BOA minutes 031411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 6/13/2011 OC Board of Adjustment – 3/14/11 Page 28 of 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 harbor and to construct the road as you were showing in the notes. I believe the plan is to improve the roadway and to not change the character as much as possible. I believe the plan as described would retain the right side of the roadway edge as shown in this photo because there is mention of protecting this grape harbor and I really appreciate that. However, I think it would be appropriate for us to have some additional information and clarity on this matter. For example, what is the impact on this side of the road? Will this vegetation be removed? Looking at this view, what will the roadway look like from this vantage point? Is the proposal to add gravel to the left and right side of the roadway and if so, how much will extend beyond the existing ditch along the open field? Again will the expansion of the roadway eliminate this landscaping, vegetation that currently buffers our front yard from noise, dust, light and cars on the current road? Finally, how will this view from our side yard and back yard change? Will all the vegetation on the opposite side of this roadway be removed and thereby open up an extensive window into the adjoining property? My conclusion is that much remains unknown about the proposed improved access. Again, I was hoping to have the discussion with the applicant. A neighborly discussion and talk about all these issues so I apologize for having to bring this to your attention. I was hoping we could have discussed this earlier. The next topic I would briefly mention is maintenance. The document you have is a recorded maintenance declaration which outlines the maintenance agreement for residential use. It specifies the upkeep of the 16 foot wide gravel roadway or public roadway. It does not refer to maintaining a roadway of a different standard so this application does not address a plan to maintain a 20 foot wide commercial roadway. What’s most important to remember is that if you grant this permission, the permit runs with the land not the current owner. Although, I recognize there may be good intentions on the part of the applicant, there needs to be more information on how the road will be maintained so we can understand the potential impact of this issue. My recommendation is to continue the public hearing to a future date in order for the applicant to provide additional information to address these outstanding concerns and questions. I think the submission of this additional information is reasonable and appropriate. It would allow an opportunity for us to meet with neighbors and discuss the issues and work together on possible solutions on the ground. Previous applications before this board, Duffy Gilligan, returned to the board in order to address similar issues. Next, I would like to share an idea I began working on several months ago. I think it is something that could be a win win situation. I started like all good planners looking into another option for access to this site. I think there may be an opportunity for another access that allows direct access from Old Greensboro Road be limited to proposed use, have no residential conflicts, much shorter, requires less infrastructure and cost, I believe, would separate residential use from commercial activity, removes uncertainty of right to use and allows commercial signage at the highway. I got in touch with Mr. Williams, who is here, and he and I have had a conversation and we talked about, I approached him, I made him aware of this project and I said would you consider discussing the possibility of providing an alternate access from this point to this point? I realize there is nothing that this board can do to require Chuck and Delois to have this alternate access I just think there may be an opportunity, there may be an advantage, there may be a more cost effective to approach this so I am hoping there would be some time to investigate this possibility. The issues this would address is the current visibility at the road to the current driveway. It is very difficult to see where you turn off and there is a sight distance problem. This is showing where this proposed site could be located. I am concerned that we don’t have a notice of improvement permit denial from Orange County Health Department. Article 8.2.4 requires method of inadequacy provisions of sewage disposal facility solid waste and water services. I think it is questionable as to whether the board can affirmatively approve this application without additional documentation. Page 7 of the staff reports, if you note where the boxes are yes or no, neither of the boxes is checked. It think this information is reasonable, appropriate and should be provided especially if it is a drip system. I am wondering all kind of odor would be generated by a drip system. I did have some concerns about noise. I was glad to see that they have a Stewart Acoustical Consultant on board. Finally, I have some questions about vegetation buffers and fencing. I think there are opportunities for additional landscaping and vegetative buffers and I think because this kennel includes outdoor runs, it is reasonable to require additional fencing and screening standards. I want to talk about something that was missing from the site plan. There is a 30 foot wide Duke Energy easement that cuts through the site so this area, the vegetation is cleared so on the buffer plan, I think the planning term that Nick used was squiggly line. On the plan, the squiggly line doesn’t show where the Duke Energy cuts through the buffer so that cleared area is not shown on the plan. This is the actual cleared area. I think there is an opportunity to plant some vegetation in this area and this is important because I