BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 138 of 156 Matt Hughes: Alright. I was just curious. It says unless, I was just… 1 2 Michael Harvey: A public necessity is a land use that is essential to provide for the public safety 3 and general welfare. It could be argued that a school, in my humble opinion, is a public necessity. 4 We have had a major gas line company argue that it didn’t have to provide an impact analysis 5 because it is providing a public necessity as dictated by the state utilities commission. 6 Telecommunication facilities are, in my humble opinion, not a public necessity which is why the 7 applicant was obligated to provide an impact assessment demonstrating this would not have an 8 impact on the value of adjacent property. The unfortunate part of my answer to you is you know it 9 when you see it. And that’s …... 10 11 Matt Hughes: Thank you. 12 13 Samantha Cabe: So I don’t have a copy of TowerCom’s proposed findings. I can share with Barry. 14 I know you handed them out but mine was either buried or… 15 16 James Bryan: Can I give a little bit more on public necessity? I think you need to look to the UDO 17 ….. so we don’t define it. It is not you know it when you see it. That cannot be your standard. Your 18 standard can be either case law, and I don’t know of any, and then the dictionary, just go to the 19 dictionary and say this is what public necessity is. So it’s the normal meaning of the words, that’s 20 what you’re supposed to give it. 21 22 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. Alright. Any other questions before we close the public hearing. 23 Alright do I have a motion to close the hearing and begin deliberations? 24 25 Motion made by Barry Katz to close hearing and begin deliberation. Seconded by Matt Hughes. 26 27 VOTE: Unanimous 28 29 Samantha Cabe: Alright. This Board will move now into the deliberation phase. Before we get to 30 the standards that are actually in Opposition, TowerCom’s proposal and the Opponents Proposal, 31 why don’t we go through the general submittal requirements and make a decision on those 32 because I don’t believe we’ve received any objection to the general submittal requirements under 33 the Unified Development Ordinance for section 2 and all of it’s subparts, which are reflected on 34 pages 145 and 146. Do we have a motion to adopt the recommendations of Staff as to the 35 general submittal requirements application components and notification components set forth on 36 page 145 and 146 of the Agenda. 37 38 Motion made by Matt Hughes to adopt the recommendations of Staff as to the general submittal 39 requirements application components and notification components set forth on page 145 and 146 40 of the Agenda. Seconded by Barry Katz. 41 42 VOTE: Unanimous 43 44 Samantha Cabe: And none of those appeared in either of the proposed findings for either party. 45 So getting to page 147 the use specific submittal requirements for telecom facilities. I’m just going 46 to go down. There does not appear to be any conflicting proposals with regard to sections 5.10.8 47 and all of its subparts or 5.10.8 and all of its subparts. I just want to make sure I don’t have any. 48 49 James Bryan: And Chair, I think there’s one on page 148. 50 140