HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA minutes 110810Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 1 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
NOVEMBER 8, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Brown, Chair
David Blankfard, Alternate
Mark Micol, Alternate
Dr. James Carter, Full Member
Dr. Larry Wright, Full Member, Planning Board Liaison
MEMBER ABSENT: Dr. Dawn Brezina (Excused)
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Debra Graham, Board Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT: Sahana Ayer, Staff Attorney
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair Thomas Brown.
2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
Michael Harvey: I have an update on the Mapleview Ag Center’s appeal that was heard last month.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. October 11, 2010
James Carter: Mr. Chairman, I have corrections on page 9, line 25 should read, “Yes, I have, in mentioning about
being the education component and if there are some aspects involved…”. Line 26 should read, “in the North Carolina
standard course of study, could you tell me what component of the standard course of study is….”. Line 44 should
read, “It is sort of vague because I am quite familiar with the Standard of Study, I am a curriculum…”.
David Blankfard: On page 25, line 9 should read, “Everywhere else it’s referred to as just education.”
Thomas Brown: Page 23, line 26 should read, “ If that is your recommendation…”. Page 24, line 2 should read,
“Permit and how the additional uses…”. Line 47 should read, “a hands on educational operation where it would not
only ….”. Page 25, line 45 should read, “Do the Board members have any other questions….”. Line 51 should read,
“was not one of your concerns or was it…”.
Mark Micol: Page 28, lines 41 and 42 should read, “Mr. Chairman, could we just take one issue and start with the
yoga instruction and then affirm that based on his comments….”.
Sahana Ayer: Page 27, line 33 should read, “together and you would go over what the issues are basically….”. Line
34 should read, “resolved with conditions. If they are going to come back…”. Line 35 and line 36, “You have to say try
and resolve what uses can be permitted,…”. Line 37, “specific. You can’t just let them go out and talk about it
and….”.
Thomas Brown: On page 26, line 25 and 26 “affirmation of your decision with the caveats that you have described on
the record, reversal or arbitration. Would you call it arbitration?”
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 2 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Mark Micol: On page 29, line 39 should read, “I think we can make modifications if we affirm what the zoning official
has said, and then say with the exception of….”. Line 51 should read, “If we’re talking yoga, could we not say, based
on the testimony, that yoga has a very close relationship….”
Thomas Brown: Page 30, line 47 should read, “and then testify that they would like to modify…”.
Mark Micol: Page 30, line 9 should read, “I would say that fits in with the social retreat.” Line 30 should read parties,
that’s music, a fundraiser…”
Larry Wright: On page 30, line 52 should read “a wedding with eight or you can have a wedding with 800.”
Thomas Brown: On page 31, line 14 should be Larry Wright instead of Larry Brown. Line 26 should read, “be in
consonance with 8.7.1 therefore we can say that we think yoga…”. Line 44 should read, “At this time, after
discussion, unless there are more issues…”
Mark Micol: On page 31, line 2 should read “…75 kids coming for a field trip and it depends on…” Line 3 should read,
“To me, five is the biggest issue with the wedding receptions…”. Line 5 should read, “…wedding receptions, and
parties, and advertising…”
David Blankfard: On page 34, line 10 should read, “think they should have the special….” Line 40 should read, “I
wouldn’t agree with that….”
Thomas Brown: On page 34, line 3 should read, “If you want the yoga, there are five of us here, the full members that
have to vote.”
Mark Micol: On page 32, line 23 should read, “Like I said we’re going to have to say we affirm Mr. Harvey’s
decision…” Line 29, “Well, that’s what I was suggesting…”
Thomas Brown: On page 32, line 26 should read, “we would allow public testimony and a delineation of the uses….”
Larry Wright: On page 34, line 14 should read, “or ordinances. So I’m sorry but we …..It’s a poison pill”.
Thomas Brown: On page 33, beginning with line 44 should read, “…it takes four out of five votes to either modify or
reverse the Zoning Officer. If there are only two or three votes the zoning officer’s decision stands and his
determination is approved entirely”.
Sahana Ayer: On page 32, line 7 delete “or a hayride”.
[These corrections have been made.]
MOTION: Larry Wright made a motion to approve the minutes with the noted corrections. Seconded by James Carter.
VOTE: Unanimous
Chair Thomas Brown read the Public Charge.
4. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct
themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any
member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave
the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the
meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 3 of 43
1 cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate.
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 4 of 43
The following individuals were sworn in: 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Greg Andrews
Frederick L. McAdoo
Keith Askew
LaToya Wilkins
Mickey Purcell
Adele Mittelstadt
Stan Smith
Jay Parker
Dickie Andrews
Katherine Cole
B. Moore Kuller
Michael Harvey: Mr. Andrews and I have a relationship outside this office. Mr. Andrews is a contractor who has
worked at my mother’s house and when my mother passed away and I inherited it he continued to work on the
residence and is currently engaged in a construction project at the residence in question. It is important that you
understand that we have a relationship that will obviously not influence my decision or will not influence my testimony
here.
Michael Harvey then presented the case.
5. A-4-10 – Recreational Facility (Non-Profit) – baseball field on property located
at the intersection of Gaines Chapel Road and Southern Drive.
Ms. Shannon Andrews is requesting the issuance of a Class B Special Use Permit to allow for the development of a
Recreational Facility (Non-Profit) on two (2) parcels of property located at the intersection of Gaines Chapel Road and
Southern Drive.
Specifically, the application proposes the development of a baseball field on a two (2) acre parcel (TMBL 3.35.C.6
/ PIN 9844-67-9028) and a point seven (.7) acre parcel (TMBL 3.35.C.6A / PIN 9844-77-1102) owned by the
Junious Loftin Heirs.
As detailed within the application, local residents originally used the properties as a baseball field. The applicant is
seeking to re-establish this use and develop a small concession stand housing storage, office, and bathroom facilities.
Michael Harvey: On page 37, you have staff’s abstract concerning the case. This abstract has abstract Attachment A
beginning on page 45 of the application. Within this portion, you will find the narrative, the report issued by Mr. Vic
Knight concerning the Impact Analysis for the development of this proposed athletic field. Attachment B is an aerial
photograph denoting the two properties subject to this application. Attachment C is staff’s correspondence including
memorandum from the Orange County Health Department, memorandum from the Orange County Fire Marshall and
our correspondence to the property owners. Attachment D is our Findings of Fact. Also, you have a statement before
you required by the Orange County Planning staff submitted by the applicant in accordance with requirement for
Section 8.8.21.1 Subsection E, the statement indicating there should be no adverse impact. The applicant is required
to reaffirm what is going to be occurring on the property. In this case, it will be a baseball and softball field. The
applicant is stipulating they will not allow this parcel of property be rented out for special events such as concerts,
carnivals, yard sales, fundraisers, etc. or any land use inconsistent with the proposed recreational use as delineated
on your site plan and contained within this application. Further, the applicant has written within the statement there will
not be any outdoor athletics erected as part of this application. You also have offers for sale and purchase executed
by Shannon and Greg Andrews. Greg Andrews being Ms. Andrews’ husband of THD Construction and Junious Loftin.
Staff required that as proof that the Loftin heirs had to sell the property to the Andrews based on this application.
Thomas Brown: Should these be entered in as exhibits or included as part of the package?
Michael Harvey: As part of the package and staff will move it at an appropriate time for the formation of the record
from staff’s standpoint.
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 5 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Larry Wright: On page 38, you referred to Attachment A and on our handout they are listed as Attachments 1, 2, 3 and
4. I think that should be clarified.
Michael Harvey: It is Attachment A.
Larry Wright: Also, in the packet, on page 72, I was confused about this on the top of page 72, it says description of
proposed kennel site and I believe we are talking about this application and not the next one.
Michael Harvey: That is an error generated in Mr. Knight’s report. The only thing I will comment is you will note for the
record that the rest of this application goes on to describe the property at the intersection of Gaines Chapel Road and
Southern Drive for the development of a baseball field. That is an error we don’t see often from Mr. Knight.
Greg Andrews: My name is Greg Andrews and I live in Efland and run a construction company in Efland.
Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, point of clarification, as each individual stands, if they could state their name, where
they live and indicate they have been sworn in for the record.
Greg Andrews: I have been sworn in. I have two small kids that play ball. One plays tee ball and the other plays
softball. One thing I noticed that Orange County was missing was a fall softball so this year in partnering up with
HYAA, we were able to start the first softball league in Orange County other than rec ball and I’m very proud of the
support from the community. We have had a lot of teams come out. As any group that we have supported from
Orange High School and any softball camps or boy scout troops that I have supported through the years I have always
been an advocate of supporting the community in the different things our children do because my heart believes that is
where our future is, with our children. The Loftin ball field is one of the oldest ball fields in Orange County and is
probably one of the only all minority ball fields started back in the late 60s and early 70s. As softball moves on in
Orange County, we will have to have more ball fields. Right now, HYAA turns down about 100 kids actively a year
because there is not enough room for the kids to play. The fall softball brought in about 71 kids which was more than
we thought we would get. When the spring comes, we will need more ball fields. Part of giving back to the
community, my construction company has prospered through a lot of times and I owe a lot of that to the community, so
one thing my wife and I decided to do with Mr. Loftin was, when the opportunity came about for my wife and I to buy
the ball field and start a non-profit organization and let HYAA come up and we are going to have a community ballpark
and not charge anyone to come play. I appreciate your consideration.
Thomas Brown: I think we had other issues on plans and elevations.
Michael Harvey: Mr. Andrews has a handout for you.
Greg Andrews: These are the lease agreements between HYAA and my wife and I. Also, on the back page are
pictures of what we are proposing the dugout to look like.
Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, this should be entered into record as Applicant Exhibit 1.
Thomas Brown: What are these photographs depicting?
Greg Andrews: Those are the dugouts. I went down to look at the ball fields around Orange County from Schley to
Collins and these are the dugouts at the Exchange Club and they look close enough to what we are thinking about.
Thomas Brown: You are proposing that your dugouts will look similar to what is in the photo?
Greg Andrews: Yes.
Larry Wright: The intent is, because we haven’t had the privilege of reading it before, could you briefly state what your
take home message is from this exhibit?
