HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-02-2008 - 6dORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 2, 2008
Action Agend~ a~
Item No.
SUBJECT: Cabe Crossing (formerly Bramco Partners) Subdivision -Preliminary Plat
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC (Y/N) N
HEARING:
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution of Approval
2) Application
3) Vicinity Map
4) Agency Comments
5) Eno River Association Letter
6) Fiscal Impact Analysis
7) June 6, 2007 Planning Board Minutes
8) Neighborhood concerns and Applicant's Response
9) August 6, 2008 Planning Board Minutes
10) Preliminary Plat
INFORMATION. CONTACT:
Glenn Bowles, Planner II, 245 2577
Robert P. Davis, Current Planning
Supervisor, 245 2580
PURPOSE: To take action on the Cabe Crossing Subdivision Preliminary Plat.
BACKGROUND
The Concept Plan was approved on June 6, 2007. The Planning Board recommended
approval of the Concept Plan, with conditions, at its regular meeting on August 6, 2008.
Request -Preliminary Plan
Applicant: Jeff Peloquin of J. Peloquin Construction, Inc., agent for the owners. The
engineer for the applicant is Tim Smith of Phil Post & Associates of Chapel Hill, NC.
Owners: Bramco Partners
The subdivision follows the Conventional Design Option, but with all of the attributes of a
Conservation-Cluster Option of Flexible Development, except for the 100-foot perimeter
buffer. (The Preliminary Plat proposes a variable width perimeter buffer.)
• Total acreage is 73.47 acres
• Twenty (20) single family residential lots (Original Concept Plan approved for 33 lots)
• Lot sizes range from 1.56 acres to 3.33 acres, with a 2.22-acre average.
• The percentage of open space is 33.29% (24.46 acres).
• Gross density is 3.67 acres per lot.
2
Item Conventional
Subdivision Land Area 73.47 acres
Area in ublic road r.o.w. 4.10 acres
Area outside of ublic road r.o.w. 69.37 acres
Platted lot area 44.44 acres
Minimum Lot width 150 feet
Minimum front setback 40 feet
Minimum side and rear setbacks 20 feet
Subdivision Type 1 Number ;Average Lot Area in Common Open Space
of Lots ~ Size I Open Space~_ Percentage _
Conventional j 20 ~ 96,790 sq. ft. ~ 24.46 acres ~ 33.29
Location: South side of Cabe Ford Road (SR 1570) west of Pleasant Green Road (SR
1567) in Eno Township.
Existing Conditions
Existing:
• Zoning: AR (Agricultural Residential) -- 40,000 square feet minimum lot size.
• The property is located in the Lower Eno -- Protected Watershed (one acre maximum
density).
• Maximum impervious surface in the Lower Eno Protected watershed for residential
development is thirty-six percent (36%) without curb and gutter (1,152,127 square feet).
• Located in a Rural Designated Area per Growth Management System map.
Physical Features:
• Rolling topography with some weathered bedrock at the surface.
• One hundred- (100) foot wide AT&T right-of way bisects the northern portion of
subdivision.
Three different streams flowing southwest into the Eno River pass through the proposed
subdivision. (The Erosion Control Division completed stream calls for each stream on
March 6, 2006.)
The property is completely forested, except for the utility easements; however, all the
land has been timbered over the past sixty- (60) years.
Adjacent Land Use:
• Properties to the east front on Pleasant Green Road. The east side of Pleasant Green
Road is zoned R-1 (Rural Residential).
• Properties to the north are platted single-family residential lots averaging 3.5 acres.
• Properties to the south are large lot residential parcels averaging nearly ten (10) acres in
area.
• Properties to the west are State-owned parklands.
• 24 of the 37 (65%) surrounding properties within five hundred (500) feet of the proposed
subdivision have lot sizes smaller than the proposed 3.67 acre per lot density.
• All phases of the Pleasant Green Woods subdivision, on the east side of Pleasant Green
Road southeast of Cabe Ford Road, have a residential density of just over 3 acres per
lot and an average lot size of 64,617 sq. ft (1.48 acres).
3
PROPOSAL
Conventional Residential Major Subdivision
• Total subdivision contains 73.47 acres.
• Average lot size is 2.22 acres.
• At the concept plan stage, the plan contained 88 acres, which are a replat of Lots 2,
3, 4, 5, and 8 of the Bramco Trading Corp. subdivision, recorded on January 25,
1982.
• A recombination plat of these five lots and a 15.4-acre, one lot exempt subdivision
was recorded on February 1, 2008. The new exempt subdivision lot created will be
conveyed to the Eno River Association by the current owner with the intent of
transferring the property into State ownership as part of the Eno River State Park. It
is not part of this subdivision and not considered when subdivision open space is
calculated.
• Using the Conventional Plan Option, the applicant is proposing a 20-lot subdivision (a
3.67 acre density). This alternative has all the attributes of a Conservation Cluster
Flexible Design Option, except for the 100-foot perimeter buffer. (The Preliminary
Plat proposes a variable width perimeter buffer.)
• The subdivision will require the dedication of 4.10 acres for public road r.o.w.
• 24.46 acres in private open space (33.29% of the total subdivision area) will be
deeded, fee-simple, to and owned by the subdivision homeowners association. This
figure includes the 4.73-acre Tract "A" that will be donated as public recreation land.
• Planning staff took extra time during Concept Plan stage to discuss and resolve
issues of connectivity, voluntary parkland dedication, density, and lots of record, as
these issues may affect lot counts and the appropriate type of preliminary plat
application. The result of this deliberation resulted in a 20-lot conventional option
preliminary plat.
Roads:
• Access to the subdivision is from a proposed 2,610-foot long cul-de-sac, River Stone
Road, and a 735-foot cul-de-sac, Running Cedar Lane, off of Cabe Ford Road
(SR1570), a paved, state-maintained road in Eno Township.
• Each public road will have afifty-foot (50') wide right-of-way with twenty- (20) foot
temporary construction easements on both sides of the road.
• Stub-out, platted, public rights-of-way are proposed to the east between Lots 2 and 3
and to the north through Open Space Tract "C".
• The low redevelopment potential to the south and the state parklands to the west do
not make future road extensions feasible or advisable.
• All roads shall be constructed to NCDOT (and County) standards.
Open Space/Buffers:
• The developer is proposing 33.29% (24.46 acres) of the subdivision be in common
open space, even though the proposal is a conventional subdivision. The 24.46 acres
do not include the 15.40 acres split off after Concept Plan approval that will eventually
be part of the Eno River State Park, but it does include a 4.73-acre (Tract "A"), which
will be dedicated as public recreation land. Tract "A" will be conveyed to the County
by the developer for eventual inclusion into the Eno River State Park. The current
proposal is for Tract "A" to first be dedicated to the County by the developer
contemporaneously with the recording of the final plat. Subsequent to this
. conveyance the County will convey Tract "A" to the Eno River Association.
4
Thereafter, the Eno River Association will convey Tract "A" to the State of North
Carolina for inclusion in the Eno River State Park.
• Nine (9) acres of the 24.46 acres, or thirty-seven percent (37%), of the common open
space is in steep slopes, regulated floodplains, historic and archaeological sites, or a
natural area identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats and
would be considered Primary Conservation Areas under flexible development
regulations. Tract "A" (4.73 acres) will be dedicated as public recreation land and will
be accessible to the public through the Eno River State Park.
• Over sixty (60) percent of the open space cover is mature upland hardwoods, but not
in a regulated floodplain or on slopes overtwenty-five (25) percent.
• The Home Owners Association will own 19.73 acres of common open space.
• While not a requirement as the proposed subdivision is not aConservation -Cluster
Option of Flexible Development, less than half of the designated open space is
Primary Conservation Area. The proposed subdivision, nevertheless, meets the
standard because at least seventy-five (75) percent or fifteen (15) lots have direct
access to Primary or Secondary Conservation Areas, seventeen (17) or eighty-five
(85) percent of the proposed lots have direct access to Primary or Secondary
Conservation Areas, and the other three (3) lots are within three hundred (300) feet of
an access point.
• Developer provided a landscape plan showing primary and secondary tree protection
areas.
• 33.29% of the property is in common open space; thirty-seven (37) percent of which is
in areas that would be classified as Primary Conservation Area; and sixty-three (63)
percent of which is in areas that would be classified as Secondary Conservation Area if
developed under Flexible Development guidelines.
Total O en S ace Pro osed Pro osed in HOA Pro osed Public O en S ace
24.46 acres 19.73 acres 4.73 acres
COUNTY AGENCY REVIEWS:
Recreation:
Public Recreation Space:
• The property is located within the R8 -Chapel Hill District Park (as detailed on the
Recreation Service Area Boundaries Map), last updated in October 2004.
• No physical dedication of recreation space is warranted in this case as neither the
County Parks and Recreation Advisory Council nor the Environment and Resource
Conservation Department (ERCD) have identified recreation or conservation sites
within the subdivision.
• .The County Parks and Recreation Advisory Council recommends apayment in-lieu
option in the amount of $9,100 (20 lots times $455 per lot).
(Note: Public open space dedication of 4.73 acres was proposed after this review was
received.
Private Recreation Space:
• The County Parks and Recreation Advisory Council recommends the addition of a
private picnic shelter or playground to be placed in Open Space Tract "C".
• Acreage required for private, common, recreation open space to be set aside is
1.25 acres. 19.73 acres are proposed.
• The ERCD recommends that the proposed Open Space remain in private
ownership and be managed as undeveloped common land by the homeowners
association.
5
Certification of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
As per its letter, Orange County Schools pre-awarded a Certificate of Adequate Public
Schools (CAPS) for twenty (20) housing units. (CAPS dated May 13, 2008 is included in
Attachment 4.)
Fire Suppression
Applicant has proposed to install a water withdrawal facility (a half-acre wet pond with a
volume of around 150,000 cubic feet) for the purpose of emergency water for fire
suppression on-site.
Water -Sewer
• Individual well and septic disposal systems will serve all lots.
• The Orange County Environmental Health Department has determined that there
are twenty (20) acceptable private septic disposal fields and replacement fields.
(Please refer to Alan Clapp's email message of April 2008.)
Historic Preservation
• Care is given to the preservation of the cemetery located on Tract "A".
• The location of the proposed plat is referred to the State Archaeologist to determine
if other historic or archaeological assets are located on-site. (ERCD staff referred
this matter to the State Archaeologist on August 28th. No other historic or
archaeological assets were revealed in the State inventory.]
PLANNING STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The proposed development is compatible with the uses and densities suggested in the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed development complies with the Subdivision Regulations standards relating
to open space percentage and acres, the type of open space, roadway design, and
buffers.
3. The proposed development complies with the Zoning Ordinance standards regarding
minimum lot size, impervious cover, and density.
4. The applicant addressed the neighborhood concerns by reducing the number of lots from
thirty-three (33), as approved with the Concept Plan, to twenty (20) and providing turn
around capabilities for school buses.
5. The 4.73 acres (Tract "A") be dedicated to the County for the ultimate purpose of
conveying this parcel to the Eno River State Park. The instruments necessary to convey
the land to the Eno River Association and then to the Eno River State Park shall be
developed by the County Attorney's office.
Planning Staff recommends Approval. of the Preliminary Plat in accordance with:
• The attached Resolution of Approval,
• The 4.73-acre Tract "A" is accepted as public recreation land with the instrument to
convey the land to the Eno River State Park to be developed by the County Attorney's
office, Note: See Resolution of Approval item E.3j
• The $9,100 in-lieu-of parkland dedication fee be waived, and Note: See Resolution of
Approval item E.3j
• The "stub out" streets shall be included on the Preliminary Plat. Note: See Resolution of
Approval item 8.6j
Development Process, Schedule, and Action
Planning Board
• First Action: Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on March 20, 2007.
6
• Second Action: Concept Plan for a conventional subdivision was approved on June
6, 2007 with the following conditions;
o A subdivision for no more than 33 lots,
o Provide a cul-de-sac radii and intersection radii according to County Fire
Marshall, Solid Waste Department, and NCDOT standards.
o Applicant shall provide private recreational facilities and shall conserve natural
features (steep slopes, floodplains, et al.) in the primary and secondary areas.
The developer proposes a footpath system along the drainage easement.
o Applicant shall specify proposed activities in all buffer areas.
o No activities are allowed in prescribed open space, except recreational facilities.
o Buffer areas are to remain undisturbed and in their natural state.
o An inventory of all trees is required for preliminary plat submittal for areas
proposed for disturbance.
o Developer shall address at the time of preliminary plat submittal the Fire
Marshall's comments with regard to usable water sources for fire suppression
and life safety considerations.
o Applicant shall address all comments in the attached memorandum from Soil
and Water at the time of preliminary plat submittal.
o Because of existing and projected traffic volumes on Pleasant Green Road,
more extensive traffic improvements may be warranted at the proposed
intersection. These improvements, determined at the time of the preliminary
plat, may include a right turn deceleration lane or a left turn lane. Improvements
to Cabe Ford Road may also be warranted. (Because the proposed subdivision
now contains only twenty (20) lots and is not subject to Special Use Permit
review criteria, a traffic analysis is not required.)
o Submit a plan to address land-clearing debris handling with the preliminary plan
application. County regulations allow no burning of stumps and timber debris.
o The variable width perimeter building setback designated on the plan should be
at least 100 feet in depth and re-designated as a land use buffer.
• Third Action: The Planning Board recommended on August 6, 2008 approval of the
Preliminary Plat application with the following conditions:
1. The developer shall respond to questions posed in the letter from the neighborhood
and resolve as many of the issues, as possible, before the subdivision is approved.
Note: Largely not included in Resolution of Approval as several requesfs are
beyond zoning and subdivision regulation; Conditions 7, 8, and 9 below are related
to Neighborhood's concerns. See Attachment 8 for Applicant's response].
2. The proposed subdivision approval is subject to the conditions and requirements
listed in the Resolution of Approval.
3. Relocate the setback lines to coincide with the outside edge of the stream buffers.
(Note: County ordinances do not permit disturbance of stream buffers. Applicant
has voluntarily complied with this condition. See Resolution of Approval item C.4.J.
4. On all future plats, the applicant shall remove all potential septic systems from
delineated stream buffers. Note: County ordinances do not permit disturbance of
stream buffers. Applicant has voluntarily complied with this condition; See
Resolution of Approval item A.4.].
5. Eliminate both "stub out" streets from the plat. Note: Not included in Resolution of
Approval; County ordinances require connectivity to adjacent lands].
7
6. That the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) shall review all archeological and
historical aspects of this project, including the cemetery to determine compliance
with any and all applicable regulations. Note: Not included in Resolution of
Approval as applicable regulations already apply. Project was sent to the HPC for
its review -see comments in Agency Review section above].
7. The applicant shall post a construction bond sufficient to ensure that the
construction process would proceed without damage to nearby properties and staff
would determine the amount based on fiscal analysis for any damages incurred on
Cabe Ford Road. (Note: See item 8.7 in Resolution of Approval].
8. The applicant shall develop lighting strategies that minimize adverse effects on
dark skies and comply with Orange County Outdoor Lighting Standards. Note:
Not included in Resolution of Approval as all projects must comply with adopted
Lighting Standards which include provisions for dark skies; See Resolution of
Approval item F.4.J.
9. The applicant shall place signs restricting construction traffic to the eastern section
of Cabe Ford Road, marking the entrance to the Cabe Crossing Subdivision to
ensure that other vehicles not be parked or left over night on the shoulder of Cabe
Ford Road, Grady Lane, Virgie Lane, and stating that there is no turn around at the
western end of Cabe Ford Road. (Note: See item 8.8 in Resolution of Approval].
Conditions 7, 8, and 9 listed above are the Planning Board's response to the
Neighborhood's concerns. The applicant's response is provided in Attachment 8.
• Fourth Action: The BOCC receives planning staff, Planning Board, and Administration
recommendations and then makes final decision on the Preliminary Plat application.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Impact Analysis is included as Attachment 6.
RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) The Administration recommends Approval of the Preliminary
Plat in accordance with the attached Resolution of Approval and
subject to the following:
• The $9,100 in-lieu-of parkland dedication fee be waived, and
• The "stub out".streets shall be included on the Preliminary Plat.
(2) The Administration recommends that the County accept the offer
of dedication of the 4.73-acre Tract "A" be accepted as public
recreation land, and authorize the Chair to execute such deeds and
other documents as deemed necessary by the County Attorney in
order to convey Tract "A" to the Eno River Association for ultimate
conveyance to the State of North Carolina for inclusion in the Eno
River State Park.
RESOLUTION OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date of Meeting:
Name of Subdivision:
Owners:
Applicant:
September 2, 2008
Cabe Crossing Subdivision
Bramco Partners
Jeff Peloquin, Agent
8
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the Cabe Crossing Preliminary Plan,
dated February 8, 2008 and later revised on March 31, 2008 and on July 25, 2008, containing
twenty (20) lots and public streets Running Cedar Lane and River Stone Road, subject to the
fulfillment of requirements specified herein. Before any final plat for the subdivision of any of
the tracts shown on the Cabe Crossing preliminary plan may be recorded the owner/applicant
shall comply with the following terms and conditions:
A. Sewage Disposal
1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for a conventionally sized septic
disposal system, and its associated repair area, approved by the County Division of
Environmental Health.
