HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Agenda Packet - December 3, 2025 1
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
®t°fig¢= CCo4ry
f�
A
17 52
0
Orrh
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
WHITTED MEETING FACILITY
300 WEST TRYON STREET, SECOND FLOOR
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
Regular Meeting — 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. 4 - 5 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Planning Calendar for December and January
3. 6 - 37 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 1, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes
4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
5. PUBLIC CHARGE
Introduction to the Public Charge
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB)to uphold the written land development
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and
future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
Public Charge
The Planning Board pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this
meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, County
staff, and Board members. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to
observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it
become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the
meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
The Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and
computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate.
Please be kind to everyone.
2
Page Agenda
Item .-
6. CHAIR COMMENTS
7. 38 - 44 PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN: To review and
approve the annual input form which informs the BOCC of the past
year's activities of advisory boards/commissions and assists in overall
County work planning.
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director— Long-Range
Planning & Administration
8. ADJOURNMENT
Sign up to receive a notification when Planning Board agendas are posted
Interested persons can sign up at https://www.orangecountync.gov/list.aspx to receive a
notification when agendas are posted. (Scroll down to the "Agenda Center" category and choose
Planning Board).
Monthly Planning & Inspections Newsletter
Sign up at https://www.orangecountync.gov/list.aspx?ListlD=408 to receive the monthly
communication on happenings in the Planning & Inspections Department.
Written Comments
Interested persons who cannot attend the meeting in-person are invited to submit written
comments on agenda items to the Planning Board via email at
planning board ,orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting.
Please include in the Subject line of the email the title of the agenda item your comment pertains
to. Emails sent to this address are viewable on Google Groups:
https://groups.google.com/q/ocplanningboard
Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department's offices at 131 W.
Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday). Written comments will be scanned and sent by staff to the email address
indicated above.
Review Process
The Planning Board is an appointed volunteer advisory board which makes recommendations to
the Board of County Commissioners (the elected officials). The Board of County Commissioners
holds a formal public hearing and makes decisions. Section 2.8 of the County's Unified
Development Ordinance contains a flowchart depicting the review process for rezoning and text
amendment applications.
Planning Board Member Potential Conflict of Interest
It is the duty of every Board member to avoid both conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict.
Board members having any conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict with respect to matters
3
before the Board should identify the conflict or appearance of conflict and refrain from undue
participation in the matter involved.
As a reminder, NC General Statute § 160D-109 establishes the following standard: Members of
appointed boards shall not vote on any advisory or legislative decision regarding a development
regulation where the outcome of the matter being considered is reasonably likely to have a direct,
substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on the member. An appointed board member
shall not vote on any zoning amendment if the landowner of the property subject to a rezoning
petition or the applicant for a text amendment is a person with whom the member has a close
familial, business, or other associational relationship.
If any Planning Board member has any concern about a possible conflict related to an agenda
item, please notify Planning staff and get in touch directly with a member of the County Attorney's
staff before the meeting time to determine whether a conflict exists—and if so, how best to handle
the potential conflict.
4
• 1
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6
BOCC Planning Board
Business Meeting
Meeting 7:00 7:00 pm*
pm
Whitted Bldg. Whitted Bldg.
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
BOCC
Business Board of
Meeting Adjustment
7:00 PM 7:00 pm
Southern Whitted Bldg.
Human Sery
Ctr.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 25
28 29 30 31
Notes:
* Planning Board member attendance required
Planning Board meetings are held at Whitted Human Services Building - Donna S. Baker Meeting
Room (2nd floor) 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278
5
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Frida Saturday
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Planning Board
Meeting
7:00 pm*
Whitted Bldg.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Board of
Adjustment
7:00 pm
Whitted Bldg.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
BOCC
Business
Meeting
7:00 pm
Whitted Bldg.
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Notes:
BOCC Retreat and Assembly of Governments meeting dates to be determined.
* Planning Board member attendance required
Planning Board meetings are held at Whitted Human Services Building - Donna S. Baker Meeting
Room 2nd floor 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278
DRAFT 6
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 Carnevale, 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 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS
29
30 Lamar Proctor reviewed the upcoming Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners meeting
31 calendars.
32
33 Cy Stober: Mr. Chair, if I may.
34
35 Lamar Proctor: Yes.
36
37 Cy Stober: As of this morning,the Board of Adjustment meeting next week has been canceled for a lack of
38 business.
39
40 Lamar Proctor: Okay, so that's October 8th board of adjustment meeting is canceled. Thank you, Mr. Director.
41
42 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
43
44 Lamar Proctor: Let's see,Agenda Item 3 is the approval of minutes from the September 3rd, 2025, meeting. I'll
45 entertain a motion.
46
47 Statler Gilfillen: I'll so move we approve them.
48
49 Lamar Proctor: All right. Statler moves. Do I hear a second?
50
51 Venkat Yendapalli: I'll second.
52
53 Lamar Proctor: All right,Venkat seconded first. So, all in favor of approval of the September 3rd, 2025, meeting
54 minutes, raise your hand or say aye.
7
55 MOTION BY Statler Gilfillen to approve the September 3rd meeting minutes. Seconded by Venkat Yendapalli.
56
57 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
58
59 I'll note that,for the record, it's unanimous approval of those meeting minutes.
60
61 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
62
63 Lamar Proctor: No.4 is consideration of additions to the agenda. There are no planned additions to the agenda,
64 unless someone has a motion or anything. Hearing none, I will move to the public charge.
65
66 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE
67
68 Lamar Proctor read the Public Charge.
69
70 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS
71
72 Lamar Proctor: Chair comments: Just a couple of things. So,the way this,the next agenda item, No. 7, is a
73 continuation from our September meeting for a zoning atlas amendment. And the last time we
74 took a vote, that was evenly divided,so we're going to continue that. I will say that we had,we've
75 passed the point where there are members of the public who signed up to speak. I think everyone
76 who is here, except for one person, had signed up and spoken last time, and the time for public
77 comment is closed. I would note that there was one additional person who had signed up tonight
78 who was not signed up when this agenda item began to be considered, and after public comment
79 was closed, so our policy, and I'm asking staff to memorialize that policy, it's been our policy that
80 once public comment is closed,we don't take additional public sign-ups after that on a continued
81 meeting because it would just, it has the potential to just continue on, and we would never reach a
82 final decision on these agenda items. So, if you're a member of the public who signed up this
83 evening,that is our general policy, and that's our rule. Unless there's any board members who
84 feel differently, as chair, I would suggest we just move to Agenda Item 7.
85
86 AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT(CONDITIONAL DISTRICT)(CONTINUED)—To continue review and
87 make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone+/-78.11 acres
88 (PIN: 9865-87-8090) located at 1039-UT NC 86 North, Hillsborough,within the Hillsborough
89 Township of Orange County.The proposed rezoning is from AR(Agricultural Residential)to R-CD
90 (Residential-Conditional District).The anticipated BOCC public hearing date is November 6,
91 2025.
92
93 Lamar Proctor: In terms of discussion and any additional questions for the applicant does—so kind of blurred
94 from chair comments into Agenda Item 7, but so beginning Agenda Item 7,yes, Statler?
95
96 Statler Gilfillen: Just as a question, if this is only one person with 3 minutes speaking, is that too much of an
97 interruption since they were not heard last time or able to speak last time?Maybe we let them
98 have flexibility to be heard this time?
99
100 Chris Johnston: So,the only thing I would say is the public comment was during the time that we had,and at this
101 point, really what we're talking about is the board having the discussion with the additional time.
102 The point of order last time was that we needed additional time in order to review the
103 documentation and then make a decision on this. Now,what I will say in potentially support of
104 Statler's argument is there does appear to be some changes that have been made to the
105 presentation in regard to changes to the conditions that are being presented. So, I would argue
106 that we leave it as is and not necessarily have additional public comment. Additional items have
107 been submitted, and I think you could accept those. I guess that's another question. Is that
108 additional public comment at that point?
109
8
110 Charity Kirk: As someone who wasn't here last time, if we could kind of get a foundation of the plan tonight of
111 discussion.
112
113 Chris Johnston: Sure.
114
115 Charity Kirk: And then kind of table deciding whether or not we take additional comments. How many
116 additional comments are there? Just one?
117
118 Chris Johnston: One.
119
120 Lamar Proctor: It's one individual, and I would just note for the record that the applicant has provided additional
121 written materials,which includes some modifications of the conditions for conditional zoning and a
122 summary of the changes, and I believe Ms. Owens also sent an email about concerns about the
123 traffic issues raised by this zoning atlas amendment that has also been, it was emailed, so it's
124 already part of the record under our consideration, but copies have been provided to the members
125 of the board. So, Charity,we had kind of went through questions for the applicant and then had
126 begun discussion. So, I think to proceed in an orderly fashion, the first thing that I think we should
127 consider is whether to allow the additional person who signed up to make,to get 3 minutes, and 1
128 think we should do that on a motion, and then if there's a second,we'll take a vote on whether to
129 allow that in this circumstance. Do I hear any motions?
130
131 Statler Gilfillen: I move that we let this one person speak for 3 minutes.
132
133 Lamar Proctor: Okay. Do I hear a second?
134
135 Venkat Yendapalli: Second.
136
137 Lamar Proctor: All right. Venkat seconds. All in favor, so I will note that—is Al Carnivale present? Okay. Mr.
138 Carnivale is present, so the motion before the board is to allow Mr. Carnivale 3 minutes of public
139 comment on Agenda Item 7. So, all in favor of allowing him the 3 minutes, please raise your
140 hand. One, two,three,four,five. And all against?
141
142 MOTION BY Statler Gilfillen to allow for additional public comment. Seconded by Venkat Yendapalli.
143
144 MOTION PASSED 5-3: Lamar Proctor, Chris Johnston, and Charity Kirk opposed.
145
146 Lamar Proctor: So,the ayes have it, so Mr. Carnivale,you will,you've got 3 minutes to give public comment on
147 Agenda Item 7.
148
149 Chris Johnston: Do we want to have a, I apologize. Do we want to have a particular order in which we do this in
150 regard to the changes that have been proposed and then bringing in public comment,or do you
151 prefer to roll it in a particular fashion?
152
153 Lamar Proctor: Well, I hope, and it was,we've all reviewed the minutes so we should be all up to speed on what
154 the issues are. So, I think before we get into further questions for the applicant and discussion,
155 that we should take the public comment. Is there anyone who's opposed to that? Okay, hearing
156 none, all right, so Mr. Carnivale, if you want to come on up.
157
158 Al Carnivale: Yes
159
160 Chris Johnston: Whitney has just arrived.
161
162 Lamar Proctor: Okay, and I see Whitney's here, so I'll just note that for the record. We do have another board
163 member who's arrived.
164
9
165 Chris Johnston: So,what's going to happen is the light will show up here on green. You'll have 3 minutes to
166 speak,and it should ding at you as we get closer to that time if you would just keep it to the 3
167 minutes.
168
169 Al Carnivale: Okay.
170
171 Chris Johnston: Perfect.
172
173 Al Carnivale: Okay, so I go?
174
175 Chris Johnston: Okay. Yep, if you wouldn't mind speaking into the microphone, and when the light turns green, it's
176 all you.
177
178 Lamar Proctor: And state your name and what part of the county you live in.
179
180 Chris Johnston: I'll let you have that for free.
181
182 Al Carnivale: My name is Al Carnivale. I live in Forest Ridge in Hillsborough. Okay, I feel a little embarrassed
183 that I missed last time because I got a telephone call that said I could come tonight by someone. 1
184 can't remember who called me. But you already answered one of the questions, so I'm going to
185 go through my list very quickly because the concerns are what you may have already gotten from
186 other people, and if you have,that's great.
187
188 Charity Kirk: Can you speak into the microphone?
189
190 Al Carnivale: Oh, I'm sorry.
191
192 Charity Kirk: Thank you.
193
194 Al Carnivale: I'm sorry. So, these are some of the concerns I came up with in the last couple weeks. The one
195 that you just mentioned is traffic control was one of them. I was also wondering about,with the
196 growth that we've had in our community in the last couple years,what will be the impact and do
197 we have enough police force,firemen, EMTs to support this type of growth. This next part, I'm
198 going to go through these very quickly for you, so I'll be under 3 minutes. Resources, do we have
199 enough water? Water has always been a problem in our community. I live in Forest Ridge, and
200 that water still can't make it up the hill. And so,when you take a shower,two people take a
201 shower in our house;they don't get a really great shower. I'm just, and it's an ongoing issue.
202 Electric and natural gas resources. Basic infrastructure. I brought this up because when we
203 moved,when we selected to move into Hillsborough,you had four, supposedly four great
204 restaurants. By the time we got here 9 months later, you were down to one. So, I want to know
205 about more grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants. Is there any concern about bringing more of
206 those people, trying to get more of those people, and will these developments get them into the
207 community? Recently, I had a trip back to Princeton, New Jersey,which we had lived at one time.
