN 9865878090/Approximately 79.76 Acres (Amended September 22,2025) The Applicant, Forestar C/O Laura Haywood, seeks to rezone an approximately 79.76 acres parcel of land located on Hwy 86N, approximately 3000' north of Hwy 57 Intersection. The Property is undeveloped, owned by the sellers: Lanie B. Powell, Amy L. Powell, Jenny Powell Parks and Russell Micheal Parks. The current zoning is AR, Rural Residential, and the proposed zoning is R-CD, Residential Conditional District.The proposed development consists of approximately 49 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 constructed wetlands as stormwater management features, blending with the natural wetlands located on the site. A mail Kiosk, gardens, trails and a community gathering space are proposed. On site septic and community well are anticipated.The proposed open space provided is 53.97%, maintaining a visually appealing design that complements the surrounding neighborhood and preserves the natural aspects of the region. The anticipated future growth in the north portion of Orange County makes the property an ideal location for a subdivision that would serve the existing community and anticipated future growth. With easy access to schools, stores and restaurants nearby this Location is ideal for a new development. Moreover, as shown in the more detailed plans for the property which accompany the Application, the proposed subdivision is designed to fit 22 in with the character of the area. The site has been designed to address concerns regarding traffic patterns on NC Highway 86. 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, natural 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 site development has been designed with the existing built and natural environment of the area. 23 P.O. Box 129 501 Cascade Pointe Lane Morrisville, NC 27560 Suite 103 Cary,NC 27513 (919)467-1239 www.maccomiellandassoc.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 Hwy 86 property subdivision. The design is based on minimum NCDEQ standards and regulations. The system is sized for 49 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, valving and appurtenance.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. 24 RECONNAISSANCE SOIL & SITE EVALUATION Hwy 86 N—Brown Tract Hillsborough, Orange County, NC Earthly Elements Job Number: 24-032 Prepared For: Forestar 8041 Arco Corporate Drive, #110 Raleigh, NC 27617 Prepared By: EES Earthly Elements Soil Consulting Earthly Elements Soil Consulting, PLLC PO Box 12131 Durham, NC 27709 March 19, 2024 SOIL $ f , .MQ LA IF Evan T. Morgan, LSS 25 INTRODUCTION & SITE DESCRIPTION A Reconnaissance Soil & Site Evaluation was performed on an approximately 78.11-acre tract located on Hwy 86 N in Hillsborough, Orange County, NC (PIN: 9865878090). Earthly Elements Soil Consulting, PLLC (Earthly Elements) was retained to evaluate the soil and site conditions and identify suitable areas for placement of on-site subsurface wastewater systems for single-family residences. The property was evaluated in accordance with Orange County and North Carolina wastewater regulations "Orange County Regulations for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems", January 1, 2024, and"15A NCAC 18E—Wastewater Treatment and Dispersal Systems—Version 1 —November 9, 2023", effective January 1, 2024. The site was mixed between mature hardwoods and early successional growth. Surface water features were identified. A four-bedroom single family residence with a design daily flow of 480 gallons per day(GPD) is assumed for this report. INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY The field survey was conducted on March 8 and 13-14, 2024, by Evan T. Morgan, LSS. Soil borings were advanced with hand-augers and soil color determined using a Munsell Soil Color Chart. Observations of the landscape as well as soil properties(depth, texture, structure, soil wetness, restrictive horizons, etc.) were recorded. Soil borings were described per the USDA- NRCS, Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, Version 3.0. Soil boring locations were marked with blue ribbon flagging when feasible. DISCUSSION Three areas of soil rated as Suitable for Conventional or Low-Profile Chamber Systems were identified across the tract. A long-term acceptance rate (LTAR) in the range of 0.25 to 0.3 GPD/sq-ft is anticipated for these soil units. As such, a four-bedroom single-family residence with a design daily flow of 480 GPD would require approximately 7,000 to 9,000 sq-ft to support the initial system and 100% repair area utilizing 400 to 480 linear feet of accepted system drainline per initial and repair system. Systems sited in areas with soil depths suitable for Low- Profile Chamber systems would require 25%more drainline. Ten areas of soil rated as Suitable for Subsurface Drip systems were identified across the tract. A LTAR in the range of 0.1 to 0.15 GPD/sq-ft is anticipated for these soil units. As such, a four- bedroom single-family residence with a design daily flow of 480 GPD would require approximately 7,000 to 10,000 sq-ft to support the initial system and 100%repair area utilizing 1,600 to 2,400 linear feet of drip tubing drainline per initial and repair system. LTAR's for subsurface drip systems must be substantiated by in-situ saturated hydraulic conductivity testing. Subsurface drip systems require a Special Site Evaluation by a LSS and a design by a Professional Engineer to permit and install. These areas are recommended to be allocated for repair areas or home sites. Additional details for the soil units are appended. 1 Hwy 86 N — Brown Tract Earthly Elements Job#: 24-032 March 19, 2024 26 Surface water was identified across the tract that will require a minimum of a 50-foot setback to septic system components. The location of these features is approximated onto Figure 1 Areas of Unsuitable Landscape were observed throughout the tract and include drainageways, concave landforms, ruts, hummocks,utilities, existing buildings, surface water and surface water setbacks, and other areas not suitable for the installation of septic drain lines. The soil units identified for proposed septic drainfields shall not be impacted by home sites, pools, garages, or other buildings and shall not be mechanically altered from the natural lay of the land. Septic system drainlines are installed along the natural ground contours and any disturbance to the contouring could change a site's functionality. As such, site disturbance shall be extremely limited to not render any areas unusable or require more expensive system types. System type, total drainline length and square footage requirements would be determined when the lot layout is finalized. Specific drainline length requirements, trench installation depth, drainline type and soil caps will all vary based upon the individual lot LTARs and usable soil depths. CONCLUSION The findings presented herein represent Earthly Elements' professional opinion based on our Reconnaissance Soil and Site evaluation and knowledge of the current laws and rules governing on-site wastewater systems in Orange County and North Carolina. Areas of Suitable soil was identified across the tract that can support initial and repair septic drainfields for single-family residences. Earthly Elements can provide septic system layouts, system designs and septic permitting assistance during the subdivision planning process, if desired. Soils naturally change across a landscape and contain many inclusions. As such, attempts to quantify them are not always precise and exact. Due to this inherent variability of soils and the subjectivity when determining limiting factors,there is no guarantee that a regulating authority will agree with the findings of this report. Any concurrence with the findings of this report will be made by Orange County at the time of Improvement Permit application. This report does not meet the requirements of SL 2023-90 a2-a6 or an Engineer Option Permit. 2 Hwy 86 N — Brown Tract Earthly Elements Job#: 24-032 March 19, 2024 N 5 0 0 A 00 A4 O O Al A3` O � 0. A6 O 0 A9 A200 0 O 0 0 0 A7 A8 O- CA13 0 0 0\ Q Parcel _Suitable for Conv A1�2 O Soil Borings Systemsional or LPC A10 A11 Suitable for �Suitable for Subsurface 0 Conventional Type Drip Systems Systems Surface Water O Suitable for Low-Profile 50-ft Surface Water Chamber Systems ®Setback 0 Suitable for Subsurface Unsuitable Landscape Drip Systems • Unsuitable Reconnaissance Soil & Site Evaluation Date: March 2024 Figure Job#: 24-032 Hwy 86 N - Brown Tract 1" - 350' I I I Orange County, North Carolina 0 175 350 Feet 28 Soil Unit Name Drainline Type Square Footage Al Conventional/LPC 11187,930 A2 Conventional/LPC 848,723 A3 Conventional/LPC 108,740 A4 Subsurface Drip 659163 A5 Subsurface Drip 14,878 A6 Subsurface Drip 118,625 A7 Subsurface Drip 13, 183 A8 Subsurface Drip 16,662 A9 Subsurface Drip 269656 A10 Subsurface Drip 34,850 All Subsurface Drip 179022 Al2 Subsurface Drip 69851 A13 I Subsurface Drip—F 53,422 29 LEGEND ILL suirAe�son FOR coHVErvrioeu rn c 0 SUITABLE SOILS FOR SUBSURFACE DRIP J Q � w 1 , \J U GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" 200' zcn z 4 � a a > � 0 100 200 400 600 0 F z LU 0 �. w LU --- _ � LU c� w a z w E p Q p 0 I CID l WN JA i a 40 z�nKo, 1 O v � zx 0 In a. 32 / \ m�- z s 4s / 4 l � I U � I 41 30 - NOTES LEGEND L) 1. PARCELS TAKEN FROM NC ONEMAP.TORO W TAKEN FROM INC FRIS. SITE PLAN PROVIDED ADJACENT BOUNDARY r / BY BOWMAN ENGINEERING.PRELIMINARY SOIL (n ' C INFORMATION PROVIDED BY EARTHLY BOUNDARY(PROPERTY) LU 2 U -- j ELEMENTS SOIL CONSULTING. CO CLEAN OUT d� 2. HOUSE BOXES PROVIDED BY CLIENT. - N CONTOURS-INDEX } 3. KEEP TANKS,DRAIN LINES,AND MANIFOLDS AV) V) MINIMUM OF 10'OFF OF PROPERTY LINES. T�— — CONTOURS-INTERMEDIATE DIVERSION BERM/DITCH 4. KEEP SUPPLY LINES AND FORCE MAIN A M MINIMUM OF 5'OFF OF PROPERTY LINES. DRAIN LINES/TRENCHES(INITIAL) 5. THIS IS NOT ASURVEY. -------------- DRAIN LINES/TRENCHES(REPAIR) Z O Z 6. UTILIZED T+J PANELS. DRAIN LINES-FLAGGED(NOT USED) a W Y LL 7. UNADJUSTED DAILY DESIGN FLOW:480 EASEMENT LINE K H z / 1y6 f I IFE-771 / O O8. DAILY DESIGN FLOW:480 EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE 1O W 9, ESTIMATED LTAR:0.250 x EXISTING FENCE F W LU 10.MIN,LINE LENGTH 320 LF PER INITIAL& FTA PROPOSED FORCE MAIN A a Q REPAIR FIELDS 8 RIGHT-OF-WAY p p !!! RIPARIAN BUFFER SETBACKS REPAIR DRAINFIELD SUITABLE SOILS BOUNDARY PROPOSEDDRNEWAY / e W EXISTING WATER LINE F o c / - 5 q N LINE SEGMENTS INITIAL 4 / LINE FLAG LENGTH DESIGN LENGTH ME 0 r i 2 - - 60' 3 60' 4 55' LU Q 0 W INITIAL DRAINFIELD 2 A % 5 _ = 50. Z J N 6 55' �O�fQi xQ TOTAL LENGTH 330' H Q 0 2 Ii 1 / 2 U In PROPOSED HOME / LINE SEGMENTS REPAIR Oa H O Z / I 2512 SF - / LINE FLAG O LENGTH DESIGN LENGTH W 0 a Mj (FOOTPRINT) / Z J b / Z I /CONVENTIONAL BO / 7 - - 80' Q J/ /SOIL BOUNDARY 8 - - 80' N K Q Q N 10 _ _ 90 O O w SEPTIC TANK / 11 65' \ I I PUMP TANK I TOTAL LENGTH 385' r l M� \ - - � � GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" - 30' 0 15 30 60 90 31 NOTES LEGEND N �o 1. PARCELS TAKEN FROM NC ON PLAN PROVIDED ADJACENT BOUNDARY a'O N — I TAKEN FROM INC FRIS. SITE PLAN PRONOIL w J o IN BOWMAN ENGINEERING.PRELIMINARY SOIL BOUNDARY(PROPERTY) INFORMATION PROVIDED BY EARTHLY W� U \ ELEMENTS SOIL CONSULTING. CO CLEAN OUT d W 2. HOUSE BOXES PROVIDED BY CLIENT. ;..: CONTOURS-INDEX Q} CONVENTIONAL I 3. KEEP TANKS,DRAIN LINES,AND MANIFOLDS A 4+g— — — CONTOURS-INTERMEDIATE O> \ SOIL BOUNDARY % 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) \ I / 5. THIS IS NOT ASURVEY. -------- DRAIN UNES/TRENCHES(REPAIR) Z O Z 2 j 6. UTILIZED T+J PANELS DRAIN LINES-FLAGGED(NOT USED) a W Y C ?F' 3 \ I 7. UNADJUSTED DAILY DESIGN FLOW:480 = 0 ~ J / / EASEMENT LINE O U D 4 \ - —� 2b 8. DAILY DESIGN FLOW:480 [ EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE 0 Lu 5 \ I 9. ESTIMATED LTAR:0.250 x EXISTING FENCE F W LU I o \ PUMP TANK 10.MIN,UNE LENGTH 320 LF PER INITIAL& FTA PROPOSED FORCE MAIN W a Q r 6 INITIAL DRAINFIELD \ REPAIR FIELDS Q. a. 7 SEPTIC TANK -- RIGHT-OF-WAY O O RIPARIAN BUFFER ——————— SETBACKS SUITABLE SOILS BOUNDARY w ( \\10\ \ \\ O \ W EXISTING WATER LINE F N \ \ Y \ REPAIR DRAINFIELD / N LINE UNE FLAG SE LENGTH GMENTS IDES GN LENGTH c e r W^ N� 30• H w \ \ 2 - - 35' N n Z^ \\ \ 3 - - 40' Q J m \ 4 - - 45' 22m'm \ \� PROPOSEDHOME \ i 5 - - 55' Q J N Qx \ 2512 SF \ 5 - - 60' Jp.'XOa \. (FOOTPRINT) \ _ _ 70' H Q p=LL \� TOTAL LENGTH 335' G=m ci p n \\ LOT e a c: Ui 29 ooa�e S Q Z J V UNE SEGMENTS REPAIR N y CQ \ UNE FLAG LENGTH DESIGN LENGTH \�J, PROPOSED > 'U O W DRNEWIby \ / 8 - - 75' L'f - 70' 10 - - 80 0 11 95' TOTAL LENGTH 320' 1 1 GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 30' 0 15 30 60 90 32 LEGEND v n / -- ADJACENT BOUNDARY LU O M o / BOUNDARY(PROPERTY) (n LU z U J CO CLEAN OUT D_LU / --� CONTOURS-INDEX Q} 448- - - CONTOURS-INTERMEDIATE 1n 1n DIVERSION BERM/DITCH \• q DRAIN UNES/TRENCHES(INITIAL) / •• i1 / REPAIR DR4wFIELD / � N -------- DRAIN UNES/TRENCHES(REPAIR) Z O Z '\ 9 / DRAIN LINES-FLAGGED(NOT USED) [i a y 8 / / EASEMENT LINE O U Z 0 f PROPI ISTING ELECTRIC LINE LUO OSED P W U DRIVEWA 6 EY STING FENCE W W LU 5 j /--- FM PROPOSED FORCE MAIN A a Q ' e 4 1 - -- RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 ¢ 0 \ PUMP TANK 0° 7 3 RIPARIAN BUFFER L SEPTIC TANK \ 2 0 SETBACKS `a SUITABLE SOILS BOUNDARY w EXISTING WATER LINE F Q c � � / \ � Aa '° I INITIAL DRAINFIELD 1F� � •'p N CONVENTIONAL SOIL BOUNDARY \ 1 \ \ / LINE SEGMENTS INITIAL j LINE# FLAG LENGTH DESIGN LENGTHp 1 \ PROPOSED HOME ` O Is 1 \ \ 2512 SF I 1 _ _ 65' W�"� I, (FOOTPRINT) 2 - - 85 �+ 36 3 90' y N Z \ \mom LOT 1 , 4 - - 45' i JO S \ �0 37 5 50' Z TOTAL LENGTH 335' O 1¢j LINE SEGMENTS REPAIR Z U 000 UNE FLAG LENGTH DESIGN LENGTH O= 'O Y 6 - - 65' O O a j e 7 _ _ 80, U Z J V 8 70 w) y / 9 - - 55' V U OC m 10 - - 35' 0_J I \ 11 - - 20' u+ F f TOTAL LENGTH 325' �i NOTES W N i t 1. PARCELS TAKEN FROM L ONEMAP.TOPO TAKEN 6. SYSTEM.ED T.J.PANELS FOR INITIAL AND REPAIR C7 FROM NC FRIS. SITE PLAN PROVIDED B7 BOWMAN SYSTEM. 7•rl ENGINEERING.PRELIMINARY SOIL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY EARTHLY ELEMENTS SOIL CONSULTING. 7. UNADJUSTED DAILY DESIGN FLOW:480 O O 2. HOUSE BOXES PROVIDED BY CLIENT. B. DAILY DESIGN FLOW:480 `>' \ � 3. KEEP TANKS,DRAIN LINES,AND MANIFOLDS A 9. ESTIMATED LTAR:0.250 (�! MINIMUM OF 10'OFF OF PROPERTY LINES. 10.MN,LINE LENGTH 320 LF PER INITIAL AND REPAIR 4. KEEP SUPPLY ONES AND FORCE MAIN A MINIMUM nIR D ^,y OF 5'OFF OF PROPERTY LINES. '�+V i 5. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY. GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 30' 0 15 30 60 90 33 - — LEGEND 1=b - ADJACENT BOUNDARY LU O C BOUNDARY(PROPERTY) J 2' U / CO CLEAN OUT d W � \ \ COMOURS CONTOURS-INTERMEDIATE V)V) .'.�� D DIVERSION BERM/DITCH Q��P INITIAL DRAINFlELD DRAIN LINES/TRENCHES(INITIAL) -------------- DRAIN LINES/TRENCHES(REPAIR) Z Z \ DRAIN LINES-FLAGGED(NOT USED) a LL y 5 EASEMENT LINE Z H z EXISTINGELECTRIC LINE U' W O o EXISTING FENCE Q N W D REPAIR DRAINFlELD— / \ \ / H J O PROPOSED FORCE MAIN W a Q RIGHT-OF-WAY p Q p I — PUMP TANK G' L RIPARIAN BUFFER SEPTIC TANK SETBACKS \ 10 PROPOSED HOME — — — — — SUITABLE SOILS BOUNDARY 2512 SF / Y) / - (FOOTPRINT) W EXISTING WATER LINE N lIl M N \ \ 06 e\ / I LINE SEGMENTS INITIALDO 4 } U Q p LINE FLAG LENGTH DESIGN LENGTH 0] 7 U DRNEWAY \�\NC SFg 1 _ _ 25 c N 2 - - 45' r - - 65 ILI f r of 4 O U)n Z^ _ 5 - - 105' W Q jm 2f<3 TOTAL LENGTH 325' J-i Q.. / O 0 4 waox I / LINE SEGMENTS REPAIR 2 U 00 LINE# FLAG LENGTH DESIGN LENGTH O H OI O 6 - - 100' M z / 7 - - 85 O/ Z 65' U v / 9 _ _ 50. W, N 10 - - 30' V U = � TOTAL LENGTH 330' in F f U NOTES a a 1. PARCELS TAKEN FROM NO ON PLAN PROVIDED 6. UTILIZED 7+J PANELS. TAKEN FROM NC FRIS. SITE PLAN PROVIDED IN BOWMAN ENGINEERING.PRELIMINARY SOIL 7. UNADJUSTED DAILY DESIGN FLOW:480 i INFORMATION PROVIDED BY EARTHLY ' ELEMENTS SOIL CONSULTING. 8. DAILY DESIGN FLOW:480 �--1 i 2. HOUSE BOXES PROVIDED BY CLIENT. 9. ESTIMATED LTAR:0.250 , 3. KEEP TANKS,DRAIN LINES,AND MANIFOLDS A 10.MIN,LINE LENGTH 320 LF PER INITIAL& O O MINIMUM OF 10'OFF OF PROPERTY LINES. REPAIR FIELDS 4. KEEP SUPPLY LINES AND FORCE MAIN A U MINIMUM OF 5'OFF OF PROPERTY LINES. ' 5. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY. 5� i GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 30' 0 15 30 60 90 34 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,HEALTH,&NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ENVIROMENT MANAGEMENT GROUNDWATER SECTION P.O.BOX-RALEIGH,N.C.27611 (919)733-3221 PUMP TEST METER RECORD START:_14,784,306.0 STOP: 14,913,961.5 TOTAL:_129,655.5 GALLONS TEST CONDUCTED BY: YADKIN WELL COMPANY,INC. WELL CONSTRUCTONPERMIT NO. 1.WELLLOCATION: NEAREST TOWN: HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY: ORANGE HWY.86 PROJECT (ROAD NO.,COMMUNITY,OR SUBDIVISION,AND LOT NO). 2.OWNER: FORESTAR DEVELOPERS NAME ADDRESS 3.USE OF WELL: ( )DOMESTIC (X)PUBLIC ( )INDUSTRIAL ( )IRRIGATION ( )OTHER 4.WELL DEPTH: 642 FT. CASING DIAMTER 8 IN. CASING TYPE: GALV.STEEL S.DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Yadkin Well Company Inc. WAS CASING GROUTED? Yes 6.STATIC WATER LEVEL: 20 FT. ABOVE TOP OF CASING BELOW DATE MEASURED: 11/19/2024 CASING IS 2 FT.ABOVE LAND SURFACE 7. WELL YIELD: 84 GPM SPECIFIC CAPACITY: GPM/FT.DD 8. PUMPING WATER LEVEL: 554 FT. AFTER 24 HOURS AT 84 GPM 9.CHLORINATION TYPE 70%Calcium Hypochlorite AMOUNT 49 oz. 10.TIME AND DATE PUMP STARTED: 3:20 PM 11/19/2024 PUMP STOPPED: 3:20 PM 11/20/2024 11.WATER LEVEL MEASURING DEVICE: Electric Tape FLOW MESURING DEVICE: 3"FLOW METER 12.TEST PUMP: TYPE: Submersible MAKE: Grundfos HORSEPOWER: 25 CAPACITY 100 GPM AT 600 TDH INTAKE DEPTH 609 FT. WATER TIME WATER LEVEL PUMPING RATE TIME LEVEL PUMPING RATE 3:20 PM 20 FT 200 GPM 4:30 PM 527 FT 112 GPM 3:25 PM 280 FT 185 GPM 4:40 PM 528 FT 110 GPM 3:30 PM 372 FT 170 GPM 4:50 PM 527 FT 105 GPM 3:35 PM 426 FT 158 GPM 5:00 PM 529 FT 108 GPM 3:40 PM 461 FT 150 GPM 5:10 PM 523 FT 101 GPM 3:45 PM 488 FT 145 GPM 5:20 PM 524 FT 103 GPM 3:50 PM 512 FT 138 GPM 6:20 PM 529 FT 99 GPM 3:55 PM 508 FT 121 GPM 7:20 PM 536 FT 95 GPM 4:00 PM 515 FT 127 GPM 8:20 PM 542 FT 94 GPM 4:05 PM 523 FT 124 GPM 9:20 PM 544 FT 91 GPM 4:10 PM 526 FT 119 GPM 10:20 PM 545 FT 91 GPM 4:15 PM 525 FT 116 GPM 11:20 PM 544 FT 90 GPM 4:20 PM 525 FT 115 GPM 12:20 AM 546 FT 89 GPM 35 PUMPING TEST RECORD CONTINUED HWY 86 PROJECT RECOVERY TIME WATER LEVEL PUMPING RATE TIME SWL 1:20 AM 547 FT 87 GPM 3:25 PM 423 FT 2:20 AM 546 FT 86 GPM 3:30 PM 388 FT 3:20 AM 547 FT 86 GPM 3:35 PM 361 FT 4:20 AM 550 FT 85 GPM 3:40 PM 338 FT 5:20 AM 548 FT 84 GPM 3:45 PM 317 FT 6:20 AM 549 FT 84 GPM 3:50 PM 300 FT 7:20 AM 550 FT 84 GPM 3:55 PM 284 FT 8:20 AM 551 FT 84 GPM 4:00 PM 270 FT 9:20 AM 553 FT 84 GPM 4:05 PM 258 FT 10:20 AM 554 FT 84 GPM 4:10 PM 247 FT 11:20 AM 554 FT 84 GPM 4:15 PM 238 FT 12:20 PM 554 FT 84 GPM 4:20 PM 231 FT 1:20 PM 554 FT 84 GPM 4:30 PM 220 FT 2:20 PM 554 FT 84 GPM 4:40 PM 210 FT 3:20 PM 554 FT 84 GPM 4:50 PM 202 FT 5:00 PM 195 FT 5:10 PM 189 FT 5:20 PM 184 FT PUMP TEST PERFORMED BY: !/G� 1 2 �� 36 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES j DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT GROUNDWATER SECTION P.O. BOX- RALEIGH, NC 27611 (919) 733-3221 PUMP TEST RECORD TEST CONDUCTED BY: David Lee Cave(4227-A) WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO:W24-0165 WELL[Dtt:AAQ-330 1) WELL LOCATION: NEAREST TOWN: Hwy.86 Forestar COUNTY:Orange (ROAD NO.,COMMUNITY,OR SUBDIVISION AND LOT NO.) 2) OWNER: Forestar Subdivision (NAME) (ADDRESS) 3) USE OF WELL: ( ) DOMESTIC (X) PUBLIC () INDUSTRIAL ()IRRIGATION ( )OTHER 4) WELL DEPTH: 642 FT. CASING DIAMETER: 8 IN.CASING TYPE:GALVANIZED 5) DRILLING CONTRACTOR:_YADKIN WELL COMPANY. WAS CASING GROUTED: YES 6) STATIC WELL LEVEL 20 FT. BELOW TOP OF CASING DATE MEASURED: 7/29/25 CASING IS 2 FT.ABOVE LAND SURFACE 7) WELL YIELD: 112 GPM.SPECIFIC CAPACITY GPM/FT.DD. j 8) PUMPING WATER LEVEL:578 FT,AFTER 24 HOURS AT 85 GPM 9) CLORINATION:TYPE AMOUNT: 10) TIME AND DATE: PUMP STARTED: 7/29/2025 @ 2:30 PM. PUMP STOPPED: 7/30/2025 @ 3:00 PM. 11) WATER LEVEL MEASURING DEVICE: ELECTRIC TAPE FLOW MEASURING DEVICE: 3" RG3TM30 12) TEST PUMP:TYPE: 1505250-14 460V 3PH MAKE: GRUNDFOS HORSEPOWER: 25 HP CAPACITY: GPM AT: T D H. INTAKE DEPTH: FT. I METER START 139,454 METER STOP 265,370 125,916 GALLONS TIME WATER LEVEL PUMPING TIME WATER LEVEL PUMPING RATE RATE 2:30 PM 20 FT Couldn't set @ 30 3:45 PM 167.5 FT 50 GPM gpm,too much pressure 2:45 PM 48 FT 215 GPM 3:50 PM 168 FT 50 GPM 2:50 PM 301 FT 215 GPM 3:55 PM 1685 FT 50 GPM 2:55 PM 260 FT 50 GPM 4:00 PM 164.5 FT 50 GPM 3:00 PM 223 FT 50 GPM 4:10 PM 171. FT 50 GPM 3:05 PM 207 FT 50 GPM 4:20 PM 173.5 FT 50 GPM 3:10 PM 192 FT 50 GPM 4:30 PM 1.75 FT 50 GPM 3:15 PM 182 FT 50 GPM 4:40 PM 177 FT 50 GPM 3:20 PM 174 FT 50 GPM 4:50 PM 178.5 FT 50 GPM 3:25 PM 170 FT 50 GPM 5:00 PM 180 FT 50 GPM 3:30 PM 168 FT 50 GPM 5:10 PM 240 FT 80 GPM 3:35 PM 167 FT 50 GPM 5:20 PM 260 FT 80 GPM 3:40 PM 167 FT 50 GPM 5:30 PM 273.5 FT 80 GPM 37 RECOVERY TIME WATER LEVEL PUMPING TIME PUMPING RATE RATE 5:40 PM 282 FT 80 GPM 3:05 PM 431 FT 5:50 PM 288.5 FT 80 GPM 3:10 PM 394 FT 6:00 PM 294 FT 80 GPM 3:15 PM 367 FT 6:10 PM 297.5 FT 80 GPM 3:20 PM 343 FT 6:20 PM 298 FT 80 GPM 3:25 PM 322 FT 6:30 PM 300 FT 80 GPM 3:30 PM 305 FT 6:40 PM 310 FT 80 GPM 6:50 PM 317.5 FT 80 GPM 7:00 PM 321 FT 170 GPM 7:10 PM 476 FT 141 GPM 7:20 PM 538 FT 122 GPM 7:30 PM 561 FT 114 GPM 7:40 PM 571 FT 114 GPM 7:45 PM 574 FT 114 GPM 7:50 PM 552 FT 103 GPM 8:00 PM 549 FT 105 GPM 8:10 PM 560 FT 105 GPM 8:20 PM 563 FT 104 GPM 8:30 PM 564.5 FT 103 GPM 8:40 PM 566.5 FT 103 GPM 8:50 PM 569 FT 102 GPM 9:00 PM 570 FT 101 GPM 10:00 PM 573 FT 97 GPM 11:00 PM 577.5 FT 97 GPM 12:00 AM 580 FT 93 GPM 1:00 AM 581 FT 93 GPM 2:00 AM 583.5 FT 92 GPM 3:00 AM 573 FT 87 GPM 4:00 AM 574 FT 86 GPM 5:00 AM 571 FT 86 GPM 6:00 AM 573 FT 86 GPM 7:00 AM 574 FT 86 GPM 8:00 AM 575 FT 86 GPM 9:00 AM 575 FT 85 GPM 10:00 AM 577 FT 85 GPM 11:00 AM 578 FT 85 GPM 12:00 PM 578 FT 85 GPM 1:00 PM 578 FT 85 GPM 2:00 PM 578 FT 85 GPM 3:00 PM 578 FT 85 GPM i i Pace Analy"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. ■ t Water System Number: NC - - County:' Orange Name of Water System: Hwy 86 Property 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 Street Address: Near 1317 NC 86 City: Hillsborough 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) 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: David Brown DATE: 71711 / Efl / 2 4 TIME: H] : EE , E2 Mail Results to(water system representative): Complete for Repeat, Triggered,or Additional/Confirmation Yadkin Well Company-David Brown Previous Positive Laboratory ID Number: 1908 Hamptonville Road Positive Laboratory Log Number: Hamptonville,NC 27020 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. colt 9223B RTCR/GWR = X� 2 TNTC/No Coliform Growth Found 3002 Enterococci GWR r� C 3 Turbid Culture/ No Coliform Growth Found 3028 Coliphage GWR -1� 4 Over 30 Hours Old E3013 [ Fecal Coliform TCR C 5 Improper Sample or Analysis 3001 Heterotrophic P.C.3 efu/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.3I HPC is absent,enter a"0"left of the"cfu/mL,or MPN"units;if present,enter a whole number.4Explain invalid code below in comments. Analyses Begun—DATE: 1 1 / 2 6 / 2 4 TIME: 0 6 2 4 , p m (Date as: mm/dd/yy) Analyses Completed—DATE: 1 1 / 2 7 / 2 4 TIME: 1 2 3 0 , p m (Time as: h:mm am/pm) Laboratory Log Number: 9276615900IMBIO Certified By: Jessica Mize COMMENTS: 2016 NCDEQ Public Water Supply Section F-CAR-CS-022-rev.01,8/3/2016 Pace Analy(39 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: Hwy 86 Property Sample Type: F–] Entry Point ® Non-compliance Location Where Collected: Sample Port @ Well Head Facility ID No.: (Note:Compliance sample MUST be collected at the entry point. Sample Point: __ Collection Date Collection Time Collected By: David Cave 1 1 / 2 0 / 2 4 1 2 : 4 9 , P 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 213013- ; 0.10 mg/L ; ❑ ; 1 . 1 0 0 0 mg/L : N/A -------- 1005 ; Arsenic ; 200.8 ; 0.005 mg/L ; ❑ ; 0 .0 0 7 3 mg/L : 0.010 mg/L ------------ ------ -------- ——------------ ----- 1010Barium 200.8 ; 0.400 mg/L ❑x ; mg/L ; 2.000 mg/L --'---- 1015 ; Cadmium ; 200.8 ; 0.001 mg/L ; ❑x ; mg/L 0.005 mg/L ------------ ------ ------ —---———-------- 1016 ; Calcium ; 200.7 ; 1.0 mg/L ; El ; 2 5 . 5 0 0 mg/L ; N/A -------------T---------------_-------r--------------r------------------T--------------r_ ----------________r________________ 1017 ; Chloride ; 300.0 ; 5.0 mg/L ; ❑x ; mg/L 250.0 mg/L ____T_______________________r______________r__________-_______T______________r_---_- 1020 ; Chromium 200.8 ; 0.020 mg/L ❑x ; mg/L : 0.100 mg/L ------------ ------ -------------- ——=————-------- 1022Copper 200.8 ; 0.050 mg/L ❑ ; mg/L 1.300 mg/L --'---- 1024 ; Cyanide ; 450OCN-E ; 0.050 mg/L ; ❑x ; mg/L 0.200--mg/L- ---- ----------- —---———-------- 1025 Fluoride ; 300.0 ; 0.100 mg/L ; ❑ ; 0 . 1 3 0 0 mg/L ; 4.000 mg/L ------------- ------ ——------------ 1028 ; Iron ; 200.7 ; 0.060 mg/L E ; mg/L ; 0.300 mg/L --'---- 1030 ; Lead ; 200.8 ; 0.003 mg/L ; ❑x ; mg/L 0.015 mg/L --'---- 1031 ; Magnesium ; 200.7 ; 1.0 mg/L ; El ; 7 . 5 0 0 mg/L ; N/A ____________T_______________________r--------------r------------------T______________r_------________r________________ 1032 Manganese ; 200.8 ; 0.010 mg/L ; ❑x ; mg/L 0.050 mg/L ------------ ------------- ——'———— 1035 ; Mercury 245.1 ; 0.0004 mg/L ' ❑x ; 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 Analylo 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: Hwy 86 Property Facility ID No.: Sample Point: Collection Date Collection Time 1 1 / 2 0 / 2 4 1 2 : 4 9 , P 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* (R.R.L.) i M i 1036 Nickel ; 200.8 ; 0.100 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L : N/A ------------ ------ ——'———— 1040 Nitrate ; 353.2 ; 1.00 mg/L ; 0 ; mg/L ; 10.00 mg/L ------------r-----------------------r--------------r------------------T------------r---------------r---------------- 1041 ; Nitrite ; 353.2 ; 0.10 mg/L 0 ; mg/L 1.00 mg/L ------ -------------- ——'———— ____________T_______________________r______________r____________ r___________________________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 ; 1 8 . 8 0 0 0 mg/L ; N/A ------ —————— 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 ; ❑ ; 2 . 0 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 ; ❑ 9 4 . 7 0 0 mg/L N/A --------_----T-----------------------r--------------r__________________T______________r_------________r_________________ 1925 pH ; 450OH-B ; N/A ; ❑ ; 7 . 8 0 0 0 units ; 6_ 1927 Alkalinity- -2320B- .5-8.5 ------------ ——------------ 1.0 mg/L , ----_ ❑ 1 1 9 .0 0 0 mg/L : N/A----------------- ---- _-= ----- ------'--- ---' --- ------ 1930 Total Dissolved Solids ; 2540C ; 10.0 mg/L ; ❑ ; 1 5 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: 1 1 / 2 1 / 2 4 1 1 : 2 1 , A M (Sp.cify.AM-PM) ___ __________ ANALYSES COMPLETED: 1 2 / 1 0 / 2 4 0 1 3 3 , P M (MM/DD/YY) (Specify AM or PM) Laboratory Log#: 92764998001 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 Analy*41 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: Hwy 86 Property Sample Type: ❑ Entry Point ® Special/Non-compliance Location Where Collected: Sample Port @ Well Head Facility ID No.: Sample Point: __ Collection Date Collection Time Collected By: David Cave 1 1 / 2 0 / 2 4 1 2 : 4 6 , P 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(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 12,4Tchorobenene---- --- 4 ____ 0.000mg/L _ _ ----, m 2380 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene--;--- 524.2 ...0.0005 mg/L _--- --- mg/L : _ 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 � _-----__mg/L ____0.002 mg/L ----------' --------' -- - --m 2977_ ; 1,1,_Dichloroethylene ---; 524.2 0.0005 mg/L ❑x ----- mg/L_ 0.007__m g/L -r r r___ _--__ __-�.------__------r_--__ r_____ -----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 2 7 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: 1 1 / 3 0 / 2 4 j 1 0 : 1 3 P M (MM/DD/YY) i (Specify AM_-PM) ---------------- ANALYSES COMPLETED: 1 1 / 3 0 / 2 4 1 0 : 1 3 , P M (MM/DD/YY) (Specify AM-PM) Laboratory Log#: 92764998002 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 Analy*_2 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: Hwy 86 Property Sample Type: ❑ Entry Point ® Special/Non-compliance Location Where Collected: Sample Port @ Well Head Facility ID No.: Sample Point: Collection Date Collection Time Collected By: David Cave 1 1 / 2 0 / 2 4 1 2 : 3 3 , P 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 ; Ex ; 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 Analy"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: Hwy 86 Property Facility ID No.: Sample Point: Collection Date Collection Time 1 1 / 2 0 / 2 4 1 2 : 3 3 , P 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: 1 TIME: ANALYSES BEGUN: 1 1 / 2 4 / 2 4 0 4 : 5 7 , P M ----(Specify AM-Plop r------ ------------------------------------- ---------- -------- ---------- ANALYSES COMPLETED: 1 2 / 2 0 / 2 4 0 2 4 7 , A M (MM/DD/YY) (Specify AM or PM) Laboratory Log#: 92764998003 Certified By: Jessica Mize (Print and sign name) COMMENTS: *Method 525 Benzo(a)pyrene,Endrin&Heptachlor -Analyte Recovery in the laboratory control sample was below QC limits. Results for the analytes in the associated samples may biased low. 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 Analy44 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: Hwy 86 Property Sample Type: ❑ Single Sample-Entry Point ❑ Composite Sample-Entry Point ® Special/Non-compliance Location Where Collected: Sample Port @ Well Head Facility ID No.: Collection Date Sample Point: -------T-----------------Period Date Time Collected Mail Results to(water system representative): (MM/DDnY (specify AM or PM) By F Yadkin Well Company-David Brown single or 1908 Ham tonville Road V Qtr I I / 2 0 2 4 1 2 4 I P M David Cave p - --------F - ------- --- -- F-- ------------- Hamptonville,NC 27020 2nd Qtr I M Phone#: ( 336 ) 468-4440 -------+-----------------F-----------------3rd Qtr ---------------- Fax#: ( ) —�--�-- -------+-----------------F---------------------------------- Responsible Person's email: cn 4 Qtr --�-- ' — --�—M davidbrown(a,)yadkinwell.com LABORATORY ID#: 4 2 7 0 6 ❑ SAMPLE UNSATISFACTORY ❑ RESAMPLE REQUIRED ' ' REQUIRED 'NOT DETECTED ' CONTAM I I METHOD QUANTIFIED COUNTING ' ALLOWABLE CONTAMINANT ' REPORTING LIMIT ' (i.e.<R.RL) CODE CODE (R.R.LJ (X) RESULTS* ERROR LIMIT 4002 Gross Alpha 900 3 pCi/L ; ❑x ; — pCi/L: — 1 . 7 1 ; 15 pCi/L --------------------------------------------------------- — —— 4004 ;Radon 100 pCi/L ; ❑ ; --- -- pCi/L: —_ -- ; N/A __ _T r_____________r__________—______T______________r______________---------- 4006 _ r 4006 Uranium D5174-97 0.67 pCi/L ; ❑ 1 . 9 8 pCi/L: — 0 . 0 ** ; 20.1 pCi/L _______________________r_____________r r _______r_——— --------------_—_—_—_r 4010 Combined RadiumN/A N/A N/A 1 . 6 7 pCi/L: — 0 . 8 6 ; 5 pCi/L 4020 Radium 226 903.1 1 pCi/L ; 0 _— pCi/L: — 0 . 4 1 ; 3 pCi/L __________T r____ r T r_---_ __________r___—_—_—_r 4030 Radium 228 904.0 1 pCi/L ; x❑ ; — pCi/L: _ 0 . 4 6 ; 2 pCi/L ---- ——------------ — —— 4044 Potassium 40(Total) pCi/L ; ❑ — pCi/L: --.— ; --------------- ———'— — 4100 ;Gross Beta 4 pCi/L ; ❑ _— pCi/L: --. ; 50-pCi/L- ---- ____r____ r —T r_-- _________T__________ _r 4102 ;Tritium ; 1,000 pCi/L ; ❑ --- -- pCi/L-:,-- -- 20,000 pCi/L __________T r____ r _—______T r_________________ r 4172 Strontium 89 10 pCi/L ; ❑ — pCi/L: _ N/A N/A --------- ------------------------------ — 4174 Strontium 90 2 pCi/L ; ❑ pCi/L: 8 pCi/L 4264 Iodine 131 1 pCi/L ; ❑ ; — 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: 1 1 / 2 7 / 2 4 0 1 : 1 4 , P M --------------------------------------- ------------(MM/DD/YY) (Specify AM m PM) ______________ __________ __________ ANALYSES COMPLETED: 1 2 / 1 2 / 2 4j 0 4 3 4 , P M (MM/DD/YY) i (Specify AM or PM) Laboratory Log#: 92765022001 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: 022406592 j n5 ASBESTOS ANALYSIS - Distribution System Note.All information must be supplied for wmpliance credit. Water System Number: _ - _-___ County: Orange Name of Water System: H3yy 86 Property Sample Type: ❑ Distribution(Compliance) IN Non-compliance Location Code: ___ Tap Location: Well Head Street Address:Near 1317 NC- 86 City: Hillsborough Check(4)if sample site is owned or controlled by water system. ❑ Check(q)if sample site is a daycare or a 1412 school. ❑ Collection Date Collection Time Facility ID No. (Distribution): D 01 1112012 4 1 2: 4 1, P M Sample Point: ASB (MMUDW) (SpeciyAMorP4 David Cave " Collected By: ,-:_:. W: ,......._,., .w. M .W WWW::- (Please Print) Mail Results to(water system representative): Yadkin Well -David Brown Phone#:{336 ) 374-8736 1908 Hamptonville Rd. Fax#: ( __) Hamptonville,NC 27020 Responsible Person's email: Laboratory ID#: 3 7 7 6 6 Required Contam Method Reporting Analysis Analysis Quantified Allowable ;Code Contaminant Code Limit Started Ended Detected Results 1,2 Limit R.R.L. VAc R.R.L) 1094 ASBESTOS 0.2 MFL [ Z 1 [r b � �b MFL 7 MFL Notes: ' MFL=Million Fibers per Liter> 10 um. 2 If result exceeds the allowable limit, the laboratory must report the analytical results to the State within 48 hours Laboratory Log#:O D q k9 lo59.1`0M J Certified By: 4-c— (Pnnt and sign name) COMMENTS: PACE PROJECT#92765024 F.CAR-CS-026-rev.00 8/5/2016 NCDEQ Public Water Supply Section 2016 Paae 3 Of 3 Pace Analytical Services,LLC 1377 46h Park Drive aceo Kernersville,NC 27284 (704)977-0981 Page 1 of 2 Laboratory Report Accounts Payable Report Date: 11/27/2024 Yadkin Well Company Date Received: 11/20/2024 1908 Hamptonville Road Hamptonville, NC 27020 Project: Hwy 86 Property-PFAS Pace Project No.:92765011 Sample: Sample Port @Well Head Lab ID: 92765011001 Collected: 11/20/24 12:46 Matrix: Drinking Water Method Parameters Results Units Report Limit Analyzed Qualifiers EPA 533 11CI-PF3OUdS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/2407:56 EPA 533 4:2 FTS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 6:2 FTS ND ug/L 0.0035 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 8:2 FTS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 9CI-PF3ONS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 ADONA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 HFPO-DA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/2407:56 EPA 533 NFDHA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/2407:56 EPA 533 PFBS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFDA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFHxA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFBA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFEESA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFHpS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFMBA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFMPA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFPeA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFPeS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFDoA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFHpA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFHxS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFNA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFOS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFOA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 533 PFUnA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 07:56 EPA 537.1 11 CI-PF3OUdS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/2408:29 EPA 537.1 9CI-PF3ONS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 ADONA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 HFPO-DA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/2408:29 EPA 537.1 NEtFOSAA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 NMeFOSAA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 PFBS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 PFDA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 PFHxA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 PFDoA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 PFHpA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 PFHxS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 PFNA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 PFOS ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 PFOA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 PFTeDA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 EPA 537.1 PFTrDA ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/24 08:29 Page 1 of 3 Pace Analytical Services,LLC 1377 4,, th Park Drive aceo Kernersville,NC 27284 (704)977-0981 Page 2 of 2 Sample: Sample Port.@Well Head Lab ID: 92765011001 Collected: 11/20/24 12:46 Matrix: Drinking Water Method Parameters Results Units Report Limit Analyzed Qualifiers EPA 537.1 PFUUn=A^/ ND ug/L 0.0017 11/23/2408:29 Reviewed by: Jessica A Mize 704-977-0982 jessica.mize@pacelabs.com Pace Analytical Services Ormond Beach 8 East Tower Circle,Ormond Beach, FL 32174 Montana Certification#:Cert 0074 Alaska DEC-CS/UST/LUST Nebraska Certification: NE-OS-28-14 Alabama Certification#:41320 Nevada Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity California Certification#3096 New Hampshire Certification#:2958 Colorado Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity New Jersey Certification#: FL022 Connecticut Certification M PH-0216 New York Certification#: 11608 Delaware Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity North Carolina Environmental Certificate#:667 DoD-ANAB#:ADE-3199 North Carolina Certification#: 12710 Florida Certification#: E83079 North Dakota Certification#:R-216 Georgia Certification#:955 Ohio DEP 87780 Guam Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity Oklahoma Certification#: D9947 Hawaii Certification:FL NELAC Reciprocity Pennsylvania Certification#:68-00547 Illinois Certification#:200068 Puerto Rico Certification M FL01264 Indiana Certification: FL NELAC Reciprocity South Carolina Certification:#96042001 Kansas Certification#:E-10383 Tennessee Certification#:TN02974 Kentucky Certification#:90050 Texas Certification:FL NELAC Reciprocity Louisiana Certification#: FL NELAC Reciprocity US Virgin Islands Certification:FL NELAC Reciprocity Louisiana Environmental Certificate M 05007 Utah Maine Certification#: FL01264 Utah FL NELAC Reciprocity Maryland Certification:#346 Virginia Environmental Certification#:460165 Massachusetts Certification#:M-FL1264 West Virginia Certification#:9962C Michigan Certification#:9911 Wisconsin Certification#:399079670 Mississippi Certification:FL NELAC Reciprocity Wyoming(EPA Region 8): FL NELAC Reciprocity Missouri Certification#:236 Page 2 of 3 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental Consulting I Litigation Support I Environmental Services 22 August 2025 Ms. Laura Haywood Entitlements Program Manager Forestar—Carolinas East Division VIA E-mail: LauraHaywood@forestar.com RE: Highway 86—Orange County, NC—Proposed Community Well Drawdown: Impacts to Adjacent Single Use Wells: Preliminary Ms. Haywood: Pursuant to your request, Spangler Environmental, LLC (SEL), an Earth Systems Company (ESC) have 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 adjacent wells. i Background/ambient conditions: Ambient conditions are those that are currently, typically occuring, without any new inputs. As shown in the attached Figure 1, the Waller Well is approximately 0.2 mile north/northwest of the Proposed Community Well and the South Well is approximately 0.28 mile south/southeast of the SAND EEO Proposed Community Well. Ambient data were collected at all three wells between 20 June and 22 July 2025 using Well Sounder 2010 PRO devices, which are manufactured by Eno Scientific, LLC in Hillsborough, 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 data was collected at the Waller and South Wells prior to, during and after the drawdown testing of the Proposed Community Well,which was completed between 1430 on 29 July 2025 and 1500 on 30 July 2025. Data Illustration 1 collection at the Waller and South Wells continued until 8 August 2025. www.spanglerenvironmental.com i . 866-772-6453 49 As shown on its Well Construction Record(8 November 2023), the Waller Well is 200 feet deep, with a static water depth of 25 feet below the top of the casing. As shown in the Orange County Well Report and Log(20 October 2000)the South Well is also 200 feet deep,with a static water level of 30 feet and a casing depth of 66 feet. As shown in the Yadkin Well Company's report (Appendix 1),the Proposed Community Well depth is 642 feet, its static well level is 20 feet below the top of the casing and the casing extends 2 feet above the ground surface. As shown in Graph 1, between 20 June and 23 July 2025 the South Well's static water depth below the surface ranged from 4.66 to 29.26 feet and averaged 17.69 feet. The depth to water regularly fluctuated from approximately 25 feet and approximately 29 feet below the surface between 20 June and 9 July, with a few brief spikes to 9-10 feet during that period. On 9 July 2025, between 1716 and 1721 the water surface rose from 25.04 to 8.16 and remained within 3.5 feet of this depth until 24 July,with the exception of an approximately 15.55 foot drop that lasted only approximately 30 minutes on 9 July.These two depths appear to be indicative of this well's normal variations. Graph 1: Ambient Well Data 6/20/2025-7/23/2025 Date/Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M M M M M M M 00 M M M M co M M M M r\ r` r\ 14 ,-4 ,-i .-1 C-+ v+ r-+ r 4 r H iii co co co Cl) Cl) Cl) `T 11 v 11 �T v �t �* "T a lzt M M M M Ln M Lo uo M M (c) ti -1 ti N H -1 -1 M M (o Lo Ln (o in M (o co (o (o N N N N N N N N N N N M M (c7 M (c7 M u) LO N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N O Cl O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N O .H N co 4 Lo (O f, M 8i p N N N N N N N N O ;:iN M S u7 (O r W 83 O ;:� N N N N N N N N N N co .1 N co (\ (0 \ a) � .-� � � � ti \ H H H N N M (0 M M -W � - —00 n n n r\ r` r\ r` 0 5 Q 10 a� 15 U 20 N 25 CU r 30 35 Waller Well Proposed Community Well South Well The Waller Well, on the other hand, exhibited a regular fluctuation in water depth below the surface ranging from 12.99 to 3.72 and averaging 8.61 feet between 20 June and 23 July 2025. In addition to the approximately 4.5-foot normal variation, transient fluctuations documented in the Waller Well during the monitoring period,were less than about 5 feet in excess of the normal variation. 50 Adjacent well surface elevations before,during and after drawdown: As stated above,drawdown of the proposed community well was completed between 1430 on 29 July 2025 and 1500 on 30 July 2025 (Appendix 1). Data collection at the South and Waller Wells began on 23 July and continued until 8 August 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 112 gallons per minute. The initial pump test, which was completed on 19 November 2024 showed a well yield of 84 gallons per minute (Appendix 2). As depicted in Graphs 2 and 3, no water level changes beyond the normal variations discussed above were documented in either the South Well or the Waller Well during drawdown to either maximum depth (i.e., 578 feet below the surface)or steady state withdrawal (i.e. 112 gallons/minute),as well as during the subsequent recovery period. Graph 2 Drawdown Well Data (South Well): 7/23/2025-8/8/2025 Date/Time o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° °o °o °o °o °o °o °o tiff titi titi N titi ly. titi titi titi ti. ry I/ ti. r1,. ry -Z ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� hti hti �ti �ti hti �ti �ti hti 0 o o o o o o o o ,\\T ,\\ti -P ,\\ti Asti 0 �- 20 40 60 Q 80 - a� 0 100 s a� 120 CU 140 160 180 200 Community Well Drawdown Period South Well FLAN G EFS ENVIRONMENTAL 51 Graph 3 Drawdown Well Data (Waller Well): 7/23/2025-8/8/2025 Date/Time tiff titi tiff tiff tiff titi titi y�. NVrV rV rV rill rV rV r,. �'y �'y c�ti �'y �1y c�ti �y hti \�& \ti°� °� \ti°� ,\\`L \`L \\L \\`L \\� \\3 \y '\`L 0 20 40 } 60 Q 80 CD 0 100 120 140 160 180 200 Community Well Drawdown Period Waller Well Preliminary Conclusions: As detailed above, the depth to water level within the adjacent South and Waller Wells was continuously monitored before, during and after drawdown of the Proposed Community Well. No water level changes beyond the normal variations recorded in the South and the Waller 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 Highway 86 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 Ma tti� Director: Natural Resources CANOY SURVEYING TOPOGRAPHIC - WELL ELEVATIONS 52 P-1938 1101 NC HWY 86 0 150 300 600 1154 SHONELE LANE STEM, NC 27581 HILLSBOROUGH PHONE (984) 377-2626 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SCALE: 1 300' "= Figure 1 . AERIAL IMAGERY SHOWN FROM DATA DOWNLOADED AT: https://www.nconemap.gov/ RE + p� WELL HEAD ELEV = 635.1' GROUND SHOT ELEV = 633.4' N: 858,677.89' E: 1,967,511.35' Waller Well ti 6 s ELL HEAD ELEV = 621.1' GROUNROUND SHOT ELEV = 619.0' N: 857.686.48' D 1,967.840.02' ® 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 STANDARD, AND THAT THE ORIGINAL DATA WAS OBTAINED ON 07/07/2025; THAT THE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED ON 07/09/2025; THAT CONTOURS SHOWN MAY NOT MEET THE STATED STANDARD; AND ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON 'NAD 83' AND South Well REALIZATION (2011) AND ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVD 88 GEOID 18. LID ELEV = 6637 THIS _----_ DAY OF __�__, ___. GROUND SHOT SEAL ELEV = 663.3' N: 856,373.13' ��II�II ,,������ AR4��o E: 1,968,540.38' DUSTIN A. DANIELS, PLS L-5675 ��� ��000.. ••� �o FESS/p�oao • oo� 9°o G . lo�� SEAL 0 o g L-5675 % - w • v- o S . R QooP��;�• 53 Appendix 1 AM PANG EFS ENVIRONMENTAL 54 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES j DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT GROUNDWATER SECTION P.O. BOX- RALEIGH, NC 27611 (919) 733-3221 PUMP TEST RECORD TEST CONDUCTED BY: David Lee Cave(4227-A) WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO:W24-0165 WELL[Dtt:AAQ-330 1) WELL LOCATION: NEAREST TOWN: Hwy.86 Forestar COUNTY:Orange (ROAD NO.,COMMUNITY,OR SUBDIVISION AND LOT NO.) 2) OWNER: Forestar Subdivision (NAME) (ADDRESS) 3) USE OF WELL: ( ) DOMESTIC (X) PUBLIC () INDUSTRIAL ()IRRIGATION ( )OTHER 4) WELL DEPTH: 642 FT. CASING DIAMETER: 8 IN.CASING TYPE:GALVANIZED 5) DRILLING CONTRACTOR:_YADKIN WELL COMPANY. WAS CASING GROUTED: YES 6) STATIC WELL LEVEL 20 FT. BELOW TOP OF CASING DATE MEASURED: 7/29/25 CASING IS 2 FT.ABOVE LAND SURFACE 7) WELL YIELD: 112 GPM.SPECIFIC CAPACITY GPM/FT.DD. j 8) PUMPING WATER LEVEL:578 FT,AFTER 24 HOURS AT 85 GPM 9) CLORINATION:TYPE AMOUNT: 10) TIME AND DATE: PUMP STARTED: 7/29/2025 @ 2:30 PM. PUMP STOPPED: 7/30/2025 @ 3:00 PM. 11) WATER LEVEL MEASURING DEVICE: ELECTRIC TAPE FLOW MEASURING DEVICE: 3" RG3TM30 12) TEST PUMP:TYPE: 1505250-14 460V 3PH MAKE: GRUNDFOS HORSEPOWER: 25 HP CAPACITY: GPM AT: T D H. INTAKE DEPTH: FT. I METER START 139,454 METER STOP 265,370 125,916 GALLONS TIME WATER LEVEL PUMPING TIME WATER LEVEL PUMPING RATE RATE 2:30 PM 20 FT Couldn't set @ 30 3:45 PM 167.5 FT 50 GPM gpm,too much pressure 2:45 PM 48 FT 215 GPM 3:50 PM 168 FT 50 GPM 2:50 PM 301 FT 215 GPM 3:55 PM 1685 FT 50 GPM 2:55 PM 260 FT 50 GPM 4:00 PM 164.5 FT 50 GPM 3:00 PM 223 FT 50 GPM 4:10 PM 171. FT 50 GPM 3:05 PM 207 FT 50 GPM 4:20 PM 173.5 FT 50 GPM 3:10 PM 192 FT 50 GPM 4:30 PM 1.75 FT 50 GPM 3:15 PM 182 FT 50 GPM 4:40 PM 177 FT 50 GPM 3:20 PM 174 FT 50 GPM 4:50 PM 178.5 FT 50 GPM 3:25 PM 170 FT 50 GPM 5:00 PM 180 FT 50 GPM 3:30 PM 168 FT 50 GPM 5:10 PM 240 FT 80 GPM 3:35 PM 167 FT 50 GPM 5:20 PM 260 FT 80 GPM 3:40 PM 167 FT 50 GPM 5:30 PM 273.5 FT 80 GPM 55 RECOVERY TIME WATER LEVEL PUMPING TIME PUMPING RATE RATE 5:40 PM 282 FT 80 GPM 3:05 PM 431 FT 5:50 PM 288.5 FT 80 GPM 3:10 PM 394 FT 6:00 PM 294 FT 80 GPM 3:15 PM 367 FT 6:10 PM 297.5 FT 80 GPM 3:20 PM 343 FT 6:20 PM 298 FT 80 GPM 3:25 PM 322 FT 6:30 PM 300 FT 80 GPM 3:30 PM 305 FT 6:40 PM 310 FT 80 GPM 6:50 PM 317.5 FT 80 GPM 7:00 PM 321 FT 170 GPM 7:10 PM 476 FT 141 GPM 7:20 PM 538 FT 122 GPM 7:30 PM 561 FT 114 GPM 7:40 PM 571 FT 114 GPM 7:45 PM 574 FT 114 GPM 7:50 PM 552 FT 103 GPM 8:00 PM 549 FT 105 GPM 8:10 PM 560 FT 105 GPM 8:20 PM 563 FT 104 GPM 8:30 PM 564.5 FT 103 GPM 8:40 PM 566.5 FT 103 GPM 8:50 PM 569 FT 102 GPM 9:00 PM 570 FT 101 GPM 10:00 PM 573 FT 97 GPM 11:00 PM 577.5 FT 97 GPM 12:00 AM 580 FT 93 GPM 1:00 AM 581 FT 93 GPM 2:00 AM 583.5 FT 92 GPM 3:00 AM 573 FT 87 GPM 4:00 AM 574 FT 86 GPM 5:00 AM 571 FT 86 GPM 6:00 AM 573 FT 86 GPM 7:00 AM 574 FT 86 GPM 8:00 AM 575 FT 86 GPM 9:00 AM 575 FT 85 GPM 10:00 AM 577 FT 85 GPM 11:00 AM 578 FT 85 GPM 12:00 PM 578 FT 85 GPM 1:00 PM 578 FT 85 GPM 2:00 PM 578 FT 85 GPM 3:00 PM 578 FT 85 GPM i i 56 Appendix 2 PANG EFS ENVIRONMENTAL 57 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,HEALTH,&NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ENVIROMENT MANAGEMENT GROUNDWATER SECTION P.O.BOX-RALEIGH,N.C.27611 (919)733-3221 PUMP TEST METER RECORD START:_14,784,306.0 STOP: 14,913,961.5 TOTAL:_129,655.5 GALLONS TEST CONDUCTED BY: YADKIN WELL COMPANY,INC. WELL CONSTRUCTONPERMIT NO. 1.WELLLOCATION: NEAREST TOWN: HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY: ORANGE HWY.86 PROJECT (ROAD NO.,COMMUNITY,OR SUBDIVISION,AND LOT NO). 2.OWNER: FORESTAR DEVELOPERS NAME ADDRESS 3.USE OF WELL: ( )DOMESTIC (X)PUBLIC ( )INDUSTRIAL ( )IRRIGATION ( )OTHER 4.WELL DEPTH: 642 FT. CASING DIAMTER 8 IN. CASING TYPE: GALV.STEEL S.DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Yadkin Well Company Inc. WAS CASING GROUTED? Yes 6.STATIC WATER LEVEL: 20 FT. ABOVE TOP OF CASING BELOW DATE MEASURED: 11/19/2024 CASING IS 2 FT.ABOVE LAND SURFACE 7. WELL YIELD: 84 GPM SPECIFIC CAPACITY: GPM/FT.DD 8. PUMPING WATER LEVEL: 554 FT. AFTER 24 HOURS AT 84 GPM 9.CHLORINATION TYPE 70%Calcium Hypochlorite AMOUNT 49 oz. 10.TIME AND DATE PUMP STARTED: 3:20 PM 11/19/2024 PUMP STOPPED: 3:20 PM 11/20/2024 11.WATER LEVEL MEASURING DEVICE: Electric Tape FLOW MESURING DEVICE: 3"FLOW METER 12.TEST PUMP: TYPE: Submersible MAKE: Grundfos HORSEPOWER: 25 CAPACITY 100 GPM AT 600 TDH INTAKE DEPTH 609 FT. WATER TIME WATER LEVEL PUMPING RATE TIME LEVEL PUMPING RATE 3:20 PM 20 FT 200 GPM 4:30 PM 527 FT 112 GPM 3:25 PM 280 FT 185 GPM 4:40 PM 528 FT 110 GPM 3:30 PM 372 FT 170 GPM 4:50 PM 527 FT 105 GPM 3:35 PM 426 FT 158 GPM 5:00 PM 529 FT 108 GPM 3:40 PM 461 FT 150 GPM 5:10 PM 523 FT 101 GPM 3:45 PM 488 FT 145 GPM 5:20 PM 524 FT 103 GPM 3:50 PM 512 FT 138 GPM 6:20 PM 529 FT 99 GPM 3:55 PM 508 FT 121 GPM 7:20 PM 536 FT 95 GPM 4:00 PM 515 FT 127 GPM 8:20 PM 542 FT 94 GPM 4:05 PM 523 FT 124 GPM 9:20 PM 544 FT 91 GPM 4:10 PM 526 FT 119 GPM 10:20 PM 545 FT 91 GPM 4:15 PM 525 FT 116 GPM 11:20 PM 544 FT 90 GPM 4:20 PM 525 FT 115 GPM 12:20 AM 546 FT 89 GPM 58 PUMPING TEST RECORD CONTINUED HWY 86 PROJECT RECOVERY TIME WATER LEVEL PUMPING RATE TIME SWL 1:20 AM 547 FT 87 GPM 3:25 PM 423 FT 2:20 AM 546 FT 86 GPM 3:30 PM 388 FT 3:20 AM 547 FT 86 GPM 3:35 PM 361 FT 4:20 AM 550 FT 85 GPM 3:40 PM 338 FT 5:20 AM 548 FT 84 GPM 3:45 PM 317 FT 6:20 AM 549 FT 84 GPM 3:50 PM 300 FT 7:20 AM 550 FT 84 GPM 3:55 PM 284 FT 8:20 AM 551 FT 84 GPM 4:00 PM 270 FT 9:20 AM 553 FT 84 GPM 4:05 PM 258 FT 10:20 AM 554 FT 84 GPM 4:10 PM 247 FT 11:20 AM 554 FT 84 GPM 4:15 PM 238 FT 12:20 PM 554 FT 84 GPM 4:20 PM 231 FT 1:20 PM 554 FT 84 GPM 4:30 PM 220 FT 2:20 PM 554 FT 84 GPM 4:40 PM 210 FT 3:20 PM 554 FT 84 GPM 4:50 PM 202 FT 5:00 PM 195 FT 5:10 PM 189 FT 5:20 PM 184 FT PUMP TEST PERFORMED BY: !/G� 1 2 �� f i s.STATt q 59 y. W r ROY COOPER Governor + O ELIZABETH S.BISER ' ^ , Secretary Y Qunnntmd�Y RICHARD E.ROGERS,JR. NORTH CAROLINA Director Environmental Quality September 12, 2024 Lanie Powell and Eva Brown P.O. Box 1391 Smithfield, NC 27577 Re: Preliminary Well Site Approvals Hwy 86 Property Potable Water System Water System No.: NC4068033 Orange County Dear Ms. Powell and Ms. Brown: On July 1, 2024, Melody Markert with the NC Department of Environmental Quality Public Water Supply (PWS) Section met with Tyler MacConnell and conducted a preliminary investigation of the proposed well sites listed below and shown on the attached drawing provided by the engineer. The proposed wells have been assigned Water System Facility (WSF) Identification Numbers and Sampling Point Codes as indicated below. WSF ID Sampling Description of Well Site Preliminary Latitude No. Point Code and Longitude W01 RW1 100' radius around the proposed well location 35° 06' 23.48" N (Well #1) at the preliminary coordinates, 790 06' 31.95"W located on Lot 1. W02 RW2 100' radius around the proposed well location 350 06' 9.62" N (Well #2) at the preliminary coordinates, 790 06' 21.31"W located on Lot 33. W03 RW3 100' radius around the proposed well location 35° 06' 5.63" N (Well #3) at the preliminary coordinates, 790 06' 2S.60" W located on Lot 32. This letter is provided by the PWS Section, in accordance with Rule.0305(b) of the Rules Governing Public Water Systems (15A NCAC 18C),to provide permission to drill wells at the listed sites in order to establish the quality and quantity of water and the suitability of the wells as sources for a public water system. The proposed wells must be drilled within 24 months of the date of this letter. If not drilled within this 24-month period,this Preliminary Well Site Approval letter is void and permission to drill the wells is no longer valid. To regain permission to drill the wells, PWS Section staff D E Q�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources Raleigh Regional Office 1 3800 Barrett Drive 1 Raleigh,North Carolina 27609 Npartme:nfEnvira �'r 919.791.4200 Department of Environmental Dual Lanie Powell and Eva Brown 60 Sept. 12, 2024 Page 2 must revisit the proposed sites to conduct an investigation and issue a new preliminary well site approval letter before the wells may be drilled. In addition, this"Preliminary Well Site Approval" is to acknowledge that according to the information and documentation provided,we understand that the proposed wells are located on lots so that the area within 100 feet of the wells is owned or controlled by the person supplying the water and that the supplier of water will protect the well lots from potential sources of pollution and construct landscape features for drainage and diversion of pollution as required in 15A NCAC 18C .0203(a)(1). Furthermore,we understand that Donna Crowder and David Barcal per letter dated August, 23, 2024, have determined that the proposed well locations satisfy the minimum horizontal separation distances specified in 15A NCAC 18C.0203(a)(2) and summarized in the following table: Distance ft Potential Source of Pollution 100 . From any sanitary sewage disposal system,sewer,or sewer pipe unless sewer is constructed of water main materials and joints,in which the sewer pipe shall be at least 50 feet from the well. • From buildings,mobile homes,permanent structures,animal houses or lots,cultivated areas to which chemicals are applied. • From surface water. • From a chemical or petroleum fuel underground storage tank with secondary containment. • From any other potential source of pollution not listed in this table. 200 . From a subsurface sanitary sewage treatment and disposal system designed for 3,000 or more gallons of wastewater a day,unless your well water source is a confined aquifer. 300 • From any cemetery or burial ground. 