HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-15-2000-9dORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 15, 2000
1
Action en a
Item #
SUBJECT: Richmond Hills Sewer System Design (1)
Richmond Hills Preliminary Subdivision (2)
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/1S7 NO
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1) Resolution of Approval Robert P. Davis, Planner III (Ext. 2580)
2) Area Maps - Craig Benedict, Planning Director (Ext. 2592)
3) Planning Board Resolution (Info only) Paul Thames, County Engineer (Ext. 2303)
4) Application and supporting documentation
5) Fiscal Impact Analysis
6) Minutes, May 4, 2000 PB Meeting
7) Agency Comments TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
8) Letter of Approval for Water Hillsborough 732-8181
9) Preliminary Plan Durham 6$8-7331
10) Sewer System Type Matrix Mebane 227-2031
11) Kimley Horn Letter - Chapel Hill 967-9251
12) Housing and Community Development Letter
13) County Engineer's Sewer Report
PURPOSE: The purpose of this two-part agenda item is
1. to decide and approve what type of sewer system design is most appropriate for the proposed
Richmond Hills (431ot) subdivision to connect to the existing county's Efland Sewer system,
and
2. to decide and act on the Richmond Hills Conservation-Cluster Flexible Development
Preliminary Plan.
• County Engineer's Report (See Attachment 13)
• Item 1 (Sewer System)
Since the proposed project is north of and adjacent to the portion of Efland sewer system neaz
Efland/Cheeks Elementary School, an extra decision step is required. This is the first major
subdivision to request connection to the Efland system. The design of the system and connection
may set a precedence and informal policy on inevitable other projects and sewer connections in the
area.
l . Consideration of Richmond Hills sewer system design (See Matrix of Sewer System Types)
a. `STEP' System -Administration recommendation
(individual on-site double septic tanks with effluent pump to force main
network to existing gravity)
b. `Gravity/sewage pump station' -Applicant request
(gravity sewer main network to large scale sewage lift station)
• Item z (Subdivision)
The proposed subdivision is in Cheeks Township on the east of Richmond Road approximately '%
mile north of U.S. 70. The flexible development subdivision design permits 14,000 squaze foot
minimum lot size and in this case approximately 55% in common area open space. The open
space is primarily along McGowan Creek (along northern boundary) and anorth-south easement
connector from the Efland/Cheeks Elementary School to the creek.
The project is proposed by Habitat for Humanity far affordable housing. Orange County has
contributed bond money and potentially CBDG money in support of this project.
The background information noted below explains the specifics of the subdivision design.
BACKGROUND:
Request
Applicant: Habitat for Humanity
• 40.34 acres tract
• Foriy-three (43) single-family residential lots
Existi it and "o
Zoning
• Rural Residential (Rl) and Upper Eno -Protected Watershed (12% impervious)
• Minimum zoning lot size for R1 is 40,000 square feet but property is in Transition Zone so lots may cluster
down to 14, 000 square feet if water and sewer is available
• Adjacent Land Uses: Single-family residential, institutional (school) and vacant
Proposed Si a Conditions
Roads:
• Access to subdivision is from Richmond Road (SR 1312)
• Proposed public roads to be designed to NCDOT (and County) standazds at preliminary stage
• Right turn taper lane built to NCDOT standards required on Richmond Road at entrance to subdivision
Open Space:
• 22.2 acres (55%) proposed in common area open space
• MCTAR (minimum cluster-to-actual lot/size ratio) =1.02
• 100' buffer provided around the site
• Lazge open space area on eastern and northern side of property
Demsity Bonus Provision
• Conventional design; Yield Plan estimates 351ot potential
• S bonus lots proposed; 9 bonus lots permitted under ordinance
[1 bonus lot pew for every acre of open space over 13.3 acres (33%) required - 22.2 acres provided]
• 43 total lots propo~e~,
Water-Sewer:
• Public Water (Orange-Alamance) (Letter provided from Orange-Alamance)
• Public Sewer (Orange County)
• Sewer easement required across Orange County School property (Letter provided from Superintendent)
• Applicant proposes agravity/pump station/force main system (option of STEP system (#4) in resolution is a~
alternative noted by the County Engineer)
• B to Bete mine which condition r 4a i he Ad inistrat" Reso "on is to b fol wed.
Development Process,_Schedule, and Action
• First Action: Planning Board approved the Concept Plan on October b, 1999 by a unanimous vote
with the following conditions that have been incorporated in the preliminary plan resolution of
approval.
• Second Action: Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan on May
4, 2p00 with the following three revisions to the staff recommendation.
1. Recommended that the BOCC consider adopting a requirement to create a perpetual maintenance
account to be funded by the applicant at a level that will be sufficient to pay for all annual operating
costs, including projected capital equipment replacement costs, for the pumping station.
2 . Recommended that the dedication of the property along McGowen Creek satisfy the payment in-
lieu-of pazkland dedication.
3 . Recommended that the walking trail between the Efland-Cheeks school site and McGowen Creek be
limited to the 100' along the eastern side of the property.
• Third Action:
1. The BOCC shall consider the application within a reasonable amount of time.
(Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section III-D-3-d) .
2 . During deliberations and consideration of the application BOCC may defer consideration at any
point to pursue additional analysis and review.
(Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section III-D-3-d).
If approved the applicant shall have one (1) yeaz to prepare and file a Preliminary Plat application. If a
Preliminary Plat has not been submitted within the specified time limit, the Concept Plan shall become null and
void.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Fiscal Impact Analysis is provided as an attachment. Due to the anticipated low
cost of this affordable housing project, the revenue stream is less than the public
service expenditures. This could be considered a subsidy to support the
affordable housing project.
The County fiscal models does not include long range utility servicing costs since
the county as a utility provider has not been fully examined. A report on this
issue was provided by the County Engineer at the June 6, 2000 Board of County
Commissioners meeting. The fiscal impact upon the Efland sewer system utility
operation is somewhat complex especially in this instance where the county is
financially supporting the project. However, the decision on how to accept a
sewer system design and associated long-term maintenance casts is a distinct
decision of the county as a utility provider.
I u dable housin ro'ects and their fundin f ul wh they throu
bands or grants, are separate decisions of the County, implementing its affordable
housine nolicv.
In most cases, the developer pays for the total cost of the public sewer system and
dedicates the offsite (i.e. not on individual lot) system to the county for
maintenance. The cost of the two alternative system designs as noted in the
attached letter from Scott Radway of Kimley Horn Engineers is not a direct
concern of the County but future system function, expandability, maintenance
cost and environmental hazazd potential are County concerns.
The staff recommended STEP system may have a higher installation cost.
However, STEP systems have less long-term public maintenance cost i
comparison with agravity/pump station system. A gravity/pump station has
relatively high pump station maintenance/monitoring cast that would have to b
contracted out to a utility company such as OWASA. In addition, the STE
system has less potential to create offsite environmental. contamination.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board;
(1) Approve'STEP' Sewer System, in its capacity as owner of the Efiand
Sewer System as the approved connection method of Richmond Hills
Subdivision to the existing sewer system.
(2) Approve Richmond Hills subdivision preliminary plan with Board of
County Commissioners selected sewer system option (decision
determined above) and the conditions contained in the attached
Administration Resolution of Approval.
Administration Resolution
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date of Meeting: August 15, 2000
Name of Subdivision: Richmond Hills
Owner/Applicant: Habitat for Humanity
The Boazd of County Commissioners hereby approves Richmond Hills subdivision Preliminary
Plat, dated Mazch 15, 2000 and containing 431ots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements
specified herein.
Alice Miller Court, Midvale Drive and Boundbrook Drive shall be irrevocably dedicated to the
general public and be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT). The approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange
County Manager to accept for the County and on behalf of the public generally, the offer of
dedication of Alice Miller Court, Midvale Drive, and Boundbrook Drive. This acceptance of
dedication to the general public shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be
maintained by the owner/applicant (Habitat for Humanity) until such time as they are accepted
for maintenance by NCDOT or some other governmental body.
Before the Final Plat of Richmond Hills can be recorded:
A. Sewage Disposal and Water System
1. Each residential lot shall be provided a sewer line stub out in accordance with
Orange County sewer connection guidelines.
2. Sewer line construction drawings shall be approved by the County Engineer prior
to submittal to NCDOT or any state regulatory agencies for permitting or
approval. Any changes in design to comply with requirements from either
NCDOT or other agencies shall also be approved by County Engineer.
Sewer lines and sewer system improvements shall be constructed as provided
herein prior to final plat approval.
A letter of credit or escrow agreement or other security shall be submitted to
secure construction the sewer system to Orange County standards. An estimate of
the construction cost must be prepared by a certified/licensed engineer and
submitted to the Orange County Planning Depaztment and County Engineer. The
financial guarantee must reflect 110 percent of that estimate and be issued. by an
accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Cazolina.
The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final
Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the sewer
system construction has been inspected and approved by Orange County.
Administration Resolution
3. Dedications to Orange County of 20'sewer easements that aze outside of the
public right-af--way shall be shown on the Final Flat prior to Planning Department
signatures on the Final Plat. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits the
developer shall submit a copy of a letter from the County Engineer that the lines
have been installed and dedicated to Orange County. `As-built' drawings shall be
submitted to and approved by County Engineer prior to issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy.
4. Community Sewer service provided by a STEP system composed of an
individual septic tank and pumQ tank at each home and small diameter force
main wastewater_collectQ~~r~.
The STEP system shall include a 1000-gallon capacity septic tank and a 1000-
galloncapacity pump tank on-site at each home. Wastewater shall flow by
gravity from each home to its septic tank and thence to its pump tank. Each pump
tank will be fi~rnished with water level controls for pump on; pump off, and high
water level alarm controls such that the system has approximately S00 gallons of
extra wastewater storage in the event of power or pump failure. Each system shall
1) have a local/outside power shutoff; 2) be powered through the household
circuit breaker panel, and 3) be furnished with audible and visible alarms with
reset. Each on-site portion of the system shall be protected by backflow
prevention in the form of check valves in pump discharge piping. Septic and
pump tanks and associated piping and wiring layouts, etc. shall meet standards
currently applicable to those systems permitted by the Orange County Health
Department.
The small diameter force main wastewater collector network, dedicated to and
maintained by Orange County, and the individual-owned house pumps shall be
sized such that all house pumps are able to discharge into the force main under all
pumping conditions. Shut-off valves in meter boxes shall be provided at each
household sewer tap. Sewer main clean-outs with shut-off valves shall be
provided as well as clean-outs for each individual sewer service line. All main
clean-outs shall be accessible within the utility easements.
maintenance hall ere uired fora w t water
collection system.
4a. Community Sewer Service provided _by a~ystem composed of s g vi
w tewater collection_mai_ network and a ce mmuniiy-pugipi~g
station
The pump station and vehiculaz access shall be contained within a metes and
bounds defined easement granted to Orange County. The easement area shall be
sufficiently lazge enough to allow service and maintenance of the pump station
facility. At least one 9' x 20' parking space shall be provided for a service
vehicle. A metes and bounds legal description of the proposed force main shall
be provided and shown on the final plat. The perimeter of the pump station
easement shall be surrounded by a fence a minimum of 8 feet in height. A
landscape buffer 15 feet in width shall be placed around the outside perimeter of
the fenced area. Evergreen plantings shall be a minimum of b feet in height with
Administration Resolution ~
a 2-inch caliper measured 6" from ground level at time of planting and planted on
eight (8) foot centers with proper mulch.
The County Engineer shall approve the pump station system design, which shall
include automatically switched standby/emergency power generation, alarm
telemetry, and other materials and equipment necessary for the proper operation
of the system. The County Engineer's approval of system design and layout shall
be obtained prior to the submission of the plans to NCDOT for right-of--way
encroachment approval. The County Engineer's approval of system design,
layout, materials, etc., shall be obtained prior to submission of plans to state
regulatory agencies for system permitting. All design changes necessary to
comply with NCDOT or other regulatory agency requirements shall be sleazed by
the County Engineer prior to incorporation in final design documents. A letter
from the County Engineer indicating approval shall be submitted at the time that
Planning Department signatures are requested on the Final Plat.
OwnerLatm~l~ant shalLset u~a perpetual, maintenance fund to provide for periodic
inspection and required maintenance of the pump station, fencing and
landscaping: Documentation forms to be approved by the County Attorney.
5. Water line construction drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Orange--
Alamance Water System, Inc. A letter indicating approval of the construction
drawings shall be submitted to the Planning Department and shall include copies of
all necessary State and local approvals. A copy of the State permit approval to
construct the system shall be submitted at the same time as the request to record the
final plat. A letter finm the Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. indicating that the
construction of the water lines meets its specifications will be required prior to
Planning Department signatures oa the Final Plat.
Prior to Final Plat approval, stub out lines shall be provided and constructed for
each lot. Prior to Final Plat approval, the main water service lines shall be
constructed and stubbed to the adjacent property line to the east.
OR
A letter of credit or escrow agreement or other security shall be submitted to
secure construction of the water system with hydrants to Orange-Alamance
system standards. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepazed by a
certified/licensed engineer and submitted to the Orange County Planning
Department. The financial guazantee must reflect 11Q percent of that estimate and
be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North
Carolina.
The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final
Plat shall state that the fmancial guazantee will not be released until the water
system and hydrant construction has been inspected and approved by Orange
Alamance Water System, lnc. and the Orange County Fire Marshal.
6. All fire hydrant locations, fire flow and water line pressures shall be approved by
the Orange County Fire Marshal prior to issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy.
