Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-01-2008 - 4gORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 1, 2008 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Cabe Crossing Subdivision — Preliminary Plat Modification and Re-approval DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: (Under Separate Cover) 1) Resolution of Approval 2) Proposed Preliminary Plat and Previously Approved Plat 3) 1110512008 Planning Board Minutes 4) Specific Revisions to Previous Approval Information 5) Materials for Previous Approval PUBLIC (YIN) N HEARING: INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Bowles, Planner 11, 245-2577 Robert P. Davis, Current Planning Supervisor, 245-2580 PURPOSE: To make a decision on the Cabe Crossing Subdivision Preliminary Plat modification and re-approval request. BACKGROUND: Plat Modification Request The sole purpose of this request is to remove the 4.73 acre Tract "A" from the approved preliminary plat. As the maps in Attachment 2 show, lot sizes and layout are unaffected by this request. The request is being made due to the Eno River Association's desire to go forward immediately with acquisition of open space lands, including the 4.73-acre Tract "A" land. Doing so necessitates a modification to the approved preliminary plat because: 1. The approved preliminary plat contains Tract "A", 2. The developer is not in a position (due to market conditions) to proceed with recording the final plat at this time, and 3. If the Eno River Association desires to acquire Tract "A", Tract "A" can be severed from the approved preliminary plat. Section III-D-3-e of the County's Subdivision Regulations requires that an "Applicant shall submit an amended application for review as an original application if he/she proposes to substantially amend or modify his/her application after the Board of Commissioners have approved the i Preliminary Plat." The plat is substantially the same except that the 4.73-acre public dedication s occurring sooner and independent of the original plat recording. Because of the independent exchange of property, the $9,100 payment-in-lieu-of-dedication fees will be affixed to this modified plat. 2 The Concept Plan for this subdivision was approved on June 6, 2007. The Planning Board recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat, with conditions, at its regular meeting on August 6, 2008 followed by the BOCC approval on September 2, 2008. Section III-D-3-e of the County's Subdivision Regulations requires a Final Plat to be approved within one (1) year of the Board of Commissioners' approval of a preliminary plat with administrative re-approval thereafter in accordance with Section III-D-3-f. Planning Board Recommendation At its regular meeting of November 5, 2008, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the modification to the approved Cabe Crossing preliminary plat. This re-approval removes the 4.73 acre Tract "A" from the approved preliminary plat. (The transfer of the land to the Eno River Association will occur "outside" of the plat and replaces the dedication with $9,100 in payment-in-lieu-of-dedication fees.) FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the County with approval of this request. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat in accordance with the . parkland dedication and plat size modifications noted and the attached Resolution of Approval, subject to the $9,100 payment-in-lieu-of-dedication fee. Attachment 1 3 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date of Meeting: Name of Subdivision: Owners: Applicant: December 1, 2008 Cabe Crossing Subdivision Bramco Partners Jeff Peloquin, Agent The Board of County Commissioners hereby re-approves the Cabe Crossing Preliminary Plan, dated February 8, 2008 with the modifications noted on the October 31, 2008 application, containing twenty (20) lots and public streets Running Cedar Lane and River Stone Road, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. Before any final plat for the subdivision of any of the tracts shown on the Cabe Crossing preliminary plan may be recorded the owner/applicant shall comply with the following terms and conditions: A. Sewage Disposal 1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for a conventionally sized septic disposal system, and its associated repair area, approved by the County Division of Environmental Health. 2. The septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements. This disclosure shall be included in a document describing development restriction to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall also disclose that information regarding the tentative location of septic systems is available from the County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health. Each lot that does not contain a suitable building site shall be designated both on the Final Plat and by instrument recorded in the Orange County registry as restricted for development potential as set forth in Section IV-B-2 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 3. The owner/applicant shall not destroy trees that have previously been inventoried and located within the primary tree conservation areas as depicted and described in the Landscape Plan for any reason including to install on-site waste disposal system drain or repair fields. 4. No septic system shall be located within a regulated stream buffer. 5. The Owners shall include in the restrictive covenants provisions for the regular inspection, maintenance and pumping of septic systems serving the subdivision lots. These provisions shall be in a form approved by the County Attorney. B. Roads and Access 1. The owner/applicant shall, prior to the approval and recording of the Final Plat, construct the public roads to NCDOT standards, within a fifty- (50) foot right-of-way, n with ten- (10) foot utility easements on each side, and with NCDOT construction inspection and approval. OR The owner/applicant shall submit a letter of credit or cash bond to secure construction of the above public road improvements to NCDOT standards. The estimate shall be submitted by a certified/licensed engineer, grading contractor or other individual qualified to calculate the cost to complete the improvements according to approved plans and specifications, who has no direct or indirect ownership interest in the subdivision as specified in Section III-E-2 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The financial guarantee shall reflect one hundred ten (110) percent of that construction cost estimate and an accredited financial institution licensed to conduct business in North Carolina shall issue such financial guarantee. The financial guarantee shall be effective for 372 days after the County Manager signed the Certificate of Improvements. The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final Plat shall state that the County shall not release the financial guarantee until NCDOT inspects and approves the road construction and provides written certification of such approval. 2. The owner/applicant shall submit to the County Erosion Control Division for review and approval, before any land disturbing activity on the site, an erosion control plan for construction of public roads, private recreation activities, and drainage improvements. 3. The owner/applicant shall erect an approved street name sign at the intersection of each road and at the intersection with Cabe Ford Road according to the provisions of Section IV-13-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations before Planning Department signatures on the Final Plat. All street name signs shall be double bladed. 4. Before any construction or alteration of any existing access within the Cabe Ford Road right-of-way, the owner/applicant shall secure a driveway permit from the NCDOT District Offices. Owner/applicant shall submit a copy of such NCDOT approval permit and letter to the Planning Department at the same time as the request for Planning Department signatures on the Final Plat. The owner/applicant shall perform no work in any public road right-of-ways before issuance of approved NCDOT driveway permits and encroachment agreements. 5. Sight triangles, ten (10) feet by seventy (70) feet, shall be shown on the Final Plat at all intersections. The sight distance triangle shall be exclusive of the proposed sign easement. 6. A sign, between three (3) and four (4) square feet in area, shall be placed at the terminus of each area labeled as "Reserved Future Access" indicating that the street is subject to future extension. These areas shall be clearly indicated on the Final Plat with the words "Subject to future extension." 7. A cash bond, in an amount determined to be sufficient by the County and NC DOT, shall be posted to provide funds for any damages incurred during the construction 5 process to property within the public right-of-way or to the roadway surface of Cabe Ford Road. 8. The applicant shall place signs restricting construction traffic to the eastern section of Cabe Ford Road, marking the entrance to the Cabe Crossing Subdivision directing that construction vehicles not be parked or left overnight on the shoulder of Cabe Ford Road, Grady Lane, Virgie Lane and stating that there is no turn around at the western end of Cabe Ford Road. C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping The owner/ applicant shall install or preserve landscaping as indicated on the approved Landscape Plan (open spade and pathways plan), and the Planning Department shall inspect and approve such landscaping before signing the Final Plat. No part of the landscaping shall encroach into the ten- (10) foot by seventy- (70) foot sight triangles at the public road intersection. OR The owner/applicant shall submit a letter of credit or cash bond to secure required landscape installation and preservation. The owner/applicant shall provide, as specified in Section IV-B-8-b-9 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, an estimate of the cost for required preservation, plantings and their installation. The financial guarantee shall reflect one hundred (110) percent of the estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. 2. Provision for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements that Planning Department staff prepared and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. Clear cutting or other removal of any trees or other vegetation on individual lots is prohibited as specified in Section IV-B-8-c of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 3. The owner/applicant shall provide a Type A Land Use Buffer along the internal public roads and Cabe,Ford Road (SR 1570), as shown on the Preliminary Plan.. The buffer shall be thirty (30) feet wide and shall be composed of deciduous and/or evergreen vegetation, forming semi-opaque intermittent visual obstructions from the ground to a height of at least thirty (30) feet. Said buffer shall be so noted on the plat, and detailed in a document describing development restrictions and requirements prepared by Planning Department staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The owner/applicant shall convey the thirty- (30) foot buffer easement along the public roads to the Homeowner's Association (HOA) for enforcement and maintenance. 4. The stream buffer areas along the rear of Lots 8 through 17, as shown on the preliminary plan, shall be shown on the final plat as areas to be left undisturbed and in their natural state. Grading, clearing, or installation of any structure, impervious surface, fence or play apparatus shall not be placed within the buffer. Additionally, when marketing these lots to prospective buyers, the developer, contractor or real estate sales person shall provide information, available at the Orange County Erosion Control offices, to prospective buyers regarding the nutrient reduction requirements within the Lower Eno Watershed. M D. Drainage 1. Locate all drainage easements on the Final Plat, as required following Erosion Control Plan review and approval. 2. The owner/applicant shall size and locate all drainage culverts as required by NCDOT and a North Carolina Licensed Professional Engineer. E. Parkland and Recreation 1 The developer shall place a total of 19.73 acres in common open space, which the HOA will own and maintain. This open space shall be shown and labeled accordingly on the final plat. 2. At the time of recordation of the Final Plat the Developer shall pay to Orange County a $9,100 payment-in-lieu-of-dedication fee. 3. The owner/applicant shall designate recreational space as specified in Section IV- B-7-b of the County Subdivision Regulations and in Article 6.12.2.6 in the Zoning Ordinance. The total recreation space required for this development is less than 2 acres. The 19.73 acres of open space may serve a dual role of private recreation space provided active recreation improvements are made. 4. The HOA shall obtain an approved NCDOT encroachment agreement for the footpath that falls within the public road rights-of-way before construction. 5. No activities are allowed in prescribed open space, except recreational facilities. 6. Except for construction of footpaths and stormwater improvement facilities [e.g. bio- retention], all areas in reserved open space shall remain in their natural condition. 7. A picnic shelter and table, to be provided in the Tract `C' open space shall be installed at the fifty (50) percent build out point (i.e. prior to issuance of the 11th building permit). F. Miscellaneous The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map according to standards found in Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the County Subdivision Regulations. 2. The Final Plat shall reflect the drainage easements as required in D.1 above. 3. The open space shall be conveyed by deed to the Homeowner's Association. The County Attorney, prior to their recording, shall approve all instruments of conveyance and restriction. 4. Before installation of lighting within the subdivision, the owner/applicant shall submit a lighting plan to the Planning Department for review and approval. 7 5. The Planning and Solid Waste Departments shall review and approve a plan for the collection and proper disposal of all tree stumps and fallen logs before approval of the erosion control plan. 6. The owner/applicant shall note impervious cover square footage limits for each lot on the Final Plat. 7. Clean wood waste, scrap metal, and corrugated cardboard, shall be recycled. 8. All haulers of construction waste shall have proper licensing through the Orange County Solid Waste Department. 9. Before any on-site construction activity, the owner/applicant shall hold a pre- construction conference with the County Solid Waste staff. This may be the same meeting held with other development officials. 10. Before installation of a subdivision sign, County Planning shall review and approve a site plan and construction drawings. 11. The owner/applicant shall install a water withdrawal system for emergency fire suppression with signage acceptable to the Orange County Fire Marshal prior to recordation of the final plat. 12. The owner shall file, with the Planning Department and record with the Final Plat, a declaration of covenants and restrictions, articles of incorporation, where required, and/or by-laws, all as approved by the County Attorney, that will govern the maintenance and control of the improvements as set forth in Article III-E of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Said documents shall provide for ownership of open space and the dedication of easements to access open space, common area POSA's, drainage easements and buffers, for maintenance. The Owner has agreed that said documents shall not restrict the use of energy efficient measures, including but not limited to clotheslines by the lot owners, not shall said documents require any lot owner to engage in water intensive lawn maintenance. 