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 6 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Greg Andrews: The dugouts already exist but they have deteriorated and are no longer safe. So the fencing for the
field is in place and in good shape. We want to rebuild the dugouts that were already there. In that picture, they show
metal posts which is not structurally what we would do. It would have 4x4 cornered posts and chain link fence with a
metal roof.
Thomas Brown: What about the concession area, what would that be composed of?
Greg Andrews: The cinder blocks that are there are actually in sound condition. The roof itself has deteriorated so we
would build it back and put a metal roof on it.
Thomas Brown: The existing cinder block would remain and you would replace the roof?
Greg Andrews: Yes.
Larry Wright: Is it a cement floor?
Greg Andrews: Yes. Mr. McAdoo told me that the second floor was not actually in use on the building but it was set
up so you could call the games from the second floor so the second floor is….it is a two story building. The bottom is
a concession so we would rebuild back the middle floor so you call the games from the top.
Larry Wright: So there is sound amplification there?
Greg Andrews: Yes sir.
James Carter: Will there be limited access to the field, how is that set up? Who could use the ball field?
Greg Andrews: That is something I have worked a lot with HYAA because HYAA and the rec department are the only
two leagues playing ball in Orange County but if you notice in the agreements I set up so law enforcement and EMS
and fire department can use it on notice and we are not restricting it just to HYAA. One of the things that the residents
on the west side of Orange County is that we have lacked in the community ball fields and activities and that is the
area I live in so we are hoping to pick up a lot more people who can afford to play ball there who can’t afford it that live
n the Cheeks district and ride out to Schley and travel to Orange County. HYAA will be the only field in softball and
baseball and if there are any other teams who want to play, we will have a schedule that they can get on to play ball.
Larry Wright: For the sound amplification, is the concession stand facing the railroad?
Greg Andrews: It faces the back of home plate so if you look on the back of what Mr. Knight did, you will see home
plate.
Larry Wright: If sound was amplified, it would go toward Southern Drive and the railroad and not toward the Enoch
property or the Benson property?
Greg Andrews: Yes sir.
Larry Wright: I was there today and I think I saw the property. There are trees there and there is a black chain link
fence around it and then a gravel road with orange flags?
Greg Andrews: Yes.
Larry Wright: The parking would be off West Street? There are 13 spaces here?
Greg Andrews: Yes.
Larry Wright: Then you said there would be 55 maximum people probably at the game at any one time. Would they
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 7 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
all be coming by car? If that is so, that would be about four people per car.
Greg Andrews: To have 55 would be at the changing of games, that is what we were trying to calculate. There is not
55 at one game but in the transference of one team and the parents and the kids to the other is how we came up with
the 55. With the parking space, they would only be parking half that amount.
Larry Wright: Would there be children coming by bicycle? I’m not sure how these games are organized.
Greg Andrews: A lot of them car pool because of the limited space. There is a tremendous amount of kids that live in
the neighborhood around Efland that would get there by bicycles and they walk.
Michael Harvey: When staff began their initial review of the site plan, one concern we had expressed to the Andrews’
was that access off Southern Drive is undesirable because of the proximity to Mr. Enoch’s property as well as the
potential problem of what happens as the North Carolina Railroad right of way is expanded to accommodate additional
rail line and we didn’t want to propose a means of ingress and egress off a road that could disappear since we don’t
have rights to it. Southern Railroad could get rid of that right of way in its entirety and we wanted to, from our
standpoint, keep the way for Mr. Enoch’s property whose structure is fairly close to the side property line. We
suggested West Street because there is dedicated means of ingress and egress according to the deeds of this
property. Also, there is a better chance of establishing and protecting existing buffer and landscape.
Mark Micol: So it is the assumption that if you have overflow parking during an event, it will be off the Gaines Chapel
Road. There is no problem parking on that road during an overflow.
Michael Harvey: I haven’t heard of any situation or expressed concern from any county staff person or NCDOT on
that issue and we will get some conditions that might address that concern a little later.
Larry Wright: I am quite confused where West Street is and where that gravel road is.
Michael Harvey: If you will look on page 93 of your application, there is a color aerial photo, West Street is essentially
to the south and there is gravel road leading essentially to the end of Mr. Enoch’s property to the south and the
roadway does actually meander on both the subject parcel and within the right of way that is called West Street.
Thomas Brown: I know you wanted to address some other issues but there were a couple of sections that were not
totally present in the package concerning plans and elevations, descriptions of the color, nature of exterior materials. I
think your handout gives us an idea of what it is going to look like but I think it needs to be formally addressed. Mr.
Harvey, do you want to take that on now or discuss that?
Michael Harvey: I’ll discuss it upon the board’s completion of the questions of Mr. Andrews and of those who have
asked to speak.
Thomas Brown: Is there additional testimony in support of the ball field at this time?
Frederick McAdoo: I live in Efland on the north side of the track. I have been sworn. I actually grew up on both sides
of the track. My grandparents lived just around the curve and that is where we played ball for years. It wasn’t a big
field but somewhere to play ball. I think Mr. Andrews and his wife are bringing something to the community for kids to
play ball. I never seen where there should be an issue with this generation in bringing something to the community
and doesn’t cost a fortune. He is willing to take it upon himself, his wife and family to put this much into a ball field. I
think everybody I can speak for, my sister lives on that side, welcomes him and the ball field to the community. We
have a lot of kids in the community that cannot afford to pay $45 and $50 to play. I see so many kids throwing a base
ball and softball standing around the fence because their parents are mostly single parents who can’t afford $50 per
child when they have two kids or three so if he is bringing this to the community at a lower cost or rate or donation, I
approve. Thank you.
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 8 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Michael Harvey: The next person I have signed up to speak is Mr. Keith Askew.
Keith Askew: I live in Hillsborough and I have been sworn in. My role is treasurer of HYAA which is Hillsborough
Youth Athletic Association. In the spring seasons, we have over 500 children playing baseball at HYAA... the number
is growing. As you know this area has grown a lot in the past 10 years and continues to grow and we are growing with
it. As Mr. Andrews indicated, we added softball and we were able to juggle some of the schedules between fields
because in the fall, we don’t have as many kids playing baseball as we do in the spring. It will be a real issue with
fields for us in the spring because we are going to have those 500 kids plus playing softball in the spring. Having an
additional field and the generosity of the Andrews, I think it is really impressive for this area. I moved here in 2003 and
I see that because land is so valuable here we can’t turn property into baseball and football fields and soccer fields.
We certainly have the opportunity to alleviate some of the issues we had in baseball with HYAA and it does mostly
center around the field.
Michael Harvey: The last individual to speak is Ms. Latoya Wilkins.
Latoya Wilkins: I live in the Cheeks area and I have been sworn in. My youngest daughter plays for Shannon
Andrews and it has been great because sometimes she has to take my child to practice because it is pretty far for me
to get off work and get her there. For it to be close by and run and pick her up and get her home at a decent time for
bed is good because of school. At first, we had it in Alamance County because it wasn’t too much going on with less
teams and we were playing there but I really wanted something close by and for us to play and have a lot more teams
because we are playing with three teams and we all play each other so if we could add more teams it would be really
good. I would appreciate it greatly if everything goes well with Mr. and Mrs. Andrews.
Michael Harvey: That is all that has been signed up to speak.
Thomas Brown: Do any of the board members have any questions for those who have spoken.
Mark Micol: I have a question for Mr. McAdoo. You have lived here all your life. Over the years, when the field was in
operation the first time, were there any complaints from adjacent property owners or neighbors or traffic at that time?
Frederick McAdoo: No. When we grew up and played at Ms. Ella Watson’s so that was our thing as the older
generation. We had to play ball on a Saturday and Sunday after church on the other side because they looked
forward to that so you never had any complaints because if you have young kids in the community aware they are
doing something and having fun, you will get more smiles out of your neighbors than if you were to put up a shooting
range or a 20 story building. It is not where you will have someone to say I wish they would stop playing ball. There is
only 10 or 12 residences that’s occupied. I don’t think you will have that issue because my sister lives on that side and
I talked to her before.
Larry Wright: Does she know there will be sound amplification there?
Frederick McAdoo: She likes baseball, she lived in New York. If they listen to that plane go by they can listen to the
innings in a ballgame.
Michael Harvey: I will request my abstract amended as follows be entered into the record. Page 38 change the
reference from Attachment One to Attachment A. For some reason I had my numbers and letters confused, and then
beginning on page 43 change the attached accordingly the application, Attachment One changed to Attachment A,
Aerial Photo map, change from Attachment Two to Attachment B, staff correspondence changed from Attachment
Three to Attachment C and the Findings of Fact changed from Attachment Four to Attachment B. I would also request
you enter into the record, staff’s handout from earlier this evening specifically the Statement of Intent concerning the
development of the non-profit recreation facility and the contract agreements. I ask you submit this as part of the
abstract and include a certified copy of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance enforced at the time of submittal of this
application. If you have questions, please interrupt. I would like to begin by taking the board through page 40 of the
application which is part of the abstract.
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 9 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
The applicant is required to adhere to the submittal requirements and design criteria standards as detailed within
8.8.21.1 and 8.8.21.2. Their first requirement is a description of the exact type of facility plan, the amount of area
including the number of members or participants expected, the site plan citing the size of existing and proposed
buildings. As part of this application, we do have a site plan and a narrative that fulfills this requirement, Subsection B,
access, parking, service and recreation areas for all planned or existing facilities. Both the site plan and the narrative
provide this level of detail. Subsection C, plans and elevation for all proposed and existing structures and descriptions
of the color and nature of all exterior materials. The applicant has provided you something and I would respectfully
request that you allow me to suggest a condition at an appropriate time concerning adherence to this standard. While
the applicant has submitted detail I think some additional information is required which I believe can be handled and I
want to propose a condition. The next condition, a landscape plan showing at the same scale as the site plan, existing
and proposed trees, shrubs, and ground cover. We have a unique situation here in that the applicant wants to hold
himself to a higher standard than the ordinance currently exists. They are required to provide a 20 foot landscape
buffer for Article 12 of the existing zoning ordinance. What Mr. Andrews has elected to do instead of just providing a
buffer that meets those standards, he is actually incorporating and adopting language that will be in the proposed
Unified Development Ordinance by asking the board to impose a condition that would allow Mr. Andrews to develop a
landscape plan in accordance and consistent with recommendations from Orange County Planning Staff and the
Orange County Cooperative Extension Office to identify plants and utilize native vegetation that is drought tolerant that
would also address concerns that we would have in working with the local utility company concerning the power line
easement. We have recommended that a condition be imposed on this landscape plan which I will address in a
moment. I would like to stipulate that Mr. and Mrs. Andrews voluntarily incorporated a requirement that is in the
proposed UDO in terms of working with Cooperative Extension to have a landscape and buffer plan that actually made
use of indigenous local vegetation that was drought tolerant and tried to respect the existing power line instead of just
planting trees that the current ordinance would allow that we know would get mowed down because it is near a power
line easement. The next subsection E, a signed statement from the owners or operators that there shall be no activity
allowed that will have adverse affects on adjacent property. Mr. Andrews submitted that this evening to staff which we
have given you a copy and it has been entered into the record. We believe it is consistent and adheres or satisfies the
condition of Subsection E.
