Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
107 <br />707 <br />708 Steve Yuhasz: The middle piece but not the back. <br />709 <br />710 Jay Bryan: Ihave afollow-up of my question that Mr. Knight receives that is the basis for his opinion that refers to an <br />711 architectural ascetic and plan? <br />712 <br />713 Steve Yuhasz: He was provided a site plan and the sketches you saw. He is basing that opinion on the idea these <br />714 are going to be buildings that will be in a farm motif. They will not be stone and glass or a school type building. <br />715 <br />716 Jay Bryan: Are you saying, on behalf of the applicant, stating that those drawings are part of what is being approved <br />717 in the Special Use Permit Application? <br />718 <br />719 Steve Yuhasz: Yes, I think that is a fair assessment. They are not fully detailed. <br />720 <br />721 Lany Wright: Michael, on page 218, the fire issues and the pond in back, a year ago we had a draught so what <br />722 happens when there is a draught and the water levels go down. What does this mean as a fire hazard to this school? <br />723 As I understand it water for fire protection comes by tanker they will rely on this pond. <br />724 <br />725 Michael Harvey: According to the testimony of the applicant, the pond will be one source of water suppression. As <br />726 part of the site plan review process, they will have to identify others to address that concern. If they cannot address <br />727 the Fire Marshall's concerns, then we will not approve the project. <br />728 <br />729 Lany Wright: Considerations are taken in times of extreme draught? <br />730 <br />731 Michael Harvey: I would say yes. I would like to make one other comment to address Jeffs question. One of the <br />732 reasons the back area of the property is not timbered is because there are streams at the rear. We have stream <br />733 buffer regulations that require it be kept at its natural state. <br />734 <br />735 Jay Bryan: Regarding the issue of livestock and the housing area, if for some reason that did not happen to the <br />736 extent as described, is that something that is being required? <br />737 <br />738 Michael Harvey: No, the school is permissible in and of itself with the issuance of the Special Use Permit. The fact <br />739 that they are having this amenity is something they are proposing. For the record, on page 233, there is a letter from <br />740 North Carolina State University providing additional insight for the agricultural and livestock component. As part of <br />741 our site plan review process any project proposing the use of animals will be reviewed and sanctioned by our local <br />742 cooperative extension, Dr. Fletcher Barber and his staff. <br />743 <br />744 Jay Bryan: It is being proposed as a working farm that is located in a rural area but you are saying it is not a <br />745 requirement that they fulfill that part of the school and provide that information. <br />746 <br />747 Michael Harvey: I look at it as they proposing a school with a farm component. <br />748 <br />749 Jay Bryan: Is there anyone from the public who wishes to address this issue. Renee informed me the County <br />750 Attorney said that what would be received by us would be written comments and not verbal. We have received four <br />751 documents by email and a long letter that outlined various aspects of the County Ordinance. <br />752 <br />753 Michelle Kempinski: The traffic Impact Analysis is pending? <br />754 <br />755 Michael Harvey: You are not required to have this project provide and Traffic Impact Assessment according to Article <br />756 13. You do have a memorandum from Chuck Edwards which reviewed the site plan and determined they do not <br />757 have to provide improvements to support this facility. <br />