500 • From a septage disposal site. • From a chemical or petroleum fuel underground storage tank without secondary containment. • From the boundary of a ground water contamination area. • From a sanitary landfill or non-permitted non-hazardous solid waste disposal site. 1,000 . From a hazardous waste disposal site or in any location which conflicts with the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Rules cited as 15A NCAC 13A. We also understand that the owner will ensure that the lots are graded or sloped so that surface water is diverted away from the wellheads and that the wells shall not have greater than a 1 percent annual chance of flooding in accordance with 15A NCAC 18C .0203(a)(4). PWS Section"Authorization to Construct"and"Final Approval' Subsequent to well drilling and evaluating water quality and quantity(i.e., collecting and analyzing samples and performing a 24-hour well drawdown test) the owner must submit an "Application for Approval of Engineering Plans and Specifications For Water Supply Systems" to document proposed well completion (i.e., selected pump,wellhead and well house details) and associated transmission lines,treatment and/or storage facilities and other critical information about the public water system. In accordance with 15A NCAC 18C .0305(a), no construction shall be undertaken until the PWS Section issues an "Authorization to Construct" letter. In addition, in accordance with 15A NCAC 18C .0309(a),the new wells and all associated treatment, storage or transmission/distribution lines DE Q�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources Raleigh Regional Office 1 3800 Barrett Drive I Raleigh,North Carolina 27609 runuri cnr3ou"n '� 919.791.4200 Uepnriment of Emlronmantal OuBllty Lanie Powell and Eva Brown 61 Sept. 12, 2024 Page 3 shall not be placed into service until the PWS Section has issued a "Final Approval." These steps are described in the Engineering Planning and Development Guidance Document available at https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Resources/files/pws/planreview/EPD Guidance lul 2v 019 pdf Be aware that plans, specifications and reports for the new wells must be certified by a Professional Engineer. Therefore, it is recommended that a Professional Engineer or Licensed Geologist (or their designated representative) experienced in the construction of water supply wells, conduct on-site monitoring of well construction. At a minimum, certain critical phases of well construction such as installation and grouting of casing should be monitored. In many situations it may be necessary to go beyond the minimum requirements in order to protect the public health and ground water resources. Other Agency Approvals Required This PWS Section "Preliminary Well Site Approval" letter does not address other agency applicable rules and requirements pertaining to well construction and registration. Local county well construction rules and ordinances may include additional requirements. Well construction must meet the standards specified in the Well Construction Standards (15A NCAC 2C). Be aware that these rules require a permit to be obtained from the Water Quality Regional Operations Section of the Division of Water Resources before the well is constructed if it is anticipated that the new well will be part of a water system with a design capacity of 100,000 gallons per day or greater. In addition, these rules require that wells be constructed by a properly certified well driller. For more information, call 919-707-3668 or go to: https://deq..nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater- branch/ground-water-protection/well-program#largecapwell Sincerely, 6),,�6CS J Rebecca Sadosky, Ph.D., Chief Public Water Supply Section Division of Water Resources Enclosures Cc: Regional Files - PWS Section Central Files - PWS Section Orange County Health Department Cricket Corwin, E.I., MacConnell &Associates - by email David Barcal, P.E., MacConnell &Associates - by email Laura Haywood, Forestar Group - by email Donna Crowder, Forestar Group - by email D E Q�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources Raleigh Regional Office 1 3800 Barrett Drive Raleigh,North Carolina 27609 rfr,rm cnnoi van �' D.P.,1 ent of Envimnmentai Ouamy 919.791.4200 62 i 1 NOTES o SITE DATA SUMMARY PARCEL NO.: 98858)8090 4 Tom SRE NSG �.z AG �/ \ —————— I\••-�I I TOWNSHIv: HuseoOoucx / \ I WATLR SUPPLY WAlERBHED: UO END NNPROIECTED) PARCEL NO.:98658810.1) \ ZONING:AR PARCEL NO.:986598]a69 I-———— zoxwc:AR MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT AREA; {0,000 saR. LEGEND \�\ MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH: 150 fT __ \ MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE SETeaDN:MU REQUI�TONT N 20 R WIE.aImNrt mnom ——_—__ MINIMUM REQUIRED R SIGN: 2D 7 \ r^ C-----1 r_ -'-` —-'—————— MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 25 ii — apro3.w RRoruna \ WE71.11106519X: I'� \ \ \ LOT 10 L NEI DENBTIY: 42 UNI15/)9.2 AC- 0.53 UNOS/AC \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ 1 LOf 11 TOTAL UNRS: {2 LINOS s) 10031 sc ---- •� \/- RE R111"——0 REQUIRED: _R_SPACE Ml— .052(180,196 SF) \ '' `\ \' IMPEIMOU6 SU V' RFACE LIMB: 241(82).988 SF) \\ ,\armLOUTax, ✓✓ `\\`\` � \ LOT s\i Lar / / SITE OTE INVENTORY RL EGEND 3 LOT 14k\ IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS bwM 'S&2s; \ MFA`\ \' \\\\ \ ✓ / / —mum IWERMOUS SURER£ (MISA): \\ \✓'' \\\\\83114 Si\\\ /�/ I / BLDG/DRN Y PER LOT(MSUMED): 4.200 Sf smwnrtn ro'wu(xusl \ + \\,Y I / IMPETMOUS ONSOE(42 UNM): —.400 SF b8n 9F \=e1\\ / I0o Sw / RIGM-of-wnr IMPEIMOus: z96/JB . u MISC IMPERV . 2829 SF \b. PARCEL 98 ]0016 TOTA1 WPEIMOU6: {80,661 SF ZONING: ]50 NO:HI4MV A EA:\ TOTAL SRE M 3."9.02 SF(193 RC) TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERNOUs: 180,884 SF(11.0 AL)-13.9A un ow LOT 21 88111 0 15 150 ]OD 150 450 xz 1 SPACE / NO. pAIE REVBRON GMRIPiroN " —EL NO.:9865861928 \+ \ /`\ LOT 24. \ '' �) \ ) \ ZONING: \ `\ `\5\�\�\ \ I / PRWELi NNIAOER: PRgIECT ENGMEER: 7]9]e DRAWN : CHECNEOLB+: a --------- I' \ \.' s\;- 20.2021 --——————————Y 110112 \ xi9 SF ----------11 \ �" LOT 34 LOT 27 \ r--- -- ! MRR I (p b,81 SF MacCONNELL F L�„ 9665963ESC0 1 I &Associates,P.C. P PARCEL NO 201 \ b]1D SA \ 20 PMca a%GARY ORo %1uN- R Mzi313'� Z \\ ZO G M \ )r \ \ 9865961293 RAacA P.. 3a e ) \ 1ONIN0:ECS EN NOR 13VI NORTN�%ROLNA 23u0 \ 1 xR.a-,o3a T¢:16,61463- ryLINA ea,0 y \ ` '�\�\\ arJiO�!-� s865s63"lou:�� I FORESTAR GROUP,INC. 5 \ � � � 1 ZONING:ECS ( L 1 6 I ^\\\\6 UX" ` ——— —— HWY 86 PROPERTY IAT 32 \\ SF\\\\ I I I ZONING: 1M3 986585))69 PARCEL NO.' zoNlNc M ZONING M I ORANGE COUNTY,NC \ ~F I 98—EL65856N0.I I IR g \ sEtNncN PMLLL NO.: I ZONING:RR I P 6S 55)59 1 I PMCEL NO.: Y \ \ 9865853)33 _I (ZONING:M PMGa NO.: 9%59516]6 I \ ZONING:A l — , 9865951]19 —N....NO:..NO: FOR REVIEW ONLY PRaPDsOm \ r — I M SITE PLAN NOTREL SEDFOR _ CANS)wmm PRWECTNUMBER D—NG NUMBER g C23803.00 C-101 63 NOTES / 1 1__ — / SITE DATA SUMMARY // \ ————--- -——— I\ I I ZO—�" 8885879090 _ ZONMO: � TOTAL SRE MEk .Z M / I TOWNSHIP. HRISBOROUGN \/ PMCEL NO.:9865881/37 11 —CE L uO:9955590-/069 1-———— WAIEN SUPPLY wNET6H.: LOWBt ENO(UNPROTECTED) LEGEND MINZONING:Aa ZONING: i \•Z\ I MUM REQUI—UX MINIMUM REQUIKD TAI WIDTH: Im Il � _- -_N1v6uMrt.DaRaA •. -. _..._ —__——___— MINMUM REWIRED=E SlIHELN: 20 R Rcswn u[ 01 `——__— C MNIMUM REWIRED R— IM ENt SRBACK: 20 Rn6 _ ____i/,. —————\ W%MUM.TIDING HEN6R: TOG&UN- J2 UNITS \ RL1UW94 f I \.',`.y.✓1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NR DENSRY: 42 U—/78.2 AC- 0.53 UMM/AC —. aEcxunM mACE RATro REauIREO: .oze(99,se$SO P—M. .052(1..198 Sf) IMPEIMWS SURFACE UMR: Nx($2).958 S) \\ ✓ \\ =- 1 -- y i -\\\ t Y✓ /l SITE INVENTORY LEGEND \Pnore9m fico. '/A v -V v v�v 1v v v A v v Y \ lnwmx 1 \ wH \\\ IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS \ . \ ✓; ` \1 �� \\ -� \.-'' • \ \\ \\\\ )/ / H4%IMUM MPER/gU8 SURFACE MPA(MISA): 6I9.eXla ram(vn) \\ / $LDO/DINVEWAY PFA LOT(ASSWW): 4,200 m \ WmN91KN-ap YNx IMPEIMOUS MM(42 UNRS): 1)8,400 SP 298,438 m 7A29 m PPaL NO.9B750T0<16 ZONNC:NI \ Tau III—ous: 4..884 SF TOT.snE MPw 3.4se.esz m(n.z Ac) \\ ��). \ Z \ Tom PROPOS.IWERNous: 180.884 w(11.0 AC)-13.9x e8 Latitude Longdude G� . RPE-- / Site 1 36.106521 -79.108875 0 Ts HISD .o a. —E'"" Sim2 136.1026729 -79.1059203 aroyDNs \\ l N0. are —CR TION \ / - \ i y / Site 3 36.1015628 -79.1071124 dJ' Aceess Road D'LSMb$1Ta \ —1 LINO�99655961928 \\ �"'� `\1 \ `' / PROJECT I—ER: PROJECT ENGINEER: 0x CXELK.BY: � � \\ �' -' ( ��� \\\`\ -�,�� \�•,,I�`r:'�„� 1 �„/ are: �$ 9 —1 (' \ \ \\ FA > 7'7 l BWfFP ' MacCONNELL M N�o\ I &Associates,P.C. I 1 PA.6L rw.:9$6s$822o1 \ J .�� \ zoxwc:Ecs swPCAAscA0ew9ITe��IMlre,w \ ZOMNC:M - V r` \ 9895860`2ro9J µ8I66 MOMMMUANCNT1uROLxY— / ZONING:ECf .C•,066 TEL:19,q--fAK l6,ry 6,W10 10D .P40MCO9nR \ j FORESTAR GROUP,INC. § rt —CEL..: S 99659831.Y� zoxlNc:Ecs ( L 1 HWY 86 PROPERTY NO.: NO.. ZONse� MCELgeMa I p r 1 PI I L—— \ 9865957769 GARCEL No.: —————� ORANGE COUNTY,NC \ ZONING M 98658.599. —CEL B \ tOw W9L \rl - `:. fTOPOBm ME11I 9.SBSB77oa7 I I iOxINO:aR EF1M,M! _ UIa91M J [pNMC:M I P.C.NO.: �3�W I 986585$75$ I PMCEL NO.: \ \ \ M / — _ _I zoNlNc:aR g8�659E51�9 ZO6xyNG 656 FOR REVIEW ONLY WELL SITE ZON-NG:M NOCmmUCA0f61NOR PaD,IEC,NUu9ER DRnvnx6 NUu 8 E`f C23803.00 C-102 ENIN 64 P.O.Box 129 501 Cascade Pointe Lane Morrisville,NC 27560 Suite 103 Cary,NC 27513 919-467-1239 Fax 919-319-6510 MACCONNELL &ASSOCIATES,P.C. August 23,2024 Ms. Melody Markert Environmental Engineer NC DEQ-Division of Water Resources—Public Water Supply Section 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617 Re: Hwy 86 Property PIN: 9865878090 Preliminary Well Site Approval Project No: C23803.00 Dear Ms. Markert: Please find signed document indicating that the owner and applicant understand the North Carolina Rules Governing Public Water Systems (15A NCAC 18C) and have done their due diligence to ensure the proposed well site complies with all rules, drainage requirements and setbacks stated in 15A NCAC 18C. The owner will ensure that the lot is graded or sloped so that the surface water is diverted away from the wellhead and that the lot is not located within the 100-year floodplain and not subject to flooding in accordance with rule 0.203(4). The setback requirements are summarized below: Distance Potential Sources of Pollution in feet 100 • From any sanitary sewage disposal system,sewer,or sewer pipe(unless sewer is constructed of water main materials and joints, in which the sewer pipe shall be at least 50 feet from the well. • From buildings,mobile homes,permanent structures, animal house or lots,cultivated areas to which chemicals are applied. • From surface water • From chemical or petroleum fuel underground storage tank with secondary containment • From any other potential source of pollution not listed in this table 200 0 From a subsurface sanitary sewage treatment and disposal system designed for 3,000 or more gallons of wastewater a day,unless your well water source is a confined aquifer 300 • From any cemetery or burial ground 500 • From a septage disposal site • From a chemical or petroleum fuel underground storage tank without secondary containment. • From the boundary of a ground water contamination area. • From a sanitary landfill or non-permitted non-hazardous solid waste disposal site 1,000 • From a hazardous waste disposal site or in any location which conflicts with the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Rules cited in NCAC 13A 65 Owner/Representative Signature: Date: Applicant Signature: Date: 8/23/24 (David Barcal) i Orange County Health Department 66 Environmental Health Division 131 West Margaret Lane (919) 245-2360 11 ,` Unit 100 ORANGE COUNTY P.O. Box 8181 NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 WELL PERMIT Parcel Number: 9865878090 Property Description : E/S HWY 86 NORTH Application Date : 07/09/2024 Property Address : 1033-UT NC 86 N Permit Number: W24-0165 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 Applicant: Laura Haywood Owner: Wayne Honeycutt Address : 8041 Arco Coroporate Drive Suite 110 Address: Unit Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27617 Phone : (919)804-7220 Phone: (704)576-2476 Email : laurahaywood@forestar.com Email: whoneycutt@dickensmithener.com Well Type : Community Well Lot Size : 78.30 Well Class : New Sewage Disposal : On-site System PERMIT CONDITIONS Comments/Conditions : Condition Description Comment 8001 Wellhead Wellhead must meet current NC&OCHD specifications before COC may be issued. General EH General Condition A preliminary well site approval letter is required from NC DEQ prior to drilling. General Preliminary Well Site Approval for NC DEQ Well must be drilled in accordance Division on Water Resources with 15A NCAC 18C .0203 regulations regarding Public Well Water Supplies. Once completed the well will be subject to regulations outlined in 15A NCAC 18C .0300&.0400. This Permit serves as the plan required for constructing, or repairing a water well for drinking, irrigation, or geothermal installations.The Building Inspection and Planning agencies in your jurisdiction may require this Permit for your project. Wells must be constructed, repaired, and abandoned by a person who holds a valid certification from the State and in accordance with the Groundwater Protection Rules as adopted by the Orange County Board of Health.The certified contractor must have a physical copy of this Permit during the time of installation. Refer to the attached site plan showing the system and the proposed structures and other site conditions.The well siting is based on setback distances from known or planned features and does not indicate nor guarantee that the quantity or quality of water will be provided by a well constructed in that area. Any changes to the site that affects setbacks shall result in the revocation or revision of the Permit. Construction of the well outside of the permitted area may result in Denial of the Certificate of Completion. Mark property lines. ISSUED : 10/01/2024 `' ---- -- EXPIRES : 10/01/2029 Ian Olson ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST rpt_PM_0C_EH_We11Permit 2024.10 Report created:10/14/2024 12:33:20PM 67 / -- --- ----------- LOT OL, LOT/0L \ \ CQT 11 WETLANDS �\ \1/ \ \\ / \ \\ LOT 9\\ \\ 40103 5'FL 4\ 8F' 1 \ \\ \ (7T 8\ \4 \4 905 S \0070 SR \ J ,. \ � \ �T \ \ \ BUI 89T95 ////\\ \V LOT \V \\ �� 7COT 1 I / 72Sf�/ \ /43267 � LOT Y3 � t� \ \ 45275 SF�. o �• PROPOSED WELL LOCATION 1 / \ \ ,�LOT 4/ \ LOT 6 ,4V.176$F 60278 SF OF 14 \ l \59290 SF\ V ��'� /A AV A 52725 LT 2 1401 9 SF V A \\VOT 5 6ij SF\ \ �� LOT 17 \ \ \ \ ! Q \ \ 40572 SF \ \LOT 16\ \ PROPOSED SW 4¢ POND A — 40369,8E --LOT 18 0056 SF 4 50 IF � cl d = LOT 9 / 5045 IF i LOT 39 A A / LOT 21 / 1 40050 IF V A 86117 SF 1 hnG, T \ / PROPOSED MAIL - \ KIOSK \ l \ / \ %' \ CCS• SLOT 3 40050 IF LOT 20 LOT 22 r \ \\ \ 56005 SF \l \`T111595 / \ 3 Potential Well Sites ,6 fi739975F `vv 4110249E , w/100' Buffer ( ,,- ,,;- �9�835F �N, fi 36 \ \ LOT 25 \ \ — \\ 40050 SF \ 40035 IF 1 \ _ A � VNL PROPOSED WELL 1 LOT 35 \ V ,LOOT 26 1 \ LOCATION 2 \ 40050 SF \�/41050 St< \ 100' PERIME \ \' OT 34 \ \ LOT 27 \ -— - BUFFER \ 45728,F,� \ 049 SF \ PARCEL NO. \T A LOT 9865963250 PARCEL NO.: 9865 ; , �' � PARCEL N0.' ZONINZONING: ECS 862201 7127 F G: AR 9865964293 ZONING: EC5 1 J � LO 28 /q PARCEL NO.: �\651 5 SF 9865963100 CZONING ECS L �� LOT 29 56000 IF / \ ,f \40000 SF\ \ / PARCEL NO.: A LOT 31/� \ V 9865955813 J 100'PERIMETER \ \40000 F\\ \ X - I ZONING: AR BUFFER PARCEL NO � LOT 9865857769 32-\--\ � `� ZONING AR PARCEL 40298 F� 9865859888080 PARCEL 747 ZONING: AR 9865856747 AIR PARCEL NO.: \ PARCEL NO.:� I ZONING: AR I 9865858758 PARCEL NO.: 9865853733 /�� — ZONING: AR PARCEL NO.: 986595:AR ZONING: AR ZONING:165951 ZONING:AR \ Site Plan for W24-0165 1033-UT NC 86N PIN: 9865878090 Created by I. Olson OCHD 10/2/2024 10/2/24,5:49 PM about:blank 68 WPDT Screening Report Area of Interest(AOI)Information Area:15,900,506.77 ft' Oct 2 2024 17:48:34 Eastern Daylight Time 1 �a 19,028 0 Noun Carofna Pamels(Polygons)-Parcels—Secondary Rout007 —1 e County hounuery Primary R..ds a ars 015 aswm Nmystem Roads —NC no. No-ystem aa�awn,uo�.t about:blank 1/2 10/2/24,5:49 PM about:blank All North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)GIS data is expressly provided"AS IS"antl"WITH ALL FAULTS".The NCDEQ makes no warranty of any kind,express or implied,concerning this information, including but not limited to any warrenfies of merchantability or witness for any particular purpose.The NCDEQ assumes no responsibility or legal liability ming the D.W.accuracy,reliability,completeness,timeliness,or usefulness The data Is not Intended to constitute advice nor is it to be used as act substitute for specific advice from a professional.Users should not ad retain from acting)based upon information in me Data without independently verifying the Information and obtaining any necessary professional advice.Users are solely responsible for ensuring the accuracy, currency and other qualifies of any products derived from or in connection with the NCDEQ'.Data.The Data is collectetl from various sources and may be modified over time without notice to improve spatial and attribute accuracy. The NCDEQ disclaims responsibility for the spatial accuracy and attribution of GIS features and makes no warranty concerning same. about:blank 212 DEQ-PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SECTION 15P@98C.0200 SECTION .0200—LOCATION OF SOURCES OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES 15A NCAC 18C .0201 SURFACE SUPPLIES FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS (a) A surface supply may be used for a community or a non-transient, non-community water system with disinfection and without filtration if it complies with the provisions of this Section and Rule .2005 of this Subchapter. (b) Such water supply shall be derived from uninhabited wooded areas. (c) The entire watershed shall be either owned or controlled by the person supplying the water or be under the control of the federal or state government; however, no such new water supply shall be created except where the water system owner shall own in its entirety the watershed from which the water will be obtained. (d) The water after disinfection shall be of potable quality as determined by bacteriological and chemical tests performed by a certified laboratory. The presence of contaminants shall not exceed the limits set forth in Section .1500 of this Subchapter. (e) The water source shall have a WS-I classification as established by the Environmental Management Commission and shall meet the quality standards for that classification, codified in 15A NCAC 02B. Copies are available for public inspection as set forth in Rule .0102 of this Subchapter. History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-315; 130A-318; P.L. 93-523; Eff. January 1, 1977,- Readopted 977;Readopted Eff. December 5, 1977; Amended Eff. April 1, 2014;July 1, 1994; February 1, 1987; September 1, 1979; Pursuant to G.S. 150B-21.3A, rule is necessary without substantive public interest Eff. November 23, 2015. 15A NCAC 18C .0202 SURFACE SUPPLIES FROM CLASSIFIED WATERSHEDS Any surface water that is to receive treatment for removal of dissolved matter or suspended matter in order to be used for a public water system shall be obtained from a source that meets the WS-1, WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV or WS-V stream classification standards established by the Environmental Management Commission codified in 15A NCAC 02B. Copies are available for public inspection as set forth in Rule .0102(a) of this Subchapter. History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-315; 130A-318; P.L. 93-523; Eff. January 1, 1977,- Readopted 977;Readopted Eff. December 5, 1977; Amended Eff. April 1, 2014;July 1, 1994; September 1, 1990; February 1, 1987; September 1, 1979; Readopted Eff. July 1, 2019. 15A NCAC 18C .0203 PUBLIC WELL WATER SUPPLIES (a) A site or sites for a water supply well to be used as a community or non-transient, non-community water system shall be investigated by an authorized representative of the Department prior to approval. Approval by the Department is required in addition to any approval or permit issued by any other state agency. The site shall meet the following requirements at the time of approval: (1) The well shall be located on a lot so that the area within 100 feet of the well is owned or controlled by the person supplying the water. The supplier of water shall be able to protect the well lot from potential sources of pollution and to construct landscape features for drainage and diversion of pollution. (2) The minimum horizontal separation between the well and known potential sources of pollution shall be as follows: (A) 100 feet from any sanitary sewage disposal system, sewer, or a sewer pipe unless the sewer is constructed of water main materials and joints, in which case the sewer pipe shall be at least 50 feet from the well; (B) 200 feet from a subsurface sanitary sewage treatment and disposal system designed for 3000 or more gallons of wastewater a day flows, unless the well water source is from a confined aquifer; (C) 500 feet from a septage disposal site; 3 DEQ—PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SECTION 151VQ8C.0200 (D) 100 feet from buildings, mobile homes,permanent structures, animal houses or lots, or cultivated areas to which chemicals are applied; (E) 100 feet from surface water; (F) 100 feet from a chemical or petroleum fuel underground storage tank with secondary containment; (G) 500 feet from a chemical or petroleum fuel underground storage tank without secondary containment; (H) 500 feet from the boundary of a ground water contamination area; (I) 500 feet from a sanitary landfill or non-permitted non-hazardous solid waste disposal site; (J) 1000 feet from a hazardous waste disposal site or in any location that conflicts with the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Rules cited as 15A NCAC 13A; (K) 300 feet from a cemetery or burial ground;and (L) 100 feet from any other potential source of pollution. (3) The Department may require greater separation distances or impose other protective measures if necessary to protect the well from pollution,taking into consideration factors such as: (A) the hazard or health risk associated with the source of pollution; (B) the proximity of the potential source to the well; (C) the type of material, facility, or circumstance that poses the source or potential source of pollution; (D) the volume or size of the source or potential source of pollution; (E) hydrogeological features of the site that could affect the movement of contaminants to the source water; (F) the effect that well operation might have on the movement of contamination;and (G) the feasibility of providing additional separation distances or protective measures. (4) The lot shall be graded or sloped so that surface water is diverted away from the wellhead. The well shall not have greater than a one percent annual chance of flooding. (5) If a supplier of water demonstrates that it is impracticable, taking into consideration feasibility and cost, to locate water from any other approved source and an existing well can no longer provide water that meets the requirements of this Subchapter, a representative of the Division may approve a variance for a smaller well lot and reduced separation distances to meet existing demands. Additional monitoring under this Part or other conditions shall be imposed if necessary to mitigate the increased risk from the variance. (b) The Division of Water Resources may grant a variance from the minimum horizontal separation distances for public water supply wells set out in Parts (a)(2)(D) and(E) of this Rule. (1) Such variance shall require the following findings: (A) the well supplies water to a non-community water system as defined in G.S. 130A- 313(10)(b) or supplies water to a business or institution, such as a school, that has become a non-community water system through an increase in the number of people served by the well; (B) it is impracticable, taking into consideration feasibility and cost, for the public water system to comply with the minimum horizontal separation distance set out in Parts (a)(2)(D) and (E) of this Rule; (C) there is no reasonable alternative source of drinking water available to the public water supply system and; (D) the granting of the variance will not result in an unreasonable risk to public health. (2) Such variance shall require that the non-community public water supply well meet the following requirements: (A) the well shall comply with the minimum horizontal separation distances set out in Parts (a)(2)(D) and(E)of this Rule to the maximum extent practicable; (B) the well shall meet a minimum horizontal separation distance of 25 feet from a building, mobile home, or other permanent structure that is not used primarily to house animals; (C) the well shall meet a minimum horizontal separation distance of 100 feet from any animal house or feedlot and from cultivated areas to which chemicals are applied; (D) the well shall meet a minimum horizontal separation distance of 50 feet from surface water; 4 DEQ-PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SECTION 151V18C.0200 and (E) the well shall comply with all other requirements for public well water supplies set out in Paragraph(a) of this Rule. History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-315; 130A-318; P.L. 93-523; S.L. 2011-394; Eff. January 1, 1977; Readopted Eff. December 5, 1977; Amended Eff. July 7, 2014;July 1, 1994; September 1, 1990; September 1, 1979; Readopted Eff. July 1, 2019. 5 72 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: Highway 86N, Hillsborough, Orange County, NC. (HWY86 Subdivision is a 49-lot) 3531 NC 54 W Chapel Hill, Orange County, NC (Rigsbee Subdivision is 43-lot) HWY86 Subdivision is a 49-lot will be serviced every Friday(we will provide 96 gallon trash cans, per address) 531 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 73 From: Matthew Taylor To: Danielle Cabral Cc: Robert Williams;Bruce Woodv, Lee Cloer Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: Hwy 86-Will Serve Letter Date: Thursday,April 24,2025 10:11:44 AM Attachments: image001png imaae002.p_ng image003.png imaae004.pnng L©-A Good morning Danielle, Based on the dimensions of the site plan for the subdivision, the road dimensions and cul de sac dimensions seem to be acceptable for our collection trucks to access safely and to be able to turn around and exit the subdivision. When it comes time for occupancy of these lots/homes, the residents or the HOA, however it's going to be handled, will just need to reach out to OC Solid Waste and request a recycling cart for the home and we will get them on the schedule to be delivered. Thanks, /ffatt Tge,- Environmental Enforcement Supervisor Orange County Solid Waste Management 1207 Eubanks Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (0): 919-918-4905 mtaylor@orangecountync.gov From: Danielle Cabral <danielle.cabral@bowman.com> Sent:Thursday, April 24, 2025 9:16 AM To: Matthew Taylor<mtaylor@orangecountync.gov> Cc: Robert Williams <rowilliams@orangecountync.gov>; Bruce Woody <bwoody@orangecountync.gov>; Lee Cloer<Icloer@orangecountync.gov> Subject: RE: Hwy 86 -Will Serve Letter CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Phish Alert Button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home Good morning Mathew, Thanks for clarifying that! I was wondering if you could confirm that Orange County will serve this subdivision, or if it will have to be private. We are proposing a 49-lot single family subdivision. Please contact me if you need more information. 74 Thanks for replaying so quickly. I appreciate your time and help! Thank you, DANIELLE CABRAL Engineer II, Civil BOWMAN 0: (919) 553-6570 D: (984) 833-0860 danielle.cabral(ftowman.com I bowman.com From: Matthew Taylor<mtaylor(@orangecountync.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 12:06 PM To: Danielle Cabral <danielle.cabraIPbowman.com> Cc: Robert Williams <rowilliams(@orangecountync.gov>; Bruce Woody <bwoody(@orangecountync.gov>; Lee Cloer<Icloer(@orangecountync.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hwy 86-Will Serve Letter Good morning Danielle, I was forwarded your message regarding the Will Serve Letter for the HWY 86 N subdivision. Will Serve Letters are typically only required to be provided when using a private waste hauler. If this subdivision is going to be served by Orange County Solid Waste Management for recycling collection, a will serve letter shouldn't be required. If the review team is still asking for one or if you would like to discuss any other concerns you might have, please feel free to give me a call or shoot me an email directly and I'll be glad to speak on this further. Thanks, Iffatt Fag& Environmental Enforcement Supervisor Orange County Solid Waste Management 1207 Eubanks Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (0): 919-918-4905 mtaylor(&orangecountync.gov From: Bruce Woody<bwood)1(aDorangecountync.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 10:40 AM To: Matthew Taylor<mtaylor(@orangecountync.gov> Cc: Robert Williams <rowilliams(@orangecountync.gov> Subject: FW: Hwy 86 -Will Serve Letter Matt, Gm 75 Let's discuss this please, thanl<you, Woody From: Danielle Cabral <danielle.cabralfbowman.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 8:32:11 AM To: Lee Cloer<Icloer(d)orangecountync.gov> Cc: Laura Haywood <LauraHaywood(@forestar.com>; Donna Crowder <DonnaCrowderPforestar.com>; Donald Sever<donald.severPbowman.com> Subject: Hwy 86 -Will Serve Letter CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Phish Alert Button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home Good morning Lee, We are proposing a 49-lot subdivision located at Hwy 86N, Hillsborough, NC 27278. The proposed community is not annexing to Hillsborough, but it is in the Orange County jurisdiction. We are applyingfor conditional rezoning, and we need to confirm the proposed solid waste disposable services. Could you please provide a will serve letter? Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. ThanI<you, DANIELLE CABRAL Engineer II, Civil I BOWMAN 4006 Barrett Dr, STE 104, Raleigh, NC 27609 O: (919) SS3-6S70 I D: (984) 833-0860 danielle.cabralPbowman.com I bowman.com 76 A BOLTON O LTO N 418 S Dawson Street Raleigh, NC 27596 & MENK Ph: (919) 719-1800 Real People. Real Solutions, Bolton-Menk.com March 4, 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: Highway 86 Subdivision Orange County,North Carolina Subject: Trip Generation&Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Dear Mr. Edwards: This letter provides the trip generation potential for the proposed Highway 86 residential development to be located along Highway 86 in Orange County, North Carolina. This memorandum has been prepared to assess the trip generation potential for the proposed development which is assumed to consist of a maximum of 49 single-family detached homes. Site access is proposed via two (2) full-movement driveways along Highway 86. In addition to providing the trip generation information for the site, this letter summarizes if any turn lane warrants are met at the proposed driveways 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 letter also analyzes traffic conditions with the proposed development built-out during the weekday AM and PM peak hours at the proposed driveways along Highway 86. A copy of the preliminary site plan has been attached for your reference. I 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. Trip Generation The proposed development is assumed to consist of a maximum of 49 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, on the following page, provides a summary of the trip generation potential for the proposed development. Bolton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. 77 Table 1: Trip Generation Summary Daily Weekday AM Weekday PM Land Use Density Traffic Peak Hour Peak Hour (ITE Code) —Trips (v h) Trips (v h) (vpd) Enter Exit Enter Exit Single-Family Detached Housing 49 Units 524 10 29 32 19 (210) It is estimated that the proposed development will generate approximately 524 total site trips on the roadway network during a typical 24-hour weekday period. Of the daily traffic volume, it is anticipated that 39 trips (10 entering and 29 exiting)will occur during the weekday AM peak hour and 51 trips (32 entering and 19 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 Anal Turn lanes were considered at the proposed driveways 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 Highway 86 were determined based on 24-hour tube counts conducted in the vicinity of the site along Highway 86,in January of 2025 by Burns Service Inc. (BSI) during a typical weekday while schools were in session. It should be noted that the AM peak hour volumes reported were slightly outside of the typical weekday AM(7:00 AM-9:00 AM) peak period and the PM peak hour volumes reported were outside of the typical weekday PM(4:00 PM-6:00 PM) peak period. Although the peak hour volumes reported were outside of the typical peak periods,they were utilized as they provide a conservative analysis at the proposed driveways when traffic volumes along Highway 86 are at their highest. Refer to the attachments for an illustration of the existing peak hour traffic volumes along Highway 86 in the vicinity of the site. A copy of the count data has been attached for your reference. 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 overall site trips will be regionally distributed as follows: • 40% to/from the north via Highway 86 • 60% to/from the south via Highway 86 Refer to the attachments for an illustration of the site trip distribution and site trip assignment at the proposed driveways. 2 Bolton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. 78 To estimate traffic conditions with the site built-out, the total site trips were added to the existing traffic volumes along Highway 86 to determine the build traffic volumes. Refer to the attachments for an illustration of the build peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed site fully developed. Based on the NCDOT turn lane warrant methodology,turn lanes were not warranted for either of the proposed driveways along Highway 86. Refer to the attachments for the Turn Lane Warrant Charts for the proposed driveways. Analysis Capacity analysis of the proposed driveways was completed according to NCDOT Congestion Management Guidelines. Build traffic is comprised of the existing traffic from the count data and the proposed site trips. The proposed northernmost unsignalized intersection of Highway 86 and Site Drive 1 was analyzed under build traffic conditions with the lane configurations and traffic control shown in Table 2.Refer to the attachments for the Synchro capacity analysis and SimTraffic queueing reports. Table 2: Analysis Summary of Highway 86 and Site Drive 1 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 C (seconds) (seconds) H WB 1 LT-RT B2 C2 Build NB 1 TH-RT -- N/A -- N/A SB 1 LT-RT Al Al 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 at the proposed intersection of Highway 86 and Site Drive 1 are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.SimTraffic reports indicate the maximum queues for the westbound approach are not expected to exceed 46 feet during either peak hour. 3 Botton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. 79 The proposed southernmost unsignalized intersection of Highway 86 and Site Drive 2 was analyzed under build traffic conditions with the lane configurations and traffic control shown in Table 3.Refer to the attachments for the Synchro capacity analysis and SimTraffic queueing reports. Table 3: Analysis Summa of Highway 86 and Site Drive 2 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 C (seconds) (seconds) H WB 1 LT-RT C2 Cz Build NB 1 TH-RT -- N/A -- N/A SB 1 LT-RT Al Al 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 at the proposed intersection of Highway 86 and Site Drive 2 are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.SimTraffic reports indicate the maximum queues for the westbound approach are not expected to exceed 33 feet during either peak hour. II 4 Bolton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. 80 Conclusion The proposed Highway 86 Subdivision development was reviewed to determine the trip generation potential for the site,the need for turn lanes into the proposed driveways,and expected capacity analysis at the proposed driveways. 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 either of the proposed driveways along Highway 86. Additionally, capacity analysis indicates that the proposed driveways are 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. ��11111111//�� •CAR 0 /// a SEAL 7- 039261 039251T. �ii�s' •'1;Q1NE������ /1A 1110�� 3/4/2025 Joshua Reinke,PE Traffic Project Manager Attachments: Preliminary Site Plan Existing Peak Hour Traffic Figure Site Trip Distribution Figure Site Trip Assignment Figure Build Peak Hour Traffic Figure Count Data Turn Lane Warrant Charts Synchro Capacity Analysis Reports SimTraffic Queueing Reports 5 Bolton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. 81 LEGEND. o�- o _ onaoa�roATA 11CNIYI.4P a� ®CPDI SPACE yy N•\Y� i� eWSW� Iar NNZ — too -------------- ------------ D w�� I GRAPHIC SCALE '.. nor rtwt'z bW<8 Iatndc In Call before you you dig. I �.�.I Sie 1 36.106521 -79.108875 y G3,0 82 m cn d+ 1 1 0 m 86 LEGEND Weekday AM / PM Peak X / Y ---00- Hour Traffic (in the vicinity of the site) BO LTO N Hi hwa 86 Subdivision Existing Peak Hour g Y Traffic (2025) & MEN K Orange County, NC Real People. Real Solutions. Scale:Not to scale Figure 83 40% 0 0 (30%) 1 (30%) Site 1 Drive 1 0 0 86 SITE 8-0 �00 CD (10%) Site 1 � Drive 2 CD C) LEGEND OUnsignalized Intersection 60% X% --► Entering Trip Distribution (Y%)---* Exiting Trip Distribution �% ----► Regional Trip Distribution BOLTON Highway 86 Subdivision Site Trip & M E N K Orange County, NC Distribution Real People. Real Solutions. Scale:Not to Scale Figure 84 O 1 � �9/6 Site fll� Drive 1 N O m m 86 SITE 3/2 1 9/6 Site 1 � Drive 2 O LEGEND OUnsignalized Intersection X/ Y --� Weekday AM / PM Peak Hour Site Trips BO LTO N Hi hway 86 Subdivision Site Trip g & M E N K Orange County, NC Assignment Real People. Real Solutions. Scale:Not to Scale Figure 85 0 m � o U-) m +-8/5 Site 1 � Drive 1 C31\ o � m 0 m 86 SITE m co m CO +-3/2 9/6 Site 1 � Drive 2 � m 0 m LEGEND OUnsignalized Intersection X/ Y--♦ Weekday AM/ PM Peak Hour Traffic 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. BO LTO N Hiwa g �'h 86 Subdivision Build Peak& MEN K Orange County, NC Hour Traffic Real People. Real Solutions. Scale: Not to Scale Figure 86 Ogrrsic9/0.18.1/14's029)7 OtbnBntrrs14// U1-30'r.nt' 13/11803( Sq AU[dvdgOgi u0-5-3-013 C' hx UdgHDM Unk I d Qdoncp REtcxC's19 Stdre'x+/0.17.1/14 Tnts[.9 Gvx75 Knb'dnn9 Gv x 75 Southbound Northbound Total Volume Volume Volume 00:00-00:59 14 20 56 01:00-01:59 07 8 27 02:00-02:59 01 7 20 03:00-03:59 14 00 36 04:00-04:59 51 03 76 05:00-05:59 047 48 217 06:00-06:59 3// 003 514 07:00-07:59 412 132 766 08:00-08:59 255 107 584 09:00-09:59 216 111 549 10:00-10:59 222 143 587 11:00-11:59 230 2/2 644 12:00-12:59 218 214 654 13:00-13:59 20/ 222 643 14:00-14:59 237 213 672 15:00-15:59 16/ 36/ 740 16:00-16:59 187 4/3 802 17:00-17:59 208 405 835 18:00-18:59 116 284 622 19:00-19:59 022 127 371 20:00-20:59 0// 102 313 21:00-21:59 66 037 225 22:00-22:59 36 77 135 23:00-23:59 11 47 80 Totals 5070 5098 10168 AM Peak Time 6:47-07:46 0:58-11:57 6:59-07:58 AM Peak Volume 543 304 767 PM Peak Time 3:44-14:43 6:41 -17:40 6:41 -17:40 PM Peak Volume 357 1 567 879 BgTrdq-[At grr[NrrdCc[ud[DI '[k'$bgl drrs[Cnbt I drfg[Sq EfibUWv dgOgi C's[Gvx 75-aao O'f d 0 87 Highway 86 Subdivision -Orange County, NC TURN LANE STORAGE WARRANTS 1800 Warrant for Left and Right-Turn Lanes AT GRADE, UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 1600Right Turn Storage Lengths are based on opposing volume of 100 VPH (MINIMUM) o S=STORAGE LENGTH REQUIRED 0 14OD p cn IT- m m CL 1200 y .�. n. O W .� R, J O ` � n C7 soo v Z `^ in o ON X o CL Sao s O v o 400 Q' x 200S —1 Kti O AS >OK 7�s 14 ��O dS0 300 3S0 Q00�4Sp 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 V:LEFTTURNING VOLUME(VPH) Note: Where adjacent signalization may provide opportunities for VaRIGHT 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: Highway 86 and Site Drive 1 (northern access) / Turning Volume Approach SCENARIO Movement Turn Lane Opposing Volume Symbol (VR/VL) (VA/Vo) AM Build SBL Left 3 307 AM Build NBR Right 3 100 PM Build SBL Left 10 569 PM Build NBR Right 10 100 88 Highway 86 Subdivision - Orange County, NC TURN LANE STORAGE WARRANTS 1800 Warrant for Left and Right-Turn Lanes AT GRADE, UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 9600 Right Turn Storage Lengths are based on opposing volume of 100 VPH (MINIMUM) o S=STORAGE LENGTH REQUIRED '1400 O CL 9200 .r n W M 9000 J O � n z800 w tlf z O o 0. 6001— CL O o > 400 A Z cn' U1 200 ,p tSs SAO s`) S S . O �S 7sO j c�0 c�SO 300 'iS0 900 4S0 S O 0 50 900 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 v:LEFT TURNING VOLUME (VPH) Note: Where adjacent signalization may provide opportunities for VaRIGHT TURNING VOLUME(VPH) gaps in the traffic stream a reduction in the above storage values can be considered on a case by case basis. INTERSECTION: Highway 86 and Site Drive 2 (southern access) / Turning Volume Approach SCENARIO Movement Turn Lane Opposing Volume Symbol MM) Opposing AM Build SBL Left 1 307 AM Build NBR Right 3 100 PM Build SBL Left 3 577 PM Build NBR Right 9 100 89 HCM 6th TWSC Build 1: Highway 86 & Site Drive 1 Timing Plan:AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T +T Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 8 307 4 4 544 Future Vol,veh/h 9 8 307 4 4 544 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free 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 10 9 341 4 4 604 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 955 343 0 0 345 0 Stage 1 343 - - - - - Stage 2 612 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 287 700 1214 - Stage 1 719 - - Stage 2 541 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 286 700 - - 1214 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 286 - - - Stage 1 719 - Stage 2 538 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 14.5 0 0.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 396 1214 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.048 0.004 HCM Control Delay(s) - 14.5 8 0 HCM Lane LOS - B A A HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) - 0.1 0 - Highway 86 Subdivision-Orange County,NC Synchro 11 Report Bolton&Menk Page 1 90 HCM 6th TWSC Build 2: Highway 86 & Site Drive 2 Timing Plan:AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T +T Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 4 307 4 4 552 Future Vol,veh/h 9 4 307 4 4 552 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free 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 10 4 341 4 4 613 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 964 343 0 0 345 0 Stage 1 343 - - - - - Stage 2 621 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 283 700 1214 - Stage 1 719 - - Stage 2 536 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 282 700 1214 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 282 - - Stage 1 719 Stage 2 533 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 15.9 0 0.1 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnl SBL SBT Capacity(vehlh) 345 1214 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 0.004 HCM Control Delay(s) 15.9 8 0 HCM Lane LOS C A A HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - Highway 86 Subdivision-Orange County,NC Synchro 11 Report Bolton&Menk Page 2 91 HCM 6th TWSC Build 1: Highway 86 & Site Drive 1 Timing Plan:PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T+ +' Traffic Vol,veh/h 6 5 569 10 10 360 Future Vol,veh/h 6 5 569 10 10 360 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free 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 6 632 11 11 400 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1060 638 0 0 643 0 Stage 1 638 - - - - - Stage 2 422 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 248 477 942 Stage 1 526 - - Stage 2 662 - - Platoon blocked,% - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 244 477 - 942 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 244 - - Stage 1 526 - Stage 2 652 - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 16.9 0 0.2 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 314 942 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 0.012 HCM Control Delay(s) - 16.9 8.9 0 HCM Lane LOS C A A HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - Highway 86 Subdivision-Orange County, NC Synchro 11 Report Bolton&Menk Page 1 92 HCM 6th TWSC Build 2: Highway 86 & Site Drive 2 Timing Plan;PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 0.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T +T Traffic Vol,veh/h 6 4 577 9 4 363 Future Vol,veh/h 6 4 577 9 4 363 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free 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 4 641 10 4 403 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1057 646 0 0 651 0 Stage 1 646 - - - - - Stage 2 411 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 249 472 935 Stage 1 522 - - - Stage 2 669 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 248 472 935 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 248 - - Stage 1 522 - - - Stage 2 665 - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 17,2 0 0.1 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnl SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 306 935 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0,036 0.005 HCM Control Delay(s) - 17.2 8.9 0 HCM Lane LOS C A A HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - Highway 86 Subdivision-Orange County, NC Synchro 11 Report Bolton&Menk Page 2 93 Queuing and Blocking Report Build AM Peak Hour Intersection: 1: Highway 86 & Site Drive 1 Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue(ft) 46 21 Average Queue(ft) 15 1 95th Queue(ft) 42 11 Link Distance(ft) 992 1062 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 2: Highway 86 & Site Drive 2 Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue(ft) 33 34 Average Queue(ft) 11 2 95th Queue(ft) 35 16 Link Distance(ft) 990 1565 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty,0 Highway 86 Subdivision-Orange County, NC SimTraffic Report Bolton&Menk Page 1 94 Queuing and Blocking Report Budd PM Peak Hour Intersection: 1: Highway 86 & Site Drive 1 Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue(ft) 38 58 Average Queue(ft) 9 5 95th Queue(ft) 33 29 Link Distance(ft) 992 1062 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 2: Highway 86 & Site Drive 2 Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue(ft) 33 44 Average Queue(ft) 8 3 95th Queue(ft) 29 24 Link Distance(ft) 990 1565 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty:0 Highway 86 Subdivision-Orange County,NC SimTraffic Report Bolton&Menk Page 1 95 N N OF- ..COLEMANLOOP RD S/, 5] [LLY E _ _ �L GRID N 85g—C' G11 88 1 ROCKY i`.G2' F w R y BURKFRKE FRD S g W NC Grid-NAD 8' (2011) 1 ` VICINITY MAP(NOT TO SCALE) o GENERAL NOTES N�" Z w 1. THIS IS A TOPOGRAPHIC SIRWE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SHOWING SORT DISTANCE. z N 2 BOUNDARY UNES ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO MEET NC BOARD STANDARDS FOR THIS 510xE Q 00 SURVEY. W J Ln ? AERIAL IMAGERY FOR REPERENCE ONLY DOWNLOADED FROM: _ P \ r hltpa://evperlence.arc9la.com/mperlance/e121a8d083914%tod9]42591a625621/ /00 W C W oo RVEnNG coN',Re " LINEANDSYMBOLLEBEND 1AILGRID N. FD _�...0 W W GRID E 196T/05 00 RIF PBaPFRtt uN[ LLJ &97 ABBREVIATION LEGEND O L't (n z ' xAF NowA P oRcw7cRLv < — -7o °x U W \\ z a 0 116 U Eh I � N j• _ �_. �• rOD Z z Q® =\ '0)U SOC wp � f� } z00N0 Z Mg �No.SUR nNG ooa�R, ,. S-D R 25 ro W 155, z rn 3 GRID E 96 2 i. C7 #0 K64 3g _ yLL z1 w 0 'RF I CERTIFY THAT THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED UNDER MY SUPERVISION J FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION;THAT THIS i 2 GROUND SURVEY WAS PERFORMED AT THE 95%CONFIDENCE LEVEL TO MEET FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE STANDARDS;THAT THIS � d 4, SURVEY WAS PERFORMED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A f : T W .�r _ TOPOGRAPHIC/PLANIMETRIC SURVEY TO THE ACCURACY OF CLASS A STANDARDSTANDARD �. 07/19/2V. CONTOURS Preliminary s COO RDINA' .'� c ALL EI-EVA 5A �'� D N:855224,47 ACCURACY:0.10' THS— Not for recordation,Sales or conveyance :EALTIME NENJORK(VRS) SEAL 9/2024 T '.�_ Not to be used for construction purposes NATESVSTEM v, it, t 1. , IOLUSED: ,l -- CQRSKNC PI C.E.— AM SE& = ADAM R.CANDY,PLS L-5276 ]) GEIOD MODEL:GEIOD 16 �.� L-5276 , 8j UNITOFMEASUREMENT:U.S.SURVEVFOOT •yA� 9)ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERRORAT95% •'UOUR CONFIDENCE LEVEL USED TO CHECK CCURACY Err_ M R.cP ua 1 / 1 SCALE:1'=250' 96 From: Edwards,Charles N To: Joshua Reinke Cc: Donald Sever;Danielle Cabral; Laura Haywood; Don naCrowder(oforestar.com;adam.canov(abcanovsurveyino.com; Allison Wise;Genwright,David I;Cy Stober; Patrick R. Mallett;Taylor Perschau;Ashley E.Moncado Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: [External]Highway 86 Subdivision-Trip Generation Date: Tuesday,September 23,2025 6:49:12 AM Attachments: image001.png image002.ong imaoe003.png imaae004.pno NC HWY 86 sight distance survey.odf Received. District staff will review and provide a response soon. I request that the proposed access locations be staked in the field to facilitate a site visit and evaluation by NCDOT. I'm copying our local government partners for their awareness and input. Please note our new office phone number below. C. N. Edwards Jr., PE (Chuck) District Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways Division 7, District 1 (336)290-0250 cnedwards(d)ncdot.gov 115 East Crescent Square Drive P. O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 f {r From:Joshua Reinke <joshua.rein ke@bolton-menk.com> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 1:17 PM To: Edwards, Charles N <cnedwards@ncdot.gov> Cc: Donald Sever<donald.sever@bowman.com>; danielle.cabral@bowman.com; Laura Haywood <laurahaywood@forestar.com>; DonnaCrowder@forestar.com; adam.canoy@canoysurveying.com; Allison Wise <allison.wise@bolton-menk.com> Subject: RE: [External] Highway 86 Subdivision -Trip Generation CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab. Chuck— 97 The survey and design teams for the Highway 86 project did a field visit to explore the sight distance. Their findings are provided below and attached. Please let us know how that would impact the driveway design. Since the sight distance minimums are met,would full access be acceptable? Also, with the majority of traffic coming from the south,would turn lanes be required? The sight distance for a 50 mph roadway is 551'looking right and 478'looking left. This is based on the formula 1.47 x seconds x Design speed. Seconds is 7.5 for looking right,and 6.5 for looking left. At the northern driveway we have 1028' (551'required),and 898'(478' required). For the southern driveway, looking right we have 551' (551'required),and 813'(478' required). Thanks, Joshua Reinke, PE (NC) Traffic Senior Project Manager Bolton & Menk, Inc. n (864)887-3905 From: Edwards, Charles N <cnedwards(@ncdot.gov> Sent:Thursday, January 16, 2025 3:20 PM To: Allison Wise<allison.wise(@bolton-menk.com>; Lineberger, Nicholas C <nclineberger(@ncdot.gov>;pmallett(@orangecountync.gov; cstoberccDorangecountync.gov; tperschau(@orangecountync.gov Cc:Joshua Reinke<ioshua.reinke(@bolton-menk.com>; Donald Sever<donald.sever(@bowman.com> Subject: RE: [External] Highway 86 Subdivision -Trip Generation I have reviewed the information provided and offer the comments below. PermlttlnE. Prior to performing work in the NCDOT right of way, the applicant will need to obtain the following: • Approved NCDOT Driveway Permit • Approved NCDOT 3-party encroachment agreement for any proposed/stipulated water and sewer or sidewalk construction Trip Generation and Traffic Impacts: Based on the information provided, the proposed development consists of a 42-lot single family residential subdivision. The site is expected generate approximately 454 daily trips at full buildout. NCDOT threshold to require formal TIA submittal is not satisfied. The proposed accesses and adjacent road network is expected to operate acceptably with no capacity improvements warranted per NCDOT guidelines. The local jurisdiction may have additional requirements. Refer to comments regarding intersection sight lines below. Intersection Sight Distance: Based on a field assessment, there are concerns that acceptable time gaps and associated minimum intersection sight distances are not achieved at the proposed site accesses.The applicant will need to 98 assess further relative to NCDOT and AASHTO requirements and provide detailed engineering exhibits to NCDOT for review. Modification of access locations and/or additional mitigations may be needed if minimum sight distance requirements cannot be met along the property frontage. Internal Streets: Internal streets are designate a Public and must comply with NCDOT minimum design and construction standards. C. N. Edwards Jr., PE (Chuck) District Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways Division 7, District 1 336 570 6833 cnedwardsnncdot.gov 115 East Crescent Square Drive P. O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 From:Allison Wise <allison.wisePbolton-menk.com> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2025 11:23 AM To: Lineberger, Nicholas C<nclineberger(@ncdot.gov>; Edwards, Charles N <cnedwardsPncdot.gov>; pmallettPorangecountync.gov; cstoberl@orangecountync.gov; tberschaul@orangecountync.gov Cc:Joshua Reinke<ioshua.rein l<el@bolton-menk.com> Subject: [External] Highway 86 Subdivision -Trip Generation You don't often get email from allison.wise&bolton-menk.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab. All— We have been contacted to perform the traffic services for a proposed residential development to be located along Highway 86 in Orange County, NC.The proposed development is assumed to consist of a maximum of 42 single-family detached homes.Site access is proposed via two(2)full-movement driveways along Highway 86.A copy of the preliminary site plan has been attached for your reference. See below for the trip generation potential for the proposed development. 99 Proposed Trip Generation: Average weekday daily,AM peak hour,and PM peak hour trips for the proposed development were estimated using methodology contained within the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Proposed Trip Generation Summary Land Use Daily Weekday AM Peak Weekday PM Peak (ITE Code) Intensity Traffic Hour Trips (vph) Hour Trips (vph) (vpd) Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Single-Family Detached Housing 42 Units 454 8 26 34 28 16 44 (210) It should be noted that the daily traffic is below the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)threshold used in consideration of a TIA(3,000 daily trips)and the Orange County's(County) Unified Development Ordinance(UDO)thresholds to require a TIA(80 dwelling units or more than 800 daily trips). Please let us know if you agree that a TIA will not be required for the proposed development and if anything else should be included in the trip generation letter to follow. If there are any questions or concerns,we can schedule a time to discuss this week or next week. Thanks, Allison Wise Transportation Engineering Technician Bolton & Menk, Inc. 418 S Dawson Street Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: 919-719-1800 ext. 4352 www.Bolton-Menk.com Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C.Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C.Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. 100 Construction Schedule-Hwy 86 Subdivision Development Start Date February 2027 First Lot Delivery-April 2028 First Home Sates (Assumed, controlled by builder, not Forestar)-September 2028 101 SITE FURNISHINGS -fey T tp , �r i ..ems W + p ^�k - -" ^� :_,"a..�� :�'=;_ ..:.:. . _ -`.. .'= ..;___:. Y►.}5e.�1T_,z:..,�ir�lsCj..�ut�l.�a.:,��.�frs c5�ma�_ _ `_ '",:: 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. Westonoscmpson �- DESIGN INTENT& PRECEDENT IMAGERY design studio + +� TCRESTa�R HWY ss May 13,2025 102 NATURAL SURFACE TRAILS i yW� -A -tf r +' 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. Westonoscmpson �- DESIGN INTENT& PRECEDENT IMAGERY design srudfo + +� FORESTAR HWY 86 May 13,2025 1 1 ' r -44 - _ •� - tidy e`I" � ,} r �..� �._fes_ '^i _ __ l+i� �;' - - • ..[x... /�1��..t M F lJaRfiY' _ r ° ' Y 6• Y - Y 104 WAYFINDING _ ~ wLn • , .• .: _ " 1 9 LN PU VE IR - "5-�.moi"t -� • ,� . f J,.* � ��'� --, - rw' TON r.µy J �• 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. Westonoscmpson �- DESIGN INTENT& PRECEDENT IMAGERY design studio + +� TCRESTa�R HWY 86 May 13,2025 105 SCULPTURAL DESIGN F ALEGRIA DERVISH CAIRN'S COURSE DIVINE WIND LAWRENCE WEIR-GREENSBORO THOMAS SAYRE-RALEIGH THOMAS SAYRE-RALEIGH JIM GALLUCCI-GREENSBORO _ a FLUTTER CROWN ARCHWAY PEACOCK SIMPLE PLEASURES SUNFLOWERS JIM GALLUCCI-GREENSBORO JEFF DALE-CARY PATRICK DOUGHERTY-CHAPEL HILL THOMAS SAYRE-RALEIGH 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. Westonoscmpson �- DESIGN INTENT& PRECEDENT IMAGERY design studio + +� TCRESTa�R HWY ss May 13,2025 1. • i •.rnyr a .•. � ' Ail db Iwo i,J 17 40 . - "...� -t��(ti..3a� �•y{� Ste" Y� a �' eeyy �av i i i i ■ ■ 1 SPANGLER ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental Consulting I Litigation .Support I Environmental Services 6 May 2025 Ms. Laura Haywood Entitlements Program Manager Forestar—Carolinas East Division VIA E-mail: LauraHaywood@forestar.com RE: HWY 86 DD—Orange County,NC—Orange County Buffer Applicability Memo Ms. Haywood: Based on the email provided on 4 April 2025,"Below I've also included a snip of the Soil Survey in which all on-site streams were mapped,which means UDO Section 6.13.5(B)does apply for buffer purposes",via Orange County's Taylor Pershau, the project area is subject to UDO Section 6.13.5(B) Stream buffers for Soil Survey streams shall only be calculated using Method A as explained in Section 6.13.3.As a result,the buffer analysis described below, and depicted in the attached figures follows UDO Section 6.13.3(C) Method A—Stream Buffer Based on Slope and Groundcover. Stream Buffer Calculations: Using Google Earth elevation data, Spangler Environmental, LLC (SEL) spaced cross sections 200 feet from one another along the previously mapped streams and calculated the slope between the top of bank and out 250 feet perpendicular to the direction of flow for each one, as described in Method A. At cross- sections with a slope of less than 7.5% a 65-foot-wide buffer(50 foot wide (minimum) + 15 feet wide) is applied and cross sections with slopes greater than 7.5% have an 80-foot-wide buffer (50 foot wide (minimum) + 30 feet wide). This also applies to any other water features, including wetlands, with direct surface connection to the stream reach.Additionally,the north-eastern stream sections are within the FEMA 100-yr floodplain. These sections must have the slope/buffer width determined from the floodplain's outermost boundary, rather than the top of the stream bank. Please see the attached map "Cross-sections and Slope Map",for the slope and location of each cross section. Conclusions: Based on the Orange County UDO Section 6.13.3, SEL has completed the buffer/slope analysis, and the results are shown in the attached"Orange County Buffer Map."All the buffered streams and wetlands have had their buffer extended from 50-ft previously to now at least 65-ft and 80-ft in others,respectively.Orange County and SEL met onsite on 22 April 2025 to conduct the Surface Water Identification (SWID). The results are verified by Orange County and are shown in the maps and .dwg file provided. This conclusion only speaks to the stream features,the wetland feature's locations and extents have yet to be verified by the United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)Wilmington District and are subject to change,therefore their resultant buffers are as well. Please advise if you have any questions. www.spanglerenvironmental.comRaleigh I CharlotteCharleston • . 