Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.11.24 BOA Agenda PacketPLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (BOA) WHITTED BUILDING 300 WEST TRYON STREET HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 Wednesday, September 11, 2024 7:00 p.m. No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 24, 2024 Meeting Minutes 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 cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial administrative body established in accordance with the provisions of local regulations and State law to perform specified functions essential to the County’s planning program. Action(s) taken by the board are based solely on competent, substantial, and material evidence presented during a previously scheduled and advertised public hearing on a specific item. As detailed within Section 2.12.2 of the UDO the Board chair reserves the right to exclude evidence and testimony that is deemed: ‘incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious’ and therefore fails to reasonably address the issues before the Board of Adjustment. While it should be noted there is no time limit on the presentation of evidence, the Chair asks that the presentation of evidence be consistent with established policies, rules of procedure, and acceptable levels of decorum to ensure a fair and equitable hearing for all parties. 5.POTENTIAL BOA CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT It is the duty of every Board member to avoid both conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict. Board members having any conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict with respect to matters before the Board should identify the conflict or appearance of conflict and refrain from undue participation in the matter involved. As a reminder, NC General Statute § 160D-109 establishes the following standard: A member of any board exercising quasi-judicial functions pursuant to this Chapter shall not participate in or vote on any quasi-judicial matter in a manner that would violate affected person’s constitutional rights to an impartial decision maker. Impermissible violations of due process include, but are not limited to, a member having a fixed opinion prior to hearing the matter that is not susceptible to change, undisclosed ex parte communications, a close familial, business, or other associational relationship with an affected person, or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter. 6. CASES: A-4-24 – To review Special Use Permit Modification (Case Number SUP24-0012) Modification request to an approved Site Plan associated with an approved Camp/Retreat Special Use Permit (SUP) (Case A-15-18). Request submitted by Camp Chestnut Ridge and NC United Methodist Camp & Retreat Ministries, Inc. requesting to modify the approved site plan to allow for a new location for seven (7) RV spaces from one side of the camp to another and consolidate the equestrian facilities into one central area. All other aspects of the original SUP remain in place and the site plan change does not increase the capacity or use of the existing facility. The site is located on Orange County PINs 9843-22-1289; 9843-13- 7930; 9843-05-5036; and 9833-93-5222, and along Camp Chestnut Ridge Road, west side Chestnut Ridge Church Road, and east of Mt. Willing Road and lies within the Cheeks Township. A-5-24 - To review a Variance (Case Number BA24-0003) Request submitted by Cynthia Ray Barlow. The applicant has applied for a variance from the 150-foot reservoir buffer to allow for the construction of a single-family home within 75 feet from Lake Orange. The site is located on Orange County PIN 9857-87-2156, has road frontage along Old Lake Trail, and lies within the Cedar Grove Township of Orange County. 7. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2 REGULAR MEETING 3 July 24th, 2024 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Leon Meyers, Chair, Member 6 Beth Bronson, Vice-chair, Member 7 Jeff Scott, Member 8 Nathan Robinson, Member 9 Greg Niemiroski, Member 10 11 MEMBERS EXCUSED: Holly Fraccaro, Alternate 12 Adam Beeman, Alternate 13 14 LIST OF APPLICANTS: Patrick Byker, Morningstar Law Group 15 Will Wirt, Summit Engineering 16 Nicholas Kirkland, Kirkland Appraisals LLC 17 Trish Nervo, Erwin Road Montessori School 18 Samuel Harrell 19 20 PUBLIC: None 21 22 STAFF PRESENT:Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director, Development Services 23 Ashley Moncado, Planner III 24 Lauren Coffey, Planner I 25 Jack Moran, Planning Technician 26 James Bryan, Staff Attorney 27 28 29 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 30 31 Leon Meyers called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM 32 33 AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 34 35 No additions to the agenda 36 37 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 38 39 Leon Meyers: The first order of business would be approval of the minutes that are in your package. Board 40 members, a motion would be in order to approve the minutes. 41 42 Nathan Robinson: I make a motion to approve them. 43 44 Greg Niemiroski: Second. 45 46 Leon Meyers: Any discussion, anything that needs attention? All in favor, please say aye. None opposed. The 47 minutes are approved. 48 49 MOTION was made by Nathan Robinson. Seconded by Greg Niemiroski. 50 1 VOTE: Unanimous 1 2 AGENDA ITEMS 4 & 5: PUBLIC CHARGE & POTENTIAL BOA CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT 3 4 Leon Meyers: The Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The board asks its 5 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the board and with fellow citizens. At any 6 time should any member of the board or any citizen fail to observe the charge, I will ask the offending person to leave 7 the meeting until that individual regains control. Should decorum fail to be restored, I'll recess the meeting until such 8 time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as phones and pagers 9 should be turned off at this time, please. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial administrative body established in 10 accordance with the provisions of local regulations and state law to perform specified functions essential to the county's 11 planning program. Actions taken by the board are based solely on competent, substantial, and material evidence 12 presented during a hearing like tonight's hearing on a specific item as detailed within Section 2.1.2 of the UDO, the 13 board chair reserves the right to exclude evidence and testimony that is deemed incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, or 14 unduly repetitious and, therefore, fails to reasonably address the issues before the Board of Adjustment. While it 15 should be noted that there is no time limit on the presentation of evidence, I ask that the presentation of evidence be 16 consistent with established policies, rules of procedure, and acceptable levels of decorum in order to ensure a fair and 17 equitable hearing for all parties. I'll just mention also that state law requires that the Board of Adjustment receive 18 testimony only from members of the public with standing. If we have any speakers signed up tonight, then we'll address 19 that as the case, as the staff presents the case. It is the duty of every board member to avoid both conflicts of interest 20 and appearances of conflict. Board members having any conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict with respect to 21 matters before the board should identify the conflict or appearance of conflict and refrain from undue participation in the 22 matter involved. As a reminder, Statute 160D-109 establishes the following standard. A member of any board 23 exercising quasi-judicial functions pursuant to this chapter shall not participate in or vote on any quasi-judicial matter in 24 a manner that would violate the affected person's constitutional rights to an impartial decision maker. Permissible 25 violations of due process include, but are not limited to, a member having a fixed opinion prior to hearing the matter that 26 is not susceptible to change, undisclosed ex parte communications, meaning communications outside the hearing, a 27 close familial business or other associational relationship with an affected person, or a financial interest in the outcome 28 of the matter. I ask at this time if there are any board members who need to decline to participate in either of tonight's 29 hearings in order to avoid a conflict of interest or an appearance of conflict. 30 31 Beth Bronson: No. 32 33 Leon Meyers: Okay. Then let's begin with Case A-3-24 with a staff presentation. 34 35 AGENDA ITEM 6: CASE: A-3-24 - To review Special Use Permit (Case Number SUP24-0009) request 36 submitted by Childs Pace Properties, LLC proposing a major modification to a 37 previously approved Special Use Permit for a care facility. The request is to allow for an 38 increase in students and employees at the existing day care facility. The site is located 39 on Orange County PIN 0801-13-1208, at 735 Erwin Drive, Durham, within the Chapel Hill 40 Township of Orange County. 41 42 Ashley Moncado: Good evening. The first item tonight is a request for a major modification to an existing Special 43 Use Permit for a day care facility. The 5.48-acre parcel and day care facility is located at 735 Erwin Road in the Chapel 44 Hill Township, as identified here on the map with the red star. The parcel is zoned as Rural Buffer. A care facility is 45 permitted in the RB district with an approved Special Use Permit. Adjacent parcels in Orange County's jurisdiction are 46 zoned as Rural Buffer. Parcels located in Durham County are zoned as Residential Suburban and Planned 47 Development residential districts. In addition, this parcel is located in the Rural Buffer Future Land Use classification 48 and is part of the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area. As a result, it was submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill for their 49 review. Comments are contained in Attachment 5 of your packets. The existing care facility operates based on a 50 2 Special Use Permit approved in 2002. The existing single-family home was converted to accommodate the facility 1 since the original SUP was approved. The 2002 SUP allows for up to 23 children and 4 staff members. Due to 2 compliance issues, the property owner and applicant are requesting a major modification to allow for an increase to 3 allow for up to 46 children and 10 staff members. The proposed modification will not result in an expansion of the 4 existing structure use for this facility. In addition to the increase in enrollment, improvements will be made to the septic 5 system, which will be reviewed and permitted by Orange County Environmental Health. The project proposes to 6 continue use of existing ingress and egress connecting to Erwin Road with improvements to the access way and 7 parking areas. Here we have the site plan, which is in Attachment 1 of your packets. The single-family home is 8 identified and located here. To the east, we have the play areas that are required, meeting UDO standards. There are 9 additional accessory structures that are contained on the site. These are not utilized currently for the care facility, and 10 they will remain not utilized for the care facility. Minimum front, side, and rear zoning district setbacks are being met. In 11 addition, a 65-foot stream buffer is being provided along the stream bank here along the northern portion of the 12 property. The site plan also shows compliance with landscape standards related to foundation planting, street trees, 13 and parking lot plantings. The project proposes access via a 20-foot-wide access way here. Proposed parking and 14 stacking areas are shown here on the southern portion of the site. You can see stacking here of the three cars, which 15 are all meeting UDO standards. Proposed lighting located in the southern portion of the site is also consistent with 16 Unified Development Ordinance standards. The submitted application and evidence was reviewed by staff and was 17 determined to be in compliance with Section 2.5, Site Plans, Section 2.7, Special Use Permits, and Section 5.8.2, Care 18 Facility standards. This analysis is contained in Attachment 2. Staff finds that the Special Use proposed will maintain 19 or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operating 20 according to the site plan provided. Based on materials provided, staff finds no potential injury to the value of property. 21 As documented in the staff report contained in Attachment 2, staff finds that the use will be in harmony with the area in 22 which it is to be located and in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the county as contained in the 23 Unified Development Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Attachment 2 includes a staff analysis detail and 24 compliance with standards contained in the UDO specifically related to Section 5.8.2, Care Facilities as well as Chapter 25 2, Planning Principles of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Based on Section 2.7.11 of the UDO, Board of 26 Adjustment may impose reasonable conditions upon approval of the SUP. Here we have the conditions that have been 27 submitted by staff. I'm not going to go through them all. If you have any questions, we can go back through to review. 28 Conditions 1 through 7 include the conditions contained in the existing approved Special Use Permit from 2002, with 29 very minor edits for consistency and compliance with the current standards contained in the Unified Development 30 Ordinance. Conditions 8 through 10 include the standards and Special Use Permits conditions based on Sections 2.5 31 and 2.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance, and then Condition 11 was proposed by staff regarding the future 32 maintenance and landscaping as illustrated and noted on the site plan. This was a minor modification to an existing 33 condition contained in the 2002 SUP in order to reflect current standards contained in the UDO. And then finally we 34 also received two conditions that were submitted by the applicant for your consideration this evening. The first one is to 35 allow for an exemption from landscape buffer standards contained in Section 6.8.6, specifically the required Type B 36 buffer located along Erwin Road, and number two proposed driveway and parking shall be surfaced with all-weather 37 paving materials such as asphalt or gravel and maintained in a safe, sanitary, and neat condition. Concrete or asphalt 38 paving materials shall be required for the driveway connection with Erwin Road and accessible parking spaces. 39 40 Leon Meyers: Time out Ashley. Board members, any questions for Ashley. 41 42 Beth Bronson: Ashley, can you indicate where the Conditions 1 through 10 were. 43 44 Ashley Moncado: They’re in your packet in Attachment 2. 45 46 Leon Meyers: It's page 123, I think. 47 48 Beth Bronson: That's right where I was. Okay, thank you. 49 50 3 Ashley Moncado: They're in the staff report. 1 2 Beth Bronson: Yeah, I wanted to see the staff report verses the proposed conditions. Thank you. I have it, 123. 3 You're right. 4 5 Leon Meyers: Anything else for staff? Okay, thank you. Ashley? Patrick? 6 7 Patrick Mallett: Swear people in while we’re going down that road. 8 9 Leon Meyers: All right. Anybody who intends to testify tonight, please come forward to be sworn. 10 11 SWEARING OF THE TESTIMONY 12 13 Patrick Mallett: Raise your right hand. Do you swear and or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, 14 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the best of your knowledge? 15 16 Leon Meyers: Good evening Mr. Byker. 17 18 Patrick Byker: Good evening, Chairman Meyers, Vice Chair Bronson, members of the Board. My name is Patrick 19 Byker. I'm an attorney with Morning Star Law Group. My office address is 700 West Main Street in Durham. At the 20 outset, I would like to ask for all the exhibits relied upon or referred to by our witnesses, including the site plan and the 21 staff report, be admitted into evidence as a part of the record and also take judicial notice of the UDO, the 22 Comprehensive Plam, and the official plans adopted by Orange County. Chairman Meyers, if I may at this time, I'd like 23 to approach with the resumes of Will Wirt, our site engineer, and Nick Kirkland, a real estate appraiser licensed by the 24 State of North Carolina, and we also have a copy of a report by Mr. Kirkland relating to property values. We'd like to 25 have that admitted into evidence. 