13. The maximum impervious surface coverage for each lot shall be 36% of the platted lot area. This figure is exclusive of public road right-of-way. G. Certifications 1. The owner/applicant shall have notarized on the face of the Final Plat a Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a Professional Land Surveyor. . 2. The owner/applicant shall sign a Certification of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section V-D-6-b of the County Subdivision Regulations on the face of the plat and shall record concurrently with the Final Plat a document describing development restrictions. F-11 3. The NCDOT shall certify that all public roads have been entirely constructed to NCDOT standards or that construction plans have been approved before Planning Department signatures on the Final Plat. 4. The Planning Department shall sign a Certificate of Approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners that the Preliminary Plat for Cabe Crossing Subdivision is approved in accordance with the above- mentioned conditions and attached Preliminary Plat dated February 8, 2008, last revised on October 31, 2008. Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner I the foregoing resolution was adopted this the 1 st day of December, 2008. 1, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on December 1, 2008 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this _ day of _, 2008. Clerk to the Board of Commissioners A*cAM -ear z �o geG� A t ice. ►`nci..r y plq_y- evr'� us l y Arpr-bved s�V15O55V s°iS Si13 MJ O3KM =: "�%; mumns Aso ".+i°1ew a. 1SOd F`- E•�`I' --- �- -^.ttr"ia � v�mta � b dPnHd -- amxFia a t x 0 14 AR A k �7 If fit Ulm fill, •:RSL' ilia SRR� " +� �( 1 ae rna oru !i 1 I.- hil f } �,6?6 SRI Wti Ah gig � SS`.mtia 4 4 y I s i I big AR A k �7 If fit Ulm fill, •:RSL' ilia SRR� " +� �( 1 ae rna oru !i 1 I.- hil f } �,6?6 SRI Wti Ah gig � SS`.mtia 4 4 y I s i �t D WA r--f MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2008 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Joel Forrest Knight, U e River Representative; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Renee A. Price, Hillsborough Township At -Large (Vice Chair); Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At- Large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At-Large MEMBERS ABSENT: Cheeks Representative, Vacant; Eno Township, Vacant; At- Large, Vacant STAFF PRESENT: Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor, Michael Harvey, Planner 11; Glenn Bowies, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Robin Jacobs, Eno River Association Director; Bob Brame, Owner AGENDA ITEM 9: CASE CROSSING (FORMERLY BRAMCO PARTNERS) SUBDIVISION — PRELIMINARY PLAN To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding a modification to the approved preliminary plan, specifically to allow conveyance of the 4.73 -acre open space tract to occur prior to the recordation of the remainder of the subdivision. Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II Glenn Bowles: One of two events could occur with the process. With the economic problems, the developers don't think they can go forward with the project right now because of financing issues and bond issues. Secondly the Eno River Association would like to close on the deal which was tract A in the approved subdivision. Either of those situations would have occurred and this would not have been considered but since they would like to close now rather than after the plat has been recorded, we are so taking you can see what was added and deleted, Theapproved only emthat was removed was th strike 4.73 acrres delete of land. format Y Larry Wright: On page 44, Mr. Peck discusses the point of the addition of one or more recreational amenities such as a picnic shelter, what is he referring to? Glenn Bowles: He is referring to open spaces, maybe on tract B or the other acreage on tract A. (Points to the area on map). This would complement the. proposal tonight. At this point, the plats typically identify where that type of use might go. Judith Wegner: That would be taken out of the approved plat because it is already conveyed? Glenn Bowles: It is in the process. Judith Wegner: What are we being asked again? Glenn Bowles: To move on a modification and re- approval of the plat so that the 4.73 acres not part of the plat. Renee Price: This would change the open space. Eli Joel Knight: Without the 4.73 acres, it still meets all the standards for open space? Glenn Bowles: Yes. It has less than 33% which does not apply. MOTION made by Judith Wegner to approve the amended preliminary plat to delete the 4.73 acres. Seconded by Joel Knight. Renee Price: If they are conveying the land to the Eno River Association, we have nothing to do with that at this point? Glenn Bowles: Correct. Renee Price: The Historic Preservation would have to appeal to the state to have that protected. Judith Wegner: At least it is not being developed. Craufurd Goodwin: Would the normal process be to wait until a conveyance and then move for approval? Glenn Bowles: Our attorney has suggested we do it the other way. Unfortunately, the attorney is not here but he suggested conveyance occur after Board of County Commissioners approval. Robin Jacobs: I .talked with Goeff, the feeling was that even though it could legally do it that way, it screws up the process as far as the subdivision, the thought it was cleaner this way. Our goal for this is to get it done before the end of the year. Renee Price: If they don't have the money, will this happen? Robin Jacobs: I am the Executive Director of the Eno River Association. The situation is that right this minute; you cannot get a development loan for something like this. If the subdivision is approved, they have a period of time to do that, in order to transfer the property to us..... Renee Price: Are we approving a plat that may not happen. Brian Crawford: I am not sure that is relevant. Glenn Bowles: If they can't go forward, they have one year. Larry Wright: I am not sure what is before us other than this change to move ahead and let the small acreage be protected and at a later date go on with the development. Judith Wegner: We are modifying the plat by saying that this segment out. Nothing else changes in the package. Larry Wright: Are we making on a motion on all this information. Glenn Bowles: All the other information is background information. Larry Wright: What about the letter from the Historic Preservation? Joel Knight: This is concerning the cemetery area that will go to the Eno River. 13 Brian Crawford: Move the question Jay Bryan: Ok, there's been a motion and a second. Any further discussion? MOTION made by Judith Wegner to approve the amended preliminary plat to delete the 4.73 acres. Seconded by Joel Knight. VOTE: Unanimous Jay Bryan: The Historic Preservation Commission also expressed concern about other potential historic and prehistoric resources on the property. Will anything be done about their concerns? Glenn Bowles: I would have to refer that to the owner or his agent. The site was forested 50 years ago so any surface features are gone. Jay Bryan: I am refereeing the letter written to Tina Moon, page 62 of the agenda packet, which indicated a couple of sites. Are all those contained within the four acres? Glenn Bowles: One is. The other is a family plot and there is a third one not on this plot. When construction begins, I may ask them to contact myself or Tina Moon if they find anything. Jay Bryan: You mentioned that the Historic Preservation Commission did not submit their proposed recommendation in time. Was it not received within a day or two of the meeting? Glenn Bowles: The packets had to go out on Wednesday and we received the reports on Thursday and Friday. Since 1 had them, I felt duty bound to give them to the board at theirmeeting. Jay Bryan: My concern is that boards may think they can make recommendations anytime before the process as long as it is in advance of the Public Hearing. I am a little concerned that it was not accepted in the public record to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners because the staff made a determination that it was not presented in time. Renee Price: In addition, the Planning Board has requested the Historic Preservation Commission to review it. Jay Bryan: The Board of County Commissioners should look at the timing issue. Do any of us really know what the deadline is for submission? I didn't know about this agenda item until we got to the Buckhom Village. Tina Moon: It was a timing issue. The Planning Board meets at the beginning of the month and the Historic Preservation Commission meets at the end of the month. The Planning Board considers this at the beginning of August and by the time the Historic Preservation Commission had their meeting, it was the fourth Wednesday of the month. The packet cut off was the next Thursday at 12:05. The status for the preservation office was a one day turn around and it was not in time for the packet. I should have gone to the meeting to explain the comments but I thought it was clear. The comments were, the cemetery, which was resolved. The second comments dealt with other historic or archeological resources on the site. The county does not have good records on archeology. The state field there was a high likelihood of finding things of interest on this property because of the Eno River and the other was because of Cabe Plantation. Deloris Hall is the archeologist for our area, and she felt there was a high likely hood and she recommended the County request the developer conduct a Phase I Archeological for the property. It was offer the opportunity to find assets and prevent bulldozing things. Her letter simply states when she can require it. The state cannot require a survey. The Planning Board had previously discussed the best way to deal with IA- archeological resources and determine when a survey was appropriate. The way is it was left was to ask the state staff when they would recommend a survey. Glenn Bowles: If it were a Special Use Permit, it would have been required. Larry Wright: I would like to see how the board would feel about having staff explore Mr. Peek's letter so it is not buried or lost and make a recommendation to that. Judith Wegner: I thought when we last acted on this, it was taken into consideration. Larry Wright: I thought it was just on the parcel and four acres. Jeffrey Schmitt: I think this is for information with the exception of the 4.37 acres. Judith Wegner: The only question is whether to carve out the 4.37 acres. Brian Crawford: All this information we have is just for information purposes. It led to consideration that we could reconsider that vote. That is not in the offer. When presented in the future, if there could be a note that this is for informational purposes only. 'a Attachment 4 Specific Revisions to Abstract Information for Previous Approval For further clarification, revisions to the abstract for the former preliminary plat approval are denoted in underlined text. Deletions are denoted w0--&-d9wble=S#" th Request — Preliminary Plan Applicant; Jeff Peloquin of J. Peloquin Construction, Inc., agent for the owners. The engineer for the applicant is Tim Smith of Phil Post & Associates of Chapel Hill, NC. owners: Bramco Partners The subdivision follows the Conven tional Design option, but With many of the attributes of a Conservation-Cluster Option of Flexible Development, except for the 100 foot perimeter buffer. (The Preliminary Plat proposes a variable Width perimeter buffer.) • Total acreage is 68_74 acres al Concept plan approved for 33 lots) • Twenty (20) single family residential lots (Origin • Lot sizes range from 1.56 acres to 3.33 acres, with a 2.2.2-acre average. • The percentage of open space is 33=29 _2870% (2" 19.73-acres). • Gross density is 3.67= 44 acres per lot. Item Conventional r Subdivision Land Area j 68.74 acr( Area in public road r.o.w. 4.10 acres Area outside of public road .oad w. 64.64 acre Platted lot area 44.44 acres Minimum Lot Width 150 feet Minimum front setback 40 feet Minimum side and rear setbacks 20 feet Location: South side of L;aDe t-uru mudu kQ, IVI %;/ in Eno Township. (SR 1567) Existing Conditions Existing: • Zoning: AR (Agricultural Residential) -- 40,000 square feet minimum lot size • The property is located in the Lower Eno -- Protected Watershed (one acre maximum density). • Maximum impervious surface in the Lower Eno Protected watershed for residential development is thirty-six percent (36%) without curb and gutter (1,077,953 square feet). • Located in a Rural Designated Area per Growth Management System m I ap. E Physical Features: weathered bedrock at the surface. • Rolling topography with some One hundred- (1 00) foot wide AT&T right-of way bisects the northern portion tion of subdivision. s flowing southwest into the Eno River pass through the proposed • Three different stream re subdivision. (The Erosion Control Division completed stream calls for each stream on March 6, 2006.) The property is completely forested, except for the utility easements; however, all the land has been timbered over the past sixty- (60) years. Adjacent Land Use: • Properties to the east front on Pleasant Green Road. The east side of Pleasant Green Road is zoned R-1 (Rural Residential). • Properties to the north are platted single-family residential lots averaging 3.5 acres. • Properties to the south are large lot residential parcels. averaging nearly ten (10) acres in area. • Properties to the west are State-owned parklands. • 24 of the 37 (65%) surrounding properties within five hundred (500) feet of the proposed subdivision have lot sizes smaller than the proposed 3.67- 44 acre per lot density. • All phases of the Pleasant Green Woods subdivision, on the east side of Pleasant Green Road southeast of Cabe Ford Road, have a residential density of just over 3 acres per lot and an average lot size of 64,617 sq. ft (1.48 acres). PROPOSAL Conventional Residential Major Subdivision Total subdivision contains 74AW= 68.74 acres. • Average lot size is 2.22 acres. ined 88 acres, which are a replat of Lots 2, 3, • At the concept plan stage, the plan conta 4, 5, and 8 of the Bramco Trading Corp. subdivision, recorded on January 25, 1982, • A recombination plat of these five lots and a 15.4-acre, one lot exempt subdivision was recorded on February 1, 2008. The new exempt subdivision lot created will be conveyed to the Eno River Association by the current owner with the intent of transferring the property into State ownership as part of the Eno River State Park. It is not part of this subdivision and not considered when subdivision open-space is calculated. Using the Conventional Plan option, the applicant is proposing a 20-lot subdivision (a 3.67- 44 acre density). This alternative has all the attributes of a Conservation Cluster Flexible Design option; except for the 1 00-foot perimeter buffer. (The Preliminary Plat proposes a variable width perimeter buffer.) • The subdivision will require the dedication of 4.10 acres for public road r.o.w. 24=44 19_73 acres in private open space (33=2=9 _2870% of the total subdivision area) will be deeded, fee-simple, to and owned , by the subdivision homeowners association. T=his %we i—p-sludet, t0e 4.73. _06meTraet " is haw. - • Planning staff tong extra time during Concept Plan stage to discuss and resolve issues . I of connectivity, voluntary parkland dedication, density, and lots of record, as these 11 issues may affect lot counts and the appropriate type of preliminary plat application. The result of this deliberation resulted in a 20-lot conventional option preliminary plat. Roads: Access to the subdivision is from a proposed 2,61 0-foot long cul-de-sac, River Stone Road, and a 735 foot