1.3.24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT 2.7.24 151 evening, and you might have questions, and we also have other staff here to help answer with those. At this 152 time, I'm going to hand it over to the applicant for them to do their presentation, and then I will come back up, 153 and we will go over the staff analysis, recommendation, and answer any questions you all may have. 154 155 Statler Gilfillen: I am unclear of something that you just said about the access road in there. 156 157 Ashley Moncado: Yes. 158 159 Statler Gilfillen: Is there a conflict between this proposal and the County about the road? Did I hear that? 160 161 Ashley Moncado: We can answer that question now, but that might be to after the applicant speaks. 162 163 Statler Gilfillen: I'll put it on the table. You can answer it later. 164 165 Ashley Moncado: Yes. We have conditions, and we also have David Stancil, who is with Orange County 166 DEAPR is also here to discuss and answer questions for you this evening. 167 168 Adam Beeman: Good evening. Just to let you know, we have a time limit for your presentation. Do you 169 think that's possible? 170 171 Craig Nishimoto: Yes. Okay, I'm going to deviate from what I had planned. I, in my mind, envisioned more 172 public, so, less experts, but I want to address it as much as possible to you guys now and give you time to 173 pepper me with questions maybe later, because ultimately what I'd like you guys to leave with is feeling 174 confident that you can write to the Board of County Commissioners. There's the cell tower from the road. 175 That's where we're building the property. It's not along the road. It's quite far away. Most of my argument is in 176 the documents. That's where you're going to find all the meat. It's not going to be in this presentation, but the 177 detailed narrative is where I lay it all out, my case. It provides the fullest account of what we are doing and 178 why. It argues that there's a strong alignment between our proposal and the County's 2030 Comprehensive 179 Land Use Plan, which I understand is supposed to be guiding these decisions. That document shows that an 180 advance would be made on 14 separate County goals and 34 separate County objectives, and the arguments 181 for why, and then, possibly most importantly, it directly addresses the concerns related to the use or use of the 182 Rural Buffer. My understanding is this is somewhat precedent setting for the Rural Buffer, and so we want to 183 focus on making sure people are comfortable with that. You might be surprised the ASE-CD agricultural 184 zoning, my argument for why this is appropriate is there. Another precedent setting thing. 185 186 Charity Kirk: Can rather than continuing to refer to the document, I strongly suggest you assume that 187 we have skimmed the documents. We haven't fully read every single page. I would just make that assumption 188 that not all Board members have done that, so you might want to elaborate your conversation a little bit with 189 us. 190 191 Craig Nishimoto: Well, we can start here. Although I can imagine going in so many different ways now if 192 we haven't done the background reading. If I want to focus, knowing that we have limited time, what is the 193 most important? Are you concerned about ASE-CD zoning, or should we skip that? 194 195 Adam Beeman: Are you concerned about the agricultural designation? If you have an issue with 196 agricultural designation, that's what he's going to discuss. If not, we can move on with, to the next part of his 197 thing. So, at the end of the day, there was a discussion in the paperwork about whether or not the lumber 198 work, lumber, the tree work that you do actually qualifies as agricultural or not. That was the potential 199 discussion? Am I correct? 200