RE: Septic Info - First Round
Michael Harvey
Ms. Kennedy: as I have explained to you in several previous emails, Pathway Court was reviewed/approved by the County in 1986 and 1995 respectively.
You appear to be asking me where the ‘security instrument’ document is for a roadway constructed well over 26 years ago. If the developer submitted any such bond it was released long ago by staff who are no longer here. I have no record(s) available to me indicating a bond was posted or required by staff employed at the time the project was approved. Regardless, the County has no security instrument on the roadway and I cannot provide you document(s) on same.
As a point of clarification: Section 7.8.5 of the UDO addresses the posting of securities for new roadways associated with a subdivision project under review by the Department ….. the section does not apply to your situation (i.e. the roadway was approved approximately 26 years ago and was constructed at that time). Further, the provision does it compel/allow me the ability to retroactively seek a ‘bond’ for a roadway constructed well over 26 years ago.
This roadway is now the subject of a recorded road maintenance agreement. Maintenance/upkeep is accomplished in accordance with that document.
I have provided the assistance I have promised I would provide. A letter has been sent to the local homeowners association (early this week as this was the first I was able to get to it) outlining the various concern(s).
I am sorry you feel abandoned. That, however, has never been the case but I can see there is nothing I am going to be able to do or say to address your issues.
Unfortunately, and as I have constantly reminded you, your issues relate to the enforcement of a private road maintenance agreement with a local homeowners association and not the application of current County land use regulation(s). The County has no legal authority to compel compliance with said agreement(s) nor do we have the ability to enforce same.
In conclusion: Section 7.8.5 of the UDO is not applicable to your situation and is not relevant in the conversation we are having now: the enforcement of a private road maintenance agreement between residences of a local subdivision.
I will continue to offer the help I indicated I would.
Good day
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor
Orange County
131 West Margaret Lane
Suite 201
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Permit and Inspection Information is NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE!! Click here to access our portal
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties.
SERVICE IMPACTS FROM COVID-19
PLEASE NOTE: Orange County planning staff are still operating with limited in-person availability due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the latest information and guidance relating to Orange County’s COVID-19 response, visit https://www.orangecountync.gov/Coronavirus
Office Hours: Current Planning offices are closed to foot traffic until further notice.
Planning staff can be reached at the following:
Michael Harvey, Supervisor: (919) 245-2597 or mha...@orangecountync.gov
Molly Boyle, Planner II: (919) 245-2599 or mbo...@orangecountync.gov
Plan Review: Applications for development projects shall be accepted:
Electronically via e-mail to: planni...@orangecountync.gov
By Mail sent to: Orange County Planning
ATTN: Current Planning Division
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dropped off in person during the revised operating hours listed above. PLEASE NOTE: Applications physically dropped off at Planning offices shall be placed in an appropriately labeled drop box and shall not be handed by staff until appropriate social distancing protocols can be observed. Staff will be unable to review and discuss the proposal with you at the time of submittal.
Submittal of Fees: Fees can be submitted with the application (mail and in person). Those
applicant’s needed to pay using a credit card shall be contacted by staff to process a payment
over the phone. PLEASE NOTE: Until further notice, cash shall not be accepted/handled by staff.
Permits: Permits shall be processed as quickly as possible. Please note deficiencies in the
application submittal will impact staff’s ability to process the development request.
Inspections: Inspections shall be completed either on a first come basis or via appointment. If
staff is required to meet applicants in the field, appropriate social distancing policies shall be
adhered to.
Communications: Current Planning staff can be reached at the e-mail addresses and phone
numbers listed above.
From: Renee Kennedy <reneel...@outlook.com>
Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 12:28 PM
To: Renee Kennedy <reneel...@outlook.com>; Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>; Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>; Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>; David Kennedy <dave...@gmail.com>; James Bryan <jbr...@orangecountync.gov>;
Craig Benedict <cben...@orangecountync.gov>; Dani Mouawad <danim...@gmail.com>; ALL_BOCC_MANAGER_CLERK <OCB...@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Re: Septic Info - First Round
I have notified you that emergency vehicles did not and will not drive on our road and the road. I have notified you that emergency vehicles cannot get to our home. I have notified you that our private road needs reassessment. I have notified you that the subdivision is not following through on the legal document for maintenance. I know you say this is not your problem but I wanted to say I have notified you, the planning department, that the minimum standards for this private NC subdivision road are not being met according to General Requirements of Private Road Standards as written within the Orange County NC Code of Technical Ordinances. I have notified you all and I have gotten no support as an Orange County resident I am appalled.
Lastly, I have notified you that the initial construction of the road was never completed, and you claim it was signed off on but also claim you cannot be responsible for it and have not provided this documentation. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT DOCUMENT. You have refused to help me do anything with it except wash your hands and tell me I need civil counsel. The Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-18 states "(3) Before the final plat of the subdivision can be recorded, the Private Road must be built and approved, or the subdivider must post a security instrument with the County in an amount that would cover the cost of constructing the road."
