BOA agenda 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Michael Harvey: On page 125, visual impact assessment; again, I made the determination it’s not required 1 based on the wording of the UDO. The next section, demonstration that the wireless support structure is 2 sites so as to have the least visual intrusive effect reasonably possible; we’re referring you back to the 3 original SUP application file and recorded SUP, as well as the vicinity map attachment 1, and the applicant 4 modification attachment 2 in support that the wireless support structure so as to have the least visually 5 intrusive effect reasonably possible. A statement prepared by a professional engineer licensed by the state 6 of North Carolina certifying the tower’s in compliance with applicable standards as set forth by state 7 building code. This is a requirement that shows up 3 times in the UDO, so forgive me for being repetitive 8 but, as we’ve already stipulated too, the structural analysis reports contained, on pages 241 thru 341, that 9 required information and signifying that it complies with state building code. Proposed telecommunications 10 equipment planned cannot be accommodated on an existing wireless support structure; our finding is an 11 affirmative based on the original SUP application file and recorded SUP permit, this is in the supplemental 12 information we’ve provided. BOA have already determined that this tower needed to be erected to address 13 the concerns associated with the original application and that finding has already been made; there’s 14 nothing being done by the modification changing that finding. Location of wireless support structures; again, 15 we’ve made an affirmative finding based on the original SUP application and the recorded SUP that’s in 16 your supplemental material. Fall back zones; same, we’re referring back to the original SUP and the 17 recorded SUP. We’re also referring you to the site plan that’s submitted that shows the fall zones indicated 18 with tower compliance. Page 127, access; site plan shows the proposed new access road. We also have to 19 applicant’s testimony this evening and attachment 2 of the application listing out their rationale for having to 20 move the driveway from Landau to Old Oak Place. Any questions on that? 21 22 Barry Katz: Are you ok with that? 23 24 James Bryan: It’s recommending yes but I think that this is the issue… If I may, the Board might want to 25 take a look, there are 4 sub-sections for access. I don’t know if the Board has really considered those but, 26 it’s up to the Boards discretion. 27 28 Michael Harvey: The 4 sub-sections that Mr. Bryan’s referring to is in a wireless telecommunication support 29 structure site and access road, turn around space, and parking shall be provided to assure adequate 30 emergency and service access; it’s my testimony that site plan provides a level of detail showing the 31 driveway location, showing the compound as it currently exists and showing where vehicles will be able to 32 park, stay, turn around and then leave the site. Maximum use of existing roads where the public or private 33 shall be made to the extent practical and they are doing that. They’re making use of an existing publicly 34 maintained roadway, Old Oak Place, to get access to the tower. Road construction shall, at all times, 35 minimize ground disturbance, and the cutting of vegetation. That’s actually a requirement of the Orange 36 County .. permitting process. Roadways shall closely follow natural contours to ensure minimal visual 37 disturbance and reduce soil erosion. My statement is, when you review the site plan the proposed drive 38 location is an area of the property that’s relatively flat near an adjacent utility lines, they will not require cut 39 field grade or massive alteration to the existing property… Any questions before I ramble? Page 128, 40 landscape and buffers- Type C land use buffer; I’m referring you to the application submitted and the site 41 plan and the vicinity map show the existing vegetation and it’s also shown on sheet C-1a… We’re back 42 again to the visibility of balloon shall not constitute sole justification of denial; N/A as no balloon was flown. 43 And I’ll defer to James but, when you read this particular section, it reads as follows: The visibility of the 44 balloon to adjacent properties and the surrounding area shall not constitute sole justification of denial of a 45 permit application but, is an indication of what location on site may be less visually intrusive. My point being 46 is that this provision is telling you just because somebody saw the balloon is not justification to deny a 47 permit application. To me, there is some question whether or not it’s even a finding that has to be made, it’s 48 just a directive and I defer to James on that. I put N/A for the reason stated. 49 22