Browse
Search
BOA minutes 121216
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Minutes
>
2016
>
BOA minutes 121216
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 9:14:19 AM
Creation date
3/7/2018 9:58:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/12/2016
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
BOA agenda 121216
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Board of Adjustment\Agendas\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Approved 3113117 <br />1 Laura Goode: To supplement that document I would also move into the record the biological <br />2 assessment that was further done as part of this, just again detailing how the proposed facility will <br />3 not negatively impact, and identify wildlife, critical habitat, or species in the area. <br />4 <br />5 Samantha Cabe: And that will Applicant number 7. <br />6 <br />7 Laura Goode: And additionally, as part of the neighbor process there is a review by the state <br />8 historic preservation office. We have this letter from the state historic preservation office stating <br />9 that it will not affect any historic properties in the area. I'll ask that that be moved into the record <br />10 as well. And then as a further supplemental piece of evidence to contradict claims that the tower's <br />11 not needed, the tower height is not needed, things of that nature that have been argued, We have <br />12 a letter from T- Mobile who states that they too have a need for a facility in this area that this tower <br />13 would meet their needs, specifically at a proposed height of 180 -feet due to the topography <br />14 changes in the area. And then I did, just for housekeeping purposes I meant to do this later time <br />15 but we ran over, I wanted to make sure that the application that's been entered into the record is <br />16 the application that has supplemental evidence items A through I, just to double check on that. <br />17 <br />18 Samantha Cabe: Mine does. <br />19 <br />20 Laura Goode: Ok. Thank you. <br />21 <br />22 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. <br />23 <br />24 James Bryan: Madame Chair, if I could briefly ..... <br />25 <br />26 Samantha Cabe: Sure. <br />27 <br />28 James Bryan: So, in your agenda packets its 155, and it's a table that Michael put together and <br />29 that cites access standards of the Unified Development Ordinance it's 5.10.8(b)(4)(d) d is access <br />30 and it's got four subparts. So part one is: at a wireless telecommunication support structure site an <br />31 access road, turn around space, and parking shall be provided to assure adequate emergency <br />32 service access. Two: maximum use of existing use, whether public or private, shall remain to the <br />33 extent practical. Three: road construction shall, at all times, minimize ground disturbance and the <br />34 cutting of vegetation. Four: road grates shall closely follow natural contours to ensure minimal <br />35 visual disturbance and reduce soil erosion. Those are the four standards that this Board has <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />regarding access. <br />Samantha Cabe: And that is the four standards that the applicant has to show in their application <br />so that doesn't necessarily address the legal access, but they've addressed that what they're <br />planning for their road will have the turnaround, will have the width, will do all of those things, but <br />does not have to address whether or not they can legally put the road where they're saying they're <br />going to put it. Is that? I didn't hear anything in our standards that addressing whether or not they <br />have to have a legal easement before they came to us. <br />James Bryan: Right, so there's two parts I'm supposed to <br />cannot vary from the plan, unless they come back to thi s <br />amendment. What you can do, I think if it shows access it's <br />be a condition. Some evidence... I don't know what they can <br />at subsequent meetings. <br />OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 <br />go by. The plan must identify. They <br />Board and ask for a change, an <br />applied that it has to be legal, it can <br />prove today or what they can prove <br />Page 131 of 156 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.