HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrange County Approved BOA Minutes 20 12 14 Approved 0810912021
1 MINUTES
2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
3 REGULAR MEETING
4 December 14, 2020
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Leon Meyers
7 Susan Halkiotis
8 Jeff Scott
9 Kent Qandil
10
11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Taylor
12
13 STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
14 Elaina Cheek, Secretary to Board
15 James Bryan, Staff Attorney
16
17 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER
18
19 Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, called the meeting to order and reminded the Board he was assuming
20 responsibility for calling the meeting to order in order only to elect a new Chair and Vice-Chair. Mr. Harvey indicated
21 tonight's meeting would be a bifurcated meeting with the Board making determination(s) on standing concerning two (2)
22 separate cases, specifically a variance request and a special use permit application.
23
24 Mr. Harvey asked the Board to move to Agenda Item number 5, the election of a new Chair and Vice-chair.
25
26 Board members agreed to move to this item. Mr. Harvey asked for nominations for Chair.
27
28 Susan Halkiotis nominated Leon Meyers for chair. There were no other nominations. Ms. Halkiotis made a motion to
29 appoint Mr. Meyers Chair, seconded by Kent Qandil and approved by the Board unanimously. Mr. Harvey thanked the
30 Board members and turned the meeting over to Leon Meyers.
31
32 Chair Meyers thanked all the Board for their support and asked if there was a nomination for Vice-chair. Chair Meyers
33 indicated he would like to nominate Ms. Halkiotis for the position. There were no other nominations. Chair Meyers
34 made a motion to appoint Ms. Halkiotis as Vice-chair, seconded by Jeff Scott and approved by the Board unanimously.
35
36 AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
37
38 There were no additions to the agenda.
39
40 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES— February 10, 2020
41
42 Chair Meyers asked if there were any corrections or comments to the minutes from the February 10 evidentiary hearing.
43 MOTION. Motion made by Vice-chair Halkiotis, seconded by Mr. Qandil to approve the minutes as presented.
44 VOTE: Unanimous.
45
46 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Harvey to walk the Board members and the public through the cadence for the meeting. Mr.
47 Harvey reminded all parties the meeting would be bifurcated in nature due to State and County COVID protocols. All
1
Approved 08/09/2021
1 parties are required to observe social distancing protocols and wear masks while in the meeting room. Mr. Harvey said
2 the Board will call a specific case and staff will ask the applicant and all other parties asserting standing to enter the
3 meeting room. At this time, the Board shall open the public hearing and staff will make a brief presentation on the topic
4 before turning the meeting back to the Chair.
5
6 Mr. Harvey reminded the Board there was a script at their places outlining the cadence of this meeting protocol. All
7 parties in attendance this evening received a copy of the script.
8
9 Mr. Harvey said the Board will then ask the applicant to present evidence detailing their legal standing to present
10 evidence before the Board and to summarize intended evidence, reminding the Board the applicant's arguments on
11 standing were contained in the Board's agenda packets as part of the application(s) for each individual case. The
12 Board will then vote on granting the application standing to present their case. Once this is completed, individuals
13 intending to argue standing on a particular case shall be brought into the room, one at a time, be sworn, and present
14 their arguments to the Board for consideration. Once standing has been determined on both cases, the Board shall
15 adjourn the public hearing to January 11, 2021 for the presentation of evidence.
16
17 Mr. Harvey reminded the Board if there are not multiple parties intending to present evidence on each case, the Board
18 has the ability to hold the evidentiary hearing, accept evidence, asked questions, close the hearing and deliberate, and
19 make a formal determination at tonight's meeting if they so choose.
