BOA agenda 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

another modification to address access. 1 2 Just going through the abstract; the area is predominantly single-family residential development, with large 3 scale parcels of property. This particular parcel of property is in farm use; it’s actually encumbered by a 4 timber deed and was recently timbered. Consistent with that deed harvest the existing vegetation on the 5 property. There isn’t any water sewer service in the area but, I will point out that this is a driveway so no 6 water sewer is necessary. There will be no septic or well associated with the extension of this driveway. To 7 the North you have Interstate-85. You have utility easements running through the northern portion of the 8 property. Electrical utility lines and again, we have single-family residential here, we have residential here 9 to the East and there’s large tracks to the South and also undeveloped property. So what’s being requested 10 is to encumber this particular parcel of property under the same SUP as the existing tower for means of 11 allowing ingress/egress. To do this under the ordinance requires a modification. Why? You’re changing a 12 conditional of the original permit that had access off of land out here and encumbering a separate parcel of 13 property with a drive access easement. That requires a modification. Staff does not have a legal ability to 14 allow for a minor change to allow that to occur because this parcel here is now going to be encumbered by 15 some of the provisions of this SUP. 16 17 The applicant was required, and again I’m focusing on pages 59-80 to submit the appropriate application 18 site plan. We’ve required that they complete an environmental assessment application. They have provided 19 a narrative outline of the rationale behind this move, which I’ll let them get into in a moment. In concluding 20 staff comments, this is a modification to an existing drive location; there will be no change to the tower. You 21 approving this request if that is your choice to do this evening will not impact or require any modification to 22 the actual tower itself. The tower’s not going to be increased in height, it’s not going to increase the number 23 of antennas that can be put on it; you’re just allowing for modification to the drive access point. You’re 24 approval does not grant the applicant any authority to engage in any land development, they still have to go 25 through a permitting process specific with the DOT with Orange County Erosion Control as applicable, 26 especially with a stream crossing here. And we’ll talk about conditions at an appropriate time in a minute 27 but, I want to remind the board that if you see fit based on the competent material evidence and testimony 28 entered into the record this evening to grant this modification, the applicant still has obligations to go 29 through a permit and review process. Now, primarily, that’s going to be with Orange County Erosion Control 30 but you’ll note that the DOT will be involved as well as Orange County’s Fire Marshal’s office. 31 32 We have found several components of the comprehensive plan, as noted on page 54, that we believe 33 support the request. You will note, again on page 54, that staff held the required neighborhood information 34 meeting, for all SUP’s we’re required to hold a neighborhood information meeting, this meeting was held on 35 November 30. We have provided a summary of the comments. We also forwarded a copy of an email that 36 was sent not only to all those that attended the neighborhood meeting but to the applicant as well, so they 37 could understand what some of the comments were. The biggest concern was how the applicant handles 38 the stream crossing and the short and sweet answer is that they’d have to get the appropriate permit but, 39 stream crossings are permitted. They would have to mitigate any potential environmental harm that they 40 would do to the erosion control permitting process. There were questions about how big the driveway would 41 be, there were a lot of concerns about the property being cleared and I will just reiterate for the record the 42 clearing that has already occurred was external to this request. It was actually being done consistent with a 43 previously recorded timber deed. 44 45 There was concern expressed by several neighbors over the condition of the road. We have reached out to 46 the DOT who indicated they will investigate whether or not there needs to be maintenance done on Old 47 Oak Place. Unfortunately, all I can testify to is that in talking with the DOT they don’t see the addition of the 48 driveway as creating any major change in existing traffic patterns. I will state for the record that the addition 49 6