Browse
Search
BOA agenda 101016
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Agendas
>
2016
>
BOA agenda 101016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2018 4:14:58 PM
Creation date
3/6/2018 4:09:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/11/2016
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
BOA minutes 101016
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Board of Adjustment\Minutes\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 <br />Samantha Cabe: Same with page 115, the findings that are set forth on 115, there’s no dispute between 2 <br />staff and legal counsel. Do I have a motion to adopt those findings recommended by staff? 3 <br /> 4 <br />MOTION made by Barry Katz to adopt findings recommended by staff on page 115. Seconded by Susan 5 <br />Halkiotis. 6 <br />VOTE: Unanimous 7 <br /> 8 <br />Samantha Cabe: Onto page 116 of attachment 4. The 2 findings set forth there, again there’s no conflict 9 <br />between staff and legal counsels recommendation. Do I have a motion to adopt the findings set forth on 10 <br />page 116? 11 <br /> 12 <br />MOTION made by Karen Barrows to adopt findings recommended by staff on page 116. Seconded by 13 <br />Barry Katz. 14 <br />VOTE: Unanimous 15 <br /> 16 <br />Samantha Cabe: On page 117, I don’t have a note about this but the second finding set forth there staff is 17 <br />recommending that it is not applicable on the basis that the provision is not applicable as the relocation of 18 <br />the driveway will not impact the NIER levels of the proposed site. And that is with regard to a submission of 19 <br />a certification that NIER levels at the proposed site are within the threshold levels adopted by the FCC. Do I 20 <br />have a motion as to the 2 findings on that page? 21 <br /> 22 <br />MOTION made by Karen Barrows to adopt findings recommended by staff on page 117. Seconded by 23 <br />Barry Katz. 24 <br />VOTE: Unanimous 25 <br /> 26 <br />Samantha Cabe: Page 118, there are 3 findings there. The third finding on that page was the provision of 27 <br />the FCC license. We have discussed making a condition of the approval of the permit. The other findings 28 <br />were both yes with no discrepancy between staff and legal counsel’s recommendation. Do I have a motion 29 <br />with regard to the findings on page 118? 30 <br /> 31 <br />Barry Katz: That would mean that they would provide a copy? That’s what we’re proposing? 32 <br /> 33 <br />Samantha Cabe: Yes. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Barry Katz: With that being said I move to adopt that… Including the 3 provisions. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Samantha Cabe: So just to be clear your motion is to adopt the recommendation of staff set forth on page 38 <br />118 with the added condition that a copy of the FCC license and 5 and 10 year building out plan shall be 39 <br />provided as a condition of the issuance of the permit? 40 <br /> 41 <br />Barry Katz: Yes. 42 <br /> 43 <br />James Bryan: If I may, just for clarification, I think you’d want that last one yes, it’s the same idea that you 44 <br />had.. and the only way to impose a condition is if it was necessary. 45 <br /> 46 <br />Samantha Cabe: Ok, got it. So just to clarify your motion is to adopt the recommendations set forth on page 47 <br />118 with the modification to change the finding in the third fact to yes, with the condition that the applicant 48 <br />provide a copy of the FCC license and their 5 and 10 year building out plan as required by the FCC as a 49 <br />31
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.