26 27 Leon Meyers: Are any of those items in the package Ashley? They aren’t? Okay, Thank you. 28 29 Patrick Byker: Just for the record, Chairman Meyers, Will Wirt's resume is Exhibit A. Nick Kirkland's resume is Exhibit 30 B, and Mr. Kirkland's real estate impact report is Exhibit C. Again, for the record, we represent Erwin Road Montessori 31 School along with Child’s Pace Properties LLC, which is the applicant for this case. Child’s Pace Properties owns a site 32 containing approximately 5 1/2 acres on the west side of Erwin Road right next to the Durham County line. As Ashley 33 stated, we're here this evening to request a major modification to a Special Use Permit to address the growth of this day 34 care facility since Orange County approved the original Special Use Permit for a daycare facility at this location. 35 Orange County approved the original Special Use Permit, which is your staff report, back on November 11 of 2002. 36 That 2002 permit allowed only 23 children and 4 staff members to be at this location. Due to the passage of time and 37 the change of property ownership, it's regrettable that the Erwin Road Montessori School unknowingly exceeded these 38 limitations on children and staff. We wish to state on the record tonight that we apologize for this oversight. The 39 purpose of this modification to the 2002 Special Use Permit is simply to bring this day care facility, which has been an 40 integral part of the neighborhood for over 20 years, into compliance with existing child and staff attendance. The 41 existing building will remain unchanged, and it is duly licensed by the State of North Carolina. The documentation 42 related to the license issued by our state agency is shown on Page 75 of the staff report. I do want to take a moment 43 here to thank Ashley Moncado for an excellent staff report in regard to this agenda item. As always, we received 44 superb customer services from Ashley, Pat Mallett, and the Orange County Planning Department. In regard to the 45 forecast of evidence, in this case, Section 1.8.3(b) of the Orange County UDO, gives this Board the final decision-46 making authority on Special Use Permit applications. The applicant's team tonight will demonstrate that the plan for the 47 Erwin Road Montessori School meets all the requirements for approval set forth in the UDO, and we will prove that with 48 substantial material and competent evidence on the record as well as the exhibits and the testimony of these expert 49 witnesses. Mr. Will Wirt, a professional engineer from Summit Design and Engineering, is the site engineer for Erwin 50 4 Road Montessori School. He will talk to you in depth about this plan and how it conforms with UDO standards, and 1 then secondly, Mr. Nick Kirkland is a duly licensed real estate appraiser, and he will address the property valuation 2 issues as required by the UDO. I also want to introduce Ms. Trish Nervo. She's the head of school at Erwin Road 3 Montessori, and she's here to answer any questions that the Board may have about operations. As you hear the 4 evidence tonight, please keep in mind the legal standards. It is our burden as the applicant to provide competent 5 material and substantial evidence on the record showing that each of the required approval criteria has been met. 6 Once this has been done, the applicant is entitled to issuance of a special use permit. In this case, it's simply a 7 modification. Special uses are uses of right once the evidence shows that the applicable criteria have been met. We 8 feel confident that the competent material substantial evidence that will be presented this evening will show clearly that 9 the applicant has complied with all the requirements of the UDO, and unless there are any questions for me, I'd like to 10 call our first witness, Mr. Will Wirt, a professional engineer with Summit Design and Engineering. Are there any 11 questions I can answer for you? 12 13 Leon Meyers: Questions, Board members for Mr. Byker? Thank you, please proceed. 14 15 Will Wirt: Good evening. Like Patrick said, my name is Will Wirt. I'm with Summit Design and Engineering here 16 in Hillsborough out of our office on 320 Executive Drive. I've been with Summit for about 7 years doing site design. 17 That includes a wide range of engineering including hydraulic, geo tech, and transportation design, and as well as 18 several SUPs here in Orange County and throughout central North Carolina. I was the site engineer for this project for 19 the plan that you have in your package, and I'm here to discuss the overall design of the project and help answer any 20 questions you have and make clear your basis of knowledge for this project. So as you can see from the site plan, the 21 main building contains approximately 2,070 square feet, and that footprint remains unchanged from what was approved 22 in the Special Use Permit back in 2002, and the main reason for this update to the Special Use Permit is to address the 23 fact that the day care facility needs to serve up to 46 children, which requires 10 staff, and the 2002 Special Use Permit 24 that Patrick mentioned only allowed for 23 children and 4 staff members. In addition to the building, the on-site features 25 like the playground, the concrete sidewalk, landscaping, and solid waste disposal facilities will also remain unchanged. 26 However, I do wish to emphasize that with this proposed increase in the number of the children to be served at this 27 location, we will install a new septic system, improve the driveway, and the driveway connection to Erwin Road, 28 increase the parking, and improve on-site lighting. All of these will be in accordance with Orange County's UDO and all 29 North Carolina state standards. So, moving on to the UDO standards covering two major categories, general special 30 use standards and specific special use standards, starting with general special use standards and addressing public 31 health and safety. The approval of this Special Use Permit will maintain or promote public health, safety, and general 32 welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan submitted. The septic system 33 improvements will comply with all applicable regulations and will be an improvement over the current condition. The 34 driveway and parking will be improved as shown on the site plan on Page 119 in your staff report and as described with 35 our proposed conditions on Page 68 of your staff report. I'd like to emphasize the site distance triangles, improvements 36 at Erwin Road as well as the improvement to the driveway connection there, as I mentioned before, which helps 37 improve the site's public safety. The only specific UDO standard that I need to draw the Board's attention to is our 38 request for an exemption from the 30-foot buffer for the following reasons. Table 6.8.6(d) in the UDO does not require 39 buffers between properties with the same zoning or use. The existing vegetation along the southern property line and 40 along the stream provide opaque screening between neighboring properties, and as shown on the site plan on 119, 41 vegetative screening will be enhanced where necessary with the Type B buffer standards. And lastly, the site driveway 42 does not allow for the 30-foot buffer at the southern property line because leaving the driveway in place would promote 43 efficiency and minimize land disturbance. Second, harmony. It's my professional opinion after working through this site 44 plan, that the location and character of the use as a day care facility, if developed according to the plan submitted, will 45 be in harmony with the area in which it is to be so located, and the use is in compliance with the plan for the fiscal 46 development of the county as embodied by the UDO or the comprehensive plan. This property is located in a rural area 47 with either undeveloped land or low-density residential developed land in the area near Erwin Road Montessori School. 48 Consequently, this use will be in harmony with the plan for development in the county. The Orange County 49 Comprehensive Plan states that there are projections that a quarter of the 40,000 to 80,000 people moving to Orange 50 5 County will likely live outside the municipalities, which means that there is clearly a need for additional childcare 1 capacity in Orange County to serve somewhere between 10 and 20,000 new residents. Moving on to specific special 2 use standards. As part of UDO Section 5.3.2(b), these are also met by the plan. The method and adequacy of sewer 3 disposal, solid waste, and water facilities, the plan for sewage and solid waste disposal and the provisions of water at 4 the site are adequate for the needs of the day care facility. The method for adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad 5 protection those services will have adequate access to the site and should have no trouble accessing the site with the 6 improved modifications to the driveway connection at Erwin Road. And for these reasons, and then for those stated in 7 your staff report, the plan complies with the general and specific standards for special uses. Some additional UDO 8 sections. In regard to landscaping, screening, and buffers, I wish to draw the Board's attention to Page 122 of the staff 9 report and note Items 12 and 13 on that page. The project will maintain existing vegetation on site to meet the 10 landscaping and screening requirement contained in Section 6.8.7(a) through (d), and Section 6.8.9 of the UDO as 11 shown on the site plan and where we are requesting an exemption from the landscape buffer standards contained in 12 Section 6.8.6, specifically required Type B buffers along Erwin Road. The parking on the plan has been modified or 13 improved to meet the requirements of the UDO. So, to conclude, in professional opinion, I believe that the plan is in 14 conformance with the special requirements applicable to the use of a day care facility. I wish to note on Page 123 of 15 the staff report, the staff report states that, "The proposed expansion of the existing facility has been reviewed by 16 Orange County DAC, including planning, building, inspection, NC DOT environmental health, solid waste, and 17 emergency services for compliance with the Orange County ordinances, state building codes, health code, and fire 18 code." And all of those concerns are addressed in the staff report. It's important to also note that NCDOT has had no 19 comment on this Special Use Permit application as shown on Page 147 of your report, but we did meet with the district 20 engineer, Chuck Edwards, to go over DOT requirements for that driveway connection. It is also my professional 21 opinion that the use will maintain or promote public health, safety, and general welfare as located where it is and 22 developed as designed to be in compliance with all UDO regulations applicable to the site. And I'm available to answer 23 any questions the Board may have. 24 25 Leon Meyers: Questions, Board members? 26 27 Beth Bronson: You said the DOT had no comment, and that was on Page 123? 28 29 Will Wirt: 147. 30 31 Beth Bronson: 147? And that was the DAC comments, correct? 32 33 Will Wirt: Yes. 34 35 Beth Bronson: Okay, and then regarding the DOT email about the requirements for permit application? 36 37 Will Wirt: The permit application for a DOT driveway connection will be applied for, and all of their comments 38 during that application will be addressed during construction plan or the site plan process. 39 40 Beth Bronson: Great. And so, what kind of comments would the DOT have before a permit like that was applied for? 41 42 Will Wirt: Just to make sure that your plan shows minimum design criteria of a driveway connection per their 43 standards. They have minimum dimensions for width, for radius, for taper length, and other things like that. They 44 wouldn't comment before, but after you apply, they would. They would give you comments and feedback. 45 46 Beth Bronson: After you apply? 47 48 Will Wirt: Yes, ma'am. 49 50 6 Beth Bronson: I'm confirming that there's no permit that's been applied for. For the DOT driveway? 1 2 Will Wirt No, ma'am. 3 4 Beth Bronson: All right. Thank you. 5 6 Leon Meyers: Any other questions? Mr. Wirt, could you state again the basis for your request for a variance from the 7 buffer requirements in 6.8.6, I believe it is, on Erwin Road? 8 9 Will Wirt: Yes, sir. So, on Erwin Road, particularly that section, the creek, as you can see on the site plan, runs 10 tightly against Erwin Road, and so putting a landscape buffer there would be tight given the slopes of the road and the 11 stream, in addition to the fact that there is a large stand of thick vegetation there already, which provides opaque 12 screening from the site to the road. 13 14 Leon Meyers: Thank you. 15 16 Will Wirt: Yes, sir. 17 18 Beth Bronson: And so I'm clear, the variance that you're speaking of for the buffer, Type B, is on the west side of the 19 property parcel? 20 21 Will Wirt: It's on the south side, the south property line, and also along Erwin Road, which I believe is the west 22 side, yes, ma'am. 23 24 Beth Bronson: The south side and the west side. There being a single-family home on the south side. All right. 25 Thank you. 26 27 Leon Meyers: Let me be sure I understand. On part of the south property line, the site plan notes here, where 28 existing vegetation does not provide opaque screening, supplement with Type B buffer is necessary, and that looks like 29 graphically is maybe about third of that boundary length? 30 31 Will Wirt: Yes, sir. 32 33 Leon Meyers: So, what's the difference between where you are supplementing existing plantings and where you 34 aren't? 35 36 Will Wirt: Along the southern boundary, it would be the width required for a Type B buffer. Along the driveway, 37 where the driveway aligns with the southern boundary, there isn't enough room to install a 30-foot buffer there because 38 we'd like to leave the driveway where it is for efficiency during construction, and to lower land disturbance while making 39 those improvements. So, it has to be 30 feet along the whole line. I believe along the whole southern property line, and 40 along one strip where the driveway runs along the southern property, it's not. It doesn't meet that width standard, but it 41 is supplemented elsewhere. 42 43 Beth Bronson: And so that driveway is already nonconforming? 44 45 Will Wirt: It's deteriorating. Yes, ma'am. 46 47 Beth Bronson: So, it's non-conforming in that it's already encroaching on the buffer that would be Type B? 48 49 Patrick Byker: Yeah, it was built before buffers were required. 50 7 1 Beth Bronson: And then the driveway itself is also deteriorating, so it would need to be replaced? 2 3 Will Wirt: Yes, ma'am. 4 5 Beth Bronson: Okay. Thank you. 6 7 Leon Meyers: So, the rationale for that condition on Erwin Road, you explained the creek is there, and there's already 8 fairly dense vegetation, and the rationale on the south property line for relating to buffer requirement is that there's not 9 enough space between the proposed driveway and the property line? Do I understand correctly? 10 11 Patrick Byker: The driveway is already there, Mr. Chairman, so because the facility was built 21, 22 years ago, that 12 buffer requirement wasn't there, so, in order to build a 30-foot buffer, you'd have to move the whole driveway to the north 13 a considerable distance from where it is today. 14 15 Leon Meyers: Okay. Other questions, Board members? Thank you, Mr. Wirt. 16 17 Will Wirt: Yes, sir. I'll bring up at this time Nick Kirkland to speak on the real estate valuation. 