2. The septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements.
This disclosure shall be included in a document describing development restriction
to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall also disclose
that information regarding the tentative location of septic systems is available from
the County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health. Each lot that
does not contain a suitable building site shall be designated both on the Final Plat
and by instrument recorded in the Orange County registry as restricted for
development potential as set forth in Section IV-B-2 of the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations.
3. .The owner/applicant shall not destroy trees that have previously been inventoried
and located within the primary tree conservation areas as depicted and described
in the Landscape Plan for any reason including to install on-site waste disposal
system drain or repair fields.
4. No septic system shall be located within a regulated stream buffer.
B. Roads and Access
The owner/applicant shall, prior to the approval and recording of the Final Plat,
construct the public roads to NCDOT standards, within afifty- (50) foot right-of-way,
with ten- (10) foot utility easements on each side, and with NCDOT construction
inspection and approval.
OR
The owner/applicant shall submit a letter of credit or cash bond to secure
construction of the above public road improvements to NCDOT standards. The
9
estimate shall be submitted by a certified/licensed engineer, grading contractor or
other individual qualified to calculate the cost to complete the improvements
according to approved plans and specifications, who has no direct or indirect
ownership interest in the subdivision as specified in Section III-E-2 of the Orange
County Subdivision Regulations. The financial guarantee shall reflect one hundred
ten (110) percent of that construction cost estimate and an accredited financial
institution licensed to conduct business in North Carolina shall issue such financial
guarantee. The financial guarantee shall be effective for 372 days after the County
Manager signed the Certificate of Improvements.
The document describing development
Plat shall state that the County shall
NCDOT inspects and approves the
certification of such approval.
restrictions to be recorded with the Final
not release the financial guarantee until
road construction and provides written
2. The owner/applicant shall submit to the County Erosion Control Division for review
and approval, before any land disturbing activity on the site, an erosion control plan
for construction of public roads, private recreation activities, and drainage
improvements.
3. The owner/applicant shall erect an approved street name sign at the intersection of
each road and at the intersection with Cabe Ford Road according to the provisions
of Section IV-B-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations before
Planning Department signatures on the Final Plat. All street name signs shall be
double bladed.
4. Before any construction or alteration of any existing access within the Cabe Ford
Road right-of-way, the owner/applicant shall secure a driveway permit from the
NCDOT District Offices. Owner/applicant shall submit a copy of such NCDOT
approval permit and letter to the Planning Department at the same time as the
request for Planning Department signatures on the Final Plat. The owner/applicant
shall perform no work in any public road right-of-ways before issuance of approved
NCDOT driveway permits and encroachment agreements.
5. Sight triangles, ten (10) feet by seventy (70) feet, shall be shown on the Final Plat
at all intersections. The sight distance triangle shall be exclusive of the proposed
sign easement.
6. A sign, between three (3) and four (4) square feet in area, shall be placed at the
terminus of each area labeled as "Reserved Future Access" indicating that the
street is subject to future extension. These areas shall be clearly indicated on the
Final Plat with the words "Subject to future extension."
7. A cash bond, in an amount determined to be sufficient by the County and NC DOT,
shall be posted to ensure that the applicant will pay for any damages incurred
during the construction process to property within the public right-of-way or to the
roadway surface of Cabe Ford Road.
8. The applicant shall place signs restricting construction traffic to the eastern section
of Cabe Ford Road, marking the entrance to the Cabe Crossing Subdivision to
ensure that construction vehicles not be parked or left overnight on the shoulder of
10
Cabe Ford Road, Grady Lane, Virgie Lane and stating that there is no turn around
at the western end of Cabe Ford Road.
C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping
The owner/applicant shall install or preserve landscaping as indicated on the
approved Landscape Plan (open space and pathways plan), and the Planning
Department shall inspect and approve such landscaping before signing the Final
Plat.. No part of the landscaping shall encroach into the ten- (10) foot by seventy-
(70) foot sight triangles at the public road intersection.
OR
The owner/applicant shall submit a letter of credit or cash bond to secure required
landscape installation and preservation. The owner/applicant shall provide, as
specified in Section IV-B-8-b-9 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, an
estimate of the cost for required preservation, plantings and their installation. The
financial guarantee shall reflect one hundred (110) percent of the estimate and be
issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North
Carolina.
2. Provision for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved Landscape Plan
shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements that Planning Department staff prepared and recorded concurrently
with the Final Plat. Clear cutting or other removal of any trees or other vegetation
on individual lots is prohibited as specified in Section IV-B-8-c of the Orange
County Subdivision Regulations.
3. The owner/applicant shall provide a Type A Land Use Buffer along the internal
public roads and Cabe Ford Road (SR 1570), as shown on the Preliminary Plan.
The buffer shall be thirty (30) feet wide and shall be composed of deciduous and/or
evergreen vegetation, forming semi-opaque intermittent visual obstructions from
the ground to a height of at least thirty (30) feet. Said buffer shall be so noted on
the plat, and detailed in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements prepared by Planning Department staff and recorded concurrently
with the Final Plat. The owner/applicant shall convey the thirty- (30) foot buffer
easement along the public roads to the Homeowner's Association (HOA) for
enforcement and maintenance.
4. The stream buffer areas along the rear of Lots 8 through 17, as shown on the
preliminary plan, shall be shown on the final plat as areas to be left undisturbed
and in their natural state. Grading, clearing, or installation of any structure,
impervious surface, fence or play apparatus shall not be placed within the buffer.
Additionally, when marketing these lots to prospective buyers, the developer,
contractor or real estate sales person shall provide information, available at the
Orange County Erosion Control offices, to prospective buyers regarding the nutrient
reduction requirements within the Lower Eno Watershed.
D. Drainage
Locate all drainage easements on the Final Plat, as required following Erosion
Control Plan review and approval.
2. The owner/applicant shall size and locate all drainage culverts as required by
NCDOT and a North Carolina Licensed Professional Engineer.
E. Parkland and Recreation
11
The developer shall place a total of 19.73 acres in common open space, which the
HOA will own and maintain. This open space shall be shown and labeled
accordingly on the final plat.
2. The developer has offered and shall dedicate a total of 4.73 acres (Tract "A") of
open space to Orange County. This transfer shall be deemed a substitution for the
$9,100 payment to Orange County in lieu of parkland dedication prior to the
recordation of the final plat. A deed conveying title of Tract "A" to Orange County,
in a form approved by the County Attorney, shall be recorded contemporaneously
with the recordation of the Final Plat.
3. Orange County, in turn, shall transfer Tract "A" to the Eno River Association to be
subsequently owned and managed by the State of North Carolina as part of the
Eno River State Park. The publicly dedicated property shall be connected to the
thirty- (30) foot wide access easement shown on the Preliminary Plan. This open
space shall be shown and labeled accordingly on the Final Plat.
4. The owner/applicant shall designate recreational space as specified in Section IV-
B-7-b of the County Subdivision Regulations and in Article 6.12.2.6 in the Zoning
Ordinance. The total recreation space required for this development is less than 2
acres. The 19.73 acres of open space may serve a dual role of private recreation
space provided active recreation improvements are made.
5. The HOA shall obtain an approved NCDOT encroachment agreement for the
footpath that falls within the public road rights-of-way before construction.
6. No activities are allowed in prescribed open space, except recreational facilities.
7. Except for construction of footpaths and stormwater improvement facilities [e.g. bio-
retention], all areas in reserved open space shall remain in their natural condition.
8. A picnic shelter and table, to be provided in the Tract `C' open space shall be
permitted at the fifty (50) percent build out point (i.e. prior to issuance of the 11tH
building permit).
F. Miscellaneous
1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map according to standards
found in Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the County Subdivision Regulations.
2. The Final Plat shall reflect the drainage easements as required in D.1 above.
3. The open space shall be conveyed by deed to the Homeowner's Association. The
County Attorney, prior to their recording, shall approve all instruments of
conveyance and restriction.
4. Before installation of lighting within the subdivision, the owner/applicant shall
submit a lighting plan to the Planning Department for review and approval.
12
5. The Planning and Solid Waste Departments shall review and approve a plan for the
collection and proper disposal of all tree stumps and fallen logs before approval of
the erosion control plan.
6. The owner/applicant shall note impervious cover square footage limits for each lot
on the Final Plat.
7. Clean wood waste, scrap metal, and corrugated cardboard, shall be recycled.
8. All haulers of construction waste shall have proper licensing through the Orange
County Solid Waste Department.
9. Before any on-site construction activity, the owner/applicant shall hold apre-
construction conference with the County Solid Waste staff. This may be the same
meeting held with other development officials..
10. Before installation of a subdivision sign, County Planning shall review and approve
a site plan and construction drawings.
11. The owner/applicant shall install a water withdrawal system for emergency fire
suppression with signage acceptable to the Orange County Fire Marshal prior to
recordation of the final plat.
12. The owner shall file, with the Planning Department and record with the Final Plat, a
declaration of covenants and restrictions, articles of incorporation, where required,
and/or by-laws, all as approved by the County Attorney, that will govern the
maintenance and control of the improvements as set forth in Article III-E of the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Said documents shall provide for
ownership of open space and the dedication of easements to access open space,
common area POSA's, drainage easements and buffers, for maintenance.
13. The maximum impervious surface coverage for each lot shall be 36% of the platted
lot area. This figure is exclusive of public road right-of--way.
G. Certifications
1. The owner/applicant shall have notarized on the face of the Final Plat a Certificate
of Survey and Accuracy signed by a Professional Land Surveyor.
2. The owner/applicant shall sign a Certification of Declaration and Maintenance in the
form provided in Section V-D-6-b of the County Subdivision Regulations on the face
of the plat and shall record concurrently with the Final Plat a document describing
development restrictions.
3. The NCDOT shall certify that all public roads have been entirely constructed to
NCDOT standards or that construction plans have been approved before Planning
Department signatures on the Final Plat.
4. The Planning Department shall sign a Certificate of Approval.
13
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners that
the Preliminary Plat for Cabe Crossing Subdivision is approved in accordance with the above-
mentioned conditions and attached Preliminary Plat dated February 8, 2008, last revised on
July 25, 2008.
Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner ,
the foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2008.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North
Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings
of said Board at a meeting held on , 2008 as relates in any way to the adoption
of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes
of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2008.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
Attachment 2
APPL1CATtON FOR PRELlMtNARY PLAN APPROVAL ~~
MA~lOR SUBa1VtSK)N
clzANC~E couNTY Bros
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (lNK ONLY} iyA~; 3 /4 /08
SUt3f)MSION NAME: Gabe Crossing
LOCATION: S• Side Gabe Ford Road Ad'acent to Eno River
OyVNERrDEYELOPER: Branco Partners; c/o Jeff Peloquin
AbDRESS: 944 Washington Street TELi:P1~NE NO.: _ (919} 614-2350
Durham, NC 27701
A,~~rCO~A~. Philip. Post & Associates ATTN: Tim Smith
App~~; 401 Providence Road, Suite 200 TELEPHONE NO.: _(919} 429-1173
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
A SUMMARY INFORMATION 24 lA
Orange County Tax Msp 23 I31oCk Lots} 45 Township Eno
Zoning Dhrtrtd(s}: AR- rzcu~ral Residential
't'otal Number of Act 7 G
Total Number of Lots: 20 Average Lot S"~zs: ,88.598 ,G„~Minl~m Lot Size: 40.OOQ SF
NumbsrrType of Strudnres: (
` ROME
5 (i~P~d1 _____~~
4
U L~
Unear Fast M Streets: 3 ~ AerQS in Open Space: 25.0 AC
Water Supply: Public (specify) Community We11 Indlviduat
Wastewater Disposak Public (specify] Community ep is individual
School District: Cameron Pk• Stanfar 0 ~ Firs District: Eno
t'aeneral Land flees in Area: esi ent a ricultural
Critical Areas: Yes st<~m/drain~eways Yes ifood prone areas
Eno River watenthed (specifyf Cemeterv histasic sites
other (explain}
Is the Property to bs subdlvkled currently under "farm use value taxation"? Yes Na % . if °yas," please
contact the-Orange CountyTax Office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under
"farm use value taxation.°
t3 Ali plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch squats two-hundred feet (t^=200') and na larger than
one inch equals Twenty feet (t"=20'y and must contain the followktg information:
subcGvisfon name / zonMg of tract and adjacent
& properties
~
name
address of owner[s] bui[dtng setback lines by notation or
typical tot layout
name ~ address of subdhrldsr J location and width of existing and
(if other tltaut owner) proposed easements (drainage,
/
f utilities, roads, etc.}
~ ~
.
name o
surveyor, onginser, landscape Existing, Proposed and adjoining
archlted or architect, address rights-of~way includMg dimensions
/ registration # & seal and street names and State Road
(title] preliminary Plan numbers. Linear feat of road
scale, north arrow centerlines and approximate acreage
date of plan preparesion and revisions of new stroat rights-af way
_~, township. tax neap-bloc&-bt references / existhsg and proposed ~Illties,
/ Parent Parcel lderrtlflcation ~ including type, sizes. hydrants,
deed book and page # of property to be valves, manholes
subdivided
boundary described with bearings and
~ misting aced propaasd curbs, gutters
distances and culverts, including sizes and
grades
l~
t/ total acn~age of the tract and acreage of ~ foeation and width of alisy~s.
tots, lrtcluding and excluding area YMttlrirt sidewAlks, bHce lanes, transit
/ rights-of~vay
~ systems. and bus Stops
control corner typical strsatrross-sections and
intersection details including design
and width of travetway and
proposed lot'ttnes with dimanslons
~ shauiders
horizontal alFgnment, renbeNins
tot S Wodc rturnbers radius, and genera[ curve data on aH
phasing line(s) ProP~~ streets
„~ topography at ten (iQ) foot intervals /
V pernn~ent faatun~s such as
_~, weber bodies. sirsanrat 8oodwaya and buildings, cemeteries. historic
/ fk~odplains
~ landmarks
stream bttt€ers adjoining lot layout names of
.~, loc~fon and size of parcels dedGnrted for adjoining properly awnen:. tf
publk use, recreational use or reserved su6divtded, subdivision plat name,
in common, with pnrposs noted plat book ~ page Humbert and
/
~ perimeter lot numbers.
impervious surface data (tftocabad in location and size of lots of restricted
weber supply wstershed} ~ development poterrtist and notation
/
/ on plat regarding same
vtdntty map showing general [oration of storrrwrabsr detention andlor
subdivision with streets and roads rebentfon safes and undisturbed
iderrtlfted by Stabs Road number and aroas for iMiifrafion purposes {if
name loeabsd in water supply watershed)
iandscapinp and buffer requirements
/
township, corporate and extra'terrttorial Identified natural areas and wildlife
planning jurtadic8on lines which cross con-Edors
the property
C OTHER SUBMITTAL REQW RENENTS:
i. Twenfy4ive (2S') copies of the Preliminary Plat.
2. One tali size copy of an Change County Tax [Nap (with. tax parcels involved clearly marked).
3. Where nwntdpat or QiNASA sewer is not available, a copy of the Prsttmkary Plat indicating Health I}epartrneat
approvaltdenlal for each tot show thereon.
4. Where a private road is proposal. a written statenwnt by the applicant or blether authorized representatlvs which
sets for the justification for a privab road (see Section N-B-3-d-1 of the mange County 5ubd-visian Regulations).
5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared In accordance with Section YI of this Ordinance wisich assure
completion andlor maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may include, but
not be ttrrrlbel to, a private road maintenance agreement and articles of incorporation and restritt[ve covcnaMs
pertaining to a homeowners sssociatton. These documents maybe requin3d as necessary as evidence that the
ardinanve requirements are beMg met.
B. Fee - #SDO ptrrs x.00 per tot (one fee for Preliminary end Fnal Plat).
7, E the subdivision contains i0 tots or more. the following information ahau tae submitted with the application:
a. Number of years to buildout.
b. Number of houses to he 6uiR during each year unfit butfdaut.
c. Average price of houses including lots for each year to butidout.
1 certify diet bo the best of mY knowledge #te irdormation contairs3d above, and in the st~partirzg dOCtgrl9ntS, is a feriae! representation
of the proposed devebprneM. i acto~oHAedge chat by signing this application, the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
is authorized. Pursuant trr N.C. Gen. Slat. Section 1S3a-3B0, to make as rrstrry inspections of ttre swbject Property as may be necessary
to verr~y that tl~e proposed work outtaied herein k consistent with ffte provisions of ail app[icaMe State and local laws, ordinances and
regufa6ons. gS- s~nirg title app~catkrn, I adcnowiedge and agree that inspectors, zoning of5cers, erosion control ofticert, and ether
staff of the Orange County Ptanning 8, InsPectians Deparfrnent Nava a fight, upon presentation of proper credet~iafs, to enf~ the
subject property at arty reasonable hour for the purposes of tnspedion or other a rcement actin .
Owner's Sisnature "''1°'~ DA Arplicant's Suture DATE
- ..C..,Sw~.~',~.1e~.. .. ..
mss: 1a~~o~}~;;~;;t .r.p.=~.>.~:~~ _ nate:Faia ' [te~:r ~~`~ -
..;~`i..... -,..~~L'}G:%:~'i~~f"~.'m •-:,.-e... 4!:,'4!a~)~:~~e. .:. .. .. ~. ... .~., ....A«ft?.f:'. sa `:!~'~'.~.. ~... ... ... ....aq...
