AGENDA #6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
From: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
Subject: OWASA Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion - Application for Special Use Permit Modification (File No. 7.66.9A, PIN # 9798213071)
DATE: March 1, 2004
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from February 16, 2004, regarding the Special Use Permit Modification application to expand the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) Wastewater Treatment Plant on Mason Farm Road. The proposed improvements include upgrading and expanding the facility from its current capacity of 12 million gallons per day to a capacity of 14.5 million gallons per day. The 23.4 acre site is located on the south side of Mason Farm Road, approximately 2,000 feet east of Fordham Boulevard.
In response to concerns raised at the February 16 Public Hearing, OWASA is proposing a program to its Board aimed at offsite odor elimination. The OWASA proposal is attached, and we have incorporated references to the proposed program in the attached recommended conditions of approval.
Adoption of Resolution A or B would approve a Special Use Permit Modification application with conditions. Adoption of Resolution C would deny the request.
|
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
¨ Cover Memorandum: Provides background on the development proposal and the Town’s review process, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, discusses key issues raised at the February 16, 2004 Public Hearing, and offers recommendations for Council action.
¨ Attachments: Includes resolutions of approval and denial, related attachments, a copy of the February 16, 2004 Public Hearing memorandum, including advisory board comments, and related attachments.
|
background
On February 16, 2004, the Council held a Public Hearing to consider the Special Use Permit Modification application for the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion. The proposed improvements include upgrading and expanding the facility from its current capacity of 12 million gallons per day to a capacity of 14.5 million gallons per day.
The Public Hearing on the Special Use Permit Modification application was recessed until March 1, 2004.
This is an application for a Special Use Permit Modification. The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit Modification application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on February 16, 2004, we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.
EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION
The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit Modification application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit Modification. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether it can make each of the four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit Modification.
If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit Modification shall then be approved. If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.
Tonight, based on the evidence presently in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based around the four findings of facts that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit Modification.
|
Finding #1: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
|
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding for the application has been provided by the applicant’s February 6, 2004 Draft Resolution to the OWASA Board (Attachment 3) and the Draft Statement of Justification (provided as part of Attachment 4).
The following points are from the applicant’s February 6, 2004 Draft Resolution to the OWASA Board:
“WHEREAS, the Project will provide many important public benefits, including improved effluent quality and plant reliability, improved odor control, and opportunities for the significant use of reclaimed water, which will significantly increase the yield and reliability of the community’s water supply system; and”
“WHEREAS, the OWASA Board of Directors has adopted a goal of no off-site objectionable odors, and to meet that goal, has authorized the expenditure of $5 million to cover OWASA’s four digesters to improve odor control in the current plant improvement project; and”
“WHEREAS, the OWASA Board of Directors believes that the improvements to be put in place by this expenditure will substantially eliminate objectionable off-site odors; and, the OWASA Board of Directors is committed to considering whether additional improvements may be needed to meet its goal after the present improvements are completed and evaluated; and” [Applicant Statement]
The following points are from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this Chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition: We have identified the following evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.
· Several citizens spoke at the Public Hearing on February 16, 2004 and expressed concerns that the odors generated by the Mason Farm treatment plant were very difficult to live with and that they did not have confidence in OWASA’s commitment to suppressing the odors.
Staff Comment: OWASA proposed to reduce odors from the Mason Farm treatment plant at the February 16, 2004 Public Hearing. OWASA’s Executive Director is now proposing to the OWASA Board a goal to eliminate offsite odors produced by the Mason Farm treatment plant and Morgan Creek pump station by April 2007 (see Attachment 3), or take continuing measures to achieve its goal. We recommend that OWASA present annual reports to the Council regarding odor elimination both during construction, to report on progress, and post-construction, to report on maintenance and the continuing efficacy of the program. See additional discussion below in Key Issues section.
|
Finding #2: That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this Chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations.
|
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #2 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as part of Attachment 4).
The following points are from Town staff:
· We believe that the applicant is generally in compliance with Articles 3 and 5, as well as the Supplemental Use Regulations in Article 6. However the applicant is requesting modification to seven standards contained in six sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance. Please see Requested Modifications of Regulations Section for detailed discussion.
Evidence in opposition: The applicant does not meet seven Land Use Management Ordinance standards and has requested that Council modify them.