18 19 Nicholas Kirkland: Good evening. My name is Nick Kirkland with Kirkland Appraisals. The address is 9408 North 20 Field Court, Raleigh, North Carolina. My qualifications are Exhibit B, and the impact study is Exhibit C. I'm a certified 21 general real estate appraiser in four states, including North Carolina. I've been accepted as an expert in property value 22 impacts hundreds of times, including before this Board previously, and my firm has been conducted to do a study to 23 determine whether or not the proposed facility would maintain the value of properties in the general vicinity. To that end, 24 we've done what's called a matched pair or a paired sales analysis. It's supported by the appraisal institute and explained 25 in the appraisal institute textbook, Real Estate Damages. In essence, it involves comparing a property that is sold 26 adjacent to a test use. In this case, we're talking about a day care facility or a school facility and would that property that 27 sold adjacent to such a use sell for more, less, or about the same as other nearby properties, so within the impact study, 28 there are ten different school examples as well as half a dozen day care facility examples of nearby homes in close 29 proximity to such uses in the immediate market area. Additionally, there are multiple matched pair examples which 30 support the finding of no impact to the adjoining property values. This methodology provides a good support for 31 comparison. This is a common example in this area, but what is the actual market, what are actual market participants 32 doing? Are they selling properties adjacent to similar uses for more, less, or about the same? Overall, the properties 33 that are adjacent to day care facilities and school facilities in this area are selling for similar values as those that do not 34 adjoin such facilities, which is strong support for no impact to the adjoining property value if the property is approved 35 tonight. Therefore, it is my professional opinion that the day care facility is in harmony with the area and the use will 36 maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, and with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. I know it's a 37 three-dozen page impact study. Happy to go through anything in there that catches your eye. 38 39 Beth Bronson: Can you specify what match comparisons for daycares you did? 40 41 Nicholas Kirkland: That is going to be the second section, and I apologize, I realized as soon as I got here tonight 42 that I didn't number my pages, which really would have made this much easier. 43 44 Beth Bronson: Let's see. Bradford Christian School, Comparable No. 5, Comparable 6, which one? 45 46 Nicholas Kirkland: It's after all the numbers, so if you go past No. 10, all the numbered ones are actual school 47 facilities, and then you bump into daycares about 2/3 of the way through there and starting with Lakewood Avenue 48 Children's School. That's on the back of a page, and it has day care data at the top, but it has a lot of examples of similar 49 day care facilities run out of single-family homes that were converted in close proximity to residential uses. In fact, many 50 8 of the examples in here have adjoining residential use closer structure to structure than what is proposed and currently 1 exists right here at the facility. 2 3 Beth Bronson: Now, and do all of these have a Special Use Permit associated with them? 4 5 Nicholas Kirkland: Whether they do or do not, I am not certain. A number of these examples are from Durham. 6 However, it is a similar type of use in close proximity to residential structures, in similar examples at distances as shown 7 are selling with no impact to the sales price. 8 9 Beth Bronson: Okay. 10 11 Leon Meyers: Any other questions, Board members? Do you feel like you need a few minutes to turn through this 12 report, or should we move on? 13 14 Beth Bronson: This is a lot of information to take on in 2 minutes while you're describing and asking if we have any 15 questions. The one thing I will say is that all of these daycares do seem to be within a more urban setting. Less rural 16 residential and zoned for more condensed or intensified use. 17 18 Nicholas Kirkland: Sure. The question, and what we're trying to determine is whether a residential property would 19 be impacted, and the most common concern when talking about impact to residential structures is proximity and distance. 20 That has to do with whether you can hear them, whether you can see them. The closer you are, generally the more 21 impactful, and these examples from a slightly more suburban to urban setting are showing no impact, which is actually 22 strong support that in a more rural setting, with appropriate buffering, there would not be any impact on joint property 23 values. 24 25 Beth Bronson All right. Thank you. 26 27 Leon Meyers: Any other questions for Mr. Kirkland? Thank you, sir. 28 29 Nicholas Kirkland: Thanks. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Byker to go over the legal standards. 30 31 Patrick Byker: Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair Bronson, members of the Board, again, Patrick Byker, the attorney for the 32 applicant. I'd like to give a very brief summary. I promised Staff Attorney Bryan that we'd take less of your time than we 33 did with Lawrence Road, and I plan to keep that promise. At the outset here of the closing, we'd like to move into evidence 34 all the exhibits relied upon or referred to by our witnesses including the staff report and all the attachments. As I mentioned 35 at the beginning, it's our burden to submit competent material substantial evidence on the record showing that the 36 proposal meets all the requirements of the UDO for approval of the Special Use Permit modification. In this case, we've 37 met that standard, and therefore, we respectfully request your approval of the Special Use Permit `so that Erwin Road 38 Montessori School can continue its operations at this location as it has for approximately 20 years. The UDO says that 39 in approving a Special Use Permit, you have to make all the findings set forth in Section 5.3.2 A and B, so I'd like to briefly 40 address those, the testimony and related exhibits of Mr. Will Wirt provided competent material substantial evidence that 41 the use maintains or promotes public health, safety, and general welfare at its location, and if developed in accordance 42 with the site plan that's in your staff report. The testimony and related exhibits of Mr. Kirkland provide competent material 43 substantial evidence that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties. Lastly, the testimony and 44 related exhibits of Mr. Wirt and Mr. Kirkland provided competent material substantial evidence that the location and 45 character of the daycare facility along with the site plan that's been submitted is in harmony with the area and the use is 46 in compliance with the physical development of the county as reflected in the UDO and the Comprehensive Plan. 47 Therefore, we have shown through our expert witnesses that all the applicable UDO sections have been met. Again, for 48 the record, Mr. Wirt did testify in regards to landscaping, screening, and buffering, and also the parking that's on site. I 49 do wish to draw the Board's attention to the proposed conditions on Pages 121 through 122 of the staff report, and on 50 9 behalf of the applicant, we wish to state clearly that we support including all of those proposed conditions if we are 1 fortunate enough to receive your approval tonight. Again, we appreciate the hard work of the Planning Department staff 2 on this case. Consequently, all the competent material substantial evidence on the record shows that we've met all the 3 requirements of the UDO, and therefore, we ask your approval, and I would draw your attention to Attachment 6b, the 4 findings of fact, and 6c, the conclusions that have been drafted for the modification of a 2002 Special Use Permit. With 5 that, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair Bronson, members of the Board, our team is happy to answer any questions, and we 6 respectfully ask for your approval. Thanks for your time tonight. 7 8 Leon Meyers: Questions, Board Members, for Mr. Byker or his team? Thank you, sir. 9 10 Patrick Byker: Thank you. 11 12 Leon Meyers: And the matter is before the Board. 13 14 Beth Bronson: I do have one question. 15 16 Patrick Byker: Yes, of course. 17 18 Beth Bronson: I wanted to notice on Page 77 or 76, there is a childcare license for the first shift, 46 students? And that 19 is current today, and the Special Use Permit was approved for 23 students? 20 21 Patrick Byker: Yeah, back in 2002. 22 23 Beth Bronson: Okay. And so, when did the date originate that they increased the amount of students? 24 25 Patrick Byker: Few years ago? Why don't you come up, Trish. I think it's just something that sort of happened 26 organically over time due to change of ownership and simply the passage of time. It's not the first time I've seen this 27 happen where something was approved over 20 years ago, property changes ownership, new management comes in, 28 and the state looks at it, in this case, a daycare facility, approves it for 46 students because the state looks at certain 29 square footage ratios and other onsite amenities and says your license is valid for up to 46 children. It just never occurred 30 to the folks to look back to something that happened over 20 years ago. Trish, you got anything to add to that? 31 32 Beth Bronson: Thank you, Trish. 33 34 Leon Meyers: Identify yourself please, ma'am. 35 36 Trish Nervo: Yes, Trish Nervo. Do I give my address? They all gave their address. 37 38 Leon Meyers Sure. 39 40 Trish Nervo: Okay. I reside at 114 Yeargen Place, Chapel Hill. I'm the owner and head of the school of Erwin Road 41 Montessori School. I believe it was around 2020 that we had that license increase. We purchased the school in 2013. 42 43 Beth Bronson: 2013. Thank you. 44 45 Trish Nervo: Yes. And it was somewhat organic, but we had a new building inspection by Orange County, and an 46 approval from NCDEQ to continue using the septic that we had in order to have more children. So, it was more of a 47 misunderstanding about what steps were needed to change that Special Use Permit. That's the part that did not happen. 48 49 10 Beth Bronson: Okay. And so, in 2020 when you went to increase the amount of students, it was just unknown, say the 1 septic was not up to a code that was needed, regardless of the Special Use Permit. 2 3 Trish Nervo: Not exactly. We actually were recommended by the state to put a meter on the building to measure our 4 actual water usage compared to the capacity of the septic. And their determination was that because we weren't going 5 over the usage, that they were okay with us increasing our capacity. And that's when we turned to the state licensing 6 and to Orange County Building to come and do a new occupancy inspection. 7 8 Beth Bronson: Okay. And the attachments for the water quality from 2007, is that for the original request? Just trying 9 to understand where those water quality reports were coming from. 10 11 Patrick Byker: Again, those were something that was done by the previous ownership. It's something that was in the 12 Orange County file, so I think just giving the history of this site since 2002, again, it’s a very comprehensive staff report. 13 What I think is important to focus on in the presentation and testimony tonight is recalling Mr. Wirt's testimony that 14 everything that's been looked at in 2024 in regard to water consumption and the septic infrastructure all meets current 15 Orange County regulations. 16 17 Beth Bronson: For the zoning or for the use permit? 18 19 Patrick Byker: Both. 20 21 Beth Bronson: Okay. Thank you. 22 23 Leon Meyers: Any other questions for the applicant team? 24 25 Greg Niemiroski: I have a question regarding traffic. Just this week, there was an accident that happened right in 26 front of the property. So, I was just wondering what the, if that had been looked at by anything or anybody, any 27 department. I know DOT didn't comment, but I know frequently there's a lot of traffic jams in that area. I travel that road 28 frequently and have observed that. I didn't know if there was any impact of that and the driveway and how it addresses 29 safe entrance and exit from the property. 30 31 Patrick Byker: Yes, sir. Again, we very much appreciate District Engineer Chuck Edwards actually making onsite visits. 32 He was on the property. He evaluated the site triangles that needed to be implemented and maintained on this site. 33 Those are shown on the site plan, and he thought with those site triangles it addressed the safety concerns that, obviously, 34 are very important. But he thought that was the main criteria. And again, if there had been a safety issue, I'm sure, I've 35 worked with Mr. Edwards for many years, if there was something, he would have raised it at the DAC meeting. There 36 are actually two DAC summary reports in your staff report, and in both of them, you can see that Mr. Edwards had no 37 comment. But he did make an onsite inspection, which, in my experience, is not common. 38 39 Greg Niemiroski: Okay. 40 41 Leon Meyers: Other questions? 42 43 Beth Bronson: I understand your answer about Mr. Edwards to my co board member. I'm trying to understand. There 44 would not be a comment unless the permit had been applied for. Is that correct? 45 46 Patrick Byker: He and his staff would have reviewed the site plan. If there were any issues there related to 47 improvements that had to be made in the public right of way, I think he would have stated those in the DAC report. I also 48 do want to highlight on Page 120 of the staff report, the current roadway capacity on this segment of Erwin Road is 10,000 49 cars per day. The latest traffic volume, I assume that's from NCDOT, is only 4,400. So, it's only operating at 44 percent 50 11 of its capacity. Although, as you mentioned, obviously, I've lived close to this area for 29 years myself, so it's certainly 1 an issue, but again, Mr. Edwards was focused on the site distance triangles, and that's the appropriate safety measure. 2 3 Beth Bronson: 70 feet by 10 feet. 4 5 Patrick Byker: Yes, ma'am. 6 7 Beth Bronson: Okay, and then when was that traffic study done that you're recording? That 4,000? 8 9 Patrick Byker: That's in your staff report, I assume that was taken from NCDOT's files. 10 11 Beth Bronson: Okay. I would need to know the year that the 4,000 cars per day was occurring. 12 13 Patrick Byker: That's correct. 14 15 Beth Bronson: Okay. 16 17 Leon Meyers: Patrick, did you have something? 18 19 Patrick Mallett: Yeah. Two quick things. This case came before you after a realization with the owner and the applicant 20 realizing that they needed to work out some state issues and environmental health issues and set their permitting straight 21 for water and septic. And in that discovery, it was realized by the departments and the state desired, we needed some 22 affirmation from a zoning level that you're okay with the student capacity, and then we saw the student cap and said, aha, 23 we need to go back and get you to amend that Special Use Permit. So that's kind of how we got to this point. I would 24 also note with regard to the DOT, Chuck Edwards is a regular attendee and contributor to the DAC. It just so happens 25 that this particular area is at the dovetail between two district engineers. Both engineers have shared and are aware of 26 all the information. The information was also shared with the city of Durham, all departments, so just wanted to let you 27 know that. 28 29 Beth Bronson: And so, Chuck Edwards is with District 7, and then who is with District 8 or the other one? The other 30 district? 31 32 Patrick Byker: You mean, Vice Chair Bronson, are you referring to Durham? 33 34 Beth Bronson: Yeah. 35 36 Patrick Byker: That'd be John Sandor. He's the district engineer in Durham. 37 38 Beth Bronson: Okay. And he had not reviewed anything? 39 40 Patrick Byker: The information was shared with him. 41 42 Patrick Mallett: It was no comment. 43 44 Beth Bronson: It was no comment from Durham. 45 46 Patrick Byker: That's correct. From District Engineer Sandor. That is correct. 47 48 12 Beth Bronson: So, my understanding from Durham was that it all resides in Orange County. It is a Special Use Permit 1 issued by Orange County, and so it would be handled by Orange County, and so they didn't need to review it. My 2 understanding of the agenda was that it was not reviewed because it was determined not needed to be reviewed. 