208 It was a sleepy little town. Now,they've exploded, and they have so many people in the town it's
209 unbelievable. And finally,we may need this growth,we may want this growth, but considering
210 what's just going on recently in Orange County and Hillsborough with our taxes, I'm wondering
211 what the tax effect will be on increased going on in the future. So that's all I have to say. Hope
212 you take into consideration. If you want, I can just leave my list of stuff with gentleman over there,
213 and you can get on with the more important business. But appreciate you giving me the time to
214 come out and at least list my interests and concerns of this new development. Thank you.
215
216 Lamar Proctor: All right. Thank you, Mr. Carnivale. I think the best way to proceed at this point, maybe, is to,
217 because there were some board members who weren't here who did not have a chance to ask
218 questions of the applicant. So, I think the next step we should take in consideration of Agenda
219 Item 7 is for any additional questions of the applicant, but I will also entertain a motion to give the
10
220 applicant some period of time, maybe an additional 3 to 5 minutes, to tell us about anything that
221 their handouts and what changes have been made under consideration since the last meeting.
222
223 Jonah Garson: Jonah Garson, so move that we do that.
224
225 Lamar Proctor: All right. I will second Jonah's motion. All those in favor of giving the applicant. Do you have an
226 amount of time?
227
228 Jonah Garson: You said 3 minutes?
229
230 Lamar Proctor: Yes.
231
232 Jonah Garson: Yeah, 3 minutes.
233
234 Lamar Proctor: Okay.
235
236 Chris Johnston: We could use my button.
237
238 Lamar Proctor: All in favor of giving the applicant an additional 3 minutes of time, raise your hand or say aye.
239
240 MOTION BY Jonah Garson to allow additional time for the applicant. Seconded by Lamar Proctor.
241
242 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
243
244 Lamar Proctor: And I just note that it's unanimous, so if the applicant wants to give us an additional 3 minutes of
245 discussion about the handouts and anything since the last meeting, especially the change in
246 conditions, if any.
247
248 Beth Trahos: Sure. Good evening, Mr. Chair and planning board members. My name's Beth Trahos, here
249 tonight on behalf of Forestar. We did listen closely to the planning board and to the folks who
250 were in attendance at the last meeting and have made some changes to our conditions based on
251 what we heard. I think the most important change is a commitment to require that the property
252 owner petition the Town of Hillsborough for access to public water and that, if that petition is
253 approved,to utilize public water in the subdivision if the easements can be obtained to bring it out.
254 You will recall that in the courtesy review, the Town of Hillsborough indicated that they may be
255 willing to extend public water. And so that should resolve any potential concerns with wells, along
256 with all the study that we have done that shows that there will be no impact on adjacent wells if a
257 well is used to serve this project. In addition,we have added a commitment that all accesses will
258 be provided in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation permits, including
259 the provision of any required turn lanes or restrictions on access,which they will put in place if
260 they are necessary to maintain safe functionality of the roads and the access points. And in
261 addition,we met with Eno River Academy again and talked with them about opportunities for their
262 students to continue having access to the planned trails. You may recall there's roughly 1.7 miles
263 of trails planned on this property as an amenity for the community,and we have added a condition
264 that we would offer an agreement to the school to allow for their students to have access to the
265 trails,so those are the changes to what we have proposed. Just by way of reminder and for those
266 of you who perspective weren't here,this is a proposal for 49 homes on almost 80 acres. That's
267 1.6 acres per home, including the open space. More than 50 percent of the property will be open
268 space,42.25 acres common open space. That's a committed element of this plan that would be
269 required to be maintained in accordance with the plan as open space and not otherwise utilized.
270 Also, significant tree preservation, a little over 49 acres on the site. Our whole team is here you—
271 well,with the exception of Mr. Marotti,our well expert. He has a new grandbaby. But all the rest
272 of us are here and available to answer any questions you have, and we would ask for your
273 support of this proposal for much-needed housing in Orange County. Thank you.
274
11
275 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. So, I think the next thing we should do is see if anyone has additional questions for
276 the applicant. And, Charity,you weren't here last time,so I'll start with you if you have any
277 additional questions.
278
279 Charity Kirk: Well, there were some things I didn't quite understand about just also board problems and what
280 the board was seeing. So, I think this was brought up, but there are wetlands on this property, so
281 you cannot split this, can you split this property exactly into 1-acre lots in agricultural residential?
282 Is that possible with all the wetlands?
283
284 Taylor Perschau: Yes, subdivision would be allowed. I'm going to pull up the presentation from last time,so we
285 have some reference points. So, the current agricultural-residential zoning,when staff is
286 reviewing subdivision plats, the lot size can retain that 40,000-square-foot minimum. Staff often
287 asks for a surveyor to note where wetlands are and then sometimes also require that buffers be
288 visualized on plats. But the property lines themselves could go within those features.
289
290 Charity Kirk: All right,just houses couldn't be built on those.
291
292 Taylor Perschau: That's correct.
293
294 Charity Kirk: So, if you remove all of the places where houses can't be built, how much acreage do you have?
295
296 Taylor Perschau: I don't know. This might be better answered by the applicant doing an evaluation of their own site.
297 I don't know if that was an exercise you all completed.
298
299 Beth Trahos: There are roughly 3 acres of wetlands on the property. One of the reasons we think it's beneficial
300 that those environmentally sensitive areas be maintained in open space is that the homeowner's
301 association is more likely to be respectful of those features than perhaps a homeowner who might
302 just see this portion of wetland as a part of their yard. I would also point out that the Army Corps
303 of Engineers,which governs impacts on wetlands, allows each individual lot owner,through a
304 nationwide permit,to impact 1/10 acre of wetlands;whereas if the wetlands are located on a
305 larger piece of property,then there is a permitting process required for impacts beyond that. So,
306 in our view,this would limit impacts on environmentally sensitive areas by maintaining them in
307 open space.
308
309 Charity Kirk: So,you said there's 3 acres wetlands, but does that include all the required buffers? How much
310 acreage is in required setbacks from the wetlands? Does that include the 3, is that included in the
311 3 acres, or is that additional?
312
313 Beth Trahos: I'm going to ask our engineer because I don't know the answer.
314
315 Charity Kirk: Yeah,thank you.
316
317 Lamar Proctor: Charity, I think what you're trying to get at is of right how many houses could they put if it was just
318 subdivided.
319
320 Charity Kirk: Zoned agricultural, subdivided for agricultural residential. Which is an option that doesn't need to
321 come back to the planning board, is that,that's correct,sorry?
322
323 Cy Stober: Not necessarily.
324
325 Charity Kirk: Depends on if it's over 20, it would need to come back?
326
327 Cy Stober: Correct. No matter what type of subdivision if it's over 20 lots, it must go through the conditional
328 zoning process in Orange County, so 21 lots or more.
329
12
330 Charity Kirk: So, it would become a conditional zoning district anyway?
331
332 Cy Stober: Well, pending approval by the county board of commissioners and the recommendation of the
333 planning board, but yes.
334
335 Charity Kirk: Okay.
336
337 Cy Stober: It would go through the same process, regardless of whether it was conventional subdivision or a
338 conservation cluster.
339
340 Charity Kirk: Okay. While you figure that out, the traffic stuff because that was a big discussion point, and it
341 seems like it is a problem along that road. And you're not proposing any solutions; you're waiting
342 for the DOT to do something.
343
344 Beth Trahos: Well, and I'm going to ask Josh Reinke to come forward, but I would say, no traffic-impact analysis
345 was required either by county regulation or by NCDOT. And we have had Josh do some
346 investigation, and I'll let him tell you about it.
347
348 Josh Reinke: Yeah, so and I guess in terms of when you say solutions,you're saying like turn lanes and things
349 like that, correct?
350
351 Charity Kirk: Yeah, I mean people brought up the stoplights down the road that, I mean, is not even on your
352 property, but yes, center turn lanes, things that could address the community issues and the
353 issues that I heard expressed on the board for the increased traffic load, and also this packet that
354 was left that's talking about the traffic study being, I don't know if you saw.
355
356 Josh Reinke: Yeah, I've seen it.
357
358 Charity Kirk: The traffic study not being estimated correctly because the homes are going to be four bedrooms
359 not two and a half bedrooms.
360
361 Josh Reinke: Correct. And I'll talk a little bit about that kind of high level and kind of dive into what you're
362 asking. So, in terms of the traffic study, because I saw, I called ITE, I got this bit of information. 1
363 took this bit from here, kind of cobbled something together. DOT, I mean, it's in there. We even
364 had county staff talk to DOT recently. We did the traffic study following guidelines of the county
365 and NCDOT. That's how I'm required,as a professional engineer pre-qualified. I can't take a
366 piece here and a piece here and sort of cobble it together. A lot of the stuff was talking about the
367 average size of the house, and then ITE does this,and why didn't we use bedrooms and things
368 like that. There are guidelines we have. It's based on downloading units. They look at,
369 nationally, different sized houses, so some might be larger,some might have less bedrooms. It's
370 the way NCDOT does require it. Now, keep in mind,they didn't require a traffic study;the client
371 asked me to perform one just to see those impacts. And we provided it to NCDOT. They did
372 provide a review. They agreed with our findings. So,this is where it comes into some of that stuff
373 of what are we going to do there is typically, in terms of when a traffic study isn't required, NCDOT
374 says you still need to get a driveway permit from us. You're going to have to dive into that design
375 stuff. We're going to tell you if you need turn lanes at your site driveways, things like that. So,
376 essentially,this is indicating no,we're not; no,we're under the threshold to require us to study off-
377 site intersections and improve things that are already a problem. We're looking at what is the
378 impact of our development. So,we have,just to kind of be proactive is we had our survey team
379 go out there and look at the site distance. It's been submitted to NCDOT. They have to do a field
380 evaluation,also, to check that and then they will let us know. And by let us know, I mean whether
381 it's restricting a driveway;and I'm not speaking on behalf of DOT; I'm saying these are options.
382 They might say we want a center turn lane. Get that traffic out of there. They might say we want
383 to restrict it to a right in, right out, because we have some concerns there where we don't want the
384 left-turning movement because the site distance isn't good enough. There are all sorts of options
13
385 that are on the table there for them, and it's going to be their call. So, it is something that we're
386 looking into the safety components of that,which is more design related. We've looked at the
387 capacity at the driveways. So NCDOT has been working with us through the whole process. We
388 even scoped it,just like a typical TA, saying here are assumptions, here's our assumptions for
389 growth in the area, not just our development, but we're looking at this holistically. We've been in
390 communication with the county and DOT staff throughout the whole process.
391
392 Charity Kirk: So,you're basically saying you just have to wait for DOT to tell you what to do.
393
394 Josh Reinke: Yes, NCDOT will dictate what we're doing at the driveways,essentially,whether we restrict them,
395 whether we put the turn lanes and things like that, based on what we've provided with that site
396 distance. So,a lot of that came up where there's the diagrams of crashes and the number of
397 crashes and things like that. And also, I don't know if it's anything where DOT's been approached
398 before, if there were all these crashes, if there has been a request for a speed-limit reduction,that
399 is something that can be done. Usually, it holds more weight when a municipality or a county
400 does it versus an individual developer saying, "Hey, here's this history of crashes." I'm happy, if
401 it's okay with the team, it is a letter that I would submit, and they review it and say, "Do we have
402 these concerns?" because then it's really just posting new signs out there. We're seeing we're
403 worried about speeding. I mean,yes, you can post signs and say slow it down. To be honest,the
404 guaranteed way to slow down traffic is capacity issues. And that indicates there aren't real
405 capacity issues right there if they're saying everybody's speeding along there, so I think the best
406 approach could be,and once again, if it is something that there are concerns about the safety
407 along that stretch, is I can provide NCDOT with a letter saying, "Hey,we have concerns about
408 these crashes." They're still going to do whatever at the driveways if it's you have to put in turn
409 lanes,we're going to restrict some of that access. That would be completely separate; that's part
410 of the driveway permit. But I can send a request in if you all felt that was necessary to address
411 some of the speeding concerns. Once again, I cannot guarantee you. That is an NCDOT
412 decision of whether they say yes,we do agree with you. We see there are, I think it was,five fatal
413 crashes, over 100 crashes in a 5-year period is to me that should be something. Whether
414 anybody's looked at that before, I'm happy to. I've done this before, mainly for schools that I work
415 on,just say, hey,we need a reduction in speed here. We're concerned about those. So,offering
416 that, if that's okay, is writing that letter. And I cannot guarantee you that that will happen. I can't
417 put that as a condition like we'll get a speed limit. I'm saying I can write that letter, like I have in
418 other instances, and submit that to NCDOT to hopefully address some of the crash issues.
