Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-13-26 BOA Agenda Packet ORANGE COUNTY—BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA May 13,2026 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE MEETING AGENDA May 13,2026 Meeting Information Board Name: Board of Adjustment Meeting Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Meeting Time: 6:30pm—8:00pm [EST] Location: Orange County Whitted Building, 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Chair: Leon Meyer, BOA Chair Staff Liaison: Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director—Development Services Planning and Inspections Department Contact: pmalettPorangecountync.gov(919)-245-2577 Accessibility&Accommodation Notice:Orange County is committed to making all public meetings accessible. Persons with disabilities or who require language assistance are encouraged to contact the Staff Liaison at least 72 hours in advance.TTY users may call 711. Documents are available in alternative formats upon request. Meeting Agenda MAgePresenter/Lead Time 1. Call to Order Leon Meyers 2 min 2. Considerations of Additions of the Agenda Leon Meyers 3 min 3. Administrative Notes, Oaths of Office, Roll Call Pat Mallett/Tara May 2 min &Establishment of Quorum 4. Approval of December 10,2025, Minutes Leon Meyers 3 min Formal motion and approval of the BOA meeting's minutes for that meeting. 5. Discussion Regarding Any Desired Changes to Leon Meyers 15 min the BOA Rules of Procedure BOA to discuss modifications to the Rules of Procedure and potential clarifications regarding attendance policy and tenure. 6. Legal Training James Bryan 30 min Annal Legal training, updates and Staterent of Standing guidance with James Bryan, Orange County Staff Attorney. Planning and Inspections Department Page 1 of 2 ORANGE COUNTY—BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA May 13,2026 © Agenda Allotted - 7. Review of BOA Calendar for 2026 and BOCC Pat Mallett 5 min Approved Work Plan Review of Adopted Calendar and approved plan for 2026] 8. BOA Chair and Vice Chair Appointments Leon Meyers 20 min Discussion,nominations and BOA votes for Chair and Vice Chair 9. Announcements&Future Agenda Items Leon Meyers/Pat 5 min Mallett 10. Adjournment Leon Meyers 5 min Supporting Documents in Agneda Packet ■ Draft BOA Meeting Minutes for December 10, 2025 Provided at BOA Meeting ■ Legal Training Materials • BOA Rules of Procedure ■ BOA 2026 Meeting Calendars Planning and Inspections Department Page 2 of 2 1 Draft 1 MINUTES 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 December 10, 2025 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Leon Meyers, Chair 7 Beth Bronson, Vice Chair 8 Jeff Scott, Member 9 Nathan Robinson, Member 10 Kyle Myers, Alternate 11 12 MEMBERS EXCUSED: Greg Niemiroski, Member 13 Holly Fraccaro, Alternate 14 15 STAFF PRESENT:cy Stober, Director, Planning and Inspections 16 Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director, Development Services 17 Taylor Perschau, Manager, Current Planning and Zoning 18 Ashley Moncado, Planner III 19 Jack Moran, Planner 1 20 James Bryan, Staff Attorney 21 22 APPLICANTS: Laura Holloman 23 Michelle Fridman 24 LeAnn Brown 25 Nick Kirkland 26 Ian Ostrowski 27 Luis Lopez Naranjo 28 Nate Bouquin 29 Spencer Christiansen 30 31 AGENDA ITEM 1 : CALL TO ORDER 32 33 Leon Meyers called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. 34 35 AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 36 37 Leon Meyers: Any changes to the agenda, board members or staff? 38 39 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 40 41 Leon Meyers: Then need to approve the minutes from the November 12 meeting. Board members, that document 42 is in your package. Any questions, corrections, or a motion to approve? 1 2 Draft 1 2 Beth Bronson: I wanted to make one correction if you didn't mind. 3 4 Leon Meyers: All right. 5 6 Beth Bronson: I apologize. That was, it's towards the end, and I apologize, I left my notes in my other document. 7 Towards the end. It is going to be at the end. It was really just about making sure that I was saying 8 something where I was saying okay to you and not to the speaker. But at this point, it is nominal 9 because I made sure that the vote was reflected correctly. 10 11 Leon Meyers: All right. Any other questions or concerns, board members, or a motion to approve? 12 13 Kyle Myers: Motion to approve. 14 15 Jeff Scott: Second. 16 17 Leon Meyers: You, Ashley, you look like you're about to say something. Does that relate to the minutes? 18 19 Ashley Moncado: Oh, no, sorry. 20 21 Leon Meyers: No, okay. All right. Then all in favor of approving the minutes, please say aye. And opposed? 22 23 MOTION was made by Kyle Myers. Seconded by Jeff Scott. 24 25 VOTE: Unanimous. All in favor. 26 27 AGENDA ITEM 4&5: PUBLIC CHARGE & POTENTIAL BOA CONFLICT OF INTEREST 28 STATEMENT 29 30 Leon Meyers: Then, folks, please bear with me while I read the public charge. 31 32 Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct 33 themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At 34 any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe the public charge, then 35 I'll ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control, 36 and we'll recess the meeting if necessary to come to an orderly meeting. 37 38 The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial administrative body established in accordance with the provisions of 39 local regulations and State law to perform specified functions related to the County's planning 40 program. Actions taken by the board are based solely on competent, material, and substantial 41 evidence presented during a scheduled and advertised public hearing on a particular item. As 42 detailed within Section 2.12.2 of the UP TO DATE, the Board chair is responsible to exclude 43 evidence and testimony that's deemed: `irrelevant, incompetent, immaterial, or unduly 44 repetitious' and therefore fails to reasonably address the issues before the Board of 45 Adjustment. While it should be noted there is no time limit on presentation of evidence, I do 46 ask that the presentation of evidence be consistent with established policies and rules of 47 procedure and acceptable levels of decorum to ensure a fair and equitable hearing for all 48 parties. 2 3 Draft 1 2 Leon Meyers: Regarding conflicts and potential conflicts, it's the duty of every board member to avoid those. 3 Board members high any conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict with respect to matters 4 before the board should identify the conflict orthe appearance of conflict and refrain from undue 5 participation in the matter involved.As a reminder, Statutes 160D-109 establishes the following 6 standard. A member of any board exercising quasi-judicial function pursuant to this chapter 7 shall not participate in or vote on any quasi-judicial matter in a manner that would violate 8 affected persons' constitutional rights to an impartial decision maker. Impermissible violations 9 of due process include, but are not limited to, a member having a fixed opinion prior to the 10 hearing, undisclosed ex parte communications, a close familial, business, or other 11 associational relationship with an affected person, or a financial interest in the outcome of the 12 matter. I ask now if any board member wants to declare a conflict or an appearance of conflict. 