3 4 Patrick Byker: Well, I can't speak for them, but my belief would be that Durham's, Durham County's belief would be it's 5 a different jurisdiction and therefore it's not appropriate for them to issue comments on property that's not within their 6 jurisdiction. 7 8 Beth Bronson: 100 percent agree with you, except in the case of these joint planning areas and the sense that Chapel 9 Hill's comment had to do with Durham being responsible for the emergency services. Was that correct or incorrect 10 information? 11 12 Patrick Byker: I mean, I think, when you have a property like this, when somebody calls 911 from there, I think you're 13 going to have responses from all the service providers in the area. 14 15 Beth Bronson: And the closest one being Durham, would be my point. 16 17 Patrick Byker: Yeah, probably. 18 19 Patrick Byker: Obviously it's no different than Durham and Raleigh, or Raleigh and Cary or any of those. 20 21 Beth Bronson: Except you're getting the signoff of Orange County and not Durham, who would be answering the call. 22 23 Patrick Mallett: I want to point out one other fact. This property is adjacent to the tennis club next door that also got a 24 special use permit modification a few years ago to expand their facility, the swim area, pickle ball, et cetera, that too was 25 reviewed by both and the district engineer. He had a little bit more interest in that case in Durham because there was 26 some frontage in Durham's jurisdiction. But the ultimate conclusion was if I had any concerns I'd chime in, and I feel like 27 the district engineer would do the same with this case adjacent to it. 28 29 Beth Bronson: Thank you. I appreciate that. Just wanted to make sure that I was understanding it correctly. 30 31 Leon Meyers: Other questions for staff or the applicant? Then the next step would be a motion to approve the findings 32 of fact that I think begin on Page 192. 33 34 Nathan Robinson: So, you’re looking for a motion to approve the findings of facts? 35 36 Leon Meyers: Say again? 37 38 Nathan Robinson: You're looking for a motion to approve the findings – 39 40 Leon Meyers: Yes. Sorry, I thought that was the motion. 41 42 Nathan Robinson: I'll make the motion to approve the finding of fact as shown on Page 192. Attachment 6b. 43 44 Jeff Scott: Second. 45 46 Leon Meyers: Any discussion on the motion to approve the findings of fact. All in favor please say aye. 47 48 MOTION made by Nathan Robinson. Seconded by Jeff Scott. 49 VOTE: Unanimous 50 13 1 Leon Meyers: None opposed, the findings of fact are approved. The next step would be to approve the conclusions 2 beginning on Page 195. 3 4 Nathan Robinson: Motion to approve the conclusions on 195, Attachment 6c. 5 6 Jeff Scott: Second. 7 8 Leon Meyers: Any discussion on the motion to approve the conclusions? All in favor please say aye. 9 10 MOTION made by Nathan Robinson. Seconded by Jeff Scott. 11 VOTE: Unanimous 12 13 Leon Meyers: None opposed. Conclusions are approved. The final step would be a motion to approve the modification 14 to the Special Use Permit subject to the conditions listed on Page 1121. Conditions 1 through 14 begin on Page 121. 15 16 Beth Bronson: And include the two conditions from the developer. 17 18 Leon Meyers: They are included in there. 19 20 Nathan Robinson: Motion to approve. 21 22 Beth Bronson: Second. 23 24 Leon Meyers: Any discussion on the motion to approve the modification to the special use permit? All in favor please 25 say aye. 26 27 MOTION made by Nathan Robinson. Seconded by Beth Bronson. 28 VOTE: Unanimous 29 30 Leon Meyers: None opposed. Thank you, folks. 31 32 Patrick Byker: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. 33 34 Leon Meyers: Good luck with your project. Anybody need a break, or shall we move into the next item? Let’s take 35 about a 5-minute break. We start at 8:03. 36 37 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BREAKS UNTIL 8:03 PM 38 39 Leon Meyers: All right. Thank you, folks, for your patience. Next case is BA2401, a variance. Mr. Mallett. Staff report. 40 41 AGENDA ITEM 6 Continued: 42 CASE: BA24-0001 - To review a Variance (Case Number BA24-0001) request submitted 43 by Samuel Harrell. The applicant has applied for a variance from the 150-foot reservoir 44 buffer to allow for the renovation and construction of an addition to the existing 45 nonconforming residential structure +/- 75 ft. from Lake Orange. The site is located on 46 Orange County PIN 9857-76-0674, at 4517 Eno Cemetery Road, Cedar Grove, within the 47 Cedar Grove Township of Orange County. 48 49 50 14 Patrick Mallett: This one is far briefer than the previous presentation. This case is a variance request seeking a variance 1 from the required 150-foot building set back from the reservoir to allow for a renovation and construction of an addition to 2 an existing non-conforming residential structure to allow it to be within 75 feet from Lake Orange. This is per 3 Section 6.13.4 C, minimum buffer widths which requires that set back from the reservoir. This references the 620-foot 4 contour. It's actually measured from the 615-foot contour, the average water elevation of the lake. The proposed 5 renovation would include a 16 by 34-foot dimension, 544 square foot addition that would be roughly in line with the existing 6 A-frame styled entrance to the structure. The request would allow the existing structure to qualify as a residential dwelling 7 that meets the minimum bedroom dimensions. As it currently stands, the A-frame structure has a loft, so it doesn't even 8 have a qualified bedroom that would meet the building code. So, granting this request would allow the applicant to submit 9 building permits and qualify as a residential dwelling. The existing structure was built in the 1970’s just after Lake Orange 10 was created. It's one of the first houses out there as I understand it, and it's roughly in line with other homes adjacent 11 and nearby that also, for various reasons in history are set 75 feet off the 615-foot contour. Two other slides. So, this is 12 the subject property here. This is the A frame. It's hard to see its footprint due to the shadowing, but you can see this is 13 the approximate waterline of the lake. This is roughly the 615 contour here. The applicant is the property owner's brother. 14 She bought this property aging with the desire to live near her family, age in place, and have the proximity to care from a 15 sibling. This is a graphic that just shows you that 150-foot offset from the 615-foot contour. You can also see that if you 16 apply that around the lake, you start hitting a lot of homes that were older. That's just the way the lake was set up in our 17 ordinance and codified with UDO in 2011, and the buffer has been applied in previous iteration of the zoning code I think 18 going back to the 1980's. The one other thing that I would add is the applicant did an extensive amount of research about 19 properties along the lake and happened to find evidence of the property owner to the north being granted a variance, and 20 that explains why that house is roughly in line with the A-frame structure. Unfortunately, we were able to find evidence 21 of that and notations with regard to this existing A-frame structure. However, unfortunately we could not find direct 22 evidence that this A-frame structure of this property was granted the same various. So, it's been locked in time since 23 then. With that I'll ask the applicant to come up and talk a little bit about the request. 24 25 Leon Meyers: Before you do that, board members, any questions for Mr. Mallett? And I think you were going to enter 26 the application as evidence. Right? 27 28 Patrick Mallett: So, as we enter into the modern era and technology and a pivot towards electronic versions, the packet 29 that you have, the electronic version is skewed in the sense that it did not capture the original signatures that were 30 submitted by the property owner dated July the 2nd, by both the applicant and the property owner. It also, the original 31 application, I'm going to point it out, if you're looking at the PDF online, you can scroll through these text boxes, but you 32 can't see the entire text. The original application has the entire text here, so I'd like to submit this original copy into the 33 record as the official application. 34 35 Leon Meyers: So, admitted. Good. 36 37 Patrick Mallett: And I will pass this up so you can peruse this. 38 39 Beth Bronson: I can scroll. You're saying that, on the printed copy it's cut off? 40 41 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, so if you were to happen to hit a printer and you're a paper copy person and you grabbed it out of 42 the printer and walked away, you may not notice that it cuts off to a specific size, the physical copy. So, that's why I'm 43 going to hand this up and you can look at it. It's the same version. You can scroll down the box. You can see that. 44 45 Leon Meyers: And, Pat, is there anybody signed up to speak on this case? 46 47 Patrick Mallett: Just the applicant. 48 49 Leon Meyers: Okay. 50 15 1 Patrick Mallett: The swearing in. 2 3 Leon Meyers: All right. Mr. Harrell, is that right? 4 5 Sam Harrell: That's right. 6 7 Leon Meyers: Have you been sworn? 8 9 SWEARING OF THE TESTIMONY 10 11 Patrick Mallett: We're doing it now. Do you swear and or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the 12 whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the best of your knowledge? 13 14 Sam Harrell: I do. 15 16 Leon Meyers: Welcome. 17 18 Sam Harrell: Thank you very much, and good evening, and it's my honor to be here before you. Sam Harrell. I feel a 19 little bit like whatever act opens after Britney Spears, but my bona fides in this case are that I am the applicant, but I am 20 also brother to the owner. So, I live next door to this property, and it was like the fourth property built on Lake Orange, 21 and I lived in this A-frame when I was building it as a college student, and to my knowledge, the very first variance request 22 that was put before this board was for my uncle who lived on the property next to the A-frame that is now owned by my 23 friend here. That variance was granted before he could sell the property so that somebody could actually construct on it. 24 I built the property adjacent and received permitted permissions to be able to build a garage post the new order. So, that 25 led us to believe that there was going to be no problem in putting a very small two-bedroom addition onto the A-frame. 26 So, we were a little surprised when it didn't fall in line. Your staff has been very helpful in helping us to come to a correct 27 understanding and have been very helpful along the way, Lauren, and so forth, and so I appreciate this opportunity. Very 28 simple, the A-frame structure that exists, the square footage that's listed is not actually relevant because the head room 29 in an A-frame, as you know reduces the actual footprint of the structure. The folks who lived in this A-frame, an elderly 30 couple for 20 years, since 2000, and then left because they were unable to care for themselves, actually lived in a 31 passageway. They didn't have a bedroom. There was no door. There was no closet and so forth, and so all we're trying 32 to do, we're not trying to increase the number of bedrooms. We just want to make two bedrooms, because as it exists 33 now, it is one room with a loft that can't be a bedroom because of head room compliance and the stairs that service it are 34 not to code. So, in order to bring it up to code, we're going to put a dormer to which we will attach two bedrooms and a 35 bathroom. No closer to the lake. The property line allowances are all kosher, and so that's essentially our request. 36 37 Leon Meyers: Thank you. Board members, any questions for Mr. Harrell? 38 39 Beth Bronson: Can you clarify the need to update the septic and if it would need to be moved. 40 41 Sam Harrell: I'm sorry. Say that again? 42 43 Beth Bronson: If the septic would need to be moved? 44 45 Sam Harrell: So, because the septic is permitted for the current structure as two bedrooms, we don't plan to increase 46 that. 47 48 Beth Bronson: Okay. 49 50 16 Sam Harrell: Septic is functioning. We've had it tested. The well is functioning. Everything else is fine, and we're not 1 going to add bedrooms that would require us then to add onto the septic. 2 3 Beth Bronson: And I'm assuming that the septic and the well were installed before 1985. 4 5 Sam Harrell: That's correct. They were installed around 1970. 6 7 Beth Bronson: Okay. 8 9 Sam Harrell: The first house on the lake. 10 11 Leon Meyers: Other questions for Mr. Harrell? Thank you, sir. 12 13 Sam Harrell: Thank you. 14 15 Leon Meyers: Okay, board members. The findings for this case are on page 225. There's no staff recommendation 16 on a variance of course. 17 18 Beth Bronson: And I did not see the septic inspection included, just the original application. 19 20 Leon Meyers: A building permit for the addition would require an evaluation of the existing system anyway. 21 22 Patrick Mallett: There's three relevant points. One, they don't plan on modifying the well or the septic. Fun fact, when 23 you get a subject system there's no one bedroom. When they originally did it, it was permitted for two bedrooms. 24 25 Beth Bronson: It's exceptionally large for the size anyway. I understand that. 26 27 Patrick Mallett: So, they're trying to get to the minimum. They would still be required to do any modifications in 28 environmental health. They're part of the DAC. They had no comment other than if you go beyond the bounds of what 29 the existing system permits, you'd have to get something more than the existing system authorization. They would still 30 have to get building permits, and they would still need to get a buffer authorization certificate. So, when you're doing 31 activity inside a buffer, I didn't want to complicate things, but in addition to this building setback, there's a stream buffer. 32 We would process a buffer authorization certificate which says the activity that you’re doing, there is no practical 33 alternative. There is no impact; then, if there is a significant impact, it's mitigated so there are 3 other hoops that they 34 need to go through. 35 36 Leon Meyers: So, an administrative approval, right? 37 38 Patrick Mallett: Yes. 39 40 Leon Meyers: Okay. Are there questions, board members? And they have findings of fact beginning on 225. Next 41 step would be a motion to approve the findings of fact. 42 43 Nathan Robinson: Finding of fact on 225, where is it? I don't see it. Is it the memorandum? 44 45 Beth Bronson: 225 it's Attachment 5. I would make a motion for the variance request to be approved for BA24-0001 in 46 accordance with the provisions. 47 48 Leon Meyers: I think we would need a motion to approve the findings before issuing the variance. That's my 49 understanding. Am I right, James? 50 17 James Bryan: Yeah. 1 2 Beth Bronson: The variance is on 225. Apologies. 3 4 Nathan Robinson: I don't see the findings of fact. 5 6 Leon Meyers: It's approving the variance request. That works, James? 7 8 James Bryan: So, if I may, I think what's drafted here, you could see they've got on the very last Page 226. They got 9 supporting evidence in the application package. So, they're saying, everything has been introduced, and that's legally 10 fine. In situations like this, where there is no controversy. Everything is the facts as presented, and if this were to be 11 reviewed, the courts know exactly what you saw, whether that is competent sufficient. They don't need to have you tell 12 them what it is. 13 14 Leon Meyers: Got it. Beth you’re exactly right. I'm sorry. Am I making a motion again? 