BOA agenda 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ordinance, there will be a new address assigned to this property and it will be off of Old Oak Place because 1 that’s the driveway. Why is that important? It guarantees emergency vehicles will know where to go and 2 know how to access the site. The applicant shall be required … all required NCDOT approvals and permits 3 in light of the creation of the driveway… and the land disturbing activity, that’s been discussed already. 4 Orange County Emergency Services shall review and issue approval for the proposed access road serving 5 the tower. That’s a typical permitting requirement. The next recommended condition is the applicant shall 6 pay all necessary development permits from the County prior to the initiation of land disturbing activity. This 7 includes but is not limited to erosion control management permit, a solid waste management permit and a 8 zoning compliance permit. And I must stipulate that these permits will be required at certain thresholds. An 9 erosion control permit will be required but unless the applicant exceeds certain development thresholds as 10 stipulated in the UDO a storm water permit may not be required, but it’s all part of one universal process. 11 Condition 7 and 8 I think are self-explanatory. We’ve outlined the reasons and rationales, conditions 9 or 10 12 are required by the UDO which is why we’ve suggested them. There have been 3 conditions by my count 13 that have been recommended for you all to consider *inaudible* that signage be posted at the end of Old 14 Oak Place addressing access management dead end as to address a concern from the Bouche’s over 15 people not understanding this is a dead end road, and I believe that that’s a condition that can be met in 16 discussion with DOT but, I believe that’s a reasonable condition that can be imposed. Another condition 17 would be that the applicant submit a revised site plan showing a new gate location, that this new gate 18 location not be located along Old Oak Place and that its location be reviewed and commented on by the 19 Bouche’s in order to ensure that the gate is not visually intrusive and that sufficient landscaping be installed 20 in and around the posts to shield it from view. And then the final condition that I have written is that the 21 applicant shall be required to submit a copy to the County staff of a FCC license for the continued operation 22 of the telecommunication tower in accordance with section 5.10.8 A1T of the UDO. So those are the 23 recommended conditions. And based on these recommended conditions and the testimony this evening 24 staff would like to make an affirmative finding that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, 25 and general welfare. This is the application package, the staff abstract and staff testimony, and the 26 applicant testimony this evening; we believe they have met their burden. We do recommend the Board find 27 that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; this is obviously based on the 28 testimony from Graham Herring as well as the application package. The location and character of the use 29 developed according to the plan submitted will be in harmony with the area which is to be located, again 30 staff’s basing this on the application package, the testimony we’ve heard this evening and the site plan as 31 well as the imposition of the grand total of 13 conditions that we believe address concerns about the project 32 moving forward and we believe will address and ensure harmony with the area. 33 34 Henry Campen: Madam Chair, if I may make one… to one of the conditions that was added. With respect 35 to the access and landscaping, I’d just ask that condition be modified just slightly to provide that the 36 landscaping and mitigation of the fence be reasonably acceptable to the neighbors and to the staff. I think 37 that it’s an indication to testimony that the company is willing to work with the… staff. I would just like that to 38 be clear. 39 40 Michael Harvey: I have no objection; I’m just coming up with what I’ve written down. 41 42 Karen Barrows: I’m curious Michael; your staff doesn’t usually make recommendations on 5.3.2 A, B and C. 43 44 Michael Harvey: We don’t usually make recommendations prior to the public hearing. The reason being is 45 that those have to be determined based on the testimony and evidence entered into the record. As we did 46 with the most recent BOA application, of course we did offer comment on an applicant’s compliance with 47 these sections as a staff recommendation during a hearing. We will never provide you an advanced 48 recommendation because that can be seen as trying to influence the jury as it would. 49 26