Administration Resolution 8
T. Sewer tap. acreage. access. availability, capital facility fees
Sewer fees based on an acreage or a per lot charge shall be paid to Orange County
prior to Planning Department signatures on the final plat. Sewer fees based on
house size shall be paid to Orange County when obtaining individual building
permits.
B. Roads and Access
1. Alice Miller Court, Midvale Drive, and Boundbrook Drive shall be constructed to
NCDOT standazds within a 50-foot right-of--way with 5' utility easements on each
side. Construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT.
OR
A letter of credit or escrow agreement or other security shall be submitted to
secure construction of Alice Miller Court, Midvale Drive, and Boundbrook Drive
to NCDOT standazds. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepazed by a
certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Orange
County Planning Department. The financial guazantee must reflect 110 percent of
that estimate and be issued by an accredited .financial institution licensed to do
business in North Carolina.
The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final
Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road
construction has been inspected and approved by NCDOT.
2. An erosion control plan for the entire project, including streets, shall be submitted
by the applicant for review and shall be approved by the Orange County Erosion
Control Division prior to any disturbance on the site. The Erosion Control Plan
shall include a stormwater management plan that meets the requirements of both
the County and the Neuse River Basin rules.
3. Prior to any construction or any alteration of any existing access within the right-
of-way of Richmond Road, the developer/owner shall secure a driveway permit
fi-om the NCDOT District Office. Submit a copy of the NCDOT- approved
permi# and letter to the Planning Department at the same time as the request for
Planning Department signatures on the Final Plat. Sight distance triangles shall
be shown at all intersections within the subdivision, or included within the right-
of-way of the proposed street. This restriction shall be stated in a document
describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning
Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
4. All lots shall secure access from streets internal to the subdivision. No corner lot
driveway access shall be allowed within 50 feet of an intersection. This
restriction shall be stated in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the
Final Plat.
5. Approved street name signs shall be erected at the intersection of streets as
required in Section IV-B-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant that the signs aze in place or a copy
Administration Resolution
of the receipt for purchase of the signs shall be submitted to the Planning
Department at time of request to record the Final Plat.
6. Dedicate to the Department of Transportation an additional S feet along the entire
frontage of Richmond Road for future road improvements. Dedication to be
shown on final plat. Property lines to stop at new public right-of--way.
7. Boundbrook Drive right-of--way shall be dedicated to the eastern property line.
Indicate on the final plat "Street subject to future extension". Twenty (20) foot
construction easements shall be shown on the Final Plat on both sides of the
unimproved section of Boundbrook Drive. Additional right-of--way to
accommodate the T-turnaround shall be indicated vn the plat as `Temporary right-
af--way until Boundbrook Drive is extended'. Upon extension of Boundbrook
Drive the temporary right-of--way shall revert to the owner(s) of the surrounding
property, in this case the Homeowner's Association.
C. Land Use Bufi'ers and Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall be preserved and installed as indicated on the approved
landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and
Inspections Department prior to Planning Department signatures on the final plat.
Landscaping shall be placed behind the sight distance triangles at intersections.
2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape
plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the
Final Plat.
3. A 100' Land Use Buffer shall be provided along the eastern side of Richmond
Road as shown on the Preliminary Plan and shall provide sufficient vegetation to
meet the standards of Section N-B-8-e of the Subdivision Regulations. Said
buffer shall be so noted on the final plat, and described in a document describing
development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and
recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
D. Drainage
1. The floodway and floodway fringe of USGA intermittent streams shall be noted
on the face of the Final Plat. Development restrictions within the floodplain shall
be speci5ed on a document describing development restrictions and requirements
to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
The Homeowner's Association shall maintain the floodplain until it is conveyed
to the County.
2. Impervious surface data, as pursuant to Article 6.23.3c.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the
Final Plat. The impervious surface limitations for each lot shall indicate the
maximum impervious surface for each lot, net of the roadway (i.e. excluding
roadway). ,
Administration Resolution i o
3. A stream buffer along McGowan Creek shall be provided in accordance with
Section b.23.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. The width of the buffer shall be stated
on the face of plat. Development restrictions within the buffer shall be specified
in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be
prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
4. Locate drainage easements on the Final Flat as required by Erosion Control Office
in accordance with review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan.
E. Parkland
1. See F.S.
F. Miscellaneous
1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with
Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
2. The following easements shall be shown on the plat:
a. Drainage easements as required by D.4 above.
b. Sewer system easements
c. Water system easements
d. Utility easements along right-af--ways.
3. The minimum building setback requirements and impervious surface maximums
shall be stated on the Final Plat, and in a document describing development
restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded
concurrently with the Final Plat. The impervious surface limitations for each lot
shall indicate the maximum impervious surface for each lot, net of the roadway
(i.e. excluding roadway).
4: Phasing of the project shall occur only in accordance with the Preliminary Plan.
5. The entire common azea north of Boundbrook Drive (excluding the infiltration
azea) and along McGowan Creek shall be dedicated by fee simple deed to Orange
County and referenced on the Final Plat. This dedication shall serve as a
complete payment-in-lieu of parkland dedication. The Homeowner's Association
shall maintain the common area in its present state (dead or diseased trees may be
removed) that is to be deeded to the County until the land is conveyed.
6. The developer shall grant a 100-foot wide easement to Orange County for the
future installation of a 50-foot wide trail far the purpose of connecting Efland-
Cheeks School with the dedicated property along McGowan Creek. The
Homeowner's Association shall maintain the easement area in its present state
(dead or diseased trees may be removed) until this easement is conveyed to the
County.
7. All common areas to be owned by Homeowner's Association and shall be
perpetually maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
8. If any condition of this Resolution shall be held invalid or void, then this
Resolution shall be void in its entirety and of no effect.
Administration Resolution ~1
G. Certifications
1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a Professional Land Surveyor
shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat.
2. A Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance in the form provided in Section
V-D-b-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner
and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document
describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final
Plat.
3. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections
Department.
4. NCDOT shall certify that Alice Miller Court, Midvale Drive, and Boundbrook
Drive have been constructed or that construction plans have been approved prior
to Planning Department signatures on final plat.
Habitat for Humanity, Inc.
Beverly A. Blythe
Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners
Attest: Secretary
Administration Resolution is
I, ,accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and
acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat.
Susan Levy, Agent
Date
12a
i
. I ~ ,: _~_
, ~ F j ~ ~~..~ I ' I-
may'^--- - - = r _ :```•~~•~i 1:. -- ~:r"~.. '^y_ c.- .... - _._.-W9
~~~;'~ iii!' %+`~ a1
III •, l} ~:..~- .~,I,;;,.~t!Ip; ~-f,~j ,+~'; /; f.C+. ,;I
'II~`l~~li~• 'f ~~iii~l'i~i~'~~~`~:~I~r.} ; ii. ~..a..~~
III' i 11 ,~:/~(j,ryy ~l ~.i~: .'~, i'~/~'~\ ~ --.~ •!/; it
~; ~ y d....-r----
~,.....~- ~ I ` ~ _ ; o~% I ~ :.ter ~ ~?;1. r ; -' ~ , •~-- ;; --=;...rM.
-~---~ `2 ,S'• '•;....~ ate" ~~ ~%,:~• ~, --' ~ ,,~ ` ~±,.
_~~ ~~ ~ r Fr~Ta ~'%
•~
' w. - -^ --- ~ ,......,,,,.
.. .I ; .,,r.,. I ..~.,.. '
-+ w _ -
., ro -~ - - -_ ~.crr .r.
'~~ ~~:~~
mcr _...'°_ .nrn wrr.u.~.r anwr .rnor. pyL ~~~
~,~ PRELII'IINART PLAN OF RICFIr10ND HILLS ~ ~ _~ ~~~
` ~.._ ~ •.,,,. DEY~LOPh-ENT/ L,4ND$CbP= PLAN ...-^_•- _~~~m•.JJJIey-Ham
SP-2 OF 3 --.--°°----
- - .:: T ~ ~ uvaa'n~ ~.rn~r uxro _-~ _~._~ &11d Py^9aGt2tes,111C.
_ xi rr. oR ura~pe
....,.~ ...._ -......... ca~r+ce ccurnr, r+crt-nl u~vu, '_' _ -• :~:::'w::v-~:. ~~+~
12b
1
3.13..14 3.13..14A ..._ _.__-.--_--.-- ... _ •
3.13..15 -....---- _...____.__. _.. _
_ 3.31.A.Z1E -. _ _ _. _.._ . 3.13..18
3.31A.~1 - - .
3.31.A.20 _ •
~- 3.31A.21C
~- 3.13..18A
.31A..3q 3 1A..31 3.31A..44
3.31A. 29 31A..32 3.31A..43 ~ ~-
1 8
3.31A..33
3.31A..42 ~ ~
_
. , 3.31A..27 3.31A..34 3.31 41
~
3 31A..2t3 3.$1A.,85. 3.31A..40 ~
3.31.A.36
-~ __ _. 3 31A .38
3
3
_ _ .
1A.,98
~
_ - "_. 3.31.A.21D ~
..
3.31A..14 - .
3.31,A.3 3.3x,A.5 3 7
.32.A.
,A.B
i
~ Saleatvd Parcala
Background Info
-~3.32,A.11
3,32.A.12
PROPERTY MAP
This map contains parcels prepared far the inventory of feai prap~rty with(n
Orange County, and is campUed from recorded deeds, plate, and other public
records end data. Uaers of thla map are hereby notified that the atarsmentlaned
public primary information sources ahautd be consulted for varlflaatlon of the
information contained on this map, The County end Ito mapping companies assume
no laaal responsibility for the Information obntained an this map,
Planning Board Resolution
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date of Meeting: June b, 2000
Name of Subdivision: Richmond Hills
Owner/Applicant: Susan Levy, agent for Habitat for Humanity
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Richmond Hills subdivision Preliminary
Plat, dated Mazch 15, 2000 and containing 43 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements
specified herein.
Alice Miller Court, Midvale Drive and Boundbrook Drive shall be irrevocably dedicated to the
general public and be constructed to standazds of the North Cazolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT). The approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange
County Manager to accept for the County and' on behalf of the public generally, the offer of
dedication of Alice Miller Court, Midvale Drive, and Boundbrook Drive. This acceptance of
dedication to the general public shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be
maintained by the owner/applicant (Habitat for Humanity) until such time as they are accepted
for maintenance by NCDOT or some other governmental body.
Before the Final Plat of Richmond Hills can be recorded:
A. Sewage Disposal and Water Lines
1. Each residential lot shall be provided a sewer line stub out in accordance with
Orange County sewer connection guidelines.
2. Sewer line construction drawings shall be approved by the County Engineer and
shall be either bonded or constructed prior to final plat approval. Dedication to
Orange County of the sewer easements that aze outside of the public right-of--way
shall be shown on the Final Plat prior to Planning Department signatures on the
Final Plat. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits the developer shall
submit a copy of a letter from the County Engineer that the lines have been
installed and dedicated to Orange County. `As-built' drawings shall be submitted
to and approved by County Engineer prior to issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy.
3. The pump station shall be contained within a metes and bounds defined easement
granted to Orange County. The easement area shall be sufficiently lazge enough to
allow service and maintenance of the pump station facility. At least one 9' x 20'
pazking space shall be provided for a service vehicle. A metes and bounds legal
description of the proposed forced main line easement shall be shown on the final
plat. The perimeter of the pump station easement area shall be surrounded by a
13
Planning Board Resolution
fence a minimum of 5 feet in height. A landscape buffer 1 ~' in width shall be
placed around~the outside perimeter of the fenced area. Evergreen plantings shall
be a minimum of 6 feet in height with a 2-inch caliper measured 6" from ground
level and planted on eight (8) foot centers with proper mulch.
4. Water line construction drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the
Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. A letter indicating approval of the
construction drawings shall be submitted to the Flanning Department. A letter
from the Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. indicating that the construction or
bonding of the water lines meets their specifications will be required prior to
Planning Department signatures on.the Final Plat. Stub outlines shall be
provided for each lot.
5. All fire hydrant locations and water line pressures shall be approved by the
Orange County Fire Marshal prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
6. Sewer acreage fees shall be paid to the Orange County ,prior to Planning
Department signatures on the final plat.
7. Tap on fees for each residence shall be paid when obtaining individual building
permits.
8. The County Engineer shall approve the pump station system design. The County
Engineer shall approve standby power generation and alarm telemetry, as well as
other materials necessary for proper functioning of the system: A letter from the
County Engineer indicating approval shall be submitted at the time that Planning
Department signatures aze requested on the Final Plat.
B. Roads and Access
1. Alice Miller Court, Midvale Drive, and Boundbrook Drive shall be constructed to
NCDOT standards within a 50-foot right-of--way with 5' utility easements on each
side. Construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT.
oR
A letter of credit or escrow agreement ar other security shall be submitted to
secure construction of Alice Miller Court, Midvale Drive, and Boundbroolc Drive
to NCDOT standards. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a
certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted. to the Orange
County Planning Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110 percent of
that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do
business in North Carolina.
14
The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final
Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road
construction has been inspected and, approved by NCDOT.
Planning Board Resolution
2. An erosion control plan for construction of all streets shall be submitted by the
applicant for review and shall be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control
Divisiori prior to any disturbance on the site.
