Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />March 12,2019 <br />violation that was issued, so there were three violations. That is a separate issue and if the Board <br />determines that the landscape plan around the Stewart's property is appropriate and it shows <br />remediation of that 1 ~O-foot buffer, then the Board would have a yes finding on that. <br />In addition, the second NOV that was sent to Five M's , LLC, that is the bottom part, go back to <br />the ALTA survey, that is everything pretty much from here south (showed on the diagram). <br />There was a violation of Conditional Use Permit 2017-00001, Condition 6, which was retain the <br />existing vegetation and then supplement encroachment violations, including clearing within the <br />1 ~O-foot buffer, arrays and racking placed within the 1 ~O-foot setback buffer. She thinks that it <br />has been determined at this point, based on the survey data, that those encroachments may not <br />exist. Water buffer zone violation across Bost Creek, floodway in non-encroachment area has <br />been disturbed along Bost Creek and through Bost Creek and then waterbody buffer zone <br />violation around the identified wetlands. The Board would need to determine whether or not the <br />materials submitted and the plans submitted, puts forth an acceptable plan for remediation. <br />Then on the Bost property, there was an encroachment violation, including clearing within the <br />1 ~O-foot vegetative buffer and then arrays and racking placed within the 100-foot setback buffer. <br />There actually ended up being a fence encroachment in addition to the arrays and racking, which <br />we talked about the materials that were submitted for that. Those are the three NOV s that the <br />Board would need to determine if the materials submitted do rectify those violations or set forth <br />a plan for rectifying the violations. <br />Mr. Corley said the arrays and racking within the 1 DO-foot, I am trying to remember all the <br />information we have been given. The surveys, I think, have shown that they are not in; is that <br />correct? <br />Ms. Morris said they are at the very edge. So they are saying that the fence has been located in <br />the 100-foot, but based on the information provided by the surveyor, they are saying that panels <br />and racking are not located in the 1 DO-foot, and that would be consistent with the entire site. But, <br />then there are the two fence encroachments that have been identified; and both of those are <br />located on the Bost piece above Joyner, so Canada. <br />Mr. Corley said I think our floodplain development permit will resolve the floodway <br />encroachments with the road through the floodway. Our landscape plan will eventually resolve <br />the vegetative buffer encroachments, the waterbody buffer encroachments and the wetland buffer <br />encroachments. The fences within the setback are to be moved. The record shows that there is no <br />racking or arrays within the buffer. Is there anything else, did I am miss anything? <br />He said the outstanding issues, we got the glare study issue, the observation points there. We got <br />the change to the landscape plan. What else is pending that we did not handle? <br />Mr. Rockett said the noise wall. <br />51