419
420 Charity Kirk: Any number yet? I think I'm done with the traffic.
421
422 Josh Reinke: I'm sorry,what?
423
424 Charity Kirk: I think I'm done with the traffic.
425
426 Josh Reinke: Okay, okay.
427
428 Charity Kirk: Thank you.
429
430 Josh Reinke: Thank you.
431
432 Beth Trahos: Looks like he's calculating.
433
434 Charity Kirk: I asked a tougher question than I thought. So, the private property aspect, I think it's
435 commendable that you are willing to tentatively allow the cross-country team on the property. It
436 does sound like the school utilizes a nearby creek. Is that going to be impacted by that use? Is
437 the creek on their property, or is it on your property?
438
14
439 Beth Trahos: My understanding is that the current landowner allows the school to use many of the resources on
440 the property for the students. I do think they are out there at the creek and running on the site
441 today as a part of what they do at school. And so, obviously,we cannot allow that during the
442 construction process because of ongoing construction, but we are willing to allow that access to
443 the trails. The stream is in the open space on the property, and that open-space area will be
444 maintained almost, or a little more, actually,than half the site,so that would be an available
445 environmental amenity.
446
447 Charity Kirk: So,you would allow the students on the property, on the open-space portion of the property?
448 Because right now it sounds like you very much don't want anybody but the community
449 homeowners on the property.
450
451 Beth Trahos: Our initial concern was to do with liability for a small homeowner's association, and so what we
452 had included in the conditions is that we would make an offer to the school for them to have
453 access. Our condition relates to the trails because that was what was expressed to us as
454 something that was desirable. But that offer would include some commitment with regard to
455 liability waivers and that kind of things because, clearly,these would not be public, and a
456 homeowner's association couldn't take on that risk. But we would make that offer, and the terms
457 will be negotiated between those parties moving forward.
458
459 Charity Kirk: So,you would be willing to expand that to not just the cross-country team?
460
461 Chris Johnston: I think it's for the school, is it not?
462
463 Lamar Proctor: No,the condition specifically says the property owner shall offer limited access to the planned
464 trails to the Eno River Academy for use by students on the cross-country team, pursuant to an
465 agreement drafted by the landowner with an effective date after construction is complete. So, 1
466 read that as a commitment by the developer to enter into some good-faith agreement with Eno
467 River Academy to allow the students on the cross-country team to use the trails for running
468 purposes.
469
470
471 Beth Trahos: And that was what was asked.
472
473 Chris Johnston: But point of clarification, I mean, is this our place? Like are we,we're talking about an agreement
474 between two different organizations and groups, and we're asking it to be a condition as part of
475 the zoning request,and I'm not sure that that's-
476
477 Charity Kirk: Well,we haven't requested it.
478
479 Cy Stober: So, similar to the last application that involvement a commitment to negotiate with NCDO from, I'm
480 sorry,from this applicant for a different project that compelled them to negotiate with NCDOT on
481 unnecessary turn lanes, per their traffic study; this would be a commitment for them to initiate
482 negotiations with Eno River Academy for this shared use, but it doesn't,we cannot compel them to
483 come to agreement.
484
485 Charity Kirk: Right.
486
487 Donna Crowder: Just to let you know,we met with them on Friday afternoon for 4 hours, I think. We toured the
488 whole facility, and we talked with one of the guys that runs the cross-country thing. We found out
489 about their program,which they offer this to all the charter schools all over the state. They come
490 and use their trail system for regional meets. So very proud of that, and it's a very important part
491 of their culture. So,what we did is we talked to them and said why don't we, in our plans and in
492 our commitments,we said yeah,we'll provide this many linear feet of trail. It probably will not be
493 across a creek,simply because we don't want to impact wetlands and we don't want to impact
15
494 buffers. But wherever we put those trails,we're going to collaborate with them and make sure it's
495 the right distances, that they have a clear path that is the right length for their meet. And even to
496 the point we're redesigning where those trails are so they maybe could cut this loop off if it's too
497 long. They only need a mile.
498
499 Charity Kirk: Would you be willing to let your open space be available to school children as well for creek
500 exploration? Like as long during school hours or just with conditions negotiated with the school.
501
502 Donna Crowder: I think that that could be part of this agreement.
503
504 Charity Kirk: So not just the cross-country team? I hear the concern with the cross-country team, but I also
505 heard that there's other children that utilize those areas, and I mean, one of the things about this
506 rezoning is this open space that we value as a community,and so encouraging children to value it
507 too seems beneficial.
508
509 Donna Crowder: So,yes,and I don't know, that packet is very,very thick. But one of the things that we wanted to
510 do is put educational signs so that people can educate their kids and see the natural resources
511 and how ecology works, in general, so we are doing that. As far as negotiating whether or not the
512 open space would be available to them, again,to Cy's point,that's the HOA committing to a
513 different entity. We can try to work it out, but it may not be an agreement that can be reached.
514
515 Charity Kirk: Yes.
516
517 Donna Crowder: But we're willing to do that. And so,we want to share our open space with whoever needs it,
518 especially, as a kid that's all I did. I spent my days by the creek. That was where I was. So,we
519 don't have a problem with that. It's just, again, it's an agreement between,and whether or not we
520 can come to such terms. But certainly,that can be a consideration.
521
522 Charity Kirk: I'm not sure. I mean it's like it needs to be negotiated. Like how is it, can I just make a suggestion
523 as a planning board member and let it be, or could I make it a condition, or make an amendment
524 to make it a condition that they have a full discussion about using a certain amount of open space.
525 Have a negotiation with the school about during school time having the ability to go down to the
526 creek.
527
528 Lamar Proctor: Well, can I address this? I think, Charity,what you're looking at is Condition 7. And I think what 1
529 imagine you're thinking is to modify Condition 7 to say something like: The property owners shall
530 offer limited access to the planned trails and open space,which would be a modification, to the
531 Eno River Academy for use by students.
532
533 Charity Kirk: That would be perfect.
534
535 Beth Trahos: And we can make that change.
536
537 Charity Kirk: Okay.
538
539 Cy Stober: And for the purposes of this discussion, because the hearing is not tonight, all that we need from
540 the applicant is commitment in writing, agreement in writing to that condition in order for it to be a
541 condition of approval by the county, so this gets a little more complicated if it's the commissioners
542 within the hearing, but we have some time.
543
544 Beth Trahos: So,we could submit that updated condition in the morning?
545
546 Cy Stober: The sooner the better for our packet-assembly purposes for the commissioners and the hearing,
547 but yeah.
548
16
549 Beth Trahos: I can handwrite it tonight, but I can only get it to you typed out in the morning.
550
551 Cy Stober: Yeah,that's perfectly acceptable. We prefer to have it in how you've already formatted it. That
552 would be great.
553
554 Beth Trahos: Sure.
555
556 Lamar Proctor: So,would that be, if once we get through questions and discussion,would that be a motion to
557 approve the statement of consistency with the amendment to Condition 7?
558
559 Cy Stober: If it's agreeable to the board.
560
561 Lamar Proctor: Okay. All right.
562
563 Chris Johnston: I don't mean to continue being a stick in the mud here, but Condition 7 says, "Shall offer limited
564 access to planned trails for students on the cross-country team,"so that's a very specific thing.
565 But now, now what Condition 7 is going to say is, "All the kids from Eno River Academy can utilize
566 the open space and trails".
567
568 Charity Kirk: Limited access.
569
570 Lamar Proctor: Pursuant to an agreement drafted by the landowner. So, I think that the only reasonable
571 interpretation is that is just their commitment to a good-faith effort to have those discussions with
572 Eno River Academy to see if they can come to an agreement.
573
574 Chris Johnston: Okay, so that isn't how it reads to me, and to me,that says"shall offer limited access". And so, if
575 we're saying they need to have a discussion and come to an agreement or whatever, I think we
576 should be clear about that. Because what it looks like right now is"shall offer limited access". 1
577 might be misunderstanding that, and I apologize.
578
579 Cy Stober: Yeah, I think, my reading of it is that the verb"offer" means that that offer can be accepted or not,
580 and we're just expanding the scope of the offer.
581
582 Lamar Proctor: I would agree with that.
583
584 Chris Johnston: I'm not a lawyer, but if I've got two of them saying something.
585
586 Charity Kirk: Agreed.
587
588 Statler Gilfillen: Very minor technical issue with the language. When you say just students, I'd like to stay students
589 and teachers or something to that.
590
591 Beth Trahos: Sure.
592
593 Statler Gilfillen: So,that if three teachers want to go out there before the students and it's only three teachers,
594 technically, under what was proposed,would not be permitted.
595
596 Beth Trahos: Sure. Yes,sir.
597
598 Statler Gilfillen: So,the language should, I think, be open enough.
599
600 Beth Trahos: Yeah, students and faculty.
601
602 Statler Gilfillen: Good.
603
17
604 Charity Kirk: All right, I see maybe the numbers guy.
605
606 Beth Trahos: Oh, sorry.
607
608 Don Sever: Good evening. Don Sever with Bowman Consulting. We have approximately 10 percent of the
609 sites in riparian buffers. That's around 8 acres.
610
611 Charity Kirk: Okay, so around 8 acres.
612
613 Beth Trahos: Seventy remaining acres.
614
615 Charity Kirk: So that would be, so really,you can build probably 70 houses on it. Okay. Thank you. Thank
616 you very much. I know that was an ask. I didn't realize.
617
618 Beth Trahos: Not a problem.
619
620 Charity Kirk: Yes. I think I'm done. Thank you.
621
622 Lamar Proctor: Liz, do you want to ask any questions of the applicant? I don't think you were here last time.
623
624 Liz Kalies: Oh yeah, thanks.The only question I had is how many acres of trees will be cleared for the
625 project? Just asking the inverse of what you are leaving behind, I guess.
626
627 Beth Trahos: So, again I will ask Don to tell us the number.
628
629 Donna Crowder: I just want to add just so you know that this, because of the nature of this kind of subdivision,we
630 will only clear the roads. It will not be mass cleared. And I know that's a concern for a lot of
631 people, but it will only be cleared enough to get the roads in there and then enough to put the
632 houses and the main drain field, the primary drain field. The repair fields will not be cleared. That
633 is the only clearing that will take place by us. Just to let you know that.
634
635 Liz Kalies: Okay,yeah, that's getting at my question for sure.
636
637 Don Sever: And as far as tree protection goes,we have 22 acres in primary tree protection area and 27 acres
638 in secondary tree protection area,to be a total of 49 acres or 62 percent.
639
640 Liz Kalies: 60 percent remaining?Okay. All right,thanks.
641
642 Lamar Proctor: And how do you distinguish between primary and secondary? Like primary means we aren't
643 touching it; secondary means we'll take down things that are certain diameters? Is that how that
644 works?
645
646 Beth Trahos: It's a code definition. Primary and secondary is a UDO definition that we may not know off the top
647 off our heads.
648
649 Charity Kirk: I didn't get the number either. What was the answer to the question?
650
651 Don Sever: The answer is 63 acres are going to be left in tree preservation.
652
653 Taylor Perschau: Is the question about how much is being disturbed?Could you repeat the question maybe?
654
655 Lamar Proctor: That was Liz's question.
656
657 Liz Kalies: My original question was how many acres are being cleared. How many are left works too.
658
18
659 Don Sever: Okay, so the total property is 78 acres. And we're going to protect 49 acres, so that'll remain 29
660 acres.
661
662 Liz Kalies: Okay. Twenty-nine acres will be cleared.
663
664 Beth Trahos: Well, not necessarily cleared.
665
666 Beth Bronson: Theoretically.
667
668 Beth Trahos: 29 acres won't be in tree-save area. Right?
669
670 Don Sever: That's correct.
671
672 Beth Bronson: Right. Okay. So about 50, almost 50 lots at half an acre,and that would be like, again,to clear
673 the primary drain field and to lay the foundation of the house,there may or may not be room for
674 trees to be left, but again, as you said,this is going to be up to the homeowner once they
675 purchase the lot to build. Then they will clear any remaining on their specific parcel.
676
677 Charity Kirk: I think it's the developer that's going to build.
678
679 Beth Trahos: Likely a builder would build the individual homes and sell them to a homeowner.
680
681 Beth Bronson: Yes.
682
683 Beth Trahos: But in the development process, all that will be done is to input the roads and provide a buildable
684 area for a house and for a septic field.
685
686 Charity Kirk: So,you're doing that?
687
688 Beth Trahos: Yes,the developer does that. Yes, ma'am.
689
690 Charity Kirk: Okay.
691
692 Beth Bronson: And you're saying that that's going to average about 29-30 acres?
693
694 Beth Trahos: That's all that's available, right?
695
696 Don Sever: That's all that's available.
697
698 Beth Bronson: Okay.
699
700 Beth Trahos: So not all of that would be cleared, but that could be.
701
702 Beth Bronson: So less, yeah, 29 or less.
703
704 Beth Trahos: Yeah.
705
706 Taylor Perschau: If I may I think it might be helpful for answering this, actually,so when we're talking about clearing,
707 and this might help you get a different answer too, Don, but land clearing when we're talking about
708 right now a concept plan,the acreage of disturbance would be calculated with the construction
709 drawing set. This project will be considered a common plan of development. And it will require a
710 stormwater management plan. If we have questions on that,we can ask the county engineer.