3. Prior to any construction or any alteration of any existing access within the right-
of--way of Richmond Road, the developer/owner shall secure a driveway permit
from the NCDOT District Office. Submit a copy of the NCDOT- approved
permit and letter to the Planning Department at the same time as the request for
Planning Department signatures on the Final Plat. Sight distance triangles shall
be shown at all intersections within the subdivision, or included within the right-
of-way of the proposed street.
4. All lots shall secure access from streets internal to the subdivision. No comer lot
driveway access shall be allowed within 50 feet of an intersection. This
restriction shall be stated in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements to be prepazed by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the
Final Plat.
5. Approved street name signs shall be erected at the intersection of streets as
required in Section IV-B-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations..
Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant that the signs are in place or a copy
of the receipt for purchase of the signs shall be submitted to the Planning
Department at time of request to record the Final Plat.
6. Dedicate to the Department of Transportation an additional 5 feet along the entire
frontage of Richmond Road for future road improvements. Dedication to be
shown on final plat. Property lines to stop at new public right-of--way.
7. Boundbrook Drive right-of--way shall be dedicated to the eastern property line.
Indicate on the final plat "Street subject to future extension". Twenty (20) foot
construction easements shall be shown on the Final Plat on both sides of the
unimproved section of Boundbrook Drive. Additional right-of--way to
accommodate the T-turnaround shall be indicated on the plat as `Temporary right-
of-way until Boundbrook Drive is extended'. Upon extension of Boundbrook
Ihive the temporary right-of--way shall revert to the owner(s) of the surrounding
property, in this case the Homeowner's Association.
C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall be preserved as indicated on the approved landscape plan, and
must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department prior
to Planning Department signatures on the final plat. Landscaping shall be placed
behind the sight distance triangles at intersections.
2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape
plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the
Final Plat.
15
Planning Board Resolution
A l~~' Land [Ise Buffer shall be provided along the eastern side of Richmond
Road as shown on the Preliminary Plan and shall provide sufficient vegetation to
meet the standazds of Section IV-B-S-e of the Subdivision Regulations. Said
buffer shall be so noted on the final plat, and described in a document describing
development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and
recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
D. Drainage
1. The floodway and floodway fringe of L1SGA intermittent streams shall be noted
on the face of the Final Plat. Development restrictions within the floodplain shall
be specified on a document describing development restrictions and requirements
to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
2. Impervious surface data, as pursuant to Article 6.23.3c.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
shall be included in a document describing development restrictions grid
requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the
Final Plat. The impervious surface limitations for each lot shall indicate whether
the impervious surface includes or excludes one-half (''/z) of the roadway width in
the calculations.
3. A stream buffer along McGowan Creek shall'be provided in accordance with
Section 6.23..7 of the Zoning Ordinance. The width of the buffer shall be stated
on the face of plat. Development restrictions within the buffer shall be specified
in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be
prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concuxrently with the Final Plat.
4. Locate drainage easements on the Final Plat as required by Erosion Control Office
in accordance with review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan.
•~ G
E. ~
~.
F. Miscellaneous
1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with
Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
2. The following easements shall be shown on the plat:
a, drainage easements as required by D.4 above.
3. The minimum building setback requirements and impervious surface maximums
shall be stated an the Final Plat, and in a document describing development
restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded
concurrently with the Final Plat. Both the Plat and the development restriction
document shall indicate whether the impervious surface restrictions include or
exclude the impervious surface of the roadway.
Planning Board Resolution
=1. Phasing of the project shall occur only in accordance with the Preliminary Plan.
~. The entire common area north of Boundbrook Drive (excluding the infiltration
area) and along McGowan Creek shall be dedicated in fee simple to Orange
County. This dedication shall serve as a complete payment-in-lieu of
parkland dedication.
6.
. The developer shall grnnt a 100' width
easement to Orange County for the future installation of a 50' width trail for
the purpose of connecting Efland-Cheeks School with the dedicated property
along McGowan Creek. The responsibility far cleanup and maintenance ol'the
common areas shall remain with the Homeowner's Association.
G. Certifications
A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a Professional Land Surveyor
shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat.
2. A Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance in the form provided in Section
V-D-6-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner
and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document
describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final
Plat.
3. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections
Department.
4. NCDOT shall certify that Alice Miller Court, Midvale Drive, and Boundbrook
Drive have been constructed or that construction plans have been approved prior
to Planning Department signatures on final plat.
Habitat for Humanity, Inc.
Attest: Secretary
Beverly A. Blythe
Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners
I, ,accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and
acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat.
Susan Levy, Agent
Date
17
APPL1 ~TIO~I' FOR PRELSI~IINARY PLA
1~Lr1.JOR SUBDIVISIOY
ORAI~IGE COUNTY
PLE,~SE ~'YPg OR PRIN'C (tNK OM.1~
SUBDIVISION NAbIE: ~
LOCATION:
O WNERlDEVELOPER:
ADDRESS: P O
,~ '~~~~AGENT/CONTACT:
~ ,,,.
N.oV`'t'Gt 0
~~~5
APPROVAL
u~
NO.:
1a
DAIE__rl ' ~~
~~
~7
~~
TELEPHONE NO.:
~Lq - /-~~.: zog~-
A. SUMMARY 1NFORMATIC
Orange County Tax Ma
Zoning District(s):~„
Total Number of Acres: L
Total Number of Lots:
NumberlType of Structures:
Linear Feet in Streets: '?
Water Supply: 'la
Wastewater Disposa . LtM
School District:
General Land Uses in Area:
Critical Areas: ~ 5'~YX~l1 V
Block ~ Lot(s) ~~ Township ~i ~ fj
Average Lot Size: ~ Minimum Lot Size: DD
:xistin,) ~ C7 (proposed)
~~ Acres in Open Space: ~
41Pttblic (specify) Community Individual
Public (specify)- Comr~uniry Individual
watershed (specify)
flood prone areas
historic sites
other (explain) /
Is the' property to be subdivided currently under "farm use value taxation"? Yes No ~/ . If "yes," please
contact the Orange County Tax Office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under
"farm use value taxation." '~
S. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals twahundred feet (1"=200') and no larger than
one inch equals twenty feet 41"20') and must contain the following information:
/ `=~ '`"~ `~
~. ?:>~~.
subdivision name ~ $~:: zoning of tract and adjacent properties
~ name & address of owner(s) / v.~`' : building setback lines by notation
~ >y~'': r name dt address of subdivider or typical lot layout
(if other than owner) •~ location and width of existing and
./ '~<>a name of surveyor, engineer, landscape proposed easements (drainage, utilities,
architect or architect, address, roads, etc.)
regisaation # & seal _ '~:>~w~:. existing, Proposed and adjoining righu-
/ ~~~'~ (title) Preliminary Plan of--way includin; dimensions and street
_/ ~:<> ~<'=N
.:: scale, north arrow names and State Road numbers. Linear
~ :~ date of plan preparation and revisions feet of road centerlines and approximate
7 ~'>~~ township, tax map-block-lot references
~ f
~'
'~ acreage of new street rights-of--way
~ ;~;<~< Parent Parcel Identification # ~r
~~
~., e~cistinQ and ro osed utilities, including
7 ~~ deed book and page # of property to be type, sizes, hydrants, valves, manholes
subdivided / ~"~ existin; and proposed curbs, ;utters and
,~ ~~~ boundary described with bearings and culverts, including sizes and wades
distances ~~~
-~ '?~~~_~`:'.~~ location and width of alleys, sidewalks,
~` >~~ ,
total acreage of the tract and acreage of f ~ bike lanes, transit systems, and bus stops
including and excluding aces within
lots ,~~~
~ typical street cross-sections and
,
rights-of--way . intersection details including design and
`~ `' proposed lot lines with dimensions
/ ~_. lot ~4c block numbers
~ ,,,~, , phasing line(s)
~ ~ ` ropography at ten (10) foot intervals _
>?' ~' water bodies, streams, floodways and
floodplains
'~ `. stream buffers
~% location and size of parcels dedicated for
public use, recreational use or reserved in
common, with purpose noted
`~ ~''''~~`~` `'< impervious surface data (if located in
<:i:~M:
water supply watershed)
<,,,~`w vicinity map showint general location of
subdivision with streets and roads
~' identified by State Road number and name
~ '?."'<:"::""+° landscaping and buffer requirements
-~~<i township, corporate and e:ttraterritorial
........:<a .
planning jurisdiction lines which cross the
property
C. OTHER SUBMITTAI, R]rQUREMENTS
1. Twenty-five (25) copies of the Preliminary Plat.
~ 19
. horizontal aliment, centerline radius,
and ;eneral curve data on all proposed
/ streets
'
~ , permanent features such as buildings
,
cemeteries, historic landmarks
~/ adjoining lot layout names of adjoining
property owner. If subdivided,
subdivision plat name, plat book & page
number, and perimeter lot numbers.
~/ > !,, ~ ~ location and size of lots of restricted
development potential and notation on
plat retarding same
~~ ° ~'~>` ''~~`< stormwater detention and/or retention
sites and undisturbed areas for infiltration
purposes (if located in water supply
watershed)
~ tdentifed natural areas and wildlife
~~
corridors
2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tax map (with tax parcels involved clearly marked).
3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a copy ofthe Preliminary Plat indicating Health
Department approval/denial for each lot shown thereon.
4. Where a private road is proposed, a written statement by the applicant or his/her authorized representative
which sets forth the jusitification for a private road (see Section IV-$-;-d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations).
5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section VI ofthis Ordinance which assure
completion and/or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such dacutnents may include,
but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement and articles of incorporation and restrictive
covenants pertaining W a homeowners association. These documents may be required as necessary as evidence
that the ordinance requirements are being met.
6. Fee - 5470 plus X5.00 per lot (one fee for Preliminary and Final Plat).
7. If the subdivision contains 10 lots or more, the following information shall be submitted with the application:
a. Number of years to 6uildout
b. . Number of houses to be built durins each year until buildout.
c. Avera,e price of houses including lots for each year to buildout.
I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoin; application is complete and accurate.
C4d5 tk. ~/ rzC.fJ~I
.ay PLICANT'5 SIGMA WNER'S SIGMA
/: /-~,b; f~.f ~v/ ,~a~if~, o.-~rr9c Cry, ~t/c,~
a 3 daeo z 3/gaga
DATE DATE
6~D '7, ~
FEES: Amount / 5~ - Date Pai~,p,~l' ~~ Receipt # I ~~ J~~
~ ~ KimleyHorn
® and Associates, Inc.
~n
February 3, 2000 °~
P.o. Sax 33068
Raleigh, North Ca
27636.3088
Robert Davis
Orange County Department of Planning and Inspections
306 F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 2727$
Re: Habitat For Humanity Orange County, NC, Inc.
Preliminary Plan for Richmond Hills
Dear: Mr. Davis:
On behalf of Habitat For Humanity Orange County, NC, Inc., I am pleased to
submit a Preliminary Plan fora 43 lot cluster subdivision.
Accompanying this letter is ,the required application and application fee along
with 2S copies of the plan.
With respect to the Planning Board approval of the Concept Plan and items to be
addressed at Preliminary Plan submission, we offer the following information
and comments.
Roadway_Design an_d Right-of-Way,considerations.
We have met with NC DOT and reviewed utility, right-o£--way, and easement
issues (both their concerns and County concerns). As a result the Preliminary
Plan shows the following:
1) Five (5) feet of additional land along Richmond Road to be dedicated to
NCDOT to provide one-half of a 35' wide ultimate right-of--way.
2) Public water and sewer lines are not located under pavement except at neces-
sary crossings.
3) All interior streets~are fifty feet (SO') in width with five feet (S') utility and
construction easements on each side.
4) "T" intersections are shown with NCDOT's preferred site triangle right-of-
way and widened pavement detail.
• 5) At NCDOT insistence; the first roadway to the right upon entering the subdi-
vision has been revised to provide a 230 feet centerline radius in place of the
right angle comer shown on the Concept Plan. As a result of this design
z:
~ ~ ~ KimleyHorn
~' and Associates, inc.
Robert Davis
February 3, ?000
Page 2
change the number of lots shown on the plan have been reduced to 43 lots,
one less than approved by the Planning Board.
Utilities
The Orange Alamance Water System, Inc, has approved the connection of this
site to their system and a letter of their action is attached.
The Orange County School Board has approved an easement permitting sanitary
sewer to connect to the existing Orange County sanitary sewer line that runs
along the northern edge of the Efland-Checks Elementary School property. Be-
cause of the number of extra meetings held by the School Board to consider re-
districting plans and the recent weather, the preparation and approval of official
minutes recording•the School Board's approval are not yet. Susan Levy has been
told by the board's secretary that she will provide a letter to Habitat as soon pos-
sible.
Im ervious Surface Limitations
The Richmond Hills Subdivision site is located in the Eno River Protected Wa-
tershed and therefore has impervious surface limitations. With structural BMP's
the impervious limit is 30%, without structural BMP's the limit is 12%.
The Richmond Hills plan proposes to construct less than 12% impervious surface
on the site and' therefore does not show structural water quality facilities. The
following table shows the allocation of the 12% coverage.
Total Site in S care Feet 1,751275 SF
Maximum Im envious Surface 12%) 210,153 SF
Paved Roadwa surface - 69,696 SF
'ous surface for 43 lots 140,457 SF
Avera a er lot im envious surface 3,266 SF
We did not place a note referring to impervious surface limitations on the sub-
mitted preliminary plan, but will do so on our next submission.
We propose a statement something like: "The maximum impervious surface al-
lowed for this development is 210,153 square feet (12% of the total site area).
