Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 09-16-2008 - 5a
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 16, 2008 Action Agenda Item No. 5-A SUBJECT: Review of Class A Special Use Permit Proposing the Development of a Montessori School DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) YES ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Table of Contents for Attachments (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) 2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT -Findings of Fact 3. Staff Review/Comment Memos 4. Neighbor Comments: 4A -From the Public Hearing 48 -Information Supplied to the Planning Board 4C -Information from Mr. Keith Tilley Refuting Appraisal Testimony Offered at the June 25, 2008 Pubic Hearing 5. Planning Board Minutes -August 6, 2008 INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, 245-2592 Michael Harvey, 245-2607 PURPOSE: To take action on a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') application proposing the development of a Montessori School at 711 Terry Road (SR 1573) in accordance with the provisions of Article Eight (8) Special Uses and Section 8.8.30 Schools: Elementary, Middle, and Secondary of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (hereafter 'Ordinance'). BACKGROUND: On June 24, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners held a Public Hearing to review the SUP application proposing the development of a private school at 711 Terry Road (TMBL 5.10..22 /PIN 0806-76-4683). The applicant, Montessori Farm School, a private non-profit corporation is seeking a SUP to develop a private school based on the Montessori curriculum. The applicant intends to develop their school with a major emphasis on providing afarm/agricultural and science oriented curriculum including:. a. Farm and crop production, b. Animal care, c. Recycling, composting, and water conservation activities/projects, and d. Study of the natural environment. 2 During the Public Hearing there was, and has continued to be, vocal opposition to this project. Several local residents made presentations at the Public Hearing requesting that this application be denied. Staff has included these comments for review and consideration within Attachment Three (3) of this document. At the Public Hearing there was also concern expressed over the applicant providing perpetual emergency vehicle access to the proposed school buildings (i.e. a dedicated, paved, fire lane). During the review of the project by the Planning Board, the applicant indicated that the emergency vehicle lane, as shown on the submitted site plan, would be paved and reserved as a dedicated fire/emergency vehicle access lane. This has become a recommended condition of approval for this project, specifically Condition Number Two (2). PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board reviewed this application at its August 6, 2008 meeting. After reviewing the application, and reviewing additional comments from surrounding property owners concerning this project, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the SUP application with the following conditions: 1. That the site plan be revised to denote a thirty (30) foot vegetative buffer along all common property lines and that the SUP contain a condition requiring the applicant to install and maintain a thirty (30) foot buffer to the Type A buffer standard as detailed within Section 12.6.1 of the Ordinance and that further this required buffer be shown on any and all submitted site plans proposing the development of this property in accordance with Article Fourteen (14) of the Zoning Ordinance, 2. That a condition be placed on the SUP that the Fire Marshall and representatives of the Caldwell Fire Department shall review and approve the revised site plan prior to the issuance of any Building and/or Zoning Compliance Permit(s) approving the location of all proposed improved fire lanes and stacking areas, verifying that they comply with all applicable North Carolina Fire Protection Code standards, and approve the use of the pond as a emergency water source for fire suppression activities prior to the start of land disturbing activities, 3. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to apply for any and all necessary septic and well permits from the Orange County Department of Environmental Health within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of this application and that such permits shall be issued prior to any land disturbing activity, 4. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to apply for a Building and/or a Zoning Compliance Permit within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of this application and that such permits shall be issued prior to any land disturbing activity, 5. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring that the applicant secure a Soil Erosion and Grading permit from the Orange County Erosion Control Division within (180) days from the approval of this application and that such permits shall be issued prior to any land disturbing activity, 6. That the applicant, as part of their building permit application submission, shall include documentation from the State of North Carolina indicating that the school has received any and all necessary certifications allowing them to operate as a private school and that their curriculum has been certified as meeting any and all local, State, and Federal requirements, 3 7. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to adhere to any and all additional conditions that may be imposed by NC DOT in accordance with their driveway permit as part of the permit review for this project, 8. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant submit to the Director of Planning and to the Public Health authorities of the County, representatives of Cooperative Extension, and other County officials as directed by the Planning Director, a yearly certification that a veterinarian in good standing has reviewed the status, health and welfare of the animals on site as of January 1 of each year and certifies that the animals are in good health, 9. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to arrange for an annual review by the County Extension agent regarding utilization of the site as a demonstration farm to ensure there are adequate facilities for the care, health, and safety of the animals and the applicant conforms to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Care and Use requirements and Animal Welfare, 10.That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant adhere to the bungalow style of construction as detailed within the renderings submitted as part of the SUP application, 11.That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to install the 30 foot required buffer along Terry Road beginning at the furthest edge of the right of-way and from the point there is sufficient site distance to enter and exit the property, 12.That the applicant shall be encouraged to promote car pooling programs for parents utilizing the school facility, 13. That if any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect, 14. The Special Use Permit will automatically expire within twelve (12) months from the date of approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, and 15.That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant make arrangements to provide adequate parking arrangements on their property during special events and any and all necessary measures to keep their guests from parking on neighboring roads or on neighbors property' Please refer to Attachment Two (2) of this package for the detailed SUP Findings of Fact recommended by the Planning Board. CITIZEN OPPOSITION: As previously indicated there has been vocal opposition from adjacent property owners along Terry Road concerning the approval of this project. The opposition can be summarized as follows: 1. Residents questioned the findings of the appraisal report completed by Mr. Everett 'Vic' Knight. Specifically, comments were made by adjacent property owners that Mr. Knight did not properly identify the current condition of the subject property within his report and failed to properly define how the proposed school project will affect adjacent property values once single-family residences are constructed upon them. Staff Comment: On September 5, 2008, Mr. Keith Tilley submitted an impact analysis consulting report, completed by Odell Appraisal Services, that he claims 4 refutes Mr. Knight's findings and shows how the project will not `enhance or maintain adjacent property values' as required under Section 8.2.1 (b) (2) of the Ordinance 2. Local residents have expressed concern over the amount of traffic that will be accessing Terry Road if the school is approved, 3. Local residents have indicated that they do not believe that the school is in harmony with surrounding land uses, as required under Section 8.2.1 (b) (3) of the Ordinance. As with all SUP applications the applicant bears the burden of establishing, through competent material and substantial evidence, that all of the conditions associated with the approval of the application have been met. The Board of County Commissioners will make specific findings certifying compliance or non- compliance with the specific rules, as established by the Ordinance, for this particular type of land use in taking action on the SUP application. Where the Board finds compliance with the general standards, specific rules, and all other applicable regulations the application must be approved. Where the Board does not find compliance, however, the application can be denied. It should be noted, however, that competent evidence (i.e. expert testimony) needs to be provided demonstrating that the project does not adhere to the required conditions, standards, or findings as detailed within the Ordinance to support a denial. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends that the Board: 1. Receive the recommendation of the Zoning Officer and the Planning Board, 2. Receive any and all additional information concerning this application, 3. Close the Public Hearing and begin deliberation, and 4. Schedule BOCC action on the SUP for the October 7, 2008 regular Board meeting. 5 AGENDA ITEM 5-A: Review of Class A Special Use Permit Proposing the Development of a Montessori School TABLE OF CONTENTS: Attachment Two (2) -Special Use Permit Findings of Fact:: Pages 7 through 35 Attachment Three (3) -Staff review/comment memos: Pages 37 through 43 1. Orange County Sheriff s Department Page 37 2. Orange County Fire Marshal Page 38 3. Orange County Solid Waste Pages(s) 39 through 40 4. ERCD Page 41 5. Environmental Health Page 42 6. NC DOT (dated April 29, 2008) Page 43 Attachment Four (4) -Neighbor Comments: Pages 45 through 89 Attach ment 4A -From the Public Hearing: 1. Petition against the SUP application Pages 45 through 46 2. Letter from Susan Reimer Page 47 3. Power Point presentation -Keith Tilley Pages 48 through 56 4. Letter from BJ Boyarsky Pages 57 through 58 Attach ment 4B -Information Supplied to the Planning Board: 1. Letter from Keith Tilley Pages 59 through 63 2. E-mail from Mr. and Mrs. McCallister Page 64 3. E-mail from Ms. Ann Valentine Page 65 4. E-mail from Ms. Kathy Hopwood Page 66 5. Letter from Ms. Rachel Hensley Page 67 6. Letter from Ms. Erika Hensley Foster Page 68 7. Letter from Ms. Martina Day Page 69 Attach ment 4C -Information from Mr. Keith Tilley refuting appraisal testimony offered at the June 25, 20 08 Public Hearing: 1. Impact Analysis (Sixteen (16) pages) Pages 71 through 86 2. Letter from Ms. Kathryn White Pages 87 through 88 3. Letter from Mr. John Tatreau Pages 89 through 90 4. Letter from Mr. Michael Irwin Page 91 Attachment Five (5) -Planning Board minutes Pages 93 through 123 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Attachment Two (2) -SUP Findings of Fact: FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO REQUEST SUBMITTED BY MONTESSORI FARM SCHOOL (LISA WALLACE) REQUESTING A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL AT 711 TERRY ROAD (SR 1573) 7 Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article Eight (8) for Special Uses. Article 8.2.1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: 1. That the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed, and operated according to the plan as submitted, 2. That the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, unless the use is a public necessity in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and 3. That the location and character of the use, if developed according to the Plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is complaint with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Specific regulations goveming individual Special Uses as set forth in Article Eight (8) Section 8.8.30. These regulations are divided into various sections that include: (a) The requirements of Section 8.6 Contents ofApplication for Approval of Special Uses; (b) The requirements of Section 8.8 Regulations Goveming Individual Special Uses, (c) The requirements of Section 8.8.30 Schools: Elementary, Middle, and Secondary, and (d) The requirements of Section 8.2. Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board in its deliberations. ARTICLE 8 6 -APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("Yes" indicates comeliance: "No" indicates non-comaliancel FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Section 8.6 Contents of Application for Approval of a Special Use The application for approval of a Special Use shall be submitted on forms provided by the Zoning Officer. Such forms shall be prepared so that when completed a full and accurate description of the proposed use, including its location, appearance, and operational characteristics shall be disclosed. Additionally, the forms shall, when completed by the applicant, disclose the name(s) and address(es) of the owner(s) of the property involved, and all relevant information needed to show compliance with the general and specific standards goveming the Special Use which is the subject of the application. (See Section 8.2) PLANNING BOARD Findings: x Yes No EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: 1. The Board found that the application was completed on the appropriate form provided to the applicant by the Zoning Officer, 2. The applicant contained the names and addresses of adjacent property owners, 3. The applicant contained all required information as detailed within Article Eight (8) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: x Yes No 8 ARTICLE 8 8 REGULATIONS GOVERNING INDIVIDUAL SPECIAL USES ("Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates non-comaliancel FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD Findings: EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: Ordinance Requirements Section 8.8 Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses: The regulations for each Class A and Class B Special Use are divided generally into two sections: the first consists of additional and specific components of the application beyond those necessary to comply with Section 8.6, while the second consists of the specific standards which are supplementary to the general standards in Section 8.2 and to the required conditions in Subsection 8.4.7. The following additional information is required for all Special Use Applications: 8.8 a) -Twenty-six (26) copies of the site plan prepared by a registered land surveyor, architect, or engineer. 8.8 b) - Elevations of all proposed structures to be used in the development. 8.8 c) -Twenty-six (26) copies of the Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact Statement, if required, by the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance. The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an x Yes No affirmative finding based on the following: x Yes No Twenty-six (26) copies of the site plan, prepared by Fredrick Stewart of Fredrick Stewart Architecture PLLC were submitted as part of the application. The Planning Board ' voted unanimously to make an x Yes No affirmative finding based on the following: x Yes No Elevations of the proposed buildings were submitted as part of the application X Not Applicable The Planning Board voted X Not Applicable unanimously to make a finding indicating that an Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact Statement is not required based on the following: 9 FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 8.8 d) - A fee, as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. 8.8 e) -Method of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps, and construction debris associated with the activity PLANNING BOARD Findings: x Yes No x Yes No EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: Staff provided a receipt indicating that the required application fee had been paid. The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: According to the .applicant's testimony, any yard waste generated on-site will either be chipped for use as mulch or disposed of in accordance with County regulations, with no open burning taking place ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: x Yes No x Yes No 10 ARTICLE 8.8.30 SCHOOLS: ELEMENTARY MIDDLE AND SECONDARY -ADDITIONAL INFROAMTION: ("Yes" indicates comeliance• "No" indicates non ~omaliancel PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ADMINISTRATION FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS RECOMMENDED Findings: Ordinance Requirements In addition to the information required by Subsection 8.2, 8.6, and 8.8, the following shall be submitted as part of the application: a) Twenty-six copies of the site x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No plan prepared in accordance unanimously to make an with Article XIV (Section 14.1 et affirmative finding. seq.) of the Zoning Ordinance. As previously indicated the applicant has submitted the appropriate number of site plans. The Site Plan shall also show x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No the following information as unanimously to make an required under Section 8.8.30 of affirmative finding based on the Ordinance: the following: 1. Total student capacity of The site plan and application school as designed indicates that the total student capacity is 120 students. 2. Total number of employees x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No at time of greatest shift unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: The site plan and application indicates that the total number of employees will be 12. 3. Number and dimensions of X Not Applicable The Planning Board voted R Not Applicable designated parking spaces unanimously to make a finding for school buses indicating that this item is not applicable based on the applicant's testimony that there will be no school busses proposed for use by the school. 4. Number of designated x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No parking spaces for unanimously to make an employees affirmative finding based on the following: The site plan shows that there will be a total of thirty-seven (3'n parking spaces on site with twelve (12) spaces reserved for the employees. 5. Number of visitor parking x Yes No The site plan indicates that the x Yes No spaces remaining parking spaces, specifically twenty-five (25) spaces, are available for use by visitors to the site. 11 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ADMINISTRATION FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS RECOMMENDED Findings: Ordinance Requirements 6. Number of student parking X Not Applicable. The Planning Board voted X Not Applicable. spaces unanimously to make a finding indicating that this item is not applicable based on the applicant's testimony that the school will only teach students to the sixth grade and, as a result, there is no need to student parking. 7. Location of student drop off x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No points with stacking spaces unanimously to make an identified affirmative finding based on the following: The site plan shows the proposed stacking areas and student drop off points. 8. Location of proposed and x Yes No The site plan shows proposed _Yes No future athletic fields pay ground and courtyard areas. There are no athletic fields (i.e. football, soccer, baseball) proposed for this project. 8 (a) Total number of seats for X Not Applicable The Planning Board voted X Not Applicable spectators unanimously to make a finding indicating that this item is not applicable based on the applicant's testimony that there are no athletic fields proposed that would require seats for spectators. 8.(b) location of concession X Not Applicable The Planning Board voted X Not Applicable stands. unanimously to make a finding indicating that this item is not applicable based on the applicant's testimony that there are no athletic fields proposed that would require concession stands to be used on the property 9. Proposed roadway X Not Applicable NC DOT has indicated, within X Not Applicable improvements their memorandum, that there will not be any roadway improvements required for this project. 10. Existing and proposed x Yes No The site plan shows the _Yes No infrastructure proposed location for the well improvements. and septic sites. 12 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Reouirements b) Twenty-six (26) copies of The Planning Board voted Landscape Plans showing the unanimously to make an locations of existing vegetation, x Yes No affirmative finding based on areas proposed for preservation the following: as well as plants and materials for proposed planting areas. Twenty-six (26) copies of the site plan, prepared by Fredrick Stewart of Fredrick Stewart Architecture PLLC have been submitted and designated as Resource Management and Landscape Plans showing the locations of: c)Twenty-six (26) copies of photometric plans in accordance with the Section 6.31, entitled Outdoor Lighting Standards. X Not Applicable 1. Existing vegetation, 2. Areas proposed for preservation, and 3. The types of plants and other similar vegetation proposed planting areas. The Planning Board voted unanimously to make a finding indicating that this item is not applicable based on the applicant's testimony that there will be no outdoor lighting for this project. d) Estimated water usage for structures, landscaping and athletic fields. e) A Traffic Impact Study as required by Artice 13 of the zoning ordinance. x Yes No X Not Applicable The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: According to the applicant and a memorandum issued by the Orange County Health Department, 1400 GPD is the anticipated water usage for the building(s) as proposed. The Planning Board voted unanimously to make a finding indicating that this item is not applicable based on staffs testimony that no traffic study is needed, as outlined in Article Thirteen (13) of the Ordinance due to low volume of traffic for anticipated this facility. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: x Yes No X Not Applcable x Yes No X Not Applicable 13 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS f) A Biological Inventory shall be prepared in accordance with Section 8.8.29.1 B (b). g) A Resources Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the criteria contained in the Resources Management Plan definition in the Definitions Article of the Zoning Ordinance. X Yes No x Yes No The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: A biological inventory was submitted as part of the application packet The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: A Resources Management Plan has been prepared and submitted in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and was incorporated as part of the submitted site plan Section 8.8.30 (1) If located within an EDD, the application must meet the following general standards of the EDD Design Manual and the Standards of Evaluation for Schools if the school were to be located in a zoning district other than an EDD Section 8.8.30 (2) If the project is located within a Zoning District other that EDD, the applicant shall meet the standards of evaluation as follows: X Not Applicable The Planning Board voted unanimously to make a finding indicating that this item is not applicable based on staffs testimony that the proposed school facility is not located within an EDD Zoning District a) The project meets all X Yes No The Planning Board voted applicable design standards unanimously to make an and other requirements of the affirmative finding based on Zoning Ordinance and the the following: Subdivision Regulations. Site plans have been provided demonstrating compliance with applicable zoning requirements. Further, the Planning Board has made specific findings relating to compliance with relevant portions of Articles Five (5) and Six (6) respectively as detailed herein. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: X Yes No x Yes No X Not Applicable X Yes No 14 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ADMINISTRATION FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS RECOMMENDED Findings: b) The project meets all service provision criteria as set forth below: 61. Fire -identifies the X Yes No The Planning Board voted X Yes No primary and secondary unanimously to make an responders and the affirmative finding based on source(s) of water. the following: Memorandum provided by staff, and testimony of the applicant, indicated that the Caldwell Rural Fire Department will be the primary responder for this project. The Fire Marshal has recommended that the applicant provide for a secondary source of water. A condition of approval is that this secondary source be provided and approved by the Fire Marshal as part of the Building Permit process B2. Police -identifies the X Yes No The Planning Board voted X Yes No primary and secondary unanimously to make an responders. affirmative finding based on the following: Memorandum provided by staff indicates that the Sheriff s Department will provide police services to the project and that it will not overburden existing resources. 