BOA minutes 011116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 10/10/2016 14 application. Were the fees paid? I will testify, the answer is yes; and in attachment 2 you have a copy of the 1 receipt. Full description of the use? Yes, that’s contained within the attachment 2 of your application 2 package as well as the site plan. Information needed for use standards… where it’s a ll contained either in 3 the attachment 2 which is the application or site plan, preliminary subdivision plat? There’s no subdivision 4 proposed so none was required. Elevations of all structures project does not involve the erection of a 5 structure, just relocation of a driveway. I will point out to you that both the supplemental information 6 contained on pages 200 thru 240, as well as the site plan does show existing structures that are on the 7 property that have already been permitted. Environmental assessment… 8 9 James Bryan: Ok let me go back, there’s some confusion on my part. The elevations of all structures; is 10 that a recommendation out of yes? 11 12 Michael Harvey: No, we’re saying it’s not applicable because there’s no structures proposed as part of this 13 requirement but what I have said is that on pages 200 thru 240 there’s information on the structures that 14 have already been approved and constructed on the property as well as on the site plan that’s already been 15 submitted as part of this application requires. 16 17 James Bryan: So it could be yes if it were… 18 19 Michael Harvey: Correct… I’m making the statement for obvious reasons because I’m trying to be 20 consistent with my script and also say what’s available, yes. 21 22 James Bryan: Ok, I just want to be clear to the Board that there’s a difference of opinion here. I am 23 recommending that this is applicable, that the Board has to have a… it was submitted. 24 25 Samantha Cabe: Then I have a question for staff. Well, I have a question for the attorney first; when you 26 said that it was submitted do you mean submitted as part of the modification application or submitted either 27 with modification application or with the initial application? 28 29 James Bryan: Yes, it’s not clear. I think we’ve got something to hang our hat on either way but, my 30 strongest recommendation is that if it were to be appealed to the Superior Court our firmest ground would 31 be if it was newly submitted. I think if it’s prior information, I think if it’s reasonable that it’s the same 32 information I think we’re on pretty strong grounds there. So I think either one I’m comfortable with. But one 33 is definitely stronger than the other one and there’s no clear direction from the UDO about what it is. 34 35 Henry Campen: I would just point out, Madam Chair, *inaudible* got standing to appeal other than us and if 36 it’s staff’s recommendations as are outlined in this narrative are upheld then *inaudible* appeal that issue. 37 38 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 39 40 Michael Harvey: Next standard: Environmental assessment per the previsions of sectio ns 6.62 and 6.16.3 41 of the UDO this project is exempt, doesn’t disturb sufficient land area to require environmental assessment. 42 We also base this decision on the environmental impact application that is contained in attachment 2 they 43 submitted. It provided sufficient detail for us to make this finding that it was not applicable. Method of debris 44 disposal: There’s notes in the submitted site plan. The applicant has indicated that obviously, at least to us 45 and as well as the application, that any debris in go ing to be disposed of in accordance with the Orange 46 County Solid Waste Management Plan, which is the requirement for all permits. Any permit issued allowing 47 land disturbing activity has the same writer and condition; that all debris has to be disposed of i n 48 accordance with that document. We have under development schedule we have the site plan, we also have 49