BOA minutes 011116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 10/10/2016 13 1 Henry Kampen: That’s fine. 2 3 Michael Harvey: I’ll get to that in a minute. 4 5 James Bryan: I’m not sure… The conditions have to be clear. 6 7 Samantha Cape: The intent is that since the first initial gate is not reflected on the site plan the Board would 8 like to potentially impose an additional… The staff is recommending imposing an additional condition that 9 essentially imposes a requirement that the applicant make that gate aesthetically pleasing and work with 10 staff to do so. 11 12 Michael Harvey: That the location and landscaping in around the entrance gate be reviewed and it not be 13 right at the intersection of the property in Old Oak Place. The offset be out of view and I’ll come up with 14 some language as we go through the script. 15 16 Samantha Cabe: Ok. Thank you… Is there any other testimony that either side would like to offer? 17 18 Michael Harvey: And do you have any questions for staff before we begin the script? 19 20 Karen Barrows: I have one question Michael… The staff recommends the following conditions on page 21 137, number 7: Any and all abandoned structures shall be removed. That’s addressed in the… 22 23 Michael Harvey: When you actually get into the provisions of the UDO that’s now a condition that has to be 24 applied to all SUP dealing with telecommunication towers. So we’re recommended its position because it’s 25 now a requirement. 26 27 Karen Barrows: But it’s in the original attachment 4. 28 29 Samantha Cabe: These are the standards and Mr. Harvey is suggesting we add is as a condition to the 30 issuance of the permit because it is a standard. So it’s listed her e in the original attachment as a standard 31 but it was not listed as a condition to the issuance of the permit. 32 33 Karen Barrows: So if it’s a standard it doesn’t mean it necessarily has to be… 34 35 Michael Harvey: The UDO requires that be a condition on all app rovals. Because of the wording of the 36 UDO we added it and added what is now number 8 as well for the same reason. Because the UDO makes 37 special reference to it being a condition. As those 2 conditions didn’t apply in ’96 they aren’t specifically 38 referenced on the recorded SUP. We’re including it herein so we’re consistent with the UDO. 39 40 Karen Barrows: Ok. 41 42 Michael Harvey: So we are using the revised attachment 4. I’ll try to be as synced as possible and if you 43 have questions please stop to interrupt me to make sure that I’m answering your questions. 44 45 So obviously, we’re looking at a modification. This modification would allow the relocation of the driveway of 46 proposed. Beginning on page 105, page 105 to 106 we are providing you with information on whether or 47 not the applicant met submittal and application component require… detail within sections 2.2 and 2.73 48 inclusive of the UDO. Were the proper forms filed? Yes, that’s actually contained in attachment 2 of your 49