711 That's usually the point at which the acreage for clearing, the erosion control plans, and the
712 construction set, and the stormwater management plan are brought in. So,the 29 acres is not, I'm
713 not the developer, but that wouldn't be my answer. If I were a developer, I think this, like the
19
714 answer that's appropriate for the developer is the clearing plan for the road at the moment,and
715 then of course in that, since they've answered for,they'll be responsible for clearing for septic.
716 Septic clearance is not calculation in the land-disturbance calculations that go towards erosion
717 control and stormwater considerations.
718
719 Liz Kalies: Okay.
720
721 Cy Stober: And I don't want to answer a question that wasn't asked, but I thought I heard a question about the
722 difference between primary and secondary open space? Okay. Primary open space is generally,
723 it's identified by the county, and it's generally the most sensitive areas of the county's
724 environmental assets, so the 100-year and 500-year floodplains,the wetlands,the steep slopes,
725 which are slopes over 15 percent in grade, and then any areas that have been identified by the
726 county, in addition to the state,as having cultural or environmental value. So, there's a natural
727 heritage inventory dataset, but there's also cultural resources that Peter Sandbeck has identified
728 countywide that are within those resource protection areas and public interest areas that are on
729 properties. And those are generally the primary open space. Secondary open space includes
730 some recreational features, so that would include the trails,which there will need to be clearing for
731 those trails, I want to be clear about that, some minimal clearing unless there are already open,
732 cleared areas. But those are permitted as secondary open space. But also, less steep slopes,so
733 slopes between 8 and 15 percent, and then the riparian buffers are primary open space, but then
734 there's additional kind of natural features that are seen as secondary open space, but that's kind
735 of the broad overview.
736
737 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
738 the slideshow, right?
739
740 Beth Trahos: It is,yeah.
741
742 Lamar Proctor: Just to get a visual for the board.
743
744 Beth Trahos: Yes, and this is the same slideshow that we had for September 3rd.
745
746 Lamar Proctor: Yeah.
747
748 Beth Trahos: So,we can go to whatever pages you want to reference again, but this is it. Is that what you
749 wanted?
750
751 Lamar Proctor: Yes.
752
753 Beth Trahos: Okay.
754
755 Lamar Proctor: All right, Liz, did you have any other questions for the applicant?
756
757 Liz Kalies: No, I'm good. Thank you.
758
759 Lamar Proctor: Okay. Do any other board members have any additional questions for the applicant? Beth, I see
760 you raising your hand.
761
762 Beth Bronson: Yes. If anybody else would like to go, I'm more than welcome to wait. Thanks. And this may also
763 be well answered by with traffic. This is in relation to traffic. I want to thank you for the proposed
764 development entry egress, and then the updated notes on numbers dated September 27th, so this
765 would have been after our meeting. And you are, as you said, revised numbers about the daily
766 trips based on the bedrooms or the available cars.
767
768 Charity Kirk: This isn't his document.
20
769
770 Beth Bronson: Not their document.
771
772 Lamar Proctor: This is Cathy's.
773
774 Josh Reinke: This is where I was saying it's kind of cobbling bits and pieces, and I'm not allowed to do that,
775 being a professional.
776
777 Beth Bronson: This is not yours?
778
779 Josh Reinke: No, no, no.
780
781 Lamar Proctor: This is Cathy Owens was one of the public speakers last time she's here, and she emailed this to
782 us.
783
784 Beth Bronson: Okay. I did not hear that announced at the start of the meeting. Okay,so your traffic numbers
785 stand at the 524?
786
787 Josh Reinke: Correct. And the reason I say is, I mean, I read that thoroughly and I understand. And it's I like
788 the research and everything about it.
789
790 Beth Bronson: I'm understanding this much more now,yes.
791
792 Josh Reinke: I'm saying there are guidelines I have to follow, being a professional engineer and things like that.
793 And there were things that come into play there where just because you have more bedrooms
794 doesn't necessarily mean you have more cars. And this is a study that's done so you can't take
795 maybe census numbers and traffic numbers and take bits and pieces is there's a reason. NCDOT
796 puts a lot of thought into this and comes up with, every time there's a new manual,they say here
797 are your guidelines of how you have to follow this because we feel this is closest.
798
799 Beth Bronson: Thank you. And thank you to Ms. Owens for including this. I'm glad that you were provided a
800 copy as well to look over. That is great. I will say that what you were speaking about earlier was a
801 willingness to, not petition but to write a petition to the DOT.
802
803 Josh Reinke: That's pretty much what it is. It's putting together a letter saying we're requesting for these
804 reasons. And I've done this a number of times, primarily for schools. Schools are an easier one,
805 but I think crashes are another one where you could say here's a concern of ours. We present it
806 to DOT. They review it in different groups, division and higher, and then they say we agree with
807 the logic behind why that is,and we will, or we will not,for whatever reasons. And that's why I'm
808 happy to write the letter. I think the team is supportive of that. I just can't promise the outcome of
809 that.
810
811 Beth Bronson: Certainly. Same as any other negotiation or any other condition that we don't have control over.
812
813 Josh Reinke: Right.
814
815 Beth Bronson: But I think it's the intention there, right, because a lot of the comments that we've heard from the
816 surrounding residents and a lot of the concerns that the planning board members have do
817 surround not necessarily the impact from this project.
818
819 Josh Reinke: Right, it's an existing it's an existing issue.
820
821 Beth Bronson: Exactly. And so, and the same is in good faith, I think,that a letter to the DOT and to the West
822 Orange MPO where you,you know, and you make Hillsborough and the county aware that this is
823 what you are petitioning for them. Being able to cite the many factors that not even necessarily
21
824 that are anecdotal but that are factual, right, is that the lower number versus the high,the upper
825 limit that you might be able to you have for your traffic study. And while a TIA is not required, it
826 would absolutely behoove DOT to review that failing intersection and/or the surrounding areas
827 because of the blind spots, because of the speed zones, and the difference of 45 and 55 is
828 significant.
829
830 Josh Reinke: Yeah.
831
832 Beth Bronson: Because, yeah, going 65 in a 45 is not as common as going 65 in a 55. There's obviously not
833 much you can do about that, but I think that, again, this letter to the DOT would go a long way
834 during the beginning of this process to bring into that consideration.
835
836 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
837 have funds for spot safety studies, so if you feel there is an intersection,and this would not be a
838 developer, this would be municipalities, counties, stuff like that, say here's a concern of ours. We
839 know you have a pot of money. And they do a ranking system of how that ranks compared to
840 other ones that are requesting that, but that is something, if there are intersections around there
841 that you say they're an issue,and that's what we're hearing is they're an issue. It's not because of
842 this development, it's they're already an issue, is there are mechanisms where it can increase the
843 chances because there isn't anything on the TIP plans for improvements at those, but it could be
844 saying, hey,we have these safety concerns, and we as a community are putting that out there.
845
846 Beth Bronson: I think that's exactly right.
847
848 Josh Reinke: So just throwing that out as a recommendation also is that is another way to possibly improve
849 safety around there.
850
851 Beth Bronson: You took the words right out of my mouth as far as wanting to offer an additional condition to this.
852 And I think, again, because of the spot study funding.
853
854 Josh Reinke: Well, now,we can't do anything with that. That would be municipality, county,those sorts of
855 things.
856
857 Beth Bronson: No, no, no, but just writing the letter, a condition to write, to include the letter to DOT in this
858 process. I think that would be something that I might propose as far as to meet the
859 accommodations of, or to meet the concerns in the capacity that we can, right?
860
861 Josh Reinke: Right, safety concerns.
862
863 Beth Bronson: As the planning board and as the developer,as the applicant, I think that that's this right now is
864 what I can think of. But I think including DOT but also to the MPO that that's something that they
865 can focus on because, again,there is no planned improvements on that intersection over the next
866 10 years. This would go a long way to getting visibility of this area. And I think that as the
867 applicant, I think that's a great move.
868
869 Josh Reinke: And once again, the letter, I want to be clear, is it can address, generally,there's safety concerns,
870 crash history,with the speed-limit reduction. It's not going to dive into this intersection or anything
871 like that. It's just generally.
872
873 Beth Bronson: No, no, no,just the just the speed limit right in front of the ingress,egress. That's what I'm asking.
874
875 Josh Reinke: Well, and it would probably be, to be honest, it would probably be bringing it into town. Once you
876 start to slow it down, keep it going because you have people accessing the school. We heard that
877 last time is here's where they cut across to get there, and then you're close to downtown. And you
878 probably do want to just keep it slower throughout there.
22
879
880 Beth Bronson: Absolutely. And because you would be much better situated to do that.
881
882 Josh Reinke: Because otherwise it does look like, and that's why I'm like, it's easier for a municipality or county
883 because, otherwise, developers might be like,well, I'm building this, and I want to slow down
884 traffic right in front of me so that it's more visibility or something like that.
885
886 Beth Bronson: Absolutely,yeah.
887
888 Josh Reinke: So,we'll recommend and say probably bringing it all the way.
889
890 Beth Bronson: Within your bounds,yeah, absolutely.
891
892 Josh Reinke: Sounds good.
893
894 Beth Bronson: And to the resident that was able to put this together and do their own research, I highly
895 recommend that they also pass this off to District 7. As a resident who is local to that area,they
896 have the power to send this document off to District 7.
897
898 Josh Reinke: Yeah,to Chuck.
899
900 Beth Bronson: Yeah,to Chuck Edwards.And to explain their own concerns for their community.
901
902 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
903 people that are interested like that. Like I said,we did have our surveyor go out there, do all that.
904 All that stuff is in there,which is then, I don't want to say more professional, but what DOT is going
905 to require to look at site distance.
906
907 Beth Bronson: Absolutely. Well,thank you so much. I ready appreciate it.
908
909 Josh Reinke: No problem. Thank you.
910
911 Beth Bronson: Thank you for that clarification and for your willingness to get onboard with that.
912
913 Josh Reinke: You got it. Thank you.
914
915 Beth Bronson: Yeah. And then I guess the only other question I had from the last meeting had to do with the
916 water service from Hillsborough and the reconsideration, maybe, of initiating further discussion on
917 water-only service. Do you know where Hillsborough stands as of September 30th, today,with
918 regards to water-only service?
919
920 Beth Trahos: Well, I didn't talk to anybody at Hillsborough today. However, in their review of this site,they did
921 offer that they would consider extending water here,water only, if we would like. And so,we took
922 that as good news, and we have added the commitment that we ask them for that water and, if
923 they give it to us,that we use it, provided we can get the water lines to the site. So,we got water.
924
925 Beth Bronson: I really appreciate that consideration. Yeah, thank you for adding that condition. I think that also
926 addresses a lot of concerns that the surrounding community has about such a large well and the
927 ability to service so many homes on a community system.
928
929 Charity Kirk: On that point, I thought we approving it means that we will accept it if they have to do a well,
930 though.
931
932 Beth Bronson: Either way.
933
23
934 Charity Kirk: Okay.
935
936 Beth Bronson: There's only so much that we can have control over. And in the sense that you wouldn't want this
937 to be built if it meant that there would be a well,then that would be at the discretion of each board
938 member voting, is my understanding of that. And the other condition is that no homes will contain
939 more than four bedrooms, and that means that not all homes will be four bedrooms, or is the goal
940 for all homes to be four bedrooms?
941
942 Beth Trahos: No,that's just the max, and really,we put that in related to the septic system. We also said and,
943 you know,the septic systems would be designed for four-bedroom homes, so even if there's fewer
944 than four bedrooms, there will be a septic system designed for a four-bedroom home,and so we
945 just put those in so that they would correlate, so you would know that would be a max.
946
947 Beth Bronson: No, I appreciate that. Okay.
948
949 Statler Gilfillen: Is there a maximum number of bathrooms?
950
951 Beth Trahos: No, sir.
952
953 Statler Gilfillen: Because a bedroom can be, as an architect, can be an ambiguous term.
954
955 Beth Trahos: Sure.
956
957 Lamar Proctor: All right. Statler,go ahead. You had a question?
958
959 Statler Gilfillen: On your comment about septic systems, developer bears the risk of losing developability if it
960 doesn't work.
961
962 Beth Trahos: Mm hmm.
963
964 Statler Gilfillen: The next question would be property. House gets built; couple years later, it's sold to somebody
965 else; a few years later, sold to somebody else. Now, the landscaping on a lot this small,with a
966 septic system built in, can make a difference of whether that septic system will work or not. What
967 controls are you going to build in,whether it's the association or what, that will control that so
968 some homeowner doesn't put a weeping willow right in the back of the property next to his owner,
969 which could affect two systems or something? Is there any thought about making sure that the
970 language controls so that these systems keep working properly?