866-772-6453 108 Sincerely, Spangler Environmental,LLC . �� cQ �/G%�GCs�i GY� AJ V ick Ward Marotti Staff Scientist—Land&Water Resources Director—Land&Water Resources Attachments: Orange County Buffer Map Cross-sections and Slope Map PANG EFS ENVIRONMENTAL O 175 350525 700 i7 14 I` tilt SCALE IN FEET M� ' • K • ,Fi� " "1 . �I 1� �, •(�,-•V \,�� •,,.r, �`,fit` _ \q,5 +/�' ..�� ." �„'_a' Le , 1 ,��. -t'!'.`' ,\ �''r �'' 1'f "~:"• rad Y . C ' F`L rt.<tl+• i III IL 2"'1 1[X1.1 �, ,1�,'.l� '�•• Y�t+•' � �,'t` ,' „�.- � � ' ;V , �1 a V� 1 r AF A irk ice•. .' xlk 'A.—t—& t , .• , , w •�'`�3.� Ate•, �, 1 • '� �l �' � '�! , 144" w• 4d �• ,'4 ' tiA t ^� 10 ) ." M LEGEND '� ' t \ ;'"rY � �► Orange County Verified Streams J"k AL � Wetland �• �� Orange County UDO Buffer Property Boundary 4_ i Source: Esri, Maxar,Earths'tar Geographies,and the GIS UserCommunity ADDRESS: O NC HWY 860 N ACREAGE: 78 ACRES PROJECT NAME: CITY,STATE: HILLSBOROUGH, NC PROJECT#: 202.402.09 HV" 86 SOURCES: ORANGE COUNTY GIS DATE: MAY 2025 ESRI WORLD IMAGERY SPANGLEIR 4338 BLAND ROAD ORANGE COUNTY RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. SPANGLERENVIRONMENTAL.COML ry) BUFFER MAP (919)875-4288 O 175 350 525 700 z N SCALE IN FEET �r o ? , 92 C a N ..T 6.4 SS - R t 4 ` h� 1 ob i ��. ' '� , t•�t�, � 'Y. A • -yam g ., LEGEND v� • .'� �1� �`1w t t ••,�1 � �' , , Cross Sections Orange County Verified Streams 00 Percent Slope a � _� Wetland ' Property Boundary T Source: E-sri, Maxar,Eart0tar Geographies,and the GIS User Community ADDRESS: O NC HWY 86 N ACREAGE: '78 ACRES PROJECT NAME: CITY,STATE: HILLSBOROUGH, NC PROJECT#: 202.402.09 HWY 86 SOURCES: ORANGE COUNTY GIS DATE: MAY 2025 ESR]WORLD IMAGERY MAPNAME SPANGLERRALEIGH,4338 BLAND ROAD CROSS-SECTIONS NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. SPANGLERENVIRONMENTAL.COML ry) AND SLOPE MAP (919)875-4288 111 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or planningapps(cDoranaecountync.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 UDO. Date: 03-06-25 Contact Information* Property Owner(s): Please See List of Property Owners Attached Hereto as Exhibit A Mailing Address: Please See List of Property Owners Attached Hereto as Exhibit A Phone: See Exhibit A Email: See Exhibit A 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): 9865878090 Address: HWY 86 N, HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 Acreage: 79.76 Township: HILLSBOROUGH Zoning District: AR Watershed Overlay: LOWER ENO UNPROTECTED Other Overlay: N/A II. General Site Information* A. Adjacent Property Zoning North: AR South: AR - EC5 East: Hillsborough West: AR Land Use North: Vacant South. Residence - Industrial East: Educational West: Residence B. Topography ■ Highest Elevation: 671 ■ Lowest Elevation: 590 ■ General direction of slope: From West to North and Southeast Page 1 of 5 112 ■ Estimated % of property with: 0 — 5% slope: 85.7% 5 — 15% slope: 10% 15 — 25% slope: 3% More than 25% slope: 2% C. Water Features and Drainage The following water features are located on the property: ❑✓ Streams ❑✓ Wetlands ❑ Ponds ❑ Drainage Easements ❑✓ Special Flood Hazard Area Describe See Exhibit B (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 ElYes❑✓ 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: 49 C. Number of structures: 49 Page 2 of 5 113 D. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for development of attached residential units (excluding roads, but including parking areas) 0.3 acres E. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for non-residential use (excluding roads) 1 acre F. Estimated area to be graded for roads 2.5 acres • Road type: ❑�/ Public ❑ Private ❑ Class A ❑ Class B ■ Total road length: 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: ■ How much material is expected to be generated per month? ■ Will any material be treated onsite? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, indicate volume: Will any material be stored onsite? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, indicate volume: ■ Where will disposal of the material take lace? E_ ■ How will materials be transported to the disposal site? ■ What measures are proposed to protect water quality and air quality in case of spills? Page 3of5 114 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 Ves, 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 ■ Has a 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 5 115 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. �,O�una August 5, 2025 Applicant Date Page 5 of 5 116 Exhibit A Property Owners Estate of Lanie Brown (B.) Powell, c/o Hughes B. Powell Jr., Executor P.O. Box 636 Smithfield,North Carolina 27577 919.901.5374 Powellhugh8 g gmail.com Amy L. Powell 1234 Aken Street Port Charlotte, FL 33952 910.895.1500 amylynnpowellgicloud.com Jenny Powell Parks and Russell Micheal Parks 560 Parkertown Road Four Oaks,NC 27524 919.963.3733 168971755.1 117 168971755.1 Exhibit B Five stream features were delineated within the project area. One is perennial, originates off-property, and flows NE along the northern property boundary.The other features are intermittent, originate within the project area, and flow east, of the property. Because all five streams are depicted on the NRCS Soil Survey of Orange County and/or the USGS Hillsborough, NC 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle, they are all subject to the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules. Additionally, they are subject to the Orange County UDO Section 6.13.5 Areas Outside of Watershed Protection Overlay Districts,which also requires 50-ft. riparian buffers. As depicted in the National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, there is a small 100-year floodplain zone (Zone AE) in the northern portion of the project area. The balance of the property is considered an "area of minimal flood hazard." 118 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department ORANGE COUNTY 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 NORTH CAROLINA 919-245-2575 or plan ningapps(a)orangecountync.gov Proposed Rezoning and Development Conditions Case Number: MA25-0003 In accordance with Section 2.9.1(F), Approval and Conditions, applicants may submit voluntary 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. Describe in detail any proposed conditions proposed as part of the conditional rezoning request. Attach additional pages as needed. Proposed Zoning Conditions Date (Including Revisions The subject property shall be developed in accordance with the proposed site plan 1. submitted as part of this application ("Site Plan"). 10-22-2025 The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. This deviates from the minimum in UDO 2. Section 3.8.Suitable septic shall be provided on each parcel. 10-22-2025 The property shall contain experiential gardens as shown on Site Plan as the Woodland Garden, the Picking Garden and the Pollinator Garden (the "Gardens").The Gardens shall 3. 10-22-2025 be dedicated to and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Where supplementation of perimeter plantings is required, native plant materials 4. appropriate for the growing environment in that area shall be utilized. 10-22-2025 An ADA-compliant, open-air mail kiosk will incorporate a weather covering with recessed 5. lighting. 10-22-2025 Trails shall provide access to the Designated Community Gathering Space and each Garden as shown on the Site Plan. The length of the trails located on the subject property shall combined total at least 9,000 linear feet. Trail surfaces shall be aggregate or natural surface (not paved with concrete or asphalt)to minimize impacts to the existing 6 environment and limit impervious surfaces. Boardwalks shall be utilized where the 10-22-2025 proposed trail crosses the wetlands as shown on the Site Plan, if permitted by Federal and State agencies. The trail and associated amenities described in this section shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The precise location and alignment of the trails will be determined at final plat. The property owner shall offer limited access to the planned trails and open space to the Eno River Academy for use by students, faculty and staff including the cross-country team 7. pursuant to an agreement drafted by the landowner with an effective date after 10-22-2025 construction is complete. The Designated Community Gathering Space as shown on the site plan to be maintained 8. by the Homeowner's Association. 10-22-2025 178390495.1 119 Individual septic systems meeting Orange County Health Department requirements will be 9 provided on each lot. Septic systems shall be designed to serve up to a four(4) bedroom 10-22-2025 home. 10. No home shall contain more than four(4) bedrooms. 10-22-2025 Lighting in common areas of the Community shall comply with the requirements LIDO 11. Section 6.11.6, which promotes Dark Sky Preservation. 10-22-2025 Site access(es) shall be provided in accordance with North Carolina Department of 12 Transportation (NCDOT) permits, including the provision of any required turn lanes and/or 10-22-2025 restrictions to the access(es). The property owner shall petition the Town of Hillsborough for access to public water to serve the subject property and, if approved, utilize public water in the subdivision, if 13. necessary easements are reasonably obtainable. 10-22-2025 The property owner shall write a letter to the North Carolina Department of 14. Transportation requesting a speed limit reduction. 10-22-2025 15. It is understood and acknowledged that if the property is rezoned as requested, the property involved in this request will be subject to condition(s) as imposed, unless subsequently changed or amended. '�A*WO�4' October 23, 2025 Applicant Signalure Date 178390495.1 Staff Report Attachment 2 12 Zoning Atlas Amendment — Conditional District Basic Information Vicinity Map for Rezoning Application - PIN 9865878090 Uer Eno --- --- --- Cr�CedarGoveTownship ' WSJ Prtotectedr - LittleRiverTownship F IIr tiq t WY �K FHELFS Roy p hyG,�KENIONRD Upper Eno Protected r Z � x I J# AL �z Hillsborough LL m I , - o o - HillsEno*Township wie � 1 Lower Eno =3T TEN R❑ ►.? Protected � x ? CheeksTownship - lr 0A . J ANG pOK� Haw @ 1} Creek �o P�'Ro ♦ UJB ��.► e J ! - 'I `sz`\ __ ♦� Lower oLD.Np, �.z Durham— En-y &ngham Township -%"��rtn Eno o �I Cane Creek ^r` oH`�o� � uc +Po ♦r PIN:9865878090 ET]s c _ a�°e �� ■ `� `kms®' op,� Hillsborough Township Major Streams Townships -- Jordan - Chapel Hill Township ._..._ � n-- - City Limits r Water Supply Watersheds Lake Mi 51NA Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9865-87-8090 Parcel Address 1039-UT NC 86 N Hillsborough, NC 27278 Applicant Name Forestar Group, Inc. and Address 8041 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 110, Raleigh NC 27617 Amy L. Powell Property Owner 1234 Aken Street, Port Charlotte, FL 33952 Name and Address Jenny Powell Parks and Russell Michael Parks (if different from 560 Parkertown Road, Four Oaks, NC 27524 Applicant) Estate of Lane Brown Powell, c/o Hughes B. Powell, Jr., Executor P.O. Box 636, Smithfield, NC 27577 1 121 Proposed Zoning Application Description Conservation Cluster Major Subdivision featuring 49 single-family lots with a minimum lot area of 20,000- square feet. It will have access from two driveways intersecting with NC HWY 86 North. The applicant is proposing to preserve 42.25 acres, or 53.97% of the property, as common open space. Much of this area is not developable due to regulatory constraints such a the 100-year floodplain and steep slopes but it also features a Community Gathering Space and three experiential gardens. The open space will also have a walking trails system for the residents. Current Zoning District AR (Agricultural Residential) Requested Zoning District R-CD (Residential Conditional District for a 49-lot Conservation Cluster Major Subdivision) Requested Zoning District Consistent with Appendix F of Yes 2030 Comprehensive Plan Existing Zoning Overlay Districts None - Property not located in a Water Supply Watershed but in the Lower Eno unprotected watershed. Amendments Proposed for No Overlay Districts (Y/N) Surrounding Zoning Analysis Rezoning Application to R-CD for PIN 9865878090 North All lots are zoned AR South Lots are zoned AR and EC-5 (Existing Commercial). East Lots are zoned EC-5 (Existing Commerciale or are within Town of Hillsborough zoning jurisdiction. 1 j' West Lots are zoned AR, R3 (Medium Intensity Residential), PD-11 (Planned Development Light Industrial), and 11 (Light Industrial). 9069870090 � ower Eno 1� Q PIN:A0f15H8091] _N'ater eotlics ------__--_ Zoning - __--_ pR R R3 ECS PD-11 City Limits �m+, 2 Surrounding Land Use Analysis Aerial Ima e with Parcel 9865878090 Outlined North Single-family residential uses, a school use, and undeveloped parcels. South Lots are zoned AR (Agricultural Residential) with single-family residential uses and EC-5 (Existing Commercial with commercial uses. oMPN`� East Lots are zoned EC-5 (Existing Commercial) with commercial uses and a school use within Town of Hillsborough zoning jurisdiction. West Lots are zoned AR (Agricultural Residential), R3 (Medium Intensity Residential), PD-11 4 (Planned Development Light Industrial), and w 11 (Light Industrial) with single-family residential and industrial uses. The known industrial uses manufacture office supplies, - lighting and decor, and scented wax melts. ,z• West NC 86 N m Q PIN:9655878096 Existing Conditions/Physical Features The entirety of the subject parcel is presently undeveloped. The applicant has provided photos of existing conditions on the site supporting that existing trees are mature hardwood and bottomland hardwood forests on-site. The parcel also contains multiple stream features and Special Flood Hazard Area (100 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. The Town of Hillsborough staff comments (Attachment 5) indicated that the Town would be amenable to a request from the developer for water services, though the comments do not function as a formal will serve letter. 3 2030 Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis Parcel Size +/- 78.11 acres Future Land Use Rural Industrial Activity Node Map (FLUM) and Agricultural Residential Designation Adopted Future Land Use Map with Parcel 9865878090 Depicted FLUM Overlay(s) Resource Protection Areas p Growth Management Rural Designated System Designation o� Co`E�pN Rural Industrial Activity Node: Land designated in the Comprehensive Plan that is focused on designated Lower Eno road intersections which serves as a nodal crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate Definition of FLUMRAefl"°° location for small-scale Designation industrial uses which do not (from Article 10 of require urban type services. =Watar 13odl UDO) =Resource Pro a-,Arses Future Land Use Categories , -10 Year Transition Agricultural Residential: Cftyl_lnuaiReslde"a ity L rci to FTj A Land in the rural areasRureRur � i ir,auelriai where the prevailing land use activities are related to the land (agriculture, forestry) and which is an appropriate location for the continuation of these uses. 4 Interlocal Agreement Consistency Analysis Interlocal Agreement Yes Town of I-Iillsborough/Orange County Applicable Central orange Coordinated Area Land use Plan Applicable ILA Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan (COCA) COCA Future Land Mixed ResidentialUse Classification Neighborhood The dominant land use in any proposed development is expected to be residential 9865878090 ` .. based on square footage of proposed structures. Developments may contain a single or variety of dwelling types and densities or may integrate a variety of _ Description supportive commercial, o„ean s°°I� °aadmy public and semi-public uses -- EAucat'an --- _and open or public space. nt Iiui,DanWry R--anal Small developments that �L L—�M �R..,aontial Ne ghhnrhaotl I -P [Oper Space J���� provide only supportive non- .R, .S — aERkaRR LIR IL g residential land uses in an 8-11 L.t Rd infill arrangement serving ®W° n9Ea- more than 50 dwelling units in a walkable manner may also be considered. 5 Site Plan B° MATLNLINE-A 1 sem_ st war _w �� w =iW w g w.m� u �� .—=u x f 01 CL {rxmc Ir % 3 -RS xbi " �.�r `:.•'�J ' maw J "'w Irv— �� ".�` — R \a,"/ \ '.w I IIIZ! CON57PUCTI ON Jw i 1 -- ----- - - -- -- --- -- T - � --- - -- Know whops below. , , -I MATCHUNE-A W-ITHIC SCAU Call befaN d ore '. e 9 L u A C3,0 6 Proposed Access and Transportation Network Improvements The applicant proposes the construction of two public roads, consisting of 50-ft. rights-of-way and 20-ft. travel ways, to be accepted for maintenance by NCDOT. One of these roads will loop to provide two access points to NC 86 N with the other road ending in a cul-de-sac. Summary of Transportation Information Existing Roadway Characteristics Affected Roadway NC 86 N Type of Roadway Minor Arterial Current Roadway Capacity 14,600 AADT Latest Traffic Volume 9,200 AADT Traffic Generation Number of Trips Expected to be Generated by 524 trips per day Proposed Project Proposed Utilities The future subdivision will not require use of public utilities. The site-specific plan presented for the proposed zoning atlas amendment proposes the use of community well and individual septic systems for each lot. However, as a result of Planning Board discussion the applicant offered a new condition (detailed as condition #13, Attachment 1 (21)) in which the property owner has committed to petition the Town of Hillsborough for access to public water if the project receives zoning approval. Provision of water service is subject to whether the Town of Hillsborough willing and able to serve the development. This condition is also subject to the property owner's ability to reasonably obtain necessary easements that may be required to connect to Town water service. Erosion Control/Stormwater Regulations The applicant has provided a grading and stormwater management plan (Attachment 1) and will comply with stormwater management (Section 6.14) and erosion and sedimentation control (Section 6.15) regulations of the UDO. Landscape Buffers/Setbacks North 50' lot setback/20' undisturbed buffer South 50' lot setback/20' undisturbed buffer East Dedicated Common Open Space, 100' lot setback, 50' undisturbed buffer West Dedicated Common Open Space Environmental Assessment (EA) AL The applicant has provided an Environmental Assessment (EA) application, an Environmental Assessment -ind 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 NC Department of 7 127 dministration's State Clearinghouc . Planning staff have reviewed the materials and agree with a determination of"Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)" as required in Section 2.25.1(B)(5) of the UDO (Attachment 5). This determination eliminates a requirement from the applicant to provide a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process as outlined in Sections 2.25.2 and 6.16.4 of the UDO. Solid Waste 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 in accordance with the proposed site plan submitted as part of this application ("Site Plan"). 2. The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. This deviates from the minimum in UDO Section 3.8. Suitable septic shall be provided on each parcel. 3. The property shall contain experiential gardens as shown on Site Plan as the Woodland Garden, the Picking Garden and the Pollinator Garden (the "Gardens"). The Gardens shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 4. Where supplementation of perimeter plantings is required, native plant materials appropriate for the growing environment in that area shall be utilized. 5. An ADA-compliant, open-air mail kiosk will incorporate a weather covering with recessed lighting. 6. Trails shall provide access to the Designated Community Gathering Space and each Garden as shown on the Site Plan. The length of the trails located on the subject property shall combined total at least 9,000 linear feet. Trail surfaces shall be aggregate or natural surface (not paved with concrete or asphalt) to minimize impacts to the existing environment and limit impervious surfaces. Boardwalks shall be utilized where the proposed trail crosses the wetlands as shown on the Site Plan, if permitted by Federal and State agencies. The trail and associated amenities described in this section shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The precise location and alignment of the trails will be determined at final plat. 7. The property owner shall offer limited access to the planned trails and open space to the Eno River Academy for use by students, faculty and staff including the cross- 8 128 country team pursuant to an agreement drafted by the landowner with an effective date after construction is complete. 8. The Designated Community Gathering Space as shown on the site plan to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 9. Individual septic systems meeting Orange County Health Department requirements will be provided on each lot. Septic systems shall be designed to serve up to a four (4) bedroom home. 10. No home shall contain more than four (4) bedrooms. 11. Lighting in common areas of the Community shall comply with the requirements UDO Section 6.11.6, which promotes Dark Sky Preservation. 12. Site access(es) shall be provided in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) permits, including the provision of any required turn lanes and/or restrictions to the access(es). 13. The property owner shall petition the Town of Hillsborough for access to public water to serve the subject property and, if approved, utilize public water in the subdivision, if necessary easements are reasonably obtainable. 14. The property owner shall write a letter to the North Carolina Department of Transportation requesting a speed limit reduction. Review Milestones Application Submittal Date March 3, 2025 Development Advisory Committee April 3, 2025 (DAC) Review Neighborhood Information Meeting May 29, 2025 NIM Planning Board Review I September 3 and October 1, 2025 Note: The DAC is a staff/agency committee, established in Section 1.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Courtesy Review Jurisdiction Date Sent Comments Received (Y/N) State Clearing House March 27, 2025 Yes Town of Hillsborough March 27, 2025 Yes All comments received through Courtesy Review are available via the Permit Portal. Town of Hillsborough review comments are included in Attachment 5. 9 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 7) and Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment 8) 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 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 R-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 7) 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. 10 130 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov I 131W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1919-245.2575 October 22, 2025 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING To Whom It May Concern: This notice is to inform you of the November 6, 2025, Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meeting, at which an application to rezone +/-78.11 acres (PIN: 9865-87-8090) will be reviewed. The parcel's primary address is 1039-UT NC 86 N, within Hillsborough Township. This notification is occurring in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). You are receiving this notice because you own property located within 1,000-feet of the parcels requested for rezoning. YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT PROPOSED FOR REZONING. Property Information Parcel ID Numbers (PINs) 9865-87-8090 Owner Amy Powell and Jenny Powell et al. Applicant Forestar Group, Inc. Location 1039-UT NC 86 N, Hillsborough, NC Acreage +/- 78.11 Current Zoning AR - Agricultural Residential Proposed Zoning R-CD — Residential Conditional District Watershed Designation Lower Eno Unprotected What is being proposed? Forestar Group, Inc., as an authorized agent of Amy Powell and Jenny Powell et al., has initiated a Zoning Atlas Amendment to allow for future residential development of the parcel. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the +/- 78.11 acre property to Residential Conditional District (R-CD). The applicant has provided a site-specific plan and conditions for the proposed single-family development featuring 49 lots. 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 September 3 and October 1, 2025 regular meetings and voted unanimously (9-0) to recommend approval of the rezoning request. 131 This amendment request will be reviewed by the BOCC during a public hearing scheduled at 7:00p.m., November 6, 2025, at the Whitted Meeting Facility (300 W. Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC). All interested persons are invited to address the Board with their comments regarding this 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 Thursday, November 6, 2025 Time 7:00 pm Place Whitted Human Services Building, Donna S. Baker Meeting Room Address 300 W. Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Taylor Perschau Assigned Planner tperschau(aD_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2597 If you cannot attend the meeting and the website does not answer your questions about the requested rezoning, you may call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you. Sincerely, �tdC�Qi2, Planning and Inspections Director Additional information is available on the Orange County Planning Department's website: https://www.orangecountync.gov/3038/Active-Development-Projects or scan below: � 6" FRI • 1�•i�. 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, comunfquese con Current Planning Division al correo electronico: alanningappsPorangecount�nc.gov.gov o llame al 919-245-2575. Por favor, espere al menos 10 dfas para que nuestro personal organice estos servicios. 132 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 1 919.245.2575 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Zoning Manager 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 1039-UT NC 86 North, Hillsborough, NC (PIN: 9865-87-8090) on October 22, 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 October 2025. Taylor Perschau Current Planning and Zoning Manager Orange County Planning Attachment 4 133 May 14,2025 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 rezone property located at 1039-UT, 1317-UT and 1033-UT NC 86 North(PIN: 9865878090)to 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 property is further described below: Property Information Parcel ID Numbers (PIN) 9865878090 Hugh B. Powell, Jr. Executor Owner Jenny& Michael Parks Amy Powell Applicant Forestar c/o Laura Haywood 1039-UT NC 86 North Location 1317-UT NC 86 North 1033-UT NC 86 North Acreage 79.76 Zoning AR Watershed Designation Lower Eno River Unprotected What is being proposed? We propose 49 homes on,not less than 20,000 square foot, lots. The lots are clustered in nature with open space and a trail system dispersed throughout the community. In fact, almost two-thirds of the site is dedicated 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 May 29, 2025 Time TOOPM Place Eno River Academy High School - Commons Address 1100 NC-57, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Lauren Honeycutt, Planner II Assigned Planner Email: lahoneycutt(cDorangecountync.gov Phone: 919) 245-2598 171790272.2 134 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 171790272.2 135 -N, ES 0 N E-1146; 11oNN°cw411111TT MATCHLINE-AUAp oxsm� NOT BOOTP, T ,oHwxasssisvoxAxcFcouxn ZO_APPNA���SPN—ET11P1 1ONIPON-1-11 086 IN 01-- I== ON IOAI�2W Ol--O A —0 7L—�=�— 60,POOL NNONNN ANI.I.—NO—N—PAL, P" 5 PC,64 961 57 Ma POP --N, 51 PC, vwEUAxoaxsnE P9 COMMUNITY NIP NOPINT,LIAIS6L Y WELL PIN#1110 "I I IA' TO.,0 1, LEGEND NP El�l N-1�I NATJRAL—F- IN- ........D—Al I `P- IANYAPIP�—, 1�--(IN 11—M-1 �A, .I �%\-, 8 NA- TN ME ILI PON I Iwl MIA 7 PO 4 "T ION NO C!, "Ll—AL T".0", E' V, A. N_NNI <xDMAP 13 -NO AN (N) 7-- 0.,A, I N-A P 2D.Oy N 214 z Al R. ILL 0 0 Q U, z < LN \\`�\ Cz� o.\.\ �,� y—� ^/® <. �'(.� —�_<. `��\ b/ EL .0 > < z L1N#DAq_1,L,0.y% illi LU, xp NO 0 A, I "AbiAN 0 N_ Z ON 0 2 7, P, POA, 5 1 11 IIIN �T U NO (D tx- \v Al LAN A' NIT INO-AP \7 NSI II ,ao MMU'L .'T IIF-A. P11A A11YD11$ON I PRELIMINARY xaw to sP De ws re aaeNET 11. LOT DO NOT P�24 Ill IA1.N 00 USE FOR te ZON", AN -Iil14 IION AN', aea I.m NSTRUC ANT- =LT -AO ICI AN 'A N� -a _N A` ON .P.I I PN�4 NO 11 STOP PLAN STATUS P 41,'—, NANTAIN.A ZaO os rias aD z :ox Nc —ATINAL— as au ac D0- ILAI A t -'W'A--T'Y"OO` ........... 11GHT TRIANGLE OTE 0 N "'"" SP PO_ ———————————-- ,rNT SIGHT MANILINI NO WONICTON B-1��(2)FEETM E`OIT U- D11RIP11 0 --------------------- ------- 1-10(T—) Q- DC ONT Dc Us 1ALLOM..IOXIO.—AAU, ae o�m P I N�- 7-A scv. - N, —- I —A",M. Know what's below. 7 E MATCHLINE-A .—OP N. 220242-01-002 A, GRAPHIC SCALE Call before you dig. ON O._,_ D-MAY 13,2024 P.A.NO P.' xAu IONINO- _OAN.N. 136 Neighborhood Information Meeting Report Form REPORT OF INFORMATION MEETING REQUIRED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE To: Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Zoning Manager Project Name: HWY 86 Approximate Location (or Address): HWY 86 N, Bingham, Hillsborough, NC Proposed Number Lots: 49 Residential (Y/N): Yes The undersigned hereby certifies that the required sign(s) was posted on the proposed HWY 86 subdivision property, on each road frontage of said project on (date) 05/15/2025 by Orange County Planning staff. The meeting was held at the following time and place: 05/29/2025 at 7:OOPM at Eno River Academy High School, 1100 NC-57, Hillsborough, NC 27278. The persons in attendance at the meeting: See attached Attendance Sheet (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: 06/02/2025 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. 137 Attachment B During the Neighborhood Information Meeting, the following concerns were brought up and discussed: Y Traffic on HWY-86 and NC-57 was also a concern. Forestar and the traffic engineer, Josh Reinke, explained that a driveway permit for the two entrances on/off HWY 86 would be required. During NCDOT evaluations, any improvements along the property such as providing turn lanes will be determined. NCDOT did not require a full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the 49 lot development but we did perform a Trip Generation Letter for both NCDOT and Orange County review. A few attendees expressed their concerns about removing existing trees and how stormwater runoff into Stroud's Creek would be managed. The plans currently show over 50% open space to remain for the project. We did explain that some of the property was farmed and volunteer vegetation has become established after the farming has ceased. There was a tornado in 1992 that destroyed a lot of established trees at the time. A detailed tree inventory survey is included in the plan set and has been submitted to Orange County Planning. The goal for development is to preserve as many trees as possible and only remove trees and vegetation that would be necessary for infrastructure installation. Erosion control ponds will be located at key areas to minimize sediment leaving the project area. Danielle Cabral, EI and Don Sever, PE with Bowman Engineering will continue to develop a stormwater design in accordance with County and State regulations. Some wondered whether existing trails would still be available for use by Eno River Academy Cross County team. Forestar explained that trails will be a community amenity maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). The trails will not be public unless a mutual agreement between a public entity and the HOA were to be reached to turn the trails over to be maintained by the public entity. Unfortunately, as long as the HOA is the owner of the trails, opening them to the public creates concerning and costly liability issues and maintenance and insurance costs that a small community like this cannot accept. ➢ Forestar is reaching out to neighbors individually to address unique concerns raised in the meeting. 138 Attachment C Based on the Neighborhood Information Meeting feedback, the following changes were addressed on the plans or in process of being conducted: ➢ No changes were made to the plans. ATTACHMENT A - ATTENDANCE SHEETS ( '39 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT ,, •,. Neighborhood Information Meeting Sign-In Sheet �r I Project/Plan: HWY 86 Subdivision 0 Date &Time: 05/29/2025 - 7p.m. rah �,to Name Address Telephone Number Email Address "t �lg� f6 -vV7 1 o qd/ nre AU4 C- Q r"A-< z Q MV SZ74a j- 7- 7 Kv 1518 LL-L 1101t,�17 r,3714 lat'llbit' I tcat_ aGl �� Liu t� --'-7 �►v— Co C� u,�JIeALi7© � m�i1.coni r Opecca �clle 1 2� r�1ll66► ve Ct w , C*VV\ 140 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Neighborhood Information Meeting Sign-In Sheet �{ Project/Plan: HWY 86 Subdivision •gid �� Date &Time: 05/29/2025 - 7p.m. Name Address Telephone Number Email Address 13 a-,3;� . �4� . L 137 � l - ZA S - 0 '5 s ( C C-J rA GG�.,i ,��� .�z��� a`1•cam 141 QUESTIONS TO THE DEVELOPER 1. Questions to the Developer based on environmental and infrastructure impacts: a) Question: Has an environmental impact assessment been completed regarding wildlife displacement, vegetation removal, and potential habitat changes? Forestar Answer: Orange County requires an environmental impact analysis to be prepared as a part of the rezoning process. One has been completed and submitted to the County. b) Question: Are both entrances to the community on NC-86? It was mentioned to one of the surrounding homeowners that at least one of the entrances would be on NC-57. The tentative placement of both entrances (presumably the current entrances with rocks) are hidden from traffic approaching the either entrance on the other side of the hill. The hidden placement seems to increase the risk of accidents for both entrances. Forestar Answer: Yes, both entrances to the community are on NC-86. c) Question: What are the plans for road access and traffic flow, and how will increased traffic affect safety Forestar Answer: Our Traffic Engineer has prepared a Trip Generation Letter that shows, with the addition of the planned 49 homes, the road is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with minimal queueing. As a part of permitting process, we will ask NCDOT to issue driveway permits for both planned driveways. NCDOT has the authority to require any road improvements needed at that time. Forestar will make suggestions; however, the final decision is that of the NC Department of Transportation (DOT). d) Question: Considering the number of accidents and fatalities on this end of NC-86, what are some measures that will be performed to prevent increased risks? Forestar Answer: An NCDOT approval for a stoplight is less probable for this community size of 49 houses. Turn lanes into the community and flashing signals to warn of approaching traffic are more probable. The final decision is that of the NCDOT. e) Question: What percentage of trees will be removed for development of the community? Forestar Answer: A qualitative answer provided was trees would be cleared for the home, septic system per lot, community well, areas for retaining water, and roads. The soil cannot be drastically disturbed because of the septic systems that need to be placed per lot. We preliminarily anticipate protecting tree on over 50% of the site. Please see our landscaping plan (page 5 of the submitted site plan.) 173039592.1 173140083.1 142 f) Question: What percentage of trees will be planted in the community? Forestar Answer: Please see our landscaping plan (page 5 of the submitted site plan) for more details on landscaping. Orange County has strict landscaping requirements, including along the right-of-way and on the lots themselves. County requirements encourage preservation of existing trees to fulfill landscape requirements with additional plantings to be added where needed. At this early stage, we cannot provide an estimate of how many trees will need to be planted. We will be required to show compliance with the ordinance landscape requirements as we move through the more detailed design required after rezoning in the permitting process. 2. Questions to the Developer based on ground water and well concerns: a) Question: What will be the water source during development and construction? In the past, there has been illegal use of the fire hydrant on Blackman Ln (e.g., construction companies without a hydrant use permit). Forestar Answer: Our standard practice is to use a water truck, collected by the contractor through a meter rented by the provider and billed accordingly. They do usually use a fire hydrant for the collection, but again, the hydrant will be used legally and the water paid for by the contractor. b) Question: There is what seems to be a natural surface that runs from the front to the rear of the community on the same side as the community well and is adjacent to the land owned by Robert and Ruth Ferguson Trust. What is the plan for this natural surface area? Can this area ever be developed? Forestar Answer: This area is open space that will be owned and maintained by the community's homeowner's association. There is a 50' undisturbed buffer and a 100' lot setback in this area. A walking trail is planned for a portion of the open space outside of the undisturbed buffer. There is discussion that Orange County, in the future, may decide to construct a pedestrian bridge across the stream connecting our trail system to Pathways Elementary School. If the rezoning is approved, the use of this property will be limited as shown on the concept plan while the zoning remains in place. c) Question: Has a hydrological study been conducted to assess the potential impact of the proposed community well on nearby private wells, including agricultural wells used for irrigation or livestock? Forestar Answer: The study is currently in process. Developments: Bill Bailey and Cathy Owens (158 Blackman Ln.) and Stephanie Waller and Marc Perez (113 Blackman Ln.) have offered their wells as comparators for this study. d) Question: What safeguards will be in place to ensure that well drawdown does not negatively affect surrounding groundwater-dependent properties? 173039592.1 173140083.1 143 Forestar Answer: The planned hydrological study will provide insight into the viability of a community well. Town of Hillsborough water is located nearby. The Town has indicated that they may be receptive to extending water to this community. e) Question: In the event that a well of a surrounding homeowner is impacted by this development, what recourse will the homeowner have? Forestar Answer: Town of Hillsborough water is located nearby. The Town has indicated that they may be receptive to extending water to this community, if an issue arises. 3. Questions to the Developer based on storm water management and septic systems: a) Question: What stormwater runoff controls will be implemented to prevent drainage or erosion onto adjacent agricultural land? Forestar Answer: During permitting, both DEQ and Orange County have strict regulations concerning stormwater runoff controls. It is part of the approval processes. It should be mentioned that our impervious surfaces are minimal for this project as there will be ribbon pavement and ditch sections. Additionally, we plan to incorporate natural stormwater control measures that treat stormwater as approved by DEQ and mimic natural absorptions. b) Question: Will the development use individual or shared septic systems, and how will their maintenance be monitored over time to protect groundwater and soil quality? Forestar Answer: There will be individual septic systems (per lot). Homeowners will be required to comply with DEQ and Orange County regulations just like existing homeowners with septic systems. 4. Questions to the Developer based on land use compatibility: a) Question: Will there be buffer zones or vegetative barriers between this development and agricultural properties to mitigate noise, odor, and pesticide drift issues? Forestar Answer: Setbacks and associated buffers are required by Orange County around the perimeter of the site. The setbacks and buffers shown on our plans currently exceed Orange County requirements. b) Question: Will homebuyers be required to sign disclosures acknowledging proximity to working farmland under the Right to Farm Act? Note: This can potentially protect farmers from nuisance lawsuits because the homebuyers admit to purchasing land near farmland. Forestar Answer: This is not typically done. If required, it would be handled by the homebuilder at time of the residential closing. 5. Question to the Developer based on long-term zoning and precedent: 173039592.1 173140083.1 144 a) Question: Will this development set a precedent for further residential encroachment into agricultural zones, and how will the county ensure agricultural land remains protected? Forestar Answer: This proposal aligns with the residential development planned for the area in a joint land use plan prepared by Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough. REQUESTS OF THE BOARD Requests of the Board based for rezoning to a Residential Conditional District: • That a sufficient buffer zone be required between residential lots and agricultural land, to minimize land use conflicts. • That the residential conditional zoning include disclosures to future buyers regarding proximity to working farmland. • That the planning board recognize the importance of Right to Farm protections and uphold them in any future land use decisions. • And that I, and others in similar positions, be given advance notice of any subsequent changes that might impact agricultural parcels adjacent to rezoned areas. Requests of the Board based on ground water and well concerns: • Require a full hydrogeological and environmental assessment prior to approval. • Mandate adequate buffer zones between residential and agricultural parcels. • Ensure clear Right to Farm disclosures for all future residents. • Monitor water levels and septic system performance post-development. 173039592.1 173140083.1 Attachment 5 145 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 August 19, 2025 HWY 86 N Rezoning Application Case #: MA25-0003 PIN: 9865-87-8090 1039-UT NC 86 N, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Development Advisory Committee Report (per UDO Section 1.9.5) On April 3, 2025, the Orange County Development Advisory Committee met for a final review and discussion of the conditional rezoning application Case #MA25-0003 from Forestar Group, Inc. for PIN 9865-87-8090. 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, �tdC�Qi2, Cy Stober Planning and Inspections Director Orange County Government I www.orangecountync.gov I 919.732.8181 146 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober,AICP,Director I cstober@orangecountync.gov 1131 W.Margaret Lane,Hillsborough,NC 27278 i 919.24S 2S7S 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: MA25-0003 (HWY 86 N) Conditional District Rezoning Application Location/PIN: 9865878090 Applicant: Forestar c/o Laura Haywood Staff Planner: Taylor Perschau DAC Meeting Date: 4-3-2025 Addressing and Britney Pendleton 0 Land Records Date: Staff: brpendleton(a.orangecountync.gov 919-245-2576 1. In accordance with the PIN Ordinance, all surveys creating new parcels of land must be depicted with full bearings and distances (meets & bounds), as well as a size for that area described. James Bryan Attorney's Office Date: Staff: ibryan(a)_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2319 1. None received. Building Michael Rettie Inspections Date: 3/31/25 Staff: mrettie(c)-orangecountync.gov 919-245-2604 1. Any proposed construction regulated by the NC State Building Codes will require permitting. Chris Hirni DEAPR Date: Staff: chirni orangecountync.gov 919-245-2514 1. None received. Environmental Victoria Hudson Health Date: 4/1/25 Staff: vhudson(a.orangecountync.gov 919-245-2365 1. The Department has a well permit for this parcel for the purpose of assessing groundwater for the proposed community. No other applications have been received. No other public health concerns at this time. Erosion Tyler Sliger Control Date: Staff: Tsliger(aD_orangecountync.gov 919-245-2582 147 1. Based on the materials provided for the April 3rd DAC meeting, there are 3 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 LIDO and submit a Buffer Use Authorization Certificate (BAC) application for disturbances inside the regulated stream buffer. 2. Based on the information that has been provided the project area contains 100-year Floodplain. Therefore, a Floodplain Development Application for a Floodplain Development Permit (FDP) will be needed if development is proposed in the floodplain. If needed, the applicant must also comply with Section 2.6 of the UDO. 3. Based on the submitted materials, the project is 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. 4. 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 projects including the roads and lots. Fire and Life Chris Pendergrass Safety Date: 3/27/2025 Staff: cpendergrass(cr)-orangecountync.gov 919-245-6125 The following standards apply to all access types including, but not limited to, driveways, joint driveways, access easements, right of ways, and private roads. General Fire Code standards: -Asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds Shall not exceed 10 percent in grade - 20 feet wide, not including shoulders - Clearance over the road would have to be no lower than 13 % feet - Dead-end access in excess of 151 feet or more shall meet width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4 of the Fire Code David Genwright NCDOT Date: Staff: digenwright(a_)_ncdot.gov 336-570-6833 1. Permitting: Prior to performing work in NCDOT R/W, the applicant will need to obtain the following: • Approved NCDOT Driveway Permit for proposed connections to NC 86 o $50 Driveway fee per every access • An approved NCDOT Encroachment Agreement for any proposed utility installations or activities within current right of way. 2. Trip Generation: Based on the information provided, This 42-lot single family residential subdivision is expected to generate approximately 470 daily trips at full buildout. The expected trips do not meet NCDOT thresholds to require a TIA and adjacent road network is expected to operate acceptably with no capacity improvements warranted per NCDOT guidelines. Other jurisdictions may have additional requirements. 148 3. Plans: Prior to issuance of the above permit documents, the applicant will need to satisfactorily address the following comments: • It appears that the proposed roadway is intended to be public roads road. If intentions are to petition for subdivision streets to be state maintained, o Verify pavement width requirements with local jurisdiction relative to fire code. o Streets must be called out as public and meet NCDOT minimum construction standards. Please refer to our subdivision manual. • Any turnarounds in the subdivision will have to be designed to NCDOT's current "Secondary Road Turnaround Policy" to be considered for road addition o Provided complete plans meeting NCDOT and Orange County standards. Plan sheets should include if applicable: • Drainage/grading • Depicting Horizontal and Vertical curves • We will need details on the proposed stream crossing • 10X70 sight distance triangles on the Landscape • Detail/typical drawings and profiles. • Etc. o Provide site driveway details including but not limited to: • Width • Driveway pavement details • Accommodation of Drainage • Etc. 4. Intersection Sight Distance: Based on a field assessment, there are concerns that acceptable time gaps and associated minimum intersection sight distances are not achieved at the proposed site accesses. The applicant will need to assess further relative to NCDOT and AASHTO requirements and provide detailed engineering exhibits to NCDOT for review. Modification of access locations and/or additional mitigations may be needed if minimum sight distance requirements cannot be met along the property frontage. CP: Taylor Perschau tperschau(a)oarngecountync.gov Planning Date: 3/31/2025 Staff: LRP: Tom Altieri taltieri oran ecount nc. ov Current Planning Comments 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. This project is currently on track for a June 4 Planning Board meeting. 2. The R-CD rezoning process 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 the surrounding areas. If conditions of approval are being proposed, please provide a draft for staff to review. Application 3. Narrative refers to Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan as COCO, please note that staff will refer to this land use plan as COCA in the staff report and presentation. 4. Per UDO Section 5.21.1, since the proposed lots are to be served by community well, a professionally prepared groundwater yield analysis relating the proposed well to the U.S. Geological Water Resources Investigation Report 00-4286 and 149 any later USGS Water Resource Investigation Report data available is required for submittal. 5. Per LIDO 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 for submittal. Site Plan 6. Per UDO Section 2.5.3 Site Plan Specifications and UDO Section 5.21.1 Major Subdivision Standards for Conditional Districts, please include or correct the following elements in the site plan set. This may be on the site plan itself or as a note, condition, or explanation in the narrative. a. Development Data on Sheet C1.0 incorrectly lists R1 as the current zoning; revise to AR—Agricultural Residential b. Please revise Development Data Table to clearly indicate the "Minimum Building Setbacks" are the proposed, rather than setbacks associated with current zoning. c. Note the maximum impervious surface is N/A for the Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed. d. Please include a note on the site plan detailing the traffic generation that was provided in the Traffic Study prepared by Bolton & Menk. e. Development Data tables details "No requirement" for all setbacks; Sheet C3.0 details 20' front, 15' rear, and 10' side setbacks in the typical lot layout as well as on Lot 20. Please confirm whether these are to be considered the proposed minimum lot setbacks. f. Common Open Space consists of both primary open space and secondary open space. Please identify these areas (primary vs. secondary) and provide total acreages of both. This is to include a clear delineation of the primary and secondary open space boundaries as well as a description of how the areas will be used (passive, active, natural/undisturbed, trails, recreational amenities, etc.), as well as the ownership designation. g. For any amenities, provide a graphic representation of the proposed improvement. h. Please confirm the length of the riparian buffers being proposed. Buffers vary depending on slop calculated on site per UDO Section 6.13. Note that, where applicable, the calculated buffer is applied to the 100-year floodplain rather than the edge of stream. i. Please confirm whether any lighting or signage is being proposed. j. Please identify fire and police service providers. k. Please confirm the proposed solid waste disposal services. 7. Please relabel the "50' lot setback" to be "50' development setback" for clarity in differentiating lot setbacks with overall subdivision development setback. 8. Please note the proposed barrier method for denoting the tree protection area on Sheet L100. 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. 9. Please illustrate a typical lot to include between lot planting and street trees. 10. Provide a general description of the existing trees to be preserved. This may be accomplished by photographs of existing conditions. 11. Please include a note that new plants will be consistent with the Orange County Preferred Plant List. 150 Long Range Planning Comments 12. R-CD is compatible/consistent within the Rural Industrial Activity Node and Agricultural Residential Future Land Use Map (FLUM) classifications. 13. Residential land use, does not fit within the written text definition of the Rural Industrial Activity Node, as provided in Article 10, UDO and Chapter 5, Land Use Element. A companion FLUM amend may be a consideration for Planning (TBD). 14. The proposed project is consistent w/ many 2030 Plan Principles, Goals and Objectives; several are Not Applicable; and some require further consideration and with input from the DAC. 15. The proposed project is located within the Hillsborough/OC Central Orange Coordinated Area and classified as "Mixed Residential Neighborhood", as noted in the application materials. 16. The proposed project is located within Hillsborough's adopted Urban Service Boundary and within the Primary Service Area designated in the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement and the Town is among the signing parties. Town Planning staff should be consulted for common understanding of any decline in the provision of public water/sewer utilities and annexation request that may have taken place between the developer and Town staff. Matt Taylor Solid Waste Date: Staff: mtaylor(c_orangecountync.gov 919-918-4905 1. None received. Stormwater Christopher Sandt Management Date: 3/25/25 Staff: csandt orangecountync.gov 919-245-2583 1. The project is located in the Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed Overlay District. The submittal of a Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) is required if the proposed Land- Disturbing Activity exceeds 21,780 square feet. Land disturbance thresholds are cumulative to parent tract and will carry over to any/all subdivided lots. Transportation Darlene Weaver Services Date: Staff: dweaverCa)orangecountync.gov 919-245-2002 1. None received. 151 )Q FORESTAR May 13, 2025 Orange County Planning Department 131 W. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Response to Initial DAC Comments—HWY 86 Addressing and Land Records - Britney Pendleton (919) 245-2576 brpendleton@orangecountync.gov 1. In accordance with the PIN Ordinance, all surveys creating new parcels of land must be depicted with full bearings and distances (meets & bounds), as well as a size for that area described. Forestar Response: Noted. Attorney's Office—James Bryan (919) 245-2319 jbryan@orangecountync.gov 1. No Comment Received. Forestar Response: Noted. Building Inspections— Michael Rettie (919) 2452604 mrettie@orangecountync.gov 1. Any proposed construction regulated by the NC State Building Codes will require permitting. Forestar Response: Noted. DEAPR—Christ Hirni (919) 245-2514 chirni@orangecountync.g ov 8041 Arco Corporate Drive,Suite 110 1 Raleigh,North Carolina 27617 1 M(984)239.4992 1 www.forestargroup.com 152 1. Any proposed construction regulated by the NC State Building Codes will require permitting. Forestar Response: Noted. Environmental Health—Victoria Hudson (919) 245-2365 vhudson@orangecountync.gov 1. The Department has a well permit for this parcel for the purpose of assessing groundwater for the proposed community. No other applications have been received. No other public health concerns at this time. Forestar Response: Thank you. Erosion Control —Tyler Sliger (919) 245-2365 tsliger@orangecountync.gov 1. Based on the materials provided for the April 3rd DAC meeting, there are 3 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. Forestar Response: Noted. Thank you. 2. Based on the information that has been provided the project area contains 100-year Floodplain. Therefore, a Floodplain Development Application for a Floodplain Development Permit (FDP) will be needed if development is proposed in the floodplain. If needed, the applicant must also comply with Section 2.6 of the UDO. Forestar Response: Noted. Thank you. 3. Based on the submitted materials, the project is 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. Forestar Response: Noted. We will do so. Thank you. 4. 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 projects including the roads and lots. Forestar Response: Noted. Thank you. Fire and Life Safety—Chris Pendergrass (919) 245-6125 cpendergrass@orangecountync.gov 153 The following standards apply to all access types including, but not limited to, driveways,joint driveways, access easements, right of ways, and private roads. 1. Asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds Shall not exceed 10 percent in grade. Forestar Response: Noted.Thank you. 2. 20 feet wide, not including shoulders. Forestar Response: Noted.Thank you. 3. Clearance over the road would have to be no lower than 13 %feet. Forestar Response: Noted. Thank you. 4. Dead-end access in excess of 151 feet or more shall meet width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4 of the Fire Code. Forestar Response: Noted. Thank you. NCDOT— David Genwright (336) 570-6833 digenwright@ncdot.gov Permitting: 1. Prior to performing work in the NCDOT right of way, the applicant will need to obtain the following: a.Approved NCDOT Driveway Permit for proposed connections to NC 86. $50 driveway fee per every access. Forestar Response: Noted. Thank you. b. An approved NCDOT Encroachment Agreement for any proposed utility installations or activities within current right of way. Forestar Response: Noted.Thank you. Trip Generation: 1. Based on the information provided, this 42-lot single family residential subdivision is expected to generate approximately 470 daily trips at full buildout. The expected trips do not meet NCDOT thresholds to require a TIA and adjacent road network is expected to operate acceptably with no capacity improvements warranted per NCDOT guidelines. Other jurisdictions may have additional requirements. Forestar Response: Noted. Thank you. Plans: 1. Prior to issuance of the above permit documents, the applicant will need to satisfactorily address the following comments: • It appears that the proposed roadway is intended to be public roads road. If intentions are to petition for subdivision streets to be state maintained, o Verify pavement width requirements with local jurisdiction relative to fire code. 154 o Streets must be called out as public and meet NCDOT minimum construction standards. Please refer to our subdivision manual. 