The road was never built. Where is the "security instrument" that was posted with the County to cover the cost of construction Michael Harvey?
7.8.5 Private Road Standards
(A) Purpose and Intent
(1) In Orange County, the preference is to serve subdivisions with State-maintained
(NCDOT) public streets or municipal streets. The County recognizes, however,
that private roads may be beneficial in some cases where the subdivider
provides significantly larger lots, and where a private road graded to a narrower
cross-section saves valuable vistas, trees, or natural resources, and reduces cutand-fill and overall land disturbance. Where the subdivider clearly provides
benefits such as enhancing entrances or streetscapes off an adjoining public
road, saving trees, providing large lots, reducing disturbance, and "fitting" lots
better into their natural surroundings, the Planning Department, Planning Board,
and Board of County Commissioners may permit the use of private roads.
(2) The County is concerned about the logical and safe extension of public roads
throughout the County and notes that private roads cannot be served by school
buses and sometimes not by rescue squads and fire trucks. Private roads are
generally unpaved and property owners who use the road are solely responsible
for maintenance of the road.
(3) The County will approve only private roads where the "benefits" outweigh the
negative aspects.
(4) Private roads shall never be approved simply to save money.
(5) Private roads are a privilege, and not a right, and must be justified by the
particular lot arrangement and benefits provided by each development.
(B) General Requirements
(1) Private Roads serve lots within subdivisions that do not have access to statemaintained roads.
(2) Private Roads insure that all lots have documented legal right-of-way and provide
adequate access for residents and emergency vehicles.
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-18
(3) Private Roads may be allowed in a subdivision where, in the judgment of the
Planning Board and with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, it
is found that the nature and location of the subdivision are such that a private
road is justified.
(a) In determining whether to permit Private Roads in subdivisions, the
design features contained in subsection (F)(5) of this Section shall be
considered.
(b) It is the responsibility of the subdivider to supply a written statement
justifying the reasons for Private Roads in the proposed subdivision.
(4) After approval of, and initial construction of the Private Road, maintenance must
be provided by the property owners of lots located along the road. A Road
Maintenance Agreement or Declaration between the lot owners is required to
insure that the needed repairs are made (see subsection (F)(10)(i)).
(5) Since Private Roads are not constructed to North Carolina Department of
Transportation standards, they will not be added to the Secondary Road System
and will not be maintained by the State or Orange County.
(C) Classifications
(1) The standards and specifications for Private Roads apply to subdivisions in
Orange County and the class of road required depends on the number of lots
served by the road.
(a) A Class B road serves 1 to 5 lots or dwelling units.
(b) A Class A road serves 6 to 12 lots or dwelling units.
(2) All Private Roads in a major subdivision require the approval of the Board of
County Commissioners.
(3) Before the final plat of the subdivision can be recorded, the Private Road must be
built and approved, or the subdivider must post a security instrument with the
County in an amount that would cover the cost of constructing the road.
(4) Class B Private Roads intended to serve two lots or dwelling units are not
required to be constructed to Orange County Standards or to be inspected before
recordation of the final plat.
(a) Orange County recommends that such Class B roads be built to these
standards in order to provide adequate access, especially for emergency
vehicles which require the clearances and turn areas shown on the
specifications.
I need some answers and I need them now. I know you all are busy but enough...
Renée Kennedy
From: Renee Kennedy <reneel...@outlook.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 10:18 PM
To: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>; Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>; Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>;
David Kennedy <dave...@gmail.com>; James Bryan <jbr...@orangecountync.gov>; Craig Benedict <cben...@orangecountync.gov>;
paven...@gmail.com <paven...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Septic Info - First Round
Planning staff,
Thank you for your responses. Rest assured I have been in contact with surveyors and OC Environmental throughout this journey and their questions continue to lead me back to planning.
The people giving me estimates on road maintenance are asking me to ask you, planning, if the work needs a permit to be done. It will be grading, a few small ditches and possibly paving. I am copying him on this email.
The Fire Marshall has told me it's not unusual for Fire Trucks to not be able to take private roads, but if a third house it built on Pathway Court that would be a different story. We do have another landowner who is entertaining plans for building and hers home would make the thrid home. Could you elaborate on what development and planning requirements we be for Pathway Court with 3 homes? We may as well take that into consideration when upgrading the road here this year.
Spence thought the 40 foot ROW buffers do not apply to private roads—is there any legitimacy/truth to that notion?
One last question—In the past, it was suggested that we (residents of Heartwood) record the level of decibals for the gunsots coming from our neighboring shooting range. However, I read another article that suggested gun fire was exempt from noise ordinances. Is that true? If that is a zoning departement question, could you please refer me to someone in that department?
Thank you so much,
Renée Kennedy
From: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 8:48 AM
To: Renee Kennedy <reneel...@outlook.com>; Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>; Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>;
David Kennedy <dave...@gmail.com>; James Bryan <jbr...@orangecountync.gov>; Craig Benedict <cben...@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: RE: Septic Info - First Round
Good morning.