15 16 Beth Bronson: I would make a motion for the variance request to be approved for Case BA24-0001 based on the findings 17 of fact on Page 226 as well as in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.10.4 of the UDO, that there is a necessary 18 hardship that would result from the strict application of the ordinance, but their hardship results from conditions that are 19 peculiar to the property such as location, size, or topography. And in this case, restrictions to an existing parcel building, 20 and that the hardship did not result from the actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The request of variance 21 is consistent with the spirit purpose and intent of the ordinance, such as the public safety is secured, and substantial 22 justice is achieved in the sense that all applications hereto forward need to be made to the county once approved for this 23 variance. 24 25 Leon Meyers: Okay. 26 27 Beth Bronson: Do I have a second? 28 29 Greg Niemiroski: I second. 30 31 Leon Meyers: All right, any discussion on the motion to approve the variance? All in favor, please say aye. 32 33 MOTION made by Beth Bronson. Seconded by Greg Niemiroski. 34 VOTE: Unanimous 35 36 Leon Meyers: None opposed. Variance is approved. Thank you, Mr. Harrell. Good luck with your project. Is there 37 anything else we need to take care of and maybe a preview of what's coming up in the next couple of months? 38 39 Patrick Mallett: Sure. Got a couple of cases. One will probably hit for the calendar date in August, I think that’s on the 40 second week of August. Camp Chestnut Ridge is looking at doing a modification to their original special use permit. The 41 camp has been in existence since the 60's. They've had several modifications to their specially use permit. The last one 42 that they did captured a site plan and a master plan for their vision. They're realizing now that they want to move some 43 things around. Unfortunately, in our UDO that is a major modification. You're not reviewing the special use permit per 44 se, but you're reviewing the revision to the site plan that was approved with that special use permit. We've got a guy who 45 has got a kennel class 2 request that should be coming in August or September. 46 47 Beth Bronson: A what class? 48 49 Patrick Mallett: A kennel class 2. 50 18 1 Beth Bronson: Kennel. 2 , 3 Patrick Mallett: A dog kennel, yeah. And theoretically, some special use permits through the Fall. So, we had a lull for 4 a while. I think you're going to be fairly busy with agendas as we move forward. 5 6 Leon Meyers: Are you saying we're likely to meet in August or September or both? 7 8 Patrick Mallett: Both. 9 10 Leon Meyers: Good. Thank you. 11 12 Patrick Mallett: For the record, we're out at 8:21. 13 14 Beth Bronson: I have a question about our members. Are there any openings? 15 16 Patrick Mallett: That's a good point. We have an absence from our alternate, Adam Beeman. There was a feeling from 17 the Board of Commissioners, they review and approve the reappointments as they see fit. When the terms expire and 18 the terms are staggered, the feeling was the opposite years ago back when their preference was for people to serve on 19 both the Planning Board and the Board of Adjustment. They wanted to go in the other direction to avoid any perception 20 of a conflict of interest or being tainted by serving on one board, and then hearing the same case with the Board of 21 Adjustment. So, we have a vacant seat. If you know any qualified applicants that can fill that seat, I really try hard to 22 keep the hundred percent of the seats filled because if we have just a few members missing, we can't have quorum. 23 24 Leon Meyers: My next step on that is to check with the clerk to see if she has any applicants who would be interested 25 in alternate position, and if not, I'm going to start beating the bushes, looking for folks who would be interested in applying, 26 and I hope all people do the same. 27 28 Beth Bronson: If we are full with all 6 permanent seats? 29 30 Leon Meyers: Five permanent, one alternate is where we are again. 31 32 Beth Bronson: Five permanent, one alternate? And do the commissioners have a plan to update their UDO? 33 34 Patrick Mallett: I mean, we always have plans. We always are moving forward the text changes and amendments to 35 the UDO, and those run from the very simple to ones that are just needed. 36 37 Beth Bronson: Do speak specifically, and James may be aware, but in the UDO, it does expressly point out that there 38 should an appointed Planning Board member on the Board of Adjustments for continuity, rather than conflict. Was that 39 brought up to them at all? 40 41 Patrick Mallett: Not sure. 42 43 Beth Bronson: Okay. Thank you. 44 45 Leon Meyers: Thank you, folks. We're adjourned. 46 47 Patrick Mallett: I just get the decisions. 48 49 Beth Bronson: So, I motion to adjourn? 50 19 1 Leon Meyers: Yeah, adjourned. 2 3 AGENDA ITEM 7: ADJOURNMENT 4 The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. 5 6 7 8 _________________________________________ 9 NAME OF CHAIR, CHAIR 10 11 12131415 20 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT CASE A-5-18 (SUP24-0012) Meeting Date: September 11, 2024 Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Modification to the Camp Chestnut Ridge Special Use Permit (A-15-18) to allow for a Revised Site Plan (SUP24-0012) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENTS: NFORMATION CONTACT: 1.Zoning Report; 2.Application Package; 3.Notification Materials; 4. Standards and Evidence; 5.Findings of Fact; 6.Approved and Revised Site Plan Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director, Development Services (919) 245-2577 Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Zoning Manager (919) 245-2597 PURPOSE: To review Site Plan revisions to the original Site Plan approved with the January 19, 2019, Camp Chestnut Ridge SUP (A-15-18) Special Use Permit (SUP), which allowed for the expansion of an existing camp/retreat center. This request is in accordance with the approved SUP and the modification provisions of: Section 2.7: Special Uses, Section 2.7.14 Special Use Permits- Modifications to Approved Plans; and Section 5.2: Table of Permitted Uses; Section 5.3.2: Application of Use Standards – Special Uses, Section 5.7.5: Camp; and Section 5.18.4: Retreat Center. BACKGROUND: The basic facts concerning the current application are as follows: Proposal: As detailed within Attachment 2, the applicant proposes to retain the elements of the currently approved SUP, with the exception of revising the Site Plan to allow for the relocation of seven (7) approved Recreational Vehicle (RV) spaces and the consolidation of the equestrian facilities. The revision does not propose to change or modify any other elements of the approved SUP (A-5-18) and does not constitute an expansion of the existing camp/retreat facility. 21 The existing Camp Retreat facility has legally operated under various plans and permits since its opening in 1959. For materials related to the existing Special Use Permit A-5-18 and this request (SUP24-0012). Refer to the Orange County Customer Service Portal via: https://centralpermits.orangecountync.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService#/plan/14b30bcb-cc48- 41f4-8de4-dbfe343abc8c?tab=attachments Refer to the Orange County Planning Active Development Page for status and details: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/16e9edd5de724468aed69571dd1d9e70 Basic Review Process: A Special Use Permit application requires submission of a site plan and other documents, in accordance with Section 2.7.3 of the UDO: •FIRST ACTION – Staff Review/Analysis Begins STAFF COMMENT: An analysis of the application was made by qualified representatives of the County and other agencies or officials. •SECOND ACTION – Development Advisory Committee Review/Analysis Begins STAFF COMMENT: The Orange County Development Advisory Committee will meet on September 5, 2024, to review this request. Any DAC comments will be available on-line via the Customer Service Portal link above. •THIRD ACTION – The BOA holds a hearing to review and consider approval of the revised site plan. STAFF COMMENT: The hearing is anticipated to be held on September 11, 2024. A formal application is required as part of this SUP modification request and has been submitted (Attachment 2). Approval of the application is part of the Special Use Permit process and shall include making appropriate findings of fact stating that the Board concludes all applicable standards have been met. Public Notification(s): In accordance with Section 2.7.6 of the UDO, notices of the Evidentiary Hearing were mailed via first class mail to all adjacent property owners of the subject parcel. These notices were mailed on August 27, 2024, 15 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the property with signs on August 27, 2023, 15 days before the meeting. See Attachment 3 for the notification materials. Planning Director’s Comments: The Planning Director has determined the application and the proposed site plan revision is consistent with established submittal requirements, and there is sufficient documentation demonstrating general compliance with the site plan requirements set forth in Section 2.5 and the established development standards as detailed in Section 5.7.5 and 5.18.4 of the UDO; Staff does not make a formal recommendation on the approval of the application or on the compliance of the project with the general standards in Section 5.3.2(A)(2). The Board of Adjustment must determine if: 22 (a)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; (b)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 (c)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 compliant with the following specific standards: (1)Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO. (2)Specific regulations governing the development of a Camp and a Retreat Center as set forth in Section 5.7.5, and 5.18.4 of the UDO. (3)Section 5.3.2(B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of: a.Sewage disposal facilities, b.The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, c.The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site, and d.Other use specific standards as set forth. Per Section 2.7.11(A) of the UDO, The Board of Adjustment may impose such reasonable conditions upon approval of a Special Use as will afford protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, ensure that substantial justice is done, and equitable treatment provided. 23 Attachment 1 24 25 Exhibit A – Statement of Standing* I am the sole owner of the property subject to this application. I have attached notarized letters authorizing this submittal from all entities or individuals with ownership rights to the property. Property Owner Information Name: Address: Home Phone: Cell Phone: Email: Applicant Information  Same as owner Name: Address: Home Phone: Cell Phone: Email: Agent Information Name: Address: Home Phone: Cell Phone: Email: Law Firm Name: Bar Number: Note: Only attorneys may serve as agents during quasi-judicial hearings. Realtors, surveyors and other professionals may not apply or make arguments on behalf of owners. Exhibit B – Narrative of Proposed Land Use* Insert and label as “Exhibit B” a narrative description of the proposed land use. Includ e a detailed description of the proposed use of property, including an outline of the proposed operational characteristics of the proposed development. Also, include descriptions of structural components such as the basic size, form, and character of the buildings shown on the site plan. 26 Exhibit C – Intended Evidence* I intend to introduce the following document and have attached it follows: Exhibit #1 entitled: This is relevant to standards from Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Sections: It demonstrates that: Intend to call the following as a lay witness: Lay Witness #1: Their intended testimony has been included in an affidavit attached as Exhibit: This witness has personal knowledge of and will testify about: This testimony is relevant to standards from UDO Sections: The testimony will demonstrate that: Intend to call the following as an expert witness: Expert Witness #1: Is being offered as an expert in: They possess specialized knowledge in this field through the follow ing training and/or experience: They reviewed or examined the following data: 27 They used the following method of analysis when reviewing that data: This expert opinion is relevant the standard at UDO Section: It demonstrates that: Their intended testimony has been included in an affidavit attached as Exhibit: (attach additional sheets as necessary) 28 Exhibit D – Proposed Findings of Fact* The Applicant shall be required to provide the proposed findings of fact for the project based on the specific development standards for a proposed land use as detailed in Article 5 of the UDO as well as the general findings as contained in Section 5.3.2 of the UDO: # REQUIREMENT UDO Section SUPPORTING EVIDENCE (Finding of Fact) Condition # Application Components and Required Submittal Information: 1. Proper forms 2.2 2. Fees paid 2.2.4(D) 3. Full description of use ▪Location ▪Appearance ▪Operational characteristics 2.7.3(B)(1) 4. Owner Information 2.7.3(B)(2) 5. Information needed for Use Standards 2.7.3(B)(3) 6. Site Plans 2.7.3(B)(4) 7. List of parcels within 1,000 feet 2.7.3(B)(5) 8. Elevations of all structures 2.7.3(B)(6) 9. Environmental Assessment (or EIS) 2.7.3(B)(7) 10. Method of Debris Disposal 2.7.3(B)(8) 11. Development Schedule 2.7.3(B)(9) 12. Extended Vesting Request 2.7.3(B)(10) Notification Requirements: 13. Public Notice ▪Date ▪Time ▪Place 2.7.6(A) 14. Sign Posting on Property (at least 10 days prior) 2.7.6(A)(2) 15. Mailed Notice ▪Certified mail ▪All adjacent property owners (within 1,000 feet) ▪Not less than fifteen days prior 2.7.6(A)(1) Specific Standards: 16. Waste Disposal Method and adequacy of provision for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service. 5.3.2(B)(1) 17. Safety Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection. 5.3.2(B)(2) 29 18. Vehicle Access Method and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. 5.3.2(B)(3) Specific Development Standards for Proposed Land Use (Article 5)*: *The applicant is responsible for completing this section, identifying all development requirements/standards a proposed land use is required to abide by , and provide sufficient detail documenting what evidence has been submitted documenting compliance. An application shal l be considered incomplete without the proposed Findings of Fact completed by the applicant General Standards UDO Section SUPPORTING EVIDENCE (Finding of Fact) Condition # The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare 5.3.2(A)(2)(a) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity) 5.3.2(A)(2)(b) The use will be in harmony with the area and is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 5.3.2(A)(2)(c) 30 Exhibit E – Proposed Conditions* The Board of Adjustment must deny the permit if any standard cannot be met either by a showing of evidence or by a condition placed upon the permit. Staff has included the general conditions required for all Special Use Permits, as detailed within the UDO. Please list any proposed conditions which may be necessary for the Board of Adjustment to find that all standards will be met. 1.For public safety as required in 5.3.2(B)(2) of the UDO, final assignment of a street address shall be completed by Orange County Land Records prior to the issuance of any permit authorizing land disturbing activity on the property in accordance with the Orange County Addressing Ordinance. 2.Per Section 2.5 of the UDO, the applicant shall obtain all necessary development permits from the County prior to the initiation of any land disturbing activity associated with the construction of the proposed use including, but not limited to: Building Permit, Land Disturbance Permit (LDP), Solid Waste Management Permit, and Zoning Compliance Permit. 3.In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.11 (C) of the UDO, 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. 4.In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.1 1 (D) of the UDO, the Special Use Permit will automatically expire within 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 Adjustment. 