Staff Comment: The applicant is asking for modifications to regulations for this site. We believe that in this particular case the Council could make the finding that the proposed modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree necessary to approve the modifications. If the Council does not make the finding, then the applicant will be required to comply with the standards and regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance. For additional discussion on the requested modifications, please see “Requested Modification of Regulations” section below.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
|
Finding #3: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity. |
The language of Finding #3 allows the Council to make this finding based on 1) maintaining or enhancing contiguous property or 2) the fact that the proposed development is a public necessity. In this particular case, we believe that the proposed development is a public necessity.
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #3 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as part of Attachment 4).
The following points are from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “The upgrade of the Mason Farm WWTP is a public need and will provide environmental enhancements to the community. The proposed additional treatment capacity is needed to accommodate increased wastewater flows projected to occur within the OWASA service area.” [Applicant Statement]
· “In order to plan for growth, OWASA has developed water demand and wastewater flow projections through the year 2050 as part of the 2001 Comprehensive Water and Sewer Master Plan. Based on these flow projections, the wastewater treatment plant’s current permitted maximum month flow capacity of 12.0 MGD may be exceeded by the year 2006. Therefore, the expansion to 14.5 MGD needs to occur as soon as possible in order to keep up with the increasing wastewater flow rates.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition: The following evidence has been offered in opposition to Finding #3.
The following point was made by a citizen at the February 16, 2004 Public Hearing:
· A citizen spoke at the February 16, 2004 Public Hearing and said that he did not believe that the Council could make Finding #3 for the proposed Mason Farm treatment plant expansion. He believed that the proposed expansion would not “maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.”
Staff Comment: As indicated above, Finding #3 must “maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity.” In this case we believe the proposed development is a public necessity.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
|
Finding #4: That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.
|
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #4 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as Attachment 2 to this memorandum).
The following points are from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “One of the strategies for fulfilling the goal of providing quality community facilities is the Town’s strategy to work with OWASA to provide safe, adequate water supplies and wastewater management for the community and the region (Section 11A-1, Town of Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan). The proposed project will provide wastewater treatment for the OWASA service area, which includes Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and UNC.” [Applicant Statement]
· “The Town has also established a goal of enhancing the community’s water resources. The upgrade of the Mason Farm WWTP will support this goal in two ways. First, the project will provide expanded wastewater treatment without increasing the nutrient loads to Morgan Creek. Secondly, the project will help to support a reclaimed water system. Both of these benefits will support and enhance water quality in both Chapel Hill and the region.” [Applicant Statement]
· “The Mason Farm WWTP produces biosolids, a by product of the treatment process, that are classified by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency as Class A. This designation means that the biosolids are pathogen free and can be used for agricultural purposes. This is a form of recycling that prevents the waste product from being land filled or disposed of in a less useful manner.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #4.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
KEY ISSUES
We have identified two key issues related to this proposed development, 1) odor elimination monitoring, and 2) odor elimination construction schedule.
1. Offsite Odor Elimination Monitoring and Reporting: Council members recommended that OWASA initiate a means of monitoring the efficacy of proposed odor elimination measures.
Staff Comment: OWASA had proposed to reduce odors from the Mason Farm treatment plant at the February 16, 2004 Public Hearing. OWASA is now proposing to its Board a goal to eliminate offsite odors produced by the Mason Farm treatment plant and Morgan Creek pump station by April 2007 (Attachment 3), or take continuing measures to achieve its goal. OWASA is also projecting the completion of the proposed four new digester covers by November 2005, these being the most offensive sources of odors from the Mason Farm plant. We recommend that OWASA present annual reports to the Council regarding odor elimination both during construction, to report on progress, and post-construction, to report on maintenance and the continuing efficacy of the program.
If OWASA does not believe it has achieved its offsite odor elimination goal by April 2007, the projected construction completion date, we recommend that it bring a revised odor elimination plan to Council for approval. The revised plan would include proposed additional odor reduction measures.
At such point in time that OWASA does believe it has achieved its proposed offsite odor elimination goal, we recommend that a Public Forum be held by the Council so that the Council may hear public comment on the issue. We recommend that the Council then make a finding to determine whether or not OWASA is in compliance with its offsite odor elimination stipulation(s) and its Special Use Permit. If OWASA is found not to have attained the goal, then the Council would direct OWASA to perform additional work. This cycle of work, testing and consideration by the Council would continue until the Council is satisfied that the goal has been attained.
