Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 3113117 <br />1 Samantha Cabe: I'm just looking back at Mr. Parkers report. <br />2 <br />3 Matt Hughes: Mr. Smith? <br />4 <br />5 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Smith, sorry... I guess one difference in the expert opinions; Mr. Smith's <br />6 report did include a subdivision that's within Orange County, in the rural buffer. So it was more <br />7 similar. Even though it's still not exactly like this property. I don't think we're going to find a direct <br />8 comparison with this particular property. But it is within Orange County so it has a lot of the same <br />9 factors in determining value as far as location and amenities and that kind of thing. I don't know <br />0 if... I'm happy to discuss this more. If anybody has a motion either way? <br />Matt Hughes: I move that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. That <br />we accept the Staff recommendation. <br />Samantha Cabe: And just for clarification, what is the finding based upon? <br />Matt Hughes: That the finding is based upon the Application package as well as... The finding's <br />based on the above findings, Applicant's Narrative and Staff report, as well as the testimony of the <br />experts. <br />21 James Bryan: To clarify, part of it Samantha's point about Mr. Smith's including the property in <br />22 Orange County versus Wake County? <br />23 <br />24 Matt Hughes: That's right. <br />25 <br />26 Motion made by Matt Hughes to adopt Staff recommendation in regard that the use will maintain <br />27 or enhance the value of contiguous property, based upon Applicant's Narrative and Staff's report <br />28 as well as the testimony of the experts, and the expert Mr. Smith's inclusion of the Orange County <br />29 properties. Seconded by Barry Katz. <br />30 <br />31 VOTE: 3- 1(Barrows) <br />32 <br />33 Karen Barrows: I'm opposed for the reasons I have stated .... <br />34 <br />35 Samantha Cabe: So that's three for yes, and one for no... The third and final finding is that the <br />36 location and character of the use is developed according to the plan submitted will or will not be in <br />37 harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for <br />38 the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations, or the comprehensive <br />39 plan or portion thereof adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. So this is the. Would this, <br />40 if developed, this plan be in harmony with the area? <br />41 <br />42 Barry Katz: Am I right, Mr. Harvey, that the submittal and the recommendations we would get to <br />43 the point that the submission getting as far as a Special Use Permit implies that this application is <br />44 in harmony? I know I heard something along those lines so please clarify that. <br />45 <br />46 James Bryan: Yeah so that the BOCC has allowed an Special Use Permit as a use in this area is <br />47 the prime facie case that it is in harmony. <br />48 <br />49 Barry Katz: That's what I heard. <br />50 <br />OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 153 of 156 <br />