31 Exhibit F – Proposed Order: FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY ______________________________________________ (APPLICANT) PROPOSING ______________________________ (PROPOSED LAND USE) ON ________________________________________________ (ROAD NAME AND PINS OF PROPERTY INVOLVED WITH APPLICATION) As required under Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), a Special Use Permit is required for the development/operation of a ______________ (Proposed Land Use), in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 of the UDO. Such permits shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 and __________ (Section of Article 5 establishing development standards for proposed land use) of the UDO. Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO 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 val ue 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 locat ed 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 of Adjustment 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) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO. (2)Specific regulations governing the development of a _______________ (Proposed land use) as set forth in Section ____________ (Section of Article 5 establishing development standards for proposed land use) of the UDO. (3)Section 5.3.2 (B) 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)The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2). MX3 Construction, LLC/Neal Cagle Chestnut Ridge Rd9843055036, 9833935222, 9843137930, 9843221289 32 Upon holding of an evidentiary hearing, and accepting into the record of competent, material evidence and sworn testimony concerning the application, the Orange County Board Adjustment (BOA) hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of l aw: # REQUIREMENT UDO Section SUPPORTING EVIDENCE (Finding of Fact) Condition # Application Components and Required Submittal Information: Notification Requirements: Specific Standards: Specific Development Standards for Proposed Land Use (Article 5)* Based on the competent material evidence and sworn testimony in the record the BOA hereby make(s) an affirmative finding on the specific standards of evaluation and general standards as detailed herein, further finding no evidence has been entered into the record demonstrating the applicant has: a.Failed to meet their burden of proof that the project complies with the specific development standards for a telecommunication facility, or b.Failed to comply with the general standards detailed within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO. The BOA hereby approves the Special Use Permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: (CONDITIONS HERE) 33 Exhibit – B Major Modification to be approved by Board of Adjustment RV Site Modification Proposed land use as outlined in the Special Use Permit site plan prepared by The John R. McAdams Company, INC (2018). On sheet number C-5 under proposed building schedule number 7, there are six(6) proposed RV sites totaling an estimated 4,044 SF. We are requesting approval to move these sites to a new location ½ mile SSE to the Equestrian Center Drive near the rustic bath house (E29). See Exhibit B1 McAdams Site Plan with Highlighted locations. The proposed area is much flatter and will require minimum ground disturbance/grading. The proposed new location is private and provides easier connection to existing utilities. The new location is detailed in the updated site plan prepared by David E. Cates, PE (2024). The Camp Director Nick Jefferies has emailed the adjoining property owner Kimberly Harry (Minka Farms, LLC, PIN9842095625) about these proposed RV sites. Mrs. Harry has expressed no concerns with the Camp’s Plans to modify the approved site plan. The RV Sites are to accommodate a group called the Nomads. This is a group of retirees affiliated with the Methodist Church. They travel the country in their RV’s, volunteering at different Methodist Camp locations doing service projects. This would be a tremendous benefit to the Camp and Surrounding Community. The Nomads have expertise in new construction, remodeling, repairs for churches, children’s homes, camps, colleges, outreach missions and disaster rebuilding. The Nomad group would spend an estimated 3 weeks in the fall and 3 weeks in the spring as they do not work in our part of the country at any other time of the year. The remaining time the camp anticipates using the area for parking, scout camping and activities pertaining to camp. The camp does not plan to advertise the RV sites to the public. Barn/Covered Arena Modification Proposed land use as outlined in Special Use Permit site plan prepared by The John R. McAdams Company, Inc (2018). On sheet number C-5 proposed building schedule numbers 28 (barn) and 29 (covered arena) total SF 14,168. We are requesting to combine previously approved buildings into one larger structure with a total square footage of 20,016. This will consolidate proposed buildings and reduce land disturbance. See exhibit B1 McAdams Site Plan with highlighted locations. With the increased square footage an erosion control plan (B2), erosion control plan (details)(B3), LID analysis(B4) and SNAP(B5) have been provided. If you have any further questions, please let me know and I will obtain the information. Very Respectfully, Neal Cagle MX3 Construction, LLC 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT EVIDENTIARY HEARING ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Patrick R. Mallett, with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) I have mailed, or caused to be mailed, via mail a Board of Adjustment Evidentiary Hearing Notice regarding a Special Use Permit modification for Camp Chestnut Ridge (SUP24-0012) on August 27, 2024. This notice informed those property owners within 1,000 of the subject property of the proposed Special Use Permit. The owners were identified according to the Tax Records and as required by the UDO. The mailed notice specified the date, time, place and subject of the Evidentiary Hearing meeting and provided information on the Special Use Permit review process. WITNESS my hand, this 27th day of August 2024. _Patrick R. Mallett________________________ Patrick R. Mallett Deputy Director, Development Services Orange County Planning and Inspections Department Attachment 3 47 PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575 August 27, 2024 NOTICE OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING TO REVIEW A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PROPOSING A SITE PLAN MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT (A-5-18) FOR A CAMP/RETREAT FACILITY (SUP24-0012) Dear Property Owner: This notice is to inform you of a September 11, 2024, Board of Adjustment (BOA) meeting, at which an application for a site plan modification to a previously approved Special Use Permit (SUP) for Camp Chestnut Ridge (Orange County PINs 9843-22-1289; 9843-13-7930; 9843-05- 5036; and 9833-93-5222) will be reviewed and approved or denied. This notification is occurring in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7 Special Use Permits of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). No changes to the approved Special Use Permit are requested. However, a site plan revision is being proposed to move the designated location for seven (7) Recreational Vehicles; and consolidate the existing equestrian facilities. Per Section 2.17.14 of the UDO, these plan changes are considered major and require the BOA to approve the change. The request will be reviewed by the Orange County Board of Adjustment at 7:00 p.m., September 11, 2024, at the Whitted Meeting Facility (300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC). NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED FOR YOUR PROPERTY. You are receiving this notice because you own property located within 1,000-feet of parcel requested for a Special Use Permit. PROPERTY INFORMATION Parcel ID Number (PIN) 9843-22-1289; 9843-13-7930; 9843-05-5036; and 9833-93-5222 Owner NC United Methodist Camp and Retreat Ministries, Inc Applicant MX3 Construction Neal Cagle Location 4238 Camp Chestnut Ridge Road Acreage +/-376 acres Current Zoning Agricultural Residential (AR) Proposed Special Use(s) No change – Camp/Retreat Watershed Designation Upper Eno Protected and Cane Creek Protected Watersheds 48 For materials related to the existing Special Use Permit A-5-18 and this request (SUP24-0012). Refer to the Orange County Customer Service Portal via: https://centralpermits.orangecountync.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService#/plan/14b30bcb-cc48- 41f4-8de4-dbfe343abc8c?tab=attachments Additional information is available on the Orange County Planning Department’s website: https://www.orangecountync.gov/3486/Special-Use-Permit-Application---Major-M Additional information related to Special Use Permits can be found at the following link: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21348/Special-Use-Permit-Fact- Sheet?bidId=. If you cannot attend the Board of Adjustment meeting and the website does not answer your questions about the requested Special Use Permit, you may call 919-245-2575 during regular business hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you. Sincerely, Patrick Mallett Deputy Director, Development Services Orange County Planning and Inspections Department CC: Energov; Case File 49 9833935222 9843055036 9843137930 9843137930 9843221289 PENDERDREQUE S TRI ANCENTER DR SIMMONS L N CAMPC HEST N UT RI D GE R DAREATHA AVE WESTWOO D D R MARTI N R D BEA U FOR TLNGENOVIA DRBUDDY LNRED T AIL R U N PR IV ATE DRIVECAMPFIR E CIR COUNTRYPIN E LN PONDRD MONA R C H WAY SH ADOWWOOD L NKENDRICKDR B A E R HI LLRDPARKER RIGG IN S TRL P RI V A T E A C C E S SHOLMES RDMINKA F A R M LN SLIM ELMORELNBUCKHORN RD MT W ILL ING R D CHESTNUT RIDGE CHURCH RD BORL A N D RD Notification Map ¯0 1,000 Feet 1 in = 1,000 feet Planning and Inspections Department (BC) 8/23/2024 Camp Chestnut Ridge 1,000 Foot Notification Area O:\GIS Workspace\Projects\Mailing List\Camp Chestnut Ridge\Camp Chestnut Ridge.aprx\Notification Map ORANGE COUNTY, NC 50 PIN OWNER1_FIRST OWNER1_LAST OWNER2_FIRST OWNER2_LASTADDRESS1 CITY STATE ZIPCODE 9833935222 RETREAT MINISTRIES INC NC UNITED METHODIST CAMP &<Null><Null>700 WATERFIELD RIDGE PL GARNER NC 27529 9843055036 RETREAT MINISTRIES INC NC UNITED METHODIST CAMP &<Null><Null>700 WATERFIELD RIDGE PL GARNER NC 27529 9843137930 RETREAT MINISTRIES INC NC UNITED METHODIST CAMP &<Null><Null>700 WATERFIELD RIDGE PL GARNER NC 27529 9843221289 RETREAT MINISTRIES INC NC UNITED METHODIST CAMP &<Null><Null>700 WATERFIELD RIDGE PL GARNER NC 27529 9843259908 TOMMY M BOYD P O BOX 142 EFLAND NC 272439128 9842287384 F STUART CARSON FRANCES W MARSHALL 4168 RED TAIL RUN EFLAND NC 27243 9843313421 JOAN ELMORE CECIL <Null><Null>4211 SLIM ELMORE LANE EFLAND NC 27243 9843316759 JOAN ELMORE CECIL <Null><Null>4211 SLIM ELMORE LANE EFLAND NC 27243 9843252972 ROBERT L TRUSTEE CHAPMAN MARY B TRUSTEE CHAPMAN 2504 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 27243 9843254957 MICHAEL L CHAPMAN KAREN C CHAPMAN 2500 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 27243 9843424100 CHURCH CHESTNUT RIDGE <Null><Null>PO BOX 8 EFLAND NC 27243 9843424100 CHURCH CHESTNUT RIDGE <Null><Null>PO BOX 8 EFLAND NC 27243 9843155639 JOYCE P CLAYTON <Null><Null>2614 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 272439125 9843158481 RUSSELL LLOYD CLAYTON <Null><Null>5400 VERNON RD MEBANE NC 27302 9833835154 PERRY P COUCHELL <Null><Null>3605 BRINKLEY DR RALEIGH NC 27604 9842283372 GAIL B COX <Null><Null>4127 SHADOW WOOD LN EFLAND NC 27243 9833942722 NATHANIEL LORENZO DIXON AREATHA R DIXON 1005 BARNES COURT GREENSBORO NC 27405 9842382585 PEGGY J DODSON <Null><Null>4125 RED TAIL RUN EFLAND NC 27243 9842289770 INC E L G RESIDENTS ASSOC 4127 SHADOW WOOD LN EFLAND NC 27243 9843302088 JIMMY JEFFERIES ELMORE FRANCES ELMORE 3602 CHESTNUT RIDGE CH RD EFLAND NC 272439801 9843305817 JIMMIE J ELMORE FRANCES H ELMORE 3602 CHESTNUT RIDGE CH RD EFLAND NC 272439623 9843308790 JIMMIE JEFFRIES ELMORE FRANCES H ELMORE 3602 CHESTNUT RIDGE RD EFLAND NC 27243 9843256400 SUSAN OWEN GATTIS STEVEN M REDDECK 2414 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 272439128 9842387611 IRVING HOFFMAN SARAH CRAIGE 4100 RED TAIL RUN EFLAND NC 27243 9842481886 IRVING F HOFFMAN SARAH CRAIGE 4100 RED TAIL RUN EFLAND NC 27243 9843357605 <Null>JOHN P ABERNETHY INC <Null><Null>540 LAKENHEATH LN MATTHEWS NC 28105 9843163015 ZACHERY B KINSAUL PAULETTE Y KINSAUL 2609 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 272439125 9833959479 EDWARD JOSEPH JR MAREKA ROSEMARY M MAREKA 2901 MOUNT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 272439123 9842283898 LAWRENCE J MARTIN MARINDA W MARTIN 4143 RED TAIL RUN EFLAND NC 272439720 9833907846 <Null>MINKA FARM LLC <Null><Null>120 MINKA FARM LN EFLAND NC 27243 9833921230 <Null>MINKA FARM LLC <Null><Null>120 MINKA FARM LN EFLAND NC 27243 9833930538 <Null>MINKA FARM LLC <Null><Null>120 MINKA FARM LN EFLAND NC 27243 9842095625 <Null>MINKA FARM LLC <Null><Null>120 MINKA FARM LN EFLAND NC 27243 9843004786 <Null>MINKA FARM LLC <Null><Null>120 MINKA FARM LN EFLAND NC 27243 9842398364 BEVERLY A NEWTON <Null><Null>4101 RED TAIL RUN EFLAND NC 27243 9833831591 ANN N OSBURN <Null><Null>3218 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 27243 9842290271 REBECCA PALMER WILLIAM PALMER 4001 GREY FOX RUN EFLAND NC 27243 9842399819 J RANDALL POYTHRESS LINDA S POYTHRESS 3901 CHESTNUT RIDGE CH RD EFLAND NC 27243 9843251652 GRACE B ROBERTS <Null><Null>2512 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 272439648 9842188731 MARK D ROBINSON 4111 SHADOW WOOD LN EFLAND NC 272439602 9842188194 ARTHUR SCHERER <Null><Null>4309 POND RD EFLAND NC 27243 9833859777 MORRIS LEE SHAMBLEY <Null><Null>2809 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 272439125 9842299098 LORI ANNE SHAPIRO <Null><Null>4131 RED TAIL RUN EFLAND NC 272439720 9843338790 JACKIE WHISENHUNT SYKES <Null><Null>2207 OAKHURST TRL HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 9843405885 HILDA SYKES <Null><Null>PO BOX 128 EFLAND NC 27243 9833737137 JULIA TEIXEIRA 3316 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 27243 9833835913 ERNESTINE V THOMPSON 3200 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 272439650 9833847480 SANDRA THOMPSON <Null><Null>3111 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 27243 9843319657 RICKEY A THOMPSON WANDA S THOMPSON 3609 CHESTNUT RIDGE CH RD EFLAND NC 27243 9843410480 RICKEY THOMPSON WANDA THOMPSON 3609 CHESTNUT RIDGE CH RD EFLAND NC 27243 9843411147 RICKEY THOMPSON WANDA THOMPSON 3609 CHESTNUT RIDGE CH RD EFLAND NC 27243 9833847795 <Null>VICTORY IN JESUS MINISTRIES <Null><Null>PO BOX 282 Hillsborough NC 27278 9843169862 JONATHAN F WARD KELLY A WARD 2511 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 27243 9843261205 JONATHAN F WARD KELLY A WARD 2511 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 27243 9833943437 CAROLYN T WOODS MACKLIN <Null><Null>111 CARDEN PLACE DR MEBANE NC 27302 51 STANDARDS EXAMINED AND EVIDENCE RECEIVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY NC UNITED METHODIST CAMP & RETREAT MINISTRIES, INC. CAMP CHESTNUT RIDGE PROPOSING A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE A-5-18) SITE PLAN ORIGINALLY APPROVED JANUARY 2019 AS REVISED ON SITE PLAN LAYOUT SHEET S-01 DATED JULY 31, 204 SUP24-0012 As required under Section 2.7.14 Modifications to Approved Plans of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), an amended site plan and written narrative is required for a major modification to an approved Special Use Permit. Such modifications shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 and any use specific standards of the UDO. Section 5.3.2(A)(2) of the UDO 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 major modification to an approved Special Use Permit as outlined within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.14 of the UDO. (2)Section 5.3.2(B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of: a.Sewage disposal facilities, solid waste, and water; b.Police, fire, and rescue squad protection; c.Vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site; d.Other use specific standards as set forth within the UDO. (3)The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2(A) (2). Listed below are the findings of the Orange Planning staff regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of Adjustment in its deliberations. 