Agenda - 09-18-2012 - 6b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

31 1 Michael Harvey: I have a couple of closing remarks. I want to call the Board's attention to 2 Attachment 3, which contains various memorandum from departments indicating that they have 3 no issues or concerns with the proposed development. We also have a memorandum from 4 Orange County Health Department saying they have done reviews and have no issues. We 5 have not received any concerns from the Sheriff's Department, the fire department concerning 6 this site. Obviously, there will not be facilities, so again, there is no septic or well. 7 8 I'd like to remind the Board, as we have identified in your abstract, specifically on page 2, this 9 property is in a forest management plan. Meaning there is tree harvesting and replacing trees 10 throughout the property. Our goal at the Planning department is to continue to allow the family 11 to adequately farm their property while working with Strata Solar to preserve sufficient 12 landscape buffers. On page 3 of our abstract, we have outlined the various development 13 requirements associated with a Class A Special Use Permit. You will note specifically with 14 respect to Section 5.9.3 of the UDO we have found this project to be complaint. As I already 15 talked about, there will be a 75-foot managed landscape buffer and the trees will be managed 16 properly so that they don't create an adverse impact on the array but they still provide the 17 necessary visual obstruction. I'll conclude my remarks by saying the County staff has not been 18 provided any documents or comments or concerns from the adjacent property owners indicating 19 their lack of support for the project. The Planning Director's recommendation is to receive the 20 application, conduct the hearing, refer the matter to the Planning Board for their review and 21 comment, that you adjourn this public hearing to September 18th for a recommendation. 22 23 Commissioner Jacobs: On page 39, the letter from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 24 Commission, their recommendation is a 100 foot vegetative stream buffer on the property. I 25 don't recall what he said about the buffer on the stream. 26 27 Michael Harvey: It's going to observe the appropriate stream buffer as defined within Article 6 28 of our Unified Development Ordinance. You're going to have a 65-80-foot buffer depending on 29 the slope. So if I could call your attention to that too. This slide, Commissioner Jacobs, the 30 protected stream buffer is consistent with what is required within Article 6. The edge of the 31 leased area essentially is the center of the stream. The stream buffer is going to be preserved 32 and maintained. We would allow under the current guidelines for it to be maintained and to 33 replace the existing dead vegetation so that it does not cast a shadow on the array. Even the 34 forest management plan that the Bradshaw family is operating under falls under the 35 preservation and protection of the stream, so there will be trees necessarily harvested from the 36 stream buffer. 37 38 Commissioner Jacobs: So, this is what the Wildlife Resources Commission recommended? 39 40 Michael Harvey: Correct. And you will note, if I could call your attention to page 33, you have 41 the letter offered by Mr. Wesley Poole delineating the stream as part of the stream buffer. 42 43 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz 44 to receive the application, refer the matter to the Planning Board to come back with a 45 recommendation for the September 18th meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until 46 September 18th in order to receive and accept the Planning Board recommendation. 47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 48 49 ****************************************************