Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 10/11121 <br /> purpose, and intent of the electrical infrastructure cannot <br /> Ordinance, such that public be upgraded. As a result, there <br /> safety is secured and substantial will be an impact in service <br /> justice is achieved. provision to local customers. <br /> The granting of the variance <br /> merely allows existing <br /> infrastructure to be improved, <br /> the site brought into compliance <br /> with applicable industry safety <br /> practices, and ensure continued <br /> provision of electrical service to <br /> customers consistent with Duke <br /> Energy and County policies. <br /> The request is consistent with <br /> the spirit, purpose, and intent of <br /> the UDO. <br /> 1 <br /> 2 <br /> 3 Michael Harvey: Unless you have any additional questions from me, I will step down for any closing presentations. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Leon Meyers: Asked if there was anyone else in the room that would like to speak. Asked the Attorney and the <br /> 6 applicant if they would like to close. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Steve Parascandola: Stated he would like to close by just saying the need for this variance is being driven by the <br /> 9 benefit of the public and not by any interest or benefit to the owner/applicant. As staff indicated as well, it is <br /> 10 topographically difficult site to operate within and it is a very old substation. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 James Bryan: asked Mr. Meyers to ask Mr. Parascandola if both were meant as conditions offered by the applicant the <br /> 13 planted one and earlier Mr. Tucker said Mr. Mason talked about a commitment to the development. If there agent can <br /> 14 offer that as intended as a condition. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Leon Meyers: Asked Mr. Parascandola if he could answer. I think the two conditions you have heard discussed tonight <br /> 17 and those are adding planting requirement and prohibiting further expansion to the west of north would be conditions <br /> 18 that are acceptable to the applicant. If that the question you want answered James? <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Steve Parascandola: I believe the answer is yes. I think we said we would meet the existing planting requirements. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Leon Meyers: Existing Planting requirements, correct. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Leon Meyers: Asked if there were any additional questions, And now close the hearing. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Beth Bronson: Asked for clarification on the planting requirements. The planting requirements are now B? They remain <br /> 27 B. The tree per 100 linear feet.(44:00) <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Leon Meyers: Stated my understanding is that the applicant for relief from the planting requirements that are part of the <br /> 30 buffer requirement. And there condition that suggested another seemed to be acceptable are that those planting <br /> 31 requirements remain and that the board grant relief for the purpose of the buffer width. Does that answer your <br /> 32 question? <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Beth Bronson: I think so. <br /> 10 <br />