BOA minutes 082714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 10/13/2014 OC Board of Adjustment – 8/27/2014 Page 46 of 64 1 Matthew Rhoads: My guess is that may be a contractor doing something other than what we thought, if 2 that’s happening. The public needs and necessity shall be served by the proposed installation. Again, 3 the only competent material evidence is that it will. The statute requires us to have an adequate supply 4 of gas. The statutes say it is a public necessity so that’s covered. The final one is proof of liability 5 insurance which the only evidence is we provided that and staff agrees. So there is competent material 6 evidence supporting each one of those criteria there is really no competent material evidence 7 contradicting any of that so as a matter of law we believe we are entitled to the permit. We would ask 8 that the Board grant the permit. 9 10 Larry Wright: Are there any questions from the members of the Board. Hearing none, Mr. Harvey? 11 12 Michael Harvey: As is the usual procedure we would like to review attachment 4 which is the findings of 13 fact. This begins on page 271. Sections 2.2 and I’m on pages 272 and 273. Sections 2.2 and 2.7.3 14 essentially deal with the submittal of an application, payment of fees, submission of necessary 15 documentation as far as a detailed narrative, property owner lists. 16 17 Jeff Schmitt: Larry, did we close the public hearing? 18 19 Michael Harvey: Not before I’m done because I can’t answer any questions after the hearing is closed. 20 You will note that staff has provided you with the evidence that is available indicating that the applicant 21 has met their burden, we have for example in attachment 2 a signed application, detailed narrative, a site 22 plan, we have a copy of the insurance certificate that is required by the unified development ordinance 23 and that is on page182. I will remind you that it is for a million dollars per occurrence instead of 500,000 24 that our ordinance requires. The applicant submitted the site plan with the appropriate notes did 25 modifications at staff’s request specifically specifying that all property disturbed will be reestablished to 26 its previous disturbed level. All solid waste will be disposed of in accordance with applicable county 27 regulations. I am going through now to page 275. Notification requirement, you’ll see that staff provided 28 the various attachments in what was done. I will remind the Board that since we had to delay this 29 hearing we sent out actually first class mailing notices to folks reminding them of the moved date which 30 meant also the 15 day advertising deadline. One of the reasons we chose 1st class and it was actually 31 out of a discussion with Ms. Oliver here in the audience, she got her certified mailing notice almost 7, 8 32 days after the letter had been mailed. Part of that is because of the consolidation of, at least in my 33 opinion, is a consolidation of post office duties in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area which is exacerbating the 34 picking up of certified letters. This will be something that staff is going to have to talk to the County 35 Commissioners about ensuring that people are getting their notice in an appropriate manner. One of her 36 concerns to me was she had an inadequate time to prepare for the hearing. It was fortuitous that 37 unfortunately we didn’t have full Board and PSNC elected to delay the hearing. We did send notices out 38 to every property owner reminding them of this new hearing date and time so they could be present. I’m 39 on page 276 now, the specific standards. I’ve already alluded to the fact they have a site plan. Sheets 40 2, 3 sheets 37, 36 provide the necessary information as required by the Ordinance. I’ll take this 41 opportunity to remind the Board we’ve had a suggestion from an impacted property owner that any 42 motion to approve not include the disputed regulator station whatever it’s called on Mr. Zaragoza’s 43 property. That it be handled at a future date and time. The applicant, and I’m on page 277, has argued 44 that both within their narrative and their testimony here this evening that this project complies with 45 applicable state and federal regulations including Title 49 Federal Regulation Part 192 which prescribes 46 to minimum safety requirements for pipeline facilities. They have provided the narrative information and 47 testimony this evening about the public convenience. I’ve already covered the liability issue. You have 48 beginning on page 278, responses to their compliance to Section 5.3.2.b of the UDO. We have a couple 49 of conditions that have been recommended that I am going to go over a little more detail in a moment. 50 Beginning on page 280, we have the findings for Section 5.3.2.a.2.a which is the use will maintain or 51 promote the public health, safety and general welfare. The use will maintain or enhance the value of 52 contiguous property unless the use is a public necessity. Finally, location and character of the use, if 53 developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located 54 and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in 55