20
21 Mr. Qandil asked Mr. Harvey about Case A-3-20, specifically if there was anyone other than the applicant asserting
22 standing. Mr. Harvey said no other individual was asserting standing in this specific case. Mr. Qandil asked if there
23 were any reason to doubt an applicant had standing to present their application. Mr. Harvey indicated staff was not
24 challenging an applicant's standing to present a case, but that the Board still had an obligation to hear the summary of
25 evidence, accept arguments on standing, and make a determination. This is due to the bifurcated nature of the
26 meeting. Most of this, under normal circumstances, would occur simultaneously with the presentation of a request. Jeff
27 Scott asked for additional clarification on how individuals assert standing and what constituted viable evidence.
28
29 James Byran, Staff Attorney, indicated part of the issue was trying to make things as simple as possible while taking
30 into account the need for social distancing during COVID and ensure the Board operated as thoroughly as possible
31 guaranteeing there were opportunities to hear objections or counter arguments. This would normally occur seamlessly
32 but due to COVID, and the limits on the number of people that can be in the meeting room at any one time, this meeting
33 cadence was designed to ensure legal sufficiency.
34
35 Mr. Bryan reminded the Board standing was at the sole discretion of the members based on the evidence entered into
36 the record. Individuals asserting they have standing are required to present evidence/testimony supporting their claim,
37 including:
38 • The individual has person with legal interest in the subject parcel including being the owner of the property,
39 • A person who will suffer special damages as the result of a decision, or
40 • An association organized to promote the interests of a particular area, such as a homeowners association.
41 Mr. Bryan reminded the Board individuals are required to substantiate what special damages they will suffer for the
42 Board to consider if they have standing, which typically involves proximity to the subject parcel and/or action on the
43 proposal could result in economic damages such as a decrease in property values. Individual asserting standing are
2
Approved 08/09/2021
1 required to do more than simply state that they live in the vicinity of the subject property and allege action on a proposal
2 will harm property values. The party asserting standing must provide documentation of the secondary impacts for the
3 Board to consider.
4
5 Mr. Qandil asked if we were not in a COVID protocol, that staff would complete a detailed analysis of an applicant's
6 claim to standing. Mr. Bryan indicated the main issue here was that during a non-COVID meeting, there would be
7 members of the public in the meeting room who could object at any time to an applicant's argument or assertion of
8 standing or their presentation of evidence. We do not have this flexibility due to the need for compliance with State and
9 County COVID protocols. Mr. Bryan indicated staff has taken the necessary steps to ensure legal sufficiency so that
10 decisions cannot be challenged on a procedural error and that while it is cumbersome, the cadence set up by staff is
11 merely an attempt to ensure proper procedures are followed during this pandemic.
12
13 There was general discussion on the cadence of review and on the Board's responsibility with respect to determining
14 standing.
15
16 AGENDA ITEM 4: PUBLIC CHARGE
17
18 The public charge was not read.
19
20 AGENDA ITEM 6: Case A-3-20 Quasi-judicial hearing to review a Variance Application requesting a 30'
21 reduction to required County stream buffers.
22
23 Chair Meyers called the case and asked the clerk to swear in Mr. Harvey. Ms. Cheek swore in Mr. Harvey.
24
25 Mr. Harvey summarized the case as follows:
26
27 In accordance with UDO Sections 2.10 Variances and 6.13 Stream Buffers, the property owners have submitted this
28 variance request for their parcel of property, which is further described as follows:
29 • Parcel Identification Number(Orange County): 9890-08-8119
30 • Acreage: 1 acre
31 • Zoning District:Rural Buffer
32 • Watershed Designation: Property is not located within a Protected or Critical watershed overlay district.
33 The applicants are requesting a 30 ft. variance from the normally required 80 ft. County stream buffer along the western
34 boundary of the existing water feature. If approved, development on the property would abide by a 50 ft. buffer from an
35 existing stream.
36 The applicant's argue the required 80 ft. stream buffer prevents development of the property. There is only a 30 ft. area
37 where a single-family residence and septic system could be located. The topography of the lot also limits options with
38 respect to where the proposed residence/septic system can be located and still conform with other applicable land use
39 regulations (i.e. property line setbacks) and Environmental Health standards (i.e. septic system and well setbacks).