At the bottom of page 41, standards of evaluation per Section 8.8.21.2, the first requirement is the lot size shall be
adequate for the method of sewage disposal proposed, and for the proposed recreational uses. We are finding in the
affirmative based on the memorandum supplied to the Orange County Health Department and attachment 3 there is
also a condition associated with this which I will go over in a moment. The site plan, number 2, should show the
boundaries of the site, the distances to the nearest residential structures, proposed or existing access points, parking
and service areas, location of outdoor recreational facilities and location of existing or proposed buildings. We attest
the site plan provides the required data. At the top of page 42, The landscape plan shall be at the same scale, I am
not going to rehash what I had commented on the landscape plan, elevations of all structures and buildings. Again, I
will propose a condition that addresses my concerns for this point. Finally, there are no adverse impacts on the
adjacent roads or residential property which I believe is addressed in their statements. This is ultimately up for the
Board’s consideration but I believe he has met the requirements of the ordinance.
It is my opinion that recreational facilities are permitted in the zoning district where this property is located. The Health
Department has indicated there are no concerns for the proposed use or portable toilets at this facility although they
have recommended a condition which Mr. & Mrs. Andrews have agreed to which I will go over in a moment. From
staff’s perspective, the proposed operation of this facility complies with the intent and purpose of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan specifically the 10 year transition area which this property is located. You will note within the
applicant’s narrative they have provided documentation they feel their policies and goals of the comprehensive plan
that support the development of this facility which staff concurs with. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the Board
through attachment D, beginning on page 107, the Findings of Fact.
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 10 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Larry Wright: Please note at the top of page 116, “Class II Kennel”.
Michael Harvey: On page 116, Section 8.8.21.1 Subsection C, Plans and elevation for all purposed and existing
structures. Mr. Chairman, I am going to make a finding of Yes with a condition that I will review later. We have heard
no evidence or been provided no evidence that would lead staff to make a negative finding of any of the items on page
116.
Michael Harvey: I would ask that you consider renumbering recommendations number 7 and 8 after the following
conditions are discussions and adhered to, I have three or four additional conditions I would like to recommend.
7) The applicant, within 60 days, would submit a revised impact study completed by Mr. Knight correcting the error
identified by the staff and Board of Adjustment correcting the misidentification of the proposed used of the
property (i.e. Class II Kennel).
8) Submission of the detail for the facilities developed on this property that as part of the building permit
application, the applicant, based on his testimony, submit sufficient detail renderings including the color and
nature of all proposed exterior materials to be utilized for all structures on the property for review and approval
by the planning staff to ensure compliance with submitted testimony that the facility would be consistent with
those buildings and facilities at the Exchange Club.
9) As part of the driveway permit for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, that Mr. Andrews work with
the county and DOT to include directional signs allotting entrance and exit to the facility.
10) Facility to comply to all applicable noise standards as enforced by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department
regarding any amplified voices or other disturbances on the property.
Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, if those conditions are imposed, Staff’s recommendation is to approve as modified.
Thomas Brown: On item 8, were you intending that to include 8.8.21.1.c and 8.8.2.21.1.d?
Michael Harvey: Yes sir. I will be happy to answer any more questions from the board reminding the board that once
you close the public hearing, you are not allowed to ask questions of the applicant or staff. You are deliberating.
Larry Wright: On page 97, from Mr. Konsler, the health department, the facility would be prohibited from any form of
food handling or food preparation on the site so the concession stand would have to be packaged food because there
would be no way to sanitize this with soap and water?
Michael Harvey: Yes.
Larry Wright: I go up and down 86 and I see people in their homes and they just have fish fries out there so what
would happen if a team wanted to have a neighborhood party? This has been a property historically that seems like
the neighborhood has moved in and when there is people that wanted to get together to play ball or whatever they did
so what would happen if they set up a fish fry?
Michael Harvey: Dr. Wright, if at the conclusion of the game, teams wanted to have a fish fry for consumption by the
local residents or the local people playing there, it would be my assertion that they would have to obtain approval from
the health department for the apparatus to be used as part of that activity and they would have to, as we have done in
other instances, sign waivers and statements that absolve the health department from all liability. What can’t happen
is Mr. Andrews cannot be preparing food at the concession stand for sale without going through an appropriate
process in order to ensure there is adequate septic and/or sewage capacity. If they voluntarily decide to do something
where they understand the risks and have approval from the health department for the facility they are proposing and
it is not selling to the general public or inviting the general public onto to the property to buy it then I think it would be
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 11 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
legal under the health department guidelines.
Larry Wright: I find it curious that there seem to be spontaneous fish fries that go on and it doesn’t seem …. I have
been trained in microbiology and I don’t understand all this.
Thomas Brown: Do the other board members have any other questions of Mr. Harvey or any of the testimony prior to
the closing of this case to the public?
Larry Wright: When I visited that site, I did not see a sign of notification that this was coming before the board on that
parcel.
Michael Harvey: We posted the sign and it was removed. We don’t know why or how… within a couple of days of
being posted. We have had similar problems with similar sites. Let me stipulate that one of the reasons we have to
go through the arduous advertisement process we do is because signs disappear which is why we send out certified
letters to all the adjacent property owners and advertise in the paper. We had a similar problem, in the next case and
on a case two months ago with the dog kennel on Davis.
James Carter: To Mr. Andrews, I applaud your interest in creating something positive for the neighborhood.
Michael Harvey: When Mr. and Mrs. Andrews began talking about this, the obvious question since it was a ball field
and used as a ball field at one point in time, why do we need a Class B Special Use Permit to reestablish the ball field.
It was my determination that since the use had been dormant for several years, that it lost any status in order to claim
that it had been a recreational facility based on the current definition of the ordinance and as such, in my mind, they
had no choice but to come through this process.
Larry Wright: This is submitted jointly with the HYAA?
Michael Harvey: HYAA is partnering with the Andrews’ and HYAA will be the predominate user of the field according to
the application.
Larry Wright: And it is under lease agreement?
Michael Harvey: Correct.
Larry Wright: If for some reason, this lease was no longer renewed, would the spirit of this ball field still be a
neighborhood ball field? Would it be inclusive of what the spirit of it was in the 60’s and the 70’s as a place for the
youth to get together and would not be taken over by adult games. It was brought to us as a community endeavor and
the spirit of it is to have a facility for the youth to have constructive athletic events. In the event that lease is broken or
not be renewed, would that still exist or is that not germane to what we decide here?
Michael Harvey: I think the application and the narrative, as I recall, is broken down twofold. One it talks about this
cooperative relationship with HYAA and also providing opportunity for local kids to engage in softball/baseball
activities. I think the applicant is voluntarily committing themselves to providing a recreational amenity geared and
focused towards the provision of this field primarily for the use of local children. The HYAA lease agreement and their
use of the facility is not secondary because it is a joint partnership. I think it is a benefit and if it dissolves, I think there
is sufficient detail in the narrative and the application package that commits the use of this facility primarily as a place
for the local children to play ball.
Thomas Brown: The public hearing portion of case number A-4-10 is now closed. I would like to thank staff, applicant
and citizens for their time and thoughtful testimony. We have heard the testimony of the applicant and the staff. The
applicant has made a request for the Special Use Permit to operate a non-profit recreational facility specially a ball
field. Testimony and evidence has been provided during this hearing and has been noted that there will be no ball
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 12 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
field lighting and no night time events. The board now has the responsibility of deciding the Special Use Permit
request based on the testimony provided. Before asking for motions, does the board wish to discuss or comment
among themselves? We will be going through the specific and general standards for determination which are
contained on pages 109 through 119 in the packet. We will first review the specific standards beginning at the bottom
of page 109 and entertain motions concerning the approval of the staff recommended findings. After the specific
findings, we will turn to the general standards on page 119. The motions on the general standards must include a
factual basis for the motion. The board will then review the staff recommendations on page 120 and then a final
motion on approval or denial of case A-4-10 to include conditions if appropriate will be required. Let’s begin on page
109 on the specific standards. The chair will entertain a motion on these standards. You can go page by page or
Article by Article.
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 13 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF
PERTAINING TO REQUEST SUBMITTED BY SHANNON ANDREWS
REQUESTING A CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A
RECREATIONAL FACILITY – NON PROFIT (BASEBALL FIELD)
FOR TWO PARCELS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT
THE INTERSECTION OF GAINES CHAPEL ROAD AND SOUTHERN DRIVE
(PIN 9844-67-9028 and PIN 9844-77-1102)
Special Uses must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8.
Article 8.2.1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following:
(1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where
proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted;
(2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public
necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous
property); and
(3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in
harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for
the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners;
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following specific
standards:
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined within
Section(s) 8.6 and 8.8 of the Ordinance,
(2) Applicable provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of
Dimensional Requirements) of the Ordinance.
(3) Section 8.2.4 relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a. Sewage disposal facilities,
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site,
(4) Specific regulations governing the development of individual Special Uses as set forth in Article
8.8, specifically Section 8.8.21 Recreational Facilities of the Ordinance.
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 14 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application in question.
The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of Adjustment in its
deliberations.
