Minutes 02-21-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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