Browse
Search
Orange County Approved BOA Minutes 21 01 11
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Minutes
>
2021
>
Orange County Approved BOA Minutes 21 01 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2021 1:54:59 PM
Creation date
11/1/2021 1:43:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/11/2021
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Approved 8/9/2021 <br /> 1 Mr. Harvey reminded the Board on page 63 of the agenda packet (previously testified to and entered into the record) <br /> 2 were the applicable submittal requirements for the project. Mr. Harvey reviewed the requirements, and noted, the <br /> 3 applicant had complied with all standards concerning submittal of the application. Mr. Harvey indicated there had been <br /> 4 some concerns from the public the applicant had provided contradictory information. The Board will have to determine <br /> 5 if there is sufficient evidence in the record to render a decision. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Mr. Harvey said he and Mr. Hess and both testified on the elements of the site plan. Tonight was the first time he had <br /> 8 seen a revised exhibit establishing a total cap on overflow parking to 25 spaces. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board there <br /> 9 had been discussion about a potential condition to denote the boundary of the overflow parking with a hedgerow. That <br /> 10 is something the Board can consider. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board even if the permit is approved, the applicant still <br /> 11 has to go through formal site plan review, which will include formal approval of a landscape plan. Mr. Harvey said he <br /> 12 and Mr. Hess had already discussed the requirements of this document. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Mr. Harvey reminded the Board there are several conditions associated with this permit, one of which indicated there <br /> 15 will be no use of Holly Creek Lane by the proposed recreational facility. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 Mr. Harvey reminded the Board there will be no outdoor lights, public address system or other amenities on the <br /> 18 property. The only way they can be added is if the applicant amended the site plan through a separate public hearing <br /> 19 process. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Mr. Harvey said page on 167 of the agenda packet contains the applicant's suggested findings of fact for deliberation <br /> 22 and page 174 contains the script outlining the motions necessary to either approve or deny the request. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Vice-chair Halkiotis asked about the conditions (page 65) and asked Mr. Harvey about the proposed 21 improved <br /> 25 parking spaces and the 25 overflow grass parking spaces if the conditions could be modified to establish that level of <br /> 26 specificity. Mr. Harvey said the Board had that ability and reminded that is what the applicant had offered to abide by. <br /> 27 Mr. Harvey also indicated he had further suggested the grass parking area be denoted with a vegetative buffer. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Vice-chair Halkiotis thanked Mr. Harvey and asked if a special use permit is granted, it is granted with the conditions <br /> 30 and proposal brought before the Board. Mr. Harvey indicated if the permit is approved, all conditions run with the <br /> 31 property and have to be incorporated into the actual development of the project. Vice-chair Halkiotis expressed <br /> 32 concern over the fact staff had not seen, in advance, the revised site plan submitted this evening. Mr. Harvey said he <br /> 33 had reviewed the site plan with Mr. Hess and that in addressing these concerns there would be a cumulative limit of <br /> 34 grass overflow parking to 25 cars and it would be no closer than 80 ft. from the western property line. Vice-chair <br /> 35 Halkiotis asked if Mr. Harvey was still recommending the hedgerow to denote the overflow parking area to which Mr. <br /> 36 Harvey said he was. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Vice-chair Halkiotis asked if staff had any other recommended conditions. Mr. Harvey said he did not have any <br /> 39 additional concerns. The applicant had indicated they would screen the porta-letts and that cricket use would only <br /> 40 occur from April to October, meaning the porta-letts would not be on the property after the conclusion of the season. It <br /> 41 might be prudent to make sure the conditions reference this testimony. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 Mr. Qandil asked about the use of parking spaces, especially the grass overflow parking and potential for fluids to leak <br /> 44 from the cars and be absorbed into the ground. Mr. Qandil asked if there was any value at requiring more spaces be <br /> 45 improved to address this concern. Mr. Harvey suggested the applicant was the best party to respond to that question, <br /> 46 reminding the Board what he could require as part of enforcing the UDO. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board there could <br /> 47 be cost issues as well as additional compliance issues given the parcels location within a watershed protection overlay <br /> 48 district. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 Mr. Qandil stated Mr. Harvey had actually answered his question. <br /> 24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.