40 If the variance is approved, the property could be developed and utilized for residential purposes while a 50 ft. stream
41 buffer is observed from the western side of the existing stream.
42
43 Mr. Harvey provided the Board with the page numbers of the abstract and various attachment(s) associated with case
44 A-3-20. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board the County's stream buffer standards exceed minimum State requirements,
45 consistent with applicable enabling legislation, and that the applicant's request will not impact the State required 50 ft.
46 stream buffer area. Mr. Harvey summarized the applicant's site plan (Attachment 1 of the December 14, 2020 abstract
3
Approved 08/09/2021
1 package) denoting the location of proposed structures and septic systems. Mr. Harvey further indicated the structure
2 and septic system would be located within the required stream buffer and that without the variance the parcel would be
3 virtually impossible to develop.
4
5 Chair Meyers asked Mr. Harvey about page 27 (map denoting an 80 ft. and 50 ft. stream buffer). Mr. Harvey indicated
6 the map was for illustrative purposes and that there was a note indicating which line constituted the 80 ft. required
7 County buffer as well as the 50 ft. applicant requested buffer along the western portion of the stream.
8
9 Mr. Scott asked Mr. Harvey to clarify if the County was requiring both an active septic area and repair field for this
10 property. Mr. Harvey indicated Orange County Environmental Health was requiring both an active septic area and
11 repair area for this property. This was also complicating development of the property and necessitating the request for
12 a variance from the County stream buffer standards.
13
14 Chair Meyers asked if there was a difference in the maps provided on pages 39 and 41 of the application. Mr. Harvey
15 indicated it was the same map but serving separate purposes as denoted by the applicant within the narrative.
16
17 Mr. Harvey brought the applicant into the meeting room. Chair Meyers reviewed the meeting cadence with the
18 applicant.
19
20 Kevin Hornik indicated he was the attorney representing the applicant for Case A-3-20, specifically Mr. Alexander
21 Dodson. Ms. Cheek swore in Mr. Hornik.
22
23 Mr. Hornik indicated he was an attorney with the Brough Law firm in Chapel Hill NC. Mr. Dodson is the owner of a
24 parcel of property identified by staff in their agenda abstract that is subject to a variance request. Mr. Hornik informed
25 the Board that as Mr. Dodson is the legally identified owner of the property, under applicable local and State provisions
26 he has standing to bring the request.
27
28 Mr. Hornik provided the Board will a copy of a presentation on the substantive issues of the request including copies of
29 applicable deeds substantiating Mr. Dodson's ownership of the property as part of proving standing.
30
31 Mr. Hornik indicated Mr. Dodson would be offering testimony at the appropriate time demonstrating the need for the
32 variance and indicated they had an expert witness, specifically Mr. Steve Doyle (local realtor), related to the hardship
33 element of the request.
34
35 Chair Meyers asked if staff had concerns over Mr. Dodson's standing. Mr. Harvey indicated he did not.
36
37 MOTION made by Vice-chair Halkiotis finding that Mr. Dodson was the owner of the subject property and had standing
38 to apply for the variance, seconded by Chair Meyers.
39 VOTE: Unanimous.
40
41 Chair Meyers thanked the parties for their efforts and understanding on the need for the bifurcated meeting. Mr. Hornik
42 asked if their presentation of Mr. Doyle's credentials as an expert witness should be handled now or at the January
43 meeting. Chair Meyers indicated it would be handled at the January meeting.
44
45 Chair Meyers asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting to January 11, 2021 to conduct the evidentiary component of
46 the request.
47 MOTION made by Vice-chair Halkiotis adjourning the public hearing for Case A-3-20 to January 11, 2021 in order to
48 conduct the evidentiary component of the hearing, seconded by Mr. Scott.
49 VOTE: Unanimous.
50
4
Approved 08/09/2021
1 AGENDA ITEM 6: Case A-4-20— Evidentiary hearing to review a Class B Special Use Permit application for
2 a recreational facility off Old Greensboro Highway.
