Orange County Approved BOA Minutes 20 12 14

Browse Search

Approved 08/09/2021 1 m. In accordance with UDO Sections 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses and 5.7.2 Recreational Facilities, activities 2 allowed to occur on the property shall be in accordance with the submitted application package, site plan, 3 and narrative as reviewed by the Orange County Board of Adjustment; 4 n. The applicants shall obtain all applicable development permits from the County consistent with the 5 approved SUP, including but not limited to: Erosion Control; Stormwater; and Zoning Compliance; 6 7 Mr. Harvey pulled up and summarized the site plan denoting proposed athletic field location, parking, access off old 8 Greensboro Road, and required landscaped areas. Mr. Harvey provided a summary of the comments from the 9 neighborhood information meeting, which were contained as part of Attachment 4 of the agenda packet. 10 11 Mr. Qandil asked if the applicant was required to have outdoor lighting for the parking area. Mr. Harvey indicated the 12 UDO did not require outdoor lighting for the parking areas but it would be encouraged. Erection of outdoor lights for the 13 parking area would require the submittal of a formal lighting plan completed in accordance with Section 6.11 of the 14 UDO. Mr. Harvey said the applicant chose not to proposed outdoor lights to avoid impacts on adjacent property owners 15 from glare and further indicated that practice and matches would occur during daylight hours negating the need for the 16 lights. 17 18 Chair Meyers asked if staff was satisfied with the virtual nature of the neighborhood information meeting. Mr. Harvey 19 indicated the meeting went as smoothly as technology allowed. Mr. Harvey did say he was not aware of any 20 complaints or issues from individuals who were not able to attend due to a technology issue. 21 22 Mr. Harvey asked the applicant and all other parties intending to argue standing to come into the meeting room. 23 24 David Mufuka indicated he was an attorney with the Mufuka Law Firm representing the applicant for Case A-4-20, 25 specifically Mr. and Mrs. Vishwanath Patil and Vintha Cardoza. Ms. Cheek swore in Mr. Mufuka and Mr. Patil. 26 27 Chair Meyers reviewed the meeting cadence with the applicant and the other parties in attendance. Mr. Mufuka 28 indicated he and his client were in agreement with the proposed cadence. 29 30 Mr. Mufuka summarized his client's ownership of the property, arguing they had standing to submit the application and 31 propose the recreation facility as detailed within their application package (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet). 32 33 MOTION made by Vice-chair Halkiotis finding that Mr. and Mrs. Vishwanath Patil and Vintha Cardoza were the owners 34 of the property and had standing to apply for the special use permit, seconded by Mr. Scott. 35 VOTE: Unanimous. 36 37 Chair Meyers indicated the next order of business was to hear from those individuals asserting standing on Case A-4- 38 20. 39 40 Mr. Mufuka asked how the Board wanted to address hearing and/or acting upon the credentials of various expert 41 witnesses they intended to call. Chair Meyers indicated this would be handled at the January meeting. Mr. Byran 42 asked Mr. Mufuka if he knew how many witnesses he intended to call. Mr. Mufuka indicated they would call two expert 43 and to layperson witnesses. 44 45 Chair Meyers indicated the Board had received a standing application from Mr. and Mrs. William and Leslie Weidner on 46 Case A-4-20. He asked Mr. and Mrs. Weidner to come forward and present their argument for standing on this case. 47 48 Ms. Cheek swore in both Mr. and Mrs. William and Leslie Weidner. 49 8