0 Any turnarounds in the subdivision will have to be designed to NCDOT's current "Secondary Road Turnaround Policy" to be considered for road addition Forestar Response: Noted.Turnaround is shown near phase line according to NCDOT'S current "Secondary Road Turnaround Policy". Streets are called out as public and meet NCDOT. • Provided complete plans meeting NCDOT and Orange County standards. Plan sheets should include if applicable: o Drainage/grading 0 Depicting Horizontal and Vertical curves 0 We will need details on the proposed stream crossing o 10X70 sight distance triangles on the Landscape o Detail/typical drawings and profiles. o Etc. Forestar Response: Drainage, grading and details on proposed stream crossing will be provided in the construction drawings. 10x70 sight distance triangles are provided in the landscape and site plan. Detail/typical drawings and profiles will be provided in the construction drawings. • Provide site driveway details including but not limited to: o Width o Driveway pavement details o Accommodation of Drainage o Etc. Forestar Response: Driveway pavements details, accommodation of drainage and others will be provided in the construction drawings. Intersection Sight Distance: 1. Based on a field assessment, there are concerns that acceptable time gaps and associated minimum intersection sight distances are not achieved at the proposed site accesses. The applicant will need to assess further relative to NCDOT and AASHTO requirements and provide detailed engineering exhibits to NCDOT for review. Modification of access locations and/or additional mitigations may be needed if minimum sight distance requirements cannot be met along the property frontage. Forestar Response: Noted. We will evaluate with construction drawings. Planning— Lauren Honeycutt (919) 245-2598 lahoneycutt@orangecountync.gov 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. This project is currently on track for a June 4 Planning Board meeting. Forestar Response: Acknowledged. We will be holding a neighborhood meeting in May. 155 2. The R-CD rezoning process 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 the surrounding areas. If conditions of approval are being proposed, please provide a draft for staff to review. Forestar Response: Understood. We will be providing conditions for staff to review. Application 3. Narrative refers to Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan as COCO, please note that staff will refer to this land use plan as COCA in the staff report and presentation. Forestar Response: Thank you for the clarification. We have revised our statement to refer the COCA, as well. 4. Per UDO Section 5.21.1, since the proposed lots are to be served by community well, a professionally prepared groundwater yield analysis relating the proposed well to the U.S. Geological Water Resources Investigation Report 00-4286 and any later USGS Water Resource Investigation Report data available is required for submittal. Forestar Response: The well was drilled by Yadkin Well Company. The 24-hour draw down was performed on 11/19/2024 producing 84 GPM at 554 feet. The full report is included in the resubmittal package. 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 for submittal. Forestar Response: Natural and human resources report is provided 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. This report has been included in the resubmittal package. Site Plan 6. Per UDO Section 2.5.3 Site Plan Specifications and UDO Section 5.21.1 Major Subdivision Standards for Conditional Districts, please include or correct the following elements in the site plan set. This may be on the site plan itself or as a note, condition, or explanation in the narrative. a.Development Data on Sheet C1.0 incorrectly lists R1 as the current zoning; revise to AR— Agricultural Residential Forestar Response: Noted. C1.0 sheet is now listing AR as the current zoning. b. Please revise Development Data Table to clearly indicate the "Minimum Building Setbacks" are the proposed, rather than setbacks associated with current zoning. Forestar Response: Noted. Data table indicates "Minimum Proposed Building Setback". 156 c.Note the maximum impervious surface is N/A for the Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed. Forestar Response: Noted. It is indicated in the data table (Sheet C1.0). d. Please include a note on the site plan detailing the traffic generation that was provided in the Traffic Study prepared by Bolton & Menk. Forestar Response: Noted. It is indicated in the data table (Sheet C1.0). e. Development Data tables details "No requirement" for all setbacks; Sheet C3.0 details 20' front, 15' rear, and 10' side setbacks in the typical lot layout as well as on Lot 20. Please confirm whether these are to be considered the proposed minimum lot setbacks. Forestar Response: Noted. Data table indicates proposed minimum lot setbacks in accordance with sheet C3.0. f. Common Open Space consists of both primary open space and secondary open space. Please identify these areas (primary vs. secondary) and provide total acreages of both. This is to include a clear delineation of the primary and secondary open space boundaries as well as a description of how the areas will be used (passive, active, natural/undisturbed, trails, recreational amenities, etc.), as well as the ownership designation. Forestar Response: Existing primary and secondary open space has been identified on sheet C2.1 and preserved or proposed open space with descriptions is shown on 1-000. g.For any amenities, provide a graphic representation of the proposed improvement. Forestar Response: A separate precedent imagery document has been included in the submittal to show examples of the design intent for amenity and open space areas. h. Please confirm the length of the riparian buffers being proposed. Buffers vary depending on slop calculated on site per UDO Section 6.13. Note that, where applicable, the calculated buffer is applied to the 100-year floodplain rather than the edge of stream. Forestar Response: Buffers were calculated on site per UDO Section 6.13. A buffer applicability memo is provided demonstrating how the buffers were calculated. i. Please confirm whether any lighting or signage is being proposed. Forestar Response: Proposed signage and lighting are shown in the site plan (Sheet 3.0). j. Please identify fire and police service providers. Forestar Response: Fire and police service providers are listed in the cover sheet (Sheet C1.0). k. Please confirm the proposed solid waste disposal services. Forestar Response: We have reached out to Orange County Waste Management in hopes of receiving a will serve letter. Once we receive correspondence from OC Waste Management, we will send that information on to Orange County Planning staff. 7. Please relabel the "50' lot setback" to be "50' development setback" for clarity in differentiating lot setbacks with overall subdivision development setback. Forestar Response: "Development setback" was relabeled in the Site plan (Sheet C3.0). 157 8. Please note the proposed barrier method for denoting the tree protection area on Sheet L100. 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. Forestar Response: Tree protection fencing will be installed in accordance with NCDEQ standards. A typical detail has been provided on sheet L100. 9. Please illustrate a typical lot to include between lot planting and street trees. Forestar Response: A typical lot diagram has been added to sheet L100. 10. Provide a general description of the existing trees to be preserved. This may be accomplished by photographs of existing conditions. Forestar Response: Existing trees are shown and described on sheet C2.1. 11. Please include a note that new plants will be consistent with the Orange County Preferred Plant List. Forestar Response: Note has been added to sheet L100. Long Range Planning Comments: 12. R-CD is compatible/consistent within the Rural Industrial Activity Node and Agricultural Residential Future Land Use Map (FLUM) classifications. Forestar Response: Noted. Thank you. 13. Residential land use, does not fit within the written text definition of the Rural Industrial Activity Node, as provided in Article 10, UDO and Chapter 5, Land Use Element. A companion FLUM amend may be a consideration for Planning (TBD). Forestar Response: Noted, our understanding is no FLUM amendment is required. 14. The proposed project is consistent w/ many 2030 Plan Principles, Goals and Objectives; several are Not Applicable; and some require further consideration and with input from the DAC. Forestar Response: Noted. Thank you. 15. The proposed project is located within the Hillsborough/OC Central Orange Coordinated Area and classified as "Mixed Residential Neighborhood", as noted in the application materials. Forestar Response: Noted. Thank you. 16. The proposed project is located within Hillsborough's adopted Urban Service Boundary and within the Primary Service Area designated in the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement and the Town is among the signing parties. Town Planning staff should be consulted for common understanding of any decline in the provision of public water/sewer utilities and annexation request that may have taken place between the developer and Town staff. Forestar Response: Noted. Thank you. 158 Solid Waste— Matt Taylor (919) 918-4905 mtaylor@orangecountync.gov 1. No comments received. Forestar Response: Noted. Stormwater Management—Christopher Sandt (919) 245-2583 csandt@orangecountync.gov 1. The project is located in the Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed Overlay District. The submittal of a Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) is required if the proposed Land-Disturbing Activity exceeds 21,780 square feet. Land disturbance thresholds are cumulative to parent tract and will carry over to any/all subdivided lots. Forestar Response: Noted. Thank you. Transportation Services— Darlene Weaver (919) 245-2002 dweaver@orangecountync.gov 1. No comments received. Forestar Response: Noted. Thank you. 159 Highway 86N Subdivision (Brown & Powell Parcel) Town of Hillsborough comments Connectivity 1. The inclusion of a trail system around the neighborhood is a nice amenity and could provide future opportunities for connectivity if it were not a closed system. Town staff recommend the developer put the trail system in a public access easement so that in the future as this area develops it can have greater utilization. A. Town staff also recommend that a leg of the trail connect to the adjacent Eno Academy property so that students living in this neighborhood could walk to school vs. having to get in a vehicle and go down and around to NC 57 to get to school. (Example below, best alignment will depend on topography/treeline) j .41 1 � � �W — — R � , a _ w u..rtvx a 'tin �� ��I�fIR� ���� u. a MATC711E-A B. Town staff recommends a trail connection stub to the Eva Brown and Robert Medred parcels as well. Example below, location subject to topo/developer preference. 160 .,tee• - �_�o,��E�°�� „ ��,w� ' � e�W , �, � „.gyp - •ri g 2. Town staff would recommend sidewalk be installed on NC 86 N at the southern entrance of the development for future completion of a sidewalk system on NC 86 N. (Example below, alignment and feasibility dependent on topography) 3. A future ROW dedication and stub is recommended to be built to the adjacent parcel so that internal connectivity can be provided if/when the Eva Brown and Robert Medred parcels are developed. (Example below, alignment and feasibility dependent on topo, developer location preference) 161 - > w3M aP - N.j6•�•29 W Rl7E LINES 9983 rt'W 48 GRIP G'ISTAxCE 396,56 (. 3 • . W16 iANLEN LASEMENI - y63840 N �`1.`V SiW SIVY - a.T6'sdu 1+ . orsuxcE nsoxlu3 - � 1l \V PgWFR13' l]�} VV J q,A�`V F ERAR,P 6Rp1YN t — B]LN6ARY T' l 1 xERµ6 Vy 1l Pix R4®fi59F- - OB 13fi PC )2 , PRbPERtt t ZONING–AR 6xPfER €57 1Ary REsioENCE i 966_5653]33 V ` ,� 6s'pG 5 1 T9 PG I A I IN• - }5 s1'l 35OA l', 0' -,NI P%-"U E SPo w RunoR I Y'p LLO P➢96 99658�, V 1:;\ - � ` " 5 °u ZOIdINLPG IRR6 ' VVl l 0.51 AG 8 8'MAuA, RESPENCE ,`, � I '6t•w e, � 9 [ 4. The trip generation report indicates that a total of 524 trips per day will be generated with about 39 vehicles exiting the development at peak in the AM and 32 coming in at peak in the PM for 49 units. While this does not meet the threshold for the preparation of a TIA(traffic impact analysis)for the County, if this project were being developed in town we would require both the intersection of NC57 & NC 86N and NC HWY 70 & NC 86N be studied under the requirement: "staff or NCDOT identify potential negative impacts to nearby intersections with high crash rates, significant turning movement delays, or level of service concerns." These intersections both have poor levels of service at peak operation.The Town would encourage that the Orange County Planning Board and BOCC ask the developer to study how these additional trips per day will further add delays to already failing intersections and make any suggestions for improvements with rational nexus to the size of the development. Water&Sewer Service 5. The plans indicate that septic will be provided on-site via septic tanks and drain fields, however no drain fields are shown on the subdivision plan.Where are the drain fields proposed to be located?On the individual lots themselves? A. These lots are only .5 acres, has Enivronmental Health or the developer confirmed that such a small lot can support a house, septic tank, and drain field area in such a small space? 162 B. Is there sufficient distance/spacing from lots 35 &36 drain fields to the proposed `Community Well' location? 6. If this project is approved by the BOCC, the Town maybe able to provide water only service to this development due to the low density, without annexation, if the developer desires. This comment is informational in nature and is not an offer to se rve. 163 FORESTAR May 14, 2025 Town of Hillsborough Planning Department 101 E. Orange Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Response to Town of Hillsborough Comments—HWY 86 Connectivity 1. The inclusion of a trail system around the neighborhood is a nice amenity and could provide future opportunities for connectivity if it were not a closed system. Town staff recommend the developer put the trail system in a public access easement so that in the future as this area develops it can have greater utilization. Forestar Response: The trail system is intended to be a private community amenity. Making the proposed trail system available for public use would introduce a significant financial burden for future homeowners. Future homeowners would become responsible for maintaining a trail system subject to heavier use from those outside of the subdivision in addition to the potential liability requiring costly insurance to cover the additional risk associated with public use. With that being said, Forestar would agree to provide a 20' future public easement should the HOA and any public entity come to an agreement for the public entity to acquire the easement in the future. It should be noted that the trail system will not be constructed in accordance with any public required specifications. A. Town staff also recommend that a leg of the trail connect to the adjacent Eno Academy property so that students living in this neighborhood could walk to school vs. having to get in a vehicle and go down and around to NC 57 to get to school. (Example below, best alignment will depend on topography/treeline) Forestar Response: Please refer to the updated plans for location of the future 20' access easement connecting to Eno River Academy. 8041 Arco Corporate Drive,Suite 110 1 Raleigh,North Carolina 27617 1 M(919)804.7220 1 www.forestargroup.com 164 _------- e" .. .\ -'--- ---~'�- --'---- ----- .� ---------- :77 oma m 3&.. B. Town staff recommends a trail connection stub to the Eva Brown and Robert Medred parcels as well. Example below, location subject to topo/developer preference. Forestar Response: Please refer to the updated plans for location of the future 20' access easement connecting to Eva Brown property. .F f i 2. Town staff would recommend sidewalk be installed on NC 86 N at the southern entrance of the development for future completion of a sidewalk system on NC 86 N. (Example below, alignment and feasibility dependent on topography) Forestar Response: Grade is steep at this location. We are working to determine if installation of a sidewalk would be feasible. 165 ,`y c 3. A future ROW dedication and stub is recommended to be built to the adjacent parcel so that internal connectivity can be provided if/when the Eva Brown and Robert Medred parcels are developed. (Example below, alignment and feasibility dependent on topo, developer location preference) Forestar Response: Please refer to the updated plans that show the future ROW dedication connecting to Eva Brown's property. At this time, we are unable to provide a ROW dedication to Robert Medred's property due to site constraints. Acs—um—nE= - o E�x"wsraxcc s<e;5e — - - µern "�' y ssx x r scucx. re�axau °r oP L "ereawry aAwwn--- .s ,say, x \ a -D_ re, r asi V � �•. � w � _ z r EN,qINE hs PAWFA 1 aTZ O I—RN L -fit �.y xa aec Z. 4. The trip generation report indicates that a total of 524 trips per day will be generated with about 39 vehicles exiting the development at peak in the AM and 32 coming in at peak in the 166 PM for 49 units. While this does not meet the threshold for the preparation of a TIA (traffic impact analysis) for the County, if this project were being developed in town we would require both the intersection of NC57 & NC 86N and NC HWY 70 & NC 86N be studied under the requirement: "staff or NCDOT identify potential negative impacts to nearby intersections with high crash rates, significant turning movement delays, or level of service concerns." These intersections both have poor levels of service at peak operation. The Town would encourage that the Orange County Planning Board and BOCC ask the developer to study how these additional trips per day will further add delays to already failing intersections and make any suggestions for improvements with rational nexus to the size of the development. Forestar Response: We have exceeded the County's requirements for study of this small neighborhood. Water & Sewer Service 5. The plans indicate that septic will be provided on-site via septic tanks and drain fields, however no drain fields are shown on the subdivision plan. Where are the drain fields proposed to be located? On the individual lots themselves? Forestar Response: Drain fields will be located on the individual lots. A. These lots are only .5 acres, has Environmental Health or the developer confirmed that such a small lot can support a house, septic tank, and drain field area in such a small space? Forestar Response: We have confirmed with our engineer that a 20,000 sf lot can support a house, septic tank, and associated drain fields. B. Is there sufficient distance/spacing from lots 35 & 36 drain fields to the proposed 'Community Well' location? Forestar Response: DEQ and Orange County Environmental Health have confirmed that we meet the required 100' radius from the community well location. 6. If this project is approved by the BOCC, the Town may be able to provide water only service to this development due to the low density, without annexation, if the developer desires. This comment is informational in nature and is not an offer to serve. Forestar Response: We appreciate the opportunity to have Hillsborough water available. We will reserve easements on the subject property to allow for a future connection to water if needed. 167 Memorandum titiSB o Rpt To: Cy Stober, Orange County Planning & Inspections Director 0#0 ; From: Matt Efird, Assistant Town Manager c— CC: Shannan Campbell, Planning & Economic Development 7 ' x`54 Manager Bryant Green, PE, Engineering Services Manager T� CARO Date: 10/23/2025 Subject: Town of Hillsborough Support for Zoning Condition This memorandum affirms the Town of Hillsborough's support for a zoning condition proposed for the project known to Orange County as "Zoning Atlas Amendment Rezoning Application Conditional District MA25-0003". The condition, listed as#13 in the "Narrative of Zoning Conditions Offered", states the following: "The property owner shall petition the Town of Hillsborough for access to public water to serve the subject property and, if approved, utilize public water in the subdivision, if necessary easements are reasonably obtainable." The proposed project is outside of the prescribed new Urban Service Boundary as recommended in the Town's Comprehensive Sustainability Plan, however the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners (the "Board") has not yet taken formal action to amend the boundary. Town staff supports the property owner/project applicant petitioning for public water service directly to the Board. This memo does not represent an offer to provide public water service to the property. The Town Board will have to determine if the provision of public water service is in the best interest of the Town and its goals. 101 E.Orange St., Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732-1270 1 www.hillsboroughnc.gov I @HillsboroughGov 168 Approved 10.1.25 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 SEPTEMBER 3,2025 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamar Proctor(Chair) Cheeks Township, Chris Johnston (Vice-Chair) Hillsborough 7 Township, Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Delores Bailey, At-Large 8 Representative; Beth Bronson, At-Large Representative; Venkat Yendapalli, Cedar Grove 9 Township Representative; Jonah Garson, At-Large Representative; Whitney Watson, At- 10 Large Representative. 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Kalles, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Charity Kirk, At-Large Representative; 13 Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; Meg Millard, Little River Township 14 Representative. 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director- Long Range 17 Planning &Administration; Christopher Sandt, County Engineer; Patrick Mallett, Deputy 18 Director— Development Services; Taylor Perschau, Current Planning Manager; Jack 19 Moran, Planner 1 20 21 OTHERS PRESENT: Ward Marotti, Joshua Reinke,Jason Rivenbark, Don Sever, Rachel Cotter, Nicole Steele, David 22 Barcal, Beth Trahos, Laura Haywood, Lindsey Sealy,Winifried Johnson, Daniel Rawlins, 23 Stephanie Waller, Robert Medred, Peter Childers, Cathy Owens, Laura Streitfeld, Susanne 24 Berglund,Wayne Honeycutt. 25 26 ****** 27 28 29 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 30 31 Lamar Proctor: I do have a few comments. First of all, I'm just going to ask members of the Planning Board to 32 always give their full attention to the presenters and to the public when they're making comments. 33 It's okay if you need to speak to each other to reference a page number because we are dealing 34 with hundreds of pages in these packets, and there is a lot of information that's being considered, 35 but we should refrain from having lengthy or substantive discussions amongst ourselves. This is a 36 legislative process, and we should be discussing that amongst ourselves in public at the 37 appropriate time. I also wanted to remind the Planning Board that if there are errors you notice in 38 the packet that are grammatical or scrivener's errors as we call them in the courtroom or, 39 formatting errors,those can be directed to Cy Stober as the planning director, and those do not 40 have to be necessarily brought out in the open meeting. We need to make the most efficient use 41 of our time and discuss the substantive issues that are before us. I would just like to reiterate to 42 everyone,the Planning Board takes this job very seriously. We're all volunteers. We understand 43 that planning, and especially zoning decisions and land use planning decisions are very emotional 44 for the people it effects,that is you're talking about changing the character of people's homes, 45 where they reside,the characters of their community, and these are very important decisions, and 46 we take them seriously,so we would ask just for everyone to respect each other. Sometimes 47 these are not popular decisions. Sometimes they're difficult,and we are doing our best to try and 48 hear all the voices and make an informed recommendation to the Board of County 49 Commissioners, and I would just remind everyone that we are not the final decision here on these 50 planning land use issues. We make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, 51 and they make the final decision as to these issues. Moving along to Agenda Item 7,we have a 52 zoning atlas amendment to review and make recommendations to the Board of County 53 Commissioners on a zoning atlas amendment to rezone plus or minus 78.11 acres located at 54 1039-UT NC 86 North Hillsborough within the Hillsborough Township of Orange County. The 169 Approved 10.1.25 55 proposed rezoning is from agricultural residential to residential conditional district. The anticipated 56 board of county commissioner public hearing date is November 6 of 2025, so we will have a 57 presenter from the developer on this project, and I would remind them that we limit these 58 presentations to 30 minutes. 59 60 61 Taylor Perschau: Thank you, Chair Proctor. Good evening, board. My name is Taylor Perschau. I am the current 62 planning and zoning manager,the staff planner on this zoning atlas amendment as Lamar just 63 summarized. I will be going through the conditional district zoning process as a reminder of what 64 has already happened in the review process to get the project to this Planning Board. The 65 applicant team are familiar faces to you all, as we saw a different application from the Forestar 66 Group at your August meeting, so a reminder on the conditional district zoning process. There are 67 two different zoning processes available to applicants. One is conventional district. The other 68 tonight's is a conditional district zoning. For a conditional district zoning,the request is going to be 69 use specific with an individualized development plan, including a site plan, conditions that are 70 agreed upon by the applicant and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners, and site-specific 71 standards, so the site-specific development plan has been included in the application from its very 72 submittal. It has gone through minor revisions. It has had, it started with planning staff review, 73 went through the development advisory committee, there was a neighborhood information 74 meeting, and finally we're here tonight for Planning Board review and recommendation to the 75 Board of County Commissioners. As Lamar stated,the project is in the Hillsborough Township. 76 The green in the map you see on the screen is the Hillsborough Township, so the dark gray notes 77 city limits for Hillsborough. The light gray notes Town of Hillsborough's extra territorial jurisdiction 78 in which municipal services, so city limits don't extend to the ETJ, but planning and zoning 79 jurisdiction do. 80 81 Lamar Proctor: I just have a minor correction before we go on. I think I said developer. I should have said 82 applicant,so using the proper nomenclature, so we have an applicant who is applying for a zoning 83 change. 84 85 Taylor Perschau: Correct. 86 87 Taylor Perschau: As Lamar noted, it is currently zoned agricultural residential. It is also located in the Lower Eno 88 unprotected watershed. The request is for a rezone to residential conditional for the use of a 89 major subdivision and single-family dwellings specifically. Surrounding zoning in the green on this 90 visual is agricultural residential, some yellow are R1 and R3,which is low to medium intensity rural 91 residential uses. To the east of the subject parcel is Eno River Academy,which is within the Town 92 of Hillsborough city limits. To the south,that grayed area, again, is the extra territorial jurisdiction 93 for the Town of Hillsborough. As with all zoning requests,we're asked to compare what's being 94 requested to what the future land use map as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners 95 designates this area for. This particular parcel falls under both rural industrial activity node and 96 agricultural residential. I wanted to particularly highlight what rural industrial activity node means, 97 as that's quite different from one that we often see. The future land use plan describes this as 98 land designated in the comprehensive plan that is designed on designated road intersections 99 which serve as nodal crossroads for surrounding rural community and is an appropriate location 100 for small-scale industrial uses which do not require urban-type services,and there is no proposed 101 amendment to either of these two future land use designations. Of note, this property is also 102 mapped within the Town of Hillsborough Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area land 103 use plan. The subject parcel is classified as mixed residential neighborhood by this land use plan, 104 which is defined as the dominant land use in any proposed development is expected to be 105 residential based on square footage of proposed structures. Developments may contain a single 106 or variety of dwelling types and densities or may integrate a variety of supportive commercial 107 public and semi-public uses and open or public space. Small developments that provide only 108 supportive non-residential land uses in an infill arrangement serving more than 50 dwelling units in 109 a walkable manner may also be considered. So part of what has been brought before you tonight, 170 Approved 10.1.25 110 as is required by the unified development ordinance for a conditional district rezoning application 111 includes site-specific plan, an environmental assessment, a biological inventory, and as noted, 112 this has gone before review agencies, including the Orange County Development Advisory 113 Committee,which includes addressing and land records staff; building inspections; department of 114 environment, agriculture, parks and recreation; environmental health; erosion control; and fire and 115 life safety. North Carolina Department of Transportation is also involved in our DAC review, and 116 staff submitted the entire application packet to the state environmental review clearinghouse. The 117 DAC comments included in the application packet note all of the needed permits or concerns or 118 advisory comments from all the DAC members. I will let the applicant get into their site-specific 119 plan. I will quickly say it's proposing a 49-lot subdivision with lots 20,000 square feet in size. It is 120 proposing two accesses on NC 86 North, and the property does have various mapped 121 jurisdictional streams on site,which are subject to Orange County stream buffer regulations. Per 122 state statute, imposed conditions and site-specific standards are limited to those that address 123 conformance of a development and use of the site to local government ordinances and adoptive 124 plans or the impact is reasonably expected to be generated by the development or use on site. 125 You will find in the application that the applicant has proposed conditions. You as the Planning 126 Board are also open to suggesting conditions, as is the Board of County Commissioners. 127 Ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners and the applicant would have to agree to stated 128 and imposed conditions. I think I might let the applicant also get into the conditions. I think you 129 have that on your own slide show, so I'll keep these here for reference, but we can come back to 130 them as needed, so there are a total of ten conditions, all of which are land use specific, and with 131 that, I will hand it over to the applicant team. After the applicant presentation, I do plan on coming 132 back to finalize some staff notes before we open up to board discussion and public comment. 133 134 Beth Bronson: The conditions are in the packet or are not in the packet? 135 136 Taylor Perschau: They are. 137 138 Beth Bronson: They are in the packet, so I just wanted to make sure. 139 140 Cy Stober: Staff has provided those conditions. In addition to the applicant's packet,they should be in the 141 staff report,the ordinance, and the statement of consistency. 142 143 Lamar Proctor: I think they're on Page 82. 144 145 Beth Trahos: Good evening, Mr. Chair, and Planning Board members. My name is Beth Trahos. I am an 146 attorney with Fox Rothschild, and I am here tonight on behalf of Forestar Development to propose 147 the development of the 49-home community on Highway 86. 1 have with me a big team of experts 148 who will be available tonight to answer any questions you have. Laura Haywood and Jason 149 Rivenbark with Forestar, Don Sever,with Bowman,who is the civil engineer, Rachel Cotter and 150 Nicole Steele with Weston and Sampson, our landscape architects,Josh Reinke with Bolton and 151 Menk, the traffic engineer, Ward Marotti with Spangler Environmental and David Barcal with 152 McConnell and Associates, and we have worked very closely with your staff who has been 153 available and helpful and collaborative with us, and we really appreciate their professional 154 expertise and assistance. This is the subject property. It is 79.76 acres on Highway 86 North. It 155 is immediately adjacent to Town of Hillsborough corporate limits with the Eno River Academy to 156 the back. There are a number of surrounding residentially focused land uses to the site. Of 157 course,the Eno River Academy, Pathways Elementary School, Mars Baptist Church as well as 158 some homes, some small neighborhoods, and some vacant land. The broader area here includes 159 a wider variety of uses, HVAC repair, a construction company, Orange County Public 160 Transportation,several churches, Fairview Park and more homes and neighborhoods and vacant 161 land. You can see the variety of zoning that's out here, everything from AR to industrial, and in 162 between. We propose residential conditional district, and as your staff said, that means we have 163 committed to a concept plan as well as written conditions, and our goal with this plan is to provide 164 much needed housing while representing the rural heritage of this area,which is now very close to 171 Approved 10.1.25 165 the town of Hillsborough with its many desirable amenities, actually not so far from where we sit 166 here today. I'm going to ask Rachel Cotter to come forward and talk with you about, about the 167 design. 168 169 Rachel Cotter: Good evening, Mr. Chair and board members. The concept for this design is based in beautiful 170 living that celebrates the local character and context, natural resources and context and culture of 171 rural Orange County. These qualities are represented throughout our proposed design. First,to 172 protect and celebrate the natural resources on site and regionally,we are clustering the proposed 173 lots and thus limiting disturbance of the site. Different from many residential developments,we 174 are not mass grading the site. We are maintaining stream and wetland buffers and preserving 175 these features themselves keeping habitat and corridors in place to the extent possible. We have 176 a total of 49 of the nearly 80 acres preserved as, or I'm sorry, proposed as tree protection areas. 177 In terms of the character and context of the site, it is honored by the inclusion of a sculptural art 178 piece and three experiential gardens in spirit of rural Orange County and southern charm. This is 179 some of our experiential garden,just simple precedent imagery that we really imagine these 180 capturing the native landscape of Orange County and serving as rooms throughout the 181 development, and then finally,the culture and lifestyle we imagine and have designed for is one 182 with a strong sense of community promoted through gathering spaces and trails meandering 183 through the site. Approximately 1.7 miles of natural surface trail allow this community to be active 184 where residents can connect with the natural beauty of the Orange County landscape and move 185 through a connected series of trails that lead them to these individual gardens, and I will turn it 186 back over to Beth to talk about the details of the zoning commitment. 187 188 Beth Trahos: I'll just touch briefly to reiterate what your staff has said that this is compliant with the Orange 189 County Hillsborough COCA plan which designates the site for mixed residential neighborhood, 190 and as Rachel said, preserves in the cluster of flexible development subdivision significant 191 amounts of natural area. In our conditions we have the commitment to our site plan, a minimum 192 lot size of 20,000 square feet,a commitment with regard to the experiential gardens,which are 193 shown on that concept plan and a requirement that each of the gardens have a plan designed by 194 a landscape architect at the time of final plat and that they contain seating opportunities such as a 195 bench or a hammock so that they will be attractive and usable amenities in the community. We 196 also have committed to native plant materials to supplement perimeter plantings in an effort to 197 maintain that local flora. We have committed to the trails that Rachel discussed. They will provide 198 access to the community gathering areas and each of the gardens. Nine thousand linear feet is 199 roughly 1.7 miles. We've also committed to having way-finding signs located along the trails to 200 guide walkers as they move throughout the community. We will have a mail kiosk with a weather 201 covering and recessed lighting. The designated community gathering space will include that 202 sculptural art piece that Rachel mentioned and seating opportunities all to be maintained by the 203 HOA. We made commitments with regards to the individual septic system size to serve at least 204 four bedrooms and a commitment that no home shall contain no more than four bedrooms, and 205 finally, an acknowledgment of the dark sky preservation lighting requirements in your UDO that we 206 will comply with as a part of this project. We are proposing individual septic systems on each lot. 207 We have taken time to do a soil and site evaluation, which I understand to be the modern perc test 208 to confirm that there is an opportunity to use these systems on each lot. We have then shown 209 how these systems would lay out on individual lots spread throughout the community, so you can 210 see on this overall the designated lots we have chosen for fit tests. We have included those fit 211 tests so that they can be reviewed in greater detail. We also propose a community well, and we 212 went to Orange County and requested a permit and received a permit to install a community well, 213 to confirm that there was sufficient water capacity here to serve the planned homes, and we hired 214 a consultant to do a study using three wells to determine whether there was sufficient water, and 215 the results showed that there was sufficient water, and Ward and David Barcal are both here to 216 talk with you in detail about the work that they have done. This was in response to questions we 217 had heard from neighbors who wanted to understand the impact of a community well on existing 218 wells. In addition to our community meeting,we reached out and had discussions with several 219 members of the community after that meeting, and we took action to add conditions based on 172 Approved 10.1.25 220 what we heard. We think our proposal offers quite a lot of public benefit for the community 221 providing 49 homes in close proximity to the amenities of historic Hillsborough with a significant 222 walking trail and unique gardens and gathering spaces, a commitment to native plant materials 223 and a commitment to protect more than half of the site as open space.We recognize that Orange 224 County and the town of Hillsborough are growing rapidly, and that people want to live here, and 225 more housing is needed, and we believe that the proposed neighborhood does a good job of 226 protecting the rural heritage of the area while acknowledging that Hillsborough is growing and 227 there is this need for additional housing. So,we ask for your support, and our full team is available 228 to answer any questions you might have about our proposal. 229 230 Lamar Proctor: All right. Does that conclude the presentation? 231 232 Beth Trahos: For our portion. Of course,we would request the opportunity to reserve any remaining time to 233 answer questions if needed. 234 235 Lamar Proctor: Okay. We'll hear from staff,and then we'll move to public comment because I think it is much 236 more helpful to us to have had public input before we start engaging and questioning and then 237 board discussion. 238 239 Taylor Perschau: Thank you. I'm just going to finish up a few notes about how the application and review met 240 ordinance standards to get to the board today. So, public notices were mailed via first-class mail 241 to property owners on August 20th. As required by the ordinance,those notices go to all 242 properties within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Signs were similarly posted on the parcel the 243 same day, Wednesday,August 20th, and the application information has been posted publicly on 244 our department's active development web page since we get those applications on the web page 245 as soon as a neighborhood information meeting is scheduled. Staff has determined that the 246 application is complete in accordance with the requirements of the UDO. All submitted materials 247 were in compliance with the following applicable sections. That includes Sections 2.8,which 248 details zoning atlas amendment application requirements, Section 2.9 for conditional districts and 249 Section 5.21.1,which defines submittal requirements for major subdivision conditional districts. 250 Staff review of the application included considerations for how the request relates to Orange 251 County 2030 comprehensive plan. You see notes on that in the drafted statements of both 252 consistency and inconsistency. The requested zoning district of the residential conditional district 253 is noted to be consistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan, as detailed in Appendix F,which 254 relates the relationships between land use classifications and zoning districts. As well,the 255 applicant has provided an environmental assessment as part of the submittal. Staff reviewed, as 256 did the state clearinghouse for environmental review, and determined no significant environmental 257 impact is expected from the property based on existing and proposed conditions,so tonight, you 258 have already heard from the applicant and staff. You now have the opportunity to hear from the 259 public, at your discretion review and discuss the analysis and staff recommendation,and finally 260 you're tasked with making a recommendation of either approval or denial to the Board of County 261 Commissioners. So,the planning director recommends that you all receive the rezoning 262 application. You deliberate on the proposal. You consider the planning director's 263 recommendation, and then finally make a recommendation to the Board of County 264 Commissioners. 265 266 Lamar Proctor: All right. Thank you. We're going to move to public comment. I'm going to reread the public 267 charge to remind all of us about our commitment to respect and having a peaceable discussion 268 and on these issues. The Planning Board pledges its respect to all present. The board asks 269 those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful courteous manner toward each 270 other, county staff and board members. At any time, should a member of the board or the public 271 fail to observe this charge the chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it 272 become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the chair will recess the meeting 273 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The Planning Board 274 asks once again that all electronic devices be set to silent. Please be kind to everyone. I'm going 173 Approved 10.1.25 275 to read the names as they appear, and if there is no agenda item listed, I will just make a brief 276 inquiry. This Highway 86 subdivision is Agenda Item 7, so we are taking public comment on 277 Agenda Item 7, and then when we move to Agenda Item 8 after this, then we can take public 278 comment on that item. So,the first name is Lindsay Sealy. 279 280 Chris Johnston: So just to clarify for everyone in the audience,what's going to happen is if you would be so kind 281 as to state your name and location. I'm going to hit the button here and it'll give you a 3-minute 282 timer. It'll show you a little red light when you're getting close, and we just ask that you respond to 283 that. 284 285 Lindsey Sealy: Great, thank you. My name is Lindsey Sealy. I am the executive director at Eno River Academy 286 that was referenced several times in that presentation. They also held the neighborhood 287 information meeting at our school, so we have learned all about this proposal already, and we just 288 want to express that we have a very vested interest in this property, and we currently use it. We 289 have an agreement with the current owners that we can use the cross-country trail on it, so we 290 would lose that, and we just wanted to share that we are interested in the property and that we 291 would obviously love to continue to have our cross-country program. Thank you. 292 293 Lamar Proctor: All right. Thank you. Winifried Johnson. 294 295 Chris Johnston: If you could come to the front. I apologize. 296 297 Winifried Johnson: I am just concerned about the traffic situation on 86. It's already really bad, so with this new 298 development, I'm just concerned about the traffic on 86. That's what I'm here to hear about. 299 300 Chris Johnston: Okay. Do you, do you have any, any additional comments on that? 301 302 Winifried Johnson: No,that's the only comment I'm concerned about. I just came to hear about what's going to 303 happen with the traffic. 304 305 Chris Johnston: Wonderful. Thank you. 306 307 Winifried Johnson: You're welcome. 308 309 Cy Stober: Ma'am, before you leave,just so we have it on the record, could you just say your name once 310 again please? 311 312 Winifried Johnson: I'm sorry. My name is Winifried Johnson. I live on 86. 313 314 Lamar Proctor: Thank you very much, Winifried.And once again, if you step up,just make sure you speak clearly 315 into the microphone. State your name and your location in the county. Daniel Rawlins. 316 317 Daniel Rawlins: I am Daniel Rawlins. I live at 200 Governor Burke Road. I just wanted to point out to support Ms. 318 Johnson, I don't know if anyone's been on 86 between 7:30 and 8:30 in the morning, it's a train 319 wreck. There are hills that already,there is many accidents already on that road in the morning 320 when you come over certain hills. If you've been up there you've seen it. I am concerned about 321 the traffic on 86 in the morning. Also, acutely for us,we have on Governor Burke Road, and if 322 anyone is there during the school hours, people cut across from 86 on Governor Burke Road in 323 the morning, especially high school children flying down our road. This would increase traffic 324 across, not only in the morning for school but also when people want to access that side of 325 Hillsborough where like Food Lion is, and they come through that area. The increased traffic 326 would definitely be a nuisance to us, but that would just be a nuisance. I am concerned about 86, 327 especially between 7:30 and 8:30. It is quite crowded already. There is plenty of traffic from the 328 Eno River Academy on 57 already, so anyone who's been there, I would say go drive over there in 329 the morning just once to see how bad 57 is from Eno River Academy and how bad 86 is from 174 Approved 10.1.25 330 traffic coming from north to south already, and that will increase that, and of course,for us 331 personally on 80, on Governor Burke Road in the morning,that would increase traffic cutting 332 across between 86 and 57, and I,without any kind of study of the traffic I'm kind of concerned, as 333 is already pretty bad already in the morning if anyone would come and see what it looks like at 334 8:00. It's pretty congested in that area already. Thank you. 335 336 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. Stephanie Waller. 337 338 Stephanie Waller: Hello. My name is Stephanie Waller, and I reside at 113 Blackman Lane. Growth is inevitable, 339 and I just want to have some accountability with the growth. The project I think is lovely. If I had 340 to actually choose between different builders or developers,what they propose is really good 1 341 think having come from Durham as a native person and having seen the overgrowth in Durham. 342 This is why actually we moved here and relocated from Durham to Hillsborough a year ago. Now 343 one thing that I wanted to ask this, this board and anyone that is responsible for approving or 344 thinking about or considering this is that the accountability is there. One of my concerns is 1 345 actually, our house,we volunteered to use our well for the water test to see if there is a draw down 346 effect. We were part of the neighbors, and at that time there was another neighbor that wanted to 347 as well, and I was glad that they did use our well. My concern is that they used the minimum 348 requirement,the minimum that is required by North Carolina, and in looking and researching 349 usually it's actually suggested that four to six existing wells be used,and especially North Carolina 350 actually states that they recommend more observation wells if there is heterogeneous aquifers, 351 and so right now we're actually researching even in our own home where there is water 352 fluctuations, and we're planning to hire a plumber to see what that's about because after being 353 there a year that was not the case. The other thing is, the concern is in researching the parent 354 company for Forestar, DR Horton,there was a complaint for injunctive relief and civil penalties in 355 Baltimore, Maryland. The department had issued a complaint for injunctive relief and civil 356 penalties for the unpermitted discharge of pollution in violation of sediment pollution, so my 357 concern is not what's done, it's how it's done. I don't have the expertise to really keep them 358 accountable, and I just hope that people keep them accountable. The project that they propose is 359 great. My concern is, and having and actually lived in a town home and gone through the process 360 where the developer,the builder, and then, you have separate entities, and my question to them 361 during the first meeting was who is going to make the builders accountable to or keep that plan 362 that you propose? It's a great plan I think, but who is going to actually follow every step of the 363 process to make sure that plan results in what you propose? And that's my only concern,and 364 also the traffic because right now we have a private road, and we don't have any kind of a 365 stoplight, and so it is very treacherous to try to get out. Thank you for your time. 366 367 Lamar Proctor: All right. Thank you. I don't see an agenda item, but I just want to check, Robert Medred. 368 369 Robert Medred: Robert Medred. I own the 13.5 acres that this property surrounds me on three sides. I have 370 owned that property for 27 years. I was a friend with the Browns, and I watched over it while she 371 lived there. I have a question about the diagram of the map. My property has a 1-acre notch 372 taken out of the southeast corner. That map,from what I can see because the printing is so small 373 up here, it looks like that notch is taken out well away from the southeast corner,so I question 374 that. My other question is, I think, based on my walking on my property that I see engineering 375 tape on my property, so if there is,we're going to have a problem with that, and I really don't want 376 to pay for another survey to prove that they're on my property. I have had surveyors trespass on 377 my property. I have had Raleigh State engineers trespass on my property, so I'm not too 378 impressed with what is really going on to date, so I'd like to talk to the developer and get more 379 information, and I'd like to know what kind of buffer is going to be put to keep people off of my 380 property. Is there going to be a fence put up or how is that going to work. I am surrounded. 1 381 don't know if I can stop it, but I really don't want it. Not much I can do, but I'm the most affected of 382 anyone in this room, and so I would like to be taken seriously on this, and that should do it. Thank 383 you. 384 175 Approved 10.1.25 385 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. Peter Childers. 386 387 Peter Childers: Peter Childers, and I live on Morrow Mill Road. So,this presentation and development is a cookie 388 cutter for the one we heard last month. I think that the people look familiar. It's the same 389 developer possibly,and the presentation was cookie cutter. The board approved that one.This is 390 the one by White Cross that last month that you guys approved, so I don't know how you're going 391 to really not approve this one, but in any event, I have lived long enough to see what creeping 392 densities do in destroying quality of life. I have lived through it, seen it, and I've observed it, and 393 this is a very nice presentation, but the densities to me are too high. The developer already can 394 do 1-acre lots without changing the zoning,and that's what I would approve the 1-acre lots, not 395 these half-acre lots where there is barely room to plant a tree. Density presents all sorts of 396 problems to communities,and it destroys communities, traffic, more schools, more this, more that. 397 We don't have to live like that. The developers and the builders,they make their money. They do 398 the project. They move on, but the people living there as this creeps, density creeps and creeps 399 and creeps, and before you know it, your quality of life is gone, so I will not support this project for 400 those reasons, and I guess I am asking the board not to approve this one because the county 401 commissioners are still looking at the 2050 plan. They haven't had enough information. They're 402 having, I heard tonight they're having more sessions, retreats I guess,to talk about it,so I would 403 just like to put a pause on these rezoning applications until we get the 2050 plan and more 404 information, and more experts can comment on that. So that's what I have to say. Thank you 405 very much. 406 407 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. Cathy Owens. 408 409 Cathy Owens: My name is Cathy Owens, and I currently live at 158 Blackman Lane in Hillsborough, North 410 Carolina. Very recently, our very same house address was 1501 NC Highway 86 North. We are 411 the first driveway north of this gentleman here who is surrounded. The proposed access roads to 412 the proposed development are on each side of his driveway. Both are blocked. I confirmed with 413 the North Carolina Highway Patrol today that there had been three recent fatalities in that stretch, 414 including an infant child who was recently orphaned because of the traffic there, and you can 415 check with that as well. I also want to add that our property is the vacant lot that they keep 416 mentioning. A better word for that is pasture. We have had the hay baled. We have goats there. 417 We have chickens. We have roosters. I guarantee their HOA is going to want to take into their 418 own hands our roosters crowing all day long. My children swing, and I don't know if you see this 419 little white house, that's our home, standing with our back to their property. Our children, that big 420 tree next to the house is over a 200-year-old pecan tree. We have a 325-year-old sycamore tree. 421 They've already approached us about building a road through our property,which Daniel Boone 422 walked on back in the day. It's not on your agenda, but I promise you that if you approve this, 423 that's next. If you look at the picture in the corner with a man to his back to us, that's the view 424 from my living room looking out my front window. Those trees are what they are going to mow 425 down to make that open space. This is our driveway. This is our pasture. This is to prove to you 426 that we use our agricultural land. I am a 4-H member. I have been a member of Orange County 427 4-H for 24 years. We have lived here for 24 years. Both my children are 4-H members. They 428 want to raise pigs. They want to learn how to raise cows. This property was used for cattle. Our 429 barn is one of the 20 oldest barns in North Carolina. I don't think we should give this up just so 430 people who do not have a connection to this community can make a lot of money. I mean, please, 431 please consider keeping this agricultural. Please consider rural. Please consider the quality of life 432 that us and this gentleman and our neighbors,who are not vacant land, have worked very,very 433 hard to maintain and keep, and we moved here intentionally as an agricultural zoning so that we 434 could maintain our life. Thank you. 435 436 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. Laura Streitfeld. 437 438 Laura Streitfeld: Hi, I'm Laura Streitfeld, and I am with Preserve Rural Orange, and I live in Bingham Township. My 439 apologies. I just have multiple notes from multiple comments. 