3
4 Chair Meyers called the case and asked the clerk to swear in Mr. Harvey. Ms. Cheek swore in Mr. Harvey.
5
6 Mr. Harvey summarized the case as follows (case materials begin on page 61 of the agenda abstract):
7
8 In accordance with UDO Sections 2.7 Special Use Permits, 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses, 5.3.2 Special Uses, and 5.7.2
9 Recreational Facilities, the applicants have submitted a Class B Special Use Permit (SUP) application for a parcel on
10 Atkins Road, which is further described as follows:
11 • Case Number: SUP20-0008
12 • Parcel Identification Number. 9758-52-5171
13 • Acreage: 16.2 acres
14 • Zoning District:Rural Buffer(RB)
15 • Watershed Designation: University Lake Protected
16 The applicants are proposing an outdoor recreational facility for the playing of cricket, specifically 2 outdoor athletic or
17 cricket fields.
18 The applicant is not proposing any outdoor lighting, structures, bleachers, public address system, concession stand, or
19 other facilities connected with the athletic fields. Access to the property will be off Old Greensboro Highway. With no
20 lighting, the facility would operate during daylight hours only.
21
22 Mr. Harvey provided the Board with the page numbers of the abstract and various attachment(s) associated with case
23 A-4-20 and requested that the abstract package for Case A-4-20, including all attachments, be entered into the record
24 of the proceedings.
25
26 MOTION made by Chair Meyers entering the complete agenda package, beginning on page 61 of the December 14,
27 2020 Board agenda, for Case A-4-20 be entered into the record, seconded by Vice-chair Halkiotis.
28 VOTE: Unanimous.
29
30 Mr. Harvey informed the Board, as detailed on pages 62 and 63 of the agenda package, the proposed Recreation
31 Facility involves developmenVoperation of athletic fields in support of holding cricket sporting matches and practices.
32 Two cricket fields will be located on the 16 acre parcel(PIN 9758-52-5171) in support of anticipated matches. No other
33 recreational activities are proposed for the property. There will be no bleachers, club house, changing rooms, lights, or
34 loud speakers associated with the proposed recreational facility.
35
36 The applicant is not proposing any outdoor lighting, structures, bleachers, public address system, concession stand, or
37 other facilities connected with the athletic fields. Access to the property will be off Old Greensboro Highway.
38
39 Mr. Harvey indicated the term "Recreational Facilities" defined in Article 10 of the UDO as:
40
41 'A use of property occurring indoors and/or outdoors providing recreational amenities, activities, or services for
42 compensation. Activities shall include, but not be limited to: sports played on a court, amusement arcades, bowling
43 alleys, skating rinks, shooting ranges, billiard and pool halls, paintball, rope climbing or obstacle courses, go-kart or
44 motor cross tracks, exercise centers including aerobic and yoga studios, athletic facilities, and gymnasiums."
45
46 Per Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO indicates a Recreational Facility is a permitted use of property in
47 the RB general use zoning district subject to the issuance of a Class B SUP.
48
5
Approved 08/09/2021
1 Mr. Harvey indicated per Section 5.7.2 (C) of the UDO, recreational facilities requiring issuance of a Class B SUP are
2 required to comply with the following submittal and review standards:
3
4 (1) Submittal Requirements: In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following information shall
5 be supplied as part of the application for approval of this use:
6
7 a) A description of the exact type [of] facility planned, the amount of area, including the number of
8 members or participants expected, and a site plan showing siting and size of existing and
9 proposed buildings].
10
11 Mr. Harvey indicated this information was contained within Attachment 1 and on the site plan.
12
13 b) Access, parking, service and recreation areas for all planned facilities or existing facilities.
14
15 Mr. Harvey indicted this information was contained within Attachment 1 and on the site plan. Access to the recreation
16 facility is proposed off Old Greensboro Road, a State maintained roadway.