ARTICLE 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 7
8
FINDINGS
Planning Staff
Recommending
Findings:
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Board of Adjustment
Findings:
Ordinance Requirements
8.6 - Application submitted on forms
providing full and accurate description
of proposed use, including location,
appearance and operational
characteristics.
x Yes _____No A complete application on
appropriate forms has been
submitted.
x Yes _____No
8.8 a) - Ten (10) copies of the site
plan prepared by a registered land
surveyor, architect, or engineer.
x Yes _____No Ten (10) copies of the site plan,
prepared by Carolina Cornerstone
were submitted
x Yes _____No
8.8 b) - Elevations of all proposed
structures to be used in the
development.
x Yes _____No Proposed structures are shown on
the site plan. The application
contains renderings of the proposed
buildings
x Yes _____No
8.8 c) - Ten (10) copies of the
Environmental Assessment and/or
Environmental Impact Statement, if
required, by the Orange County
Environmental Impact Ordinance.
Not applicable – An EIS
statement is not required by
the Orange County
Environmental Impact
Ordinance as the proposed
amount of land disturbance
is under the minimum
amount necessary to
warrant an EIS statement
Not applicable – An EIS statement is
not required by the Orange County
Environmental Impact Ordinance as
the proposed amount of disturbance
is under the minimum amount
necessary to warrant an EIS
statement
__x_ Not Applicable
8.8 d) - A fee, as set by the Orange
County Board of Commissioners.
x Yes _____No The application fee has been paid. x Yes _____No
9
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 15 of 43
1
ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (“Yes” indicates compliance; “No” indicates non -compliance) 2
3
FINDINGS
Planning Staff
Recommending
Findings:
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Board of Adjustment
Findings:
Ordinance Requirements:
Article 5 lists standards for minimum
lot size, lot width, front, side and rear
setbacks, maximum building height
and lot coverage, and development
intensity.
The applicant has applied for a
Special Use Permit on property zoned
Agricultural Residential (AR). The
standards for the AR district are set
forth in Article 5.1.2 and are as
follows:
a) Minimum lot area per use 40,000
sq. ft.
x Yes _____No The property is zoned Agricultural
Residential (AR) and Rural
Residential One (R-1) both requiring
a minimum lot area of 40,000 square
feet. There are approximately 2.8
acres in the tract.
x Yes _____No
b) Minimum lot width - 150 ft.
x Yes _____No The lot has over 360 feet of frontage
along Southern Drive and 300 feet of
frontage along Gaines Chapel Road
x Yes _____No
c) Required front setback - 40 ft.
x Yes _____No The proposed structures comply with
the setback requirement
x Yes _____No
d) Required side and rear setbacks -
20 ft.
X Yes _____No The proposed structures comply with
the setback requirement
x Yes _____No
e) Maximum building height - 25 ft.
x Yes _____No The proposed facilities as shown
within the submitted renderings are
compliant with the maximum height
requirements.
x Yes _____No
4
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 16 of 43
ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 1
(“Yes” indicates compliance; “No” indicates non -compliance) 2
3
4
FINDINGS
Planning Staff
Recommending
Findings:
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Board of Adjustment
Findings:
Ordinance Requirements:
Article 6 lists specific standards that
apply to various types of development
applications.
Article 6.12 contains those
development intensity standards
which apply to group developments
controlled by the Land Use Intensity
(LUI) system
a) Minimum gross land area - N/A
Not applicable – This
proposed project is not
subject to the requirements
of Article 6.12 of the Zoning
Ordinance with respect to
the minimum gross land
area requirement
Not applicable – This proposed
project is not subject to the
requirements of Article 6.12 of the
Zoning Ordinance with respect to the
minimum gross land area
requirement
_x__ Not Applicable
b) Maximum gross land area - N/A
Not applicable – This
proposed project is not
subject to the requirements
of Article 6.12 of the Zoning
Ordinance with respect to
the maximum gross land
area requirement
Not applicable – This proposed
project is not subject to the
requirements of Article 6.12 of the
Zoning Ordinance with respect to the
maximum gross land area
requirement
_x__ Not Applicable
c) Maximum floor ratio - .088 or
10,733 sq feet of allowable floor area
_X_ Yes ___No
The site plan indicates that
the proposed floor area of
the for the boarding facility
and covered arena are
approximately 756 sq feet.
Staff has determined that
the proposal is consistent
with the permitted Maximum
Floor Area Ratio limits
In utilizing the information supplied
on the site plan, the Board finds that
the applicant’s proposal complies
with the Maximum Floor Ratio limit of
.088 per Section 5.1.2 and Section
6.12.2.3 of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance
__x__Yes _____ No
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 17 of 43
1
d) Required minimum open space
ratio - .84
Required minimum open space –
102,453 sq. ft.
_X_ Yes ___No
Staff has utilized the
submitted site plan and
calculated the existing open
space on the property and
verified that there is
approximately 110,698
square feet of open space
on the property.
Staff has determined that
the proposal is consistent
with the required Open
Space Ratio
In utilizing the information supplied
on the site plan, the Board finds that
the applicant’s proposal complies
with the Required Minimum Open
Space Ratio requirement of .84 per
Section 5.1.2 and Section 6.12.2.4 of
the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance.
__x___Yes _____ No
e) Required minimum
pedestrian/landscape ratio - .21
Required minimum pedestrian/
landscape space – 25,613 sq. ft.
_X_ Yes ___No
Staff has utilized the
submitted site plan and
calculated the existing
landscaped area on the
property and verified that
there is approximately
28,420 square feet, of
pedestrian/landscaped area
as defined under Section
6.12.3 of the Orange
County Zoning Ordinance
Staff has determined that
the proposal is consistent
with the required Minimum
Pedestrian/Landscape
space.
In utilizing the information supplied
on the site plan, the Board finds that
the applicant’s proposal complies
with the Required Minimum
Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio of .21
per Section 5.1.2 and Section 6.12.3
of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance
__x___Yes _____ No
2
3
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 18 of 43
1
ARTICLE 8.2.4 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS/ALL SPECIAL USES 2
(“Yes” indicates compliance; “No” indicates non -compliance) (continued) 3
4
FINDINGS
Planning Staff
Recommending
Findings:
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Board of Adjustment
Findings:
Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant to
address the following:
a) Method and adequacy of provision
for sewage disposal facilities, solid
waste and water service.
x Yes _____No Information contained within
Attachment Three (3) of the abstract
completed by staff indicate that the
Health Department finds the
proposed sewage disposal methods
acceptable.
With respect to solid waste disposal,
the applicant has indicated that he
will contract with a private firm for the
removal and disposal of waste.
According to staff this is acceptable
with respect to the requirements of
the Ordinance
x Yes _____No
b) Method and adequacy of police, fire
and rescue squad protection.
x Yes _____No The Efland Rural Fire Department
will provide fire protection.
Rescue services will be provided by
Orange County EMS.
The Orange County Sheriff’s
Department shall provide police
protection.
Based on letters/memorandum
contained within Attachment Three
(3) of the abstract, staff has asserted
that these services can be
adequately provided to support the
proposed use.
x Yes _____No
c) Method and adequacy of vehicle
access to the site and traffic
conditions around the site.
x Yes _____No The site plan indicates the lot is
accessed through a driveway onto
Gaines Chapel Road.
NC DOT has indicated that a
driveway permit can be issued
allowing for the existing driveway to
be used to support the hoarse
boarding and training facility.
They cannot issue final approval until
there is an approved site plan. This
should be a condition of approval.
x Yes _____No
5
6
7
8
9
MOTION made by David Blankfard to approve the following, Articles 8.6, 8.8a-8.8d, Articles 5a-e, Articles 6a-e, Articles
8.2.4a-8.2.4c. Seconded by James Carter.
VOTE: Unanimous
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 19 of 43
1
ARTICLE 8.8.21 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (S-34) (Class B Special Use) 2
(“Yes” indicates compliance; “No” indicates non -compliance) (continued) 3
4
FINDINGS
Planning Staff
Recommending
Findings:
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Board of Adjustment
Findings:
In addition to the information required
by Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the
following shall be submitted as part of
the application in order to determine
compliance with the site specific
development requirements for a Class
II Kennel as outlined within Section
8.8.21 of the Ordinance:
Section 8.8.21.1
a) A description of the exact
type facility planned, the amount of
area, including and number of
members or participants expected, a
site plan showing siting and size of
existing and proposed building.
x Yes _____No The submitted site plan and
application narrative provides the
required information.
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.21.1
b) Access, parking, service and
recreation areas for all planned
facilities or existing facilities.
x Yes _____No The submitted site plan provides all
essential information as required
under Section 8.8.21.1(b)
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.21.1
c) Plans, and elevation for all
proposed and existing structures and
descriptions of the color and nature of
all exterior materials.
x_ Yes ____No The applicant has indicated this
information will be supplied at the
hearing
x Yes _____No
5
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 20 of 43
1
Section 8.8.21.1
d) A landscape plan showing,
at the same scale as the site
plan, existing and proposed
trees, shrubs, ground cover
and any other landscape
materials
X Yes _____No The site plan provides information
detailing the required landscaping.
Existing vegetation shall be
preserved to comply with the
mandatory twenty (20) foot Type A
Land Use Buffer.
The applicant has requested, and
staff can support, a request to
complete a formal landscape plan
once the applicant received approval
for the project and can consult with
an arborist with the local Cooperative
Extension Office to select native
species of foliage that are drought
tolerant.
By requesting this, the applicant is
technically holding themselves to a
higher development standard than
currently contained within the
Ordinance.
Staff recommends this as a condition
of approval
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.21.1
e) A signed statement from the
owners or operators that there shall
be no activity allowed that will have
adverse effects on adjacent property.
The statement shall also include a
complete list of all recreational
activities that will take place on the
site.
x Yes _____No The application contains this detail
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.21.2
a) Lot size shall be adequate for the
method of sewage disposal proposed,
and for the proposed recreational uses
x Yes _____No Based on the memorandum supplied
by the Orange County Health
Department staff believes that this
standard can be met
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.21.2
b) The site plan should show the
boundaries of the site, the distances to
the nearest residential structures,
proposed or existing access points,
parking and service areas, location of
outdoor recreational facilities, and
location of existing or proposed
buildings
x Yes _____No The site plan provides this detail
x Yes _____No
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 21 of 43
1
Section 8.8.21.2
c) The landscape plan shall be at the
same scale as the site plan and
should show how the facilities will be
screened from the adjacent properties,
in addition to proposed or existing
trees, shrubs and ground cover
x Yes _____No The site plan provides this detail.
