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 Effect of Denial or Withdrawal: In the event the rezoning application is denied or withdrawn, it 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