BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 105 of 156 Michael Harvey: According to what’s been submitted my Mr. Price this opposition comes to the 1 findings of section 5.3.2 (a)(2) the general findings of fact of Special Use Permits. The use will, will 2 not maintain, or promote the public health safety general welfare. These will not maintain or 3 enhance the value of contiguous property. The location and character of the use, if developed 4 according to the plan submitted, will not be in harmony with the area in question. 5 6 John Price: I think I designated Mr. Levitan on the right-hand side. 7 8 Michael Harvey: Let me finish ….. 9 10 John Price: Ok. 11 12 Michael Harvey: Section 5.10.8 (A) Applicant burdened to establish application meets 13 requirements for approval. Sub section (a)(1)(s) Applicant presented by need an established new 14 alternative site for technologies available. Ben Levitan. Board Of Adjustment should not approve 15 application; the proposed tower’s not substantially necessary. 5.10.8 (A)(3)(A) Ben Levitan. 16 Applicant utilized alternatives to new tower including co-location. 5.10.8(B)(1)(A) Ben Levitan. 17 5.10.8(B)(1)(b) Applicant to minimize visual impact to the extent not technologically or 18 commercially impractical, including use to stealth technology. Ben Levitan. 5.10.8(B)(3)(D)(1) 19 Applicant can list all wireless support structures, utility poles, and other structures in the vicinity. 20 Ben Levitan will testify they did not. Applicant to locate site and erect wireless facilities in 21 designated priority locations per 5.10.8(b)(4)(1) and (2). Applicant Ben Levitan will testify, 22 according to this, that they have not complied with this provision. Section 5.10.8(B)(4)(b) sub prin 23 3: Applicant shall not be approved unless applicant demonstrates wireless supports equipment 24 cannot be sited at priority one site because commercial impractical. Ben Levitan. 5.10.8(A)(1)(f) 25 Applicant required to demonstrate structure sited at least visually intrusive effect. 26 27 Samantha Cabe: Alright, thank you. 28 29 Michael Harvey: Thank you. 30 31 John Price: Mr. Levitan, in your opinion, is the proposed the TowerCom 199-foot monopole cell 32 tower necessary for Verizon telecommunications identified needs, or a public necessity? 33 34 Ben Levitan: Verizon identified two needs to improve coverage along Mount Carmel Church Road 35 and to provide offload for the existing UNC Campus. This tower does neither of those. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: It does neither of those? 38 39 Ben Levitan: It does not fulfill neither of those needs ma’am. 40 41 John Price: This letter of August 11, 2016 to TowerCom’s application Mr. David Haughney states 42 the proposed Clearwater Lake new telecommunications tower will provide the needed solution to 43 the coverage gap in the Clearwater Lake area and “will also provide the needed capacity offload 44 solution for the existing UNC Campus Verizon Wireless site”, do you agree? 45 46 Ben Levitan: No sir, I don’t. 47 48 John Price: And why not? 49 50 107