Resolution A, the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, contains stipulations to this effect.
2. Odor Elimination Construction Schedule Reporting: A Council member inquired about how the Town can make certain that OWASA adheres to the project construction schedule and thereby its odor elimination program.
Staff Comment: As mentioned above, OWASA’s projected completion date of the odor elimination component of construction is April 2007. OWASA is also projecting the completion of the proposed four new digester covers by November 2005. We recommend that OWASA update the Council on the proposed construction schedule, including the offsite odor elimination program, as an element of the recommended annual reports to the Council.
Resolution A, the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, contains stipulations to this effect.
The applicant is requesting that the Council modify Land Use Management Ordinance regulations for this site. Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance states:
“Where actions, designs, or solutions proposed by the applicant are not literally in accord with applicable special use regulations, general regulations, or other regulations in this Chapter, but the Town Council makes a finding in the particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree, the Town Council may make specific modification of the regulations in the particular case. Any modification of regulations shall be explicitly indicated in the Special Use Permit or Modification of Special Use Permit.”
The applicant is requesting modification of the following seven standards, contained in six sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The requests for modifications are described below. Staff comments on the modifications follow all of the descriptions.
Modification Request #1 - Floor Area: Section 3.6.3-3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, as it pertains to floor area in the Resource Conservation District, applies variable floor area ratios of 0.01 in the stream side zone, 0.019 in the managed use zone and 0.071 in the upland zone (in this case the Industrial zone). The maximum allowed floor area for this property is 79,717 square feet. The applicant is proposing 80,680 square feet, or 963 square feet over the allowable floor area. The applicant is requesting a modification to Section 3.6.3-3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow the facility to exceed this floor area limit. The applicant argues that the floor area at the plant has been minimized in the proposed project, that much of the floor space is not frequently occupied and is used to house equipment such as pumps, generators, and other equipment, and that this equipment is vital to the proper operation of the plant.
Modification Request #2 – Impervious Surface: Section 3.6.3-3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, as it pertains to impervious surface in the Resource Conservation District, applies variable impervious surface area ratios (for sewered areas) of 0.10 in the stream side zone, 0.20 in the managed use zone and 0.20 in the upland zone. The maximum impervious surface allowed by Section 3.6.3-3 is 222,554 square feet (20%). The applicant is proposing 368,000 square feet (33%) of impervious surface. The proposal would therefore exceed the allowable impervious surface area by 145,446 square feet (65%). The applicant is requesting a modification to Section 3.6.3-3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow the facility to exceed the impervious surface limit.
Modification Request #3 – Resource Conservation District and Finished Floor Elevation: Section 3.6.3(g)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance, pertains to development within the Resource Conservation District and requires that the lowest finished floors of permanent structures be located at least 18-inches above the Resource Conservation District elevation. The Resource Conservation District elevation is defined as 3-feet above the floodplain elevation. For this site, the floodplain varies between 261-feet at the southeastern corner of the property to 265-feet at the southwestern corner of the property; therefore, the Resource Conservation District elevation varies between 264-feet and 268-feet. All proposed finished floors for this project have been either located well above the RCD elevation; enclosed in buildings with no openings below the RCD elevation (flood proofed); or are protected from flooding by an existing earthen dike. The applicant is requesting a modification to Section 3.6.3-3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow construction of the flood-proofed structures below the Resource Conservation District elevation.
Modification Request #4 – Resource Conservation District Grading Activities: Section 3.6.3(g)(9) of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires limiting the impacts of grading activities within the Resource Conservation District as it pertains to both flow velocity and water surface rise of the base flood elevation. The Ordinance requires that grading in the water course shall result in no more than one foot per second increase in the flow velocity or more than one-half-foot of rise in the base flood elevation. The applicant believes that there is a possibility that they need to request a modification of Section 3.6.3(g)(9) of the Land Use Management Ordinance, after additional engineering review is completed. We believe it is probable that the applicant will need a modification of Section 3.6.3(g)(9) of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Modification Request #5 – Stream Buffers in Watershed Protection District: Section 3.6.4(f)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires 30-foot wide stream buffers in the Watershed Protection District. The applicant requests a waiver from this regulation and has stated that OWASA built protective barriers for flood control in this buffer zone in 1979, prior to the 1993 North Carolina Statute creating the Watershed Protection District. About 75% of the barriers are earth only and 25% are hardened with steel piles. The earth-only barriers are approximately 30 feet wide by 10 feet high.