63. Rescue Services - X Yes No The Planning Board voted X Yes No identifies the primary and unanimously to make an secondary responders. affirmative finding based on the following: Memorandum provided by staff indicates that the Orange County Emergency Management will provide emergency services to the project and that it will not overburden e~osting resources. B4. Water Supply - X Yes No The Planning Board voted X Yes No identification of public or unanimously to make an private utility source and affirmative finding based on capacity of water supply or the following: identification of water source through a water resource The applicant proposed to use study. a private well to support the facility 15 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ADMINISTRATION FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS RECOMMENDED Findings: B5. Wastewater Treatment Methods -provider and capacity of wastewater treatment source. B6. Solid Waste - as specified in 2.h of this section. c) Habitats shall be identified and evaluated in the Biological Inventory and are subject to the following: C1. An undisturbed buffer is required around the boundary of habitats of rare, threatened, or endangered species; The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an X Yes No affirmative finding based on the following: x Yes No X Not Applicable The applicant proposed to use a private septic system to support the facility. As previously indicated, the Orange County Health Department is requiring that the site plan be modified to reflect the appropriate septic field area. A condition of approval is that the required septic area be shown on the site plan. The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: X Yes No x Yes No The applicant has submitted a solid waste management plan indicating that waste will be disposed of through a private contractor. The Planning Board voted unanimously to make a finding indicating that this item is not applicable based on staffs testimony, specifically the Zoning Enforcement Officer, and memorandum from ERCD Staff indicating that there .are no habitats on the property supporting rare, threatened, or endangered species. X Not Applicable C2. Habitat enhancements as described in the biological inventory shall be made for a broad range of species to help mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat during construction. The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an x Yes No affirmative finding based on the following: Construction is limited to 2.5 acres at the total land area of the site and leaves approximately 14 acres of undisturbed property to support wildlife habitat. x Yes No 16 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS C3. Conservation easements or other acceptable means such as dedication to a public agency, conservancy or a similar agency are required to protect wetlands and other habitats while insuring proper long-term maintenance; and X Not Applicable The Planning Board voted unanimously to make a finding indicating that this item is not applicable based on staffs testimony, specifically the Zoning Enforcement Officer, and memorandum from ERCD Staff indicating that there are no wetlands on the property requiring the imposition of a conservation easement C4. Provide barriers or fencing, and signage at the edge of habitat buffers to prohibit vehicular and pedestrian access. d) Landscaping and Buffers X Not Applicable The Planning Board voted unanimously to make a finding indicating that this item is not applicable based on the following: The Biological Inventory and the Resource Management Plan indicates that there are no habitat buffers required for this property. 1. Protection of Existing Vegetation D1a. Existing vegetation shall be preserved as indicated on the approved landscape plan in accordance with the provisions of Article 12.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. x Yes No The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: The site and grading plans show the limits of disturbance for the project. D1 b. Tree protection measures shall be installed and maintained between all areas of disturbance and trees to be retained as shown on the approved landscape plan. A detail of the tree protection barrier proposed shall be included as part of the landscape plan submitted with the application; x Yes No All other existing vegetation is preserved. The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: The applicant testified that tree protection fencing will be provided along the edge of all land clearing. The County will review the fence location prior to site clearing. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: X Not Applicable X Not Applicable x Yes No x Yes No 17 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ADMINISTRATION FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS RECOMMENDED Findings: D1c. Corridors connecting x Yes No The Planning Board voted _Yes No habitats identfied in the unanimously to make an biological inventory shall affirmative finding based on be preserved along the following: streams, buffers, or other wooded areas. If The applicant testified that destroyed during while there are no protected construction, such habitat areas on the property, connections shall be the site plan designates an restored using eighty (80) foot stream buffer appropriate plant along the existing stream that materials; is to be left in an undisturbed state. D1d. Trees and stumps x Yes No The Planning Board voted _Yes No cleared for roads and unanimously to make an building construction affirmative finding based on shall either be used for the following: timber purposes or shredded for landscape The applicant testified that mulch, composted, mulch shall be generated and buried or otherwise spread on the site or the yard disposed of BUT NOT waste shall be disposed of in a BURNED. manner consistent with County policies. 2. Berms, fences and X Not Applicable The Planning Board voted X Not Applicable landscaping walls may unanimously to make a finding be used with plant indicating that this item is not materials for screening, applicable based on the provided such features following: are designed and located in harmony with other Berms, fences and site features and landscaping walls are not functions. proposed for this project. 3. To minimize visual x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No impact by blending unanimously to make an architecture into the affirmative finding based on surrounding landscape, the following: foundation plantings are required at all The proposed tree and freestanding entrance planting areas are consistent signs. with surrounding properties. 4. Use of xeriscaping x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No principles. unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: The applicant indicated that drought tolerant flora would be part the landscape plan. 18 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ADMINISTRATION FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS RECOMMENDED Findings: e) Stormwater Management E1. No net increase in peak x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No flow leaving the site unanimously to make an from the affirmative finding based on predevelopment the following: conditions for the 10 year, 24hour storm; The applicant testified that this condition is met -with a retention area as designed on the site plan and within the submitted Erosion Control Plan. E2. The stormwater x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No management system unanimously to make an must respect existing affirmative finding based on drainage patterns. the following: Runoff shall be directed away from erosion- The applicant testified that the prone slopes. design is consistent, and would be consistent, with all State Best Management Practices. E3. Energy dissipaters shall x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No be used where runoff is unanimously to make an concentrated and affirmative finding based on discharged, for the following: example, at downspouts from rooftops and storm The applicant testified that drains at parking areas. level spreaders would be used Runoff shall not be for this project in developing discharged directly into the retention basin to insure surtace water, or other no concentrated runoff. environmentally sensitive areas; E4.Concentrated x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No stormwater, conveyed unanimously to make an by ditches, channels, affirmative finding based on pipes, swales or other the following: conveyance systems must be dispersed and The applicant testified over the diffuse flow use of the level spreader to reestablished prior to diffuse stormwater flow and discharge into a stream that no land clearing work buffer; would be near the identified stream buffer. E5. Nitrogen load x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No contribution must be unanimously to make an held to 3.6 Ibs per acre affirmative finding based on per year. the following: The nitrogen load for the project will be consistent with local and State requirements 19 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ADMINISTRATION FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS RECOMMENDED Findings: f) Drainage F1. All drainage structures x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No will be installed and unanimously to make an maintained according to affirmative finding based on the approved the following: Stormwater Management Plan. The applicant testified that a grading and storm drainage plan was submitted for review and approval by Orange County Erosion Control and shall be adhered to. F2. School projects that x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No include retention and/or unanimously to make an detention ponds shall affirmative finding based on comply with the the following: requirements in Section 6.23.4, Operation and The applicant testified that the Maintenance of school will maintain the Structural Best retention basin area. Management Practices. g) Grading and Erosion Control ' G1. Plans for grading and x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No erosion control shall unanimously to make an comply with standards affirmative finding based on contained in the Orange the following: County Erosion and Sediment Control A permit will be issued by the Ordinance and Manual Orange county Erosion and, if applicable, The Control Division prior to the North Carolina Erosion start of any land disturbing and Sedimentation activity Control Program rules; G2. Construction shall be x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No phased to minimize unanimously to make an disturbance and affirmative finding based on sedimentation; the following: An erosion control plan, along with the sequence of the various construction projects, is part of the Erosion Control Permit. 20 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS G3. Sediment control measures shall be properly installed to filter sediment from runoff during construction and maintained until grading is complete and a permanent vegetative cover has been established and all slopes stabilized; and G4. Permanent landscaping, groundcover, mulch, etc. shall be installed as soon as practical after construction activities for each phase are completed. x Yes No x Yes No The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: Sediment control measures will be installed as indicated on the Erosion Control Plan. The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: Landscaping and groundcover will be installed in accordance with the sequence in the Erosion Control Permit. h) Solid Waste Management A solid waste management plan, submitted as part of the Resources Management Plan, shall include the method(s) of disposal and recycling of construction debris. i) Irrigation x Yes No The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: The Resources Management Plan and the overall site plan indicates recycling and trash will be handled via a contract with a waste management disposal corporation 11. Irrigation systems for the school project are designed and can be operated according to a water conservation plan described in the Resources Management Plan submitted with the application; 12. The Resources Management Plan shall identify the source(s) of water to be used for irrigation, the volume available for that purpose, and expected consumption rates. The system design and plan for operation will be evaluated based on efficiency; and X Not Applicable X Not Applicable The Planning Board voted unanimously to make a finding indicating that this item is not applicable based on the following: The applicant testified that no formal irrigation system was proposed as part of this project. The Planning Board voted unanimously to make a finding indicating that this item is not applicable based on the following: The applicant testified that no formal irrigation system was proposed as part of this project. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: x Yes No x Yes No x Yes No X Not Applicable X Not Applicable 21 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS 13. Water recycled from X Yes No The Planning Board voted stormwater retention unanimously to make an ponds or treated affirmative finding based on wastewater effluent may the following: be used for irrigation where it is a legally The site plan contains a note permitted alternative. indicating that water from the retentioNcatchment pond may be used for irrigation. j) Habitat Maintenance J1. Habitats identified in the x Yes No The Planning Board voted biological inventory and unanimously to make an habitats created through affirmative finding based on mitigation shall be the following: maintained in accordance with the The applicant testified that Resources Management most of the property will Plan and/or a remain undisturbed. conservation easement agreement; and J2. Maintenance of habitats x Yes No The Planning Board voted shall be minimal, unanimously to make an consisting primarily of affirmative finding based on maintaining buffers and the following: enhancements, removal of exotic (non-native) The applicant testified that the plant species, and stream buffers identified on keeping drainage ways the site plan will remain functioning properly. wooded and undisturbed. k) Crime Prevention through X Not Applicable The Planning Board voted Environmental Design unanimously to make a finding (Reserved) indicating that this item is not applicable based on the following: There are no standards within the Ordinance. I. Public Road Access Access to the school project x Yes No The Planning Board voted shall be via existing public unanimously to make an roads and shall conform to and affirmative finding based on be in compliance with any the following: public road access management plan adopted by The site plan indicates that Orange County. access to the project is provided from Teny Road (SR 1573) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: X Yes No x Yes No x Yes No X Not Applicable x Yes No 22 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS m) Maintenance of Improvements All site improvements such as roads, utilities (including irrigation and drainage structures), habitat enhancements, recreational amenities, signage, landscaping, open space, etc. will be maintained in function and appearance. Maintenance specifications, if any, for on- going site management (including provisions for handling of storm debris in open space areas) shall be submitted as part of the Resources Management Plan as defined in Definitions (Article 22). x Yes No The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: The applicant indicated that the school will maintain all site improvements. 3. The following additional specific standards shall be met for all elementary, middle and secondary schools: 3a. The minimum lot size shall be, with respect to non-charter public schools, as required by the School Construction Standards adopted from time to time by Orange County Board of County Commissioners, the Orange County Board of Education and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education. With respect to all schools the lot size shall be adequate to accommodate all activities. The proposed methods to handle the maximum number of participants and patrons for any single event shall be provided while also adhering to safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation. x Yes No The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: The site plan indicates a lot size of 14.86 acres more or less. This lot size would meet School Construction Standards fora 120 student capacity school. Safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation is provided for. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: x Yes No x Yes No 23 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: 3b. Negative visual impacts x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No shall be minimized unanimously to make an along any major affirmative finding based on roadway. Negative the following: visual impacts inGude, but are not limited to, The applicant indicated that loading/unloading the area along Teny Road will areas, delivery areas, remain undisturbed. Plantings air handling units (roof are proposed along Terry top and other), parking Lane to minimize visual areas for machinery, impacts of the project. and storage buildings. Appropriate screening methods shall be used to enhance the aesthetic value of a project. 3c.Transportation X Not Applicable The Planning Board voted X Not Applicable improvements as unanimously to make a finding deemed necessary by indicating that this item is not the Traffic Impact applicable based on the Study. following: There is no Traffic Impact Study required for this project 3d. The site shall be x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No designed to take unanimously to make an advantage of multiple affirmative finding based on shared use the following: opportunities, which may include a Park and The site plan indicates that the Ride facility for public proposed parking lot has been transportation. over sized to accommodate additional parking, although the Planning Board does not believe shared use opportunities are going to be necessary for this project 24 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS 3e. There shall be a X Yes No The Planning Board voted minimum of two access unanimously to make an points to the site. affirmative finding based on Access points shall the following: separate student drop- off areas and visitor At the June 24, 2008 special parking from bus traffic. PUBLIC HEARING the If school buses are applicant submitted a revised used, then at least one site plan showing iwo (2) access -shall be limited access points along Teny to school employee and Road affording ingress/egress bus use during normal to the proposed school. school hours. All access points shall be This revision meets the located to provide requirement of the Ordinance maximum visibility and and as allowed staff to revise safety. No driveway their original recommendation shall be permitted in a to deny the project based on location that will hinder the lack to a second or congest traffic entrance/exit point onto Terry movement on a public Road. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: X Yes No street. 25 ARTICLE 5 -DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non ~ompliance~ PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ADMINISTRATION FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS RECOMMENDED Findings: Ordinance Requirements: As required under Section 8.8.30, the applicant is demonstrate compliance with Articles Five (5) and Six (6) of the Ordinance, specifically addressing issues over lot size, setbacks, and land use intensity. Artice 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building height and lot coverage, and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a Special Use Permit on property zoned Agricultural Residential. The standards for the AR district are set forth in Article 5.1.2 and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per use x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No 40,000 sq. ft. unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: As detailed within the application, the lot is 14.86 acres in area. b) Minimum lot width - 150 ft. x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: As detailed within the application the lot is approximately one hundred fifty (150) feet in width along Teny Road. c) Required front setback - 40 ft. x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: As detailed within the application all proposed structures shall meet the front yard setback as shown on the submitted site plan 26 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS d) Required side and rear x Yes No The Planning Board voted setbacks - 20 ft. unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: All proposed structures shall meet the side and rear yard setback (s) as shown on the submitted site plan e) Maximum building height - 25 x Yes No The Planning Board voted ~• unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: The site plan indicates that no structure shall be over twenty- five (25) feet in height ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: x Yes No x Yes No 27 ARTICLE 6 -APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates comoliance• "No" indicates non comphancel PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements: As required under Section 8.8.30, the applicant is demonstrate compliance with Articles Five (5) and Six (6) of the Ordinance, specifically addressing issues over lot size, setbacks, and land use intensity. Article 6 lists specific standards that apply to various types of development applications. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: Article 6.12 contains those development intensity standards which apply to group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LUI) system as detailed within Section 6.12 and Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance a) Minimum gross land area - N/A b) Maximum gross land area - N/A c) Maximum floor ratio - .088 or 57,064 sq feet of allowable floor area X Not Applicable Not applicable - This proposed project is not subject to the requirements of Article 6.12 of the Zoning Ordinance X Not Applicable Not applicable - This proposed project is not subject to the requirements of Article 6.12 of the Zoning Ordinance The Planning Board voted x Yes No unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: X Not Applicable X Not Applicable x Yes No In utilizing the information supplied on the site plan, the Board finds that the applicant's proposal complies with the Maximum Floor Ratio limit of .088 per Section 5.1.2 and Section 6.12.2.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the site plan indicates that the proposed. floor area of the building is approximately 9,980 square feet 28 FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ADMINISTRATION Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS RECOMMENDED Findings: d) Required minimum open The Planning Board voted space ratio - .84 x Yes No unanimously to make an x Yes No Required minimum open space affirmative finding based on the following: -543628 sq. ft. or 12.48 acres In utilizing the information supplied on the site plan, the Board finds that the applicant's proposal complies with the Required Minimum Open Space Ration requirement of .84 per Section 5.1.2 and Section 6.12.2.4of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance Specifically, the submitted site indicates that there is approximately 13 acres of open space on the property. e) Required minimum x Yes No The Planning Board voted x Yes No pedestriaMandscape ratio - .21 unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: Required minimum pedestrian/ landscape space - 135,907 sq. In utilizing the information tt. or 3.12 acres supplied on the site plan, the Board finds that the applicant's proposal complies with the Required Minimum Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio of .21 per Section 5.1.2 and Section 6.12.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance Specifically, there is approximately 393,346 square feet of pedestrian and/or landscaped area as defined under Section 6.12.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance 29 ARTICLE 8.2.4 -SPECIFIC STANDARDS/ALL SPECIAL USES ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non compliance) (continued) PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant to address the following: a) Method and adequacy of x Yes provision for. sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service. No The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: Sewage disposal shall be handled through a proposed individual septic tank system installed on the property. Designed to a capacity of 1,110 gallons a day. On April 21, 2008 the Orange County Health Department issued a memorandum indicating that there is sufficient land are on the property to support the required system but that the area designated on the site plan was of insufficient size. The Health Department has requested that the site plan be modified to show a both an active and repair area for the septic system to be approximately 22,000 to 27,000 square feet in area. A recommended condition on the approval of the SUP request is that a final application be made to the Health Department allowing for this use with a revised site plan denting the property active, and repair, septic field configuration. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: x Yes No 30 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS b) Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection. x Yes No The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: The Caldwell Rural Fire Department will provide fire protection. Rescue .services will be provided by Orange County EMS. The Orange County Sheriffs Department shall provide police protection. The Planning Board received correspondence from all involved parties on this matter. The Fire Marshall has made several requests for modification to the site plan to address his concerns over: 1. The provision of a water source for fire protection for the school, 2. That the roadway allowing for access to the school be widened to a minimum of twenty (20) foot to allow for emergency vehicle access, 3. Fire lanes should be installed to access the classrooms from the parking lot area. A recommended condition on the approval of the SUP request is that any and all required improvements deemed necessary by the Fire Marshall be incorporated into a revised site plan prior to submittal of a Building Permit Application. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: x Yes No 31 PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS c) Method and adequacy of vehiGe access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. x Yes No The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: The site plan indicates the lot is accessed through a driveway onto Terry Road. This existing drive shall be utilized to support the proposed use. While there are specific standards concerning the number and location of access points for the proposed use, as detailed within Section 8.8.30 (e), the site plan shows a proper access point as required by Section 8.2.4 of the Ordinance. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: x Yes No 32 ARTICLE 8.2.1 8 8.2.2 -APPLICATION COMPONENTS (`III" indicates compliance: `III Not" indicates non -compliance ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED Findings: PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS Findings: TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements In accordance with ArtiGe 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Board shall also consider the following general conditions before the application for a Special Use can be approved: Article 8.2.1 & 8.2.2 1. The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. X Will -Will Not The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: The applicant provided sufficient detail proving that the proposed use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general welfare and that the application was consistent with the standards of the Ordinance. While the Planning Board understood and sympathized with the concerns of the adjacent property owners, the anecdotal evidence provided via sworn testimony at the June 24, 2008 Public Hearing and the various e-mailed letters provided to Board members, from adjacent property owners did not warrant denial of the application. X Will -Will Not Article 8.2.1 2. The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property). X Will -Will Not The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on the following: The applicant provided an appraisal from Mr. Everret t1/ic) Knight indicating that the proposed use would maintain the value of adjacent property. No formal evidence was presented to refuter Mr. Knight's findings. X Will -Will Not 33 Article 8.2.1 3. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Board voted unanimously to make an affirmative finding based on x Is _ Is Not the following: The applicant provided sufficient detail proving that the proposed use complies with all applicable County standards for the development of schools and was consistent with the regulations/goals outlined within the County Comprehensive Plan. While the Planning Board understood and sympathized with the concerns of the adjacent property owners, the anecdotal evidence provided via sworn testimony at the June 24, 2008 Public Hearing and the various e-mailed letters provided to Board members from adjacent property owners did not warrant denial of the application as it did not establish competent evidence that the project was inconsistent with County regulations or policies. X Is _ Is Not RECOMMENDATION: 34 The Planning Board has not received any information that would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the general standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County. While the Board has received numerous complaints from several adjoining property owners concerning the use of this property as a school, no formal documentation has been submitted indicating that a negative finding should be made regarding this project. The Planning Board has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within Artice Eight (8) and Section 8.8.30. Provided the Board of County Commissioners finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards, the Board could make a positive finding on this application. In the event that the Board of County Commissioners makes the determination that the permit can be issued, the Planning Board and Planning Staff recommends the attachment of the following conditions to the Special Use Permit: 1. That the site plan be revised to denote a thirty (30) foot vegetative buffer along all common property lines and that the SUP contain a condition requiring the applicant to install and maintain a thirty (30) foot buffer to the Type A buffer standard as detailed within Section 12.6.1 of the Ordinance and that further this required buffer be shown on any and all submitted site plans proposing the development of this property in accordance with Article Fourteen (14) of the Zoning Ordinance, 2. That a condition be placed on the SUP that the Fire Marshall and representatives of the Caldwell Fire Department shall review and approve the revised site plan prior to the issuance of any Building and/or Zoning Compliance Permit(s) approving the location of all proposed improved fire lanes and stacking areas, verifying that they comply with all applicable North Carolina Fire Protection Code standards, and approve the use of the pond as a emergency water source for fire suppression activities prior to the start of land disturbing activities, 3. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to apply for any and all necessary septic and well permits from the Orange County Department of Environmental Health within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of this application and that such permits shall be issued prior to any land disturbing activity, 4. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to apply for a Building and/or a Zoning Compliance Permit within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of this application and that such permits shall be issued prior to any land disturbing activity, 5. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring that the applicant secure a Soil Erosion and Grading permit from the Orange County Erosion Control Division within (180) days from the approval of this application and that such permits shall be issued prior to any land disturbing activity, 6. That the applicant, as part of their building permit application submission, shall include documentation from the State of North Carolina indicating that the school has received any and all necessary certifications allowing them to operate as a private school and that their curriculum has been certified as meeting any and all local, State, and Federal requirements, 7. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to adhere to any and all additional conditions that may be imposed by NC DOT in accordance with their driveway permit as part of the permit review for this project, 8. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant submit to the Director of Planning and to the Public Health authorities of the County, representatives of Cooperative Extension, and other County officials as directed by the Planning Director, a yearly certification that a veterinarian in good standing has reviewed the status, health and welfare of the animals on site as of January 1 of each year and certifies that the animals are in good health, 9. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to arrange for an annual review by the County Extension agent regarding utilization of the site as a demonstration farm to ensure there are adequate facilities for the care, health, and safety of the animals and the applicant conforms to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Care and Use requirements and Animal Welfare, 10. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant make arrangements to provide adequate parking arrangements on their property during special events and any and all necessary measures to keep their guests from parking on neighboring roads or on neighbors property' 35 11. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant adhere to the bungalow style of construction as detailed within the renderings submitted as part of the SUP application, 12. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to install the 30 foot required buffer along Teny Road beginning at the furthest edge of the right of way and from the point there is sufficient site distance to enter and exit the property, 13. That the applicant. shall be encouraged to promote car pooling programs for parents utilizing the school facility, 14. That if any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect, and 15. The Special Use Permit will automatically expire within twelve (12) months from the date of approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of County Commissioners as provided in 8.4.11 of 36 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK L'~fi 4?.Ga F.k`, Attachment Three (~ :Staff review/comment memos 37 t~c~e off' ~e t3~nge CvT~tp 5~heri~ . ~ ~ keedt, S6ele~t ~a ~ n P_a T3ax 8!s'T - Yasgare~ T.~uee ~ ~•~, ~.ts~ol~olTGH a ~ T~Isborot~ N~ 2'fSd'8 X49 7d2.~t850 ,F~ east,*. 17, 2Cf0$ ~ D. Waivey Orange COUt~tp Planrpttg RaYem ~. FTitlsDoroc~gh, f~ 2?27T;; !~ iutotitesseri Sdtvt7l ~ . Ti~L1~'iN 5.0.?2-78.483 drat ReeidenTial (ARj lcswer Erro ~d WgfiersCled ~xTay NN: Hwy. ~Ci satooi ptems fia tnt8d a s~ahaa~(on fhb above ~s~ad prop~erfy ~- have been asked ~ we t~lt~ p~wTde Taw ertF4rt;emer;t s~rvi~s witriaut ~d~d~iatmi pe~nr~i or ego~rtt~t.1 do not helita~~e vvs need atld~ir~tt~i sfa~f or ec~n'pft~e»~ We routu~y patroi this arm ors a ZIT-hour basis. ~_ .. l,huTy Pehd~g 4 Michael Harvey From: Mike Tapp Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 11:24 AM To; Michael Harvey Cc: Andy Gates Suf~ject» Montessori School Facility, 711 Terry Rd. Michael, We have completed the plans review on the proposed Montessori School and offer the following comments: 1. Caldwell Fire Department is the provider of fire and first responder services. Orange County Emergency Medical Services is the provider of emergenry medico! services_ 2. Caldwell Fire Department has idenfiified the need for n water source for fire protection for the school. Currently, the fire department uses tankers to transport water to f ices in the area. However, due to life safety consiclemtions for an educafionn) occupancy such as this, a water source for fire protection must be designed and installed. The design of the water source shall be approved by the Ca{dwell Fire Chief and the Orange County Fire Marshal's Office. 3. Stacking paces in the driveway shown on the plans must be revised to reflect a twenty (20) foot roadway. Stacking vehicles in the driveway will restrict access to the buildings by emergency response vehicles 4. Fire lanes must be installed to access classrooms from the parking lot area. Fire Lanes must meet the provisions of fihe North Carolina Fire Prevention Code. S. Caldwell Fire Department may offer additional comments at a later date. If you need additional informafiion, please contact us. Mike Tapp Deputy Director/Fire Marshal Orange County Emergency Services P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 phone: 919-968-2050 fax: 919-9b8-4066 38 05/09/2008 Michael Harvey From: Grant Gale Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:39 AM To: Michael Harvey Subject: 711 Terry Road MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Harvey, AICP, Zoning Enforcement Officer FROM: J.Grant Gals, Solid Waste Enforcement Supervisor DATE: April 17, 2008 SUBJECT: PROJECT- 711 Teny Road Comments 39 The Solid Waste Department Staff have reviewed the plans and have the following comments: ~GeneraC Comments: Contact Solid Waste Staff: Solid Waste staff strongly urges the applicant to contact Solid Waste staff to clarify recycling issues to streamline review and revisions for solid waste needs. Property is currently eligible for recycling service provided by Orange County Solid Waste. Requested Stipulations or Conditions Need Solid Waste Manas~ement Pian• We recommend that a Solid Waste Management P}an be developed for this project. Specifically, this plan should address how landclearing, demolition, and construction wastes will be disposed of and it recyclabies and waste generation rates have been considered in planning for waste collection services. We recommend that this plan be initiated as soon as poss~i(e so that the collection of recyclables can be considered as the site plan is being developed. We recommend the applicant contact Solid Waste Staff at 918-2942 for assistance in developing the Solid Waste Management Plan. Need Cardboard Recycling: We recommend tha# prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant speclfically provide for corrugated cardboard recycling, addressing compliance with RRMO cardboard recycling requirements. We believe that a second durnpster to be utilized for recyclable cardboard may be necessary and should be incorporated into any Site Pian changes. Pre-construction Meetinr~ Stipuiation• 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. Deconstruction Assessment Stipulation: We recommend that the applicant be s#ipulated to hold a deconstruction assessment meeting with Orange County staff (Roderick Jones 918-2942) concerning the buildings to be removed from this site. We also recommend the following note be placed on the final plans: "Prior to any demolition or construction activity on the site the applicant will hold a deconstruction assessment conference with the County's Solid Waste staff concerning buildings to be removed from this site." Refuse and Recycling Area Dimension Details: The revised plans must include a sepaiate, tascale, dimensioned detail of any proposed refuse/recycling collection areas, including pad length, width, and depth, associated screening, overhead clearances, and protective bolEards. Bollards must be 6" C1D steel, with two bollards centered behind each bulk waste container and pieced 1' off the back wail of the enclosure. Dempster, roil-cart, and compactor details should be provided to scale. Preferable scales for the detail are 1" =10' or 1" = 20'. The revised plans label eadZ bulk waste container for type of material to be collected. ft is unclear from the initial design how trash and recycling will be handled. Applicant appears to provide adequate roam for recycling carts for paper and container recycling. Applicant must provide a 32.5' turn radius to allow vehicle to enter site, access recycling carts, turn around and exit the site. Space for bulk refuse appears inadequate. Dempster Ga es: 04/].7/2008 40 We recommend the following notes _a tt. ..fed on the plans prior to issuance c,. _ ~a BEng Compliance Pem~it: "1. Any gate design will include gate retainers. 2. The user will be responsible for opening gates to the dumpster area on collection days of any material(s) to be collected from this location." Blocked Service: We recommend the following note be included on the plans prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit "If any vehicles are parked in the refuse or recyclables collection vehicle access area, the containers wilt not receive service until the next scheduled collec~on day." . Label Dumpsters: We recommend that the revised plans label each bulk waste con#afner for type of material to be collected. H~ puty Pavin aiver• We recommend the collection vehicle access route to any area containing recyclable material collection containers be paved with ail-weather, heavy-duty pavement OR the following note be included on the plans and recorded on the plat: "Orange County will not be responsible far any pavement damage that may result from service vehicles." Overhead wires: ' We recommend the property owner address refuse service access in relation to the height of any overhead wins 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 wilt need to be raised to a minimum height of 16' or relocated before service vehicles could service any waste through this route. Food/Grease: We recommend that the applican# reserve space for segregated grease renderinglrecyciing collection and consider providing space for segregated food waste collection near the delivery entrance for any building which currently houses, proposes to include or may at some future date incorporate a restaurant, cafeteria, bar, or other food service facility at any time. Commercial grease wastes are not aElowed disposed with regular wastes. MOTES TO BE PLACED ON FINAL PLANS• Construction Waste: ~1. By Orange County Ordinance, clean wood waste, scrap metal and corrugated cardboard, ail present in construction waste, must be recycled. 2. 6y 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 The Solid Waste Department Staff reviewed the most recent set of plans received and has no further comments at this time. ~ ~ . Please let me know if you need any additional information. ~7'.Grant Gale, MPA, CZO Solid Waste Enforcement Supervisor Orange County Solid Waste Management 919-918-2942 gctale(r~co.oran .nc us Orange County Landfill 1514 Eubanks Rd Chapel Hitt, NC 27516 Ask me about a waste assessment at your constructkxi or project site. Educatk>n Staff fs also available to assist with waste assessments/audlts at your commerofal business. Now can we help? ' 04/17/2008 41 ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Michael Harvey, CurrentP/anner From: Rich Shaw, ERCD Land Conservatfon Manager Date: -tune 6, 2008 Subject: Proposed Montessori Farm School (pass A SUP) This is a follow-up th my earlier memo (May 9, 2008) in which I onmmerited on a proposal for a Montessori Farm School on a 14.5-acre parcel located on Terry Road (Eno Township). In those comments ERCD staff oonduded that the Site Pian (dated 3/11/08) appeared to be consistent with the County's desire th minimize adverse environmental impacts with respect to the protection of fioodplains, wetlands, natural areas and wildlife habitat. At the time of those comments, however, the applicant had not yet submitted a biological inventory of the property required by Section•8.8.29.1B (b) of the Subdivision Ordinance. This week ERCD received and examined the May 2008 report on a Biological Inventory conducted by The Catena Group. Catena did an exc~lent job of describing the giant and animal species found on the property, and then delineating the site into five categories of plant communities. The proposed development activities would stay outside of the area described a Dry••Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, which covers the easbem 47% of the site. The report findings corroborate our earlier findings and condusions. After examining the Biological Inventory and a revised Site Pian (dated 5/2/08) ERCD condudes that the proposed development appears to be consistent with the County's desire to minimize adverse environmental impacts with respect to the protection of floodplains, wetlands, natural areas and wildlife habitat. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 245-2591. c~ David Stanch Environment and Resource Conservation PO Box 8189 /306 A Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 245-2590 42 IioM~ CaroiFa Ru6Bc NtiML ORANGE COUNTY FtEALTH DEPARTMENT Rosemary L Summers, MPH, DrPH Health Director Richard E. Whiffed Human Services Center 300 WestTryon Street Post OfFice Box 8181 Hfilisborough, NC 27278 Phone: (919) 245-2411 Fax: (919) G44-3Q07 www m ocanve ~ ~rclhealth Central Administrative Services Dental Health Seniices Ernironmental Health Services Health Promotion and Education Servkes Personal Health Services ~' 306{ Revere Road ~ POBox8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 a~i z Phone: (919) 245-2360 a~i FAX: (919) 644-3006 = r? . ~ w MEMORANDUM To: Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer From: Andy Adams, Environmental Health Supervisor Date: April 21, 2008 Re: Montessori school proposal at 711 Terry Rd., Hillsborough, NC TMBL: 5.10..22 Following the Development Review committee meeting on Thursday, Apri118°i, I have the following comments: 1. The Montessori school as proposed would have 100 students and 11 employees. There are no shower ar food preparation facilities proposed for the school. There would also be a caretaker apartment on the property. 2. The wastewater design flow for the school would be 10 gallons per person per day, or 1110 gaIlons per day. 3. The drainfield area as proposed is inadequate in size. For the purpose of our discussion, assume site evaluations show that the soil has a .3 long term acceptance rate (LTAR) NOTE: Lower L'TAR's will result in larger drain-fields and more land area needed: a. There would need to be 1235 linear feet of drainfield for the initial system. This will require an estimated 11,000 to 13,500 square feet of land area to install. b.. An additional 11,000 to 13,500 square feet would be held in reserve for the system replacement area, resulting in a total of approximately 22,000 to 27,000 square feet. needed for initial and replacement areas for the school system (depending upon how the contours of the land are oriented). 4. The caretaker apartment is assumed to be a one ortwo-bedroom proposal (240 gallon per day flow). Assuming the same .3 LTAR: a. There would need to be 2741inear feet of drainfield with the same required for the system replacements A total estimated land area of 5000 to 6000 square feet would be needed for the initial and replacement system areas for the care taker house. 5. Additional site considerations: a. Livestock activities would not be allowed over the system and system replacement land areas. They would need to be fenced for protection. b. The well wiIl be anon-community, non-transient Public Water Supply. I advise the applicants to contact Public Water Supply's Raleigh Regional Office (919-791-4200) for siting advice and sampling requirements. A permit for the well would be issued by Orange County Environmental Health in collaboration with Public Water Supply. . a Septic systems will need to maintain setback distances of 50 feet to irrigation ponds. 43 a+i~o ~ .~/ -~'awn~ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT GOVERNOR SECRETARY Apri129, 2008 ORANGE COUNTY Steve Yuhasz ENT Land Surveys, Inc. 22b South Churtori Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27275 Subject: -Montessori Farm School Plan Review Dear Mr. Yuhasz: Attached is a copy of the plans that were submitted to this ofEce for.the above-mentioned subject. After reviewing the plans we offer the following comment: 1. Provide driveway detail meeting NCDOT standard. Including 50' paved apron. ff you have any questions ar require additional information, please contact Toyia Smith, Assistant District Engineer, at (336) 570-b833. S.in~c~e~rely, C. N. Edwards, PE District Engineer Attachments CNFJTCS/tcs P. O. BOX 766 GRAHAM, NC 27253 44 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Attachment Four (4) Neighbor Comments - 4A: From the Public Hearing: 45 ~ig~~e~. Pet~tio~ o~ Protest t~dyacent Land ~Ovuners acrd ~Neigt~~rs of 711 Teary Rd. (TEL 5.10.22/PIN 0806-76-4683) Against ©range ~flnnty ~4pp~va# of a C}ass A. Special i.Jse Perr.~t r~q~sted ~y the 1~Iax~tessori Farm Schaal for developnxent of a pritv~te school. ~~125J~8$$ 28: d@ 52824599~5~ StlEiP~R Si~a.ec~ Petiti~o~t of Protest ~~iacemc ~.~a owners :tea I~~.~,tw~rs 0£9~ ~ Testy R~d..('~NB~ S.I0.22lPIN 080876-4683) ~gai~t +~range Colais~+ Appx~rat of a +Cl~sa A, Speci~a[ Use ~ernwit xec~ue~d by the Monte~ori Farn~ school for doveh~mAte~i of a pxivat~ s~k-aol. 46 85/15/2888 18:48 b282459855 SLE1f~2 4,7 lu~ay ~~; 21108 CeB4g iV. BonediCt Change Ca Planning ~ Inspectlowau H~illsbo~roru~.lrlC . Dear Mt. Heyedict: As ~ ~paropetty opt of 98 awes an Tory Itd. ,fit ao~- of tb~a p~oeed I~~ Facm School, I wish to eaeauxt-ge you ~ deaq- ~ #~ v~t'a PASS A Spocial Uac Pea~mlG Although I do not live there but bavo a tend wbo does, I fe+~l that tbo i~ tfraffic ~+Onn all (hose people clrlir%mg tbait children tar imd ~m school will ctc~a poooblams fog tb~e current ~ of tlf~ area a-la, chase to live in a x~re ~ eauviro~uiouoiotc. 'Ilemk you for your sit. ~ ~~ s~>~. ~~ 1~42Z c~ l:d. ~~ ~ ~~ f. i ~ ~ Vile purchased our land on Terry Ind on November 10, 2005 specifically because it was zoned A9~)and had a specific plan for ~ u r property . ri Cua-kcr~ des ~,. ® Our land is immediately adjacent. to the South of 7i ~.~ Terry Rd and shares a long 1745 ft property line with little to no buffer. ~~ ®ur property had been mostly timbered @ 2 yrs prior. ~ ~ The diddle section of 711 `terry lid was also timbered at that time. 0 u~ ~° ~ C' C' ~' ~" •we had always wanted a urge piece of band on which to build a new home . •Private location with limited or no view of other homes . 1 •Wanted a rural environment to raise our kids •uiet and peaceful setting •~cenic countryside •i~.oor~1 for a small garden •A place rich in wild life and a place to hunt and target sho®t •A place to ride our ATV's/®irt dikes ~ •A few small farm animals for the kids •~c~~caily ~rc~aa~e ~~~ z~~~ ire ~r~ ~°ic~~ra~®~~~d~~t~a~ ~~~~ ~~~a to ®ta~~ a~~ ~~' the ~b®~~~ ~ . hat we've clone since 2005! •Lots of sweat equity in cleaning up the land from timber debris •6~ad remaining stumps ground down ~ •Purchased a tractor w/brushcutter~ started cuttin the thick brush - ~ 9 •Selected a home site with initial builder/home designer that backed out due to work Toad o6/07. •Submitted Preliminary Site Plan and applied for well and septic permit. •obtained Well Permit and 6 8edr®®m Septic. Site from orange ~ County on 08/23/07 •Worked with Easy Living Plans- guess Rd Durham and developed home plans for a new Home with main floor, full basement, and walkup attic. •~eceived final plans back on ~ov`07. ~ - N - hat ~nre've done sauce 2005 .Cont. •Interviewed three builders (James Watson, Vaughn Barrett, Sun River builders}. •Provided detailed building requirements along with the detailed Mans for bids. •Received three quotes back Feb'08~. •Selected a builder- Vaughn Jarrett March '08. •®elayed a couple months due to housing market slump. •Noticed a house in Grand oaks sold in under a month in April 08. ewe were dust getting ready to put current home on market and sign building contract when we received Montessori Farm School [attar on May 5~". . •Met with Michael 1-larvey on May 12~" to review County info on M °T a r ~~ c~®1 ~~ i irc relic ~ r ~ s burp®~ ~F®r ~c ~ r lay ! •The SUP application/hearing process has put a haft on our Mans and has put our builder on hood. c ~sac~v ~ ~,an~e . ~~he school would create a tremendous amount ofi traffic and trafific noise impacting us directly with an estimated 30o trips in and out everyday. This will create a .large percentage increase in t~~affic of Cc~4oo+ % in front of ,our property {based on unofficial traffiic study by concerned neighbors}. •The proposed school will create an enormous commercial eye sore and ruin the natural scenery directly adjacent to our property with ?buildings and a barn with 25 foot height. {Not many people would like this to suddenly appear beside their home zoned agricultural residential} The proposed school could impact our rights to safely hunt our land and discharge firearms...as well as for numerous others who hunt locally in adjacent and surrounding properties that have hunted this area for years. •l"he water usage to support these fiacilities two required wells} could have a tremendous impact on the water tables in the .current drought scenario and potentially impacts adjacent home owners. mil' ~rct nfl~c nth ~ fan r Ian m (nt~} °PropoSed buildings are almo Sef acted/perk site ~ st dorectly on lane with our home site approved (a setback of a 6ooft from Terr 8~d. ° ~® possible wa to r ~ y } because of th y emedy the eye soar and privacy issue e lack of adequate buffer/mature trees prope~°t-es at the set back area an between he-ght (25ft}, d the proposed school buildings °Privat~ Setting of our land w` al! be dramatically/Severely impacted. °~Ithough we love children th students at play would e noise from numerous school s~gnoficantly ~rnpact the serenity for us. °~chool night~securit li htin ~ nu~sanCe t® ®ur y g g of any amount would create a property by lighting up exterior of 7+ buildin s. 'we fee[ strongly that this r g intended purposes l ~ p oper~ty selected is too small for MFS specifical Ip ans. 7'he property tacks room for ro lY -s too narrow at onl C~400ft w' g wth and the ability to provide ade y ode. The property lacks norfih ant ~~..~.