J. PELOQUIN CONS'1 KUCTION, INC. Building & Development Company ~ (D
April 14, 2008
To: Planning Staff, Planning Boazd, County Commissioners
Ref: Cabe Crossing
Bramco Tract tax maps: 5.23..45, 5.24..1A
Attn: Glenn Bowles, Planner
Orange County, NC
Hello All,
As you realize, we have submitted the preliminary plan of Cabe Crossing with only 20
lots as opposed to the 33 lots previously approved by the concept plan.
We have decided to proceed with far fewer lots for preliminary plan acceptance and
would like to summarize some very important considerations which the final plat will
have incorporated.
1. While the planning staff and Board had approved what we considered a viable
plat for concept review, and it had been approved as such, we have adjusted the
quantity of lots to reflect the request of the planning boazd in respect to the
petition by the neighbors. This reflects a 250% increase in lot size averages for
the property as currently zoned. Originally we had been planning 46 lots in all.
2. Current standards and review by the DOT allowed a much denser development
with no required improvements to either Cabe Ford rd. or the intersection of
Pleasant Green in order to be accepted by the DOT for inclusion into the state
system after completion.
3. A major consideration by the public at large and the neighbors of this project is
the concern for water resources. We aze actively engaged with the research and
drafting of items to be included in the covenants which represent bona-fide
methods of water conservation and "Green" techniques which will be required in
the design, construction, and use of the proposed homes in this community. We
hope to engage the efforts of the County Health Dept., Green Building Standards
of the Home Builders Association, and other recognized agencies to compile a
common sense list of such techniques and supporting language. Investigation
into well reports furnished by the O.C. Enviromental Health dept. has produced
no abnormal failures on drilled wells currently accepted by the county and no
concerns for the future of existing or new wells once build out is complete.
1020 Vista Wood Drive, Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
e-mail Peloguin(cr~.mindspring.com
919-732-7554 fax at 919-732-4704
J. PELOQUIN CONSTRUCTION, INC. Building & Development Company c
4. Currently there are no legal or practical turn-around available for Orange County
school buses. This concern will be addressed as by our plan.
5. We have been diligently workuig with the Eno River Association for over 2 years
on behalf of the State of NC Parks System to incorporate a significant connector
which will provide continuity of the Eno River state Park Corridor.
It should be understood that the adjacent parcel of 15 acre has been offered to the
state of NC to complete the park plan.
It is our sincere hope that you will fmd our submittal not only acceptable, but
exciting. Our desire is to invite others to design and implement sound resource
saving methods which will become a norm for the future of Orange County.
Truly,
Jeff Peloquin
For: Bramco Partners
Q . ~~~
i
1020 Vista Wood Drive, Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
e-mail PeloguinCa~mindspring.com
919-732-7554 fax at 919-732-4704
_ _3
'- Attachment 3
A B r~
11.26A
131.73
850
3.DDA
7.NA $
2
~ 888.07 tsr.u
v 756.37 3.10A 5.~ 438.22 4
2
OOA 442.76 3
2
OOA ~w~
. .
617.34 EMERALDWOOD R eats
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 218.15 301'86 $ 278.75
A ~+ 1.4M ~ 1.~A 207 W
s g ) my
e 44S F
1 2 3 4 5 B 7
'$ C U 259.87
° t 6
-t ~ Q 2.WA rn 52.30
^~ ~ ~ 1.19A B +~ ~ E 3.74A
q
d
t]265 to5.t9
45.68A 1 }; g ~ 3.24A ~
3
45A ~ to
t
.
S
88A 229.06 w
3 ;
8
.
4.53A 4.31A 4.70A 3.fi8A ~ B~bn t 25A ~ E 1.O6A F
~ 1.9BA A ~ 45.13 ~$ -
65.75 t)5.
St
MARIE
'~ ~u.N
LANE 3^3!3
254.29
. 29639 193!2
21183
584.'
215
q15 67 gR 1570 2.89A
017
3 ~ 737.73
i
2
3.8 1
215
181.2 ROAD
ssc
215 1086.49
zts zts FORD
$ 3.90A
(1058)
1000
GAgE 8 ~ 3.96A
PM R (10:
0.2
18.04A
7.76A
12
18A 325.1
9.t0A .
+~ (966)
3.53A
7 4o9.4s (s2s)
260.55 2 75A
2
P10357
7
P10357 2
~~
(479)
X4.88 6.DDA
9.OOA
~9~
9 ' :>°
9894813468 ~, t W, ,~
73.47A 5.23..45
15.41A ~.qg
6.91A ~3)
m3 ss
O 37),89
050 8 ry 1.08A 3P ])
,~ ~ BSB.14 CL~ 60n
°, $ 1.24
700 ~
5 $ tR .78A '8
^ ])6, '~
Isnn
17.OOA 632.fi7 31
500 8 ?z3~ f>/1/4B 3R 1.67A
3.,
9
''
.+n tnv
s 4 5 '~
~
'
w` w $7qe 3.18A R 9 °
~ trMP ttsA
~ fi 4
o
5.OOA
`~
u
ry
/ tsu
d
fi fi ttu tseas
118.05 y9934 ?~ S 5
p°ur°°
? Y
OOG "~~
,e,z
p~0 io~P s.o7A ah ~ ,s+'+
< 1 iR4
~
~ ,mn
~a
o s +3v,
L 'P
z° ,3
tS7A
27.34 9~ ~ r
1.02A uu
t
e
J
2
,ne t5 to
20D B.08A ~ 3aa n ~~ t2 ~K 55.Bt
0
tm.a ux es
zoo ~ t.+ ..
~ 418.48 F
788.85
u C
saw, sosu
2.%A
~
362.67 ~ ADy 8
SM LANE 3 ~
(PRIVATE) OENWOOD
Bzai toB
1p.NE
"jpe
.67
L99.tte This map contains parcels prepared for the inventory of real property within Orange County, 8nd is compiled from
recorded deed, plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aforementioned
`e°~1 ~ 4 ~
Owe e44~~196 public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the information wntained on this map. The N
"t"er6"°°" ~ ~~~ county and its mapping companies assume no legal responsibility for the information on this map. wta ,r
~~~
~)~"~" _ Orange County GIS 5
1 inch eauals *~ "~
500 feet
Eddie Kirk
Page 1 of 2
Attachment 4
~1
From: Grant Gale
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 4:27 PM
To: Eddie Kirk
Subject: Cades Crossing
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eddie Kirk, Orange County Planning
FROM: J.Grant Gale, Solid Waste Enforcement Supervisor
DATE: 4/18/2008
SUBJECT: PROJECT- FILE Cabe Crossing Subdivision
The Solid Waste Department Staff have reviewed the plans and have the following comments:
Plan Approved:
1. Solid Waste staff has conditionally approved the Subdivision Plan and related information submitted for
this project per 3/13/2008 subdivision plan from Phil Post and Associations subject to the following
condition: A Solid Waste Management Plan for Landclearing should be submitted prior to
construction.
Pre-construction Meetino Stipulation:
2. We recommend that the applicant be stipulated as a condition of permit issuance to hold the pre-demolition
and pre-construction conferences with Orange County Solid Waste staff.
Overhead wires:
3. We recommend the property owner address refuse service access in relation to the height of any overhead
wires at the entrance to the collection area. Any overhead wires must be raised to a minimum of 18'and any
other overhead impediment(s) to access will need to be raised to a minimum height of 16' or relocated before
service vehicles could service any waste through this route.
Curbside Recycling;
4. If roads are public streets, constructed to NCDOT standards, Orange Community Recycling intends to
provide regular curbside recycling services to all single-family-type residences in this proposed development
at such time it is included in the Orange County recycling program collection service area. (Rural Route 4)
LCID:
We recommend the applicant provide the name(s) of the permitted waste disposal facilit(ies) to which any
landclearing or demolition waste will be delivered. This information should be supplied, as soon as determined
and prior to start of work, in a letter to the Solid Waste Department or at the pre-construction conference.
NOTES TO BE PLACED ON FINAL PLANS:
Construction Waste:
1. By Orange County Ordinance, clean wood waste, scrap metal and corrugated cardboard, all present in
construction waste, must be recycled.
2. By Orange County Ordinance, all haulers of construction waste must be properly licensed.
3. Prior to any demolition or construction activity on the site the applicant will hold apre-demolition/pre-
construction conference with the County's Solid Waste staff. This may be the same meeting held with other
development officials
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
~~~
04/21/2008
. Page 2 of 2
'~ x,10
J.Grant Gale, MPA, CZO
Solid Waste Enforcement Supervisor
Orange County Solid Waste Management
919-918-2942
q ale co.orange.nc.us
04/21/2008
~~i
ORANGE COUNTY
ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Glen Bowles, Current P/anner
From: Rich Shaw, ERCD Land Conservation Manager
Date: April 23, 2008
Subject: Cabe Crossing. Subdivision Proposal
Thank you for the opportunity to review a Preliminary Plan for the Cabe Crossing
Subdivision (formerly Bramco Partners) proposal. The proposal would create 20 lots on 73
acres located south of Cabe Ford Road and east of the Eno River (Eno Township).
ERCD staff comments on subdivisions are generally to a) address any concerns with respect
to potential impacts on important natural or cultural resources, and b) identify any areas
that might be desirable for possible dedication to the County for public recreation/open
space pursuant to Section IV-B-7-b of the Orange County Subdivision Ordinance.
My comments on this proposal are based on an examination of the Preliminary Plat (dated
3/31/08) and a review of ERCD's comprehensive resource database.
The Preliminary Plan would set aside 24.49 acres as Open Space (33%), which includes land
within three forested stream corridors that flow southwest into the Eno River. A portion of
the Open Space (Tract A) includes a historic cemetery, which would remain buffered from
the proposed development. The Open Space would help protect these sensitive areas and
some portion would be accessible to the majority of future homeowners.
Overall, the plan appears consistent with the County's desire to minimize
adverse environmental impacts with respect to the protection of floodplains,
wetlands, natural areas and wildlife habitat.
ERCD recommends that the proposed Open Space remain in private ownership
and be managed as undeveloped common land by the homeowners association.
On a final note, I see that the Preliminary Plan excludes a 15.41-acre parcel that had been
included in the earlier Conceptual Plan (2007). That parcel is located adjacent to the Eno
River and within the Eno River State Park Master Plan. It includes a segment of a 300'-wide
Wildlife Corridor recommended for protection in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. It
is my hope that at some point in the future that parcel is conveyed to Eno River State Park.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 245-2591.
cc: David Stancil
Environment and Resource Conservation
PO Box 8181 / 306-A Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245-2590
reattion A- a-rks ~ ytis ~otisH.Gtit
~ ~~
b f Dran9e ~nt~
P.O. Box 8181, 300 W. Tryon St., Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 245-2660
MEMORANDUM
To: Glen Bowles, Orange County Planner
From: Steve Peck, Chair Qlak ~"~
Recreation and Parks Advisory Council
Re: Bramco Partners Subdivision Proposal
Date: April 22, 2008
Thank you .for the opportunity to review the preliminary plat for this subdivision and the proposed
Payment-in-lieu of dedicated recreation area.
The Recreation and Parks Advisory Council reviewed the original concept plan and provided a
recommendation on June 26, 2007. The preliminary plat has some noteworthy changes. RPAC is
please to see that that portions of the property to the west and southwest, which abut properties
held by the State of North Carolina, specifically for the Eno River State Park, are in the process of
being conveyed to the state. We believe this connection will benefit the proposed community as
well as the Eno River State Park and those who frequent it.
RPAC recommends approval of the $8,645 payment in lieu of dedicated recreation. The Council
has also noted the six tracts of open space proposed for dedication to the neighborhood
association. These areas will serve to protect the streams and slopes in the area while providing
open space for the community. The Council would also like to point out that the addition of one or
more recreation amenities such as a picnic shelter and/or playground or basketball court would
also be beneficial to the neighborhood and could even be sited as a focal point for potential
homeowners as they enter from Cabe Ford Rd, or more centrally in tract "C."
cc: Lori Taft
Glen Bowles
From: Toyia C. Smith [tcsmith@dot.state.nc.us]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:40 AM
To: Glen Bowles
Cc: C. N. Edwards
Subject: Cabe Ford Subdivision
Glenn,
a3
Per your request this office has reviewed the plans for the proposed Cabe Ford Subdivision
located on Cabe Ford Road. We are providing the following comments regarding the plan
submittal:
1. Change "I-2" to SF9.5A on the residential collector and local residential road typical
sections.
2. No roadway improvements are required to mitigate he anticipated traffic impact.
3. NCDOT Driveway Permit will be required.
1
Glen Bowles
From: Alan Clapp
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:17 AM
To: Glen Bowles
Subject: Cabe Ford Road Subdivision
Cabe ford.pdf (75
KB)
Glen,
I have reviewed and evaluated 'the soils for. the Bramco Development on Cabe Ford Road. The
attached pdf shows the changes as a result of the soil work. The pdf also has the
proposed house locations and soil areas
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Alan
Alan Clapp
Soil Scientist
Environmental Health Division
PO Box 8181
306-C Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
P: 919-245-2360
F: 919-644-3006
Email: aclapp@co.orange.nc.us
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: All email messages, including any attachments, generated from or
received by this site are the property of Orange County Government and as such are
considered public domain and are subject to the North Carolina Public Record Law. The
Orange County Health Department does not transmit client/patient medical information via
email. Certain other confidential information may be transmitted and any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message. If you believe there has been an inappropriate disclosure, please contact Carla
Julian at cjulian@co.orange.nc.us, the Health Department Privacy Officer.
1
0
aG
Orange Soil and Water Conservation
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-245-2750
May 8, 2008
To: Glenn Bowles
Orange County Planning Dept.
From: Gail Hughes
Soil Conservationist
Orange Soil and Water Conservation District
RE: Cabe Crossing Subdivision
According to the Orange County Soil Survey, the following soils are located on this site
and in the surrounding area:
HrB- Herndon silt Loam: 2-6 % slope (B)
HrB- Herndon silt loam: 6-10% slope (C)
GeB- Georgeville silt Loam: 2-6 % slope (B)
GeC-Georgeville silt loam: 6-10% slope (C)
TaD- Tatum silt loam, 8-15% (D)
TaE- Tatum silt loam-15-25% (E)
Attached are the capability classes for each soil listed above.
This soil information is to be used as a general reference based on information found in
the Orange County Soil Survey.
The program that is used to locate soils does not have property boundaries; therefore, the
information provided indicates the soils that are in the general area.
An on-site investigation by the Environmental Health Dept. should determine soil
capabilities and exact locations of septic tanks.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call or email.
Dwellings Without Basements-0range County, North Carolina
~~ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 5/8/2008
Conservation Service National Cooperative Sotl Survey Page 1 of 4
N Meters
A o ,oo zoo aoo soo
Feet
0 450 900 1,800 2,700
Dwellings Without Basements-Orange County, North Carolina
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
area of Interest (aol) Original soil survey map sheets were prepared at publication scale.
Area of Interest (AOI)
~
~ Viewing scale and printing scale, however, may vary from the
.
-
~ original. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for proper
Soils map measurements.
Soil Map Units
-
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil Ratings Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
[~ Very limited Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N
0 Somewhat limited This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Not limited
Soil Survey Area:. Orange County, North Carolina
Not rated or not available Survey Area Data: Version 9, Mar 20, 2007
Political Features Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 2/23/1993; 3/1/1993
Municipalities
Cities The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
~, compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
urban Areas imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
water Features of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Oceans
,...,,,. Streams and Canals
Transportation
+++ Rails
Roads
,A~' Interstate Highways
„ey,. US Routes
State Highways
-.,;- Local Roads
Other Roads
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 5/8/2008
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4
Dwellings Without Basements--Orange County, North Carolina
Dwellings Without Basements
Dwellings Without $asements-Summary by'Map Unit -Orange County, North Carolina
Map unit Map unit name Rating Component Rating reasons' Acres In AOI Percent of AOI
symbol name (percent) (rating values)
Ge6 Georgeville silt Not limited Georgeville 12.7 15.9%
loam, 2 to 6 (90%)
percent slopes
GeC Georgeville silt Somewhat Georgeville Slope (0.00) 32.9 41.1
loam, 6 to 10 limited (90°k)
percent slopes
Hr6 Herndon silt Not limited Herndon (85%) 11.2 14.0%
loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
HrC Herndon silt Somewhat Herndon (80%) Slope (0.00) 13.6 17.0%
loam, 6 to 10 limited
percent slopes
TaD Tatum silt loam, 8 Somewhat Tatum (75%) Slope (0.63) 6.9 8.6°~
to 15 percent limited
slopes Shrink-swell
(0.50)
TaE Tatum silt loam, Very limited Tatum (80%) Slope (1.00) 2.6 3.2%
15 to 25
percent slopes Shrink-swell
(0.50)
Totals for Area of Interest (AOI) 80.0 I 100.0°k
Dwellings Without Basements- Summary by Rating Value
Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Somewhat limited 53.4 66.8%
Not limited 24.0 30.0%
Very limited 2.6 3.2°~
USDA Nature) Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 5/8/2008
'~ Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4
Dwellings Without Basements-0range County, North Carolina
3b
Description
Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without
basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced
concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum
frost penetration, whichever is deeper.