The ‘Review Officer’ references a member of County Land Records staff whose sole function is to ensure the submitted ‘plat’ complies with applicable provisions of State law with regard to required information. Put another way, a review officers sole legal responsibility is to ensure the plat complies with required State statutory elements (i.e. owners signature, size of document, surveyor seal, appropriate language denoting the type of plat, the document is to scale, there is a north arrow and vicinity map, etc.) are on the plat. For more information on plat requirements (i.e. elements required on the plat itself) a Review Officer is responsible for ensuring are present, I recommend you review NC General Statute 47-30.
As staff have indicated previously, the Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) is a private legal document enforced by the signatories. In response to your question: if someone refuses to pay their share of expenses as outlined in the agreement, action can be taken to compel compliance by another party who is part of the agreement. The RMA should contain language outlining the steps a responsible party can take to compel compliance from those who are bound by the terms of the agreement. Whatever steps are outlined in the agreement are the ones that need to be followed to compel parties to abide by same. This is a private document (i.e. not prepared by the County and not reviewed/approved by County staff or its legal counsel) and we have no administrative/enforcement authority over same.
The ‘green line’ is a graphic representation of the edge of the Pathway Court right-of-way on your property as denoted within the County map system. Required setbacks are measured from the Pathway Court right-of-way line. If you have concerns over the location of the right-of-way, I will once again suggest you hire a land surveyor to stake the property and produce a survey of the parcel. Staff is not able to stake/determine actual location of property lines.
In response to your other questions:
- I have no idea where Pathway Court ends and our driveway begins. The circle at the end of the private road serves all Pathway parties (see 2014 update plat book 5784 p159) that uses the road, half of the circle is on our land and 1/2 is on lot 31 and there is a driveway agreement (see plat book 5601 p177). Why wasn't it moved down to the HOA common land lot directly below us for Phase II or when parcels were split? Would it not make sense for the circle to be on the development's common land where everyone turns around rather than at our home? Typically, properties branch off from the road/circle making it clear what is the road and what is someone's driveway.
Again, if you have questions concerning the location of the right-of-way and your property lines, I have previously encouraged you to seek the services of a land surveyor. Questions related to ‘why’ the right-of-way was located in the manner which it currently exists is not something I believe we can respond to. I am not sure what you are hoping County staff can do at this point related to the location of the existing/recorded right-of-way. Relocation of the right-of-way will require someone to propose a subdivision modification to the County. This will require a new plat, documentation denoting the relocated easement, approval of all parties involved with the project, documentation the relocation right-of-way does not create a nonconformity with respect to required lot frontage (i.e. there are minimum lot frontage requirements for parcels), and payment of the appropriate fees. If a formal/complete proposal to revise the location of the existing Pathway Court right-of-way is submitted, staff will gladly process same. What we cannot do, unfortunately, is speculate the reasons ‘why’ a previous developer chose to layout the road/lots in the manner they did. That is something you would have to take up with them.
- I am having trouble understanding why lots 30 and 31 need such massive septic easements. The surveyor I am working with says both lot 31 and 30's easement space is enough easement land for a 10 bedroom home. Can we get this reassessed?
As I have indicated on previous occasions, Planning staff have no involvement in the development/location of septic easements nor do we have any authority in determining their size. The easements are the size they are based on whomever (i.e. property owner) proposed them based on the anticipated development they were intended to serve at the time and presence of soil supporting necessary septic systems. Questions concerning reassessment of the easement size need to be addressed by the individual(s) who proposed them (i.e. the original applicant or current property owner) in consultation with Orange County Environmental Health. To reduce them, someone will have to apply to Orange County Environmental Health to have them re-evaluated. Whomever this is will also have to assume responsibility for paying all required fees.
Have a good day.
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor
Orange County
131 West Margaret Lane
Suite 201
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Permit and Inspection Information is NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE!! Click here to access our portal
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties.
SERVICE IMPACTS FROM COVID-19
PLEASE NOTE: Orange County planning staff are still operating with limited in-person availability due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the latest information and guidance relating to Orange County’s COVID-19 response, visit https://www.orangecountync.gov/Coronavirus
Office Hours: Current Planning offices are closed to foot traffic until further notice.
Planning staff can be reached at the following:
· Michael Harvey, Supervisor: (919) 245-2597 or mha...@orangecountync.gov
· Molly Boyle, Planner II: (919) 245-2599 or mbo...@orangecountync.gov
· Tyler Sliger, Planner I: (919) 245-2598 or tsl...@orangecountync.gov
Plan Review: Applications for development projects shall be accepted:
· Electronically via e-mail to: planni...@orangecountync.gov
· By Mail sent to: Orange County Planning
ATTN: Current Planning Division
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
· Dropped off in person during the revised operating hours listed above. PLEASE NOTE: Applications physically dropped off at Planning offices shall be placed in an appropriately labeled drop box and shall not be handed by staff until appropriate social distancing protocols can be observed. Staff will be unable to review and discuss the proposal with you at the time of submittal.