17
18 c) Plans and elevation for all proposed and existing structures and descriptions of the color and
19 nature of all exterior materials.
20
21 Mr. Harvey reminded the Board that the applicant was not proposing any structures as part of this project.
22
23 d) A landscape plan showing, at the same scale as the site plan, existing and proposed trees, shrubs,
24 ground cover and any other landscape materials.
25
26 Mr. Harvey informed the Board the submitted site plan contains the required landscape plan.
27
28 e) A signed statement from the owners or operators that there shall be no activity allowed that will
29 have adverse effects on adjacent property. The statement shall also include a complete list of all
30 recreational activities that will take place on the site.
31
32 Mr. Harvey indicated the statement is contained within the application as well as the submitted site plan.
33
34 (2) Standards of Evaluation
35
36 a) The property shall have direct frontage on, and obtain vehicular access from, a public road.
37
38 Mr. Harvey indicated the site plan denotes the property has frontage on, and obtains access from, Old Greensboro
39 Road (SR 1745) a State maintained roadway.
40
41 b) Lot size shall be adequate for the method of sewage disposal proposed, and for the proposed
42 recreational uses.
43
44 Mr. Harvey reminded the Board the applicants are proposing to use portable toilets, which will be cleaned by a vendor
45 as needed. No septic system is proposed to support the project at this time.
46
47 Mr. Qandil asked what would happen if the applicant chose to install a septic system at a later date. Mr. Harvey
48 indicated such a request would be treated as a modification and, consistent with the UDO, would have to come back
49 before the Board for review and approval.
50
6
Approved 08/09/2021
1 c) The site plan should show the boundaries of the site, the distances to the nearest residential
2 structures, proposed or existing access points, parking and service areas, location of outdoor
3 recreational facilities, and location of existing or proposed buildings.
4
5 d) The landscape plan shall be at the same scale as the site plan and should show how the facilities
6 will be screened from the adjacent properties, in addition to proposed or existing trees, shrubs and
7 ground cover.
8
9 Mr. Harvey said the site plan contains the required information and demonstrates compliance with required land use
10 buffers.
11
12 e) Elevations of all structures and buildings. The structure shall be of such a nature as to preserve the
13 residential character of the area.
14
15 Mr. Harvey reminded the Board that there were no structures proposed as part of this application request.
16
17 f) There are no adverse impacts on the adjacent roads or residential property.
18
19 Mr. Harvey summarized the applicant's response to this standard indicating there will be no outdoor lights and/or
20 speaker system associated with the project. Activities will only occur during daylight hours. There are no permanent
21 structures proposed for the property including bleachers, changing, or equipment rooms. The applicant is not
22 proposing a septic system thereby eliminating potential impact(s) to surrounding wells. The site plan denoted the
23 location of trash receptacles and the narrative indicates the participants would remove trash after each match or
24 practice.
25
26 Mr. Harvey indicated the applicant had voluntarily offered the imposition of several conditions, namely:
27 a. Proposed outdoor athletic fields shall only be used to support the playing of cricket matches and practices.