Starting with the first phase of development, the subdivision developer shall keep
a running record of the impervious surface area approved to date and constructed
to date and shall provide an updated tabulation at the time of building permit re-
quests for all lots."
2z
®j~l~
~~
Kimley-Horn
and AS50CI8teS, •InG,
Development Schedule
Robert Davis
February 3, 3D00
Page 3
Habitat for Humanity hopes to begin construction on the first phase of this subdi-
vision during the summer of this year, 2000. It is anticipated that development
would take place over a five year period with the number of homes per year as
shown below.
- ~ Homes
Year ~ - 2001 .~ jp Homes
Year - 2002 ,1~6 /;~ Homes
Year - 2003 /1 J 1 Homes
Year - 2004 ~ 11 Homes
Total 43 Homes
Value of Homes
Because of the construction process and mortgage structure of Habitat For Hu-
manity homes, the purchase price of these homes is less than the fair market ap-
praised value used for assessment and taxation purposes.
Based on comparable homes that Habitat for Humanity has recently completed in
Orange County, the average assessed value of these homes is expected to be
about $ 110,000.
Home Owners •Association Documents
These documents are being submitted separately by the attorney for Habitat For
Humanity.
We look forward to your review of this Preliminary Plan application. If you have
questions about any aspect of the information or we have not addressed all the
issues please call.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCLAT'ES,1NC.
~c~~' ~
Scott O. Radway, AICP
Senior Project Manager
50R/s
cc: Susan Levy, Habitat For Humanity Orange County, NC, Inc.
RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD c3
Bureau of Economic 8- Business Research -University of Florida
Modified 4115197 -Orange County, NC Planning Department
SECTION 1 -PROJECT DATA: - ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACM PROJECT:
PROJECT: Richmond Hills
TOWNSHIP: Cheeks
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD:
Beginning Year: 2001
Ending Year: 2004
Inflation Rate: 2.50%
CHARACTERI$T1CS OF HOUSEHOLDS:
Persons/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 2.47
Children/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0.33
Non-Elderly: 100.00%
HOME SALES DATA:
Average Distribution
Number of Sales Price of Units
Year Homes (S) by Year
2001 10 105,000 23.26%
2002 ~ 11 105,000 25.58%
2003 11 110,000 25.58%
2004 11 110,000 25.58°/a
2005 0 0 0.00%
2006 0 0 0.00%
2007 0 0 0.00%
200$ 0 0 0.00°!
2009 0 0 0.00°
2010 0 0 0.00°
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ~ ENTER "1" IN ( )BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO BE
-~ LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE.
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County ( 1) Elementary School 64°~
Middle School 17°
Chapel Hill-Carrboro ( 0) High School 19°
SECTION Z -LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA z~
BUDGET YEAR: 1996-97
COUNTY POPULATION: - 105898
SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT POPULATION: 5fi80
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT: P051TIONS PER CAPITA
General Government 108.60 0.0010
Public Safety 142.95 ~ 0.0013
Public Works 50.00 0.0005
Human Services X4,07 0.0025
Education (School District) 818.00 0.0077
SCHOOL DIS RICT EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER STUDENT
Total 818.00 0.1440
COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUE5 (S): REVENUES PER CAPITA
Taxes -Other Than Property 4653250 43.94
Intergovernmental 9007481 85.06
Service Charges 3388055 31.99
Miscellaneous 1738939 16.42
COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA
General Government 6804231 64.25
Public Safety 7274334 68.69
Public Works 2871690 27.12
Human Services 17112641 161.60
Education (Recurring Capital) 750000 7.08
Non-Departmental 3163481 29.87
COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE (S): EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYEE
General Govemment 6804231 62654.06
Public Safety 7274334 50887.28
Public Works 2871690 57433.80
Human Services 17112641 64803.43
Education (Recurring Capital) 750000 916.87
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES .(S): EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
County Government 10121760 1782.OC
School District 0 0.01
State 21523177 3789.2
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES (S): EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYEI
10121760 12373.7
County Government
0 0.0
School District
21523177 26311.9:
State
TAX DATA: ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIO AND ELDERLY EXEMPTION:
9190 Per $100 Assessed Valuation
0
County Tax Rate ($) .
0000 Per $100 Assessed Valuation
0
School District Tax Rate ($) .
Assessment Ratio 100.00
0 $11,000 Where Applicable
Elderly Exemption
' SECTION 3 -DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA 25
YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 200:
HOUSING UNITS 10 21 32 43 43
POPULATION 28 52 79 106 10fi
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 2 4 7 g 5
Middle _ 1 1 2 2 2
High School 1 1 2 3 3
TOTAL 3 7 11 14 14
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.1'
Public Safety 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.1
Public Works 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.0:
Human Services 0.06 0.13 0.20 0.26 0.2E
TOTAL 0.13 0.28 0.42 0.57 0.5
SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.19 0,40 0.61 0.82 0,8;
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011
HOUSING UNITS 43 43 43 43 43
POPULATION 106 10fi 10fi 106 10fi
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 9 9 9 g c
Middle _
High School 2
3 2
3 2
3 2
3
TOTAL 14 14 14 14 14
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Govemment 0.1'I 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.1
Public Safety 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.1
Public Works O.p5 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.0:
Human Services 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.2~
TOTAL 0.57 0.57 0,57 0.57 0.5'
SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.82 0.82 0.$2 0.82 0.8
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
SECTION 4 -PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT 20
YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 20C
7AX BASE ($1000) - 1050 2231 3497 4794 491
REVENUES ($)
Property Tax. 9650 20505 32138 44061 4516;
Other Taxes 1085 2336 3649 5026. 515•
Intergovernmental 2101 4522 7063 9729 g97;
Service Charges 790 1701 2657 3659 3751
Miscellaneous 406 873 1364 1878 192°
TOTAL ($) 14032 29938 46870 64353 65962
EXPENDITURES ($)
General Government 1587 3416 5336 7349 753:
Public Safety 1697 3652 5704 7857 805:
Public Works 67D 1442 2252 3102 317
Human Services 3991 8592 13419 18483 1894
Education 6056 13035 20359 28041 28742
Non-Departmental 738 1588 2481 3417 350:
TOTAL ($) 14738 31724 49550 68248 69954
'NET FISCAL IMPACT ($) -707 -1787 -2680 -3895 -399:
YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 201
TAX BASE ($1000) 5037 51fi3 5292 5424 556
REVENUES ($)
Property Tax 46292 47449 48635 49851 5109.
Other Taxes 5280 5412 5548 5686 5821
Intergovemmental 10221 10477 10739 11007 1128:
Service Charges 3845 3941 4039 4140 424•
Miscellaneous 1973 2023 2073 2125 217.
TOTAL ($) 67611 69301 71034 72810 74631
EXPENDITURES ($)
General Govemment 7721 7914 8112 8315 852
Public Safety $254 8461 8fi72 8889 911
Public Works 3259 3340 3424 3509 359'
Human Services 19418 19904 20401 20912 2143
Education 29461 30197 30952 31726 3251:
Non-Departmental 3590 3679 3771 386fi 396
TOTAL (S) 71703 73495 75333 77216 7914
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($) -4092 X194 X299 X407 X51
27
SECTION 5 -PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 2D0
REVENUES ($)
County 6056 13035 20359 28041 28742
School District 0 0 0 0
State 12505 26916 42041 57904 59352
TOTAL (~) 18560 39951 62399 85945 88094
EXPENDITURES (y)
County 6056 13035 20359 28041 28742
School District 0 0 0 0
State 12505 26916 42041 57904 59352
TOTAL ($) 18560 39951 62399 85945 88094
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($) 0 0 0 Q
YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 201
REVENUES (a)
County 29461 30197 30952 31726 32519
School District 0 0 0 0 t
State 60836 62357 63916 65514 67151
TOTAL (S) 90296 92554 94868 97239 99670
EXPENDITURES ($)
County _ 29461 30197 30952 31726 32519
School District 0 0 0 0 ~
State 60836 62357 6391fi 65514 67151
TOTAL (~) 90296 92554 94868 97239 99670
NET FISCAL IMPACT (S) 0 0 0 0 i
SECTION 6 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHICIFISCAL IMPACTS
~a
YEAR 2001 2002
WOUSING UNITS 10 21
POPULATION - 25 52
SCWOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 2 4
Middle 1 1
High School 1 1
TOTAL 3 7
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.13 0.28
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.19 0.40
TAX BASE ($1000) 1050 223
COUNTY BUDGET (5)
2003 2004 200°
32 43 43
79 106 106
7 g g
2 2 2
2 3 3
11 14 14
0.42 0.57 0.51
0.61 0.82 0.82
349T 4794 4914
Revenues 14032 29938 46870 64353 65962
Expenditures 14738 31724 49550 fi8248 89954
BALANCE -707 -1787 -2680 -3895 -3992
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET (S)
Revenues 18560 39951 82399 85945 88094
Expenditures 18560 39951 62399 85945 88094
BALANCE 0 0 0 0 0
COMBINED BUDGETS (a)
Revenues 32592 69889 109270 150298 154056
Expenditures 33299 71675 111950 154193 158048
BALANCE -707 -1787 -2680 -3895 -3992
YEAR 2006 2007
HOUSING UNITS 43 43
POPULATION 106 106
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 9 9
Middle 2 2
High School 3 3
TOTAL 14 14
COUNTY EMPLOYEES _ 0.57 0.57
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.82 0.82
TAX BASE ($1000) 5037 5163
COUNTY BUDGET (a)
200$ 2009 .2010
43 43 43
106 106 106
9 9 9
2 2 2
3 3 3
14 14 14
0.57 0,57 0.5.
0.82 0.82 0.8:
5292 5424 5560
Revenues 67611 69301 71034
Expenditures 71703 73495 75333
BALANCE X092 X194 X299
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET (3)
Revenues 90296 92554 94868
Expenditures 90296 92554 94868
BALANCE 0 0 0
COMBINED BUDGETS (S)
Revenues 157907 161855 165901
Expenditures 1819,99 ififi049 170200
BALANCE -4092 X194 --4299
72810
77218
-4407
97239
97239
0
170049
174455
X407
74630
79148
X517
99670
99670
174300
178817
X517
r
SECTION 7 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: "
School District:
Orange County YES )
Chapel Hill-Carrboro NO )
YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004
SCHOOL CHILDREN
200
Elementary 2 4 7 9 ~
Middle ,~ 1 1 2 2
High School 1 1 2 3
TOTAL 3 7 11 14 1 e
YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 201
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary g g g g ~
Middle 2 2 2 2
High School 3 3 3 3 ,
TOTAL 14 14 14 14 14
SCHOOL CAPACITIES -ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT -ALL SCHOOLS
Elementary 3328 Elementary 2822
Middle 1522 Middle 1240
High School 1520 High School 1457
TOTAL 6370 TOTAL 551
YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 200
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 2824 2826 2829 2831 2831
Middle 1241 1241 1242 1242 1242
High School __ 1458 1458 1459 1460 146Q
TOTAL 5522 5526 5530 5533 5533
YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 201
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 2831 2831 2831 2831 2831
Middle 1242 1242 1242 1242 1242
High School 1460 1460 1460 1460 146Q
TOTAL 5533 5533 5533 5533 8533
School Attendance:
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
C~
64`
17`
19`
~, .
~= J
VOTE: Unanimous.
3 ~ b. Preliminary Plans
4
(1) Richmond Hills
(Cheeks Township - 43 lots)
7
s Robert Davis made the presentation.
t0 PUR:POSE: Consideration Conservation-Cluster Preliminary Plan
t t BACKGROUND:
t2 Request
13 Applicant: Susan Levy, agent for Habitat for Humanity
14 40.34 acres tract
t 5 Forty-three (43) single-family residential lots (includes $ lot open space density bonus)
16 Location
17 Cheeks Township
18 ~ Eastern side of Richmond Road (SR 1312) approximately'/: mile north of US 70
t9 In 20-year transition area on north side of US 74
20 Existing Site Conditions
21 Zoning -
22 Rural Residential (Rl) and Upper Eno - Protected Watershed (12% impervious)
23 Minimum zoning lot size for Rl is 40,000 squaze feet
2a Adjacent Land Uses: Single-family residential, institutional (school) and vacant
25 Physical Description
26 Slight slopes an majority of site
27 McGowan Creek on northern boundary; tributaries on eastern and southern sides
28 • Few substantial trees---timbered in recent past
29 ~ Proposed undisturbed areas already disturbed with fallen/cut trees
30 Pro axed Site Conditions
3 t Roads:
32 Access to subdivision is from Richmond Road (SR 1312)
33 Proposed public roads to be designed to NCDOT (and County) standards at preliminary stage
34 •' Right turn taper lane built to NCDOT standards required on Richmond Road at entrance to
3S subdivision
36 Open Space:
37 22.2 acres (SS~~1`o}proposed in common azea open space
38 8.8 acres ovaettte minimum 33% (13.3 acres) that is required (9.1 acres after 1 lot reduction)
39 • . MC:TAR (minimum cluster-to-actual lodsize ratio) = 1.02
a0 100' buffer provided azound the site.