Submittal of Fees: Fees can be submitted with the application (mail and in person). Those
applicant’s needed to pay using a credit card shall be contacted by staff to process a payment
over the phone. PLEASE NOTE: Until further notice, cash shall not be accepted/handled by staff.
Permits: Permits shall be processed as quickly as possible. Please note deficiencies in the
application submittal will impact staff’s ability to process the development request.
Inspections: Inspections shall be completed either on a first come basis or via appointment. If
staff is required to meet applicants in the field, appropriate social distancing policies shall be
adhered to.
Communications: Current Planning staff can be reached at the e-mail addresses and phone
numbers listed above.
From: Renee Kennedy <reneel...@outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 10:09 PM
To: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>; Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>; Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>;
David Kennedy <dave...@gmail.com>; James Bryan <jbr...@orangecountync.gov>; Craig Benedict <cben...@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Re: Septic Info - First Round
Thanks Michael. If you could send a letter to the HOA that would be much appreciated. I really have deep concerns over firetrucks not being able to reach our home. I know you say it's a civil matter but it does say in the RMA that should a party outlined by the RMA not pay their share of the maintenance cost within 30 days a lien will be placed on their property. Is that via Orange County or who does that?
It looks like Roscoe Reeve was the "Review Officer of Orange County", ("I certify that the map or plat to which the certification is affixed meets all statutory requirements for recording, as provided by law")- on PB 90 P 181, a 2002 plat and survey recombination aka "Phase 2" of "Heartwood of Blackwood Mountain" (the declarant of the RMA from Phase 1). The RMA is a legal document bound to the records of Heartwood of Blackwood Mountain and pathway court and the land around it. If this is not planning staff signatures of approval, is it some other department?
Could you please provide some wisdom on questions 2 and 3 (now highlighted in note below)? I did not see any mention of those.
I am sorry, I am not sure what you were trying to show with the blue drawing/bubbles but I think what you're saying is that the green dotted line in the bottom rendering represents the BEGINNING of the 40 foot setback? So 40 feet off of that, yes? Most of our home is in that space, how would that have happened?
I know this is a lot of questions and I deeply appreciate your time and effort to help me sort this out.
Renée Kennedy
From: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 9:10 AM
To: Renee Kennedy <reneel...@outlook.com>; Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>
Cc: Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>; David Kennedy <dave...@gmail.com>; James Bryan <jbr...@orangecountync.gov>;
Craig Benedict <cben...@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: RE: Septic Info - First Round
County planning staff have no comments on the septic as we have no regulatory authority over same. The size of the system(s) was approved as part of a permitting process with OC Environmental Health. Questions concerning the system will need to be directed to them. Having said that, the easements are what they are and can only be altered by the parties connected to same.
The edge of the road right-of-way represents the beginning measuring point for required setbacks as shown in the diagram below:
This area is not suitable for development (i.e. the 40 ft. front yard setback). Development activity (i.e. structures) cannot occur in this area. Please note: development activities should only occur once a formal building/zoning compliance permit application is submitted and approved by the County.
Concern(s) over the enforcement of the RMA need to be addressed to the appropriate homeowners association. County staff have no legal authority to compel compliance with RMA provision(s). Staff has offered to reach out to the HOA and remind them of the requirements for a hard surfaced road, but I do not see evidence you requested same.
Planning staff cannot comment on agreement(s) signed/recorded we were not involved in approving or connected with an approval action (i.e. subdivision approval). As staff have indicated previously, it is unclear to us what local property owners did/didn’t do with respect to modification to agreement(s) or maintenance responsibilities where the County had no legal involvement. Staff cannot address same.
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor
Orange County
131 West Margaret Lane
Suite 201
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Permit and Inspection Information is NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE!! Click here to access our portal
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties.
SERVICE IMPACTS FROM COVID-19
PLEASE NOTE: Orange County planning staff are still operating with limited in-person availability due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the latest information and guidance relating to Orange County’s COVID-19 response, visit https://www.orangecountync.gov/Coronavirus
Office Hours: Current Planning offices are closed to foot traffic until further notice.
Planning staff can be reached at the following:
· Michael Harvey, Supervisor: (919) 245-2597 or mha...@orangecountync.gov
· Molly Boyle, Planner II: (919) 245-2599 or mbo...@orangecountync.gov
· Tyler Sliger, Planner I: (919) 245-2598 or tsl...@orangecountync.gov
Plan Review: Applications for development projects shall be accepted:
· Electronically via e-mail to: planni...@orangecountync.gov
· By Mail sent to: Orange County Planning
ATTN: Current Planning Division
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
· Dropped off in person during the revised operating hours listed above. PLEASE NOTE: Applications physically dropped off at Planning offices shall be placed in an appropriately labeled drop box and shall not be handed by staff until appropriate social distancing protocols can be observed. Staff will be unable to review and discuss the proposal with you at the time of submittal.