13 Hearing none, we'll move to tonight's hearing on Case SUP25-009. Ashley, looks like you're 14 ready to present the case. 15 16 Ashley Moncado: Yes,good evening. I'm Ashley Moncado with the Orange County Planning Department. Before 17 we start the case presentation, I'm going to do a quick recap of the review process and the 18 BOA's role for tonight's hearing. Tonight's agenda does include a major modification to an 19 existing special-use permit. This type of application follows the same process as an SUP 20 requiring a completed application and site plan. As part of the process, the applicant has held 21 a neighborhood information meeting prior to the hearing tonight, and which brings us tonight 22 to the board review and decision. As part of tonight's hearing, the Board's role is to receive 23 evidence into the record pertaining to the case, hear testimony from parties with established 24 legal standing, review the evidence and testimony, review the materials and make a 25 determination, and issue an approval or denial of the SUP request. As part of the hearing, the 26 board may receive testimony from parties with established standing as defined by NC General 27 Statute 160D. For a person to have legal standing with the right to appeal a decision,they must 28 have legal interest in the subject property, be the applicant, be the county or city governing the 29 property, a person who will suffer special damages as a result of the decision, or be an 30 association organized to promote the interests of the particular area. For tonight's hearing, the 31 nature of proceedings shall include the following elements: establishment of legal standing, 32 enter evidence into the record, staff presentation and testimony, applicant review of evidence 33 and testimony, testimony from persons with legal standing, questions from the board of 34 adjustment, and then finally, board of adjustment will review and make a determination based 35 on findings of fact and decision.At this time, I am going to hand it back over to the chair to see 36 if you have any comments, or I don't know if we need to be sworn in at this time. 37 38 Leon Meyers: Taylor, you look like you were about to say something. 39 40 Taylor Perschau: No. Well, so you can make your legal standing or do your swearing in at your leisure. 41 42 Leon Meyers: All right, good. Let me ask at this time if there is anybody who is not a witness for the applicant, 43 or counsel to the applicant,who would like to speak tonight.Then I will ask all of the witnesses, 44 everybody who intends to testify tonight, to come forward, please. 45 46 Jack Moran: Do you swear and/or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth,the whole truth, 47 and nothing but the truth? 48 49 Staff/Applicants: Yes. 50 3 4 Draft 1 AGENDA ITEM 6: To conduct an evidentiary hearing to a review Special Use Permit 2 (SUP) Major Modification (Case SUP25-0009) for a previously approved SUP and Site 3 Plan for an existing Elementary, Middle, and Secondary school facility commonly known 4 as the "Emerson Waldorf School." The Major SUP Modification request was submitted by 5 Waldorf Educational Association of North Carolina. The request includes proposed 6 changes to the previously approved site plan and SUP conditions. The site is located at 7 Orange County PINS: 9871646437, 9871658140, 9871743098, and 9871721935, with a 8 primary property address at 6211 New Jericho Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27514. 9 10 Ashley Moncado: I'm going to go ahead and proceed. All right, so Item 6 on tonight's agenda is an application 11 for a major modification to an approved special-use permit for an existing school. The four 12 parcels related to this request include the existing Emerson Waldorf School campus and is 13 located at 6211 New Jericho Road in the Chapel Hill Township. The parcel is currently zoned 14 as rural buffer. Adjacent parcels are also zoned as rural buffer and planned development 15 housing rural residential. Surrounding land uses include residential and undeveloped parcels. 16 The parcel is located in the rural buffer future-land-use classification. In addition, this project is 17 located within the joint planning area. As a result, this application was provided to the Towns 18 of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for courtesy review. The existing school use and campus operate 19 based on approximately 55.27 acres based on a special-use permit and master plan approved 20 in 2015. The main campus is contained on approximately 24.76 acres and served Pre-K to 21 high school students. The main campus contains several existing buildings, including a middle 22 school, high school, woodland school, blacksmith shop, maintenance shop, and offices. The 23 existing SUP approved the school's master plan, containing several proposed buildings 24 including, but not limited to, an arts center, auditorium, gymnasium, and additions to existing 25 structures totaling 56,562 square feet. In addition,the 2015 SUP allows for up to 350 students. 26 The major modification request is to modify the 2015 SUP to update the campus master plan 27 for the school to plan for future development over the next 10 years and reflect future school 28 programming needs. The proposed modification does not propose any changes to the land 29 use or the approved student enrollment, but primarily eliminates buildings previously approved 30 as part of the 2015 master plan. No changes are being proposed to the ingress-egress design 31 and access previously approved in 2015. On this slide here, we're trying to illustrate what the 32 proposed modifications are to the master plan. The buildings or additions approved as part of 33 the 2015 SUP are identified in green and in red. The red boxes identify the buildings and 34 additions which were approved as part of the 2015 master plan but have been proposed for 35 removal from this master plan in part of this modification. This includes the shop building 36 addition, high school addition, eighth-grade classroom, and gymnasium and parking located 37 on the south parcel, south of Millhouse Road. The green boxes represent the buildings 38 previously approved as part of the 2015 SUP and will remain as part of the school's master 39 plan. Other modifications to the master plan include the inclusion of the theater support addition 40 on the main school campus, identified here in blue, as well as the master plan identifies four 41 structures on the parcel south of Millhouse Road, including farm structures and a greenhouse. 42 The applicant is pursuing bona fide farm status for this parcel, which may allow for these 43 structures to be exempt from zoning regulations. So here we have the proposed master plan 44 for you all here tonight. That was included in Attachment 2 of your packets. Minimum front side 45 and rear zoning district setbacks are being met on the proposed master plan. The site plan 46 also demonstrates compliance with landscape standards related to foundation planting, 47 between-lot plantings, street trees, landscape buffers, and tree preservation. Proposed access 48 parking and stacking areas are meeting LIDO standards. Access to the main school facility is 4 5 Draft 1 provided via four ingress-egress points along New Jericho Road, similar to the 2015 master 2 plan and approval. The submitted application and evidence was reviewed by staff and was 3 determined to be complete per the requirements of Orange County UDO Sections 2.5,2.7, and 4 5.8.4.The applicant also submitted material evidence to support Orange County UDO submittal 5 requirements and use standards. Staff finds that the special use proposed will maintain or 6 promote the public health, safety, and general welfare if located where proposed and 7 developed and operated according to the site plan. Based on the materials provided, staff finds 8 no potential injury to the value of property. As documented in the staff report, staff finds the 9 use will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located, and the use is compliant with 10 the plan for the physical development of the county. Based on Section 2.7.3 of the UDO, the 11 BOA may impose such reasonable conditions upon approval of the SUP. Here we have the 12 conditions which have been submitted by staff. Conditions 1 through 11 include the conditions 13 contained in the existing approved special-use permit from 2015, with minor edits for 14 consistency and compliance with existing UDO standards. Conditions 13 through 17 have been 15 submitted by the applicant for your review tonight. At this time, I'm going to allow for the 16 applicant to come up. 17 18 Leon Meyers: Ashley, before you leave. 19 20 Ashley Moncado: Yes. 21 22 Leon Meyers: In the agenda package is something a little bit unusual, which is the 2017 SUP that was 23 recorded sometime in the last 3 months. Can you explain that circumstance? 24 25 Ashley Moncado: Yep. So, when this process started and the applicant came in to do the revision, it was, with 26 staff's review, it was brought to our attention that the SUP that was approved in 2015 had 27 actually not been recorded.So,we did work with legal staff and our applicant so that we drafted 28 the SUP, and it had been recorded earlier this year. 29 30 Leon Meyers: So that's why we have a 2015 SUP with a 2025 recording date. 31 32 Ashley Moncado: It's the SUP, yes, had not been drafted in 2015 and not been recorded, but we did go back 33 through all the board materials at that time. The 2015 SUP was presented to the BOCC. It 34 would have been a quarterly public hearing. So went back, reviewed all the materials, the 35 minutes to make sure that all the conditions, anything that was placed at that time, was 36 accounted for in the SUP that was recorded earlier this year. 37 38 Leon Meyers: Thank you for that. 39 40 Ashley Moncado: Yep. 41 42 Leon Meyers: Board members, any questions for staff? 