176 Approved 10.1.25 440 441 Chris Johnston: I can pause while you get your notes. 442 443 Laura Streitfeld: Yes. Thank you. 444 445 Chris Johnston: Just let me know when you're ready. 446 447 Laura Streitfeld: Okay. All right. My apologies. Regarding this property, excuse me one moment. Let me just 448 make sure I have the right notes. I apologize. Okay. I'm urging you tonight to deny Forestar 449 Group Incorporated's rezoning request for the property on NC Highway North, I'm sorry, NC 86 450 North. Rezoning from agricultural residential to residential conditional district zoning would burden 451 the property and adjacent communities with 49 densely sided lots and individual septic fields 452 surrounding Stroud's Creek, streams,and wetlands. To call it a conservation cluster is a stretch. 453 If you were to build a highway, and you paved the roads but not the median or the shoulder,would 454 you call that conservation? That's the concept here. Commissioners have not yet decided 455 whether or how to define or regulate conservation clusters, and that topic isn't on their agenda 456 until later this fall, but it's being closely considered. I realize it's in the LIDO, but they are closely 457 considering how to more thoughtfully consider and whether or not to use conservation clusters 458 and where. On this property, it's misleading. This does not appear to conserve in any meaningful 459 way,watershed land,wildlife,creeks, streams,wetlands, or buffers. If this property were not 460 rezoned, construction could still take place on the property,and the same areas would be 461 excluded from construction because they are not buildable. They are buffers, and they are 462 wetlands, and they are water areas that are not buildable. Putting in gardens and benches is not 463 really a public amenity, and neither are the trails. This property, if developed as proposed,would 464 provide benefits to only those who would choose to live there, and the housing that's provided is 465 not affordable. It would not be available to the public. In the agenda you can see there are 466 questions from the planning staff and from Hillsborough officials asking about whether the trails 467 would be available, and the answer is no that they are private. They're not being built to any 468 public standards, and they would not be able to be used by students who are walking to school to 469 create a more walkable community. I have heard from residents around the community that there 470 are significant questions about traffic because not only are they burdened with serious traffic 471 issues, as you have heard, but there are many, many cars coming and going during school hours 472 with the two schools and folks who already cut through neighborhood streets posing great risk to 473 the folks who live there. It's also a concern that like the project a month ago,the wells are already 474 being dug and tested in a way that may cause fluctuations in water availability or effect water 475 quality and that that would preclude the folks who are there now from assessing at a baseline how 476 their properties might be affected. With the considerable septic that's being proposed, I ask you to 477 consider not recommending this project knowing that they could still build on this property,just not 478 at the density that they're requesting. Thank you. 479 480 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. Wayne Honeycutt, did you want to speak? 481 482 Wayne Honeycutt: No. 483 484 Lamar Proctor: No. Okay. And Susanna, I'm going to mess that up.You're good. Okay. Thank you. All right. 485 So that concludes public comment. I'm going to turn it over to the board to see if we have any 486 questions of the applicant,so Delores, do you want to start? 487 488 Delores Bailey: I do. Thank you. I actually have a couple questions. While sitting here taking note of the number 489 of folks that had come up with questions about the traffic, and I know I think we talked a little bit 490 about that before. Are there any changes to the plan since we last met that can alleviate the 491 traffic danger that everyone is talking about? Is there anything that can be done about that? 492 493 Beth Trahos: I'm going to ask Josh Reinke to come forward and talk to you about the work that he did to study 494 traffic in this area. 177 Approved 10.1.25 495 496 Josh Reinke: Josh Reinke with Bolton and Menk. We did a traffic study,so nothing was officially required by 497 NCDOT or by the county based on the number of trips that this will generate, but the team wanted 498 us to proactively look at this and run some analysis, submit it formally to DOT so that they would 499 have to issue a response. So, in looking at this,we do acknowledge,yes,there is traffic on 86. 500 This is a,while it's a low generator that doesn't require a TIA,we're always concerned about 501 accidents,things like that. One of the things that will have to happen, so a traffic study would 502 formally say here are recommendations. It's the driveway permit that will have the requirements 503 that NCDOT has, so what came out of this traffic study in coordination with DOT is there is a 504 preliminary field investigation looking at that sight distance,which has been referenced. You've 505 got topography,things like that with the sight distance, so when you're making movements there, 506 and probably to be honest,when you say you've got a lot of crashes, it's usually,when you have 507 fatalities, it's higher speeds. It means people can come and go very quickly out there, so one of 508 the things that has to be investigated further with the driveway permit,which you will need to get 509 driveways, is in part of the design is looking at that sight distance and saying what needs to 510 happen, so that could be turn lanes out there,things like that that would alleviate,the turning folks 511 out of that through movement into an exclusive lane to turn into the site, so that's one of the things 512 that could come out of that. Once again, I can't guarantee or anything because it is a DOT road. 513 It is a DOT decision, and they're just saying we want you to look at this in the design. We know 514 there are considerations for safety there, and what is ultimately decided. I can't promise anything 515 but those are typical things when you have sight distance issues is you need to make sure people 516 can safety get out of the through movement into a turn lane so they can get in and out of the site, 517 and the same thing with the folks exiting the site. They need to be able to see the cars coming. 518 Design needs to consider that,so there will be likely some sort of mitigation there. Once again, 519 that all comes with the driveway permit, once again,this wasn't even a required document we did. 520 It was the team being proactive saying,we know there are going to be concerns. We want to look 521 into that, not just say here is how many trips it generates but actually collect data. I know there 522 are concerns. People said, I heard there wasn't a study done. There actually was. We collect 523 data at those peak times when the school is in session and things like that, and once again,the 524 purpose of this study isn't to fix any problems in the area. It is to mitigate any problems caused by 525 this development's traffic, so that is what that would look at, and when they are pursuing the 526 driveway permit,we have already coordinated with NCDOT,and they said we do need to look at 527 that sight distance further and look at design things. 528 529 Delores Bailey: Can you tell me what date that study was done? 530 531 Josh Reinke: That study was done, let's see, it is March 4th, 2025. 532 533 Delores Bailey: So, before we started discussion on this? 534 535 Josh Reinke: Started discussion, how is that? 536 537 Delores Bailey: I'm asking what dates you did that because we were last month talking about this, but. 538 539 Josh Reinke: March 4th, 2025. 540 541 Delores Bailey: Right. So that was done in March and last month we talked about the traffic too,so nothing more 542 recent. That's, that's my question, nothing more recent than March even after everybody said 543 there was a problem. 544 545 Beth Trahos: For clarification,this is the first time we have presented Highway 86 project to the Planning Board. 546 I think the one you're referencing is a previous project. 547 548 Delores Bailey: Okay. 549 178 Approved 10.1.25 550 Beth Trahos: That is not being considered tonight. 551 552 Delores Bailey: Thank you. My second question—I'm done with the traffic piece of it,though I am concerned 553 about all of the folk who stood up and had traffic issues, and understandably, adding 49 more 554 homes to this area is going to absolutely cause a traffic situation, but I'll just say that piece. My 555 second question is I appreciate your statement about housing being a major need in Orange 556 County. I more than anybody probably on this panel know that, but as you may know,the most 557 needed housing in Orange County is for families earning $50,000.00 and below. Will any of these 558 homes been available for families earning that kind of income? 559 560 Beth Trahos: This is intended to be a market-rate project, so, given the cost of development here these will be 561 market rate. We're not proposing affordable housing. 562 563 Delores Bailey: And I appreciate that. Understandably,there is plenty of housing at market rate around here and 564 not as much for affordable housing. 565 566 Beth Trahos: Well,we still see demand for housing at all price points, and that's why we're here proposing this 567 project. 568 569 Delores Bailey: Okay. So, my main concern would be that there is no affordable housing in any of this,and that's 570 a concern for me. Thank you. 571 572 Lamar Proctor: All right. Beth. 573 574 Beth Bronson: I'm, I'm still kind of formatting my questions. Do you mind coming back? 575 576 Lamar Proctor: Sure. No problem. Whitney? 577 578 Whitney Watson: Sure. Thank you, I'm going to follow up a little bit with Delores'question. Could you describe then 579 what the target audience is,or buyer is for these homes? Is it 50 plus empty nesters? Is it 580 families with small kids? All of that has an impact on both traffic and uses of the space. 581 582 Jason Rivenbark: Jason Rivenbark with Forestar. We don't have an intended restriction or on who the intended 583 buyer would be. It could be young families, professionals. It could be people over 50,whatever. 584 We're not restricting that. 585 586 Whitney Watson: To be clear, I don't expect you to say a restriction, but in the marketing materials who is likely to 587 receive this, and who are you going to spend your marketing dollars on? Is it young families with 588 kids or is it people who are thinking they're going to retire in 5 years or so. 589 590 Jason Rivenbark: I could see it more geared towards people that are empty nesters or getting ready to have all their 591 kids in college or moved on. That type of audience is probably that. We see that. We also see 592 move-up buyers where they have a home,and maybe their family has grown or they've grown out 593 of the space they had,their lifestyle has changed or something and they're looking for something 594 like this. 595 596 Whitney Watson: All right. The other question I had seems to do with the recreational activities. The applicant was 597 really clear the trails are going to be private. There is also nothing in there about if it's a private 598 recreational opportunity,what is the county getting out of granting permission for the development 599 to have private recreation? Is there an in-lieu payment coming or what's going,and especially 600 since that comes up not just with the neighbors but also from the town of Hillsborough. They were 601 very clear about that concern. 602 603 Beth Trahos: Oh sure. 604 179 Approved 10.1.25 605 Taylor Perschau: I can just answer ordinance wise, so as a regulated subdivision, if they are not dedicating publicly 606 available recreational facilities,they have the opportunity to make a payment in lieu for parkland 607 fees,which is a per-lot basis. It's also based on the property's location.We have a community 608 and district parks map that I believe was mapped by DEAPR, so the price is per lot, and it's 609 dependent on whether they're in a community park district or I think community or district park. 610 Sorry. So, this is the zoning portion. If this property were to be approved by the Board of County 611 Commissioners,the next step would be submitting a preliminary plat application. A final plat for 612 any regulated subdivision cannot be recorded until that payment in lieu or a public dedication is 613 made. 614 615 Whitney Watson: Thank you. 616 617 Beth Trahos: And of course,we would meet and comply with all the requirements of the UDO that your staff will 618 make sure of that, but I think the benefit of the private amenities is that it does provide an 619 opportunity for folks to live here, to recreate,to walk on the trails,to exercise, to gather with their 620 neighbors in these community areas, so they are spending time in their neighborhood rather than 621 utilizing busy county parks, and I would say as well that a really key consideration about 622 maintaining these amenities as private is liability for a small homeowner's association, so that is 623 what we are proposing. 624 625 Nicole Steele: If you don't mind, I'd like to add to that last question. I formally served on the Orange County 626 Parks and Recreation Board, and in 99.9 percent of my career, I am actually sitting surveying 627 public parks and recreation agencies and developing, helping them develop strategic plans for 628 recreation and building out their departments, and what we have seen is the best way that a 629 developer can give back to a community is the fee in lieu because you have greater autonomy 630 and choice over what you can do with that money. If we provide some sort of public amenity on 631 our site, that means anyone in the community would have to drive there to use it. There are 632 liability and maintenance restrictions, and it's often unclear how that ownership or responsibility 633 transfers between homeowners, the public and the parks and recreation agency, so from the other 634 side of the table and where I usually sit,there is usually an advantage to the fee in lieu. 635 636 Lamar Proctor: All right. Thank you. Chris. 637 638 Next Speaker: Yeah. I guess I'm still on the traffic run, and I apologize. This is the first time that I have seen on 639 the NCDOT side where they specifically call out the intersection slight distance as a potential 640 problem. I understand that the number of homes that you have is under the minimum. I have 641 gone through the Bolton and Menk study where it says that a TIA is not required. I am struggling 642 here because I see that everyone is acknowledging that this intersection is a problem. 1 643 understand that you have gone above and beyond. You have gotten the study,and 1 644 acknowledge that, and I want to be clear about that. That being said, everyone seems to 645 understand that there is a problem here, and I'm trying to figure out whose job it is to own up to 646 that fact. So, what is the next step here. You said that the driveway permits are coming through. 647 1 got that,and once that happens,then at that point you have to make a decision based on 648 NCDOT standards? I just want to be clear. 649 650 Next Speaker: It's not just the driveway permits are coming through. I'm saying that the design and all those 651 things.A lot of people, I'm an engineer, but a lot of people are like you're a planning level, so 652 you're projecting into the future what's going to happen and it's going to come up in the design. So 653 the design comes up, and that's why I'm saying even if this were a full traffic impact analysis that 654 was done, it's considered recommendations, even though the DOT is going to say this is what you 655 shall do. Nothing was required there. We've discussed and we're saying we have a safety 656 concern with that. We want to see, because they're going to then see the actual design of here is 657 where exactly the driveways will be, not a conceptual sketch or anything like that, and obviously 658 we're at the rezoning level, so as they get more into the site plan, I feel that is when that would 659 come into play,as the design folks would say here is where our driveways are going to be. 180 Approved 10.1.25 660 They're going to coordinate with DOT. They have to issue drawings and all those things saying 661 here are the exact locations,topo, all that stuff is considered, and DOT will say you either do or 662 you do not have adequate sight distance. Here is what we need you to implement to do that or 663 you do not have a driveway at that location, or it's restricted to a right in, right out. Something like 664 that. 665 666 Chris Johnston: I think that some of my confusion is we have a conditional zoning, a site design and site drawing 667 and that sort of thing, but it seems like we're still waiting on a key component which is that NCDOT 668 traffic fill in where they tell exactly what's going to happen,so we could approve this tonight, and 1 669 apologize. I'm looking at Cy here. We can approve this tonight, but there may be large changes 670 that need to be made based on the traffic requirements of NCDOT, and would that then cause it to 671 come back to us or is that something that's handled at the higher level, and we have approved it 672 and what needs to happen in order for NCDOT to be happy with it is just part of the process? 673 674 Cy Stober: I want to address that in two parts. One is that anything that happens in the public right of way, 675 which is owned and managed by NCDOT is an NCDOT permitting matter exclusively. So, if all of 676 those improvements can be made inside of the right of way,that's just NCDOT, it doesn't include 677 the county at all, provided it's consistent with anything that would be approved by the county. If it 678 is inconsistent, if it would say remove a substantial amount of required landscaping or something 679 to that effect, then it would have to come back if it was deemed to be a major modification from 680 what was approved, and there are, in Article 2,with regard to conditions, it lays out explicitly what 681 are minor modifications that can be approved by the director and what cannot. Then there's the 682 separate matter of those modifications. If it's on the private property, how are they going to 683 accommodate the need and that would be, the minor modifications broadly speaking allow for a 684 reduction in intensities so they may have to lose a lot. Perhaps they have to lose lot size. 685 Anything that would be seen as a part of the public contribution and the separation of the uses, 686 such as buffers namely I'm thinking of and that where the access to 86 North would be would have 687 to be a minor modification,or it would have to come back to the Board. So,the cost is going to 688 come to the owner, not to the county and the taxpayers of the county. The one variable to this, to 689 your point Mr.Johnston is anything that would be offsite at that intersection,that really is a 690 conversation between DOT and this owner and this applicant. 691 692 Chris Johnston: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. So, in regard to, and I want to make sure that I've got the 693 public comment correct here. In regard to the Waller's question in regard to accountability and 694 that sort of thing, if there are issues,and this has come up a number of times, if there are issues 695 with well or whatever the case may be,what is the correct avenue for a homeowner who is in the 696 situation to then go to, in regards to my well is no longer working after this X,Y and Z? Is that a 697 civil dispute at that point a lawyer's involved kind of deal,or is there a county mechanism? 698 699 Cy Stober: There's no county mechanism I am aware of. To answer the question that you didn't ask but was 700 asked at the last hearing with the same applicant for a different subdivision. All permitting is done 701 by the county, and should the soils not perform to accommodate the septic needs or should the 702 well not serve the purposes of the subdivision, then that would be, again, at the cost of the owner. 703 Any claims of impacts to adjacent property owners is a civil dispute. 704 705 Chris Johnston: Okay. So, at that point then, if there's any issues on the well or anything along those lines it would 706 be a civil dispute, but otherwise the permitting. In regard to the concerns with the encroachment 707 on Mr., and I apologize, Medred? Is that correct? Yes. In regard to that, I mean again,this 708 sounds more like an issue with the developer,whom you have here now, and then in terms of any 709 kind of wall or perimeter or anything along those lines, is that something that is in contention or 710 anything on that? 711 712 Beth Trahos: I would say we're certainly happy to talk with Mr. Medred. I don't believe he attended our 713 neighborhood meeting, so this is our first exposure to this question.We do have a survey, and 714 we're absolutely willing to talk about how we address those issues. 181 Approved 10.1.25 715 716 Chris Johnston: Wonderful. I think that was my last question. I mean, it sounds a lot like the town of Hillsborough 717 had a few recommendations in regard to the NCDOT and in regard to other things, and I think 718 those have been addressed as best as possible. 719 720 Lamar Proctor: All right. Statler? 721 722 Statler Gilfillen: In the reports, and I have listened to questions from the school. There was an email sent to the 723 Board from a Rebecca Gallegly, who is not able to be here tonight. I don't know if you've seen 724 that. 725 726 Beth Trahos: No sir, I have not. 727 728 Statler Gilfillen: It goes, our small neighborhood and our children's school Eno River Academy both share the 729 property line. The proposed new big development on Highway 86. We were at the initial property 730 meeting, and just received notice of the application to rezone 78 acres, I will be out of town and 731 unable to attend the meeting but wanted to voice my concern regarding this development. The 732 proposed property runs next to Stroud's Creek, a major tributary to the Eno River and protected 733 watershed.The creek is used by Eno River Academy students as a significant learning tool,the 734 students do creek studies and hike trails they created year-round.There is an outdoor classroom 735 that is utilized almost daily.We would be heartbroken to have sewage from the proposed 50 736 septic fields to each home or runoff from the building process leaking into this creek causing 737 contamination. Thank you for your consideration in not rezoning for a large housing development. 738 Now, my question is two-fold. I think it has also been established that 86 as a highway is 739 potentially dangerous to access to. Your development is putting two new entrances on 86, not 740 one,which raises questions to me as an architect and planner about the safety during the peak 741 hours. Two exits instead of backup coming onto the property. The Eno and this raises the other 742 point. The Eno Academy is right behind your property, have any discussions been done with 743 them about the possibility of bringing access through their property and better coordinating with 744 them of things that what you develop on your property could actually benefit the academy more, 745 and the students could use, particularly natural trails and other things, might be really useful in a 746 public setting to your neighbors. Have any discussions in this direction begun to be thought or 747 taken? 748 749 Beth Trahos: So,you have asked two things.The first was with regard to access, and Josh,you jump in, but I'll 750 just say,the layout was designed with Josh's input and shown to NCDOT, but obviously it is 751 NCDOT that will permit any access points. If they determine that an access cannot function 752 safely, they will not issue a driveway permit for that access. So,we have to do what NCDOT tells 753 us to do to make the accesses function safely. And we will do those things. 754 755 Statler Gilfillen: Well, let's put it this way. Why have you designed it, I'll continue this, as two accesses when you 756 have the option to make one of them a dead end and let the entrance to the site only come 757 through one. 758 759 Josh Reinke: I won't say the why the team has designed that, but I would say more often than not, I actually 760 hear the flip side of that in these meetings, and it's,what happens if something happens at that 761 one driveway, and you don't have a secondary access for somebody to respond to a house that's 762 further back,say there was a car crash at a driveway, but a fire happens at a house in the back, 763 and now how does the fire department access.That additional access, and once again, exactly 764 what Beth said, is if they say there's an issue with site distance, they could restrict it to a right in or 765 right out,they could do any one of a number of things. DOT could say we want turn lanes at both 766 driveways to make sure we have that. But I'd say having the additional driveway, as long as the 767 design is safe,where we're saying we're not concerned about the site distance because they've 768 mitigated those concerns, then I think the additional access actually is a safety precaution, saying 769 now you have two ways to access that in case there was an emergency. 182 Approved 10.1.25 770 771 Statler Gilfillen: All commercial buildings, as an architect speaking, under state law, have to have two exits. I am 772 not sure of the specific highway requirements,that's why we'll defer to you. 773 774 Josh Reinke: Yeah, and once again, not a requirement, more of a, like I said proactive just like doing this traffic 775 study is saying this might be a concern having to access, usually I see much larger developments 776 where they say they just want one because it's less improvements that they'd have to do things 777 like that, and they're forced to, based on development ordinances and such. This one, like I said, 778 no requirement,just forward thinking in case something were to happen,worst case scenario, now 779 you have that additional access, and once again both, if DOT says we have concerns, it's not 780 they're going to say put a turn lane at one but don't worry about the other because you put it. It is 781 there. They are going to look at those individually and say,whatever our concerns are have to be 782 addressed, or they could restrict it and say one is equal you have access. That's all we have to 783 allow you on our public roads is to have access, and that could even be right in right out,to be 784 honest I've seen that before where they say that's still full access. You just need to find a way to 785 turn them around,whether it's,you know, not in this case, I'm not saying anything, but they get 786 creative and say now you need to design a U-turn bulb down the street or something like that. 787 And that's where I'm saying DOT does control that. They would have to say you have access to 788 the site, how that access is. That's what they've seen. They understand and say we want to 789 make sure when we get into that design component that we address the concerns that we all have 790 out there with safety. So,the second one I think is beneficial. 791 792 Statler Gilfillen: Now the second part of your question is,the possibility of eliminating any danger, along that state 793 highway,which I think the report's pretty clear. That's a difficult access area. You've got an 794 adjacent neighbor that you might be able to benefit and work together running your access 795 through the school, because you're not with the number of units. There might be a better solution 796 and far safer for everybody. Has that been even discussed? Because there may be trade-offs that 797 you can help each other. 798 799 Josh Reinke: And are you saying like access the school to ingress and egress our vehicles where they come in 800 the same driveway as the school? 801 802 Statler Gilfillen: Very possibly. Has this discussion even taken place yet? 803 804 Josh Reinke: That I'm not sure with the project team. And I know, at some point it was brought up like the 805 traffic, and we actually tried to reach out to DOT and track down a traffic study that was done for 806 the school because that's obviously a significant generator and we could not find anything that the 807 DOT had with congestion management at the district, so I'm not sure. Once again, even looking at 808 what do their driveways look like in terms of safety, but I'm not sure if the project team had any 809 discussions or if there would be cross-access. 810 811 Beth Trahos: And I think there are environmental features as well that might inhibit that access. 812 813 Statler Gilfillen: Okay, but my point on the question was, had the conversation even been considered, and 814 apparently it has not, if I'm hearing your answer. 815 816 Beth Trahos: I don't believe it has, but I think there were some site constraints that may have made that less 817 than achievable. However,we did have our neighborhood meeting at the Eno River Academy and 818 representatives of the academy attended the meeting, and so there certainly have been 819 discussions. We understand that the school has benefited greatly from this landowner generously 820 allowing them to use this property. Now this landowner is looking to sell it, and that's going to 821 impact their ability to continue to use it.As it becomes a neighborhood or, even if it were to 822 become a farm or something else, the ability of these students to continue to have access to a 823 resource, that they have benefited from, maybe impacted. But we have certainly discussed with 824 them the opportunity once the homes are sold, and the homeowner's association is formed to 183 Approved 10.1.25 825 reach an agreement with that association about the potential for in the future continuing this 826 relationship. 827 828 Lamar Proctor: Jonah? 829 830 Jonah Garson: You can go onto the next one. 831 832 Lamar Proctor: Venkat? 833 834 Venkat Yendapalli: I have a similar question I had at last month's meeting. We had similar subdivision. Very high 835 density. Smaller lots,with the septic, and one well. 836 837 Beth Trahos: Sure. So,we have both of the folks who, if you have questions about the septic,we have our 838 septic engineer, and we have our environmental consultant with regard to the well who are both 839 available to talk with you. I would say in my view, a 20,000 square foot lot is actually quite large in 840 other areas of the triangle. 841 842 Venkat Yendapalli: Yeah, no, I've lived in Cary before I moved here. Tell me about it. But on sewer it's a different 843 story compared to a septic site, next to all the big lots. Your neighbor has 13 acres, and other 844 neighbors I was check, 2, 3 acres, 1 acre, some of the are small but most lots are larger. While 845 the development is not harmonious with the surrounding areas, I have a concern about this 846 approach, you know, last month was a similar application that one well, having a lot of water 847 capacity and all that, but that's not a foolproof design. No fault tolerance building to it because all 848 these 49 lot owners, if it is a prudent build, will go dry with one well failing. It can't be,flip a switch 849 and they get water from someone else. Like there's no option having a backup well. Or two or 850 three wells and to connect it. 851 852 Beth Trahos: Let me have the Ward come up and talk with you about the wells. I would point out that in this 853 area there are lots of variety of different sizes, including within the town of Hillsborough, more 854 traditional subdivisions.Ward, let me ask you to talk about the wells if you would. 855 856 Ward Marotti: Ward Marotti, Spangler Environmental. So we had the initial hydrologic analysis in there,that is 857 the direct results of the well draw down that we did where like previously we're in the process of 858 implementing those data into a model and having our PHD hydro geologists use those data to 859 extrapolate in using the models, but just based on the raw that we have collected and have 860 reported on in the document presented to you all today, there's clear evidence that,for one thing, 861 just backing up with regard to existing conditions,wells are at different depths, and the other two 862 wells that were analyzed are both at 200-foot deep, the well that is proposed and has been drilled 863 is 649 feet deep in connection with a totally different aquifer with hundreds of feet of 100 percent 864 impervious bedrock in between those different aquifers at different elevations below in the 865 substrate below the surface. And so, with regard to your question or valid concern with regard to 866 other adjacent wells filling,those wells would fail in the context of their connectivity to different 867 aquifers. There are hundreds of feet of vertical distance between the aquifers that different wells 868 are connected to. To the best of my knowledge and looking at the, at least the available data, 869 which is certainly not all the wells in the area are not part of the county's database,or at least the 870 easily accessible GIS layer that's available, but none of those wells are in the 600-foot depth 871 zone, and as a result, they are sort of by default, by definition have documented that they are in 872 contact with different aquifers and that again are those aquifers are separated by hundreds of 873 vertical feet of impervious bedrock.And so, this aquifer down here,for one thing, the results of our 874 direct data analysis clearly show that both 200-foot wells that were our two comparative wells 875 relative to the proposed community well. Both of those are 200 feet deep, and there was no 876 impact whatsoever with a significant draw down of the proposed well to a steady state of like 90 877 gallons a minute I believe. Something, substantive consistent draw down. No noticeable, not 878 even documented, observable changes to those other wells, and again, that in no small part is 879 directly related to the connectivity of those aquifers, or the lack thereof. And so,while aquifers 184 Approved 10.1.25 880 that are in higher elevation in the cross-section so to speak of the depth below the surface,the 881 impacts and levels and quantity of water in those higher up aquifers are not the same and not 882 directly connected to and thereby affected by the disconnected much deeper aquifers. And so if 883 that aquifer 200-foot, runs out of water, it is not the resultant cause of the lower aquifer drawing 884 down, and similarly there's a possibility that that lower aquifer could run out of water in the context 885 of the neighborhood and not have any effect on the 200-foot deep aquifers. And I guess the 886 applicant can speak with regard to the private utility that's going to take over, upon approval and 887 build-out of this proposed development,there's going to be a private utility that's going to take 888 over the maintenance and ownership of this well system.And so, the supply of potable water to 889 the users will, correct me if I'm wrong, be dependent upon that hired private sector utility. 890 891 Venkat Yendapalli: Well, thank you for answering the well and its impact to the adjacent wells. That part I'm not too 892 concerned, because you clearly answered it, you're going at a different aquifer level,and bedrock 893 is in between. My concern is predominantly on one well serving 49 homes and having a fault. If 894 the one pump fails, the whole well will fail if it goes bad. 895 896 Ward Marotti: Well, I would go back and point to that private utility, because if that well itself, if the pump or 897 another part of the hard infrastructure for that system fails,that utility is going to be there to fix it, 898 whether it's a replacement of the pump or some of the piping or the conveyance system or 899 whatever other utility component fails,the onus is on that private sector utility to replace that, and 900 have implementation in a timely manner. 901 902 Beth Trahos: We have that slide, as well, that shows how much water exceeds the state requirements. 903 904 Ward Marotti: And I think, like you said,you're concerned with regard to capacity, and interaction between the 905 aquifers isn't so much of a concern to you with regard to having provided that. 906 907 David Barcal: I'm David Barcal. Since we're doing the design of the well system,we can get to that, but, right 908 now we'd be looking at a design by the public water sector, the number of connections you can 909 have,you have to have .56 gallons per connection. We're proposing 1 gallon per connection. So, 910 we're already doubling the draw of that, and then you look at your storage requirements,which 911 you look at what you're drawing versus what your peak demands are. If you were to do those 912 calculations,you'd have a minimal amount of storage required from the public water sector for 913 this. Because it's going to be owned by a private utility, they require nothing less than a 5,400- 914 gallon hydropneumatics tank. So,there's built-in storage within their storage tank onsite, and then 915 like Ward was mentioning, they're going to be responsible much like if you have a utility and your 916 water main breaks, they have to shut off that section of the water main, and that neighborhood all 917 of a sudden doesn't have water. It's going to be the same— 918 919 Venkat Yendapalli: But here it's all one valve, and the pumps can go bad, and a lot of things can go bad here, like, the 920 gentleman was touching on earlier, and the company,Aqua was referenced last time, I'm 921 assuming,Aqua is involved here as well, and they have a lot of experience, but it takes time to 922 restore the power water supply. It can't be done just like that, and I have seen it myself firsthand. 923 Pulling a 600-feet deep well pump out and fixing it and putting back, it takes time.Anyway, I'm 924 assuming that Environmental Health and other departments look into these in details. It's not the 925 Planning Board's responsibility to vet those things here right here. But in general, I have a 926 question on the septic fields and repair fields. Do you have any concept plans to share that they 927 can be accommodated? 928 929 David Barcal: We did, so,we looked at the overall site, overlaid the usable green, conventional soils. Yellow is 930 low-profile soils, so, still good for chamber systems, but we focused just on the conventional. So, 931 we looked at four different sites and laid them out for four-bedroom homes, .25 LTAR,which is 932 kind of a low end for conventional soils, and we were able to, at least using the survey data, lay 933 the lines out on contour and make it work with all the setbacks, building footprints, Orange County 934 setbacks to property lines, building foundations,driveways, tanks, that sort of thing. 185 Approved 10.1.25 935 936 Venkat Yendapalli: Okay, so,you're quoting 1 gallon per minute per house. Does it accommodate their irrigation 937 needs and, and water and all that? Is there enough pressure for them to,get their yards and lawns 938 and whatever. 939 940 David Barcal: If you look at the state rule, public water sector, the way they look at it, they just look at the 941 potable water use, not the irrigation use,which is why you get the .56 gallons per minute that they 942 require. A lot of the private utilities have taken it upon themselves to up that requirement, so, they 943 won't actually, most of them will not accept the system with less than 1 gallon per connection to 944 make up for that irrigation. So, that's the reason why they have that higher standard,so they can 945 meet the pressure demands of the neighborhood. People want nice, irrigated yards and that. 946 947 Venkat Yendapalli: Okay. Thank you. 948 949 Beth Bronson: Sorry if you don't mind just staying up there for just a minute. Is it okay if I go over my questions, 950 then? 951 952 David Barcal: Oh, yeah, go ahead. 953 954 Beth Bronson: So,you were saying that the requirement is .5 gallons per minute. 955 956 David Barcal: What they do is, if you look at public water standard they say 400 gallons per day per connection, 957 and then they assume 12 hours of pump time for your well. They do 400 divided by 12, divided by 958 60. That gets you the .555 gallons per minute. 959 960 Beth Bronson: You're not talking about your actual output. 961 962 David Barcal: Yeah. So, that's the output of the actual well. What it has to do per connection. 963 964 Beth Bronson: And this may be a question for you and for Ward, too, because it's, it's well and septic related, so, 965 with the well,you are asking for, it's at 600 feet, and it was over 80 gallons per minute, right?The 966 idea being that this community well will service 49 four-bedroom homes? 967 968 David Barcal: Yes. 969 970 Beth Bronson: That's correct? The idea that you wouldn't be at half a gallon a minute if all 49 people turned their 971 well on or turned their water on at the same time. 972 973 David Barcal: The way public water looks at it,the number of connections you're allowed is one thing. So,that's 974 the .56. Then they have you look at your peak demand storage,which in this case we have been 975 proposing a 5,400-gallon hydromatic tank. So,the rule says, basically,you take your peak 976 demand minus the yield of your well, and then you times it by 20 minutes,and then,there's a 977 formula to come up with your minimum amount of volume you have to be able to push out of your 978 storage tank. 979 980 Beth Bronson: This makes sense. Yes. 981 982 David Barcal: That's what size is to meet your peak demand, so, like, you're saying,you get everyone showering 983 at 7 a.m. and then,or everyone using their water at night. 984 985 Ward Marotti: Just let me clarify. It's not coming from the withdrawal well to the house. It's through the storage 986 tank and thereby accommodates peak flow,yes. 987 186 Approved 10.1.25 988 Beth Bronson: Yes. Absolutely. So,you have to have that reservoir tank. In my house I have a well, and we 989 have a,what is it, the tank that's there.That tank goes into the house, and then the well pumps 990 into the tank. 991 992 David Barcal: It's just a big version of that. 993 994 Beth Bronson: And the idea that you're within feet of a township that does provide water, I guess? I'm just trying 995 to understand why there wasn't a conversation or at least even a request to serve, or a feasibility 996 to serve. 997 998 Beth Trahos: In fact,there was.The initial approach was to the town of Hillsborough. The town of Hillsborough 999 declined. So,the project came through the Orange County process. Now the town has come 1000 back in comments to this case to say we,we may be able to provide water. 1001 1002 Beth Bronson: Only. 1003 1004 Beth Trahos: Yeah,water only. Let me just point out that that is an additional safeguard. There is water and 1005 sewer immediately available to the property as well. And I would also just point out that another 1006 user, even permitted out of the current zoning, could be a significant water user, more so than 1007 even a residential community. I mean, agriculture with irrigation is a big water user that could be 1008 permitted by right. So,just don't consider zero impact to what is being proposed. 1009 1010 Laura Haywood: I'm Laura Haywood. I don't think I've stated my name. Hey. I did want to clarify on the septic, 1011 when it comes to the town of Hillsborough,when we approach them, there is no capacity 1012 available in the town of Hillsborough. I saw Chris, I saw your face. You're, like,wait a second. 1 1013 did want to clarify that as far as water is concerned. When we went to them, they were, like,well, 1014 we don't really want to annex you in, because there's no sewer capacity,and on that note,we're 1015 just not going to give you water either. But, since then,when we applied for this application,we 1016 received town of Hillsborough comments directly,and I believe on the second page they had 1017 mentioned,well,we would possibly be willing to offer you water, but that came after the fact,after 1018 we had already drove the well and everything, so, I just wanted to bring clarification of that 1019 timeline. 1020 1021 Beth Bronson: It doesn't say in the application that you had requested, it was denied, and if there was, I just didn't 1022 see it? 1023 1024 Laura Haywood: We did sit down directly with,town of Hillsborough Utility and actually met with them onsite, and 1025 that was the outcome of that conversation. 1026 1027 Beth Bronson: Okay. And then the conversations with the town of Hillsborough regarding some of their other 1028 comments about cleaning that sidewalk or that frontage on 86, and I didn't understand it at first, 1029 but I get what the road dedication is. So, are these things that were taken into consideration, even 1030 though this isn't a final plan or plot? 1031 1032 Laura Haywood: Yeah, so,as far as this sidewalk is concerned, I just want to remind everybody that this has not 1033 been fully engineered out. So,we would still need to consider how feasible that would be on that 1034 side of the right of way, and what was your second question one more time? 1035 1036 Beth Bronson: The road dedication. 1037 1038 Laura Haywood: Roadway dedication.Yeah, so,we anticipate we have the right of way dedication there. It's 60 1039 foot right of way. 1040 1041 Beth Bronson: For traffic,the way that it was flagged and the way that, you know,there is a huge concern 1042 because of this major intersection, or multiple major intersection south of the parcel, and the idea 187 Approved 10.1.25 1043 that it's not a well-served area already, and it may have been answered already. I understand that 1044 it's not a requirement. I understand you don't have a final plan. I understand this is just for 1045 rezoning, but the idea that we have to consider the rezoning,the condition is for 49 lots,without a 1046 traffic impact analysis,without DOT weighted, because you don't have a final plan. So, I guess, 1047 what kind of contingencies and mitigation plans are you prepared to take with this project 1048 specifically? 1049 1050 Josh Reinke: So,first off, DOT's, it's not that they're not weighing in because we don't have a final plan. That's 1051 going to be the driveway permit. So,they're weighing in. They wouldn't require a traffic study. So, 1052 some of these off sites, so, like, I know some of the big concerns are 86 and 70, 86 and 57, and 1053 what's going on. We heard that in the neighborhood meetings. I know people are, like,we want a 1054 roundabout. We want, a this or that. Once again,the purpose of this study if a full TIA were even 1055 required,the purpose of that would be to mitigate this site's traffic. And once again, I know you're 1056 saying 49 units is a lot. Each individual that spoke about traffic problem is a unit,and I guarantee 1057 no individual house is doing that, and that's why we say we have safety concerns when you have 1058 these individual driveways. Here, at least,you're saying we can mitigate some of that at the 1059 driveways. The offsite stuff,we heard about one sixth of the trip generation that DOT would even 1060 require a TIA for. The school,which is a much bigger generator, like I said,we were trying to 1061 track that down to see has anybody addressed these big intersections where they're generating a 1062 lot more of that traffic. Everybody that drives through that is generating some of that traffic, but 1063 there are obviously developments that have happened that it's, like,what was done there, and 1 1064 even started looking at low-hanging fruit. If all of our traffic went through there,what percentage 1065 are we? Okay,we're, like, less than 2 percent. It's a small amount compared to what's going on 1066 out there. I know we heard that in the neighborhood meeting, roundabouts at 86 and 57. 1067 Honestly, unless it's a major development came in, I think that's got to be a public DOT-type 1068 project. Roundabouts aren't cheap, you know? If you have a school that goes in and isn't making 1069 these improvements, generating far more traffic. It's just big capacity issues of a lot of people that 1070 are maybe not even living right around here cutting through there, as that's where a lot of these 1071 issues are with a lot of intersections everywhere is people are using it as a major road to cut 1072 through to where employment centers are, and they don't even necessarily live near there. 1073 They're just a pass-through traffic volume, and that's what a lot of this is. It's a through volume 1074 that's going all the way to 70 and heading towards Durham. 1075 1076 Beth Bronson: It's, as much it is also people coming 70 miles an hour from the country into town.And they're 1077 coming by both ingress, egress areas. 1078 1079 Josh Reinke: And, and I will say, and I know nobody likes hearing this, but honestly, development and traffic 1080 volume does slow down traffic in urban areas. I can drive through downtown areas and you're not 1081 moving very fast, because there's a lot of traffic, and usually when you have these speeding 1082 problems, it means there's not as much. I think the biggest concern is some of the TOPO and 1083 stuff like that is why you're seeing this, is you have people that are speeding through, and you're 1084 starting to have the school traffic that then is coming out and they haven't gone through. Different 1085 roads that have stopped controlling things like that. We understand. I try to see if there is some 1086 low-hanging fruit and see if there's anything we can kind of do that's reasonable for a development 1087 of this size, even if it wasn't required. Even as we go for the driveway permit, DOT is not going to 1088 say start studying 70 or anything like that just because of the size,the relatively small size of this 1089 development. 1090 1091 Beth Bronson: No,that would be the need of the town, you know, in its ETJ. 1092 1093 Josh Reinke: If there were an existing project DOT had, they could say, hey,we'd like some sort of dollars and 1094 cents put into that, because you do have some impact on that. They're can't retroactively, 1095 everybody that's driving through, but with new developments,they can. They don't have any 1096 plans that are funded and whatever that they can collect money on. So,that's kind of the 1097 challenge with that. 188 Approved 10.1.25 1098 1099 Beth Bronson: All right,yeah. I mean, as far as traffic goes, I get that there's only so much you guys can do. 1100 1101 Josh Reinke: Yeah. 1102 1103 Beth Bronson: Thanks. The question I did have about public access was sort of addressed. There is no indicate, 1104 like,there is no reason to request a condition for this public trail easement that would go from 86 1105 to Eno Academy,for anybody that's walking to school? And is that because the fee is better than 1106 accommodating the public structure. 1107 1108 Beth Trahos: Well, I mean, there will be a fee paid for the UDO requirement for parks. I think there is an 1109 opportunity with what the trails that are on the plan to, in the future if the HOA and Eno River 1110 Academy are agreeable to create a connection for walkers, but that is a decision that would have 1111 to be made by the future homeowners,just given the liability and maintenance issues that it would 1112 create. So,there is an opportunity for that in the concept plan if it makes sense in the future, it 1113 can be implemented. 1114 1115 Beth Bronson: It's hard because most of the times,these come together as a rezoning and approval for the 1116 neighborhood. So,where are we talking about in theory,where are we talking about, or this is 1117 applicable for just the rezoning? 1118 1119 Laura Haywood: I would also like to point out on Page 66 of your packet, the overall site plan that Beth is 1120 presenting to you, I would like to point out that we did put an access easement connecting both 1121 Pathway Elementary School and Eno River Academy, so, that there is an opportunity for us to 1122 collaborate and work out a scenario where this is beneficial, because one of the takeaways of our 1123 conversations with Cy, Pat, Taylor, and the rest of their staff,was this idea of walkability,and, I'm 1124 a proponent of walkability. I love the fact that people can walk to and from places and enjoy trails 1125 and all that stuff. I'm for that. So,we did put that on our site plan to also present that we are open 1126 to these conversations and to build a neighborhood and an area where I'm hopeful, in my vision, 1 1127 envision this to be a residential community where people do have children, and that this is an 1128 opportunity for them to attend Eno River Academy,or to attend Pathways Elementary School. 1 1129 am originally from Colorado, and my neighborhood did have a walking trail from our neighborhood 1130 down to my elementary school, and that was our way of commuting. 1131 1132 Beth Bronson: It's extremely informative, and the idea that we need to consider that as we start recommending 1133 these types of subdivisions in this area, right? Like, it's not an option, say, in the middle of 54. 1134 But it is an option when you're trying to develop outside of the town. This is the only time that we 1135 have an idea to be able to have an impact on that.And, if it's not going to be annexed into the 1136 town, this is a great opportunity to require a condition that you collaborate with the adjacent parcel 1137 for, say, a cross country track.You know, in that trail. That could be used. 1138 1139 Laura Haywood: I think Lindsey is still here. We have had conversations with Lindsey on multiple accounts, 1140 bearing different things, but that is an opportunity for sure. Two things. One, Eno River Academy 1141 is, I, 1 think Lindsay said it's starting to reach capacity or it's full? 1142 1143 Lindsey Sealey: It's way full. 1144 1145 Laura Haywood: Okay, it's way full. Her words. So, it's way full,which means it's a popular institution where people 1146 want to send their children to school, and I would love for more families to have the opportunity to 1147 that educational system, as they choose. 1148 1149 Beth Bronson: I'd love for there to be affordable housing in these neighborhoods so we can make sure those kids 1150 could have access to that school. 1151 1152 Laura Haywood: Yeah. I mean there's only so many battles we can address all at once. 189 Approved 10.1.25 1153 1154 Beth Bronson: Housing. 1155 1156 Laura Haywood: Yeah, I would love to address all of the problems in the world, but I cannot do that here and now. 1157 But, yes,to address that and Eno River Academy is car centric. They do not have a bus system. 1158 So,there are a lot of people driving their kids to and from school. There is that traffic that adds. 1159 What is this scenario where you have children living in this school,their parents love this idea of 1160 them either walking or biking to school, and now you have that many cars less driving to Eno 1161 River Academy or Pathways Elementary School. I just want to put it in a different perspective 1162 there. 1163 1164 Beth Bronson: I mean, that would be one thing if it was a public school. But it's not. It's a charter school. So, 1165 anybody in those neighbors may or may not even have the ability to go to the school. 1166 1167 Laura Haywood: But Pathway Elementary School is an Orange County School. Am I correct? 1168 1169 Beth Bronson: It is a public school? 1170 1171 Jonah Garson: Yeah, it's a public school. 1172 1173 Beth Bronson: Thank you. 1174 1175 Beth Bronson: I did have a lot of questions about the septic and well. If there is any other questions that are 1176 related to this and anybody wants to go on them? 1177 1178 Jonah Garson: I have school related questions. 1179 1180 Beth Bronson: Go right ahead then. 1181 1182 Jonah Garson: Can you show me where Pathways is on the rendering? 1183 1184 Laura Haywood: Yes. So, Pathways would be in this area, but there is Eno River Academy. 1185 1186 Jonah Garson: And do you all have renderings of the public right of way? For the schools?You mentioned that 1187 there was an ingress and egress to both schools. 1188 1189 Laura Haywood: The trails. There was a conversation about why we did not have a driveway for the Eno River 1190 Academy.We are not impacting buffers. Furthermore,we would not impact buffers to put a 1191 driveway. 1192 1193 Jonah Garson: Is there a pedestrian corridor to Pathways? 1194 1195 Beth Trahos: There's a path here to Eno River, and there's one, here to Pathways. But they are not being 1196 proposed as public paths. Now,we could in the future, maybe be public, but if you are a resident 1197 of this subdivision, I see no reason why you couldn't cross the neighborhood and onto the school 1198 property. Folks may choose to live in this area because they are already enrolled and they'd like to 1199 make this a little bit easier, or they may move here and decide that the charter school's for them. 1200 1201 Jonah Garson: Apologies for my reference to public right of ways. I'm specifically interested in the path to 1202 Pathways. Do you have a rendering of what these paths look like to the schools? 1203 1204 Beth Trahos: We have pictures of what the trails might look like. 1205 1206 Jonah Garson: I've seen those. Okay. I think that those are paved, those were paved trails,correct. 1207 190 Approved 10.1.25 1208 Beth Trahos: These are not paved. 1209 1210 Jonah Garson: They're not paved trails? 1211 1212 Laura Haywood: They're like sand, pathway kind of thing. They could be aggregate. 1213 1214 Jonah Garson: I'm done. I know Beth had further questions not related to schools, and paths to schools. 