Submittal of Fees: Fees can be submitted with the application (mail and in person). Those
applicant’s needed to pay using a credit card shall be contacted by staff to process a payment
over the phone. PLEASE NOTE: Until further notice, cash shall not be accepted/handled by staff.
Permits: Permits shall be processed as quickly as possible. Please note deficiencies in the
application submittal will impact staff’s ability to process the development request.
Inspections: Inspections shall be completed either on a first come basis or via appointment. If
staff is required to meet applicants in the field, appropriate social distancing policies shall be
adhered to.
Communications: Current Planning staff can be reached at the e-mail addresses and phone
numbers listed above.
From: Renee Kennedy <reneel...@outlook.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 5:46 PM
To: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>; Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>
Cc: Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>; David Kennedy <dave...@gmail.com>; James Bryan <jbr...@orangecountync.gov>;
Craig Benedict <cben...@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Re: Septic Info - First Round
I would deeply appreciate some comments and answers to the questions in my note below. I know you are busy, but I cannot move in a direction without some response from your team(s).
Thank you!
Renée Kennedy
From: Renee Kennedy <renees...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 2:39 PM
To: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>; Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>
Cc: Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>; David Kennedy <dave...@gmail.com>; James Bryan <jbr...@orangecountync.gov>;
Craig Benedict <cben...@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: Re: Septic Info - First Round
I still do not understand what it means for the county to have signed off on something as completed and inspected when indeed it was not completed in any sense to its legal, documented requirements. Now, 30 years later it has become exponentially more complicated as many more legal, planning agreements have been signed and filed concerning pathway court—split agreements, redistribution of easements, annexations, new land owners, new Heartwood owners, new neighborhood focuses, new surveys and new plats containing pathway court that have been signed off on, some EVEN REFERENCE and INCLUDE the road maintenance agreement, yet NO ONE ever bothered to check in on whether the road maintenance agreement itself was ever fulfilled. I imagine, did the county know that Heartwood Phase I was never completed (road never built according to the RMA) BEFORE signing off on Phase II and Spence's ability to split up the land along the road in 2002? Then in 2014 did anyone ever question whether the RMA was ever fulfilled before allowing it to be amended to include these new PINS from the 2002 Phase II recombination? (pb 5784 p159). It's not just one oversight, it's been over-looked again and again, and now deemed my problem because I live off the road and it's a "civil matter". All the addendums, permits, plats and changes over the years have made it a colossal mess causing what could have been a pretty cut and dry litigation a ridiculously messy and costly endeavor. I just want a safe road that a fire truck will travel on—We had to dial 911 last month and the fire truck would not come up our road. (!). And I ask you and you tell me to get this safe road I have to take someone to civil court and try and straighten out all of these orange county register of deed documents over the past 30 years?
Additional things I have questions about:
- In plat book 90 p181) it shows a dotted line with a 50' radius at the end of Pathway Court and is labeled ROW easement as is Pathway Court itself 50' of easement. Does that mean I can build anywhere outside of that circle that is on my land?
- I have no idea where Pathway Court ends and our driveway begins. The circle at the end of the private road serves all Pathway parties (see 2014 update plat book 5784 p159) that uses the road, half of the circle is on our land and 1/2 is on lot 31 and there is a driveway agreement (see plat book 5601 p177). Why wasn't it moved down to the HOA common land lot directly below us for Phase II or when parcels were split? Would it not make sense for the circle to be on the development's common land where everyone turns around rather than at our home? Typically, properties branch off from the road/circle making it clear what is the road and what is someone's driveway.
- I am having trouble understanding why lots 30 and 31 need such massive septic easements. The surveyor I am working with says both lot 31 and 30's easement space is enough easement land for a 10 bedroom home. Can we get this reassessed?
Thank you!
Renée Kennedy
From: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 8:41 AM
To: Renee Kennedy <renees...@hotmail.com>;
Subject: RE: Septic Info - First Round
As indicated there is no record indicating planning staff, employed at the time, identified any inconsistencies with respect to Pathway Court.
I am not going to be able to speculate what did and did not occur at the time Pathway Court was constructed.
Pathway Court was never intended to meet DOT standards for maintenance purposes. As I clearly explain in my email it was to be constructed/maintained to private road standards but would be ‘hard-surfaced’ in accordance with DOT minimum construction standards.
From: Renee Kennedy <renees...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 5:12 PM
To: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>; Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>
Cc: Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>; David Kennedy <dave...@gmail.com>; James Bryan <jbr...@orangecountync.gov>;
Craig Benedict <cben...@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Re: Septic Info - First Round
Thank you so much Michael for clarifying all of that.
There is just one thing I am still unclear about: #7- "The road was developed/installed/inspected by staff employed within the division at the time. There is no record of a deficiency being identified (i.e. that the road did not meet requirements)."
Is this referring to an Orange County Gov division? Does this mean that Orange County signed off that Pathway Court was completed/hard surfaced?
