BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 139 of 156 1 Samantha Cabe: Page 148. Oh, ok. 2 3 James Bryan: The second one, (a)(1)(f). 4 5 Samantha Cabe: Alright. So with regard with the finding set forth on page 147 there appears to be 6 no opposition to those findings. Do I have a motion to approve the recommendations of Staff for 7 those use specifics submittal requirements set forth on page 147? 8 9 Motion made by Karen Barrows to approve the recommendations of Staff for those use specifics 10 submittal requirements set forth on page 147. Seconded by Barry Katz. 11 12 VOTE: Unanimous 13 14 Samantha Cabe: And the motion would be from Ms. Barrows and the second from Mr. Katz. 15 Alright, on page 148 we do have an objection to the third one down, I believe. Second one down. 16 A statement indicating how the proposed tower will minimize visual intrusiveness to surrounding 17 properties in the area. The abstract attachment 5, the application packets tabs 8 and 13, and 18 narrative tab 1 include the evidence that support the Staff recommendation of a finding of yes. So. 19 20 James Bryan: If I may? It’s Opponents page 5, his last one there. The last item is the one that 21 correlates. 22 23 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. And the opponent proposes that the correspondence between 24 council for opponents and council for TowerCom on plans timbering, not disclosed anywhere in 25 the application, have a potentially dramatic impact on visibility of proposed tower and impact on 26 property values. Testimony of Owen and Evan Gwen and Mike Ogburn would support a finding of 27 no. Does anyone on the Board have a motion with regard to what they believe the finding should 28 be, and the basis for that finding? 29 30 Barry Katz: What I hear is that the timbering is not really germane to this application. Because it 31 has to do with property that’s not being asked for right of way or for the use of this cell company. 32 So whatever happens with the timbering potential application has no bearing on whether the 33 approval or disapprove of this finding. Does anyone have anything else to say about that? 34 35 Matt Hughes: I agree with your assessment Barry. 36 37 Barry Katz: Yeah, that’s what my understanding was, of what we heard. So I would propose that 38 we accept the Planning Department’s Staff yes on 5.10.8(a)(1)(f). 39 40 Samantha Cabe: And as a basis for that finding of yes, what would you propose the supporting 41 evidence would be? 42 43 Barry Katz: That it’s a rumor that deals with property that’s not being applied for or influenced by 44 the application for the tower. 45 46 Samantha Cabe: Anyone, anything further? Do I have a motion? 47 48 James Bryan: If I may? Just for clarification, are you saying that the evidence presented by the 49 opposition is speculative in nature? 50 141