28 No other recreational activities are proposed for the property;
29 b. For public safety purposes as required in Section 5.3.2 (B) (2), a street address sign be assigned by
30 Orange County Land Records, consistent with the County Addressing Ordinance, prior to the
31 commencement of recreational activities;
32 c. Cricket play shall only occur from the months of April through October;
33 d. Development/operation of the outdoor athletic fields shall not involve the development/location of
34 bleachers, club house, changing rooms, outdoor lights, or loud speakers;
35 e. Cricket matches shall only be played during weekends (Saturday and/or Sunday) with practices being
36 limited to one day a week for no more than 3 hours during daylight hours;
37 f. Cricket matches are for social/recreational purposes only. Use of the recreation facility will not be part of a
38 professional league and will not involve activities associated with earning prize money or other form of
39 monetary gain for participants;
40 g. Applicant will maintain a 30 ft. land use buffer along Old Greensboro and Holly Creek Lane
41 h. There shall be no use of Holly Creek Lane to support activities on the property;
42 i. Trash/debris shall be removed from the site at the conclusion of a cricket match;
43 j. Parking and porta potties shall be screened with vegetation and a fence consistent with the submitted site
44 plan;
45 k. Applicant shall secure a driveway permit from the NC Department of Transportation prior to the
46 commencement of land disturbing activities for the driveway off of Old Greensboro Road;
47 I. Development shall abide by the general standards of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as
48 detailed in Article 6 and the specific standards contained in Section 5.7.2;
7
Approved 08/09/2021
1 m. In accordance with UDO Sections 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses and 5.7.2 Recreational Facilities, activities
2 allowed to occur on the property shall be in accordance with the submitted application package, site plan,
3 and narrative as reviewed by the Orange County Board of Adjustment;
4 n. The applicants shall obtain all applicable development permits from the County consistent with the
5 approved SUP, including but not limited to: Erosion Control; Stormwater; and Zoning Compliance;
6
7 Mr. Harvey pulled up and summarized the site plan denoting proposed athletic field location, parking, access off old
8 Greensboro Road, and required landscaped areas. Mr. Harvey provided a summary of the comments from the
9 neighborhood information meeting, which were contained as part of Attachment 4 of the agenda packet.
10
11 Mr. Qandil asked if the applicant was required to have outdoor lighting for the parking area. Mr. Harvey indicated the
12 UDO did not require outdoor lighting for the parking areas but it would be encouraged. Erection of outdoor lights for the
13 parking area would require the submittal of a formal lighting plan completed in accordance with Section 6.11 of the
14 UDO. Mr. Harvey said the applicant chose not to proposed outdoor lights to avoid impacts on adjacent property owners
15 from glare and further indicated that practice and matches would occur during daylight hours negating the need for the
16 lights.
17
18 Chair Meyers asked if staff was satisfied with the virtual nature of the neighborhood information meeting. Mr. Harvey
19 indicated the meeting went as smoothly as technology allowed. Mr. Harvey did say he was not aware of any
20 complaints or issues from individuals who were not able to attend due to a technology issue.
21
22 Mr. Harvey asked the applicant and all other parties intending to argue standing to come into the meeting room.
23
24 David Mufuka indicated he was an attorney with the Mufuka Law Firm representing the applicant for Case A-4-20,
25 specifically Mr. and Mrs. Vishwanath Patil and Vintha Cardoza. Ms. Cheek swore in Mr. Mufuka and Mr. Patil.
26
27 Chair Meyers reviewed the meeting cadence with the applicant and the other parties in attendance. Mr. Mufuka
28 indicated he and his client were in agreement with the proposed cadence.
29
30 Mr. Mufuka summarized his client's ownership of the property, arguing they had standing to submit the application and
31 propose the recreation facility as detailed within their application package (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet).
32
33 MOTION made by Vice-chair Halkiotis finding that Mr. and Mrs. Vishwanath Patil and Vintha Cardoza were the owners
34 of the property and had standing to apply for the special use permit, seconded by Mr. Scott.
35 VOTE: Unanimous.
36
37 Chair Meyers indicated the next order of business was to hear from those individuals asserting standing on Case A-4-
38 20.
39
40 Mr. Mufuka asked how the Board wanted to address hearing and/or acting upon the credentials of various expert
41 witnesses they intended to call. Chair Meyers indicated this would be handled at the January meeting. Mr. Byran
42 asked Mr. Mufuka if he knew how many witnesses he intended to call. Mr. Mufuka indicated they would call two expert
43 and to layperson witnesses.
