BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 140 of 156 1 Barry Katz: First it was speculative, and second; most of that property is not pertinent to the 2 application from the cell tower, from TowerCom or Verizon. So it’s not germane to this hearing. 3 4 Samantha Cabe: And while I understand the concern over whether or not the property may or not 5 be timbered, I understand why that’s a concern of this whole community, but I did not hear in this 6 hearing any evidence, even under our relaxed rules, that someone said this property that, “I am 7 the Buckner’s and I have personal knowledge of our intent to timber, or not” or anything close to in 8 relationship with the Buckner’s in knowledge of their intent. So it’s really difficult I think to find a 9 finding about timbering when it’s just been based upon rumors or maybe it will, maybe it won’t. I 10 do think that there is the requirement if we get there of having the 40-foot buffer. I would like to 11 impose the condition they would have to remain but I also understand we can’t impose a condition 12 upon someone that doesn’t have the authority to control the property we’re talking about. So I 13 would support a finding of yes for this particular finding because I do think that they have met the 14 standards of how they would propose to minimize the visual intrusiveness to surrounding 15 properties in the area. That they’ve met our standard of proposing a Class C buffer. Do I have a 16 motion? 17 18 Barry Katz: I move that we accept Staff’s finding of yes. 19 20 Samantha Cabe: Alright and find that they have met that specific submittal requirement? Ok. So 21 with regard to including the second statement down on page 148 of the abstract do I have a 22 motion for the Board to adopt the recommendations of Staff on these Use Specific submittal 23 requirements, including the one we just deliberated? 24 25 Motion made by Barry Katz to adopt the recommendations of Staff on the Use Specific submittal 26 requirements. Seconded by Karen Barrows. 27 28 VOTE: Unanimous. 29 30 Samantha Cabe: And I believe that was the only one on that page that was opposed with 31 opposition to. Alright, on page 149 of the Use Specific submittal requirements, Mr. Bryan have you 32 identified which ones of these? 33 34 James Bryan: Yeah, I found the second to last one (s). And that’s on page 4 of the opponent 35 proposal, the second one there. 36 37 Samantha Cabe: Ok. And this is one we’ll probably have a lot of… So we must find that a written 38 affidavit… That there must have been submitted a written affidavit stating why the proposed site is 39 necessary for their communication service. So is this just the requirement that the submitted the 40 affidavit, not whether or not it establishes the need and no alternative? 41 42 James Bryan: That is correct. So the Unified Development Ordinance is big, cumbersome, and 43 confusing but it has… You can break it up into. I’m sorry, if I can… It’s like a triangle and the 44 bottom is you’ve got submittal requirements and they’ve got general submittal requires. That’s 45 every single Special Use Permit is going to give you a site plan, stuff like that. And then they have 46 uses, specific submittal requirements. So a daycare is going to tell you about buses, towers are 47 going to tell you about your fall zones, and then you’re going to have standards of evaluation, 48 general, and then use specific. And then you’re going to have the big three: welfare, property 49 142