43 44 Ashley Moncado: And also note as well, the site plan that is attached to that is the site plan that was presented 45 at the quarterly public hearing and approved by the BOCC at that time as well. 46 47 Leon Meyers: Yeah. All right. All right, then for the applicant? 48 49 Leann Brown: Good evening, board members. It's nice to see all of you this evening. My name is Leann 50 Brown, and I am here representing Waldorf Educational Association of NC, Inc., as its counsel. 5 6 Draft 1 As you all know, it is considered best practice for counsel to be present, under the North 2 Carolina State Bar rules, in quasi-judicial hearings. And so, as a matter of best practice, I am 3 here. This is not a controversial hearing whatsoever. I do want to introduce to you the 4 individuals who are here with me. We have— I promise you we're not going to call the entire 5 team to testify, but we wanted to have everyone here in case you had questions of particular 6 people, so we had them here. So from Emerson Waldorf School, I have Ian Ostrowski, who is 7 our facilities director with Emerson Waldorf; Michelle Fridman, who is the director of 8 administration; and Luis Lopez Naranjo — I am not going to, close but not exactly. He is the 9 chair of our board of trustees at Emerson Waldorf. My team of experts, my design team and 10 my experts are Laura Holloman with John R. McAdams Company, Spencer Christiansen with 11 John R. McAdams Company, Nate Bouquin with John R. McAdams Company, and Nick 12 Kirkland with Kirkland Appraisers. The packet of information you have, which I would ask that 13 you receive into evidence the materials in that packet, it includes our application and plans, a 14 biological inventory, a wastewater permit, an appraisal report, a well permit, and environmental 15 assessment, a traffic impact analysis, and a forage stewardship plan, and all of that material 16 that is part of your packet supports the findings that you will need to make this evening,without 17 us having to repeat everything that is in them. 18 19 Leon Meyers: Any objection to entering that packet into evidence? 20 21 Kyle Myers: No. 22 23 Leann Brown: I think that's your standard practice to enter into evidence your entire packet as well as your 24 staff report. So, with that done, I'm going to ask Ian to come up, from Emerson Waldorf, and 25 explain to you a bit about why they have chosen to come down this path. After that, I'll have 26 Laura Holloman come up. She will give you her credentials. I'll ask that you certify her as an 27 expert without my popping up to ask. And then after that, I plan for Nick Kirkland to testify, as 28 our appraiser with Kirkland Appraisers, and would ask that you also listen to his credentials 29 and receive him as an expert. And then beyond that, if you have questions of any of the other 30 members of the team,we are here. I'll come back up at the end and bat just a tad bit of cleanup, 31 and thank you. 32 33 Ian Ostrowski: Good evening, everyone. I am Ian Ostrowski,facilities director at Emerson Waldorf. So we are 34 seeking these changes, I'd say, primarily because early, or during the pandemic, we realized 35 a desire and the benefits of being more outdoors with a lot of our programming at the school. 36 And so, and we hadn't taken that into account in 2015, and we didn't have areas where kids 37 could be primarily. Currently, our kindergarten, especially, is spending a lot more time outside, 38 and so we wanted to make some provisions for that. So, in our modification, we've asked for, 39 we've got some outdoor classroom areas and a bathroom that can serve those students as 40 they are out in the woods and not in their building, and so that was the primary reason for trying 41 to revisit this. And we removed the gym because that was just not, it's kind of a pipe dream of 42 a thing at the time, and not something that is as important to our community currently and just 43 would have been difficult where it was. And the theater support building, for similar reasons: 44 don't really have enough room, and we do a lot of theater at the school, and so that's why that 45 was added. But yeah, it's all pretty minor, and it's mostly to try to be more outside. 46 47 Laura Holloman: Hey, good evening, members of the Board of Adjustment. I'm very happy to be here. My name 48 is Laura Holloman. I'm with McAdams, as Leann said. I'm a professional planner. I am the 49 director of development entitlement. I'm a North Carolina native, received my Bachelor in Public 50 Management from App State University in 2005, and certified planner since 2012, so I've been 6 7 Draft 1 practicing in the triangle for over 20 years now,which is crazy to say but here we are. So,thank 2 you for allowing me to speak on this item. So, staff has done a wonderful job throughout the 3 process, really making sure we captured everything. As you all know, SUPs can be very labor 4 intensive, and they've certainly really helped us make sure that we are adhering to all the legal 5 standards that we needed to, so certainly thank them for all their help getting us to this point 6 tonight. So as Ashley mentioned — I'll try not to repeat too much of what she said since she 7 gave a great overview. As she said we've, this is an existing school. It's been in operation 8 since, I think, 1988 so been there for a while. And the great thing about this school is you 9 wouldn't know that it's there unless you visited or live in the surrounding area. They really put 10 an emphasis to be one with nature and not one against nature, so they've got a lot of existing 11 tree canopy,and as Ian mentioned,they're very committed to outdoor classroom space. Really, 12 the focus is being outside and in the nature environment, rather than building a more traditional 13 school that we think of in the public school system. So, I'll go over, briefly, what those changes 14 are, although I think staff did a good job. One thing to mention that really pops off this page is 15 just the existing landscape, perimeter buffer areas that won't be touched as part of this SUP. 16 No matter that that was the case back in 2015, so we're, as staff mentioned, we are meeting 17 all the minimum and exceeding those on the periphery and really keeping those existing tree 18 coverage, which certainly, I'm sure, would be important to the surrounding area. In terms of 19 what we're showing as improvements, staff did mention that we are actually decreasing our 20 previously approved square footage by 18,878, and that is coming from, as Ian mentioned, 21 getting rid of the main area was the gymnasium, of course. That had a large associated square 22 footage with it, but obviously with, it was expensive, and now that they've adopted more of, 23 they've kept their COVID kind of curriculum of being outside. They've realized that they can 24 put those resources into other things on campus. So everything that you see in purple, that is 25 still the case with what is being added. And then those are the new buildings. Yellow is what's 26 existing there today, and then the green is the existing tree-save areas. So, the idea is there's 27 obviously a new arts center that's 11,800 square feet. That's here. There's the auditorium in 28 this area. Building additions to the high school is in this area, and then connecting the east and 29 west wings of the lower school. But the main, of course, is the main goal here and, of course, 30 in the near term, is just adding these open-air pavilions right now for outdoor classroom space. 