The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of
the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect
excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the toad-supporting
capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear
extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility isinferred
from the Unified classification of the soil. The properties that affect the ease and
amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth
to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the
amount and size of rock fragments.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent
to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use.
"Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the
specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected.
"Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately
favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by
special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate
maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more
features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot
be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive
installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are
shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations
between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the
use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff.• None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 5!8/2008
"~ Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4
Septic Tank Absorption Fields-0range County, North Carolina
a
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 5/8/2008
r~ Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4
(~ Meters
A o , oo zoo ~ aoo soo
Feet
0 450 900 1,800 2,700
Septic Tank Absorption Fields-0range County, North Carolina
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
~_ Soil Map Units
Soil Ratings -
0 Very limited
Somewhat limited
[~ Not limited
Not rated or not available
Political Features
Municipalities
~ Cities
Urban Areas
Water Features
Oceans
,,~..,,. Streams and Canals
Transportation
+++ Rails
Roads
„ry,+ Interstate Highways
„os. US Routes
State Highways
~.- Local Roads
Other Roads
MAP INFORMATION
Original soil survey map sheets were prepared at publication scale.
Viewing scale and printing scale, however, may vary from the
original. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for proper
map measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Orange County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 9, Mar 20, 2007
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 2/23/1993; 3/1/1993
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 5/8/2008
gar Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4
Septic Tank Absorption Fields-0range County, North Carolina
Septic Tank Absorption Fields
_-
Septic Tank Absorptlon Fields- Summary by Map Untt-Orange County, North Carotina
Map unit Map unit name> Rating Component Rating reasons Acres In A01 Percent of A01
symbol name (percent) (rating values)
Ge6 Georgeville silt Somewhat Georgeville Slow water 12.7 15.9%
loam, 2 to 6 limited (90%) movement
percent slopes (0.50)
GeC Georgeville silt Somewhat Georgeville Slow water 32.9 41.1
loam, 6 to 10 limited (90%) movement
percent slopes (0.50)
Slope (0.00)
Hr6 Herndon silt Somewhat Herndon (85%) Slow water 11.2 14.0%
loam, 2 to 6 limited movement
percent slopes (0.50)
HrC Herndon silt Somewhat Herndon (80%) Slow water 13.6 17.0%
loam, 6 to 10 limited movement
percent slopes (0.50)
Slope (0.00)
TaD Tatum silt loam, 8 Somewhat Tatum (75%) Depth to bedrock 6.9 8.6°k
to 15 percent limited (0.78)
slopes
Slope (0.63)
Slow water
movement
(0.50)
TaE Tatum silt loam, Very limited Tatum (80%) Slope (1.00) 2.6 3.2%
15 to 25
percent slopes Depth to bedrock
(0.78)
Slow water
movement
(0.50)
Totals for Area of Interest (AOI) I 80.0 100.0%
Septic Tank Absorption Fields- Summary byI Rating Value
Rating Acres`in AOI Percenf of AOI
Somewhat limited 77.4 96.8%
Very limited 2,g g.2%
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 5/8/2008
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4
Septic Tank Absorption Fields-Orange County, North Carolina
Description
Septic tank absorption fields are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is
distributed into the soil through subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. Only that part
of the soil between depths of 24 and 60 inches is evaluated. The ratings are based
on the soil properties that affect absorption of the effluent, construction and
maintenance of the system, and public health. Saturated hydraulic conductivity
(Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and
flooding affect absorption of the effluent. Stones and boulders, ice, and bedrock or
a cemented pan interfere with installation. Subsidence interferes with installation
and maintenance. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the
effluent in downslope areas.
Some soils are underlain by loose sand and gravel or fractured bedrock at a depth
of less than 4 feet below the distribution lines. In these soils the absorption field
may not adequately filter the effluent, particularly when the system is new. As a
result, the ground water may become contaminated.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent
to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use.
"Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the
specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected.
"Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately
favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by
special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate
maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more
features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot
be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive
installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are
shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations
between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the
use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff.• None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
~~ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 5/8/2008
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4
_..:-~
~~~~
Orange County, NC
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO)
Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
This certificate is required after final government approval but before final plat recordation can
be performed or as deemed by the specific local ordinance.
Any residential structure on a lot in the above development/subdivision may not receive a
certificate of occupancy until or after the date of effect and/or the phasing proposed as shown in
the table, unless modified by local government action.
• This CAPS expires pursuant to the timing specified in the local government for the validity
period of the respective development permit.
This document certifies that the above school district has (or anticipates future) capacity to
accommodate the projected number of students to be created from the above
development/subdivision in the years as noted.
ocos-s-oa
.Joseph & Dolores Baranoski
Phase ~
Elementary Middle High
Vumber of Lots ~
Single Family Detached 7 0.15 0.075 0.064
Other 0 0 0 0
~6
0008-10-08
Trevor's Place Phase ~
Elementary Middle High
Vumber of Lots 4
Single Family Detached 4 0.6 0.3 0.336
Other 0 0 0 0
OC(?8-11-08
Cabe Crossing Phase ~
Elementary Middle High
Vumber of Lots 20
Single Family Detached 20 3 1.5 1.68
Other 0 0 0 0
Grand Total
Single Family Detached Elementary
7.2 Middle
3.6 High
4.032
Other 0.168 0.066 o.os
All 7.368 3.666 4.092
Available Capacity Remaining 953 677 581
CAP Review Adequacy Test Yes Yes Yes
Page 3 of 3
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Page 1 of 1
Glen Bowles
From: Dave ODell [enofd301 @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:28 PM
To: Glen Bowles
Subject: pond approval
Mr. Bowles,
I just wanted to let you know that I have approved the Fire Pond and Dry Hydrant that will be located in
the Cabe Crossing Subdivision.
Thanks
Chief David O'Dell
07/21 /2008
Glen Bowles
From: Tim Smith [tsmith@ppaengineering.com]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 1:32 PM
To: Glen Bowles
Subject: Re: Cabe Crossing
Glen,
Page 1 of 1
The Bioretention facility near the entrance will approx. 30'x70' with a surface area of (2,100 sf.
The proposed Wet Pond will be approx. 1/2 acre in size and contain a volume of X150,000 cu. ft.
Let me know if this is enough information for now. These will be fully designed at the time of
Construction Plan approval.
We are not planning any other major stormwater facilites. We may possibly add another small Bio area
or two, but will wait until final plan design. We will not have any grassed swales, (BMP's) other than
standard grassed road section ditches.
For erosion control we will have standard sediment traps as needed in various locations, and silt/tree
fence.
We have revised plans to submit to you with the added tree location information and the proposed
BMP's. How many copies do we need to deliver to you?
Let me know, thanks,
Tim
Timothy A. Smith, PLS, PE
Philip Post & Associates
401 Providence Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 929-1173; (ext. 124)
(919) 493-6548 (fax)
(919) 616-6491 (mobile)
tsmith@ppaengineering.com
Glen Bowles wrote:
Would you send me the design capacity of the bio-retention facilities and will you be proposing
grassed swales or any other stormwater/erosion facilities?
Glenn Bowles
Planner II
Orange County Planning & Inspections Department
919 245 2577
06/27/2008
Attachment 5
!~ 1
4404 Guess Road • Durham, NC z77~z • 9i9.6zo.go99 • fax 99.477.0448 • www.enoriver.org
July 28, 2008
Glen Bowles
Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Road
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Glen,
This letter is to express the Eno River Association's support of the preliminary plat for the
Cabe Crossing Subdivision submitted by Bramco Partners to the Orange County Planning
Department for approval. The Association appreciates the cooperation of the Planning
Department in soliciting our input on this development plan due to its proximity to the Eno
River and the Eno River State Park. We are glad to have been able to work with the
developer on a combination sale/donation of a portion of the property for eventual
inclusion in the State Park.
We have reviewed the preliminary plat and are pleased with the proposal, given the one
alteration that we have discussed with the Planning Department and the developers.
Specifically, we would like to see the northwest corner of Lot 15 shown on the preliminary
plat transferred to the adjacent Tract "A" open space, preferably such that the eastern
boundary of-the open space continues southwest in a straight line to meet the boundary of
Lot 2. Please see the attached sketch for a visual representation. We have spoken with the
developers, who are amenable and plan to make this change.
Please let me know if you have any questions. We will be attending the August 6 hearing
where the preliminary plat is up for approval. Thank you for all of your work on balancing
development and conservation in Orange County.
Sincerely,
i/
Rob acobs
Executive Director
printed on ioo% recycled paper
RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT . cMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METh~J Attachment 6 ~~
Bureau of Economic & Business Research -University of Florida O
Modified 4/15/97 -Orange County, NC Planning Department
SECTION 1 -PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT:
PROJECT: Cabe Crossing
TOWNSHIP: Eno
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: 2009 to 2013
Beginning Year: 2009
Ending Year: 2013
Inflation Rate: 4.00%
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS:
Persons/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 2.47
Children/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0.30
Non-Elderly: 70.00%
HOME SALES DATA:
Average Distribution
Number of Sales Price of Units
Year Homes ($) by Year
2009 4 500,000 20.00%
2010 4 520,000 20.00%
2011 4 540,800 20.00%
2012 4 562,432 20.00%
2013 4 584,929 20.00%
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER "1" IN ( )BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO I
LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE.
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County ( 1) Elementary School 45%
Middle School 23%
Chapel Hill-Cai•r•boro ( 0) High School 32%
SECTION 2 -LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA
BUDGET YEAR:. 2007-2008
COUNTY POPULATION: (NC Demo) for July 2007 130148
SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT POPULATION:. 6996
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER CAPITA
General Services, Governing, and Management 172 0.0013
Public Safety 222 0.0017
Community 8~ Environment + Culture & Recreation 85 0.0007
Human Services 315 0.0024
Total 793 0.0061
SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER STUDENT
Total 1,780 0.2544
COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES ($): REVENUES PER CAPITA
Taxes -Other Than Property 21,795,222 ~ 167.46
Intergovernmental 22,024,660 169.23
Charges.for Service 21,029,293 161.58
Licenses/Permits, Investments, Miscellaneous + Transfers 7,445,828 57.21
(y7
COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA
General Services, Governing, and Management 13,439,027 103.26
Public Safety 18,831,723 144.69
Community & Environment + Culture & Recreation 10,329,168 79.36
Human Services 41,200,818 316.57
Education (Recurring Capital) 941,520 7.23
Non-Departmental 31,435,700 241.54
COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE ($): EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYEE
General Services, Governing, and Management 13,439,027 78361.67
Public Safety 18,831,723 84827.58
Community & Environment + Culture 8~ Recreation 10,329,168 122094.18
Human Services 41,200,818 130754.74
Education (Recurring Capital) 941,520 1186.99
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
County Government 21,939,739 3136.04
School District 0 0.00
State and Federal 36,418,902 5205.67
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYEE
County Government 21,939,739 12325.70
School District 0 0.00
State and Federal 36,418,902 20460.06
TAX DATA: ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIO AND ELDERLY EXEMPTION:
County Tax Rate ($) excludes 0.3148 to schools 0.9500 Per $100 Assessed Valuation
School District Tax Rate ($) includes 0.3148 from O. C. Per $100 Assessed Valuation
Assessment Ratio 100.00
Elderly Exemption 0 $11,000 Where Applicable
SECTION 3 -DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BAS1=D ON PROJECT DATA
YEAR
HOUSING UNITS
POPULATION
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary
Middle
High School
TOTAL
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Services
TOTAL
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
4 8 12 16 20
10 20 30 40 49
0.54 1.08 1.62 2.16 2.70
0.28 0.55 0.83 1.10 1.38
0.38 0.77 .1.15 1.54 1.92
1 2 4 5 6
0.01 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07
0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08
0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03
0.02 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.12
0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30
SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.06 0.12 .0.18 0.24 0.30
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES ~,~
SECTION 4 -PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT
YEAR 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
TAX BASE ($1000) 2,000 4,160 6,490 8,829 11,346
REVENUES ($)
Property Tax 19,000 39,520 61,651. ~ 83,877 107,783
Other Taxes 1,655 3,441 5,369 6,883 8,948
Intergovernmental 1,672 3,478 5,425 6,955 9,042
Service Charges 1,596 3,321 5,180 6,641 8,633
Miscellaneous 565 1,176 1,834 2,351 3,057
TOTAL ($) 24,488 50,935 79,459 106,708 137,463
EXPENDITURES ($)
General Government 1,020 2,122 3,310 4,244 5,517
Public Safety 1,430 2,974 4,639 5,947 7,731
Public Works 784 1,631 2,544 3,262 4,241
Human Services 3,128 6,506 10,149 13,011 16,915
Education 3,835 7,976 12,443 15,952 .20,738
Non-Departmental 2,386 4,964 7,743 9,927 12,906
TOTAL ($) 12,583 26,172 40,828 52,344 68,047
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($) 11,905 24,763 38,631 54,364 69,415
SECTION 5 -PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
YEAR 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
REVENUES ($)
County 3,835 7,976 12,443 15,952 20,738
School District 0 0 0 0 0
State 6,247 12,993 20,270 25,987 33,783
TOTAL ($) 10,082 20,970 32,713 41,939 54,521
EXPENDITURES ($)
County 3,835 7,976 12,443 15,952 20,738
School District ` 0 0 0 0 0
State 6,247 12,993 20,270 25,987 33,783
TOTAL ($) 10,082 20,970 32,713 41,939. 54,521
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($) 0 0 0 0 0
SECTION 6 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS
YEAR 2009 2010 2011 2,012 2013
HOUSING UNITS 4 8 12 16 20
POPULATION 10 20 30 40 49
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 1 1 2 2 3
Middle 0 1 1 1 1
High School 0 1 1 2 2
TOTAL 1 2 4 5 6
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30
TAX BASE ($1000) 2,000 4,160 6,490 8,829 11,346
COUNTY BUDGET ($)
Revenues 24,488 50,935 79,459 106,708 137,463
Expenditures 12,583 26,172 40,828 52,344 68,047
BALANCE 11,905 24,763 38,631 54,364 69,415
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET ($)
Revenues 10,082 20,970 32,713 41,939 54,521
Expenditures 10,082 20,970 32,713 41,939 54,521
BALANCE 0 0 0 0 0
COMBINED BUDGETS ($)
Revenues 34,570 71,905 112,172 148,647 191,984
Expenditures 22,664 47,142 73,541 94,283 122,568
BALANCE 11,905 24,763 38,631 54,364 69,415
SECTION 7 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA:
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County YES ) Elementary School 45%
Middle School 23%
Chapel Hill-Carrboro NO ) High School 32%
YEAR 2009 2010 2011
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 1 1 2 5 5
Middle 0 1 1 3 3
High School 0 1 1 4 4
TOTAL 1 2 4 11 11
SCHOOL CAPACITIES -ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT -ALL SCHOOLS
Elementary 3,922 Elementary 3,158
Middle 2,166 Middle 1,637
High. School- 2,518 High School. 2,201
TOTAL 8,606 TOTAL 6,996
YEAR 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 3,245 3,333 3,385 3,464 3,556
Middle 1,617 1,631 1,689 1,724 1,748
High School _ 2,223 2,224 2,237 2,249 2,250
~ v ~ H~ 7,085 7,188 7,311 7,437 7,554
Attachment 7
`-t
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 6, 2007
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Crawford, Eno
Township At-Large; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Michelle Kempinski, Cedar
Grove Township at Large; Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham
Township; Renee Price, Hillsborough Township At Large (Vice-Chair), Sandra Johnson Quinn,
Eno Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Judith Wegner, Bingham
Township At-Large,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township Representative (Resigned); Sam Lasris,
Cedar Grove Township At Large
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; Glenn Bowles, Planner II; Perdita Holtz,
Planner II; Donna Davenport, Administrative Assistant II
GUEST PRESENTER: Margaret Hauth, Town of Hillsborough Planning Director
PUBLIC PRESENT: David Southern, Connie Riley, Melinda Ruley, Stewart Fisher, Robin Jacobs,
Kerstin Nygard, Amy Spaulding,
Agenda Item 10: CONCEPT PLAN FOR BRAMCO PARTNERS SUBDIVISION
Eno Township - 88.87 acres
Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II
Jay Bryan: There has been a request made that there be public comment.
Judith Wegner: The motion was that we continue our deliberation.
Jay Bryan: I don't think we covered that.
Sandra Quinn: I think it was tabled until we have answers to a few question.
Judith Wegner: Could we have a sign in and take three minutes each.
Jay Bryan: What I heard from the Board is that we allow people to comment on the new
information and limit to comments to three minutes.
Glenn Bowles: We did not include Parkland because it is misleading. Those Parkland parcels
are part of a much larger ownership pattern.
Jeffrey Schmitt: The size of those lots has not been taken into consideration.
Michelle Kempinski: The blue area, how far is the area where you stop counting lots to the center
of the BRAMCO property?
Glenn Bowles: Probably one quarter of a mile away?
Michelle Kempinski: How far north?
Glenn Bowles: Maybe 1,000 feet.