Staff still recommends the imposition
of the above referenced condition.
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.21.2
d) Elevations of all structures and
buildings. The structure shall be of
such a nature as to preserve the
residential character of the area
Yes _____No The applicant has indicated this
information will be supplied at the
hearing
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.21.2
e) There are no adverse impacts on
the adjacent roads or residential
property.
x Yes _____No Based on the orientation of the field
and the proposed landscaping, staff
does not believe this will be an issue
x Yes _____No
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MOTION made by David Blankfard to find in the affirmative sections 8.8.21.1 on pages 116 and 117. Seconded by
James Carter.
VOTE: Unanimous
Thomas Brown: On the specific standards, all we need to do is affirm the yes. On item “c” you need to have a
condition on the yes in the affirmative will have a condition that will be addressed in the conditions phase. If you would
like to restate your motion.
David Blankfard: I will retract my motion
MOTION made by Larry Wright to find in the affirmative for the applicant and with staff's recommendation for Section
8.8.21.1a-8.8.21.1c on page 116, Section 8.8.21.1.d on page 117, Section 8.8.21.1.e on page 117 and Section
8.8.21.2 on page 117, on page 118, Section 8.8.21.2b, 8.8.21.2c, 8.8.21.2e. Seconded by David Blankfard.
VOTE: Unanimous
Thomas Brown: We will have to deal with page 116 for "c" and page 118 for "d" separately and we can have a motion
for those with conditions.
MOTION made by David Blankfard to agree with staff's recommendation with conditions of the affirmative for Articles
8.8.21.1c on page 118 as well as 8.8.21.2d. Seconded by James Carter.
VOTE: Unanimous
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 22 of 43
1
ARTICLE 8.2.1 & 8.2.2 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS 2
(“Will” indicates compliance; “Will Not” indicates non -compliance) 3
4
FINDINGS
Planning Staff
Recommending
Findings:
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Board of Adjustment
Findings:
Ordinance Requirements
In accordance with Article 8.2.1 and
8.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Board of Adjustment shall also
consider the following general
conditions before the application for a
Special Use can be approved:
Article 8.2.1 & 8.2.2
1. The use will maintain or promote
the public health, safety and
general welfare, if located where
proposed and developed and
operated according to the plan as
submitted.
To be determined by Board after
receiving evidence to be
submitted or heard at public
hearing.
Will ___Will Not
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Thomas Brown: On page 119, we have the general standards and these are the standards where we must include
factual basis for the motion. There are three portions.
MOTION made by Mark Micol to find in favor of the applicant in that the use will maintain or promote the public health,
safety and welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted based
on testimony of local resident Mr. McAdoo and HYAA official Mr. Askew stating that the project as proposed would be
of great social value to the surrounding area and open to a broad portion of the population as well as making sports
more affordable for the children of Orange County . Seconded by David Blankfard.
VOTE: Unanimous
Article 8.2.1
2. The use will maintain or enhance
the value of contiguous property
(unless the use is a public
necessity, in which case the use
need not maintain or enhance the
value of contiguous property).
To be determined by Board after
receiving evidence to be
submitted or heard at public
hearing.
Will ___Will Not
17
18
19
20
21
MOTION made by David Blankfard to agree with the applicant that the use will maintain or enhance the value of the
contiguous properties based on the impact analysis by Mr. Knight with the amended report by Mr. Knight. Seconded
by Larry Wright.
VOTE: Unanimous
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 23 of 43
1
Article 8.2.1
3. The location and character of the
use, if developed according to the
plan submitted, will be in harmony
with the area in which it is to be
located and the use is in
compliance with the general plan
for the physical development of the
County as embodied in these
regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or portion
thereof, adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
To be determined by Board after
receiving evidence to be
submitted or heard at public
hearing.
Is
___ Is Not
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MOTION made by Larry Wright that this application and the site of this is in a location in character of its use. The
history that has been in testimony here has shown that this has been a ball field since the 60’s. It is just laying fallow
and now it will be rejuvenated. The applicant in a very detailed manner did list how it conforms to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and therefore I think this is in line with what the Commissioners would accept. I move that we
approve Article 8.2.1(3) on both the testimony and application. Seconded by David Blankfard.
VOTE: Unanimous
RECOMMENDATION 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The Planning Staff has not received any information that would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the
general standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare,
maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for
the physical development of the County.
The Planning Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that
the applicant does comply with the specific standards and required regulations.
In the event that the Board of Adjustment makes the determination that the permit can be issued, Planning Staff
recommends the attachment of the following conditions:
(1) That within one hundred eight (180) days from the approval of the Special Use Permit the applicant develop,
in coordination with Planning Staff and representatives of Orange County Cooperative Extension, and obtain
approval of a landscape plan that utilizes drought tolerant, indigenous, vegetation that satisfies the required
Type A twenty (20) foot landscape buffer mandated by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance,
(2) That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County Inspections Department
requesting authorization to commence construction of the proposed structures. The application, including all
applicable fees, shall be submitted within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of the Special Use
Permit,
(3) That the applicant obtain any and all required Erosion Control and Sedimentation permits authorizing land
disturbing activities within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of the Special Use Permit
(4) That within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of the Special Use Permit the applicant submit a
detailed plan for the provision of portable toilets and hand washing stations for review and approval by the
Orange County Health Department,
(5) That the applicant be required to submit a sign rendering for review and approval by the Planning Department
within one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of the SUP and that the approved sign shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy allowing for the ball field operation to commence.
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 24 of 43
2
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
(6) That the applicant obtain a driveway permit for the facility from NC DOT within one hundred eighty (180) days 1
from the issuance of the SUP
(7) If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be 3
void in its entirety and of no effect, and
(8) The Special Use Permit will automatically expire within twelve (12) months from the date of approval if the use 5
has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for
extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of County Commissioners as provided in 8.4.11 of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
Thomas Brown: Now we come to the recommendations and conditions based on the testimony of staff. They have
reviewed the conditions 1-6 and added 7-10 and then renumbering 7 and 8 to numbers 11 and 12. We will be required
to have a motion that accepts the conditions for approval for this special use permit for final determination. We need
to ensure we have the wording of these additional conditions. We will add wording into condition number 7 that the
applicant will ensure that a revised impact study statement by Mr. Vic Knight is submitted within 60 days. Number 8,
that the applicant during the permit process submits sufficient detail to verify adherence to Sections 8.8.21.1c and
8.8.21.2d.
David Blankfard: The submittal shall show sufficient color and nature of all structures.
Thomas Brown: Condition 9, that in conjunction with the DOT permit, that the applicant submit plans for directional
signage. Condition 10 that the applicant adhere to the existing Orange County Noise Ordinance.
David Blankfard: I think in number 8 we were suppose to have a landscaping plan.
Thomas Brown: If we go with 21c and 21d that will be sufficient. If we are all in agreement with the conditions, we
would need a final motion to approve the special use permit case A-4-10 with an attachment requiring the adherence
to the following conditions, 1-12.
(1) That within one hundred eight (180) days from the approval of the Special Use Permit the applicant develop,
in coordination with Planning Staff and representatives of Orange County Cooperative Extension, and obtain
approval of a landscape plan that utilizes drought tolerant, indigenous, vegetation that satisfies the required
Type A twenty (20) foot landscape buffer mandated by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance,
(2) That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County Inspections Department
requesting authorization to commence construction of the proposed structures. The application, including all
applicable fees, shall be submitted within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of the Special Use
Permit,
(3) That the applicant obtain any and all required Erosion Control and Sedimentation permits authorizing land
disturbing activities within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of the Special Use Permit,
(4) That within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of the Special Use Permit the applicant submit a
detailed plan for the provision of portable toilets and hand washing stations for review and approval by the
Orange County Health Department,
(5) That the applicant be required to submit a sign rendering for review and approval by the Planning Department
within one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of the SUP and that the approved sign shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy allowing for the ball field operation to commence,
(6) That the applicant obtain a driveway permit for the facility from NC DOT within one hundred eighty (180) days
from the issuance of the SUP,
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 25 of 43
2
3
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(7) That within sixty (60) days from the approval of the Special Use Permit the applicant submit a revised Impact 1
Analysis from Mr. Vic Knight correcting several spelling mistakes and removing erroneous references to the
impact analysis being for a ‘Class II Kennel’,
(8) That as part of the building permit application the applicant provide the necessary detail referenced within 4
Section 8.8.21 (1) (c) relating to the development of all proposed structures, specifically the dugouts and
concession/office space, including professional renderings, the proposed color of the facilities, and the
material that will be utilized in their construction,
(9) That as part of condition number six (6) the applicant work with staff and NC DOT to install directional signs 8
designating the entrance/exit of the project as well as parking areas,
(10) That the applicant comply with the Orange County Noise Ordinance,
(11) If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be
void in its entirety and of no effect, and
(12) The Special Use Permit will automatically expire within twelve (12) months from the date of approval if the use
has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for
extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of County Commissioners as provided in 8.4.11 of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
MOTION made by David Blankfard to approve the Class B Special Use Permit request with the 12 conditions.
Seconded by Mark Micol.
VOTE: Unanimous
Thomas Brown: The special use permit requested in case A-4-10 is approved with conditions as stipulated.
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 26 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
6. A-5-10 – Riding Stable/Academy – development of a commercial boarding and
training facility for horses.
Ms. Micky Purcell is requesting the issuance of a Class B Special Use Permit to allow for the development of a Class
II Kennel/Riding Stable at 1318 White Cross Road.
Specifically, the application proposes the development of a commercial horse boarding and training facility on a sixty
(60) acre parcel (PIN 9747-18-4527) owned by Carol and William Bryon.
As detailed within the application, the applicant has placed an offer to purchase the property contingent on the
approval of the Special Use Permit allowing for the development of the boarding and training facility.