Modification Request #6 – Landscape Bufferyards: Section 5.6.6-1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires landscape bufferyards along the property boundaries of a site, in this case 20 feet wide. The applicant requests a waiver from this regulation and has stated that establishing vegetated buffers along those parts of the property boundary where OWASA has built protective barriers for flood control could diminish the efficacy and safety of the barriers. These conditions are existing on the site.
Modification Request #7 – Stormwater Quality, Volume and Rate: Sections 5.4.6 (a-c) of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires that post-development stormwater:
(a) Quality, not exceed 85% Total Suspended Solids resulting from the first inch of precipitation, and that the post-development stormwater; and
(b) Volume, not exceed the predevelopment discharge volume for the local 2-year, 24-hour storm event, and that the post-development stormwater; and
(c) Rate, not exceed the pre-development discharge rate for the 1-year, 2-year, and 25-year, 24-hour storm events.
The applicant is requesting a modification from Section 5.4.6 (a-c) of the Land Use Management Ordinance regulations regarding stormwater quality, volume and rate. The applicant argues that given the location of the treatment plant there are some site characteristics, such as the floodplain location not lending itself to below ground stormwater control structures and the many shallow pipes on the site, which limit the available options for managing stormwater quality, volume, and rate.
Staff Comment: We believe that the applicant’s request to modify Sections 3.6.3-3, 3.6.3(g)(1), 3.6.3(g)(9), 3.6.4(f)(1), 5.6.6-1, and 5.4.6 (a-c) of the Land Use Management Ordinance is reasonable because of the following existing conditions:
Our recommendation is that the Council modify those sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance requested by the applicant as discussed above. We believe that the Council may find that the proposed development, with each of the modifications requested above, would satisfy public purposes to a degree equivalent to that which would be achieved with full compliance with all regulations. Stipulations representing our recommended modifications are contained in Resolution A.
Alternatively, the Council could reasonably conclude that some or all of the proposed modifications would not satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree and could therefore deny the application or require compliance with the particular regulation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see summaries of board actions and recommendations in the attachments.
Planning Board Recommendation: On February 3, 2004, the Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application, with the adoption of Resolution B. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action (part of Attachment 4).
Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this proposal on February 17, 2004. The Board voted 6-0 to recommend one revision, with the adoption of Resolution B. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action (Attachment 2).
Below is the revision as recommended by the Transportation Board.
1. The applicant shall improve the intersection of Mason Farm Road and the Driveway to the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Staff Comment: No specific improvements were included in the recommendation. The OWASA Mason Farm Road Treatment Plant does not have any frontage on Mason Farm Road. Therefore, this recommended revision is not included in a separate resolution.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory reviewed this proposal February 24, 2004. We will provide the recommendation as soon as it is available.
Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this proposal on February 25, 2004. We will provide the recommendation as soon as it is available.
Manager’s Revised Recommendation: Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit Modification application with the requested modification of the regulations. We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application with conditions.
Based on discussion and evidence presented at the Public Hearing, we have revised our recommendation.
The following stipulations have been added:
1. Offsite Odor Elimination, Monitoring and Annual Report: That OWASA shall present an annual report to the Town Council regarding progress in meeting their offsite odor elimination goal to report on progress during construction, and to report on maintenance and the continuing efficacy of the program post-construction. The Town Council may reduce the frequency or end the annual report requirement at such time as it determines reasonable.
2. Offsite Odor Elimination, Public Forum: That OWASA shall address their offsite odor elimination goal in a Public Forum, scheduled and conducted by the Town Council, to be held no later than April 2007, the projected completion date of site construction. The applicant shall report either it has achieved the goal of offsite odor elimination or has not achieved offsite odor elimination. The Town Council shall make a finding based on information submitted at the Forum. If the Council finds that the goal of off-site odor elimination has been attained, OWASA will not be required to perform additional odor control work.