cul-de-sac, Running Cedar Lane, off of Cabe Ford Road (SRI 570), a paved, state-maintained road in Eno Township, Each public road will have a fifty-foon 50') wigy with twenty- (20) foot temporary construction easements both sides of the road. Stub-out, platted, public rights-of-way are proposed to the east between Lots 2 and 3 and to the north through open Space Tract "C". The low redevelopment potential to the south and the state parklands to the west do not make future road extensions feasible or advisable. All roads shall be constructed to NCDOT (and County) standards. Open Space/Buffers: The developer is 33:2$.70% proposing 9 (2A=46 19_73 acres) of the subdivision be in common open space, even though the proposal is a conventional subdivision, The 'rpp. Pik a nr= QaAeePt=P4aA=aPPFEWaI that 24.M=aefes do FieWnskWe E River State4 -9k, ut #=does ineIwde=&Aq4-aGf6 It AW% 411 h P ri'm 41nated as sub lie=reem"en 0 A It '=m1wri5p� fort -s_1x_L46j of the 24=46a, 19.73 acres, or thiAY sew"M�,' L Nine (9) acres . in steep slopes, regulated floodplains, historic Perce of the common open space is area identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and archaeological sites, or a natural and Wildlife Habitats and would be considered primary Conservation Areas under flexible development regulations. a en lapd=am- the pubHe4hrze�oh the-_fin@=Rivar=&at0 P@ • Over . sixty (60) -percent of the open space cover is mature upland hardwoods, but not in a regulated floodplain or on slopes over twenty-five (25) percent. • The Home Owners Association will own 19.73 acres of common open space. • while not a requirement as the proposed subdivision is not a Conservation — Cluster Option of Flexible Development, less than half of the designated open space is Primary Conservation Area. The prop osed subdivision, nevertheless, meets the standard because at least seventy-five (75) ion ) or eighty-five access to Primary or Secondary Conservation eas, seventeen ( (85) percent of the proposed lots have direct access to Primary or Secondary Of Conservation Areas, and the other three (3) lots are within three hundred (300) feet an access point. • Developer provided a landscape plan showing primary and secondary tree protection areas. tB =7) =9-8.70% of the property is in common open space; thiAY 9WOR (2- If 46 percent of which is in areas that would be classified as Primary Conservation Area; and obdy- thfeeoa) 54 percent of which is in areas that would be classified as Secondary Conservation Area if developed under Flexible Development guidelines. COUNTY AGENCY REVIEWS: Recreation • Public Recreation Space: • The property is located within the R8 — Chapel Hill District Park (as detailed on the Recreation Service Area Boundaries Map), last updated in October 2004. • No physical dedication of recreation space is warranted in this case as neither the County Parks and Recreation Advisory Council nor the Environment and Resource Conservation Department (ERCD) have identified recreation or conservation sites within the subdivision. -lieu e The County Parks and Recreation Advisory Council recommends a payment in option in the amount of $9,100 (20 lots times $455 per lot). n dedfanibn, Pf A e Private Recreation Space: • The County Parks and Recreation Advisory Council recommends the addition of a private picnic shelter or playground to be placed in Open Space Tract "C". • Acreage required for private, common, recreation open . space to be set aside is 1.25 acres. 19.73 acres are proposed. • The ERCD recommends that the proposed Open Space remain in private ownership and be managed as undeveloped common land by the homeowners association. Certification of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) As per its letter, Orange County Schools pre-awarded a Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) for twenty (20) housing units. (CAPS dated May 13, 2008 is included in Attachment 4.) Fiscal Impact has not changed Fire Suppression Applicant has proposed to insta 11 a water withdrawal facility (a half-acre wet pond with a volume of around 150,000 cubic feet) for the purpose of emergency water for fire suppression on-site. Water — Sewer o Individual well and septic disposal systems will serve all lots. • The Orange County Environmental Health Department has determined that there are twenty (20) acceptable private septic disposal fields and replacement fields. (Please refer to Alan Clapp's email message of April 2008.) Historic Preservation * Care is given to the preservation of the cemetery located on Tract "A". M The location of the proposed plat is referred to the State Archaeologist to determine if other historic or archaeological assets are located on -site. [ERCD staff referred this matter to the State Archaeologist o Au2t. No ther historic or archaeological assets were reveale the State inventory.] PLANNING STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDAsIO NS : 1. The proposed development is compatible with the es nd densities suggested in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed development complies with the Subdivision egulations standards relating to open space percentage and acres, the type of open spaRce, roadway design, and buffers. 3. The proposed development complies with the Zoning Ordinance standards regarding minimum lot size, impervious cover, and density. neighborhood conpea s by reducing the number of lots from 4. The applicant addressed the neig d providing turn thirty-three (33), as approved with the Concept , to twenty (20) an around capabilities for school buses, = +at0=PtWi)eSe=ef :WM_1° ... - ..... - - I Planning Staff recommends Approval of the Preliminary Plat in accordance with: The attached Resolution of Approval, rbfqte= See The 9,100 in-lieu-of parkland dedication fee be ggggPted waived, and fNeta--'� $ Re66k#kW=0fAPPfaVa1=iteffl 6'31 • The "stub out" streets shall be included on the Preliminary Plat [Note: See Resolution of Approval item B.6] Schedule and Action _Ghed,� Planning Board d Information Meeting was held on March 20, 2007. First Action, Neighborhoo Second Action: Concept Plan for a conventional subdivision was approved on June 6, 2007 with the following conditions; o A subdivision for no more than 33 lots, o Provide a cul-de-sac radii and intersection radii according to County Fire Marshall, Solid Waste Department, and NCDOT standards. o Applicant shall provide private recreational facilities and shall conserve natural features (steep slopes, floodplains, et al.) in the primary and secondary areas. The developer proposes a footpath system along the drainage easement. o Applicant shall specify proposed activities in all buffer areas. o No activities are allowed in prescribed open space, except recreational facilities. o Buffer areas are to remain undisturbed and in their natural state. RE 0 An inventory of all trees is required for preliminary plat I submittal for areas proposed for disturbance. 0 Developer shall address at the time of preliminary plat submittal the Fire Marshall's comments with regard to usable water sources for fire suppression and life safety considerations, address all comments o Applicant shall in the attached memorandum from Soil and Water at the time of preliminary plat submittal. 0 Because of existing and projected traffic volumes on Pleasant Green Road, more extensive traffic improvements may be warranted at the proposed intersection. These improvements, determined at the time of the preliminary plat, may include a right turn deceleration lane or a left turn lane. Improvements to Cabe Ford Road may also be warranted. (Because the proposed subdivision now contains only twenty (20) lots and is not subject to Special Use Permit review criteria, a traffic analysis is not required.) o Submit a plan to address land-clearing debris handling with the preliminary plan application. County regulations allow no burning of stumps and timber debris. 0 The variable width perimeter building setback designated on the plan should be at least 100 feet in depth and re-designated as a land use buffer. Third Action: The Planning Board recommended on August 6, 2008 approval of the Preliminary Plat application with the following conditions: 1. The developer shall respond to questions posed in the letter from the neighborhood and resolve as many of the issues, as possible, before the subdivision is approved. [Note: Largely not included in Resolution of Approval as several requests are beyond zoning and subdivision regulation; Conditions 7, 8, and 9 below are related to Neighborhood's concerns. See Attachment 6 for Applicant's response]. 2. The proposed subdivision approval is subject to the conditions and requirements listed in the Resolution of Approvat. 3. Relocate the setback lines to coincide with the outside edge of the stream buffers. [Note: County ordinances do not permit disturbance of stream buffers. Applicant has voluntarily complied with this condition. See Resolution of Approval item C.4-]. 4. On all future plats, the applicant shall remove all potential �ermif delineated stream buffers. [Note: County ordinances do not disturbance of stream buffers. Applicant has voluntarily complied with this condition; See Resolution of Approval item A.4.]. 5. Eliminate both "stub out'" streets from the plat. [Note: Not included in Resolution of Approval; County ordinances require connectivity to adjacent lands], 6. That the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) shall review all archeological and historical aspects of this project, including the cemetery to determine compliance with any and all applicable regulations. [Note: Not included in Resolution of Approval as applicable regulations already apply. Project was sent to the HPC for its review — see comments in Agency Review section above]. 7. The applicant shall post a construction bond sufficient to ensure that the construction process would proceed without damage to nearby properties and staff would determine the amount based on fiscal analysis for any damages incurred on Cabe Ford Road. [Note: See item B.7 in Resolution of Approval]. 8. The applicant shall develop lighting strategies that minimize adverse effects on dark skies and comply with Orange County Outdoor Lighting Standards. [Note: Not included in Resolution of Approval as all projects must comply with adopted Lighting Standards which include provisions for dark skies; See � Resolution of Approval item F.4.]. 9. The applicant shall place signs restricting construction traffic to the eastern section of Cabe Ford Road, marking the entrance to the Cabe Crossing Subdivision to ensure that other vehicles not be parked or left over night on the shoulder of Cabe' Ford Road, Grady Lane, Virgie Lane, and stating that there is no turn aroqnd at the western end of Cabe Ford Road. [Note: See item B.8 in Resolution of Approval]. Conditions 7, 8, and 9 listed above are the Planning Board's response to the Neighborhood's concerns. The applicants response is provided in Attachment 8. Fourth Action: The BOCC re . ceives planning staff, Planning Board, and Administration recommendations and then makes final decision on the Preliminary Plat application. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Impact Analysis is included I as Attachment 6. RECOMMENDATIONS: a� Attachment 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Materials for Previous Approval Attachment A: Application Attachment B: Vicinity Map Attachment C: Agency Comments Attachment D: Eno River Association letter Attachment E: June 6, 2007 Planning Board Minutes Attachment F: August 6, 2008 Planning Board Minutes Attachment G: September 2, 2008 BOCC Minutes Hui MI, . 0 Attachment A APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION ORANGE COUNTY PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) DATE: 3/4/08 SUBDIVISION NAME: Cabe Crossing LOCATION: S. Side Cabe Ford Road ;.Adjacent to Eno River OWNERIDEVELOPEM Bramco Partners; c/o Jeff Peloquiu ADDp.EsS: 949 Washington Street TELEPHONE NO.: (919) 619- -2350 Durham, NC 27701 AGENTICONTACT: Philip Post & Associates ATTN: Tim Smith ADDRESS: 401 Providence Road, Suite 200 TELEPHONE Na.- (919) 929 -1173 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 A SWMARY INFORMATION 24 1A Orange County Taos Map 23 Stock Lots) 45 Township Eno Zoning Dishict(s): cu total Eeesidentlal T 0bd Number of Acres: 3. 7 AC Total Number of lots: 20 Average Lot Size: �9(f...ti Numberfl'ype of Structures: (,�wcisunp� N023E UnearFeetInStreets, 3��SO T Areas water supply: Public (specify) Wastewater Disposal: Pubic {specify) School District: Cameron Pk Stanfoxd to Fire Disfhtcl General Rand Uses in Residential/Agriculture, Critical Areas• Yes sttealmmyn W -- R4%rar watershed lmum Lot Size: 4t , U,uu 1117 - idj n Space: 25.06 AC nhunity Well individual nmunity ep c Individual prone areas stork sites contacpt� orange CountyTax office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred twcespunder "farm use value taxation." 8 Ail plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equa%, two-hundred feet (1- =2W) and no larger than one inch equals twenty feet (1" =20i and must contain the following information: subdivision name ✓ zoning of tract and adjacent: properties V- name & addt+ass of owner (s) building setback lines by notation or typical lot tryout yr location and width of existing and proposed easements (drainage, utilities, roads, etc.) Existing, pmpo� and adjo'nring rights.of.vM Including dimensions and street names and State Road numbers. Unear feet of road centeritnes and approximate acreage of new street rights- of -way ✓_ existing and proposed utilities, including type. sizes. hydrants, valves, manholes existing and proposed curbs, guitera and culverts, including sizes and grades name & address of subdivider (if other than owner) V/ name of surveyor, engineer, landscape architect or architect, address, ✓ registration # & seal (title) Preliminary Plan _____ scale, north arrow date of plan preparation and revisions township, tax map-block-tot references 7 -1 V Parent Parcel identification # deed book and page # of property to be t,% subdivided boundary described with bearings and distances building setback lines by notation or typical lot tryout yr location and width of existing and proposed easements (drainage, utilities, roads, etc.) Existing, pmpo� and adjo'nring rights.of.vM Including dimensions and street names and State Road numbers. Unear feet of road centeritnes and approximate acreage of new street rights- of -way ✓_ existing and proposed utilities, including type. sizes. hydrants, valves, manholes existing and proposed curbs, guitera and culverts, including sizes and grades t/ total acreage of the toad and acreage of i% location and width of alleys, sidewalks, bike lanes, transit lots, Inchtding and excluding areawithin rights- of-way I/ systems. and bus stops iI control comer tro typical sst cross sections and intersection details Including design and width of travalway and proposed lotlnes with dimensions shoulders horizontal alignment, centtarlins radius, and general curve data on alt lot block numbers proposedstreets phasing gne(s) topography at ton (10) foot Intervals , .,..... J water bodies, streams, floodways and landmarks buildings, cemeteries, historic floodplalns �' stream buffers adjoining lot layout names of -- - ts dedicated far location and sloe parcels propWawnors. if subdivided, subdivision plat name, public use, recreational use or reserved ti plat book � page number, and in common, with purpose noted padmeter tot numbers. of impervious surface data (Inocaled In location and size of lots of restricted devolopment potential and notation wafarsupply watershed} on plat regarding same it vicinity map showing general location of subdivision with streets and roads stormwater detention and/or retention sites and undisturbed Identified by State Road number and areas for Infiltration purposes (if located to water supply watershed) name landscaping and buffer requirements fownshlpy corporate and extratea toriat tr Identified natural areas and wildlife planning jurisdiction lines which cross corridors the property G OTHER SUONU TAL REQUIREMEtf'1'S. 1. Twenty -five (26) copies of the Pre1'mninary Piat. 2. One full size copy of an ©range County7ax Map (with taut parcels involved clearly marked). 8. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not avaitabte, a copy' of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health Department approvaltdenial for each lot show thereon. & ' Where a private road is proposed, a written statement by the applicant or his/her authorbzd representative which sets for the justification for s private roa tIon 0 a Orange of linty Subdivision e Regulations). 5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with ti this which assure of improvements required by this Ordinarim Such documents may include, but completion and/or maintenance not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement and articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to a homeowners association. These documents may be required as necessary as evidence that the ordinance requirements are being not G. Fos - $500 plus'$5.00 per tot (one fee for Preliminary and Final Plat). 7. if the subdivision contains 10 lots or more, the following information shall be submitted with the application. a. Number of years to buildout. b. Number of houses to be built during each year until buildoui: c. Average price of houses including tots for each year to buitdout. I certify that to the best of my lm Wedge the Information contained above, and in the supporting documents, is a factual reprnrsentafian of the proposed development. f actmowtedge that by signing this apprication, the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Is authorized. pursuant to N.C. Gen. Staff. Section Ma -360, to make as marry MspectIons of the sub)ad property as may be necessary to verity that the proposed work outlined herein is consistent vAth the pravislons of all applicable State and local laws, ordinances and regulations. By signing this appReation, I admowledge and agree that inspectors, zoning officers, erosion control officers, and other staff of the /?range County planning & inspections Department have a right, upon presentation of proper credentials, to enter the subject property at any reasonable hourfnr the purposes of inspection or other 7r"enl acdo . , moo P44 //Je' s 6�--- Owner's Signature p�.d QA Applicant's Signature DATE-- +;w f.f 343:' :�.,•.s`:�'SZ Jt � q{�t- F,�i'v�rL• f�� a:• t'• . . 4p� �:• . ,j ".ti �" {{..P±F�S +mo i�Cs � =stew��l t vt:+i,i .t•; t� ��j.,,.qAd t t•c�4�ef M!'• . �,•'�'. � ^s a; �.t ° r't ::. .'` r4`.'. J?5:-.: ?,Y��.�1'c'd�'.^t���'w'�:�"�'r� :1< @:�?5�4:; }•'S:.:S:. .. _ .. ,. . ........ '�v�;ir'`SAES..t,yrY,'r• its ,:'!:3•':`t ^a.'.?w: ?.:::+'•:. J. PELOQUIN CONSI-RUCTION, INC- Building & Development Company April 14, 2008 TO: planning Staff, Planning Board, County Commissioners Ref.- Cabe Crossing Brameo Tract tax Maps: 5.23-A5, 5.24..1A Attn: Glenn Bowles, Planner Orange County, NC Hello All, As you realize, we have submitted the preliminary Plan of Cabe Crossing with only 20 lots as opposedtofiie 33 lots previously approved by the concept plan. We have decided to proceed with far fewer lots for preliminary plan acceptance and would like to summarize some very important considerations which the final plat will have incorp6ated. 1. While the planning staff and Board had approved what we considered a viable plat for concept review, and it had been approved as such, we have adjusted the quantity of lots to reflect the request of the planning board in respect to the petition by the neighbors. This reflects a 250% increase in lot size averages for the property as currently zoned. Originally we had been planning 46 lots in all. 2. Current standards and review by the DOT allowed a much denser development with no required improvements to either Cabe Ford rd. or the intersection of Pleasant Green in order to be accepted by the DOT for inclusion into the state system after completion. 3. A major consideration by the public at large and the neighbors of this pro ject is the concern for water resources. We are actively engaged with the research and drafting of items to be included in the covenants which represent bona-fide methods of water conservation and "Green" techniques which will be required in the design, construction, and use of the proposed homes in this community. We hope to engage the efforts of the County Health Dept., Green Building Standards of the Home Builders Association, and other recognized agencies to compile a common sense list of such techniques and supporting language., Investigation into well reports furnished by the O.C. Enviromental Health dept. has produced no abnormal failures on drilled wells currently accepted by the county and no concerns for the future of existing or new wells once build out is complete. 1020 Vista Wood Drive, Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 e-mall Pelocluin@mtkprina.COm 919-732-7554 fax at919-732-41U4 J. PELOQUIN CONSTRUCTION, INC. Building & Development Company 4. Currently there are no legal or practical turn. - around available for Orange County school buses. This concern will be addressed as by our plan. 5. We have been diligently working with the Eno River Association for over 2 years on behalf of the State of NC Parks System to incorporate a significant connector which will provide continuity of the Eno River state Park Corridor. It should be understood that the adjacent parcel of 15 acre has been offered to the state of NC to complete the park plan. It is our sincere hope that you will find our submittal not only acceptable, but exciting. Our desire is to invite others to design and implement sound resource saving methods which will become a norm for the future of Orange County. Truly, Jeff Peloquin For: Bramco Partners 1020 Vista Wood Drive, Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 e -mail Peloquin(amindsprigg.com 919- 732 -7554 fax at 919 - 732-4704 i i i Attachment B 41 D 731.73 A .._-.-.—........,..-- 7120P 55II ose S.WA 2 7.44A 688.01 daa <NEi A 442.16 Po 75"1 3.708 5. µ 42m71 4 1$ 240A S 017.34 EM WOOD OR 44L IS "4J0 alas 20D 200 21 &16 ' 275 2 201.00 444 7 nw 200 2W 200 200 200 9 7 A IMA O U1 0 258,67 , O ,A t 4 6 ° � xnoA a 6230 Is4a �" 7 i.iM B Y tAU E 4 3.14A M% d s 1240. 45.650. 1 �' �. �• 3.450. 3.660. ifGA 45.75 A 4.100. 6.880. ° IISA 6 WAS 4 ,31A /fayp may( tt�n x, Caen ° 4 f MARIE 3520.2 LANE :16439 • 220' 115ln tOA2 � 584; 137.79 216 SR 16T0 N 20.90. 1 246 10771+'7 2 65C 33.0 •,y75 187' 7688,do SADA Ms 170547 216 FOrLO 216 1nM $ 90.60. GAaE (107 S R 7.76A O.2 15.04/, 3260. (900) MIRA 3,63A B.10A (62 409.46 ..� 7 2600.5 2.750. 2 (476) f PMM 2 PIMW GAGA P103R7 x•65 -0g � IA07 9894813468 73A7A 5.23..45 zm.� -•� ,1P 15.41A so �o 377.59 zt yb aw 10.80. 0 OM � � • 393.14 a. 24 q Pf iR .100. 6 0 a4T) 700 6ao P71)4B 632.67 83139 1.67A Kfn a ,lass ,esa 4 a 1} noDA o 0 ?�� adgy, • �.t' 1 r t � � ,,+at fi taa A 3.16A 5.00A x d�dA wu 5.00A 1 4 Y f1M t.IN 1]W C � � 119 4� 'ma • .86 'I 398' P usfi 6.010. rq 'p19 -is iWA 27.34 4�fa'�y� "t• tL33A fsM K 12 i1 pr 33.81 2 BABA 1820.7 wr n2a1 20D µ a 280 r 41BAs - 180,55 2940. Bg ipNE 362.sr SHADY LANE (PR(VATk7 ° pENNJOOD 49 This map contains parcels prepared for the inventory of real property within Orange County, And is compiled from recorded dead, plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aforementioned N Qa >4Aros public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The county and its mapping compafites assume no legal responsibility forthe information on this map- •� Ora V (� (,� n 4y ` I 1 inch equals 500 feet {�wxaw , Page 1 of 2 Attachment C a Eddie Kirk From: Grant Gale Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 4:27 PM To: Eddie Kirk Subject: Cedes Crossing MEMORANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk, Orange County Planning FROM: J.Grant Gale, Solid Waste Enforcement Supervisor DATE: 4/18/2008 SUBJECT: PROJECT- FILE Cabe Crossing Subdivision The Solid Waste Department Staff have reviewed the plans and have the following comments: Plan Approved: 1. Solid Waste staff has conditionally approved the Subdivision Plan and related Information submitted or this project per 311312008 subdivision plan from Phil Post and Associations subject to the following condition: A Solid Waste Management Plan for Landclearing should be submitted prior to construction. ire construction Meeting Stipulation: 2. We recommend that the applicant be stipulated as a condition of permit issuance to hold the pre - demolition and pre - construction conferences with Orange County Solid Waste staff. Overhead wires: 3. We recommend the property owner address refuse service access in relation to the height of any overhead wires at the entrance to the collection area. Any overhead wires must be raised to a minimum of 18'and any other overh s ped service nt(e any waste through this bro raised to a minimum height of 16' or relocated before service vehicles Curbside Recydina: 4. If roads are public streets, constructed to NCDOT standards, Orange Community Recycling intends to provide regular curbside recycling i e proposed t at such t imI ic uded in he ra ge Countyrecycling programcollect on service re (Ru al Route 4) LCtD: We recommend the applicant provide the name(s) of the permitted waste disposal facilit(tes) to which any and prior t demolition k, in a will be the delivered. olid Waste Department or t the pre- construction conference�jned and prior to start o , NOTES TO BE PLACED ON FINAL PLANS: Construction Was 1. By Orange County Ordinance, clean wood waste, scrap metal and corrugated cardboard, ail present n construction waste, must be recycled. 2. By Orange County Ordinance, all haulers of construction waste must be properly licensed. 3. Prior to any demolition or construction activity on the site the applicant will hold a pre-demolitionlpre- construction conference with the County's Solid Waste staff. This may be the same meeting held with other development officials Please let me know if you need any additional information. , 04/21/2008 Page 2 of 2 J.Grant Gale, MPA, CZO Solid Waste Enforcement Supervisor Orange County Solid Waste Management 919-918-2942 orange.nc.us 04/21/2008 ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Glen Bowles, Current Planner From: Rich Shaw, ERCD Land Conservation Manager Date: April 23, 2008 Subject: Cabe Crossing Subdivision Proposal Thank you for the opportunity to review a Preliminary Plan for the Cabe Crossing Subdivision (formerly Bramco Partners) proposal. The proposal would create 20 lots on 73 acres located south of Cabe Ford Road and east of the Eno River (Eno Township). ERCD staff comments on subdivisions are generally to a) address any concerns with respect to potential impacts on important natural or cultural resources; and b) identify any areas that might be desirable f6r possible dedication to the County for public recreation/open space pursuant to Section IV-13-7-b of the Orange County Subdivision ordinance. f Preliminary My comments on this proposal are based on an examination of the Prelimina Plat (dated 3/31/08) and a review- of ERCD's comprehensive resource database. The P' ellmlnary Plan would set aside 24.49 acres as open Space (33%), which includes land within three forested stream corridors that flow southwest into the Eno River. A portion of the Open Space (Tract A) includes a historic cemetery, which would remain buffered from the proposed development. The Open Space wo . uld help protect these sensitive areas and some portion would be accessible to the majority of future homeowners. Overall, the plan appears consistent with the counti(s desire to minimize adverse environmental impacts with respect to the protection of floodplains" wetlands, natural areas and wildlife habitat. ERCD recommends that the proposed Open Space remain in private ownership and be managed as undeveloped common land by the homeowners association. On a . final note, I see that the Preliminary Plan excludes a 15.41-acre parcel that had been included in the earlier Conceptual Plan (2007). That parcel is located adjacent to the Eno River and within the Eno River State Park Master Plan. it includes a segment of a 300' -wide Wildlife Corridor recommended for protection in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. It is my hope that at some point in the future that parcel is conveyed to Eno River State Park. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 245-2591. cc: David Stand Environment and Resource Conservation PO Box 8181 /306 -A Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) M-2590 Of OnVnIA 6nixtj P.O. Box 8181, 300 W.-Tryon St., Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 245-2660 MEMORANDUM To: Glen Bowles, Orange County Planner From: Steve Peck, Chair 96 6%6 Recreation and Parks Advisory Council Re: Bramco Partners Subdivision Proposal Date: April 22, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to review the preliminary plat for this subdivision and the proposed Payment in -lieu of dedicated recreation area. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Council reviewed the original concept plan and provided a recommendation on June 26, 2007, The. preliminary plat has some noteworthy changes. RPAC is please to see that that portions of the property to the west and southwest, which abut properties held by the State of North Carolina, specifically for the Eno River State Park, are in the process of being conveyed to the state. We believe this connection will benefit the proposed community as well as the Eno River State Park and those who frequent it. RPAC recommends approval of the $8,645 payment in lieu of dedicated recreation, - The Council has also noted the six tracts of open space proposed for dedication to the neighborhood association. - These areas will serve to protect the streams and slopes in the area while providing open space for the community. The Council would also like to p6int out that the addition of one or more recreation amenities such as a picnic shelter an&or playground or basketball court would also be beneficial to the neighborhood and could even be sited as a focal point for potential homeowners as they enter from Cabe Ford Rd, or more centrally in tract "C." cc: Lod Taft Glen Bowles From: Toyia G. Smith [tcsmith@dot.state.nc.us] s6nt: Tuesday, April 29, 200811:40 AM To: Glen Bowles Cc: C. N. Edwards Subject: Cabe Ford Subdivision Glenn, Per your request this office has reviewed the plans for the proposed Cabe Ford subdivision located on Cabe Ford Road. We are providing the following comments regarding the plan submittal: 1. Change 111-2" to SF9.5A on the residential collector and local residential road typical sections. 2. No roadway improvements are required to mitigate he anticipated traffic impact. 3. NCDOT Driveway Permit will be required. 