The applicant is proposing to board approximately sixteen (16) to twenty (20) horses and offer training classes to
boarders. The applicant stresses that there will be no competitions or horse shows held on the property in
conjunction with the proposed facility.
Michael Harvey: On pages 122, Attachment one becomes Attachment A and on page 128, Attachment one is
Attachment A, application, the aerial photo map of adjacent property is Attachment B, staff correspondence is
Attachment C and the findings of fact is Attachment D. Per the ordinance, this is a Class II kennel because that is
how it is defined. We have had discussions on several occasions concerning the horror the term kennel engenders
with some residents. As I have done in the abstract, this has nothing to do with dogs but a riding academy.
Unfortunately, the ordinance does call this a Class II Kennel/Riding Academy. That is the terminology we have to
use to be consistent with Article 8.8.11. I understand the board's desires and wishes in terms of creating a
distinction. In the future that will be addressed with the Unified Development Ordinance. Mr. Chairman, you have a
valid permit request to develop a riding stable, commercial boarding facility, training center on a 60 acre parcel of
property. I would like to call the board's attention to the site plan for a couple of areas that might address some
concerns. You will note the site plan denotes a large array of stream buffers. As denoted in the application
narrative stream buffers will be left in the natural, undisturbed state with the exception of an existing gravel road
that already crosses into the stream buffer on the northern portion of the property. That is to allow horses access to
the pasture area. The applicant is going to preserve and protect the existing stream buffers. That includes the
large stream buffer area in the middle of the property. I will also call to your attention to the southern part of the
property. When you look at the required Type B buffer and you look at other setback information, the southern part
of the property is essentially unusable, undeveloped. It will all be left in a natural buffered state and the application
does denote that. The southern portion and the western top portion of this facility, you will have the required Type B
buffer around the perimeter of the property. The applicant has already alluded that they will plant additional trees.
You will note that the facilities are compliant with the 150 foot setback. The applicant proposes to live in the single
family residence as a security measure.
Micky Purcell: I live in Chapel Hill. I have been sworn in. I have the opportunity to buy this property and develop it
as a horse boarding facility. I can get up to 20 horses but generally on average, I will only have 12 to 14 horses
that ensures better care and the quality of care. The facility will mainly be boarding and training both people and
horses. No shows, no competition, although we will have small clinics at the facility. We will develop pasture but
we will keep all buffers and extra buffers in place.
James Carter: Could you define small clinic?
Micky Purcell: That is a horse term where you have outside instructors coming in so I am a trainer and for a clinic I
would get a clinician to train there from outside to teach my clients and maybe bring one or two outside people with
their horses to have a lesson with the outside trainer. You will generally have clinics run to six people and I have
boarders and ourselves so we will already have six people but they have three or four outside horses coming in for
extra training. Those are usually a morning or afternoon.
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 27 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Larry Wright: On page 145, I assume "C" represents stables.
Micky Purcell: They are units. Unfortunately, what Cecil Brewer did, there are six stables on the outside and on
the inside is my tack room and offices. He has put them down as stables because his computer program would not
put them in as offices.
Larry Wright: I was looking at the plans and went through the application. The proposed covered area, what is
that, could you tell me a little of what that is? It is 225 feet by 100 feet and what is the floor like and what does it
look like?
Micky Purcell: It is a steel arch building, 100 feet wide by 225 long. Twenty-five feet right at the end will be
sectioned off with just one wall. The arena is 100 by 200. The footing is going to be a mix of sand and rubber units
that will keep the dust down. That is where we ride.
Larry Wright: You will have people coming here to train? I didn't see restroom facilities.
Micky Purcell: They are in the center here.
Michael Harvey: Dr. Wright, when we get into attachments and staff's correspondence, we do have the various
septic permits associated with this project. The applicant has requested that two additional pieces of information be
provided to you; one is a statement submitted by Mr. Jay Parker, who is signed up to speak, concerning
presentation discussion of the development impact of this proposed facility to address compliance with Section
8.2.1 Subsection b, the impact on the value of this property. We also have, although it can't be accepted as direct
testimony, an email by Dickie Andrews, giving his support for the proposal.
Thomas Brown: Would the letter from Weaver Street Reality be Exhibit 1 for this case?
Michael Harvey: I will call it Applicant's Exhibit 1 and the email Applicant's Exhibit 2. I believe Mr. Parker should
address the board concerning his submission of the Development Impact Opinion which is Applicant Exhibit 1.
Thomas Brown: Mr. Parker have you been sworn in?
Jay Parker: I live in Chapel Hill. I am not a registered appraiser as Vic Knight. This is my opinion based on my
experience selling property for 25 years in Orange County and surrounding areas. My experience has been that
property that has not been used other than the one rental that properties adjoining facilities like Ms. Purcell has
proposed, my experience has been that buyers are drawn to those properties because they are interested and
don't create a lot of nuisance like a kennel might do. I have sold a number of properties in this general area in the
past where there are a number of different kinds of training facilities of different sizes throughout Orange County.
My opinion is that this an enhancement to the general value of that area.
David Blankfard: What is NCRE?
Jay Parker: My real estate license.
Michael Harvey: If there are no questions, the next person to speak is Ms. Adele Mittelstadt.
Adele Mittelstadt: I have been sworn in. I live directly across the property in question and my husband I are
delighted that it is not another housing development. To be able to come home and turn onto our road and see
horses in the pasture is a very pleasant thing plus our granddaughter is thrilled that there will be horses across from
us. It is a positive thing for us.
Michael Harvey: The next individual to speak is Mr. Stan Smith.
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 28 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Stan Smith: I have been sworn in. I live on the same road with the Mittlestadts. I run a family grading and
excavating business. The Purcells have contacted us about doing some of their work. Putting that aside, I have
lived on this road since 1979 with my family. Along this road, there are other farms with other livestock and I don't
think this would create a problem. I have worked with other people that have done horse arenas in the past and
the properties are always well maintained and never had a problem with anyone. I have never heard any
complaints from others saying after a complex like this has been put up that it has been a bad thing. I agree with
the gentleman before that this will enhance the property value of this area. The land was timbered a few years ago
and is not attractive at all. I think the approval of this would be good for the community because it will blend it with
the farms and not create a problem.
Dickie Andrews: I live in Carrboro but I have been a resident of Orange County my whole life. I represent the
sellers or owners of this property and they would like to encourage you to approve this permit. They feel it is a
good fit for the neighborhood. It is a low impact development as opposed to a residential subdivision. We also feel
like it would enhance the value of the surrounding properties. I have been in real estate 32 years and have some
experience in seeing appreciation and we felt like this would be a good fit for the neighborhood.
Ms. Katherine Cole: I have been sworn in. I live about one quarter mile south of this property on Marks Lane, right
off White Cross Road. I am a horse owner so my family will benefit directly from having a horse facility in the
neighborhood. What I also see planned for this property as being a win win situation for the whole community. The
good news for Orange County is this land will increase in value on the tax books once the facility is built. Unlike
other agricultural uses, this facility does not qualify for special use tax so they will be taxed at full benefit so we will
gain something for Orange County. The neighborhood will benefit because Ms. Purcell intends to use local people
to build the road and grade for the barn and arena and local people for seeding her fields or pastures and cutting
and baling the hay. Local sources for buying additional hay and feed. She will use a North Carolina builder for the
barn and riding arena. The community will benefit because hers will be the first covered riding arena in the area
allowing horse owners to ride even when the weather is bad. Last but not least, this land will not become farmland
in Orange County. Keeping horses is a low impact activity that allows us to have productive rural land without
sacrificing a rural lifestyle. According to the NC Department Agricultural, the equine industry has an annual
economic impact of $1.9 billion dollars in North Carolina. I think it is a fine idea for White Cross and Orange County
to share in that prosperity and if I had my way, we would turn all empty farms into horse facilities instead of housing
developments.
Barbara Kuller: I live on Marks Lane so I am very close to Ms. Purcell's proposed facility. I have been sworn. I
think everyone has said what I would have said. I can also vouch for the integrity of Ms. Purcell. I have known her
a year and half and worked with her. I cannot imagine anyone who will do a finer job keeping this facility as a top
notch training facility. It will be a win win for everyone and our community and I hope it is approved.
Michael Harvey: That is the extent of those lined up to speak.
Thomas Brown: Would you do staff comments at this time.
Michael Harvey: What we have identified in our abstract essentially is that the project complies with the various
standards of the ordinance. I will get into more detail when I get to attachment D. Staff has determined on page
127 of your abstract that from our perspective the proposed operation applies with several provisions, goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. We have those listed on pages 127 and 128. It is our opinion that it is
consistent with the definition of the land use category which it is located. It is consistent with Section 5.6, the Land
Use Overreaching Goal and it is consistent with Objectives LU, 3.1 and 3.3 which we have summarized. On
Attachment C, staff correspondence, the one item I would like to bring to your attention is that I have two valid
health department permits for the septic system. I also have correspondence from David Sykes, the fire marshal
for Orange County stipulating they have no qualms about this facility being approved.
Larry Wright: On the map, when you talk about the health department, are those two septic systems connected?
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 29 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Michael Harvey: No sir. That is the distance separating the two. On page 158, the proposed septic facility for the
barn is that northern most septic system and the other septic system would be for other ancillary facilities on site
and there has to be a separation distance outside the stream buffer. With respect to adjoining property owners, I
have only spoken to one individual, Jane Williams, who expressed no opinion. She wanted an explanation of the
project, specifically were they boarding dogs. Of course the answer is no. We did post the property and the sign
disappeared due to the election. I would like to call you attention to the Findings of Fact on page 177.
