BOA agenda 111212 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT -19- 967 to have a meter and keep a log on how much water is going in on a 24 hour period. To see that 968 it is not being overused because once it is overused, me as a result would be the direct recipient 969 of that coming right through my pond. No, they didn't answer anything. 970 971 James Carter: So you are opposed to the kennel? 972 973 Cornelius Kirschner: Until I receive satisfaction on the issues I have brought up. 974 975 Mark Micol: Your biggest concern is not the kennel per say but the amount of water? 976 977 Cornelius Kirschner: The amount of water, the increase in flow. Where the road is going to be 978 positioned and incidentally the noise won't directly affect me as much as the neighbors to the 979 north will. But certainly the traffic seven days a week. I can't see how they can compromise on 980 keeping the kennel closed on weekends. 981 982 Mark Micol: So how would you feel about the county building a park and you have traffic. Are 983 you for or against the park? 984 985 Cornelius Kirschner: I have no problem with the park. 986 987 Mark Micol: You don't think the park will generate just as much traffic as the kennel? 988 989 Cornelius Kirschner: I think it will generate more. They won't have a drive in front of my house. 990 Their parking lot is going to be way to the south. That is how they tell me will be the main 991 entrance there. Of course you will have noise and lights. Another significant problem for the 992 kennel; that park will generate noise and games, etc. and it will agitate the dogs. It just not cars 993 driving by. It will be a significant source of irritation probably for the dogs. 994 995 Larry Wright: I have a question for Mr. Harvey and this is relevant to Mr. Kirschner's point on 996 drainage from the development. Can you briefly state how housing must require to conform to 997 permeable and impermeable surface ratios relative to street, etc? 998 999 Michael Harvey: Let me say this particular parcel of property is not located in a protected or 1000 critical watershed. As a result there is no impervious surface limitation imposed like we have in 1001 other portions of the county. To provide an example; property west of Carrboro is located in a 1002 critical watershed and there is an impervious surface limit of 6% which was including the house, 1003 drive or anything that would prohibit or prevent the natural flow of water. What this project is 1004 limited to is dimensional requirements associated with the rural buffer where they are only 1005 allowed a maximum building area per the code. Obviously, part of the limitation of the building 1006 size will be the septic system, the availability of parking, compliance with applicable setbacks 1007 because you have to be 150 feet from various property lines. So while there is no impervious 1008 surface limit, there are other limitations imposed within the Unified Development Ordinance that 1009 restrict the size of the kennel operation that could be developed on this property. From an 1010 erosion control and stormwater standpoint, the site will have to be developed in compliance with 1011 the recently adopted State stormwater management and nutrient loading criteria meaning their 1012 erosion control and stormwater plan which would be reviewed and approved by Orange County 1013 Erosion Control, Mr. Terry Hackett, Mr. Ren Ivins, and Mr. Wesley Poole, proving that the runoff 1014 number one compliance with established flow parameters in terms of what can lead the site in 1015 accordance with state. law, that the nutrient loads have to be consistent with the basin in which it 1016 is located and that there will have to be annual inspections to ensure the viability of any 1017 stormwater feature on the property consistent with state law and consistent with the recently 1018 revised Unified Development Ordinance incorporating those state standards. 1019 OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 19 of 41