1 1 17, 0 Glen Bowles From: Alan Clapp Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:17 AM To: Glen Bowles Subject: Cabe'Ford Road Subdivision cabe ford.pdf (75 KB) Glen, I have reviewed and evaluated the soils for the Bramco Development on Cabe Ford Road. The attached pdf shows the changes as a result of the soil work. The pdf also has the proposed house locations and soil areas Please let me know if you have any further questions. Alan Alan Clapp Soil Scientist Environmental Health Division PO Box 8181 306-C Revere Road 'Hillsborough, NC 27278 P; 919-245-2360 F: 919-644-3006 Email: aclapp@co-orange.ac.us CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: All email messages, including any attachments, generated from or received by this site are the property of Orange County Government and As such are considered public domain and are subject to the North Carolinia Public Record Law. The Orange county Health Department does not transmit client/patient medical information via email. Certain other confidential information may be transmitted and any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. if you are not the intended recipient, please contact the send email and destroy all copies of the original sender by reply ema)priate-disclosure, please contact Carla message, if you believe there has been an inappropriate Privacy officer. Julian at cjulian@co-orange.nc.us, the Health Department 0 Orange Soil and Water Conservation P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-245-2750 May 8, 2008 To: Glenn Bowles Orange County Planning Dept. From: Gail Hughes Soil Conservationist Orange Soil and Water Conservation District RE: Cabe Crossing Subdivision According to the Orange County Soil Survey, the following soils are located on this site and in the surrounding area: HrB- Herndon silt Loam: 2-6 % slope (B) HrB- Herndon silt loam: 6-10% slope (C) GeB- Georgeville silt Loam: 2-6 % slope (B) GeC-Georgeville silt loam: 6-10% slope (C) TaD- Tatum silt loam, 8-15% (D) TaE- Tatum silt loam- 15 -25% (E) Attached are the capability classes for each soil listed above. This soil information is to be used as a general reference based on information found in the Orange County Soil Survey. The program that is used to locate soils does not have property boundaries; therefore, the information provided indicates the soils that are in the general area. An on-site investigation by the Environmental Health Dept. should determine soil capabilities and exact locations of septic tanks. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call or email. (D a) E ,D 2 O co u co v a.6 clli O o CL 0 0 cu F3 7 a 0 ti Z O ZV N t "6 01 ca C" r-, CO "'' V cr) ti- tm (D 0 Z D 00.0 C, Z is ml, E W 0 -Z co I At A it " 'C: 4' a30 tm —0 O LLI Im" 2 0 ?-, E 0 'o ID 0 A o rn as o Lo CD 0 3 0 W &0 O N 0 :03 � a ;5 § o 07 O E 0 0 Via CL C ro- W"f -E 0 cu 8D Eoi y CO) z tm 'a 8 0) a) c =0 Q E T k mg, ;- c> V. (no Z . CL 0 to co 0-0 (D 0 E 0 a 8 V) -E cL CD 0 10 A2 0 0 o to :a 0 8 0 5; =0 E 0 � () = P — CD rn co v a.6 clli O o CL 0 0 cu F3 7 a 0 ti Z O ZV Z W 0 -Z co I At A it " -q tm —0 O LLI 0 — 0 41 2 0 ?-, E — 'o ID 0 A o rn as o c W 3 CL V) U. Via 0 0 0 U) co v a.6 clli O o CL 0 0 cu F3 7 a 0 ti Z O ZV Dwellings Without Basements• orange County, North Carolina Dwellings Without Basements ilt .......... Georgeville silt Not Ornited Georgeviliv 121 GeB loam, 2 to 6 (90%) percent slopes Georgeville silt Somewhat Georgevil e slope (0-00) 32.9 41.10 GeC loam, 6 to 10 limited (900/0) percent slopes 112 HrB Herndon slit Not limited Herndon (85%) loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Herndon Silt Somewhat Herndon (80%) Slope (0-00) 13.6 17.0% HrC loam, 6 to 10 limited percent slopes - ' 6.9 8.6% `yy {75 %) Slope (0,63) Tap Tatum silt loam 8 Somewhat Tatum to 15 percent limited Shrink swell slopes (0.50) -- TaE Tatum silt loam. Very limited Tatum (801/0) Slope (1.00) 2.6 3.20 15 to 25 Shrink-swell percent slopes (0.50) 80.01 100.0% ] Totals for Area of Interest (AOI) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.0 National Cooperative SOII Survey Page 3 of 4 Dwellings Without county, North Carolina Description ~ ^^ ^ of three h��a uvmx/mga�=^"'y"=='v — -''-- basements, the foundation is assumed vn consist w spread footings of reinforced ed concrete built on undisturbed soil sda depth of2feet or the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the, soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs, The properties that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification of the soil. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include d * epth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pant hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. The ratings ar ebothvorbsJondp numerical, Rating class terms )n indicate the eextent to which the soils are limited bv all of the soil features that affect the specified use. "Not limited" indicates that the :soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can beexpected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can bo expected. `very |hn�o- '� di �=" thatth ~. d|haooneormopa use. The �o�n���are un��n�|a$��ampao�eo . be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, orexpensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be ex pectod' Numerical ,atngeindiu�etheeswo�yof|ndkiduo||im8odonm. The n�|nQoare ' shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They Indicate gradations between the point e1 which n soil feature has the greatest negative impact onthe use (1.O[) and the point ai which 'the soil feature ie not m limitation (O.00)' Rating Options Aggregation Method, Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff., None Specified Tie-break Rule:Highe "SDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2-0 Page 4 of 4 Conservation Service National Cooperative Sell Survey co S; 2 C 0 as rn I? 4) ii fn Z 0 0 U. z a. u. ag, a V> q l0, M 0) 0 40- 0) z W a CD E x - E Cd E L ca CO cc W -j 0 ..,o 0 0 E e E U) zo vs 9 E w B .j 0 C; 0 CO CL (D 0 cc U! o as 136 12 es H BO ID 0 mit L 'D cl 0 r= —0 o E q :6 E (D 0 co W o _ g Z 0 CL . . > E'c: 0 - w o (D 42 41 a, 12- Z —W. Me 0 of $1 r 0 CL M 0 W . p= -=5 0 (D C 0 E 0 7R p m � N CL In M 0 .0 o .E2 ID 08 E cc, E 0916 r 0 5; 0 E U) M co It lao co w a_ C, o at 0 a V d7 ZU 0 z W 0 E CL. m E Cd cc W -j 0 U) zo vs 9 0 B .j 0 < ID 0 m cc U! o as 136 H BO to 0 0 2 VO) CL M co It lao co w a_ C, o at 0 a V d7 ZU Septic Tank Absorption Fields - Orange County, North Carolina Septic Tank Absorption Fields .ay ,^.a� r sh_ i �v`.•t3l ;•'i�.'y?'i�_i�i:J.i1 "' 2 ; .y,:S'ma �,�i) � e. =Ai��•Si�i-Mit�� "'r�. ry �� •r's. }5?"^F�•'. •--'- ,;,- ,sx�,t =�`� •�.•,�,'.r `fi�`3���3���L4i��,'.?>! -; alc��Y'�l? h. �;,� -9> ��.�.�'�Rt'o��tt,.,..�,. �^..__�.x,:.�._.. 1 �!' -.3:� .rd`.:•� -�-ra 7i' %nAia..�:C,S''�r.,r., -. :..a.�t�r- . �ea.......�^ "--�� �- x'� -J- �' �..;a:'-• =S= .t�"'.y...�.. "_ t� or..... .._-- �w:::__ , :• a a..a:d,'- -iRr. �gS'3i:fl. ..�, t � 7... �.':_. ;1'x �- $ ;��i� .�.8i�S0. � e „! _ '-"i � 3 r .�•` ,....s =3 �,,a r _ i,=1� � t n ea t, ftati �-- = .��P -..... �• -=•-•_ �- � � t ���.��. ._,z< -�.. „�1tf:A,�.r? 1�T�p �� �..��... .iii :s3�..3 =' � / L ( •rk �"�t°:...e ,.t- C:'J' a`"•':����y�. "'• ^. �k -. r-� ' �� '� `'ti�..'ei1 r • i,'dtlrj 0��'t ,t, .,, i -.,�. _ �.w :'ti „x %: - t -"8. cv �� ,r �.�, _ tit /c, .. SY �r�[,•�y,� �ir`•i� ::(S mx:�q?� ?'n'�rS:.�'L: 1 =�—. �^^:r y�i2`:2;i.: ynri._`3- ..N2agil�!+3 Georgeviile silt Somewhat Georgeville Slowwater . 12.7 16.9% GeB loam, 2 to 6 limited (90 %) mavement percent slopes (0.50) GeC Georgeviile silt Somewhat Georgeville Slow water 32.9 41.1% loam, 6 to 10 rimited (90 %) movement percent slopes (0.50) Slope (0.00) Hrg Herndon don six Somewhat Herndon (85%) Slow water 11.2 14.0% loam, 2 to 6 limited movement ve percent slopes (0.50) Herndon 80% HrC Herndon slit Somewhat ( ) Slow water 13.6 17.0% loam, 6 to 10 limited movement move move percent slopes Slope (0.00) TaD Tatum silt loam, 8 Somewhat Tatum (75 %) Depth to bedrock 6.9 8.6 °% to 15 percent limited (0.78) slopes Slope (0.63) Slow water movement (0.50) TaE Tatum silt loam, Very limited Tatum (80 %) Slope (1.00) 15 to 25 Depth to bedrock percent slopes =2.63,20,16 (0,78) Slow water movement (0.50), 80.0 1oa.o °% ° Totals for Area of Interest (AO 1) F /Amnns Natural Resources Web Soil Survey z.0 page 3 of 4' Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Septic Tank Absorption Fields— orange County, North Carolina Description Septic tank absorption fields are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is distributed into the soil through subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. Only that part of the soil between depths of 24 and 60 inches is evaluated. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect absorption of the effluent, construction and maintenance of the system, and public health. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and flooding affect absorption of the effluent. Stones and boulders, ice, and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation. Subsidence interferes with Installation and maintenance. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the effluent in downslope areas. Some soils are underlain by loose sand and gravel or fractured bedrock at a depth of less than 4 feet below the distribution lines. In these soils the absorption field may not adequately filter the effluent, particularly when the system is new. As a result, the ground water may become contaminated. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified rase. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specked use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/8/2008 Page 4 of 4 MI �gPPl9 of �r u � a �Ort b �BCn�yo Orange County, NC School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) " This document certifies that the above school district has (or anticipates tuture) capacIry Iv accommodate the projected number of students to be created from the above development/subdivision in the years as noted •. This certificate is required after final government approval but before final plat recordation can be performed or as deemed by the specific local ordinance. " Any residential structure on a lot in the above development/subdivisionmay not receive a certificate of occupancy until or after the date of effect and/or the phasing proposed as shown in the table, unless modified by local government action. • This CAPS expires pursuant to the timing specified in the local government for the validity period of the respective development permit. Grand Total Single Family Detached Elementary I 7.2 Elementary Middle High Number of Lots 1 0.06 Single Family Detached 4 Single Family Detached 1 0.15 0.075 0.084 Other 0 0 0 0 Grand Total Single Family Detached Elementary I 7.2 Elementary Middle High Number of Lots 4 20 0.06 Single Family Detached 4 0.6 0.3 0.336 Other 0 0 0 0 Grand Total Single Family Detached Elementary I 7.2 Elementary Middle High Number of Lots 20 0.06 All 7.368 Single Family Detached 20 3 1.5 1.68 Other 0 0 0 0 Grand Total Single Family Detached Elementary I 7.2 Middle I High 4.032 Other 0.168 0.06 All 7.368 13.6 4.092 Available Capacity Remaining 953 581 CAP Review Adequacy Test Yes Yes Yes Tuesday, May 13, 2008 Page 3 of 3 A5 Page 1 of 1 Glen Bowles From: Dave ODell [enofd30l @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:28 PM To: Glen Bowles Subject: pond approval Mr. Bowles, I just wanted to let you know that I have approved the Fire Pond and Dry Hydrant that will be located in the Cabe Crossing Subdivision. Thanks Chief David O'Dell 07/21/2008 Page 1 of 1 Glen Bowles From: Tim Smith [tsmith@ppaengineering-coml Sent: Friday, June 27, 20081:32 PM To: Glen Bowles Subject: Re: Cabe Crossing Glen, The Bioretention facility near the entrance will approx. 30'x70' with a surface area of :E2, 100 sf. The proposed Wet Pond will be approx. 1/2 acre in size and contain a volume of ±150,000 CU. ft. Let me know if this is enough information for now- These will be fully designed at the time of Construction Plan approval. We are not planning any other major stormwater faci lites. We may possibly add another small Bio area or two, but will wait until final plan design. We will not have any grassed swales, (BMP's) other than standard grassed road section ditches, e an silt/ tree For erosion control we will have standard sediment traps as needed in various locations, d sil t fence. We have revised plans to submit to you with the added tree location information and the proposed BMP's. How many copies do we need to deliver to you? Let me know, thanks, Tim Timothy A. smith, PLS, PE Philip Post & Associates 401 Providence Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 929 -1173; (east. 124) (919) 493-6548 (fax) (919) 616-6491 (mobile) tsmith@pg�Eenilneer;iLpg..'COM Glen Bowles wrote: Would you send me the design capacity of the bio-retention facilities and will you be proposing grassed swales or any other stormwaterlerosion facilities? Glenn Bowles Planner 11 orange County Planning & Inspections Department 919 246 2517 06/27/2008 go HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Memorandum To: Orange County Board of County Commissioners Orange County Planning Board From: Orange County Historic Preservation Commission Date: 28 August 2008 Re: Cabe Crossing (formerly Bramco Partners) Subdivision — Preliminary Plat Copy: David Stancil, Environment & Resource Conservation Director In a . ccordance With the Planning Board's August 6, 2008 recommendation (Third Action: Item 6) the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the preliminary plat for Cabe Crossing at its August 27th regular meeting with regard to the proximity of the subdivision to historic buildings, cemeteries and archaeological resources and the potential to impact those resources. The HPC based its evaluation on the countywide inventory of historic properties (buildings) and archaeological sites, and the Orange County Cemetery Census. Since the county's archaeological survey is Incomplete, the HPC asked the Office of State Archaeology to review its records on documented archaeological sites and the likelihood for additional sites. The following two motions were made and approved unanimously. 1) We are concerned with the preservation of the cemetery (William Cabe slave cemetery) located in the proposed Tract "A" of the open space, and request that the developer use care and diligence to protect the area in and immediately adjacent to the cemetery from harm. 2) We are further concerned with any potential historic or prehistoric archaeological resources to be found on the entire property and defer to the Office of State Archaeology for its recommendations for preserving these resources and their historic value. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plat for Cabe Crossing Subdivision. The HPC"s mission is to identify and protect the historic, archaeological and cultural resources of the County; we look forward to mare opportunities to work with the Planning Board to advance the protection of cultural resources in Orange County. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources office of State Archaeology' Stephen R. Claggett, State Archaeologist Division of Historical Resources Michael F. Easley, Governor David Brook, Director Usbeth C. Evans, Secretary August 29, 2008 Christina Moon Historic Resources Specialist Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Cabe Crossing Subdivision — Preliminary Plat, Orange County Dear Ms. Moon: At your request, and that of the Orange County ice of State Archaeology for,the location f search of the maps and files at the North Carolina the proposed Cabe Crossing Subdivision. The results of that search and my recommendations are as follows. There are three archaeological sites recorded in close proximity to the property in question, but I tes do not believe that the subdivision property has ever been archaeological of the Eno tRiverion 31OR174 and 31OR175 are Native American sites located along property owned by the Andersons. The third site, 31OR465 * *, is a historic period site, also located primarily on property owned by the Andersons. The site contains several elements, including an 18 ell 9th century domestic site,.portions of -an old roadbed, remains of an early 2& house site and two cemeteries. The Cabe Family Cemetery s u#h�ar h °��e of the markers ravine. Isis head and foot stones. Another cemetery is to not clear from our records if this cemetery�x� cods of tworows of rough field one thought arkers of be a slave cemetery, dating prior to 1835 approximately 14 graves. Given the presence of an old road in the vicinity and the Native American and early historic occupations on the adjacent lands, it is likely that similar archaeological ry is found to be on that present on the Cabe Crossing Subdivision property. property, active steps must be taken by the developer to ensure that the cemetery is protected fr om disturbance (pursuant to NCGS 14 -149) or removed and relocated (pursuant to NCGS 65). C�ntralOEficc �maR�earehsenter _ 1526 FuF1sherBlvdSotah 4612Mv1C276 343tAmadeUSttcet 1�4omhcadGtgNC28557 eui rvn�u= iVllagge�TaneStite3 West Resnarc}tC�P'+t Ashcv�9eNC288032r77 4619 MailServueCenrer gateighNC276994619 9A612 KnmBeachNC28449 ItakiBkt]QC276994612 919/7151386 910/4564642; {ax 910/4584093 East Cam%=udvea]ty Gmenvt8eIvy27834 828 /274 -6789; r. 828/274 -6995 9] 9/SW-6550;&�t919/715.267] Locafiou:16�9H�.