5.8.24 BOA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

219 area and before any development was approved, that the report would be reviewed and analyzed by the appropriate municipal planning department and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2. There were questions raised about how the sale of the property took place with unitary ownership as a requirement of the existing Special Use Permit. We explained that while we had a title search completed, we were never notified of any concerns related to the existing Special Use Permit. It was an oversite that we were not made aware of until recently. There were several inconsistencies surrounding the recordation of the Special Use Permit and the map showing the location of the open space. One of the inconsistencies was that Orange County had reviewed and signed off on both the recombination plat making the southern portion of the Woodsedge property saleable, and the deed recording the sale. 3. There were questions concerning whether the 100' buffer was from the centerline of East Scarlett Mountain Road. The applicant informed the attendees that the open space buffer alonq the southern border of the property was from the northernmost edge of the East Scarlett Mountain Road right-of-way, and not the centerline. 4. There were concerns raised about the sufficiency of the 100' proposed open space buffer. The applicant explained that the Unified Development Ordinance for Orange County did not currently require any buffers between residential uses. That the proposed 100' of dedicated open space was the minimum depth of the open space along East Scarlett Mountain Road, and that much of the southern border had a 10-acre parcel of open space buffering it. In addition, it was shown that all of the homes were over the length of a professional football field from any possible future development, and most of the homes were much further away. 5. There were concerns raised about future development potentially accessing East Scarlett Mountain Road from the north. The applicant informed them that if the open space were dedicated as a conservation easement, which the applicant was willing to do, no access to East Scarlett Mountain Road would be possible from the north. 6. A question was asked about a label showing parking along the southern border of the Property. The applicant conceded that the label was a mistake and that it would be removed. 7. There were questions about attending the public hearing, but the applicant did not address the issue, and the neighbors talked between each other about potentially speaking at the public hearing. As a result of the meeting, the following changes were made to the project proposal (Attach additional sheet(s) if needed): 1. Prior to the hearing it had been decided to increase the open space along the southern border of the property against East Scarlett Mountain Road to 100', and to dedicate the 10 acres at the southwest corner of the site into a conservation easement as permanent open space. 2. The southern strip of open space illustrated on an exhibit was modified to clearly indicate that the 100' proposed strip of open space was from the northern edge of the East Scarlett Mountain Road right-of-way and not the centerline.