1215 1216 Beth Bronson: I did. There is a concern the conservation neighborhood in the sense that so much of the water, or 1217 floodplain and watershed and set back requirements prohibit development. Would it prohibit use 1218 of the public space because it couldn't be managed by the HOA as well? 1219 1220 Beth Trahos: It could be, and those environmental features could be incorporated into individual lots, but then 1221 they would be subject to the whims of the homeowner, right? Who folks aren't necessarily familiar 1222 with the buffer requirements,wetlands requirements, and, so,the idea that these things are 1223 captured in a common, open space where they can be maintained by a homeowners association 1224 that has knowledge as to those things creates a better stewardship of those lots than putting them 1225 in someone's back yard, and they can use them as though they were a part of their yard, like,they 1226 use every other part without recognizing the significance of the features there. 1227 1228 Beth Bronson: And the HOA could not build anything,they wouldn't be able to have any structures,they wouldn't 1229 make the community gathering space proposed would be outside of that obviously. 1230 1231 Beth Trahos: Not within the environmental features, correct. Yes. 1232 1233 Ward Marotti: I'd just like to add,though, that while that's the case,the landowners,while that may be the case 1234 on paper and legally,without having knowledge of that, the enforcement of that has potential to be 1235 retroactive in that if landowners are not aware of those restrictions and move forward completely, 1236 not on purpose or with any mal intent, but the retroactive fixing of those violations is much more 1237 difficult than the selective management of that same space. 1238 1239 Beth Bronson: I was just pointing out that all of this preserved area is literally wetland. 1240 1241 Beth Trahos: Not all of it, but a good bit. 1242 1243 Beth Bronson: A good bit, yes.And is this correct, in the boring, that they were hitting water at like 2 feet, 3 feet, 1244 or more than 5 feet? Is that how to interpret that environmental assessment? 1245 1246 Ward Marotti: By definition,waters in the United States have connection to groundwater within the top foot, at 1247 least for part of the year. There's three components in a wetland. Hydrology,vegetation, and 1248 soils. In the hydrology component,there are different parameters that define or that document 1249 that there is the presence of ground water within the top foot for at least a portion of the year. So, 1250 the wetlands have water in the top foot for part of the year. 1251 1252 Beth Bronson: And so, in these boring locations in the environmental assessment,where it says depth to water 1253 surface from soil surface, is that what you're referring to? 1254 1255 Ward Marotti: Correct. 1256 1257 Beth Bronson: Okay, and so it's not like you dig 5 feet down and there's a puddle. 1258 1259 Ward Marotti: Right. There are secondary indicators of hydrologic presence in the top foot. It doesn't have to be 1260 standing water within the hole, although they were left, I believe,for 24 hours to set before the 1261 analysis of the connectivity or the depth to the actual standing water in the test pit was there, but 191 Approved 10.1.25 1262 there's also secondary indicators of hydrology higher up than just standing water. Secondary 1263 indicators meaning soil color. 1264 1265 Beth Bronson: Moisture content. 1266 1267 Ward Marotti: I'm sorry? 1268 1269 Beth Bronson: Moisture content? 1270 1271 Next Speaker: Yeah, moisture content as well as root oxidization of live root paths, and there's quite a few 1272 different secondary indicators of surface hydrology. 1273 1274 Beth Bronson: They talk about the different components of the neighborhood, like the hardwoods, like the mature 1275 hardwoods, and then the recently ecological community. Is there going to be a prioritization on 1276 preserving the mature hardwoods. 1277 1278 Ward Marotti: I believe a lot of them are, because a lot of those areas, as I recall,are within the areas that are 1279 not able to be impacted, and thereby,they're not going to be cleared or cut just as part of the 1280 development unless there needs to be earthwork done in those areas, and that is not the case 1281 within those conservation areas. 1282 1283 Beth Bronson: Yes. 1284 1285 Laura Haywood: We do have a tree conservation plan on Page 67 of your packet. And in the lower bottom right- 1286 hand corner,the primary tree protection area that we have in our plan is 22.23 acres or 20,very 1287 small, 28.4 percent of the overall site. Secondary tree protection area is 27.04 acres,which is 1288 34.5 percent of the site, and the total protected area is 49.27 acres,which is 62.9 percent of the 1289 overall site. 1290 1291 Ward Marotti: In addition to the environmental assessment,we did do a tree survey of the entire parcel and 1292 documented the size, the diameter at breast height, species, and location of all the trees. 1 1293 believe, I'd have to look back, but I believe it was all trees greater than 4 inches diameter breast 1294 height,so everything bigger than about like that got identified to species and it's at least 1295 approximate location documented. 1296 1297 Beth Bronson: Now,was that back in 2024 or was that more recently? 1298 1299 Ward Marotti: I believe it was'24, is that right? I mean, not a whole lot is going to happen in a year. With 1300 exception of having it be cleared, obviously,that could have happened. But with regard to the size 1301 and the species wouldn't change substantively. 1302 1303 Laura Haywood: I was just going to clarify. It has happened at the end of'24. 1304 1305 Ward Marotti: Yeah,that's what I thought it might have been in the early winter this year. 1306 1307 Delores bailey: Can I ask a quick question about the trees, so that means her trees won't get cut down, the ones 1308 that this owner was referring to. 1309 1310 Laura Haywood: Correct, there is a 100-foot buffer surrounding our property boundary edges, so I don't see a 1311 scenario in which those would be impacted. That would be tree save. 1312 1313 Delores Bailey: So, Cathy's trees won't get cut down? 1314 1315 Laura Haywood: No. 1316 192 Approved 10.1.25 1317 Delores Bailey: Okay. 1318 1319 Jonah Garson: And there's a 100-foot buffer around Mr. Medred's property? 1320 1321 Laura Haywood: It should be a 100-foot perimeter buffer on all sides of our property. 1322 1323 Jonah Garson: Where it's not developed or are you just leaving natural state? 1324 1325 Laura Haywood: It's going to be a natural state. Now, I will say that there has already been,on the back side of his 1326 property,there is some young succession trees that have not been touched by us that would have 1327 been from previous or from the land seller, I can't confirm, but they are much smaller, very small 1328 trees, but yeah, nothing would be impacted and I just spouted out the percentages and with that 1329 being said,obviously, that 100-foot buffer is it taking into consideration that tree save. 1330 1331 Beth Bronson: I see a 50-foot buffer. 1332 1333 Laura Haywood: Is it 50 foot? I couldn't remember if it was 50 or 100 foot. We're doing what's required by the 1334 LIDO. Taylor? Taylor can speak to this. 1335 1336 Taylor Perschau: It might be helpful to point them out. So, as I understand it,there's a 50-foot development set 1337 back around Mr. Medred's property. 1338 1339 Beth Bronson: And I'm looking specifically, lot 49,48,47,those are the ones that are going to be the closest. And 1340 then, obviously, on the north side, Lots 50, 35, 36 and 37 are right there. I mean, it's 20,within 50 1341 feet. 1342 1343 Taylor Perschau: And so I will there's a variation against the Eno River Academy property, it is a 100 foot buffer. 1344 The RCD is a zoning that kind of is like choose your adventure. So, this is one that is part of the 1345 dialogue about what's appropriate. 1346 1347 Beth Bronson: Absolutely and the idea,you would want a 100-foot buffer from the school location and then 1348 require a 20-foot buffer from the property line adjacent, but then a 50-foot buffer for the 1349 development itself, and specifically, Lots 35, 36, 37,those are small. 1350 1351 Lamar Proctor: A hundred at the school. And it's 20-foot around Mr. Medred's property. 1352 1353 Laura Haywood: It is 50. 1354 1355 Lamar Proctor: Well, it's a 50-foot development limit and a 20-foot buffer. 1356 1357 Laura Haywood: Yeah,the 20 foot is encapsulated in the 50 foot. 1358 1359 Delores Bailey: So it's not 70, that's 50? 1360 1361 Lamar Proctor: Correct. 1362 1363 Venkat Yendapalli: The trail is in the 50-foot buffer. 1364 1365 Beth Bronson: The trail is more than 20 feet in most parts and there's no house within 50 feet. 1366 1367 Beth Trahos: No lot. 1368 1369 Beth Bronson: No lot, I'm sorry. No lot within 50 feet and then no trail or whatever space within 20 feet, 1370 theoretically. 1371 193 Approved 10.1.25 1372 Lamar Proctor: Not theoretically, actually. 1373 1374 Beth Bronson: Well, it's at this south line and absolutely encroaches. Because of the way that it juts in, I don't 1375 know what the question is. 1376 1377 Lamar Proctor: I say that because I think Mr. Medred wants it to be actually not theoretically because he wants a 1378 buffer, right? 1379 1380 Beth Bronson: Well, no, it absolutely needs to be a condition and because this isn't the final plat, I can't say 1381 anything about it, right. 1382 1383 Beth Trahos: This plan is a condition. We have a concept plan associated with our project and that first 1384 condition is that it will be developed in accordance with the concept plan, right? So,your staff is 1385 going to require that,what is developed looks very much like this. There is an opportunity for 1386 some small modifications, particularly with regard to reducing intensity and, and then in terms of 1387 what NCDOT may require with regard to site access,there may be some additional right of way 1388 dedication or something like that that they require. 1389 1390 Beth Bronson: And,to that point about the idea of less density, I think that's really what this entire conversation is 1391 getting at, right, and where I'm coming from as far as this is conditional. Obviously,you would 1392 have to follow this with these minor adjustments. The minor adjustments that I would want to 1393 consider is how this trail because of the property line, because of the way that the neighborhood 1394 itself abuts up to the neighboring parcel,that would definitely need to be clearly defined that it was 1395 more than 20 feet from the property line. But also, I don't think I would be having this 1396 conversation, or I would have all these questions if this was say for even 30 parcels, right, or 30 1397 lots planned. Considering the amount of wetlands that are undevelopable. 1398 1399 Lamar Proctor: That kind of leads into my question. So,the areas that are not developed, and I appreciate 1400 preserving natural space, but are they areas that could not be developed anyway? 1401 1402 Beth Trahos: Some of the areas that are not to be developed are areas that are environmentally sensitive 1403 areas. They could be included in lots, but could you put a house right on the environmentally 1404 sensitive area? Probably not. It would, depending individually, my understanding is the cluster 1405 subdivision process as a land planner in addition to a lawyer is that, it was to protect some of 1406 these environmental features that are better left as common open space rather than platted in lots, 1407 so there certainly is some of that and Rachel,you can maybe add to that. 1408 1409 Rachel Cotter: I also wanted to point out that a lower density doesn't mean less impact and with the higher 1410 density, you can actually have less impact to some of the nature features we're trying to protect 1411 than a lower density. 1412 1413 Beth Trahos: And I, 1 would just say, one of the things we're solving for here,from our perspective and I think 1414 from the perspective of your community and many communities in the triangle is the need for 1415 additional housing. So,you can decide that you would rather not see this move forward but you're 1416 giving up an opportunity for housing that is being developed in a way that is generally sensitive. 1417 You know, that is providing the things that you are after and so,we would suggest to you that 1418 there is some compromises to be made when land is being used and, as you look at the 1419 compromises for this piece of property that's very close to the Town of Hillsborough, it's already 1420 gotten many urban or Suburban uses around it that this use makes sense. This fits in better than 1421 perhaps an agricultural industrial area that your plan might support. That this area has changed 1422 significantly and the consolidated plan with the Town of Hillsborough recommends this kind of 1423 mixed residential. Your staff has said that this is in compliance with what you plan for this area 1424 and of course, change is hard for everybody and particularly when change is happening near 1425 where you live. It is difficult to see, but we would submit to you that what is being proposed is 194 Approved 10.1.25 1426 reasonable and in the public interest and it shows a developer that has gone above and beyond 1427 what an ordinary project might bring forward. 1428 1429 Lamar Proctor: Well, that's the,and I'm not trying to interrupt you but,we are getting pressed for time and do we 1430 have a second agenda item, but my point is we've seen other projects where the applicant 1431 specifically increased density on one portion of the property to leave other areas of the property 1432 that could have been developed undeveloped, and this was kind of pitched like that at the 1433 beginning. I think one of your team said that we're not going to bulldoze,we're not going to grade, 1434 so, I'm just trying to get a transparent answer, like this is a project where you are essentially 1435 putting lots wherever you can put lots. 1436 1437 Beth Trahos: There are some areas that are developable that are not platted in lots. 1438 1439 Lamar Proctor: Okay,where are those? Because there's a, there's a lot of talk about these sort of conservation 1440 subdivisions where you try and concentrate and you cluster the housing in one area and you leave 1441 other areas that you could develop, undeveloped. So, my question is where on this map does that 1442 occur?Can you point it out for me? 1443 1444 Laura Haywood: The secondary tree protection area does not include any. Page 66? 1445 1446 Beth Trahos: Or the PowerPoint because we do have that on the PowerPoint. I would submit as well that the 1447 idea of the conservation subdivision is not only that developable land would be preserved but that 1448 specifically environmentally sensitive land would be preserved. 1449 1450 Cy Stober: On Page 67 of your packet. 1451 1452 Laura Haywood: 67. Yeah. Thank you. 1453 1454 Lamar Proctor: So, on Page 67 in the packet,the darker crosshatched areas are areas that could be developed 1455 that are being not developed. 1456 1457 Chris Johnston: When you say darker, is that the kidney-bean shaped darker? 1458 1459 Laura Haywood: Yes. 1460 1461 Lamar Proctor: I'll reiterate. Looking at Page 67, let the record reflect the witness is pointing to not the areas that 1462 are lighter where there's clearly stream buffers, but the other areas outside of the measured lots 1463 that are not within the stream buffers. 1464 1465 Chris Johnston: So, it's not the darker kidney-bean shaped, that's not what we're talking about,the little tiny itty 1466 bitty little thing.All that fill in there. Okay, thank you. 1467 1468 Lamar Proctor: Yeah,that's what I'm just trying to clarify and understand. So, to see whether this project is 1469 consistent with the comprehensive land use plan and what we're trying to do in Orange County 1470 which is preserve as much rural space as possible,concentrate housing and leave as much 1471 natural space as we can,then my only other question was, what are the flood prevention 1472 measures? Because we've seen in recent years hundred-year flood plains and, things that are 1473 only supposed to happen once every 100 years are now happening, you know, once every 20 1474 years. 1475 1476 Venkat Yendapalli: Every 2 years, actually. 1477 1478 Beth Trahos: So, in terms of storm water,we will meet the requirements of your ordinance and there are 1479 locations where storm water ponds might be appropriate. 1480 195 Approved 10.1.25 1481 Lamar Proctor: It's just passive storm water, right? Measures consistent with the UDO. There's no pumps or 1482 anything like that. 1483 1484 Beth Trahos: That's correct. Our civil engineer nodded his head. 1485 1486 Lamar Proctor: Okay, great. Does anyone else have any other questions? 1487 1488 Whitney Watson: Yeah, I have a couple actually. Looking at the GIS map that was up just a moment ago, I was 1489 wondering if you could show where that potential pathway might be from this development to 1490 Crossroads School, because it looks to me like you'd have to cross property that is owned by 1491 someone else. 1492 1493 Beth Trahos: Pathways Elementary? 1494 1495 Whitney Watson: Yes. 1496 1497 Laura Haywood: So, in order to get across the creek,yes,a walking bridge would need to traverse it. 1498 1499 Whiteney Watson: It's not that, it's the property. 1500 1501 Laura Haywood: Yes,there's an HOA-owned property back there that we would need to get permission from the 1502 HOA, but that would also be an additional collaboration piece that we are willing to address when 1503 the time comes. 1504 1505 Whitney Watson: Okay. 1506 1507 Beth Bronson: With Shrouds Creeks Homeowners Association. 1508 1509 Laura Haywood: Yes,that's correct. There's a small neighborhood right there of I don't know, a handful, 12 to 15 1510 homes, and their HOA kind of whips around. 1511 1512 Patrick Mallett: I can offer some historical perspective to that. When some developer develops Shrouds Creek, 1513 the developer went to the Town of Hillsborough and to the schools and said, hey, I've got this 1514 open space,would you consider a greenway or a path or a connection point. And at that time, the 1515 town said we're not really interested because there's stream features there and we're concerned 1516 about hazards without a full-blown greenway and adequate bridges. The school ultimately 1517 concluded we just want one little sidewalk along the right-of-way there,so it has been discussed 1518 before. I think that that HOA would need to be approached and a legal agreement arrived at. 1 1519 would think that they would be in the same theoretical position as the homeowners here,willing to 1520 talk, but there's essentially two to three, if not four parties that would need to be involved. Just 1521 wanted to let you know that that has been discussed in the past. 1522 1523 Whitney Watson: So,the other question is,there's a little tiny narrow tail of property that is part of this proposal, and 1524 what's up with that little piece? Could that be transferred to Eno River Academy or somebody 1525 else? 1526 1527 Beth Trahos: I don't know the, the genesis of that piece, but certainly it's something that could be discussed if it 1528 makes sense for it to be a part of Eno River or something like that. It certainly could be discussed. 1529 1530 Whitney Watson: Or, yeah, or to the property owners that are adjacent to it already if they wanted to buy that. 1531 1532 Cy Stober: Mr. Chair, if I may. So unlike when we're discussing DOT regulation and the right-of-way, 1533 conditioning a zoning approval on a property to compel conversation commitment with other 1534 property owners is outside the bounds of even the commissioners. We have to focus on this 196 Approved 10.1.25 1535 property and the regulations that apply to it and anything else is outside the bounds of what we 1536 can do as a zoning regulation. 1537 1538 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. And I do think it's been clear through this discussion that any communication or 1539 agreement between other adjacent property owners or other property owners is a matter of private 1540 interests between those legal entities and the landowners. And as the applicant has pointed out, 1541 as the developer they will eventually develop and sell these lots and that neighborhood will have 1542 an HOA, and once again,we can't get involved in that. That's a private matter between the 1543 people who buy that, but that HOA as a legal entity would have discussions with Eno River 1544 Academy or with adjacent landowners, but we can't condition zoning on those things. 1545 1546 Cy Stober: That's correct. I'm very happy to see and I know Taylor worked very hard at is basically teeing up 1547 those conversations as best we can through the powers that we do have to compel the easements 1548 and rights-of-way to be extended to the property lines, so those conversations can be had, and 1549 the applicant has responded to that staff guidance and conditions. 1550 1551 Jonah Garson: Just very quickly. I understand and I've heard that there's a small HOA with an adjacent 1552 neighborhood, private property owners. What is, and this is informational,what is the extent of 1553 our mandate with regard to conversations with public schools, public entities? 1554 1555 Cy Stober: None. They have a different elected board, and that board would need to take action,the OCS 1556 board to compel, and they need to make that commitment as part of a written document that'll be 1557 provided in the packet. None has been provided. 1558 1559 Statler Gilfillen: However, if those organizations had talked before they made a presentation, say,this evening, 1560 and they presented an agreement between those organizations which impacts the final layout of 1561 the plans tonight, that could impact our decision, right? 1562 1563 Cy Stober: Similar to the town providing a willing to serve letter for utilities, yes, that would be a factor you 1564 could consider. 1565 1566 Statler Gilfillen: Thank you. 1567 1568 Whitney Watson: So again, if you could,Taylor, if you could scroll,zoom out a little bit on the GIS map. I was 1569 wondering if you could speak to what the relative density for this new project would be like or 1570 similar to other developments in this part of Orange County. Is it going to be greater than what's 1571 represented by the property lines here or is it going to be less or about the same? Because that 1572 kind of gets to the rural character. 1573 1574 Beth Trahos: Sure. So, you see quite a bit here of the Town of Hillsborough, and I don't know specifically the 1575 size of these lots within these neighborhoods. A third of an acre with a traditional platted 1576 subdivision, that's what these subdivisions are. 1577 1578 Venkat Yendapalli: I think that subdivision is on sewer if I'm not wrong. Maybe planning team knows better. 1579 1580 Cy Stober: Yes,those are all Town of Hillsborough. 1581 1582 Beth Trahos: Sure. But so,these lot sizes would be larger. However,there would be open space that would be 1583 surrounding rather than just lotted out 20,000 square feet is roughly half an acre as compared to a 1584 third of an acre. That accommodates the septic that would be needed to serve these lots that are 1585 not getting service from the town. So, lots would be bigger than some of the lots you see, smaller 1586 than others that you see, but they would be surrounded by that common open space. 1587 1588 Venkat Yendapalli: What's the minimum lot requirement as per UDO for this property? Haven't seen this. 1589 197 Approved 10.1.25 1590 Beth Trahos: So,the AR zoning district anticipates 40,000 square foot lots, so roughly an acre lot. From a 1591 density perspective,this is less dense total number of units,total acreage,than could be built if it 1592 were traditionally platted. If it were traditionally platted, you would have to get way back into the 1593 subdivision and bring roads and it would impact the environmental features which we're trying to 1594 avoid doing. Smaller lots but larger open space. 1595 1596 Cy Stober: Mr. Chair, I need to offer a correction. When I spoke to,to Mr.Yendapalli, I said that that was a 1597 subdivision in the Town of Hillsborough's jurisdiction. It is a patchwork of annexation that is the 1598 Highland Woods neighborhood, so some of those lots are annexed into the town,and some 1599 remain outside the town limits. 1600 1601 Lamar Proctor: Thank you for that clarification. 1602 1603 Delores Bailey: So just for my benefit, there are a few comments that we got from the community, and would you 1604 just speak to the validity of this comment. We would be heartbroken to have sewage from 1605 proposed 50-plus septic fields to each home for runoff from the building process leak into this 1606 creek causing contamination. Can you just speak to that, is that not true? Is that something this 1607 community needs to worry about? 1608 1609 David Barcal: I mean, if you had sewage leaking directly into the creek,you'd be getting served an NOV from the 1610 County Health Department. So that would indicate a failed septic system. What we've done up 1611 until now,we've done a preliminary soils analysis,we've identified suitable soil. 1612 1613 Delores Bailey: I know. Remember,we had this conversation last month. 1614 1615 David Barcal: Yep, I know. 1616 1617 Delores Bailey: That should not happen. 1618 1619 Ward Marotti: The second part of that question was with regard to runoff during construction and similar to the 1620 permitting, or the septic system compliance while this project is under construction, it's subject to 1621 the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitting process, and weekly inspections 1622 and fixing problem areas. And so it is subject to an NPDES permit and if it is determined to be in 1623 violation of the permit,that retroactive fixes will be required pursuant to that permit. 1624 1625 Beth Bronson: To be clear, does every lot have a septic plan and a repair area? 1626 1627 David Barcal: We haven't looked at each individual plan for each lot, but from the PowerPoint,you can see the 1628 general area of the suitable soil in most of the lots. 1629 1630 Beth Bronson: I saw the examples,yeah. Lot 1 and Lot 49. 1631 1632 David Barcal: But we have not gotten through to each individual lot. At this point, that'd kind of be, because you 1633 don't even have the detailed soils analysis, you're not going to actually flag it. It'd kind of be a 1634 judgment based on how much resources and money that they want to put into something that's 1635 pretty much theoretical at this point. 1636 1637 Beth Bronson: Theoretically, yeah, if you get approval for the rezoning for 49 lots, you could still only have 20. 1638 1639 David Barcal: You would have to go out there, do individual soil borings on each lot, lay out the lines,flag the 1640 lines and design the system, submit the application to Orange County Health Department and 1641 then it'd have to go through their approval. 1642 1643 Beth Bronson: So,the conversation about having a community septic was not had? 1644 198 Approved 10.1.25 1645 Cy Stober: It was. 1646 1647 Beth Bronson: It was? 1648 1649 Cy Stober: Prior denials discouraged that line of thinking. 1650 1651 Beth Bronson: That's unfortunate,yeah. 1652 1653 Lamar Proctor: I don't know I mean,just as by way of discussion, I think there's historical issues with community 1654 septic systems and bailing and who maintains them and individual lot owners being responsible 1655 for their own poops. 1656 1657 Chris Johnston: So just to confirm though, and in the interest of time and such, do we have as a board what we 1658 need in regard to this particular application? I want to make sure that we're asking the right 1659 questions and that sort of thing, but I also want to be cognizant of everyone's time and to make 1660 sure that we're not beating around a bush here. 1661 1662 Lamar Proctor: Yeah,thank you, Chris. I think the idea is, are there additional conditions that we would seek that 1663 in addition to or modifications of the ten conditions that they have already. I was going to ask that. 1664 So,the conditions are based on the discussions with the County and from the NIM, the 1665 Neighborhood Information Meeting? Is that how these conditions were developed? 1666 1667 Beth Bronson: Yes. 1668 1669 Lamar Proctor: Okay. I'm just clarifying your points. Are there any other questions of that applicant, and is there 1670 any discussion that anyone has,wants to have in regard to approval or conditions? 1671 1672 Chris Johnston: And just to confirm do we have the page number for the conditions? 1673 1674 Lamar Proctor: I think it's Page 82 but correct me if I'm wrong. 1675 1676 Beth Bronson: I would just like to make one comment before we kind of further this discussion, is that this been a 1677 lot of information and there has been a lot of good conversation about it. I do not know that it 1678 would be realistic to come to a decision tonight, necessarily,given that it is 9:40 and that 1679 discussions we've had on the theoretical conditions that could be in place could continue. 1680 1681 Chris Johnston: My ask,what additional information you feel we'd be able to get before approval that we don't 1682 currently have? 1683 1684 Beth Bronson: I would say additional time to review all the materials. 1685 1686 Chris Johnston: The problem with saying that is the applicant went through the process and I believe Cy is going 1687 to say something like has a legal right for us to move some level on this. If there's not something 1688 that we're particularly waiting on, I would caution against asking for additional time. If there's a 1689 specific thing like we need this information before we move forward, yes, absolutely. If there is 1690 just a general sense that we need additional time to take in this data. 1691 1692 Delores Bailey: Is the fact that they're working on a new memo or Land Use Plan. That plus the fact that this is so 1693 theoretical, is that not cause to delay the voting for zoning change? 1694 1695 Lamar Proctor: I think that would come by way of a motion,well, Cy, can you tell me what the time limits are on 1696 the consideration? 1697 1698 Cy Stober: Section 2.8.8.13 of the Ordinance Page 2-28 or 84 of the whole ordinance states that the plain 1699 words action on the application shall be one of the following. 1)To recommend approval. 2)To 199 Approved 10.1.25 1700 recommend denial. 3)To recommend approval that was specific conditions. Or 4)To 1701 recommend the Planning Board be given extended time to consider the matter. And then on 289, 1702 the Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing after the Planning Board either 1703 makes its recommendation or takes no action on the application within 30 days of its referral. So 1704 that would be 30 days from tonight. 1705 1706 Lamar Proctor: What,that the County commissioners have to hear it? 1707 1708 Cy Stober: Shall hold a public hearing. 1709 1710 Lamar Proctor: County commissioners? 1711 1712 Cy Stober: Yes. Right. Can act without a Planning Board recommendation according to the UDO. And the 1713 applicant has the right to seek that hearing. 1714 1715 Jonah Garson: Wait, so my understanding of what you're saying is its Subsection 4 of that prior head was that we 1716 can get an extension of time and that can be the action we take, and then subsequent to having 1717 that extension, then we considering this,then that starts a 30-day clock. 1718 1719 Cy Stober: That's accurate. 1720 1721 Chris Johnston: The only thing I would say to that again is if we are asking the applicant to do something in those 1722 30 days,to provide us with additional information,that feels like a reason to extend. What it feels 1723 like we're doing is we are asking for a holding pattern and I'm not quite clear why. 1724 1725 Beth Bronson: We didn't really ask for a holding pattern. I literally just made a comment for discussion about 1726 delaying if we can consider this more. 1727 1728 Lamar Proctor: So procedural,what that would be is a motion to delaying or whatever the Option No.4, to request 1729 more time for Planning Board consideration that would need to be a second, and if it was a 1730 second, it would be voted on,and then if it passed,then we would move it to I guess,the October 1731 1 st session. 1732 1733 Beth Bronson: No, again, I'm making this comment and I mean if Chris if you'd like to. 1734 1735 Chris Johnston: No, I don't have a motion to make it come to that. I'm simply saying that I personally, if we have 1736 something we're asking the applicant to do that we need additional time for them to do,what I'm 1737 concerned about is it sounds like people are saying I need more time to think about this and that's 1738 of what we've already been given in some ways. We've been given the packet. It was 86 pages 1739 of hydrological studies which, thank you, very deep wells. But we've had a fair amount of time to 1740 go over 270 pages. To ask these questions, to have these comments. It's a very similar 1741 application to what we've talked about prior, but I just want to make sure that if we extend this,that 1742 we have a good reason. 1743 1744 Lamar Proctor: I think procedurally we have to make a motion so if there's no further discussion, I'll entertain a 1745 motion to adopt the statement of consistency in Attachment 6 or a motion to adopt the statement 1746 of inconsistency, or a motion to allow the board more time to consider the application. 1747 1748 Beth Bronson: I mean, I wasn't necessarily finished, again, the reasoning for this would have more to do with the 1749 idea that the applicant could seek additional conditions or could think about additional conditions 1750 that address the concerns that have been brought up tonight. So additional considerations of a 1751 contingency plan for,should 49 lots not work, could there be a backup design where you lower the 1752 density of it. 1753 1754 Cy Stober: Mr. Chair? 200 Approved 10.1.25 1755 1756 Lamar Proctor: Yes. 1757 1758 Cy Stober: Ms. Bronson,that would be a new application. 1759 1760 Beth Bronson: Yeah, I know. 1761 1762 Cy Stober: No,that would have to start over. 1763 1764 Beth Bronson: Well, I would not recommend that, I guess. 1765 1766 Cy Stober: That could not be submitted. That's my point. That could not be submitted as a substitute at this 1767 point. 1768 1769 Beth Bronson: Okay. 1770 1771 Cy Stober: You have the application before you. 1772 1773 Lamar Proctor: I will entertain any motions one way or the other. Does there need to be any more discussion? 1 1774 think generally I'll just try and leave the discussion. I think people are concerned about the traffic 1775 and concerned about just the density in that area. The traffic seems to be the primary concern. 1776 But that's DOT, it's part and parcel of the application and the site plan. You get some stuff,you 1777 lose other stuff,you get some benefits, you get detriments. So, I think we do have enough 1778 information to move forward on a vote as to whether we can make a recommendation to the 1779 Board of County Commissioners that this is something that's consistent with the comprehensive 1780 land use plan and the surrounding character of the land uses around it, or it's inconsistent. 1781 1782 Chris Johnston: We just need someone to make a motion. 1783 1784 Lamar Proctor: Right. Any motions? I guess I can make the motion. 1785 1786 Beth Bronson: I have a question about a condition. 1787 1788 Lamar Proctor: Delores? 1789 1790 Delores Bailey: Mr. Chair,you're saying you can make the motion? 1791 1792 Lamar Proctor: I think I can make the motion. I'm a board member. 1793 1794 Statler Gilfillen: Just do it. 1795 1796 Lamar Proctor: I mean, any board member can make the motion. 1797 1798 Cy Stober: I'm just checking the rules of procedure Perdita likely knows, but I'm checking the rules of 1799 procedure. 1800 1801 Perdita Holtz: I'm checking it too. 1802 1803 Beth Bronson: I could also make a motion with my condition to hold on this decision until the applicant has an 1804 opportunity to go back to the Town of Hillsborough and make a discussion about water supply. 1805 1806 Lamar Proctor: You can either,you either make a motion to adopt the statement of consistency,adopt the 1807 statement of inconsistency, or make a motion for the board to have more time to consider the 1808 application. Or you can make a motion to adopt the application or recommend the application with 201 Approved 10.1.25 1809 specific conditions, but I don't think you can do this conditional come back whenever. I mean, this 1810 is the application. We have to make a decision on it. 1811 1812 Chris Johnston: I'm going to make a proposal and if it gets voted down,then it gets voted down and we move from 1813 there. 1814 1815 Lamar Proctor: Okay. 1816 1817 Chris Johnston: Does that serve the purpose? 1818 1819 Lamar Proctor: Yes. 1820 1821 Chris Johnston: Okay. I'm going to butcher it. I make a motion that the application as stated follows the statement 1822 of consistency, the Planning Board finds that it is within the statement of consistency and should 1823 be moved forward with the conditions as proposed with no additional conditions or changes. 1824 1825 Lamar Proctor: Okay. So that's a motion to adopt the statement of consistency in Attachment 6 and recommend 1826 approval to the Board of County Commissioners. 1827 1828 Chris Johnston: With the conditions as stated,yes. 1829 1830 Lamar Proctor: With the conditions as stated in the application. Do I have a second? 1831 1832 Whitney Watson: Second. 1833 1834 Lamar Proctor: Second. All in favor of approval? 1835 1836 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to approve the statement of consistency. Seconded by Whitney Watson. 1837 1838 MOTION FAILS 4-4:Venkat Yendapalli, Statler Gilfillen, Beth Bronson, and Delores Bailey opposed. 1839 1840 Lamar Proctor: I'm sorry, how many approval? So, one, two,three, four.And then for those who say nay, I think 1841 you're required to state your reasons as to why is that right, Cy? 1842 1843 Cy Stober: That's requested,yes. 1844 1845 Lamar Proctor: All right,so all those against? All right. So, Delores,you want to state your reasons as to why it's 1846 not consistent. 1847 1848 Delores Bailey: I do not feel like this is consistent with rural character of this area. 1849 1850 Lamar Proctor: Okay. Thank you. Beth? 1851 1852 Beth Bronson: I just,yeah,the density does not fit the rural character. I don't find that the complete testing for 1853 the rezoning application as it stands is sufficient enough to move forward with a recommendation. 1854 1855 Lamar Proctor: All right. Who else was a no? Statler. 1856 1857 Statler Gilfillen: Professional architect who's dealt with these types of issues at the university level and as a 1858 licensed architect who has taught for years at universities, planning and development and design, 1859 1 do not believe that this layout is in the best interest consistent with what the Planning Board 1860 should be approving. 1861 1862 Lamar Proctor: Okay. And Venkat? 1863 202 Approved 10.1.25 1864 Venkat Yendapalli: Yeah, my reason is same with Beth. The density, the 40,000 square foot requirement, and there's 1865 not enough usable land that we can accommodate 40,000 square foot here and with what they're 1866 saying is leftover space which is not usable. So, my concern is the density. 1867 1868 Lamar Proctor: Okay. I thank you. 1869 1870 Chris Johnston: Now we need another motion. I mean,we need another motion one way or another if we're going 1871 to table or if we are going to disapprove? 1872 1873 Lamar Proctor: I think Cy is probably looking what happens with a four-four. 1874 1875 Cy Stober: All actions have to be determined by a majority vote. 1876 1877 Beth Bronson: So, I can make a motion to postpone a decision? 1878 1879 Lamar Proctor: No wait. What was the vote? I voted yes, so did I not count myself? 1880 1881 Beth Bronson: There are eight of us here, Lamar. 1882 1883 Lamar Proctor: There's eight of us, okay. Sorry, it's getting late and I am getting tired. 1884 1885 Statler Gilfillen: We've postponed the other parts of the meeting until the next meeting. 1886 1887 Lamar Proctor: Well, I think what we should do here is since we could not come up with a majority vote,we, and 1888 just so the public knows,we have adopted a hard stop at 10:00. So, I think what we'll have to do 1889 is, I'll make my own motion for this to be considered at the October 1st Planning Board meeting, 1890 for the board to have more time and more members. 1891 1892 Delores Bailey: Second. 1893 1894 Lamar Proctor: All right. All in favor? 1895 1896 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to continue the agenda item for the October 1,2025, Planning Board Meeting. Seconded by 1897 Delores Bailey 1898 1899 MOTION PASSED 6-2: Chris Johnston and Whitney Watson opposed. 1900 1901 Lamar Proctor: So, by six to two,we are moving to move this to the October 1 st for more time for the Planning 1902 Board. Correct, Mr. Stober? 1903 1904 Cy Stober: Yes. 1905 1906 Lamar Proctor: And do the nays have to state their reasons for that vote? It's not related to the statement of 1907 consistency so I wouldn't think so. 1908 1909 Cy Stober: Correct. 1910 1911 Lamar Proctor: Okay. So, I think procedurally what has occurred is Agenda Item 7 has been moved to October 1912 1 st for further consideration. Without a majority vote from the Planning Board. 1913 1914 ****** 203 DRAFT 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 OCTOBER 1,2025 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamar Proctor(Chair) Cheeks Township, Chris Johnston (Vice-Chair) Hillsborough 7 Township, Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Beth Bronson, At-Large 8 Representative; Venkat Yendapalli, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Jonah 9 Garson, At-Large Representative; Whitney Watson, At-Large Representative; Liz Kalies, 10 Chapel Hill Township Representative; Charity Kirk, At-Large Representative. 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Delores Bailey, At-Large Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township 13 Representative; Meg Millard, Little River Township Representative. 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Christopher Sandt, County Engineer; Patrick 16 Mallett, Deputy Director—Development Services; Taylor Perschau, Current Planning 17 Manager; Jack Moran, Planner 1 18 19 OTHERS PRESENT: Al Carnevalo, Donna Crowder, Danielle Cabral, Don Sever, Joshua Reinke, Beth Trahos, David 20 Barcal, Cathy Owens, Hope Haywood, Stephanie Waller 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 23 24 Lamar Proctor: Okay. All right, I'm Lamar Proctor. I'm the chair of the planning board. We're going to bring this 25 meeting to order. 26 27 ****** 28 29 AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT(CONDITIONAL DISTRICT)(CONTINUED) 30 31 Lamar Proctor: In terms of discussion and any additional questions for the applicant does—so kind of blurred 32 from chair comments into Agenda Item 7, but so beginning Agenda Item 7,yes, Statler? 33 34 Statler Gilfillen: Just as a question, if this is only one person with 3 minutes speaking, is that too much of an 35 interruption since they were not heard last time or able to speak last time? 36 37 Lamar Proctor: Well— 38 39 Statler Gilfillen: Maybe we let them have flexibility to be heard this time? 40 41 Lamar Proctor: I- 42 43 Chris Johnston: So the only thing I would say is the public comment was during the time that we had,and at this 44 point, really what we're talking about is the board having the discussion with the additional time. 45 The point of order last time was that we needed additional time in order to review the 46 documentation and then make a decision on this. Now,what I will say in potentially support of 47 Statler's argument is there does appear to be some changes that have been made to the 48 presentation in regards to changes to the conditions that are being presented. So I would argue 49 that we leave it as is and not necessarily have additional public comment. Additional items have 50 been submitted, and I think you could accept those as—I mean that's, I guess that's another 51 question. Is that additional public comment at that point? 52 53 Lamar Proctor: Well,what I'll— 54 204 DRAFT 55 Charity Kirk: As someone who wasn't here last time, if we could kind of get a foundation of the plan tonight of 56 discussion. 57 58 Chris Johnston: Sure. 59 60 Charity Kirk: And then kind of table deciding whether or not we take additional comments. How many 61 additional comments are there? Just one? 62 63 Chris Johnston: One. 64 65 Lamar Proctor: It's one individual, so and I would just note for the record that the applicant has provided additional 66 written materials,which includes some modifications of the conditions for conditional zoning and a 67 summary of the changes, and I believe Ms. Owens also sent an email about concerns about the 68 traffic issues raised by this zoning atlas amendment that has also been, it was emailed,so it's 69 already part of the record under our consideration, but copies have been provided to the members 70 of the board. So, Charity, so we had kind of went through questions for the applicant and then 71 had begun discussion. So I think to proceed in an orderly fashion,the first thing that I think we 72 should consider is whether to allow the additional person who signed up to make,to get 3 73 minutes, and I think we should do that on a motion, and then if there's a second,we'll take a vote 74 on whether to allow that in this circumstance. So, do I hear any motions to— 75 76 Statler Gilfillen: I move that we let this one person speak for 3 minutes. 77 78 Lamar Proctor: Okay. Do I hear a second? 79 80 Venkat Yendapalli: Second. 81 82 Lamar Proctor: All right. Venkat seconds. So all in favor, so I will note that—is Al Carnivale present? Okay. Mr. 83 Carnivale is present, so the motion before the board is to allow Mr. Carnivale 3 minutes of public 84 comment on Agenda Item 7. So all in favor of allowing him the 3 minutes, please raise your hand. 85 One, two,three, four,five. And all against? So the ayes have it,so Mr. Carnivale,you will, you've 86 got 3 minutes to give public comment on Agenda Item 7. 87 88 Chris Johnston: Do we want to have a particular—I apologize. Do we want to have a particular order in which we 89 do this in regards to the changes that have been proposed and then bringing in public comment, 90 or do you prefer to roll it in a particular fashion? 91 92 Lamar Proctor: Well, I hope, and it was,we've all reviewed the minutes— 93 94 Chris Johnston: Mm hmm. 95 96 Lamar Proctor: —so we should be all up to speed on what the issues are. So I think before we get into further 97 questions for the applicant and discussion,that we should take the public comment. Is there 98 anyone who's opposed to that? Okay, hearing none, all right, so Mr. Carnivale, if you want to 99 come on up. 100 101 Al Carnivale: Yes 102 103 Chris Johnston: Whitney has just arrived. 104 105 Lamar Proctor: Just so— 106 107 Chris Johnston: Whitney just arrived. 108 205 DRAFT 109 Lamar Proctor: Okay, and I see Whitney's here, so I'll just note that for the record. We do have another board 110 member who's arrived. 111 112 Chris Johnston: So what's going to happen is the light will show up here on green. You'll have 3 minutes to speak, 113 and it should ding at you as we get closer to that time, if you would just keep it to the 3 minutes. 114 115 Al Carnivale: Okay. 116 117 Chris Johnston: Perfect. 118 119 Al Carnivale: Okay, so I go? 120 121 Chris Johnston: Okay. Yep, so if you wouldn't mind speaking into the microphone, and yep,when the light turns 122 green, it's all you. 123 124 Lamar Proctor: And state your name and what part of the county you live in. 125 126 Chris Johnston: I'll let you have that for free. 127 128 Al Carnivale: My name is Al Carnivale. I live in Forest Ridge in Hillsborough. Okay, I feel a little embarrassed 129 that I missed last time because I got a telephone call that said I could come tonight by someone. 1 130 can't remember who called me. But you already answered one of the questions, so I'm going to 131 go through my list very quickly because the concerns are what you may have already gotten from 132 other people, and if you have,that's great. 133 134 Charity Kirk: Can you speak into the microphone? 135 136 Al Carnivale: Oh, I'm sorry. 137 138 Charity Kirk: Thank you. 139 140 Lamar Proctor: There you go. 141 142 Al Carnivale: I'm sorry. So these are some of the concerns I came up with in the last couple weeks. The one 143 that you just mentioned is traffic control was one of them. I was also wondering about,with the 144 growth that we've had in our community in the last couple years,what will be the impact and do 145 we have enough police force,firemen, EMTs to support this type of growth. This next part, I'm 146 going to go through these very quickly for you, so I'll be under 3 minutes. So resources, do we 147 have enough water? Water has always been a problem in our community. I live in Forest Ridge, 148 and that water still can't make it up the hill. And so when you take a shower, two people take a 149 shower in our house;they don't get a really great shower. I'm just, and it's an ongoing issue. 150 Electric and natural gas resources. Basic infrastructure. I brought this up because when we 151 moved,when we selected to move into Hillsborough,you had four, supposedly four great 152 restaurants. By the time we got here 9 months later, you were down to one. So I want to know 153 about more grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants. Is there any concern about bringing more of 154 those people, trying to get more of those people, and will these developments get them into the 155 community? Recently, I had a trip back to Princeton, New Jersey,which we had lived at one time. 156 It was a sleepy little town. Now,they've exploded, and they have so many people in the town it's 157 unbelievable. And finally,we may need this growth,we may want this growth, but considering 158 what's just going on recently in Orange County and Hillsborough with our taxes, I'm wondering 159 what the tax effect will be on increased going on in the future. So that's all I have to say. Hope 160 you take into consideration. If you want, I can just leave my list of stuff with gentleman over there, 161 and you can get on with the more important business. But appreciate you giving me the time to 162 come out and at least list my interests and concerns of this new development. Thank you. 163 206 DRAFT 164 Lamar Proctor: All right. Thank you, Mr. Carnivale. So I think the best way to proceed at this point, maybe, is to, 165 because there were some board members who weren't here who did not have a chance to ask 166 questions of the applicant. So I think the next step we should take in consideration of Agenda 167 Item 7 is for any additional questions of the applicant, but I will also entertain a motion to give the 168 applicant some period of time, maybe an additional 3 to 5 minutes,to tell us about anything that 169 their handouts and what changes have been made under consideration since the last meeting. 170 171 Jonah Garson: Jonah Garson, so move that we do that. 172 173 Lamar Proctor: All right. I will second Jonah's motion. All those in favor of giving the applicant—do you have an 174 amount of time? 175 176 Jonah Garson: You said 3 minutes? 177 178 Lamar Proctor: Yes. 179 180 Jonah Garson: Yeah, 3 minutes. 181 182 Lamar Proctor: Okay. 183 184 Chris Johnston: We could use my button. 185 186 Lamar Proctor: All in favor of giving the applicant an additional 3 minutes of time, raise your hand or say aye. And 187 1 just note that it's unanimous,so if the applicant wants to give us an additional 3 minutes of 188 discussion about the handouts and anything since the last meeting,especially the change in 189 conditions, if any. 190 191 Beth Trahos: Sure. Good evening, Mr. Chair and planning board members. My name's Beth Trahos, here 192 tonight on behalf of Four Star. We did listen closely to the planning board and to the folks who 193 were in attendance at the last meeting, and have made some changes to our conditions based on 194 what we heard. I think the most important change is a commitment to require that the property 195 owner petition the Town of Hillsborough for access to public water and that, if that petition is 196 approved,to utilize public water in the subdivision if the easements can be obtained to bring it out. 197 You will recall that in the courtesy review,the Town of Hillsborough indicated that they may be 198 willing to extend public water. And so that should resolve any potential concerns with wells, along 199 with all the study that we have done that shows that there will be no impact on adjacent wells if a 200 well is used to serve this project. In addition,we have added a commitment that all accesses will 201 be provided in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation permits, including 202 the provision of any required turn lanes or restrictions on access,which they will put in place if 203 they are necessary to maintain safe functionality of the roads and the access points. And in 204 addition,we met with Eno River Academy again and talked with them about opportunities for their 205 students to continue having access to the planned trails. You may recall there's roughly 1.7 miles 206 of trails planned on this property as an amenity for the community, and we have added a condition 207 that we would offer an agreement to the school to allow for their students to have access to the 208 trails,so those are the changes to what we have proposed. Just by way of reminder and for those 209 of you who perspective weren't here,this is a proposal for 49 homes on almost 80 acres. That's 210 1.6 acres per home, including the open space. More than 50 percent of the property will be open 211 space,42.25 acres common open space. That's a committed element of this plan that would be 212 required to be maintained in accordance with the plan as open space and not otherwise utilized. 213 Also, significant tree preservation, a little over 49 acres on the site. Our whole team is here you— 214 well,with the exception of Mr. Maradi,our well except. He has a new grandbaby. But all the rest 215 of us are here and available to answer any questions you have, and we would ask for your 216 support of this proposal for much-needed housing in Orange County. Thank you. 217 207 DRAFT 218 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. So I think the next thing we should do is see if anyone has additional questions for the 219 applicant. And, Charity,you weren't here last time, so I'll start with you if you have any additional 220 questions. 221 222 Charity Kirk: Well, there were some things I didn't quite understand about just also board problems and what 223 the board was seeing. So I think this was brought up, but there are wetlands on this property, so 224 you cannot split this—can you split this property exactly into 1-acre lots in agricultural residential? 225 Is that possible with all these wetland, with all the wetlands? 226 227 Taylor Perschau: Yes, subdivision would be allowed. So the, and I'm going to pull up the presentation from last time 228 so we have some reference points. So the current agricultural-residential zoning,when staff is 229 reviewing subdivision plats, you can,the lot size can retain that 40,000-square-foot minimum. 230 Staff often asks for a surveyor to note where wetlands are and then sometimes also require that 231 buffers be visualized on plats. But the property lines themselves could go within those features. 232 233 Charity Kirk: All right,just houses couldn't be built— 234 235 Taylor Perschau: That's correct. 236 237 Charity Kirk: —on those. So if you remove all of the places where houses can't be built, how much acreage do 238 you have? 239 240 Taylor Perschau: I don't know. This might be better answered by the applicant doing an evaluation of their own site. 241 1 don't know if that was an exercise you all completed. 242 243 Beth Trahos: There are roughly 3 acres of wetlands on the property. One of the reasons we think it's beneficial 244 that those environmentally sensitive areas be maintained in open space is that the homeowners 245 association is more likely to be respectful of those features than perhaps a homeowner who might 246 just see this portion of wetland as a part of their yard. I would also point out that the Army Corps 247 of Engineers,which governs impacts on wetlands, allows each individual lot owner,through a 248 nationwide permit,to impact 1/10 acre of wetlands;whereas if the wetlands are located on a 249 larger piece of property,then there is a permitting process required for impacts beyond that. So in 250 our view, this would limit impacts on environmentally sensitive areas by maintaining them in open 251 space. 252 253 Charity Kirk: So you said there's 3 acres wetlands, but does that include all the required buffers? How much 254 acreage is in required setbacks from the wetlands? Does that include the 3, is that included in the 255 3 acres, or is that additional? 256 257 Beth Trahos: I'm going to ask our engineer because I don't know the answer. 258 259 Charity Kirk: Yeah,thank you. 260 261 Lamar Proctor: So, Charity, I think what you're trying to get at is of right how many houses could they put if it was 262 just subdivided. 263 264 Charity Kirk: Zoned agricultural, subdivided for agricultural residential. Which is an option that doesn't need to 265 come back to the planning board, is that, that's correct, sorry, right,or— 266 267 Cy Stober: Not necessarily. Based on the— 268 269 Charity Kirk: Depends on if it's over 20, it would need to come back? 270 271 Cy Stober: Correct. No matter what type of subdivision it is, if it's over 20 lots, it must go through the 272 conditional zoning process in Orange County,so 21 lots or more. 208 DRAFT 273 274 Charity Kirk: So it would become a conditional zoning district anyway? 