BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 9 of 156 legal access to the site and has acquired that legal access. Any issue regarding the legal access 1 to the site would not be something that this Board needs to determine as part of the Special Use 2 process. Other concerns were raised. There are people who I believe are here in opposition to 3 this tower facility tonight. And you will hear from them. We did receive the letter dated December 4 11th, last night, and read through that. Looking at their concerns, it does appear that these are the 5 same concerns that you all are fully familiar with we see often with these tower applications. 6 They’re concerns about health, about impact of property values, and aesthetics. So in terms of 7 health, Exhibit 17 in the application is a certification from the Verizion engineer stating that the 8 facility will at all times be maintained and in compliance with SCCU regulations. And again, as I’m 9 sure your attorney has advised you, Federal Law is pretty strict about what can be the basis of 10 denial for a construction of placement of a tower and health affects and concerns of that nature 11 are not a basis for determining location of any wireless facility. In terms of impact to property 12 values, again, David Smith performed his impact study that was part of the application and he is 13 here to give his expert opinion as to the impact of property values. In terms of concerns about 14 aesthetics, again, they’ve raised concerns that the property may be timbered in the future. I’ve 15 already addressed how this facility will be in harmony with the area and what steps Towercom will 16 take in the event that timbering occurs. However, I did want to just underscore again the fact that 17 this will be an innoculous use. It’s a monopole tower without the lattice or the guywires, it’s going 18 to be galvanized steel gray in color without painting or marking, it’s not going to be lit, it’s not 19 going to be emitting noise, there’s not going to be dust, there’s not going to be odor. Those are 20 the things that are usually the biggest impact to property. Now, is it going to be visibile from some 21 properties? Yes. A 195-foot pole is not going to be invisible, but we have taken steps to make this 22 as minimally visible as possible given that it is a 195-foot tower. Overall, there is a signifcant gap 23 in coverage. This tower is needed to fill that gap in coverage, and provide capacity offload and the 24 staff has determined as well as the staff’s consultant, Jackie Hicks, has determined that this 25 application as submitted met all of the ordinance requirements and therefore we would 26 respectfully request that this Board approve the SUP. And at this time I would be happy to answer 27 any questions. I also have some witnessed to call to support the application. 28 29 Karen Barrows: I have a couple for Ms. Goode. Under tab 28 …. According to tab 28 it looks like 30 the bond is going to be for $75,000. 31 32 Laura Goode: Yes, Ma’am. 33 34 Karen Barrows: In our packet it said that the bond had to be a total of 110% of what it’s actually 35 going to cost to remove this (the tower). And one of your tabs showed a cost of $74,000 and 36 change to remove it, so does that meet the obligation? 37 38 Laura Goode: So there are two bonds that are required. The performance bond and the tower 39 removal bond. So I believe that 28 is the performance bond. 40 41 Michael Harvey: I’m sorry, let me interrupt. If you’ll go back to the main portion of the application, 42 (tab) 28 is the draft performance bond, and then tab 24 establishes the costs of removing the 43 tower. That (tab 24) establishes the cost to remove the tower and tab 23 is the removal bond in 44 the sum of $81,537.50. 45 11