BOA minutes 031411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 6/13/2011 OC Board of Adjustment – 3/14/11 Page 35 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 Michael Harvey: I have several comments I feel obligated to make. We may as well start with the road maintenance agreement and go from there. The existing road maintenance agreement requires that the road, as Mr. Poveromo has testified to and Mr. Herman has alluded to, that the road has to be maintained to a 16 foot wide gravel road passable in all weather conditions and I am quoting from Article 3. My testimony being out there is there are several spaces that don’t meet 16 feet which from my standpoint is immaterial. That is for the property owners to deal with, not the county. The county does not enforce road maintenance agreements because they are agreements to enter in by private parties. We have a minimum standard that would be required. This would exceed that minimum standard. Now we have testimony from the applicant indicating that he would maintain the road to the 20 foot as required by the Fire Marshal. I am assuming the question you are asking does this any way invalidate the road maintenance agreement and my answer to that would be the road maintenance agreement on its face still exists. Mr. West, the approval of the special use permit, however, is volunteering to maintain the road to a higher standard than the minimum requirement for the road maintenance agreement. That will be binding on him because that has been his testimony that is what he will do. So in effect you will have a road that far exceeds what this road maintenance agreement suggested is done in the first place. Tom Brown: So the staff position would be that the prorated share of maintaining the road would be immaterial. Michael Harvey: That is my quick reading of it, yes sir. Based on the testimony of the applicant. Sahana Ayer: I have to agree with Michael. The Fire Marshal’s condition that the road will be maintained to a 20 foot gravel road should cover most of the concerns and the fact that Mr. West has voluntarily agreed to maintain it to a higher standard. I haven’t had a chance to review the road maintenance agreement so I can’t comment on what is in that document but the Fire Marshal’s condition should trump that and I think although the board can edit the document and extract information from that document, it can enforce conditions on how the road should be maintained. To that extent, the board has the power to enforce… Tom Brown: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Michael Harvey: I feel obligated to do some house cleaning to Attachment 4, which is the findings of fact sheet. To address a concern referenced by Dr. Wright with respect to landscaping, I went out to the property earlier this evening and verified the location of required landscaping. If I can call your attention to the plat before you this evening, specifically number 8 under General Notes, the applicant has indicated that per Article 12 Landscaping of the Ordinance, he will maintain a Type B Landscape buffer. I would suggest to the board since the applicant has essentially included that condition on the plat that we say the final Landscape Plan shall be prepared consistent with the existing land use regulations and condition detailed on the plat. In fact I would say the existing language on the plat, specifically General Notes 8 and 9, address Dr. Wright’s concerns. If he feels this doesn’t adequately address that planted trees shall be local, deciduous, non-evasive species, and be drought tolerate a specific condition can be offered. The second comment I want to offer is there has been testimony concerning noise regulation. For the board’s edification, the Orange County Noise Ordinance is enforced by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. It is not a planning document. It is not enforced by the Orange County Planning Staff. What has been testified to this evening is consistent with the parameters of that ordinance with respect to decibel levels and limits. This ordinance was amended in 2005 to include revised terminations or criteria for determining what constitutes a violation. The acoustical consultant is correct, there are exemptions. I am willing to testify at this point and time that dog barking ain’t one of them. I think Mr. Chairman, as we move forward, we are looking at another condition, that the site plan, if the board chooses to approve this, the site plan be modified to include the correct number of animals to be boarded. We have heard up to 30 canines and that is the number of runs shown. I am looking at the applicant to make sure I am getting it right. The site plan says 16 and we know that is a holdover from one of the original applications so if it is your decision to approve, I would recommend that as a condition that prior to, I would say within 60 days, the site plan be modified to change that number to the appropriate number. Larry Wright: Animals is cats and dogs? Am I permitted to ask that question?