275 276 Cy Stober: Well, pending approval by the county board of commissioners and the recommendation of the 277 planning board, but yes. 278 279 Charity Kirk: Okay. 280 281 Cy Stober: It would go through the same process, regardless of whether it was conventional subdivision or a 282 conservation cluster. 283 284 Charity Kirk: Okay. So I'll,while you figure that out,the traffic stuff because that was a big discussion point, 285 and it seems like it is a problem along that road. And you're not proposing any solutions; you're 286 waiting for the DOT to do something. 287 288 Beth Trahos: Well, and I'm going to ask Josh Reinke to come forward, but I would say we pro—no traffic-impact 289 analysis was required either by county regulation or by NCDOT. And we have had Josh do some 290 investigation, and I'll let him tell you about it. 291 292 Josh Reinke: Yeah, so and I guess in terms of when you say solutions,you're saying like turn lanes and things 293 like that, correct? 294 295 Charity Kirk: Yeah, I mean people brought up the stoplights down the road that, I mean, is not even on your 296 property, but yes, center turn lanes, things that could address the community issues and the 297 issues that I heard expressed on the board for the increased traffic load,and also this packet that 298 was left that's talking about the traffic study being—I don't know if you saw the traffic study. Not 299 being— 300 301 Josh Reinke: Yeah, I've seen it. 302 303 Charity Kirk: —not being estimated correctly because the homes are going to be four bedrooms not two and a 304 half bedrooms. 305 306 Josh Reinke: Correct. And I'll talk a little bit about that kind of high level and kind of dive into what you're 307 asking. So in terms of the traffic study, because I saw, I called ITE, I got this bit of information. 1 308 took this bit from here, kind of cobbled something together. DOT, I mean, it's in there. We even 309 had county staff talk to DOT recently. We did the traffic study following guidelines of the county 310 and NCDOT. That's how I'm required,as a professional engineer pre-qualified. I can't take a 311 piece here and a piece here and sort of cobble it together. A lot of the stuff was talking about the 312 average size of the house, and then ITE does this,and why didn't we use bedrooms and things 313 like that. There are guidelines we have. It's based on downloading units. They look at, 314 nationally, different sized houses, so some might be larger,some might have less bedrooms. It's 315 the way NCDOT does require it. Now, keep in mind,they didn't require a traffic study; the client 316 asked me to perform one just to see those impacts. And we provided it to NCDOT. They did 317 provide a review. They agreed with our findings. We are currently—so this is where it comes into 318 some of that stuff of what are we going to do there is typically, in terms of when a traffic study isn't 319 required, NCDOT says you still need to get a driveway permit from us. You're going to have to 320 dive into that design stuff. We're going to tell you if you need turn lanes at your site driveways, 321 things like that. So, essentially, this is indicating no,we're not; no,we're under the threshold to 322 require us to study off-site intersections and improve things that are already a problem. We're 323 looking at what is the impact of our development. So we have actually,just to kind of be proactive 324 is we had our survey team go out there and look at the site distance. It's been submitted to 325 NCDOT. They have to do a field evaluation, also,to check that and then they will let us know. 326 And by let us know, I mean whether it's restricting a driveway—and I'm not speaking on behalf of 327 DOT; I'm saying these are options. They might say we want a center turn lane. Get that traffic out 209 DRAFT 328 of there. They might say we want to restrict it to a right in, right out, because we have some 329 concerns there where we don't want the left-turning movement because the site distance isn't 330 good enough. There are all sorts of options that are on the table there for them, and it's going to 331 be their call. So it is something that we're looking into the safety components of that,which is 332 more design related. We've looked at the capacity at the driveways. So NCDOT has been 333 working with us through the whole process. We even scoped it,just like a typical TA, saying here 334 are assumptions, here's our assumptions for growth in the area, not just our development, but 335 we're looking at this holistically. We've been in communication with the county and DOT staff 336 throughout the whole process. 337 338 Charity Kirk: So you're basically saying you just have to wait for DOT to tell you what to do. 339 340 Josh Reinke: NC, yeah, NCDOT will dictate what we're doing at the driveways, essentially,whether we restrict 341 them,whether we put the turn lanes and things like that, based on what we've provided with that 342 site distance. So a lot of that came up where there's the diagrams of crashes and the number of 343 crashes and things like that. And also, I don't know if it's anything where DOT's been approached 344 before, if there were all these crashes, if there has been a request for a speed-limit reduction,that 345 is something that can be done. Usually it holds more weight when a municipality or a county does 346 it versus an individual developer saying, "Hey, here's this history of crashes." I'm happy, if it's 347 okay with the team, it is a letter that I would submit, and they review it and say,"Do we have these 348 concerns?"because then it's really just posting new signs out there. We're seeing we're worried 349 about speeding. The only way—I mean, yes, you can post signs and say slow it down. To be 350 honest,the guaranteed way to slow down traffic is capacity issues. And that indicates there aren't 351 real capacity issues right there if they're saying everybody's speeding along there, so I think the 352 best approach could be, and once again, if it is something that there are concerns about the safety 353 along that stretch, is I can provide NCDOT with a letter saying, "Hey,we have concerns about 354 these crashes." They're still going to do whatever at the driveways if it's you have to put in turn 355 lanes,we're going to restrict some of that access. That would be completely separate;that's part 356 of the driveway permit. But I can send a request in if you all felt that was necessary to address 357 some of the speeding concerns. Once again, I cannot guarantee you. That is an NCDOT 358 decision of whether they say yes,we do agree with you. We see there are, I think it was,five fatal 359 crash, over 100 crashes in a 5-year period is to me that should be something. Whether anybody's 360 looked at that before, I'm happy to. I've done this before, mainly for schools that I work on,just 361 say, hey,we need a reduction in speed here. We're concerned about those. So offering that, if 362 that's okay, is writing that letter. And I cannot guarantee you that that will happen. I can't put that 363 as a condition like we'll get a speed limit. I'm saying I can write that letter, like I have in other 364 instances, and submit that to NCDOT to hopefully address some of the crash issues. 365 366 Charity Kirk: Any number yet? I think I'm done with the traffic. 367 368 Josh Reinke: I'm sorry,what? 369 370 Charity Kirk: I think I'm done with the traffic. 371 372 Josh Reinke: Okay, okay. 373 374 Charity Kirk: Thank you. 375 376 Josh Reinke: Thank you. 377 378 Beth Trahos: Looks like he's calculating. 379 380 Charity Kirk: He's—I asked a tougher question than I thought. So the private property aspect, I think it's 381 commendable that you are willing to tentatively allow the cross-country team on the property. It 210 DRAFT 382 does sound like the school utilizes a nearby creek. Is that going to be impacted by that use? Is 383 that on, is the creek on their property, or is it on your property? 384 385 Beth Trahos: My understanding is that the current landowner allows the school to use many of the resources on 386 the property for the students. And so I do think they are out there at the creek and running on the 387 site today as a part of what they do at school. And so, obviously,we cannot allow that during the 388 construction process because of ongoing construction, but we are willing to allow that access to 389 the trails. The stream is in the open space on the property, and that open-space area will be 390 maintained almost, or a little more, actually, than half the site, so that would be an available 391 environmental amenity. 392 393 Charity Kirk: So you would allow the students on the property, on the open-space portion of the property? 394 Because right now it sound,you're just like, it sounds like you very much don't want anybody but 395 the community homeowners on the property. 396 397 Beth Trahos: So what, so our initial concern was to do with liability for a small homeowners association, and so 398 what we had included in the conditions is that we would make an offer to the school for them to 399 have access. Our condition relates to the trails because that was what was expressed to us as 400 something that was desirable. But that offer would include some commitment with regard to 401 liability waivers and that kind of things because, clearly,these would not be public, and a 402 homeowners association couldn't take on that risk. But we would make that offer, and the terms 403 will be negotiated between those parties moving forward. 404 405 Charity Kirk: So you would be willing to expand that to not just the cross-country team? 406 407 Chris Johnston: I think it's for the school, is it not? 408 409 Lamar Proctor: No,the condition specifically says the property owner shall offer limited access to the planned 410 trails to the Eno River Academy for use by students on the cross-country team, pursuant to an 411 agreement drafted by the landowner with an effective date after construction is complete. So 1 412 read that as a commitment by the developer to enter into some good-faith agreement with Eno 413 River Academy to allow the students on the cross-country team to use the trails for running 414 purposes. 415 416 Chris Johnston: But point— 417 418 Beth Trahos: And that was what was asked. 419 420 Chris Johnston: —point of clarification, I mean, is this our place? Like are we,this we're talking about an 421 agreement between two different organizations and groups, and we're asking it to be a condition 422 as part of the zoning request,and I'm not sure that that's— 423 424 Charity Kirk: Well,we haven't requested it. 425 426 Cy Stober: So, similar to the last application that involvement a commitment to negotiate with NCDO from, I'm 427 sorry,from this applicant for a different project that compelled them to negotiate with NCDOT on 428 unnecessary turn lanes, per their traffic study;this would be a commitment for them to initiate 429 negotiations with Eno River Academy for this shared use, but it doesn't,we cannot compel them to 430 come to agreement. 431 432 Charity Kirk: Right. 433 434 Donna Crowder: And just to let you know, Charity,that—hey, Donna Crowder. Just to let you know,we met with 435 them on Friday afternoon for 4 hours, I think. We toured the whole facility, and we talked with the 436 cross country, one of the guys that runs the cross-country thing. We found out about their 211 DRAFT 437 program,which they offer this to all the char, all the charter schools all over the state. They come 438 and use their trail system for regional meets. So very proud of that, and it's a very important part 439 of their culture. So what we did is we talked to them and said why don't we, in our plans and in 440 our commitments,we said yeah,we'll provide this many linear feet of trail. It probably will not be 441 across a creek,simply because we don't want to impact wetlands and we don't want to impact 442 buffers. But wherever we put those trails,we're going to collaborate with them and make sure it's 443 the right distances, that they have a clear path that is the right length for their meet. And even to 444 the point we're redesigning where those trails are so they maybe could cut this loop off if it's too 445 long. They only need a mile. 446 447 Charity Kirk: Would you be willing to let your open space be available to school children as well for creek 448 exploration? Like as long during school hours or just with conditions negotiated with the school. 449 450 Donna Crowder: I think that that could be part of this agreement. We— 451 452 Charity Kirk: So not just the cross-country team? I hear the concern with the cross-country team, but I also 453 heard that there's other children that utilize those areas, and you are—I mean,one of the things 454 about this rezoning is this open space that we value as a community, and so encouraging children 455 to value it too seems beneficial. 456 457 Donna Crowder: So,yes,and I don't know if—that packet is very, very thick. But one of the things that we wanted 458 to do is put educational signs so that people can educate their kids and see the natural resources 459 and how ecology works, in general, so we are doing that. As far as negotiating whether or not the 460 open space would be available to them, again,to Cy's point,that's the HOA committing to a 461 different entity. We can try to work it out, but it may not be an agreement that can be reached. 462 463 Charity Kirk: Yes. 464 465 Donna Crowder: But we're willing to do that. And so we want to share our open space with whoever needs it, 466 especially to,you know, as a kid that's all I did. I spent my days by the creek. That was where 1 467 was. So I don't,we don't have a problem with that. It's just, again, it's an agreement between, 468 and whether or not we can come to such terms. But certainly that can be a consideration. 469 470 Charity Kirk: I'm not sure. Like that doesn't, I mean it's like it needs to be negotiated. Like how is it, can I, do 1 471 just make a suggestion as a planning board member and let it be, or could I make it a condition, or 472 make an amendment to make it a condition that they have a full discussion about using a certain 473 amount of open space. Have a negotiation with the school about— 474 475 Cy Stober: So- 476 477 Charity Kirk: —during school time having the ability to go down to the creek. 478 479 Lamar Proctor: Well, can I address this? I think, Charity,what you're looking at is Condition 7. And I think what 1 480 imagine you're thinking is to modify Condition 7 to say something like: The property owners shall 481 offer limited access to the planned trails and open space, which would be a modification,to the 482 Eno River Academy for use by students, and just— 483 484 Charity Kirk: That would be perfect. 485 486 Beth Trahos: And we can make that change. 487 488 Charity Kirk: Okay. 489 490 Cy Stober: And for the purposes of this discussion, so because the hearing is not tonight, all that we need 491 from the applicant is commitment in writing, agreement in writing to that condition in order for it to 212 DRAFT 492 be a condition of approval by the county,so this gets a little more complicated if it's the 493 commissioner within the hearing, but we have some time. 494 495 Beth Trahos: So we could submit that updated condition in the morning? Is that— 496 497 Cy Stober: The sooner the better for our packet-assembly purposes for the commissioners and the hearing, 498 but yeah. 499 500 Beth Trahos: I can handwrite it tonight, but I can only get it to you typed out in the morning. 501 502 Cy Stober: Yeah,that's perfectly acceptable. We prefer to have it in how you've already formatted it. That 503 would be great. 504 505 Beth Trahos: Sure. 506 507 Lamar Proctor: So would that be, if once we get through questions and discussion,would that be a motion to 508 approve the statement of consistency with the amendment to Condition 7? 509 510 Cy Stober: If it's agreeable to the board. 511 512 Lamar Proctor: Okay. All right. 513 514 Chris Johnston: I don't mean to continue being a stick in the mud here, but so Condition 7 says, "Shall offer limited 515 access to planned trails for students on the cross-country team,"so that's a very specific thing. 516 But now, now what Condition 7 is going to say is, "All the kids from Eno River Academy can utilize 517 the open space and trails from the," I mean that's a— 518 519 Beth Bronson: Limited. 520 521 Lamar Proctor: Pursuant to an— 522 523 Charity Kirk: Limited access. 524 525 Lamar Proctor: —agreement drafted by the landowner. So I think that the only reasonable interpretation is that is 526 just their commitment to a good-faith effort to have those discussions with Eno River Academy to 527 see if they can come to an agreement. 528 529 Chris Johnston: Okay, so that isn't how it reads to me, and I'm not,to me,that says"shall offer limited access". 530 And so if we're saying they need to have a discussion and come to an agreement or whatever, 1 531 think we should be clear about that. Because what it looks like right now is"shall offer limited 532 access". I might be misunderstanding that, and I apologize. 533 534 Cy Stober: Yeah, I think the, my reading of it is that the verb"offer"means that that offer can be accepted or 535 not, and we're just expanding the scope of the offer. 536 537 Lamar Proctor: I would agree with that. 538 539 Chris Johnston: I'm not a lawyer, so if I've got two of them saying something,then I'm not— 540 541 Charity Kirk: Agreed. 542 543 Lamar Proctor: Statler wanted— 544 545 Statler Gilfillen: Very minor technical issue with the language. When you say just students, I'd like to stay students 546 and teachers or something to that so that— 213 DRAFT 547 548 Beth Trahos: Sure. 549 550 Statler Gilfillen: —if you're, if three teachers want to go out there before the students and it's only three teachers, 551 technically, under what was proposed,would not be permitted. 552 553 Beth Trahos: Sure. Yes,sir. 554 555 Statler Gilfillen: So the language should, I think, be open enough. 556 557 Beth Trahos: Yeah, students and faculty. 558 559 Statler Gilfillen: Good. 560 561 Charity Kirk: All right, I see maybe the numbers guy. 562 563 Beth Trahos: Oh, sorry. 564 565 Don Sever: Good evening. Don Sever with Bowman Consulting. We have approximately 10 percent of the 566 sites in riparian buffers. That's around 8 acres. 567 568 Charity Kirk: Okay, so around 8 acres. So that would be— 569 570 Beth Trahos: Seventy remaining acres. 571 572 Charity Kirk: —so seven, so really,you can build probably 70 houses on it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very 573 much. I know that was an ask. I didn't realize. 574 575 Beth Trahos: Not a problem. 576 577 Charity Kirk: Yes. I think I'm done. Thank you. 578 579 Lamar Proctor: Liz, you weren't—you want to ask any questions of the applicant? I don't think you were here last 580 time. 581 582 Liz Kalies: Oh yeah, thanks. The only question I had is how many acres of trees will be cleared for the 583 project? Just asking the inverse of what are you leaving behind, I guess. 584 585 Beth Trahos: So, again I will ask Don to tell us the number. 586 587 Other Speaker: But you only have 3 minutes to do that. 588 589 Donna Crowder: I just want to add just so you know that this, because of the nature of this kind of subdivision,we 590 will only clear the roads. It will not be mass cleared. And I know that's a concern for a lot of 591 people, but it will only be cleared enough to get the roads in there and then enough to put the 592 houses and the main drain field,the primary drain field. The repair fields will not be cleared. 593 Those,that is the only clearing that will take place by us. Just to let you know that. 594 595 Liz Kalies: Okay, yeah, that's getting at my question for sure. 596 597 Don Sever: And as far as tree protection goes,we have 22 acres in primary tree protection area and 27 acres 598 in secondary tree protection area,to be a total of 49 acres or 62 percent. 599 600 Liz Kalies: 60 percent remaining? 601 214 DRAFT 602 Don Sever: Mm hmm. 603 604 Liz Kalies: Okay. All right,thanks. 605 606 Other Speaker: And how do you distinguish between primary and secondary? Like primary means we ain't 607 touching it;secondary means we'll take down things that are certain diameters? Is that how that 608 works? 609 610 Beth Trahos: It's a code definition. Primary and secondary is a LIDO definition that we may not know off the top 611 off our heads. 612 613 Charity Kirk: I didn't get the number either. How,what was the answer to the question? 614 615 Don Sever: The answer is 63 acres are going to be left in tree preservation. 616 617 Taylor Perschau: Is the question about how much is being disturbed? Could you repeat the question maybe? 618 619 Liz Kalies: My original question— 620 621 Lamar Proctor: That was Liz's question. 622 623 Liz Kalies: —my original question was how many acres are being cleared. 624 625 Don Severn: Okay, so how many acres are being cleared would be— 626 627 Liz Kalies: How many are left works too. 628 629 Don Sever: I'm sorry? 630 631 Liz Kalies: Go ahead. 632 633 Don Sever: Okay, so the total property is 78 acres. And we're going to protect 49 acres, so that'll remain 29 634 acres. 635 636 Liz Kalies: Okay. 637 638 Don Sever: Twenty-nine acres will be cleared. 639 640 Beth Trahos: Well, not necessarily cleared. 641 642 Beth Bronson: Theoretically. 643 644 Beth Trahos: 29 acres won't be in tree-save area. Right? 645 646 Don Sever: That's correct. 647 648 Beth Trahos: Yeah. 649 650 Beth Bronson: Right. Okay. So about 50, almost 50 lots at half an acre,and that would be like, again,to clear 651 the primary drain field and to lay the foundation of the house, there may or may not be room for 652 trees to be left, but again, as you said,this is going to be up to the homeowner once they 653 purchase the lot to build. Then they will clear any remaining on their specific parcel on their— 654 655 Charity Kirk: I think it's the developer— 656 215 DRAFT 657 Beth Trahos: Likely a builder- 658 659 Charity Kirk: —that's going to build. 660 661 Beth Trahos: —would build the— 662 663 Beth Bronson: Yeah,the builder. 664 665 Beth Trahos: —individual homes and sell them to a homeowner. 666 667 Beth Bronson: Yes. 668 669 Beth Trahos: But in the development process, all that will be done is to input the roads and provide a buildable 670 area for a house and for a septic field. 671 672 Charity Kirk: So you're doing that? 673 674 Beth Trahos: Yes,the developer does that. Yes, ma'am. 675 676 Charity Kirk: Okay. 677 678 Beth Bronson: And you're saying that that's going to average about 29-30 acres? 679 680 Beth Trahos: That's all that's available, right? 681 682 Don Sever: That's all that's available. 683 684 Beth Bronson: Okay. 685 686 Beth Trahos: So not all of that would be cleared, but that is, could be— 687 688 Beth Bronson: So less, yeah, 29 or less. 689 690 Beth Trahos: Yeah. 691 692 Taylor Perschau: If I may- 693 694 Beth Bronson: Thank you. 695 696 Taylor Perschau: —I think it might be helpful for answering this, actually, so when we're talking about clearing, and 697 this might help you get a different answer too, Don, but land clearing when we're talking about 698 right now a concept plan,the acreage of disturbance would be calculated with the construction 699 drawing set. This project will be considered a common plan of development. And it will require a 700 stormwater management plan. If we have questions on that,we can ask the county engineer. 701 That's usually the point at which the acreage for clearing,the erosion control plans,and the 702 construction set, and the stormwater management plan are brought in. So the 29 acres is not, I'm 703 not the developer, but that wouldn't be my answer. If I were a developer, I think this, like the 704 answer that's appropriate for the developer is the clearing plan for the road at the moment, and 705 then of course in that, since they've answered for,they'll be responsible for clearing for septic. 706 Septic clearance is not calculation in the land-disturbance calculations that go towards erosion 707 control and stormwater considerations. 708 709 Liz Kalies: Okay. 710 711 Beth Trahos: Yeah. 216 DRAFT 712 713 Liz Kalies: Yeah. 714 715 Cy Stober: And I don't want to answer a question that wasn't asked, but I thought I heard a question about the 716 difference between primary and secondary open space? Okay. Primary open space is generally, 717 it's identified by the county,and it's generally the most sensitive areas of the county's 718 environmental assets, so the 100-year and 500-year floodplains,the wetlands,the steep slopes, 719 which are slopes over 15 percent in grade, and then any areas that have been identified by the 720 county, in addition to the state,as having cultural or environmental value. So there's a natural 721 heritage inventory dataset, but there's also cultural resources that Peter Sandbeck has identified 722 countywide that are within those resource protection areas and public interest areas that are on 723 properties. And those are generally the primary open space. Secondary open space includes 724 some recreational features, so that would include the trails,which there will need to be clearing for 725 those trails, I want to be clear about that, some minimal clearing unless there are already open, 726 cleared areas. But those are permitted as secondary open space. But also less steep slopes, so 727 slopes between 8 and 15 percent, and then the riparian buffers are primary open space, but then 728 there's additional kind of natural features that are seen as secondary open space, but that's kind 729 of the broad overview. 730 731 Lamar Proctor: And I think it would be helpful if we could put the site plan up on the monitors. I think that's part of 732 the slideshow, right? 733 734 Beth Trahos: It is,yeah. 735 736 Lamar Proctor: Just to get a visual for the board. 737 738 Beth Trahos: Yes, and this is the same slideshow that we had for September 3rd. 739 740 Lamar Proctor: Yeah. 741 742 Beth Trahos: So we can go to whatever pages you want to reference again, but this is it. Is that what you 743 wanted? 744 745 Lamar Proctor: Yes. 746 747 Beth Trahos: Okay. 748 749 Lamar Proctor: All right, Liz, did you have any other questions for the applicant? 750 751 Liz Kalies: No, I'm good. Thank you. 752 753 Lamar Proctor: Okay. Do any other board members have any additional questions for the applicant? Beth, I see 754 you raising your hand. 755 756 Beth Bronson: Yes. If anybody else would like to go, I'm more than welcome to wait. Thanks. Hi, Beth. And this 757 may also be well answered by with traffic. This is in relation to traffic. I want to thank you for the 758 proposed development entry egress, and then the updated notes on numbers dated September 759 27th, so this would have been after our meeting. And you are, as you said, revised numbers 760 about the daily trips based on the bedrooms or the available cars. 761 762 Charity Kirk: This, this isn't his document. 763 764 Josh Reinke: This is not their document. 765 766 Beth Bronson: Not their document. 217 DRAFT 767 768 Josh Reinke: This is— 769 770 Charity Kirk: This is not. 771 772 Lamar Proctor: This is Cathy's. 773 774 Josh Reinke: —where I was saying it's kind of cobbling bits and pieces, and I'm not allowed to do that, being a 775 professional in— 776 777 Beth Bronson: This is not yours? 778 779 Josh Reinke: No, no, no. 780 781 Charity Kirk: This is the community— 782 783 Lamar Proctor: This is Cathy Owens was one of the public speakers— 784 785 Beth Bronson: Okay. 786 787 Lamar Proctor: —last time she's here, and she emailed this to us. 788 789 Beth Bronson: Okay. I did not hear that announced at the start of the meeting. 790 791 Other Speaker: Apologies. 792 793 Beth Bronson: Okay, so your traffic numbers stand at the 524? 794 795 Josh Reinke: Correct. And the reason I say is, I mean, I read that thoroughly and I understand. And it's— 796 797 Beth Bronson: Thank you. 798 799 Josh Reinke: —I like the research and everything about it. 800 801 Beth Bronson: I'm understanding this much more now,yes. 802 803 Josh Reinke: I'm saying there are guidelines I have to follow, being a professional engineer and things like that. 804 And there are,you know,there were things that come into play there where just because you 805 have more bedrooms doesn't necessarily mean you have more cars. And this is a study that's 806 done so you can't take maybe census numbers and traffic numbers and take bits and pieces is 807 there's a reason. NCDOT puts a lot of thought into this and comes up with, every time there's a 808 new manual— 809 810 Beth Bronson: Quite standard,yes. 811 812 Josh Reinke: —they say here are your guidelines of how you have to follow this because we feel this is closest 813 to- 814 815 Beth Bronson: Thank you. 816 817 Josh Reinke: You got it. 818 819 Beth Bronson: And thank you to Ms. Owens for including this. 820 821 Josh Reinke: And again, like I said, 218 DRAFT 822 823 Beth Bronson: ****for everybody,yes, and I'm glad that you were provided a copy as well to look over. That is 824 great. I will say that what you were speaking about earlier was a willingness to, you know, not 825 even petition but to write— 826 827 Josh Reinke: That's pretty much what it is. It's putting together— 828 829 Beth Bronson: —a petition to the DOT. 830 831 Josh Reinke: —a letter saying we're requesting for these reasons. And I've done this a number of times, 832 primarily for schools. Schools are an easier one, but I think crashes are another one where you 833 could say here's a concern of ours. We present it to DOT. They review it in different groups, 834 division and higher, and then they say— 835 836 Beth Bronson: Absolutely. 837 838 Josh Reinke: —we agree with the logic behind why that is, and we will or we will not,for whatever reasons. And 839 that's why I'm happy to write the letter. I think the team is supportive of that. I just can't promise 840 the outcome of that. 841 842 Beth Bronson: Certainly. 843 844 Josh Reinke: Yeah. 845 846 Beth Bronson: Same as any other negotiation or any other condition that we don't have control over. 847 848 Josh Reinke: Right. 849 850 Beth Bronson: But I think it's the intention there, right, because a lot of the comments that we've heard from the 851 surrounding residents and a lot of the concerns that the planning board members have do 852 surround not necessarily the impact from this project. 853 854 Josh Reinke: Right, it's an existing— 855 856 Beth Bronson: I mean, obviously,the new project— 857 858 Josh Reinke: —it's an existing issue. 859 860 Beth Bronson: —it's an existing capacity. 861 862 Josh Reinke: Correct. 863 864 Beth Bronson: Exactly. And so and the same is in good faith, I think, that a letter to the DOT and to the West 865 Orange MPO where you,you know, and you make Hillsborough and the county aware that this is 866 what you are petitioning for them. Being able to cite the many factors that not even necessarily 867 that are anecdotal but that are factual, right, is that the lower number versus the high,the upper 868 limit that you might be able to you have for your traffic study. And while a TIA is not required, it 869 would absolutely behoove DOT to review that failing intersection and/or the surrounding areas 870 because of the blind spots, because of the speed zones, and the difference of 45 and 55 is 871 significant. 872 873 Josh Reinke: Yeah. 874 219 DRAFT 875 Beth Bronson: Because, yeah, going 65 in a 45 is not as common as going 65 in a 55. There's obviously not 876 much you can do about that, but I think that, again, this letter to the DOT would go a long way 877 during the beginning of this process to bring into that consideration. 878 879 Josh Reinke: Yeah, I can do that, and I'll even throw this out there is I'm sure staff knows this, but DOT does 880 have funds for spot safety studies, so if you feel there is an intersection—and this would not be a 881 developer, this would be municipalities, counties, stuff like that, say here's a concern of ours. We 882 know you have a pot of money. And they do a ranking system of how that ranks compared to 883 other ones that are requesting that, but that is something, if there are intersections around there 884 that you say they're an issue,and that's what we're hearing is they're an issue. It's not because of 885 this development, it's they're already an issue, is there are mechanisms where it can increase the 886 chances because there aren't anything on the TIP plans for improvements at those, but it could be 887 saying, hey,we have these safety concerns, and we as a community are putting that out there 888 and— 889 890 Beth Bronson: I think that's exactly right. 891 892 Josh Reinke: So just throwing that out as a recommendation also is that is another way to possibly improve 893 safety around there. If— 894 895 Beth Bronson: You took the words right out of my mouth as far as wanting to offer an additional condition to this. 896 And I think, again, because of the spot study— 897 898 Josh Reinke: Well, now, that we can't do— 899 900 Beth Bronson: —funding. 901 902 Josh Reinke: —we can't do anything with that. That would be municipality, county,those sort of things— 903 904 Beth Bronson: No, no, no, but just writing the letter, a condition to write,to include the letter to DOT in this 905 process. I think that would be something that I might propose as far as to meet the 906 accommodations of, or to meet the concerns and the— 907 908 Josh Reinke: Right, safety concerns and requesting- 909 910 Beth Bronson: —in the capacity that we can, right 911 912 Josh Reinke: Yeah. 913 914 Beth Bronson: As the planning board and as the developer,as the applicant, I think that that's this right now is 915 what I can think of. But I think including DOT but also to the MPO that that's something that they 916 can focus on because, again,there is no planned improvements on that intersection over the next 917 10 years. This would go a long way to getting visibility of this area. And I think that as the 918 applicant, I think that's a great move. 919 920 Josh Reinke: And once again, the letter, I want to be clear, is it can address, generally, there's safety concerns, 921 crash history,with the speed-limit reduction. It's not going to dive into this intersection or anything 922 like that. 923 924 Beth Bronson: No, no, no,just the— 925 926 Josh Reinke: It's just generally. 927 928 Beth Bronson: —just the speed limit right in front of the— 929 220 DRAFT 930 Josh Reinke: Yeah. 931 932 Beth Bronson: —ingress, egress. That's what I'm asking. 933 934 Josh Reinke: Well, and it would probably be, to be honest, it would probably be bringing it into town. Once you 935 start to slow it down, keep it going because you have people accessing the school. We heard that 936 last time is here's where they cut across to get there, and then you're close to downtown. And you 937 probably do want to just keep it slower throughout there. 938 939 Beth Bronson: Absolutely. And because you would be much better situated to do that. 940 941 Josh Reinke: Because otherwise it does look like, and that's why I'm like it's easy for, it's easier for a 942 municipality or county because,otherwise, developers might be like,well, I'm building this and 1 943 want to slow down traffic right in front of me so that it's more visibility or something like that. 944 945 Beth Bronson: Absolutely,yeah. 946 947 Josh Reinke: So we'll recommend and say probably bringing it all the way— 948 949 Beth Bronson: Within your bounds,yeah, absolutely. 950 951 Josh Reinke: Sounds good. 952 953 Beth Bronson: And to the resident that was able to put this together and do their own research, I highly 954 recommend that they also pass this off to District 7. As somebody who, as a resident who is local 955 to that area, they have the power to send this document off to District 7 and to— 956 957 Josh Reinke: Yeah,to Chuck. 958 959 Beth Bronson: —yeah,to Chuck Edwards— 960 961 Josh Reinke: To Chuck Edwards. 962 963 Beth Bronson: —and to explain their own concerns for their community. 964 965 Josh Reinke: Yeah, and he has, like I said,that once again it was, I like to see that it's cool. I'm like yes, I like 966 people that are interested like that. Like I said,we did have our surveyor go out there, do all that. 967 Those, all that stuff is in there,which is then kind of, I don't want to say more professional, but 968 what DOT is going to require to look at site distance. 969 970 Beth Bronson: Absolutely. Well,thank you so much. I ready appreciate it. 971 972 Josh Reinke: No problem. Thank you. 973 974 Beth Bronson: Thank you for that clarification and for your willingness to get onboard with that, and yeah. All 975 right. 976 977 Josh Reinke: You got it. Thank you. 978 979 Beth Bronson: Yeah. And then I guess the only other question I had from the last meeting had to do with the 980 water service from Hillsborough and the reconsideration, maybe, of initiating further discussion on 981 water-only service. Do you know where Hillsborough stands as of September 30th,today,with 982 regards to water-only service? 983 221 DRAFT 984 Beth Trahos: Well, I didn't talk to anybody at Hillsborough today. However, in their review of this site, they did 985 offer that they would consider extending water here,you know,water only if we would like. And 986 so we took that as good news, and we have added the commitment that we ask them for that 987 water and, if they give it to us,that we use it, provided we can get the water lines to the site. So 988 we got water. 989 990 Beth Bronson: I really appreciate that consideration. Yeah,thank you for adding that condition. I think that also 991 addresses a lot of concerns that the surrounding community has about such a large well and the 992 ability to service so many homes on a community system. 993 994 Beth Trahos: So—yeah. 995 996 Charity Kirk: On that point, though we approving it means that we will accept it if they have to do a well,though. 997 998 Beth Bronson: Either way. 999 1000 Charity Kirk: Okay. 1001 1002 Beth Bronson: There's only so much, yeah,that we can have control over. And in the sense that you wouldn't 1003 want this to be built if it meant that there would be a well, then that would be at the discretion of 1004 each board member voting, yeah, is my understanding of that. And the other condition is that no 1005 homes will contain more than four bedrooms,and that means that not all homes will be four 1006 bedrooms, or is the goal for all homes to be four bedrooms? 1007 1008 Beth Trahos: No,that's just the max, and really we put that in related to the septic system. We also said and, 1009 you know,the septic systems would be designed for four-bedroom homes,so even if there's fewer 1010 than four bedrooms, there will be a septic system designed for a four-bedroom home, and so we 1011 just put those in so that they would correlate, so you would know that would be a max. 1012 1013 Beth Bronson: No, I appreciate that. Okay. 1014 1015 Statler Gilfillen: Is there a maximum number of bathroom? 1016 1017 Beth Trahos: No, sir. 1018 1019 Statler Gilfillen: Because a bedroom can be, as an architect, can be an ambiguous term. 1020 1021 Beth Trahos: Sure. 1022 1023 Lamar Proctor: All right. Statler,go ahead. You had a question? 1024 1025 Statler Gilfillen: On your comment about septic systems, developer bears the risk of losing developability if it 1026 doesn't work. 1027 1028 Beth Trahos: Mm hmm. 1029 1030 Statler Gilfillen: The next question would be property. House gets built; couple years later, it's sold to somebody 1031 else; a few years later, sold to somebody else. Now,the landscaping on a lot this small,with a 1032 septic system built in, can make a difference of whether that septic system will work on not. What 1033 controls are you going to build in,whether it's the association or what,that will control that some 1034 homeowner doesn't put a weeping willow right in the back of the property next to his owner,which 1035 could affect two systems or something? Are you, is there any thought about making sure that the 1036 language controls so that these systems keep working properly? 1037 222 DRAFT 1038 Beth Trahos: Sure. Well, one thing I would say is that there'll be a septic system on each lot, so you would, in 1039 terms of planting a weeping willow, you could only plant a tree on your own lot, not on your 1040 neighbor's, so it would— 1041 1042 Statler Gilfillen: But if it's, if the septic systems are very close to the property lines and you put a tree like that right 1043 close, it can affect both sides with the root system. Now— 1044 1045 Beth Trahos: I will turn to the expert. 1046 1047 Statler Gilfillen: —what is allowed, the question I'm asking,what precautions are you building in to protect each of 1048 the homeowners and make sure these systems keep working and you don't get a rogue 1049 homeowner putting landscaping in that could be negative? 1050 1051 Beth Trahos: I would just, I would say the homeowners association documents have not yet been drafted, but 1 1052 think that's a useful comment and something that we'll make a note of, as those documents are 1053 being put together, to acknowledge that there are septic systems. And currently folks would know 1054 as they were buying the homes, but I do think that for posterity's sake that that makes sense. 1055 1056 Laura Haywood: I just—I'm Laura Haywood. I just wanted to point out,too, that with your concern the ARC that we 1057 would include in our HOA documents,we would be able to put conditions like that where the HOA 1058 is going to restrict and limit. It's my understanding that as far as this application is concerned,that 1059 right now, as far as a condition is concerned, can't be accepted because it would be overseen by 1060 the HOA. So but that's how we would address that in the ARCs. 1061 1062 Statler Gilfillen: I would only like to add not only in the comments there, but in the comments, making sure that it's 1063 enforceable. 1064 1065 Laura Haywood: Absolutely. 1066 1067 Statler Gilfillen: Okay. 1068 1069 Beth Bronson: Just to build off of what she is saying, in the sense that this is for a zoning atlas amendment and 1070 not for the subdivision itself? 1071 1072 Cy Stober: Correct. 1073 1074 Beth Bronson: Okay. 1075 1076 Cy Stober: So civil matters are not managed. HOA matters are not regulated by the county. We do have 1077 subdivision regulations. Those are,will need to be complied with by this applicant, as this is a 1078 zoning atlas amendment, and any conditions that are proffered today for any relief from the county 1079 standards from either the subdivision standards or our site plan standards or other use standards 1080 would need to be included as a condition. Otherwise, all of those regulations must be complied 1081 with, including all subdivision regulations. 1082 1083 Beth Bronson: Right,thank you. And, again,just to clarify for the board and for residents that this is for the 1084 rezoning from agricultural-residential to a higher density parcel as in— 1085 1086 Cy Stober: No. 1087 1088 Beth Bronson: Right? 1089 1090 Cy Stober: No. 1091 1092 Beth Bronson: No? Sorry. 223 DRAFT 1093 1094 Cy Stober: So it's for 49 lots on a 78-acre property, but it's in a conservation cluster land-use pattern,which 1095 allows for lots, in this case, as small as 20,000 square feet. 1096 1097 Beth Bronson: True. So it doesn't actually change agricultural. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 1098 1099 David Barcal: And I just,the septic systems, by rule, can't be any closer than 10 feet to a property line, so you 1100 would in theory have a minimum 20 feet separation between septic systems, so. 1101 1102 Statler Gilfillen: Thank you. 1103 1104 Lamar Proctor: Are there any other questions for the applicant? Hearing none, are there, is there any discussion? 1105 1 will just start by saying that it's clear that it's that intersection has traffic concerns and will 1106 continue to have traffic concerns, so I recognize that. But what I also do recognize is that that 1107 property that this conditional zoning atlas amendment does develop the property in a responsible 1108 way that with lower density than allowed by the agricultural-residential zoning. It does seem to be 1109 a responsible way to develop the property and maintain some open spaces, and I appreciate their 1110 good-faith effort to work Eno Academy to potentially reach an agreement with them in terms of 1111 continued use of the property by Eno Academy students. So I don't know if anyone has any 1112 discussion or anything they'd like to say before we move into a vote on this. 1113 1114 Beth Bronson: So I would like to offer an additional condition. As I was speaking regarding the petition to the 1115 DOT and the West Orange MPO for a spot study and for a review of the area, either speed limits, 1116 safety concerns, and/or intersections based on— 1117 1118 Lamar Proctor: So I drafted a proposed additional condition for that concern: Property owners shall write a letter 1119 to DOT about traffic safety concerns. Is there additional language or modification? 1120 1121 Chris Johnston: And I think there was,wasn't there a specific wording that you have to use in regards to what this 1122 is and what this is not? 1123 1124 Josh Reinke: So it would be a speed-limit reduction, and that's why it keeps scaring me- I can mention 1125 generally— 1126 1127 Beth Bronson: Yeah. 1128 1129 Josh Reinke: —I can mention generally safety concerns.A Spot-it wouldn't appropriate in this letter to mention 1130 the spot safety 1131 1132 Beth Bronson: Okay,that— 1133 1134 Lamar Proctor: Right. 1135 1136 Josh Reinke: That's essentially requesting funding from them, saying here's this issue— 1137 1138 Beth Bronson: No, yeah. 1139 1140 Josh Reinke: —and it would be— 1141 1142 Beth Bronson: I apologize. 1143 1144 Josh Reinke: —different and come from municipalities, so speed-limit reduction, I'm okay with that saying it is a 1145 letter requesting a speed-limit reduction. That I can put together and incorporate the MPO or the 1146 county,whoever else. Just make sure, because I feel that if they support that, it helps it all the 1147 more is me personally writing it. They're like,well,you're working on behalf of a developer. And 224 DRAFT 1148 they say here's a whole community that does agree with this. I think it holds more weight and will 1149 make it more likely. 1150 1151 Cy Stober: And for the purposes of the record, I'd like to ask the speaker just to reaffirm that spot candidates 1152 can only be submitted by units of local government or authorities of local government. 1153 1154 Josh Reinke: Correct. Right. 1155 1156 Beth Bronson: Okay. 1157 1158 Chris Johnston: And when you say local government, are we talking municipalities? Are we talking counties? Are 1159 we talking— 1160 1161 Cy Stober: Both. 1162 1163 Chris Johnston: Okay. 1164 1165 Cy Stober: Yeah. 1166 1167 Chris Johnston: Just making sure. 1168 1169 Cy Stober: Or—yes, both. 1170 1171 Charity Kirk: Do we get to ask you to do it? Can we ask you to do it? 1172 1173 Cy Stober: Not as a condition of approval for— 1174 1175 Charity Kirk: Well, yeah. 1176 1177 Cy Stober: —the candidate. But yes, I was going to offer that after the vote was taken but— 1178 1179 Josh Reinke: Oh, sorry, Cy. 1180 1181 Cy Stober: No, no, I'm happy to coordinate with the transportation director. We meet quarterly with DOT. We 1182 have a quarterly luncheon with DOT that the county hosts. It's a very productive conversation. 1183 And then we also have the out-board that the transportation director serves and can relay that. 1184 1185 Charity Kirk: So after we're done with this,we need to do what? Just— 1186 1187 Cy Stober: It'd be an item of new business we would take up at the end of the meeting for discussion about 1188 asking the planning director to— 1189 1190 Chris Johnston: And this is just to— 1191 1192 Cy Stober: —take action. 1193 1194 Chris Johnston: —confirm, right, again to confirm, so the DOT still hasn't completed whatever work they need to 1195 do. There is additional steps that DOT is going to take, may take, is going to do request of the 1196 applicant, or whatever the case may be, and so just to confirm,though we are putting these 1197 conditions forth or whatever, DOT still has to take this through the ringer. 1198 1199 Josh Reinke: Correct, yes. 1200 1201 Chris Johnston: And so there may be additional steps that occur here where the applicant is required to do X,Y, 1202 and Z in order to actually have this built, and so I just want to— 225 DRAFT 1203 1204 Josh Reinke: Yeah, driveway. Yeah, correct,for the driveway permit to get access to the site,which you're not 1205 going to build a site if you don't have access. 1206 1207 Chris Johnston: But we won't have prior knowledge to that until the actual application goes through the process. 1208 Okay. 1209 1210 Lamar Proctor: So, Beth,what is the MPO? 1211 1212 Cy Stober: And,for a point of correction, it's the Triangle West Metropolitan Planning— 1213 1214 Beth Bronson: Triangle West,thank you— 1215 1216 Cy Stober: —Organization. 1217 1218 Beth Bronson: —not Orange West. 1219 1220 Cy Stober: So I can do a deep dive on that another time, but suffice it to say it's a regional organization 1221 representing local governments for transportation planning needs and to advocate for federal 1222 funds. 1223 1224 Lamar Proctor: So the proposed condition would be: Property owners shall write a letter to DOT and Triangle 1225 West MPO, requesting a speed-limit reduction? 1226 1227 Beth Bronson: Yes. Yes,your wording seems much more concise. 1228 1229 Josh Reinke: So we can copy anybody you want me to copy. 1230 1231 Beth Bronson: That's what I meant. 1232 1233 Josh Reinke: But it would be to NCDOT. 1234 1235 Beth Bronson: NCDOT. 1236 1237 Josh Reinke: —and then copy whoever. 1238 1239 Lamar Proctor: NCDOT, okay. 1240 1241 Beth Bronson: To include,yes. And then, again,just a condition to include Triangle West MPO and Hillsborough 1242 Township. 1243 1244 Charity Kirk: Are we wanting— 1245 1246 Beth Bronson: This would be a motion when we're done discussing it to add the condition. 1247 1248 Charity Kirk: So should we add these amendments to the amendments now, or should we just include it? 1249 1250 Lamar Proctor: Well, what I was going to do—I mean, if someone has an opposition to adding that condition, 1 1251 would ask that you go ahead and discuss it because I think the most efficient way would be for us 1252 to discuss what conditions we want to add or modify and then do a motion to approve with those 1253 additional conditions. 1254 1255 Charity Kirk: Okay,thank you. 1256 226 DRAFT 1257 Venkat Yendapalli: Chair, I thought we vote on those conditions first. We want to adapt those conditions into the 1258 approval or not? Isn't that we followed in the past meetings? 1259 1260 Charity Kirk: We can do either. 1261 1262 Venkat Yendapalli: Yeah. 1263 1264 Lamar Proctor: We can do either. I think it— 1265 1266 Charity Kirk: What would you prefer? 1267 1268 Venkat Yendapalli: I think it'd be ideal to do vote on each condition that we want to add and then get to the approval 1269 at the end. That way— 1270 1271 Charity Kirk: So should we vote on each condition now, or is there more discussion? 1272 1273 Venkat Yendapalli: After the discussion is over, I propose that we vote because that's the chair's process. I'm 1274 refreshing from past meetings. 1275 1276 Lamar Proctor: Well,we can, yeah,we can do it that way too. Thank you. We could have our discussion and 1277 then we could, I will entertain a motion in a second to modify Condition 7 to read: The property 1278 owner shall offer limited access to the planned trails and open space to the Eno River Academy 1279 for use by students and faculty, pursuant to an agreement drafted by the landowner with an 1280 effective date after construction is complete. And then an additional condition: Property owner 1281 shall write a letter to DOT requesting a speed-limit reduction. 1282 1283 Charity Kirk: Mm hmm. 1284 1285 Lamar Proctor: Right? 1286 1287 Charity Kirk: Yeah. 1288 1289 Chris Johnston: Those are two separate ones, right? 1290 1291 Lamar Proctor: Those are two separate, so we'll vote on those separately as to whether we want to add those 1292 conditions. And I do agree with Venkat,that's more because then if somebody doesn't want one 1293 condition but wants the other,then we're going to have to separate them out anyway, so that 1294 seems more efficient way to proceed. Are there any other conditions or modifications that y'all 1295 want to discuss before I move into taking votes? 1296 1297 Chris Johnston: I did have just a quick question or two in regards to some of the conditions that were already 1298 offered in regards to things such as the sculptural art and seating opportunities. Are these 1299 required? Like is this something that we need to have in these conditions as, or are these just 1300 being offered? Like—yes,yes, okay. 1301 1302 Taylor Perschau: Being offered. 1303 1304 Chris Johnston: They're being offered. 1305 1306 Beth Bronson: They've created their own conditions. 1307 1308 Chris Johnston: Sure. I guess 1,well, I guess what I'm asking is, is it relevant to the requests? Right? That 1309 there's sculptural art,three seating opportunities. Like is that in— 1310 1311 Cy Stober: It offers character to the recreational amenities— 227 DRAFT 1312 1313 Chris Johnston: Okay. 1314 1315 Cy Stober: —but no, it's not necessary. 1316 1317 Chris Johnston: Okay. Thank you. 1318 1319 Lamar Proctor: So I will—any other discussion? So I'll entertain a motion to modify Condition 7. 1320 1321 Charity Kirk: I make a motion to modify Condition 7 to state: The property owner shall offer limited access to 1322 planned trails and open space to the Eno River Academy for use by students, pursuant to an 1323 agreement drafted by the landowner—well,students and faculty—pursuant to an agreement 1324 drafted by the landowner with an effective date after construction is complete. 1325 1326 Lamar Proctor: All right. Do I hear a second? 1327 1328 Statler Gilfillen: I'll second. 1329 1330 Lamar Proctor: Statler seconds. All in favor of modifying that condition, raise your hand or say aye. 1331 1332 Liz Kalies: Mm,we took out the cross-country team, right? 1333 1334 Charity Kirk: Yes. 1335 1336 Lamar Proctor: We just said,we did that, I think, because we were trying to open it up to more than just the cross- 1337 country team. 1338 1339 Liz Kalies: Okay. 1340 1341 Charity Kirk: Students and faculty. 1342 1343 Beth Bronson: Or staff. 1344 1345 Lamar Proctor: So what,you think they're going to renege on that later and then say— 1346 1347 Liz Kalies: No, no, I just— 1348 1349 Lamar Proctor: —well,we didn't agree to the— 1350 1351 Liz Kalies: —it's a very specific use,that's all, the cross-country team. 1352 1353 Charity Kirk: Well, it's not—we're modifying that now. 1354 1355 Liz Kalies: Yeah. Okay. 1356 1357 Venkat Yendapalli: That's what, actually,school requested— 1358 1359 Charity Kirk: So- 1360 1361 Venkat Yendapalli: —school requested for cross country. It's current use is by the cross-country program, and they 1362 wanted to continue the cross-country program. The school director was here last meeting. She 1363 presented to us. I just want to refresh what happened last time. 1364 1365 Charity Kirk: Do you want— 1366 228 DRAFT 1367 Liz Kalies: Can we just say— 1368 1369 Charity Kirk: —a separate— 1370 1371 Liz Kalies: —and cross-country team? Can the words"cross-country team"just still be in there? 1372 1373 Charity Kirk: Okay, sure. 1374 1375 Liz Kalies: Just to make sure. 1376 1377 Lamar Proctor: Students and faculty, including the cross-country team. 1378 1379 Charity Kirk: Yeah, so I make a new amendment that says: The property owner shall offer limited access to the 1380 planned trails and open space to the Eno River Academy for use by students, staff and faculty, 1381 including the cross-country team, pursuant to an agreement drafted by the landowner with an 1382 effective date after construction is complete. 1383 1384 Lamar Proctor: Do I have a second? 1385 1386 Liz Kalies: I'll second. 1387 1388 Lamar Proctor: All right, Liz seconds. All in favor of that amendment, raise your hand and say aye. All those 1389 opposed? And does he have to state his—no, all right. So that motion carries. How many of us 1390 are there, nine now? 1391 1392 Cy Stober: Yeah. 1393 1394 Lamar Proctor: So eight to one, so that condition has been modified. And then do I have a— I'll make a motion to 1395 add Condition 14 that the property owner shall write a letter to North Carolina DOT requesting a— 1396 1397 Charity Kirk: Well, it's the developers, right? They're not the property owners yet,the developers. 1398 1399 Lamar Proctor: Okay. 1400 1401 Cy Stober: "The applicant"would be helpful. 1402 1403 Lamar Proctor: Applicant. 1404 1405 Charity Kirk: Applicant. 1406 1407 Beth Trahos: I have used the term property owner throughout because the conditions apply to the landowner, 1408 and that just makes it run with the land, so that would be my preference but whichever— 1409 1410 Charity Kirk: The property owner?The property owner is your preference? 1411 1412 Cy Stober: I have no problem with that. 1413 1414 Charity Kirk: Okay. 1415 1416 Lamar Proctor: Okay. I was just being consistent with the language that was used. So are y'all cool with property 1417 owner or do you— 1418 1419 Charity Kirk: Yeah,that's fine. 1420 229 DRAFT 1421 Lamar Proctor: Okay, so I make a motion to add Condition 14 that the property owner shall write a letter to North 1422 Carolina DOT requesting a speed-limit reduction. Do I have a second? 