Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />Nathan Robinson: This exhibit's demonstrating that the ownership currently owns these brown parcels here. And 2 <br />if the ownership wanted to, you could develop the brown parts into however many lots you can develop it. Is that the 3 <br />point of it, what this was presenting? 4 <br /> 5 <br />Dan Jewell: That's correct. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Ben Kuhn: And that the development could be sent into the southern boundary of Scarlett Mountain Road – 8 <br /> 9 <br />Leon Meyers: Let's have everybody who's testifying come to the mic. It'll make it a little bit easier for whoever's going 10 <br />to prepare the minutes. Just, as your speaking, please do come forward. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Ben Kuhn: My understanding is it's an illustrative exhibit to try to demonstrate that if the open space is not 13 <br />reconfigured, that potential future development could go as far south as to the property, other than the applicable 14 <br />setbacks, to the southern property line. And, so, essentially, development could be closer to Scarlett Mountain Road 15 <br />and those property owners without the amendment as opposed to with the amendment. The amendment would have a 16 <br />significant buffer with a permanent conservation easement, which would not be able to be changed by government 17 <br />action. It would be permanent. What we're doing is trying to increase the protection and to make it permanent with a 18 <br />conservation easement. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Eric Chupp: I just wanted to help clarify your question, Mr. Robinson. The area in brown shown in the upper right-21 <br />hand corner is not under consideration for the special use permit. None of the open space that's shown on that is part 22 <br />of the 25 acres. That's just showing that if that property were submitted as a separate permit, that it could be developed 23 <br />with a roadway that might reach there. But none of that is in consideration with the special use permit modification. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Nathan Robinson: Okay. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Leon Meyers: Let me ask for, and whoever cares to answer, would the impact of approving this special use permit 28 <br />change the boundaries of the parcels that are subject to the 1991 special use permit? 29 <br /> 30 <br />Ben Kuhn: Ben Kuhn. No, it would not. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Leon Meyers: Thank you. Anything else, Nathan, or other board members? 33 <br /> 34 <br />Beth Bronson: It's only two parcels being considered for the special use permit, and then there are multiple parcels 35 <br />that are part of the unity, not the unity, but the single owner of, you know the adjacent ones. When you look it up and it 36 <br />looks like you have adjacent properties, but the majority are owned by Capkov. And that's what's being indicated in 37 <br />those. Which are not open to the special use, certainly. But for the purposes of this hearing, it is necessary to confirm 38 <br />that the 25 acres of open space are on both parcels that are up for consideration. But I still can't see the line where 39 <br />they hit the different pins. If you're showing me the open space that's designated and then there's that stream border, I 40 <br />guess, parcel border. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Eric Chupp: If you show the green space map and there it will show that it's all along the subject property line. 43 <br /> 44 <br />Beth Bronson: I apologize. I see new lot 1, new lot 2. And that was from, I suppose, when they updated the SUP. 45 <br /> 46 <br />Dan Jewell: Correct. This exhibit shows how the 25-acres of open space is distributed within the special use 47 <br />permit. 48 <br /> 49 <br />Nathan Robinson: No, this one does. That's what you're proposing. This is what the current one shows. 50 <br />26