Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-1-25 Planning Board Minutes Approved 12.3.25 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. Approved 12.3.25 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 Approved 12.3.25 110 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 AI 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 Approved 12.3.25 165 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 Approved 12.3.25 220 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 Approved 12.3.25 275 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 Approved 12.3.25 330 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 Approved 12.3.25 385 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 Approved 12.3.25 439 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 Approved 12.3.25 494 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 Approved 12.3.25 549 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 Approved 12.3.25 604 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 Approved 12.3.25 659 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 Approved 12.3.25 714 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. Approved 12.3.25 769 770 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 Approved 12.3.25 824 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. Approved 12.3.25 879 880 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 Approved 12.3.25 934 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. Approved 12.3.25 989 990 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 Approved 12.3.25 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. Approved 12.3.25 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 Approved 12.3.25 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? Approved 12.3.25 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. Approved 12.3.25 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. Approved 12.3.25 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 Approved 12.3.25 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 Approved 12.3.25 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 Approved 12.3.25 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. Approved 12.3.25 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. Approved 12.3.25 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. Approved 12.3.25 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? Approved 12.3.25 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