Agenda - 04-15-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5 1 2 And this is the site plan. What I would like to bring to the Board's attention is as follows: You 3 have approximately 11 to 12 acres of open and landscaped space on the property. The area in 4 this general vicinity has several streams that will be protected by a 60 foot—65 foot stream 5 buffer. That includes these wetland delineated areas, here and here. This shows the MTC 6 transportation corridor buffer that's required to be 100 feet. There is the required mandated 50 7 foot type D land use buffer along this property line. According to the applicant, they are going to 8 maintain either existing foliage or plant new foliage to our existing buffer standard. The height 9 of the trees is actually anticipated to get anywhere from 15 to 20 feet in height before it has to 10 become managed or topped, and that's to insure that they are not going to have shadow 11 created on the actual individual solar panels; but you are looking at a 15 to 20 foot high buffer. 12 This set of panels along this area of the property here is actually set back 150 feet from the 13 identified residence, again the Efland —the former Efland Home for Girls, which is currently 14 being lived in. Here is the access point off of Redman. You will also note on the site plan, 15 planning staff has required the applicant to reserve/identify a potential future road right of way. 16 As this Board will recall, we have an access management strategy in the Efland area to insure 17 perpetual ingress/egress access to several parcels of property, both to the west and the east, 18 that are landlocked. They have shown the required access area that would be running through 19 this property, consistent with that plan. Once again, here is the utility substation, which is where 20 the power—where the facility is going to be tied in to. And this of course here is the existing 21 Rhino manufacturing plant. 22 23 As the planning board Representative Hartley has indicated, this is reviewed under the Class A 24 special use permit process, as identified within section 2-7 of our Unified Development 25 Ordinance. It is held in a quasi-judicial format, meaning that all parties both for and against the 26 application will provide sworn testimony as well competent material evidence on the merits of 27 the proposal. The applicant ultimately bears the burden of demonstrating the projecting 28 complies with the provisions of the UDO. Anyone opposing the application is required to 29 demonstrate through sworn testimony and competent material and substantial evidence that the 30 project does not comply with the UDO. And I will remind you, as we have identified in our 31 abstract, hearsay and unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony. Last, but certainly 32 not least, if the applicant proves compliance of applicable standards and there is no evidence in 33 the record that the project does not comply, there is a requirement that we issue the permit. 34 35 At this juncture, what I would like to do is call the Board's attention to page 6 of our abstract, just 36 so I can run down staff comments, which are contained in Attachment 3 of your abstract. First 37 being that we have heard from the Sheriff's department that has indicated they have no 38 concerns over this project, and I will go back to the site plan. EMS staff has actually indicated 39 that the Efland Fire Department— not Eno— I apologize for the typo - will serve this site and they 40 will provide emergency services as well. Both Deputy Chief Hallenbeck and Orange County 41 Emergency Services have indicated they have no concerns over the development of the 42 proposed site. As we have identified in this abstract, and as with other solar projects, there is 43 no septic or well systems proposed for the property; so there will be no requirement for 44 environmental health review or permitting. We have met with representatives of the Department 45 of Environment Agriculture Parks and Recreation, who have provided you a memorandum 46 specifically on the Efland School for Girls — indicating in this memorandum, which you will find in 47 Attachment 3, that given the substantial buffer that is being proposed and the setback of the 48 array from the facility, they do not anticipate any negative impact on that historic structure. 49 Orange County Solid Waste has indicated the request, if approved, will not impact their ability to 50 provide services. 51