~. _.. quate buffer t0 ne~~hhnr~ nn hn~-~, ~-~,., •The adjacentproperty ~o~wners and neighbors of X11 Terry Rd, have signed a petition of protest Aga~ns~ an Grange County Approval of a class ~. Special Use Permit for the Montessori Farm School. currently 25+ Terry Ind property owners have signed to date. •we adamantly do not want a school of any type or under any circumstance adjacent to our property! This is not specific to the Montessori Farm School, but to any commercial use application strip mall, grocery store, gas stations, etc) that does not fit into our quiet community with an agricultural/residential setting. and 1° I~Arnn 6~-~'~~ •We welcome the commissioners , o core out to view our property nd to see our plans to visualize first hand the impact this proposed drool would have. •we want to move forward with our plans for our property, but are now on hold, we desire a rapid decision on this process so that we are n®t in building limbo. CO r i ®l ask tt the ~~er ~° t et t eye ®~-~c~es ®te -Exceptions to zoning laws and acceptable use policy should only be granted in critical need situations. Tf ou make an exce Lion to zoning laws meant to protect props y owners ri hts where will ou ~Y g y draw the line? . -The Majority of adjacent neighbors should have to agree to a proven critical need and sign their approval. -~f SUP's are granted, the standard minimum buffer requirements that would normally apply, should be much more stringent to protect existing property owners. For example, AID sch~®Is gosng into a residential or agricultural settingg should be required to have a minimum requirement of a 100ft thick mature hardwood tree buffer on the sides and rear ~of the property to protect the children and the current adjacent property owners. ~ -There is no critical need in this area A competing school (Masters Garden recently within a mile of the area in opportunity to purchase this .existing to. a for an additional private school. n Preschool) just opened up discussion and MFS had the g school property and chose not - If the school is approved, who will compensate property value and loss of our dream? for loss of C~ ~e~ese J A Response to The Proposed Special Use Permit Proposing the Development of a Private School at 711 Terry Road, HiIIsborough, NC 27278 I am a lifelong educator who supports innovative efforts in education. I have worked in schools for 34 years and know many of the ins and outs of the logistics of running a school. The issue of building the Montessori Farm School on Terry Road in Orange County is not about education. It is about my home and my neighborhood. I chose to live on Terry Road for the peace and quiet, for the privacy and good neighbors, for the nature and the space. I gave up amenities and , convenience for solitude. For more than 30 years, my neighborhood has retained the unique rural characteristics that I chose. Longtime residents welcomed us as we carry on the tradition and welcome new neighbors who have chosen this street because of its AR zoning and its tranquility. I didn't choose to live here expecting that a school would shatter the quiet. Since our neighborhood has a diverse population, there are retired residents as well as toddlers. Daytime noise will~affect those of us who are not working a traditional schedule. I am opposed to granting a Special Use Permit that will inevitably change the nature of my neighborhood. In addition to the general concerns I have about changing our neighborhood, several other issues that are discussed in the SUP report concern me. III. Landscaping and Buffering 2c. A variable vegetative bu, f,~er along the southern property line, ranging from ten to twenty feet in width. The proposed driveway and emergency vehicle access area is approximately ten feet from the southern property line. It's not hard to imagine twice a day, having 150 cars coming and going along a driveway that would only be 10 feet from my land. I know it's not really my land, but it is Keith Tilley's. Sound travels In our area. With an approximately 300 foot buffer of trees between our house and the road, we can hear our neighbors across the street each morning as they close their car doors to leave for work. VII. Additional Standards a. The lot size shall be adequate to handle the maximum number of participants and patrons for any single event. Schools hold parent meetings usually with a large number of parents attending. I would assume that a Montessori School would have extensive parental support. In my experience as a school teacher, the 35 parking spaces would not be sufficiexxt for parent meetings for elementary schools. Where would people park for large meetings? Would they then be parking along the road? Parking should not take place along the fire lanes. I was teaching at a Durham school that had 2 fires while school was in session. I know firsthand the importance of having clear fire lanes at all times. We never expected the first fire, let alone the second. b. Appropriate screening methods shall be used to enhance the aesthetic value of a project. Appropriate by whose standards? Each time I drive past the proposed site, I try to imagine in my mind how 8 buildings (1 barn , 6 classrooms and 1 administrative building}, a 35-space parking lot, 20 foot wide fire-engine-ready driveways, a pond, two well sites and a septic site will look on the existing cleared land, because according to the Environment and Resource Conservation . Department The Site Plan would limit the construction of the school and its associated facilities 57 ® ~ 58 CZ ~~j~ 5~ (including utilities) to the western two-thirds of the property--all of which is either open grassland or was cleared of its trees by the harvesting of timber within the past five years. On the SUP, there is no provision to screen the school from the road. I do not want to see a school as T drive on Terry Road. All other lots on Terry Toad are single family home sites. In fact, many of the home sites sit back from the road leaving a buffer of trees to hide the buildings. I see no screening provided on the Site Plan that will enhance my view from the road. c. A formal Traffic Impact Study is not required for this project Why not? Traffic studies have been done on our road. The average number of cars that travel Terry Road is approximately 600 per day. The school is estimating that there will be 300 more cars traveling Terry Road. The problem is that currently 600 cars use Terry Road over a 24 hour period. The 300 additional cars will be concentrated around school beginning and ending tunes. That sounds like a major impact to me. T also question the impact of 300 cars turning onto Terry Road, many of them from St. Mary's Road, an already busy street. (And, though I was not able to attend the Public Hearing on June 24, I heard that the proposed number of cars was increased to 500, making the increase in traffic all the more untenable.) e. There shall be a minimum of two access points to the site......lnternal circulation segregates student drop-off/pick-up traff c from visitor or stafJ`'traff c. It takes time to load and uriload children from a car, especially when car seats are used. Whether. it's one or two access points, I can easily imagine the sight on Terry Road as residents are driving to work. I can imagine the line of cars slowly malting their way onto the Montessori school site backed up on Terry Road, a sight we have all experienced during school openings and closings at other elementary schools. There isn't a passing lane near the school; there isn't a turn lane planned. Cars heading into the school could easily have to stop in the roadway to want their turn. Cars behind them will also have to want. Question: Does the newly proposed second access point have a long enough sight distance to meet state guidelines? It seems very close to one of many curves on Terry Road. I have watched growth in our community for more than 30 years. New homes have been built, all of them fitting into the rural nature of Terry Road, all. of them sitting on several acres, most with significantly more than atwenty-foot buffer of trees. The traffic has increased with the building of neighborhoods north of our road. An avid walker, I now plan my walks to avoid the work traffic. I expected to see more people sharing our road. I expected to see more and more homes built, perhaps a development or two, in the distant future. I expected the minimum lot size to decrease. I never expected to see.a request for an SUP to override the zoning of AR. i never expected a school to request permission to build in our residential area. i never expected to see the numbers of people sharing our road to increase in one fell swoop on the first day of school. I never expected to have to fight to maintain the integrity of my community. BJ Boyarsky 1108 Terry Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Bj.boyarsky@gmail.com 2 Attachment Four (4) Neighbor Comments - 4B Information ~ ' supplied to the P{anning Board: ~"- Ge ~~ g ~ ~ `~~ 1 August 4~, 2008 Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Michael D. Harvey, AICP, CZO, Zoning Enforcement Officer Orange County Planning & Inspections Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Planning Board Review of a Class A Special Use Permit application by the Montessori Farm School to develop a private school at 711 Terry Rd. (TMBL 5.10..22/PIN 0806-76-4683) Dear Mr. Benedict, Mr. Harvey, Planning Board, and County Commissioners, Please include this document as additional information to be evaluated by the Orange County Planning Baard and Orange County Commissioners in connection with the Montessori Farm Schools application for a Class A Special Use permit. In a Public Hearing under oath, information was introduced describing the Terry Road Community objections to this proposed project. Printed and electronic copies of this presentation were submitted. to the Commissioners. Included are significant points omitted during the oral testimony because of time constraints. A signed petition of Community protest constituting twenty-seven property owners was also submitted in printed and electronic media. The body of this letter is an attempt to re-align the key points, specifically, as they relate to additional documentation sugparting the request that Orange County Planning Board and the Orange County Commissioners deny the approval of this SUP application based upon the applicants far failure to provide the burden of evidence required to support the minimum requirements of the three main criteria that must be met pursuant to Orange County Ordinance Chapter 50 Zoning, Sect 232, also know as provisions of Article Eight (8) Special Uses and Section 8.8.30 Elementary, Middle, and Secondary of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Deference Information: If you go to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance Article Eight {8), Section 8.2.1 through Section 8.3, you will find the following language: 8.Z.,I Before any application for a special use shall be approved.• a) The applicant shall have the burden of establishing; by competent material and substantial evidence, the existence of the facts and conditions which this chapter requires for approval; and b) The Board shall make written ftndings certifying compliance with the specifu: rules governing such individual special use and that the use, which is listed as a special use in the district in which if is proposed to be 59 60 located complies with all required regulations and standards including .the following general conditions: 1) The use wilt maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plain as submitted; ' 2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property); 3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners; and including all applicable provisions of Articles 4, S, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of this Ordinance, unless greater or d~erent regulations are contained in the individual standards for the speck Special Use. The applicant shall have the burden of establishing by competent material and substantial evidence in the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, models, plans and the like that the application meets the requirements for approval of a Special Use. 8.2.2 Where the Board finds compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the speck use and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards the application must be approved unless the Board shall also find in some speck manner, .that: The use will not maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; Those opposing approval of the application on the grounds that the use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare shall have the burden of establishing, by competent material and substantial evidence, the speck manner in which the proposed use does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application for a Special Use. &.2.3 The Special Use Permit shall include a statement that if any condition of a Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void then the permit itself shalt be void and of no e,~ect. X2.4 In addition to the general standards stated in 8.2 the following specific standards shall be .addressed by the applicant before the issuance of a Special Use Permit: ' a) Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste, and water. 61 b) Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection. c) Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and tra,~ftc conditions around the site. d) Other use specific standards are set forth in Section 8 8. 8.2.5 Xt shall be stated in the Special Use Permit that the Permit shall automatically expire within twelve (12), months of the date of approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of County Commissioners as provided in 8.4.11 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 8 3 Establishment of Classes of Special Uses: Authority To Approve or Disapprove There is hereby established two classes of Special Uses which shall be approved or disapproved as shown: Class A -Approved or disapproved ~by Board of Commissioners Class B -Approved or disapproved by Board of Adjustment SUMMARY Please take special note of specific comments under each of the three requirements listed above as to how The IVIFS has failed to provide competent material and substantial evidence per the requirement of Orange County Ordinance. Categorically, this is why the application should be denied by the Orange County Planning Board and Orange County Commissioners. Section 8.2.1 (b) (1): The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted The applicant has failed to adequately demonstrated evidence as to how they will maintain the general welfare of the community or the general well being/emotionai welfare (health) of the community. Several issues have come to Ight that will dramatically affect the quality of life for local residents of Terry Rd, and in particular adjoining land owners, i£the SUP were to be approved. ^ Free and untrammeled use of adjoining property for the intended uses at time of purchase of 21.5 acres zoned Agriculturall Residential. Such uses include, but not limited to, a private home setting, serenity, scenic views, ability to safely hunt and discharge light firearms. impacts from 1viFS would include severe visual impact, large amounts of traffic at Terry Road frontage and along adjacent property line, light pollution, noise pollution, exhaust pollution, water and well concerns in drought, etc. 62 Formal traffic impact has not been assessed or truly acknowledged by IVIFS but the Terry Rd community feels this substantial increase (see notes below) will create a condition of conflict between residents and pazents rushing their kids to school as well as a dramatic percentage increase for accidents to likely ocxur. This will decline general welfaxe and put public safety at increased risk. The school is much better suited on a main road designed to handle traffic versus a small arterial connector. Section 8.2.1 (b) (2): The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property); This private school applicant has not been deemed a public necessity, therefore they have the burden of maintaining or enhancing the adjacent property values. I have reviewed the applicants provided Impact Analysis created by appraiser Everett Knight and find it lacking any hazd data whatsoever proving to me or other adjacent Terry Rd residents that my/their property value would be maintained or improved. In fact the document is a very subjective report based on the appraiser's opinion only and he notes that the properties "should" maintain there value but provides no guarantees. He also notes that no actual appraisal of the current land or adjoining properties was even conducted. ^ I found the report to contain several pieces of inaccurate information that led ine to question if Everett actually walked the property such as claiming that it is mostly wooded with mature pines and hard woods when in fact its is closer to 2/3 cleared including the front third and middle section that was timbered a few yeazs ago (see aerial photo from County). ^ I do not believe Everett was aware of our house site/home plans on TMBL 5.10..20 and the associated approved well and septic field on file with the county when he made is subjective assessment. Note: we have previously provided documentation that we were in process of building and our site was selected welUseptic permits approved many months before the school filed for an SUP. This all can be easily documented by Orange County. ^ I strongly believe that any reasonable and prudent person would agree that this school complex being positioned on an.adjacent property in direct line of site, at the same set back with lack of mature buffer, etc is going to impact my home value negatively. You don't have to be a realtor, real estate appraiser, or rocket scientist in order to know this. Especially for property in a rural environment where people typically are purchasing larger pieces of property (i.e 21.5 acres) for privacy and serenity. I have spoken with several realtors that have verbally agreed to attest to this fact in writing based on their professional opinions if needed, but don't think that should be required (but will provide if requested). If you disagree with this comment please ask yourself how you would feel if this complex was built right beside your home and how hard it would be to seIl. 63 I believe the appraiser in the Impact Analysis is relying on basic macro economics (supply and demand) to build a case that our property (land only from his view) would not decline based upon the fact that no more land is being made in OC and demand is ever growing in the Triangle area. That should not be viewed as adequate evidence with the addition of a 400K+ house on top of a 200K+ piece of land when you would potentially locate a large school complex immediately adjacent to an otherwise serene and scenic environment. Section 8.2.1 (b) (3): The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the county as embodied in this article. This commercial application for a private school is clearly not in harmony with the rural agricultural/residential zoning of this area The proposed MFS school plan for a school institution that has seven commercial buildings that are 25 ft in height and include four temporary classrooms, two driveways, and parking lots filling the properly almost border to border on this narrow lot North to South, does not fit the general atmosphere and scenery of this community. This is evidenced by: ^ Signed Petition of Protest by twenty seven (27) Terry Rd. residents (to date} who do not feel the school is in harmony with the communifiy. ^ The forecasted traffic created by the school would create a substantial percentage increase in traflzc of over 500'~o per Neighborhood study conducted during morning rush hour and at school let out. ^ The simple fact that this is a large commercial school complex in a rural residentiaUagricultural neighborhood that contains only houses and farms today. We respectfully request that you, our elected officials, protect our interest and rights, along with the other petitioning landowners of the Terry Road Community by denying the said applicant's request for a SUP in this matter. Your fair and balanced consideration is deeply appreciated! Sincerely, Keith R. Tilley Dana M. Tilley b311 Acorn Ridge Trail Hillsborough, NC 27278 „___ ~ _rn 64 Michael Harvey From: Mac McCollister [macmccallister~nc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:06 PM To: Michael Harvey Subject: Montessori Farm School Apri15, 2008 Craig N. Benedict,.AICP, Director Michael D. Harvey, AICP, CZO, Zoning Enforcement Officer Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Montessori Farm School Special Use Permit application along Terry Road. Dear Mr. Benedict and Mr. Harvey, My wife and I have been residents of 2114 Terry Road far the past thirteen years. We love this area and most importantly to us, our home. This is our retirement home and it is our hope there will be no drastic changes to this area. After reviewing the site plan, Orange County NC Ordinance chapter 50 Zoniing and section 232 special use, it would be difficult for us to understand how the Special Use Permit could be granted to the Applicants. The most obvious things to us is the close proximity of the large buildings to residential properties and the loss of harmony for the area; the traffic control problem on the small two lane Terry Road'snd the hazardous conditions that will certainly ensue. It is not our intention to try and tell you your jobs; we just want to go on record as opposing the Montessori Farm School, because they obviously do not meet the prerequisites to be granted the permit. Would you please include this letter along with any other information you may have, to the Orange County Planning Board and Orange County Commissioners, for their review of the Montessori Farm Schools application for a Class A Special Use permit. Sincerely, Willard C. McCollister Nancy C.McCaliister 2114 Terry Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 08/06/2008 65 Michael Harvey From: ,lohn Valentine jajcg~duke.eduj Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:42 AM To: ' Michael Harvey Subject Opposition to Farm School on Terry Rd. To: Mike Harvey and the Orange County Planning Board My husband and I moved to Terry Rd, over 3 5 years ago to embrace an alternative to the congestion and crime, the strip malls and the fast food franchises of Durham and Hillsborough. Teny Road isn't a manufactured suburban enclave of development, it's a rural, country road. It may not have an NC 'Scenic I3ighwa~' designation, but its rural character is beautiful nonetheless. What development that has taken place over the years has preserved, rather Haan detracted &om, that natural beauty. The proposed Montessori school bas no place on Terry Road. The increase in traff c, and the need for left turns, will clog the morning and afternnon commutes and combine to increase the risk of accidents. Terry was not designed to handle this type and level of traffic. I see no positive reason to change the zoning on Terry Rd. In fact, a change in zoning could be used as precedent for larger, more commercial development. -I am opposed to the request by the school to establish itself on Terry Road. I hope you will respect my position, along with the majority of homeowners and laaadowners on this road, to deny the school's request. Thank you Ann Bushyhead Valentine . 1626 Terry Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732-7193 ' 66 Michael Harve From: Kathy Hopwood [kathyhopwood{a~embargmail.com] Sent Wednesday, August Ofi, 2008 10:40 AM _ To: Michael Harvey Subject: Terry Rd school Dear Mr Harvey, I am absolutely opposed to the Montessori School applying to change the zoning on Terry Road. I moved to the Terry Rd area 12 years ago. All my life I had been looking for paradise and found it on my 10 little acres of land right off Terry Rd in Orange County. I built a house, tend a garden and plan to live the rest of my life here. I am living the dream that I have pursued my entire life: a life of peace and quiet in the country. I am greatly concerned that a school being located in an agricultural farm area would impact the way of life I have searched for. When I am gardening or sitting outside, I can always tell when it is the time of day that people are returning home from work during the week. There is an increase in traffic noise on the road I live off of, It is just noticeable new. Any increase in traffic with parents taking children to and from school will increase the air and noise pollution. In addition it is my belief; based on the application and supporting material, that the applicant lies not met the criteria for approval of their SUP application. I choose to move and build here because I would not have heaz or breath in the daily noise and air pollution from cars. I could have stayed living in downtown Hillsborough if I wanted that experience in my life. Please consider people like me who have built a life in an area that is peaceful and harmonious and the incredible change that a school with hundreds of cars driving twice a day will create. If this happens I fee] that my life will be altered forever. Sincerely, Kathy Hopwood ~~ M • • • v].r~~111d,TeC~I. college ofA~riculture . and Life Sciences July 14, 2008 In regards to: Montessori Farm School, Teny Rd, Hillsborough,ldC To Whom (t May Concern: Subject: Livestock Recommendations 1 am currently an Animal and Dairy Science Instructor at Vrginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Based on my education, experience as an extension agent and instructor, as well as regional research conducted by Vrginia Tech, the following are my recommendations for number of livestock per acre: Sheep: 3 adufits/acre Cattle: 1 adult/acre (lcowlcalf pair requires 3-5 aches) Equine:1 adult horse or donkey/2-4 acres 1 pony or miniature horse/acre The above recommendations are based on the assumptions of excellent pasture management and the provision of supplemental grain/hay as needed. The planned one acre pasture u+n~l not sustain the variety of lives#ock suggested by the Montessori Farm School SUP. Since ly, Rachel Hensley ~~ Invent the Future VIRGINIA ?OLYTECHNiG INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY An ¢quaJ opportunity, afflrmativa action Instftutfon 67 ,.~~i.`' • • July ~ s, 200$ In regards to: Montessori Farm School, Terry Rd, Hillsborough, NC To Whom It May Concern: Subject: Livestock Recommendations I am writing to address our concerns.with regards to the building of a Montessori Farm Schoo! on Terry road. My family and I live less than one mile from the proposed building site. Along with the concerns brought up at the Board of Commissioners meeting in June, I would like to address the size of the lot proposed to support the `farm' and specifically the animals to reside there. I emailed the Zoning Enforcement Officer posing the question for details of.number and type ~of animals proposed, but did not receive a response. Regarclless, as Hated in the included letter from an Animal and Dairy Science Instructor at VA Tech, and former Ag extension agent, the proposed one acre pasture will not sustain the variety of.livestock menfioned at the Board of Commissioners meeting last month. have an advanced degree in Animal Saence, and Hearty 25 years experience that includes growing up on a farm, the advanced degree, and serving as farm manager for the University of the Virgin Islands sheep facility. It is ironic that they are proposing a school based on farm teaching when there does not appear to be evidence of agriculture professionals involved in planning. Please consider the welfare of the animals on such a small lot when making your decision about the Montessori Farm School proposed for Teny Road. Best Regards, F_r8ca Hensley Foster Division of Cardiovascular Medicine Duke University Medical Center Durham, NC 27710 Phone: 919-668-7674 email: erika.foster~duke_edu ~l 68 ' Nortlt C~ta Cooperative Extension SE , 69 p,athameonnty cents North t~roliaa Cooperative PxLension Service Norrb Carolina Stag University Post Of1.rce Box 279 Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312 PiIANE: 919542.8202 FAX: 9 t 9 542.8246 Prmarl: marti day®acsaedu July 3d, 2008 To Whom It May Concern: As chair of the Agricultare Committee for the Montessori Farm School, I have been asked to draft a plan to share with all concerned parties for pasture management and livestock husbandry for the school at the proposed Terry Road site. If there are further questions not addressed by this plan, T am happy to entertain questions and provide answers as I can. The area designated for pasture at the present totals 1.36 acres. The soils at this site are in the Georgeville series and have a Realistic Yeld Expectation of 4 tons of dry matter forage per acre annually. Fertilized according to current agronomic rates, this 1.36 acre pasture would produce 5.4 tons of forage dry matter annually. Considering animal intake at 2% of body weight, this production rate would support 1500 pounds of animal weight for 365 days or a calculated equivalent for any portion less than a full year. Current forage growing in the area intended for pasture is a mixture of native warm and cool~season grasses. If deemed necessary, improved forage varieties and an intensive grazing management plan could increase the number of livestock that could be grazed on this portion of the school property. Also, more land can be allocated for pasture in the future if the need for livestock grazing dictates such. The current livestock plan calls for the inclusion of two elderly school ponies that will not be pastured due to health and nutritional concerns. All of their forage will be fed in the form of dry hay. Weaned calves for a six week 4-H Dairy Calf•1?roject for the Extended Day and Elementary students would be the primary grazing livestock housed at the school. These calves are borrowed from a local dairyman and are only on site during the six weeks of the project. Fencing for the pasture will be a combination of wire and wood fencing materials best suited for exclusion of predators and absolute containment of the grazing livestock. Animals will have constant access to shade ar-d shelter in the teaching barn. Water wilt be provided from two wells to be sited behind the school building, Again, I am happy to answer any further questions concerning the livestock grazing plan and provide the name of our veterinarian if needed. We have a long standing relationship. with our veterinarian and I am sure that he would be happy to provide a statement reinforcing the fact that our Head of School has an excellent record of care for all her animals in the past. Sincerely, `~...