44
45 Chair Meyers indicated the Board had received a standing application from Mr. and Mrs. William and Leslie Weidner on
46 Case A-4-20. He asked Mr. and Mrs. Weidner to come forward and present their argument for standing on this case.
47
48 Ms. Cheek swore in both Mr. and Mrs. William and Leslie Weidner.
49
8
Approved 0810912021
1 Mrs. Weidner read a statement into the record documenting her standing with respect to Case A-4-20. This statement
2 summarized the previously submitted standing application provided to the Board and applicant.
3 Mrs. Weidner indicated she and her husband own property near the subject parcel, specifically 1001 Holly Creek Lane.
4 They believe the request is inconsistent with the rural nature of the area and will have a negative impact on the value of
5 their property, will cause security concerns, and will create public safety issues as the result of increased traffic. Mrs.
6 Weidner indicated she was not comfortable with allowing the proposed land use to develop near them given the
7 potential secondary impacts it would generate in a rural area of Orange County.
8
9 Mr. Weidner thanked the Board for being allowed to speak and indicated he and his wife made the chose to purchase
10 their property based on its Rural Buffer (RB) general use zoning designation, which indicated it was only appropriate for
11 rural development activities. Mr. Weidner indicated he and his wife may not have bought their parcel had they known a
12 commercial land use could be developed near them. The main roadway, Holly Creek Lane, is a private gravel road and
13 cannot handle the intensive nature of the proposed recreational land use. Mr. Weidner indicated he had spoken to
14 several realtors who informed him there would be a significant impact with respect to the value of their residence if the
15 cricket field were developed as proposed.
16
17 Chair Meyers reminded the parties the purpose of this evening's meeting was to establish standing and not get into
18 argument(s) over potential impacts. Such arguments would be handled at the January 2021 regular meeting. Mr.
19 Weidner expressed concern that Mr. Patil does not live in the area and allows a cricket league to operate from the
20 property. Mr. Weidner indicated they have been complaining about the operation of the league for at least 3 years and
21 are very concerned about the development of the recreation facility as Mr. Patil will not be leaving near the proposed
22 cricket fields. Mr. Weidner indicated information provided by Mr. Patil indicating he lives near the cricket field is
23 erroneous.
24
25 MOTION made by Vice-chair Halkiotis finding that Mr. and Mrs. William and Leslie Weidner were the owners of property
26 near the proposed cricket field, had provided information on potential impacts to property value resulting in the
27 development of the facility, and had standing to comment on the proposed special use permit, seconded by Mr. Qandil.
28
29 Mr. Mufuka asked to be recognized. Mr. Mufuka argued Mr. and Mrs. William and Leslie Weidner application of
30 standing indicating their application indicated they were speaking for themselves as well as surrounding property
31 owners. Mr. Mufuka objected to the assertion the Weidner's represented a group of local residents, which there was no
32 evidence supporting this claim. They could not make arguments indicating they represented other property owners who
33 had not provided documentation asserting standing. Further, Mr. Mufuka indicated the special damages they were
34 alleging were not supported by experts and did not allege specific harms. There was no substantiation of the purposed
35 special damages and his client objected to the presentation of documents alleging same.
36
37 There was general discussion amongst the Board members on the determination of standing with Mr. Bryan.
38
39 Chair Meyers called the question reminding the Board there was a motion and second on granting Mr. and Mrs.
40 Weidner standing.
41
42 Mr. Weidner indicated they would have 4 witnesses and asked if one of their witnesses would be allowed to submit an
43 affidavit offering testimony. Mr. Bryan indicated anyone intending to offer evidence should be available to attend the
44 hearing and be subject to cross examination. Mr. Bryan indicated staff cannot make legal determinations or offer
45 advice to a party. Mr. Bryan indicated the Board's responsibility was to weigh evidence and give it due consideration as
46 practically possible. The Board could accept hearsay evidence but that he would always recommend parties be
47 present, be sworn, and offer testimony in person.
48
49 VOTE: Unanimous.
50
9
Approved 0810912021
1 Chair Meyers indicated the Weidner's were found to have standing on Case A-4-20.
2
3 Chair Meyers asked if there was a Bradley Dent in the meeting room. Mr. Dent identified himself and approached the
4 podium. Ms. Cheek swore in Mr. Dent.