31 There's existing what I would think of when you think of almost a pop-up tailgate tent that's out 32 there now that has been used for a number of years, so they're more than ready, and they're 33 at that point where they can put some permanent structures there for folks to enjoy, as well as 34 the bathrooms, which will be utilized by folks during their outdoor curriculum time. Just to 35 reiterate, the setbacks, as staff mentioned, we're meeting all of those minimum setback 36 requirements. Touched on the tree preservation areas, but we are meeting all those. We are 37 also meeting all the parking standards. Just one of our modifications, as you noticed, was to 38 allow those to be gravel, but we are still meeting the landscape standards, so within that, we 39 acknowledge that that's still an impervious area, and we'd like to break that up with 40 landscaping. But just overall, we are very committed to having a more natural look and feel, 41 and they wish to do that with gravel,which ties in a little better in the natural environment rather 42 than a more harsh asphalt pavement, which contributes more to the heat-adding effect out 43 there. So, at this time, I'm happy to entertain any questions that you have before we call up the 44 appraisal, appraiser. 45 46 Leon Meyers: Board members, questions for Ms. Holloman? 47 48 Nathan Robinson: Just out of curiosity, I see the timber structures. Are those — and on, must be Exhibit 1, are 49 those listed separately from a square footage perspective? Are those considered part of the 50 square foot or no? 7 8 Draft 1 2 Laura Holloman: They are considered part of the square footage, I believe. 3 4 Nathan Robinson: Okay. I'm looking on Page 6 of, I think it's on Page 77 of the agenda. I was just curious, I don't 5 see that listed anywhere. 6 7 Laura Holloman: Double check. 8 9 Nathan Robinson: And then the same as the restroom. And I know you're reducing things, but I'm just curious to 10 know. I don't see the restroom listed in that table or the pavilions. 11 12 Laura Holloman: Well, give me a second, and I'll double check on that. I can come back up after. 13 14 Leon Meyers: Any other questions? Beth, did you have something? 15 16 Beth Bronson: Yeah, I'm just trying to understand the proposed square footage being reduced by 18,000 but 17 then adding these buildings. Is it because of what was allotted in the beginning, or is it because 18 this table isn't reflecting the actual square footage of the gymnasium. 19 20 Laura Holloman: The gymnasium itself was 13,942, so just getting rid of that alone is the majority of it.Also, the 21 eighth-grade classroom building that is not included in the new SUP, that was 1,650, and then 22 the shop building, in addition, was 1,364, so those, that was the changes on that. 23 24 Beth Bronson: Removing these buildings? 25 26 Laura Holloman: Yes. 27 28 Beth Bronson: But then when you were pointing to these, the shaded purpose, you're talking about building 29 them; you're talking about not building them. 30 31 Laura Holloman: Correct. 32 33 Beth Bronson: Okay. Just wanted to make sure I was understanding this correctly. 34 35 Laura Holloman: Yeah, yeah. 36 37 Kyle Myers: Could I also ask another question, or did you have a follow-up? 38 39 Nathan Robinson: Say that one more time, Beth? So those purple buildings are not there currently, correct? 40 41 Laura Holloman: That's correct. 42 43 Beth Bronson: And they're not going to be? 44 45 Nathan Robinson: No, they are going to be. 46 47 Beth Bronson: They are going to be. 48 49 Leon Meyers: Purple buildings are going to be. That was my understanding. 50 8 9 Draft 1 Beth Bronson: They're going to be added. 2 3 Leon Meyers: Right. 4 5 Beth Bronson: So I'm trying to understand, when you're adding these four to five building, six, let's call it six 6 because there's six different locations, but you're reducing the actual square footage that you're 7 approved for by 18,000. I'm just trying to see where it says that the square footage of those 8 buildings that you are proposing are, actually. Because in the table it just says zero, and 1 9 apologize. 10 11 Laura Holloman: Yeah, and that's just meant to say that they're off the table, so to speak. So, it's not our plan to 12 build those ever. 13 14 Beth Bronson: But your, but in the site plan, your, those purple buildings are the gymnasium and the 15 auditorium. 16 17 Nathan Robinson: No, the gymnasium's not there. 18 19 Beth Bronson: Okay, but this auditorium—okay. 20 21 Nathan Robinson: If you look at, if you look in the top right corner there, there's a, in the key there's P1, there's 22 P2, P1, P2, P4, and then but there's no gymnasium there. 23 24 Beth Bronson: And P8? Okay. All right. So you're saying there is no — all right, maybe I'm looking at the 25 original. 26 27 Laura Holloman: It is confusing and very nuanced but- 28 29 Kyle Myers: Well, could you just clarify that the arts center and the auditorium that are listed under 30 "previously approved" don't currently exist, and you're building them. They were approved in 31 2015, but they were never constructed. 32 33 Laura Holloman: That's correct. 34 35 Kyle Myers: So, the new buildings are the new arts center, a new auditorium, because it doesn't exist, the 36 additional square footage in the high school campus building additions, and then I think the 37 question was: Where does the bathroom and the open-air pavilions show up on this chart. 38 39 Laura Holloman: On the table. 40 41 Beth Bronson: Yeah. I mean, that makes sense. This is the plan, correct? 42 43 Laura Holloman: I'll double check on that. 44 45 Spencer Christiansen: For the pavilions, because they're not usable floor space, it wasn't quantified as building 46 floor area. 47 48 Leon Meyers: Can I ask you to come up to the microphone, please and identify yourself? 49 9 10 Draft 1 Spencer Christiansen: Hi, Spencer Christiansen with McAdams. I believe the open-air pavilions, because they 2 are not building floor area,were not quantified in that table.Although it is going to be impervious 3 area, and so if there's a different spot to quantity that,we certainly could put it in a table. 4 5 Leon Meyers: And how about the restrooms, I think was one of Nathan's questions. 6 7 Nathan Robinson: Yeah, I see one restroom. I don't know if there's more. I see one restroom. I don't know if 8 there's more than one. 9 10 Spencer Christiansen: It may not. Honestly- can I zoom? No? 11 12 Laura Holloman: No, but just point to it and tell me. 13 14 Spencer Christiansen: This little thing right here behind that building, I believe. 15 16 Laura Holloman: So this right here? 17 18 Spencer Christiansen: Yeah. 19 20 Laura Holloman: Okay. 21 22 Spencer Christiansen: It's tiny. 23 24 Leon Meyers: And the question would be:Are those restrooms included?We just heard that the pavilions, as 25 open structures as opposed to building floor area, are not reflected in this summary of square 26 footage. And I think the remaining question is are the restroom buildings, which would be floor 27 area, are they reflected in this summary of building area? 28 29 Nathan Robinson: It doesn't look like they are to me, and in addition, on the bottom left of this, there is a theater 30 support addition, and maybe it would be helpful to know what defines a building. Is a building 31 defined as impervious space, from a site planning perspective? I believe that's typical, right? 32 Or is it defined as a heated area? I don't really know, and I don't know if it matters to me. I'm 33 just seeing that I don't see it lined out here. 34 35 Laura Holloman: I think, for our basis, where the disconnect is, is we were defining accessory structures rather 36 than, which is the open area, the bathroom, as separate from the heated primary structures. 37 But that is certainly something that we can correct. 38 39 Leon Meyers: So, you think that the answer is that neither the restroom structures nor the open-air pavilions 40 are reflected in this proposed square footage? 41 42 Laura Holloman: Correct. 43 44 Leon Meyers: Okay. Board members, any other questions on overall square footage? 45 46 Nathan Robinson: Can we just, can we somehow remember that? If we're going to approve proposed square 47 footage, it would be important to me to define what we are,what does proposed square footage 48 mean. The three area—and does it mean anything with a roof over it? Does it mean anything 49 with a foundation on it? Because I presume the footers, I'm presuming you have footers for a 10 11 Draft 1 pavilion, so. Otherwise, you're going to get yourself in trouble because you're going to have a 2 number that's lower than what you're really going to have. 3 4 Laura Holloman: Yeah, it's a great point, and we certainly appreciate you pointing that out. 5 6 Leon Meyers: And so can you guys come up with the proposed square footage for both accessory structures 7 and restrooms before the end of the hearing? So that we can make a note about that as a part 8 of the conditions? 