BOA agenda 110915 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

STAFF COMMENT: According to Section 5.2.1 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO a camp /retreat center is a permitted use of property in the AR zoning district subject to the issuance of the SUP. The farm `status' of the property is completely separate and irrelevant and has no bearing on this permit process or on the applicant being allowed to pursue a SUP proposing the development of the land use. b. The use was out of character for the area in question, c. The use would negatively impact property values, d. The permit process is irrelevant given the farm status of the property and local property owners are bring `forced' to spend money to fight the permit. STAFF COMMENT. Staff understands the frustration. From our standpoint we required the applicant, who consented, to go through the SUP process as no agricultural activity currently exists on the property. Unfortunately, our previous comments still apply, namely there is an argument to be made this can be an agritourist activity on a flower farm exempt from local permitting requirements. Staff has taken the liberty of attaching, under separate cover, a brochure produced by the NC Department of Agriculture outlining acceptable agritourism activities. e. The proposed use will generate significant noise disrupting local residents use /enjoyment of their property and impact the operation of nearby agricultural operations, f. Concern was expressed over the potential for event attendees leaving the property in an inebriated state thereby creating a traffic /safety hazard, g. Local residents expressed concern over the glare that would be produced from proposed outdoor parking lot lights as denoted on the site plan. Several adjacent property owners further indicated glare created by vehicle headlights entering and leaving the facility would impact them as well, h. The development of the proposed retreat center would impact their wells either from a pollution /runoff standpoint or that the land use would draw too much ground water to serve attendees impacting the viability of their existing wells, i. Local residents expressed concern over the lack of sufficient infrastructure (i.e. water sources) in the area to address an emergency on the property (i.e. a structural fire), j. Residents expressed frustration over the property being classified as a `farm', k. Several residents expressed concern that the SUP process placed an undue financial burden on them, specifically requiring they secure expert testimony to `fight' the proposed event center. I. One adjacent owner expressed concern regarding the impact of the potential septic system to contaminate her pond water, which is used to water her farm animals.