Orange County approved the agreement for the road to be ready to hand off that meets DOT standards. Is there someone that checks up on things like that?
Renée Kennedy
From: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 4:47 PM
To: Renee Kennedy <renees...@hotmail.com>; Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>
Cc: Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>; David Kennedy <dave...@gmail.com>; James Bryan <jbr...@orangecountync.gov>;
Craig Benedict <cben...@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: RE: Septic Info - First Round
Ms. Kennedy: this represent(s) what I believe are the available facts/information concerning your inquiry on road maintenance issues associated with Pathway Court:
1. Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain and Deer Ridge were two separate subdivisions, processed and approved separately and through different review processes;
2. Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain was a Planned Development approved by the County within the issuance of a Special Use Permit (SUP) in 1986 (attached);
3. As referenced within the SUP, Pathway Court was to be constructed to the County’s Class A private road standards (i.e. 18 ft. wide travel way) and would he ‘hard-surfaced’ in compliance with NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT) minimum construction standards;
4. The road was to be maintained by the Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain homeowners association. The SUP required recordation of a private road maintenance agreement (attached – RMA – Book 725 Page 607). The agreement references Pathway Court as being maintained to the County’s Class A private road standard and being ‘hard-surfaced’;
5. Deer Ridge was as separate subdivision approved by the County in 1995 (copy of final plat attached) as a major subdivision-flexible development. This process required dedication of open space/common area. Lot 8 receives access from Pathway Court with all other proposed lots received access via Blackwood Mountain Road. As noted on the final plat, maintenance of Pathway Court is subject to a road maintenance agreement recorded within Record Book 725 Page 607 of the Registrar of Deeds Office (attached). Blackwood Mountain Road is a public road (i.e. NC DOT maintained) built to appropriate public road standards;
6. On or about August 28, 1996, a ‘private annexation covenant’ was recorded putting Deer Ridge lots 1-7 under the Heartwood HOA (attached – listed as Att 1 – Covenant Annexation).
NOTE: Staff is not offering an opinion (legal or otherwise) on the purported omission of Lot 8 from this referenced document. Practically, it means Lot 8 is not subject to Heartwood homeowners declarations. This is a matter you will have to address with Heartwood representatives and/or private legal counsel if there are questions/concerns. All staff can say is that this is a privately recorded document (i.e. not required, reviewed, or approved) by County staff subjecting Lots 1-7 of Deer Ridge to the homeowners covenants also enforced in the Heartwood and Blackwood Mountain development;
7. Staff has not seen documentation changing the maintenance requirement for Pathway Court. Specifically, there is no record of a SUP modification changing the approved condition. The road was developed/installed/inspected by staff employed within the division at the time. There is no record of a deficiency being identified (i.e. that the road did not meet requirements).
In conclusion, interpretation/enforcement of the road maintenance agreement is a private/civil matter. All staff can confirm is that Pathway Court was approved as part of a SUP issued by the County in 1986 to be developed to the County’s Class A road standard and being ‘hard surfaced’. Similar language appears within the recorded road maintenance agreement. The Heartwood homeowners association is responsible for maintenance of the roadway, consistent with the recorded maintenance agreement, to the appropriate condition as referenced within same.
Please note the information contained herein constitutes an advisory opinion and is not subject to formal review/appeal to the Orange County Board of Adjustment. Further, staff is not able to offer legal advice/opinions on the matter. I am aware Ms. Boyle had previously informed you of our limitation(s) and provided a list of local land use attorney’s you may wish to consult.
Have a pleasant evening.
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor
Orange County
131 West Margaret Lane
Suite 201
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Permit and Inspection Information is NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE!! Click here to access our portal
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties.
SERVICE IMPACTS FROM COVID-19
PLEASE NOTE: Orange County planning staff are still operating with limited in-person availability due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the latest information and guidance relating to Orange County’s COVID-19 response, visit https://www.orangecountync.gov/Coronavirus
The following adjustments have been made to protect employees and the general public to ensure that service levels can be maintained throughout the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Office Hours: Current Planning offices are closed to foot traffic until further notice.
Planning staff can be reached at the following:
· Michael Harvey, Supervisor: (919) 245-2597 or mha...@orangecountync.gov
· Molly Boyle, Planner II: (919) 245-2599 or mbo...@orangecountync.gov
· Tyler Sliger, Planner I: (919) 245-2598 or tsl...@orangecountync.gov
Meetings: Meeting(s) shall occur by appointment only during revised operating hours listed above.
Please note staff will observe appropriate social distancing requirements and staff 6 feet away
from parties attending a meeting at all times.
Plan Review: Applications for development projects shall be accepted:
· Electronically via e-mail;
· By Mail sent to: Orange County Planning
ATTN: Current Planning Division
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
· Dropped off in person during the revised operating hours listed above. PLEASE NOTE: Applications physically dropped off at Planning offices shall be placed in an appropriately labeled drop box and shall not be handed by staff until appropriate social distancing protocols can be observed. Staff will be unable to review and discuss the proposal with you at the time of submittal.