41 • Lazge open space azea on eastern side of property
42 Density Bonus Provision
43 8 bonus lots proposed; 9 bonus lots permitted under ordinance
44 [1 bonus lot permitted for every acre of open space over 13.3 acres (33%) required
as 43 total lots proposed
a6 [Minimum lot size in Conservation/Cluster option = 14,000 sq. ft (65% reduction)
47 Water-Sewer:
4s Public Water (Orange-Alamance) (Letter provided from Orange-Alamance)
49 • Public Sewer (Orange County)
4
to
12
13
14
is
16
l7
18
19
20
21
z2
23
24
2S
26
27
2s
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4t
42
43
44
4S
46
47
48
31
• Sewer easement across Orange County School (Letter provided from Superintendent)
• Pump Station proposed -with force main sewer line (See attached County Engineer
comments)
• Sewer acreage fees will be accessed
• Sewer fee to Hillsborough to be paid as permits are obtained
Development Process. Schedule, and Action
• First Action: Planning Board approved the Concept Plan on Uctober 6,1999 by '
unanimous vote with the following conditions:
1. All roads shall be public and designed to meet NCDOT (and County) standards.
2. Northern road shall stub out to the eastern property line at a 90-degree angle.
3. If a sign is anticipated, reserve sign easement location at entrance to subdivision.
Sign to meet
setback requirements.
4. Ultimate right-of--way along Richmond Road shall be 70 feet. Dedication along
Richmond Road of five additional feet ofright-of--way or 35 feet from center of
existing right-of--way, whichever is greater, will be required to be shown on
preliminary plan. Property lines to stop at new right-of--way lines.
5. Submit draft documentation for Homeowner's Association restrictive covenants or
conservation easements that contain use and maintenance provisions for the open
space and buffers. The restrictive covenants or conservation agreement shall
designate aback-up grantee in the event the homeowners association is eliminated.
b. No main utility lines shall be located under pavement.
7. No private utilities allowed within public right-of--way.
8. Recommend taps (water and sewer) to be installed for each lot prior to road
COnstrllGtlOn COmpletlon. EnCIOaChment agreement for these servlCeS Wlll be requlIed
before the State will accept maintenance of the roadway.
9. Provide additional 5' easements on both sides of all streets. Improved intersections to
NCDOT standards with b0 feet ofright-of--way at all intersections.
10. Provide NCDOT encroachment agreement required for sewer lines prior to
acceptance of roads for maintenance.
11. Drainage easements to be identified at preliminary submittal stage.
12. Delineation of FEMA 100-yeaz floodplain required at preliminary stage.
13. Obtain letter of permission to tie into the Orange-Alamance Water System, inc.
Submit copy of letter with preliminary application.
14.Obtain easement across the Orange County Schools property for the installation
public sewer line. Reference recorded document on preliminary plan.
15. Housing density bonus only allows for nine (9) additional units. One lot must be
eliminated. (two were)
16. Dedication to Orange County of trails through open space and along McGowan Creek
shall be identified at preliminary stage.
17. Indicate on the preliminary plat azeas for on-site infiltration of storm water that
demonstrates compliance with Article 6.23.3a of the Orange County Zoning
ordinance.
• Second Action: Planning Board to consider the Preliminary Plan
1. Action within two meetings, or extension thereof; or,
2. If the Planning Board fails to act within the specified time period, the preliminary
plan goes to the Boazd of County Commissioners without a Planning Boazd
recommendation:
~2
1 If approved the applicant shall have ane (1) year to prepare and file a Preliminary Plat
2 application. If a Preliminary~Plat has not been submitted within the specified time limit, the
3 Concept Plan shall become null and void.
4 FINANCIAL IMPACT: ~ A Fiscal Impact Analysis is provided. as an attachment.
5 RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL with the
6 conditions contained in the attached Resolution.
7
8 Benedict made reference to the Efland Sewer Fund and said that the Commissioners, at their last
9 meeting, were discussing a sliding scale for the sewer fee depending on the size of the house.
1 o The Commissioners did not complete this item and it will come back at the next meeting.
11
12 Davis went over the attached resolution that addresses the conditions before the Final Plat of
13 Richmond Hills can be recorded.
14
15 McAdams made reference to page 30 and the first action where the Planning Board approved the
16 Concept Plan for Richmond Hills an October 6, 1999. He said that he remembers deleting
17 condition #16, which is, "Dedication to Orange County of trails through open space and along
18 McGowan Creek shall be identified at preliminary stage."
19
20 Discussion ensued on the change in language for condition #16.
21
22 Davis said that the reason for this condition was that there was County money involved in the
23 purchase, so they were reserving the right for the County to use some of the land that they
24 participated in purchasing.
25
26 Benedict said that every subdivision does Dave a required pazk dedication. In this case, the staff
27 is asking far a dedication of land. In addition, there was $2'75,000 put towazds this project by the
28 County to help fund the cast of land acquisition and infrastructure. It is an excellent location for
29 an affordable housing project because it is next to a school and a park.
30
31 Chair Allison said that he now had a different perspective about the subdivision than when he
32 voted against it before. .
33
3a Strayhorn said that he.did not feel like #16 should be a condition of approval. He has no
35 objections to the subdivision. He said that open space has always been considered a part of the
3d development and for the benefit of the residents. In this subdivision, the community-at-large
37 would be using the open space. He does not support this.
38
39 Goodwin asked about the fiscal impact statement on page 49.
40
41 Benedict said that this fiscal impact model needs some updating. He said that this subdivision is
42 close to a fire station, and the closer developments are to public services, the lower the cost to the
43 County. He said that he is trying to add a location factor to the analysis.
44
45 Goodwin made reference to the -4492 amount in the fiscal impact analysis and asked at what
46 point this would be denied because it was costing the County too much.
47 Benedict said that the balance sheet was far information to let the Planning Board, the
48 Commissioners, and the community know that certain types of housing do not pay far
49 themselves on a simple balance sheet.
33
1 Barrows said that she has a concern about the sewer situation. She is concerned about setting a
z precedent and that the County would be taking on a substantial bill to pay OWASA annually.
3 She believes in affordable housing, but she wonders how far the County should go to subsidize.
~t She suggested that the residents contribute some funds on a sliding scale for the water/sewer
5 services.
7 Davis said that the estimated cost to the County for this sewer would be $600-700 per month.
8
9 Benedict gave some background on how the sewer system is achieved in the Efland azea.
1 o Hillsborough has a sewer treatment plan, and the County has an agreement with Hillsborough to
11 send the sewage collected in the Efland azea back to be treated by Hillsborough. The County has
12 no Crews to maintain the pump stations in Efland, so they subcontract out with OWASA to
13 maintain the pump.
14
15 Barrows verified with Benedict that none of the casts for the sewer maintenance were reflected
16 in the fiscal impact analysis.
17
18 Chair Allison asked if the issue with the sewer was a concern or a condition of the preliminary
19 plan.
zo
21 Davis said that the staff resolution did not include any requirements far the sewer system.
22
23 Benedict said that the comments of the Planning Boazd would be noted on the agenda for the
za County Commissioners. He said that the County Engineer, the County Manager, and the
zs applicant would discuss this issue before it goes to the Commissioners.
z6
27 Selkirk pointed out that the sewer would double the cost in the fiscal impact analysis.
28
z9 Strayhorn said that he is concerned that there aze so many questions about this subdivision.
3o Also, the abstract that is in the agenda tonight looks like the board did not take any action on
31 October 6`~'.
32
33 Davis said that the question was whether the land would be dedicated to the County or the
3a homeowner's association. He said that the boazd decided to change the language, but it was not
35 decided what the language change would be.
36
37 Susan Levy, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, addressed a couple
3 s of issues. She reiterated that this subdivision was an affordable housing development. The
39 majority of the homes, at least 25 ar more, will be sold to families who earn 50% of median
ao income or below. Only a few of the homes would be sold to families that earn up to $0% of
41 median income. She said that the County has.approved $460,000 in Orange County housing
az bond funds to go towards the purchase of the land and a portion of the infrastructures in
a3 Richmond Hills. One of the conditions for the funds is that these homes remain affordable for 99
44 years. She said that Habitat for Humanity does not feel that the traffic generated by the
aS subdivision would warrant the tapered turn lane. She said that they were willing to dedicate the
46 parkland to the County, but they do not understand the full implications of it in terms of the
a7 public access. Habitat for Humanity does hope that by dedicating the land that they would be
as excused from making the payment-in-lieu. She said that they were not sure what the blanket
a9 easement means, but they were interested in there being a trail from the school and the park to
34
1 the subdivision. In regards to the pump station, Habitat for Humanity is primarily concerned
? with the homeowners who would have to maintain the individual pumps over time. She said that
3 ,the resources to maintain the pumps are quite limited with these families.
4 -
5 Scott Radway, from Kimley-Horn Associates, is a consultant to Habitat for Humanity on this
6 project. He said that the phasing plan is very important for Habitat for Humanity because of the
7 funding that is required. He showed the different phases on a map. He explained why there
8 could not be a gravity sewer system in Richmond Hills. He said that the cost of the pump station
9 would be slightly less than the cost of doing all of the individual homes. He said that the
to contract with OWASA probably would not cost another $7000 because there is a pump station
11 around the corner and it would only be adding minimal time far OWASA to maintain it. With
12 regard to the open space dedication, he said that the blanket easement is a little problematic
13 because it does not necessarily connect easily to the subdivision. He distributed a document
14 concerning the right turn lane. He explained that the amount of trips in the subdivision falls
1 S substantially under NCDOT's standards to require a right tum lane.
16
17 Selkirk asked who was paying for the other pump station that is north of the property. Radway
18 said that the County was paying for the pump station out of general funds.
19
20 Benedict said that there is a utility fund and there is some revenue taming from the sewer rates_
21
22 Preston said that she was concerned about lots 11, 12, and 13 because they would be next to the
23 access to the trails and the pump station. She said that the pump station could be a nuisance to
z4 the neighbors (i.e., smell, maintenance, etc.)..
2S
2d Radway said that he did not think the pump station would be a nuisance because it is a quiet
27 operation.
28
29 Barrows made reference to the turn lane and said that there was a safety concern about the traffic
30 on Kenyon Road. With regazd to the County absorbing the sewer fees, she said that if taxpayers
31 fund this, the burden is distributed to everyone, including other County property owners who are
32 also poor and have a difficult time paying their taxes.
33
34 Selkirk agrees with Barrows about the sewer issue. He does not think the County should be
35 responsible far the pump station. He sees this as a constant drain on the County.
36
37 Preston asked if the Commissioners might decide that the Homeowner's Association would be
38 responsible for the pump station. Chair Allison said that the Planning Boazd could make some
39 recommendations, but it was ultimately up to the Commissioners.
40
41. Chair Allison clarified that the board needed to decide about the pump station, the turn lane, and
42 the blanket easement.
43
44 Benedict said that the azea for the easement could be specified as the eastern 100' buffer area.
4S
46 Discussion ensued about the property surrounding Richmond Hills.
47
48 Goodwin asked why it was being imposed on ,this community that the outside public could have
49 access to their property. .
35
1 Benedict said that it was not usually done, but there is an important resource of N1cGowen's
2 Creek and there is an important public facility of Efland-Cheeks School and Park where the
3 County has invested about a million dollazs in enhancement to the park. One of the goals that
a has come forth fmm the Schools and Land Use Council is to connect schools and parks with
5 natural resources for educational opportunities. In this case, the County is asking for a
6 dedication instead of payment-in-lieu fees and an easement to connect the dots. He said that this
~ access would be very low impact. He said that the Joint Master Parks and Recreation Task Force
8 has come up with some new ideas about these issues and he suggested inviting someone from the
9 Environment and Resource Conservation Department to explain some of the concepts
1o concerning pazk dedications and easements.
ti
12 MQTION: Barrows moved to accept the Preliminary Plan for Richmond Hills
13 Subdivision; including the verbiage on page 37, F6, that the
14 easement could be specified as the eastern 100' buffer azea;
15 including the tapered turn lane; and on page 34, A$, letting the
16 Commissioners know the discussion of the Planning Board about
t7 the pump station and who would pay for it; and including that the
18 maximum easement for the trail would be a 50' path. Seconded by
19 Selkirk.
20
21 Chair Allison clarified that the language would be changed about the dedication of open space
zz along McGowan Creek to say that this is in exchange for the payment-in-lieu.
23
2a VOTE: Unanimous.
25
26 (2) Buckhorn Ridge
27 (Cheeks and Bingham Townships - 29 Lots)
za
29 Presentation by Jane Garrett.
30
3l PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Buckhorn Ridge Subdivision.
32 BACKGROUND:
33 Request
34 Applicant:- Kenneth.Coulter, Sr., agent far Buckhorn Ridge Associates, LLC
3s Subdivision follows the conventional plan.
36 • Twenty-nine X29} single-family residential lots proposed on a 141.67± acre tract.
37 • Average lot sip for Late 1-11 is 1.50 acres
3s Average lot s~ for Lots 12-23, 2$ and 29 is 3.83 acres
39 Average lot size for Lots 2427 is 11.40 acres
40 • Minimum lot size requirement for the zoning district is 40,000 sq. ft.
41 Location .
42 • Cheeks Township and Bingham Township
a3 South side of Yazborough Road midway between Mebane-Oaks Road and Buckhorn Road
44 Etistin Site Conditions
as Zoning
46 AR and AR-Cane Creek Protected Watershed
4~ $ acres (within Lots 24 and 25) located in Cane Creek Protected Watershed
a8 Adjacent Land Uses: Single-family residential and vacant
~6
1~I~1~SORANDiTM
TO: Robert Davis
FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer
COPIES: John Link, County Manages
Geof Gledhill, County Attorney
DA'C'E: May 1, 2000
SUBJECT: Richmond Hills sewer system layout
This memorandum represents my formal comment to the Planning Department relative to the proposed
sewer collection system and its connection to the existing Efland sewer system for Habitat for
Humanity's Richmond Hills subdivision.