/~~
Michelle Kempinski: I am asking about the distribution around the lots around the property. Was
it equal distance?
Glenn Bowles: No. It was generally our best guess from a staff.
Michelle Kempinski: If we look at an actual border, what it would look like if was equal distance.
Glenn Bowles: It wouldn't change that.
Renee Price: Are you showing the parcels are the actual lots?
Glenn Bowles: Parcels. Some may be owned by the same person.
Renee Price: Some of this can be misleading. I own parts of two lots and one of one lot.
Glenn Bowles: You did not ask for the ownership pattern. You ask for lot sizes which is what we
provided.
Michelle Kempinski: The green areas are greater than 15% slope?
Glenn Bowles: Those are primary open space.
Michelle Kempinski: Because of the slopes?
Glenn Bowles: Yes. Those are 25%
Michelle Kempinski: So they are unbuildable?
Glenn Bowles: Yes. On page 38-40, there are questions listed that were asked of me with the
appropriate responses. We now have the answer to question number one. We have the
response from Brian Ferrell. Essentially, at this level, the concept plan stage, you really don't
have authority to do much. However, if this should go to a Class A Special Use Permit, there will
be analysis made by a competent engineer which will address those types of issue.
Sandra Quinn: It stated there are no churches in the vicinity. There are churches in the area, for
the record.
Renee Price: If we go forward, is it possible to get information about ownership of 'the parcels?
Also, the stub outs are going to private property?
Glenn Bowles: The private property development will provide an opportunity for connectivity.
Renee Price: This isn't vacant land. What was meant by primary open space?
Glenn Bowles: Open space that is not platted.
Michelle Kempinski: On page 39 of the responses where it is stated "the Planning staff
recommends approval of the Bramco Partners Subdivision Concept Plan with the 33-lot
Conventional Option". The previous option was to be approved.
Jay Bryan: You are asking this to be amended to what?
Glenn Bowles: On page 33, it states that.
Renee Price: How will you define open space?
'~
Glenn Bowles: All primary open space found in Track A, B, C, D and E plus the perimeter buffer.
Whatever the active open space the Eno River Association feels is appropriate. There will
probably be a trail.
Bernadette Pelissier: I would like clarification on density of lots. We have to consider lot sizes as
opposed to what is already built.
Glenn Bowles: They were looking at built on two parcels on land.
Bernadette Pelissier: I am asking about the surrounding lots.
Brian Crawford: In the calculation of the lots, are you specifically looking at built lots or are you
including surrounding lots that are not built on.
Glenn Bowles: We were asked to show the lot pattern and the lots in the area. In all cases, they
are potentially lots for building.
Bernadette Pelissier: My question is what we are supposed to look at concerning the concept
plan considering the surrounding neighborhood.
Glenn Bowles: You will need to look at the neighborhood and it may look different 10 to 20 years
from now.
Robert Davis: This map is not a requirement of the ordinance or the regulations. Generally, this
map simply shows where this subdivision falls in regards to what subdivisions have been
approved.
Bernadette Pelissier: That clarifies it.
Michelle Kempinski: One of the statements in the package is the ordinance and the subdivision
regulations are written to foster harmonious design and encourage compatible development.
Should we consider the definition of the proposed subdivision versus the density of the
surrounding neighborhood? What is the definition of surrounding neighborhood?
Glenn Bowles: There is no regulation or guidelines that deal. with that specific answer.
Michelle Kempinski: No. I don't think it has been answered.
Renee Price: My concern is didn't you use the density of some of the surrounding subdivisions.
Glenn Bowles: Yes.
Renee Price: It was only used on certain subdivisions.
Glenn Bowles: We used it based on the average lot size.
Michelle Kempinski: I only saw one density calculation.
Renee Price: I didn't quite get my question answered.
Robert Davis: There were only two subdivisions that have had open space submitted along with
the plan. When you are looking at the lots you are looking at a density. There is 33% open
spaces which make the lots look smaller.
Renee Price: This is not all the surrounding properties. The newer subdivisions were used.
~~f 7
Glenn Bowles: This is very difficult because there is only one other subdivision with common
open space. The numbers at the bottom of the page were developed by GIS.
Sandra Quinn: The reason I asked the question about the school buses is that they don't come
down our road currently.
Glenn Bowles: That might be a discussion point, at the preliminary plan stage.
Brian Crawford: Hypothetically, we re drew the map, in the message that some of the opponents
of this project, you drew the radius out to pull in more neighborhoods, would that impact the basic
guidelines of the zoning and subdivisions developments so that we could turn down this project
based on that calculation?
Robert Davis: This map should not be used as a basis to approve or deny this subdivision. This
is only for information purposes.
Michelle Kempinski: This map may provide information as to whether this development is
harmonious with the existing surrounding neighborhood.
Brian Crawford: The harmony goes to the question of 33 and 39 not our basic zoning ordinance.
Jay Bryan: It is 9:10 P.M. and we have seven people from the public.
Renee Price: How many homes need to be on a road before DOT maintains it?
Robert Davis: Generally around one per four tenths of a mile.
David Southern (489-0250 (cell #); 687-3623 (home #): I am been collecting maps for forty years.
I enjoyed the presentation and it was enlightening. I came here with an analog presentation. I
overlaid three maps. I took the USGS Topo and then the Orange County GIS and then my
freehand drawing. Could I leave my phone number for anyone who has questions?
Connie Riley: In May you heard from many different citizens. We ask then and now to approve
the concept plan that the number of lots be reduced. This is the first application for a Special Use
Permit A to come before the County. So far the checklist for the SUP has not been satisfied by
this proposal. Our concern is to ensure public safety and welfare and this proposal is not safe. In
previous telephone conversations with the Planning Board, they indicated they would look for two
access roads to the subdivision for safety.
Melinda Ruley: Thank you for your questions about lot sizes rural character. There have been a
number of lot analysis have been generated and every one is incompatible with surrounding lot
sizes. The first analysis showed that 2/3 of the surrounding lands was in tracts bigger. A second
analysis was done to capture the small lot in Pleasant Green Woods. That showed an average
lot size of 3.5 acres. We would be happy with that. A simple lot analysis taking in only those lots
immediately adjacent to the Brame property show 6.7 acres which is three times the size of the
Brame size and five time the average lot size of the Brame tract. Also, there is the issue of
property with an incredible history in a major subdivision. There is also the issue of ground water.
Orange County has tried hard to keep subdivisions away from Eno River. Please vote to accept
the concept plan with no more than 20 lots.
Stewart Fisher: I would be interested to see the letter from the County Attorney. My
understanding from Ms. Jacobs is that if you recommend the concept plan goes forward with 20
lots it does not kill the deal with the Eno River Association. If you decide on 20 lots, the Brames
will have to make the decision to follow through with the deal with the Eno River Association. I
understand at the Concept Plan stage, you don't deal with the number of lots -what sense does
it make to wait until the Special Use Permit stage.
~J
Robin Jacobs: I am from the Eno River Association. I wrote the letter. I have real concern that
you have heard from many people about this neighborhood. The subdivision ordinance as it
written has zoning and regulations in it. If you think what it is written is inappropriate to this area
of the County, then that is the question to bring to the Board of County Commissioners to change
those rules. If this development meets all the standards, there is an assumption of
appropriateness. There is a bigger picture, we have the state of North Carolina and Orange
County and additional people who have put literally millions of dollars in a planned park that will
have potentially have two tracts of land directly through it. I have a lot of sympathy for the
neighbors here. If you would like to contact me with questions, I would be glad to answer them.
Kerstin Nygard: I live on the Cole Mill Road extension. The Eno River State park is a green
jewel. It was established after many years of volunteer work. A particular concern is the missing
links. It is disheartening that the acquisition of the 20 acre by the state is contingent upon the
approval of a dense subdivision. The neighborhood with reservation does acknowledge this
subdivision. However; we appeal to increase the lot size to larger lots. The runoff will potentially
harm the river quality. It has good water quality now. Larger lots would make the subdivision
more tolerable to the neighborhood. Please consider a revision to larger lots.
Amy Spaulding: I am looking forward to more neighbors. My concern is about safety. This land
was the homestead of Colonial William Pugh, signer of the US Constitution. Also, William
Preston Pugh who was the first president of Duke University.
Jay Bryan: In terms of our responsibility and options, we can approve one development option,
we can approve on development option subject to conditions or we can deny the development
option.
Judith. Wegner: We need to remind ourselves of the difference of the concept level and the next
level. As I understand it, I would like to make a motion with staff recommendation that this be
approved with no more than 33 lots. I don't think we have the authority to say there should be
only 20 lots. The staff recommendations and conditions are appropriate.
Jeffrey Schmitt: There are six or seven things that need to be approved.
Glenn Bowles: Essentially, a septic field analysis, open space connectivity, pedestrian/bicycle
analysis, transportation analysis.
Brian Crawford: I think it is important to consider the response from the attorney. The public
needs to hear his words. He said there is general language in zoning ordinance in section
number whatever stating that in reviewing subdivision proposals, the Planning Board shall
consider the overall design of the proposal in light of the suitability of the land for development to
ensure the platting of the development of the subdivision will not create a danger to health, safety
or welfare of the Orange County residents. Our state statute clearly states on approval or denial
are made with standards explicitly set forth in the Subdivision or Unified Ordinance. There is a
zoning ordinance with guidelines and this proposal meets that. Our zoning ordinance does not
allow dropping it down to 20. The developer has followed the guidelines to the letter.
Sandra Quinn: As citizens, if we didn't questions ordinances and laws, we wouldn't be sitting at
this table. If we approve this, we need to send our recommendation to reduce the number of
homes and increase the size of the lot.
Renee Price: The Historic Preservation Commission doesn't have any objections to the proposal.
We wanted to make it clear there are historical features on that property. At some point, they
would like the opportunity to review it.
Jay Bryan: Regarding the next stage, will the developer be required to do a cultural and
archeological inventory?
Glenn Bowles: Yes.
Jay Bryan: Does the County require an inventory regarding that?
Glenn Bowles: Yes and it is referenced on page 37, number four.
Jay Bryan: Secondly, in the letter from Brian Ferrell discussing what was to be presented at the
next level concerning the issue of water, he indicated the applicant had to present competent,
substantial and material evidence as illustrated by the required professionally prepared
groundwater yield analysis the subdivision had adequate source and capacity of water supply. Is
that a requirement under the subdivision ordinance?
Glenn Bowles: As it relates to a Class A Special Use Ordinance and if it for more than 20 lots.
Michelle Kempinski: An evaluation of whether there is an adequate water supply based on the
information from the USGS or an equivalent study.
Jay Bryan: I am reading what Brian wrote.
Michelle Kempinski: The information I handed out tonight is one means of doing that.
Jay Bryan: It is for the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners used to determine if
there is an adequate source of water supply. If we want to ask that there be some more
information part of what is provided to us by that person, we could do that in the form of an
additional motion.
Renee Price: In getting the information about the water, is that for the developer or information to
be used to determine whether the subdivision will be approved.
Brian Crawford: 1 think that is consistent. The theory is that Michelle puts forth would be
appropriate. We could put that in the motion.
Michelle Kempinski: If we can add that in the motion.
MorioN made by Judith Wegner to make a motion to approve the concept plan as recommended
by the Planning Staff for a subdivision for no more than 33 lots with the conditions recommended
by staff on Page 36 and 37. Brian Crawford seconded.
Vole: Unanimous
Judith Wegner: I would like to make a friendly amendment to say "along with an analysis of
groundwater recharge
Brian Crawford: We need to bring in experts and required by the first item.
Michelle Kempinski: All I ask is to read the example I handed out and be clear on that.
Judith Wegner: I would withdraw the friendly amendment.
Jay Bryan: We have your motion as previously stated.
MOTION made by Michelle Kempinski to reserve the right to reserve that information should the
Planning Board agree from discussions at the next meeting that it is a piece of information you
would like to have. Brian Crawford seconded.
50
Vole: (8 ayes; 3 opposed)
Brian Crawford: It will be several months before the preliminary.
Renee Price: We had a meeting several years ago that the 1996 report was out of date.
Michelle Kempinski: It is the methodology, an example.
Judith Wegner: If this is your motion, that the Planning Board approve the concept plan that
doesn't mean it would not be appropriate in time for the development to be on notice that we will
discuss this groundwater recharge issue, we may come back and request that.
Jay Bryan: Your motion is to reserve the right to request that additional information. Would
anyone like to make a statement about reducing the lots to 20?
Brian Crawford: I would like the developer to consider dropping it to 20 lots for the area.
Jay Bryan: Is that the general consensus of the board?
Renee Price: Yes.
Robert Davis: There will be a Joint Public Hearing on this.
Craig Benedict: Would you like me to go through some items below due to time constraints.
Attachment 8
~~
Orange County Planning Board
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
21 July 2008
Dear Planning Board Member,
In reference to the "Cabe Crossing" (aka BRAMCO) subdivision Concept Plan,
scheduled for review during the July 9~' Planning Board meeting, members of the Cabe
Ford Road Neighbors Association would like to make the following comments and
requests:
We are satisfied that the number of lots in the proposed subdivision, while not as low as
we would like, nevertheless meets our request that the development contain no more than
201ots. We are very grateful to the Planning Board for their concern regarding the size of
the subdivision, and for their willingness to encourage the owner/developer to reduce the
number of lots.
We are further pleased that the applicant is pursuing a "green development" and hope the
county, recognizing that these houses will be built very close to the Eno River, will
support and encourage the owner and applicant in their plan to build houses that are
certified "green," friendly to the river, woods, wetlands, ground water and wildlife.
As the Preliminary Plan comes before the Planning Board on &~1~, we put forth the
following areas of concern, together with requests for their solutions:
1. Management of construction traffic
2. Ongoing permanent management of subdivision traffic
3. Integrity of setbacks, vegetation buffers and building envelopes
4. Subdivision design; lighting
For the purposes of this document, "Applicant" refers not only to the current
owners/applicant, but to any future owners and/or developers of the Cabe Crossing
subdivision.
We respec~lly ask that the Planning Board recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners that approval of the subdivision application be contingent on the
applicant's compliance with the requests listed in this document.
`~J
1. Management of construction traffic.
It appears that the only likely access to the proposed subdivision is from Cabe Ford
Road, a road unsuited to be used as. a parking or staging area for roadway
construction or for stor~.ge o€vehicles during construction of homes. Further, there is
no turn around at the end of Cabe Ford Road, which may lead to the use of private
driveways, yards and private roads as turn-grounds for construction traffic
REQUESTS:
A. THAT APPLICANT BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WILL, AMONG OTHER THINGS, LIMIT
THE STORAGE AND MOVEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES
AND EQUIPMENT.
B. THAT APPLICANT BE REQUIRED TO PUT INTO PLACE SIGNS
RESTRICTING CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC TO THE EASTERN
SECTION OF CABE FORD ROAD BETWEEN PLEASANT GREEN AND
THE ENTRANCE TO "CABE CROSSING."
C. THAT APPLICANT INSURE THAT CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER
VEHICLES NOT BE PARKED OR LEFT OVERNIGHT ON THE
SHOULDER OF CABE FORD ROAD, GRADY LANE OR VIRGIE LANE.
D. THAT PERMITS TO CONSRUCT BOTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND NEW
HOMES PROHIBIT THE USE OF PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, ROADS
AND YARDS---EVEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF TURNING AROUND.
E. THAT THE OWNER/DEVELOPER BE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY DOCUMENTED DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.
F. .THAT APPLICANT POST A PERFORMANCE BOND TO PROVIDE
FUNDS FOR ANY NEEDED REPAIRS OF CABE FORD ROAD. REPAIRS
SHOULD SATISFY NC DOT SPECIFICATIONS. REPAIRS SHOULD NOT
ALTER THE EXISTING VISUAL AND PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE
ROAD.
G. THAT APPLICANT TAKE NOTE OF SENSITIVE WETLANDS AT THE
ENTRANCE TO THE NEW SUBDIVISION, NIINIMIZE DISTURBANCE
OF THOSE WETLANDS AND RETURN WETLANDS TO A CONDITION
AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THEIR CURRENT CONDITION. WE TRUST
THAT THE COUNTY AND STAFF WILL: BE VIGILANT IN PROTECTING
THIS SMALL BUT VALUABLE WETLANDS AREA.
2. Ongoing permanent management of service vehicles and other heavy
equipment (garbage trucks, delivery vans, school buses, utility vehicles) into
and out of the finished subdivision.
Cabe Ford Road is a small dead-end road; it is therefore especially vulnerable to any
increase in traffic, especially heavy vehicles that cannot turn around at the dead-end
and must therefore use private driveways, yards or roadsides. The effects on traffic of
even a small number of new houses is considerable.
Currently, the proposed project has no second access, and there is no guarantee that
either of the proposed "stub-outs".will ever become a second access. We continue to
propose that safe and appropriate planning requires a second access to this
subdivision; however, if there is none we expect that the applicant and the county will
not solve traffic problem in a way that adversely affects the existing neighborhood.
REQUEST:
A. THAT APPLICANT PROVIDE A VIABLE AND ENFORCEABLE PLAN TO
LIMIT AND MANAGE PERMANENT SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC SO THAT
ROADSIDES AND PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS DO NOT BECOME DEFACTO
PUBLIC CUL-DE-SACS.
