Browse
Search
12.10.25 BOA Agenda Packet
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Agendas
>
2025
>
12.10.25 BOA Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/4/2025 11:13:20 AM
Creation date
12/4/2025 10:52:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/10/2025
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
352
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
33 Draft <br /> 1 <br /> 2 Kevin Hornik: And this is kind of a unique case, right, in that typically when you are performing an appraisal <br /> 3 or a valuation report on behalf of a special-use permit application, you're more or less taking <br /> 4 an educated guess about what impact a hypothetical future use might have on surrounding <br /> 5 property values. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 John McPhaul: Yes. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Kevin Hornik: But that's not the case here. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 John McPhaul: No, it, no, it was operating, and all the home values have continued to climb since it's been <br /> 12 there. Thank you. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Kevin Hornik: Okay. So, we'll cut to the chase. You're aware that the LIDO standard requires that the <br /> 15 applicant present evidence that the use will maintain or enhance value the value of contiguous <br /> 16 property? <br /> 17 <br /> 18 John McPhaul: Yes. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Kevin Hornik: Do you have any, have you drawn any conclusions with respect to that review criteria? <br /> 21 <br /> 22 John McPhaul: Yeah, I did not find that the applicant's use of the property would have any impact, negative <br /> 23 impact on the surrounding properties. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Kevin Hornik: Okay. So, it'd be fair to say that it will maintain the value of contiguous properties? <br /> 26 <br /> 27 John McPhaul: Yes. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Kevin Hornik: Okay. Do you have any other comments that you'd like to provide to the Board? <br /> 30 <br /> 31 John McPhaul: Probably just that, it's not just me, but I think anybody who was reassessed on this last <br /> 32 reassessment in that neck of the woods probably also knows that the value since the 2024 <br /> 33 tax values is almost doubled. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Kevin Hornik: So that's all I have for Mr. McPhaul. I'll turn them over to the Board for any questions. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Leon Meyers: Questions for Mr. McPhaul? Mr. McPhaul, your report doesn't mention that you studied <br /> 38 properties outside away from Jubilee. Do you have an opinion about how a facility like Jubilee <br /> 39 might impact similar areas? That's, I put that question very poorly. I wonder if it's possible to <br /> 40 pick a program like Jubilee in another location and that has maybe been operating for longer <br /> 41 than Jubilee and determine whether that program's existence had an impact on other <br /> 42 surrounding properties. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 John McPhaul: Yes. Like the, the one in Chatham that she was speaking of. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Leon Meyers: Penny Lane. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 John McPhaul: Yes. And, and we, we like to refer to those as match pairs, if you can find them. There's no <br /> 49 such thing because everything's so unique. But yeah. And, and even in those situations <br /> 50 where that's a residential on site, it's hard, it's hard to prove a negative because it's, <br /> 33 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.