Minutes 11-21-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

to our abstract. I'm not going to review every independent section, but what I will stipulate to be that with respect to Section 5.8.4, staff has provided comments with respect to the applicant's compliance with the various submittal requirements and the various development standards. For example, within your package, there was correspondence between Orange County Planning Department and the Fire Marshal's Office, specifically Mr. David Sykes, who has indicated he has reviewed the proposal and determined that he can supply emergency services to the facility. As part of that review, the Eno Volunteer Fire Department was involved and does not express any concerns. This is specifically on page 3 of your abstract. We've also provided answers with. respect to the proposed wastewater treatment facility, the submittal of the biological inventory, which Orange County Planning staff and the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation have indicated that there are no issues with respect to the redevelopment of this site, with respect to potentially endangering significant habitats that have been located. The applicant submitted a very detailed biological inventory from the Catena Group as part of this development review process. The applicant has supplied the landscaping and buffering storm water management drainage and grading plan. Upon initial review, we deemed this to be consistent with the provisions of the UDO. A formal traffic impact study has been completed and is part of the packet for you to review indicating that the proposed increase in the number of students. on this site will not have a negative impact on local roadways. As also required by the provisions of the UDO, the applicant has provided the second means of ingress/egress as required. Planning staff has found, as stipulated and required by Section 5.8, 4-a, 3-n, that this site does not lend itself to the development of shared facilities with respect to a park and ride or other public transportation facilities due to its location. Staff, as we've indicated on page 5 of your abstract, is convinced that the size of the property is consistent with existing County and school board policy with respect to the size reliable for a school, and we further find that the applicant has complied with the submittal requirements for Section 5.8.4, the required Class A Special Use Permit findings for Section 2.7.3, and the required documentation for conditional use rezoning as articulated in Section 2.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Our recommendation is that you receive this application; you conduct the public hearing; accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments; you refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for their February 21, 2012 regular meeting; and that you adjourn this public hearing to February 21, 2012 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation as well as any other additional comment. My closing remarks are as follows: Number one, we would like this abstract entered into the official record. This abstract contains the application packet as submitted, which contains a biological inventory, a site plan, a resource management plan, a letter from a realtor identifying her opinion with respect to the project's compliance with maintaining the value of adjacent property value, a detailed narrative by the applicant, renderings of the proposed new performance center and the new buildings, and all other submittal documentation, we have a property and vicinity map, which is Attachment 2, staff comments with respect to memorandum concerning the.. initial review of this application, a short description and note on the difference between legislative and quasi judicial proceedings, the neighborhood information meeting comments and notification materials and certification. Staff has not received any comments with respect to the approval or denial of this application, with the exception of the concern that has been expressed today over the development of the baseball field. -There is concern from the adjoining property owner over the proximity of the field to their property. That property owner is present at this meeting this evening. We have