|
APPROVED 10/13/2014
<br />OC Board of Adjustment – 8/27/2014 Page 6 of 64
<br />
<br />
<br />specifically from the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. I will also reiterate also detailed on page 140, 1
<br />we have received extensive feedback on this particular project. I will say that most of the feedback, as of 2
<br />this date, has not been positive. A synopsis of these concerns is articulated herein. What I will say, as 3
<br />articulated in this abstract and as staff has articulated and as staff has articulated in several residences 4
<br />who have called, while county planning staff sympathizes, unfortunately, many of the issues involving 5
<br />compensation issues, ambiguity with easements, or the methodology utilized by PSNC to secure 6
<br />additional easement area, is not the purview of the County Planning Department nor is it the purview of 7
<br />the Orange County Board of Adjustment to address. Unfortunately, the state’s statutes provide 8
<br />parameters for these issues and how they will be addressed. We have referred people to the State 9
<br />Utilities Commission as the Attorney General’s office, as well to PSNC to have their questions answered 10
<br />with respect to some of those issues that have cropped up. Unfortunately, it is just not a mechanism we 11
<br />can address or deal with. 12
<br />Larry Wright: The legislature can, can’t it? 13
<br />Michael Harvey: Yes sir. But there are already regulations established dealing with that. We have also 14
<br />received a request from Mr. Joseph Zaragoza; he has signed up to speak this evening. He has 15
<br />conditions he would like to ask this Board to impose. Those are located on page 141. I need to add for 16
<br />the record so this Board understands, and I have already let PSNC know this as well, Mr. Zaragoza, his 17
<br />family and I have a 25 year relationship. We are neighbors. His family and my family essentially grew 18
<br />up together and I think that needs to be known by everyone involved in this meeting before we move any 19
<br />further. We did, as you will note on page 141, attend an open house meeting on August 1 with several 20
<br />local property owners to try to answer some of the questions related to this project. I would like to say 21
<br />the meeting was productive, unfortunately, I don’t believe staff was able to address all their issues or 22
<br />concerns. The majority of those individuals are here tonight, I will let them speak for themselves. I will 23
<br />not, on page 142, reiterate the review of this permit; I think it has already been done eloquently by the 24
<br />county attorney. Mr. Chair, at an appropriate time, I will review the script Findings of Fact in Attachment 25
<br />4 when you ask. So if there is no further ado and no direct questions for staff, I would like to turn it over 26
<br />the applicant to present their application. 27
<br />Larry Wright: Before you do that, do the Board members have any questions for Mr. Harvey. Okay. 28
<br />Matthew Rhoads: Good evening, my name is Matt Rhoads, attorney with Smith Anderson, representing 29
<br />PSNC Energy, the applicant. Before I forget, let me give the secretary my card. First of all, just for the 30
<br />record and to preserve any issues on appeal, we actually object to even being required to get this permit. 31
<br />The construction, installation, operation, safety, all of those elements of the gas pipeline are completely 32
<br />and heavily regulated by the North Carolina Utilities Commission and the Federal Department of 33
<br />Transportation. We are happy to go through this process and we believe it is a good process to explain 34
<br />our project to the community but to preserve that issue for appeal if that were necessary. We need to 35
<br />note our objection that we believe it is preempted by State and Federal Law and this permit is not 36
<br />required. As Mr. Harvey indicated, it is a quasi-judicial hearing to establish if we meet the criteria under 37
<br />the ordinances which are under 5.3.2 and 5.9.5. If we meet those with competent material evidence then 38
<br />we are entitled to the permit. Very briefly, those criteria are the use will maintain or promote the public 39
<br />health, safety and general welfare. The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property 40
<br />unless the use is a public necessity in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of 41
<br />contiguous property. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted 42
<br />will be in harmony with the area in which is located and is in compliance with, and I’m paraphrasing with 43
<br />the Comprehensive Plan and other development ordinance; the method and adequacy of provision for 44
<br />sewage disposal facility, solid waste and water; method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad 45
<br />protection; method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions. The additional 46
<br />submittal requirements that Mr. Harvey went through, the site plan, erosion and sediment control plans, 47
<br />cross sections, plans and elevations, certification that the applicant is a public utility. That has been 48
<br />satisfied according staff. We have complied with that. Adequate provision to protect adjacent property 49
<br />from the dangers of explosion, rupture, collapse, fire, or other menaces to public health and safety. 50
<br />Public convenience and necessity shall be served by the proposal and applicant has submitted proof of 51
<br />liability insurance which again, Mr. Harvey has indicated, we have already complied with and I believe in 52
|