B. THAT APPLICANT INSTALL PERMANENT SIGNS AND/OR CREATE
OTHER SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE FEATURES. THAT CLEARLY MARK
THE ENTRANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION AND WARN TRAFFIC THAT
THERE IS NO TURN-AROUND AT THE WESTERN END OF CABE FORD
ROAD.
C. THAT APPLICANT DO NOTHING, IN THE CONSTRUCTION, SALE OR
MAINTENANCE OF THIS SUBDIVISION, TO ENCOURAGE USE OF CABE
FORD ROAD AS AN ENTRANCE TO THE ENO RIVER STATE PARK.
l
3. Use of lots; setbacks, vegetation buffers and building envelopes.
Recognizing that this portion of Cabe Ford and Pleasant Green Road is zoned
"Agricultural-Residential," with existing farms as well as poultry; cattle and hog
operations adjacent to the proposed development, we hope that the placement of new
houses reflects sensitivity to these existing properties and activities.
REQUEST:
A. THAT APPLICANT STRIKE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FROM
ARTICLE II (f) OF THE DELARATION FOR RESTRICTIVE COVENTNATS:
"The restrictions on any lots in the subdivision may be removed or waived only
by the written consent, duly acknowledged and recorded, of the Declarant."
THAT APPLICANT SUPPLY LANGUAGE INSURING THE ONGOING
INTEGRITY OF ALL VEGETATION BUFFERS, BUILDING ENVELOPES
AND SETBACKS.
B. THAT APPLICANT SUBMIT PROOF THAT, THROUGH COMPLIANCE
WITH APPROVED "GREEN" BUILDING PLAN, GENEROUS
VEGETATION BUFFERS AND BUILDING ENVELOPES,
ADEQUATE SPACE IS MAINTAINED BETWEEN NEW HOMES
AND EXISTING PROPERTY LINES; AND THAT DESTRUCTION OF
TREES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT WILL BE MINIMAL.
C. THAT APPLICANT MAXIMIZE SETBACKS WHERE EXISTING HOMES,
BARNS AND LIVESTOCK FACILITIES EXIST.
D. THAT APPLICANT, USING MASTER DEEDS AND THE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION CONTRACT, REQUIRE THAT FUTURE PROPERTY
OWNERS COMPLY WITH RESTRICTIONS INHERENT IN "VEGETATION
BUFFERS," "SETBACKS" AND "BUILDING ENVELOPES." AND THAT
THESE RESTRICTIONS NOT BE SET ASIDE FOR ANY REASON BY
FUTURE OWNERS/APPLICANTS
E. THAT DEEDS ON LOTS 1-5 AND 16-20 DISCLOSE THAT THESE LOTS
ABUT PROPERTY ON WHICH EXISTS LAWFUL AGRICULTURAL
ACTIVITY, INCLUDING THE RAISING OF CATTLE, HOGS AND
POULTRY. AND THAT NEW PROPERTY OWNERS BE MADE AWARE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF ODORS, NOISESAND OTHER CONDITIONS IN
KEEPING WITH THESE ACTIVITIES.
ss
4. Subdivision design; lighting, including both street lights and exterior
spotlights or floodlights.
Those of us who already live in the Cabe Ford Road community value our visually
peaceful setting and the rural character of the neighborhood. We are concerned that
the current price tag of these homes-approximately $500,000-might encourage the
"average" tract builder rather than a building interested in creating individual homes
that are visually interesting. We hope the owner/applicant will choose a buyer or
buyers committed to architectural excellence and integrity.
We are also concerned that lighting will be installed that will transform the area into a
"suburban" neighborhood with unnecessary public and private lighting.
REQUEST:
A. THAT APPLICANT STRIKE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FROM
ARTICLE II (fj OF THE CURRENT DECLARATION FOR RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS. "The restrictions on any lots in the subdivision maybe removed
or waived only by the written consent, duly acknowledged and recorded, of the
Declarant." THAT APPLICANT SUPPLY LANGUAGE INSURING THE
ONGOING INTEGRITY OF ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS.
B. THAT APPLICANT STRIKE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FROM
ARTICLE V: "Fences of wood or vinyl are allowed." THAT APPLICANT
SUPPLY LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS ONLY WOOD FENCES.
C. THAT APPLICANT STRIKE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FROM
ARTICLE XIV: "...all dogs kept outside must be securely chained or fenced."
THAT APPLICANT SUPPLY LANGUAGE PROHIBITING THE CHAINING
OF DOGS.
D. THAT APPLICANT PROHIBIT THE USE OF MAN-MADE EXTERIOR
MATERIALS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF "HARDIE BOARD," ON NEW
HOMES.
E. THAT APPLICANT SUPPLY PROOF THAT STREET LIGHTING BE
CONTROLLED IN LOCATION AND DIRECTION BY LIMITING THE
HEIGHT OF FIXTURES AND REQUIRING THAT THEY HAVE "CUT-OFF"
SHIELDS THAT DIRECT LIGHT DOWN.
F. THAT THE APPLICANT STIPULATE IN THE MASTER DEEDS FOR
INDIVIDUAL LOTS, AND IN THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, THAT
EXTERIOR SPOT LIGHTS AND FLOOD LIGHTS BE DISCOURAGED;
THAT ANY EXTERIOR LIGHTS USED BE INSTALLED AND DIlZECTED
IN SUCH A WAY AS TO PREVENT LIGHT FROM BEING SEEN BY
NEIGHBORS.
G. THAT "OPEN SPACE" CONTAINED IN THE SUBDIVISION HAVE THE
PURPOSE OF PROTECTING TREES, STREAMS, WILDLIFE HABITAT
AND OTHER NATURAL FEATURES. THAT RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES SUCH AS PLAYGROUNDS, PAVED BASKETBALL COURTS,
PICNIC SHELTERS OR ANY OTHER SUCH FACILITY BE CONFINED TO
LOT5 NOT ADJACENT TO EXISTING PROPERTY.
57
We look forward to working with the Planning Board and the Board of County
Commissioners in making this subdivision safe and appropriate.
Very truly yours,
Melinda Ruley
Stewart Fisher
Tim Riley
Connie Riley
James Strickland
Rosemary Strickland
Amy Spaulding
Joe Tansey
Sandy Quinn
Emily Reese
Doug Chapman
Shawn Garrard
Brandy Garrard
Scott Ruble
Jennifer Panek
Eric Panek
Buddy Garrard
John Moll
Robin Moll
Leslie Stern
Ken Stern
James Boffey
Brenda Boffey
Rusty King
Ella King
Kerstin Nygard
Tommy Simmons
Denise Simmons
Tony Swanger
Mary Swanger
cc: Robert Davis, Glenn Bowles, Craig Benedict, Jeff Peloquin
I'eloqui~~ ~o~ast~'tlC~o11,
www.peloquinconstruction.com
Orange County Planning Dept.
306F Revere rd.
Hillsborough, NC
c/o Glen Bowles Planner, &
Robert P Davis Supervisor
Re; Cabe Crossing,
Request to respond to neighbor concerns letter, dated July, 21, 08
Dear Sirs,
I am sure you will appreciate our willingness to cooperate with answering any concerns which are
presented by the neighbors with regards to the construction and completion of Cabe Crossing,
which we have outlined below.
We have elected to address each area of concern corporately to avoid redundancies in
explanations and to the best of our ability to do so at his time. In some issues, which we have
determined are outside of our scope or actual legal or other viable authority, we endeavor to
explain the considerations of.
Specifically there are 4 areas of concern.
1. Management of construction traffic
2. Traffic management post-construction
3. Verification of set-backs, buffers and building envelopes
4.. Lighting in the subdivision, and other misc. requests to address
1. Request :That we limit storage of and movement of construction vehicles/equipment.
That we place signs on state road limiting same, and that a financial burden be placed
upon the developer to enforce any improvements to the entrance road should any damage
occur.
Finding : It was discovered that the major concern is that neighbors are worried that construction
vehicles may use their respective driveways for turn-around traffic, and possibly park on Cabe
Ford (a public road) and the neighboring private road overnight.
Response: While we would need approval to install signage from DOT for any placement of
signs on the Cabe Ford ROW, we are amenable to installing signage at the entrance to the new
Cabe Crossing development indicating that no construction vehicles should go beyond the entry
and no turn-around construction traffic is allowed at the end of cabe ford rd. In addition, we
would be willing to install a similar sign on the private Grady Lane (intersecting road) with
written permission to do so. These items will be contained in the Construction Management Plan
which is to be prepared upon acceptance by the Post Engineering who is in charge of the road
construction plans.
1020 Vista Wood Drive, Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
e-mail Peloouin@mindsprinct.com
~'eloc~ul~i C~~1struct~on,
www.peloquinconstruction.com
We have also conferred with DOT re: the issue of the condition of Cabe Ford rd, (public) and
they have inferred that they would be monitoring the condition of the road, and should any
deterioration or damage become apparent, they may elect to lower the tonnage allowances on the
road to prevent any such condition from progressing. Otherwise, any problems associated with
the road becomes an issue with DOT and the Developer/contractors
2. Request: special considerations given to the entry low-lands protection at the proposed
entry to Cabe Crossing.
Response: Any and all construction will be completed per the design, and implementation of an
erosion control /grading plan as permitted., Niether the Orange County Soils maps prepared by
the USDA Conservation Mapping Dept., or the USGS quadrangle maps consider the area where
construction is to be concentrated a perennial stream. It is basically the end of the ditch. from the
south side of Cabe Ford road. We do however, intend to design and implement a newer storm
water control device which will be built near this location which not only traps, but releases the
water on a slower environmentally friendly subsurface system. It is being designed by the
engineer for incorporation into the grading plan.
3. Request: that a plan be implemented to provide controlled traffic of service /municipal /
public vehicles into Cabe Crossing and that the present issue of school buses not having
a public turn-around on Cabe Ford be provided.
Response; .Currently there is no public turn-around available for County school buses on Cabe
Ford. By construction of the new development we are providing this.. The road plan currently
provides stub outs for future access, but we are willing to remove these if requested. This has
been shown on the revised preliminary plat as requested by the planning board.
4. Request :that we limit the traffic by the public into any portion of the Eno park property.
Response: we have requested that the State of NC do not install any signage, or visual entrance
into the park from the subdivision. They have concurred with this recommendation and are
willing to speak to this matter publicly upon request. There will not be any public traffic allowed
into the park area. The easement shown on the map is strictly for the residents of the
neighborhood use
5. Request: that we include standards, and sensitivity to the A R zoning prevalent in the
area being developed. In addition neighbors request that notification be made that there
are farming activities currently in the surrounding area.
Summary: the existing area is AR and has been previously developed in pre-sensitive or non-
buffered type communities. There are some smaller farming operations (a low percentage) and
many private SFD units. The overall existing density varies from more to less developed units per
land Square footage for residential SFD units.
1020 Vista Wood Drive, Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
e-mail Peloguin@mindspring.com
Pelogt~~~ Cc~~~str~~ct~o~~,
www.peloq uinconstruction.com
Response: We have a very sensitive buffer plan showing primary and secondary buffer locations
including the use of open spaces. We have been working with the Eno Park Assoc, and the state
of NC to create the final connecting corridor of the walk along the Eno River trail. The 15 acres
along the river are being donated to the state, and in addition the HOA is prepared to donate a 4.5
acre parcel to the county for inclusion of the park system as well. In addition to this, we have
incorporated a landscape standard into the declarations which will prevent any aggressive cutting
of trees within each lot, as well as providing a greater °Io of canopy cover than most
developments. We have been working with the planning staff to develop these "green standards".
We do not feel it is required to install any language into the declarations re; the fact that there are
farming operations as that is the zoning allowed. We have also included building envelopes to
indicate the proper placement of residential units to comply with the set backs.
6. Request: language be incorporated to ensure architectural standards.
Response: this is ensured by the HOA and ARB as prepared
7. Request: that only wood fences be allowed.
Response; This is part of HOA and ARB who are to govern the community.
8. Request: prohibition of chaining of dogs.
Response: We have language incorporated in the Covenants re; the placement of dog houses,
visual and noise, as well as limitation of animals. We do not feel it is our responsibility to
regulate the chaining of dogs.
9. Request: prohibit the use of man-made exterior material.
Response: this again is referred to the HOA / ARB and would cause constraints upon their
authority and potential use of "Green Products: there are a number of new recycled products in
the market which would be considered desirable, yet man-made and quite elegant.
10. Request: that lighting be limited by shields.
Response: we have incorporated language on the landscape plan that lighting be governed by
Orange County lighting ordinance which we have provided for on the landscape plan for
submittal. All other lot lighting is encouraged to be energy efficient in its install and design by
providence of the :Green Building "standards in the HOA declarations. The street light ordinance
is specific in that it requires a shield on the fixtures.
Thank you for your time and please give my office a call should you need further explanation.
Jeff Peloquin
1020 Vista Wood Drive, Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
e-mail PeloguinC~mindspring.com
Attachment 9
~i
DRAFT MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AUGUST 8, 2008
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough
Representative; Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham
Township; Renee A. Price, Hillsborough Township At-Large (Vice Chair); Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove
Township At-Large; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At-Large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At-
Large
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large; Joel Forrest Knight, Little River
Representative; Cheeks Representative, Vacant; Eno Township, Vacant
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor;
Michael Harvey, Planner II; Glenn Bowles, AICP, Planner II; Robert Davis, AICP, Planner III; Geoffrey
Gledhill, County Attorney; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
OTHER ATTENDEES: Rita Leadem, Representative for Comprehensive Plan Coalition; Lisa Tate, Applicant-
Montessori School; Steve Yuhasz, Agent for Applicant-Montessori School; Mr. Brame, Applicant-Cabe
Crossing; Jeff Peloquin, Represetative for Applicant-Cabe Crossing; John Bugg, Applicant-The Forest at
Little River; Reporter for the News of Orange; Melinda Ruley, Citizen; Stewart Fisher, Citizen; Keith Tilley,
Citizen
AGENDA ITEM 9: CABS CROSSING (FORMERLY BRAMCO PARTNERS) SUBDIVISION -PRELIMINARY PLAN
To consider a recommendation to the BOCC for the Cabe Crossing Preliminary Plat.
The proposal is for twenty (20)single-family residential lots on 73.47 acres on the
south side of Cabe Ford Road (SR 1570) west of Pleasant Green Road (SR 1567) in
Eno Township. (Original proposal was for 38 lots, amended to 33 lots).
Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II
Jeffrey Schmitt: In our previous discussion where there was double the number of lots. At some point, on
the backside, west side, there was going to be dedication of some land to the Eno River Association, which
property was that?
Glenn Bowles: This portion has recently been split off from the original 88 acres, which is now down to 73
acres, will be dedicated to the Eno River Association. There is also a second lot, which is the 45-acre lot,
which is not part of this discussion.
Jeffrey Schmitt: Is this dedication subject to the approval of this subdivision as put forward?
Glenn Bowles: I will have to defer that to the people involved.
Clough Jordan (Eno River Association): One of the reasons it was separated out is the purchase and
dedication of those properties is separate from the subdivision. There is a small portion of the subdivision,
about 4.5 acres that we have also discussed.
Michelle Kempinski: There is mention of a 50-foot right of way designation for public road access.
Larry Wright: This is part of the 32% natural area?
Glenn Bowles: Yes. (Continues presentation).
Michelle Kempinski: I was referring to the 50-foot right of way providing public access to the publicly
dedicated greenway and recreation open space.
Glenn Bowles: That will come from this direction. There is actually two lots ant that will be in between. This
is the 4.7 acre parcel that is part of this subdivision that will be eventually as public recreational space and
given to the Eno River Association and then to the State Park System.
Michelle Kempinski: That is for a road, a potential future road.
Glenn Bowles: No, it is not a road at all, it is a walkway.
Michelle Kempinski: It states that it may be used for the purpose of extending public roads.
Glenn Bowles: This will not be a public road or provide public access into the park directly. The people in
the subdivision will be able to use this.
Michelle Kempinski: I am on page 242, number 7 of the application.
Glenn Bowles: Those are referring to this lot and this lot. (Continued presentation).
Larry Wright: What types of streams are these?
Glenn Bowles: They have required buffers, which are, regulated streams.
Michelle Kempinski: What is the buffer size?
Glenn Bowles: For the most part it is 80 feet. (Continued presentation).
Renee Price: Why is that triangle going through the process of homeownership then the association and
then the state?
Glenn Bowles: One of the considerations tonight is should that be accepted as other open space to be
dedicated because if not, the subdivision developers are the hook for in lieu of park dedication. One of our
questions tonight, is it appropriate to accept this land for public recreational open space land through our
normal process. If so, we could not dedicate it directly to the Eno River Association because they are a
private entity.
Renee Price: You said it would be part of the homeowner's association first and there would be no
trespassing so it becomes part of the subdivision and then at some point after it would be transferred off the
subdivision.
Glenn Bowles: Our suggestion is that this parcel be dedicated to the County first and then the County in
turn will give it to the Eno River Association. These other lands will be in homeowner's association,
ownership and management.
Michelle Kempinski: The parcel adjoining the river to the west will be land that has been transferred?
