Orange County NC Website
you deem irrelevant to it, they have to meet all the standards as they did in the past. 1 <br /> 2 <br />Samantha Cabe: So would it be safe to say that the standard is to evaluate this modification together with 3 <br />the original applications so it meets all the standards as modified? So the SUP as modified must meet the 4 <br />standards that we apply from section 5.3 of the UDO; is that safe to say? 5 <br /> 6 <br />James Bryan: I’d say all of that’s correct but… There’s also specific standards of the evaluation for 7 <br />telegram towers… I think the crux of it is 5.10.8 (B) (4) and those are standards of evaluation, there’s 23 8 <br />standards of evaluation for telecom facilities. 9 <br /> 10 <br />Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Michael Harvey: If that’s all, I’ll quickly move through staff reports and turn it over to the applicant. So we 13 <br />have an agenda attachment at the beginning of page 51; within this packet you have staff’s abstract, you 14 <br />have a property vicinity map on page 58 and on page 59 is the application package, beginning on page 81 15 <br />you have notification materials…inaudible… Under separate cover was an 11x17 copy of the site plan. As 16 <br />you’ll know from various e-mails to address some of James’ concerns we’ve produced additional material 17 <br />for you, including a revised attachment 4 which is the SUP findings and fact which I will walk you through 18 <br />from staffs standpoint. A supplemental packet of information that begins on pages 200-341, and this is a 19 <br />copy of the original SUP that was reviewed and acted upon on April 8, 1996. This is … finds on page 240. 20 <br />We also have structural analyses that have been prepared on this tower dealing with change out and 21 <br />existing independence. 22 <br /> 23 <br />So Madam Chair, what I ask first is that the provided abstract that you would have all been sent since 24 <br />apparently page 52 wasn’t included in the packet you were sent, as well as the supplemental material again 25 <br />pages 200-341, revised attachment 4 and a copy of the UDO all be entered into the record. 26 <br /> 27 <br />MOTION made by Susan Halkiotis. Seconded by Karen Barrows. 28 <br />VOTE: Unanimous 29 <br /> 30 <br />Documents admitted to record. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Michael Harvey: Thank you. Very quickly I would like to turn it over to the applicant. What is occurring with 33 <br />this request, as detailed within my abstract and also detailed within the applicant’s proposal, this is an 34 <br />existing tower facility that was permitted 1986 by the BOA of the issuance of a Class B SUP. It is a 35 <br />maximum 160 foot tall telecommunications tower. The original access and the approved site plan came 36 <br />through Landau Drive, allowing it affording access to this property. As indicated by the applicant due by 37 <br />potential modification development sale of property they chose to secure a more direct, more consistent, 38 <br />access route and have chosen to come off Old Oak Place, an existing, publicly maintained roadway to get 39 <br />access to the tower. The site plan submitted shows proposed location of the easement and discusses the 40 <br />development of the driveway. Obviously this is coming off an existing state maintained road so it would be 41 <br />handled as any other residential driveway. One comment on making the onset before we get into depth; 42 <br />one concern that was raised at the neighborhood meeting was, is this a precursor to future and further 43 <br />development of this parcel? And the answer is no. If this modification is approved and if this driveway is 44 <br />moved this does not grant the development authority to this property other than allowing this easement as 45 <br />shown and there’s nothing on the site plan affording access to telecommunication tower. So this is not a 46 <br />precursor for subdivision. This is not a precursor for any further development on this property. This is just 47 <br />merely to grant easement to get the tower access. If the undeveloped 24-acre parcel is developed, that 48 <br />easement will have to be preserved to maintain or the applicant will have to come back through and do 49 <br />5