9 10 Beth Bronson: I see four. 11 12 Nathan Robinson: And just make you remember that the theater support addition, and I know that you're still in 13 the middle of your presentation, so I don't mean to jump ahead, but the next couple pages 14 show other buildings, and I don't know if those are counted or not.And there's proposed open- 15 air pavilions right below the greenhouse, and then the third page is something else too, so. 16 17 Laura Holloman: On that other lot, that's on the other side? 18 19 Nathan Robinson: Mm hmm. 20 21 Laura Holloman: Okay. 22 23 Leon Meyers: All right? 24 25 Laura Holloman: Thank you. 26 27 Nick Kirkland: Good evening. My name is Nick Kirkland with Kirkland Appraisals. I'm a state-certified general 28 appraiser in the state of North Carolina as well as eight other states. I've been accepted as an 29 expert in property value impacts before this board and other boards like it about 300 times or 30 so. Been accepted as an expert in property value impacts regarding schools and similar uses 31 two dozen-ish times. Would you like me to pause for the deliberating on accepting as an 32 expert? 33 34 Leon Meyers: Board members, any objection to Mr. Kirkland as an expert in land value? 35 36 Kyle Myers: No objection, but can you just confirm you're Expert Witness No. 3, Richard C. Kirkland Jr.? 37 38 Nick Kirkland: I am not. That is my father. I am Nicholas Kirkland. 39 40 Kyle Myers: Okay. 41 42 Leon Meyers: All right. And without objection, the board will accept you as an expert witness. 43 44 Nick Kirkland: Thank you. So, I'll be brief. I'm going to explain what we've done in our impact study and how 45 it relates to what's before you this evening. We've been asked to determine whether or not this 46 would have an impact on the adjoining or nearby property values, as well as whether or not it 47 would be in harmony where it's proposed. So, obviously, the question here is just those new 48 differences to the property are where we're trying to determine would there be an impact and 49 would it be in harmony.So what we've actually done is we've taken a step back and just looked 50 at this all-encompassing as a school. If this is the type of school that was proposed here today, 11 12 Draft 1 would this have an impact on the adjoining or nearby property values? And what we found is 2 we've used matched pairs whereas paired sales, which are home sales right next to existing 3 similar nearby schools in the area that have been compared to nearby home sales that were 4 not next to those schools in order to measure for any difference. We have not identified any 5 impact to the values of those homes that are adjacent to schools in the area, and therefore, 6 there is no basis for an impact to the adjoining property values for adjoining this school, even 7 after the proposed changes. Beyond that, we've also looked at the externalities or the 8 characteristics associated with these changes,which could cause an impact.Those things can, 9 are roughly in order of impact: hazardous materials, which there does not appear to be any 10 hazardous materials proposed to be sited on the site. Odor, noise, neither of those are 11 significant concerns for a school to continue to operate how it has historically operated, with 12 just a slightly different building structure. Traffic:A traffic impact analysis has been done which 13 has indicated no concerns for traffic.And the appearance of the site largely remains the same, 14 with the significant vegetative buffer shown in green on the screen. So, from the theory side, 15 there is not a basis for an impact. From market participants' actions, there's not a basis for an 16 impact. And therefore, it's my professional opinion that the proposed use will not negatively 17 impact adjoining or nearby property values and that the proposed use will be in harmony where 18 it's proposed to be located.And I'm happy to answer any questions or go into more detail about 19 our impact study. 20 21 Leon Meyers: Board members, questions for Mr. Kirkland? 22 23 Nathan Robinson: No. 24 25 Leon Meyers: Thank you, sir. 26 27 Nathan Robinson: Your study is comprehensive and does a good job. 28 29 Nick Kirkland: Thank you. 30 31 Nathan Robinson: If I could add one more to the team that's working on the square footages. I don't see on the 32 purple drawings. You have a building — I don't know how to say it. It's a dense thing. I don't 33 know how to say that word. I don't see that labeled anywhere on here as well. I don't see a P2 34 anywhere. 35 36 Laura Holloman: Let me pull up this. It's down here, if you can see my mouse. I believe that's P2. 37 38 Beth Bronson: Where's your mouse? So, the bottom of the accessory building? 39 40 Nathan Robinson: Oh. Oh, I see. 41 42 Beth Bronson: It's where E5 is. 43 44 Nathan Robinson: So, you're not really adding anything there. 45 46 Spencer Christiansen: No. 47 48 Kyle Myers: It's described in the submitted materials as a renovation. 49 50 Nathan Robinson: Oh okay, I'm sorry. I missed that bit. 12 13 Draft 1 2 Leon Meyers: All right. Is there anything more from the applicant? 3 4 Leann Brown: Well, as a housekeeping matter, I would ask that you accept both Laura Holloman and Spencer 5 Christiansen as experts, the PE and the design engineers. 6 7 Leon Meyers: Board members, objections to either of those witnesses as experts in their field? Then they're 8 accepted as experts. 9 10 Leann Brown: Thank you. We need to calculate this number for you, and so once we do that, we'll give you that 11 number, and I'll fill space here for a moment while they calculate. So just want to say to the board 12 simply, as you know, the staff report addresses compliance with the ordinance, including the special 13 provisions related to schools, and the staff report is part of the evidence you have that shows that it, 14 the proposal complies in all respects with the ordinance, the modification does. You have the three 15 findings to find. You have traffic reports and a series of other reports that demonstrates that it 16 maintains or enhances public health, safety, and general welfare, maintains and promotes. Mr. 17 Kirkland has testified that, if developed, it will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, 18 which since it is already being used the same way, is not a surprising result, and that it meets the, 19 staff report also goes through in detail the ways in which it meets the character of the ordinance, and 20 so we believe that the evidence before you, which when I pull that packet out, is yea thick, is 21 substantial to present our case that this permit should be granted. There's obviously no evidence to 22 the contrary, and I just need a number, so hold on for one second. Thank you. 23 24 Leon Meyers: All right. 25 26 Leann Brown: Any questions of us whatsoever? 27 28 Beth Bronson: I have one question. 29 30 Leann Brown: I won't know anything, but they all do. 31 32 Beth Bronson: Yeah, I have one question about the TIA. So,they're saying that there's a nominal change in students 33 over the 11 years of the TIA, or the 10, yeah, 10, 11 years since the last TIA was performed. And so, 34 1 guess I just was, and then I just saw that you're talking about P.M. peak hours but school hours 5, 35 6 p.m. And can you just describe a little bit of that A.M. change maybe? 36 37 Leann Brown: I'm going to present to you our traffic engineer. I ask you give your credentials, that you accept him 38 as an expert once you hear his credentials, and he can answer your question. 39 40 Nate Bouquin: Absolutely. Good evening. My name's Nate Bouquin. I'm a traffic engineer, licensed engineer in the 41 states of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas.Also certified as a professional traffic operations 42 engineer. I've done hundreds of traffic studies throughout North Carolina and the southeast. So yes, 43 so when we're referring to the P.M. peak hour, that is the school's peak hour. 44 45 Leon Meyers: Excuse me. Ms. Brown has presented— Ms. Brown, is that right? 46 47 Nate Bouquin: Bouquin. 48 49 Leon Meyers: Bouquin. As an expert. Was any objection to his status as an expert witness? Then accepted. Thank 50 you. Go ahead, please. 13 14 Draft 1 2 Nate Bouquin: So yes, so when we're referring to the P.M. peak hour, that is the school's P.M. peak hour when their 3 pickups would be occurring. And I believe, to answer one of your other questions, the previous TIA 4 that was conducted looked at a maximum capacity for the school of 350 students. That is still the 5 planned maximum capacity for the school, so in our coordination with NCDOT, they confirmed that 6 they still found the previous TIA to be reflective of our traffic impacts on the roadway. 