On page 188, with respect to the Findings of Fact, staff stipulates that we have heard no evidence this evening that
would cause us to make a negative finding with respect to Section 8.2.1, 8.2.2, subsection 1, the use will maintain
or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed. Staff will
stipulate the stream buffers on this property are being preserved in their entirety which limits ultimate locations for
pasture and horse areas. That the facilities as proposed comply with the minimum setback requirements, that the
applicant demonstrates they will comply with the Type B buffer requirement as stipulated by the ordinance. That
the applicant chooses to live on the property which means there will be continuous security and monitoring of the
horses to ensure their perpetual safety. Staff will also stipulate that as the applicant has attained approval for the
septic systems from the Orange County Health Department that there is no issue that the property will not comply
with the various necessary health standards with respect to the disposal of generated waste on the property. With
respect to Section 8.2.1, subsection 2, you have testimony from Mr. Parker indicating that it is his experience as a
realtor in the area for many years that this type of development actually enhances and promotes adjacent property
values given the fact that this is currently the term utilized in both his assessment and that this will make purposeful
use of the property and as the applicant will be preserving the existing stream buffer. Staff will further argue that
the environmental integrity of the property will be preserved and will only enhance the value of the adjacent
property. With respect to compliance with 8.2.1, subsection 3, staff would remind the board that we have
determined that the project is consistent with several goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as
articulated on pages 127 through 128 of our abstract. We further find that based on the findings or based on the
testimony submitted by Mr. Sykes that there are no fire or safety code issues based on this being located in
agricultural residential land use category as defined by the Comprehensive Plan as an area intended for promoting
stable agricultural development which we believe is consistent with that land use category and this is consistent
with promoting and preserving agricultural development of the county. We urge you to make an affirmative finding.
On page 189, we have recommended seven conditions.
Thomas Brown: Does the board members have any questions for Mr. Harvey? If not, we will close the public
hearing and begin deliberation. The public hearing portion of Case A-5-10 is now closed. I would like to thank the
staff and citizens for their testimony. We have heard the testimony of the applicant who has made a request for a
special use permit to operate a commercial boarding and training for horses which falls under the category of Class
II Kennel/Riding Stable. There will be no competition or horse shows on the property. The Board now has the
responsibility to decide the SUP request based on the testimony. We will be begin with the specific standards
contained on pages 177 through 187. Mr. Harvey went through these in sufficient detail so that if we have a motion
to stipulate as long as there is no problem with this process I would say we can entertain a motion to approve all
specific standards on pages 177 through 187.
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 30 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF
PERTAINING TO REQUEST SUBMITTED BY MICKEY PURCELL
REQUESTING A CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A
CLASS II KENNEL – RIDING ACADEMY/HORSE BOARDING
FOR A PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1318 WHITE CROSS ROAD (PIN 9747-18-4527)
Special Uses must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8.
Article 8.2.1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following:
(1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where
proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted;
(2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public
necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous
property); and
(3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in
harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for
the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners;
In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following specific
standards:
(5) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined within
Section(s) 8.6 and 8.8 of the Ordinance,
(6) Applicable provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of
Dimensional Requirements) of the Ordinance.
(7) Section 8.2.4 relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a. Sewage disposal facilities,
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site,
(8) Specific regulations governing the development of individual Special Uses as set forth in Article
8.8, specifically Section 8.8.11 Kennels or Riding Stables/Academies of the Ordinance
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 31 of 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application in question.
The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of Adjustment in its
deliberations.
ARTICLE 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) 8
9
FINDINGS
Planning Staff
Recommending
Findings:
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Board of Adjustment
Findings:
Ordinance Requirements
8.6 - Application submitted on
forms providing full and accurate
description of proposed use,
including location, appearance and
operational characteristics.
x Yes _____No A complete application on
appropriate forms has been
submitted.
x Yes _____No
8.8 a) - Ten (10) copies of the site
plan prepared by a registered land
surveyor, architect, or engineer.
x Yes _____No Ten (10) copies of the site plan,
prepared by Freehold Land
Surveyors were submitted
x Yes _____No
8.8 b) - Elevations of all proposed
structures to be used in the
development.
x Yes _____No Proposed structures are shown
on the site plan. The application
contains renderings of the
proposed buildings
x Yes _____No
8.8 c) - Ten (10) copies of the
Environmental Assessment and/or
Environmental Impact Statement,
if required, by the Orange County
Environmental Impact Ordinance.
Not applicable –An EIS
statement is not required
by the Orange County
Environmental Impact
Ordinance as the
proposed amount of land
disturbance is under the
minimum amount
necessary to warrant an
EIS statement
Not applicable –An EIS
statement is not required by the
Orange County Environmental
Impact Ordinance as the
proposed amount of disturbance
is under the minimum amount
necessary to warrant an EIS
statement
Not Applicable
8.8 d) - A fee, as set by the
Orange County Board of
Commissioners.
x Yes _____No The application fee has been
paid.
x Yes _____No
10
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 32 of 43
1
ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (“Yes” indicates compliance; “No” indicates non -compliance) 2
3
FINDINGS
Planning Staff
Recommending
Findings:
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Board of Adjustment
Findings:
Ordinance Requirements:
Article 5 lists standards for
minimum lot size, lot width, front,
side and rear setbacks, maximum
building height and lot coverage,
and development intensity.
The applicant has applied for a
Special Use Permit on property
zoned Agricultural Residential
(AR). The standards for the AR
district are set forth in Article 5.1.2
and are as follows:
a) Minimum lot area per use
40,000 sq. ft.
x Yes _____No The property is zoned Agricultural
Residential (AR) requiring a
minimum lot area of 40,000
square feet. There are
approximately 60 acres in the
tract.
x Yes _____No
b) Minimum lot width - 150 ft.
x Yes _____No The lot has over 1,000 feet of
frontage along White Cross Road
(SR 1951)
x Yes _____No
c) Required front setback - 40 ft.
x Yes _____No The proposed barn (boarding
facility) and covered arena are
both approximately 750 feet from
the front property line. The
existing house, as shown on the
site plan, is 40 feet from the front
property line
x Yes _____No
d) Required side and rear setbacks
- 20 ft.
X Yes _____No The proposed boarding facility
and covered arena are
approximately 150 feet from the
eastern property line, 1100 feet
from the western property line,
and 2600 feet from the rear
property line.
The existing residence is
approximately 740 feet from the
western, 800 feet from the
eastern, and 900 feet from the
rear property line
x Yes _____No
e) Maximum building height - 25
ft.
x Yes _____No The proposed facilities as shown
within the submitted renderings
are compliant with the maximum
height requirements.
x Yes _____No
4
5
6
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 33 of 43
1
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 34 of 43
1
2
ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 3
(“Yes” indicates compliance; “No” indicates non -compliance) 4
5
6
FINDINGS
Planning Staff
Recommending
Findings:
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Board of Adjustment
Findings:
Ordinance Requirements:
Article 6 lists specific standards
that apply to various types of
development applications.
Article 6.12 contains those
development intensity standards
which apply to group
developments controlled by the
Land Use Intensity (LUI) system
a) Minimum gross land area - N/A
Not applicable –This
proposed project is not
subject to the
requirements of Article
6.12 of the Zoning
Ordinance with respect to
the minimum gross land
area requirement
Not applicable –This proposed
project is not subject to the
requirements of Article 6.12 of
the Zoning Ordinance with
respect to the minimum gross
land area requirement
Not Applicable
b) Maximum gross land area - N/A
Not applicable –This
proposed project is not
subject to the
requirements of Article
6.12 of the Zoning
Ordinance with respect to
the maximum gross land
area requirement.
Not applicable –This proposed
project is not subject to the
requirements of Article 6.12 of
the Zoning Ordinance with
respect to the maximum gross
land area requirement
Not Applicable
c) Maximum floor ratio - .088 or
229,996 sq feet of allowable floor
area
_X_ Yes ___No
The site plan indicates
that the proposed floor
area of the for the
boarding facility and
covered arena are
approximately 33,000.
Staff has determined that
the proposal is consistent
with the permitted
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio limits
In utilizing the information
supplied on the site plan, the
Board finds that the applicant’s
proposal complies with the
Maximum Floor Ratio limit of .088
per Section 5.1.2 and Section
6.12.2.3 of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance
__x__Yes _____ No
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 35 of 43
1
d) Required minimum open space
ratio - .84
Required minimum open
space – 2,195,424 sq. ft. (50
acres)
_X_ Yes ___No
Staff has utilized the
submitted site plan and
calculated the existing
open space on the
property and verified that
there is approximately
2,308,680 square feet
of open space on the
property.
Staff has determined that
the proposal is consistent
with the required Open
Space Ratio
In utilizing the information
supplied on the site plan, the
Board finds that the applicant’s
proposal complies with the
Required Minimum Open Space
Ration requirement of .84 per
Section 5.1.2 and Section
6.12.2.4of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance
__x__Yes _____ No
e) Required minimum
pedestrian/landscape ratio - .21
Required minimum pedestrian/
landscape space – 548,856 sq. ft.
_X_ Yes ___No
Staff has utilized the
submitted site plan and
calculated the existing
landscaped area on the
property and verified that
there is approximately
827,640 square feet, of
pedestrian/landscaped
area as defined under
Section 6.12.3 of the
Orange County Zoning
Ordinance
Staff has determined that
the proposal is consistent
with the required
Minimum
Pedestrian/Landscape
space.
In utilizing the information
supplied on the site plan, the
Board finds that the applicant’s
proposal complies with the
Required Minimum
Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio of
.21 per Section 5.1.2 and Section
6.12.3 of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance
__x__Yes _____ No
2
3
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 36 of 43
1
ARTICLE 8.2.4 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS/ALL SPECIAL USES 2
(“Yes” indicates compliance; “No” indicates non -compliance) (continued) 3
4
FINDINGS
Planning Staff
Recommending
Findings:
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Board of Adjustment
Findings:
Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant
to address the following:
a) Method and adequacy of
provision for sewage disposal
facilities, solid waste and water
service.
x Yes _____No Information contained within
Attachment Three (3) of the
abstract completed by staff
indicate that the well and septic
system have been approved by
the Orange County Health
Department, indicating that the
method and adequacy of sewage
and water service is acceptable.
With respect to solid waste
disposal, the applicant has
indicated that he will contract
with a private firm for the
removal and disposal of waste.
According to staff this is
acceptable with respect to the
requirements of the Ordinance
x Yes _____No
b) Method and adequacy of police,
fire and rescue squad protection.
x Yes _____No The White Cross Rural Fire
Department will provide fire
protection.
Rescue services will be provided
by Orange County EMS.
The Orange County Sheriff’s
Department shall provide police
protection.
