Orange County Approved BOA Minutes 21 01 11

Browse Search

Approved 8/9/2021 1 multi-purpose sports fields with areas for baseball, tennis etc. There are no references to any of these parks having 2 visible porta-potties. Again, these examples are not relevant since they are not located in rural areas. 3 Ms. Weidner indicated according to Mr. Patil's expert on property values, values in Holly Creek Farm have doubled in 4 value when compared to urban properties around sport parks. Ms. Weidner believes this is due to the neighborhood's 5 location in the Rural Buffer general use zoning district as well as the highly rated Chapel Hill School District. Ms. 6 Weidner reminded the Board it was her expert opinion property values for the homes off Holly Creek Lane will decrease 7 in value with the issuance of the special use permit. 8 9 Chair Meyers asked if there were any questions for Ms. Weidner. 10 11 Mr. Mufuka raised his hand. Chair Meyers asked Mr. Mufuka to approach the podium. 12 13 Mr. Mufuka objected to both Mr. and Ms. Weidner's testimony. He reminded the Board both parties admit to living at 14 the end of a mile long road and are not adjacent to the existing cricket field. The residents closest to the project site are 15 in support. Mr. Mufuka objected to the Weidner's being conferred standing on this case. Holly Creek Lane will not be 16 used by Mr. Patil or be a part of the cricket field operation. Mr. Mufuka reminded the Board that is why parking was 17 relocated from Mr. Patil's property east of the road to ensure there was no use of Holly Creek Lane. Concerns related 18 to impacts to this private road are baseless. Mr. Mufuka reminded the Board the adjacent property owners, the Lloyd's, 19 have testified they are in favor of the proposal. 20 21 Mr. Mufuka said the main crux of the concern appears to be the use should not be allowed to develop within the Rural 22 Buffer zoning district. The problem is the use is listed within the County UDO as a permitted use of Rural Buffer zoned 23 property presuming issuance of this permit. We would not be here this evening if the use was not considered to be 24 permitted for development. The Weidner's argument that this should not be permitted is, in actuality, a matter that 25 should be discussed at the elected official level with a text amendment to remove recreational facilities as a permitted 26 use within the Rural Buffer district. All you can react to is the review of our permit application request consistent with 27 applicable development standards. 28 29 Mr. Mufuka said Mr. Weidner indicated during his statement if we got the required special use permit, he would no 30 longer have any objections to the operation. That is what we are trying to do. 31 32 Mr. Mufuka indicated Mr. Weidner is arguing against this request as it will be for private use only and not be open to the 33 public. County regulations allow for such development through this process. Mr. Mufuka indicated there was no 34 requirement the proposed recreation facility be open for public use in applicable land use regulations. 35 36 Mr. Mufuka said there are no applicable regulations prohibiting compensation for the use of a permitted recreation 37 facility. The fact that Mr. Patil may be compensated for field usage is not a regulatory issue and is not a means to deny 38 the submitted request. 39 40 Mr. Mufuka reminded the Board Mr. Weidner had said on numerous occasions that as long as the cricket operation 41 complied with applicable regulations he would be satisfied. That is exactly what we are trying to do. 42 43 Mr. Mufuka said the development is in harmony with the area given the fact the County has determined this is an 44 allowable land use so long as a special use permit has been issued. There are numerous non-residential operations 45 along Old Greensboro Road that will have more impacts that this project. 46 47 Mr. Mufuka argued that Ms. Weidner is not an un-biased expert witness and her testimony needs to be taken with that 48 fact in mind. 49 20