~ Vt Yl~.. I - Martina P. Day Extension Area Specialized Agent Agriculture -Dairy Employment and ptogratn opportunities are offered to all people regardless of Taco, color, national origin, sez, agewr disability. In addition, the two universi6ea welcome all persons without regard tQ aworal orientation. Nasth Carotins Stan University, North Carolina A&T Stato University, U. S. Department of Agrientturc, and local governments cooperating. ~o THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Attachment Four (4) Neighbor Comments: 4C Information from Mr. Keith Tilley refuting appraisal testimony offered at the June 25, 2008 Public Hearing III~PACT ANALYSIS CONSULTING ASS/GNII~EIVT ®N: A 21.52 ACRE \/ACANT TRACT ®F LAND DESC14lBEt3 ,i4S L3EING L®T ~#1, PROPERTY Stll~?VEYED FOR KEITH R. TOLE Y; PL.~4 T BOOK ~8 PAGE' ~ a2 ®RANGE COUl1~TY, PVC PREPARED FOR; N!'R KEITH TILLEY PREPARED BY; JEFFERY L. ODELL ODELL APPRAISAL SERVICES 325 GUESS ROAD, SUITE 20~ DURI~IAM, N.C. 27705 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CONSULATATION ASS/GNMENT AUGUST 25, 2oO8 HATE OF THE REPORT: 71 sEPrEMBER 4, coos 72 Sep#ember 4, 2~8 Mr. Keith R. Tilley 6311 Aram Ridge Trail Hiftsbor©ugh, NC 27278 Re: trnpact Analysis of a proposed development on the subject property Dear Mr. Tilley; In accordance with your request, 1 have assembled and analyzed market data for the purpose of projecting the impact of a private schoa! development proposed for the adjoining property. The fallowing analysis and conclusions are presented in support of my conclusion. This analysis and report is a consulting assignment. This analysis and report is not an appraisal of the subject property. Thank you for this assignment and please advise if additional information is r®quired. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ ~~~'ZG~~~ Jeffery L. Ode11 Date a zs4s M St~B~l~~T PJ~?~?J~'~RTYl~1~1~7~'C~GR1~f CERTIFICATION FOR THE COl11'SULATING ASSIGNA~ENT 74 t certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: - The statements of fact contained in this consulting report are true and correct. - The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analysis, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations. - ~ [have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and i have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. - t have no bias with respect to any property that is subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. - My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. - My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined consulting conclusion that favors the cause of the client, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this consulting assignment. - My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity wifh the UNIFQRM STANDARQS OF PRQF'ESStONAL APPRAISAL PRACTICE. - t have made a persona! inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. - No one provided assistance to the person signing this certification PROPERTYi4DDRESS: Terry Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 t~~~~~~~~~~{ Jeffoery L. Odell A~~,~ Date 3 ~t,~~t~f~PTIt)IV~ ANd~ H~'i~~T1°f~TI~~L CC~~Ift~IT/~IVS 75 Specific to this assignment are certain assumptions and hypothetical conditions critical to the scope of this assignment. This assignment and report is made based upon the hypothetical condition that the school facility is complete and in place, and the proposed dwelling far the subject property is complete, ar~d in place. ~Ul~ll'Al1o4f~Y ~i~ ~~~l~A1T ~~i4TUft~ES SUBJECT A®DRESS: Not yet assigned ~.EGAf DESCRIPTI®N; As described in Deed Book 39'i 2-Rage 371 The subject fat is mapped in Plat Book 98 Page 172 CITY: Nifisborough, North Carolina CaUNTYI$TATE: ~ Qrange County, North Carolina Cf~NSUS TRACT: 37 X31 1 ClJ ~AIs REFERENCE: Tax Map 5.1(3..20 QV1iNER OF REGgf~D; Keith R. & Dana itli. Tiiley CLIENT: Mr. Keith R. Tilley DURRENT USi~: ~IIGHEST & BE$T USE: ~ONINC3: EFf=ECTI!!E DATE OF RERPORT: Vacant f_and Residential AR - Agricuituraf-Residential Uses August 25, 2t3Q8 4 7s 5 P~dRPOSE AElii~ Pt~A1CTfON ®F 'THE COfVSEJL TffVG aSSfGAfl~fEf1~T 77 The purpose of this consulting assignment is to estimate the impact to the subject property of a proposed private school, which will be developed on an adjacent property. The func#ion of this report is to assist the client with zoning issues with Orange Courrty, NC. SC®PE OF ~'f~E C~fVStlL~ffVCa e4SS1Gf~ft~Efif7" As part of this assignment, a number of independent investigations and analysis were conducted. In addition to the data compiled by the undersigned appraiser on a regular basis, the investigations undertaken and major data sources are listed below. This report is considered a consulting assignment, not an appraisal of the subject property. ARF~ ADO iVEIGHBORHOOt2 ~t~!lA~L.YS1S--The appraiser examined information provided by Orange County, North Carolina, the U.S. Bureau of Census, local multiple listing service and real estate firms. In addition, data compiled by the Orange County Chamber of Commerce and Economic ©evelopment Council was analyzed. Neighborhood information was obtained during the neighborhood appraisal inspection and data compiled on a regular basis. SITE ®ESCR/PTIONS ~4Nt3 AAiI~tYSIS -- The site description was obtained from a submitted survey, public records including the tax assessor's maps. The site was visually observed during the consulting inspection, which included walking and driving over the subject property. CC~iVSULTIAtG ~tIVALYS/S- Market data, v~hich includes active lis#ings, closed sales, withdrawn and expired listings are analyzed. Generally this information is gleaned fi om the Triangle IVtuitiple Lis#ing Service. In addition, consultations are made with local real estate brokers and appraisers. TYPE OF AN~4L.YSIS- This analysis and report is considered to be a consulting assignment. It is not an appraisal. The market value of the subject property is not determined, nor is a value assigned to the conclusion, in terms of a rate or direction of the value. The assignment addresses the Impact to the improved subject property only, . 6 ea~Nr«rc~rrc~N aF r~F se~~~FCr ~ROp~~~ The subject properly is comprised of a 21.52 vacant tract of land located abng the Terry Road corridor of Orange County. The property is described in Deed Book 3912 Page 371, and Mat Bodk 98 Page 172 of the Orange Gaunty .Register of Deeds Office. f~~Gt®~1ii~L ~AT`~t ~t~E~~1117°~4Tl~N The subject property is Located in Orange County, N.C, in central North Carolina. orange County is approximately 398 square miles in Land area. Orange ~vunty is part of a metropolitan region known irrternationally as the °Lesearch Triangleu. The immediate Research Triangle area includes Orange, Durham, and 1Nake Counties as well as other #angent counties tha# surround this region. The major cities in the defined MSA are Chapel Hill {Orange County), Durham (Durham County), and Raleigh {Wake County). Three additional counties are included in the defined MSA. The 199$ regional population estimate of the MSA is 1,053,f14. The estimated 1998 population of North Carolina is 7,431,161. Year 2000 population projections indicate an increase to 112,438 for orange County, INC. The N.C Oftice of State Planning reports population projections increase through the year 2020 for Orange County_ Three major Universities are located in this region: The University of North Carolina (Orange), Duke University {Durham}, and North Carolina State University (Raleigh). Ln addition, many business, research, and industrial parks are located throughout this area. The most recognized is the "Research Triangle Park". This park includes numerous Fortune 1 DO companies and the businesses Located there are considered major employers in the MSA. Orange County is the least developed in. the primary three county area. The extension of 1-40 and the upgrading of other primary roads and highways have made Orange County more accessible to the primary employers located in other areas of the MSA. Construction trends in the Orange County area, both the residential and commercial sec#ors, have been very strong over the past s®veral years, up to approximately 1 year ago when the well publicized credit crises occurred. The area is stable in my opinion and stable ecvrtamic trends are expected to corrtinue, assuming stable interest rates and low inflation. Orange County includes two major cities, Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. Nillsborvugh is the county seat and wilt be discussed in the neighborhood section of this appraisal report. The town of Chapel Hill Includes the University of North Carolina and UNC Hospitals. These facilities are the Largest employers in Qrange County. Hillsborough is within the sphere of influence of Chapel Hiil. The cost of living in ~$ 7 79 Chapel 1-till is reported to be significantly higher. Located to the south of Hillsborough, this area is rapidly growing toward Hillsborough, primarily due to easier access to major employers of the MSA and the lower cost of residential properties in the northern Orange County- area. Four major highways; U.S. Highway 70 and 1v-501, lnterstates 85 and 40 adequately serve Orange County. Highway 70, Interstate 85 and Interstate 40 pass ad;scent to, ar through Hillsborough. These highways provide easy access to all points of the Research Triangle MSA. Other major highwaystnclude NC.86, a7, 49 and 54. There approximately 37 miles of interstate highways, 127 miles of primary highways, and 670 miles of state maintained secondary roadways in Orange Courrty. Raleigh-Durham international Airport is located approximately 2f~ miles southeast of Orange Coun#y. This modern facility provides regional as well as international. destinations. Cargo shipping as well as passenger travel is available from this airpor#_ The largest employer located within Orange County is reported to be The University of North Carolina and UNC Hospitals, "UNC" includes undergraduate and postgraduate programs. The university includes d medical school and a teaching hospital. Blue Cross IBlue Shield, Chapel Mill-Carrboro City Schools, and General Electric are ranked 3-5 as the largest employers in the county. The top 50 employers in the county employ from 100 to 9300 employees each. In addition to The University of North Carolina, North Carolina State University {Raleigh}, and North Carolina Central University {Durham}, comprise the public university system in the area. Private Universities include Duke {Durham), Elon College {Burlington area}, Shaw (Raleigh}, Meredith College {Raleigh}; and St. Augustine's {Raleigh}. Junior colleges in the area include Peace College in Raleigh. The three major community colleges are Durham Technics! College, Vtlake Technical College, and Alamance Community College. In conclusion, the Research Triangle MSA enjoys national recognition #or a positive business and residential climate. This trend is expected to continue due to the law unemployment rate, and positive business climate. s ~'IG/°O~~l~H~4~ DATA $o The subject property is located within northeastern Orange County, near the Orange- Durham County border. The neighborhood is defined as being the properties along the Terry Road corridor. Although this area is technically classified as being "suburban", in real property terms, the area enjoys many rura# type characteristics. There are diverse residential styles that range from manufactured housing fo large cus#om built homes on large multi acreage tracts. Traffic patterns along Teny Road are moderate, depending on the time of day. T'AX A~a~~S~'E~I17' ,BATA Research into the Orange Courriy public records of the tax assessor's office r®vea#ed the subject property is appraised for ad valorem tax purposes at $111,404.00. The estimated .rest .estate taxes for the subject property are approximately $1,163.06 ~OIIi11VG UArA The subject property is located in an area of the county which is zoned "ARR. This zoning classification Mows agricultural and residential uses. Most of the subject property lies with a watershed area, which further restricts uses. The minimum la# size for residential development is 2 acres. ~v~~cr ~~~~~r~rY r~~scRS~r~~~ The subject property is comprised of a 21.5 acre vacant tract of land. The subject property has been timbered in the past and is generally clear of timber except along the rear of the property. Twv small areas of the property include sapling and undergrowth types of wood vegetation. In addition, thin strips of small to average sized trees are widely dispersed along the northern boundary of the property that is to be developed with the private school. Subsequent to the purchase of the property by the client, the timber waste and stumps have been removed. Timber waste and stump removal are considered to be a signifcant improvement to the property, in my opinion. The subject site fronts along a state maintained asphalt paved road. There is an existing gravel driveway providing access to the subject site from the street. lJnderground electrical power is in place. The topography of the tract generally extends upward from the street to an area approximately 1/3 of the way in toward the rear. from this point, the topography falls toward the rear of the tract. The intent of the client is to build a large custom dwelling. Orange County has approved the tract #ar a 6-bedroom septic tank and water well. The adjacent tract of land, which is the land the proposed private school intends to develop has also been mostly timbered except in areas toward the rear of that tract, and the sporadic trees and vegetation located along the border with the subject property. 9 ~tIST~RY 4F TAE SUBJECT' Pf~O1~ERTY Public records indicate the current owmer of the subject property is Keith R. & Dana ~Jl. Tilley. The most recent transfer is indicated below: x oR a~ ~v~o^ sus 11-X4-05 Dwight R. ~ Betty J. Ke.itI~ R. & Dana M. TiZZey $250.00 Richaxdsan ~4IV~L.YSIS ~41Vt~ C~~VCLUS9C~iS The subject property is a 2'1.52 acre tract of vacant land that is generally rectangular in shape, except for a portion of land at the southwest corner which was apparently subdivided out of the primary tract at some point in the past. The adjacent property that is to be developed is-approximately 14.85 acres. This property borders the subject property along the northern border of the subject tract of Land. 81 The proposed developrnen# of the adjacent property will include the cons#ruction of seven buildings totaling 9,980 square feet, and a barn. The proposed development wil! be sited generally 113 of the way into this tract from the street frontage. As of the inspection date of the subject tract, there is little buffer in terms of mature vegetation that will buffer the project in terms of view from the proposed subject dwelling. The proposed subject dwelling will be located approximately the same distance inward as the proposed private school -buildings, approximately '150 feet from the border of the two tracts. As a result, based on the site data available to me, it appears the subject dweping will overlook the school buildings. In my opinion, this is an inferior view characteris#ic. Project notes submitted for review indicate the school will serve 14g students and 11 staff. The school is private and it is indicated there will be no bus service. This results in a maximum of 111 cars delivering studerrts and staff, twice a day. The primary entrance to the school property will be a 20 foot wide gravel driveway, located approximately 250 feet from the existing gravel driveway of the subject property, and approximately 30 feet from the property boundary lines. This will create excessive traffic issues for the subject property and most likely at the intersection of Terry Load and St: Mary's Road, in my opinion. Generally, excessive traffic issues negatively affect the marketability of properties and ultimately the market value due to longer marketing periods and generally lower sale prices compared to properties without traffic issues. {n my analysis, 1 assembled and reviewed various types of market data, which either suffered from traffic and/or inferior view characteristics. The market data indicated much 14 longer tttarketing periods as well as safe paces that were !©wer compared to similar 82 properties which did not suffer from these two issues. Accordingly, E have concluded that due to traffic and view characteristics created by the proposed school project, the marketability and as a result the market value of the subject prop®rty, as improved, will be negatively affected. tt has been my experience in the past 25 years in rYty business that the typical buyer for a property like the subject appeals to buyers wha desire privacy, serenity, and overall seclusion a large 2'1.52 acre site provides. It is my opinion these attributes are negatively affected by the private school development, thus affecting the marketability to the typical buyer in the marketplace. 11 SUBJBCT O~HC?TOGR~4P~IS FRONT VIEW 12 83 84 STREET SCENE-NORTH 13 STREET SCENE-SOUTH C ~c ~n ~,~. r~ ., r` ~' r M ti ..w ,.t O ~"~ 3 .~ n v ~~ I 87 September 1, 2008 Board of Orange County Commissioners Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Property Location 700 Terry Road. #aL Keith rnley pg s8/~.7z Taisi. S.so..zo To Whom it May Concern: i have recently reviewed the Tilley's home building documentation and site pians for the property listed above. I have also reviewed the documentation and site pians related to the placement of The Montessori Farm School located on 711 Terry Road. The Montessori Farm School would include visual impacts andiarge amounts of traffic along the adjacent property lines. For this reason alone future value will be impacted. Future buyers, no matter the appraisal value, would be deterred from purchasing the property. The impact study from MFS claims that.the property is mostly wooded with mature pines and hardwoods. The property has been substantially cleared and with the MFS pians there is little or no buffer between the Tilley home site and the school. Not only will the Tilley's have difficulty selling their property in the future, it will be impassible for them to obtain fair market value. As a licensed North Carolina Real Estate agent t.N#237586, It is my professional opinion that the the placement of The Montessori Farm School would have a negative impact on the TEliey's future home and land value. Please feel free to contact me with any other questions. Sincerely, Kathryn White Re/Max Winning Edge F~ Winning Edge S01 Washington Street • Durham, North Carolina 27781 Office: (919) 683.6202 • Fax: (919) a33-840© Website: www.TrtangleWfnningEdge.com "SarvingAll Yoar Rak~tgh-Durhaur-Ciwpel Hal! and Resear+ck ?~angta Nesds" Eacb A~fee endY Owned and OperaOSd 88 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2"~ day of September, 2008, by Kathryn White. Personally known. Notate si store My co~..3rnmi3 scion expires 10/05/2010. Mr'" ~"g0u~N~~~~w sOnoa~~~oN Jahn Tatreau, Realtor® 3211 Shannon Road Suite 140 Durham, NC 27707 Cell 919-672-9559 Office 919-281-8000 KELLER WILLIAMS~ R ~ A ~, r ~ 89 Craig N. Benedict, AICP; Director Michael D. Harvey, AICP, CZO, Zoning Enforcement Officer Orange County Planning & Inspections Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Planning Board Review of a Class A Special Use Permit application by the Montessori Farm School to develop a private school at 711 Terry Rd. (TMBL 5.10..22/PIN 0806-76-4683) Dear Mr. Benedict, Mr. Harvey, Planning Board, and County Commissioners, I have been asked to review the documentation for the Special Use Permit Application for the Montessori Farm School with their proposed location at 711 Terry Road and the impact on the adjacent property owned by Keith and Dana Tilley. I have been a licensed Real Estate Broker and Realtor® (license number 236807) for over three years and very familiar with this area as I live about one mile from there. Normally, a well planned out school would not have a negative impact on an area. While I am personally not opposed to the school concept, it appears obvious from the documentation that the property is not appropriate for the proposed school and associated facilities and would have a negative impact on the value of the Tilley property. Why? • The proposed property is too narrow lacking sufficient commercial buffers to the neighbors. • Although the acreage sounds like it would be enough, the actual amount of acreage proposed for the buildings and facilities is squeezed into about four acres with insufficient buffers.. • Amore appropriate tract would be much wider to allow for adequate buffers. • The increase in traffic in and out of the school would significantly increase traffic on Terry Road and negatively impact the value of the Tilley property. • My experience is that homeowners place a higher value on property that is more private and place a lower value of property near higher traffic areas. • The documentation clearly reveals that the Tilleys have made a significant investment of time and money in preparation to build their dream home long before the school considered the property. • There are not suilycient visual or sound buffers between the school facilities and the proposed Tilley home site. Many of the trees have been removed on the proposed schoal site greatly reducing the small buffer that was once in place. • It is also clear by evidence of the petition signed by adjoining property owners that the project is not harmonious with the neighborhood, a requirement of the permit. • It is clear that the proposed project also fails the special use permit test that the adjoining property values be increased or maintained. My professional opinion is that the value of the Tilley property will be significantly and ~ 90 negatively impacted if the Special Use Permit is approved and the school built. Common sense should prevail by recommending that the special use permit be denied and the school search out a property wide enough to accommodate the school's needs while providing the necessary visual and sound buffers to maintain the value and harmonious enjoyment of surrounding properties. Sincerely, John Tatreau Realtor, Broker Keller Williams Preferred Realty 3211 Shannon Road, Suite 140 Durham, NC 27278 91 Sep~nber 5, 2008 Board of orange Courrty Commissioners 'flrange County Planning Department I am a licensed real estate agent active priman'iy in Qran~ and Ahamance Counties. Mr. Keith Tilley has asked me to provide an opinion co~rtcerrting the potential impact of ©onstrucbon of a private school on Terry Road adjacrent to a parcel of approximately 21 acres that Mr. Tilly Dams. l was not involved in Mr. Tilley's pun<~ase o~€ the Terry Road property, nor am !involved in the pending canstruc~ of his netiv home on that Property- ! have reviewed plans for the home Mr. Tilley intends to bui~ on Terry Road and pre-construction documentation. I have also t~ev proposed plans for the Montessori Farm School planned for 711 Terry Road: t have waNced Mr. Tilley's property atxl am very familiar with the area. Mr. Tilley and 1 first discussed his plans for building on the property almost orx~ year ago and 1 have b generally aware of his intentions since then. Mr; Tilley's construction of a custom home will involve a fatal invent of over $600,000. The pia~nned home site takes full advantage of a natural hill on the property altativing a bc~utiful view as weep as constn~ction of a walk-cwt basement. The home site is ~cated a significant dunce from Terry Road to enhance the sense of privacy and~secl~ion. The views and seclusion are important elements in the value and desirab~ity ofi the horr~ Mr. Tilley intends to bui~. Timber has been harvested (norm Mr. Tilley's kit in the past and thane '~ only a narrow band of natural vegetation sing his property from the proposed school buildings. In my opAnion, ©onstruc~tion of the proposed Montessori Farm School at 711 Terry Road and the nesult~g noise and ~ would have a significant negative ~rnpact on the value of Mr. Tilley~s land as well as negatively affecting the ' l value and desirab~/ of the home he is pinning to build .`'? ~~ . Michael S. Irwin, Realtor NC Real Fatale E..ioense 254873 205 Grand Qak pr Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-308-4385 92 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Attachment Five (5): Planning Board Minutes 93 1 MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 AucusT 6, 2008 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; 7 Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Bemadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Renee A. Price, 8 Hillsborough Township At-Large (Vice Chair); Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Judith Wegner, 9 Bingham Township At-Large; Lany Wright, Cedar Grove Township. At-Large 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large; Joel Forrest Knight, Little River Representative; Cheeks 12 Representative, Vacant; Eno Township, Vacant 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Tom Alfieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Michael 15 Harvey, Planner II; Glenn Bowles, AICP, Planner II; Robert Davis, AICP, Planner III; Geoffrey Gledhill, County 16 Attorney; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 17 18 OTHER ATTENDEES: Rita Leadem, Representative for Comprehensive Plan Coalition; Lisa Tate, Applicant- 19 Montessori School; Steve Yuhas, Agent for Applicant-Montessori School; Mr. Brame, Applicant-Cabe Crossing; Jeff 20 Peloquin, Represetative for Applicant-Cabe Crossing; John Bugg, Applicant-The Forest at Little River, Reporter for 21 the News of Orange; Melinda Ruley, Citizen; Stewart Fisher, Citizen; Keith Tilley, Citizen 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 2: COMPREHENSNE PLAN UPDATE 26 To continue reviewing comments on the Comprehensive Plan Update provided by BOCC, 27 Advisory Boards, Staff and Public received since the May 19 Quarterly Public Hearing and 28 continue developing a list of suggested revisions. (Includes a 5 minute staff introduction). 29 Presenter: Tom Alfieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 30 31 Jay Bryan: Welcome. We are addressing the Comprehensive Plan Update and continuing to review comments. 