BOA agenda 111212 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT -27- 1392 Michael Harvey reviewed the findings of fact. The planning staff does not offer any suggested 1393 findings or recommendations because this has to be based on the sworn testimony that has 1394 been offered this evening. We do provide you with a list of recommended conditions if you 1395 choose to issue the permit. We will stipulate that we have not received any information that 1396 would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the general standards. 1397 1398 Michael Harvey reviewed the conditions. There was some discussion about having the 1399 acoustical engineer provide documentation at the building permit level that the building would 1400 address noise issues. We didn't put that in there but that is something the board may want to 1401 consider. 1402 1403 Bob Hornik: We are willing to have Mr. Stewart provide a report that verified the acoustic issues 1404 are addressed in the building design. 1405 1406 Michael Harvey: I would like the board to add to recommendation 7 "or the application shall 1407 have 90 days to bring the property into compliance with the established 150 foot setback 1408 requirement ". 1409 1410 Larry Wright: Is 90 days realistic to bring it before the board? 1411 1412 Michael Harvey: 90 days is realistic to get the application in... a condition about building the 1413 northern berm... 1414 1415 Bob Hornik: Along the northern boundary line in the vicinity of the outdoor play area. 1416 1417 Michael Harvey: I would suggest that is something that the Board of Adjustment is interesting in 1418 adhering to that the condition reads as follows: recommendation 8, "A berm shall be erected 1419 along the northern property line consistent with county regulations with respect to the 1420 maintenance of required landscaping in the area to address potential noise issues offsite ". 1421 Chad will have to submit it as part of the landscape site plan. Once you close the public hearing 1422 Mr. Hornik cannot speak to you. No one can speak to you so if you have any questions, you 1423 need to ask them. The attorney is here representing the Board of Adjustment in this instance 1424 but obviously you can't ask me or Mr. Hornik or any other individual any questions once you 1425 start deliberation. Once the hearing is closed you cannot accept additional testimony. 1426 1427 Larry Wright: If we choose to go this way and we add a condition that on the acoustic 1428 conditions so we would ask for a report to verify that acoustic conditions are addressed in the 1429 building design in compliance or within .... I don't know how we would do this if we... 1430 1431 David Blankfard: That is the problem for me and the reasons I say that is because I am not an 1432 acoustical engineer. What I am guessing would occur is that the applicant's expert would 1433 provide a document indicating that the building design meets established acceptable practices 1434 for the abatement of extraneous noise. 1435 1436 Larry Wright: We heard this same... can I refer to another application? 1437 1438 Michael Harvey: Sure. 1439 1440 Larry Wright: We heard this same expert witness talk about building materials, etc. and how it 1441 mitigated and abated noise and I just can't figure out how he did that. It was very effective 1442 testimony. I don't know how you would word that. 1443 1444 Michael Harvey: Without telling you how to word the condition, recognizing limitations we have 1445 as a staff because we don't have an audiologist on staff. Maybe the condition is that the OC Board of Adjustment — 5/14/2012 Page 27 of 41