5
6 Mr. Dent indicated he was a resident of 2600 Old Greensboro Highway near the proposed cricket field. Chair Meyers
7 summarized the cadence of tonight's meeting. Mr. Dent indicated he was here to document for the Board where his
8 property was and discuss his concerns over potential impacts to his well.
9
10 Mr. Dent indicated his parcel was approximately 100 ft. west of Mr. Patil's property with access off Old Greensboro
11 Road. Mr. Dent showed his parcel on a map.
12
13 Mr. Dent indicated his concern was over the parking lot, which is closer than 700 ft. from his property as denoted on the
14 survey contained within the application. Mr. Dent indicated he is concerned over runoff impacting his existing shallow
15 well, specifically from oils/leaking fuel impacting his well. The proposed overflow, grass, parking area is very close to
16 his property and shallow well. Mr. Dent indicated he had no issues with the use of the property for cricket, and was not
17 there to argue against the development of cricket fields on the property, but wanted the opportunity to express the
18 concern the proposed overflow grass parking location does represent a concern due to potential environmental impacts
19 to the existing well. Mr. Dent also believes the survey submitted by Mr. Patil improperly denotes the distance of the
20 overflow parking area from his well and should be corrected. Mr. Dent did indicate he was somewhat concerned about
21 lights from vehicles shining into his house, but was more concerned over potential well impacts.
22
23 Chair Meyers thanked Mr. Dent and asked if there were any questions. There were general clarifying questions about
24 the distance of the residence.
25
26 Mr. Scott asked Mr. Harvey if there were regulations governing the development of overflow parking. Mr. Harvey
27 indicated that as the parking was not required, the UDO did not give him authority to compel the parking to be improved
28 in any way. Mr. Harvey suggested the Board could have a conversation with the applicant over this concern at an
29 appropriate time. Mr. Qandil asked if the State were going to be required to review this project or if the UDO required
30 an environmental impact review of the proposed cricket field. Mr. Harvey indicated there would not be sufficient land
31 disturbing activity to require an environmental assessment as detailed in Section 6.16 of the UDO and that the State did
32 not have jurisdiction over the development proposal. The applicant will have to comply with applicable Erosion Control
33 and Stormwater permitting requirements based on proposed land disturbance. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board this was
34 not only a requirement of the UDO, but was also an applicant recommended condition of approval.
35
36 MOTION made by Vice-chair Halkiotis finding that Mr. Dent was the owner of property near the proposed recreation
37 facility and had standing to comment on the special use permit, seconded by Mr. Qandil.
38 VOTE: Unanimous.
39
40 Chair Meyers asked if anyone else was requesting a determination on standing. There were none.
41
42 Chair Meyers asked for a motion to adjourn Case A-4-20 to the January 11, 2021 regular meeting.
43
44 MOTION made by Vice-chair Halkiotis adjourning the public hearing for Case A-4-20 to January 11, 2021 in order to
45 conduct the evidentiary component of the hearing, seconded by Mr. Scott.
46 VOTE: Unanimous.
47
48 Chair Meyers asked if there was any other business before the Board. There was none. Chair Meyers summarized
49 work being completed by Mr. Bryan updating and revising the Board's rules of procedure. Mr. Bryan indicating this
50 would be addressed at future meetings and that the update would incorporate anticipated changes in State law
10
Approved 0810912021
1 associated with what is classified as the 160D amendments. Mr. Bryan reminded the Board that members cannot
2 discuss business outside of a meeting meaning there cannot be email discussions on topics by Board members to
3 avoid the appearance of impropriety.
4
5 AGENDA ITEM 6: ADJOURNMENT
6
7 MOTION made by Mr. Scott to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Qandil.
8 VOTE: Unanimous.
9
10 26 August 2021
11 LEON MEYERS,CHAIR
11