|
3
<br /> 1
<br /> 2 Beth Bronson: Okay. Thank you very much.
<br /> 3
<br /> 4 Leon Meyers:Thank you. Then Taylor, staff report.
<br /> 5
<br /> 6 Taylor Perschau: Good evening, Board. I'm Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor with Orange
<br /> 7 County Planning.As Leon said, I will be presenting a brief summary of the staff findings, the real comprehensive part of
<br /> 8 which is in the agenda packet. So, if I don't cover something that you have questions over, happy to address that. I do
<br /> 9 also want to acknowledge that we have Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director of Development Services and Cy Stober, Director
<br /> 10 of Planning and Inspections,who were heavily involved in the application review who can also speak to any questions you
<br /> 11 might have. As a reminder of what you have access to in the agenda packet, this one does look different than what we saw
<br /> 12 on October 18th namely just that we have Attachment 7 through 11 which are in the green color here. And all of those
<br /> 13 attachments were submitted into evidence during that portion of the October 18th hearing. Some of what was submitted by
<br /> 14 the applicant, some of which was submitted by staff. The following is to be considered staff testimony and summary of our
<br /> 15 findings of fact. Orienting to the property as well as the specifics of the project or request,the location is a parcel at the
<br /> 16 intersection of Lawrence Road and US 70A. Not exactly at the intersection but the property does have frontage on both
<br /> 17 roads. It's located in the Eno Township. The watershed is the Lower Eno both protected and unprotected. And the
<br /> 18 applicant is the property owner, Lawrence Road Partners. Current zoning on the property is rural residential. There is a
<br /> 19 zoning overlay which is the major transportation corridor overlay. This request does not propose any change to those two
<br /> 20 facts of the property. Instead,the request is asking for a special use permit. The use described is Use No. 33 in the table,
<br /> 21 or 38 rather in the Table of Permitted Uses. It's recreational facilities which is permitted in rural residential with the
<br /> 22 approval of a special use permit which would be granted by the Board. The total project area is 53.37 acres of the total
<br /> 23 84.9-acre parcel. It's going to be divided into a Lot 1 and 2, and then there's a separate Lot A that's not subject to this
<br /> 24 request. The surrounding zoning is R1, R2, R4 and EC5. R1 through 4 are all residential districts. EC5 is a commercial
<br /> 25 use district across the street. It's an existing fencing company. These are relevant to the consideration because you are
<br /> 26 tasked with identifying whether the request is in harmony with the character and use of the area in which it's proposed.
<br /> 27 Further, you are tasked with finding whether the request is in both conformance with the Unified Development Ordinance
<br /> 28 and the future plan of development which is the future land use map and comprehensive plan. The future land use
<br /> 29 designation for the property is 20-year transition, and there are also resource protection areas identified on site which are
<br /> 30 subject to various protections. The actual elements of the proposal include Lot 1 featuring outdoor recreation courts for
<br /> 31 tennis, pickleball and an indoor facility similarly for tennis, pickleball as well as basketball and volleyball, and then we have
<br /> 32 Lot 2 is proposed for outdoor baseball and softball fields, bathrooms and concession facilities. And then finally as
<br /> 33 mentioned,the portion of the parcel designated as Lot A is not subject to the request. As required by UDO Section 2.5,the
<br /> 34 applicant did submit the reference site plan on this slide. The site plan is a binding condition being offered, and if approval
<br /> 35 were to be granted,the permit would be to be developed in accordance with this plan. In addition to the requirement for a
<br /> 36 site plan, the application was also reviewed based on Section 2.2 which establishes standards for applications being that it
<br /> 37 required a pre-application meeting,that it's a complete application,that fees are paid. It was also reviewed in accordance
<br /> 38 with Section 2.7 which is the Special Use Permit Procedures. And Section 5.3.2,which are use specific standards for all
<br /> 39 special uses and finally Section 5.7.2 which are use specific standards for recreational facilities. Elevations were required.
<br /> 40 I'll let the applicant go into more detail about what they're proposing in those components. But as a summary of what
<br /> 41 they're committing to,we have the Site Plan. The applicant has also proposed six conditions that would travel with the
<br /> 42 permit and the land should approval be granted. In addition to the recreational facility elements already identified, they are
<br /> 43 also proposing private well and septic systems, a 30-foot development perimeter buffer supplemented with Type C
<br /> 44 landscaping, a sidewalk the entirety of the internal access road as well as along the frontage with Lawrence Road and US
<br /> 45 70A. And finally,there are 65-foot stream buffers in accordance with ordinance standards. In summary,the staff analysis
<br /> 46 did determine that the submitted application and evidence is complete, per the requirements of those sections identified,
<br /> 47 2.5 being the Site Plan, 2.7 being the Special Use Permit procedures and 5.7.2 being the Use Specific Standards for
<br /> 48 Recreational Facilities. We also found the applicant to have submitted material evidence to support the submittal
<br /> 49 requirements and use standards of all referenced sections and additionally 5.3.2 which again are the use specific standards
<br /> 50 for special uses. Staff further finds that the special use as proposed will maintain or promoted the public health, safety and
<br /> 51 general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan. As reflected in the staff
<br /> 52 report, the applicant's site plan and conditions submitted,as well as all staff commentary provided in Attachment 5 related
<br /> 53 to Development Advisory Committee Review and the State Clearinghouse Review. Based on all the materials referenced,
<br /> 54 Staff finds no potential injury to the value of contiguous property. And as documented in the staff report, staff finds that the
<br /> 55 use will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical
<br />
|