52 Attachment 4 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOF Per Att 5 Submittal Requirements for all SUP Applications Proper forms 2.2 Staff Testimony Application (Attachment 2) 1 Fees paid 2.2.4(D) Application (Attachment 2) [Fees paid at time of submittal. Copy of check provided.] 1 Submittal Requirements • An amended site plan 2.7.14(E)(1) Application (Attachment 2) Site Plan (Attachment 6) Proposed Layout Modification See also current Site Plan and other materials with Approved SUP Case A-5-18 3, 4 • Written narrative outlining the specific changes requested 2.7.14(E)(1) Application (Attachment 2) See also current Site Plan (Attachment 6) and other materials with Approved SUP Case A-5-18 1 Common Open Space Standards Planning for open space shall always prominently meet at least one of the three following goals: a) the maintenance of wildlife corridors and/or habitat; b) the preservation of rural character; c) the creation or protection of space for outdoor recreation 7.12.4 Application (Attachment 2) See also current Site Plan (Attachment 6) and other materials with Approved SUP Case A-5-18 1 53 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOF Notification Requirements for all Evidentiary Hearings Mailed Notice all adjacent property owners (at least 15 days but no more than 25 days prior) 2.7.6(A)(2) BOA Hearing Notices mailed by staff on August 27, 2024, Certification available in Attachment 3. Sign Posting on Property (at least 10 days prior) 2.7.6(A)(2) BOA signs posted by staff on August 27, 2024. Certification available in Attachment 3. 7 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOF Waste, Safety and Access Requirements for all SUPs Waste Disposal Method and adequacy of provision for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service. 5.3.2(B)(1) Narrative of Proposed Modifications (Attachment 2) See also current Site Plan (Attachment 6) and other materials with Approved Case A-5-18 8 Safety Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection. 5.3.2(B)(2) Site Plan (Attachment 6) and other materials with Approved SUP Case A-5-18 9 Vehicle Access Method and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. 5.3.2(B)(3) Site Plan (Attachment 6) and other materials with Approved SUP Case A-5-18 10 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOF General Welfare, Value & Harmony Standards The use (will / will not) 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). Section 5.3.2 (A)(2)(b) Application package (Attachment 2); The proposed modification requests no change to the established land use. Evidence submitted by applicant 12 54 The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, (will / will not) 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. Section 5.3.2 (A)(2)(c) Application package as contained in Attachment 2 inclusive including, but not limited to: • Narrative detailing proposed modification; • Amended Site Plan; Testimony from applicant 13, 14 55 FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY NC UNITED METHODIST CAMP & RETREAT MINISTRIES, INC. CAMP CHESTNUT RIDGE PROPOSING A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE A-5-18) SITE PLAN ORIGINALLY APPROVED JANUARY 2019 AS REVISED ON SITE PLAN LAYOUT SHEET S-01 DATED JULY 31, 204 SUP24-0012 (PINS 9843-22-1289; 9843-13-7930; 9843-05-5036; and 9833-93-5222) When applying the adopted Findings of Fact to the relevant Standards found in the UDO, the Orange County Board of Adjustments makes the following Conclusions: 1.All necessary submittal requirements were met with the original submittal and/or the revised materials, including: a.Submittal of proper forms (UDO 2.2, Finding of Fact 1); and, b.Fees paid (UDO 2.2.4(D), Finding of Fact 1); and, c.The use was fully described (UDO 2.5.3(F) and 2.7.3(B)(1), Finding of Fact 2-6); and, d.Owner Information was provided (UDO 2.7.3(B)(2), Finding of Fact 1 and 2); and, e.The facilities were described (UDO 2.7.3(B)(1), Finding of Fact 2-6); and, f.Access, parking, and care facility use were identified (UDO 2.5.3(F), 2.5.3(L), 5.8.2, Finding of Fact 2 and 16); and, g. Plans were identified (UDO 2.5.3(K) and 2.7.3(B)(1), Finding of Fact 2 and 16); and, h.Site plans were submitted, (UDO 2.5, Finding of Fact 2 and 16); and, i.A list of parcels within 1,000’ was provided (UDO 2.7.3(B)(5), Finding of Fact 2) and; j.Environmental Assessment was submitted (UDO 2.7.3(B)(7), Finding of Fact 2); and, k.Method of Debris Removal was described (UDO 2.7.3(B)(8), Finding of Fact 2); and, l.Development Schedule was provided (UDO 2.7.3(B)(9), Finding of Fact 2). 2. Proper notice was provided as required by statute and ordinance, including: a.Notice was mailed for the Evidentiary Hearing (UDO 2.7.6(A)(1), Finding of Fact 11); and, b.Signs were posted for the Evidentiary Hearing (UDO 2.7.6(A)(2), Finding of Fact 12). 3.Waste, Safety and Access requirements were met, including: a.The method and adequacy of providing for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service is sufficient for the proposed use (UDO 5.3.2(B)(1), Finding of Fact 2 and 13); and, b.The method and adequacy of police fire and rescue squad protection is sufficient for the proposed use (UDO 5.3.2(B)(2), Finding of Fact 2 and 14); and, c.The method and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic conditions around the site are sufficient for the proposed use (UDO 5.3.2(B)(3), Finding of Fact 2 and 15). Attachment 5 56 4.Use standards specific to the camp uses were met, including UDO 5.7.5(a) 1-2 5.General welfare, value and harmony standards applicable to all SUPs have been met, including: a.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 (UDO 5.3.2(A)(2)(a), Finding of Fact 28); and, b.The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (UDO 5.3.2(A)(2)(b), Finding of Fact 29); and, c.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 (UDO 5.3.2(A)(2)(c), Finding of Fact 30). 57 August 27, 2024 Camp Chestnut Ridge SUP and Site Plan Modification Case #: A-4-24 / SUP24-0012 Re: Development Advisory Committee Report for SUP24-0012 (UDO Section 1.9.5) The Orange County Development Advisory Committee (DAC) will meet on September 5, 2024, for a final review and discussion of the modification request (Case #: A-4-24 /SUP24-0012). Any significant DAC comments or objections to the Special Use Permit modification will be reported to the BOA at the scheduled September 11, 2024 hearing. Sincerely, Patrick Mallett Patrick Mallett Deputy Director, Development Services Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 58 New Proposed RV SitesNew NNNeNNeProposed d RV Sites59 `DEC1" =300'---S-01BYDATEREVISIONS132456SHEET NO.PROJECT ENGINEER/ARCHITECTPROJECT MANAGERDRAWN BY7David E. Cates (davidecates@gmail.com)EFLAND, NC 272434300 CHESTNUT RIDGE RD210 South Wake StreetHillsborough, NC 27278Voice: (919) 427-9370David E. Cates, PE7/31/2024Camp Chestnut Ridge Site PlanOWNER:NC UNITED METHODIST CAMP & RETREAT MINISTRIES, INCPIN:ϵϴϰϯϬϱϱϬϯϲ͕ϵϴϯϯϵϯϱϮϮϮ͕ϵϴϰϯϭϯϳϵϯϬ͕ϵϴϰϯϮϮϭϮϴϵJURISDICTION: ORANGE COUNTYCITY: NORTH CAROLINARIVER BASIN: NEUSEWATERSHED: CANE CREEK PROTECTED, UPPER ENO PROTECTEDREFERENCE:ϲϬϭͬϭϱϴTOTAL AREA: 347.747 AC totalEXISTING USE: CAMPPROPOSED USE: CAMPEXISTING ZONING: AR60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 ORANGE COUNTY 9857872156BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT CASE BA24-0003 Meeting Date: September 11, 2024 Agenda Item No. BA24-0003 SUBJECT: BA24-0003 (Barlow Variance) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: Yes ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1.Variance Application 2.Zoning Report 3.Public Notification Materials 4.Findings of Fact Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director, Development Services (919) 245-2577 Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Zoning Manager (919) 245-2597 PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing, receive testimony and evidence, and take action on a VARIANCE application from the provisions of Section 6.13.4 (c) Minimum Buffer Widths for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts of the Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter ‘UDO’). Specifically, the applicant is requesting relief from the 150-foot reservoir buffer to construct a residential structure on a currently undeveloped parcel. BACKGROUND: The basic facts concerning the current application are as follows: Owner: Cynthia Ray Barlow 1855 Perimeter Park Road W. Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 Applicant: David Cates, PE 210 S. Wake Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Location: An unaddressed parcel on Old Lake Trail. Please refer to Attachment 2 for a map of the subject parcel. Parcel Information: a.PINs: 9857-87-2156 b.Size of parcel: +/- 1.6 acres c.Zoning of parcel: Agricultural Residential (AR); with Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District d.Township: Cedar Grove 70 e.Future Land Use Map Designation: Agricultural Residential (AR) f.Growth Management System Designation: Rural g.Roads: Frontage along Old Lake Trail, a private 60’ right-of-way h.Water and Sewer Service: The property is not located within a primary utility service area meaning water and sewer service is provided by an individual well and septic system. Surrounding Land Uses: a.NORTH: Property developed for what appears to be residential purposes zoned AR; b.SOUTH: Property developed for what appears to be residential purposes zoned AR; c.EAST: Old Lake Trail, a private 60’ right-of-way d.WEST: Lake Orange. Proposal: As detailed within Attachment 1, the applicant has applied for a VARIANCE from the 150-foot reservoir buffer to allow for the construction of a new residential structure to be located +/- 75 ft. from Lake Orange. This variance would provide relief from the normal 150-foot. reservoir buffer. The applicant notes that the lot was created in 1992 as part of Deer Run Subdivision, which predated the 1994 zoning ordinance in which the 150-foot reservoir buffer was first implemented. The property is also subject to a 65-foot stream buffer on the northern portion of the property. The property has remained in the same ownership since 1992. All construction activity would be required to obtain proper permitting through Orange County should a Variance be granted. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: Per Section 6.13.4 (c) Minimum Buffer Widths for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts development project(s) within the Upper Eno Critical Area Overlay District are required to adhere to the following buffer requirement(s): a. 65-foot stream buffer, when slopes are less than 7.5%, applied to the outside of the outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year FloodZone) b. 65-foot water body buffer, when slopes are less than 7.5%, applied to the outside of the outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year FloodZone) c.65-foot floodplain buffer, when slopes are less than 7.5%, applied to the outside of the outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year FloodZone) d. 150-foot reservoir buffer applied to the outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year FloodZone) STAFF COMMENT(S): 71 1.The application has been deemed complete. 2.As required under Section 2.12.6 of the UDO, staff notified all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property of the variance request. This notice also informed parties of the date, time, and location of the public hearing where the request will be reviewed. Copies of the letter, as well as our certification of mailing, are contained in Attachment 3. As of September 3, 2024, the writing of this abstract, staff has not received any complaints/concerns resulting from property owners notified of the request. Additionally, the application is scheduled for review at the September 5, 2024 Development Advisory Committee meeting. Any review comments received will be made available to the Board of Adjustment for review in time for the September 11, 2024 hearing. 3.Staff has determined the granting of the variance will not create issues for adjacent property owners with respect to the development/re-development of their properties. 4.Staff determined the granting of the variance will not have a negative impact on existing traffic service levels in the area or be consistent with applicable access management standards. 5.As detailed within Section 2.10 Variances of the UDO, the Board is authorized to modify or vary regulations when strict compliance with the regulation or standard would result in unnecessary hardships upon the subject property. 6.In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.10.3 of the UDO, the Board may approve a variance in cases where unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of the UDO, when substantial evidence in the official record of the application supports all of the following findings: a.Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the Ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. b.The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance. c.The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship. d.The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the Ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. 7.Per Section 2.10.10 of the UDO, the Board is not empowered to grant a variance without an affirmative finding of fact supported by substantial evidence in the record of the proceedings before the Board. Further, the Board may impose appropriate conditions provided same are reasonable related to the variance request. 72 8.Per Section 2.12.4 of the UDO the affirmative vote of four of the members of the Board is necessary to effect any variation of the Ordinance. 73 Page 1 of 6 Orange County Planning & Inspections Department 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 200, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-245-2575 or planningapps@orangecountync.gov Appeal of Interpretation and Variance Application Please check all applicable boxes and complete the required documentation. Additional information and submittal requirements are contained in Sections 2.10 and 2.11 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If completing by hand, please use black or blue ink. 3OHDVHILOORXWDOOUHTXLUHGILHOGV Date: ____________________ Request:  Appeal of Interpretation  Variance Contact Information Property Owner(s): Mailing Address: Phone: Email: Applicant (if different than property owner): Mailing Address: Phone: Email: Agent: Mailing Address: Phone: Email: Law Firm Name: Bar Number: Note: Only attorneys are recommended to serve as agents during quasi-judicial hearings such as this request. Property Information Parcel ID Number (PIN): Address: Appeal of Interpretation Matter Being Appealed (please select one) Notice of Violation  Final and Binding Determination  Boundary Interpretation Zoning Compliance Permit  Other Permit:  Variance Specific Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section(s) Requiring Variance: 74 Page 2 of 6 Certification and Signatures † Appeal of Interpretation Request I, _________________________________, have standing as described in Exhibit A and hereby appeal to the Board of Adjustment from an adverse decision of an Administrative Official of the Planning and Development Department of the County of Orange, North Carolina made on the _______ day of ______________, 20_____ and attached as Exhibit B. I request an outcome as described in Exhibit C.1 and for the reasons stated in Exhibit C.2. If I intend to present any evidence, that evidence is listed in Exhibit D. Variance Request I, _________________________________, have standing as described in Exhibit A and hereby request a variance from the UDO be granted by the Board of Adjustment from the UDO Sections listed above. I request a variance as described and for the reasons stated in Exhibit B. If I intend to present any evidence, that evidence is listed in Exhibit D. STATEMENT BY APPLICANT: I certify that the information presented by me in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. ___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Owner Signature(s) Applicant Signature (if different from owner) ___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Date Date Exhibit A – Statement of Standing I am the sole owner of the property subject to this application. I have attached notarized letters authorizing this submittal from all entities or individuals with ownership rights to the property. I would suffer special damages distinct from the rest of the community as follows: Appeal of Interpretation Exhibit B – Copy of Action Being Appealed Please attach and label as “Exhibit B” the official document which you are appealing. The Board of Adjustments DOES NOT have jurisdiction over advisory opinions of Orange County Staff. Only a binding determination may be appealed. Such documents generally have the following words in all capital and in bold: NOTICE OF VIOLATION, FINAL AND BINDING DETERMINATION, BOUNDARY INTERPRETATION, or ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMIT. If you are unsure if a staff member’s email or letter has binding force, please consider asking for clarification through a standalone document with one of those terms in bold before seeking an appeal. 