12.11.24 BOA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

identify the conflict or appearance of conflict and refrain from undue participation in the matter 1 involved. As a reminder, General Statute 160.D.109 establishes the following standard: A member 2 of any board exercising quasi-judicial functions pursuant to this chapter shall not participate in or 3 vote on any quasi-judicial matter in a manner that would violate an affected person's constitutional 4 rights to an impartial decision maker. Impermissible violations of due process include, but are not 5 limited to, these issues: a member having a fixed opinion prior to the hearing regarding the matter 6 that is not susceptible to change; undisclosed ex parte communications, meaning talking with parties 7 involved in the case outside the hearing; a close familial business or other associational relationship 8 with an affected person; or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter. Does any member of 9 the board need to identify a conflict or an appearance of conflict on Case A624? 10 11 Kyle Myers: No. 12 13 AGENDA ITEM 7: CASE: A-6-24 - To review and hold a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing for a Special Use Permit 14 request (Case Number SUP23-0011) 15 16 Request has been submitted by James Tilson and Canine Adventures. The applicant has 17 applied for a SUP to allow for the development of a Kennel Class II facility. The site is located 18 on Orange County PIN 9832-60-7469, located off Monotropa Trail, Efland, NC, and lies within 19 the Bingham Township of Orange County. 20 21 Patrick Mallett: If you don't mind, I'd like to give you an update on the Barlow case before we jump into the special 22 use permit. 23 24 Leon Meyers: Good. Okay. 25 26 Patrick Mallett: It's Item 2, so I'll just be very quick. Ms. Barlow has decided to withdraw the case. I gave you 27 courtesy hard copies of that request, a memo from David Cates, and an email from Mrs. Barlow, a 28 map sort of illustrating where we are with the lake in terms of structures, and a memo from Chris 29 Sandt, the county engineer. They were seeking withdrawal essentially because when they were last 30 before you, Nathan, I think you were sort of heading the discussion about I need more specifics 31 about the placement of the building, the setbacks, and specifically the septic system. Well, David 32 did that in conjunction with Alan Clapp, a soil scientist, and they realized, I think we might qualify for 33 a different provision that would negate the need for a variance. 34 35 Leon Meyers: Great. 36 37 Patrick Mallett: And that's under UDO Section 4.2.2.(I) under watershed protection. It essentially says, you know, if 38 you have a lot that was created prior to January 1st, 1994, it's within other criteria, and you can 39 commit to no more than four bedrooms, no more than 20,000 square feet of septic area, including 40 the drainage and the tank, and then it's reviewed by the county engineer and/or environmental 41 health, with regard to its impact and the extent of the encroachment. So, they took a serious look at 42 that and decided, yes, we can commit to those first two provisions and work with the county engineer, 43 and they've done that. So, the decision was to withdraw the case. 44 45 Leon Meyers: That's great. They had in mind to ask for a variance both from the septic setback and also the building 46 setback. So, apparently, they've figured out how to make that work? 47 48 Patrick Mallett: Within those limitations, yes. They didn't, unfortunately for her, she was not at a point where they 49 knew those for certain. Now they do, so they have a clear path. That solves one of the variance 50 3