Orange County Approved BOA Minutes 21 01 11

Browse Search

Approved 8/9/2021 1 material and the remaining being overflow parking on a grassy area off Old Greensboro Highway and west of the 2 improved parking area (Mr. Hess denoted the area on the site plan). Mr. Hess indicated cricket would not be played in 3 the rain so there would be no cars on-site when it was raining. Chair Meyers asked about the additional parking and if it 4 would fit in the area denoted on the site plan. Mr. Hess indicated it would fit in the designated area and he respectfully 5 disagreed with Mr. Weider's assessment of the site plan. Mr. Hess said his client made a conscious decision not to 6 pave all the parking to avoid further grading and impervious area on the property. Mr. Hess said the paved parking was 7 approximately 190 ft. from the edge of an adjacent parcel separating the property with the shallow well from the 8 applicant's property (Mr. Bradley Dent's property). This adjacent property was approximately 60 ft. in width meaning 9 the edge of the parking lot (paved portion of the parking lot) was approximately 20 ft. from the shallow well. Grassed 10 parking is approximately 80 ft. from the adjacent property and therefore approximately 140 ft. from the shallow well (Mr. 11 Hess denoted the areas on the site plan). Mr. Weidner concluded by indicating he was very concerned about potential 12 damage to pedestrians and vehicles traveling along Holly Creek Lane from errant hit cricket balls. 13 14 Mr. Nordwall raised his hand. Chair Meyers asked him to come forward. 15 16 Mr. Nordwall indicated this was also his first time seeing this site plan and was disappointed the applicant had not made 17 it available prior to tonight's meeting. He said the application indicates there will be 40 to 50 cars onsite (inaudible 18 discussion) and he was confused with the testimony he had heard this evening. Mr. Mufuka said the anticipated 19 number of cars, as noted in the application, was an estimate based on past performance and that the site plan is 20 consistent with applicable County regulations. Cars would be limited due to the availability of improved parking and 21 grass overflow area. Mr. Harvey informed the Board that page 70 of the agenda packet (Attachment 1) provides the 22 number of cars anticipated and number of anticipated parking spaces necessary. 23 24 Mr. Nordwall said he was concerned about the grass overflow parking as fluids could leach into the ground and impact 25 adjacent property owners. Specifically, if there is a game and a practice occurring at the same time, how many cars 26 would be parked on the property was what he was trying to understand. Mr. Mufuka said the line of questioning is 27 typically reserved for the Board to ask applicants and was concerned a local property owner, who was not within 1,000 28 ft. of the parcel, was asking questions on a matter without identifying how the issue created `special damages' on his 29 parcel. Mr. Mufuka renewed his objection to Mr. Nordwall having standing. With respect to the parking, Mr. Mufuka 30 reminded the Board events are held in a sporadic nature on weekends and certain weeknights during daytime hours 31 only. The proposed parking facilities complied with the County UDO. Mr. Mufuka did not anticipate full capacity use of 32 the recreational facility all the time and did not believe there would be an issue. Chair Meyers asked Mr. Harvey to 33 clarify if the County regulated overflow to which Mr. Harvey said overflow parking is not required and, therefore, not 34 regulated. He went on to say he could not compel the overflow parking to be improved (paved with an all-weather 35 service) as it was not specifically required to be constructed as part of the proposed recreational facility. Mr. Harvey 36 indicated he required the spaces required to serve the project to be improved consistent with Section 6.9 of the UDO. 37 Mr. Harvey reminded the Board a condition could be imposed to require overflow parking to be denoted with 38 landscaping (establishing a boundary). That was up to the Board to discuss with the applicant. 39 40 (Unintelligible) 41 42 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Mufuka to continue. Mr. Mufuka said he felt compelled to respond to concerns over struck 43 cricket balls being a danger to pedestrians or motorists. Mr. Mufuka reminded the Board of Mr. Hess' testimony where 44 he indicated the proposed hedgerow serves not only as a visual buffer but also as a means of preventing equipment 45 from leaving the established playing fields. The fields are approximately 150 ft. from adjacent property lines and 46 roadways. An errant ball will not travel that far. 47 48 Mr. Mufuka asked Ms. Ferguson to come forward and present her testimony. Ms. Ferguson summarized her 49 credentials as detailed in Attachment 1. 50 14