BOA minutes 011116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 10/10/2016 23 including antennas, towers and other supporting structures, shall be made inaccessible to individuals; 1 again, we’ve heard lots of testimony tonight about fences and gates so, I’m going to refer you to 2 attachments 2 of this application as well as the site plan. We’ll also refer you to attachment 1, which is our 3 vicinity map. Abandoned structures shall be removed within 12 months; we’ve talked about this a little bit, 4 that’s why we’re recommending this become a condition of approval because it’s a requirement for all SUP 5 under the current ordinance. Page 134, a determination shall be made that the facility and its equipment 6 will comply with all federal, state, and local emission requirements; we’re going to refer you to the structural 7 analysis provided in supplemental material as satisfying this requirement. The SUP shall include a 8 condition that the electromagnetic radiation levels maintain compliance with the requirements of the FCC; 9 we are recommending that the applicant has met this burden, but also recommending it become a condition 10 of approval, specifically as the ordinance language say that this shall become a condition of approval. 11 Warning signage on compound fence; we have verified that the site visit the required warning signs, as 12 stipulated, in the sub section high voltage, no trespassing are present. Liability insurance; we have 13 applicant testimony, as well as staff comment this evening. Bond Security. Applicant/Owne r shall file a 14 bond with the County to assure faithful performance of terms and conditions of SUP; we’re changing that 15 based on my previous testimony in response to a question by the County Attorney to an affirmative. There 16 is an existing bond already on file for this project. 17 18 Samantha Cabe: So your recommendation is yes? 19 20 Michael Harvey: Yes. Because we have an existing bond. We looked at it from a driveway stand point, not 21 from the tower stand point, as James asked us to. So, page 135, general findings o n whether or not the use 22 will comply with section 5.3.2. 2A, 2B, and 2C. With the Board’s indulgence I’d like to review the conditions 23 and then staff’s going to make a recommendation on 5.3.2 2A, 2B, and 2C… First of all, I will remind the 24 Board, as detailed on page 136, we have not had any comments or evidence submitted to us in advance of 25 the hearing indicating that this project does not comply with the provisions of 5.3.2 A. We also do not 26 believe that the applicant has failed to meet their burden *inaud ible* there is insufficient evidence in the 27 record proving that their burden has been met. With respect to compliance with the standards and 28 provisions of the UDO. We have recommended several conditions and there have been conditions 29 discussed here this evening, so I would like to go through those real quick. The first condition is that 30 nothing associated with this approval shall be deemed as prohibiting the use of the subject parcels of farm 31 or prevent the maintenance of existing utilities, with the except ion of preserving the access easement as 32 noted on the approved site plan. When Mr. Bryan’s tenure with the County began we began focusing on the 33 need to ensure that the SUP is limited in its scope with respect to what it’s purporting to regulate. An 34 example is, if somebody chooses to engage in a farming activity, does the planting of a new row of crop 35 constitute a modification of a parcel of property? The answer is it shouldn’t. So, this condition has been 36 developed, and many of you have seen it on several SUP applications. Especially where there’s farm 37 activity to ensure that there’s nothing associated with the application in and of itself that limits what 38 otherwise prohibit the legal engagement of that activity. We also don’t want to inadvertently capture any 39 alteration of the existing utility infrastructure on site as somehow creating a modification of the SUP. Duke 40 power has to go out there and do something major to the utility lines that’s Duke Power’s prerogative and 41 obligation to do so in order to ensu re the continued provision of service. Nothing associated with the 42 approval shall be as modifying an existing telecommunication tower, other than the relocation of the 43 existing driveway. This addresses a comment that I made earlier this evening, as well as , concerns from 44 the neighborhood meeting about if this gives them .. to start messing with the tower itself; the answer’s no. 45 So we wanted to include a provision in here that stipulated for the record that you can’t do anything to the 46 tower, all you’re getting authorization to do is move the access road. Three, final the .. street address shall 47 be completed by Orange County… of the issuance of any permits. Orange County has a new addressing 48 ordinance, there will be a new address assigned to this property and it will be off of Old Oak Place because 49