32 33 Tom Alfieri: The Orange Unified Transportation Board has submitted their proposal and changes to the 34 Transportation Element which was distributed to the Board via a-mail. I also have hardcopies available for anyone 35 who would like one. They will also be part of the August 25 Quarterly Public Hearing packet. Today, we received 36 comments from James Carnahan, the Village Project, which is a one page front and back. On page 3 of the packet 37 is a draft of the Planning Board's table of proposed revisions. I have reviewed and made changes in boldface type. 38 I am using my judgment as to which comments I am inserting in the table. Planning Board members are also to 39 review all of the public comments and bring items forward for discussion and possibly inclusion in the Table. I would 40 like to request feedback from the Board. Have you found my review of the comments and the Table helpful? 41 42 Bemadette Pelissier. I have liked it. 43 44 Larry Wright: I found it helpful but I must admit I have not had a lot of time to concentrate on it. 45 46 Larry Wright: Would it be better to give comments to you rather than go through them. 47 48 Tom Alteri: That would be fine. If you would like to give them to me tonight I will plug them into the table and the 49 rest of the Board will review them at the September 3 meeting. I am adding items as I have information. 50 94 51 Jay Bryan: I echo what has been said that this is helpful to capture staffs thoughts are on these ideas and it is up to 52 us to decide if we would like to do anything else. 53 54 Larry Wright: Can I email them to you? 55 56 Jay Bryan: If it is substantive it would be okay. My recollection of the last meeting was that we went through 57 everything except the objectives. 58 59 Tom Alteri: There was some discussion about a few of the objectives initially at your meeting. Then there was an 60 idea to get through all the comments that are not related to objectives first and we began that. You did start on some 61 of the objectives. On page 10, item number 9 was not discussed; however, all the objectives up to item number 9 62 were discussed to some degree. 63 64 Jay Bryan: Is everyone comfortable with completing the objectives? 65 66 Renee Price: What we had at the last meeting does not seem to correspond with what we have here. In the May 67 meeting packet, objective ED 2.11, was this changed? 68 69 Tom Alfieri: Tonight's version incorporates the direction the Planning Board gave to me at the last meeting. I don't 70 recall deleting any objectives from the last meeting. If there were objectives added, that may have changed the 71 order. 72 73 Renee Price: In the old version, it was ED 2.11, item number 10, page 319, line 36. 74 75 Tom Alfieri: I don't see ED 2.11. 76 77 Jay Bryan: I don't see AG 2. That sounds like an oversight. 78 79 Tom Alfieri: I do see ED 2.11 in the previous package. I will double check that. 80 81 Jay Bryan: Check that all the objectives that should be listed are there. Let's start on page 6. Are there any 82 comments about any of these objectives? 83 84 Judith Wegner. On Objective H-4.1, on page 6 of the agenda packet. 85 86 Renee Price: On Objective ED 2.7, item number 14, maybe we need do delete those types of words that could be 87 taken various ways. 88 89 Judith Wegner. Does that mean adequate? 90 91 Renee Price: That is why I said we should not use it, maybe access to highway railing. 92 93 Judith Wegner. It seems to suggest adequate. 94 95 Craufurd Goodwin: I think the words are mush. On ED 1, develop "core assets", what are core assets? The next is 96 "suitable land", what does that mean? 97 98 Judith Wegner. Is the difference in the objective and the next level down? 99 100 Craufurd Goodwin: Do these come from the Economic Development people? Do you know what they mean? 101 95 102 Tom Alfieri: I can give you my interpretation. 103 104 Craufurd Goodwin: Are they proposing that you go through the County to decide what is suitable? 105 106 Jay Bryan: These are ED 1.8 and 2.5, number 11, 12 and 14 and are new objectives. They are also new in the 107 overall process. You could say it is too broad and not part of the process and we do not want to add that. The other 108 is to change the language so it is clear. 109 110 Lany Wright: I really don't think we have time to wordsmith. If staff could come back with something even changing 111 the modifiers, it may be more comprehensible. 112 113 Judith Wegner. There was a question about the prerogatives of other advisory boards, will they accept changes or 114 are they wed to this language? 115 116 Tom Alfieri: I can't answer that question. At this point in this process, the Planning Board is the only group that has 117 been given the ability to provide a recommendation. 118 119 Craufurd Goodwin: I recommend we remove ED 1.8 and ED 2.5. 120 121 Jay Bryan: Is there a motion to remove those objectives? 122 123 MoTioN made by Jeffrey Schmitt to remove Objectives ED 1.8 and ED 2.5. Seconded by Judith Wegner. 124 VOTE: Not passed (3-4) 125 126 Judith Wegner. I have motion to modify 1.8 to "develop an incentive policy to use in targeting companies and 127 enterprises that will build upon, expand, and diversify the County's economic base". 128 129 Jay Bryan: Would you mind changing develop to explore? I am not a fan of incentives. 130 131 Judith Wegner. It would now read to modify 1.8 to "develop an incentive policy to use in targeting companies and 132 enterprises that will build upon, expand, and diversify the County's economic base". I have changed develop to 133 explore and strike out core assets. 134 135 Bernadette Pelissier. Could I make a friendly amendment to say, "Local business development"? 136 137 Judith Wegner. What about "attracting and encouraging local development"? 138 139 Judith Wegner. I move to change Objective 1.8 to read, "Explore an incentive policy to use in attracting and 140 encouraging the development of companies and enterprises that will build upon, expand, and diversify the County's 141 economic base". 142 143 Craufurd Goodwin: I will vote against it because I think that is what the market should do. I don't see the 144 government getting into the business of identifying the way it is moved. 145 146 Michelle Kempinski: Is it up for discussion? 147 148 Jay Bryan: Yes. We had a motion to eliminate numbers 11 and 12 and that failed. Judith is making a proposal that I 149 have already seconded. 150 151 Michelle Kempinski: I am uncomfortable with the word "incentive" because that has a broad meaning. 152 96 153 MOTION made by Judith Wegner to change Objective 1.8 to read, "Explore policies to use in attracting and 154 encouraging the development of companies and enterprises that will build upon, expand, and diversify the Count's 155 economic base". Seconded by Jay Bryan. 156 VOTE: Unanimous 157 158 Renee Price: Do we really need that ~ 159 160 Judith Wegner. To modify, designate and have it be identified rather than suggesting that it needs to be flagged. 161 162 Jay Bryan: I think it is in. 163 164 Craufurd Goodwin: Does it mean zoning? 165 166 Judith Wegner. That is why I wanted to change to identify as opposed to designate. To me, identify means that they 167 know these possible places, designate suggested 168 169 Lany Wright: If land suitable is inverted to land suitable to accommodate and reverse those. 170 171 MOTION made by Larry Wright made a motion to modify Objective ED-2.5 to "identify land suitable to accommodate 172 the expansion of growth of commercial and industrial uses in the County". Seconded by Judith Wegner. 173 VOTE: Unanimous 174 175 Judith Wegner. In number 14, I propose to drop the word good and replace it with adequate highway rail. 176 177 MOTION made by Judith Wegner to modify Objective ED 2.7 to "Select industrial sites in Economic Development 178 Areas based on present and planned supporting systems, such as public water and sewer lines, access to 179 adequate highway, rail or public transportation infrastructures, and detrimental environmental or negative 180 social outcomes°. Seconded by Renee Price. 181 VOTE: Unanimous 182 183 Michelle Kempinski: Did we talk about item 13? 184 185 Jay Bryan: Unless someone wanted to make an amendment we were not going to through them individually. 186 187 Michelle Kempinski: Along the same lines as number 11, this states "encourage and accommodate office facilities be 188 developed in areas that are desirable and attractive to make it users. I would suggest to strike the first part of 189 the sentence to a period after users. 190 191 MOTION made by Michelle Kempinski to strike "encourage and accommodate office facilities to be developed in" and 192 insert "identify areas that are desirable and attractive to major corporate users". Seconded by Jay Bryan. 193 194 Judith Wegner. What is wrong with stating that it should be tied to public transportation? 195 196 Michelle Kempinski: Nothing. It was to strike it but I am open. 197 198 Lany Wright: If we are wordsmithing, I think the "and that" inculcates a lot of ambiguity. 199 200 Renee Price: I am afraid it changes the meaning. 201 97 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 Jay Bryan: How about identify areas that are desirable and attractive to major corporate users with access to public transportation networks and possibly rail. Renee Price: (CD 28:12) We are recommending that we am voting on. Michelle Kempinski: What would it take to accommodate? Renee Price: That is what they want. Jay Bryan: There is a motion on the floor and a second. if that is what we think, I want to need to know what I MOTION made by Michelle Kempinski to amend Objective ED 2.6 to read, "identify areas that are desirable and attractive to major corporate users with access to public transportation networks and possibly rail". Seconded by Renee Price. Craufurd Goodwin: Is it worth the sentence? Jay Bryan: Lets vote on it. MOTION made by Michelle Kempinski to amend Objective ED 2.6 to read, "identify areas that are desirable and attractive to major corporate users with access to public transportation networks and possibly rail". Seconded by Renee Price. VorE: Passed (4-3) Jay Bryan: Lets move to page 7, are there any concerns? Larry Wright: What is the end result of 2.6? Jay Bryan: It was approved. Jay Bryan: Any comments on page 7? Judith Wegner. On page 7, number 15. I understand why we UNC said reference UNC but it just doesn't cut it with me. I think you can say work with area universities to identify commercial space for businesses created through university researoh and encourage such business, I think that is too particularized. Jay Bryan: This came from the Chamber. Michelle Kempinski: Perhaps that is a good Strategic Plan objective for the Economic Development Plan and perhaps not for the Comprehensive Plan goal; we may suggest it be incorporated into the Economic Development Commission Strategic Plan. Judith Wegner. I would like to have it here so the wording would be, "work with area universities to identify commercial space needed for businesses created through university research, promote development of such space within the County, and encourage such businesses to stay in Orange County. Craufurd Goodwin: Does anyone else have trouble with the word commercial? 98 251 Judith Wegner. What about, "Work with area universities to identify needed space for businesses created through 252 university research, promote development of such space within the County, and encourage such businesses to stay 253 in Orange County. 254 255 Craufurd Goodwin: We are trying to tell the market what to do. 256 257 Judith Wegner: It states work with them so it would be collaboration and saying it is a County priority to hook up with 258 the higher entities nearby so there can be collaboration insurance that there is sufficient lab or what else is needed. I 259 don't see it as mandated just fertilizing those contacts. 260 261 Craufurd Goodwin: I think it is the same as Michelle's comment about the previous one. It is a sort of strategic 262 approach of the EDC. 263 264 Lany Wright: I agreed with Judith on the previous one, I feel this should still be in here. I understand your comments 265 Craufurd. 266 267 MOTION made by Judith Wegner to modify Objective ED-2.12 to read, "Work with area universities to identify needed 268 space for businesses created through university research, promote development of such space within the County, 269 and encourage such businesses to stay in Orange County". Seconded by Renee Price 270 Vo7E: Passed (6-1) 271 272 Renee Price: Number 16 mentions county workers, is this government employees? 273 274 Lany Wright: What is your concern? 275 276 Jay Bryan: She wonders if it means people who live in the County or work for the County Government and it is 277 confusing. 278 279 Renee Price: I think that needs to be clarified. I don't think we can tell businesses that they have to provide benefits. 280 281 Tom Alfieri: I do not think the intent is for it to apply to those who work for Orange County. 282 283 Judith Wegner. To clarify, if you had residents instead of workers that would at least get rid of the modifier like 284 people who work for the County. 285 286 Jay Bryan: What about to enable residents? 287 288 Jeffrey Schmitt: Are we saying that if for some reason a business decides to come here and pay what we, whoever 289 we are, didn't consider a living income and benefits that we would not accept them? 290 291 Renee Price: That is the point I am making. 292 293 Jeffrey Schmitt: That should be stricken. 294 295 Renee Price: Or clarified. 296 297 Judith Wegner. I read it as stating it is trying to encourage or form partnerships so they could having training for jobs 298 that would pay a living income and benefits. I don't think it is trying to control the market but encourage it. 299 300 Jay Bryan: The only language that changed is it would be to enable Orange County workers to obtain jobs. 301 99 Judith Wegner. Could you change it to workers in Orange County if that is what is meant. I agree with Jeff that they are trying to clarify high quality means but I would rather have high quality because I don't there is authority to specify that. MorroN made by Judith Wegner to change Number 16 to keep the first 3 lines and after "to enable workers in Orange County to obtain high quality jobs". Seconded by Jeffrey Schmitt. Michelle Kempinski: I would like to offer a friendly amendment that might clarify the intent. "Form partnership with Durham Technical Community College, UNC Chapel Hill, Orange County Schools and others to coordinate training and education with careers in Orange County that pay living income and benefits." Judith Wegner. That is too confusing. MOTION made by Judith Wegner to change Number 16 (Objective ED-3.3) to "Form partnerships with Durham Technical Community College, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools, Orange County Schools, and others to coordinate adequate training and education to enable workers in Orange County to obtain high quality jobs." Seconded by Jeffrey Schmitt. VorE: Unanimous Renee Price: Tom, if you could wordsmith number 17, the last line. Judith Wegner. I think Tom is looking for specifics. Creation of local enterprises. Jay Bryan: Was there a motion to make a change? Jeffrey Schmitt: I would vote to delete the whole thing. MOTION made by Renee Price to change Number 17 to keep the first 3 lines and after "to enable workers in Orange County to obtain high quality jobs and creation of local enterprises". Seconded by Judith Wegner. Judith Wegner. Jeff stated he wanted to delete the whole thing so either we withdraw this and vote on that. Jay Bryan: They are going to withdraw that motion for you, Jeff, to make a motion to delete it if you wish. MOTION made by Jeffrey Schmitt to delete ED-3.6 in its entirety. Seconded by Craufurd Goodwin. Larry Wright: I want to know what is being said before we vote. I don't know how it could be done and what they are trying to say. Tom Alfieri: I can offer one thing and that is the portion of the statement "that are good for the environment" was something that I added, the term "green collar" jobs is what was suggested by the public. Through some Internet research, green collar jobs can generally be defined as those that are good for the environment. Larry Wright: I think my question has been answered. MOTION made by Jeffrey Schmitt to delete ED-3.6 in its entirety. Seconded by Craufurd Goodwin. VorE: Passed (6-1) Jay Bryan: Tom, basically, if they are willing to clarify it better, we could entertain it. Let's move to page 8. 100 352 Judith Wegner. A lot of this stuff, such as at the top of page 8, is something from the Board of County 353 Commissioners and the bottom of page 7 referenced a continuation of the program. If the Board of County 354 Commissioners are' the ones that are putting it in, it is a question of if is mandated 355 356 Tom Alfieri: Maybe what you are referring to is that these are not goals or objectives but sections out of the body text 357 so in those cases you would need to open the plan and look in that section to get the additional context to see if it 358 makes sense. 359 360 Judith Wegner. My question is should it be listed as an objective? 361 362 Tom Alteri: There is not another level beyond objectives as part of this process. 363 364 Jay Bryan: We wanted to add these as part of what is in place to address housing needs in the County, is that your 365 recollection? 366 367 Tom Alfieri: The question regarding item number 2, that was not the one that Brian Crawford asked about. 368 369 Jay Bryan: This is what the Board of County Commissioners wanted to add to that section? 370 371 Tom Alfieri: In the text, there is a list of the various housing programs in the County and this program was not 372 included in that summary list and they thought that it should be. 373 374 Judith Wegner. I withdraw the comment. 375 376 Craufurd Goodwin: Can we come up with a more reader friendly term than "Project Performs"? Does it mean plan? 377 378 Jeffrey Schmitt: There needs to be a verb. 379 380 Jay Bryan: Anything else on page 8? Let's move to page 9. 381 382 Michelle Kempinski: I have a question about the technicality of that hyphenated word. Does it mean anything? 383 384 Renee Price: Lower income. 385 386 Lany Wright: Sometimes there are retirees that live on Social Security and in some other states they get a tax break. 387 388 Craufurd Goodwin: I am not questioning the policy, just the terminology. 389 390 Renee Price: It is another way of saying lower income. 391 392 Lany Wright: Maybe lower income is more specific because you could have someone who is making $400,000 and 393 are financially challenged for other reasons. 394 395 Renee Price: Being politically correct. 396 397 Michelle Kempinski: What about, "increase provisions that housing assistance for households in need and 398 coordinate with public and non-profit organizations". Strike financially challenge and substitute households in need. 399 400 MOTION made by Michelle Kempinski to change Objective H-1.3 to "Increase the provision of housing assistance for 401 households in need and coordinate with public and non-profit organizations responsible for providing community 402 services and housing in the County." Seconded by Jay Bryan. 101 403 VOTE: Unanimous 404 405 Jay Bryan: Any other issues on page 9? 406 407 Michelle Kempinski: On number 8, this references a strategic comment and it is a 10 year plan so the lifetime of the 408 Orange County 10 year plan would expire within the period of the Comprehensive Plan. I would like to suggest 409 developing a plan to end chronic homeliness using multiple strategies including the County's Strategic policy. 410 411 Jay Bryan: I agree. Does everyone agree this is an implementation? 412 413 Judith Wegner. Develop a plan to strike the capitals and _ using multiple strategies. 414 415 Jay Bryan: There is a plan so why do we need to develop another plan? 416 417 Judith Wegner. What about address chronic homelessness. 418 419 Jay Bryan: I think it is covered: 420 421 Judith Wegner. Could it be something such as to continue to address issues of homelessness in Orange County? 422 423 Jay Bryan: Is there a second? 424 425 Judith Wegner. To continue to address issues of chronic homelessness in Orange County. 426 427 MOTION made by Judith Wegner to change Objective H-2.2 to read, "To continue to address issues of chronic 428 homelessness in Orange County". Seconded by Renee Price. 429 VOTE: Passed (5-2) 430 431 Judith Wegner. On page 10 I would suggest "to continue to permit HUD code compliant manufactured housing as a 432 form of affordable housing in the County". 433 434 MOTION made by Judith Wegner to change Objective H-4.1 to read, ""to continue to permit HUD code compliant 435 manufacturnd housing, as form of afforciable housing, in the County". Seconded by Michelle Kempinski 436 VOTE: Unanimous 437 438 439 440 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 441 a) Special Planning Board meeting, if necessary, on August 12 to complete Buckhom Village 442 work 443 b) Joint BOCC/Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing on August 25, 2008 (legal ad 444 attached) 445 c) Next Regular Planning Board meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 3, 2008 446 d) Planning Calendar for August and September 447 448 Jay Bryan: With regard to the September 3 calendar item, is there a way to explore having more time to address the 449 Comprehensive Plan that day. 450 451 Tom Altieri: We could look at that and have a one hour session and add it again as the last item on the agenda. 452 102 453 Michelle Kempinski: Is that the last opportunity to have meeting before the comments have to be returned to the 454 Board of County Commissioners? 455 456 Craig Benedict: The manager would need review the agenda item and she would have a discussion with Chair and 457 Vice-Chair. There is noway for them to be prepared. 458 459 Jay Bryan: The Manager desires to have the deadlines for the reasons that have to do with orderly information to the 460 Board of County Commissioners. We could say that we want to meet again and I think we can do that. That causes 461 issues at that end of the transfer of information. 462 463 Michelle Kempinski: The Manager wants to review it by the 15 and the Board of County Commissioners will get in for 464 the September 2 meeting. 465 466 Craig Benedict: August 13 is the day we meet with the Attorney and Manager to discuss this agenda item. The 467 Board of County Commissioners will not review an item unless they have the minutes of this important meeting so we 468 have to give time for the minute's preparation. 469 470 Jay Bryan: I guess we will have to face that issue on August 13. 471 472 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 473 474 a) May 21, 2008 Special Meeting 475 b) July 9, 2008 Regular Meeting 476 477 Jay Bryan: There will be additional changes to those minutes. I would suggest we delay that to submit changes to 478 Tina if you have not already done so. We have a full agenda tonight. 479 480 Lany Wright: Do we want to circulate that email to the Planning Board? 481 482 Jay Bryan: I think that is fine. 483 484 Lany Wright: I have a handout that is related to the flawed and biased economic impact information that we were 485 given relative to Buckhom Village. I conducted a quick study and it is self~xplanatory. I could have sent it by email 486 but I would like it to be part of the minutes and I will distribute it to the Board. 487 488 MOTION made by Jeffrey Schmitt: to approve minutes with an understanding that there could be corrections of 489 typographical errors to follow. Seconded by Renee Price: 490 VOTE: Unanimous 491 492 493 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDRIONS TO AGENDA 494 495 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE 496 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks 497 its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board 498 and with fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to 499 observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting 500 until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair 501 will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is 502 observed. 503 103 504 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 505 506 Jay Bryan: I appreciate all your work on these items. Geoff Gledhill will be here later. I hope that we can get him to 507 respond to our questions before we go further on Buckhom Village. 508 509 AGENDA ITEM 8: MONTESSORI SCHOOL SUP 510 To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding a Class A Special Use Permit 511 proposing development of a Private Montessori Farm School at 711 Terry Road (SR 1573) 512 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Planner II 513 514 Michael Harvey: Reviewed Amendment. 515 516 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 517 518 Michelle Kempinski: How wide are the roads? 519 520 Michael Harvey: It is 14 feet and the stacking lanes are typical parking spaces which is 10 feet. 521 522 Larry Wright: Can emergency vehicles plug up this circular area? 523 524 Michael Harvey: Yes. This is a dedicated fire and emergency lane. 525 526 Lany Wright: Could an ambulance pass a fire truck? 527 528 Michael Harvey: Yes. 529 530 Bernadette Pelissier. I missed the last meeting so I was unclear about the property. 531 532 Michael Harvey: Explained property specifics. 533 534 Lany Wright: What is the proposed enrollment for this school? 535 536 Michael Harvey: The proposed enrollment is 120 in total with 80 preschool and 40 elementary age students. We 537 have included neighbor comments that were made part of the Public Hearing record on page 234A-234M. We have 538 given additional written comments from residents that have been entered. In summary, the comments during the 539 Public Hearing and the information we have provided, opposition for this application has been expressed by local 540 residents. Local residents call into question the appraisal report on page 201-216 of the agenda packet. Local 541 residents expressed concerns of the traffic impacts on Teny Road. They also indicated the use was not, in their 542 opinion, in harmony with the residential dwelling units. 543 544 Larry Wright: Are these academically challenged students? 545 546 Michael Harvey: No. There is nothing in the application to indicate that. 547 548 Lany Wright: Since they will be dealing with animals and some of the students will be very young and these animals 549 are really in a confined space, many animals hold potential for carrying zoonotic diseases. Will the staff be trained? 550 551 Michael Harvey: I don't have the information to answer that question so I will ask the applicant to address that 552 question. 553 104 Lisa Wallace Tate: I am the head of the school. I am been working with animals and children and we are very careful with disease transmission. We have a vet that checks the animals regularly. We are concerned with bio- security and we teach our staff about that. Renee Price: Where did you do this before? Lisa Wallace Tate: I had a Montessori Farm School in Durham County for four years. Bernadette Pelissier. On page 225, the memo from the Environmental Health Supervisor, it states the waste water design flow will be ten gallons per person per day for 100 students but it is 120 students, would that be picked upon the permit? Michael Harvey: Yes. In the conditions, they have to get applicable health, building, zoning and all other permits for their development. Jay Bryan: Is that issue addressed in number 3? Michael Harvey: Yes. That is a standard condition. Renee Price: Due to the fact that there are no buses that means individual cars, does staff have any reservations about the number of cars? Michael Harvey: It is a state maintained road and the Department of Transportation (DOT) reviewed the initial state plan. In all honesty, we did have concerns but this project does not meet the peripheral for to acquire a transportation improvement assessment per Article 13. Larry Wright: What does the Department of Transportation (DOT) consider the traffic could be at peak times? Michael Harvey: I don't have an answer to that question but there is a memorandum from the Department of Transportation (DOT). Jay Bryan: Will there be any outdoor lighting? Michael Harvey: There is none proposed. If they propose it later, staff will have to make a determination according to Article 8.7.1. Jay Bryan: I would like to have that reflected. The second is there have been considerable issues regarding the project, one is about the buffering along Teny Road, tell me what is being proposed regarding that buffer. Michael Harvey: Looking at the site plan, the front portion of Teny Road to about 40 feet in should be open pasture to support this operation. Terry Road would have essentially a Type A buffer which is 30 foot line buffer. Jay Bryan: Now it is open. What would actually place there? Michael Harvey: A Type A buffer requires a 30 foot buffer of evergreen style vegetation forming an opaque to semi- opaque buffer. Staff would probably recommend consideration be given to ensure that any buffer installed does not disrupt site distance to allow individuals to see traffic. Jay Bryan: Would it possible to recommend the buffer begin at the point at the beginning of site distance. Michael Harvey: That is perfectly reasonable. 