7 8 Beth Bronson: So, a new TIA was not needed because it was theoretically modeled off of the 2014 one. 9 10 Nate Bouquin: That's correct. Yep. 11 12 Beth Bronson: And so, any of the surrounding growth was not accounted for in the TIA. 13 14 Nate Bouquin: A traffic impact analysis looked at kind of what our impacts are on the roadway network. And so that 15 would not have changed with any of that ambient background growth. 16 17 Beth Bronson: With plenty of, yeah, enrollment to spare. Okay. 18 19 Nate Bouquin: Yep. 20 21 Cy Stober: Mr. Chair, if I may enter into the record, as a land-use matter, the county does not have jurisdiction 22 over the traffic impacts from a school, existing or new. That is reserved for the North Carolina 23 Department of Transportation, solely, by statute. 24 25 Beth Bronson: Wonderful. Just wanted to make sure I understood the impact analysis and that it wasn't a new one; 26 it was a modeled after the base number. 27 28 Nate Bouquin: That's correct. 29 30 Beth Bronson: Thank you. 31 32 Nate Bouquin: Thanks. 33 34 Leon Meyers: And while we're waiting for those area calculations, I'll just point out that the conditions, I think all of 35 the conditions, except what may come from this discussion about building area, are listed on Page 36 80 of the agenda package. Might be a good time to look those over and see if anybody sees anything 37 missing or included in error. 38 39 Beth Bronson: The solid-waste permit application would be for the entire parcel, or it would be per building, or per 40 facility? 41 42 Leon Meyers: I don't know the answer to that.Ashley, can you help us with that? 43 44 Ashley Moncado: That's a good question. With solid waste, I think it's for the whole, it'll be for the whole property, 1 45 believe. So it'd be, and I think it's a private— is it private collection?Yeah. 46 47 Beth Bronson: So, the permit covers the entire parcel, no matter how many different septic fields or drain fields. 48 49 Leann Brown: So, you're asking about solid waste that's like recyclables, trash pickup? 50 14 15 Draft 1 Beth Bronson: Solid waste, yes. Okay. 2 3 Spencer Christiansen: Hello. Spencer Christiansen, which I'm from McAdams Company. 4 5 Leann Brown: And, Spencer, can you to through your credentials really quick?You said your name and who you're 6 with, but if you can go through that. 7 8 Spencer Christiansen: Yeah, so credentials, I have a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from University of 9 Wisconsin and 10 years of experience in the industry, and I'm a licensed professional engineer in 10 North Carolina. 11 12 Leon Meyers: Board members, objections to Mr. Christiansen as an expert witness?And accepted. All right. 13 14 Spencer Christiansen: Okay, so the structures we were talking about, No. 1 was the bathroom. That is 200 square feet. 15 The open-air pavilions, we counted four of them for a total of 600 square feet. The theater addition: 16 800 square feet.And then the miscellaneous farm structures on the southeastern parcel totaling 6,000 17 square feet. 18 19 Leon Meyers: 6,000? 20 21 Spencer Christiansen: Yes, so those four items that I mentioned total 7,600 square feet. 22 23 Leon Meyers: 7,600? For a total building area of about 43-2, something like that. No, 45-2. 24 25 Nathan Robinson: So, you said the pavilions were you, there's four of them, and you said the total was 600 for all four 26 of them? 27 28 Spencer Christiansen: Mm hmm. 29 30 Beth Bronson: That's quite small. 31 32 Nathan Robinson: Are you sure? 33 34 Spencer Christiansen: Yeah. 35 36 Nathan Robinson: And the reason I say that is because I'm looking at your scale, and you have 20-by-20 tents, and so 37 each one of those would be 400. 38 39 Spencer Christiansen: They're going to shrink them down. 40 41 Nathan Robinson: Okay, as long as you're sure. I don't want you to come in short and then come up later. 42 43 Spencer Christiansen: They're not going to be as big as they are. 44 45 Nathan Robinson: Okay. 46 47 Leon Meyers: All right, then any other comment, or Mr. Christiansen, anything more to add? 48 49 Laura Holloman: No, but certainly appreciate y'all's attention to detail. 50 15 16 Draft 1 Leon Meyers: And board members, any questions for Ms. Holloman or Mr. Christiansen? 2 3 Beth Bronson: The vesting period extension of 5 years versus the, I think is it normally 18 months?Yeah. 4 5 Laura Holloman: It's, as you can imagine for a school like this,this is all dependent on fundraising, so we're just wanting 6 the extra time to be able to keep this valid for as long as possible to be able to raise funds to do what 7 they want to do. 8 9 Beth Bronson: Understandable. 10 11 Leon Meyers: All right. Then, Ms. Brown, anything more from your team? 12 13 Leann Brown: Unless the board has questions, I don't think there's anything more from the team. It occurred to me 14 not an engineer, but just trying to think through the problem we're trying to solve for with this addition 15 of a number is to be sure that we don't short the amount of square footage needed, and you asked 16 very good questions about that, and including your most recent question which is it looks bigger on 17 the plan that you're getting ready to approve. Perhaps we should round that number up slightly from 18 the addition and call it a day with that, and that'll give a little bit of wiggle room, so that might not be a 19 bad idea. 20 21 Leon Meyers: Up slightly means to you? 22 23 Leann Brown: You added it up. You had it was—what did you get? 24 25 Leon Meyers: But we, I, if I added correctly, we were at 7,600 now. 26 27 Leann Brown: Plus and you add that to the number that's in the chart on Page 77. 28 29 Leann Brown: And that comes up to— 30 31 Beth Bronson: Just over forty five 32 33 Leon Meyers: Well, I will tell you. 7,684. 34 35 Leann Brown: Sorry to put you to work, Mr. Meyers. 36 37 Leon Meyers: I'm not the guy you want to be doing math, but I'll give it a shot. 38 39 Leann Brown: I'm not the guy you want doing math either. 40 41 Leon Meyers: 45,284 total. 42 43 Leann Brown: 45,284. So, are we comfortable with 45,284, or you want to roll that up to 46, 47 to give you a little 44 wiggle room on your, in the room math? 45 46 Nathan Robinson: A 20 by 20 about— I just built a pavilion for a community center in Durham. It was 40 and it's already 47 too small, so and we're just putting a roof on. They're like this is too small. Can you make it bigger? 48 And I can't. So, 20 by 20's not small, or not big. 49 50 Beth Bronson: Well, and 12 by 12 is even smaller. 16 17 Draft 1 2 Nathan Robinson: Ff you did 1,600, and if we added, so that would be 1,600—and I'm, I'm sorry. I'm supposed to make 3 a decision not to help you. 4 5 Leann Brown: No, no, I think you have caught something that's very important. And I really appreciate the attention 6 to detail you gave it.And I heard you ask the question, and I thought,well, I think he's right. I think we 7 need to not short that in any way and come back and realize over a 5-year period, we wish that had 8 been a little bigger than it was. 9 10 Nathan Robinson: Right now we're well, right now we're tilting towards saying yes to whatever you ask for. So, if you 11 ask for something, make sure you don't have to ask again. 12 13 Leann Brown: Let me consult with my team because I'm tilting toward that number not requiring us to come back 14 and go, "I'd like to modify the special-use permit to make this bigger," so hold on one second. 15 16 Cy Stober: And, Mr. Chair, if I may, while we have some time, just a reminder on what minor modifications the 17 planning director can approve, per the UDO. With regard to the placement and the change from the 18 site-specific plan, in this case, we have an actual number of square footage of structural footprints. 19 It's 5 percent change, and I think it's 100 feet, no more than 100 feet in location. That may actually be 20 too much. I can confirm that. But it is 5 percent change in the footprint of anything, so that's not much, 21 particularly to your point, Mr. Robinson, about 12 by 12 or 20 by 20. 22 23 Leon Meyers: 2,264 square feet in this case. 24 25 Cy Stober: Correct. 26 27 Leon Meyers: So that's the flexibility that the staff would have to approve as a minor modification before a full change 28 to the SUP would be required. 