`J� Street 919/715.5599;h 215 Vh Location: NC Stmt fix25717?6,�6 252/7446721 Rawl . 5c� Christina Moon .August 29, 2008 Page Two if the Cabe Crossing Subdivision project was subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and reviewed by our office, we would recommend that an archaeological survey be undertaken to determine if the slave cemetery is present and what its boundaries are and to locate any other Native American or historic archaeological sites on the property that may be affected by the development. An assessment of the significance of any located sites should also be conducted as part of the investigation. While we have not received this project for review under Section 106 to date, if a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers is required for the development, the permit area would be subject to Section 106 review. I hope the above information is helpfixl. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Dolores A. Hall Deputy State Archaeologist — Land Office of State Archaeology July 28, 2008 Glen Bowles Orange County Planning Department 306P Revere Road PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Glen, This letter is to express the Eno River Association's support of the preliminary plat for the Cabe Crossing Subdivision submitted by Bramco Partners to the Orange County Planning Department for approval. The Association appreciates the cooperation of the Planning Department in soliciting our input on this development plan due. to its proximity to the Eno River and the Eno River State Park. We are glad to have been abe to work with the developer on a combination sale /donation of a portion of the property for eventual inclusion in the State Park. We have reviewed the preliminary plat and are pleased with the proposal, given the one alteration that we have discussed with the Planning Department and the developers. Specifically, we would like to see the northwest corner of Lot 15 shown on the preliminary plat transferred to the adjacent Tract "A" open space, preferably such that the eastern boundary of the open space continues southwest in a straight line to meet the boundary of Lot 2. Please see the attached sketch fora representation. n We have spoken with the developers, who are amenable and plan to make this Please let me know if you have any questions. We will be attending the August 6 hearing where the preliminary plat is up for approval. Thank you for all of your work on balancing development and conservation in Orange County. Sincerely, Attachment E MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JUNE 6, 2007 REGULAR MEETING Brian Crawford, /#- Large; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Michelle Kempinskl, Cedar Grove- Township at Large; Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Renee Price, Hillsborough Township At Large (Vice-Chair), Sandra Johnson Quinn, Eno Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At-Large, Sam Lmado Cedar MEMBERS B� ��, �� ��h� R�����e (Resigned); ' Grove Township AtLarge STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning, Director; Ton Alfieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; �or E)|mnn Bo�|me Planner PapdKoHoHz. Planner 11; Donna Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; . , Davenport, Administrative Assistant \t . GUEST PRESENTER: Margaret Houth, Town nf Hillsborough Planning Director PUBLIC PRESENT: David 8odbenm, Connie Riley, Melinda Rb|ey, Stewart Fisher, Robin Jacobm, PeruUn 0yganj. Amy Spaulding, Agenda Item 18z CONCEPT PLAN FOR BRuMCO PARTNERS SUBDIVISION Eno Township —B8.87acres Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner U Jay Bryan: There has been m request made that there be public comment. Judith Wegner: The motion was that we continue our deliberation. Jay Bryan: | don't think we covered that. Sandra Quinn: | think d was tabled until we have answers hmo few question. Judith Wegner: Could wa have a sign in and take three minutes each. Jay Bryan: What I heard from the Board is that we allow people to comment on the new information and limit tocomments to three minutes. Glenn Bowles: VVe did not Include Parkland because b\omisleading. Those Parkland parcels are part mf m much larger ownership pattern. Jeffrey Schmitt: The size of those lots has not been taken into consideration. N1icheUmKempinoki: The blue area, how far is the area where you stop counting lots to the center of the 8R4MCOpmperty? Glenn Bowles: Probably one quarter ofe mile away? Michelle How far north? Glenn Bowles: Maybe 1,000 feet. E Approved 7/11/07 Michelle Kempinski: I am asking about the distribution around the . lots around the property. Was it equal distance? Glenn Bowles: No. it was generally our best guess from a staff. Michelle Kempinski: if we look at an actual border, what it would look like if was equal distance. Glenn Bowles: it wouldn't change that. Renee Price: Are you showing the parcels are the actual lots? Glenn Bowles: Parcels. Some may be owned by the same person. Renee Price: Some of this can be misleading. I own parts of two lots and one of one lot. Glenn. Bowles:. You did not ask for the ownership pattern. You ask for lot sizes which is what we provided. Michelle Kempinski: The green areas are greater than 15% Slope? Glenn Bowles: Those are primary open space. Michelle Kempinski: Because of the slopes? Glenn Bowles: Yes. Those are 25% Michelle Kempinskl: So they are unbuildable? Glenn Bowles: Yes. On page 38-40, there are questions listed that were asked of me with the appropriate responses. We now have the answer to question number one. We have the response from ri Brian Ferrell. Essentially, at this level, the concept plan stage, you really don't have e autho ity to do much. However, if this should go to a Class A Special Use Permit, there will be analysis made by a competent engineer . which will addre . ss those types of issue. Sandra Quinn: It stated there are no churches in the vicinity. There are churches In the area, for the record. Renee Price: If we go forward, is it possible to get information about ownership of the pa . rcels? Also, the stub outs are going to private property? Glenn Bowles: The private property development will provide an opportunity for connectivity. Renee Price: This isn't vacant land. What was meant by primary open space? Glenn Bowles: Open space that is not platted. Michelle Kempinski: On page 39 of the responses where it is stated "the Planning staff recommends approval of the Bramco Partners Subdivision Concept Plan with the 33-lot Conventional option". The previous option was to be approved. Jay Bryan: You are asking this to be amended to what? Glenn Bowles: On page 33, it states that. Renee Price: How will you define open space? N 5�F Approved 7/11/07 Glenn Bowles: All primary open space found in Track A, B, C, D and E plus the perimeter buffer. Whatever the active open space the Eno River Association feels is appropriate. There will probably be a trait. Bernadette Pelissier: I would like clarification on density of lots. We have to consider lot sizes as opposed to what is already built. Glenn Bowles: They were looking at built on two parcels on land. Bernadette Pelissier: I am asking about the surrounding lots. Brian Crawford: In the calculation of the lofts, are you specifically looking at built lots or are you including surrounding lots that are not built on. Glenn Bowles: We were asked to show the lot pattern and the lots in the area. In all cases, they are potentially lots for building. Bernadette Pelissier: My question is what we are supposed to look at concerning the concept plan considering the surrounding neighborhood. Glenn Bowles: You will need to look at the neighborhood and it may look different 10 to 20 years from now. Robert Davis: This map is not a requirement of the ordinance or the regulations. Generally, this map simply shows where this subdivision falls in regards to what subdivisions have been approved. Bernadette Pelissier: That clarifies 'it. Michelle Kempinski: One of the statements in the package is the ordinance and the subdivision regulations are written to foster harmonious design and encourage compatible development. Should we consider the definition of the proposed subdivision versus the density of the surrounding neighborhood? What is the definition of surrounding neighborhood? Glenn Bowles: There is no regulation or guidelines that deal with that specific answer. Michelle Kempinski: No. I don't think it has been answered. Renee Price: My concern is didn't you use the density of some of the surrounding subdivisions. Glenn Bowies: Yes. Renee Price: It was only used on certain subdivisions. Glenn Bowles: We used it based on the average lot size. Michelle Kempinski: I only saw one density calculation. Renee Price: I didn't quite get my question answered. Robert Davis: There were only two subdivisions that have had open space submitted along with the plan. When you are looking at the lots you are looking at a density. There is 33% open spaces which make the lots look smaller. Renee Price: This is not all the surrounding properties. The newer subdivisions were used. 3 SS Approved 7/11/07 Glenn Bowles: This is very difficult because there is only one other subdivision with common open space. The numbers at the bottom of the page were developed by GIS. Sandra Quinn: The reason I asked the question about the school buses is that they don't come down our road currently. Glenn Bowles: That might be a discussion point, at the preliminary plan stage. Brian Crawford: Hypothetically, we re drew the map, in the message that some of the opponents of this project, you drew the radius out to pull In more neighborhoods, would that impact the basic guidelines of the zoning and subdivisions developments so that we could turn down this project based on that calculation? Robert Davis: This map should not be used as a basis to approve.or deny this subdivision. This is only for information purposes. Michelle Kempinski: This map may provide information as to whether this development is harmonious with the existing surrounding neighborhood. Brian Crawford: The harmony goes to the question of 33 and 39 not our basic zoning ordinance. Jay Bryan: It is 9:10 P.M. and we have seven people from the public. Renee Price: How many homes need to be on a road before DOT maintains it? Robert Davis: Generally around one per four tenths of a mile. David Southern (489 -0250 (cell #);'687-3623 (home #): 1, am been collecting maps for forty years. I enjoyed the presentation and it was enlightening. I came here with an analog presentation. I overlaid three maps. I took the USGS Topo and then the Orange County GIS and then my freehand drawing. Could I leave my phone number for anyone who has questions? Connie Riley: In May you heard from many different citizens. We ask then and now to approve the concept plan that the number of lots be reduced. This is the first application for a Special Use Permit A to come before the County. So far the checklist for the SUP has not been satisfied by this proposal. Our concern is to ensure public safety and welfare and this proposal is hot safe. in previous telephone conversations with the Planning Board, they indicated they would look for two access roads to the subdivision for safety. Melinda Ruley: Thank you for your questions about lot sizes rural character. There have been a number of lot analysis have been generated and every one-is incompatible with surrounding lot sizes. The first analysis showed that 2/3 of the surrounding lands was in tracts bigger. A second analysis was done to capture the small lot in Pleasant Green Woods. That showed an average lot size of 35 acres. We would be happy with that. A simple lot analysis taking in only those lots immediately adjacent to the Brame property show 6.7 acres which is three times the size of the Brame size and five time the average lot size of the Brame tract. Also, there is the issue of property with an incredible history in a major subdivision. There Is also the issue of ground water. Orange County has tried hard to keep subdivisions away from Eno River. Please vote to accept the concept plan with no more than 20 lots. Stewart Fisher: I would be interested to see the letter from the County Attorney. My understanding from Ms. Jacobs is that if you recommend the concept plan goes forward with 20 lots it does not kill the deal with the Eno River Association. If you decide on 20 lots, the Brames will have to make the decision to follow through with the deal with the Eno River Association. I understand at the Concept Plan stage, you don't deal with the number of lots — what sense does it make to wait until the Special Use Permit stage. 4 Approved 7/11/07 9 Robin Jacobs: I am from the Eno River Association. 