BOA minutes 070918 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 811312018 1 not a good way to retrofit the pre-manufactured building . It would be considered a loss and a new building would have 2 to be purchased . 3 4 Randy Herman asked at what cost? Chad Huffine said he has no idea ; he can only echo what the owner has told the 5 board . 6 7 Samantha Cabe asked whether the board had more questions for Chad Huffine . There were none . 8 9 Samantha Cabe said this board will recognize Mr . Huffine as an expert engineer. 10 11 Patrick Byker introduced Mark Micol , who as been duly sworn . He is the adjacent property owner to the north and to the 12 west . Mark Micol said his family has owned property there for 200 years . As has been stated , he wrote a letter to the 13 Current Planning Supervisor to ask that the board approve the variance . He wanted to publically say he is in support of 14 granting the variance . He said he has kept abreast of the project and he thinks having Toby Church as a business 15 owner in the area would be a big improvement . 16 17 Samantha Cabe asked if the board had any questions . There were none . 18 19 Patrick Byker said introduced the last witness , Orange County Economic Development Director Steve Brantley, who 20 has been duly sworn . Steve Brantley said he endorses the variance request and encourages the board to grant it . The 21 business will invest a projected $ 1 million -plus that will aid our local economy and diversify the non -residential tax base , 22 The business brings 18 employees and projects a dozen more employment opportunities in 3 to 5 years . Third , this 23 business would help the county attract other clean light industrial businesses . This business helps the county with its 24 social justice goal of creating employment opportunities . Fourth , Orange County businesses use this company including 25 Orange County Schools . Also , there is not a similar business already in Orange County . This business would bring 26 something new . On behalf of the Economic Development Office and at the recommendation of the Economic 27 Development Advisory Board , he recommends granting the variance request of this business . 28 29 Samantha Cabe asked if the board has any questions . There were none . 30 31 Patrick Byker asked Michael Harvey clarifying questions as evidence . He asked Michael Harvey to testify to his 32 experience with the initial site plan review as it related to the infrastructure issues as they pertained to the City of 33 Durham and Durham County , Michael Harvey said before the board is the original staff reviewed site plan . As I have 34 alluded to , there are unique opportunities and development constraints on this property , he said . He indicated on an 35 aerial photo the existing drive cut for Mark Micol ' s property , the property being discussed and the property farther east . 36 He said the first problem staff encountered was that that the existing building location creates pinch points in a couple 37 areas on the property . He said the sloping meandering eastern property line limits the total area to have development 38 be in compliance with all applicable land use regulations including drive aisle width , parking lot requirements and 39 building location . What further complicated this matter is there are existing utility services to this property . There was 40 approximately three and a half months or so when Toby Church ' s site plan was on hold while Durham considered 41 compelling Toby Church to be annexed if utilities were expanded . Staff finally got the determination in late December or 42 early January the property would not have to be annexed . Michael Harvey said then plans began to move forward for 43 actual site plan review . During that three- month intervening process , Chad Huffine , Toby Church and Michael Harvey 44 began investigating how to allow redevelopment of the site and secure compliance with all applicable land use and 45 building code requirements should the (site plan review) process move forward under Orange County's jurisdiction . The 46 solution to the confinements on the property was to use the adjacent roadway, which it was believed the adjacent 47 owner was amenable to . Michael Harvey said then in March , Mr. Church informed staff formal use of the driveway along 48 the eastern property line was not secured and could not be utilized . Mr. Harvey indicated redevelopment of the site 49 became complicated by existing topography , including the meandering eastern property line , and the placement of the 50 existing building . The only way to redevelop the property as proposed was to seek a variance . 6