29 30 Beth Bronson: I would want to think about putting a condition that increases the discretion of the planning director 31 and staff. 32 33 Nathan Robinson: Can we do that? 34 35 Leon Meyers: You're going to get in trouble with James. 36 37 Cy Stober: Our planning and zoning and manager has corrected me. That's just a 5 percent change in open 38 space not structural space. Thank you, Taylor. 39 40 Leon Meyers: Okay. 41 42 Taylor Perschau: Or recreation facilities or landscaping. 43 44 Cy Stober: Or recreational facilities. So, for example, there's a couple structures, the pavilion— 45 46 Beth Bronson: Outdoor auditorium. 47 48 Cy Stober: —yes, the outdoor auditorium, those would all be subject to discretion as a matter of modification. It 49 is 100 feet of placement, so we can deviate from the site-specific plan by 100 feet, within reason, 50 provided no conflicts arise from that relocation of a structure, if it's a recreational facility. 17 18 Draft 1 2 Leon Meyers: And since we have a little free space here, I'll ask for information. Well, maybe I won't complicate the 3 discussion. Kyle? 4 5 Kyle Myers: Yeah, I did have one comment, which I think the bathroom specifically needs to be added to the 6 exhibit with the list. And then a question, and that is: I heard in the beginning of the testimony that 7 there was a current application or an intended application for bona fide farm status. And if that's the 8 case, would the miscellaneous farm structures not be included because they wouldn't matter at that 9 point. 10 11 Ashley Moncado: Correct, so the applicant has stated to staff that they are looking at pursuing bona fide farm status on 12 that southern parcel, which includes these four farm buildings, greenhouse. What we recommended 13 was them, there was conversation about removing this parcel from the SUP, but recommended to 14 continue on just in case something were to happen or it falls out of farm status in the future. But 15 essentially what would happen is that these parcels no longer have to meet zoning regulations, and 16 they would not have to meet the standards of the SUP. 17 18 Leon Meyers: It seems to me you have to proceed with the assumption that farm status would not happen in order 19 to be safe. 20 21 Cy Stober: Yes, sir. 22 23 Beth Bronson: Not as of today. 24 25 Leon Meyers: Right. 26 27 Ashley Moncado: Correct. 28 29 Cy Stober: Because square footage isn't a problem currently,we just have to have the right number on the chart. 30 31 Leon Meyers: Agreed. 32 33 Kyle Myers: Okay. 34 35 Leon Meyers: Now, you said you would like to see the bathrooms listed separately. Is that right? 36 37 Kyle Myers: No, sir. I just would like to— I don't understand where the bathroom is on the list. 38 39 Leon Meyers: It's not on the list now. The bathroom is in the additional square footage that Mr. Christiansen gave 40 us a few minutes ago. 41 42 Kyle Myers: Okay. As long as it's considered, I can live with that. 43 44 Leon Meyers: Building area, right.All right. Okay? 45 46 Leann Brown: So, I think the structures,from my notes from when Mr. Christiansen was testifying,the bathroom,the 47 open-air pavilions, the theater addition, and the miscellaneous—what? 48 49 Leon Meyers: Farm buildings. 50 18 19 Draft 1 Laura Holloman: Farm. 2 3 Leann Brown: Farm buildings? Is that what that says? Miscellaneous farm buildings were the ones that were not 4 there. 5 6 Leon Meyers: Yeah. 7 8 Leann Brown: And they added up to 7,600 square feet, approximately. And then we had the conversation about 9 whether the 600 is adequate for those buildings. Those numbers add up. If you use the numbers in 10 the chart and the additional numbers, it adds up into, in the 45 range. 50 would certainly, I don't think 11 we'd ever build anything as big as 50, but we're not required to build everything that's approved. 1 12 would recommend that we say 50. It's a nice round number. If the farm buildings end up coming out, 13 so be it. It doesn't change anything you've approved because you're approving exactly this plan with 14 these buildings. So that would be my non-mathematical thought about how best to address it. 15 16 Leon Meyers: So they would propose that as an additional condition. Is that right? No building or accessory structure 17 beyond 50,000 square feet. 18 19 Leann Brown: Right, that those buildings and structures would be 50,000 square feet or less, instead of the old 20 permit, which is 60-some. Cy, does that work in your universe? 21 22 Cy Stober: That's enforceable, yeah. 23 24 Leann Brown: Okay. 25 26 James Bryan: So, I'm sorry to pipe in at all, but I think that there is one other layer we can add, just for specificity, 27 because we've got the narrative and conditions and then the site plan. So, the narrative and the 28 conditions might say, hey, you can only build up to 50,000 square foot—just being the attorney. But 29 you probably don't want one bathroom to make up that 15,000 extra space. It is probably, if you want 30 to double each pavilion, that's fine, so you might have a condition that, as shown on the site plan, up 31 to twice the size so long as cumulatively, it doesn't exceed this amount. Something like that. This is 32 important sort of, just as an academic sense, because they do have those southeastern properties 33 that could go into bona fide farm status. So if you're adding those into that 50,000, then they would 34 be able to move that back. Again, the practical matter is they probably don't want a 10,000-square- 35 foot bathroom, but I would offer to have two conditions:the overall limit and then what is the allowance 36 for each new structure's enlargement. 37 38 Leon Meyers: Each category of structures. 39 40 James Bryan: Yeah. 41 42 Leon Meyers: So, we now have 200 square feet in bathrooms would be 400; 600 square feet of pavilions would be 43 1,200; theater 800 would be 1,600; and farm buildings would be 12,000 for a total of 15,200. Now we 44 are over the previously approved square footage. 45 46 James Bryan: What Cy said previously, if there was a request to come back and change, I can't repeat what you 47 said accurately. But you said something about you have a minor approval. 48 19 20 Draft 1 Cy Stober: And that only applies to the recreational facilities. So, for example, we could possibly consider a 2 bathroom, an accessory structure. That would have to be an administrative interpretation, but to 3 further point, some of the classrooms would not be subject to that allowance. 4 5 Leon Meyers: Well, the theater, so the baths' and the pavilions' total right now are 800. 6 7 Kyle Myers: If I may, I'm a lifetime C student, but if you take 37,684 plus 15,200, you get 52,884. 8 9 Leon Meyers: Oh, we're not over, sorry. That's why you don't want me doing math. 10 11 James Bryan: That's why C students are important. 12 13 Kyle Myers: Yeah. 14 15 James Bryan: You actually know how to read a tape. 16 17 Kyle Myers: I also have two phones in case this one doesn't work. 18 19 Leann Brown: But you have a calculator, which is helpful. 20 21 Leon Meyers: All right. So then, Ms. Brown, would your team be open to a condition that would list double the area 22 of each building category that Mr. Christiansen gave us earlier, as a condition? 23 24 Leann Brown: The condition would be that the chart of square footage would be amended to be those double 25 numbers? 26 27 Kyle Myers: Yeah. 28 29 Leann Brown: Yes, we would. 30 31 Nathan Robinson: We've never been giving people, we always take away stuff. That's just how we do it. 32 33 Kyle Myers: It's a strange night. 34 35 Leon Meyers: Agreeable night. 36 37 Nathan Robinson: What has happened? 38 39 Leon Meyers: What can I say? 40 41 Spencer Christiansen: It's the holiday season. 42 43 Leann Brown: That's right. 44 45 Leon Meyers: I think we have that settled in. Ms. Brown, anything more before this goes to the board for discussion? 46 47 Leann Brown: I think if we've answered all of your questions, we're ready to go to the board for discussion. 48 49 Leon Meyers: All right. 50 20 21 Draft 1 Leann Brown: Thank you. 2 3 Leon Meyers: Then we'll leave the public hearing open for a minute in case questions come up. Board members, 4 any other questions or anything we should cover before we begin to think about the required 5 approvals? 