BOA agenda 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

you to the original SUP application file indicating the applicants met their burden. Page 133, facilities, 1 including antennas, towers and other supporting structures, shall be made inaccessible to individuals; 2 again, we’ve heard lots of testimony tonight about fences and gates so, I’m going to refer you to 3 attachments 2 of this application as well as the site plan. We’ll also refer you to attachment 1, which is our 4 vicinity map. Abandoned structures shall be removed within 12 months; we’ve talked about this a little bit, 5 that’s why we’re recommending this become a condition of approval because it’s a requirement for all SUP 6 under the current ordinance. Page 134, a determination shall be made that the facility and its equipment 7 will comply with all federal, state, and local emission requirements; we’re going to refer you to the structural 8 analysis provided in supplemental material as satisfying this requirement. The SUP shall include a 9 condition that the electromagnetic radiation levels maintain compliance with the requirements of the FCC; 10 we are recommending that the applicant has met this burden, but also recommending it become a condition 11 of approval, specifically as the ordinance language say that this shall become a condition of approval. 12 Warning signage on compound fence; we have verified that the site visit the required warning signs, as 13 stipulated, in the sub section high voltage, no trespassing are present. Liability insurance; we have 14 applicant testimony, as well as staff comment this evening. Bond Security. Applicant/Owner shall file a 15 bond with the County to assure faithful performance of terms and conditions of SUP; we’re changing that 16 based on my previous testimony in response to a question by the County Attorney to an affirmative. There 17 is an existing bond already on file for this project. 18 19 Samantha Cabe: So your recommendation is yes? 20 21 Michael Harvey: Yes. Because we have an existing bond. We looked at it from a driveway stand point, not 22 from the tower stand point, as James asked us to. So, page 135, general findings on whether or not the use 23 will comply with section 5.3.2. 2A, 2B, and 2C. With the Board’s indulgence I’d like to review the conditions 24 and then staff’s going to make a recommendation on 5.3.2 2A, 2B, and 2C… First of all, I will remind the 25 Board, as detailed on page 136, we have not had any comments or evidence submitted to us in advance of 26 the hearing indicating that this project does not comply with the provisions of 5.3.2 A. We also do not 27 believe that the applicant has failed to meet their burden *inaudible* there is insufficient evidence in the 28 record proving that their burden has been met. With respect to compliance with the standards and 29 provisions of the UDO. We have recommended several conditions and there have been conditions 30 discussed here this evening, so I would like to go through those real quick. The first condition is that 31 nothing associated with this approval shall be deemed as prohibiting the use of the subject parcels of farm 32 or prevent the maintenance of existing utilities, with the exception of preserving the access easement as 33 noted on the approved site plan. When Mr. Bryan’s tenure with the County began we began focusing on the 34 need to ensure that the SUP is limited in its scope with respect to what it’s purporting to regulate. An 35 example is, if somebody chooses to engage in a farming activity, does the planting of a new row of crop 36 constitute a modification of a parcel of property? The answer is it shouldn’t. So, this condition has been 37 developed, and many of you have seen it on several SUP applications. Especially where there’s farm 38 activity to ensure that there’s nothing associated with the application in and of itself that limits what 39 otherwise prohibit the legal engagement of that activity. We also don’t want to inadvertently capture any 40 alteration of the existing utility infrastructure on site as somehow creating a modification of the SUP. Duke 41 power has to go out there and do something major to the utility lines that’s Duke Power’s prerogative and 42 obligation to do so in order to ensure the continued provision of service. Nothing associated with the 43 approval shall be as modifying an existing telecommunication tower, other than the relocation of the 44 existing driveway. This addresses a comment that I made earlier this evening, as well as, concerns from 45 the neighborhood meeting about if this gives them .. to start messing with the tower itself; the answer’s no. 46 So we wanted to include a provision in here that stipulated for the record that you can’t do anything to the 47 tower, all you’re getting authorization to do is move the access road. Three, final the .. street address shall 48 be completed by Orange County… of the issuance of any permits. Orange County has a new addressing 49 25