971
972 Beth Trahos: Sure. Well, one thing I would say is that there'll be a septic system on each lot, so you would, in
973 terms of planting a weeping willow, you could only plant a tree on your own lot, not on your
974 neighbor's.
975
976 Statler Gilfillen: But if the septic systems are very close to the property lines and you put a tree like that right
977 close, it can affect both sides with the root system.
978
979 Beth Trahos: I will turn to the expert.
980
981 Statler Gilfillen: The question I'm asking,what precautions are you building in to protect each of the homeowners
982 and make sure these systems keep working and you don't get a rogue homeowner putting
983 landscaping in that could be negative?
984
985 Beth Trahos: I would say the homeowner's association documents have not yet been drafted, but I think that's a
986 useful comment and something that we'll make a note of, as those documents are being put
987 together, to acknowledge that there are septic systems. And currently folks would know as they
988 were buying the homes, but I do think that for posterity's sake that that makes sense.
24
989
990 Laura Haywood: I'm Laura Haywood. I just wanted to point out,too,that with your concern the ARC that we would
991 include in our HOA documents,we would be able to put conditions like that where the HOA is
992 going to restrict and limit. It's my understanding that as far as this application is concerned, that
993 right now, as far as a condition is concerned, can't be accepted because it would be overseen by
994 the HOA. So, but that's how we would address that in the ARCs.
995
996 Statler Gilfillen: I would only like to add not only in the comments there, but in the comments, making sure that it's
997 enforceable.
998
999 Laura Haywood: Absolutely.
1000
1001 Statler Gilfillen: Okay.
1002
1003 Beth Bronson: Just to build off of what she is saying, in the sense that this is for a zoning atlas amendment and
1004 not for the subdivision itself?
1005
1006 Cy Stober: Correct.
1007
1008 Beth Bronson: Okay.
1009
1010 Cy Stober: So civil matters are not managed. HOA matters are not regulated by the county. We do have
1011 subdivision regulations. Those will need to be complied by this applicant, as this is a zoning atlas
1012 amendment, and any conditions that are offered today for any relief from the county standards
1013 from either the subdivision standards or our site plan standards or other use standards would
1014 need to be included as a condition. Otherwise, all of those regulations must be complied with,
1015 including all subdivision regulations.
1016
1017 Beth Bronson: Right,thank you. And, again,just to clarify for the board and for residents that this is for the
1018 rezoning from agricultural-residential to a higher density parcel -
1019
1020 Cy Stober: No.
1021
1022 Beth Bronson: Right?
1023
1024 Cy Stober: No.
1025
1026 Beth Bronson: No? Sorry.
1027
1028 Cy Stober: So, it's for 49 lots on a 78-acre property, but it's in a conservation cluster land-use pattern,which
1029 allows for lots, in this case, as small as 20,000 square feet.
1030
1031 Beth Bronson: True. So, it doesn't actually change agricultural. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
1032
1033 David Barcal: And,the septic systems, by rule, can't be any closer than 10 feet to a property line, so you would
1034 in theory have a minimum 20 feet separation between septic systems,so.
1035
1036 Statler Gilfillen: Thank you.
1037
1038 Lamar Proctor: Are there any other questions for the applicant? Hearing none, are there, is there any discussion?
1039 1 will just start by saying that it's clear that it's that intersection has traffic concerns and will
1040 continue to have traffic concerns, so I recognize that. But what I also do recognize is that that
1041 property that this conditional zoning atlas amendment does develop the property in a responsible
1042 way that with lower density than allowed by the agricultural-residential zoning. It does seem to be
1043 a responsible way to develop the property and maintain some open spaces, and I appreciate their
25
1044 good-faith effort to work Eno Academy to potentially reach an agreement with them in terms of
1045 continued use of the property by Eno Academy students. So, I don't know if anyone has any
1046 discussion or anything they'd like to say before we move into a vote on this.
1047
1048 Beth Bronson: I would like to offer an additional condition. As I was speaking regarding the petition to the DOT
1049 and the West Orange MPO for a spot study and for a review of the area, either speed limits, safety
1050 concerns, and/or intersections.
1051
1052 Lamar Proctor: I drafted a proposed additional condition for that concern: Property owners shall write a letter to
1053 DOT about traffic safety concerns. Is there additional language or modification?
1054
1055 Chris Johnston: I think there was,wasn't there a specific wording that you have to use in regard to what this is and
1056 what this is not?
1057
1058 Josh Reinke: So, it would be a speed-limit reduction, and that's why it keeps scaring me. I can mention
1059 generally safety concerns. It wouldn't appropriate in this letter to mention the spot safety study.
1060
1061 Beth Bronson: Okay. No,yeah. I apologize.
1062
1063 Josh Reinke: That's essentially requesting funding from them,saying here's this issue and it would be different
1064 and come from municipalities,so speed-limit reduction, I'm okay with that saying it is a letter
1065 requesting a speed-limit reduction. That I can put together and incorporate the MPO or the
1066 county,whoever else. Just make sure, because I feel that if they support that, it helps it all the
1067 more is me personally writing it. They're like,well,you're working on behalf of a developer. And
1068 they say here's a whole community that does agree with this. I think it holds more weight and will
1069 make it more likely.
1070
1071 Cy Stober: And for the purposes of the record, I'd like to ask the speaker just to reaffirm that spot candidates
1072 can only be submitted by units of local government or authorities of local government.
1073
1074 Josh Reinke: Correct. Right.
1075
1076 Beth Bronson: Okay.
1077
1078 Chris Johnston: And when you say local government, are we talking municipalities? Are we talking counties?
1079
1080 Cy Stober: Both.
1081
1082 Chris Johnston: Okay.
1083
1084 Cy Stober: Yeah.
1085
1086 Chris Johnston: Just making sure.
1087
1088 Charity Kirk: Do we get to ask you to do it? Can we ask you to do it?
1089
1090 Cy Stober: Not as a condition of approval for the candidate. But yes, I was going to offer that after the vote
1091 was taken. I'm happy to coordinate with the transportation director. We meet quarterly with DOT.
1092 We have a quarterly luncheon with DOT that the county hosts. It's a very productive conversation.
1093 And then we also have the out-board that the transportation director serves and can relay that.
1094
1095 Charity Kirk: So, after we're done with this,we need to do what?
1096
1097 Cy Stober: It'd be an item of new business we would take up at the end of the meeting for discussion about
1098 asking the planning director to take action.
26
1099
1100 Chris Johnston: Again, to confirm, so the DOT still hasn't completed whatever work they need to do. There are
1101 additional steps that DOT is going to take, may take, is going to do request of the applicant, or
1102 whatever the case may be, and so just to confirm, though we are putting these conditions forth or
1103 whatever, DOT still has to take this through the ringer.
1104
1105 Josh Reinke: Correct, yes.
1106
1107 Chris Johnston: And so there may be additional steps that occur here where the applicant is required to do X,Y,
1108 and Z in order to actually have this built.
1109
1110 Josh Reinke: Yeah, correct,for the driveway permit to get access to the site,which you're not going to build a
1111 site if you don't have access.
1112
1113 Chris Johnston: But we won't have prior knowledge to that until the actual application goes through the process.
1114 Okay.
1115
1116 Lamar Proctor: Beth,what is the MPO?
1117
1118 Cy Stober: And,for a point of correction, it's the Triangle West Metropolitan Planning Organization.
1119
1120 Beth Bronson: Triangle West,thank you not Orange West.
1121
1122 Cy Stober: So, I can do a deep dive on that another time but suffice it to say it's a regional organization
1123 representing local governments for transportation planning needs and to advocate for federal
1124 funds.
1125
1126 Lamar Proctor: So,the proposed condition would be: Property owners shall write a letter to DOT and Triangle
1127 West MPO, requesting a speed-limit reduction?
1128
1129 Beth Bronson: Yes. Yes,your wording seems much more concise.
1130
1131 Josh Reinke: So,we can copy anybody you want me to copy. But it would be to NCDOT.
1132
1133 Beth Bronson: NCDOT.
1134
1135 Josh Reinke: Then copy whoever.
1136
1137 Lamar Proctor: NCDOT, okay.
1138
1139 Beth Bronson: To include,yes. And then, again,just a condition to include Triangle West MPO and Hillsborough.
1140 This would be a motion when we're done discussing it to add the condition.
1141
1142 Charity Kirk: So, should we add these amendments to the amendments now, or should we just include it?
1143
1144 Lamar Proctor: Well,what I was going to do, I mean, if someone has an opposition to adding that condition, 1
1145 would ask that you go ahead and discuss it because I think the most efficient way would be for us
1146 to discuss what conditions we want to add or modify and then do a motion to approve with those
1147 additional conditions.
1148
1149 Charity Kirk: Okay,thank you.
1150
1151 Venkat Yendapalli: Chair, I thought we vote on those conditions first. We want to adapt those conditions into the
1152 approval or not? Isn't that we followed in the past meetings?
1153
27
1154 Lamar Proctor: We can do either.
1155
1156 Charity Kirk: What would you prefer?
1157
1158 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
1159 at the end.
1160
1161 Charity Kirk: So, should we vote on each condition now, or is there more discussion?
1162
1163 Venkat Yendapalli: After the discussion is over, I propose that we vote because that's the chair's process. I'm
1164 refreshing from past meetings.
1165
1166 Lamar Proctor: Well,we can, yeah,we can do it that way too. Thank you. We could have our discussion and
1167 then we could, I will entertain a motion in a second to modify Condition 7 to read: The property
1168 owner shall offer limited access to the planned trails and open space to the Eno River Academy
1169 for use by students and faculty, pursuant to an agreement drafted by the landowner with an
1170 effective date after construction is complete. And then an additional condition: Property owner
1171 shall write a letter to DOT requesting a speed-limit reduction. Right?
1172
1173 Charity Kirk: Yeah.
1174
1175 Chris Johnston: Those are two separate ones, right?
1176
1177 Lamar Proctor: Those are two separate, so we'll vote on those separately as to whether we want to add those
1178 conditions. And I do agree with Venkat,that's more because then if somebody doesn't want one
1179 condition but wants the other,then we're going to have to separate them out anyway, so that
1180 seems more efficient way to proceed. Are there any other conditions or modifications that y'all
1181 want to discuss before I move into taking votes?
1182
1183 Chris Johnston: I did have just a quick question or two in regard to some of the conditions that were already
1184 offered in regard to things such as the sculptural art and seating opportunities. Are these
1185 required? Like is this something that we need to have in these conditions as, or are these just
1186 being offered? Like—yes,yes, okay.
1187
1188 Taylor Perschau: Being offered.
1189
1190 Chris Johnston: They're being offered.
1191
1192 Beth Bronson: They've created their own conditions.
1193
1194 Chris Johnston: Sure. I guess 1,well, I guess what I'm asking is, is it relevant to the requests? Right? That
1195 there's sculptural art,three seating opportunities. Like is that in—
1196
1197 Cy Stober: It offers character to the recreational amenities but no, it's not necessary.
1198
1199 Chris Johnston: Okay. Thank you.
1200
1201 Lamar Proctor: Any other discussion? So, I'll entertain a motion to modify Condition 7.
1202
1203 Charity Kirk: I make a motion to modify Condition 7 to state: The property owner shall offer limited access to
1204 planned trails and open space to the Eno River Academy for use by students, pursuant to an
1205 agreement drafted by the landowner—well,students and faculty—pursuant to an agreement
1206 drafted by the landowner with an effective date after construction is complete.
1207
1208 Lamar Proctor: All right. Do I hear a second?
28
1209
1210 Statler Gilfillen: I'll second.
1211
1212 Lamar Proctor: Statler seconds. All in favor of modifying that condition, raise your hand or say aye.
1213
1214 Liz Kalies: We took out the cross-country team, right?
1215
1216 Charity Kirk: Yes.
1217
1218 Lamar Proctor: We just said,we did that, I think, because we were trying to open it up to more than just the cross-
1219 country team.
1220
1221 Liz Kalies: Okay.
1222
1223 Charity Kirk: Students and faculty.
1224
1225 Beth Bronson: Or staff.
1226
1227 Lamar Proctor: So,what, you think they're going to renege on that later and then say well,we didn't agree to
1228 them.
1229
1230 Liz Kalies: No, no, I just it's a very specific use,that's all,the cross-country team.
1231
1232 Charity Kirk: Well,we're modifying that now.
1233
1234 Liz Kalies: Yeah. Okay.
1235
1236 Venkat Yendapalli: That's what, actually the school requested for cross country. Its current use is by the cross-
1237 country program, and they wanted to continue the cross-country program. The school director
1238 was here last meeting. She presented to us. I just want to refresh what happened last time.
1239
1240 Charity Kirk: Do you want a separate.
1241
1242 Liz Kalies: Can we just say and cross-country team? Can the words"cross-country team"just still be in
1243 there?
