BOA agenda 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I will remind the board, however, there’s evidence in your packet that we held the required neighborhood 1 meeting and posted the signs associated with the required neighborhood meeting. 2 3 Samantha Cabe: Are you saying that this is one that you agree with, or you’re saying we should have a 4 yes? 5 6 James Bryan: I believe that… The supporting evidence says that it wasn’t required but it wasn’t required by 7 staff. I believe the UDO does require it. It may be ridiculous, there may be somebody that says “this is 8 ridiculous, you’ve got an existing building the same height…”, but that’s how the UDO is written and I have 9 to advise the Board that you guys are bound to enforce the UDO as it is written. 10 11 Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you. 12 13 Michael Harvey: My point is the ordinance makes specific reference that the balloon test should be flown to 14 height of proposed towers and since there’s no proposed tower the staff gained that there was no 15 requirement to comply with the balloon test. 16 17 James Bryan: For that you guys are getting a use. The use is for the entire parcel and it’s for a tower. 18 There’s no avoiding that there is a tower. It’s being modified. How it’s being modified is far away but the use 19 is being modified. 20 21 Michael Harvey: On page 122, I’ve testified that there is a bond already in place. There is; so if you make it 22 an affirmative finding then you’re making it an affirmative finding based on the supplemental material and 23 my testimony that a bond already exists for the removal of the telecom tower associated with the original 24 approval. They have supplied the tax map information as required. We’ve already covered the balloon test 25 so I apologize for being repetitive. On the SUP application shall include a statement that the facility and its 26 equipment will comply with all federal, state, and local emission requirements. I’m going to refer you again; 27 we’ve made an affirmative finding. The original SUP application and all the supplement material we’ve 28 submitted, including the structural analyses supplied this required information. On page 124, for 29 environmental assessment analysis and visual addendum; the UDO requires, if this is required, then this is 30 the standard it has to meet. The environmental assessment was not a requirement because they’re not 31 disturbing sufficient land areas, it’s already been testified to, to require one and the visual addendum is also 32 not required because, quite frankly, there is nothing being done to the existing tower. And that’s section 33 5.8.10 B3m. And it reads as follows: An applicant may be required to submit an environmental assessment 34 analysis and a visual addendum based on the results of that analysis including the visual addendum the 35 county may require submission of a more detailed visual analysis. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: So that’s a permissive submission anyway? 38 39 Michael Harvey: Yes, and I didn’t require them to submit it. 40 41 Samantha Cabe: Ok, so you agree with those? 42 43 James Bryan: Yes. There’s a few things that are truly non applicable. If the UDO makes it a conditional 44 statement, if it says, “If this, and that…” then it’s not applicable, the Board doesn’t have to make an 45 affirmative yes or no, or they can just say yes it was met because it was conditional. 46 47 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 48 49 21