BOA minutes 011116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 10/10/2016 15 to testimony from this hearing this evening. Extending vesting request; there is no vesting that’s been 1 required. Notification requirements; on page 106 now, that is covered under attachment 3 as well as my 2 testimony here this evening and my abstract. Does anybody have any questions on 105 or 106? Ok, page 3 107 deals with compliance with standards 5.3.2b; this is waste disposal, safety, vehicular access. I ’ve 4 testified this evening that with respect to waste disposal both environmental health and solid waste have 5 not indicated to have a concern. This still has to go through a permitting procedure; they’ll be applying for 6 solid waste permit as a part of erosion control and construction authorization from the county. There is no 7 office on site so there’s no need for well or septic systems so there will be no environmental permit review. 8 With respect to safety we have had conversations with Orange County emerge ncy service at the Sheriff; 9 they have indicated that they can provide service. We have, however, recommended the im position of 10 condition that the Fire Marshal review the driveway proposal as he does with every driveway proposal, as 11 part of the zoning compliance for new process and then any associated conditions will be addressed at that 12 time. Vehicular access; supporting evidence is in the application and site plan as well as staff testimony. 13 With respect to the conversation with DOT we’ve obviously recommended a condition that they give the 14 implacable NCDOT permitting and that questions or concerns related to that will be addressed at that 15 appropriate time. Any questions? Shooting to 108; this gets into the specific findings with respect to 16 telecommunication towers. Site plan; we obviously have a site plan. The applicants testimony, our 17 testimony, it’s in the record. The detailed description of the proposed telecommunication supports structure. 18 For that we have entered into the record of this ordinance the o riginal BOA application package, as well as 19 the recorded SUP. This is on pages 200 thru 240 of your supplemental information that provides a 20 description of the existing telecommunications tower. There’s also brief descriptions of the existing tower in 21 the application packet itself. I will stipulate once again for the record, the existing facility will not be modified 22 as part of this request. Elevation drawings… of the proposed tower, again we’re referring back to the 23 original SUP. The original application contained on pages 200 to 240. Page 109; A signed statement from 24 the application certifying that the proposed telecommunication support structure shall be maintained in a 25 safe manner, is in compliance with all conditions of all applicable permits and author izations without 26 exceptions, and is in compliance with all applicable and permissible local State, and Federal rules. We 27 have made a finding that the original SUP and application, as well as a recorded SUP provides this 28 information. That’s on pages 200 to 240. We also have provided you statements on pages 241 thru 341 of 29 the supplemental information; this is structural analysis reports, completed by engineers allowing for the 30 erection of individual antenna on the tower. The most recent done in 2014 indicate that the tower was 31 structurally sound and complying with applicable standards. Page 110; a statement prepared by a 32 professional engineer certifying that the tower’s compliance with applicable standards as set forth in the 33 State of North Carolina Building Code. Again, I’ll refer you to the supplemental information, the original SUP 34 application, the recorded SUP and the 2 structural analyses for the most recent completed on April 30, 35 2014. This project will not alter the towers capacity or impact, it’s existing ability to maintain antennas on 36 site. I’ll direct you to pages 200 to 341 for the information concerning the towers structural compliance with 37 Safe Building Code. Page 111; A statement indicating how the proposed over will minimize visual 38 intrusiveness to surrounding properties in the area; again, I will refer you to the supplemental information. 39 I’ll also refer you to testimony from tonight’s meeting that the tower’s not going to be altered from its 40 previously approved status. A copy of the installed foundation design including a geotechnical sub-surface 41 report. We are recommending a finding not applicable because no tower is being installed as part of this 42 proposal and as such we couldn’t require the applicant to provide one. 43 44 James Bryan: And just to be clear, I’m advising the Board that you need a yes or no vote on whether that 45 was provided or not. 46 47 Samantha Cabe: Again, my question would be; was one provided with the initial application? 48 49