Based on letters/memorandum
contained within Attachment
Three (3) of the abstract, staff
has asserted that these services
can be adequately provided to
support the proposed use.
x Yes _____No
c) Method and adequacy of vehicle
access to the site and traffic
conditions around the site.
x Yes _____No The site plan indicates the lot is
accessed through a driveway
onto White Cross Road (S
R
1951).
NC DOT has indicated that a
driveway permit can be issued
allowing for the existing driveway
to be used to support the hoarse
boarding and training facility.
They cannot issue final approval
until there is an approved site
plan. This should be a condition
of approval.
x Yes _____No
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 37 of 43
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 38 of 43
1
ARTICLE 8.8.11 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR A CLASS II KENNEL 2
(“Yes” indicates compliance; “No” indicates non -compliance) (continued) 3
4
FINDINGS
Planning Staff
Recommending
Findings:
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Board of Adjustment
Findings:
In addition to the information
required by Subsection 8.2 and
8.8, the following shall be
submitted as part of the
application in order to determine
compliance with the site specific
development requirements for a
Class II Kennel as outlined within
Section 8.8.11 of the Ordinance:
Section 8.8.11.1
a) Plans for all kennels,
barns, exercise yards, riding
arenas, pens and related
improvements, including
signage.
x Yes _____No The submitted site plan shows
the location for all buildings
proposed for use as part o the
operation.
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.11.1
b) Site plan showing the
improvements listed in a)
above, other structures on the
same lot, and structures on
adjacent property
x Yes _____No The submitted site plan provides
all essential information as
required under Section 8.8.11.1
(b)
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.11.2
a) The site is of adequate size
to protect adjacent properties
from adverse effects of the
kennel or riding
stable/academy
_X Yes ____No The site appears to be of
sufficient size to allow for the
development of the proposed
facility
x Yes _____No
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 39 of 43
1
Section 8.8.11.2
b) No part of any
building, structure,
runway or riding
arena, in which
animals are housed or
exercised shall be
closer than 150 feet
from a property line,
except property
occupied by the
owner/operator of the
kennel. These
minimum distances
shall not apply if all
portions of the facility,
in which animals are
housed, are wholly
enclosed within a
building
X Yes _____No The site plan denotes that any
and all areas where animals are
housed are within enclosed
buildings.
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.11.2
c) Any kennel which is not
wholly enclosed within a
building shall be enclosed by a
security fence at least 6 feet in
height, which shall include
primary enclosures or runs
x Yes _____No The site plan denotes that the
arena utilized for exercise and
training activities will be covered.
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.11.2
d) The site plan shows parking,
access areas and screening
devices for buildings and
animal boarding facilities
x Yes _____No The site plan denotes the
proposed parking, access areas,
and screening devices for
buildings and animal training
facilities
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.11.2
d) The Site Plan shall be
reviewed by the Orange County
Animal Control Department,
and found in conformance with
Section XIX of the Animal
Control Ordinance
x Yes _____No The site plan has been tentatively
reviewed and deemed
appropriate by Animal Control.
The applicant will be required to
apply for and obtain a permit
from Orange County Animal
Health in addition to the Special
Use Permit.
A condition of approval is that the
applicant be required to obtain
this permit within one hundred
eighty (180) days from the
issuance of the SUP
x Yes _____No
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 40 of 43
1
Section 8.8.11.3
a) Building plans for all kennel
facilities shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of
Animal Control prior to
issuance of any building
permits
x Yes _____No The renderings and floor plan
have been reviewed by Animal
Control.
The applicant cannot make an
application for final approval until
the SUP is issued.
A condition of approval is that the
applicant be required to obtain a
building permit within one
hundred eighty (180) days from
the issuance of the SUP and that
the building plans have to be
approved by the Director of
Animal Control
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.11.3
b) A sign clearly visible from
the ground shall be posted at
the main entrance to the
facility and shall contain the
names, addresses, and
telephone numbers where
persons responsible for the
facility may be contacted at
any hour of the day or night.
The sign shall comply with
dimensional requirements as
set forth in Section 9.11 of this
Ordinance
x Yes _____No The applicant has indicated
on the site plan that there will
be a sign on the property
adhering to this condition
A recommended condition of
approval is that the applicant
be required to submit a sign
rendering for review and
approval by the Planning
Department within one
hundred eighty (180) days
from the issuance of the SUP
and that the approved sign
shall be installed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy allowing for kennel
operations to commence.
x Yes _____No
Section 8.8.11.3
c) Where required by the
Animal Control Ordinance a
Class II Kennel Permit shall be
obtained from the Department
of Animal Control within the
first 30 days of occupancy.
Failure to obtain and maintain
a valid Class II Kennel Permit
or other related permits which
may be required by the USDA
or Wildlife Resources
Commission will result in
revocation of the Special Use
Permit.
x Yes _____No The applicant has indicated
that the plan will be reviewed
and approved by the Orange
County Department of Animal
Control.
This should be a condition of
approval
x Yes _____No
2
3
4
5
MOTION made by David Blankfard to approve all the specific articles that are contained on pages 177 through page
187 (Article 8.6 & 8.8, Article 5, Article 6, Article 8.2.4, and Article 8.8.11). Seconded by James Carter.
VOTE: Unanimous
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 41 of 43
1
2
ARTICLE 8.2.1 & 8.2.2 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS 3
(“Will” indicates compliance; “Will Not” indicates non -compliance) 4
5
FINDINGS
Planning Staff
Recommending
Findings:
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Board of Adjustment
Findings:
Ordinance Requirements
In accordance with Article 8.2.1
and 8.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance,
the Board of Adjustment shall also
consider the following general
conditions before the application
for a Special Use can be approved:
Article 8.2.1 & 8.2.2
1. The use will maintain or
promote the public health,
safety and general welfare, if
located where proposed and
developed and operated
according to the plan as
submitted.
To be determined by Board
after receiving evidence to be
submitted or heard at public
hearing.
Will ___Will Not
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MOTION made by Mark Micol to find in the affirmative for Article 8.2.1 subsection 1 that the use will maintain or
promote the the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated
according to the plan as submitted based on the testimony from local residents that the project will enhance the
esthetics and overall beauty of the surrounding community. Seconded by David Blankfard.
VOTE: Unanimous
Article 8.2.1
2. The use will maintain or
enhance the value of contiguous
property (unless the use is a
public necessity, in which case
the use need not maintain or
enhance the value of contiguous
property).
To be determined by Board
after receiving evidence to be
submitted or heard at public
hearing.
Will ___Will Not
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
MOTION made by James Carter to find in the affirmative for Article 8.2.1, subsection 2, in terms of the enhancement
of the property. Mark Micol added to the motion based on the testimony of Mr. Parker and his 25 years of experience.
He mentioned that the property in its current state is in poor condition and this project will enhance and increase the
value of the surrounding property. Seconded by David Blankfard.
VOTE: Unanimous
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 42 of 43
1
Article 8.2.1
3. The location and character of
the use, if developed according
to the plan submitted, will be in
harmony with the area in which
it is to be located and the use is
in compliance with the general
plan for the physical
development of the County as
embodied in these regulations
or in the Comprehensive Plan,
or portion thereof, adopted by
the Board of County
Commissioners.
To be determined by Board
after receiving evidence to be
submitted or heard at public
hearing.
Is
___ Is Not
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MOTION made by Larry Wright to find in the affirmative for Article 8.2.1, subsection 3 based on the testimony of Mr.
Harvey that the stream buffers have been adhered to and it has been determined on pages 127 and 128 in our packet
and the abstracts how this does conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sykes testified that there are no fire or
safety code conditions and it is consistent with the agricultural land use category. Seconded by Mark Micol.
VOTE: Unanimous
RECOMMENDATION 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
The Planning Staff has not received any information that would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the
general standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare,
maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for
the physical development of the County.
The Planning Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that
the applicant does comply with the specific standards and required regulations.
In the event that the Board of Adjustment makes the determination that the permit can be issued, Planning Staff
recommends the attachment of the following conditions:
(1) That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County Inspections Department
requesting authorization to commence construction of the proposed kennel facility. The application, including
all applicable fees, shall be submitted within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of the Special
Use Permit. Further, the building permit application shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Animal
Control for compliance with any and all applicable animal control regulations in accordance with the
provisions of Section 8.8.11.3 of the Zoning Ordinance,
(2) That the Orange County Fire Marshall’s office shall review and approve the building plans, as part of the
normal building permit review process, and that any and all modifications to the structure be made to address
fire code issues prior to the issuance of the permit authorizing the commencement of construction activities,
(3) That the applicant complete, submit, and receive approval for a Class II Kennel application from the Orange
County Animal Control Department within one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of the SUP,
Approved 3/14/2011
OC Board of Adjustment – 11/8/2010 Page 43 of 43
2
3
5
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
(4) That the applicant be required to submit a sign rendering for review and approval by the Planning Department 1
within one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of the SUP and that the approved sign shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy allowing for kennel operations to commence.
(5) That the applicant apply for and receive a driveway permit from NC DOT within one hundred eighty (180) 4
days from the issuance of the SUP and provide planning staff with a copy of the issued permit,
(6) If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be 6
void in its entirety and of no effect, and
(7) The Special Use Permit will automatically expire within twelve (12) months from the date of approval if the use 8
has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for
extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of County Commissioners as provided in 8.4.11 of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
Thomas Brown: We now need a motion to approve the Special Use Permit A-5-10 subject to the conditions
stipulated on page 189, items numbers 1 through 7.
MOTION made by David Blankfard to accept staff recommendations and conditions 1 through 7 and that the Board
approve the Special Use Permit A-5-10. Seconded by Larry Wright.
VOTE: Unanimous
Thomas Brown: Case number A-5-10 is hereby approved.
Michael Harvey: I met with Mr. Bob Nutter to discuss the board's action on his application request. Mr. Nutter
indicated that it is his intent of interest to file a modification to his Special Use Permit application to expand or allow
additional use consistent with his arguments as referenced at last month's meeting. Also, based on the advice of his
attorney, they are going to file an appeal to observe appeal rights but it is their intent to come back before this board
and seek to redress the SUP modification process in accordance with Section 8.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.
Tina Owen, Minutes Preparer