Orange County Approved BOA Minutes 21 01 11

Browse Search

Approved 8/9/2021 1 2 Mr. Hess indicated the fields were developed in 2015 or 2016 and his client had been working to address compliance 3 with County land use regulations since. The primary issues his client required to be addressed with this project was 4 ensuring compliance with the special use permit requirements, that vehicular access was from a State maintained road, 5 required landscaping was installed in accordance with Section 6.8 of the UDO, required parking had was improved, and 6 land disturbance was minimized to protect the rural character of the area. (Mr. Hess pulled up the site plan on the main 7 screen so the Board could see the document) As you will note the site plan was designed to ensure the project 8 generated minimal environmental impacts and maintain the rural character of the area. Mr. Hess said the applicant 9 took full advantage of previously approved and permitted land disturbance activities to ensure there was no major 10 grading activities on the property as part of this project. The fields already exist and, as you will note, they are 11 approximately in the center of the property. You have already heard testimony, and the site plan clearly indicates there 12 are no amenities or facilities developed as part of the proposed recreational facility. This includes bleachers, 13 clubhouses, changing facilities, outdoor lighting, scoreboard, and so on. We have tried to limit to the total amount of 14 parking along Old Greensboro to reduce the overall need to grade the property in an attempt to eliminate to the greatest 15 extent practical stormwater impacts to Holly Creek lane and adjoining lots. As indicated required parking, specifically 16 the 21 spaces required by local land use regulations, improved with an all-weather surface. The overflow parking will 17 be natural. The proposed porta-johns will be located here (Mr. Hess identified the location of the site plan) and will be 18 screened. Our objective is to make this development as low impact as possible. 19 20 (Mr. Hess continued to review the site plan with the Board and identified the proposed landscaping area consistent with 21 Section 6.8 of the UDO). 22 23 Mr. Hess indicated the project had preliminary approval from NC Department of Transportation (DOT) for the proposed 24 driveway location. 25 26 Mr. Hess said there had been concerns over the type and classification of foliage proposed for planting. He indicated 27 all trees would be native species and drought tolerant consistent with applicable standards. The hedge material is also 28 important to ensure equipment(i.e. struck balls) do not go off the property onto adjacent property or the roadway. 29 30 Mr. Hess asked if there were any questions. Chair Meyers asked if the proposed plantings are dense enough to stop 31 errant balls from going off the property. Mr. Hess indicated he believed it would be. Mr. Scott asked about the 32 preliminary approval from DOT. Mr. Hess indicated DOT staff had approved the site distance of the proposed driveway 33 from Holly Creek Lane and indicated the layout and design complied with applicable standards. Mr. Hess said his client 34 was still obligated to get construction authorization for the driveway, which will not be granted until there was an 35 approved site plan or in this case an approved special use permit. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board that beginning on 36 page 157 of the agenda packet was an email chain from Mr. DeAngelo Jones and DOT related to the review of the 37 driveway location. 38 39 Mr. Weider raised his hand. Chair Meyers asked him to come forward. 40 41 Mr. Weidner said his question was for Mr. Hess and indicated this is the first time he and his wife had seen this version 42 of the plan. The application submittal contains, from his standpoint, a lot of contradictory information including a 43 breakdown of proposed parking. The original information on the application submittal and site plan indicated there 44 could be a maximum of 70 cars on the property and Mr. Hess appeared to testify there would only be about 47 total 45 cars. Mr. Weidner said the topography of the site does not lend itself to supporting 70 cars. He indicated his question 46 was where exactly was the parking going to go and how many cars it was designed for. Mr. Weidner also indicated the 47 site plan contains what appears to be erroneous measurements and distances of the proposed parking area from 48 adjacent property. (Chair Meyers summarized the questions). Mr. Weidner reminded the Board of the concerns of a 49 neighboring property owner on potential contamination of his shallow well. Mr. Hess said the 71 parking space number 50 was incorrect and the site plan references approximately 47 spaces with 21 improved using an all-weather surface 13