Submittal of Fees: Fees can be submitted with the application (mail and in person). Those
applicant’s needed to pay using a credit card shall be contacted by staff to process a payment
over the phone. PLEASE NOTE: Until further notice, cash shall not be accepted/handled by staff.
Permits: Permits shall be processed as quickly as possible. Please note deficiencies in the
application submittal will impact staff’s ability to process the development request.
Inspections: Inspections shall be completed either on a first come basis or via appointment. If
staff is required to meet applicants in the field, appropriate social distancing policies shall be
adhered to.
Communications: Current Planning staff can be reached at the e-mail addresses and phone
numbers listed above.
From: Renee Kennedy <renees...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 3:52 PM
To: Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>
Cc: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>; Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>; David Kennedy <dave...@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Re: Septic Info - First Round
Upon reading things over again, the conclusion that the follow the BOCC's most recent approval does not make sense to me. Yes, one of the parties for the road maintenance agreement changed/expanded (Heartwood Landowners) when they added Deer Ridge but if you're saying that documentation/approval could supersede the road maintenance agreement, than the agreement is no longer valid. Correct? I don't think we can just pick and choose which parts are no longer valid.
Renée Kennedy
From: Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 4:39 PM
To: Renee Kennedy <renees...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>; Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>; David Kennedy <dave...@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Septic Info - First Round
Hello Renée,
I’m sorry for the delay. No, you didn’t miss anything. We’ve been particularly busy; I had this flagged to follow up on, but I lost track of it in the mix. Thank you for your patience.
Regarding Pathway Court, there’s no indication in the record why the approval for Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain says one thing but the approval for Deer
Ridge says another. I believe the decision now is that we need to follow the BOCC’s most recent approval, which is the Deer Ridge approval from 1994 saying that Pathway Court needs to meet Class B private road standards (i.e.,
gravel road).
Michael, can you confirm if this is correct?
Best Regards,
Molly
From: Renee Kennedy <renees...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 4:08 PM
To: Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>
Cc: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>; Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>; David Kennedy <dave...@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Re: Septic Info - First Round
Hi Molly! I am still waiting to hear what happened re: why the requirements changed for Pathway Court? I hope I did not miss something.
Renée Kennedy
From: Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 10:22 AM
To: Renee Kennedy <renees...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>;
Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>; David Kennedy
<dave...@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Septic Info - First Round
Hi Renee,
Thanks for the reminder. We’ve been pretty swamped, and this dropped off my radar. I’ll discuss the private road again with Michael when I’m in the office later.
As for septic, I didn’t see anything in the BOCC records that explained the septic location. I recommend continuing to follow up with Environmental Health. Hopefully, their older records will indicate why they reviewed/approved that location.
Thank you!
Molly
From: Renee Kennedy [mailto:renees...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 10:10 AM
To: Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>
Cc: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>; Tyler Sliger
<tsl...@orangecountync.gov>; David Kennedy <dave...@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Re: Septic Info - First Round
Hello! Any news on how/why the requirements changed?
Do you know why the plan for Dalia LLC ended up being septic UP the hill? And why not on Heartwood Landowners land?
We do have an attorney now who will be looking into land use. If we cannot find more on why the road has been let go she can look into that as well.
Thank you so much!
Renée
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:41:13 PM
To: Renee Kennedy <reneel...@outlook.com>
Cc: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>;
Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>; David Kennedy
<dave...@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Septic Info - First Round
Hi Renée,
OC Planning won’t be able to answer question 1 for you; I think that’s going to be a matter for the HOA and/or a land use attorney to review. I’ve attached a list of local land use attorneys for reference. You’re not limited to using an attorney from this list, but this may help you search.
I’m conferring with Michael about questions 2 and 3.
Thank you!
Molly
From: Renee Kennedy [mailto:reneel...@outlook.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:05 PM
To: Molly Boyle
Cc: Michael Harvey; Tyler Sliger; David Kennedy
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Re: Septic Info - First Round
Did you find any answers to the questions below?
1. Did the Heartwood HOA forget to add Deer Ridge Lot 8R to the covenants? (are we going with "yes" on this?)
2. Did the requirements change for Pathway Court between 1988 and 1994?
3. What are the requirements for Pathway Court now from the County’s perspective (i.e., paved or unpaved)?
Did you see that the east side of our parcel is also listed as septic easement for lot 31? This is wild. I don't understand- why couldn't they put the septic on their own land?
OC Environmental is sending me more documents.