Tt is clear that the development of the Richmond Hills subdivision, at least to the extent of obtaining
mare than 401ots from the acreage owned by Habitat for Humanity, requires that wastewater be pumped
from Richmond Hills into the portion of existing gravity wastewater collection system that passes
nearby. It is also clear, from the viewpoint of an engineering and sewer utility professional, that the
integration of centralized wastewater pumping stations into a wastewater collection system is not a
desirable alternative and thus avoided whenever possible. Pumping stations are avoided because, even in
the best light, they are a nuisance. Pumping stations aze a source of odors; they require constant
preventive maintenance (twice a week or more); equipment failures tend to be time consuming,
complicated and expensive to repair; and sewerage spills at pumping stations represent the
overwhelming majority of all system spill incidents. As the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has
recently adopted a policy of zero tolerance for sewerage spills, pumping stations also represent a serious
exposure to substantial environment fines and adverse publicity.
The disadvantages cited above are particularly manifest when considering the use of pumping stations in
the Efland sewer system. The added disadvantages applicable specifically to the Efland sewer system
are a consequence of the absence of a County utility department with the ability to respond quickly to
pumping stations, problems. Maintenance of the system's one existing pumping station is currently
provided under a contractual arrangement by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA). For nearly
twelve years, OWASA has provided perfectly adequate service and response for the Efland wastewater
pumping station. However, OWASA's ability to respond quickly in an emergency is limited by a
number of factors: 1) OWASA's operating staff aze located in Chapel Hill and have a response time that
would fall between 30 minutes and one hour under optimum conditions; 2) it is unlikely that azea
residents who might be involved in reporting a malfunction at a pumping station would know to call
OWASA directly; and 3) in the event of an azea-wide emergency such as a hurricane, OWASA
maintenance staff may not be able to get through to Efland and, in any event, would probably be fully
occupied in dealing with OWASA's own infrastructure.
3,
Approval of a pumping station for Richmond Hills also represents something of a precedent setting
situation. That is, if the County approves a pumping station for Habitat for Humanity, if may have
difficulty denying proposals to use pumping stations in other subdivisions being developed by private
developers. Currently, there is at least one other major subdivision in the Efland that is in the planning
stage and that may propose the use of a pumping station to obtain sewer service from the Efland sewer
system,
The facts and circumstances I have cited above lead me to resist the use of a pumping station to provide
sewer service to the Richmond Hills subdivision. I would prefer that service be provided by means of a
low pressure STEP system, in which each home would have an individual septic tank and pump tank
and the collection system would consist of small diameter low pressure force mains. Such system
would provide a number of advantages, including: 1) lower initial construction costs; 2) the likelihood
that pump station failure sewerage spills - if any -would be smaller and much less likely to trigger
regulatory action; 3) reduced public operation and maintenance costs; and 4) greater waste storage
capacity (in on-site pumping and septic tanks) in the event ofwide-spread system malfunction.
A STEP system would not be without drawbacks, however. The STEP technology is not entirely
familiar in this area and would require some adjustments to standardized operating and maintenance
procedures. Perhaps the most problematic facet of using STEP technology would be the necessity for
economically disadvantaged households -those being assisted by Habitat for Humanity - to pay the
operating and maintenance costs for the individual pumping stations. The cost of repairing/replacing a
pump could easily come to several hundred dollars, although such costs should be incurred very
infrequently (12 years ago Qrange County installed three individual household grinder pump stations as
apart of the original sewer system project and none of the pumps has yet needed replacement or repair).
There is no question that the Richmond Hills project is an important component of the effort to
implement County affordable housing strategies. Furthermore and notwithstanding my reluctance to
integrate new pumping stations in the Efland sewer system, the Efland system (if it is developed to the
extent of the existing system master plan and if the Buckhorn EDD and the Perry Hills community aze
incorporated into the system) may ultimately contain at least five pumping stations in addition to the
existing main pumping station. Policy decisions such as determining the relative importance of
affordable housing goals-and strategies in comparison to concerns about the County's assumption of
pump station related liabilities, setting precedents, etc., are beyond the scope of my office. However, I
anticipate that the Couaty's commitment to address affordable housing needs will take priority over
sewer system operational exigencies, particularly since it is probable that a Richmond Hills pumping
station would eventually be just one of several.
In accordance with my assumption that: a) Orange County will allow Richmond Hills to be served by a
wastewater system consisting of a gravity collector system and a central pumping system; and b) the
County will assume ownership and operational responsibilities for the system; I have no objection to the
subdivision layout shown on the preliminary plan proposal. However,l do make the following
recommendations: 1) all final subdivision approvals be made contingent on the County Engineer's
approval of the wastewater collection/pumping system design, including layout, grade and alignment,
equipment (standby power generation, alarm telemetry) and materials/hazdware, etc.; b) all gravity
sewer piping, manholes and appurtenances be constructed in roadway shoulders, pazallel to and at least
38
five feet from the edge of pavement except at roadway crossings which should cross perpendicular to
the pavement; c) the easements%rights-of--way be configured such that there is at least 20 feet of public
right-of-way/easement adjacent to the edge of roadway pavement at the shoulder containing sewer line;
d) the pump station and pump station access be contained in public right-of--way/easement; e) no
permanent sewer easement to be less than 20 feet in width; f) all public easements for the sewer line,
pumping station and force main be platted and filed; and g) the BOCC consider adapting a requirement
to create a perpetual maintenance account that will be funded by the applicant at a level that will be
sufficient to pay for all annual operating costs, including projected capital equipment replacement costs,
for the pumping station.
If I may provide additional input on this matter, please advise.
_ Q~rartg~ ~auntp ~Baar~ of ~~ut:atifln
_ RANDY BRIDGES, SUPERINTENDENT
~i[[~baruugij, ,~,~tL 27278
90ARD MEMBERS
SUSAN HALKIO7IS. CHAIR
KEITH COOK, VICE CHAIR
ROGEA7 H. GATEMAN
RICHARD KENNEDY
DAVID KOL9INSKY
DELORES SIMPSON
BRENDA STEPHENS
February 10, 200o Q ~ u
~~
Ms. Susan Levy, Executive Director
Habitat for Humanity
Orange County, NC, Inc. .
P. O. Box 459
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Ms. Levy:
200 EAST KING 5TREET
HILLSBQROUGH, NC 27278
TELEPHONE: 919-792-8126
FAX: 919-732.8120
As per your letter of November 29, 1999, the Orange County Board of Education, at its meeting
on Monday, Novrn~ber 29, 1999, approved your request to grant a sewer easement from its
property at tl~e Efland-Checks Elementary School to Habitat For Humanity to facilitate the
development of a 43-home subdivision off of Richmond Road in Efland, NC. It is our
undel-standing that Habitat will assume responsibility for all costs associated with the use of the
easement.
Sincerely,
~ 3~~ ~`'
Randy ridges
Superintendent
39
/ha
4(j
ORANNGE COUNTY PLAIWING & htSPECTIONS DEPARTh1ENT
POST Ok-kTCE BOX 8181 306-F REVERE RO?,D
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
.~N• N p
y;` ~ ~, ~i
v
~'',~, In,.r'~
EROSION CONTROL DIVISION
Carrboro/Chapel Hill 968.4501 1]urham 6$$-7331 Hillsborough 732-81$L Mebane 237-2031
Telephone Extension 2586 FAX 91944-3002
~' Memorandum
T4: Robert Davis, Current Planning
FRdM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor
asvEZOPMErrr
REVI$W PROJECT: Richmond Hills (Habitat for Humana.ty)
DAT$: February 14, 2000
Since more than 20,000 square feet will disturbed for this project, an
erosion control plan must be submitted and appxoved before any timber-
ing, demolition, clearing, grading, or other land-disturbing activity
begins.
Sediment controls below storm drain outlets must be planned so they
can remain in place during house construction to control sediment
carried onto the streets.
I believe there are stormwater requirements in the zoning/subdivision
regulations that apply to projects with lots this small (less than an
acre). I am not familiar with these requirements since it is rare (if
ever) to have a subdivision like this in the County's jurisdiction.
If revisions are made to the preliminary plans changes may, be required
in ,the sediment~~and erosion control plan, and I may have additional
comments.
yS5 2-14-00,0
~1
grange County Emergency tifanagement
P.o. Box x181
Hillsborough
' North Carolina
2727$
9-1-1 Communications lrmergency Medical Services
24 Hour Warning Point t•.•~r N ~ Fire Marshal
'
919-732-8161 •933-2600 ; Disaster Response
~• ~
Hazardous Materials
24-Hour Fax Machine v ~
919-644-3030. 968-2050
919-967-9026 .~,'
~,..
~+ ~•~~
Administrative Fax Machine
919-968-4066
TO: ROBERT DAMS, PLANNING DEPT.
FROM: MIKE TAPP, DEPUTY DIRECTOR~FIRE MARSHAL
RE: RICHMOND HILLS (HA.BITAT FOR HUIVLANIT~
DATE: MARCH 13, 2000
We have reviewed the concept plan for Richmond Hills (Habitat for Humanity) and find the
plan acceptable. Please send us a finail copy for distribution to emergency response agencies
when the plan is given final approval.
If you need additional, please contact us.
42
Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc.
POST gFFICE BOX 187 MEBANE. NORTH CAROLINA 27302 TELEPHONE: (919} 563.6212
November 23, 1999
ll~is. Susan Levy
Executive Director
Habitat far Humanity
P O Box 459
Hillsborough, North Catalina 27278
.Dear 1kls. I.avy:
This letter is in reference to the Habitat for Humanity project on Richmond Road, north
of Eiland-Cheeks School. It is my understanding that this project will include the
construction of a3 homes. This is to advise you that upon completion of our well on
1195, we anticipate furnishing water to these homes. State approval has not yet been
granted for our well, but hopefully, approval will be granted within the next several
months.
If you should have .any questions, please feel free to give me a call.
Sincerely,
~RANQE-ALAMANCE WATER SYSTEM, INC.
/ ~~~/ ~ ~
es E. Covington,
resident
SEWER SYSTEM TYPES AND ATTRIBUTES
43
STEP GRAVITY CONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL SEPTIC INNOVATIVE SEPTIC
SEPTIC WITH PUMP
2 TANKS 2 TANKS 2 TANKS
ON 51TE' SEPTIC
TANKS 1. SOLIDS NONE ~ 1. SOLIDS 1. 50LIDS
2. EFFLUENT 2. EFFLUENT 2. EFFLUENT
PUMP REQUIRED YES NO NO YES YES
ON SITE SEPTIC NO NO YES YE5 YES
FIELD
SPECIAL SEPTIC N/A N/A NO NO YE5
FIELD DESIGN
MASTER SEWAGE NO YES' NO NO NO
PUMP STATION
OFF-SITE
EFFLUENT FORCE YES NO NO NO NO
MAIN
OFF-SITE
EFFLU!~NT/50LID NO YES NO NO NO
MIX FORCE MAIN
OUTLET TO
GRAVITY YE5 YES NO NO NO
EXISTING ~-
OUTLET TO
EXISTING FORCE NO YES NO NO NO
MAIN
TANKS AND
PUMPS-
MAINTENANCE OWNER GRAVITY AND
LIFT STATION- ENTIRE SYSTEM-
ENTIRE SYSTEM-OWNER ENTIRE SYSTEM-
RESPONSIBILITY
FORCE MAIN
COUNTY OWNER OWNER
LINE-COUNTY
' ON-SITE REFERS TO INDIVIDUAL LOTS
~ IF A MASTER GRAVITY AND PUMP STATION SYSTEM IS DESIGNED, THEN MULTIPLE PROJECTS OR PHASES CAN TIE
INTO EXISTING GRAVITY LINE STUBOUTS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR MULTIPLE STATIONS.
Cy'-~kinn\Sc?wPr7vnac\R 1R 7(1f1n
Sl~+'f JUN. 21. c^E0 .2 ~ 55r~MRANGE CTY ~`?GR' • ~~• •u ~ ~•, °"~'.., ..
~ ~mleyHorn
~~ and Associates, Inc.
Jtimc 20, 200A
Orange C.ovalY Comxnisaiona's
1'.0. Bmt S 181
200 S. Gamarom Street.
Hillsiooa+ough, NC 27278
Rc; habitat For T).umanity Orange County, NC, laa.
Sanitary Sewer S~rstem Options
~ Chairman Grey aad Otaage Gounty
do belh~f of Habitat fcr >3umanity, Orange Cawrty, NC, . X am happyr to prp-
vided same addidanal inform~ou about szaitary sewer se optRaas [or the
Richmond Road Sttbdiviaion.
lollawin~ youa Juts 6, 2000 me~np~~ve i-ad s us;aelistg Paul'['l~pmes and
~CA-11 KanS1R W YCV]C51<- tine operatia~Ral, a1ailCe, a~ad lliltlAR toad Of
t~'0 SyISWn79. ThheQC are deacnnb~ briefly bclow.
A. Ftnw Statiain
'Ibis sys ~ provides for t` pWrip statiaa that is served y a gravity #low col-
lectian sysdcm ~ all homes i>a tlho prupa~:d suladi ' 'an. The pump station
will be located m the souk pardon rfthe sate. ppra~uimcmhcly a20
linear feet of fln~ce main will casmecr t~ pvRep stn ' ~ existing maphok
as the lr"+fland Elcmenta~y Schaal Site.
