|
with simply an L shaped area of 25 acres that was delineated with no apparent thought or relationship to natural 1
<br />systems, sensitive areas, or separation for the adjacent neighbors. The rudimentary nature of this map makes it pretty 2
<br />clear to me that it was the most expedient way to draw this out for the applicant at the time. It didn't even require any 3
<br />surveying. They just hatched out a map that had been drawn previously. And you can see what some of that open 4
<br />space looks like from these two slides. These indicate areas of the committed open space, which are simply the areas 5
<br />under the high transmission power lines that Duke Energy maintains by clear cutting every couple of years. The 6
<br />proposed redistribution, and this'll get a little bit more detail into what we're looking at, what we're proposing, as shown 7
<br />on this slide, in my professional opinion, is a vast improvement over the originally dedicated open space from more than 8
<br />30 years ago. If you recall Mr. Chapman's testimony, he referred to the current open space portion of the UDO, 9
<br />specifically section 7.12.4, which was not in place when the original SUP was approved. I'd also like to point out on this 10
<br />slide, because it shows it clearly, we are proposing to commit to a permanent conservation easement along the 11
<br />southern property line in the area shown in green on this exhibit. And this is that section from the ordinance that calls 12
<br />how the current ordinance actually identifies primary open space as that open space that should always be set aside 13
<br />first when we do any type of development of scale in Orange County. What it says is we have to protect riparian 14
<br />buffers, wet areas, steep slopes, areas of wildlife habitat, things of that nature, and the slide I showed you a minute ago 15
<br />does exactly that. It's important to understand that we are in no way diminishing the 25 acres of open space that were 16
<br />committed in the earlier special use permit. Rather, we're proposing to redistribute it. You've heard that four times 17
<br />already tonight, in a way that meets the current ordinance goals of establishing these primary open space areas and 18
<br />protecting them. We're protecting stream buffers. We're protecting steep slopes. We're protecting buffer areas. And 19
<br />most importantly, what we are doing, which was not part of the original special use permit, is we are now committing to 20
<br />moving that committed open space to the southern border along Scarlett Mountain Road. It's a protection that those 21
<br />neighbors do not enjoy today, and, as I said, it would also put a portion of this in a permanent conservation easement, 22
<br />which would prohibit access to Scarlett Mountain Road. This slide shows a little more clearly, if you can see that darker 23
<br />gray area to the south, that area is not currently within the 25 acres of open space in the current special use permit. 24
<br />That area could be developed today. We estimate 20 single family homes could be built in that area adjacent to 25
<br />Scarlett Mountain Road and along the southern property line. The current zoning would allow that use and we could 26
<br />easily fit a road in and put lots in and that sort of thing, and even have driveways off of Scarlett Mountain Road. We 27
<br />know the neighbors to the south don't want that at all, and we don't want that either. 28
<br /> 29
<br />Leon Meyers: Can you point out the area on the map. 30
<br /> 31
<br />Dan Jewell: Make it a little more clear. This area, are you able to see the cursor move? 32
<br /> 33
<br />Leon Meyers: Yes. 34
<br /> 35
<br />Dan Jewell: Okay. So, here's the southern property line. This line represents the southern edge of the currently 36
<br />committed open space. There's several hundred feet in there that could be developed that are not currently 37
<br />encumbered by it. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chair. That's why we feel in all ways what we're proposing 38
<br />provides better protection to the public, health, safety and welfare, particularly for the neighbors, the environment, the 39
<br />natural systems, than today. So, in summary, and in my professional opinion as a landscape architect, our proposed 40
<br />redistribution of the 25 acres of committed open space will be much better at promoting the public health, safety and 41
<br />general welfare, by protecting the primary open space as required by the UDO, which the open current configuration 42
<br />does not, and by further providing an absolute open space buffer along the southern property line and Scarlett 43
<br />Mountain Road, which will give those neighbors the benefit of not having development right next to them. Thank you. 44
<br />I'm happy to answer any questions before I turn it over to the next witness. 45
<br /> 46
<br />Leon Meyers: Were there questions for Mr. Jewell? 47
<br /> 48
<br />Greg Niemiroski: I have a question. It appears in one of the attachments about the plat that that area you 49
<br />referenced was not actually part of this property when the initial special use permit was done. 50
<br />24
|