BOA minutes 011116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 10/10/2016 24 that’s the driveway. Why is that important? It guarantees emergency vehicles will know where to go and 1 know how to access the site. The applicant shall be required … all required NCDOT approvals and permits 2 in light of the creation of the driveway… and the land disturbing activity, that’s been discussed already. 3 Orange County Emergency Services shall review and issue approval for the proposed access road serving 4 the tower. That’s a typical permitting requirement. Th e next recommended condition is the applicant shall 5 pay all necessary development permits from the County prior to the initiation of land disturbing activity. This 6 includes but is not limited to erosion control management permit, a solid waste management p ermit and a 7 zoning compliance permit. And I must stipulate that these permits will be required at certain thresholds. An 8 erosion control permit will be required but unless the applicant exceeds certain development thresholds as 9 stipulated in the UDO a storm water permit may not be required, but it’s all part of one universal process. 10 Condition 7 and 8 I think are self-explanatory. We’ve outlined the reasons and rationales, conditions 9 or 10 11 are required by the UDO which is why we’ve suggested them. There h ave been 3 conditions by my count 12 that have been recommended for you all to consider *inaudible* that signage be posted at the end of Old 13 Oak Place addressing access management dead end as to address a concern from the Bouche’s over 14 people not understanding this is a dead end road, and I believe that that’s a condition that can be met in 15 discussion with DOT but, I believe that’s a reasonable condition that can be imposed. Another condition 16 would be that the applicant submit a revised site plan showing a new gate location, that this new gate 17 location not be located along Old Oak Place and that its location be reviewed and commented on by the 18 Bouche’s in order to ensure that the gate is not visually intrusive and that sufficient landscaping be installed 19 in and around the posts to shield it from view. And then the final condition that I have written is that the 20 applicant shall be required to submit a copy to the County staff of a FCC license for the continued operation 21 of the telecommunication tower in accordance with section 5.10.8 A1T of the UDO. So those are the 22 recommended conditions. And based on these recommended conditions and the testimony this evening 23 staff would like to make an affirmative finding that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, 24 and general welfare. This is the application package, the staff abstract and staff testimony, and the 25 applicant testimony this evening; we believe they have met their burden. We do recommend the Board find 26 that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; this is obviously based on the 27 testimony from Graham Herring as well as the application package. The location and character of the use 28 developed according to the plan submitted will be in harmony with the area which is to be located, again 29 staff’s basing this on the application package, the testimony we’ve heard this evening and the site plan as 30 well as the imposition of the grand total of 13 conditions that we believe address concerns about the project 31 moving forward and we believe will address and ensure harmony with the area. 32 33 Henry Campen: Madam Chair, if I may make one… to one of the conditions that was added. With respect 34 to the access and landscaping, I’d just ask that condition be modified just slightly to provide that the 35 landscaping and mitigation of the fence be reasonably acceptable to the neighbors and to the staff. I think 36 that it’s an indication to testimony that the company is willing to work with the… staff. I would just like that to 37 be clear. 38 39 Michael Harvey: I have no objection; I’m just coming up with what I’ve written down. 40 41 Karen Barrows: I’m curious Michael; your staff doesn’t usually make recommendations on 5.3.2 A, B and C. 42 43 Michael Harvey: We don’t usually make recommendations prior to the public hea ring. The reason being is 44 that those have to be determined based on the testimony and evidence entered into the record. As we did 45 with the most recent BOA application, of course we did offer comment on an applicant’s compliance with 46 these sections as a staff recommendation during a hearing. We will never provide you an advanced 47 recommendation because that can be seen as trying to influence the jury as it would. 48 49