If the Council finds that the goal of off-site odor elimination has not been attained, then the Council shall direct OWASA to perform such additional work as the Council determines to be necessary to eliminate off-site odor and shall establish such reporting requirements as it deems reasonable. OWASA agrees to perform such work as may be directed by the Council in said circumstances.
3. Odor Elimination Construction Schedule Reporting: That the applicant shall report on the progress of the proposed odor elimination construction completion date of April 2007, as part of the annual report on the Mason Farm wastewater treatment plant. The applicant shall present an action plan if it projects not meeting the proposed construction completion date of April 2007, to be approved by the Town Council.
The following stipulation has been revised:
· Community Design Commission Approval: That the Community Design Commission shall review and approved details for all building elevation details, lighting plans, and alternative buffers, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Zoning Compliance Permit(s) may be issued for construction phase(s) that are not specifically for structures, lighting fixtures, and alternative buffers. Special consideration shall be given to visual impact of the Mason Farm plant with particular attention paid to building material and paint colors.
The following stipulation has been deleted:
· Alternative Landscape Bufferyard Authorization: That Section 5.6.6-1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, which would otherwise require 20-foot wide landscaped bufferyards property boundaries of the site be waived, on those portions of property boundaries where applicant has constructed protective barriers for flood control. Applicant is further authorized to install alternative buffers, with Community Design Commission approval, on those portions of Morgan Creek where existing protective barriers for flood control would allow such buffers. Final approval subject to Town Manager approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
New stipulations have been added to and deleted from Resolution A accordingly. These issues are discussed in the Key Issues section of the cover memorandum, or Attachment 1 (Issues Raised at the February 16 Public Hearing).
Resolution B would approve the application as recommended by Planning Board and Transportation Board.
Resolution C would deny the application.
OWASA Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Special Use Permit Modification - Differences Between Resolutions
|
ISSUES |
Resolution A
Manager’s Revised Recommendation |
Resolution B
Planning Board and Transportation Board Recommendation |
|
Offsite Odor Elimination & Monitoring, Annual Report |
Yes |
* |
|
Offsite Odor Elimination, Public Forum |
Yes |
* |
|
Offsite Odor Elimination, Construction Schedule Reporting |
Yes
|
* |
|
Authorize Alternative Buffers in Proximity to Flood Control Barriers |
No |
Yes |
* Issue was not discussed by this Advisory Board.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Issues Raised during the February 16, 2004 Public Hearing (p. 23).
2. Draft Summary of Action, the Transportation Board (p. 25).
4. February 16, 2004 Public Hearing Memorandum and Related Attachments (p. 29).
RESOLUTION A
(Town Manager’s Revised Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE OWASA MASON FARM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION (2004-03-01/R-10a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Orange Water and Sewer Authority on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 66, Lot 9A (PIN# 9798213071), if developed according to the site plan dated January 29, 2004:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Town Council of Chapel Hill that it finds, in this particular case, pursuant to Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, that the following specific modifications of regulations satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:
1. Modification of the dimensional regulations in Section 3.6.3-3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, to allow a maximum of 80,680 square feet of floor area in the Resource Conservation District.
2. Modification of the dimensional regulations in Section 3.6.3-3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, to allow a maximum of 368,000 square feet of impervious surface in the Resource Conservation District.
3. Modification of the standards in Section 3.6.3(g)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow the lowest floor elevation to be less than eighteen (18) inches above the Resource Conservation District elevation.
4. Modification of the grading regulations in Section 3.6.3(g)(9) of the Land Use Management Ordinance, to allow the applicant to increase the flow velocity more than one foot per second and increase the base flood elevation more than one half foot.
5. Modification of the stream buffers requirements for the Watershed Protection District in Section 3.6.4(f)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance to waive the 30-foot required buffer, on those portions of the site where protective barriers for flood control currently exist in these areas.
6. Modification of the landscape buffer requirements in Section 5.6.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance to waive the 20-foot wide required buffer, on those portions of the property boundaries where existing hardened protective berms for flood control would prevent planting.
7. Modification of the stormwater management performance criteria in Section 5.4.6(a-c) of the Land Use Management Ordinance for the treatment of stormwater (a) quality, (b) volume, and (c) rate to exceed the post-development performance criteria.
