Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
DRAFT <br /> <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 141 of 156 <br /> <br />value, and harmony for the area. So the submittal requirement should correlate some standard of 1 <br />evaluation. So… 2 <br /> 3 <br />Samantha Cabe: So in this particular finding that is in the submittal requirements on page 149 that 4 <br />finding only relates to whether or not the statement was submitted. Not whether it actually meets 5 <br />one of the big three? But just that we received that affidavit in the application package? Am I? 6 <br /> 7 <br />James Bryan: I would agree with that. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Samantha Cabe: So with regard to finding the second from the bottom on page 149 with 10 <br />5.10.8(a)(1)(s) the opponent is asking that we find no with regard to that. But I believe, as a 11 <br />submittal requirement we are determining whether or not a written affidavit stating why the 12 <br />proposed site is necessary was received, not necessarily that we’re evaluating the substance of 13 <br />that affidavit at this point. So behind application tabs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 21 and Narrative tab 1 Staff 14 <br />has indicated that those are the documents that were received with the application. 15 <br /> 16 <br />James Bryan: If I may? So the… In your chart it says about the affidavit. There is more text from 17 <br />the Unified Development Ordinance. If you’d like I could read that entirely so that you could 18 <br />determine for yourself what standard would be applied. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Samantha Cabe: Sure, that might be helpful. 21 <br /> 22 <br />James Bryan: Your written affidavit stating why, “the proposed site is necessary for the 23 <br />communication service” for example, for coverage, capacity, offloading, etcetera. And a statement 24 <br />that there are no existing alternative sites within the provided search ring and there are no 25 <br />alternative technologies available, which would provide the proposed telecommunication service 26 <br />need without the tower. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Samantha Cabe: Do I have a motion as to whether or not they have met the standard of providing 29 <br />such statements? 30 <br /> 31 <br />Motion made by Karen Barrows that applicant has complied with the submittal requirement of 32 <br />providing the documents that Mr. Bryan read into the record. Seconded by Matt Hughes. 33 <br /> 34 <br />VOTE: Unanimous. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Matt Hughes: It’s 10:30. 37 <br /> 38 <br />Samantha Cabe: Alright. Do I have a motion to extend the meeting an additional 30 minutes? 39 <br /> 40 <br />Motion made by Barry Katz to extend meeting an additional 30-minutes. Seconded by Matt 41 <br />Hughes. 42 <br /> 43 <br />VOTE: Unanimous. 44 <br /> 45 <br />Samantha Cabe: Alright, the meeting is extended to 11:00 pm. So the Board has found the 46 <br />second finding from the bottom on page 149 that the Applicant has met that specific submittal 47 <br />requirement with regard to the other submittal requirements listed on page 149. Do I have a 48 <br />motion that the Board find in the affirmative that they have met those obligations based upon the 49 <br />recommendations of Staff in the noted documents in the application? 50 <br />143