|
DRAFT 5
<br /> 1 portion of the 84.9-acre site. Surrounding building includes R-1, which is rural residential, and then R-2 and R-4, which
<br /> 2 are a little more dense. They allow of smaller lot sizes, and then just across the street, there is some commercial uses
<br /> 3 and EC-5 existing commercial. So,the surrounding building and the future land use are important to consider because
<br /> 4 the special use standards do require that you, as the Board, find that the use maintains public health and safety and
<br /> 5 general welfare. It also asks that you find the use will maintain and enhance the value of contiguous property and that it
<br /> 6 would be in harmony with the surrounding land uses. So, the future land use designation is the 20-year transition and
<br /> 7 then the resource protection area which you'll see in this map is designated as dark green. For this site, streams and
<br /> 8 then at the intersection, there's a short property that has that same designation. The recreational facility elements
<br /> 9 include on Lot 1, outdoor recreation courts for tennis and pickleball; indoor courts for tennis, pickleball, basketball,
<br /> 10 volleyball and other sports. Lot 2 of the site is proposed to feature outdoor baseball and softball fields with bathrooms
<br /> 11 and concession facilities. As you'll see on the site plan, Lot A is the one that is not subject to this request. Lot A is to
<br /> 12 remain outside of the Special Use Permit. Lot 1 here, we're going to a have the indoor facility and outdoor courts, and
<br /> 13 then Lot 2 is where you find the fields. The applicant did provide some proposed elevations, as was required for the
<br /> 14 submittal. I'll give you quick looks, but I'll let the applicant really do the detail with that. The overall request is bound to
<br /> 15 that site plan that we just went over. It is also bound to conditions that are being proposed by the applicant, some are
<br /> 16 standard for all Special Use Permit in Orange County. Those are available in your packet, though was also have a
<br /> 17 slide later for ease of reference, so beyond the recreational facilities, we're also talking about private well and septic
<br /> 18 systems. We have a 30-foot development buffer. We have sidewalks that are internal and also along the adjacent right
<br /> 19 of ways, and we have 65-foot stream buffers for all features stream on site. Staff determination is that the submitted
<br /> 20 application and evidence was determined to be complete per the requirements of 2.5, 2.7 and 5.2.7, 2.5 are the site
<br /> 21 plan standards; 2.7, special use standards; and then 5.7.2, recreational facility standards. Further, we determined that
<br /> 22 the applicant, the material evidence does support the applicant. The applicant also submitted material evidence to
<br /> 23 support the standards of 2.2, 2.7, 5.32 and 5.72. So 2.2, application standards and requirements including pre-
<br /> 24 application meeting so that they have all the correct forms, paying the fees and then 5.3.2 here are the specific
<br /> 25 standards for special uses. We did find, as you'll see in the staff report, in comments, that the special use, per codes,
<br /> 26 will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed, and
<br /> 27 operated according to the plan as a reflected in those material images, and based on the materials provided, we found
<br /> 28 no potential injury to the value of contiguous property. Further,we determined that the use will be in harmony with the
<br /> 29 area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the county as
<br /> 30 contained in the ordinance and in the comprehensive plan, so we found that it both met the standards of UDO and the
<br /> 31 comp plan that we review. I do have some of the specific comp plan principles that we already used, which I think, I'm
<br /> 32 happy to go through them. They are in the staff report. I think I might leave in here for reference and you can read
<br /> 33 those when it's time to deliberate, but I would like to go ahead and hand it over to the applicant, and I will do that.
<br /> 34
<br /> 35 Cy Stober: Just one final comment on Taylor's excellent presentation is as you consider the matter and move forward to
<br /> 36 deliberations, if there are specific questions regarding recreational uses, septic and well concerns, or transportation
<br /> 37 network or traffic questions,we do have the director of Department of Environment, Agriculture and Parks and
<br /> 38 Recreation, David Stancil,with us this evening. The Director of Environmental Health, Victoria Hudson, as well as
<br /> 39 Thomas Privott are with this evening, and the NCDOT Division 7 Engineer, Chuck Edwards, is also here, so they have
<br /> 40 been sworn. If you do have specific questions on those matters, they may be more qualified than Planning Staff to
<br /> 41 reply to them.
<br /> 42
<br /> 43 Leon Meyers: Thank you,that's helpful. I'm going to pause here for just a minute and ask a question of the Board that 1
<br /> 44 should have asked earlier in the hearing, and that is whether Board Members need to announce a conflict or are there
<br /> 45 any disclosures of Board Members should or would need to make regarding this case?
<br /> 46
<br /> 47 Beth Bronson: I may, as far as disclosure goes, as a member of the Planning Board, I've heard an application from this
<br /> 48 applicant prior in a Planning Board meeting, but I don't think that represents a conflict of interest and I have no
<br /> 49 problems disclosing it.
<br /> 50
<br />
|