Said public purposes being the provision of a facility that is necessary to serve the community’s growing demand for a public service that is a public necessity and to operate that facility in a manner that reduces its adverse impact on surrounding and nearby properties.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for the OWASA Mason Farm Waste-Water Treatment Plant Expansion in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
1. That construction begins by March 1, 2006 (2 years from the date of approval) and is completed by March 1, 2014, 10 years from the date of approval).
2. Relationship to 1981 Special Use Permit: This authorization is intended supercede the original Special Use Permit, approved by the Town Council, April 13, 1981, recorded June 30, 1981, in deed book 366, page 440 of the Orange County Register of Deeds.
3. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit Modification authorizes the land use intensity requirements as specified below:
|
Land Use Intensity |
OWASA Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant |
|
Net Land Area |
1,112,772 s.f. |
|
Total # of Buildings |
7 (5 existing, 2 new) |
|
Total Other Structures (Treatment Plant Infrastructure) |
24 (19 existing, 5 new) |
|
Maximum Floor Area |
80,680 s.f. |
|
Minimum # of Parking Spaces |
No Change |
|
Minimum # of Bicycle Spaces |
2 |
4. Offsite Odor Elimination, Monitoring and Annual Report: That OWASA shall present an annual report to the Town Council regarding progress in meeting their offsite odor elimination goal to report on progress during construction, and to report on maintenance and the continuing efficacy of the program post-construction. The Town Council may reduce the frequency or end the annual report requirement at such time as it determines reasonable.
5. Offsite Odor Elimination, Public Forum: That OWASA shall address their offsite odor elimination goal in a Public Forum, scheduled and conducted by the Town Council, to be held no later than April 2007, the projected completion date of site construction. The applicant shall report either it has achieved the goal of offsite odor elimination or has not achieved offsite odor elimination. The Town Council shall make a finding based on information submitted at the Forum. If the Council finds that the goal of off-site odor elimination has been attained, OWASA will not be required to perform additional odor control work.
If the Council finds that the goal of off-site odor elimination has not been attained, then the Council shall direct OWASA to perform such additional work as the Council determines to be necessary to eliminate off-site odor and shall establish such reporting requirements as it deems reasonable. OWASA agrees to perform such work as may be directed by the Council in said circumstances.
6. Odor Elimination Construction Schedule Reporting: That the applicant shall report on the progress of the proposed odor elimination construction completion date of April 2007 as part of the annual report on the Mason Farm wastewater treatment plant. The applicant shall present an action plan if it projects not meeting the proposed construction completion date of April 2007, to be approved by the Town Council.
Stipulations Related to Access and Circulation
7. Transportation Management Plan: That the applicant provide a Transportation Management Plan to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The required components of the Transportation Management Plan shall include:
a) Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;
b) Provision for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager;
c) Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;
d) Ridesharing incentives; and
e) Public transit incentives.
The plan shall be updated and approved annually by the Town Manager.
8. Bicycle Parking: That the development shall provide 2 Class II bicycle parking spaces.
Stipulations Related to Landscape and Architectural Elements
9. Required Landscape Bufferyard: That the following landscape buffers are required, unless modified as noted above:
Bufferyards
|
Location of Bufferyard |
Required Bufferyards* |
|
|
|
|
Northern boundary of site towards Mason Farm Road |
Minimum 20’ Type “C” Buffer
|
|
Eastern boundary of site towards Morgan Creek |
Minimum 20’ Type “C” Buffer |
|
Southern boundary of site towards Morgan Creek bypass channel |
Minimum 20’ Type “C” Buffer
|
|
Western boundary of site towards Morgan Creek |
Minimum 20’ Type ‘C’ Buffer |
*Since site is in the Watershed Protection District 30’ wide buffers are required along the stream channels on the periphery of the property. These may in some cases supercede the required bufferyards above.
10. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed landscape protection plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This plan shall include a detail of protective fencing; and construction parking and materials staging/storage areas. This plan shall also indicate which labeled trees are proposed to be removed and where tree protection fencing will be installed.
11. Landscape Plan Approval: That detailed landscape plans (including buffers), landscape maintenance plans, and parking lot shading requirements be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That the landscape plan shall indicate the size, type, and location of all proposed plantings.
12. Landscape Buffer Replacement: That any existing landscaped buffer trees that are removed or damaged during construction shall be replaced post-construction, to be approved by the Town Manager.
13. Community Design Commission Approval: That the Community Design Commission shall review and approved details for all building elevation details, lighting plans, and alternative buffers, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Zoning Compliance Permit(s) may be issued for construction phase(s) that are not specifically for structures, lighting fixtures, and alternative buffers. Special consideration shall be given to visual impact of the Mason Farm plant with particular attention paid to building material and paint colors.
Stipulations Related To Stormwater Management
14. Stormwater Management Plan: That a Stormwater Management Plan shall be approved the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That the applicant shall meet the requirements of Section 5.4.6 (a-c) of the Land Use Management Ordinance regulations, to the extent practicable, regarding stormwater quality, volume and rate, as reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
15. Stream Buffer Requirements: That Section 3.6.4(f)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance be waived, which would otherwise require a 30-foot wide stream buffer in the Watershed Protection District, on those portions adjacent to Morgan Creek where protective barriers for flood control existed prior to the 1993 North Carolina Statute creating the Watershed Protection District. Final approval subject to Town Manager approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
16. Operations and Maintenance Plans: That an Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater control structures shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
17. Performance Guarantee: That if more than one acre of land is disturbed, then a performance guarantee in accordance with Section 5-97.1 Bonds of the Town Code of Ordinances shall be required prior to final authorization to begin land-disturbing activities.
Stipulations Related to Utilities
18. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), Duke Power Company, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time/Warner Cable and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That the final plans demonstrate there is no conflict between utility lines, easements, and other site elements.
19. Utility Lines: That except for existing 3-phase electric utility lines, all new or relocated utility lines shall be installed underground and shall be indicated on final plans.
Stipulations Related to Fire Protection/Fire Safety
20. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer and demonstrating compliance with the provisions of the Design Manual be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
21. Fire Department Connection and Fire Hydrant: That the final proposed location for all fire department connections and the location and number of new fire hydrants shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Miscellaneous Stipulations
22. Off-Site Easements: That all necessary off-site utility, construction, access, maintenance, or other easements, if required, shall be obtained and a recorded copy of such easements shall be submitted to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
23. Detailed Plans: That the final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plan (with hydraulic calculations), and landscape plans shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans shall conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and design standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Manual.
24. Erosion Control: That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan be approved by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources and a copy of the approval be submitted to the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
25. Encroachment Agreements: That any required State or Federal permits or encroachment agreements be approved and copies of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
26. Silt Control: That the developer shall take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
27. Construction Sign Required: That the developer shall post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative, with a telephone number; the contractor’s representative, with a telephone number; and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The construction sign may have a maximum of 32 square feet of display area and may not exceed 8 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.
28. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
29. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for OWASA Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion.
This the 1st day of March, 2004.
RESOLUTION B
(Planning Board and Transportation
Board Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE OWASA MASON FARM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION (2004-03-01/R-10b)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Orange Water and Sewer Authority on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 66, Lot 9A (PIN# 9798213071), if developed according to the site plan dated January 29, 2004, would:
1. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Would comply with all required regulations and standards of this Chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Would continue a use and development that constitutes a public necessity; and
4. Would conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this Chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Town Council of Chapel Hill that it finds, in this particular case, pursuant to Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, that the following specific modifications of regulations satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:
1. Modification of the dimensional regulations in Section 3.6.3-3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, to allow a maximum of 80,680 square feet of floor area in the Resource Conservation District.
2. Modification of the dimensional regulations in Section 3.6.3-3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, to allow a maximum of 368,000 square feet of impervious surface in the Resource Conservation District.
3. Modification of the standards in Section 3.6.3(g)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow the lowest floor elevation to be less than eighteen (18) inches above the Resource Conservation District elevation.
4. Modification of the grading regulations in Section 3.6.3(g)(9) of the Land Use Management Ordinance, to allow the applicant to increase the flow velocity more than one foot per second and increase the base flood elevation more than one half foot.
5. Modification of the stream buffers requirements for the Watershed Protection District in Section 3.6.4(f)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance to waive the 30-foot required buffer, on those portions of the site where protective barriers for flood control currently exist in these areas.