1423 1424 Beth Bronson: I will second that. 1425 1426 Lamar Proctor: All right, Beth seconds. All in favor of adding that condition raise your hand. So eight. All those 1427 opposed? Venkat's opposed,so once again eight to one to add that condition. So the next 1428 motion would be a motion to adopt the statement of consistency—which attachment number is it 1429 currently? I don't remember. 1430 1431 Beth Bronson: It was— 1432 1433 Lamar Proctor: It is attached? 1434 1435 Beth Bronson: —Attachment 7. 1436 1437 Lamar Proctor: That's what I remember but— 1438 1439 Beth Bronson: That was the draft ordinance approving it. 1440 1441 Cy Stober: Just one moment. 1442 1443 Beth Bronson: It'd be Attachment 6? 1444 1445 Cy Stober: That's correct. And the proposed ordinance as Attachment 7. 1446 1447 Lamar Proctor: Okay, so it's Attachment 6? 1448 1449 Beth Bronson: And then we just need to reference the amended conditions? 1450 1451 Lamar Proctor: Yeah,yeah. 1452 1453 Cy Stober: In the September packet it's Attachment 6, and Attachment 7 is the ordinance. 1454 1455 Lamar Proctor: Okay. So I'll make a motion to adopt the statement of consistency in Attachment 6 from the 1456 September packet with the conditions as previously modified and added. Do I have a second? 1457 1458 Statler Gilfillen: I'll second that. 1459 1460 Lamar Proctor: All right, Statler seconds. All those in favor of adopting the statement of consistency with the 1461 modified and added conditions, raise your hand or say aye. And it appears to be unanimous, so 1462 we've, so that's approved and recommended to the board of county commissioners,the statement 1463 of consistency. 1464 1465 Cy Stober: Correct. And the public hearing to consider the matter will be, is currently proposed for November 1466 6th,which is a Thursday, not a Tuesday as is the typical convention of the commissioners. 1467 1468 Lamar Proctor: All right. Well,thank you very much, everyone. I thought that went really well and very efficiently. 1469 1470 ****** 230 Attachment 6 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An applicant-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas (MA25-0003) has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Owner of Identification Township Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Number (PIN) Jenny Powell ■ AR (Agricultural R-CD (Residential 9865-87-8090 Hillsborough and Amy L Residential) Conditional District) Powell, et al. 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 in accordance with the proposed site plan submitted as part of this application ("Site Plan"). 2. The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. This deviates from the minimum in UDO Section 3.8. Suitable septic shall be provided on each parcel. 3. The property shall contain at least three (3) experiential gardens as shown on Site Plan as the Woodland Garden, the Picking Garden and the Pollinator Garden (each a "Garden" and collectively the "Gardens"). A landscape plan for each Garden shall be prepared by a landscape architect at the time of final plat to fulfill the theme of that Garden. Each Garden shall contain a seating opportunity such as a bench, chair or hammock. The Gardens shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Homeowner's Association; however, nothing herein shall prevent the Homeowner's Association from altering the planting plan of each Garden in the future. 4. Where supplementation of perimeter plantings is required, native plant materials appropriate for the growing environment in that area shall be utilized. 5. An ADA-compliant, open-air mail kiosk will incorporate a weather covering with 231 recessed lighting. 6. Trails shall provide access to the Designated Community Gathering Space and each Garden as shown on the Site Plan. The length of the trails located on the subject property shall combined total at least 9,000 linear feet. Trail surfaces shall be aggregate or natural surface (not paved with concrete or asphalt) to minimize impacts to the existing environment and limit impervious surfaces. Boardwalks shall be utilized where the proposed trail crosses the wetlands as shown on the Site Plan, if permitted by Federal and State agencies. At least five (5) wayfinding signs shall be located along the trail to guide walkers to the Gardens and the Designated Community Gathering Area. The trail and associated amenities described in this section shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The precise location and alignment of the trails will be determined at final plat. 7. The property owner shall offer limited access to the planned trails and open space to the Eno River Academy for use by students, faculty and staff including the cross-country team pursuant to an agreement drafted by the landowner with an effective date after construction is complete. 8. The Designated Community Gathering Space shall contain at least one (1) sculptural art piece and at least three (3) seating opportunities such as benches, chairs or hammocks, all to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 9. Individual septic systems meeting Orange County Health Department requirements will be provided on each lot. Septic systems shall be designed to serve up to a four (4) bedroom home. 10.No home shall contain more than four (4) bedrooms. 11.Lighting in common areas of the Community shall comply with the requirements UDO Section 6.11.6, which promotes Dark Sky Preservation. 12.Site access(es) shall be provided in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) permits, including the provision of any required turn lanes and/or restrictions to the access(es). 13.The property owner shall petition the Town of Hillsborough for access to public water to serve the subject property and, if approved, utilize public water in the subdivision, if necessary easements are reasonably obtainable. 14.The property owner shall write a letter to the North Carolina Department of Transportation requesting a speed limit reduction. 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 232 Consistency of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and, more specifically, the Orange County-adopted Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan (COCA). The zoning atlas amendment for a 49-lot Conservation Cluster subdivision is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's stated goals. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, particularly Appendix G: Land Use Classification and Overlay Locational Criteria, identifies the Rural Industrial Activity Node land use classification as "land... that is focused on designated road intersections which serves as a nodal crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate location for small-scale industrial uses which do not require urban type services," and the "Agricultural Residential" land use classification as "land in the rural areas where the prevailing land use activities are related to the land (agriculture, forestry) and which is an appropriate location for the continuation of these uses." The proposed R-CD zoning district is recommended as a zoning district in both the Rural Industrial Activity Node and Agricultural Residential Land Use Classifications reflected in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's Appendix F: Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts. Furthermore, the proposed residential use is more harmonious with the present land uses, particularly the two schools, than a "smaller scale industrial use" would be. This is the type of development was envisioned by Orange County when it adopted and further revised the COCA in partnership with the Town of Hillsborough. The COCA identifies this property as having a future land use of "Mixed Residential Neighborhood", which recommends a "dominant [residential] land use" that "...may contain a single or variety of dwelling types and densities or may integrate a variety of supportive commercial, public and semi-public uses and open or public space." The proposed project is consistent with this description. The adoption of the COCA and the recommended land use for the subject property was deemed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as the COCA was adopted after that countywide plan. The subject property is located outside the Town's incorporated limits and its extraterritorial jurisdiction and, as such, was always envisioned for land use regulation by Orange County as a "Mixed Residential Neighborhood". 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 42.25 acres, or 53.97% of the parcel subject to rezoning, respecting the rural character and environmental protections prioritized by the Comprehensive Plan. 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 0.61 acres. The proposed lot count for the future subdivision does not exceed the maximum density permitted by the density regulations in the UDO. 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 233 surrounding area. This design approach will also provide a transition in density and land use type from the larger lots north of the site to the smaller lots within the Town's incorporated limits south of the site. The proposed Conservation Cluster Flexible Development Subdivision has made efforts to minimize impacts to the surrounding area and the environment. The new traffic generated by the development will not degrade the surrounding road network. The project is designed to place open space such that neighboring properties will have minimal impacts with regarding to the trees and other vegetation with which they are accustomed. The developer is also providing amenities, including gathering areas, for the residents so that they are not reliant upon county and town facilities. The applicant has 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. 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 applicant requested utilities from the Town of Hillsborough and was denied their service. In turn, they developed the proposed zoning application and site plan to support the Conservation Cluster subdivision presented, which will be independent of any utility service using conventional septic systems and a community well, which will also provide adequate fire flows. The deliberate dialogue with the adjacent utility providers at the Town, including their participation in the review process, reflect the "careful consideration of the costs and benefits of expansion" required of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's Planning Principle 1. c. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following: 2030 Comprehensive Plan ■ Planning Principle 1 . Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and Services: Orange County's public facilities and services should be delivered in a manner that efficiently uses existing capacity. Expansions of facilities and services should be made only after careful consideration of the costs and benefits of expansion. ■ Planning Principle 2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable over the long-term. ■ Planning Principle 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. 234 ■ 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. ■ Appendix F, Land Use Classification Description for Rural Industrial Activity Node: Land focused on designated road intersections within the rural area that is appropriate for small scale industrial uses which do not require urban type services. Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan ■ Mixed Residential Neighborhood Future Land Use Classification The dominant land use in any proposed development is expected to be residential based on square footage of proposed structures. Developments may contain a single or variety of dwelling types and densities or may integrate a variety of supportive commercial, public and semi-public uses and open or public space. Small developments that provide only supportive non-residential land uses in an infill arrangement serving more than 50 dwelling units in a walkable manner may also be considered. 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 Industrial Activity Node." 235 The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein and recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment. Vote: 9 For, 0 Against '=� ? C)' - 101101-W2-6- Lamar Proctor, Chair Date 236 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 (MA25-0003) has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Owner of Identification Township Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Number (PIN) Jenny Powell ■ AR (Agricultural R-CD (Residential 9865-87-8090 Hillsborough and Amy L Residential) Conditional District) Powell, et al. 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"). 2. The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. This deviates from the minimum in UDO Section 3.8. Suitable septic shall be provided on each parcel. 3. The property shall contain experiential gardens as shown on Site Plan as the Woodland Garden, the Picking Garden and the Pollinator Garden (the "Gardens"). The Gardens shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 4. Where supplementation of perimeter plantings is required, native plant materials appropriate for the growing environment in that area shall be utilized. 5. An ADA-compliant, open-air mail kiosk will incorporate a weather covering with recessed lighting. 6. Trails shall provide access to the Designated Community Gathering Space and each Garden as shown on the Site Plan. The length of the trails located on the subject property shall combined total at least 9,000 linear feet. Trail surfaces shall be aggregate or natural surface (not paved with concrete or asphalt) to minimize impacts to the existing environment and limit impervious surfaces. Boardwalks shall be utilized where the proposed trail crosses the wetlands as 237 shown on the Site Plan, if permitted by Federal and State agencies. The trail and associated amenities described in this section shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The precise location and alignment of the trails will be determined at final plat. 7. The property owner shall offer limited access to the planned trails and open space to the Eno River Academy for use by students, faculty and staff including the cross-country team pursuant to an agreement drafted by the landowner with an effective date after construction is complete. 8. The Designated Community Gathering Space as shown on the site plan to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 9. Individual septic systems meeting Orange County Health Department requirements will be provided on each lot. Septic systems shall be designed to serve up to a four (4) bedroom home. 10. No home shall contain more than four (4) bedrooms. 11. Lighting in common areas of the Community shall comply with the requirements UDO Section 6.11.6, which promotes Dark Sky Preservation. 12. Site access(es) shall be provided in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) permits, including the provision of any required turn lanes and/or restrictions to the access(es). 13. The property owner shall petition the Town of Hillsborough for access to public water to serve the subject property and, if approved, utilize public water in the subdivision, if necessary easements are reasonably obtainable. 14. The property owner shall write a letter to the North Carolina Department of Transportation requesting a speed limit reduction. 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, and, more specifically, the Orange County-adopted Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan (COCA). The Board further finds that 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 zoning atlas amendment for a 49-lot Conservation Cluster subdivision is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's stated goals. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, particularly Appendix G: Land Use Classification and Overlay Locational Criteria, identifies the Rural Industrial Activity Node land use classification as "land... that is focused on designated road intersections which serves as a nodal crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate location for small-scale industrial uses which do not require urban type services," and the "Agricultural Residential" land use classification as "land in the rural areas where the prevailing land use activities are related to the land 238 (agriculture, forestry) and which is an appropriate location for the continuation of these uses." The proposed R-CD zoning district is recommended as a zoning district in both the Rural Industrial Activity Node and Agricultural Residential Land Use Classifications reflected in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's Appendix F: Relationships Between Land Use Classifications and Zoning Districts. Furthermore, the proposed residential use is more harmonious with the present land uses, particularly the two schools, than a "smaller scale industrial use" would be. This is the type of development was envisioned by Orange County when it adopted and further revised the COCA in partnership with the Town of Hillsborough. The COCA identifies this property as having a future land use of "Mixed Residential Neighborhood", which recommends a "dominant [residential] land use" that "...may contain a single or variety of dwelling types and densities or may integrate a variety of supportive commercial, public and semi-public uses and open or public space." The proposed project is consistent with this description. The adoption of the COCA and the recommended land use for the subject property was deemed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as the COCA was adopted after that countywide plan. The subject property is located outside the Town's incorporated limits and its extraterritorial jurisdiction and, as such, was always envisioned for land use regulation by Orange County as a "Mixed Residential Neighborhood". 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 1.6 acres on a 78-acre property. The proposed lot count for the future subdivision does not exceed the maximum density permitted by the density regulations in the LIDO. 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. This design approach will also provide a transition in density and land use type from the larger lots north of the site to the smaller lots within the Town's incorporated limits south of the site. The new traffic generated by the development will not degrade the surrounding road network, as reflected by NCDOT's letter noting no objections to the proposed project. The proposed Conservation Cluster Flexible Development Subdivision has made efforts to minimize impacts to the surrounding area and the environment. 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 42.25 acres, or 53.97% of the parcel subject to rezoning, respecting the rural character and environmental protections prioritized by the Comprehensive Plan. The project is designed to place open space such that neighboring properties will have minimal impacts with regard to the trees and other vegetation with which they are accustomed. The developer is also providing amenities, including gathering areas, for the residents so that they are not reliant upon county and town facilities. 239 County staff has reviewed and determined no significant environmental impact is expected from this project based on existing conditions. The applicant has 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. The applicant provided an Environmental Assessment as part of the application package. The applicant requested utilities from the Town of Hillsborough and was denied their service. In turn, they developed the proposed zoning application and site plan to support the Conservation Cluster subdivision presented, which will be independent of any utility service using conventional septic systems and a community well, which will also provide adequate fire flows. The deliberate dialogue with the adjacent utility providers at the Town, including their participation in the review process, reflect the "careful consideration of the costs and benefits of expansion" required of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's Planning Principle 1. c. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following: 2030 Comprehensive Plan ■ Planning Principle 1. Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and Services: Orange County's public facilities and services should be delivered in a manner that efficiently uses existing capacity. Expansions of facilities and services should be made only after careful consideration of the costs and benefits of expansion. ■ Planning Principle 2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable over the long-term. ■ Planning Principle 4. Natural Area Resource Protection: Protection of the County's natural areas, including forests, wildlife habitat, and other important open spaces should be a priority. The County should work with regional and local organizations, the towns, and private landowners to promote and achieve preservation of the County's important natural resources. ■ Planning Principle 5. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern: The County's rural areas are a cherished component of the County's character. Future development should preserve and enhance the county's rural landscape. ■ Planning Principle 6. Water Resources Preservation: The County has finite water resources to provide to future populations. The protection and management of the County's water resources should be a high priority. ■ Planning Principle 8. Preservation of Community Character: Future growth and development should occur in a manner that preserves and enhances the existing 240 character of the County, its townships, and rural crossroads communities. ■ Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. ■ Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. ■ Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. ■ Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. ■ Appendix F, Land Use Classification Description for Rural Industrial Activity Node: Land focused on designated road intersections within the rural area that is appropriate for small scale industrial uses which do not require urban type services. Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan ■ Mixed Residential Neighborhood Future Land Use Classification The dominant land use in any proposed development is expected to be residential based on square footage of proposed structures. Developments may contain a single or variety of dwelling types and densities or may integrate a variety of supportive commercial, public and semi-public uses and open or public space. Small developments that provide only supportive non-residential land uses in an infill arrangement serving more than 50 dwelling units in a walkable manner may also be considered. 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 Industrial Activity Node." The Board of County Commissioners adopts this Statement of Consistency and the findings expressed herein. Vote: For, Against Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Date Attachment 8 241 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 (MA25-0003) has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Owner of Identification Township Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Number (PIN) Jenny Powell and AR (Agricultural R-CD (Residential 9865-87-8090 Hillsborough Amy L Residential) Conditional District) Powell, et al. The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments and 2.9.1 Conditional Districts of the UDO have been reviewed and the following conditions are not reasonable amendments to the adopted Zoning Atlas due to potential impacts upon the quality of life and incompatibility of land uses to surrounding properties: 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. The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. b. Pursuant to Sections 1 .1 .5 Statement of Intent - Amendments, and 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans of the UDO and to Section 160D-604(d) Planning Board review and comment— Plan Consistency and 160D-605(a) Governing Board Statement— Plan Consistency of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is inconsistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has applied for a Residential — Conditional zoning amendment that proposes a 49-lot Conservation Cluster subdivision at a location that is identified in the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan as having two future land use classifications: Agricultural Residential and Rural Industrial Activity Node (RIAN). While the R-CD zoning district is recommended for use in both of these Future Land Use Classes in Appendix F of the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed design and site plan are inconsistent with the descriptions of these future land use classes. "Agricultural Residential" areas are described as "land in the rural areas where the prevailing land use activities are related to 242 the land (agriculture, forestry) and which is an appropriate location for the continuation of these uses," and the RIAN is described as "land... that is focused on designated road intersections which serves as a nodal crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate location for small-scale industrial uses which do not require urban type services." At a density of 1 dwelling unit per 0.61 acres in the developed area, the design is denser that what is otherwise provided for in the Agricultural Residential zoning district, which requires single-family lots to be a minimum of 0.92 acres in area. With a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet (0.46 acres), the lots and density of this Conservation Cluster community will disrupt the rural character of the area and will be noticeably distinct and different from the surrounding residential uses in the county. Conversely, the lots will be larger and less dense than those served by Town of Hillsborough utilities, south of the subject property. While this could be characterized as a transition between the two types of residential use, it more accurately is an example of suburban sprawl, and in direct conflict with Planning Principles 2, 5, and 8, as well as Land Use Goal 2. The RIAN does not preclude residential uses — they are, in fact, recommended zoning districts for this future land use class in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan — but such uses need to be compatible with the other uses more explicitly supported by the RIAN description: small-scale industrial uses which do not require urban type services. Placement of these homes will create a future conflict when the RIAN is developed for the priority uses, as recommended by the county's adopted plan. c. As such, the application is inconsistent with the following principles, goals, and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: ■ Planning Principle 1. Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and Services: Orange County's public facilities and services should be delivered in a manner that efficiently uses existing capacity. Expansions of facilities and services should be made only after careful consideration of the costs and benefits of expansion. ■ Planning Principle 2. Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable over the long-term. ■ Planning Principle 3A. Encouragement of Energy Efficiency, Lower Energy Consumption, and the Use of Non-Polluting Renewable Energy Resource: Decreasing the use of non-renewable resources and lowering energy consumption are encouraged in both public and private activities. The county's transportation system should be enhanced to promote more energy efficient modes of travel and improve air quality. ■ 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 243 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. ■ Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. ■ Appendix F, Land Use Classification Description for Rural 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. The Board of County Commissioners adopts this Statement of Inconsistency and the findings expressed herein. Vote: For, Against Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Date 244 Attachment 9 Ordinance#: ORD-2025-036 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 +/- 78.11 acres (PIN: 9865-87-8090) from AR (Agricultural Residential) to R-CD (Residential Conditional District) for the purpose of a 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 LIDO 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 the Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan, and is 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 LIDO 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"). 2. The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. This deviates from the minimum in LIDO Section 3.8. Suitable septic shall be provided on each parcel. 3. The property shall contain experiential gardens as shown on Site Plan as the Woodland Garden, the Picking Garden and the Pollinator Garden (the "Gardens"). The Gardens shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 4. Where supplementation of perimeter plantings is required, native plant materials appropriate for the growing environment in that area shall be utilized. 5. An ADA-compliant, open-air mail kiosk will incorporate a weather covering with recessed lighting. 6. Trails shall provide access to the Designated Community Gathering Space and each Garden as shown on the Site Plan. The length of the trails located on the subject property shall combined total at least 9,000 linear feet. Trail surfaces shall be aggregate or natural surface (not paved with concrete or asphalt) to minimize impacts to the existing environment and limit impervious surfaces. Boardwalks shall be utilized where the proposed trail crosses the wetlands as shown on the Site Plan, if permitted by Federal and State agencies. The trail and associated amenities described in this section shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The precise location and alignment of the trails will be determined at final plat. 245 7. The property owner shall offer limited access to the planned trails and open space to the Eno River Academy for use by students, faculty and staff including the cross-country team pursuant to an agreement drafted by the landowner with an effective date after construction is complete. 8. The Designated Community Gathering Space as shown on the site plan to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 9. Individual septic systems meeting Orange County Health Department requirements will be provided on each lot. Septic systems shall be designed to serve up to a four (4) bedroom home. 10. No home shall contain more than four (4) bedrooms. 11. Lighting in common areas of the Community shall comply with the requirements of UDO Section 6.11.6, which promote Dark Sky Preservation. 12. Site access(es) shall be provided in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) permits, including the provision of any required turn lanes and/or restrictions to the access(es). 13. The property owner shall petition the Town of Hillsborough for access to public water to serve the subject property and, if approved, utilize public water in the subdivision, if necessary easements are reasonably obtainable. 14. The property owner shall write a letter to the North Carolina Department of Transportation requesting a speed limit reduction. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of , 2025. I, Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2025 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 2025. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 246 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Board of County Commissioners Meeting November 6,, 2025 7:00 p. m . 247 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Item 5b: Zoning Atlas Amendment (Conditional District) AR Zoning to R-CD Zoning Location: 1039-UT NC 86 North PIN: 9865-87-8090 Applicant: Forestar Group, LLC Case #: MA25-0003 248 Conditional District Overview Conventional . Standards must be uniformly Request is use-specific with applied throughout the County individualized development conditions and standards No site-specific, individualized Site-specific development plan conditions may be imposed its part of review and approval process GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 249 Conditional District Overview 7.2.3 Major Subdivisions (A) A major subdivision is any subdivision that is not an Exempt or Minor subdivision, as classified in subsections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2. Major subdivisions are further classified as follows: (1) Standard Major Subdivision All subdivisions not classified as an Exempt Subdivision; Minor Subdivision; or Major Subdivision, Conditional District (R-CD or NR-CD. (2) Major Subdivision, Conditional District (R-CD or NR-CD) A tract of land that is proposed for a subdivision into 21 or more lots. GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 1 Conditional District Overview Article 5: Uses Section 5.2:Table of Permitted Uses <21 Lots TABLE OF PERMITTED USES 21 + Lots 42. Dwelling;Single-Family 43. Dwelling;Two-Family 44. Family Care Facility *=PERMITTED USE D=SUBJECT TO USE STANDARDS S=SPECIAL USE CONVENTIONAL ZONING QISTRIGTS EGUNOMNG DEVELOPMENT DISTkIG T6 CONOITIGNAL DISTRICTS UsETrPE RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 RS RS R13 LCi NC2 CC3 GC4 ECS DI AS Et I 1 12 13 PID EDB- EDB- EQE- EDE- EDH- EDM- EDH- EDH- EDH- ASE- MPD- liP- REDA- R-CD NR- RM 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 CD CQ C6 CQ-1 CD 46. Group eHome ©©©©®©©©®©®®©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■- A A 47. -. .Personal �© A . a ... A � A .� A ■� A 48. Recreational Vehicle 49. Rooming H. - ■■.■■�0��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■-�� 1 Temporary Use of Residential A S,Mobile UnA a Y a a a UnifiedDevelopmentOrdinanceSection Table ofPermittedUses ORANGE NORTH CAROLINA 251 Major Subdivision Review Process ConceptPlan • General lot layout and road design established • Plan for utilities and services GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 252 Major Subdivision Review Process ' CoIncept Plan Preliminary Plat Final Plat 4 • General lot • Exact lot • All required layout and boundaries improvements road design and roadway are completed established engineering or bonded • Plan for completed • All permitting utilities and • Permitting and needs services design for identified in utilities earlier review completed phases are complete and submitted to County GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Zoning Atlas Amendment - MA25-0003 (HWY 86 N) 253 1039 - UT NC 86 N Overview Address 1039-UT HWY 86 N Vicinity Map for Rezoning Application-PIN 9865878ogo CriSical` ffy 15- Little River Cedar Grove TownShp h { Protected Little RiV.,Township -- g_� r v ; OF Upper no '�. • w oaks'¢ 9865-87-8090 HY hProtr -d Hillsborough + Town h Nip Hillsborough „® _ 70 muls6orough inwn6hip Eno Township Lower Eno Protected I � � Cheeks+own�shiP � r / r Lower Eno "w C ex Watersheda J Unprotected �� �' ] • Lower <�-ny,,•,,� �G 0urham� 6in9ham TovmshiP E'o Cane Creek '� � �" `� [.���,r�. ��� v`z°� -—.+�►.,'. PIM:9865878090 ETJs Hillsborough Township ake • • Forestar Group, LLC ::-T°wnshlpg Maim Strum, JLrda �haFdH lr—1 p -City Limits "Water Supply Watersheds GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Zoning Atlas Amendment - MA25-0003 (HWY 86 N) 254 1039 - UT NC 86 N • - - (continued ): Ni. Current Zo n i n Rezoning Application to R-CD for PIN 9865878090 ■ Agricultural Residential (AR) G4 .nµ4 Requested Zoning EPV ■ Residential Conditional District (R- CD) ■ Use: Major Subdivision, Single-Family 9866878090 Dwellings ower Eno s. Surrounding Zoning ■ Agricultural Residential (AR) ■ Town of Hillsborough oPIN;aR55fl'809° ---- w.te,B di- --------------- --.ROcx.Y_{� ■ Existing Commercial (EC-5) Z°°`nAR ---- -------------- R7 - ■ Low and Medium Intensity Residential E3, -11 coueRNoq BNRNF qO -.➢._ (R3) o Pal A m Ch Limits ETJ •r .. m. - 255 Zoning Atlas Amendment - MA25-0003 (HWY 86 N) 1039 - UT NC 86 N • - - (continued ): Adopted Future Land Use Map with Parcel 9865878090 Depicted Future Land Use Map Designation Rural Industrial Activity Node kP �P • Land designated in the Comprehensive Plan that is focused on designated road Lower Eno intersections which serves as a nodal crossroads for the 57 surrounding rural community and is Rase7oq an appropriate location for small- scale industrial uses which do not —S1Eeam= WaterdM Areas require urban type services. -Resource C.tsg.nes Future Land Use Categories -1 U Yea r Transitkon Agricultural Residential e fi R • No proposed amendment NLm,� Ru ai mdai UKAINUL (-.UUIN FY (NORTH CAROLINA 256 Zoning Atlas Amendment - MA25-0003 (HWY 86 N) 1039 - UT NC 86 N • - - (continued ): Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Town of Hills borough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land use Plan Plan Designation Mixed Neighborhood Residential The dominant land use in any proposed 471 development is expected to be residential � s&,sow based on square footage of proposed structures. Developments may contain a single or variety of dwelling types and densities or may integrate a variety of supportive commercial, public and semi- public uses and open or public space. oEV -rk�ad4 �--- ��EmPb1'maM n r Small developments that provide only E°pta Ligh!IndusYinl i k79ANm-t]H141[y RBStl9Adl supportive non-residential land uses in uk,x�k , pwpnppd fa. I'll ern "_space an infill arrangement serving more than �mxauV °H 50 dwelling units in a walkable manner �• may also be considered. UKAINUt L.UUIV 1-Y NORTH CAROLINA Zoning Atlas Amendment - MA25-0003 (HWY 86 N) 257 1039 - LIT NC 86 N • - - (continued ): Conditional District Application Requirements ■ Site Specific Plan ■ Environmental Assessment ■ Biological Inventory ■ Additional Information as Identified by Reviewing Agencies ❖ Orange County Divisions: Addressing and Land Records; Building Inspections; Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation; Environmental Health; Erosion Control; Fire and Life Safety ❖ External Review Agencies: NC Department of Transportation, State Environmental Review Clearinghouse GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Site-Specific Plan 258 MATCH41NE-A G,, n RM&F igDAD a,o mn, Pa s. �mv I ,a k I I '.I I 1 ,.. y�y 1 1t _;!�'`A"J --. \ ♦w �,�/ •! rr'�» P,+�+,. � � J � I � © i' 1 ! r '`-,�v =� 3 �' h4R �'`.'- ....., w,w -.i's^+ %.. �y + q``� Fy na• �'I '�� L o Lu CL I;V 2K 1.9WE FOR Iq �' mEouv�1 1 mn n"am un d t Y IN �� I S70P f r •M , �. L , ' �' / ,,. _ � i .1•-.:. � �� i f I I �rx rex cx.....lec ee ia, �,•: - ! . -- - ---- _ - -- + -- - - - --- -- — �.w E.-, . Fpwhafps MAS-11,1@ A - pe Ilffr ssxemc:xnc� Coll bef re you did— _.._._ .,_ .. ��.. _ _ ., ._ ..._....�....__ ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 259 Current Summary of 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, 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 NORTH CAROLINA 260 Current Summary of Conditions 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"). 2. The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. This deviates from the minimum in UDO Section 3.8. Suitable septic shall be provided on each parcel. 3. The property shall contain experiential gardens as shown on Site Plan as the Woodland Garden, the Picking Garden and the Pollinator Garden (the "Gardens"). The Gardens shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 4. Where supplementation of perimeter plantings is required, native plant materials appropriate for the growing environment in that area shall be utilized. GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 261 Current Summary of Conditions 5. An ADA-compliant, open-air mail kiosk will incorporate a weather covering with recessed lighting. 6. Trails shall provide access to the Designated Community Gathering Space and each Garden as shown on the Site Plan. The length of the trails located on the subject property shall combined total at least 9,000 linear feet. Trail surfaces shall be aggregate or natural surface (not paved with concrete or asphalt) to minimize impacts to the existing environment and limit impervious surfaces. Boardwalks shall be utilized where the proposed trail crosses the wetlands as shown on the Site Plan, if permitted by Federal and State agencies. The trail and associated amenities described in this section shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The precise location and alignment of the trails will be determined at final plat. 7. The property owner shall offer limited access to the planned trails and open space to the Eno River Academy for use by students, faculty and staff including the cross- country team pursuant to an agreement drafted by the landowner with an effective date after construction is complete. 8. The Designated Community Gathering Space as shown on the site plan to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 262 Current Summary of Conditions 9. Individual septic systems meeting Orange County Health Department requirements will be provided on each lot. Septic systems shall be designed to serve up to a four (4) bedroom home. 10. No home shall contain more than four (4) bedrooms. 11. Lighting in common areas of the Community shall comply with the requirements of UDO Section 6.11.6, which promote Dark Sky Preservation. 12. Site access(es) shall be provided in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) permits, including the provision of any required turn lanes and/or restrictions to the access(es). 13. The property owner shall petition the Town of Hillsborough for access to public water to serve the subject property and, if approved, utilize public water in the subdivision, if necessary easements are reasonably obtainable. 14. The property owner shall write a letter to the North Carolina Department of Transportation requesting a speed limit reduction GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 263 Current Summary of Conditions Date: 10/23/2025 Subject: Town of Hillsborough Support for Zoning Condition 7 5 ti STN CA a This memorandum affirms the Town of Hillsborough's support for a zoning condition proposed for the project known to Orange County as "Zoning Atlas Amendment Rezoning Application Conditional District MA25-0003". The condition, listed as #13 in the "Narrative of Zoning Conditions Offered", states the following: "The property owner shall petition the Town of Hillsborough for access to public water to serve the subject property and, if approved, utilize public water in the subdivision, if necessary easements are reasonably obtainable." The proposed project is outside of the prescribed new Urban Service Boundary as recommended in the Town's Comprehensive Sustainability Plan, however the Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners (the "Board") has not yet taken formal action to amend the boundary. Town staff supports the property owner/project applicant petitioning for public water service directly to the Board. This memo does not represent an offer to provide public water service to the property. The Town Board will have to determine if the provision of public water service is in the best interest of the Town and its goals. GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 264 Review Process • Determine application completeness and analyze proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment with Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) • Coordinated by applicant • Held on April 29, 2025 Planning Board • Hear from the applicant, staff, and the public • Review and discuss analysis and staff recommendation • Recommend approval or denial to Board of County Commissioners • . • of County • • • Schedule and hold public hearing to receive application • Hear from the applicant, staff, and the public • Review and discuss analysis and recommendations from staff and Planning Board • Close public hearing 265 Applicant Presentation ORANGE COUNTY 266 Zoning Atlas Amendment Highway 86 Subdivision Foxow Rothschild INE-A - P r: \y ;� ✓1', .� � ®�. \ \ � t. F` �, dam, 4 �' I ncm w.®.w NII h 1�5 6 InW f NATCHLINE.A rr°'Iv'�i�x W /. uHaPH]d bedLF OaP bef a you�dlg. 268 Zoning Atlas and Application UDO Amendments Submittal Rezoning Process Zoning Atlas: tMeeting s: Text Amendments Conditional Approached Town of Hillsborough to discuss annexation Districts s • Hillsborough indicated they would not annex the property due to Post Sign/MaNotice insufficient sewer supply Neighborhood l�l� Y (NIM)and PlaHillsborough provides water utility to County residents but further Meet Post Sign Mail Notice denied our request to serve project as a County customer / Neighborhood for Planning Board Information Meeting Meeting • Approached County to discuss development options Developme!Amendments: y • Traditional lot by lot subdivision discussed Committee • Cluster subdivision recommended by Orange County Planning staff Staff Recommto Planning Developed Cluster Concept Plan Planning Boa and Recomm Atlas Amendments: Text Publish Legal Ad endments:Post Sign sh Legal AdMail Notice Staff and PB Recation We are here. to BO Public Hearing Major Subdivision Review Follows BOCC Decision Fox,ow Rothschild 269 Comprehensive Plan Compliance • Orange County/ Hillsborough COCA Plan designates this site as appropriate for Mixed Residential Neighborhood • 49 homes for families clustered together on 79.76 acres • 1 home per 1.62 acres • 42.25 acres of 53.9% of the parcel is open space • Preserves significant natural area • Conservation Cluster Flexible Development Subdivision protect environmental features • No significant environmental impact is expected Fox,ow Rothschild 270 Considerations Discussed During Planning Board Review OWell Service Septic Service eDensity -- Traffic Fox,ow Rothschild 271 0 Community Well System heardWhat We Proposed What We How We Responded Guiding Policy/Agency . Community well proposed to Concern that existing -Spangler Environmental monitored two Orange County issued Well Town of Hillsborough serve lots well(s) may run dry adjacent wells during well draw down of Permit on 10.01.2024 indicates that they may the Community Well; no impact to be willing to allow this • Community Well draw due to new well nearby wells was observed NC DEQ- Division of Water community to connect down test run twice on: Resources- Public Water to public water lines • 11.19.2024 -This risk exists today-farms are Supply • 07.29.2025 permitted by right(big water users) New condition added Rules Governing Public to require property • Required Capacity is 0.56 -As our study result document,the Water Systems - 15A North owner to again petition GPM per unit x 49 units= Community well will not impact adjacent Carolina Administrative Code Hillsborough for Public 27.44 GPM wells 18C Water and utilize it if What options do approved, provided • Provided Minimum property owners have -Relatively few nearby properties utilize necessary easements Capacity is 50 GPM- if their well is wells given public water lines in the area can be obtained. almost double the requirement negatively impacted? -Request Hillsborough to allow Town of Hillsborough connection to public water- existing lines requires Town Board • Well Capacity is 84 GPM are in close proximity to the site approval for water connection. Fox,ow Rothschild 272 10 Septic Systems What We Proposed What We heard How We Responded Guiding Policy/Agency Individual Septic Concerns lots were too -Engineer evaluated Orange County Public In the event that Systems on each lot small to allow for representative lots Health Department— Rules any lot cannot septic systems throughout for Onsite Wastewater sustain adequate • Reconnaissance community to Treatment and Dispersal septic soil, Soil and Site confirm septic Systems developer bears Evaluation systems fit risk of losing a Prepared by developable lot(s). Earthly Elements -Provided detailed 15A NCAC 18E- Soil Consulting on drawings showing Waste Water Treatment 03.19.2024 to how lots would be and Dispersal Systems confirm soil laid out suitability for septic Fox,ow Rothschild 273 Density What We Proposed What We heard How We Responded Guiding Policy/Agency Conservation Cluster Density is too high Existing Zoning (AR) 1 " . . . allowable density (i.e., Flexible Development home per acre the number of individual Subdivision - 49 lots on dwellings that can be 79.76 acres Proposed Density is developed on a parcel of less than that allowed property)." UDO Section .61 homes home per by AR 3.3.3 acre including open space Adjacent to Lots are too small Hillsborough; Lots COCA Land Use Plan within 112 mile - 23.6% designates the site as 20,000 square foot less than 20,000 sf; appropriate for Mixed clustered lots with open 35.5% between Residential Neighborhood space of 42.25 acres 20,000 and 40,000 sf; Use 40.9% greater than 40,000 sf Fox,ow Rothschild 274 Density SpaceType of Development Acres of Common Open Possible Stream Possible Wetlands • . iL I A—j Conservation Cluster 42.25 acres One stream crossing No impacts planned Flexible Development by access road planned Subdivision Traditional Subdivision Concept Not required At least one stream 1/10 of an acre per lot Individuals can impact 1/10 crossing by road acre without a permit pursuant USACOE NWP 18 Fox,ow Rothschild 275 Traffic What We Proposed What We heard How We Responded Guiding Policy/Agency 2 access points Hwy 86 is busy, people Our traffic engineer Orange County UDO - no TIA Added conditions to speed in the area and it may and Orange County, required zoning case to be difficult to see on both, working closely confirm the property coming cars with NCDOT to ensure owner will comply safe roadways North Carolina Department of with NCDOT Transportation (NCDOT)— no requirements and to request NCDOT study No access can be TIA required speed limit on installed until NCDOT Highway 86 issues a driveway permit(s) Driveway Permits, which include final NCDOT We have surveyed sight requirements, are issued after distances to provide to Subdivision Plan Review and NCDOT for evaluation before Final Plat as a part of the driveway permit Fox,ow Rothschild Experiential Gardens 4 _ -• :... __. na..vim`# � ,' � sr` Foxe Rothschild Trails •� � �,� a� T 1�� �1���Ar�1 .Y'M1 ¢,9.(r+�-'1r�ryy�i^^FF t — 1 7 s i r t ` Natural Surface Trails r z :.' �` �" S ° �ii� �Y•`x iliy- Foy e Rothschild Trails a t _ 45 m E 6 4 �I � ��r r y -rte..' _— � _ ,is -� ,�. c '1' •'�., � �� , u. Y Boardwalks Foxe Rothschild 279 Proposed ZoninConditions • The subject property shall be developed in accordance with the proposed site plan submitted as part of this application ("Site Plan"). • The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. This deviates from the minimum in UDO Section 3.8. Suitable septic shall be provided on each parcel. • The property shall contain experiential gardens as shown on Site Plan as the Woodland Garden, the Picking Garden and the Pollinator Garden (the "Gardens"). The Gardens shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. • Where supplementation of perimeter plantings is required, native plant materials appropriate for the growing environment in that area shall be utilized. • An ADA-compliant, open-air mail kiosk will incorporate a weather covering with recessed lighting. Fox 4sk Rothschild 280 Proposed Zoning Conditions (Continued) • Trails shall provide access to the Designated Community Gathering Space and each Garden as shown on the Site Plan. The length of the trails located on the subject property shall combined total at least 9,000 linear feet. Trail surfaces shall be aggregate or natural surface (not paved with concrete or asphalt) to minimize impacts to the existing environment and limit impervious surfaces. Boardwalks shall be utilized where the proposed trail crosses the wetlands as shown on the Site Plan, if permitted by Federal and State agencies. The trail and associated amenities described in this section shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The precise location and alignment of the trails will be determined at final plat. • The property owner shall offer limited access to the planned trails and open space to the Eno River Academy for use by students, faculty and staff including the cross- country team pursuant to an agreement drafted by the landowner with an effective date after construction is complete. Fox,ow Rothschild 281 Proposed Zoning Conditions (Continued) • The Designated Community Gathering Space as shown on the site plan to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. • Individual septic systems meeting Orange County Health Department requirements will be provided on each lot. Septic systems shall be designed to serve up to a four (4) bedroom home. • No home shall contain more than four (4) bedrooms. • Lighting in common areas of the Community shall comply with the requirements UDO Section 6. 11.6, which promotes Dark Sky Preservation. • Site access(es) shall be provided in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) permits, including the provision of any required turn lanes and/or restrictions to the access(es). Fox,ow Rothschild 282 Proposed Zoning Conditions (Continued) • The property owner shall petition the Town of Hillsborough for access to public water to serve the subject property and, if approved, utilize public water in the subdivision, if necessary easements are reasonably obtainable. • The property owner shall write a letter to the North Carolina Department of Transportation requesting a speed limit reduction. Fox,ow Rothschild 283 Public Benefits • 49 needed homes for families in close proximity to the many amenities of Historic Hillsborough • Walking trails totaling at least 9,000 linear feet (1.7 miles) accessing unique experiential gardens and gathering spaces for the community • Offer Eno River Academy Cross-Country team for limited trail use after construction • Commitment to native plant materials appropriate for the growing area for perimeter plantings • Protecting more than half of the site (42.25 acres) as open space along the perimeter of the property Fox,ow Rothschild THANK YOU QUESTIONS ? Foxr Rothschild 285 Public Notification ■ Notices were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject parcel on October 22, 2025. ■ Signs posted the subject parcel on October 22, 2025. ■ Legal Ad published on October 22, 2025 and October 29, 2025. ■ Application information has also been posted on the Planning Department's "Active Development" webpage. 286 Staff Analysis 1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of the UDO. 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, Major Subdivision Conditional Districts 2. Staff review of the application included considerations for how the request relates to the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 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. 4. The applicant has provided an environmental assessment as part of this submittal. Staff has reviewed and determined no significant environmental impact is expected from this project based on existing conditions. GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 287 Zoning and Land Use Review ppendix F: Land Use and Zoning Matrix ZONING DISTRICTS o" V. A 0 rt o ��, N C A U ❑ i Land Use Classifications& U U t Overlays a z U W N M .W @1 1 z I = z Chapel Hill Transition Permit Administration by Municipalities under the provisions of the Joint Planning Agreement- Carrboro Transition Contact appropria#e Municipality for applicable Zoninjj Standards 10-Year Transition 20-Year Transition + + + c Commercial Transition ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ + ♦ + ;Z Activitv Node Commercial-Industrial + Transition Activit + + + + + + + + ♦ + Economic Development Transition Activitv Node Rural Buffer Rural Residential Agricultural Residential ca Rural Community Activity Node Rural Neighborhood + Activity Node + + Rural Industrial Activity + + Node Public Interest Area o' �r- Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA :: Zoning and Land Use Review Article 5: Uses Section 5.2:Table of permitted Uses TABLE OF PERMITTED USES 41. Dwelling;Multiple Family A A 42. Dwelling;Single-Family Fac!ity 48. Recreational Vehicle 49. Rooming House *=PERMITTED USE D=SUBJECT TO USE STANDARDS S=SPECIAL USE CONVENTIONAL ZONING QISTRIGTS EGUNOMNG DEVELOPMENT DISTkIG T6 CONOITIGNAL DISTRICTS USE TYPE RB AR Ri R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LCi NC2 CC3 GC4 ECS DI AS Et I 1 @ 13 PID EDB- EDB- EQE- EDE- EDH- EDM- EDH- EDH- EDH- ASE- MPD- liP- REDA- R-CD NR- RM 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 CD CQ C6 CQ-1 C6 1 Temporary Use of Residential A A 14 l Y a a Y a a UnifiedMobile Unit �+ I I �DevelopmentOrdinanceSection Table ofPermittedUses ORANGE NORTH CAROLINA 289 Planning Director 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 UDO; 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 (Attachment 9). OR Vote to Deny the Zoning Atlas Amendment, including a statement as to why the application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest, as detailed in the Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment 8). GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 290 Planning Board Recommendation Planning Board reviewed the rezoning application at its September and October 1, 2025 meetings As available in the meeting minutes (Attachment 6), the Planning Board voted 9-Oto recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 7) and the proposed ordinance for the Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 9). GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 291 Recommendation The Manager recommends 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 Amendment (Attachment 9). OR Vote to Deny the Zoning Atlas Amendment, including a statement as to why the application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest, as detailed in the Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment 8). GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA