7.24.24 BOA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Taylor Perschau: Okay. Very good. I'm here to present on Case A2 - 1 2 Leon Meyers: Time out, Taylor, I missed an important piece of this case. Which is to do the potential conflict and I'll 3 read this again for folks who may have come in, into the room. It's the duty of every Board member to avoid both 4 conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict. Board members have any conflicts or appearances of conflict with 5 respect to matters before the Board, should identify the conflict or appearance of conflict and refrain from undue 6 participation in the matter involved. As a reminder, General Statues 160D-109, establishes the following standard a 7 member of the Board exercising quasi-judicial function pursuant to this chapter shall not participate in or vote on in a 8 quasi-judicial matter. In a matter that would violate affected persons constitutional rights to an impartial decision maker. 9 In permissible violations of due process include, but are not limited to, a member having a fixed opinion prior to hearing 10 the matter, that is not susceptible to change undisclosed ex parte meaning outside the hearing communications, a close 11 familial business or other associational relationship with an affected person or a financial interest in the outcome of the 12 matter, and I'll ask board members again for the purposes of this case, does anybody have a conflict that needs to be 13 announced? No? Good. Sorry Taylor. 14 15 Taylor Perschau: So, before my presentation, I do want to clarify whether or not you wanted to ask for the 16 swearing in because my presentation is my testimony. 17 18 Leon Meyers: You have been sworn, right? 19 20 Taylor Perschau: I have been sworn but it was specific to the first case. I don't know if that's acceptable to 21 consider for this one. James? 22 23 Leon Meyers: James, are you comfortable with that? 24 25 James Bryan: Yes. 26 27 Leon Meyers: Thank you for asking. 28 29 Taylor Perschau: I am here to present staff testimony on Case A224, which is a special use permit major 30 modification request, meaning there is an existing special use permit applied to the property in question. In this case, it 31 is a property south of Phoebe Drive north of East Scarlett Mountain Road and is boundaried to the west by I-40; to the 32 east by NC-86. There are two parcels on which these permits apply, and the applicant tonight is Capkov Ventures 33 brought forth by Eric Chupp. Similar to the case you just saw, you will find in your staff packet a summary of their 34 request and the case abstract. The application materials in full. A staff report, some of which I will be addressing in my 35 presentation. Documentation of the neighborhood information meeting materials as well as the Board of Adjustment 36 notification materials. Project correspondence including development advisory committee comments and finally the 37 findings of fact. So as noted, this is two separate parcels north and south of each other. South of Phoebe Drive and 38 north of East Scarlett Mountain Road. I know it's somewhat difficult to see where we are here, but the red star is the 39 subject property. We are south of the Town of Hillsborough, north of Chapel Hill. We do ride the lines of two Orange 40 County Townships. To the north is the Hillsborough Township. To the south is the Chapel Hill Township, and the 41 property is also divided by a watershed line. Some of the property is within the lower Eno unprotected watershed and 42 the remainder, is within the Jordan Lake unprotected. Current zoning on the property is rural residential, and the 43 request tonight is for the special use permit that lives on top of that rural route residential zoning so there's no proposed 44 change to the zoning, but instead two specific requests for conditions to be modified. One condition being to remove 45 the requirement for unitary ownership that is currently applied to the planned development that's onsite. Today, it would 46 be reviewed as a home park, but the 1985 and 1991 permits were specifically detailed as planned development 47 housing. The second condition that the applicant is hoping to modify is the relocation of the 25 acres of open space 48 that were allocated as part of the 1991 modification. Of note, there was also open space in the 1985 permit and then 49 the 1991, moved the location of that so this is a second request to move that open space. The surrounding zoning, 50 10