75 Page 3 of 6 Exhibit C.1 – Requested Relief I request that the determination, order, or permit attached as Exhibit B be vacated. I request that the determination, order, or permit attached as Exhibit B be modified as follows: Exhibit C.2 – Applicant Argument and Reasoning (attach additional sheets as necessary) Variance Exhibit B – Explanation of Hardship To qualify for a variance, the applicant must make four showings. Please describe below how these will be made. 1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. (It is not necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.) 76 Page 4 of 6 2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. (Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance.) 3.The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. (The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship.) 77 Page 5 of 6 4.The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. (attach additional sheets as necessary) Exhibit D – Intended Evidence I intend to make only arguments and no further evidence is expected to be necessary. I intend to offer the following evidence: I intend to introduce the following document and have attached it follows: Exhibit #1 entitled: This is relevant to standards from Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Sections: It demonstrates that: Intend to call the following as a lay witness: Lay Witness #1 (name): Their intended testimony has been included in an affidavit attached as Exhibit: This witness has personal knowledge of and will testify about: This testimony is relevant to standards from UDO Sections: The testimony will demonstrate that: 78 Page 6 of 6 Intend to call the following as an expert witness: Expert Witness #1 (name): Is being offered as an expert in: They possess specialized knowledge in this field through the following training and/or experience: They reviewed or examined the following data: They used the following method of analysis when reviewing that data: This expert opinion is relevant the standard at UDO Section: It demonstrates that: Their intended testimony has been included in an affidavit attached as Exhibit: (attach additional sheets as necessary) Section Completed by Staff Zoning: Watershed: Other overlay districts impacting property: 79 2021 4317 Eno Cemetery Rd 80 R oad EasementR eservoir Buffer 150ftW ater Body Buffer 65ftFloodplain Buffer 65ft S tream Buffer 65ftS oilsS oils S urvey S treamOC Updated S tream 2' Contours (NCDOT)ParcelsS treetsZ oning W ater BodyCross S ectionFIR M 1% Annual Chance ofFlooding R egulatory FloodwayW atershed · 0 25 50 Feet 1 inch = 98.438 feet FloodPanel:9857J Upper EnoCritical Area -618.56-618.56-618.56-618.56 -618.56-618.56 D E E R RUN TRLOLDLAKETRLAR 64063863663463263062862662462262061864 8 646 644 642 640638 628624622620 630626616626616616 616 Soil: W Soil: GeC Soil: EnB Soil: GeC Soil: TaD Soil: Ch Soil: GeB Soil: GeC Soil: GeC Parcel Data: Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 9857872156S iz e: 1.6 acres Relevant Documents from Register of Deeds: Plat Book /Page: 16 S EC B DEER R UN R EV (PB 59/PG 147)Enforced by County: N/AEnforced by Others: N/A Zoning Information: Base Z oning District: Agricultural R esidential (AR )Min Lot S iz e: 2 acres based on watershedMin Lot W idth: 150 ft.Max Density: 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres based on watershedOverlay Z oning Districts): Upper Eno Critical W atershedMax Impervious S urface: 8,921 sq. ft. based on sliding scaleMax Building Height: 25’Building S etback s: Front 40’, S ide 20’, R ear 20’ Stream, Water Body, and Floodplain Buffers: S treams/W ater Bodies: 65 ft.Floodplain: S pecial Flood Haz ard Area (100 Y ear Flood Z one); 500Y ear FloodplainBase Flood Elevation (BFE): 618Minimum Finished Floor Elevation (FFE): 620 Land Disturbance Permitting Requirements: Erosion Control: Permit needed when disturbing over 10,000 sq. ft.W aiver needed if otherwise. S tormwater Management: Permit needed when disturbing over 21,780sq. ft. for residential use or over 12,000 sq. ft. for non-residential use. High Q uality W ater Z one (Y /N): Y es Disclaimer: This document was prepared using best available data. GIS imagerymay be slightly sk ewed and is not as accurate as a professional landsurvey. W etland information represented (if any) on this report does notconstitute a jurisdictional determination or exact location of wetlandfeatures. Please contact staff at 919-245-2575 if you have floodplain, HighQ uality W ater Z one, or wetlands indicated on this report. Date:6/11/2024 by amoncado Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange CountyGIS and is for reference only.Exact locations and boundaries should be verified.Map prepared by Orange County Planning & Inspections.6/11/2024 - amoncado Z oning R eport 81 PLANNING and INSPECTIONS Cy Stober, AICP, Director | cstober@orangecountync.gov | 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 | 919.245.2575 August 27, 2024 NOTICE OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ORANGE COUNTY PIN 9857-87-2156, PROPERTY LOCATED ON OLD LAKE TRAIL Dear Property Owner: This notice is to inform you of a September 11, 2024 Board of Adjustment meeting, at which a request for a Variance for a parcel located on Old Lake Trail, Cedar Grove, NC (PIN: 9857-87- 2156) will be reviewed in a quasi-judicial public hearing. The +/-1.6-acre parcel is located within the Cedar Grove Township. This notification is occurring in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.10 Variances of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The Variance request will be reviewed by the Orange County Board of Adjustment at 7:00 p.m., September 11, 2024 at the Whitted Meeting Facility (300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC). NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED FOR YOUR PROPERTY. You are receiving this notice because you own property located within 1,000-feet of parcel requested for a Variance. PROPERTY INFORMATION Parcel ID Number (PIN) 9857-87-2156 Owner Cynthia Ray Barlow Applicant David Cates, PE Location Unaddressed parcel on Old Lake Trail, PIN 9857-87-2156 Acreage +/-1.6 acres Current Zoning Agricultural Residential Watershed Designation Upper Eno Critical Watershed Under the provisions of the UDO, Residential development(s) within the Upper Eno Critical Watershed are required to adhere to a reservoir buffer of 150 ft. applied to the outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (100-Year Flood Zone). Attachment 3 82 The applicant has applied for a VARIANCE from the minimum 150 ft. reservoir buffer for the purposes of construction of a house on the property. The applicant notes that the currently undeveloped parcel was created in 1992 as part of a subdivision action that preceded the 1994 zoning ordinance in which the 150 ft. reservoir buffer was initially implemented. In addition to the reservoir buffer, the subject property is also impacted by a 65 ft. stream buffer along the northern portion of the parcel. Section 2.10 of the UDO requires that the Board of Adjustment (BOA) hold a Public Hearing to consider variance requests and that notices be sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property informing them of the date, time, location, and purpose of the hearing. This Public Hearing is intended to allow the BOA, property owners, and the applicant an opportunity to review and discuss the request. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.10.3 of the UDO, the BOA may approve a variance in cases where unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of the UDO, when substantial evidence in the official record of the application supports all of the following findings: (A)Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the Ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. (B)The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance. (C)The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship. (D)The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the Ordinance, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. If you cannot attend the Board of Adjustment meeting and the website does not answer your questions about the requested Variance, you may call 919-245-2575 during regular business hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you. Sincerely, Patrick Mallett Patrick Mallett Deputy Director, Development Services Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 83 PIN OWNER1_LAS OWNER1_FIR 9857623476 LAKE ORANGE INC 9857642370 ORANGE COUNTY 9857760674 BARNETT BEVERLY H 9857760779 TERLEP KENNETH D 9857761530 HARRELL SAMUEL P 9857761943 MCKNIGHT JAMES ROSS JR 9857762227 ENO PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 9857770249 ALVAREZ LEONARDO OCTAVIO TRUSTEE 9857770544 FLAM RENEE 9857770714 HOLDERFIELD KENNETH CULLEY 9857771054 READYHOUGH EDWARD M 9857771184 WARD ANN H 9857771781 MITCHELL NATHAN 9857772496 POTTER RICHARD 9857773286 PEDERSEN ERIC R 9857773666 MILLER LLOYD STEPHEN 9857773890 MCMILLAN EDWIN W JR 9857773939 BRODIE KATHERINE R 9857862971 DING JINGZHONG 9857863173 WALKER DONNY 9857863854 PAO BING S TRUSTEE 9857864300 EDGAR KARL F 9857864423 KEOUGH PATRICK R 9857864681 LECLAIRE DEVAUNT 9857865065 SHIPLEY ROBERT H 9857869750 BAKER SCOTT RANDALL TRUSTEE 9857871901 BLAKE ANTHONY TEDDER TRUST 9857872089 GEIB RONALD L JR 9857872156 BARLOW CYNTHIA RAY 9857872729 YOUNGMAN JAMES R 9857873314 BARLOW CYNTHIA R 9857873628 SAMUEL FRANKLIN YANUCK TRUST 9857879145 BARLOW CYNTHIA RAY 9857879503 BARLOW CYNTHIA RAY 9857881031 JOHNSTONE JANCY 9857881069 MECHANIC STANLEY 9857882138 HERFKENS KRISTINE M 9857883406 FOX DAVID L 9857884369 BARLOW CINDY R 9857888083 BARLOW CYNTHIA RAY 9857966710 BAKER SCOTT RANDALL TRUSTEE 9867071275 W & J FAMILY FARM LLC 9867090006 ENO FARM AT LAKE ORANGE LLC 84 9867150273 R & M FAMILY FARM LLC 85 OWNER2_LAS OWNER2_FIR ADDRESS1 PO BOX 127 PO BOX 8181 BARNETT JAMES W 2205 N BIGELOW ST TERLEP KATHRYN E 4601 ENO CEMETERY RD HARRELL MELODY J 4511 ENO CEMETARY RD MCKNIGHT CELESTE MARIE 4607 ENO CEMETERY RD UNKNOWN ADDRESS NGUYEN MAI PHUONG TRUSTEE 604 CANOTAGE CT 106 ROCK SPRING CT LASSETER JODI MARIE 608 PORTEUR PT READYHOUGH LESLIE A 4611 ENO CEMETARY RD 4615 ENO CEMETARY RD MITCHELL RACHEL 604 PORTEUR PT POTTER IVANA M 601 CANOTAGE CT 600 CANOTAGE CT MILLER CHRISTINA JARVIS 602 PORTEUR PTA MCMILLAN DORIAN 600 PORTEUR PT 601 PORTEUR POINT DR LIU YONGMEI 4624 OLD LAKE TRL WALKER MARY ANN 4618 ARROWHEAD TRL PAO METALONE P TRUSTEE POB 5000 PMB 205 WINDSCHILL TAMRA L 4600 OLD LAKE TR KEOUGH KATHY M 4606 OLD LAKE TRL LECLAIRE DEBORAH 4614 OLD LAKE TRAIL 4614 ARROWHEAD TRL BAKER HEATHER LOUISE TRUSTEE 1105 W MAIN ST AMELIA KATHRYN VOGLER TRUST 4726 OLD LAKE TRL GEIB KRISTEN B 1420 AINSWORTH BLVD 1855 PERIMETER PARK RD W EVERY DEBRA R 4722 OLD LAKE TRAIL 1855 PERIMETER PARK RD W CHERYL HOFFMAN YANUCK TRUST 4718 OLD LAKE TRL 1855 PERIMETER PARK RD W 1855 PERIMETER PARK RD W 4730 OLD LAKE TRL 4734 OLD LAKE TRAIL RIDER BETTY I 4738 OLD LAKE TR FOX LAVONNE P O BOX 988 1855 PERIMETER PARK ROAD W 1855 PERIMETER PARK RD W BAKER HEATHER LOUISE TRUSTEE 1105 W MAIN ST 3040 COURTNEY CREEK BLVD 849 RIVER SONG PL 86 4304 NC 86N 87 ADDRESS2 CITY STATE ZIPCODE C/O JOHN TOLAR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 PEORIA IL 61604 CEDAR GROVE NC 272319414 Cedar Grove NC 27231 CEDAR GROVE NC 27231 UNKNOWN XX 00000 CEDAR GROVE NC 27231 CARRBORO NC 27510 CEDAR GROVE NC 27231 CEDAR GROVE NC 272319414 CEDAR GROVE NC 27231 CEDAR GROVE NC 27231 CEDAR GROVE NC 27231 CEDAR GROVE NC 27231 CEDAR GROVE NC 27231 CEDAR GROVE NC 27231 CEDAR GROVE NC 27231 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789178 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272788263 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789178 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789178 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272788263 UNIT 702 DURHAM NC 27701 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 FERNANDINA BEACH FL 32034 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 FERNANDINA BEACH FL 32034 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 FERNANDINA BEACH FL 32034 FERNANDINA BEACH FL 32034 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 FERNANDINA BEACH FL 32034 FERNANDINA BEACH FL 32034 UNIT 702 DURHAM NC 27701 DURHAM NC 27713 CARY NC 27519 88 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 89 90 VARIANCE REQUEST CASE BA24-0003 Unaddressed parcel on Old Lake Trail (PIN: 9857-87-2156) APPLICANT PROPOSED FINDINGS ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT As permitted under Section 2.10 Variances of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment is authorized to modify or vary regulations of the UDO when strict compliance with the regulation or standard would result in unnecessary hardships upon the subject property. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.10.4 of the UDO, the BOA may approve a variance in cases where unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of the UDO, when substantial evidence in the official record of the application supports all of the following findings: (A) Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the Ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. (B) The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance. (C) The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self -created hardship. (D) The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the Ordinance, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. Per Section 2.10.9 of the UDO, the Board of Adjustment is not empowered to grant a variance without an affirmative finding of fact supported by substantial evidence in the record of the proceedings before the Board. The Board may impose appropriate conditions provided same are reasonable related to the variance request. Per Section 2.12.4 of the UDO the affirma tive vote of four of the members of the Board shall be necessary to effect any variation of the Ordinance. In accordance with Section 2.10.9 of the UDO what follows in the Planning Director’s assessment of the application and recommended disposition of the request consistent with the information contained therein. REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE BOA FINDINGS In accordance with Section 2.10.4 of the UDO, the Board of Adjustment shall also consider the following before the application for a VARIANCE can be approved. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the Ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. Sec 2.10.4 (A) Application package The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance. Sec 2.10.4 (B) Application package The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship. Sec 2.10.4 (C) Application package The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the Ordinance, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. Sec 2.10.4 (D) Application package After holding a duly advertised public hearing, the Board voted ____ to __________ the variance request as submitted by the Applicant. _______________________________________ __________________ Chair Orange County Board of Adjustment Date