6 7 Beth Bronson: I think to their point about, as long as none of these structures, allowing that doubling, would impede 8 on any adjoining parcel's bona fide farm status potential or whatever the buffer requirement may be 9 for that parcel, so I don't know if that means going back to the site plan or not. 10 11 Leon Meyers: I don't — how would you build any of those proposed buildings in a buffer that's shown on the site 12 plan? 13 14 Beth Bronson: No, no, no, just making sure. Yeah, because of where they're at, it doesn't seem like it would be an 15 issue. 16 17 Leon Meyers: Okay. All right, then thinking about approval, the standards examined are on Page 336, and the 18 findings are on Page 343, and the conclusions are on Page 347. Ashley, looks like you're about to 19 say something important. 20 21 Ashley Moncado: I'm moving to the slide for you, for your final slide for the evening. 22 23 Kyle Myers: Could I ask one question before you go too far? 24 25 Leon Meyers: Please. 26 27 Kyle Myers: So the new proposed condition of the 15,200 and the amended exhibit, making it 52,884, would that 28 go in the proposed conditions, ultimately? 29 30 Leon Meyers: I think that would be the place for it.Ashley or staff, does it matter to you? 31 32 Ashley Moncado: In the added to a condition, yes. 33 34 Cy Stober: Yeah, so it would ultimately be No. 18. 35 36 Leon Meyers: Right. 37 38 Cy Stober: Okay, thank you. 39 40 Leon Meyers: All right, then I think the first motion that would be in order would be to approve the standards 41 examined, listed on Page 336. 42 43 Nathan Robinson: Motion to approve the standards. 44 45 Leon Meyers: Do I hear a second? 46 47 Jeff Scott: Second. 48 49 Leon Meyers: Any discussion?All in favor, please say aye. 50 21 22 Draft 1 MOTION was made by Nathan Robinson. Seconded by Jeff Scott. 2 3 VOTE: Unanimous. All in favor. 4 5 Leon Meyers: None opposed. Then the next motion would be to approve findings listed on Page 343. 6 7 Nathan Robinson: 343. Motion to approve findings of fact on Page 343. 8 9 Beth Bronson: I'll second. 10 11 Leon Meyers: All right. Any discussion on the findings?All in favor of approving the findings, please say aye? 12 13 MOTION was made by Nathan Robinson. Seconded by Beth Bronson. 14 15 VOTE: Unanimous. All in favor. 16 17 Beth Bronson: As long as the findings of fact does not state their reduced square footage. 18 19 Nathan Robinson: It doesn't. 20 21 Kyle Myers: No, I don't think so. 22 23 Leon Meyers: And I'm thinking that would be in the conclusions, James, is that correct, where we would modify the 24 conditions? Or where do the conditions need to be modified? 25 26 James Bryan: So, I think you'd be safe with just having it in the conditions. The findings of fact should reflect what 27 the facts are, but the facts are now the site plan, so if you see the square is the scale are to show, 28 too small, that was what was projected, and that is what requires the condition to have, to be what it 29 is. 30 31 Beth Bronson: All right. 32 33 Leon Meyers: So, then the conclusion to the motion could just confirm the modification of the conditions? Is that 34 appropriate? 35 36 James Bryan: Yeah. 37 38 Leon Meyers: Do I hear a motion to that effect? 39 40 Beth Bronson: To make a motion to approve the conclusions pertaining to the request submitted by Waldorf 41 Educational Association to North Carolina, proposing a major modification to the existing special-use 42 permit on the parcel property located at 6211 New Jericho Road, with the amendment of condition, 43 adding Condition 18 that the square footage imposed not exceed 52— 44 45 Leon Meyers: 52,284. 46 47 Beth Bronson: —52— 48 49 Kyle Myers: 52,884. 22 23 Draft 1 2 Beth Bronson: 53,000. 3 4 Leon Meyers: 53,000, all right. 5 6 Kyle Myers: Whatever. 7 8 Leon Meyers: All right. Do I hear a second to the conclusions motion? 9 10 Jeff Scott: Second. 11 12 Leon Meyers: Any discussions on, any discussion on conclusions?All in favor, please say aye. 13 14 MOTION was made by Beth Bronson. Seconded by Jeff Scott. 15 16 VOTE: Unanimous. All in favor. 17 18 Leon Meyers: None opposed. Folks, congratulations, and good luck. 19 20 Kyle Myers: We got, we got to do one more thing. 21 22 James Bryan: To approve or deny the permit. 23 24 Leon Meyers: Motion to approve. We got to approve the permit. All right. Then we need a final motion. 25 26 Beth Bronson: Make a motion to approve the permit as presented with the conditions amended. 27 28 Nathan Robinson: Second. 29 30 Leon Meyers: Discussion on approval of the permit?All in favor, please say aye. 31 32 MOTION was made by Beth Bronson. Seconded by Nathan Robinson. 33 34 VOTE: Unanimous. All in favor. 35 36 Leon Meyers: None opposed. You think of any other motions we got to pass, James? 37 38 James Bryan: I think you're good. 39 40 Leon Meyers: All right, good. 41 42 Nathan Robinson: It's not even 10:00. 43 44 Leon Meyers: Under the wire. Thank you. 45 46 Beth Bronson: Congratulations, y'all. 47 48 Leon Meyers: Good luck, folks. 49 23 24 Draft 1 Leann Brown: Thank you for your care tonight on this application. Thank you so much. 2 3 Beth Bronson: And good luck with the expansion. 4 5 AGENDA ITEM 7: ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATES 6 7 Patrick Mallett: A few notes. I think everybody here has submitted their disclosure statement.Thank you. I appreciate 8 that. We're still waiting on a time for Leon to go and make his presentation to the board of 9 commissioners. I don't know that we're going to have a meeting in January because we don't have 10 any cases, unless there's an urgent variance request, so don't take it to the bank, but you probably 11 have January off. 12 13 Kyle Myers: All right. Cool. 14 15 Leon Meyers: All right. Anything else, Patrick?Anything else, board members? 16 17 Cy Stober: One item that you're aware of, Chair Meyers, and I won't take up much time. But the board of county 18 commissioners seems to be paying more scrutiny to the attendance of the board members for both, 19 and while this board operates sort of outside of an advisory capacity, the advisory board policy still 20 applies to the board of adjustment, and just a reminder that the attendance requirements are to miss 21 no more than three meetings in a row or 25 percent total of the meetings held. So, if the board of 22 adjustment only meets four times in a year, that would be one meeting, so just be cognizant of that 23 moving forward, and we'll communicate with you further about that. And if you have any concerns, 24 feel free to reach out to myself or to Patrick. 25 26 Leon Meyers: All right. And, Patrick you might just want to fill in the discussion that happened this week with the 27 clerk to the board regarding how attendance is counted for a board like board of adjustment that uses 28 alternates. 29 30 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, so we indicated to them because there was, hey, one particular member is beyond that limit 31 and pointed out that we, unlike other boards, we have five regular members. We can only sit four to 32 five, preferably five of the members, and the alternates are just sitting there. Requiring alternate 33 attendance would probably be a mistake because you'd end up with situations where you'd have two 34 members coming to just sit on their hands and sit in the bleachers. So, they acknowledged that and 35 realized, okay, maybe we need to take a look at how that applies, but it should apply to the sitting 36 members, probably not to the alternates. 37 38 Leon Meyers: All right. 39 40 Beth Bronson: We're the ones that show up 95 percent of the time. 41 42 Nathan Robinson: Yeah,the way that it's been presented has been do you want a time off,or it's like the alternates have 43 been able to slide in and out. 44 45 Patrick Mallett: Yes. And that's been my philosophy is we get to the magic five. 46 47 Nathan Robinson: And then it doesn't matter who, if it's an alternate or not. 48 24 25 Draft 1 Patrick Mallett: Kyle's been gracious enough to raise his hand, and that's given relief. The sitting members don't 2 necessarily have to come every single time. 3 4 Nathan Robinson: Yeah. 5 6 Patrick Mallett: That's also part of the point and the premise behind having alternate members. 7 8 Nathan Robinson: Okay. 9 10 Leon Meyers: All right. Any questions on attendance? Thanks for bringing that up, Cy. 11 12 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT 13 14 Leon Meyers: All right, a motion to adjourn would be in order. 15 16 Kyle Myers: Second. 17 18 Leon Meyers: We are adjourned. 19 20 MOTION was made by Leon Meyers. Seconded by Kyle Myers. 21 22 VOTE: Unanimous. All in favor. 23 24 The meeting adjourned at 8:12 P.M. 25 26 27 28 30 LEON MEYERS, CHAIR 25