Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
32 <br /> Michael Harvey: I have been sworn. This item involves a request to review a modification to <br /> an existing special use permit and the review of a general use rezoning application for lot 31 R in <br /> the Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development. As you will note, in attachment 2 <br /> in your packets, Mr. Spence Dickinson is the owner of this property property that is currently <br /> split-zoned Rural Buffer and Planned Development Housing rural Residential. I would like to <br /> remind the Board that you have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation at your places for your <br /> review. As indicated in the abstract, the property is currently split zoned and approximately two <br /> acres is located within the boundary of the special use permit. The Heartwood at Blackwood <br /> Mountain project is zoned Planned Development Housing Rural Residential and is directly <br /> adjacent to existing camp/retreat center, also owned and operated by Mr. Dickenson. The other <br /> portion of this property, which is two acres in area is to the north zoned Rural Buffer. It is not <br /> and was not part of the original Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development. As <br /> you will note from the abstract provided to you, at some point, Mr. Dickenson recombined this <br /> tract of land (staff identified the portion of property zoned Planned Development) with this tract <br /> of land (staff identified the portion of property zoned Rural Buffer), which technically constituted <br /> a special use permit modification and should have been approved by the County at the time the <br /> recombination occurred. This was done in the mid-90's. This proposal will correct that problem. <br /> Ultimately, what Mr. Dickenson is requesting is lot 31 R in its entirety, this two-acre portion <br /> currently zoned Rural Buffer, and this two-acre portion currently zoned PD-H-R1, be rezoned <br /> totally to Rural Buffer and removed from the provisions of the Heartwood special use permit. <br /> You will find a copy of the application in Attachment 1 of your abstract packet. As we indicated <br /> in our abstract, as Mr. Dickenson argues the request is an attempt to address existing and long- <br /> standing septic and development issues at the creative learning center, specifically the camp <br /> retreat center operating to the east. Mr. Dickenson has been working with the current Planning <br /> staff for several years to bring this particular parcel of property into compliance with the <br /> provisions of the code. He is currently operating the retreat center on the property in <br /> accordance with a previously issued Class B special use permit, issued by the Board of <br /> Adjustment in 2008. <br /> As indicated in the application and in this PowerPoint, the applicant only intends to recombine <br /> the separate parcel with the adjacent camp property and construct the required septic system <br /> and repair area for compliance not only with the special use permit, but the Orange County <br /> Health Department. <br /> This is a two-tiered process. The application involves a rezoning request changing the property <br /> from PD-H-R1 and Rural Buffer to just Rural Buffer. That is a legislative decision. I will call the <br /> Board's attention to Attachment 4 of your packet where staff has provided a chart outlining the <br /> differences between legislative and a quasi-judicial, which is a special use permit process. We <br /> also are looking at a modification of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with Section <br /> 2.7 inclusive of the Unified Development Ordinance. What Mr. Dickenson is modifying would be <br /> to remove lot 31 R as it's currently shown on this map (staff identified the property on a map) <br /> from the provisions and requirements of the special use permit. The decision on this <br /> modification is rendered and based on the sworn testimony from the applicant, any supporters, <br /> any detractors. The applicant still bears the burden of proof in order to determine whether or <br /> not the request complies with the provisions of the code, the previously approved special use <br /> permit and the required findings of fact. You will note from the abstract that staff's initial findings <br /> are that the applicant has submitted all required documentation with this proposal, the request <br /> does not appear to invalidate previously issued conditions or dimensional standards associated <br /> with the Heartwood subdivision. <br />