Orange County NC Website
6 <br /> 1 for Carolina Friends School, proposing adopting a master plan, proposing to develop a <br /> 2 recreational and new buildings on that property. It is important for the Board to remember that <br /> 3 as we continue to review this plan, and the items that have already been entered into the record <br /> 4 at the November 21St hearing, the items that we are going to be entering into the record this <br /> 5 evening. As a brief review, during the November 21S public hearing, the application, as <br /> 6 submitted by the applicant, included the formal application form, formal site plans, the required <br /> 7 maps and list of adjacent property owners was entered into the record. The applicant also <br /> 8 entered color renderings of the proposed structures, a traffic impact analysis and transportation <br /> 9 solutions, a biological inventory completed by the Katina Group, an environmental assessment <br /> 10 application, which staff has testified to that Planning staff, DEAPR, and the state determined <br /> 11 that there would be no adverse environmental impact as a result of the approval of the site plan <br /> 12 and the initiation of land-disturbing activities. In fact, it was argued that the Friends School <br /> 13 would actually be addressing existing environmental issues to protect the stream buffer. A solid <br /> 14 waste management plan was also submitted. There was a real estate assessment completed <br /> 15 by Ms. Geraldine Mason, who indicated that it was her professional opinion that the school and <br /> 16 the proposed expansion project would not have a negative impact on adjacent property values. <br /> 17 And of course we had a formal site plan submitted that included a detailed resource <br /> 18 management plan. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 This evening what you have in your packet is a revised site plan. One of the key points I want <br /> 21 to remind this Board, a major question came up at the Quarterly Public Hearing as well as the <br /> 22 Planning Board was the location of the proposed ball field. You will note that the proposed ball <br /> 23 field has been moved approximately 90 feet from the western property line to address the local <br /> 24 citizens' concerns. You will also note that additional notes have been added to the site plan <br /> 25 indicating that no athletic field lights shall be erected as requested by the Board. We have a <br /> 26 revised solid waste management plan, which is Attachment 2 of your packet. We of course <br /> 27 have the draft minutes from the November 21St Quarterly Public Hearing, which is Attachment 4, <br /> 28 pages 15-25; the draft minutes from the January 4th Planning Board, which is pages 26-28; the <br /> 29 applicant's written responses to various questions as well as the approval of the recommended <br /> 30 conditions, which is Attachment 6, pages 29-36. I'll also call your attention that in that <br /> 31 attachment, there is a schematic of the proposed ball field relocation that was presented to the <br /> 32 Planning Board at their January 4th meeting. Attachment 7 contains additional correspondence, <br /> 33 specifically a memorandum from the Orange County Health Department and an email from the <br /> 34 North Carolina Department of Transportation approving the proposed driveway onto Mt. Sinai <br /> 35 Road with some recommended conditions. That appears on page 37-38. Attachment 8 is an <br /> 36 ordinance approving the rezoning division. Attachment 9 is an ordinance denying the rezoning <br /> 37 division. State law requires that we provide you both so that if you deny it, you can have the <br /> 38 ordinance either approving or denying. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Then last and certainly not least, Attachment 10 is the Special Use Permit Findings of Fact. <br /> 41 The Planning Board at their January 4th meeting, as via detailed from the script for you made <br /> 42 affirmative recommendations that the applicant had met all of their obligations for the <br /> 43 application of submittal, had submitted all of the necessary documents to prove that they had <br /> 44 complied with revisions of the Unified Development Ordinance, and they made specific findings <br /> 45 of fact with respect to compliance with the general standards of the ordinance as well as the <br /> 46 required general findings as contained within Section 5.3.2.(A)(2)a., specifically that the use will <br /> 47 maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. The Planning Board in their <br /> 48 alliterations determined the applicant had met their burden and based this decision on the <br /> 49 applicant's testimony at both the November 21St Quarterly Public Hearing and the January 4th <br /> 50 Planning Board meeting, that the application provided the necessary documentation linkage <br />