11.8.23 BOA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 4 1 not maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where a proposed and developed, and 2 if operated according to the plan is submitted. Those opposing approval of the application on the grounds that the use 3 will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare, shall have the burden of establishing, by competent 4 material and substantial evidence, the specific manner in which the proposed use does not satisfy the requirements for 5 approval of the application for a special use. I feel like I should apologize for taking the meeting's time to read all that, 6 but it is very important, especially for folks who haven't attended an evidentiary hearing like this before, so next, I'm 7 going to ask anybody who intends to testify to please come forward to be sworn. 8 9 SWEARING OF THE TESTIMONY 10 11 Sharon Swann: Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and 12 nothing but the truth, to the best of your knowledge? 13 14 Public: I do. 15 16 Staff: I do. 17 18 Applicants: I do. 19 20 Taylor Perschau: Thank you. Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor with Orange County. I'm going 21 to do a little bit of an orientation to the property and request. I will do a summary of staff findings and then I will turn it 22 over to the applicant to really go into their detail of their request. I do want to go ahead and do a snapshot of what is 23 already found in the packet for tonight. We will have a few additions to present to you, both from staff and the 24 applicant. In tonight's Board packet, you will have found a abstract which is a summary of the request. You will find 25 Attachment 1 includes the entirety of the application package. Attachment 2 is the really detailed analysis from staff 26 that I hope to summarize for you. Attachments 3 and 4 speak to how the applicant met the neighborhood information 27 meeting requirements and how the applicant and staff met notification requirements, both for the neighborhood 28 information meeting at tonight's evidentiary hearing. Attachment 5 is where you'll find all product correspondence, 29 including staff applicant review comments and State Clearinghouse comments and Development Advisory Committee 30 comments. On this staff part, the State Clearinghouse comments are the ones that I did want to highlight, as there is 31 one change from last week's packet to tonight. So we'll give those to you. I wanted to note the difference, as that the 32 one included in last week's published packet was the State Clearinghouse comments pertinent to the applicant's 33 previous map amendment request, so largely the same comments were received from the State Clearinghouse, so 34 obviously, the first round was for a more intensive use which included the school. This round just includes the 35 recreational facilities that are subject to Special Use Permit request, and the one notable comment difference was really 36 just the added note from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and they just wanted to make clear that 37 they recommend not to macerate the site but to do proper stabilization and take and erosion control measures that will 38 be enforced by the county. And finally, Attachment 6 includes the findings of fact what we determined, and we have a 39 draft finding of fact for you tonight. Following to be considered, staff testimony and findings of fact by lead product 40 review by Patrick Mallett and Cy Stober are also available as resources to clarify staff findings. To get you oriented to 41 the property,we are talking about a property located at the intersection of Lawrence Road and U.S. 70A. Not exactly at 42 the intersection, but it does have frontage on most. You're looking at a vicinity map of Eno Township, so to the west is 43 the Town of Hillsborough, to the east is Durham County, the red star is the property we're talking about tonight. This 44 property is affected by the Lower Eno protected and unprotected watersheds and applicant tonight is a property owner 45 Lawrence Road Partners for James Parker. The zoning on the site today is rural residential and that is to remain the 46 same with this request. One of the overlays in the major transportation corridor, so the application was reviewed in 47 terms of what's permitted both with the rural residential and the major transportation corridor overlay. The use, 48 specifically, is use number 38 in the table of permitted uses, so recreational facilities is permitted as a special use, 49 meaning if they meet all the standards for special use and the use of specific recreational facilities, they will be deemed 50 by you all as a permitted use. The specific request does not cover the entirety of the property. This is for a 53.3-acre