H. Ste'
Main
'1"his system provides for a septic tnNc fat each Dome i essa ofpwnp failusa,
a pump ivr e~ hnrne, and flarco main foot the entire o 1lection system leacl-
it~ Lew the manhole at 1~i#lsccks Elatt=entary L
Issue.+ lib be .rte a S c
Each of ttue syamrn has some baacfita and sonic drawbar Disous~l ~: ~
ol'those that we £eel ore rnQSt iniporlant fbr the Riehmmti 'lla 3t:bdi~visaan.
I) 'lbe initial cost at System A is higher dut to the need ~'aut t]an pump ~vaicm in
p1~a5e 1 of develnprt~t, but the total cost is 1Qwer by ta~imately 12%.
^
?4 319 on goat
~( X19 T7 2050
N0.555----~ ?.%S
44
^.
ra snr Sato
Aakiph, Nate Catallrt~
r~a~3otB
SEMI' ~ UN. z1. X000 1~~ 56PM CRANGc CTY h1GRt' ~~~ ~ '' "''~' `
N0.555'- --~.5i5
45
~ Kimley-Horn
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
2) 5yst~sm A is act ea6ier system to Construct and extend
3) Msintetuaicc requirea~gepLs ate clifferettt 2nd place the
dii~brent locations.
A would be setvued by vop~act with OW A
boas Manager of Ow1lSA has ~srimstod that it wou
year ~ lsrovide ta-icc weeik~{y preventative maintea8u
statia~n. He cstia~aties this as the iaczemental cost to
existing >~tlbmd pump Smtida oe the same top. This
home per y~~ R,opsacement pacts i~£ncoded would
Couary Commissioners
7uae 2D, ZlwO
Pin: 2
a phased bash;.
in tW0
Joha Gr~cen, ()~ersl~
;osi. about X4,000 FQ
to the proposed puasp
ve this sitie and the
~s m abattt S90 per
~~~
~ places the rpainteaaa~ce responsibility om individual 'home
owner. we hava ~a to the lnxn that providoa ' ~ m homcowa-
erR at the (iovamocs Q~ develapaaeat south of Cho Hill, Thin develop.
went has abatat 400 ho>nea wim individual pump
Ct was rCported to us that the mamts~aace company rv m aihout 3 calla
per week fiom individual home owaera. This frcq y ras'ttlts In an average
of 1 problem per home rutty two yam. '!he cost of is ahrn~t 500
per aal I. Rep~xR+cnt vEpiunpa appears to cast about 1,000 sad tbn lith
span of the pups is appraximauly 10 years.
The aignificaat difforcacc between the systGma is rhos a group, the iuturc
of Richsttoad Hilla ae+e aot as well equipped beadle the emer-
gency repairs ss wCn as others might be and with S A, the twix
weekly checlatp by OWASA staff woaild provide for higher lcv~el orpt~e-
vetttatrvc msioter~ce.
4) ~undiag Solaces
Tt appears that Syasarn A faIIs Gotupletcly within tlx pstamelers of
fedaal gra:<t money for iofrasbvcture while System may not, Ftubiiat is
e~plaripg t8e limitations that might be placed upon o finulinq withre~
speet to the i9sue oP `~.fras~ivcture" versus individual of devdo~t emits.
!t is otia o~pistisau that Raehrnohd &'Us would be best with Syateaa A foe
bath aost and ~ rebate. Overrll cost is lower by coaaaom-g with
OWA.9,A theft is as an call agency with ~la,l familiarity the pump atatidn
~ its waddy condition. Prttve~tive mains w 6e far easiex with
System A than Syrtem R is our opiniati.
$~"r ~ UN .21.2000 ~ 2 ~ ScPM CRP.MGE CTY "IGRf ' U~x
~~~ ~mley-Hom
~ and Associates, lnc.
u you have any q uestians~ plpsn ccntect mc.
S~1y,
Kl.l4tl_t~-HORN ANA ASSOCiAT~?S, TNC.
~ ~~
s~ a. Rad,~w~, A~
Swrior Proje~ Manager
~48J~
cc: susm Y.~ry, Habitat for H~ty t]raage Cau:aty,
Connry Camnvssioners
tune xo, zocm
N~~~ ~
Inc.
45
C~nlj' JUN , ? 1.200 :? ~ 56pM
MARE ~ uor~n
N0.555" "" ~ . 5i5~ , .. _. _
47
Coar~rtra[ive Sanitary ,Sewer 3~terr Cast
Rlcpplond bT~7ls,St~bdlvesinA
Iteq~ Ousrtdty unit OevN opmwk
M0. i3Me~ Unt; Lest
8" PVC - SDR 95.6' to t2• 2.890 If i Z'~i.00 73.250
~' Pvc - rove main oho ~ s 12,00 s s.aao
M,ed,oi~ - < 10' f 1 «. s =000.00 ~aoo
Mlanriala - a 1a s s asaaaa s 1a
~ sasmn • , a. s aoo_aa o00
SuDtvtal is4t~on i ~ 7e,Mo
Ineilviduai i,ee Srrwe~s ~
43 RBfYiCl~ 5" PVC - St7R 35 4.300 S iS.00 ! 64.600
~` PVC, cben eu~ 90R 3S 9d sa s200.00 i 17,?.00
i~tadl IndIW/tisl Let SarMar i !!7 700
To i ~i7
B. 1 Pu 'Tan
amp
~ ~iC Gent
4• PVC - fires nqM 3.1 s0 s 12.00 Z 31.150
i
-
irwNldual Hats 48 of ~ 3 00 i 150
Adqt~rml Tsrda 49 ss S 1 00 S Q00
Y PVC • 1te~n tlsi 4.300 ^ s 10.00 i 43,000
~* da#11 aubt • 8e e9 5$00:00 sl 17,0
S
i •
Tote ~ 2l1~ND
4g
Orange County
Housing and Community Development
Dater June 23, 2000
To: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer
From: Tara L. Fikes, Director
Subject: CDBG Funding
Pursuant to your request, I have evaluated the eligibility of a wastewater
collection system consisting of on-site septic and pump tanks (STEP systems)
with force mains installed in roadway rights-of-way for CDBG infrastructure grant
funding. I have determined that no utility improvements located on individual
lots, with the exception of water or sewer service line stub-outs which generally
terminate at or near the roadway right-of•way line, are eligible for CDBG
infrastructure grant funding. Therefore, the cost associated with the individual
septic and pump tanks of the STEP systems staff has recommended for use at
the Richmond Hills project is not an eligible CDBG expense. Conversely, all of the
publicly owned gravity ,sewer lines and the central pumping station (located
within public rights-of-way, easements, etc.), as in the wastewater
collection/central pumping system proposed by Habitat for Humanity, would be
eligible for CDBG infrastructure grant funding.
With the approval of the B4CC, Orange County wil! apply for $250,000 in CDBG
funding for the Richmond Hills project. Habitat estimates that total infrastructure
costs are approximately $600,000 ($250,000 for roads, $100,000 for water
utilities, and $261,490 for the gravity sewer system or $291,860 far the STEP
system). Eligible CDBG infrastructure activities include the cost of roads, water
utilities, and sewer systems. Thus, since grant funding can be used for any of
these activities, the ineligibility of the STEP system wastewater collection system
for CDBG funding does not affect the use of grant funds for infrastructure costs in
Richmond Hills. Total infrastructure costs of $600,000 exceed the $250,000
maximum available in CDBG funds, therefore, funds not eligible far use for sewer
improvements can be used for road or water improvements.
If you need additional information, please advise..
49
~iEViORANDL~:VI
TO: County Commissioners
COPIES: John Link, County Manager
Geof Gledhill, County Attorney
FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer
DATE: August 10, 2000
SUBJECT: Issues related to providing sewer service to the proposed Richmond Hills
development and to the management, operation and ultimate expansion of the
Efland sewer system.
As per the request of the BOCC and the County Manager, the following additional information is
submitted to assist the BOCC in its deliberations on the range of interconnected issues
associated with providing sewer service to the proposed Richmond Hills subdivision.
Habitat For Humanity has come before the BOCC to request Boazd's approval, under its
subdivision plan approval powers and responsibilities, for the Richmond Hills subdivision.
Furthermore, Habitat has requested that the Boazd, under its powers and responsibilities as the
owner of the Efland sewer system, extend sewer service from the Efland system to the proposed
subdivision. Habitat has also requested that Boazd, in its role as partner to Habitat in providing
affordable housing to low and moderate income households, assist in reducing the costs of home
ownership -including sewer utility service costs - to its clientele.
County administration and staff evaluation of the specific's of Habitat's proposal for extending
sewer service has culminated in a divergence of opinion between the administration/staffnnd
Habitat as to the system design or the technology that would be best utilized to provide sewer
service to Richmond Hills. The BOCC's review of administration/staff recommendations and
Habitat's requests for the Boazd's approval have accentuated concerns about a number of
interrelated and lazger policy issues including: a) the County's ultimate role in providing and
managing utility service in the Efland corridor; b) the relationship between the availability of
utilities and sewer-dependent development patterns in the Efland area; c) the potential interplay
between County utility and affordable housing policies and goals.
At the August 15~' meeting of the BOCC, the Boazd is to deal with Habitat's immediate concern,
which is Board approval of the Richmond Hills subdivision preliminary plan and authorization
to extend sewer service. In its deliberative process, it may be helpful for the Boazd to consider
the sewer system design/technology issues applicable to the extension of sewer service to the
Richmond Hills subdivision as separate from affordable housing issues and general long term
utility and development concerns.
50
Richmond Hills Sewer Service Extension
Habitat for Humanity is proposing to create Richmond Hills as a 43 unit subdivision on a tract of
land on the east side of Richmond Road in Efland. The property is within the Efland transition
area and is also within the designated service area of Phase l (the existing phase) of the
Efland sewer system. Existing gravity sewer lines in Richmond Road abut the western or
southwestern portion of the property. Under existing County rules of operation for the Efland
sewer system and County planning, zoning and land use policies, there is no reason why
Richmond Hills should not be provided with sewer utility service from the Efland sewer system.
Developing the proposed subdivision, particularly with 43 units, is not feasible without the
extension of wastewater collection lines throughout the portion of the property where houses are
to be constructed. The topography of the Richmond Hills tract is such that any sewer collection
system that would serve all of the proposed 43 units of the subdivision must rely on wastewater
pumping to ultimately convey the subdivision's wastewater to the neazby gravity portions of the
Efland sewer system.
At the heart of the discussion about the Richmond Hills project is the lack of agreement between
Habitat officials and consultants and County administration/staff as to the type of technology
that should be utilized to provide wastewater collection for the subdivision. Habitat officials and
consultants have proposed a conventional gravity wastewater collection network (consisting of
$" diameter lines and manholes) draining to a single on-site pump station which would then
convey wastewater to a nearby portion of the existing gravity collector network. County
administration and staff have proposed that the development be served by a community STEP
system which consists of: 1) a 1000 gallon septic tank and a 1000 gallon pump tank with a single
effluent pump located at each home site; and 2) a network of small diameter (4" or less) Force
main collectors that would convey wastewater to a nearby portion of the existing gravity
collector network.
The extant rules of operation for the Efland sewer system aze very vague. They provide no
guidance in determining the types of wastewater technology that aze most appropriate for any
particular situation. Furthermore, as there have been no major expansions of the Efland sewer
system or extensions of sewer service to date, there are no service expansion or extension
precedents that can provide guidance. Finally, there exists no BQCC-approved master plan for
the development/expansion (or expansion technology) for the Efland sewer system.
Consequently, there is no conclusively correct or self-evident choice available to the BOCC as it
deliberates whet6~er a STEP collector system or a gravity collection/central pumping station
system should Ixs used to extend sewer service to the Richmond Hills subdivision. As might be
reasonably expected, however, there are advantages and disadvantages inherent to each type of
collection system. These advantages and disadvantages are outlined below. However, the nature
of these advantages and disadvantages is such that they are not entirely unambiguous, nor do
they all fall strictly within the domain of typical utility concerns.
