Orange County NC Website
28 <br /> 1 2. Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas, as well as imposing development conditions, for <br /> 2 the identified parcels as contained in Attachment 3. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Effect of Denial or Withdrawal: In the event the rezoning application is denied or withdrawn, it <br /> 5 should be noted that Section 2.2.8 of the UDO states that no application for the same or similar <br /> 6 amendment, affecting the same property or portion thereof, may be submitted for a period of <br /> 7 one year. The one year period begins on the date of denial or withdrawal. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 RECOMMENDATION: In the absence of the applicant formally accepting recommended <br /> 10 conditions, the Manager recommended the Board continue to review/discuss the project and <br /> 11 review imposition of additional conditions. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 If the applicant accepts the imposition of recommended conditions, in writing, by the October 6, <br /> 14 2020 meeting the BOCC can approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2), and the <br /> 15 Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas (Attachment 3). <br /> 16 <br /> 17 Commissioner Price asked if the Town of Hillsborough plans to annex this site. <br /> 18 Michael Harvey said there is no plan to annex this property based on the approval of this <br /> 19 plan. He said if the site goes over the daily water allotment, then the Town may require <br /> 20 annexation as a condition of any additional water and sewer. <br /> 21 Commissioner Price asked if the fire department has enough equipment to handle <br /> 22 buildings that are over five stories high. <br /> 23 Michael Harvey said yes, and the buildings will have to have sprinkler systems <br /> 24 throughout, in accordance with state building code. <br /> 25 Commissioner Price asked if these buildings will place a greater burden on the fire <br /> 26 department. <br /> 27 Michael Harvey said this question was asked, and the answer was that it will not have an <br /> 28 impact on fire provision and service. <br /> 29 Commissioner McKee referred to page 52, section b-1, second paragraph, and said the <br /> 30 language is confusing. <br /> 31 Michael Harvey said the height limit is 60 feet for the project at large, and those <br /> 32 structures fronting Davis Road shall not exceed 40 feet in height. He said there was a repetition <br /> 33 of words by mistake, which he corrected. <br /> 34 Commissioner Price said she is concerned about the language of"fronting on Davis <br /> 35 Road," and asked what will happen if the front of the building is on an inside road. <br /> 36 Michael Harvey said if a building has frontage on Davis Road, even if the front entrance <br /> 37 is on an internal street, the height will not be able to exceed 40 feet. He said this language is <br /> 38 from the Applicant, and it may be best to speak with them on this matter. <br /> 39 Commissioner Price said the County could insure this condition. <br /> 40 Commissioner Greene asked Michael Harvey if he could read the second paragraph <br /> 41 under"b" the way it is meant to be written. <br /> 42 Michael Harvey said the statement should read "no structure shall be erected fronting <br /> 43 Davis Road which exceeds 40 ft. in height, above the highest elevation of the adjoining portion <br /> 44 of Davis Road, as measured to the roof deck of the building." <br /> 45 Commissioner Greene asked if"the highest elevation of the adjoining portion of Davis <br /> 46 Road" could be clarified. <br /> 47 Michael Harvey said the Applicant is trying to articulate the fact that parts of Davis Road <br /> 48 have higher elevation than the property. He said the goal is trying to avoid an arbitrary 40-foot <br /> 49 height limit when the land itself goes up and down. <br /> 50 Commissioner Greene said now she is even more confused. She said at first reading <br /> 51 she was worried the measurement would be from the highest portion of Davis Road, which <br />