Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 <br />STAFF COMMENT: According to Orange County Environmental Health, the existing <br />septic system drain lines will have to be expanded to accommodate the proposed <br />school. Please refer to Attachment 6 for a copy of the septic permit authorizing land- <br />disturbing activity to address this issue. <br />e. Will the parking lot have to be re-designed to address the increase in activity? <br />STAFF COMMENT: There is no need to expand or modify the existing parking <br />facilities to accommodate the proposed school. <br />f. How will the additional solid waste material, generated as the result of the school, be <br />handled? <br />STAFF COMMENT: The church contracts for the removal of solid waste materials. <br />The school will make use of this same contractor and no additional dumpsters will be <br />necessary. <br />g. What 'outdoor activities' are envisioned for the school? <br />STAFF COMMENT: According to the applicant, there will be a recess period for <br />students as well as outdoor classroom activities. <br />No organized school-related sports activities or athletic fields are proposed for <br />development as part of this permit request. <br />h. WII a park and ride facility be required or developed on the property? <br />STAFF COMMENT: No, as indicated during the public hearing, staff has determined <br />that this site was not viable for such development of `shared facilities' as detailed within <br />Section 5.8.4 (A) (3) (n) (v) of the Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter `UDO'). <br />Additionally, the following questions/comments were made by BOCC and Planning Board <br />members: <br />• In addressing a neighboring property owner's concern over student safety, a County <br />Commissioner made the comment that the responsibility for addressing the safety and <br />welfare of students attending the school would: `solely fall under the purview of the <br />teachers and the staff of the facility to make sure that the students were supervised and <br />did not venture off the site'. Staff concurred with this assessment <br />• A County Commissioner asked if there were regulations requiring a `fenced area for a <br />school' within the UDO. <br />STAFF COMMENT No. Staff did indicate, however, that the existing playground <br />facility was fenced. <br />Please refer to Attachment 5 for additional detail. <br />Planning Board Review: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its July 6, 2011 regular <br />meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval finding that: <br />i. A school is a customary accessory use for a church, <br />ii. The application complied with submittal requirements (i.e. Sections 2.2 and 2.7) of the <br />UDO, <br />iii. The applicant submitted sufficient documentation proving that the project complied <br />with specific development standards (i.e. Section 5.8.4) of the UDO, <br />