Glenn Bowles: There is an agreement between the Eno River Association and the owners of the property
that land will be donated to the Eno River Association. That deal has not happened and will in October.
t~_~~
Michelle Kempinski: Is that the 4.1-acre parcel that Rich referred to in his memo.
Jay Bryan: You don't mention that in our recommendations.
Glenn Bowles: That is not part of the subdivision although it was part of the concept plan.
Judith Wegner: We are sure that will happen.
Glenn Bowles: It is their intent.
Judith Wegner: The issue about the recommendations about in lieu versus to dedicate, could you speak to
that. The memo sounded as if the recommendation to do in lieu came in afterwards.
Glenn Bowles: The recommendation you saw in the report from the Parks Department, this particular
dedication wasn't described at the time and therefore when they made their recommendation, it was made
in lieu of fee.
Judith Wegner: I assume you talked to them and have they changed their mind or they saying they think
this is a remote piece of property they can go to.
Glenn Bowles: I think the question is does this group think it is appropriate be dedicated as public
recreational land or not. The reason we did not talk to the parks people was because it was going
eventually to a state agency, which means this could happen and it could be dedicated to some entity other
than the county.
Jay Bryan: We need to move along.
Glenn Bowles: We think because this meets the subdivision and zoning regulations and is compatible with
the Comprehensive Plan, the recommendation should be in the affirmative.
Jay Bryan: Your recommendation begins on page 231.
Glenn Bowles: It starts on page 241 and goes through page 246.
Renee Price: Historic sites?
Glenn Bowles: There is a slave cemetery on the 4.7-acre parcel that we would like to have dedicated as
public recreation space.
Renee Price: Has any other archeology been done on the site.
Jeff Peloquin (Representative for Applicant for Cabe Crossing): That particular parcel has old burial sites
with footstones. It represents 4 acres with steep topography and mature trees. Originally we were going to
use part of it but we decided not to. Originally we presented this to the Board and it was approved for 33
lots. Since that time, it also incorporated the area along the river, which was a primary wildlife corridor. In
working the plan, there are more elements involved. Basically, the primary element was that we had the
property up here and the Eno River Association very anxiously was trying to purchase as much land as they
could. In going through the process with the State, we managed to come to an agreement and they wanted
to have it so the owners dedicated the sale of this property and decided to donate the 15 acres on the south
side to construct the continuous length of the river.
G~
Jay Bryan: Would you address the specific question?
Jeff Peloquin: There is a couple of old stones and it has been platted archeologically.
Renee Price: Are there any archeologically studies on the properties.
Jeff Peloquin: In our work, we have not found anything disputed or questionable.
Renee Price: Will this go the Historic Preservation Commission?
Glenn Bowles: Not normally but you could make that a recommendation.
Michelle Kempinski: Do you have an overhead of sheet S3 showing the patch line and stream buffers?
Glenn Bowles: No.
Michelle Kempinski: The dashed line on sheet S3 around the perimeter of the lot lines, those are the
building set back lines. Does the county permit any sort of structure inside the stream buffer?
Glenn Bowles: No, unless it is a road.
Michelle Kempinski: Technically, for this plan, the building set back line indicates the area that you cannot
build outside of. Whether it is a requirement fora 10-foot set back on the side or right of way for a road.
The set back lines cross over into the stream buffer and would it make sense to follow the edge of the
stream buffer.
Glenn Bowles: If that were your preference, we could handle that.
Larry Wright: There are soils for suitable septic areas that overlap with the stream buffer too.
Glenn Bowles: As staff, we tend to discourage that situation. The only way it can be accomplished would
be through an administrative variance.
Larry Wright: What do you mean by accomplished? Put one in there?
Glenn Bowles: They are. being honest and showing the appropriate soils are in relationship to those
setbacks and stream buffers. We discourage the placement of ground absorption fields and repair fields in
those areas.
Larry Wright: I think that would be advisable because when an inspector goes there, do they have the
stream buffer?
Glenn Bowles: No but they call me.
Jay Bryan: That would be to discourage what aspect?
Glenn Bowles: Placing septic ground absorption systems in regulated stream buffers.
Larry Wright: It would be nice to be a little more forceful than to discourage.
(~
Jeff Peloquin: I have sold many septic systems and if you talk to anyone in Environmental Health and they
are very cautious about their setbacks.
Craufurd Goodwin: We have a list of requests from the Cabe Ford community for conditions, are these
incorporated in your recommendations?
Glenn Bowles: No. Nearly every one of those are not typically dealt with in subdivision review of approval.
Craufurd Goodwin: There are issues with traffic and signs, etc and it seems we typically deal with those.
Glenn Bowles: The developer proposes some type_of sign in front.
Craufurd Goodwin: It seems it would be helpful to have staff recommendations on each of these points.
Glenn Bowles: Staff recommendation is they are not appropriate to subdivision review and that most of
them deal with homeowner's association documents which can be referred to the attorney.
Craufurd Goodwin: None of these are appropriate.
Glenn Bowles: Yes. They deal with the use of the road, building materials for the house, lighting, chaining
of dogs, which are not typically dealt with at a subdivision review approval.
Craufurd Goodwin: You are saying none of these are applicable.
Glenn Bowles: We can refer this to the attorney who could deal with the developer's attorney in the
homeowner's association documents. That would be my recommendation to the board.
Jay Bryan: Craufurd, if you feel that there are conditions in there that should be made. part of the
application, we can move that we do that and see if it supported by other board members. Then it would be
left to staff and the attorneys to decide if it is an appropriate condition but we can make recommendations.
Craufurd Goodwin: That would have been helpful.
Renee Price: How far is the entrance to Pleasant Green?
Glenn Bowles: Roughly one-quarter mile.
Renee Price: Will there be improvements to Cabe Ford?
Glenn Bowles: We asked that question to Mr. Edwards at the NCDOT Regional office and he advised us
there were none warranted.
Jeff Peloquin: We understand the concern of the neighbors. I received the same letter and I have been
working with the staff as well as incorporating the same concerns that have been brought up through the
process that is addressed in this memo. I would venture to say that most of all of them have been satisfied.
It could be addressed via the normal circuit of planning staff and due process.. It had to come through
declaration, homeowner's association agreements and other avenues. The road situation was originally a
major concern that the road could be damaged. It was a state maintained road and it had not been that for
many years so as such, we wanted to make sure that it would not be downgraded to a lesser state. That
was addressed with Chuck Edwards who did not feel it was a concern with the number of lots proposed. He
may encourage construction traffic to do a weighting, which means any construction traffic would be
(6
restricted with lesser weight so it would not be downgraded. Another concern about traffic was the road
does dead end and there was no turn around. There was a concern about not allowing traffic not being
allowed to turn around. We felt it would we should install a sign, `This is a dead end road please do not
enter". Other concerns were water, which was duly addressed, the ongoing management of the project.
We elected to do all the construction at once and not phase it out. The integrity of the setbacks are not
shown on here but the lots being the size they are, we were able to encourage the building well within the lot
itself. That makes for the ability to have significant setbacks. Originally we were proposing a signification
component of open space on the left end trying to encourage the continuity with the Eno River Association
and have less open space around the perimeter. In lieu of that plan, we increased the perimeter of open
space and increased the setback area and recognized secondary setbacks. We also incorporated many
green policies in the homeowner's declaration, which are available. We are trying to encourage the green
spaces in all the communities.
Larry Wright: My question deals with odors, how you will protect the homeowner from dealing with an irate
neighbor over the smell of manure pile that has been there for 30 years?
Jeff Peloquin: I believe there is a standard in the policies that existing properties are recognized. If you
want to have that incorporated in the homeowner's association, which would be fine.
Craufurd Goodwin: This seems to deserve a formal, written response. We have a responsibility to be
concerned for the welfare of the neighbors.
Jeff Peloquin: For the most part it is via the homeowner's association declaration including the landscape
plan.
Craufurd Goodwin: Then they could be answered quickly, (i.e., see page 46).
Jay Bryan: We could make that part of the conditions.
Jeff Peloquin: Everything that is of legal statue and concern and even not, has been and is being
addressed.
Jay Bryan: Are there any individuals from the public that would like to speak.
Melinda Ruley: I will be the only speaker on this subject tonight. I speak on behalf of my family and the
neighbors. You have the ability to make any recommendations you wish.. We are grateful to the Planning
Board for reducing the number of lots in this subdivision. It is still larger than we would like. You have the
set of detailed requests we spent a lot of time on. They fall into two general categories, construction traffic
and creating a development that is in character with the existing rural community. We did not get the large
lot we hoped for and we have been told that this will be sold to tract developer once it is approved. We have
asked the applicant to look at the details you have. In this part of Orange County we are just barley holding
on to our rural designation so of course, we object to the threat of more traffic, houses and lights. We are
asking you help to see that this subdivision does not become one more suburban development of the kind
that is eroding the rural character. We ask that you recommend that our requests be satisfied. I have been
puzzled over the stub out. I have to conclude that stubs outs are a dodge for the developer who reports to
solve problems but am putting them onto the next property owner to solve his problems for him. Would it be
better to require the applicant to design a subdivision that fits the space he has? I would ask that you
recommend that stub outs be removed from this development. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Michelle Kempinski: What recourse would the property owner have if their property were damaged. like this?
~~
Glenn Bowles: The matter of the road itself could be bonded, be rated to the trucks could only be of a
certain weight.
Michelle Kempinski: During construction?
Glenn Bowles: Make sure staff is informed. It is a civil matter.
Stewart Fisher: We live at the end of the road. There is already a sign that states it is a dead end road at
the beginning of the road. If you add construction traffic on that road, those big trucks will be coming down
and turning around on our property unless the applicant is required to have a place they can turn around on
their subdivision. Mr. Peloquin is saying that he will deal with these items in restrictive covenants, etc. They
want to have this subdivision approved so it can be sold to Centex unless you say that the subdivision will
be approved subject to the requests being made. Please look at what we have submitted.
Renee Price: Why is there a stub out to the east? Is there any indication that the property owners will sell
it? As I recall, when they. were previously here, they did not indicate they would sell it. Are there enough
buffers in this area?
Glenn Bowles: We know of no particular activity where the stub outs for future development. We asked
they be put in those general areas so that if something happened in the future we could get some degree of
connectivity.
Renee Price: What about buffering on these other properties?
Glenn Bowles: The more intense agricultural uses are, to the south. Those are residential. The depth of the
buffer, which is a 40-foot buffer, could be decreased.
Michelle Kempinski: What is the required buffer?
Glenn Bowles: There is a minimum of 20 foot.
MOTION by Craufurd Goodwin that developer to return with responses to questions from the neighbors and if
possible resolve as many of the issues before the Planning Board makes a decision.
No Second to the motion.
MOTION by Judith Wegner that Planning Board approve the proposal subject to the conditions and
requirements recommended by staff beginning on page 241 going through page 246 with one additional
conditional. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt
VOTE: (6-2)
Jay Bryan: Craufurd, I understand you wanted the developer to respond first and Larry, did you have a
particular reason.
Larry Wright: I am not sure this is correct. There are many lots. You will have 16 trips times 20.
Jay Bryan: Is there a recommendation about the stub out?
MoTioN by Michelle Kempinski that building setback line shown on the final plan submitted shall be
relocated to coincide with the outside edge of the stream buffer and not encroach within the stream buffer
for lots 7 through 14,16, and 17. Seconded by Jay Bryan
VOTE: Unanimous
(~~
MOTION by Larry Wright that the septic drain systems, on map S3 denote suitable soils for the septic
systems, and respect the stream buffers that they move back. (Lots 11,12,13, and 14). Seconded by
Michelle Kempinski
VOTE: Unanimous
Michelle Kempinski: Does the definition of what is required for denoting a suitable soil include just the soil
and other criterion or does it include set backs?
Glenn Bowles: Primarily it is for both property and soil. There are also set backs from lot lines.
Michelle Kempinski: It can include other criteria?
Glenn Bowles: Yes. That is my understanding.
Jay Bryan: I would like to propose that there be a stub out for pedestrian or bike usage that would connect
to the adjoining property owners.
Judith Wegner: If you have a stub out it issimilar to a cul-de-sac. If any other adjacent property will be
developed, the only other choice for multiple access.
Michelle Kempinski: Are we assuming it will be a paved stub out or a reserved area?
Glenn Bowles: It is just reserved but it will not be paved at the development of the adjoining lot.
Judith Wegner: There will be a demarcation indicating that it is not part of their parcels.
Jay Bryan: I'm not going to make a motion.
Motion by Renee Price that both stub outs are eliminated. Seconded by Larry Wright
VOTE: (7-1)
Michelle Kempinski: I would like to request for information from applicant regarding all Green techniques,
water conservation, and green building standards for the construction process. I would like documents to be
shared with the Planning Board for informational purposes.
MOTION by Renee Price that all archeological and historical aspects of this project including the cemetery be
reviewed by the Historical Preservation Commission. Seconded by Larry Wright
VOTE: (Unanimous)
Jay Bryan: I am concerned that we have not accepted Craufurd's motion and tried to address any of the
requirements suggested.
MOTION by Judith Wegner that applicant post a construction bond sufficient to ensure that the construction
process would proceed without damage to nearby properties and the amount would be determined by staff
based on fiscal analysis. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt.
VOTE: (Unanimous)
MOTION by Judith Wegner that applicant in submitting the final site plan develops lighting strategies that
minimize adverse effect on dark skies and would be in compliance with Orange County Lighting Standards.
Seconded by Bernadette Pelissier.
VOTE: (7-1)
/~Y
Judith Wegner: I don't think we have authority to specify they have to use particular detail. I would advise
the applicant to work with considerations the neighbors have raised. I would like to request that applicant
include neighbors in meeting of the homeowner's association meeting as represented but non-voting.
MOTION made by Jay Bryan regarding construction traffic that the applicant place signs restricting
construction traffic to the eastern section of Cabe Ford Road marking the entrance to Cabe Crossing,
ensure that other vehicles not be parked or left over night on the shoulder of Cabe Ford Road, Grady Lane,
Virgie Lane; that there be street signs that mark the entrance to the subdivision stating that there is no turn
around at the western end of Cabe Ford Road. Seconded by Judith Wegner.
VOTE: (Unanimous)
MOTION by Renee Price to address the issue of the agricultural uses to lessen pressure on those owners by
deepening the buffer.
No Second
Renee Price: I would like to request that the Planning Board receive a copy of the Cabe Crossing
Homeowner's Association Rules
MOTION by Judith Wegner to approve Cabe Crossing Subdivision subject to conditions and information
regarding it. Seconded by Bernadette Pelissier.
VOTE: (7-1)
0
9
i
G
i
6
5
t
5
I~ CABE CROSSING SUBDIVISION
PRELIMINARY PLAT
CABE FORD ROAD
ENO TOWNSHIP ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWING INDEX
5t1EET NI.IM6ER ~ ~ /~~rm F
G-I WYI_-1~
G-2 PRELIMINARY PIAT
G-3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
G-4 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
OV~MF~ /DFVFI /MFR
DRMAGO PARTNERS
949 WA5t11NGTON STREET
DURt1AM, NG 27701
IS
LJ. PELOC~UIN GON('TRUGTION, INC.
~ PELOGjUIN
Pt10NE: (919) 732-7554
FAX: (919) 732-4704
EMAIL: peloquin®mindspring.com
SITE DATA:
PMCE1 TAI gEPLV1ErlDE: a.f3..e3
AA- ~
~!' FMm FIN Inlleer.
FMNrt srzE: aea-n-seas
rs.a Aaas
~
~• ~
GYE {FIN P0.
~ ceEO AEFEAEneE:
Fur AEFEAEACE:
SNIhU NISTRltf:
EXISTIM USE:
PNDPtlaEO IRE: Oe eeO, ro rn
re r03, ro s) lLOT +)
M (AWfLIATUUL AESIOENIIAI)
VACMT
m-IAT 81RDIVlSIM (NE3IDENIIAL)
~
91E
YINIYUY FAgR SETSACR:
YINIMY SINE BETwe(: b FEET
20 FEET
YINIYW AF.+N SEiBILK: 2N FEET
NCINITY NAP wTERSIIED: Eno Novel wTEn3xm
NOT TO SCALE ,~A ~ FLaaO Fun1: O eO AOIES
,1NE., IN fFlEreiY SITE: D, De ACRES
PRCro1E0 STNEETS:
PACroSED UTIIITlES: 9, ew Lf (MSUT STM4RND3)
IIDlVtdW. HELL MID aEITlC SITES
GrRmpTral wsTE:
11. NYC CRDINRNCE, GEM' RCeD w3TE~ SCMP ,YETK AND LOM'AaRTM LMNBaRIID, ML PNESelI IN CdRIPoICTILY N 51F,
/FIST BE pELY'p.EN.
2. er aaucE cawrv amlwwrF. ALL rw.SEU of caRmucTraY waif Yusr eE FNOFexv umRFY.
s. roICA ro MY Neamaw a ooxsmucTtOx Acrrvtn ox rxE alre neE AFnrcwr nu nm A FaE-M`RTrYMTttlI CCnr`ENeN:E
rrm THE Lnurrrs aatD wSTE srMF. TNrs wr eE TrY~ SR1IE ~ETrno r,FLO YITn OTxER DErEiarRNr OFFICIALS.