6. Modification of the landscape buffer requirements in Section 5.6.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance to waive the 20-foot wide required buffer, on those portions of the property boundaries where existing hardened protective berms for flood control would prevent planting.
7. Modification of the stormwater management performance criteria in Section 5.4.6(a-c) of the Land Use Management Ordinance for the treatment of stormwater (a) quality, (b) volume, and (c) rate to exceed the post-development performance criteria.
Said public purposes being the provision of a facility that is necessary to serve the community’s growing demand for a public service that is a public necessity and to operate that facility in a manner that reduces its adverse impact on surrounding and nearby properties.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for the Mason Farm wastewater treatment plant expansion in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
1. Resolution A: That all of the stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.
2. That the Offsite Odor Elimination, Monitoring and Annual Report stipulation shall be deleted.
3. That the Offsite Odor Elimination, Public Forum stipulation shall be deleted.
4. That the Odor Elimination Construction Schedule Reporting stipulation shall be deleted.
5. That an Alternative Landscape Bufferyard Authorization stipulation shall be included, as follows:
“That Section 5.6.6-1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance be waived, which would otherwise require 20-foot wide landscaped bufferyards property boundaries of the site, on those portions of property boundaries where applicant has constructed protective barriers for flood control. Applicant is further authorized to install alternative buffers, with Community Design Commission approval, on those portions of Morgan Creek where existing protective barriers for flood control would allow such buffers. Final approval subject to Town Manager approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.”
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for OWASA Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion.
This the 1st day of March, 2004.
RESOLUTION C
(Denying the Application)
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE OWASA MASON FARM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION (2004-03-01/R-10c)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Orange Water and Sewer Authority on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 66, Lot 9A (PIN# 9798213071), if developed according to the site plan dated January 29, 2004, would not:
1. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Would comply with all required regulations and standards of this Chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Would continue a use and development that constitutes a public necessity; and
4. Would conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this Chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds:
(INSERT REASONS FOR DENIAL)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby denies the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for OWASA Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion.
This the 1st day of March, 2004.
Issues Raised During the February 16, 2004 Public Hearing
1. Odor Abatement Cost Assessment: A Council member asked OWASA to provide a cost assessment for proposed odor abatement improvements as well as those measures considered but not proposed, with the cost broken down per ratepayer, and total costs.
Staff Comment: We understand that OWASA will provide this information at the Council’s March 1, 2004 Business Meeting.
2. Alternative Buffers: A Council member suggested that OWASA should be required to install alternative buffers, where there are existing flood-control barriers.
Staff Comment: As the stipulation in Resolution A was worded at the February 16, 2004 Public Hearing, the applicant would have been authorized to install alternate buffers, where possible, with Community Design Commission approval.
The protective flood-control barriers surrounding the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant are composed of both steel-piles and earthen berms (i.e. mounds). OWASA has revised their issue and is of the opinion that vegetated buffers or alternative buffers in proximity to any of the flood-control barriers could cause both functional and safety problems during floods. We do not believe that it is prudent to require that OWASA have vegetated buffers or alternative buffers in proximity to the flood-control barriers. We have removed the stipulation from Resolution A authorizing OWASA to “install alternative buffers, with Community Design Commission approval, on those portions of Morgan Creek where existing protective barriers for flood control would allow such buffers.”
3. Treatment Plant Visual Impact: A Council member suggested that the Town require that OWASA have a public forum for the purpose of discussing the visual impact of the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant and how it might be minimized.
Staff Comment: The Community Design Commission will review and approve building elevations and lighting at the treatment plant. We believe the Commission will take visual impact into consideration. We recommend, however, that the standard stipulation addressing Community Design Commission review be revised so that special consideration is given to visual impact with particular attention paid to building material and paint colors. Resolution A includes this revision. Public comment is accepted at the meetings of the Community Design Commission.
We believe that this process will adequately address the visual impact of the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant.
4. Noise Ordinance: A Council member suggested that OWASA be required to adhere to the Noise Ordinance at the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Staff Comment: OWASA is subject to the Noise Ordinance, Chapter 11, Article 3 of the Town Code and therefore cannot exceed noise thresholds as established in the Ordinance for ongoing operational issues. OWASA is exempt from the Noise Ordinance for maintenance procedures only, Chapter 11, Article 3, Section 40(m) of the Town Code.