Orange County Approved BOA Minutes 21 01 11

Browse Search

Approved 8/9/2021 1 Mr. Mufuka reminded the Board there is documentation in the record that NC DOT has preliminarily approved the 2 proposed driveway access onto Old Greensboro Road. Final approval will not be issued until there is an approved site 3 plan. 4 5 Mr. Mufuka said the project will not involve the erection of amenities or facilities to support the recreational facility so 6 there will be no visual impact to the neighborhood and there will be no development activity inconsistent with the area in 7 general. 8 9 Mr. Mufuka said concerns over Mr. Patil not living in the area are not germane to the request. What is being applied for 10 is a permitted use. Applicable regulations do not require Mr. Patil to live in the area or near the proposed recreation 11 facility. 12 13 Mr. Mufuka suggested the Weidner's have supplied emails from purported realtors arguing the proposed recreation 14 facility will have a negative impact on property values. The Board cannot consider this emails as factual given these 15 individuals have not disclosed their professional qualifications to make these statements and are not present to be 16 cross-examined. 17 18 Chair Meyers thanked Mr. Mufuka for his comments. Chair Meyers indicated the Board would take a brief recess and 19 reconvene the hearing at 9:50 p.m. Chair Meyers called the meeting back to order at 9:50 p.m. 20 21 Chair Meyers asked if there were anyone else looking to speak for or against the request. 22 23 Ms. Weidner raised her hand. Chair Meyers asked her to come to the podium. 24 25 Ms. Weidner said the expert witness for the applicant, specifically Ms. Virginia Ferguson, is also connected to this 26 project as she was the realtor that worked with the Lloyd's to sell their property to Mr. Patil. She then represented Mr. 27 Patil is his attempts to sell his property. Ms. Weidner argued no existing business along Old Greensboro Road 28 compared with what Mr. Patil was requesting. The scope of the project will exceed what is reasonable for the area. 29 Ms. Weidner reminded the Board the applicant's real estate analysis was flawed as it did not compare rural properties 30 near a recreational facility. There are differences in comparing residents in an urban setting, developed to urban 31 densities, when located near recreational facilities as there is an expectation of intensive development. 32 33 Chair Meyers asked if Ms. Weidner could stay on topic and asked if she had anything to add to the discussion that had 34 not already been said. 35 36 Ms. Weidner reminded the Board they had emails in their materials from three realtors indicating property values will be 37 harmed by the development of this use. She further indicated local residents cannot afford an attorney and she was 38 told the only way her arguments would be taken seriously is if they were presented by an attorney. Ms. Weidner 39 indicated she was very serious with her objections to this project and wanted to retire with her husband and continue to 40 live on Holly Creek Lane. This will not be possible if the project, as proposed by Mr. Patil, were approved. 41 42 Mr. Weidner said that Mr. Mufuka continues to challenge his standing, which the Board had already decided on this so 43 it was a moot point. Mr. Weidner indicated he has watched cricket being played on the field and they have never taken 44 appropriate steps to clean up trash. There will be more impacts to our neighborhood when both fields are used at the 45 same time. Mr. Weidner asked for the request to be denied. 46 47 Mr. Nordwall raised his hand. Chair Meyers asked him to come forward. 48 21