Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />March 12,2019 <br />Mr. Healy said, and to your point, some of these that are shown as visible, in going through the <br />site, there really not. So, actual field verification needs to be done to update that table. <br />Mr. Wood said thank you. <br />Mr. Pinto asked if there were any more questions. He thinks what we are going to have to get <br />then is mitigation measures of some sort or some other plan. He does not know where to go from <br />here on that. He said to satisfy a lot of folks, he thinks you are going to have to do something <br />different down the road. He said not you (Mr. Healy). <br />Mr. Rockett goes back to the point made by Mr. Corley earlier, that taking correct and current <br />assumptions into place, rather than ones that have expired for one reason or another. <br />Mr. Corley said is the applicant, perhaps prepared, to have this gentleman come in at the end of <br />this project and certify. He is trying to be careful, he is struggling with the assumptions. The <br />assumptions do not match the site conditions, so somehow we have got to get over the hump. <br />Mr. Benshoff would like to address the assumptions. I think there is a fundamental <br />misunderstanding about the methodology. The assumption that he thinks Mr. Corley is quoting is <br />on page 9. He asked Mr. Healy to put up page 9. <br />He said for the sake of time, I will read it to you. "Then a vegetation layer with 10-foot tall trees <br />around the border and outside the property boundary and 5-foot tall trees for specific sections <br />within the property boundary were generated from recent satellite imagery obtained from Google <br />maps and the provided vegetation plan. For the vegetation to be considered an obstruction, it was <br />required to be at least 100 feet wide and present after the site clearing, as observed from the most <br />recent satellite imagery available and from site walk downs." So what do those two sentences <br />mean, if I read them correctly from your report? <br />Mr. Healy said the assumptions being the site walk downs that was what I referred to earlier, as <br />in having Recurrent Energy. They went out to the site and checked some observations points for <br />actual line of sight. He said that was what was in the supplemental attachment in the revision 5 <br />that was submitted earlier. The other point being, again, we used the Google maps information, <br />Google Earth information. In the arc GIS tool, they have a line of sight tool and we were <br />applying that and the resolution on their tool is only down to 100 feet. So, if the vegetation, was <br />not at least 100 feet deep, we did not include it in our view shed analysis, which is why you get <br />differences between what you can really see and what you maybe can in the field. <br />Mr. Rockett said, what you are saying is, a representative from Recurrent Energy, was the one <br />that walked out and determined whether or not there was line of sight and visible? <br />Mr. Healy: Yes. <br />32