1244
1245 Charity Kirk: Okay, sure.
1246
1247 Liz Kalies: Just to make sure.
1248
1249 Lamar Proctor: Students and faculty, including the cross-country team.
1250
1251 Charity Kirk: Yeah, so I make a new amendment that says: The property owner shall offer limited access to the
1252 planned trails and open space to the Eno River Academy for use by students, staff and faculty,
1253 including the cross-country team, pursuant to an agreement drafted by the landowner with an
1254 effective date after construction is complete.
1255
1256 Lamar Proctor: Do I have a second?
1257
1258 Liz Kalies: I'll second.
1259
1260 Lamar Proctor: All right, Liz seconds. All in favor of that amendment, raise your hand and say aye. All those
1261 opposed?
1262
1263 MOTION BY Charity Kirk to modify condition 7. Seconded by Liz Kalies.
29
1264
1265 MOTION PASSED 8-1: Chris Johnston opposed.
1266
1267 Lamar Proctor: And does he have to state his—no, all right. So that motion carries. How many of us are there,
1268 nine now?
1269
1270 Cy Stober: Yeah.
1271
1272 Lamar Proctor: So, eight to one,so that condition has been modified. And then I'll make a motion to add
1273 Condition 14 that the property owner shall write a letter to North Carolina DOT.
1274
1275 Charity Kirk: Well, it's the developers, right? They're not the property owners yet,the developers.
1276
1277 Lamar Proctor: Okay.
1278
1279 Cy Stober: "The applicant"would be helpful.
1280
1281 Lamar Proctor: Applicant.
1282
1283 Charity Kirk: Applicant.
1284
1285 Beth Trahos: I have used the term property owner throughout because the conditions apply to the landowner,
1286 and that just makes it run with the land, so that would be my preference but whichever.
1287
1288 Charity Kirk: The property owner?The property owner is your preference?
1289
1290 Cy Stober: I have no problem with that.
1291
1292 Charity Kirk: Okay.
1293
1294 Lamar Proctor: Okay. I was just being consistent with the language that was used. So, are y'all cool with
1295 property owner?
1296
1297 Charity Kirk: Yeah,that's fine.
1298
1299 Lamar Proctor: Okay, so I make a motion to add Condition 14 that the property owner shall write a letter to North
1300 Carolina DOT requesting a speed-limit reduction. Do I have a second?
1301
1302 Beth Bronson: I will second that.
1303
1304 Lamar Proctor: All right, Beth seconds. All in favor of adding that condition raise your hand.
1305
1306 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to create condition 14. Seconded by Beth Bronson.
1307
1308 MOTION PASSED 8-1:Venkat Yendapalli opposed.
1309
1310 Lamar Proctor: So, eight. All those opposed? Venkat's opposed, so once again eight to one to add that
1311 condition. So,the next motion would be a motion to adopt the statement of consistency.Which
1312 attachment number is it currently? I don't remember.
1313
1314 Beth Bronson: It was Attachment 7.
1315
1316 Lamar Proctor: That's what I remember.
1317
1318 Beth Bronson: That was the draft ordinance approving it.
30
1319
1320 Cy Stober: Just one moment.
1321
1322 Beth Bronson: It'd be Attachment 6?
1323
1324 Cy Stober: That's correct. And the proposed ordinance as Attachment 7.
1325
1326 Lamar Proctor: Okay, so it's Attachment 6?
1327
1328 Beth Bronson: And then we just need to reference the amended conditions?
1329
1330 Lamar Proctor: Yeah,yeah.
1331
1332 Cy Stober: In the September packet it's Attachment 6, and Attachment 7 is the ordinance.
1333
1334 Lamar Proctor: Okay. So, I'll make a motion to adopt the statement of consistency in Attachment 6 from the
1335 September packet with the conditions as previously modified and added. Do I have a second?
1336
1337 Statler Gilfillen: I'll second that.
1338
1339 Lamar Proctor: All right, Statler seconds. All those in favor of adopting the statement of consistency with the
1340 modified and added conditions, raise your hand or say aye.
1341
1342 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the statement of consistency. Seconded by Statler Gilfillen.
1343
1344 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
1345
1346 Lamar Proctor: And it appears to be unanimous, so we've, so that's approved and recommended to the board of
1347 county commissioners,the statement of consistency.
1348
1349 Cy Stober: Correct. And the public hearing to consider the matter will be, is currently proposed for November
1350 6th,which is a Thursday, not a Tuesday as is the typical convention of the commissioners.
1351
1352 Lamar Proctor: All right. Well,thank you very much,everyone. I thought that went really well and very efficiently.
1353
1354 The Board recessed for 5 minutes. Returning at 8:23 pm.
1355
1356 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT-IMPERVIOUS SURFACES,WATERSHED
1357 PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS,AND STREAM BUFFERS-To review and make a recommendation
1358 to the BOCC on Planning Director-initiated amendments to the LIDO pertaining to impervious
1359 surfaces,watershed protection overlay districts,and stream buffers. The anticipated BOCC public
1360 hearing date is November 6, 2025. This item was on the September 3,2025, agenda but was not
1361 discussed and tabled to the October meeting date.
1362
1363 Lamar Proctor: All right, let's return back to order so we can get through Agenda Item 8, unified development
1364 ordinance text amendment: Impervious surfaces watershed protection, overlay districts, and
1365 stream buffers. Chris?
1366
1367 Christopher Sandt: Good evening. I'm Christopher Sandt. I'm your county engineer here in the planning and
1368 inspection department. As you recall, I think that most of you were here for the July 9th ORC. 1
1369 see a couple of new faces, so I can't go through it at lightning speed. But I am here today to
1370 present some straightforward proposed UDO text amendments. Now, the title of my presentation
1371 is a little deceiving. It's big words in there. It might look a little scary, but I assure you we are not
1372 altering the basis of what we stand for here in the county,which is protection of our streams and
1373 reservoirs. We're simply reacting to some recently passed state law and then just responding to
31
1374 constituents and just the workability of our unified development ordinance. We're always looking
1375 to improve it. It's a living document. It's not perfect,so that's what these amendments are for.
1376 So, kind of the main reason we are here today is it's,well, not so recent anymore, but end of 2023,
1377 Regulatory Reform Act of 2024 was passed by the state, and that included some pretty specific
1378 clarifications related to our watershed protection overlay districts. And I'll get into them up here
1379 shortly because I know a couple of you weren't at the last presentation. So specific, so we have
1380 18 watersheds within the county, 13 of which are termed watershed protection overlay districts.
1381 They are there to protect the public water supply. So, in October of last year, House Bill 600
1382 passed, and that was basically a clarification stating that, basically,we'll be refining existing
1383 development definitions. So, it clarified that existing development on the ground at a certain date
1384 cannot be regulated. So,we did do a text amendment specific to that regulatory change in June
1385 of this year. This update we're proposing today is literally just some cleanup to better match some
1386 of the regulatory updates and just read a little bit better. So,from both a staff and a constituent
1387 standpoint,there's always sections that can just read a little better. But that's the main reason is
1388 House Bill 600 and our responding to it. We're constantly looking at the state level for regulatory
1389 updates. The second prong, second fork of this presentation is specific to good old Lake Orange.
1390 I'll get into some specifics on the history of Lake Orange later, but we're looking to react to some
1391 development turns up there lately and working with homeowners to allow them to move forward
1392 with by-right type construction on their property. So that's going to involve our modifying a
1393 specifically described section of our ordinance for the reservoir setbacks around Lake Orange.
1394 Now,when I presented at the ORC,we did have another item in this proposed text amendment
1395 that was specific to modifying some impervious area bonuses for low-income housing. That has
1396 since been dropped from this package. Actually, it's not gone, but we're not including it in this
1397 package at this time,so it's a little less paperwork for you to look at today. And we also at the last
1398 minute found a definition there at the back of the UDO that we felt needed some attention. So,
1399 you can see it's kind of a hodgepodge. We're doing several things with this, but it's all relatively
1400 minor stuff. That's just a snippet of the Regulatory Reform Act and the text amendment we did to
1401 address a lot of that work before. So, here, I wanted to get to this map. These are our 18
1402 watersheds here in Orange County, 13 of which are these, they're zoned as watershed protection
1403 overlay districts, WPODs. That's not an official,that's just an acronym I use to, instead of saying
1404 watershed protection overlay districts over and over. But those are our sheds. We're real proud
1405 of them. But the Upper Eno Critical is that dark blue one there at the upper left corner of the map.
1406 Is there a pointer?Okay. So up here this is Lake Orange. Does everybody know about Lake
1407 Orange? Could I get hands up?
1408
1409 Lamar Proctor: Afraid not.
1410
1411 Christopher Sandt: So yeah, it's our reservoir up there.
1412
1413 Lamar Proctor: We have a new someone who doesn't know about Lake Orange.
1414
1415 Christopher Sandt: Oh, great, I can talk Lake Orange all day. So, the proposed modifications that's included in this
1416 packet is specific, but Lake Orange is up there at the top right side of that kind of arm-looking
1417 piece of blue hatching. So, I had mentioned some of these text amendments are really related to
1418 us reacting to our constituents. When folks come in and they have questions about the UDO,
1419 sometimes we as staff have to get in there and actually find it. And then there are sometimes
1420 where we have some trouble interpreting some certain dates or how it's framed in the UDO. So,
1421 I'm showing you this chart today. It's not part of the amendments, but it's part of our overall effort.
1422 This is just a handout that we have at the front of our office now that's assisting constituents,
1423 developers with what is that pre-existing development date. I had mentioned to you there's a date
1424 that the state says, hey, if you were on the ground with impervious area or a structure this date or
1425 prior, you are,for lack of a better term, grandfathered. You're not subject to these regulations,
1426 which in our case came through in the early to mid-'90s. Okay? So, this table is just a real one-
1427 stop shop for folks to go to to say, hey, I think this house was built in,say, 1988. Oh, I see that
1428 the existing development date April 1990. Mr. Staff, does that mean I don't have to count this
32
1429 impervious? And the answer is yes. So that's all based on state law, and we react to that. So,
1430 these are the sections affected. You'll see most of it in the packet. I think you might have to go
1431 back to the last meeting's agenda, but it's mostly clarifying acronyms; it's spelling things out; it's
1432 making our charts and tables, mostly in Article 4,just a little bit easier to read and understand.
1433 And most of that's specific to that existing development date. Article 10 is just this water feature
1434 definition that I'll get into, so 24 pages total. It's pretty small. These can get quite detailed. So,
1435 tied to this amendment is we figured this was as good of an amendment as any to squeeze this in.
1436 This is our gray, our sliding scale that was in the LIDO. So,this is a table that staff,we don't know
1437 who, but staff put together sometime in the early to mid'90s in reaction to when these watershed
1438 regulations were being rolled out at the state level. Someone was smart enough to say,well,what
1439 about non-conforming lots? Like you're putting things, these requirements on lots that,well,there
1440 might have been a home here before this rule was applied. So that was the purpose of this, but
1441 over the years, it's just become, it's tough to explain to constituents. We don't have a legal
1442 background like, no, this number came from here. It was just,we believe, staff putting this table
1443 together. So,what we're proposing to do with these amendments are just to simplify this, a one-
1444 and-done number for an impervious area cap, and we zoomed in on 12 percent, and there's a lot
1445 of reasoning for that. Mostly, 12 percent is an impervious level that the state tends to consider low
1446 density, anything 12 percent and below. So,we've, instead of sending constituents to this chart to
1447 figure out what their allowable impervious, if you have a non-conforming lot that was in existence
1448 prior to those regs,you get this number. And so,we feel it's just going to clarify, it's going to save
1449 a lot of staff time and a lot of confusion from constituents. We've got some,we can go through
1450 these one by one.
1451
1452 Patrick Mallett: Yeah,we can go.
1453
1454 Christopher Sandt: These are just some cases that Pat and I put together that display what this does in the real world,
1455 eliminating the sliding scale and making this a little bit more straightforward.
1456
1457 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, so we've got four examples. What I did is let's apply this to real world, look at some recent
1458 permits on smaller lots and what they get today and what they would get tomorrow, and then
1459 factor in a couple of things. So, in this first case,you've got a small lot. And the sliding scale that
1460 you saw before was intended to address, largely, subdivisions that were done in the'70s and '80s,
1461 maybe in some cases near Chapel Hill in the'60s. At that time, the minimum lot size,we didn't
1462 have a repair area requirement, and the minimum lot size in many instances was a half an acre.
1463 And so,you have quite a few subdivisions that are around the periphery. They're not in Chapel
1464 Hill's jurisdiction, Carrboro's,or Hillsborough's, but they're significant subdivisions and they have
1465 smaller lots, so when you start to factor in a percentage base of the lot size,you start to get
1466 pinched. And I think that was what was driving this idea for the sliding scale. I think it was a good
1467 idea at the time, but it just doesn't really work on the practical end of the stick. So, in the first
1468 case,you've got a lot that an applicant did a rudimentary drawing, but they're essentially taking a
1469 manufactured home in the Chapel Hill Township. The lot was recorded in 1987. It was developed
1470 in 2023. Gives you the lot size and the breakout, .6 acres, and they're just looking to put a double
1471 wide, and that's the square footage. And so, it sort of walks you through the baseline if they had 6
1472 percent,what they would be allowed with the sliding scale, 14.8 percent. With the new impervious
1473 limit,they would get this amount, and then if they did an SCM,they would get a slightly larger
1474 bump.