1 wrote the letter. I have real concern that you have heard from many people about this neighborhood. The subdivision ordinance as it written has zoning and regulations In It. If you think what it is written is inappropriate to this area of the County, then that is the question to bring to the Board of County Commissioners to change those rules. If this development meets all the standards, there is an assumption of appropriateness. There is a bigger picture, we have the state of North Carolina and Orange County and additional people who have put literally millions of dollars in a planned park that will have potentially have two tracts of land directly through it. I have a lot of sympathy for the neighbors here. if you would like to contact me with questions, I would be glad to answer them. Kerstin Nygard: I live on the Cole Mill Road extension. The Eno River State park is a green jewel. It was established after many years of volunteer work. A particular concern is .the missing links. it is disheartening that the acquisition of the 20 acre by the state is contingent upon the approval of a dense subdivision. The neighborhood with reservation does acknowledge this subdivision. However, we appeal to increase the lot size to larger. lots. The runoff will potentially harm the river quality. It has good water quality now. Larger lots would make the subdivision more tolerable to the neighborhood. Please consider a revision to larger lots. Amy Spaulding: I am looking forward to more neighbors. My concern is about safety. This land was the homestead of Colonial William Pugh, signer of the US Constitution. Also, William Preston Pugh who was the first president of Duke University. Jay Bryan: In terms of our responsibility and options, we can approve one development option, we can approve on development option subject to conditions or we can deny the development option. Judith Wegner: We need to remind ourselves of the difference of the concept level and the next level. As 1-understand it, I would like to make a motion with staff recommendation that this be approved with no more than 33 lots. I don't think we have the authority to say there should be only 20 lots. The staff recommendations and conditions are appropriate. Jeffrey Schmitt: There are six or seven things that heed-to be approved. Glenn Bowies: Essentially, a septic field analysis, open space connectivity, pedestriantbicycle analysis, transportation analysis. Brian Crawford: I think it is important to consider the response from the attorney. The public needs to hear his words. He said there is general language in zoning ordinance in section number whatever stating, that in reviewing subdivision proposals, the Planning Board shall consider the overall design of the proposal in light of the suitability of the land for development to ensure the platting of the development of the subdivision will not create a danger to health, safety or welfare of the Orange County residents. Our state statute clearly states on approval or denial are made with standards explicitly set forth in the Subdivision or Unified Ordinance. There is a zoning ordinance with guidelines and this proposal meets that. Our zoning ordinance does not allow dropping it down to 20. The developer has followed the guidelines to the letter. Sandra Quinn: As citizens, if we didn't questions ordinances and laws, we wouldn't be sitting at this table. If we approve this, we need to send our recommendation to reduce the number of homes and increase the size of the lot. Renee Price: The Historic Preservation Commission doesn't have any objections to the proposal. We wanted to make it clear there are historical features on that property. At some point, they would like the opportunity to review it. 5 Approved 7/11/07 Jay Bryan: Regarding the next stage, will the developer be required to do a cultural and archeological inventory? Glenn Bowies: Yes. Jay Bryan: Does the County require an inventory regarding that? Glenn Bowies: Yes and it is referenced on page 37, number four. Jay Bryan: Secondly, in the letter from Brian Ferrell discussing what was to be. presented at the next level concerning the issue of water, he indicated the applicant had to present competent, substantial and material evidence as illustrated by the required professionally prepared s Is groundwater yield analysis the . subdivision had adequate source and capacity of water supply. arequirement subdivision ordinance? Glenn Bowles: As it relates to a Class A Special Use ordinance and if it for more than 20 lots. Michelle Kempinski: An evaluation of whether there is an adequate water . supply based on the information from the USGS or an equivalent study. Jay Bryan: I am reading what Brian-wrote. Michelle Kempinski: The information I handed out tonight is one means of doing that. Jay Bryan: It is for the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners used to determine if there is an adequate *source of water supply. if we want to ask that there be some more information part of what is provided to us by that person, we could do that in the form of an additional motion. Renee Price: In getting the information about the water, is that for the developer or information to be used to determine whether the subdivision will be approved. Brian Crawford: I think that is consistent. The theory is that Michelle puts forth would be appropriate. We could put that in the motion. Michelle Kempinski: if we can add that in the motion. MOTION made by Judith Wegner to make a motion to approve the concept plan as recommended by the Planning. Staff for a subdivision for no more than 33 lots with the conditions recommended by staff on Page 36 and 37. Brian Crawford seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Judith Wegner: I would like to make a friendly amendment to say "along with an analysis of groundwater recharge Brian Crawford: We need to bring in experts and required by the first item. Michelle Kempinski: All I ask is to read the example I handed out and be clear on that. Judith Wegner: I would withdraw the friendly amendment. Jay Bryan: We have your motion as previously stated. MOTION made by Michelle Kempinski to reserve the right to reserve that information should the Planning Board agree from discussions at the next meeting that it is a piece of information you would like to have. Brian Crawford seconded. 2 5 Approved 7/11/07 & VoTp-: (8 ayes; 3 opposed) Brian Crawford: It will be several months before the preliminary. Renee Price: We had a meeting several years ago that the 1996 report was out of date. Michelle Kempinski: it is the methodology, an example. Judith Wegner: If this is your motion, that the. Planning Board approve the concept plan that doesn't mean it would not be appropriate in time for the development to be on notice that we will discuss this groundwater recharge issue, we may come back and request that. Jay Bryan: Your motion is to reserve the right to request that additional information. Would anyone like to make a statement about reducing the lots to 20? Brian Crawford: I would like the developer to consider dropping it to 20 lots for the area. Jay Bryan: Is that the general consensus of the board? Renee Price: Yes. Robert Davis: There will be a Joint Public Hearing on this. Craig Benedict: Would you like me to go through some items below due to time constraints. im Attachment FJrCt MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 6, 2008 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Renee A. Price, Hillsborough Township At -Large (Vice Chair); Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At-Large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At- Large MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large; Joel Forrest Knight, Little River Representative; Cheeks Representative, Vacant; Eno Township, Vacant STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Michael Harvey, Planner 11; Glenn Bowles, AICP, Planner 11; Robert Davis, AICP, Planner Ni; Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II OTHER ATTENDEES: Rita Leadem, Representative for Comprehensive Plan Coalition; Lisa Tate, Applicant- Montessori School; Steve Yuhas, Agent for Applicant Montessori School; Mr. Brame, Applicant -Cabe Crossing; Jeff Peloquin, Represetative for Applicant Cabe Crossing; John Bugg, Applicant-The Forest at Little River; Reporter for the News of Orange; Melinda Ruley, Citizen; Stewart Fisher, Citizen; Keith Tilley, Citizen AGENDA ITEM 9: CABE CROSSING (FORMERLY BRAMCO PARTNERS) SUBDIVISION — PRELIMINARY PLAN To ponsider a recommendation to the BOCC for the Cabe Crossing Preliminary Plat. The proposal is for twenty (20) single family residential lots on 73.47 acres on the south side of Cabe Ford Road (SR 1570) west of Pleasant Green Road (SR 1567) in Eno Township. (Original proposal was for 38 lots, amended to 33 lots). Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner 11 t;- Len+n. 6ovul,es Gene-BeN. Reviewed abstract. Jeffrey Schmitt: In our previous discussion where there was double the number of lots. At some point, on the backside, west side, there was going to be dedication of some land to the Eno River Association, which property was that? Glenn Bowles: This portion has recently been split off from the original 88 acres, which is now down to 73 acres, will be dedicated to the Eno River Association. There is also a second lot, which is the 45 acre lot, which is not part of this discussion. Jeffrey Schmitt: is this dedication subject to the approval of this subdivision as put forward? Glenn Bowles: I will have to defer that to the people involved. Clue Jordan (Eno River Association): One of the reasons it was separated out is the purchase and dedication of those properties are separate from the subdivision. There is a small portion of the subdivision, about 4.5 acres that we have also discussed. Michelle Kempinski: There is mention of a 50 foot right of way designation for public road access. Larry Wright This is part of the 32% natural area? Glenn Bowies: Yes. (Continues presentation). Michelle Kempinskl: I was referring to the 50 foot right of way providing public access to the publicly dedicated greenway and recreation open space. Glenn Bowles: That will come from this direction. There is actually two lots ant that will be in between. This is the 4.7 acre parcel that is part of this subdivision that will be eventually as public recreational space and given to the Eno River Association and then to the State Park System. Michelle Kempinski: That is for a road, a potential future road. Glenn Bowles: No, it is not a road at ail, it is a walk way. Michelle Kempinski: It states that it may be used for the purpose of extending public roads. Glenn Bowles: This will not be a public road or provide public access into the park directly. The people in the subdivision will be able to use this. Michelle Kempinski: I am on page 242, number 7 of the application. Glenn Bowles: Those are referring to this lot and this lot. (Continued presentation). Larry Wright: What types of streams are these? Glenn Bowles: They have required buffers which are regulated streams. Michelle Kempinski: What is the buffer size? Glenn Bowies: For the most part it is 80 feet. (Continued presentation). Renee Price: Why is that triangle going through the process of homeownership then the association and then the state? Glenn Bowles: One of the considerations tonight is should that be accepted as other open space to be dedicated because if not, the subdivision developers are the hook for in lieu of park dedication. One of our questions tonight, is it appropriate to accept this land for public recreational open space land through our normal process. Is so, we could not dedicate it directly to the Eno River Association because they are a private entity. Renee Price: You said it would be part of the homeowner's association first and there would be no trespassing so it becomes part of the subdivision and then at some point after it would be transferred off the subdivision. Glenn Bowles: Our suggestion is that this parcel be dedicated to the County first and then the County in turn will give it to the Eno River Association. These other lands will be in homeowner's association, ownership and management. Michelle Kempinski: The parcel adjoining the river to the west will be land that has been transferred? Glenn Bowles: There is an agreement between the Eno River Association and the owners of the property that land will be donated to the Eno River Association. That deal has not happened and will in October. Michelle Kempinski: Is that the 4.1 acre parcel that Rich referred to in his memo. Jay Bryan: You don't mention that in our recommendations. Glenn Bowles: That is not part of the subdivision although it was part of the concept plan. Judith Wegner. We are sure. that will happen. Glenn Bowles: It is their intent. Judith Wegner. The issue about the recommendations about in lieu versus to dedicate, could you speak to that. The memo sounded as if the recommendation to do in lieu came in afterwards. Glenn Bowles: The recommendation you saw in the report from the Parks Department, this particular dedication wasn't described at the time and therefore when they made their recommendation, it was made in lieu of fee. Judith Wegner. I assume you talked to them and have they changed their mind or they saying they think this is a remote piece of property they can go to Glenn Bowles: I think the question is does this group think it is appropriate be dedicated as public recreational land not. The amea s this icould the parks people was it could be dedicatedeto some entity other eventually to a state to agency which than the county. Jay Bryan: We need to move along. Glenn Bowles: We think because this meets the subdivision and zoning regulations and is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, the recommendation should be in the affirmative. Jay Bryan: Your recommendation begins on page 231. Glenn Bowles: It starts on page 241 and goes through page 246. Renee Price: Historic sites? Glenn Bowles: There is a slave cemetery on the 4.7 acre parcel that we would like to have dedicated as public recreation space. Renee Price: Has any other archeology been done on the site. Jeff Peloquin (Representative for Applicant for Cabe Crossing: That particular parcel has old burial sites with foot stones. It represents 4 acres with steep topography and mature trees. Originally we were going to use part of it but we decided not to. Originally we presented this to the Board and it was approved for 33 lots. Since that time, it also incorporated the area along the river which was a primary wildlife corridor. In working the plan, there are more elements involved. Basically, the primary element was that we had the property up here and the Eno River Association very anxiously was trying to purchase as much land as they could. In going through the process with the state, we managed to and they wanted to have it so the owners dedicated the sale of this property and decided to donate the 15 acres on the south side to construct the continuous length of the river. Jay Bryan: Would you address the specific question? Jeff Peloquin: There is a couple of old stones and it has been platted archeologically, Renee Price: Are there any archeologically studies on the properties. Jeff Peloquin: In our work, we have not found anything disputed or questionable. Renee Price: Will this go the Historic Preservation Commission? Glenn Bowles: Not normally but you could make that a recommendation. Michelle Kempinski: Do you have an overhead of sheet S3 showing the patch line and stream buffers? Glenn Bowies: No. Michelle Kempinskl: The dashed line on sheet S3 around the perimeter of the lot lines, those are the building set back lines. Does the county permit any sort of structure inside the stream buffer? Glenn Bowies: No, unless it is a road. Michelle Kempinski: Technically, for this plan, the building set back line indicates the area that you cannot build outside of. Whether it is a requirement for a 10 foot set back on the side or right of way for a road. The set back lines cross over into the stream buffer and would it make sense to follow the edge of the stream buffer. Glenn Bowies: If that were your preference, we could handle that. Larry Wright: There are soils for suitable septic areas that overlap with the stream buffer too. Glenn Bowles: As staff, we tend to discourage that situation. The only way it can be accomplished would be through Lary Wright; What do you mean by accomplished? Put one in there? Glenn Bowles: They are being honest and showing the appropriate soils are in relationship to those setbacks and stream buffers. We discourage the placement of ground absorption fields and repair fields in those areas. Larry Wright: I think that would be advisable because when an inspector goes there, do they have information on stream buffers? Glenn Bowles: No but they call me. Jay Bryan: That would be to discourage what aspect? Glenn Bowies: Placing septic ground absorption systems in regulated stream buffers. �3 Larry Wright: It would be nice to be a little more forceful than to discourage. Jeff Peolquin: I have sold many septic systems and if you talk to anyone in Environmental Health and they. are very cautious about their setbacks. Craufurd Goodwin: We have a list of requests from the Cabe Ford community for conditions, are these incorporated in your recommendations? Glenn Bowles: No. Nearly every one of those are not typically dealt with in subdivision review of approval. Craufurd Goodwin: There are issues with traffic and signs, etc and it seems we typically deal with those. Glenn Bowles: The developer proposes some type of sign in front. Craufurd Goodwin: It seems it would be helpful to have staff recommendations on each of these points. Glenn Bowles: Staff recommendation is they are not appropriate to subdivision review and that most of them deal with homeowner's association documents which can be referred to the attorney. Craufurd Goodwin: None of these are appropriate. Glenn Bowies: Yes. They deal with the use of the road, building materials for the house, lighting, chaining of dogs