51
Adv_anta~es that may be cited for the gravity collector network/central pump station system and
that are closely related to typical utility concerns include that such a system:
^ is of lower cost to construct
^ is a more conventional or standard utility design (and is thus more acceptable to state
regulatory agencies having system design approval authority)
^ is more reliable than other systems that could provide service in this particular situation
Disadvantages that may be cited for the gravity collector network/central pump station system
and that are closely related to typical utility concerns include that such a system:
^ represents significant operation/maintenance cost and liability to a utility
^ has a potential for larger (larger quantities of wastewater) spill failures with more severe
environmental and public health implications
Advanta~ that may be cited for the gravity collector network/central pump station system
and that are not closely related to typical utility concerns include that such a system:
^ is mare easily financed, managed and phased by an organization such Habitat for Humanity
^ has lower operating costs and maintenance/management responsibilities to fall on low
income homeowners or volunteer homeowner associations
^ has less impact on landscaping requirements at individual home sites
Disadvantages that may be cited for the gravity collector network/central pump station system
and that are not closely related to typical utility concerns include that such a system:
requires short response time (which Orange County, without a utility department cannot
ensure or guarantee) to emergency situations and for wastewater spill prevention or cleanup
at central pumping station,
may create potential difficulty for Orange County in terms of setting a precedent of
approving new developments made viable by pumping station-enabled sewer extensions
may create a circumstance where operating cost of providing service far a portion of the
customer base are spread across the entire customer base
Advantages thatmay be cited for the STEP system collector network and that are closely
related to typical utility concerns include that such a system:
^ is of lower cost to construct (that there is some divergence of opinion between staff and
Habitat's consultants as to relative construction costs for the two systems);
^ incurs operating costs that fall directly on service beneficiary and consequently costs less for
the utility to operate and maintain
^ has greater wastewater storage capacity in the events of widespread and extended power
outages, in excess of 72 hours to respond to mechanical or power failures
^ has less potential for major environmental impacts as a consequence of system failure(s)
52
Disadvanta~ that may be cited for the STEP system collector network and that are closely
related to typical utility concerns include that such a system:
places system maintenance burdens on homeowners who may not be qualified or motivated to
insure that proper maintenance is effected
would difficult for a single entity or utility to manage because of the need to deal with many
pumping stations (and equipment) and many property owners
may involve split regulatory jurisdiction over its components (DWQ for pumps, collector lines,
DEH for septic tanks)
Advantaues that may be cited for the STEP system collector network and that are not closely
related to typical utility concerns include that such a system:
• does not require a level of routine maintenance or emergency response that is beyond the
capacity of the utility owner
• does not set a precedent of allowing developers to enhance the attractiveness or feasibility of
development pmject by acquiring sewer utility service not otherwise available
Disadvanta es that may be cited for the STEP system collector network and that are not closely
related to typical utility concerns include that such a system:
requires complex and intensive construction management in terms of coordinating the phasing
of housing construction with system construction, assuring quality control and equipment/
installation uniformity for individual on-site system components
requires additional landscaping work and house siting coordination and effort by individual
home builders
Two of the most important considerations of those listed above involve the potential adverse
environmentaUpublic health impacts stemming from system failure and the potential financial cost
and operating burdens that may fall directly to system customers. When proper operation/
maintenance procedures are followed, probabilities are very low that serious system failures with
serious adverse environmentaUpublic health impacts would occur with either the STEP or central
pumping station systems. However, if unsupervised system operation/maintenance responsibility
for STEP systems falls to individual homeowners, it is unlikely that the systems will receive the
level of maintenance attention that they require. Therefore the probability of individual STEP
system failure or failures is relatively high. However, the potential adverse enviranmentallpublic
health impact of an isolated single system failure is minimal and very localized. Conversely, a
County owned and operated central pumping station would get the maintenance attention that it
requires, and the probability of a major pump station failure (except as a consequence of storms and
other "acts of God") is relatively small. However, with. wastewater from 43 homes flowing to a
single pump station, the potential public health/environmental consequence of such a failure is
likely to be serious. Nonetheless, if the County had a conventional utility operation/capacity for the
Efland sewer system similar to that of OWASA or any of the region's other municipal utilities, a
gravity collector/ pumping station wastewater collecrion system would be considered the most
satisfactory means of providing sewer service to the Richmond Hills subdivision.
~3
The perceived cost burden of the availability of wastewater utility service on a utility customer
often depends more on the utility's methodology for cost recovery than on the actual cost of
constructing wastewater infrastructure. In general, costs of treatment infrastructure aze
recovered through capital facility or availability fees; costs of collection system construction are
recovered through assessments; and costs of operation are recovered through per gallon sewer
use rates. Some utilities, Hillsborough for example, charge a perpetual maintenance fee to
developers whose projects require the use of a wastewater pumping station that must become the
responsibility of the utility. Fees levied against developers are ultimately transferred to
individual homeowners through the cost of lots or homes. Other utilities, OWASA for example,
do not charge perpetual maintenance fees. The cost of operating any pumping station is spread
across the entire base of rate payers through sewer use rates.
Insofar as the Richmond Hills project is concerned, the operating/maintenance cost impact on an
individual sewer customer would be greater with a STEP system than with a gravity collector
system. This would be true even if some cost recovery methodology were utilized to fund the
monthly operating costs of a central Richmond Hills pumping station solely from revenues
derived from Richmond Hills customers. The estimated present cost for operating, maintaining
and replacing equipment at a central pumping station serving the Richmond Hills subdivision
could be expected to average $600 to $800 per month If these costs were divided equally
among 43 sewer customers in Richmond Hills, the monthly cost to each household would
average in the range of $1 S to $20, over and above sewer use costs. If these costs were
apportioned equally among the 1 SO total customers of the existing Efland sewer system and the
proposed Richmond Hills sub-system, the monthly cost to each customer would range from
$4.00 to $S.SO, over and above sewer use costs.
If a STEP system were utilized, cost per household would approach $S per month for electricity,
$2S0 every 3 to S years for septic tank clean out and $1200 every ten years for pump
replacement/equipment repair. Furthermore, asemi-annual preventive maintenance inspection
of each STEP system would cost an additional $100 per year. If all of these costs were
amortized vn a monthlybasis, each household would face a monthly cost, over and above sewer
use costs, of approximately $30.
Collection System Operating Cost Summary
Gravity collector/central Gravity collector/central STEP collection system costs
pumping station costs when pumping station casts whee wpen recovered only from
recovered only fram recovered from all Efland Richmond Hills customers
Richmond Hills custamers sewers stem customers
$1 S - $20 per month over $4.00 - $S. SO per month over $30 per month over
& above sewer use rates & above sewer use rates 8t above sewer use rates
54
Affordable Housins
one of the major disadvantages cited far using a STEP system approach for the Richmond Hills
project (as opposed to a gravity collection system) is the impact of additional construction and
operating/maintenance costs. on affordable housing programs and low/moderate income
households. The cast figures cited above do indicate that the monthly incremental operating cost
(cost of operating just the collection system and not including sewer use rates) for STEP systems
exceed those of gravity collection/central pumping station by something in the range of SO to 100
per cent. There is also some concern that, insofar as system construction costs are concerned,
much of the casts of STEP systems aze not eligible for grant funding while most of the costs of
gravity collector/central pump station construction are eligible for grant funding.
These issues are not typical utility concerns. However, to the extent that the impact of these or
any utility costs aze of concern to Orange County, the County can act within the parameters of its
affordable housing role to take steps to reduce or eliminate those costs deemed excessive for low
and moderate income households. For example, if the County (acting in its capacity as the
utility owner) decrees that a STEP system is to be used at Richmond Hills, the County (acting in
its affordable housing role) can create, fund and manage grants and escrow, accounts to cover all
or any portion of the costs of constructing or operating STEP systems. If the County (acting in
its capacity as the utility owner) decrees that a gravity collector/central pumping station is to be
used and requires that a perpetual maintenance fund be established, the County (acting in its
affordable housing role) can likewise subsidize the perpetual maintenance fund
Efland Sewer Svstem/Develoament L~a~aea
The existing 1955 master plan for the Efland sewer system (which was not approved or adopted
by the BOCC at the time it was created and has not been approved since) proposes a six phase
wastewater 'collection system. These phases would ultimately provide sewer service to those
areas of the Efland and Cheeks communities bordered generally by the Eno River on the east,
Interstate $5/40 an the south, Buckhorn Road/Peny Hills on the west and McGowan Creek on
the north. The BOCC, in conjunction with County administration and staff, has also considered
the inclusion of the Buckhorn Road EDD (and an area between I-85 and West Ten Road) into
the Efland sewer service area.
The County's land use plan mapping shows that the vast majority of all phases of the master plan
area lies within 1(~ and 20-year transition areas or the economic development district. The
phased sewer service areas and the economic development district also contain resource
protection' areas along McGowan Creek and tributaries to Seven Mile Creek. A small portion of
the southeast corner of the master plan phased area lies within the designated critical azea Seven
Mile Creek. With the exception of the resource and watershed protection areas, all of the land
use classifications within the Efland sewer master plan area are deemed suitable far the
provision of urban services such as sewer service.
]7
At the present the Efland sewer system provides sewer service to approximately 110 households,
businesses and institutions. The existing service area occupies approximately one-half of the
area designated by the system master plan as Phase I. In 1997, Orange Caunty voters approved
bond funding to expand the wastewater collection system to serve the area of Efland designated
by the master plan as the remaining portion of Phase I and all of Phase II. This azea can be
described roughly as being bounded by Efland-Cedaz Grove on the west, McGowan Greek on the
north, the Lloyd dairy on the east and Southern Railroad on the south. Two new subdivisions
(Richmond Hills and Ashwick) have proposed to expand the sewer system into At the present
unnerved azeas within the existing portion of Phase I. One larger new subdivision plan (currently
in the preliminary plan development and approval stage) proposes to extend the sewer service
from Phase I into an area on the north side of IvicGowan Creek in the area between Richmond
and Efland-Cedar Grove Roads. If Phases I and II are completed and the three proposed
subdivisions are included in the system, that portion of the system will ultimately provide sewer
service to approximately 500 to 600 households. If all of the entire master planned area is
provided with sewer service, at build out the system will be providing sewer service to as many
as 1000 households. The core components of the existing system infrastructure (pumping
station, force main and interceptor mains) are designed to accommodate this level of wastewater
flow.
In the event that the Efland sewer system is ultimately constructed to or beyond the limits (the
Buckhorn EDD) of the master plan, the system will contain at least eight pumping stations, more
than 20 miles of gravity collector, interceptor and outfall lines and more than 10 miles of sewer
force main. A system of this size could be projected to require the nearly full time attention of
two wastewater systems maintenance mechanics with frequent use of outside contract work for
line maintenance. In a utility operation of this size, the operating and maintenance demands of a
Richmond Hills pumping station would be a small portion of the operating and maintenance
demands of the entire system.
There is some concern, touched upon earlier, that the County's decisions about how sewer
service is provided to the Richmond Hills project may set precedent as to if and how sewer
service is provided to other utility/development projects in the Efland area. There is a specific
concern that a precedent may be created in which a developer is able to enhance or even create
the development potential of a property not otherwise developable through the application of
wastewater pumping technology to make a connection to the Efland sewer system. In turn, this
could enhance the likelihood that Orange County will find itself with still more pumping stations
to maintain, lien the probability of wastewater spills from these pumping stations, and
stimulate development in areas that could not otherwise support such development. These are
legitimate concerns in that Orange County has no Hiles or regulations in place to prescribe
system design or extension policy oche; than general prohibitions against utility extensions into
protected watersheds or where such an extension would be inconsistent with County land use,
zoning, subdivision, etc., ordinances and requirements.
The BOCC has outlined a goal that will eventually provide guidance for utility extension in the
Efland area. However, the complexity of this goal means that it will take years to reach fnution.
The County can avoid setting unintentional precedents and ensure that extensions of the Efland
56
sewer system more closely reflect BOCC values in the near term by simply modifying the
system's rules of operation.. For example, the Board might create a rule of operation that forbids
the extension of the system in ways (wastewater pumping stations) or to areas not envisioned in
the system master plan except to serve an affordable housing complex or a public facility or to
address a public health/environmental concern. Other rules could outline requirements relative
to stream crossings, establishing perpetual maintenance funds, providing standby power
generation, alarm systems, etc. Any precedent that might conceivably be established by any
decision on the Richmond Hills project could be either eliminated by or incorporated within the
rules of operation.
Conclusion
The County administration and staff have certainly taken the central pumping station precedent
issue into account in the recommendation that a STEP system be used to provide sewer service
to Richmond Hills. However, the precedent setting potential is a secondary concern. The
primary concern is that the current lack of a utility maintenance capability impedes the County's
ability to ensure immediate response to pump station emergencies and to prevent or reduce
wastewater spills. Under current operating practice, OWASA provides a very high level of
service to the County in its contractual agreement to maintain the existing Efland sewer pump
station. However, in the event of regional disaster such as Hurricane Fran, OWASA will
understandably respond to its own needs first. County administration and staff acknowledge that
these concerns will become moot if and when the Efland sewer system expands to its ultimate
capacity (as defined by the existing master plan) and the County develops its own utility
maintenance and emergency response capacity. Furthermore, County administration and staff
acknowledge that the use of STEP system may not drastically reduce the County's cost in
providing sewer service to Richmond Hills. That is, County staff may have to take on some sort
of administrative role in financing and coordinating the necessary maintenance of a STEP
collector system.
The listing of system advantages and disadvantages applicable to gravity collection/central
pumping station system and the STEP system earlier in this memorandum provide clear
indication that concerns applicable to the Richmond Hills project move well beyond the
boundary of typical utility concerns: The larger issues of how the County will: 1) impact the
development of the Efland corridor by the manner in which it develops the service capacity of
the Efland sewer system; 2) meet the expanding operational demands of an expanding Efland
sewer system; and 3) address its affordable housing goals in light of budgetary constraints,
providing utility services and land use/planning concerns, will consume much time and energy
before they are finally resolved. However, the BOCC is faced with the necessity of making a
decision has to how to address the interplay between the larger issues and the Richmond Hills
project now. The BOCC can follow the administration/staff recommendation and require that
individual residents of Richmond Hills take responsibility for the operation of their STEP
systems. Or the Board can direct staff to develop a plan to help finance and manage those
systems. The Board can also choose to allow the development of a gravity collector/central
R
57
pumping station system and direct staff to develop new rules of operation for the system,
including elements, such as sewer service extension criteria and requirements to provide a
perpetual maintenance fund for pump stations. There is really no right or wrong choice among
the potential alternatives for providing, funding and managing sewer service to Richmond Hills.
There are only choices each of which has both advantages and disadvantages. County
administration and staff will follow the Board's directives and develop whatever tools are
necessary to operationalize the required financing, operation, maintenance, management, rules
or regulations. Administration and staff will bring the Board's goals and strategies to fruition
while continuing to operate the Efland sewer system in manner that protects the environment
and public health.
If I may provide additional information or clarification on this issue, please advise.