CIVIL ENGINF.FR & SIRVEYOR
PFIILIP POST & ASSOCIATES
401 PROVIDENCE ROAD SUITE 200
GIIAPEL I11LL, NG 27514
TEL: 919-929-1173
FAX: 919-493-6548
~i ~
r'
~~fs~ ~~
g~c~ ~
a
~ (°n
a a 1d
.~
W
_ ~ ~
0
N z6
W
U
Q~
i =~'
,~,,~ ~
}~~~;
C ° + F~a lI
5 3 f ~ 1iC}11f
a
f
i
F
ii
4
E
i
s
Tf~3gy StiE WTA:
'
~
., PARCEL TAX REf[N:ACE:
PARCEL PIN ANREe:
RARCEL SZZE: 6.29..N
Np.~pl-9.N
n.n AGEB
CAGE fa ND sD. up
8
~
; Dffp aEffNErdE:
PUr REFEREIKf: Up eN, PD rn
P8 109, N 6r tLDr N
~
91E ZONIAtl OIS1NICi: M (A6RICLETLRAL RE9IOENItALI
EXISTIAD IRE: VACWI
NOT 70 SCALE PROPOS® USE: 20-LOT 9UNNI9Igi (REBIOEMIALI
VICINITY MAP
YINIYLW FRONT SE16f4%: 10 FEET
YINfYN SIDE SETAIGC:
Y
tNIYVV REAR SETBK%: 20 FEET
2D ffET
N
rfRY~: Ero ROVER WTI
A(IFit 2X fLOOD PWX: 0.9D AWE4
ARFA 1N CEYEIERY SITE: 0.01 ACRE9
PRD~'OeFO BTREEn:
PRDPDSN urrzmfs: 9,.60 Lf (AYCOT etAlaYlasJ
IrorvzRUl Xfu. Aro sfPrzc slTfs
PROPOSED HOUSE SITE
1 'nl I
e. b
TYPICAL CUL-DE-SAC LAYOUT
xm m SCNf
1\t'p~ ~~\ I 1
°~ NOTE: AAlOININO IfkIING S - ~- ^ ~ - ^I- ^ ~. - - ~ - -4- - ~ ^ - ~ - - - ,fig ~•^ I
I
I I
~ ~
,A\ 1 1 1
\
~\
~ PID ~ PUBLIC INTE/IEST DEVELOPMENT I I
I
I
~-I
AR ~AGRICULTUIiAI
RESIDEN7ZAL ~ I I I I I I ` I 1~w 1
= -`
~..
. ) ,
~I
AR
~~\~\~\,}~.I~ ~
1 ~_~~=-~. ,~ ~ I ...I I II AR i II II i ~ ~-Y ~5}I ~ I ~ ~
_
`
~
~
LoT Ua 9nA,
or.
rorK zpr ANA , ~1
.~~;
\ i _;.. ~
I..... I,~.N.i,.~.a.i °: I I `..'II I.r:~'D~
-
' _. -.~~
~ ~'I~ `= ...
'
a
.Ir K tN•W YI I 111 ~ ~ I ` I ~ ~ `. ~ `L ~ ~ _I ' p~R1Ry,.-.F)~ .i..~~' ~m
~.
9 a. as K nN,w Ifl I
1 I I "I... ~~j.' .~. ~' .~ ~ au..pdp
la1 K tro,w IPl I
I
11 I q' 1 I..R aY"K .
1 I 1 I ~.2~ ~ ~ ti r'~ ~ AR
l.N K (ro.dro dfl 1 4 Ily 1 _ = ~ py~Tp .. k - ~ _ ^ _
1 1.91 K (IO1,RIr tll
T I
rl K (11T
IN Vl II I \' .-I{
1 ~ 1 ^ ~ ~ e 'RWpI 9TGlE qp/~p p~{a~,~N~N
~ - - ~_ - ~ I $ _ %10.1C 50' R/W 4 ~ . ~n rK~N
~
.
.
a T.M K fN,pN afl I. I
I I I
I PAINT. ENDa ~ ~Np.
I
I, 1 I 9D ''~/ 1 `.
~w ~
~
~
~
I l.nK (>O,2N M1
,p ,.N K t.r
N. >r) 1
i ; , ~
I I
~
`
~ .
I I d I
~ ~..r"J
.
t.N K (N,NT Nl
2 ,
i i I ~
y, ~
.
~
:
~I I w4 KY I NI..Di~Lr ;. r ~
.
~ 7 . ~-v~/
~
/'
~i..~~.
//
~¢
~ N
'
~ ~ ~ /
12
.10 K (H.NI N)
fa :.N K (N,n1 ts) 1 ~ ~ 1
I
I
I
; /
y
~
~~~
/
/
r /
1
y
T
A
~ M
/; /
V a~'i ®'yC~ r
LAI
I a I RESmlco I -i `/!V/
I
°L~
~
1. a.n K (N,m 9FI 1
I
1
\ . \ ~ n. rnu
i
k
t"d ruluRE ~cass _ ,. . ~.,naJr _. - ^ -
w a rpos ~ ~}
16 I.NK (N,m dP)
u I.N K fN,NO u1
IT f.NK (IT,dN 61
l1 1.N K (ro,W U)
11 I.NK (1N, Nd M)
N K (Iaa,Hl drl
~~1\
$~,I
~ 1
11
n
MB, H..N,Ir ~
p[f~rrrlN. N16p, PoNxprA9n•
MN
AaG1 A-f N.N K. 89.N
!1111610 I/I 1.10 K. I.N
IOTA N.N K. N.N
PVINI Axea9
IOTK ARG n.1T K. N.Opa
ONNEflIOEVELOPER
BRAYCO PMTNERS
91a wasNINGTGN srflEET
DIBINAV, Nc znD1
OWNER'S AGENT
J. PELODIIIN CONSTflUCTIDV, INC.
JEFF PELOOIIIN
PNONE: (9181 732-7b64
FA%: - (91B) 732.4701
ENAIL: pBlpqufrlfy9trMSprlnB•c6w
~_
/ /)
~ ~~
//!
PID'v
1 r°Lpx role:
1 AR
1
~~~
E 1NpIpA7p E 1pN1pa.N
Yl ailC
SECTION AA
R.
SYMMETRICAL CUL-DE-SAC
NO CURB & GUTTER
xDT ro xrLE
RESIDENIAL COLLECTOR ROAD`
(RIVERXS T~ON~E ROAD) -
./` -~
LOCAL RESIDENTIAL ROAD '
(RUNNING CEDAR LANE)
prro=~
NMV vnm Ne
..r,....~.>
{ N '~
m¢ v raXOV CABS FORD ROAD v rmn
•o.e r..~..n Ry.1. ~w vrr w..r+.1 w..~...r.O+w w.1 w.w-+-.4.
PROPOSED ROAD CONNECnON
NEW RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR ROAD
AND EXISTING STATE MAINTAINED ROAD
sroP twNana+
NOTE: SEE SHEET 3 FOR
PHYSICAL SITE INFORMATION
(CONTOURS, SOILS, BUFFERS, ETC.)
A
Y~ T
pR Y~
~~~~ ~~
W
a
~ N lO/1
a 0. i!
B
Q o ~ng~
d ~ C9
a ~ 6
W ~m
a
i-,~
,~,>:\ ~
~!~?~~
't~'ja1
~~~~~~;;~G"i~
9IHT
a
i
~
~.",y~p SITE MTA: ~
p F
'~7 IARCEL LAS RFFEREACE: 6.15..16
PARCEL PtN NLYBER: x881-BI-9181
PARCEL SIZE
iS
1) ACAF3
~
Tpp F
jpYF1~V
~~
;
~~
:
.
p55 CAGE FORD RD.
OEFD REFERENCE: DB BBO
Po iBl g
¢
¢ p
~
fLLL
A^
,
k 9R' 3$ PLA1 REFERENCE: PB 1Qt, Po S) (LO) 1) ~ Sf
Sf g~~.~
b ~ ZONfBU pISTNGT: M (AORICULTYiN. RESIOBITIAL)
EXISTING USE: VACAI? '
NOT ro SCALF PRG^RSED DBE: ZO-LOT SlBOlVISIOV (IESIOENIIAI)
wr.~N1Tr ~uaa ~
W
YIMIMY FROMr ffiISACR: M fEET B-
YINIML SIDE SETBAG(: TD FFE! <
Y
INI
RFM SETflIGl: 10 FEET
a
~
r
FMD HOVER MIEALIED
J
AREA fx fL000 PWN: 0.50 ACRES S O N
(x ARREa Ix cELE)ERr urt: o.a ncRES a a i1 <
~ U PROPDSEO srIIFFTS: s.IBO LF (I.YDOT sTAMV WS/
B~ PRaosED urlurtes: tNDrvlDUU BELL Aw sEPrtc SrrES -
~ ;
~ ~ \ I. ~T I. ~-__~___~__I__~-_~--I--~__~--_-_-__
\~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~E ~ I I I I I I I ~ ~ I
~..
H
E
0
'a
yt
i
3
3
~~\
~` ,. ,
I 1
` B
I
I
~ ~
~~
M
II '
OWNERIOEVELOPER
BRAlICO PAflTNERS
848 N4lSHING70N STREET
DURHAY,- NC 27701
OWNER'S AGENT
J. PELOO7/IN CONSTRUCTIdB, INC.
JEFF PELOOUIN
PNONE: (918) 792.7650
FA%: (818) 792-4701
EWVL: paloqulnMLndspring.caB
1
I
I
I /
J-..1
E>asnNC sac rrPES:
CBC k CYB (CEORG'FNLlE SILT LDAN, 2s-fOx SLOPES
ioO (TANM SILT LOAM, 5X-i$i SLOPES)
H)B (HERNDON SILT LOAM, TZ-ex SLOPES)
I.voBnvE xorES:
(A~EmOV Yw xWa W WBmb M Yw,+O M PaBebBBw
bnBSppB mxr W ~ b B. Yxd4b ~ npN~O tN BAdm N-0-51
dNraw.~o>Anbb rz awaby. Cnb9'1mNN oRN,w,
M~Nh AVrhpMM.
aib LUmBe CanN~ImYq~ONVU. b~Ndtlxw~b~ vrAMBIs
NOTE: EJIIBTNO BITE m EYrE~ELVMmoEO.
IEGLtC
ARFAS OIBEAiER MAN 135 s[OPE
noro&PUw) SEE xAmm AREA
~
s
ARG BE ~ 10 Af
Rf
S
CEN016 ANTABIE SOBS
UN OENOIES LWANTABLE SOBS
'
'
__-_-____IBO-____ CdIlOUN EIE
1MROV
_~- EX51NO s
(REF. ORANGE rnLB)rr as)
® STREAY SI.NPER AREAS
PRMOAD NONSE 9R:
EXKNq iREE1M
N
O ~ ff
~`
Z
~ m
U z d
Z
~ ~ m
N ~
X
W q
L~
ii
7,I~{
~}( ~,
~ ,:.~
7•
~li~:.
1 iBp 1it~~L!;
~S3~~ii[UI
F
YYEr
w
~~I
~r
B
i
F
5
~~h° TA: ~ gq
Y~ St1E M lANOA:IPE Pow' ~ ~ a
'R2 PMCEr. ]Alf AEFEREACE: 6.29..15 1. Eewgtw rda rglWrbW grenMrq POOre4ree
PMCEL PIN Nl16EA: YBa1.11.9K1 aiNlerunlerM mYNWebMNNYltlr b9fefW bYBtl'm N-0id ~~~~ ~L
aM A PMCEL SIZE: 19.1]AEAE9 b4O1Ynw.eaM JM l2dtlr Onnp CanglmYp ONwre, fl]Le~ E
~S OABE rM0 N0. ~ DEPo REFERENCE: 08 890. Po IBt L(i{xQ vAJN wab gNr.I' Z/'p T.3 J, 9
E ~~ • ILAI REFERENCE: Po 109, Po 6] (LOi 1) ~ ~ iOV~ ~..
$nE Q yy EMS]MS SAypIE iRfE 2. BuE~r,ayWtlEy Setllm N-BMdWeQdfufnaNYb 12
~' 2NITN0 OIS]NICT: M(AWItlILIUUL RESIOEMIK) ® dbeOrf9e CanV2eff°M~N°'~N°kbYedN' y~ OppMppNrr
EXISTING IISE: pACAM QIS1W0 ]NEE SANPIE ANEA OE4ARK] r
NOi TO SCALE t PRO<O,REO USE: -LOT SLMOIVI3Im (RESIOQ/TIKJ 9. E%19TMG SREI9 ENIMELY VIOOOFD. _~ ~,Nar ~
EMSRNO 1REIIYIE ~,{
NCINITY MAP ............. PRaPasso mauNC/aEMmc uwr A. waY nre.ep,.r.«..nr«mba.vamacb.. m...sa.~+n. ~ w
YINIMY F'NOYT 9EIMbl: e0 FFET
INIYUY SLOE SETSACN: ]0 FEET S~rL~Eerdry elie9 eNa WnNNmINU aM fp.INN mnesvetlmm4e4ib ~ Q
YIMMp ITEM SEIflAC1(: PD FEET 1ufNNri NNnbarw't AeeeWMrfOmmnY bOY Mebpnr~l Ter D. Lj
XR]ERSrlEO: Ela ROVFR WTERMFD av ~ N N
AREA IN Flom PLVN: 0.50 KIaES TREE SAMPLE -AREA •A• = O N
ARFA IN CEYE]EAY SI]E: O. b AGES TREE SAMPLE (e ~) a d df Q
PpOP6RPo 51NEEB: a, 150 LF (MGOr SIANRNa3/ AREA •A•
IIIOPOSEp UTILITIES: INWVIp1V. EF1.L AND SEPTIC SI]ES
1\ \ \\ 1 I 1 I I I I I II 1 1 1 _r_ ~ .><-"" i ~ ~ x ~~,f ~1,,,,k
~;~~,~ 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 ~e -i3~--I
-. ~ \=.; _ 1. 1 I I I I I I 1 1 ~..b..t- N.N..r,l~l -::"` I , ~FNNr
~~ \ ~~ ; ~ ~-. ; = .. _ _ I I ~ I I I II 1. - -1_ _ - II~1~ ~ b I ~~ ~.YYMra ~,,,.,t;<:
4' D\~ \ 1.' 1 _ . _ - _ ~ .. _ .. I e.n I ~ ~ I I ...II •r! ~ ~^I ~ 1 ~ 11_~~~t I {O, i ~•- . ~ 1 TREE SAMPLE -J AREA •9• ~
~•
: _ _
\; ~~1 I ~ I _ I ~ ~ ~= ~ ~ I I E10'1!^cy'B1{p •--~'-- - 9MKY~ I 1nw,rM ~ ~]
1 6~..- IY
i 1 I I I, =i~~.: ,.... ~sss °b'b': Por "'"` far.Mr z ~
1 I L j:: ~..._... ~n a Z
- -t - - - AtE'w. I ~ TREE sAMPI~- AREA •C• lAJ
1 1 uAwr. Eras ' ~ _
1 1 ~ ] ~ <. 1 N ~ 2
11 I' 1 1 I ''~"= ear 9 "ela¢^fseOL TREE SAMPLE W V
s~ saes AREA •B• ~ Yd
l i l 1 1 11 ~~ I ~
1 >e.
l e i I I I I ,.. s ;, l .a.. ~"kA.,m ~ ~ ~
1 1 slM,l~e, °Q 7REE PlE TREE SAYPIE F•'
\1 11 1 R A rRbM 1 •D• AREA •C - -. - - ~y
f I I Paia nr 1 t~,t '~
~j \ ,;1 `I +~+ rem \ ~ ~ TREE sAMPIE -AREA •D' ';:~~ ,
rg,~ 11 , 1 fEYEIEJiY .n ~ _ _ 1 . em, ,.1.,
1` `~ _ _ _ t~:~=~1
II\~ ~ ~- ~_~ - ~ u ~ ~ \ TREE SAMPLE IS2:riu~.aa. s/ R ~ / E{•i
\` ~'rwro - f I ~ MEA •E' ."U+' ~ $ ~ ! g a d T,s`sl§
~ ~ ~ J,°°°°,./.; "'°"" I ~ ~ ski ~, ~ ~
~c\\\ r / -- tl •,1 ~•r~ b clear] 1Tr.out
p ~ • u us /~ W PoIA nMe
~~ ~ by °l°' SK `~ ... ~ AREAS~IE TREE sAMP1F~-1 AREA •E'
1 MLWfE .,S,K _ _ _
{ COHRDaR
I ~ ~ n
OWNFAIOEVELOPER ~ /1.. i ~ ~-~,~•• 'a'° / ~' R,~bG~y
] __~
BRANCO PARTNERS ~ - -
Y4e wASxrNCroN sTREEr w I 1 ~ ~ \ ~
ouwuv, Nc znof / i
~~
owNER'S AOEN7 ~ i ~ 11 .Y. s ~ (~~ ,~~L17~
J. PELOWIN CONSTNIICTION, INC. 3 '~ 1' tl
JEFF PELOOUZN
PhtlNE: (8181 731.7664 11 E rGY9Je1'.70~• q~1 TREE SAMPIE -AREA 'F•
FA%: (818) 732-4704 1 16"6'J
EMAIL: petoquin@Rin0aprlllg. com zr r 5 m ~ MI¢T
a
e