BOA minutes 082714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 10/13/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 8/27/2014 Page 43 of 64 Unified Development Ordinance. This application is for a pipeline and I am, without trying to punt the 1 football back to PSNC, I am going to let them respond to the arguments that they made in submitting the 2 permit application and scheduling the hearing. Their argument to me originally was this, in their mind 3 was a pressure relief regulator station per Section 5.1.2 of the UDO. 4 5 Matthew Rhoads: And we do believe that and we don’t believe it is necessary to part of this but even if 6 for some reason later it’s determined that should have been part of this proceeding that is not relevant for 7 the Board tonight. The question is the application as we’ve submitted it. Do we get the permit for that 8 application? Maybe that’s another fight we have to have later whether that application that if you guys 9 approve it, whether once it’s approved, that allows us to do that pressure relief station or not but I don’t 10 think that is relevant to the Board voting tonight. I think that you vote on what the application is. 11 12 Joseph Zaragoza: It’s never been called the pressure relief valve station. 13 14 Larry Wright: Just a second sir. Mr. Harvey, from what he said, how does one go back if we.. 15 16 Michael Harvey: I think this resolves the issue at least in my mind and then PSNC is going to respond. 17 The first point with respect to Noman Clay Drive not going to get into an argument about but the second 18 point is are they required and obligated under the Ordinance as it’s listed to show this valve station. If we 19 all agree that it has to be shown and you decide to issue this permit, you’re issuing this permit for the 20 pipeline only not for the valve station or whatever this is going to be. Under that scenario then PSNC 21 would have to come back to modify this Special Use Permit for another public hearing to do that. Which I 22 believe is, without putting words in Mr. Zaragoza’s mouth is his point. 23 24 Larry Wright: Is that your point sir? 25 26 Joseph Zaragoza: That would work. Yes. 27 28 Larry Wright: Mr. Rhoads? 29 30 Matthew Rhoads: Yes, my point is if it is determined later that that valve site should have been part of 31 this application then we will have more work to do in that regard but our position is that it doesn’t need to 32 be in there but regardless, if you approve the application, and it doesn’t include the valve site, then it 33 doesn’t cover the valve site. If we determine that we need a Special Use Permit for the valve site then 34 we would have to come back but I don’t see not including a facility, let’s say we even admitted tonight 35 yea that should be in there, which we are not admitting. That doesn’t mean that you can’t rule on the 36 application as it is and it applies to the as it is so then it would not apply to the valve station and we’d still 37 have that issue outstanding to deal with separately. Our position is that the valve station does not 38 require a Special Use Permit. If the Board grants the permit tonight it would be for as it’s in the 39 application and I’m sure we’ll have more discussions with Mr. Zaragoza and Mr. Harvey as to whether 40 then have the right to build that valve or not. Or whether we need to come back and get another SUP. 41 42 Michael Harvey: Not to interrupt you sir, it wouldn’t be another SUP it would be a modification of this 43 existing Special Use Permit. 44 45 Matthew Rhoads: All right. 46 47 Michael Harvey: Just so we’re clear. 48 49 Larry Wright: Ok 50 51 Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I think what the Board and you need to talk to Mr. Bryan but I think what 52 the Board has to do and ought to do in terms of the integrity of the process is there needs to be an action 53 to approve the application as submitted and that staff needs to make a formal determination as required 54 by the Unified Development Ordinance on whether or not what is proposed constitutes a modification of 55