BOA minutes 011116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 10/10/2016 4 1 Just going through the abstract; the area is predominantly single -family residential development, with large 2 scale parcels of property. This particular parcel of property is in farm use; it’s actually encumbered by a 3 timber deed and was recently timbered. Consistent with that deed harvest the existing vegetation on the 4 property. There isn’t any water sewer service in the area but, I will point out that this is a driveway so no 5 water sewer is necessary. There will be no septic or well associated with the extension of this driveway. To 6 the North you have Interstate-85. You have utility easements running through the northern portion of the 7 property. Electrical utility lines and again, we have single-family residential here, we have residential here 8 to the East and there’s large tracks to the South and also undeveloped property. So what’s being requ ested 9 is to encumber this particular parcel of property under the same SUP as the existing tower for means of 10 allowing ingress/egress. To do this under the ordinance requires a modification. Why? You’re changing a 11 conditional of the original permit that had access off of land out here and encumbering a separate parcel of 12 property with a drive access easement. That requires a modification. Staff does not have a legal ability to 13 allow for a minor change to allow that to occur because this parcel here is now g oing to be encumbered by 14 some of the provisions of this SUP. 15 16 The applicant was required, and again I’m focusing on pages 59 -80 to submit the appropriate application 17 site plan. We’ve required that they complete an environmental assessment application. Th ey have provided 18 a narrative outline of the rationale behind this move, which I’ll let them get into in a moment. In concluding 19 staff comments, this is a modification to an existing drive location; there will be no change to the tower. You 20 approving this request if that is your choice to do this evening will not impact or require any modification to 21 the actual tower itself. The tower’s not going to be increased in height, it’s not going to increase the number 22 of antennas that can be put on it; you’re just allowing for modification to the drive access point. You’re 23 approval does not grant the applicant any authority to engage in any land development, they still have to go 24 through a permitting process specific with the DOT with Orange County Erosion Control as applicable, 25 especially with a stream crossing here. And we’ll talk about conditions at an appropriate time in a minute 26 but, I want to remind the board that if you see fit based on the competent material evidence and testimony 27 entered into the record this evening to grant this modification, the applicant still has obligations to go 28 through a permit and review process. Now, primarily, that’s going to be with Orange County Erosion Control 29 but you’ll note that the DOT will be involved as well as Orange County’s Fire Marshal’s office. 30 31 We have found several components of the comprehensive plan , as noted on page 54, that we believe 32 support the request. You will note, again on page 54, that staff held the required neighborhood information 33 meeting, for all SUP’s we’re required to hold a neighborhood information meeting, this meeting was held on 34 November 30. We have provided a summary of the comments. We also forwarded a copy of an email that 35 was sent not only to all those that attended the neighborhood meeting but to the applicant as well, so they 36 could understand what some of the comments were. The biggest concern was how the applicant handles 37 the stream crossing and the short and sweet answer is that they’d have to get the appropriate permit but, 38 stream crossings are permitted. They would have to mitigate any potential environmental harm that they 39 would do to the erosion control permitting process. There were questions about how big the driveway would 40 be, there were a lot of concerns about the property being cleare d and I will just reiterate for the record the 41 clearing that has already occurred was external to this request. It was actually being done consistent with a 42 previously recorded timber deed. 43 44 There was concern expressed by several neighbors over the condition of the road. We have reached out to 45 the DOT who indicated they will investigate whether or not there needs to be maintenance done on Old 46 Oak Place. Unfortunately, all I can testify to is that in talking with the DOT they don’t see the addition of the 47 driveway as creating any major change in existing traffic patterns. I will state for the record that the addition 48 of the driveway is external to any internal neighborhood road maintenance concerns. And I will let the 49