Thanks for all your help,
Renée
From: Molly Boyle <mbo...@orangecountync.gov>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 4:23 PM
To: reneel...@outlook.com <reneel...@outlook.com>
Cc: Michael Harvey <mha...@orangecountync.gov>;
Tyler Sliger <tsl...@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: RE: Septic Info - First Round
Hello Renée,
Here is what I found about your lot (8R Deer Ridge), Deer Ridge, and Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain:
· Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain and Deer Ridge were two separate subdivisions, which were processed and approved separately. On August 28, 1996, the neighborhoods recorded a private annexation covenant, putting Deer Ridge lots 1-7 under the Heartwood HOA. (Attachment 1)
· I didn’t see where your lot, 8R, was added to the HOA covenants. Either a) I missed that document or b) they forgot to amend the HOA documents to add your lot. That wouldn’t be too surprising since your lot wasn’t created until several years later on August 2, 2002. (Attachment 2)
· Based on the plat(s), Road Maintenance Agreement, and Special Use Permit, it appears Pathway Court was always intended to be private (i.e., not turned over to NC DOT for maintenance).
· According to the Special Use Permit for Heartwood (filed May 19, 1988), the “private road serving the community center” was to meet a Class A private road standard but with hard-surfacing. Presumably, this references Pathway Court, but I’m not certain (I don’t know where the community center is/was supposed to be). (Item 6c in Attachment 3).
· Article IV of the Road Maintenance Agreement for Pathway Court, recorded in April 1988, indicates it was to be paved. (Attachment 4)
· The BOCC Resolution of Approval for Deer Ridge (November 1, 1994) contradicts this, saying Pathway Court was to meet a Class B private road standard. There was no mention of paved surface. (Attachment 5)
· It’s possible something changed with the requirements for Pathway Court between 1988 and 1994. That will require more research.
· As an aside, the Deer Ridge abstract for the BOCC hearing indicates your lot was intentionally included as part of Deer Ridge (even though it’s separated by Common Area). (Attachment 6)
I’ve also attached the septic permit for Dalia, LLC and the boundary map for Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain in case you need those.
It appears the remaining questions are these:
1. Did the Heartwood HOA forget to add Deer Ridge Lot 8R to the covenants? If so, I’d advise they address that.
2. Did the requirements change for Pathway Court between 1988 and 1994?
3. What are the requirements for Pathway Court now from the County’s perspective (i.e., paved or unpaved)?
4. Where exactly is the septic easement on Lot 31R (the lot that abuts yours—the one you may wish to swap some land with)?
In regards to question 4, that’s murky to me. These subdivisions recorded a lot of private agreements, several regarding septic. It might be advisable to have a land use attorney review the matter, but you and/or Mr. Dickinson could try to go through OC Environmental Health first (919-245-2360).
I’ve copied Michael so he can review and offer comment.
Best,
Molly
From: Molly Boyle
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 5:06 PM
To: 'reneel...@outlook.com' <reneel...@outlook.com>
Subject: Septic Info - First Round
Hello Renee,
I found a few documents, so I figured I would send you these to start. Attached you will find the following:
· The Existing System (XS) permit for your property from 2016. It has a rough sketch of the septic area and drain lines on the last page.
· Three plats showing septic easements in the area. The plats aren’t easy to follow, so I’ll need to look at them a bit more.
I didn’t find a septic permit in our permitting system for Mr. Spence’s lot, but there may be a paper file on it at the office. I’ll look for Danny’s permit tomorrow.
Best,
Molly Boyle, MPA, CZO
Planner II
Orange County Planning
Michael Harvey
Ms. Kennedy: I am taking the action I indicated I would.
I will keep you advised but am not going to continue to repeat the same answer(s) over and over and over again.
Thank you and good afternoon.
The maintenance agreement is based upon the understanding a Class A hard surfaced road was being built. IT IS NOT INTENDED to be used to build it. A maintenance agreement is placed ON TOP of the private road once it is built and approved (and as you have shared this road was approved but never built- another little detail that is somehow washed away by the "26 years ago" excuse). The maintenance agreement you are referring to was NEVER intended to be used TO BUILD the road. The road was supposed to be built and signed off on by Orange County and then the maintenance agreement comes into play. So you see, not much has changed in 26 years after all—it's the same process and the UDO outlines today.
Let me ask, are you saying that because it was 26 years ago, NONE of those ordinances would or should apply today? Because you still have never addressed my concerns for Fire safety or emergency vehicle access. If not those ordninace which standards does our private road here need to adhere to? Please point me to them because I am pretty sure they are going to protect the citizens of Orange County in terms of Emergency services.
Maybe it's time for Orange County to step forward and admit that something went awry 26 years ago and that it needs to help us make a new plan, through the county, rather than asking the land-owners to pick up the mess and try to use an maintenance agreement to BUILD a road because I guarantee, we are going to have to be working with you every step of the way to be sure it's made properly. There is no doubt Orange County will have to work with us to help us understand what the requirements are today. WHY DOES IT SEEM SO DIFFICULT TO GET YOU ALL TO HELP US WITH THAT? The reason you hear from someone over here every 5 years is because nothing you're suggesting will work. We cannot use a maintenance agreement to build a road. IT DOESN'T WORK. The fact is the road was never constructed according to it's identity within the maintenance agreement itself
.