which are not typically dealt with at a subdivision review approval. Craufurd Goodwin: You are saying none of these are applicable. Glenn Bowles: We can refer this to the attorney who could deal with the developer's attorney in the homeowner's association documents. That would be my recommendation to the board. Jay Bryan: Craufurd, if you feel that there are conditions in there that should be made part of the application, we can move that we do that and see if it supported by other board members. Then it Would be left to staff and the attorneys to decide if it is an appropriate condition but we can make recommendations. Craufurd Goodwin: That would have been helpful. Renee Price: How far is the entrance to Pleasant Green? Glenn Bowles: Roughly one quarter mile. Renee Price: Will there be improvements to Cabe Ford? Glenn Bowles: We asked that question to Mr. Edwards at the NCDGT Regional office and he advised.us there were none warranted. Jeff Peloquin: We understand the concern of the neighbors. I received the same letter and I have been working with the staff as well as incorporating the same concerns that have been brought up through the process that is addressed in this memo. I would venture to say that most of all of them have been satisfied. It could be addressed via the normal circuit of planning staff and due process. It had to come through declaration, homeowner's association agreements and other avenues. The road situation was originally a major concern that the road could be damaged. It was a state maintained road and it had not been that for many years so as such, we wanted to make sure that it would not be downgraded to a lesser state. That was addressed with Chuck Edwards who did not feel it was a concern with the number of lots proposed. He may encourage construction traffic to do a weighting which means any construction traffic would be with lesser weight so it would not be downgraded.' '. Another concern about traffic was the road does dead end and there was no turn around. There was a concern about not allowing traffic not being allowed to turn around. We felt it would we should install a sign, This is a dead end road please do not enter". Other concerns were water, which was duly addressed, the ongoing management of the project. We elected to do all the construction at once and not phase it out. The integrity of the setbacks are not shown on here but the lots being the size they are, we were able to encourage the building the lot itself. That makes for the ability to have significant setbacks. Originally we were proposing a signification component of open space on the left end trying to encourage the continuity with the Eno River Association and have less open space around the perimeter. In lieu of that plan, we increased the perimeter of open space and increased the setback area and recognized secondary setbacks. We also incorporated many green policies in the homeowner's declaration which are available. We are trying to encourage the green spaces in 'all the communities. Larry Wright: My question-deals with odors, how you will protect the homeowner from dealing with an irate neighbor over the smell of manure pile that has been there for 30 years? Jeff Peloquin: I believe there is a standard in the policies that existing properties are recognized. If you want to have that incorporated in the homeowner's association, which would be fine. Craufurd Goodwin: This seems to deserve a formal, written response. We have a responsibility to be concerned for the welfare of the neighbors. Jeff Peloquin: For the most part it is via the homeowner's association declaration including the landscape plan. Craufurd Goodwin: Then they could be answered quickly, (i.e., see page 46). Jay Bryan: We could make that part of the conditions. Jeff Peloquin: Everything that is of legal statue and concern and even not, has been and is being addressed. Jay Bryan: Are there any individuals from the public that would like to speak. Melinda Ruley: I will be the only speaker on this subject tonight. I speak on behalf of my family and the neighbors. You have the ability to make any his you wish. We are grateful to the Planning Board for reducing the number of lots in this subdivision. It is still larger than we would like. You have the set of detailed requests we spent a lot of time on. They fail into two general categories, construction traffic and creating a development that is in character with the existing rural community. We did not get the large lot we hoped for and we have been told that this will be sold to tract developer once it is approved. We have asked the applicant to look at the details you have. in this part of Orange County we are just barley holding on to our rural designation so of course, we object to the threat of more traffic, houses and lights. We are asking you help to see that this subdivision does not become one more suburban development of the kind that is eroding the rural character. We ask that you recommend that our requests be satisfied. I have been puzzled over the stub out. I have to conclude that stubs outs are a dodge for the developer who reports to solve problems but are putting them onto the next property owner to solve his problems for him. Would it be better to require the applicant to design a subdivision that fits the space he has? I would ask that you recommend that stub outs be removed from this development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Michelle Kempinski: What recourse would the property owner have if their property is damaged like this? Glenn Bowles: The matter of the road itself could be bonded, be rated to the trucks could only be of a certain weight. Michelle Kempinski: During construction? Glenn Bowles: Make sure staff is informed. It is a civil matter. Stewart Fisher: We live at the end of the road. There is already a sign that states it is a dead end road at the beginning of the road. If you add construction traffic on that road, those big trucks will be coming down and turning around on our property unless the applicant is required to have a place they can turn around on their subdivision. Mr. Peloquin is saying that he will deal with these items in restrictive covenants, etc. They want to have this subdivision approved so it can be sold to Centex unless you say that the subdivision will be approved subject to the requests being made. Please look at what we have submitted. Renee Price: Why is there a stub out to the east? Is there any indication that the property owners will sell it? As 1 recall, when they were previously here, they did not indicate they will sell it. Is there enough buffer in this area? Glenn Bowles: We know of no particular activity where the stub outs for future development. We asked they be put in those general areas so that if something happened in the future we could get some degree of connectivity. Renee Price: What about buffering on these other properties? Glenn Bowies: The more intense agricultural uses are to the south. Those are residential. The depth of the buffer, which is a 40 foot buffer, could be decreased. Michelle Kempinski: What is the required buffer? Glenn Bowles: There is a minimum of 20 foot. MOTION by Craufurd Goodwin that developer to return with responses to questions from the neighbors and if possible resolve as many of the issues before the Planning Board makes a decision. No Second to the motion. MOTION by Judith Wegner that Planning Board approve the proposal subject to the conditions and requirements recommended by staff beginning on page 241 going - through page 246 with one additional conditional. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt VOTE: (6-2) Jay Bryan: Craufurd, I understand you wanted the developer to respond first and Larry, did you have a particular reason. Larry Wright: There are many lots. You will have 16 trips /day coming from 20 homes. That's 320 trips /day added to the existing traffic burden on Cabe Ford Rd. Jay Bryan: Is there a recommendation about the stub out? U MOTION by Michelle Kempinski that building setback line shown on the final plan submitted shall be relocated to coincide with the outside edge of the stream buffer and not encroach within the stream buffer for lots 7 through 14, 16, and 17. Seconded by Jay Bryan VOTE: Unanimous MOTION by Larry Wright that the septic drain systems, on map S3 denote suitable soils for the septic systems, respect the stream buffers that they move back. (Lots 11, 12,13, and 14). Seconded by Michelle Kempinski VOTE: Unanimous Michelle Kempinski: Does the definition of what is required for denoting a suitable soil include just the soil and criterion for ' or does it include set backs? Glenn Bowles: Primarily it is for both property and soil. There are also set backs from lot lines. Michelle Kempinskl: It can include other criteria? Glenn Bowles: Yes. That is my.understanding. Jay Bryan: I would like to propose that there be a stub out for pedestrian or bike usage that would connect to the adjoining property owners. Judith Wegner: (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 developed, the only other choice for multiple access Michelle Kempinski: Are we assuming it will be a paved stub out or a reserved area? Glenn Bowles: It is just reserved but it will not be paved at the development of the adjoining lot. Judith Wegner. There will be a demarcation indicating that it is not.part of their parcels. Jay Bryan: I'm not going to make a motion. Motion by Renee Price that both stubouts are eliminated. Seconded by Larry Wright VOTE: (7 -1) Michelle Kempinski: I would like to request for information from applicant regarding all Green techniques, water conservation, and green building standards for the construction process. I would like documents to be shared with the Planning Board for informational purposes. MOTION by Renee Price that all archeological and historical aspects of this project including the cemetery be reviewed by the Historical Preservation Commission. Seconded by Lary Wright VOTE: (Unanimous) Jay Bryan: 1 am concerned that we have not accepted Craufurd's motion and tried to address any of the requirements suggested. MOTION by Judith Wegner that applicant post a construction bond sufficient to ensure that the construction process would proceed without damage to nearby properties and the amount would be determined by staff based on fiscal analysis. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt. VOTE: (Unanimous) 116- wo 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 fighting Standards. Seconded by Bernadette 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 Ford Road marking the entrance to Cabe Crossing, ensure that other vehicles not be parked or left over night on the shoulder of Cabe Ford Road, Grady Lane, Virgie Lane; that there be street signs that mark the entrance to the subdivision stating that there is no turn around at the western end of Cabe Ford Road. Seconded by Judith Wegner. VOTE: (Unanimous) MOTION by Renee Price to address the issue of the agricultural uses to lessen pressure on those owners by deepening the buffer. No Second Renee Price: I would like to request that the Planning Board receive a copy of the Cabe Crossing Homeowner's Association Rules MOTION by Judith Wegner to approve Cabe Crossing Subdivision subject to conditions and information regarding it. Seconded by Bernadette Pelissier. VOTE: (7 -1) 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. G d� Cabe Crossing (formerly Bramco Partners) Subdivision --Preliminary Pla Affach0eUtG The Board c(insidered taking action on the Cabe Crossing Subdivision Preliminary Plat. Glen Bowles said that the Planning Board on June 6, 2007 approved this as a 334ot subdivision. Now it is coming back as a 204ot subdiviislon. This is off of Cabe Ford Road just west of Pleasant Green Road. The pwoperty is zoned Agricultural Residential and Is in the Lower Eno Protected Watershed. The average lot size |m2'2acres, There xa also mwildlife corridor. He showed some pictures ofthe property. He read theAdministnat|#n Recommendation. Commissioner Gordon asked about the Planning Board recommendation, which was to delete the otub-ou#o' The recommendation |oto keep them. She asked for the pros and cons on this. - Glen Bowles said that the stub-outs allow connectiV4 into and out of the property. The pros for taking them out are that the neighbors did not see a need for them. Commissioner Gordon asked about the reasons given bv the one person ofthe Planning Board that voted against this development and Glen Bowles ' said it was because oftoo many-lots. � [�orD[n|ooionerC$ordbn asked several other clarifying questions that were answered hx Glen Bowles. ' Chair Jacobs asked about the Homeowners Association and Geof Gledhill said that the documents suggest this. Some pf the property is dedicated to the Homeowners Association for private recreation.. The pu��|onaorma�oDarea naquinaOlertiabe�OQmo�s�edb* the ��ounb/ taMMgtd|ein�i;�ly�ndthen ultimately it becoming part of the State park mf that 4k7J-s.creparcel. Chair Jacobs said that the Board asked the Attorney to work on the Homeowners Association agreement aothat it does not preclude th d use of clotheslines mr the requirement forxmatepintenoive|uvvna.oranymthernaedhodonsthatooanctnrnmrtQnzmdh. Qeoy Gledhill said that ha presumes the developer would agree tnthis. K8cPe|oquiM said yes. ' Commissioner Gordon asked how the two items that came in afterwards regarding three archeological sites and historic preservation would behandled. Goof Gledhill said thet the state Department of Cultural Resources requirements, page 2, says, "if |tia subject to Section 106...." He said that this \ u| to issue that is beyond the County's area ofconcern. }f the National Historic Preservation Act gives this state agency regulatory authority, then that authority will be exercised. The slave cemetery is on the property and the others are not. Craig Benedict said that there is only one property that involves cemetery within this development. This would b part of lands that are programmed hm go back td the Ghateand the State can do whatever itVvohfo' There are not any Army Corps of Engineer permits, which would activate this review process bv the Division nf Cultural Resources. There iea better level of review than what io within the regulations. ' ' Chair Jacobs made reference tom statement from the letter from Ms. Hall from Cultural Resources, and read, 1 do not believe that the subdivision property has ever been examined for archaeological oltmm'" Craig Benedict said that if there was o special use permit, thmna'mre additional review and activities that occur With that type of subdivision. This was more ofa preliminary review cf identifying sites. .[3eof Gledhill recommended some minor changes |nthe conditions. On page B` condition B7, the second line should read, "provide fundo." instead of "shelf baposted toensure that the applicant will oov," The e$condehmngm was uncond0on Bb, and the third line should read, "directing that" instead ofutoeneuna." A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Administration recommendation, which is approval of the Preliminary Plat in accordance with the attached Resolution of Approval and subject following: - The $9,1OOin-U -of parkland dad|oeOoh fee be waived, and - The "stub ouf'etnaet shall be included mn the Preliminary Plat. And that the County accept the offer of dedication of the 4.73-mnne Tract "A"baaccepted as public recreation land, and authorize the Chair to execute such deeds and other documents as deemed necessary by the County Attorney iD order to convey Tract "Kbm the Eno River Association for ultimate conveyance to the State of North Carolina for inclusion in the Eno River 'State Park. The motion includes the changes as submitted by the County Attorney and the comments about the homeowners association. VOTE: UNANIMOUS