1475
1476 Chris Johnston: I'm sorry, SCM?
1477
1478 Patrick Mallett: I'm sorry, stormwater control measure. So, it's a stormwater feature. The next example is Chapel
1479 Hill Township, University Lake protected, recorded in 1973. The house was built in '73. They did
1480 a 2023 addition, so we're right at an acre lot size. It shows a comparison as with the other one.
1481 So,you get actually slightly more impervious but a modest amount, a reasonable amount,we
1482 think. The next scenario, Bingham Township, lot recorded in 1984. It was developed in '84, and
1483 then they added a garage in 2024. Lot size a little bit over an acre, and again you get,when you
33
1484 do the math,you get a comparable, reasonable,we think, square footage. So those are some
1485 real-world comparisons. And I would say that with this new legislation,the sliding scale becomes
1486 kind of a moot point because they're going to get grandfathered in certain allowances. And if we
1487 let the sliding scale in,they would get that allowance plus what is mandated by the state, so they'd
1488 get what I call a double bump. We really don't want that to happen, but we want to come up with a
1489 reasonable solution that's kind of a one size fits all and is really the constituents, the public can
1490 understand it and the staff can understand it and there's not a lot of ambiguity to it.
1491
1492 Venkat Yendapalli: And I have one question, Patrick.
1493
1494 Patrick Mallett: Yeah.
1495
1496 Venkat Yendapalli: This developer center impervious surface,does it apply only to the older lots, older subdivisions,
1497 or?
1498
1499 Patrick Mallett: Yes,these are all older. These are not new subdivisions. So, like the one you heard today, this
1500 would, that's not an issue. It's these older lots that were developed or at least recorded in the
1501 '60s, 70s, and '80s.
1502
1503 Christopher Sandt: Before the Clean Water Act.
1504
1505 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, so the number of lots that qualify for this are not huge.
1506
1507 Venkat Yendapalli: All right. Thank you.
1508
1509 Cy Stober: I would only editorialize that the number of lots that qualify for this are not huge, but the amount of
1510 time that each one of these lots consumes by the staff and the owners' money and time and
1511 anxiety and trying to figure all this out with us is extraordinary. And we have a simpler resolution, 1
1512 think.
1513
1514 Christopher Sandt: Thank you Pat and Cy. Yeah, and we also want to make sure that folks have the ability to
1515 develop their lots in a fashion that conforms with the UDO and the way we do things in Orange
1516 County. So,this is another part of the amendments. This is one of the bigger items here.We've
1517 got good old Lake Orange. It was constructed up there,starts at the east fork of the Eno River.
1518 So,you know the Eno River starts at the west fork and east fork. Lake Orange is on the east fork,
1519 the WFER, the West Eno Reservoir that is owned by the town is on the west fork. They come
1520 down,they confluence, and come through downtown. So, it's been there since the'60s. A lot of
1521 the lots were plotted. There are about 120 residential lots around this WS2, a water supply to a
1522 drinking water supply reservoir. You don't find anything like this in the state. I'm not here to talk
1523 about Lake Orange as to why it's set up like that, but let's just say it's a distinct reservoir in the
1524 state. It was built in the late'60s. The WEFR was built herein the late'90s, early 2000s after
1525 these state rules for water supply watersheds were enforced. So, if you go to the WEFR, all the
1526 land around the lake is owned by the town. That's kind of how you want a reservoir built. It's all
1527 wooded. It's buffered. Lake Orange has got residential lots around it, and they were built
1528 primarily in the'70s and '80s prior to these rules being implemented. So,we've just in the last
1529 year or so have processed,you know,those homes are older. If you were built in the'80s or'90s,
1530 you're now having to do renovation. You're having to,this is an older house, so we get a lot of
1531 these folks just wanting to do improvements to their properties that are now they come in,they
1532 say,wait a minute,you have a 150-foot reservoir setback? So, all the lots on Lake Orange are
1533 technically subject to a 150-foot reservoir setback per our rules, per our riparian rules. The state
1534 minimum is 50 feet for reservoir buffers. So,we're way above and beyond, and really how it
1535 happens in my mind. It's staff at that time when these laws were rolled out in the early'90s,
1536 nobody was kind of thinking,well,what about Lake Orange over here? Because those lots
1537 already, if you look at those lots,there's about 90 to 100 of them that have homes on them, and
1538 about 70 of those homes are already within 75 feet of the lake. That's just where they were built.
34
1539 They were built before these rules existed. So,those folks that have come in and tried to do
1540 renovations can't do it because of our reservoir setback, so then they have to go through an
1541 amendment process, a zoning amendment, and go through our Board of Adjustment. So that's
1542 happened four times in the last year or so, and I believe the Board of Adjustment has approved all
1543 four of them. Yes,you have the right to fix up your house. Sorry, this law is not really matched up
1544 with your situation here. So that we are changing a setback number,which sounds scary;we're
1545 making it go from 150 to 75, but we have found that, No. 1,we're already over the state
1546 minimums. No. 2,our Upper Eno Critical Watershed,which is one of those 13 watersheds, that's
1547 that blue that I showed you. We have thousands of acres more than state minimum requires, so
1548 we are,the county can be proud of our buffers there. The fact that all the homes around Lake
1549 Orange are already built, they were built before these rules were here. We're trying to make it
1550 less burdensome for staff and our constituents that want to come in and renovate a house that's in
1551 a location that's not jiving with law. So that's it. It's specific to Lake Orange. The buffers around
1552 the buffer would obviously hold, and there are no other reservoirs in that watershed. It's just Lake
1553 Orange and WEFR. So, it's specific to Lake Orange, but it's something that we as staff have been
1554 talking about for a while, and we're going to see these trends continuing. So,the goal is to take
1555 that reservoir buffer setback, change it from 150 foot to 75 feet, and then those folks don't have to
1556 go through the time-consuming and somewhat can be expensive rezoning process.
1557
1558 Chris Johnston: Yeah, quick question. Are all the lots developed around Lake Orange, or would this potentially
1559 open up newer ones?
1560
1561 Christopher Sandt: From memory, and I've got it almost memorized,there's about 130 plotted lots,and I think 95 or
1562 so have homes on them. So, it's tough when folks come in. They want to build, and we say
1563 you're subject to a 150-foot reservoir setback. Well,what about these other 90 houses that are
1564 here. So, it's a grandfather-type subdivision we look at. This lessened reservoir buffer would
1565 apply to new development because we're allowing existing lots to do it.
1566
1567 Cy Stober: Chris, how many of those existing homes would,you've done the evaluation, how many of those
1568 existing homes are in the 150-foot reservoir buffer already?
1569
1570 Christopher Sandt: Oh yeah, so I'd mentioned about almost 70.Almost 70 homes are already within that.
1571
1572 Chris Johnston: I just didn't know if by doing this,we're opening it up. You know,the 150, is that what we want?
1573 And then does this open up those additional lots to then developing in that 75-foot zone where
1574 maybe we don't want them? It sounds like we're already above and beyond, even with the 75,
1575 though, so is it a consideration, concern, anything along those lines?
1576
1577 Cy Stober: I don't want to speak for Chris, but yes,we've reviewed this thoroughly. There are nearly 80
1578 homes, so 70 and some change,that were built prior to Chris or myself being here. They were
1579 constructed within this 150-foot buffer. We don't have an explanation for that, but they're there.
1580 And this is a water supply reservoir, but it's an unusual water supply reservoir in that there's no
1581 intake directly on the reservoir. It's not like University Lake. The intake is downstream, but we
1582 protect the water quality on the reservoir for that downstream water quality. We have not noted,
1583 nor has Hillsborough noted any decline in water quality over the years. And the variances that
1584 have been presented to the Board of Adjustment have not found opposition nor any findings by
1585 the BOA have determined that there are any safety or welfare risks to the public from allowing
1586 encroachment into the 150-foot buffer. Chris, in his professional opinion as county engineer, and
1587 Victoria Hudson,as the director of environmental health, have agreed that a 75-foot buffer is more
1588 protective than the state and, in their professional opinion, is a buffer that is comfortable for
1589 protecting the public and environmental health of Lake Orange and the downstream communities.
1590
1591 Chris Johnston: Thank you.
1592
1593 Lamar Proctor: Thank you, Cy.
35
1594
1595 Cy Stober: But it would,to your point, Mr.Johnston, open the door,yes,to more by-right development without
1596 having to apply for a variance. But the variances have all,the four that have been applied for
1597 have universally been determined to be allowed. This buffer being a hardship to development that
1598 is unreasonable and imposed by the county.
1599
1600 Chris Johnston: And if a developer came in and asked for a variance,there's already precedent that that has been
1601 provided to the homeowners who are already existent there?
1602
1603 Cy Stober: Correct. And it's been evaluated by the county engineer and the director of environmental health.
1604
1605 Chris Johnston: Yeah. Okay.
1606
1607 Lamar Proctor: All right. Any other questions for staff on these text amendments? Any discussion?
1608
1609 Chris Johnston: There's more?
1610
1611 Christopher Sandt: I've got just this last page here.
1612
1613 Lamar Proctor: Oh, I'm sorry.
1614
1615 Christopher Sandt: Yeah, I apologize.
1616
1617 Lamar Proctor: I thought you were done.
1618
1619 Christopher Sandt: So,water features, that's a loaded term nowadays,so that was a definition that,while correct, had
1620 a little bit more in there than we need to be saying. For what we regulate,the definition in there
1621 was a little long winded if that makes sense. So,we've made it more succinct to match what we
1622 can regulate here at the county. That's minor, but it's important when we find little things like that.
1623
1624 Chris Johnston: Apologies.
1625
1626 Christopher Sandt: All right, now I'm done.
1627
1628 Lamar Proctor: All right. Thank you. I should have waited for the slide.
1629
1630 Christopher Sandt: Sorry about that.
1631
1632 Lamar Proctor: All right. Any questions?
1633
1634 Venkat Yendapalli: One quick question on the comments made by you, Cy, about the reservoir. Lake Orange is very
1635 close to the area of the discussion here, so I kind of know personally about the geography and all
1636 the elements that happen there. So,there's no connection of the water? I was told there's a
1637 backup reservoir, a water reservoir for Hillsborough, but there is no connection to the water
1638 supply? Is that what I'm hearing from you?
1639
1640 Cy Stober: Chris can actually answer this more accurately than I can,so where is the town and actually
1641 Orange Alamance water's intake?
1642
1643 Christopher Sandt: So that's correct. There is no actual intake on Lake Orange. There's no pump system that sucks
1644 water out of there and sends it to OAWS or OWASA. So, it feeds the Eno River. It serves
1645 multiple purposes, drinking water supply, but it also,we have a minimum flow requirement to keep
1646 that river wet, to keep the critters alive. So, in terms of intakes downriver,the first one you're
1647 going to run into is the OAWS or Orange Alamance Water System. If you drive on 70 West there
1648 and you cross over the Eno River kind of going through Efland, you'll see the little plant right there.
36
1649 That's an actual intake on that watershed line. And then further down you've got the town of
1650 Hillsborough with draws right there off Dimmock's Mill. So,the run of river,they suck right out of
1651 the river. Lake Orange is a critical component to make sure that river doesn't dry up.
1652
1653 Cy Stober: And the only thing I'll add is we have a legal agreement with those entities to protect their water
1654 supplies at the lake, as well as manage water volume. So, Chris also manages the dam levels to
1655 ensure that downstream communities are protected,which he catches a lot of heat for from the
1656 surrounding neighbors because he lowers their lakefront property to protect the benthic
1657 invertebrates downstream.
1658
1659 Christopher Sandt: Yeah, Lake Orange,just for the record, Lake Orange is not a fixed-level lake. Unfortunately,
1660 some folks think it is, but it's not. It's there, it reacts to the hydraulics and hydrology.
1661
1662 Venkat Yendapalli: Yeah, I do kayak on that lake regularly, so any of you want to do that,take me up on that. You
1663 can go to the lake; I provide kayaks and access both.
1664
1665 Lamar Proctor: All right. Any other questions? Any discussion? So, it's two attachments for this, so can it be one
1666 motion, or do I need to do separate motions to adopt the UDO amendments in Attachment 1 and
1667 then adopt the statement of approval and consistency in Attachment 2 that the, indicating that the
1668 text amendments are reasonable and in the public interest?
1669
1670 Cy Stober: My recommendation is to consider all the amendment as one package and make one motion.
1671
1672 Lamar Proctor: Okay. So, I will make a motion to adopt Attachment 1, the LIDO amendments, and Attachment 2,
1673 the statement of approval and consistency, indicating that the text amendments are reasonable
1674 and in the public interest. Do I have a second?