105 605 606 Jay Bryan: Is there buffering for the other side? 607 608 Michael Harvey: There will be small buffering that is shown essentially in the right of way or front property portion of 609 the area. The existing secondary entrance is a very entrance so the buffer will be difficult to maintain. 610 611 Michelle Kempinski: It is typical to have buffers and site distances to make the notation that you keep the site 612 triangles clear. 613 614 Michael Harvey: It is a 10x70 which is a requirement of the ordinance but it is one of those conditions that bears 615 repeating. 616 617 Jay Bryan: On page 206, he makes a statement that the height of the natural pre-cover coupled with significant wide 618 buffers should be virtually invisible from immediate and direct distance. I don't see anything about architectural 619 standards, is that something you are aware of? 620 621 Michael Harvey: The only item I can provide is the elevation staff has provided showing the typical construction. 622 623 Craufurd Goodwin: Regarding the traffic issue, I live next to an elementary school who is a wonderful neighbor, but 624 the one problem is that twice a day several hundred cars line up in the street outside. Is there a traffic circle that will 625 accommodate a portion of those? 626 627 Michael Harvey: You have very long access going towards the school. 628 629 Craufurd Goodwin: What is the size of the stacking? 630 631 Michael Harvey: The site distance from the intersection of the driveway to the road is approximately 460 feet. 632 633 Lany Wright: How amenable is this to having this traffic circle per property? 634 635 Michael Harvey: I would have that question be answered by the applicant. 636 637 Lany Wright: There is a structure near the property line where there appears to be a pasture, what would that be? 638 639 Michael Harvey: A storage building. 640 641 Steve Yuhasz: I was sworn in at the public hearing. I would like to try to answer a few questions. Mrs. Mack owns 642 all the property now. The important this may be seen as a single lot on the tax map is that Mrs. Mack is in the 643 process of subdividing the property. The ultimate subdivision will depend on this Special Use Permit is approved. 644 The additional entrance was included after a conversation with Mrs. Mack's real estate agent where we had to go 645 back and renegotiate the deal so we could get the additional entrance. Mrs. Mack approves that particularly aspect 646 for this site plan and the Montessori Farm School as a whole. Part of the intention of the long driveway is to allow 647 those cars to get off the road as quickly as possible. This way this school is setup is the preschool and kindergarten 648 is not a full day so those children leave earlier. The exit is two different times for the two different sets of children. 649 There is a school sponsored car pooling plan I place now. 650 651 Jeffrey Schmitt: I have a question about the animals and the pasture size. The total amount of the property is 14 652 acres and it appears the area at the front of the property is where the pasture is located. 653 654 Steve Yuhasz: This is correct. That is approximately one acre. We expect we may be able to expand that property 655 by using the property that Mrs. Mack will retain. 106 656 657 Jeffrey Schmitt: How many animals do you plan to have in total? 658 659 Lisa Wallace Tate: We are not sure. It will be based what is available and how that grows according to the soils of 660 that area. We had an extension agent look at it and right now with what exists and what is likely to grow based on 661 the soils and natural grasses that are planted, we could handle up to 1,500 pounds of animal. Of course, we would 662 have small animals. Our oldest child is sixth grade so we will not have a true operating farm, it will be a place where 663 young children team about the farm in safe way. 664 665 Jeffrey Schmitt: I am not an expert in land utilization but I have never heard a statistic about poundage per acre. I 666 can tell you that from a perspective from one acre that I would suggest, as the comment on page 234, that is wholly 667 insufficient for the number of animals that will be provided. Without some provision for rotational grazing, within a 668 short period of time, this will be brown dirt. There will be no grass. 669 670 Steve Yuhasz: The purpose of having animals on the site is to teach the children about animals and not to raise 671 animals so to the extent that additional feed needs to be provided, that will be provided. 672 673 Jeffrey Schmitt: My comment is that with five animals, this will tum into dirt quickly. 674 675 Michelle Kempinski: I agree. 676 677 Lany Wright: So do I. 678 679 Michelle Kempinski: I am surrounded by people that own animals of varying sizes. I have not heard of poundage per 680 acre. 681 682 Jeffrey Schmitt: I am not sure of the implication of this observation in regards to any of the specfic statues. 683 684 Craufurd Goodwin: I would like to ask the applicant, if the land is too small, how can you have a farm on 14 acres, 685 why isn't it on 50 acres? 686 687 Lisa Wallace Tate: The reason it is not going to be a huge working farm but an introduction of farming to children 688 and we will have a caretaker that will be there to provide but we will not have a farmer. 689 690 Craufurd Goodwin:. Wouldn't all the problems with the neighbors disappear if you had a larger piece of property 691 which you could be in the middle. Is it financial? 692 693 Lisa Wallace Tate: We wanted a space where children would come. We have been offered land from farmer's way 694 in the country where people would not drive their children. 695 696 Lany Wright: Is the intent to teach farming or husbandry? 697 698 Lisa Wallace Tate: The intent is to introduce children to what a farm is and what it provides us as a society. 699 700 Lany Wright: Did I read that you would rotate these animals? 701 702 Lisa Wallace Tate: There is a project we do every spring where we have young calves and children learn how to 703 handle them and show them at the 4H dairy show and then go back to the farmer. If we have a horse, it will be a 704 pony. The animals we will have we will be very careful. 705 706 Jeffrey Schmitt: Has the back piece of this property been timbered? 107 707 708 Steve Yuhasz: The middle piece but not the back. 709 710 Jay Bryan: Ihave afollow-up of my question that Mr. Knight receives that is the basis for his opinion that refers to an 711 architectural ascetic and plan? 712 713 Steve Yuhasz: He was provided a site plan and the sketches you saw. He is basing that opinion on the idea these 714 are going to be buildings that will be in a farm motif. They will not be stone and glass or a school type building. 715 716 Jay Bryan: Are you saying, on behalf of the applicant, stating that those drawings are part of what is being approved 717 in the Special Use Permit Application? 718 719 Steve Yuhasz: Yes, I think that is a fair assessment. They are not fully detailed. 720 721 Lany Wright: Michael, on page 218, the fire issues and the pond in back, a year ago we had a draught so what 722 happens when there is a draught and the water levels go down. What does this mean as a fire hazard to this school? 723 As I understand it water for fire protection comes by tanker they will rely on this pond. 724 725 Michael Harvey: According to the testimony of the applicant, the pond will be one source of water suppression. As 726 part of the site plan review process, they will have to identify others to address that concern. If they cannot address 727 the Fire Marshall's concerns, then we will not approve the project. 728 729 Lany Wright: Considerations are taken in times of extreme draught? 730 731 Michael Harvey: I would say yes. I would like to make one other comment to address Jeffs question. One of the 732 reasons the back area of the property is not timbered is because there are streams at the rear. We have stream 733 buffer regulations that require it be kept at its natural state. 734 735 Jay Bryan: Regarding the issue of livestock and the housing area, if for some reason that did not happen to the 736 extent as described, is that something that is being required? 737 738 Michael Harvey: No, the school is permissible in and of itself with the issuance of the Special Use Permit. The fact 739 that they are having this amenity is something they are proposing. For the record, on page 233, there is a letter from 740 North Carolina State University providing additional insight for the agricultural and livestock component. As part of 741 our site plan review process any project proposing the use of animals will be reviewed and sanctioned by our local 742 cooperative extension, Dr. Fletcher Barber and his staff. 743 744 Jay Bryan: It is being proposed as a working farm that is located in a rural area but you are saying it is not a 745 requirement that they fulfill that part of the school and provide that information. 746 747 Michael Harvey: I look at it as they proposing a school with a farm component. 748 749 Jay Bryan: Is there anyone from the public who wishes to address this issue. Renee informed me the County 750 Attorney said that what would be received by us would be written comments and not verbal. We have received four 751 documents by email and a long letter that outlined various aspects of the County Ordinance. 752 753 Michelle Kempinski: The traffic Impact Analysis is pending? 754 755 Michael Harvey: You are not required to have this project provide and Traffic Impact Assessment according to Article 756 13. You do have a memorandum from Chuck Edwards which reviewed the site plan and determined they do not 757 have to provide improvements to support this facility. 108 758 759 Michelle Kempinski: Their only concern is the connection to the road? 760 761 Michael Harvey: That is a fair assessment. 762 763 Lany Wright: In this document, it states the DOT may recommend fuming lanes, would that encroach on neighbor's 764 properties? 765 766 Michael Harvey: No. 767 768 Craufurd Goodwin: Have any neighbors spoken in favor of this? 769 770 Michael Harvey: No sir, not to me. 771 772 Jeffrey Schmitt: The consideration by the Board of the approval of the SUP is on the basis of being approved as a 773 school? All of this animal husbandry that will be there is secondary and has no basis for consideration? 774 775 Michael Harvey: It is a fair statement that the application is for a Class A SUP for a school that if there was a 776 concern over some of the ancillary elements, the Board can recommend additions or modifications if you believe 777 there will be an issue providing adequate pasture, protection and care for any animals on the property. The site plan 778 can be revised. This will be a component of this application so it will be part of the review process but not part of the 779 Class A SUP. 780 781 Renee Price: At the Public Hearing, it seemed that this was a school, the gardening, farming, etc was more of a 782 demonstration. It more of an environmental, holistic type of approach to education. 783 784 Michelle Kempinski: Are they any plans for lighting? 785 786 Michael Harvey: There was no lighting plan submitted. We would allow security lighting. 787 788 Michelle Kempinski: There is no parking lot lighting. 789 790 Michael Harvey: Not now. If the applicant wanted to come back to install outdoor parking lighting, we would have to 791 determine Article 8.7 if it represented a major or minor modification. 792 793 Michelle Kempinski: If the SUP is approved, it would be no lighting except the security lighting. The landscape plan 794 has not been included. 795 796 Michael Harvey: They have shown a Resource Management Plan which denotes a variable buffer. We have 797 suggested a condition that a Type A Buffer be installed. As part of the site plan approval, they will have to submit the 798 normal site plan showing a Type A Class Buffer as part of Article 12, Section 12.6.1. 799 800 Michelle Kempinski: No other requirements for parking areas, etc.? 801 802 Michael Harvey: They show on the site plan parking and planting areas, the landscape ordinance requires every 10 803 parking places have a landscape area. 804 805 Michelle Kempinski: That is the extent of the landscape plan? 806 109 807 Michael Harvey: With this Resource Management Plan, they are denoting areas that will be left in the natural state 808 and others will be buffered. That is part of their Resource Management Plan. We are requiring a full blown 809 landscape plan if the recommendation is approved. 810 811 Jay Bryan: What are we being asked to do tonight regarding the conditions and application? 812 813 Michael Harvey: Staff has asked that you begin deliberation on the application packet and make a determination 814 based on the information provided. We have provided information this evening that we received on August 4, 2008. 815 816 Jay Bryan: In terms of our duty, what is necessary, if there was a motion to approve, what would be included in our 817 motion? 818 819 Michael Harvey: We have provided, in your packet, the Staff Recommended Special Use Permit Matrix, for all your 820 SUPs. WE have made various determinations based on this projects compliance with standards of the ordinance. 821 Our original recommendation was denial due to lack of one provision of the ordinance. That provision has been 822 addressed so ultimately if the board finds sufficient information has been submitted justifying the affirmative finding of 823 the three required findings of fact, Section 8.2.1, Subsection 61, 62 and 63. 824 825 Renee Price: You said there was one condition that was met but there was also a concern about the variable buffer. 826 827 Michael Harvey: That is the condition that we have recommended we require a Type A 30 foot buffer along the 828 whole property. 829 830 MOTION made by Jeffrey Schmitt to approve all the technical n~uirements stated by the ordinance in these various 831 subsections and offer as evidence the suggestions that have been put forwarded by staff, including within the column 832 evidence submitted to support findings beginning on Articles 8.6 and 8.8 and continuing to page 147 which includes 833 information regarding public road access. I would suggest we have a second deliberation on items listed on page 834 .148 as to whether those are met and the specific recommendations included. Seconded by Renee Price. 835 VorE: Unanimous 836 837 Jay Bryan: Are there additional motions? We have a list of conditions on page 126, I would suggest unless there are 838 changes to those conditions, that someone make a motion as to those conditions. 839 840 Craufurd Goodwin: It seems the critical Article is 8.2.1 on page 148, are we using the 1981 Comprehensive Plan? 841 842 Michael Harvey: The existing Comprehensive Plan. 843 844 Craufurd Goodwin: Is it your judgment that this is consistent 845 846 Michael Harvey: The only guidance that I can make because you have to make this finding based on the material 847 submitted into evidence, is that staff has already testified that we have found that it complies with provisions of the 848 Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. 849 850 Michelle Kempinski: In consideration of the schedule, if there will be continued discussions, we might take 851 advantage of the opportunity to have a second meeting to continue discussion of this. 852 853 Judith Wegner. Is there time sensitivity? 854 855 Steve Yuhasz: Not with the school year but with the purchase of the property. 856 110 857 Judith Wegner. If there was a question of holding the property, what is the possible volume of development that 858 would be consistent with the County Ordinance if Mrs. Mack decided to put up condos instead? 859 860 Steve Yuhasz: You could anticipate there could be as many six individual single family dwellings on this property. 861 862 Judith Wegner. I feel when this is fresh on our minds we should proceed with this up or down. 863 864 Jay Bryan: Is there a motion? 865 866 Larry Wright: I think if the Veterinarians are checking this on a regular basis and these animals will be rotated, I think 867 that trying to manage the animals. is farfetched. 868 869 Judith Wegner. If there were a condition that there be oversight of the animals. 870 871 Larry Wright: I think it would be a hard condition to put in writing. I would leave that to the veterinarian. 872 873 Judith Wegner. Staff stated the Farm Extension department had the role in it. 874 875 Jeffrey Schmitt: I would like to offer an amendment to the recommendations that the staff has is that the applicant 876 provide, on an annual basis, that they had examined animals on site as of that date. Further, as a separate 877 recommendations that an annual review from the Cooperative Extensions Department, relative to the utilization of 878 this as a demonstration farm and providing for the adequate facilities of the animals on that farm at that point in time, 879 meet reasonable standards for health and welfare of the animals therein. .880 881 Jay Bryan: My sense is that the very responsible applicant will take care of the animals. My concern is for the 882 neighbors, is there any way that can. be approached or dealt with? 883 884 Larry Wright: Looking through that, what we have is a body of concerns that focus on traffic. 885 886 Bernadette Pelissier. Relating to the traffic, on page 234J, the neighbors have proposed a response, I could see the 887 concern of neighbors that if you had an event where will all the cars park? If we could make a condition that they 888 don't park on the neighboring roads, I could see that as a safety issue to the neighbors. 889 890 Michelle Kempinski: Is there any sort of road maintenance or requirements, i.e. waste collections, county services, 891 emergency access? 892 893 Michael Harvey: Unlike a subdivision, there will be no road maintenance agreement; the applicant is required to 894 maintain the property according to all approved conditions in the site plan unless the site plan has been presented as 895 part of the SUP requirement. 896 897 Michelle Kempinski: Is it subject to Orange County road standards? 898 899 Michael Harvey: No. This isn't a road but a driveway. 900 901 Craufurd Goodwin: In some of our other cases, the applicant has met with representatives of the neighbors to 902 negotiate and sort through issues, is any of that occurred? 903 904 Michael Harvey: I believe there was one or two meetings scheduled but I don't believe there was any attendance. 905 906 Jay Bryan: Is there any reason why the buffering could not extend across here? 907 111 908 Michael Harvey: That would be on Mrs. Mack's property or in the right of way. The SUP will cover everything in the 909 green area. 910 911 Renee Price: In reference to special events, you can have six or seven special events without a permit? 912 913 Michael Harvey: Under Article 6, there is a provision allowing for special events for less than 150 people and some 914 permitting requirements you have to go through. If you have a parent's night it is a customary accessory use of the 915 school which would not need a SUP. 916 917 Jay Bryan: Is there a motion regarding Article 8.2.1 and 8.2.2? 918 919 MOTION made by Jeffrey Schmitt regarding information submitted by the applicant and the technical provisions we 920 have previously voted on, the use of this property will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general 921 welfare providing that the provisions included by the Department of Health, Department of Safety, Veterinarian 922 applications to be provided will happen and vote the Planning Board recommends recommendation regarding those 923 two articles that it will meet the criteria outline. Seconded by Judith Wegner. 924 VOTE: Unanimous 925 926 927 Judith Wegner. Just simply to say that is will maintain and promote the public health consistent with the conditions 928 imposed. 929 930 Jay Bryan: Article 8.2.1 number 2. 931 932 MOTION made by Judith Wegner to move that the proposal consistent with requirements of Article 8.2.1 and the use 933 will be consistent and maintain the values of contiguous property as long as the conditions that _ relative and that 934 in addition because this is a school use that approval is consistent with public necessity . Seconded by Jeffrey 935 Schmitt. 936 VOTE: Unanimous 937 938 MOTION made by Renee Price in reference to Article 8.2.1 that the location and character of the use of the proposed 939 use is consistent with the County Plans and Regulations. 940 941 Jay Bryan: It needs to include that it is in harmony with area. 942 943 MOTION made by Renee Price in reference to Article 8.2.1 that the location and character of the use if developed 944 according to the plans submitted will be in harmony with the area in which is located and the use in compliance with 945 the general plan for the physical development of the County as provided in the regulations or in the Comprehensive 946 plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.. Seconded by Judith Wegner. 947 VOTE: Unanimous 948 949 Jay Bryan: This is the most difficult part for me. I am troubled by the location of this school. I understand it is 950 allowable. I am concerned that there are not more criteria for the location of the schools that would address the 951 concerns. (Opposed ?) 952 953 Jay Bryan: Is there a motion regarding the Conditions as a recommended by staff, numbers 1 through 8. 954 955 956 MOTION made Craufurd Goodwin to accept the conditions 1 through 8. Seconded by Bernadette Pelissier. 957 VOTE: Unanimous 958 112 959 Jay Bryan: Is there any interest in moving to require a deeper vegetative buffer along the front of the property? 960 961 Larry Wright: You will have a pasture. 962 963 Jay Bryan: Are there other conditions? 964 965 Jeffrey Schmitt: I had suggested that there be a certification by a veterinarian that the animals are in good health. 966 967 Michael Harvey: If such a condition is approved by the board, that it stipulate who that report is provided and who will 968 be reviewing it and what the implications are going to be if the reports are negative. 969 970 MOTION made Judith Wegner regarding the number 9 condition that the applicant provide to the Director of Planning 971 and to the Public Health authorities and other County officials as directed by the Planning Department Director, a 972 yearly certification that a veterinarian in good standing has reviewed the status, health and welfare of the animals on 973 site as of January 1 of each year. If there is some problem that is hazardous health wise that the information be 974 treated under the standard. Seconded by Jeffrey Schmitt. 975 VorE: Unanimous 976 977 Michelle Kempinski: Michael also requested what would happen if it is not. 978 979 Jay Bryan: He requested it but I didn't hear anything in the motions. 980 981 Judith Wegner. I would say if there is some problem that is hazardous health wise that the information be treated 982 under the standard 983 984 MorioN made Jeffrey Schmitt that the applicant arrange for an annual review by the County Extension agent 985 regarding utilization of the site as a demonstration farm to ensure there are adequate facilities for the animals and 986 they conform to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Care and Use requirements and Animal Welfare. 987 Seconded by Jeffrey Schmitt. 988 Vore: Unanimous 989 990 Michelle Kempinski: Since it is not part of the application, I would like to add a condition, since it is not part of the 991 .application, technically, that the applicant is required to submit landscape and lighting as required Lighting Plan 992 14.2.2 and since there are no current plans for lighting in the area. 993 994 MOTION made by Michelle Kempinski to add a condition, since it is not part of the application, technically, that the 995 applicant is required to submit landscape and lighting as required Lighting Plan 14.2.2 and since there are no current 996 plans for lighting in the area. Seconded by Jeffrey Schmitt. 997 998 Craufurd Goodwin: Isn't that the law? 999 1000 Michelle Kempinski: As I understand it in Article 14.2.2. specifications for site plans, requires a landscape plan. 1001 1002 Michael Harvey: They have to submit the landscape plan as part of the site plan. 1003 1004 Judith Wegner. Is that withdrawn? 1005 1006 Michelle Kempinski: I guess I am thinking this constitutes a site plan. If this was the site plan then it would be 1007 enough but if the site plan continues on after the approval and planning staff approves it then it is fine. 1008 113 1009 Judith Wegner. The applicant makes adequate arrangements to protect neighboring roads and neighbors from 1010 parking outside the applicant's property during special events. 1011 1012 MOTION made Judith Wegner that the applicant make adequate arrangements to protect neighboring roads and 1013 neighbors from parking outside the applicants property during special events. 1014 1015 Craufurd Goodwin: How can that be enforced? 1016 1017 Judith Wegner. The applicant is agreeing to it. To have the neighbors know that it is a requirement and the applicant 1018 knows it is a requirement. 1019 1020 Renee Price: They will be policing the parking. 1021 1022 Judith Wegner. They should make arrangements for overflow parking. 1023 1024 MOTION made Judith Wegner that the applicant make special arrangements for special events that they provide for 1025 adequate parking arrangements on their property and undertake to keep their guests from parking on neighboring 1026 roads or on neighbors property. Seconded by Bernadette Pelissier. 1027 Vole: Unanimous 1028 1029 Craufurd Goodwin: Isn't this too far into micromanaging? 1030 1031 Judith Wegner. I think that is a legitimate concern for the neighbors and it provides for some level of commitment 1032 that applicant understands that it is expected. The last one has to deal with the aesthetic concern you raised. 1033 1034 MOTION made Judith Wegner that the applicant assures that construction on the property of _ is consistent with the 1035 bungalow design and as other artistic architectural features be reflected in the material submitted with the application. 1036 Seconded Jay Bryan. 1037 Vole: Unanimous 1038 1039 Judith Wegner. This is stating that this is creating as much compatibility with the adjacent property as possible. 1040 1041 Jeffrey Schmitt: The design of these structures should somewhat resemble the renderings we saw in the Powerpoint 1042 presentation. 1043 1044 Jay Bryan: Let's go back to the additional 30 foot buffer along Teny Road and I have asked that buffer begin at the 1045 furthest edge of the right of way and from the point there is sufficient site distance to enter and exit the property. 1046 1047 MOTION made Jay Bryan to have the 30 foot buffer along Teny Road begin at the furthest edge of the right of way 1048 and from the point there is sufficient site distance to enter and exit the property. Seconded by Judith Wegner. 1049 Vote: Unanimous 1050 1051 Jay Bryan: The last one is about the carpooling program to try to address the traffic issue. It seems that this strange 1052 to include it but I don't see the harm that this is a condition to continue with or establish a carpooling program to 1053 reduce the traffic on Teny Road. 1054 1055 Lany Wright: How would that be enforceable? 1056 1057 Jay Bryan: I am not sure. 1058 114 1059 Judith Wegner. What about that the applicant undertakes to minimize traffic impacts on adjacent properties through 1060 such means as encouraging carpooling or other appropriate strategies. 1061 1062 MorioN made Judith Wegner to applicant undertake to minimize traffic impacts on adjacent properties through such 1063 means as encouraging carpooling or other appropriate strategies. Seconded by Jeffrey Schmitt. 1064 1065 Michelle Kempinski: Clarification on the site plan requirements on this SUP, this technically is the site plan. I am still 1066 confused because I see the criteria for a site plan and I know that our past SUP approvals for the altemative school, 1067 things like planting plans, grading plans, etc. were all required to be shown on the site plan that was being approved 1068 as part of the SUP process. Why are we seeing a different set of plans? 1069 1070 Michael Harvey: You were given the full grading erosion control landscaping and the full plan for the altemative 1071 school. The ordinance requires that you _ shown in the orientation layout and development of the physical site. 1072 The applicant is proposing a variable butter by maintaining the preserving of existing trees. You are saying that you 1073 want a Type A Buffer. That is a normal part of the site plan review approval process by staff. 1074 1075 Michelle Kempinski: Looking at the criteria and looking at this plan, this plan doesn't require some of the criteria. 1076 1077 Judith Wegner. What about a further condition that the applicant submit a landscape plan in connection with the site 1078 plan that is 1079 1080 Michelle Kempinski: I will drop it but I wanted to make a comment that there seemed variability in the requirements 1081 for the information submitted on site plans with the same SUP processes. 1082 1083 MOTION made Judith Wegner to applicant undertake to minimize traffic impacts on adjacent properties through such 1084 means as encouraging carpooling or other appropriate strategies. Seconded by Jeffrey Schmitt. 1085 VOTE: Unanimous 1086 1087 MOTION made Judith Wegner that the whole package be approved. Seconded by Lany Wright. 1088 VOTE: Unanimous 1089 1090 Jay Bryan: I would asked that the issue of the amount of traffic that triggers the requirement of a Traffic Assessment 1091 come back to use in the near future. 1092 1093 Michael Harvey: Commissioner Jacobs stated at the Public Hearing that staff needed to begin the process. 1094 1095 Jay Bryan: Before any other projects of this general nature in the rural locations come before us. 1096 1097 AGENDA ITEM 9: CABS CROSSING (FORMERLY BRAMCO PARTNERS) SUBDMSION -PRELIMINARY PLAN 1098 To consider a recommendation to the BOCC for the Cabe Crossing Preliminary Plat. The 1099 proposal is for twenty (20) single family residential lots on 73.47 acres on the south side of 1100 Cabe Ford Road (SR 1570) west of Pleasant Green Road (SR 1567) in Eno Township. 1101 (Original proposal was for 38 lots, amended to 33 lots). 1102 Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II 1103 1104 Gene Bell: Reviewed abstract 1105 1106 Jeffrey Schmitt: In our previous discussion where there was double the number of lots. At some point, on the 1107 backside, west side, there was going to be dedication of some land to the Eno River Association, which property was 1108 that? 1109 115 1110 Glenn Bowles: This portion has recently been split off from the original 88 acres, which is now down to 73 acres, will 1111 be dedicated to the Eno River Association. There is also a second lot, which is the 45 acre lot, which is not part of 1112 this discussion. 1113 1114 .Jeffrey Schmitt: Is this dedication subject to the approval of this subdivision as put forward? 1115 1116 Glenn Bowles: I will have to defer that to the people involved. 1117 1118 Clue Jordan (Eno River Association): One of the reasons it was separated out is the purchase and dedication of 1119 those properties are separate from the subdivision. There is a small portion of the subdivision, about 4.5 acres that 1120 we have also discussed. 1121 1122 Michelle Kempinski: There is mention of a 50 foot right of way designation for public road access. 1123 1124 Lany Wright: This is part of the 32% natural area? 1125 1126 Glenn Bowles: Yes. (Continues presentation). 1127 1128 Michelle Kempinski: I was referring to the 50 foot right of way providing public access to the publicly dedicated 1129 greenway and recreation open space. 1130 1131 Glenn Bowles: That will come from this direction. There is actually two lots ant that will be in between. This is the 1132 4.7 acre parcel that is part of this subdivision that will be eventually as public recreational space and given to the Eno 1133 River Association and then to the State Park System. 1134 1135 Michelle Kempinski: That is for a road, a potential future road. 1136 1137 Glenn Bowles: No, it is not a road at all, it is a walk way. 1138 1139 Michelle Kempinski: It states that it may be used for the purpose of extending public roads. 1140 1141 Glenn Bowles: This will not be a public road or provide public access into the park directly. The people in the 1142 subdivision will be able to use this. 1143 1144 Michelle Kempinski: I am on page 242, number 7 of the application. 1145 1146 Glenn Bowles: Those are referring to this lot and this lot. (Continued presentation). 1147 1148 Lany Wright: What types of streams are these? 1149 1150 Glenn Bowles: They have required buffers which are regulated streams. 1.151 1152 Michelle Kempinski: What is the buffer size? 1153 1154 Glenn Bowles: For the most part it is 80 feet. (Continued presentation). 1155 1156 Renee Price: Why is that triangle going through the process of homeownership then the association and then the 1157 state? 1158 1159 Glenn Bowles: One of the considerations tonight is should that be accepted as other open space to be dedicated 1160 because if not, the subdivision developers are the hook for in lieu of park dedication. One of our questions tonight, is 116 1161 it appropriate to accept this land for public recreational open space land through our normal process. Is so, we could 1162 not dedicate it directly to the Eno River Association because they are a private entity. 1163 1164 Renee Price: You said it would be part of the homeowner's association first and there would be no trespassing so it 1165 becomes part of the subdivision and then at some point after it would be transferred off the subdivision. 1166 1167 Glenn Bowles: Our suggestion is that this parcel be dedicated to the County first and then the County in tum will give 1168 it to the Eno River Association. These other lands will be in homeowner's association, ownership and management 1169 1170 Michelle Kempinski: The parcel adjoining the river to the west will be land that has been transferred? 1171 1172 Glenn Bowles: There is an agreement between the Eno River Association and the owners of the property that land 1173 will be donated to the Eno River Association. That deal has not happened and will in October. 1174 1175 Michelle Kempinski: Is that the 4.1 acre parcel that Rich referred to in his memo. 1176 1177 Jay Bryan: You don't mention that in our recommendations. 1178 1179 Glenn Bowles: That is not part of the subdivision although it was part of the concept plan. 1180 1181 Judith Wegner. We are sure that will happen. 1182 1183 Glenn Bowles: It is their intent. 1184 1185 Judith Wegner. The issue about the recommendations about in lieu versus to dedicate, could you speak to that. The 1186 memo sounded as if the recommendation to do in lieu came in afterwards. 1187 1188 Glenn Bowles: The recommendation you saw in the report from the Parks Department, this particular dedication 1189 wasn't described at the time and therefore when they made their recommendation, it was made in lieu of fee. 1190 1191 Judith Wegner. I assume you talked to them and have they changed their mind or they saying they think this is a 1192 remote piece of property they can go to 1193 1194 Glenn Bowles: I think the question is does this group think it is appropriate be dedicated as public recreational land 1195 or not. The reason we did not talk to the parks people was because it was going eventually to a state agency which 1196 means this could happen and it could be dedicated to some entity other than the county. 1197 1198. Jay Bryan: We need to move along. 1199 1200 Glenn Bowles: We think because this meets the subdivision and zoning regulations and is compatible with the 1201 Comprehensive Plan, the recommendation should be in the affirmative. 1202 1203 Jay Bryan: Your recommendation begins on page 231. 1204 1205 Glenn Bowles: It starts on page 241 and goes through page 246. 1206 1207 Renee Price: Historic sites? 1208 1209 Glenn Bowles: There is a slave cemetery on the 4.7 acre parcel that we would like to have dedicated as public 1210 recreation space. 1211 117 1212 Renee Price: Has any other archeology been done on the site. 1213 1214 Jeff Peloquin (Representative for Applicant for Cabe Crossing): That particular parcel has old burial sites with foot 1215 stones. It represents 4 acres with steep topography and mature trees. Originally we were going to use part of it but 1216 we decided not to. Originally we presented this to the Board and it was approved for 33 lots. Since that time, it also 1217 incorporated the area along the river which was a primary wildlife corridor. In working the plan, there are more 1218 elements involved. Basically, the primary element was that we had the property up here and the Eno River 1219 Association very anxiously was trying to purchase as much land as they could. In going through the process with the 1220 state, we managed to and they wanted to have it so the owners dedicated the sale of this property and 1221 decided to donate the 15 acres on the south side to construct the continuous length of the river. 1222 1223 Jay Bryan: Would you address the specific question? 1224 1225 Jeff Peloquin: There is a couple of old stones and it has been platted archeologically. 1226 1227 Renee Price: Are there any archeologically studies on the properties. 1228 1229 Jeff Peloquin: In our work, we have not found anything disputed or questionable. 1230 1231 Renee Price: Will this go the Historic Preservation Commission? 1232 1233 Glenn Bowles: Not normally but you could make that a recommendation. 1234 1235 Michelle Kempinski: Do you have an overhead of sheet S3 showing the patch line and stream buffers? 1236 1237 Glenn Bowles: No. 1238 1239 Michelle Kempinski: The dashed line on sheet S3 around the perimeter of the lot lines, those are the building set 1240 back lines. Does the county permit any sort of structure inside the stream buffer? 1241 1242 Glenn Bowles: No, unless it is a road. 1243 1244 Michelle Kempinski: Technically, for this plan, the building set back line indicates the area that you cannot build 1245 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 1246 lines cross over into the stream buffer and would it make sense to follow the edge of the stream buffer. 1247 1248 Glenn Bowles: If that were your preference, we could handle that. 1249 1250 Larry Wright: There are soils for suitable septic areas that overlap with the stream buffer too. 1251 1252 Glenn Bowles: As staff, we tend to discourage that situation. The only way it can be accomplished would be through 1253 1254 1255 Larry Wright: What do you mean by accomplished? Put one in there? 1256 1257 Glenn Bowles: They are being honest and showing the appropriate soils are in relationship to those setbacks and 1258 stream buffers. We discourage the placement of ground absorption fields and repair fields in those areas. 1259 1260 Lany Wright: I think that would be advisable because when an inspector goes there, do they have information on 1261. stream buffers? 1262 118 1263 Glenn Bowles: No but they call me. 1264 1265 Jay Bryan: That would be to discourage what aspect? 1266 1267 Glenn Bowles: Placing septic ground absorption systems in regulated stream buffers. 1268 1269 Lany Wright: It would be nice to be a little more forceful than to discourage. 1270 1271 Jeff Peolquin: I have sold many septic systems and if you talk to anyone in Environmental Health and they are very 1272 cautious about their setbacks. 1273 1274 Craufurd Goodwin: We have a list of requests from the Cabe Ford community for conditions, are these incorporated 1275 in your recommendations? 1276 1277 Glenn Bowles: No. Nearly every one of those are not typically dealt with in subdivision review of approval. 1278 1279 Craufurd Goodwin: There are issues with traffic and signs, etc and it seems we typically deal with those. 1280 1281 Glenn Bowles: The developer proposes some type of sign in front. 1282 1283 Craufurd Goodwin: It seems it would be helpful to have staff recommendations on each of these points. 1284 1285 Glenn Bowles: Staff recommendation is they are not appropriate to subdivision review and that most of them deal 1286 with homeowner's association documents which can be referred to the attomey. 1287 1288 Craufurd Goodwin: None of these are appropriate. 1289 1290 Glenn Bowles: Yes. They deal with the use of the road, building materials for the house, lighting, chaining of dogs 1291 which are not typically dealt with at a subdivision review approval. 1292 1293 Craufurd Goodwin: You are saying none of these are applicable. 1294 1295 Glenn Bowles: We can refer this to the attomey who could deal with the developer's attomey in the homeowner's 1296 association documents. That would be my recommendation to the board. 1297 1298 Jay Bryan: Craufurd, if you feel that there are conditions in there that should be made part of the application, we can 1299 move that we do that and see if it supported by other board members. Then it would be left to staff and the attorneys 1300 to decide if it is an appropriate condition but we can make recommendations. 1301 1302 Craufurd Goodwin: That would have been helpful. 1303 1304 Renee Price: How far is the entrance to Pleasant Green? 1305 1306 Glenn Bowles: Roughly one quarter mile. 1307 1308 Renee Price: Will there be improvements to Cabe Ford? 1309 1310 Glenn Bowles: We asked that question to Mr. Edwards at the NCDOT Regional office and he advised us there were 1311 none warranted. 1312 119 1313 Jeff Peloquin: We understand the concern of the neighbors. I received the same letter and I have been working with 1314 the staff as well as incorporating the same concerns that have been brought up through the process that is 1315 addressed in this memo. I would venture to say that most of all of them have been satisfied. It could be addressed 1316 via the normal circuit of planning staff and due process. It had to come through declaration, homeowner's 1317 association agreements and other avenues. The road situation was originally a major concern that the road could be 1318 damaged. It was a state maintained road and it had not been that for many years so as such, we wanted to make 1319 sure that it would not be downgraded to a lesser state. That was addressed with Chuck Edwards who did not feel it 1320 was a concern with the number of lots proposed. He may encourage construction traffic to do a weighting which 1321 means any construction traffic would be with lesser weight so it would not be downgraded. Another concern 1322 about traffic was the road does dead end and there was no turn around. There was a concern about not allowing 1323 traffic not being allowed to turn around. We felt it would we should install a sign, "This is a dead end road please do 1324 not enter". Other concerns were water, which was duly addressed, the ongoing management of the project. We 1325 elected to do all the construction at once and not phase it out. The integrity of the setbacks are not shown on here 1326 but the lots being the size they are, we were able to encourage the building the lot itself. That makes for the 1327 ability to have significant setbacks. Originally we were proposing. a signification component of open space on the left 1328 end trying to encourage the continuity with the Eno River Association and have less open space around the 1329 perimeter. In lieu of that plan, we increased the perimeter of open space and increased the setback area and 1330 rncognized secondary setbacks. We also incorporated many green policies in the homeowner's declaration which 1331 are available. We are trying to encourage the green spaces in all the communities. 1332 1333 t_any Wright: My question deals with odors, how you will protect the homeowner from dealing with an irate neighbor 1334 over the smell of manure pile that has been there for 30 years? 1335 1336 Jeff Peloquin: I believe there is a standard in the policies that existing properties are recognized. If you want to have 1337 that incorporated in the homeowner's association, which would be fine. 1338 1339 Craufurd Goodwin: This seems to deserve a formal, written response. We have a responsibility to be concerned for 1340 the welfare of the neighbors. 1341 1342 Jeff Peloquin: For the most part it is via the homeowner's association declaration including the landscape plan. 1343 1344 Craufurd Goodwin: Then they could be answered quickly, (i.e., see page 46). 1345 1346 Jay Bryan: We could make that part of the conditions. 1347 1348 Jeff Peloquin: Everything that is of legal statue and concern and even not, has been and is being addressed. 1349 1350 Jay Bryan: Are there any individuals from the public that would like to speak. 1351 1352 Melinda Ruley: I will be the only speaker on this subject tonight. I speak on behalf of my family and the neighbors. 1353 You have the ability to make any recommendations you wish. We are grateful to the Planning Board for reducing the 1354 number of lots in this subdivision. It is still larger than we would like. You have the set of detailed requests we spent 1355 a lot of time on. They fall into two general categories, construction traffic and creating a development that is in 1356 character with the existing rural community. We did not get the large lot we hoped for and we have been told that 1357 this will be sold to tract developer once it is approved. We have asked the applicant to look at the details you have. 1358 In this part of Orange County we are just barley holding on to our rural designation so of course, we object to the 1359 threat of more traffic, houses and lights. We are asking you help to see that this subdivision does not become one 1360 more suburban development of the kind that is eroding the rural character. We ask that you recommend that our 1361 requests be satisfied. I have been puzzled over the stub out. I have to conclude that stubs outs are a dodge for the 1362 developer who reports to solve problems but are putting them onto the next property owner to solve his problems for 120 1363 him. Would it be better to require the applicant to design a subdivision that fits the space he has? I would ask that 1364 you recommend that stub outs be removed from this development. Thank you for your time and consideration. 1365 1366 Michelle Kempinski: Whaf recourse would the property owner have if their property is damaged like this? 1367 1368 Glenn Bowles: The matter of the road itself could be bonded, be rated to the trucks could only be of a certain weight. 1369 1370 Michelle Kempinski: During construction? 1371 1372 Glenn Bowles: Make sure staff is informed. It is a civil matter. 1373 1374 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 1375 beginning of the road. If you add construction traffic on that road, those big trucks will be coming down and fuming 1376 around on our property unless the applicant is required to have a place they can tum around on their subdivision. Mr. 1377 Peloquin is saying that he will deal with these items in restrictive covenants, etc. They want to have this subdivision 1378 approved so it can be sold to Centex unless you say that the subdivision will be approved subject to the requests 1379 being made. Please look at what we have submitted. 1380 1381 Renee Price: Why is there a stub out to the east? Is there any indication that the property owners will sell it? As I 1382 recall, when they were previously here, they did not indicate they will sell it. Is there enough buffer in this area? 1383 1384 Glenn Bowles: We know of no particular activity where the stub outs for future development. We asked they be put 1385 in those general areas so that if something happened in the future we could get some degree of connectivity. 1386 1387 Renee Price: What about buffering on these other properties? 1388 1389 Glenn Bowles: The more intense agricultural uses are to the south. Those are residential. The depth of the buffer, 1390 which is a 40 foot buffer, could be decreased. 1391 1392 Michelle Kempinski: What is the required buffer? 1393 1394 Glenn Bowles: There is a minimum of 20 foot. 1395 1396 MOTION by Craufurd Goodwin that developer to return with responses to questions from the neighbors and if possible 1397 resolve as many of the issues before the Planning Board makes a decision. 1398 No Second to the motion. 1399 1400 MOTION by Judith Wegner that Planning Board approve the proposal subject to the conditions and requirements 1401 recommended by staff beginning on page 241 going through page 246 with one additional conditional. Seconded by 1402 Jeff Schmitt 1403 VOTE: (6-2) 1404 1405 Jay Bryan: Craufurd, I understand you wanted the developer to respond first and Larry, did you have a particular 1406 reason. 1407 1408 Larry Wright: There are many lots. You will have 16 trips/day coming from 20 homes. That's 320 trips/day added to 1409 the existing traffic burden on Cabe Ford Rd. 1410 1411 Jay Bryan: Is there a recommendation about the stub out? 1412 121 1413 MOTION by Michelle Kempinski that building setback line shown on the final plan submitted shall be relocated to 1414 coincide with the outside edge of the stream buffer and not encroach within the stream buffer for lots 7 through 14, 1415 16, and 17. Seconded by Jay Bryan 1416 VOTE: Unanimous 1417 1418 MOTION by Lany Wright that the septic drain systems, on map S3 denote suitable soils for the septic systems, 1419 respect the stream buffers that they move back. (Lots 11,12,13, and 14). Seconded by Michelle Kempinski 1420 VOTE: Unanimous 1421 1422 Michelle Kempinski: Does the definition of what is required for denoting a suitable soil include just the soil and 1423 criterion for or does it include set backs? 1424 1425 Glenn Bowles: Primarily it is for both property and soil. There are also set backs from lot lines. 1426 1427 Michelle Kempinski: It can include other criteria? 1428 1429 Glenn Bowles: Yes. That is my understanding. 1430 1431 Jay Bryan: I would like to propose that there be a stub out for pedestrian or bike usage that would connect to the 1432 adjoining property owners. 1433 1434 Judith Wegner. (CD: 3:47:16) If you have a stub out it is similar to a cul-de-sac. If any other adjacent property will be 1435 developed, the only other choice for multiple access 1436 1437 Michelle Kempinski: Are we assuming it will be a paved stub out or a reserved area? 1438 1439 Glenn Bowles: It is just reserved but it will not be paved at the development of the adjoining lot. 1440 1441 Judith Wegner. There will be a demarcation indicating that it is not part of their parcels. 1442 1443 Jay Bryan: I'm not going to make a motion. 1444 1445 Motion by Renee Price that both stubouts are eliminated. Seconded by Larry Wright 1446 VOTE: (7-1) 1447 1448 Michelle Kempinski: I would like to request for information from applicant regarding all Green techniques, water 1449 conservation, and green building standards for the construction process. I would like documents to be shared with 1450 the Planning Board for informational purposes. 1451 1452 MOTION by Renee Price that all archeological and historical aspects of this project including the cemetery be 1453 reviewed by the Historical Preservation Commission. Seconded by Larry Wright 1454 VOTE: (Unanimous) 1455 1456 Jay Bryan: I am concerned that we have not accepted Craufurd's motion and tried to address any of the 1457 requirements suggested. 1458 1459 MOTION by Judith Wegner that applicant post a construction bond sufficient to ensure that the construction process 1460 would proceed without damage to nearby properties and the amount would be determined by staff based on fiscal 1461 analysis. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt. 1462 VOTE: (Unanimous) 1463 122 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 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 Bemadette Pelissier. VOTE: (7-1) 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 Fond 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 Bemadette Pelissier. VOTE: (7-1) Judith Wegner. I don't think we be able to do any work on Buckhom Village? Jay Bryan: Is there a timeline to address this matter tonight) Robert Davis: Is that a simple matter. I can get all the information on the floor in a few minutes. Jay Bryan: We need a motion to address that. AGENDA ITEM 10: THE FOREST AT LITTLE RNER -PRELIMINARY PLAN To consider a recommendation to the BOCC for the Forest at Little River Preliminary Plat. The proposal is for four (4) lots on 20.9 acres in the Little River Township located east of Hunt Road (SR 1540) and along the south side Sweetflag Lane (Private) Presenter: Robert Davis, Planner III MOTION by Judith Wegner to postpone this until the September meeting and it will be the first item addressed. Seconded by Michelle Kempinski. VOTE: (Unanimous) Jay Bryan: Let me clarify what we should do tonight as far as to the rest of the business. Judith Wegner. Attorney Geoff Gledhill has been here for an hour and half and cannot be here next week. 123 1515 AGENDA ITEM 11: BUCKHORN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING/SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1516 Finalization of: 1517 a) PD/SUP Conditions of Approval 1518 b) SUP Findings of Fact 1519 c) Recommendation on Article 20 and 7 Rezoning 1520 Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director and Michael Harvey, Planner II 1521 1522 1523 Adjournment 1524 1525 MOTION made by Lany Wright to adjourn. Seconded by Michelle Kempinski. 1526 1527 Jay Bryan: I would like to share that he will not be available on the August 13 and so if we do not have another 1528 meeting after August 13, we will not have any benefits of his involvement. 1529 1530 Michelle Kempinski: Does a question sent to Geoff Gledhill need to be a motion by consensus of the board or 1531 individual questions. 1532 1533 Judith Wegner. (CD 4:07:08) I don't think it is good practice to have individual members writing 1534 1535 Michelle Kempinski: It is an opportunity so Geoff has an opportunity to respond or not. 1536 1537 MOTION made by Lany Wright to adjourn. Seconded by Michelle Kempinski. 1538 VOTE: (6-2) Jay Bryan, Chair