1675
1676 Statler Gilfillen: Second.
1677
1678 Lamar Proctor: Statler seconds. All in favor, raise your hand or say aye.
1679
1680 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor. Seconded by Statler Gilfillen.
1681
1682 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
1683
1684 Lamar Proctor: Looking, it is unanimous. All right,thank you.
1685
1686 Chris Johnston: I'd like to make a motion to request that the planning board director.
1687
1688 Charity Kirk: Item of new business.
1689
1690 Chris Johnston: Item of new business, there we go. I'll get it one day.
1691
1692 Charity Kirk: I wrote it down.
1693
1694 Cy Stober: Before we get to the new business, I did, I just wanted to say that this public hearing for this text
1695 amendment will also be November 6th,so this will be turned around next month,we hope.
1696
1697 Lamar Proctor: Busy meeting. All right,thank you.
1698
1699 Cy Stober: Thank you.
1700
1701 Lamar Proctor: Yeah, so any other business,or?
1702
1703 Charity Kirk: Do I make a motion for an item of new business?
37
1704
1705 Cy Stober: It's, in my opinion, it's the agenda is open for new business.
1706
1707 Charity Kirk: So, I would like to bring up an item of new business to ask Cy to initiate a spot safety study of that
1708 intersection earlier.
1709
1710 Cy Stober: So, by initiation, I will talk to the transportation director about taking that action, so that's my role at
1711 this point.
1712
1713 Lamar Proctor: And is it the intersection of 86 and 57 and 70 or the intersection where the new subdivision is
1714 going in?
1715
1716 Cy Stober: It's 57 and 86.
1717
1718 Lamar Proctor: Yes. Okay,just clarifying for my own mental imagery.
1719
1720 Venkat Yendapalli: I think they're probably already aware because a lot of traffic backups happening in the morning,
1721 rush hour. I drive that road a few times a week.
1722
1723 Cy Stober: This is not going to be a surprise to anyone, and it may already be in the hopper, in which case I'll
1724 report back on where it is in the process.
1725
1726 Charity Kirk: Thank you.
1727
1728 Beth Bronson: So, I did look it up on the STIP, and there is nothing planned for that intersection.
1729
1730 Cy Stober: Spot safety goes through a weird track.
1731
1732 Beth Bronson: Totally different.
1733
1734 Cy Stober: Okay, I'll investigate. I'll talk to the transportation director,and in addition, I am volunteering to
1735 bring to the transportation director's attention a request for speed-limit reduction on 86 and just
1736 because that's an investigation that takes a while,we did this. The county joined forces with
1737 Mebane on Lebanon Road. It takes months, so there's no reason to delay action to begin the
1738 investigation.
1739
1740 Charity Kirk: Do we need a motion to make the request?
1741
1742 Cy Stober: I'm going to do it.
1743
1744 Charity Kirk: Okay. Thank you. I know how serious we need to be.
1745
1746 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT
1747
1748 Chris Johnston: I motion to adjourn.
1749
1750 Lamar Proctor: I will second. All in favor of the motion to adjourn, raise your hand.
1751
1752 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to adjourn. Seconded by Lamar Proctor.
1753
1754 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
1755
1756 Lamar Proctor: Seeing unanimous,we are adjourned.
1757
1758 The meeting adjourned at 8:52 PM
38
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 3, 2025
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Planning Board Annual Report/Work Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Annual Report / Work Plan Form Cy Stober, Director, (919) 245-2592
Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director, (919) 245-
2578
PURPOSE: To provide an annual report and work plan input to the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC).
BACKGROUND: Each year the County Clerk's Office collects information from each of the
County's advisory boards to prepare a report for an early spring BOCC work session. The
annual report informs the BOCC of the past year's activities of advisory boards/commissions, as
well as proposed activities for the upcoming year.
Staff and advisory boards are asked to collaborate to complete the form that has been provided
by the Clerk's Office and return by January 16. Proposed activities are to be consistent with the
goals of the BOCC, which are reflected in the County's Strategic Plan. A new format for the
annual report was introduced this year to better show linkages to the County's Strategic Plan.
The attached Annual Report / Work Plan form has been completed by staff for Planning Board
review and comment. Some topics of prime interest include:
• Continuing progress on the Orange County Land Use Plan 2050
• UDO Amendments pertaining to conservation subdivisions, which were reviewed in an
ORC setting in 2025
The Planning Board is involved in a portion of the work Planning Department staff is responsible
for, primarily applicant- and staff-initiated amendments to the adopted UDO and Zoning Map.
For the upcoming year, Planning staff will be working and collaborating on some items that do
not go to an advisory board for a recommendation or for which other advisory boards have
primary responsibility. Examples of these tasks are work related to making progress towards
realizing development on the Greene Tract; applications for the Board of Adjustment; and
enforcing the regulations contained in the UDO, including stormwater and erosion control
measures.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Planning Board:
39
1. Review the attached document prior to the meeting.
2. Discuss members' ideas about any additional activities to be worked on in 2026 or
any additional issues to be brought to the attention of the BOCC.
3. Either:
a. Approve the attached Annual Report and Work Plan Form, or
b. Ask staff to incorporate the results of any discussion into the Annual Report/
Work Plan form and submit the form to the Clerk's office, or
c. Ask staff to incorporate the results of any discussion into the Annual Report/
Work Plan form bring the final form back to the January 7, 2026 meeting in
order to meet the January 16 due date.
40
ORANGE COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN
Name of Board/Commission:
Report Period: January 2025-December 2025
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) appreciates the dedication of all volunteers
on Orange County boards and commissions and asks each body to complete an Annual
Report and Work Plan. This document will inform the BOCC of the activities each
board/commission has conducted over the past year and detail a plan for future activities.
These activities should be consistent with the board/commission's assigned charge and
the goals identified in the Orange County Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan). General
information about the Strategic Plan is available here.
Person to address the BOCC, title, and contact information: Lamar Proctor, Chair,
attorneylamar@gmail.com. (Note: the Planning Board elects a Chair and Vice-Chair
every January; if the Chair changes in January 2026, the 2026 Chair would be the
presenter)
Primary staff contact: Cy Stober, Planning Director
1. How many times per month does this board/commission meet, including any special
meetings and subcommittee meetings?
Generally once per month for a regular meeting + optional Ordinance Review
Committee (ORC) or training session (ORC or training sessions occur on the same
evening as the regular meeting several times a year).
2. Please briefly describe this board/commission's assigned charge and
responsibilities. Board-specific Policies and Procedures documents, which detail the
charge and responsibilities for each board/commission, are available here.
Under the authority of NC General Statute, the BOCC created the Planning Board to
embark upon a continuing planning program, including but not limited to the
preparation and maintenance of a Comprehensive Plan for Orange County, in
protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future
residents and businesses, landowners and visitors. The duties of the Planning Board
are listed in Section 1.6.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance, and reflect the duties
and responsibilities charged to all jurisdictions by NCGS 160D.
41
3. What are your board/commission's most important accomplishments during the
report period?
In 2025, the Planning Board accomplished the following:
• Reviewed and made a recommendation on the following applications:
■ Five Conditional District rezonings:
■ Cedar Ridge High School
■ Storage facility in Little River Township.
■ Carolina Friends School
■ Residential subdivision on Highway 54W in White Cross (Bingham
Township)
• Residential subdivision on Highway 86N, north of Hillsborough
• Reviewed and made a recommendation on the following UDO Text Amendments:
■ Telecommunication Facilities
■ Residential Solar Arrays
■ Impervious Surfaces, Watershed Protection Overlay Districts, And Stream
Buffers
• Reviewed and made on recommendation on the following major subdivision
Preliminary Plats:
■ Eden View Acres (Dairyland Road in Bingham Township)
• Briefings and input on the Orange County Land Use Plan 2050
• Briefing on the Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Reviewed UDO text amendment pertaining to subdivision processes
4. Please list any specific tasks, events, or functions performed or sponsored annually.
• Monthly Planning Board meetings
• Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meetings and special meetings as
required
• Review applications for Unified Development Ordinance text amendments,
Zoning Atlas amendments, and major subdivisions, and provide
recommendations to the BOCC
• Develop and recommend policies, ordinances, administrative procedures and
other means for carrying out plans
• Coordinate with staff on ongoing planning updates, changes, and new
techniques
5. Describe this board/commission's activities/accomplishments in carrying out the
goals identified in the Orange County Strategic Plan. General information about the
Strategic Plan is available here.
The Planning Board's work and recommendations support the following aspects of
the County's Strategic Plan:
42
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.
Guiding Principle: Inclusivity and Engagement - We foster an environment in
which all are welcomed, represented, and empowered to participate in and feel
connected to their community.
Guiding Principle: Climate Action and Sustainability - We recognize that our
environment is critical to our existence and are deliberate in protecting, preserving,
and sustaining our natural resources for the continued good of all.
GOAL 1: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND CLIMATE ACTION
OBJECTIVE 7. Conserve and protect high priority open space, including Natural
Heritage sites, nature preserves, watershed riparian buffers, and prime/threatened
farmland.
OBJECTIVE 8. Include environmental stewardship objectives in the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan.
GOAL 3: HOUSING FOR ALL
OBJECTIVE 5. Review County ordinances, policies, agreements, and the regulatory
processes to streamline practices, and increase opportunities and reduce barriers
to construct housing.
GOAL 6: DIVERSE AND VIBRANT ECONOMY
OBJECTIVE 2. Review and revise County policies and regulations to support
business investment in Orange County.
6. Describe any collaboration between this board/commission and other boards and
commissions.
During 2025, opportunities for inter-board collaboration did not emerge.
7. Identify any activities this board/commission expects to carry out in 2026 that are
related to the )range County Strategic Plan. General information about the Strategic
Plan is available here. If applicable, please list any fiscal impact (i.e., funding, staff
time, other resources) associated with these proposed activities.
The Board will continue its work in partnership with staff to further the County's
Strategic Plan and other BOCC priorities, some of which may emerge at the January
2026 BOCC retreat. The following list is not in priority order:
43
1. Orange County Land Use Plan 2050: Work on this plan is on-going and
expected to continue into 2026.
2. UDO Amendments: In response to a petition by a BOCC member, Planning staff
anticipates bringing forward the UDO amendments pertaining to conservation
subdivisions in early 2026. The Planning Board reviewed the proposed
amendments in an ORC setting in 2025.
3. Legislative Changes: Amend regulations as necessary in response to legislative
changes at the State level.
4. Continue Training for Planning Board Members: Planning staff will continue to
offer training to Planning Board members on an as-needed basis (including the
5-module training for newly appointed members). Suggestions on additional
topics for training are welcome.
5. 2026 BOCC Retreat: Any priorities that emerge at the January 2026 BOCC
retreat.
8. What concerns or emerging issues does this board/commission anticipate for the
upcoming year that it plans to address or wishes to bring to the BOCC's attention?
1. Growth of Mebane into Western Orange County: The continued growth of
Mebane has created uncertainty for area residents. More formal
communications, relationships, and/or agreements with Mebane should be
pursued to ensure residents have a better idea of future plans and growth areas.
2. Rural Enterprises: As part of the analysis for the Land Use Plan 2050, determine
need to address innovative water & sewage disposal issues in the Rural Activity
Nodes (RANs) to encourage development in these nodes. Evaluate non-
residential acreage thresholds in both the existing Comprehensive Plan and the
UDO to better enable retail services or other uses in identified RANs.
3. Wireless and Broadband Access: Wireless and broadband access continues to
be a challenge in many portions of Orange County.
4. Transportation Issues: As part of the analysis for the Land Use Plan 2050,
determine if rural "transit oriented development" could be hubs of transit located
in the rural community nodes. Focus should be on transit dependent populations
and their connection to other transit infrastructure, and account for
implementation of the North-South Bus Rapid Transit line between Hillsborough
and Chapel Hill.
5. Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement Map
Amendments / Reconciliation of Future Land Use Map (FLUM)/Zoning Lines:
There are discrepancies in these maps that should be addressed. The County
should work with WASMPBA partners to bring forward amendments to reconcile
discrepancies in the WASMPBA "Primary Service Area," County Future Land
Use Map (FLUM)/Zoning lines, and any discrepancies on similar municipal maps.
The Town of Hillsborough is anticipated to initiate an update to the WASMPBA to
44
ensure consistency with their adopted plans.
6. Watershed Review and Implications of County vs. State Watershed Delineations:
Review the County and State watershed delineation lines and the implications of
current differences, including stormwater standards. Be mindful of any lessened
watershed protection measures.
7. Long-Term Planning for Potable Water and Waste Disposal: Planning for
potable water and waste (wastewater and solid waste) should continue to be a
topic for study (i.e., supportive infrastructure analysis) and potential discussion
with public and non-profit utility providers as growth in Orange County continues.
This could serve both economic development and affordable housing concerns.